Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Crossmr (talk | contribs) at 06:25, 25 March 2010 (→Dwm Deletion Proceedings and User:Blueboy96). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Fraudulent referencing

User:Ash has repeatedly inserted "references" to a retailer site where the only relevant content is expressly acknowledged as being "from Misplaced Pages," and the relevant text is essentially a word-for-word match to the pertinent Misplaced Pages article. Since Misplaced Pages mirrors cannot, of course, be used as references, I removed such references earlier today. Ash is now reinserting the references, linking to the same retailer site, but providing a misleading description of the referenced source. The articles involved include Alec Campbell, Chuck Barron, Cliff Parker, Bo Summers, and Chance Caldwell. This should be a very simple matter; when a page describes itself as a Misplaced Pages mirror, it can't be used to reference a Misplaced Pages article, and it's grossly inappropriate, bordering at best on deliberate deception, to present such a page as a reference with a description that misrepresents its nature, claiming it comes from an independent source. (The site used as a "reference" is (NSFW, adult content) http://www.rainbowcollexion.com/store/DaveAwards1992.html , a site hawking porn videos, with text matching Dave Awards.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I raised this matter on Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's talk page but s/he seems to prefer raising an unnecessary aggressive ANI rather than discuss the matter in the normal way on article talk pages or user talk pages.

The source HW has repeatedly removed was discussed at length at Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films/Archive 3#RfC Use of the Adam Gay Video Directory as a reliable source when HW previously went through a campaign to discredit the Adam Gay Video Directory as a source. It is actually well supported by academic use as the information supplied by other editors in that RFC shows. Rainbowcollection is a handy additional URL which clearly sources the published information to the printed AGVD. Assuming good faith, I changed the reference style after HW's initial multiple deletions to make this explicitly clear. The format of the references most recently removed without appropriate discussion was:

The URL is a handy on-line representation of the information for the layman reader rather than only quoting the OCLC for the printed material.

When Hullaballoo Wolfowitz first reverted my citation, I amended it to include the OCLC. S/he has blanket deleted across several articles without further discussion and appears to be failing to assume good faith on my part by calling the citation "fraudulent". I request that these deletions are reverted and discussed in a civil manner rather than waste everyone's time with this sort of bullying and unnecessary escalation. Ash (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be the third ANI regarding this user. SGGH 23:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a blatant sales and advertising link to me. Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) So? If you mean me rather than HW, then both previous ANI's resulted in no action due to a lack of substance and were raised by Delicious carbuncle; a user with a topic ban in place history of unnecessary dispute. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive206#Proposal_to_Ban_Delicious_carbuncle. I suggest you judge this matter by the facts presented. Raking through any and all past disputes involving third parties, myself and Hullabaloo Wolfowitz in different combinations would appear more than a little off-topic. Ash (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, did you look at the adult directory to confirm that the awards are listed there or did you rely on the vendor page (which mirrored wikipedia) to assume that's in there? If it's the latter, that is reckless and will cause other editors to review all of your citations with suspicion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The source was verified when the information contained in the article Dave Awards was sourced from it. The reference is identical, only the handy URL has been added for convenience. Its use in this manner falls within WP:RS (and WP:SPS for that matter) as the URL is not the key source document but presents the identical information, namely that these credited actors won these awards. Potentially the URL could be removed leaving the reference to the printed document only, however, we commonly point to commercial sites or catalogues (such as IMDB or AFDB) which are used as supplementary sources. I see no particular reason why gay pornography should be a special case and have to comply with higher criteria for supplementary sources than any other sort of BLP related article. You will note that this ANI is about "fraudulent" referencing.

I believe that it has already been made abundantly clear that there is no "fraud" at work here, particularly with a history of a prior RFC that addressed this matter and the use of the word is unwarranted and uncivil. If we are discussing the refinement of referencing then this is not the correct forum as no administrator action is required and this is not a forum to reach a general consensus on referencing. Ash (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This is reckless, Ash. The cited text in wikipedia states that the winners of the last year of the awards, 1994, was listed in the 1996 directory. No mention is made of the other years. Yet you reference the 1996 directory for the 1993 awards. I also had to giggle about the directory being used for a "2003" award.. Yeah I know that one was a typo. You should not cite to anything that you can't verify yourself. See WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I have been the only editor to supply multiple OCLC's for the AGVD - that was verification that the source document existed in its different editions. If you believe the information about the Dave Awards might be false, and the AGVD (which was published in several editions as information was updated) was not verified, then the identical information in the Dave Awards article supplied by other editors cannot be trusted either. As you have chosen to go ahead and delete these references rather than discuss any further, I suggest you do the same thing, for the same data on the Dave Awards article. Presumably this means that all references to Dave Awards should be deleted from all articles as the AGVD is the original document as published by Dave Kinnick who created the award and it made a point of formally listing the Dave award winners based on his original column. The obvious consequence will be the eventual deletion of several more BLPs about gay pornographic actors, an area already remarkably under represented on Misplaced Pages compared to almost any other genre of film.

Note that with your recent deletions you are ignoring the prior consensus of the RFC mentioned above for the use of the AGVD as a source. Ash (talk) 08:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You are blatantly mischaracterising that RFC. First, the RFC does not establish that the Dave Awards prior 1994 were published in that 1996 directory! Second, that local consensus does not trump the consensus established by wikipedia policy and guidelines! It is clear to me that you have not directly verified the material per SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. You can't cite to something that you don't even know/prove that's in there. That's why other people are characterising this as fraud. The burden of proof is on the person who adds the material. See WP:V. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The list of award winners at Dave Awards used the same original source (AGVD) to state the same porn stars as the articles I have edited won the exact same awards. Either it was verified at the time or it was not. I have used the same citation with the addition of a relevant OCLC to prove it exists in a library. I do not have to read paper copies of every citation myself in order to give each citation credibility, that is not part of wikipedia policy as we can rely on verification by other editors. If you believe the source was not verified correctly, the route you should take is ask for verification, not deletion. By claiming the source is "fraudulent" then it should be removed everywhere it is used, not just on the article I have edited.

By the way, a RFC is a wide consensus process, not a local consensus. Ash (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems like you did not read Dave Awards article correctly when you copy its citation. "Kinnick had a monthly "Video Review" column in Advocate Men Magazine; the results were posted in his column each May from 1989 through 1993. The last awards were published for the first time in the Adam Gay Video 1996 Directory since the column ceased in December 1994." That assertion was cited to the 1996 directory. Not the list of yearly awards. To me that is an assertion that the 1994 awards were listed in the 1996 directory, while the others were listed yearly in the Advocate. A good editor has to verify things when adding it to wikipedia. You can not shirk this responsibility simply because it is inconvenient for you if it's not online. BTW, I don't call any consensus arising out of 3 editors participating which includes the one who called the RFC as being wide. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, could you provide a link to the policy that states that Misplaced Pages contributors must personally verify all source material for citations with their own eyes rather than relying on verification by others? I am only familiar with the basic RS and V and these make no such constraint. I am not sure you understood my point. All the information in Dave Awards was verified at the time to the sources quoted. I could add a blanket reference to Kinnick's original column in the Advocate if that makes you more comfortable but I would still be reliant on verification by other contributors. As for the RFC, it was publicized on RSN as well as using the normal WP-wide RFC process, that in the 2 months it was open, only 3 people took part did not stop an unknown number of people reading it and anyone was free to contribute if they felt strongly. If you feel a second RFC is needed, you are free to create another, the fact I created an RFC in the first place demonstrates my good faith attempt to satisfy Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's original objections. Ash (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I say it's a reasonable interpretation of "It is improper to take material from one source and attribute it to a different one" of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT along with WP:BURDEN's "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." A good editor would check his sources and not rely on heresay. I don't consider your editing fraudulent, just reckless. Further, commenting on the RFC even though it's moot since I don't think it applies, a wide consensus is not formed simply because the opportunity to do so was widely disseminated. Like you said, silence does not always mean agreement, it means people didn't give enough of a shit to contribute. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It may be useful to look at this BLP noticeboard discussion of Ash's sourcing on a specific article. I have also commented here on the use of the website noted by Hullabaloo Wolfowitz, but nothing came of it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The RFC above started on 3 January 2010, was publicized on RSN and stayed open for two months, you were active on that talk page and never bothered to express an opinion or provide any relevant facts. Pointing to other discussions about different articles and different sources (in the case of the BLP discussion, I was not notified of the discussion existing) can only serve to take this ANI off-topic. If you previously had discussions and nothing came of it, perhaps there was a reason that nothing came of it. Ash (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, I'm not sure what you're talking about, but I'm going to stay out of this one. My earlier ANI comment about rainbowcollexion.com is here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. The use of the Adam Gay Video Guide itself is fine, the website linked which does state it's pulled from Misplaced Pages is not. Looking at the content history and cross-referencing the link above shows that the content was added to Misplaced Pages's article in August 2006 and the website page was created in 2007. This amounts to Misplaced Pages citing itself as a source which is not usually allowed, certainly not in this case. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz IMHO is quick to assume bad faith and throw the baby out with the bathwater however, this issue could have been approached more collegially and the dispute isn't with the content but the cited sourcing so deleting content because the sourcing is subpar is a step backwards and likely serves only to inflame editing. Fix the sourcing or tag it for needing a source, in this case if you are unwilling or unable to simply add the source. This is similar to citing a YouTube video of a news report when the source is the news organization and not YouTube. A link to the YouTube copy can be provided for verification, context and content, etc. but in this case a mirror site link is not acceptable. The content doesn't need to be removed just fix the sourcing. If rainbowcollexion.com also seems to be mostly or entirely mirroring content then the site itself may have to be blacklisted. -- Banjeboi 19:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Also note Per WP:SOURCEACCESS:"The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." So not having access to a newspaper or magazine of repute does not mean it shouldn't be included. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The main issue I have that I have stated above is that there is no evidence that the 1996 Adams Gay Video Directory listed Dave Award winners before 1994. When you reinstated that citation, Banjeboi, did you check the directory to confirm that it is there? Has anybody here actually seen a copy whether it be electronic or print? Speaking of inflammatory and bad faith, why point fingers at HW when he did not remove content in this dispute. He replaced a unverified citation with the citation needed tag. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no reason to doubt the source and zero evidence has been brought forth that suggests the information is untrue or misrepresented. The issue was with a mirror site and that has been addressed, with a lot of WP:Drama which I am not interested in prolonging. -- Banjeboi 20:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Zero evidence? Did you read what I had written above about the Dave Awards article? "Kinnick had a monthly "Video Review" column in Advocate Men Magazine; the results were posted in his column each May from 1989 through 1993. The last awards were published for the first time in the Adam Gay Video 1996 Directory since the column ceased in December 1994." That assertion was cited to the 1996 directory. Not the list of yearly awards. To me that is an assertion that the 1994 awards were listed in the 1996 directory, while the others were listed yearly in the Advocate. There's your evidence. You have not met WP:PROVEIT nor WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT when you reinstated that citation. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Morbidthoughts has posted on my talk they are looking to see if they can access the online version of the underlying magazine to put the issue to rest, if not we can work out some other way to accurately represent the underlying sourcing. I consider the matter resolved for now and am happy to work with them to collegially find the best way forward. -- Banjeboi 21:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

After some digging, the Advocate is not available in my academic database subscriptions. Maybe somebody in the WikiProject LBGT works or studies in another academic setting can easily find access to a print or online copy. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ughh... and Advocate issues are on Google Books that go back only to January 1994. It also seems like there are two issues per month. Can somebody contact Kinnick through facebook so he could confirm whether his 1989-1993 awards were listed in his 1996 directory? Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If only Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is calling me a fraud here, I suggest this ANI is closed as no admin action is required. Ash (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't expect people will pay any more attention to this here than they did on BLPN, but see the already linked BLPN discussion. In that case you used as references sources which did not contain the stated information. I chose to refer to your use of sources as "bullshit" rather than "fraudulent", but I suspect they mean the same thing. This suggests a pattern of undue care on sensitive BLPs and may require admin attention, if not action. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If this thread has become an excuse for Delicious carbuncle to throw insults at me for a third time on ANI, could an admin please hide this discussion? It has become an obvious attempt to defame me without bothering to supply evidence or follow any reasonable dispute resolution process. I would hide it myself but I expect this would be taken as an opportunity for yet more thin claims of malfeasance. Ash (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That comment is really inappropriate. You asked (implicitly) if anyone besides me doubted the good faith or your sourcing practices; DC responded that he did. And you've teed off on him, once again, without addressing the substantive matters involved. It is flat out untrue for you to say DC was defaming you "without bothering to supply evidence" when he provided a link to a discussion where he supplied such evidence; there is no need to cross-post or repetitively post the same details over and over. And no one who has posted comments with edit summaries like "HW is making me feel ill" is in any position to complain about civility. A primary reason that so much Misplaced Pages content, especially BLP content, in the erotica subject area is in indeplorable is the tendency of a small group of users to focus on personal criticisms of those they disagree with while avoiding the substantive editorial issues, in an effort to make the editin experience unpleasant for those they disagree with, and your pattern of behavior, quite frankly, falls aquarely into that category. How else can one explain your post on my talk page blasting me for not using dispute resolution processes, followed by your post here, only 22 minutes later, insulting me for "bullying" you and other misconduct for invoking those same dispute resolution processes? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense, how could saying "I object to your recent edit comments. You appear to be maligning my edits. Are you calling me some sort of fraud? Please raise your complaint on the correct dispute resolution process rather than maligning me in edit comments. This source had a perfectly adequate discussion on Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films/Archive 3#RfC Use of the Adam Gay Video Directory as a reliable source. If you wish to challenge it, again then do so but desist from removing properly sourced material from the articles in the meantime." possibly be interpreted as "Blasting" you? You have failed to prove I am a fraud or my edits were fraudulent. You have escalated what should have been a collaborative discussion about reliable sourcing into unnecessary threats of admin action. Claiming other editors are frauds is transparently uncivil. Go away and do something productive instead of stirring up drama and taking random pot-shots at me.

As for my edit comment on my own talk page, yes you are making me feel ill with this nonsense, so the comment is perfectly accurate and not an attempt to attack you as, frankly, who would ever notice it unless you pasted it in ANI?

This ANI is titled "Fraudulent referencing", not "Let's rake through every edit Ash has made in the last 3½ years and find something else to grief about". Unless you are prepared to prove that I am a perpetrating fraud, there is nothing here apart from satisfaction for anyone else who wishes to enjoy insulting me by calling me a fraud. Ash (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, in the BLPN discussion that I've already linked to twice in this thread, I pointed out exactly what was wrong with some of the references used. It is difficult to assume good faith when multiple sources you inserted into one article did not contain the referenced material. It is impossible to maintain good faith when after this is pointed out to you, you do not fix the problem. It would be nice if you could respond to the specific charges, rather than puffing up your feathers even more. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm certainly not considered uninvolved in these disputes so my comments need to be seen as such. The underlying stated problem was that a source was misrepresented. Instead of taking any civil and traditional approach an alarmist ANI thread seemingly designed to malign a content editor in gay porn is again started. Meanwhile a solution has already been presented, and no one disputes the content is accurate (just not sourced in the best way possible), but I digress. The thread goes to great pains to paint Ash in the worst possible light and also takes sweeping jabs at others who suffer this nonsenses routinely. Such gems as A primary reason that so much Misplaced Pages content, especially BLP content, in the erotica subject area is in indeplorable is the tendency of a small group of users to focus on personal criticisms of those they disagree with while avoiding the substantive editorial issues, in an effort to make the editin experience unpleasant for those they disagree with... and past jabs alluding to a mythical gay porn cabal complete with outing attempts and accusations. And here these two have the gall to pretend that Ash, myself, or anyone else has gone out of their way to interact with them in any way when the exact opposite is true. And assert that we have any interest in causing them grief when the reverse situation seems to be quite evident. Delicious carbuncle has been doing this, in this one subject area, for several months now and peppering alarmist and dramatic threads to keep them from being archived; and forum shopping in the words of others editors on these boards, because they don't get their way in a given discussion. Their sole contributions in this area has been to game and harass editors in this area with pointless and escalated regular editing issues while doing whatever they can to delete content they apparently don't approve. This is coupled with bad faith accusations and hot-button arm-flailing - BLP sky-is-falling nonsense that is quickly dismissed for what it is. Now they play the victim card to flip the script that mean ol gay porn article editors are picking on them. On the surface that might look plausible but I've only seen Ash trying to use consensus and policy to find resolution and generally Delicious carbuncle simply works to delete as much as they can regardless of consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, in my limited experience is quick to assume bad faith against editors but I'm not familiar enough with their editing to note if they are tendentious about it. This certainly feels like tag-teaming and frankly if there is a dispute on sourcing go to RSN, and those editors know it. So dear fellow editors I apologize for a lengthy comment here as I feel this board actually can be used to solve problems that really do need fire and brimstone cleansing but this seems like the nth thread in the one topic area with Delicious carbuncle and unfortunately it looks like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is somehow getting themselves in deeper as well. This all takes time away from their vandalism patrolling and other deletion work, which can be helpful, with keeping both Ash and I from actually building articles. It also serves to suck up the community energy with yet another dramafest where the actual problem may be yet another case of Delicious carbuncle wikibullying another editor who they disagree. This seems to be an ongoing pattern with them. My assessment is certainly bias and open to off-site campaigning on Misplaced Pages Review and elsewhere, especially by banned editors. This is my opinion and gives fuel for User:Ash/analysis which Delicious carbuncle made threats over, escalated to multiple forums and was upheld at MfD as being a logical step in dispute resolution. Delicious carbuncle doesn't seem to WP:Hear that their pattern of disruption remains a net loss for the community. Unfortunately I think that remains an ongoing regretable situation which may have to be dealt with if they can't amend their interactions with all editors, not just ones they apparently do approve. Also I second Ash's request that an uninvolved party hide, and likely close this thread. The sourcing issue supposedly requiring this thread was already being solved at my talkpage so this thread seems to be yet another attempt to defame them. -- Banjeboi 05:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Benjiboi, all of this bluster is unnecessary - is there some reason why Ash can't simply respond to the examples of, to use the word in the title, fraudulent referencing I raised in December and put the matter to rest? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If the best random pot-shot you can fire at me is to refer to a BLPN discussion from over three months ago where you were rude enough to call the sources "bullshit", and concluded with no issues being raised or changes being agreed for the article in question, then you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel in an obvious attempt to take this ANI thread off-topic. There is no evidence for me to respond to here. Put up some hard evidence that I am perpetrating a fraud which needs urgent Admin attention (as per the topic of this ANI) or take your transparent persistent disruptive uncivil and repugnant misuse of the ANI forum for griefing somewhere else. Ash (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, I identified five specific sources in that discussion, although I don't know if all of them were added to that particular BLP by you. How much more evidence do you require? I'm sure I can find it if I start looking. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Vladimir Correa won no Dave Awards. This can have no bearing on the request for Administrator intervention by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for fraudulent referencing in relation to Dave Awards on the five articles listed at the top of this ANI. A BLPN was raised for Vladimir Correa to discuss sourcing, no changes resulted despite your accusations of "bullshit" and ANI is not a forum to rehash discussion from months ago in an attempt to overturn consensus or a place to discuss possible improvement to sources on Vladimir Correa, as you well know the place for such a discussion would be Talk:Vladimir Correa.

If you want to have an Admin take action against me then supply some evidence relevant to this ANI. Your continued attempts to create unnecessary drama and to defame me with no firm facts to support your claims are a misuse of this forum. This forum is not a discussion group for when you feel bored, lonely or want to pick a fight. Ash (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

In an ANI discussion entitled "fraudlent referencing", I can't help but think that the example I cite of your fraudulent referencing may be relevant. Again, I have stated exactly what is wrong with the references, so the facts seem to be quite firm. It would be nice if you could simply respond to the charge here. Although it is great to see Benjboi practising his typing here, it isn't doing anything to put the matter to rest. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who cares to examine the Vladimir Correa article will discover that you have raised no current concerns on it, there is nothing to "put to rest". The last time you edited the article was on 29 November 2009 when you raised the article for deletion, this was also the last time you made any comment on the article talk page. The result of that AfD was to keep. I say again, you are off-topic by raising long dead discussion as fake evidence for griefing. You are misusing ANI for harassment. Ash (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, if any admin feels that I am using this thread to harass you, I hope they will speak up, because that is not my intention and I apologise if you feel that that is what I am doing. I'm simply asking you to address the unresolved sourcing issues that came out of the AfD of that article. If my allegations that the sources do not contain the cited information are wrong, it should be very easy for you to show that and would probably take about the same amount of time as avoiding the question has taken thus far. Since this thread was raised about concerns with your sourcing, it seems wholly appropriate to have that discussion here, not on the article's talk page, since the concern is with a pattern of misuse of sources, not with any specific article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Benjiboi, your extended fantasia may have some nice rhetorical flourishes, but it's belied by the fact that you've been hounding me, on and off, for months, to the point of jumping at the opportunity to file a bad faith sockpuppetry claim over an edit made after a system-glitch logout, in a dispute where you'd intervened to claim that blogs were generally acceptable sources for BLPs, despite clear policy language to the contrary. You also went out of your way, for example, to encourage an abusive sockfarmer and a gaggle of obsessive fans to keep pressing transparently phony charges of bias and multiple accounts against me. It's more than telling that you keep ignoring the substantial policy issues and outright violations in the disputed content generally, while freely flinging innuendo and groundless, evidence-free accusations around at editors you're in conflict with. It's past time to stop pretending and own up, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No need to characterize my statements as false or "fantasia", they are my opinions are I believe them to be true and accurate. As for the accusation that I am in any way Wikistalking you, that seems contrary to reality and I can assure you is utterly false. I have no interest or inclination to Wikistalk anyone. Of the many editors whose edits I either felt needed to be and were asked to review yours didn't strike me as anything but rather uncivil and quick to assume bad faith. As you seemed to be doing a lot of vandalism patrol I think that goes with that territory. If you are open to advice I encourage you to be much more welcoming to newby and IPs editors, even promotional-ish ones. If we can encourage them to add good sourcing and amend their less than positive interactions and contributions that the project wins. Promotional-ish editors often are experts on the subjects they are trying to edit. If they can instead work to rise to our level of notability, MOS and standards then, again, the project benefits. Time and again on your editing I've encouraged civility and coached much of what I wrote above about better sourcing. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground so i have little interest in engaging as such. I'm sorry you feel I'm in any way stalking you, the likelihood is I question and restore the deletion of content on articles that our paths cross. I have apparently edited thousands of articles so that we intersect from time to time is not that peculiar. As for the sock claim it looks like it was accurate although simply a technical glitch, meanwhile you're faulting me for supporting a sock of some sort, I didn't know they were then and still don't. If they are they still had a valid point that they felt you may have been using socks and this seems to suggest they had a point. If you follow my entire history I continued to push for civility, dispute resolution and even did an overhaul of one of the articles myself so that editor could see you weren't the only one who felt that article needed clean-up. I strike to limit the drama and simply work to improve the articles. Years from now what will count is the quality of the articles not the drama that goes into their creation and maintenance. Now as for blogs as reliable sources, this is an ongoing misperception that more experienced editors have been handling on a regular basis. First off this medium is growing exponentially and replacing in part traditional news media much like the advent of radio and television, and cable channels. Some are perfectly acceptable on BLPs and elsewhere, some are not. A blog written by the subject of a BLP is certainly acceptable for statements about themselves. If in doubt a civil talkpage discussion and possible a visit to the RSN would usually clear up any issues. As for this thread, which presumably you still seem to care about, the content was never disputed by anyone, and still isn't. it was all a matter of sourcing it correctly and that's being resolved. So it would seem this has been another escalation to ANI that was unneeded but has shed some light on the background of those involved. I wish you all the best in your future endeavors regardless if our paths ever cross again. -- Banjeboi 09:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that's a fairly skanky response. You pretend to justify you groundless accusations by citing a long-discredited socking charge, one that had already been proved false when your sock buddy tried resurrected it. As was evident at the time, the charge was disproved by CU, and no less than Jimmy Wales had intervened on my behalf, suggesting that I be "thanked for right action . While you pretend you "push for civility," in fact you encouraged conspicuously dubious users, virtually all of whom proved to be SPAs/sockpuppets, to maintain campaigns of personal attacks after extensive talk page discussions and AN/I disputes had consistently rejected their positions. Your comments on the substantive dispute involved are equally shabby: despite what you say here, the policy regarding blog-sourcing of content is quite clear - "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject" - and the stated exception was not involved in the dispute. You can strike this Uriah Heep-ish pose all you want, but it won't suffice to disguise your lack of good faith, your double standards, and our refusal to abide by WP content/reference policies. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Referring to my response as "skanky" and calling another editor who I really don't know nor work with as "my sock buddy", etc seems a really bad way to maturely discuss who you handled the situation.It's utterly false to suggest I encouraged them to "maintain campaigns of personal attacks". If there was ANI threads, etc were they three-ring circuses such as this? Really, I pushed for them to use better sources and improve content as that was the best response to someone who seemed to be acting tendentiously against this one set of articles. I really didn't know the subject but I did feel your editing was a bit heavy-handed when it didn't need to be. Similar to your hard line stance following the letter and avoiding the spirit our policies you strike me as seeing too much as either black/white extremist positions when human beings aren't quite as easy to push labels onto. I stand by my comments but if you never used socks then my apologies. As for the rest of your baseless accusations I respect that you actually believe them to be true for whatever reasons. They aren't but you can believe whatever you wish. -- Banjeboi 14:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I'm getting involved with this, and I may already be regretting it, but a quick look at the most recent arguments leads to the obvious call to COOL IT on all sides. DC's use of expletives, and HW's use of the word "skanky" and the general accusative bickering nature of all this is unacceptable to me. - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm cool, but I agree - let's deal with the issue below and get this thread wrapped up. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Detailed analysis of Vladimir Correa questions as raised by user:Delicious carbuncle on BLPN on 11 December 2009

Source BLPN: (diff)
As Delicious carbuncle is intent of raking through this old BLP/N on ANI here is a detailed response to the five citations mentioned in that BLP/N that resulted in no action, edit or correction at the time:

1. wikiporno.org - fails WP:RS, I have no idea why User:Keraunos added this reference to an open wiki (diff), it puzzles me as to why Delicious carbuncle felt they could not remove it or blames me for it existing in the article. I would delete it myself if I did not expect to be immediately accused by Delicious carbuncle of yet more malfeasance or fraud.
2. The "More Dirty Looks" book demonstrates that Correa was in "Inside Vladimir Correa" (and that video exists). As for the placement of the reference, I don't have strong opinions on the matter. The discussion about his role as a top or bottom could be deleted without damaging the article, I do not believe that text was added by me. Obviously this improvement could be discussed on the article talk page, or just made without having to create drama on ANI.
3. The reference to http://images.quebarato.com.br/photos/big/9/A/683F9A_1.jpg is just a reference to a DVD cover showing Correa. The article does not depend on this supplementary information. I could not care less if it is deleted or not.
4. The reference to Dyer's book seems appropriate as Dyer lists him with other examples of how his film portrays Correa as a superstar. In the current version of the article, the reference is being used to support him existing as a well known porn star. Rather than Delicious carbuncle's description of "the book sources do not appear to have any correspondence with the facts" this source seems quite appropriate.
5. The Advocate interview appears entirely appropriate as there are no other porn videos produced before 1993 that would be anything close to "Inside Vladimir". It is entirely reasonable to conclude this had to be "Inside Vladimir Correa".

• It should be noted that I believe my response here is pointless as this is the wrong forum for Delicious carbuncle to be banging on about a dead discussion in BLP/N when, as an experienced editor, s/he could not be bothered to raise these points on the article talk page, or to raise flags for improvement on the article itself, or continue to pursue the original question on BLP/N last year. Delicious carbuncle appears to be on a fishing expedition in an attempt to find something against me. As this out of date BLP/N discussion has been used to make repeated claims that this somehow demonstrates I am acting fraudulently, I have felt obliged to take time to respond in detail.
• Delicious carbuncle has made no attempt to discuss, delete or improve the references that s/he complained about over 3 months ago.
• I strongly object to these repeated accusations from Delicious carbuncle, and would hope that the fact that s/he has raised two recent ANI requests about me on this forum that amounted to nothing but hot air as additional evidence of repeated misuse of this forum in an attempt to harass or defame a number of other editors in the form of griefing. I hope that this sustained uncivil and passive aggressive behaviour is not tolerated in future. Ash (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, thanks for finally responding directly, and thank you for toning down your earlier remarks. This all came about because I nominated what was a very poorly sourced BLP article for deletion. Although the AfD was closed as "KEEP" and Cirt's closure was upheld at DRV, the article subject clearly fails WP:PORNBIO. It is unlikely once the current sources are properly vetted it would pass WP:GNG (which is not to say better sources could not be found). Ash, you appear to have deliberately inserted fraudulent references in order to improve the chances of this article being kept at AfD.

In order to minimize friction, I stated during the subsequent BLPN discussion that I did not think it would be productive for me to edit the article myself and asked that someone else make the necessary changes (which would presumably include looking over the rest of the sources). I do not know why no one acted on what I pointed out, but outside of the topic starter Cirt, you were the only other participant and you had introduced most of those sources. The question is not why did I not fix the references, it is why did you not fix what you now knew to be incorrect?

Taking your points individually, but not in order:

1 - as I've said here and in the original discussion, I do not know if you were responsible for inserting each of those references, so I'm glad we agree that wikiporno.org is not an appropriate source. Don't let me stop you from removing it.

2 - you added this reference to source a specific fact which is not contained in the reference. It is not a question of demonstrating notability. This is "fraudulent referencing", to use the phrase in the title.

3 - You added an image of a DVD cover is simply not a suitable reference and should not have been added. It appears to be "padding" the references to avoid deletion at AfD.

4 - The Dyer article is the same article as in #2, but contained in a different book. It has only passing references to Correa. I read it months ago, but as I recall, it does not establish any of the information for which it is being used as a reference.

5 - Neither the Advocate interview with Amy Poehler (in which Poehler refers to a gay porn movie in passing) nor the Gay Porn Times blog post summary which you also used as a reference -- more reference padding -- identify the movie as "Inside Vladimir Correa". In fact, the Gay Porn Times editor states "Ms. Poehler might be referring to 1991’s ... INSIDE VLADIMIR CORREA" (emphasis mine). Deciding that this is close enough isn't quite what WP:VERIFY says. Your comment here is indicative of the larger problem.

Comments? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Supply some PROOF that I deliberately inserted fraudulent references as you are repeatedly stating or stop defaming me. Point #2 above makes my opinion on the placement of "More Dirty Looks" clear, nothing you have provided as evidence demonstrates deliberate fraud on my part. You are assuming the worst possible bad faith.

All the evidence above shows is potential improvement to sources or potential better placement of sources. Nothing here requires administrator action and it seems plainly obvious it never did. This is the wrong forum for a detailed discussion of article improvement and your absolute insistence on holding this detailed discussion here rather than in any other more suitable forum is blatant forum shopping. You are misusing this forum to unnecessarily grief other editors.

ANI should not and does not operate on a principle of assuming guilty until proved innocent. Ash (talk) 07:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, unless you accidentally inserted those references, you did it "deliberately". I speculated that you did it in order to influence the AfD discussion that had been started immediately before you began adding these references. I could be wrong about that, but there is no question that you inserted "fraudulent references" as I have shown above, with diffs. Your nonsensical sputtering about "placement" and your misplaced charges of "forum shopping" are yet more misdirection. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• If you believed that the AFD (from 3 months ago) was manipulated, why did you not go to DRV at the time? Raising this on the wrong forum such a long time later is an obvious fishing expedition taking advantage of an ANI in order to create drama and make hurtful inflammatory accusations.
• ANI is a forum for requests for Administrator intervention. So far you have not identified anything that requires admin intervention and instead appear to be using this forum to endlessly repeat defamatory accusations against me based on your speculations as to my motivation. I have explained my contributions to the Correa article last year above, and you have failed to identify evidence that I have been deliberately perpetrating fraud as opposed to adding relevant citations that could have been better placed.
• Article improvement does not require admin intervention. Hopefully you are satisfied with provoking a reaction from me and creating lots of drama, why don't you now go and do something constructive, like, say, improve an article rather than banging on about edits from 3 months ago that you could have fixed last year had you chosen to get your finger out.
• Just to be clear - stop misusing ANI and stop defaming me.
• Do not expect replies responding to your accusations, I have explained my edits were in good faith and I would be delighted for any experienced admin to investigate. Hopefully you will shortly fall into that big hole you have been digging for yourself and then be unable to grief other editors. Ash (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This does seem to me to be a matter for ANI. We don't check every reference (we should, but we can't), so we end up taking a lot on trust, particularly when supplied by regular editors. Therefore the charge of "false sourcing", whether deliberate or accidental, is a very serious charge indeed, particularly on a BLP. If such a charge were to be sustained (and I've no investigated closely here - so I'm not saying it is), then the only appropriate response would be to ban the offender, and certainly ban them from BLPs. To that degree, this isn't a simple content dispute for a talk page, or a simple deletion dispute for DRV, this is very, very, serious indeed. (Indeed a spurious change of false sourcing should also result in serious repercussion for the one asserting it.) Perhaps a user conduct RFC would be more appropriate than ANI, but in either case the evidence needs examined, and if it holds up, I'd have no hesitation to indefinitely block any offender (if I didn't, I'd be confident arbcom would). I suggest further investigation by neutral parties into Ash's actions, and form here is appropriate - it is essential that we find out where truth lies, or whether indeed we can clear his name.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. However Delicious carbuncle's problems with sources were raised on BLP/N in December 2009 (see Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive76#Vladimir_Correa). Anyone was free to comment, nobody took any action, nobody else supported Delicious carbuncle's claims of "bullshit" and I see little benefit in raising the same concerns in another forum over 3 months on. I would suggest a ban against me would have to be for a unambiguous pattern of repeatedly adding misleading sources to articles. If anyone cares to supply evidence I would be interested to see it. I'm sure that in my 22,000+ edits on Misplaced Pages, there are many examples of poorly judged edits to be found but I doubt that this would constitute a pattern of false sourcing. Any reviewer would find my contributions to be constructive and with genuine intent. You will note that back in February I opened an Editor review welcoming critical feedback, not normally an action associated with an editor acting in bad faith.

You make a good point about the repercussions on those who may bring false charges. Apart from it being a bit of a waste of time and effort, I would have no particular objections to an independent investigation by an administrator into my edit history if it were in conjunction with equally detailed examination of the nature of the accusations against various other editors made by Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · logs · block log) over the last 12 months. It may be more straightforward to raise an RFC/U on Delicious carbuncle as per my earlier MfD rationale in preparing User:Ash/analysis - the start of a summary of Delicious carbuncle's disruptive behaviour. As this predates Delicious carbuncle's accusations against me here, this could hardly be seen as a tit-for-tat exercise on my part.

Note that Delicious carbuncle previously rejected an offer of mediation in the last no-action ANI s/he raised against me, as far as I am concerned, that offer is still on the table as it was made in good faith. Ash (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Did anyone investigate the allegations 3 months ago, or did it suffer from tl;dr? I wouldn't say a pattern would be required here - evidence of deliberate misrepresentation of sources would be serious even if not a pattern. Careless sourcing might be overlooked if it were just once or twice over hundreds of good sources. We need to take sourcing extremely seriously, and since we need to trust a lot of the time, any breach of trust is not to be passed over. I'd strongly suggest that you and Carbuncle both need to get this resolved. It is serious either way. I may have time to look closely myself later, but I've doubts as to whether you'd see me as sufficiently neutral. The issue does now need resolved by a serious, BLP experienced editor.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Scott Mac (Doc), it is unfortunate that your involvement was based on a personal invitation to comment by Delicious carbuncle. Given that you portrayed yourself as an administrator who may choose to investigate these claims against me by Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · logs · block log) and chose not to declare an interest, could you please now confirm the nature of your pre-existing relationship or collaboration history on and off wikipedia with Delicious carbuncle? Ash (talk) 07:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

What nonsense is this? I indicated that you might not view me as neutral here. What exactly are you alleging now?--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe I have "alleged" anything, I apologise if you were able to infer anything to that effect or if it appears to be nonsense to you. I asked for clarification as you said, "I may have time to look closely myself later...". You also stated that I may not see you as sufficiently neutral, this was a statement about me, not a statement about whether you have a pre-existing interest. When I later realized that you had been invited to comment here by Delicious carbuncle, I was taken aback as I had the impression that you were referring to our previous discussions about your use of language that has offended other editors. Ash (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

So what's the problem. My only "pre-existing interest" is a hatred of people playing fast and loose with BLP sourcing - which is probably why DCarb approached me. Is that a problem?--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

As noted at Talk:Vladimir Correa, all the above contested sources have been removed. The article did not rely on these sources though any editor is free to re-add them, and if they wish to be super-civil about it, they can add some appropriate rationale on the article talk page. I see little benefit in continuing this thread or explaining why Scott Mac's "hatred" of certain people may be a problem. Ash (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Additional evidence

Since some editors seem to be reluctant to view the references associated with gay porn performers -- some of which maybe "not safe for work" -- I picked two articles on UK bathhouses, Pleasuredrome and Chariots Shoreditch. These articles were created and expanded almost solely by Ash, which avoids the issue of Ash sourcing the text of other contributors.

In Chariots Shoreditch:

• The statement "The bathhouse is on three floors decorated in the style of a Roman baths" is sourced to a short item in a travel guide (page 122) which mentions the facility in passing but does not refer to the number of floors or the decor of that location.
• The section "Etiquette" is sourced to two books, neither of which contains a reference to "Chariots" or "Shoreditch" according to Google books. Although it may be argued that this section refers to bathhouse etiquette in general, the similar section in Pleasuredrome clearly refers to the specific facility.
• The description of the facilities available is sourced to QX Magazine, but is actually a full page back-cover paid advert for the bathhouse in the magazine.

In Pleasuredrome:

• A listing of the facilities available is sourced to a travel guide which does not contain "Pleasuredrome" according to Google books (although there is a two line item for "Pleasuredome" which does not mention the facilities at all).
• The statement "The sauna opened as a gay sex on premises venue or gay bathhouse in 1998" is sourced to an archived copy of the bathhouse's website, which does not contain any information about the history of the bathhouse.
• The statement "The sauna is markets itself as "We never close" and is open 24 hours all year including Bank Holidays" (later changed to "The sauna is notable among London gay saunas for being open 24 hours a day all year, including Bank Holidays") is sourced to QX Magazine, but, just as with Chariots Shoreditch, this is a paid advert not a review or editorial.

While not as concerning as the misuse of references for BLPs, this clearly demonstrates a pattern which needs to be dealt with. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking through the Pleasurdrome one the first cite should have included the next page which does have a description listed; the second ref listed above may have been used simply to note it was a gay focussed bathhouse which arguably is the one fact that would need to be sourced, also there may have been other items on the website that confirmed when opened but I found and added a council hearing note which covered the dating of the establishment, also not an terribly exceptional statement. I wasn't able to view the QX material but even a paid advert that states "open 24 hours", etc would seem acceptable even if not ideal. QX has included blurbs and even a few articles which confirmed pretty much the same thing. So here again it's a case of it would be nice if the refs were blindingly obvious so there is no question why they are used but that is a different case from inserting false information or indeed fraud. -- Banjeboi 00:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

A search on Google books (for "pleasuredome" not "pleasuredrome") only shows it appearing on page 507 and page 508 is not available for display. If you have a copy of the book handy, would you mind scanning that page and uploading somewhere, Benjiboi? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking through Chariots Shoreditch this seems pretty much also making a mountain out of a molehill. The first site may simply be confirming that it's even notable enough to be referenced in a traveler's guide and does confirm a Roman style; the second ones confirm general bathhouse etiquette and do seem rather uncontroversial. And again a paid advert describing a club's own features is akin to a BLP subject blogging their own biography - we consider them to be experts on themselves. We would be concerned if these were exceptional claims. That doesn't seem to be the case here. -- Banjeboi 00:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This comment does not accurately present the standards for the use of self-published claims, which are found here . Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I have included diffs of the edits and links to the sources themselves. Please take the time to look for yourself and do not rely on Benjiboi's misleading interpretation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

<yawn> More of the same I'm afraid. You start a whole new subsection much like you've done on so many other ANI threads and allege misconduct et al. You may note that Pleasuredome is a massive gay nightclub also in London, and no I have no interest in scanning anything for you ever. This entire exercise has been yet another WP:Drama fest and I invite anyone uninvolved to close it as still not needing any admin attention unless Delicious carbuncle is to be topic-banned off LGBT subject areas broadly construed and possibly a civility topic ban and just maybe a admin board ban. You likely do have much to offer the project as a whole but my interactions with you have proven otherwise. Civil vandalism patrol has its place but colossal leaps of bad faith time and time again show bad judgement in the least. -- Banjeboi 03:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like DC picked apart these two articles, finding lots of poor sourcing and your response is to pooh-pooh it. Not helpful. I suggest that some interested party go stub out everything cited to the problematic sources. ++Lar: t/c 22:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Lar on this one - if sources have been forged that is rather large issue for the project and needsto be dealt with as productively as possible, soon. - Schrandit (talk) 06:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

My take is that this entire thread is designed to disparage an editor not because any content they edit is untrue but that it is focussed on gay sexual activities. Why Delicious carbuncle is so focussed on wikihounding editors who work in these subject areas is for others to judge for themselves, a visit to Misplaced Pages Review may help. That they feel it is their right and duty to publicly flog and enact their pound of flesh seems to be the actual underlying issue. The oft-bandied BLP flag of concern rings hollow when the fact remains that person X is the same person X who indeed does gay porn. This all digresses from the fact that we, of course, want high quality sources but this "evidence" suggesting that a company's <ZOMG!> paid advertisement used to support information about their services is somehow fraudulent remains ridiculous. Obviously it would be better to use an independent source however statements by the subject of an article are considered reliable as they are considered experts on themselves. -- Banjeboi

Incidentally, does anyone have a copy of the fifth edition of "The Rough Guide to London" by Rob Humphreys & Judith Bamber handy? I've asked Benjiboi to scan page 508 for me, but he has refused. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you placed a request at WP:REX? 38.109.88.196 (talk) 05:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the Misplaced Pages review forum, it appears that Delicious carbuncle, Scott MacDonald and Lar are members. This may not be an complete list and yet seems to be most of the contributors keeping this discussion going. As this may represent a direct or indirect form of canvassing or lobbying against gay-sexuality related articles, could someone please confirm what is going on and if this mets the guidelines for ANI discussion? Ash (talk) 08:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, please stop trying to slander my good name here by trying to associate me with controversial websites (although if Lar and Scott MacDonald -- both of whom are trusted admins -- frequent the site, I suppose I would be in good company). This appears to be yet another attempt to direct attention away from your misuse of sources. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe you are the right person to answer my question. I did not realize that Misplaced Pages Review was considered controversial here. As for interpreting my question as an attempt to slander your good name, I shall resist pointing out the obvious. Ash (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Detailed responses to the trivial questions raised about sources have been answered on Talk:Pleasuredrome#ANI_comments and Talk:Chariots_Shoreditch#ANI_comments rather than extending this dubious thread. Ash (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Multiple examples of an editor found to be misrepresenting sources and no action taken? This is not a routine editing matter. It's one of the most basic violations of the minimum trust and responsibility Misplaced Pages needs to maintain credibility and accuracy and to protect living people from harm. This is not a matter for routine editing (i used to try to fix these problems; after getting caught up in "edit wars" with others that oppose basic minimum standards of sourcing and verifiability and being bludgeoned with brainless "AGF" mantras, I gave up.) The mind boggles. (Oh yeah: I am not now nor have ever been a member of Misplaced Pages Review, not that it's remotely relevant.)Bali ultimate (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It has not been demonstrated that I have been misrepresenting sources. Questions were put forward about some of the sources contained in 3 of the articles I created up to 4 months ago. These questions have been answered and could have easily been addressed by friendly discussion on the article talk pages at any time in the months after they were created rather than escalating directly to ANI. I have made 22,000+ edits in total and 8,000+ of these in the last 3 months. What you see is a fishing expedition, primarily kept going by one editor who has raised 2 previous failed ANIs against me and is aware of pre-existing preparations to start an RFC/U against them and has a current WQA raised against them due to civility problems (see User:Ash/analysis). I suggest you check my edit history for yourself if you remain concerned, I would be happy to discuss any suggestions for improvement you might have on my talk page. Ash (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

And i've made about 7,500 edits to wikipedia. Not a single one of those edits has used a false citation for anything. Your defense seems to be that of your edits reviewed by carbuncle (i rather doubt he's reviewed them all) only three have involved misattribution. That's no defense at all.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No, my "defense" is that none involves misattribution. Please check the facts. It is quite normal for an article to improve and citations to also be improved. This should not lead to hysterical allegations of perpetrating fraud and is not the way to use ANI. Ash (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This "defense" is surpassingly ridiculous. It's well-established that you misrepresented sources (presenting claims in a advertisement as though they were standard editorial content of the magazine in which the advertising appeared; making unfounded claims as to the source of information found on a retail site you added as a reference). The bottom line is that you regularly add content to articles with referencing and sources that fail WP:RS and WP:BLP, then attack the motivations of editors who challenge your practices rather than addressing the substantive issues. Your insinuations above that two respected editors like Lar and Scott MacDonald are part of some homophobic cabal based at Misplaced Pages Review, without a shred of evidence, are fairly compelling demonstrations of your lack of good faith and of the vacuousness of your "defense." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, please finish preparing your RFC/U and file it. I withdrew my MfD of User:Ash/analysis only because you claimed that you were about to file something. That was a week ago. WP:USER specifies that such pages are only permitted provided they "will be used in a timely manner". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could first be civil enough to co-operate with the open WQA raised by another editor. I note that you only withdrew your MfD after unanimous feedback that you were in the wrong. In that MfD you were advised by one of the contributors that MfD "is not a cudgel for personal abuse"; the same applies to the Misplaced Pages dispute resolution processes. I do not see why you should be the one setting a timetable here. Ash (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not setting a timetable. If you are not ready to file the RFC/U, you can ask for the page to be deleted until such time as you are. Personally, I would prefer that you go ahead and file it, so we can get it over and done with. Please see the new MfD here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate venue for this subject. you've raised the issue with another MfD and once again, with this edit YOU have been the one to move a discussion off topic. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Core policy violations being ignored?

Back in December, sourcing issues were noted in an article under discussion at AfD. On the BLPN thread raised by User:Cirt, the admin who closed the AfD, I took the time to go through some of the citations used in the article and point out exactly what was wrong with them. No one, including Cirt or Ash, who added most of those citations, bothered to fix them or deal with the underlying issue of using references to source facts not contained in those references.

I brought that discussion up again here because it seemed relevant. I took the time to find further evidence of Ash's fraudulent use of citations, which I laid out as clearly and concisely as possible with diffs and links to the sources. At least two admins have commented here that this needs to be dealt with, yet this thread is languishing here while Ash continues to create and expand BLPs. What needs to be done to get some action here? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The thread is only "languishing" because you and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz are keeping it from being automatically archived.

Creating sub-threads is an obvious tactic to making this ANI look more substantial than it really is.

There has been no evidence that I have deliberately perpetrated fraud.

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's original issues with the Dave Awards citations are being addressed by dialogue with the original publisher, so that thread is closed.

All the other "examples" you put forward have been addressed on their respective article talk pages (which should have been the first port of call rather than ANI) and so their threads are closed.

Should any administrator care to look at your and HW's user talk pages it is evident that neither of you are impartial when is comes to the topic of gay pornography related articles, with various complaints about inappropriate PRODs and AFDs being raised. My work over the last 2 months to create a series of reasonable start-level articles for gay pornographic actors appears to be the real issue that you have with my existence on Misplaced Pages, a task that I started after you purged all "non-bluelink" names from the list of actors in gay porn films. It is notable that you have not raised any questions about any edit I have made more recently than November/December 2009. Considering my 8,000 edits since then, and my lengthy track record of collaboration, it seems highly unlikely that any independent admin would find anything of interest in the claims of fraud based on the thin evidence you provided so far. I suggest you let this ANI die to a lack of anything for an admin to do, just as with the previous poorly judged and inflammatory two ANIs you have raised against me since I started contributing to the genre of gay pornography related BLPs in January this year. Ash (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Garbage. Your response to criticism of your sourcing and editing practices is, consistently, to smear those who don't share your views with groundless accusations of bias and bad faith, rather than addressing the substantive problems. One needs look no further than this thread; when "independent admins" (whose input you claim to ask for) like Lar and Scott MacDonald weighed in against your position, you posted baseless insinuations of their being part of a homophobic cabal based at the Misplaced Pages Review. And this thread would have been closed and archived if you and your partners in promotional editing hadn't prolonged it yourselves, more than once, by posting phony attacks on other editors.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Please stick to the facts. I have made no mention of a "homophobic cabal". It is a fact that Lar and Scott MacDonald are active on Misplaced Pages Review and that the ANI that Delicious carbuncle raised against me recently about gay pornography related articles was discussed on http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=28677 which would have raised it for the attention of Misplaced Pages Review members. These are facts, not hypothesis or attacks. Ash (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, you seem to be intent on raising references to Misplaced Pages Review today. How is this relevant to the issue of your misuse of sources? Or the lack of admin attention here? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, repeating your baseless insinuations simply demonstrates your lack of good faith. This is inappropriate and uncivil. Your response when an independent editor posted similar comments on your talk page (there referenced as "casting aspersions") you responded yet again with thinly veiled, but as always entirely unsupported, implications of misconduct . Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Just would like to point out that I was the one who actually brought this to WP:BLPN, in the first place. Please see Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive76#Vladimir_Correa. The purpose of which was for me to try to gather additional eyes and input on the article, and hopefully have others address concerns. It is a shame that individuals above are unable to deal with each other in discussion in a polite, kind and courteous manner. However, I am glad that at the very least my WP:BLPN posting had the intended affect of drawing additional input to the article itself. -- Cirt (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, I noted above that you were the editor who started the BLPN thread. If you look at the history of the article you will note that nothing of substance changed between the end of that thread and the start of this one, so I don't think your posting had the desired effect. I, too, regret the state of polite discourse here, but do you have anything to say about the actual issue, which is the misuse of sources? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Was there a thread at WP:RSN about sources? -- Cirt (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

No, there wasn't. Please read at least the opening statement of this section if you don't understand what the issue is here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Please be more polite and kind and less brusque. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, as stated in the Correa sub-thread above, you will find stated on Talk:Vladimir Correa that all the contested sources were removed some six days ago. Nobody involved in raising comments on ANI was interested in discussing the details with me at the time on the article talk page. Cheers Ash (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, I apologise if you found my comments to be impolite, but I think you have mistaken my tersenesses for something else. I'm puzzled by both your reaction to my comment and your lack of substantive reply. Am I missing something here? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Due to the tone of this thread I think it best to defer to others to comment, as I had previously and appropriately done when I started a thread at WP:BLPN specifically to grab extra eyes on the situation. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

DC, baiting Cirt on their user talk page (see diff) for their comments here was highly inappropriate. Ash (talk) 06:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You left Cirt a rather misleading summary of their mention in this discussion. I asked them to comment on your misuse of citations (the title of this sub-thread is "Core policy violations being ignored?" for good reason). For reasons which remain unclear, Cirt has chosen not to comment, but "baiting" them was not my intention and would hardly have been productive in encouraging them to comment here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Please stop discussing me. Both of you. I have chosen to disengage from this issue, for this very reason. This is patently ridiculous. -- Cirt (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Users: TimLambert & John Quiggin

Entire section has been moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/TimLambert and John Quiggin to centralize discussion and to save space here. Please to not add timestamp until this section reaches the top of the section. –MuZemike

Dwm Deletion Proceedings and User:Blueboy96

Hello. I've been contributing anonymously for a few years now, infrequently enough to never bother registering an account. I'm also a Reddit user, where recently two articles have been popular, Misplaced Pages, Notability, and Open Source Software and the follow-up to it.

They struck a chord with me, and while I can't readily check my past contributions, it saddens me to learn that many lesser-known articles I've contributed to may have been deleted.

As per the two pages I linked to, I'm here about the dwm proceedings.

I think it's very unfortunate that the first AfD was closed and reopened at all, to me it seems like an attempt to quieten outside voices and go back to business as normal.

The semi-protection of the second AfD also makes me uneasy, as though the Misplaced Pages deletion process does not respect or want outside input. I'm not very familiar with Misplaced Pages policy, so please forgive me if I make errors.

In specific, I came here about the blockings surrounding the dwm proceedings, and the conduct of the administrator responsible for them, User:Blueboy96. The following users were blocked by him on February 28:

Special:Contributions/0xd34df00d Registered in December 2007, voted in dwm AfD.

Special:Contributions/DoctorSinus Registered in October 2009, voted in dwm AfD.*

Special:Contributions/Gleb-ax Registered in October 2008, did not vote formally.

Special:Contributions/Grasagrautur Registered in February 2010, attempted good-faith source addition to dwm article, voted keep.

Special:Contributions/Ingwar-k Registered in January 2010, voted keep in wmii AfD.*

Special:Contributions/Iorlas Registered in February 2010, voted keep in dwm, QVWM, Evilwm, Aewm, wmii, Oroborus AfDs. Unblock requested and denied.

Special:Contributions/Jasonwryan Registered in February 2010, voted keep in dwm AfD.*

Special:Contributions/Jeuta Registered in February 2010, voted keep in dwm AfD.*

Special:Contributions/Necrosporus Registered in February 2010, voted keep in dwm AfD. Unblock request repeatedly denied after the AfD ended.

Special:Contributions/Thayerw Registered in September 2008, did not vote keep in dwm AfD, had made several good-faith edits prior.*

• Users that I marked with an asterisk only commented once.

The administrator also made several comments that I would deem objectionable in the second dwm AfD, such as "Delete No fewer than 11 meatpuppets have been identified as either heavily contributing to the article or came to the AfD via canvass, suggesting that this article isn't something we should keep in any event." and "Let me clarify--this article has been so tainted by meatpuppetry in my mind that if it were to be kept, it should be completely rewritten from scratch. It's a credibility issue." as if people being interested in something means they should be completely ignored.

User:Anselmgarbe and User:ArneBab were also both blocked. The former is the developer of dwm, and was unblocked on March 3 after substantial discussion. Despite being a contributor dating back to 2004. Following false accusations, he was indefinitely blocked on March 4 following a discussion full of bad faith assumptions, and the block was not repealed nor justified despite opposition by User:Kim_Bruning. User:Henrik unblocked ArneBab today, 17 days after the block was added.

I don't think making one comment (or several) in an AfD discussion merits losing your account permanently (and having unblock requests denied very quickly), and I question the judgement of an administrator who bans so many users without investigating them individually. What happened to assuming good faith and all contributors being valuable?

I question the "meatpuppet" policy in general, it seems to severely punish people who were asked to come to Misplaced Pages despite not knowing all the policies, and I don't think they should be punished at all for attempting to preserve an article they happen to be passionate about. None of these users were vindictive or made personal attacks. Is it really necessary to ban a dozen users for a small policy violation like this?

At this point I don't think many (or perhaps any) of them will come back. They came to try to save software they enjoy and were met with extreme hostility, with attempts to keep them out of the discussion ending in bans for all of them. If I were in their position, I would not return.

Why is it that the only two who were unblocked had their blocks removed because of further scrutiny? I wonder how many unnecessary permanent blocks are given out every day. 69.196.147.65 (talk) 06:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This was exceptionally poorly handled by us, and a massive WP:BITE failure. Our notability policy is unpopular and hard to explain. The reasons why WP:N is a good idea are rather subtle, and imposing it with a heavy handed approach is guaranteed to alienate a lot of potential editors. This débâcle has generated a lot of bad will and strengthened the reputation of wikipedia as a bureaucracy. We're not growing any more, we can't afford to piss off potential editors. We have to be more calm and patient with new users. I don't want to point fingers to User:Blueboy96 or any other user in particular, but surely we can and must to better than this. henrik•talk 07:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Not just by us, since the user persisted in recruiting meatpuppets long after it had been explained why that was not a good idea. I would, though, only have blocked any accounts until such time as the debate was finished, since the locus of disruption was the AfD. I also think the AfD was closed wrongly as the loud assertions of "it's teh notable!" were not, as far as I recall, matched by, you know, reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 11:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, that is a valid point. And yeah, the AfD should probably (objectively) have been closed as delete - but we can't go around pissing off everybody who isn't already an editor and knows the details of the system all the time. That is far more important than whether we have an article about an obscure X window manager or not. You and me and all other admins are already getting a poor reputation as needlessly bureaucratic jerks who delete stuff for just the hell of it. WP:RFA used to have a dozen candidates at the same time, now it's frequently empty. Our user base has plateaued. We need to do more to help people get involved and lower the initial hurdle. Sure, they'll make mistakes. Sure, they'll try to promote their own stuff initially. But we need them. And we need to figure out how to explain our policies in a way that make sense. henrik•talk 12:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

To close that AfD as a delete after the discussion would mean a complete redefinition of "consensus", or even WP:CONSENSUS. It would reduce commentators to the status of "suggested argument providers" and leave the final decision fully in the hand of whoever manages to sneak in a close first. Of course, that person then applies a magical process that gives hir perfect knowledge of all policies and guidelines, the ability to evaluate all sources with perfect understanding and unanimity, and to come to a fully justified decision. If we have those wondercreatures among our admins, why not let them come up with the input, too, and bypass all that nasty discussion in favour of admin fiat? We can assign AfDs round robin, or have a lottery on who gets to close what. By the same logic we could have bureaucrats appoint admins without those pesky and divisive community discussion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it would be an entirely valid interpretation of consensus, which is explicitly not a vote. There have been plenty of deletion debates closed against the majority vote where the minority correctly cites policy and the minority only blows smoke. That's why we have the whole "not a vote" thing, because votes can't override policies and AfD debates can't override the much stronger consensus that underpins guidelines like WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Closing against majority is something I've always been critical about. Closing against an overwhelming majority would be abuse of process. Consensus is the source of our rules, and the ultimate arbiter, not the other way around. If the rules were unambiguous, we could just write a small program to apply them. Since they are not, we rely on people to interpret them. And in this case, even discounting meatpuppets and even counting aggressive whiners, there is certainly no consensus to delete. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Except the majority doesn't exist only on the AfD, it exists in the policy pages and guideline pages that have been discussed. Just because everyone who helped form those pages doesn't show up at the AfD discussion doesn't mean their opinion on what kind of articles should exist here should be ignored. Yes, you and many others would be quite happy if they could meatpuppet any article they wanted into a keep on wikipedia, but that isn't the way it works. That isn't what consensus says, and you have had a serious case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT during this entire process. Consensus is not majority no matter how you'd like to try and make it out and the entire proceedings that have gone on around this article have been a joke put on by those involved with DWM and their meatpuppets.--Crossmr (talk) 06:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that removing the blocks would be a good minimal first step, perhaps accompanied by an apology. Going past that, the "meatpuppet" policy should be closely examined. Wanting to save something you care about is not a heinous act. The canvassing policy reads like its main purpose is to prevent people who care about something from being notified about its impending deletion. Having completely disinterested people debating is biased towards deletion because few of them will spend much time looking for sources if they don't care about the topic at hand. Deleting an article doesn't need to be a bad experience. If the passionate community is simply told that if they can find good sources, the article's exclusion will be reevaluated, they will do their best to find sources. If you attempt to reduce the debate to an echo chamber by protecting it, and ban users that did their best to present arguments for keeping it, that community starts to loathe you. I don't even think User:Mclaudt should be banned. His actions are barred by current policies, but the policies are broken. He was just a passionate user trying to prevent a deletion, who had no recourse on Misplaced Pages, so he had to go outside it. I think that most contentious deletion debates should end in a keep if there are any verifiable sources at all. By blocking users and preventing them from participating in a debate, yet another community is alienated and the potential base of editors becomes smaller. 69.196.147.65 (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with largely everything you said. I propose to unblock all these accounts. The likelihood of any further disruption is low. Being passionate about an article is certainly not an offense worthy of an indefinite block, and treating infrequent contributors like some sort of second class citizens leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

The way you describe how deletions doesn't have to be a bad experience is already how the deletion process is supposed to work. It's supposed to be about working together to find sources and improve the article, or collectively deciding that it can't be done. We need to do a better job of explaining that. henrik•talk 06:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I admit, the mass blocks in this situation were rather heavy-handed. But considering the situation, there really was no other choice. Many of these users hadn't contributed in one or two years, then suddenly reappeared to contribute in the AfD. That, to my mind, is even worse than newbie accounts popping up simply to vote in AfDs. Add to it the fact that he continued to canvass even after being warned--and there was really no other option but to drop the hammer in my mind. Blueboy96 14:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

What's occurred here goes beyond heavy-handed. 11 indefinite blocks laid out in 34 minutes, 6 of them within 1-2 minutes of the previous. Five of the users are established Russian Misplaced Pages editors in good standing: ru:Участник:DoctorSinus, ru:Участник:Gleb-ax, ru:Участник:0xd34df00d, ru:Участник:Necrosporus, ru:Участник:Ingwar. Three others (User:Jasonwryan, User:Thayerw, User:Anselmgarbe) are free software developers with domains similar to their Misplaced Pages usernames. Note that the latter is the developer of dwm. The outlier, User:ArneBab was blocked several days later despite a lack of consensus and no actual proof of his biased canvassing. These aren't vandals, they did not register random strings as names and vandalize the AfD repeatedly; they merely made their best arguments for the article's inclusion. Several of these users have been around for some time, and to throw good faith out the window so readily despite their transparency is alarming. Really, they were worse off than vandals - At least most vandals tend to get a warning first. You then voted delete 8 minutes after finishing the mass-blocking of the "meatpuppets", using their existence as a justification for the delete. Adding insult to injury, User_talk:Necrosporus was denied an unblock four times by other administrators who likely assumed the block was there for a good reason... and unlike most of the others, he's still blocked. Eleven ill-conceived blocks in half an hour constitutes far more than a momentary lapse in judgement. Fedbn (talk) 08:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said earlier, my blocks in this case were a knee-jerk reaction to what I saw as blatant votestacking by sleepers. If I had known that there were users in good standing from another project contributing to that AfD and not just mere sleeper accounts, I wouldn't have blocked. I just wish someone had informed me of this earlier. Had I known this, their statements would have looked more like people trying their hardest to contribute in a language they didn't know well, not just disjointed attempts to clog up the debate. Blueboy96 13:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

In order to prevent deletion discussions from becoming Reichstag-climbing-while-dressed-as-Spider-Man contests and to properly reflect the community's (that is, a cross-section thereof) view of the whether something should be kept/deleted/etc., sometimes measures need to be taken to prevent those who do nothing but protest all over the place (like what is being done here). The fact of the matter is that those blocked accounts didn't have any other purpose here but to defend the Dwm article. With that said, blocking may not have been absolutely necessary unless clear disruption was taking place. –MuZemike 16:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I beg to disagree with that “fact”. I was blocked, too, and the purpose of my account was and is to be able to contribute where I see errors I can fix quickly. I am no mayor editor, because I also work on other projects, a lot of them in free software, and want to spend time with my wife, too. But most times when I see an error and am sure that I can fix it properly (and have enough understanding of the topic to bring a real improvement) I set aside some time to fix it. Contributing to the AfD discussion might have taken much more time than a simple fix, but that was unintended and the result of seeing a glaring error in an area I am knowledgeable about. So please take back that remark. It’s unwarranted — and not only towards my account. Draketo (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Details of Blueboy96's handling of Anselmgarbe

It's incredible that we still have experienced editors here who are defending what happened. Let's take the example of Anselm Garbe, the developer of dwm. He:

• used a real name account and said openly who he was;
• came to the AfD to provide information, nothing else;
• said openly that he was canvased;
• introduced some borderline reliable sources into the discussion;
• did not insist that the sources he introduced were reliable sources;
• did not make any disruptive contribution whatsoever;
• probably had a calming influence on the angry users who tried to save the article;
• did not make any attempt to !vote (unless you count "neutral");
• reacted positively to a proposal to merge the article into Tiling window manager and made an open-ended comment that might have resulted in a merge to a different article instead;
• was polite, considerate, reasonable and intelligent throughout;
• stopped commenting on 25 February.

Then, half a week later on 28 February, Blueboy96:

• blocked User:Anselmgarbe;
• blocked him indefinitely;
• used the totally bizarre and counterfactual block summary: "Abusing multiple accounts: Self-admitted meatpuppet of Mclaudt";
• left no block message at all on the talk page.

When this was noticed and two editors asked for an unblock (Pcap and Psychonaut), instead of immediately unblocking Anselm Garbe and apologising, Blueboy96:

• wrote: "If he understands the seriousness of what he's done, there's no reason why he can't be unblocked." – note that this was completely delusional as Anselm Garbe never did anything wrong in the first place;
• wrote: "Just emailed him offering to unblock if he tells other areas he's interested in editing." – Note: 21 hours later, Anselm Garbe replied to my email and was confused because he had never received Blueboy96's email and did not even know that he was blocked;

I can confirm this, I wasn't aware that my account was blocked and I learned about it from a mail of Hans Adler on 3rd March 2010. Anselmgarbe (talk) 08:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• did not apologise, or at least not publicly, after Anselm Garbe was unblocked (this clearly doesn't count.

I thought this was an isolated mistake, but now, with the knowledge that Blueboy96 handed out indefinite blocks en masse for the egregious "crime" of being canvased, I think this is firmly in desysop territory. Hans Adler 11:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This as punishment for this and this after two years of inactivity is also totally outside policy.

How hard is it to read a short guideline such as WP:CANVAS and to note that it never even once mentions blocking the targets of the canvassing (or calls them "meat puppets", for that matter)? Hans Adler 11:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem here, as already mentioned above, is that WP:CANVASS is one of the dumbest and most misguided Misplaced Pages guidelines (not policy). Why this is so can be seen by the history of its development. It was spun of off WP:SPAM, initially called "internal spamming" the policy on canvassing originally referred only to unwanted notifications (i.e. spam). Then someone who had just lost some AfD or something, with an axe to grind realized that it provided a convenient stick (or a heavy bunch of sour grapes) to beat their opponents on the head with and thus WP:CANVASS was born (note how obvious the sour grapes are there). Basically a bad selfish guideline conceived and written for less than noble reasons from some long forgotten deletionist vs. inclusionist debate. And then it got ossified as status quo.

In the real world, informing people who are potential stakeholders in a particular issue is seen as a *good thing*. If I remind somebody that a city council election is taking place and they should go vote (even if I know that person's political affiliation) that's usually considered "good citizenship". But here on Misplaced Pages, where apparently it's considered a good thing that many proposals are "flown under the radar" to get a particular result, it's all topsy turvy.radek (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's really the problem here, since Blueboy96's actions were in no way justifiable even by WP:CANVAS. Hans Adler 12:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but I also think that it's the misguided nature of the guideline itself which is partly responsible for these kinds of "misunderstandings".radek (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I fully apologize for my handling of Anselm Garbe. Having always been militantly anti-spam in any online community (not just Misplaced Pages), my block of him was purely reflexive. However, it wasn't within the spirit of WP:MEAT since he did make a good-faith effort to suggest improvements to the article. Blueboy96 12:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, no worries. Apology accepted. Anselmgarbe (talk) 08:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Just in case my remarks got lost in the ether ...

When I was alerted to what was going on in the first Dwm Afd, I thought I saw egregious votestacking, a good bit of it perpetrated by sleeper accounts. However, if I had known that those five .ru users were contributors in good standing on another wiki, I definitely wouldn't have blocked. Seen in light of that fact, they were merely trying to make a case for keeping the article in a language they didn't know well.

The Anselm Garbe case--it was a reflexive reaction on my part to block, as I have always had zero tolerance for spamming and votestacking. HOwever, I freely admit that he made a good-faith effort to suggest improvements. For that reason, my block of him wasn't in the spirit of WP:MEAT, and I apologize for my reflexive block of him.

Hopefully this clears this matter up. Blueboy96 13:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It's hardly a good sign when an admin admits to blocking due to a "kneejerk reaction". Surely a certain amount of reasoned thought should precede any blocking? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

There was no way anyone could have known at the time that we were dealing with users in good standing from another project. As far as Anselm goes, as I said earlier, while it was grounded in policy, it wasn't within the spirit of the rules. Blueboy96 21:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn’t say how you will react should something similar happen again. And you only offer excuses to the ones who ‘were in good standing in another project’ as well as Anselm. What about the other blocks? And why is the treatment people got suddenly only wrong when they turn out to be ‘in good standing’? If it was wrong when done to people in good standing, how could it be right when done to newcomers? Draketo (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Blueboy96 needs to avoid repeating such scattershot blocks of alleged 'meatpuppets', or I'll happily pick up a torch and pitchfork and call for his desysopping. Remember: you are not Judge Dredd. Fences&Windows 22:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The fact that some of the users blocked happened to be users in good standing on another project is beside the point. Draketo here has been a user since 2004 and was still summarily blocked. If you've been fighting vandals and spammers for a long time it's easy to become jaded and hard to remember that all new and infrequent users deserve the same respect and assumption that they're here to help. However, that is no excuse. We should always be careful not to create special rules for some in-clique and other rules for those not already in the group. who I don't think it's productive to call for someone's head, but some sort of acknowledgment that you'll treat similar situations differently in the future would help. henrik•talk 10:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocks are intended to be a last resort, when a user's disruptive activity continues after warnings. Indefinite blocks doubly so. The assumption of good faith should be granted, with the status of most of the users herein merely reinforcing it. It did not, however, appear to be present in your actions. In this case you played judge, jury and executioner. Given that you played all three roles, it was your duty to inform yourself as to the status and outside connections of these users, but you did not. To not evaluate each of these indefinite bans carefully before placing them is a massive breach of the trust instrinsic in the community selecting you as an administrator. Apologies are insufficient - If this issue hadn't been illuminated recently these innocent contributors would have remained permanently blocked. Lastly, you have yet to address the misinformational block summary left for User:Anselmgarbe, nor the serious accusation that you claim to have communicated with him, which Anselm apparently denies. I've asked him to come here and clarify. Fedbn (talk) 01:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I took Anselm's statement on the AfD that he'd been alerted to the discussion as an admission he'd been canvassed. That being said, in the future unless an account that appears to have been canvassed to take part in an AfD is being clearly disruptive or it's unmistakably obvious that they're SPAs, I'll simply warn them on their talk page. Blueboy96 13:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That Anselm said he was canvassed is completely irrelevant. The fact that you are repeating this now in this way makes me wonder if you have understood this. There was obviously a problem at the last ANI discussions with several editors who thought being canvassed can be held against someone. It cannot, as it is simply not their fault. The idea that someone with a block button might remain under this misconception even after the fact has been pointed out to him makes me very uneasy, so please clarify. Hans Adler 16:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I realize now that accounts that come here in this way have to be looked at on an individual basis, and can't automatically all be assumed to be disruptive. Blueboy96 21:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Block review requested for Kurfurst

Moved from WP:AN#Block review requested (PBS (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)):

I've just indefblocked Kurfürst (talk · contribs) per this thread on my talk page - essentially he'd reverted another editor for no good reason. In itself this isn't blockable, but I believe it's the final straw in a long-term pattern of disruptive editing. This is Kurfürst's ninth or tenth block (some log entries were changes to existing blocks) and he's made a number of appearances here and at other noticeboards (here's the latest from last week). I fully expect more polemic along the same lines as the last time I blocked him ( ), but I don't believe I'm involved and think it's time for them to move on. However, I'd very much welcome other opinions. EyeSerene 13:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse block Phew. That's a lot to read through. :) After looking through some previous noticeboards regarding his edits and his talk page history as well as spot-checking some of his contributions, I endorse the block. It doesn't look to me like you're involved, either; it seems like an effort to make you appear to be so in order to undermine you ability to take action. What you do seem to be is knowledgeable about the background, which is necessary in situations like this. There seems to be a pretty clear history of disruptive editing. Whether the indef block is the end of the process or the beginning, it seems appropriate. I think it's now to User:Kurfürst to decide if he can contribute without disruption and to the community to decide if its worth giving him that chance and (if so) under what circumstances. He does not seem to have been persuaded by past efforts. --Moonriddengirl 14:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks very much for your careful check and response. I was convinced I'd posted this at ANI (and just spent a few confused minutes trying to find it in the page history), so if anyone wants to move it please do :) EyeSerene 15:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

  Serves you right. You posted in the wrong place, and now you got a careful analysis. :) Hans Adler 20:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

  But seriously, this looks awfully complicated. I am glad that I don't have to decide anything. Hans Adler 20:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

As someone who last year blocked User:Kurfürst, I am well aware of the lack of good faith between User:Kurfürst and User:Dapi89. I think that User:Kurfürst is a valuable member of the community despite his combative style. He has a POV that is different from most editors who edit in the areas that he does, and that helps our articles develop a more balanced presentation (NPOV). It is inevitable that an editor who challenges the POV of the majority of editors who watch a page will be involved in lengthy and protracted disputes if they wish to have their POV included in an article. It is unfortunate that User:Kurfürst does not use more diplomatic language, and I do think that when he makes personal attacks he should be pulled up for them.

In this case I think that consideration for the ongoing personal dispute between User:Kurfürst and User:Dapi89 has to be taken into account. Secondly before this block the longest block User:Kurfürst has had is one month back in October 2008. I suggest that it is changed to a one month block and once that block is served that for a further five months he is restricted from editing a list of specific pages and their talk pages -- such as the Battle of Britain -- where he has causing disruption. This list to be expanded as administrators see fit and to be placed on his talk page (or user page) in a prominent position. If he edits any page where he is restricted then he gets an indefinite block, and during this restricted period he would of course be expected to behave in a collegiate manner on any other page he edits. -- PBS (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, disputes caused by Kurfurst. Dapi89 (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

See this thread for my analysis of the trouble that Kurfürst has stirred up. Note that while the longest block was one month, that was reduced from an initial indefinite block. I support an indefinite block since this editor has caused far too much trouble on this project to be given any more leeway. -- Atama頭 21:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

There are reasons why it is called an indefinite block and not a permanent block. It is meant to be part of a process that allows an editor to adjust his or her behaviour to fit in with the group culture here on Wikiepdia. So what do you need to see for User:Kurfürst to be unblocked? -- PBS (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Philip Baird Shearer should ask the editors that have been insulted and abused by Kurfurst for the last 2+ years to comment here. You have not had to suffer Kurfurst. And I am not the only one who has been continually targeted by him. So I find your comments offensive. Dapi89 (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Dapi89 is not the only editor who has been obliged to spend hours defending himself and his edits against Kurfurst's thorougly unpleasant and agressive attacks; time and again he has succeeded in completely disrupting articles with his "combative style" and totally non-NPOV. As PBS well knows, earlier this month Kurfurst accused another editor of being a sockpuppet; in spite of the editor being cleared KF continued with his accusations in an editorial summary Has Kurfurst apologised to User:And heg for continuing with this accusation? Has any other editor actually had an apology from Kurfurst for his use of "undiplomatic" language? I well know that editors can get overheated from time to time, and most will realise this, cool down and apologise; Kurfurst seems to be at his happiest and most condescending when he has nagged and chipped away at other editors to the point when they feel obliged to respond in kind. Surely experience over three years has shown that he will never feel feel obliged to cooperate with other editors, except on a superficial level, when absolutely forced to by administrative action? How many wet bus tickets are left? Minorhistorian (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the problem. After being indef. blocked before he has come back with vengeance. He hasn't changed a jot from the first moment he started here. Some editors really have learned nothing from their dealings with him. Why don't they spare a moment to think about the other editors who do cooperate, get on with, and generally are pleasant with one another? Trouble always starts with him, and we are tired of his relentless harassment. I can't understand why PBS is plugging for a reduction/unblock. Its just another slap in the face for decent editors. I find it astonishing that PBS acknowledges that "Kurfurst has a POV different from everybody else", and yet seems to think he is a "valuable member". Its stunning that he thinks Kurfurst contributes "a balanced" perspective. This is the definition of a trouble maker. Its shocking reading.I'm actually disgusted. Dapi89 (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Dapi89 please read WP:systemic bias. -- PBS (talk) 09:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't patronise me. Using this to defend Kurfurst is absurd. Dapi89 (talk) 09:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Dapi's and Minorhistorian's posts illustrate the level of frustration caused by Kurfürst in editors who've worked with him; from what I've seen both are good content builders with a valuable contribution history and both work well in collaboration with others. The common denominator in these and a number of other content disputes seems to be Kurfürst. I accept that editors working from opposite POVs can be one way to achieve balance in an article, but don't believe that this is necessarily applicable here because I've seen no real issues with Dapi's editing, or that of others, that would require balancing in the first place. Kurfürst excels at creating controversy where there should be none. He has made some good edits when he sticks to factual data (such as technical specs of aircraft etc), so I understand the temptation to unblock - either to afford him one last chance to reform, or to permit him enough rope to hang himself and confirm any lingering doubts some may have. However, I question whether the overheads of managing his editing and further upsetting productive editors are worth it. EyeSerene 23:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should get distracted lets stick to discussing the user:Kurfürst case. --PBS (talk) 09:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought I was :) I apologise if I was being too circumspect. The tl;dr version: I don't accept that Kurfürst supplies something that we're lacking, I don't believe he is a net benefit to Misplaced Pages, and on the evidence of his repeated misbehaviour following previous blocks I don't see any point in unblocking him again. EyeSerene 10:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to pile on, but I'd add that he tends to beat those of a different viewpoint by a variety of tricks (including selective quoting from a chosen RS, disparagement of other RS, and exhaustive re-editing to re-establish his viewpoint). Frankly I don't have the time to sort out the mess he regularly makes of previously stable articles. Technically he occasionally makes some valid points, but as a wiki editor he seems to learn nothing from his repeated blocks. Frankly I don't think he'll be missed, and that is a shame, as he does provide some valid critique once in a long while. But the process of working with or around him is so unpleasant that the small positives are vastly outweighed by the negatives. Greglocock (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how much nannying can be afforded to editors like Kurfurst; for every one valuable contribution he has made - and, to be fair, there have been a few - he has caused endless hours of needless, antagonistic, thoroughly frustrating "discussion" all for...what? What has actually been achieved by all of his blather?? All I see is an editor who has a consistent pattern of deliberately goading others, all because he seems to like nothing more than a good stoush. Maybe he thinks he is superior to the rest of us, maybe he has a big chip on his shoulder about the fact that Germany didn't win the Second World War; frankly I couldn't care less why he behaves like a spoiled, spiteful child. In the end all he has achieved is that he is heartily disliked by the majority of editors and several administrators who have been unfortunate enough to cross his path. He has been warned several times that any future behaviour of this nature would get him an indefinite block. How many "next times" do we have left? Minorhistorian (talk) 03:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

<-- From reading the above it is not clear to me if those that have commented think that "indefinite block" means "permanent block". If they do then their understanding of this process is different from mine.

My understanding is that we block editors to give them time to reflect on their behaviour not to punish them. The problem with very long blocks for behavioural issues like this is that the editor blocked has little chance to learn how to adjust their behaviour. Although I do notice that after his previous long blocks it has been some time before user:Kurfürst was blocked again. Presumably because he did modify his behaviour. My suggestion of a ban on editing a list of articles is based on Arbcom practice for editorial behaviour over edit warring over Balkans related articles]] and similar Discretionary sanctions. If one accepts that approach then a block followed by a ban on editing, for a specific length of time, a list of articles (we can debate the length of the block, the length of the edit ban and the scope of the restriction (a list of specific articles or all of the articles in a category eg Category:World War II task force articles). If such a restriction was imposed on user:Kurfürst then during the time of the probationary period of the ban if user:Kurfürst was to wantonly edits one of the listed articles, or get blocked for similar behaviour that earned him the edit ban, then he gets blocked for a very long time possibly permanently. This would seem to me to give him time to learn how to edit cooperatively with other editors in areas where hopefully he will not engage in such passionate and tenacious editing. -- PBS (talk) 09:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You mean tendentious and tenacious. You are playing on words. The editors here don't need to be patronised. They mean permanent, as I think you well know. Your assessments of Kurfursts motives, his ability to work with others, and his agenda for being here is suspect. Fortunately, you appear to be the only one in favour of a reduction. I hope it stays that way.

Along with:

• User:Moonriddengirl
• User:Atama
• User:EyeSerene
• Me (of course)
• Minorhistorian
• Greglocock
• (and others who have not yet commented)

I hope Kurfurst remains blocked indefinitely (or permanently).

It is galling for this editor, blocked 11 times, twice indefinitely, to be given yet another chance. He has been forced to agree to work with others before. It has been abundantly clear, he can't and won't. Dapi89 (talk) 09:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• I did not say I hoped he would remain blocked indefinitely; I said I thought the indefinite block was appropriate. PBS is quite right that "indefinite" is not the same as permanent, which is why I also said, "I think it's now to User:Kurfürst to decide if he can contribute without disruption and to the community to decide if its worth giving him that chance and (if so) under what circumstances." It may be that the community will decide that it isn't worth giving him another chance, but I think it's important that we discuss the situation civilly and calmly. PBS, I don't know enough about the overall contributions of Kurfurst to know if on balance offering him to return with a restricted ban would be worthwhile, but I do think it's probably a good idea to let him at least indicate he wants to. Currently, there's no indication on his talk page that he understands the issue, wants his block lifted or would be willing to comply with such restrictions if they were offered. --Moonriddengirl 11:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. All I want to do is make sure the admins here know exactly what they are doing and what the editors of these articles are going to suffer in the long run if this particularly nasty individual is allowed to edit again. It might be okay for a few months, but when those limitations expire, we will back to square one. Don't you think that escaping two indef blocks is indication enough? Or just going too far? The editors who are familiar with Kurfurst seem unomved by PBS' judgement. Dapi89 (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, I do not know enough about his overall contributions to judge about him specifically, but I have seen contributors come back from some pretty problematic behavior and contribute constructively. They don't do so, though, unless they recognize why their current approach isn't working and decide to change it. I would personally recommend tabling the conversation until Kurfurst offers something of substance at his talk page. --Moonriddengirl 12:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Although I don't believe for a moment he will stick to any promise he makes. In two years he has not. Dapi89 (talk) 12:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

As a somewhat interested party, my observations are that User:Kurfurst came onto the scene with an agenda and a website to boot. Some of his initial contributions linked back to resources that were on the website but when challenged, came down to his interpretations and synthesis of source material that veered into WP:OR. I find that his submissions lately come with verifiable references but still tend to be pointy. Frustrating, yes, argumentative to distraction, yes, clever, yes, constructive, not so much, collaborative, not really, willing to change, perhaps. Wikiworld giving him the clear direction that collaboration and cooperation are keys to productive contributions may be of value. Will he accept a mentor? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC).

I think his agenda is the underlying problem; I'm all for second chances, but I believe he's here for the wrong reason. Anyhow, as MRG says, until he responds this is all academic. I've indicated on his talk page that I'll copy any response of his to this thread (which I assume he's reading as I've also given him the link). There's been nothing yet, but that could be down to his antipathy towards me - another editor might get better results. EyeSerene 14:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I want to address something that PBS had stated. "My understanding is that we block editors to give them time to reflect on their behaviour not to punish them." The first part of that sentence isn't true (the latter portion is, however). We don't block to rehabilitate people. If a block does wake someone up and jolt them into behaving (and sometimes it does) then wonderful. But often it doesn't. Blocks aren't meant to punish people either, but they're meant to prevent disruption. An editor who is either here solely to cause disruption, or an editor who has shown an unbreakable pattern of disruption, is someone who will disrupt in the future if given editing privileges. Thus, those privileges are revoked. What I'd like to see from Kurfürst, if he does make a reasonable appeal to return, is a promise to avoid Dapi89 and to try to adhere to WP:AGF with other editors and not bring every issue to the noticeboards, to avoid edit wars (perhaps a voluntary 1RR), and in general to focus on improving content and not on what's wrong with everyone else on Misplaced Pages. That would certainly be a start. -- Atama頭 16:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be good for me. He follows me around with a view to causing grief so a ban from approaching me and some other editos is welcome. I really don't want to have to deal with this agenda driven editor again. There is also Minorhistorian to consider. He has been abused almost as much as me. The Battle of Britain is a particular page where he causes the most damage. I would strongly urge anyone to prevent him from editing it. A key point is PBS. Even his most ardent defender (PBS) recommends a 5 months ban from this one. Perhaps also some of the articles that I create should be included. He has a habbit of campaigning for deletion and general disruption there as well. The difficulty of previous (including the indef. block), is that admins lose sight of him after he lies low for a while, then it all starts over. I hope these points are taken into consideration. But as most acknowledge, unless Kurfurst acknowledges his wrong doing publicly, there is no point to the discourse. Dapi89 (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be activity. PBS seems eager to get this unblock over with . I guess Kurfurst will says what everyone wants to hear and that will be that. Dapi89 (talk) 12:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Badmintonhist

• Badmintonhist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

During the last few days editor Badmintonhist has been issuing all sorts of personal attacks and accusations about me (on article talk pages as well as my talk page), regarding a dispute he's been having with some anonymous editor. This is likely retaliation for him being reported for edit warring. Though I've requested that he either strike his comments or initiate a checkuser and SSP investigation (to vindicate me), he refuses and states that he "wants to maintain unblemished record of never initiating an 'official' action" (thereby retaining his plausible ability to issue unsubstantiated attacks). The anonymous editor has responded with geolocation info, and we've both disavowed his attacks several times. Here are a few choice excerpts of his attacks in the past few days:

• I rest my case. Like I said, BLAX (This is, after all, Blaxthos's talk page) there are all sorts of pieces of work floating around Misplaced Pages and you happen to be one of them... KIDDO. (obvious insinuation that I'm a piece of shit, including condescending KIDDO and outright SSP accusation)
• You don't do the college kid routine very well. Your indelible personality comes through quite clearly. Work on it. (responding to the anon editor on my talk page as if I were he, again accusing me of SSP and general bad faith)
• If I had had any real doubts to start with, Kiddo, how many Anons engage in your level of fuss-budgetry?? ... There are all sorts of "pieces of work" floating around Misplaced Pages and you just happen to be one of them. (left on my talk page, attacking me in response to an anonymous editor stating that he is not me, includes the condescending KIDDO and "piece of " attack)
• Anonymous editor, indeed! (generic attack/insinuation of SSP again)
• seems like this could be form of sock puppetry to me (to an anonymous editor, generic accusation)
• Okay, Blax, I'll keep it in mind. (to an anonymous editor, accusing me)

I have invited and welcome any sort of RFCU or SSP investigation (can I initiate one on myself?). I have asked the editor to stop, strike, and (hopefully) apologize; instead he doubled down and made the accusation and rude comments at least three more times. I have had some disagreements with this editor in the past, but I've done nothing to deserve these sort of repeated attacks. The real shame here is that some other poor bastard(s) (the anonymous editor(s)) are also being attacked (and presumably discouraged from contributing) as well. Forgive me coming straight to ANI, but WQA generally doesn't seem to be equipped to stop this sort of harassment -- can someone please help stop these unwelcome (and false!) attacks, and hopefully make Badmintonhist understand that attacks are unacceptable? Thanks in advance. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

When it comes to sockpuppetry, you're innocent until proven guilty. He's the one that needs to start the SPI if he really does believe that that IP address was you. If not, you have nothing to worry about. —Soap— 21:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The attacks now continue even after notice of this thread was issued. Soap, my worry isn't that I'll get in trouble for something -- I am completely innocent. It should be noted that I'm not even involved in the discussion that started his accusations. The problem is the near-constant harassment and accusations -- am I to just allow baseless accusations against me (and others) and clear violations of several of our policies to continue unchecked? How long would you allow a belligerent and paranoid editor continue to attempt to sully your name/reputation before seeking redress? It's clear by his refusal to start an actual SSP/RFCU investigation that he is not making the accusation in good faith, but rather wants to continue to use it (as he has in the past) as a prop to try and discredit editors with whom he disagrees. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Reposting the comments of the anonymous editor who is also being accused:

Blaxthos, I'm sorry to have filled your talk page up so much of me trying to defend myself against Badmintonhist. I have had issues before with accusations of sockpuppetry because my IP changes frequently (and I do not feel fully secure creating an account on this network) so I wanted to respond. I don't know if it is proper to make claims on the ANI thing if I am not the person filing the complaint or the one being filed against, but if you need me to, I can put in my 2 cents about his repeated accusations against me (although I think that most of that information can be found above in my posts on your talk page). Anyways, I'm sorry that you were somehow dragged into this whole dispute, but I am glad to see that it is being reported. Take it easy 129.133.142.139 (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Badmintonhist has two choices: they either produce diffs and file an WP:RFCU or they drop the accusations. Sock-puppetry is a serious charge and not one to be thrown around lightly (see WP:NPA#What is considered to be a personal attack?: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence.") I believe most of us accept that editors can be mistaken and won't be penalised for genuine misunderstandings, but if no evidence is forthcoming, what might have been good-faith error starts to look like a bad-faith vendetta. This seems to me to be a content dispute that's become personal; perhaps an WP:RFC or other WP:DR measure might be useful in moving forward and taking the focus back where it belongs - on the content, not the contributors? EyeSerene 09:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, EyeSerene. I agree completely and have said as much to the editor several times (indeed, even requesting diffs and RFCU to stop the spurious accusations), but to no avail. Would you or some other admins mind making this perfectly clear to Badmintonhist? He seems content to avoid filing the SSP/RFCU so that he can retain the ability to make these accusations whenever his opinions are challenged. Also, what form of redress is available to me if he continues the pattern of attacks with no justification or action? Thanks in advance! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Since Badmintonhist has been notified of this thread, I assume they've also been following it. However, just so we're all clear I've posted a note to their userpage as well. Further unsubstantiated personal attacks will lead to sanctions against them. EyeSerene 10:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Is User:Spartan a compromised account?

Spartan (talk · contribs) has not edited for almost a month, and now, in the last two days, has made a series of what only can be considered suspect edits. Woogee (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm only an occasional editor. Just because I'm speaking Swedish doesn't mean I'm "compromised."Kevin (talk) 01:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I was, threatened by him/her in Swedish, as best I can determine from Google translator:

I understand your concern, but your incorrect assessment of the North American Union based on your fake American feelings. As I pointed out, are you speaking English, which is unfortunate, but to facilitate your conversion to the Swedish language, I'll help you adapt to master the language. Anyway, there is no way that you know what you're talking about. The relationship with the robot must be confirmed only until you accept that your involvement in the Swedish business will not go unpunished. This is your only warning.

I'm not sure his edits last month were helpful, either.... At least one of them was repeated this month. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I speak enough Swedish to see that your contributions were nonsense. In my experience, most Swedes are capable of speaking excellent English, and I suggest you stop obfuscating, since this is, er, the English language Misplaced Pages. Rodhullandemu 01:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the account as I believe it is compromised. The account has hardly been active for a year and then all of a sudden we get some extremely strange edits, not limited to the following;

• Here the account makes a talk page comment in a foreign language.
• and again.
• He reverted an edit which had previously reverted vandalism so therefore said that Godzilla was a real monster.

There's others as well, but that is sufficient to at least suspect the account is compromised. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a plausible interpretation. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe the account is compromised. My experience with Spartan (talk · contribs) is limited to his assertions regarding the conspiracy theory aspects in the North American Union article. He made controversial claims regarding this 396 days ago, and again made similar claims today. When it comes to the North American Union, a noted "right-wing" "conspiracy theorist" on the topic is the media personality Alex Jones. In reviewing the edit history of the Alex Jones (radio host) article, I see that Spartan has added text regarding Jones' "new world order" conspiracy claims as far back as August 2007. While I do not agree with the way Spartan asserts his opinions, three years of editing the same POV on the same topic leaves me feeling quite sure that the account is not compromised. — Kralizec! (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute... are you saying Godzilla isn't real? Then explain what happened to Tokyo. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Bishzilla.

"With a purposeful grimance and a terrible sound, she pulls the spitting WikiEgos down..." Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is reasonable that this is not a compromised account. Suggest unblock. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

There's absolutely no need for an unblock. Even if the account isn't compromised, th recent edits suggest that he's going to be far from productive and he's caused quite a bit of disruption - he can stay blocked regardless. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

From my experience with the editor, I have to agree about his disruptive nature. Perhaps his block should be adjusted to reflect this ... ? — Kralizec! (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Then let's have that discussion. But let's not slide into blocking a user for one reason into another reason. If people think the user is disruptive enough to be banned then we should discuss that. That's especially relevant because if this block is for impersonating then the user in question is perfectly allowed to create another account. If this block is a ban then we're in very different territory. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. — Kralizec! (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Phew For a moment I thought my account had been compromised. :-) Spartaz 04:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Then you'd be in a compromising position. HalfShadow 18:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Daniel 8

I seem to be involved in some back and forth with an editor who doesn't seem willing to add citations to their inclusions, despite repeated requests to do so. He seems a lot more interested in name-calling than discussion or actually finding citations for his zany additions. Maybe the page could get semi-protected for a while until the other party calms down and sees a bit of reason? - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 06:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Rather than hand out edit-warring blocks just yet, I've protected the article for a few days. However, from the talk-page discussion I think you may be operating from a misunderstanding of WP:SYNTH and consensus seems to be against you. EyeSerene 09:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting any blocks be issued; I needed some help educating the other user as to citation process and the dangers of synthesizing viewpoints while paraphrasing parts of the Bible. I am curious, precisely what misunderstanding of synthesis am I operating under? Lastly, the "consensus against me" appears to consist of one person continually adding uncited and unreferenced information. Hardly a consensus, i am thinking. - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I always find it amusing when someone is forum shopping for admin action under the guise of stopping an edit war that they themselves are participating in. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I find it amusing when an administrator jumps to conclusions without fully understanding what is going on. On the RFPP page, you declined this protection, stating that the user should engage the other editors on the article talk page - something he/she had already clearly done. Then you continue to prod the editor here. Bravo. Tan | 39 17:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm unwilling to accept the theory that initiating a discussion excuses the edit warring. Essentially the page is now protected from the ip user as well as the user they were edit warring with. The ip continually reverted the other user, while telling them to stop edit warring in their edit summaries.By definition it takes a minimum of two editors to edit war, so claiming that protection was the only way to stop the edit war was spurious, and coming here to "ask the other parent" even more so. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

And I'm rather unwilling to accept the screaming lack of good faith on your part, Beeblebrox; I presume it is the innate distrust by admins of IP editors (as I've been given ample reason to take note of). I asked for protection knowing full well that the article would be locked from editing by anyone - including me. It wasn't an attempt to kick the other user in the face, but to actually make them use the discussion page as more than a platform to call me an "ignoramus" (among other things).

And, had you scanned the article discussion, you would have confirmed that I had asked the user to self-revert until some agreement could be found with the note that if such reasonable request were not honored, I would pursue the matter here at AN/I (as I wasn't prepared to engage the user's uncooperative behavior alone). When the other user blew off that chance, I kept my word and brought the matter here. It isn't forum-shopping. I sought to resolve the problem first with the user, then with RfP and then (as the final recourse) here - pretty much problem resolution.

I am not saying I was not edit-warring a bit. I was. But you seem content to assume that I am the black hat here, and that's an inaccurate assessment of the situation. - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 10:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I never assumed that or took any action indicative of such an assumption. I have repeatedly stated that there was mutual edit warring. There really isn't any other way for edit warring to happen. That was, is, and will continue to be the only point I am endeavoring to make. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikihounding and harassment by User:Beyond My Ken

I second the archiving and resolution. -- Atama頭 16:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Beyond My Ken is a sock account of User:H Debussy-Jones and before that User:Ed Fitzgerald (who was blocked mora than once for incivility). User:Beyond My Ken, for the past several months, has been routinely Wikihounding me. I assume this is in part as retaliation for my role in exposing his sockpuppetry, and in part becausa I am a fan of certain actors that he apparently worked with on a film which he seems to have some type of grudge against (his initial encounter with me consisted of him edit-warring to insert known inaccuracies into that particular article, like him trying to remove certain producers' names, etc.).
In full disclosure, I have not always edited under this account; admittedly I was found guilty of sockpuppetry myself, as I had other accounts that have now been blocked. I admit this, took some time off, and came back to get a fresh start with a new account. Per Misplaced Pages rules I have redirected my old accounts.
Anyway, before I edited as User:B-Wuuu, Beyond My Ken (then H Debussy-Jones, or "Sach") repeatedly stalked and hounded me, reverting edits with no given reason, warring, and opening investigation after investigation into me. Here, he opened a "COI" investigation in an attempt to prove that myself and others were inserting "propaganda" into articles. The admins rules against him. Disliking that result, he immediately tried to refile the investigation, in an attempt to get a different outcome, only to be unceremoniously shot down by the admins and basically told to knock it off. During this time, he also was reprimanded for an attempted outing against someone he thought was me, again demonstrating that he will go to any lengths to "get" me, for whatever reason.
Recently, after I started fresh with my new user account, Ken started up again: First, he tried to open an ANI ivestigation against me for opening a new account, throwing everything and the kitchen sink at me. It didn't work; only one admin even bothered to weigh in, and they said that I appeared to be harmless so there was no reason to ban my current account. Of course, that didn't satisfy him, so now he's opened a useless sock investigation against me, which is a complete abuse of process because I have freely admitted that these other accounts were mine, and they are now permanently stale. In the meantime, he has continued an ongoing habit of stalking me; each time I edit a page, I can expect it to be almost immediately visited and edited by Ken, even if he's never been there before. He did this as H Debussy-Jones with my old accounts; now he's doing it again. For example, recent minor edits I mde on the pages Adam & Yves and Adam and Steve were quickly followed by visits and edits by Ken.
In short, this user has a deep-seated personal bias against me, and I'm asking for him to be formally prevented from hounding me, edit warring, or opening specious investigations against me any longer. I don't know how this guy has so much time on his hands, but frankly I have a job and a personal life and his harassment is taking up too much of my time. Thank you. B-Wuuu (talk) 09:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. For background, please see this sockpuppet report where 6 accounts were blocked, this sockpuppet report concerning me where my serial accounts were uncovered, this AN discussion concerning me in which I was allowed to contnue editing, this AN report concerning B-Wuuu filed by an editor who has been the subject of absue by one of the socks, and this sockpuppet complaint concerning B-Wuuu that I filed tonight. The Executive Summary: 6 accounts were blocked for disruptive socking, B-Wuu claims to be he person behind the accounts, and he created a new account to blatantly evade the blocks, something he doesn't deny.

B-Wuuu wants to be able to give himself a fresh start, without consulting the community, and apparently doesn't want anyone to scrutinize his edits either. The edits I made to two articles B-Wuu worked on simply fixed some formatting things,, no material was deleted, in one case I don't think I even touched his edit at all -- about the most innocuous kind of "Wikihounding" possible!

Really, the only question here is whether the community wants to allow B-Wuuu to continue editing, after a history of disruptive sockpuppetry and retaliatory behavior (such as this report). His attempt to frame this as a Wikihounding problem on my part is merely a deflection on his part, which I urge should not be encouraged by taking it seriously. If someone wants to contribute to fixing the current problem, the place to do it is here, at the SPI report. B-Wuuu has admitted to being a sockmasster and to evading multiple blocks, it merely remains to confirm his claim, and decide what to do about him. Most probably, if he is allowed to continue editing, he will eventually slip back into the disruptive patterns he followed before. I don't particularly see the value to the project of allowing that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ed, just because you've slipped back into the destructive and hostile patterns you followed before with your previous names, doesn't mean I will. Some of us have other things to do. B-Wuuu (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, since you've just been blocked as a self-admitted sockmaster, I imagine you'll have other things to do now as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Closing by involved party

Woah, it doesn't look too seemly for Beyond My Ken himself to be the one who archives that thread. I thought uninvolved users were supposed to do it. This isn't pretty either. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Clearly it's resolved, if the complainant is blocked. Just to set your mind at ease I've seconded it, and I'm uninvolved. Better? -- Atama頭 16:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That is an extremely dangerous precedent to set. What you are saying is that if someone who has a complaint against them thinks the complaint doesn't amount to much then they may go ahead and delete it, which hardly lends itself to the smooth functioning of this noticeboard. Weakopedia (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Logic says that blocking the complainant doesn't necessarily resolve the whole issue, so it shouldn't be an involved party who decides that there's nothing more to see. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

If my close was unseemly, then I apologize. The "thing" with this editor has been going on for over 4 months, when one of his socks made some edits which caused me to look into his contributions, which led to putting COI warnings on their talk pages for their editing on Yesterday Was a Lie, which led to months of attacks against me, charging me with every policy infraction under the sun, with the sockpuppets used to reinforce each other and create a false impression of consensus against me. I guess the thought that the latest checkuser result and the blocking of B-Wuuu might be the end of it led me to act precipitously and close the discussion. I'll try to avoid such emotional actions in the future.

BTW, the checkuser report by User:Alison found that B-Wuuu and the six socks were socks of User:Sorrywrongnumber, an account which remains unblocked. If an admin would care to block that account and, hopefully, wrap this thing up, that would be good, I think. It's interesting to note that Yesterday Was a Lie, the center around which practically all of this editor's contributions revolve, is due for DVD release in a couple of weeks, which may be the reason that he was trying to re-establish his ability to edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Sorrywrongnumber has been blocked. -- Atama頭 19:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to slip into the background and get my article edit percentage back up over 80% again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken's reasoning doesn't make sense to me here... this seems fishy, I agree. If B-Wuuu were "trying to reestablish editing privileges" for the purpose that Beyond My Ken alleges, then why would he deliberately redirect his old name and openly admit that he was them? Seems to me he would just create a new account and not mention the other ones. He also hasn't been editing that article in months. He doesn't seem like a stand-up guy but frankly this complaint against Beyond My Ken seems valid to me. Looks like Ken has gotten away with several things he shouldn't have- the outing attempt is particularly bad. Reading through these earlier ANIs, I see that Ken (under his previous Jones name) has a lot of bad faith accusations against B-Wuuu and his previous names, accusing him of COI, etc.- and B-Wuuu has been accusing him right back. B-Wuuu's previous names did edit that article and related articles quite a bit- but Ken (and his Jones name) seems to have as well- in fact it looks like Ken has edited just about every article that's even linked from the Yesterday Was a Lie article, and all people even loosely involved in the production. The allegation that Ken has a COI because he worked on the movie would seem on the surface to be true. I don't think it's appropriate for this to be closed. 166.205.136.71 (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

OMG, will this never end? Can I mention that a number of IPs from the 166.205 range, which is assigned to mobile phones, were mentioned in the initial sockpuppet report about this editor? The 166.205s came out whenever there was heavy-duty in-fighting to be done. What I wrote at the time was:

The mobile IP is used for argumentation & defense

The IPs in the range 166.205.xxx.xxx, which are assigned to mobile devices, are brought out to conduct argumentation and defense of the other sockpuppets. This occured on WP:COIN and on Talk:Yesterday Was a Lie, and on WP:ANI . The vehemence of the arguments made by these IP socks, which do not edit independent of the constellation of articles presented above, is a strong indication of their connection to User:Sorrywrongnumber's sockfarm.

Because they're mobile phones, it's unlikely that checkuser can connect the 166.205 IPs to the sockfarm, but behavioral evidence should be sufficient to do a rangeblock, if that can be done without too much collateral damage. I'll try to collect together the actual IP numbers used. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't bother. That's clearly Sorrywrongnumber again. Any more posts from the IP-nut gallery and I'll block for block evasion. -- Atama頭 21:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, for reference, the numbers used before were

• 166.205.130.225
• 166.205.130.187
• 166.205.131.52

There may have been thers, but if so, I've lost track of them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

One more thing, and may I please never have to talk about this film and the person who tried to control its article ever again: the 166.205 IP linked above to an "Ed Fitzgerald" who worked in the art department on Yesterday Was a Lie. Since that's my name, this would seem to be pretty damning, except that:

• I don't live in LA, I live in NYC;
• I don't work in film, I work in theatre (you can find my credits on IBDB and IOBDB);
• Art, schmart - I can't draw for beans. I'm a stage manager and occasionally I do sound and projections;
• the "Ed Fitzgerald" credit doesn't show up on the film's official website (of course, their credits don't go too far down the hierarchy);
• IMDB is a service which allows readers to add credits;
• In the course of editing Yesterday Was a Lie over the last four months, I've gone to IMDB numerous times to check credits or find other leads, and a few weeks ago was the first time I ever saw the Ed Fitzgerald credit there – and it caught my eye immediately. I have a hard time believing that it was there before, and I somehow continually passed over it.
• That film is the only credit for this "Ed Fitzgerald" on IMDB.

Draw your own conclusions. Unfortunately, IMDB doesn't have a history system such as Misplaced Pages does to find out when the credit was added (although I suppose I could check the Wayback Machine and see what they have), so that credit sure makes it look like I'm a low-level techie with a grudge against the production. Maybe they stiffed me on salary, or the food in craft services was bad and gave me food poisoning, or the beautiful lead actress spurned my lascivious advances. Only problem is, 'taint so.

Just wanted to get that out there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

"may I please never have to talk about this film and the person who tried to control its article ever again". I'm feelin' your pain till I see next thing you did after saying this was go to that films article and start editing it again whoever you are and wherever you live, c'mon man, gotta admit your pretty preoccupied with that film you need to cool off and maybe stay away from editing it67.23.70.14 (talk) 03:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm "obsessed"? Give me a fucking break. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

(out) Would someone kindly move the archive bottom down here and put us all out of our misery? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

"Nickname" in Pershing article is actually a racial slur

A situation is developing on the John Pershing article where a handful of anon ips and one registered user are attempting to place in the biography info box at the start of the article that Pershing was called "Nigger Jack" as his nickname. Pershing was in fact called this name, but it was an insult hurled at him by opponents and some West Point cadets who disliked him. It was never in any a nickname Pershing called himself and by World War I if someone called him that it was a court martial offense. By that point, the majority fo the media and the public were calling him "Black Jack" which is far more commonly accepted as a nickname for Pershing. I believe the motives behind putting the word "nigger" in the info box are for shock value (this info is also already spoken of in the text). It would also be the same as if some angry soldier called Obama by this word, so we put "nigger" in his biography box as a nickname. Clearly inappropriate and downgrading to the article. Its been added twice so far, so this does bear watching and possible admin intervention if it continues. -OberRanks (talk) 12:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not censored, and if the nickname is true and appropriately sourced, it should be included.--Crossmr (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

His common nickname was and is "Black Jack" Pershing. If the history behind that common name was that he was once called "Nigger Jack" (something i never heard before despite having developed an interest in Pershing when i lived in Mindanao) then that should be mentioned in the text, but not in the info box (since, again, it isn't the common nickname nor the one typically used by historians/quality press today or the military history writers and press at the time).Bali ultimate (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Putting it in the info box creates undue weight, unless there is sourcing of sufficient prominence (not just verifiability) saying that the usage was widespread enough to justify that placement. Otherwise, put it in the text as Bali Ultimate says. For a major historical figure like Pershing, sufficient prominence would mean multiple high-quality sources devoting significant space to discussing the nickname and its usage. An uncomplimentary nickname (e.g. "Tricky Dick" Nixon) can, though, become become quite prominent, maybe enough to warrant infobox placement in some cases. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The source is reliable and it verifies the text. John Pershing wasn't the only white man who had that sort of nickname, and in another documented pre-WWI instance a white man in New York City preferred the nickname for himself. Social norms have changed enormously since that era. This does not need administrative attention; undue weight is a content issue that can be worked out on the article talk page. The epithet was not vandalism. Durova 16:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The comparison to President Obama is ludicrous. If one angry soldier called the president a name, it would be the same as a General who was widely referred to as that? You can't be serious about that. His common nickname was "Nigger Jack". During World War I, the press began to refer to him as "Black Jack", as a euphesim for his real nickname. It was a detestable epithet, but that dosen't make it untrue. The name "Nigger Jack" has been listed in that box for quite some time, without incident. If someone wishes to remove it, then the burden of proof should fall upon that editor to provide a reliable source that this nickname was rarely used.Mk5384 (talk) 07:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
The article itself states that the press "changed" his nickname during World War I. General Pershing was given that nickname in 1897. The U.S. entered WWI in 1918. Pershing, at this time, was already a decorated general, nearing the end of his military career. He had the nickname for 21 years before even being called "Black Jack."Mk5384 (talk) 07:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest relevant topics be copied to Talk:John J. Pershing to avoid conversations in two places. The admin above is correct that this was deemed not a vandalism issue, since it is cited material, but rather a content dispute. Discussion here should probably be archived and closed. -OberRanks (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Incivility by User:TechnoFaye

I have previously created a thread here but was referred to WP:WQA. However the thread to Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts#User:TechnoFaye has not been taken seriously. It is not the first time, WQA has numerous problems and at present is not adequately equipped to handle civility problems. I am aware of the policy on forum shopping but I have felt it necessary that this issue be handled at ANI, because there are many more experienced editors here. My main complaint is that TechnoFaye keeps on saying "Blacks are stupid". I find these comments offensive, and have tried to ignore them and put them in context. But because she keeps repeating them, I felt it necessary to get outside input. Some of the quotes include

• So how is R/I different? Eye color = self-reported race, and 11 toes = stupid (or whatever the polite word is). Why is this a false analogy?.
• My best guess is that, like Gould, some well-meaning editors feel that a genetic basis for blacks being stupid should be denied 'even if it is true.'
• "It's not about the data-centric structure; that's just the disingenuous cover story. It's about pushing a political POV, and is just like naming the article "Why Blacks are so stupid".
• What do you think of the theory that the IQ difference is due to everyone else believing that blacks are stupid
• No, it means it's extremely unlikely that one exists, because it would have to be something powerful enough to make a whole race of people stupid, yet hidden and secret enough that no one ever thought of it

These comments have been occurring over a period of at least one month. According to the user's Block log, the user has prior blocks for incivility. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I would echo the comments made at WQA; these edits are not incivility. Also, it seems to me that you're putting words in her mouth when you say she "keeps on saying 'Blacks are stupid'.". An uninhibited exchange of ideas is usually a good idea during a mediation. I encourage you to disagree politely with her comments, but not characterize them as uncivil. I'd recommend no action here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, TechnoFaye is not having words put into her mouth. To quote from her MySpace blog on the topic of the Race and intelligence mediation: "Why is "they're stupid" an okay explanation for everybody else's low IQ score, but blacks' score of "retarded" is due to some mysterious, unknown reason other than that they're retarded?" and "negroes are so abysmally stupid."Her blog is v NSFW Repeated racism does fall under WP:CIVIL as far as I'm concerned. If she can't reign herself in to refrain from making bigoted and inflammatory language, she should be indef blocked (regardless of her autism). Fences&Windows 22:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish. It seems to me that either a deliberate misunderstanding of what she is saying is being used against her and/or the quotes are being used massively out of context. I can't see any racism or bigotry, at least not from TechnoFaye. What I do see are kneejerk reactions to non-politically correct statements of unpopular realisations. Personally I see her autism as a perfect way to be unencumbered with the pervasive and ever-present PC bollocks screwing up this project. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

All I can say is that her tale of a crazy-bum-woman-living-in-the-forest to suburban-sex-slave-who-wants-to be-raped transformation story on her blog was one of the more disturbing things I have seen in a while. I couldn't get past that to actually look into the on-wiki dispute. In fact now I think I'll sign off for a while and go take a long walk. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Whereas all I see on that page is someone wanting to do exactly what they want to do with their own life... --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If one says "blacks are stupid" once, it may be said in context, it may be literature or a creative way to discuss something. I would be willing to overlook a one-off statement. But to repeat the same statement 6 or 7 times is no longer creative or an uninhibited exchange of ideas, its more like taking advantage of the fact that nobody is complaining. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

@Fred: Not to wander too far off topic here, but I never suggested she was not free to make those choices, just that I personally found it very disturbing, and frankly indicative of deep-seated mental health issues that cannot be explained by autism alone. But of course none of this is actually relevant to her on-wiki actions with regard to possible racist comments. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I don't believe her comments are racist. They can appear so when listed like they are above, but that is of course Muntuwandi's intention to strengthen his/her case. As usual it's politically incorrect to refer to possible deficiencies in ethnic minorities and as ever there is always someone wanting to appear to be a crusading liberal. If anyone is causing disruption it's Muntuwandi with his/her forum shopping. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

To set the record straight, the complaint here is specifically about incivility. Unless there has been a major paradigm shift that I missed, but according to my understanding it is generally uncivil to refer to any individual or ethnic group as stupid. WP:CIVILITY specifically states:

The following behaviors can all contribute to an uncivil environment: 1. Direct rudeness

• (a) Rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions;
• (b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities;

Without Misplaced Pages's civility policy, we would not be able to discuss difficult, controversial or politically incorrect subjects. The complaint is not about the subject matter, that remains an independent matter altogether. If we were editing an article about how to bake cookies and an editor persistently stated that an individual or ethnic group were stupid, I would still bring it up as an incivility issue, because it distracts from editing the article and creates an "uncivil environment". I have noticed a few editors want to blame the messenger for bringing this up, but I have done so not to score political points. I would like to know if it is now acceptable in wikipedia discussions to refer to any ethnic group as being "stupid". Wapondaponda (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realise that Faye had not been alerted to this thread. I have notified her (Wapondaponda, here's a trout slap for you) and I have given her notice that she will be blocked if she continues to make derogatory comments about groups of people. This is not about "political correctness", this is about Faye being deliberately offensive. Arguing that the average IQ of black populations is lower than that of other populations and discussing why that might be is OK. Saying that "black people are stupid" is not OK. Fred, do you see the difference? One is acceptable scholarly discourse, the other is derogatory and inflammatory. Fences&Windows 02:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course I understand the difference, I'm also able to read at a sufficiently advanced level to understand that she didn't actually say that "black people are stupid". She asked a question about a theory, someone else's theory, she did not say that she held with that theory or even accuse anyone, let alone Blacks, of being stupid. All people seem to be doing is seeing those 3 little words "blacks are stupid" and instantly go into paroxysms of spluttering and the equivalent of "you can't say that these days". The point is that some people DO think blacks are stupid, some of them even scientists who aren't being racist. Therefore it's, in my humble opinion, fine to ask the question she asked, It isn't fine to say that she thinks they are, it isn't fine to accuse any particular person of stupidity, but in this world there are a lot of stupid people, some of them do happen to be black. Similarly an awful lot are caucsian/asian/chinese/manchunian/blonde/freckled/female/lactose intolerant. In her defence her autism is going to be a distinct disadvantage due to the social filters not functioning properly, after all it is a communication disorder and I believe she should be given more latitude than normal. It's not her fault she doesn't have that little voice over her shoulder warning her "don't say it quite like that". It would also be helpful if there wasn't so many knees moving through 90 degrees from the faux liberals. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

My error, I apologize for that, I did inform her of the thread at WQA where the user did respond and I posted a link from WQA to this thread. But I should have specifically informed the user about this thread. I agree with Fences and windows that there is a difference between scholarly discussion of group differences and referring to certain groups in a derogatory manner. I think latitude has been given, these comments have taken place over a period of 5 weeks so this not a knee-jerk reaction. Regardless of the user's condition she is aware that she makes offensive statements. Obviously one needs a thick skin when editing controversial articles, but even with thick skinned editing, the above comments are quite unhelpful. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Mediation on Race and intelligence is currently unsupervised

• Misplaced Pages talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race and Intelligence
• Race and intelligence

I looked at the main page to which TechnoFaye contributes and there seems to be a much deeper problem. Mediation started in November on this topic, initially under the supervision of Reubzz (talk · contribs), who shortly afterwards disappeared and had no prior experience at all as a mediator. The mediator was changed to Xavexgoem (talk · contribs) and then Wordsmith (talk · contribs). At present mediation is unsupervised - a completely chaotic free-for-all. At the very beginning of mediation last year, there were sensible statements and discussions. That does not seem to be the case now. Various users involved in the mediation are no longer present (eg myself, on wikibreak in Cambridge, and Ramdrake (talk · contribs), who hasn't edited wikipedia for 2 months). Currently the page does not seem to be serving any useful purpose. It seems to be frequented largely by WP:SPAs and a coterie of highly problematic users, with some exceptions (eg Slrubenstein (talk · contribs)). TechnoFaye's contributions and directing of the mediation page do not seem to be particularly helpful, nor her choice of language. The page is in no way a mediation page any more. Please could administrators or mediators explain what is going on and attempt to restore some order? There is no record on the page as to who is moderating at present (surely not Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs)?). Mathsci (talk) 05:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Socks of banned User:James dalton bell editing

See Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#BLP_violations_on_.27jim_bell.27 (also have a few "love notes" on my talk page , ). I don't know if the IP range is narrow enough for a block - if not, I guess I'll ignore the attacks. To state the obvious, I do not engage in socking. --NeilN 20:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

71.36.112.0/20 blocked again, this time for 3 months. –MuZemike 21:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

More: 97.120.242.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --NeilN 02:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm RBI'ing this one, without the B, of course. This edit seems to be close to a legal threat (Apparently the editors and administrators around here are not aware of how legally perilous their actions are..."). What's the best off-wiki way for a banned editor to complain about the content of an article? Perhaps that would be the best suggestion for the editor. Dayewalker (talk) 02:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The sockmaster was told to contact OTRS --NeilN 02:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They should email OTRS via Misplaced Pages:Contact us/Article problem. –xeno 02:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec*2) WP:OTRS, perhaps? Certainly a better choice than socking... —DoRD (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

(OD) I've suggested that at the IPs page. I know he's watching there, because he's blanked it before. Dayewalker (talk) 02:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I've left him the link on two IP pages and my own talk page, none of them seem to slow him down from edit warring on the BLP noticeboard. Any chance of a semi-protection there for a few hours? Dayewalker (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

He's jumped to the 97.120.*.* range. --NeilN 05:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

User:PCHS-NJROTC

User:Radiopathy is hounding me in spite of his retirement

Please assist Radiopathy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and I have a long history and he has recently been blocked and chosen to retire due to the latest dispute we had and a breach of his 1RR. Even though he has recently "retired", he monitors my edits and intervenes with the express purpose of having me blocked, banned, or simply causing me distress. The constitutes hounding and I would like an admin to intervene. See here and here for my most recent recapitulations of his actions. See here for his most recent sanction leading to his most recent "retirement." (This is behavior he has engaged in previously when he has been sanctioned, retires, and then waits for awhile and requests that the sanctions be lifted in spite of no proof that his behavior has changed, e.g. here)

Since he decided to stop editing, he has returned only to try to keep me from having a sanction lifted (he was not successful), posting a spurious edit-warring template on my talk, and inserting himself in a post I made on Wikiquette alerts that is unrelated to him (he also put in his perspective on that dispute encouraging other users to ignore me.) Although he claims to not have a personal issue with me, he watches my edits apparently for the sole purpose of encouraging other users to revert, ignore, block, or ban me. (Cf. 1, 2, 3, 4, and several instances mentioned in my previous links.)

Radiopathy's sole purpose on Misplaced Pages is to disrupt my ability to edit and to harass me in addition to his spurious claims and generally uncivil interaction with me. Please intervene to stop this behavior. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I won't go so far as to endorse the accusation of wikihounding, but Radiopathy does seem to be egging on the dispute between Justin and Rafablu88, such as by telling Rafablu88 that Justin "should simply be reverted and ignored" and making what I would consider less-than-helpful comments at the WQA that Justin opened over the dispute. (Note: I got one of the unsolicited notices from Radiopathy about the WQA, and I've expressed my thoughts there on the underlying issue.) --RL0919 (talk) 03:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I echo every word RL0919 stated in his comment (including about receiving an unsolicited notice and expressing my thoughts there). Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to bring this edit by Radiopathy to the attention of my fellow admins. It was a uw-3rr, but added to an archive of a talk page, making it look like the warning was seen by Justin and then archived, which is clearly not the case. Not sure exactly how to describe this, but possibly disruptive. I think the warning should be struck through and a note added stating why it has been struck through because the warning was not correctly issued. Mjroots (talk) 06:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Clarification I archive my talk page using the move method. Radiopathy put the warning on my "live" talk page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The edit was clearly to the /Archive018 page not the talk page. This is what I have a problem with. Mjroots (talk) 06:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope, Koavf is right, it was made before the page was moved from its live user talk position to the archive position. Thanks Koavf for clarifying this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you missed this and this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, I see now. I was confused by Justin's method of archiving by moving the talk page itself to the archive and creating a new talk page. OK, my concerns have been allayed and this issue is now settled with no action being necessary. Mjroots (talk) 08:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I've struck my comments on Radiopathy's talk page. Back to the original issue raised by Justin. Mjroots (talk) 08:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I was another of the people solicited about the Wikiquette alert. I've looked over Radiopathy's contributions since he declared himself retired, and Justin's complaints seem to have merit. Every one of Radiopathy's edits were to take some kind of action against Justin. I rarely give credence to hounding complaints but this seems genuine. If Radiopathy wants to be retired, that's fine, if he wants to start editing again, that's fine, but it's not fine to devote your limited Misplaced Pages existence to taking down another editor. Just look at this comment, which seems like a promise to hound Justin. -- Atama頭 19:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLPN Vandalism and Edit-Warring

• 97.120.240.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 97.120.246.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above listed users, suspected socks of banned/blocked User:James dalton bell has been engaging in vandalism, edit-warring, and personal attacks on WP:BLPN, as well as a couple user talk pages. I respectfully request that WP:BLPN be temporarily semi-protected for a period of, say, 7 days to give the page a break from this vandal sock. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm taking a rather big risk as far as collateral damage is concerned, but 97.120.240.0/20 blocked 1 month (again). –MuZemike 07:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't do anything that might potentially get you in trouble. If there is too much collateral damage involved, please just temporarily semi-protect the WP:BLPN page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Australian Capital Territory Debating Union, User:JJJ999, 121.45.216.232 & 121.45.196.175

I would like an administrator to review the Australian Capital Territory Debating Union.

It appears to me that User:JJJ999 (plus the IP's he uses 121.45.216.232 & 121.45.196.175) are acting as if he/she are owners of the article.

I have a number of issues with the article :

1. I question the notability of the ACTDU (it has been questioned before see Talk:Australian_Capital_Territory_Debating_Union#Article issues). Every time I have tried to tag it it gets reverted here or here.

2. It contains many 'refs' that are not in any way relevant to the article, that he insists on having in, for example in the lead :

• from hotfrog.com.au a directory entry for the ACTDU
• From the SA government - only thing that is relevant is a Link to the ACTU website.
• radford.com.au which is dead and no indication in the article as to what it was meant to help with,
• surch on an IP for "ACT debating team" that times out

At the end of the article, without any indication of why they are there or what they help with :

• Accessmylibrary.com - a extract from the Canberra Times that does not mention the ACTDU
• Accessmylibrary.com- a extract from the Canberra Times that does not mention the ACTDU
• Accessmylibrary.com- a extract from the Canberra Times that does not mention the ACTDU
• Accessmylibrary.com- a extract from the Canberra Times that does not mention the ACTDU
• ABC Stateline Home - transcript from a ABC radio show that also does not mention the ACTDU.
• Factiva.com a dead Factiva lookup with no indication of what it was or supports.

3. I believe that User:JJJ999 may have a WP:COI, as evidenced by the fact he has hard copies of the AGM minutes here also given the copyright statement in the two photos on the page here and here indicating he created (took) them along with a comment here where he says he can get the copy write permission sent in.

4. I think the article may be Over detailed and contain "excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience".

I have posted a RfC on the talk page about the first point but as of yet have had no response (Talk:Australian_Capital_Territory_Debating_Union#RFC : Notability tag)

I have also posted on the 3RR board as User:JJJ999 and the IP's made 4 reverts on Sunday (here) to which User:JJJ999 responded here but this was archived without attention - I dispute what he has written but have decided not to engage with him at this time. I have made attempts to point out my issues on the Talk page here and here.

So I am wondering the best way to move this article forward as I am sure that as soon as I start trying to fix the above issues User:JJJ999 will start reverting again. Codf1977 (talk) 07:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I find RfC a fairly uncertain step in dispute resolution, since you never who (if anyone) will show up. You may wish to withdraw the RfC and try one of the other methods of dispute resolution, such as WP:COIN or WP:CNB. If you are certain that there are only two of you involved, WP:3O can be a good forum to get assistance. I have generally found the volunteers who work there willing to discuss issues thoroughly. --Moonriddengirl 11:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I cant be certain, but am 99% sure the three are one. This edit confirms two are one in the same and the other one looks like a WP:DUCK. Codf1977 (talk) 12:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Then WP:3O may be your best bet. Typically, I'd list a problem like that and wait. If you don't get a response within a couple of days, then it may be necessary to seek help elsewhere. If you do, make it clear where else you've asked and why you're asking again, so it's obvious that you're not "forum shopping" but just looking for input. Having already interacted with the article as an admin, I don't think I should myself weigh in on content issues. --Moonriddengirl 12:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I do not want any appearance of forum shopping so will wait a few days to see if anyone else here has any advice, and if not will go to WP:3O and make sure I cross link to here and the RfC. Codf1977 (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• I had a reply earlier, and it seems to have been removed. Basically, this is forum shopping, because you haven't been able to build consensus. Go to the talk page, and complain there. Anyway, this is not copyvio, this was covered. Next time wait for consensus and don't accuse others of bad faith and editing warring that you were only recently warned about yourself.JJJ999 (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This is NOT "forum shopping" which is defined as "repeatedly asking for additional outside opinions until you get an opinion you like" as there was no response to either the RfC or the 3RR posts it can't be and secondly I made sure I disclosed and linked to those.

Also please refrain from making totally false claims about me being warned recently for editing warring as a way of deflecting attention away from your five bans for your edit warring (see here). - I have only been warned once in October last year here when my account was less than 2 weeks old and I had only 1 revert in 24 hours in any case - if you disagree produce the dif. Codf1977 (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Gratuitous misconduct by User:Heavydata

Heavydata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been posting deliberate, manufactured lies, including false accusations of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry to sway opinion on a requested move he proposed . His welcome message to a new user was a false accusation of sockpuppetry . In addition, he has admitted to being affiliated with a site called Rangerboard --upon seeing that mention, I went to Rangerboard and found a recent (i.e. this month) thread consisting entirely of personal attacks against Ryulong, the primary target of Heavydata's false accusations, plus a mention of the dispute this requested move is about. So, yeah, a user who is primarily focused on smearing Ryulong is a member of an attack site against Ryulong. I can provide a link to the thread by email, as I'd rather not link an attack site on here; if you'd like to find it yourself, the title of the thread is "Misplaced Pages: Power Hogs". After I pointed out his misconduct on the talk page for the requested move, he has harassed me on my user page, posting the same false accusations , which I have since reverted. jgpTC 10:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Such delusion...

This user is blowing things way out of proportion, and yet another friend of Ryulong. I'm not a member of Rangerboard, I got the idea about colons from Rangerboard, SO WHAT? Ryulong approached me first, and he attempted to smear me as well as well as making up bogus reasons of why the colons should stay. Check Ryulong's edit history around the time when the request was added. He commented me a mere two or three minutes after I added the request, where we had an hour argument when he claimed he didn't care about colons, yet he's getting his buddies to join in and protect HIS precious colons. In fact, I've been a member for months mostly editing Johnny Test and other various articles. My accounts main purpose IS NOT to attack Ryulong.

I had no plans to talk to Ryulong or anyone else, but now all his friends are attacking and throwing a hissy fit OVER COLONS. I'm just tired of these games that Ryulong and his friends are doing and want a consensus on what has to be done. 70.177.84.41 IS a meat puppet, THE END. Infact, this user claims that I was stalking him when all I was doing was asking him a question of why he thinks my actions are immoral and as you can tell, he says my explanation was vandalism. These are not lies. I want to stop being attacked like this just because I believe that articles shouldn't have colons in them. You want to look at some unethical edits and harassment? Look at Ryulong and his buddy jpg. Heavydata (talk) 11:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request from ThomasK

ThomasK (talk · contribs) has emailed me asking to be unblocked. I looked at his talk page, where he has an unblock request -- or rather demand. He was blocked in 2006 and I'm not going to unblock him without an understanding of why he was blocked. And I wasn't impressed by his reason: " Lift this unfair indefinite block immediately. That´s my demand. I have a right to request so. I contributed enormously to Misplaced Pages and it´s more than four years since I last vandalized an article. I won´t do this anymore in the future.". But if the community thinks he should be unblocked... Dougweller (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Well... he hasn't vandalised an article for four years because he has been blocked! I don't see how "look I didn't sock" is a legitimate reason to unblock... two cents. SGGH 12:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Ask him what he'd edit if he's unblocked. He's grown up a bit since 2006, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Reblocking if that turns out to be necessary only takes a few seconds. henrik•talk 13:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The phrasing of the "request" doesn't indicate any great amount of "growth". Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to an unblock, if ThomasK can put together an acceptable unblock request, demonstrating that he understands why he was blocked in the first place and undertakes not to repeat the behaviour that lead to the block. 4 years is time for some growing up, and if ThomasK has refrained from sockpuppetry then that should be seen as a plus point. Mjroots (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock providing he accepts a suitable probationary period whereby any instances of incivility or disruption would result in immediate reapplication of the block. Prior to the RfA drama, ThomasK appears to have been a rather productive contributor. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 15:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Based on his recent edit summaries and unwillingness to follow procedure, it looks like 4 years wasn't enough. Bridge, I'd like to introduce you to Mr. Flamethrower. Torchy, this is Mr. Bridge. You two play nice. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 18:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Give another chance – I'd be willing to extend the proverbial olive branch and give him another chance. Of course, the block was a long time ago, and Curps has not really been around much at all recently. –MuZemike 17:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I apologize. Please unblock my main account. Thanks --ThomasKsock (talk) 06:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Factsontheground

User:Factsontheground has been the subject of scrutiny and controversy the last couple of days.Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive604#User Factsontheground using his talk page as a forum and to launch personal attacks should be reopened. Factsontheground has come back from the 24hr block inciting more issues with a user page in violation of WP:UP#POLEMIC (as mentioned here). I understand she is frustrated. She has reason to be to some extent. There have been more allegations against her made since she has returned and of course the revisiting of past transgressions. This isn't about those though. Is her user page disruptive? Does it stir up the battlefield mentality already seen in a contentious topic area? Can it be blanked and the user asked again to stop?Cptnono (talk) 12:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

She imply that those who oppose her edits are rasicts (see Anti-Arabism and Misplaced Pages section on her user page). I think it's disruptive.--Gilisa (talk) 13:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, SarekOfVulcan has already warned her about using her Misplaced Pages page to make comments about the supposed racism of other Misplaced Pages users. I concur with the enforcement of WP:UP#POLEMIC. SGGH 13:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Infact she was blocked for 24 hours recently for PA against editors (I'm among those) as well as removing two comments by two different editors (me for one) from article's talk page. Then she used her talk page in violation of WP:UPNOT and her talk page was blocked as well.--Gilisa (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, have a look at the changes she made to her userpage since this discussion started. Clearly a disruption only disruptive account, and i propose we just RBI it. Seeing the recent complaints and ANI reports in such a short timespan I do not suspected that anything positive will come from user in the long run, unless behavioral changes are made. Excirial 13:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to enforce another block if we agree it is needed. She has removed the content having noted this thread, though. Same length as before? SGGH 13:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I will admit that I would like to see her blocked, but blocks are meant to be preventative not punitive. If the threat of it alone was enough to encourage a better understanding then it would not be appropriate.Cptnono (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yet given past conduct it might very well be preventative. SGGH 13:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

She has also just given this to Excirial and docked some more warnings from her talk (though she has the right to remove anything from her talk if she so wishes, but I suspect her motives for doing so.) SGGH 13:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed in two discussions I was involved today she violate several of WP guidelines regarding the use of TP and attidue toward other users. As can be seen here (clear PA-but I wasn't involved directly in this issue so maybe it's not relevant) and here were I asked her to stop using the talk page for soap boxing and as a forum, but she only hush me in incivil manner. The problem is that she keep seeing herself as victim (as specifically can be understood from her UP) and unwilling to take any responsability for what she do. And it continue like that for a long time with everyday bring something new. So far she was only warned time and again or was treated softly. I don't have the time needed to that and I already spent much time in issues she was involved with, but I think that her relevant history should be reviewed and finally appropriate measurements to be taken.P.s. She just blanked her page at 13:20 , nevertheless, she was still editing its meaning shortly before --Gilisa (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this rule. Now I am. I removed the content that was bothering people. This can be marked resolved.

Secondly, on the topic of polemics, Mbz1 is using her talk page to attack myself and others. She has a picture of dogs chasing a girl subtitled "Me and the hounds"; she continually calls me and other editors "Wikihounds". Factsontheground (talk) 14:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

As can be understood from the links given in the opening, you were specifically noticed by Cptnono that you are in violation with wikipedia guidelines -but yet until ANI was submitted you choosed not to remove it from your user page. I can't see how Mbz1 is relevant in your defence, to put it mildly. Looking into your previous edits and your correspondence with other editors, it is quite clear that you are familiar with WP gidelines including these concerning with TPs-but even if you didn't know this specific one -you was warned by Cptnono and two days ago your TP was blocked for the very same thing.--Gilisa (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Permanent Ban. This very belligerent user spends a disproportionate amount of wiki-time on drama. It's most likely not his fault, but everyone else's, but this project would be better off without all the disruption. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous. She blaned the page after people complained about it. She has just come off a block where people taunted her on her talk page, one of whom was blocked for his edits. stop the witchunting and wikidrama. Go bac to editing an encyclopedia. Tiamut 16:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support No signs of improvment for her are seen in the near future. So far she was treated way too softly. Some examples from the last 2-3 days are given here. Here you can see she stalked after user Breein1007 and reverted 6 of his edits in 6 different articles in less than 10 minutes. Here she did it again to Plot Spoiler (5 reverts in 5 different article in less than 50 minutes). She is aware of WP:HOUN and this is a pattern. It's only the tip of the iceberg even if we refer only the last week-realy, I just don't have the time to run after her history now. --Gilisa (talk) 14:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• (ec)Oppose very strongly. This editor has already been treated much more harshly than other editors, for a relatively minor infringement. She has indeed been harassed and abused, including attacks on her user talk page when she was banned from replying -- attacks for which another editor has been blocked. I can understand FoG feeling aggrieved, and here sense of unequal treatment. This complaint reeks of a witchhunt, and should never have been submitted. RolandR (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved Marking this as resolved as the original problem is solved by Facts blanking of their userpage. There is absolutely no way this will can be stretched to a ban. This has already turned pile-on & general airing of grievences so lets just quit with the drama now. Misarxist (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Misarxist, I fail to see where the drama is and how self blanking her screen, after ANI was submitted and after ignoring warning, solve the problem-which is, as described, much larger.--Gilisa (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreolved:Misarxist, I see no admin tag on your UP. Please leave it for an admin to come over it. That's the all meaning of this board.--Gilisa (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Gilisa, put the stick down and back away from the horse. Factsontheground (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the Administrators' noticeboard. Editors without admin authority have no right to add this tag here. --Gilisa (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not true at all. An admin is just an editor with extra tools. They don't have unique authority to mark discussions resolved. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This ANI is call for admin intervention and not matter how you turn it, you had no right to put the tag. Certainly not less than an hour from case opening.--Gilisa (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose, This is becoming rather ridiculous and vengeful. The user has deleted all the messages that were deemed inappropriate, so calling for a "permanent ban" is simply outrageous. Yazan (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree fully. People are being needlessly vindictive here. Tiamut 16:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm no admin either, but I agree with Misarxist that talk of a permanent ban is very premature here, and that the discussion had degenerated. The initial complaint does seem to have been resolved. I'm sure there are other conduct issues to deal with, but I wonder if ANI is really the best forum to discuss them in. Factsontheground does not seem to be running amuck right at the moment, so I don't see a great need to rush to judgement. --Avenue (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Avenue, premature, certainly very premature, are not the right words here. If you review her editing history you hardly can get to any other conclusion than that significan sanctions are needed.--Gilisa (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

{ec} *Comment The user has just come off a short block apparently just as disruptive as ever; certainly not taking it with grace. In fact, the hounding still continues with this diff , the personal attacks here , and the unwillingness to accept a verdict and learn from it here and here. I think a bit more cooling off time is required, with clear warnings about any continued harassment, and/or personal attacks on other editors and administrators. Agree that it is immature to seek a permaban at this time, but some real time off might well be appropriate. Stellarkid (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no need to take such drastic measures yet - there is no vandalism which needs to be handled at once, so there is no direct need for measures. Just one thing: Fact, this kind of edit is known as canvassing. Best not to do it. :) Excirial 16:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose Is this "Dump on Factsontheground Week"? Mbz1 gets off scot-free for her abusive behavior, and there's talk about perma-banning Factsontheground?!? People, you need to pull your heads out of your hindquarters. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 17:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

MBz was blocked just 4 days ago, so I don't know where you get this "Mbz1 gets off scot-free" disinformation from. Other users' actions are irrelevant and do not excuse this user's grossly inappropriate behavior. And it would have behooved you to at least mention that your comment was solicited by the user in question, in violation of WP:CANVASS. All in all, not a great contribution from an administrator. We have higher standard here. My Canada (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

(1) Mbz1 was blocked for one day for behavior that is at least as disruptive, and since this is the same noticeboard where her behavior was discussed, yes, it is relevant.

(2) Do you see the comment above mine? The one that says I was canvassed? — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 20:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

(1) MBz was blocked for a day 4 days ago, for another day the week before that, and once more a month earlier, by none other than you. That's 3 blocks totaling 72 hours in less than 2 months, so she's clearly not getting off scot free. You obviously know that, as you were one of the blockers, yet you still posted a falsehood ("Mbz1 gets off scot-free for her abusive behavior"). Please, at a minimum, strike out that comment. An apology would not be out of place, either. And no, the fact that other users are misbhaving, and being reported on this noticeboard (which is where all such behavior is reproted) is not relevant to the issue at hand. Open a thread about MBz1 if you think her actions arein need of admin attention.

(2) No, I didn't see it, nor would most people, unless they bothered to actually go and click on that link. And having someone else call out the actions that led to your misbehaviour does not excuse your lack of disclosure. The fact that you did not disclose you were canvassed with a request to "put in a good word", and then proceeded to do just that is really beneath contempt. I am pondering if an Admin RfC is in order. I'll collect some more deatils and perhaps pursue that route. My Canada (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If my "misbehaviour" is "really beneath contempt", please feel free to bring it up in its own section on this page or start an RfC/U. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 22:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Malik Shabazz. I keep seeing these discussions about Factsontheground pop up here and in pretty much every case, there is no real clear right and wrong. And it's starting to reek of a gangup of people who have had disputes with Factsontheground against her. I do not support a block, but would support a decision barring these various editors (Factsonthegrund, Mbz1, and the others who keep filing these reports) from interacting with each other. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Multixfer, may I please ask you to be so kind and to provide few differences to confirm that I "keep filing these reports"? And If by any chance you would not be able to find that conformation, may I please ask you to be so kind and retract your words? Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't drag me into this stupid fight. I did not accuse you of "filing these reports", I clarified that by specifying "others", whilst separating that portion from you with commas. I stand by my statement that everyone involved has significant culpability in this foolishness and that the community would be best served by barring them all from interacting with each other. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, I guess it is just a normal reaction of one, who states something with no evidences, as you just did, dear Multixfer. Okay. For the record: I have not filed any single report to AN/I for any user involved in I/P conflict articles editing. And you know what, I agree to be topic-banned on I/P conflict articles indefinitely, and in effect immediately as long as factsontheground would have the same editing restrictions because it is the only way of " barring" us from interactions. My proposal is absolutely serious. Please do consider this. --Mbz1 (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as far too draconian for the alleged transgressions. Let's note that the only support comes from some of the hardened quarters of the I-P topic area battleground, re-mark this as resolved, and get back to business. Tarc (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think it is unwise to oblige editors by punishing another for behaviour that they are largely responsible for provoking. -- ZScarpia (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support some sort of topic ban on the user, not a permaban. The community should show its displeasure at revenge-type behavior and stalking other users. The fact that those other users get provoked into responding in an uncivil manner (if that is the case) is no justification for ignoring the type of behavior illustrated above. Stellarkid (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support a time-limited topic ban from I-P articles. Let's see some useful contributions from the editor in other areas of wikipedia. My Canada (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC) This template must be substituted.
• Support a time-limited topic ban from I-P articles per my comments below.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support a permaban as things will not likely improve. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support because enough is indeed enough. Broccoli (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I think that all involved parties need to reconsider the way they interact with each other and their willingness to seek punitive sanctions, but user:factsontheground has not deserved to be singled out in this fashion. Unomi (talk) 01:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban on I/P conflict articles for user:mbz1 and user:factsontheground proposal

The two users factsontheground and me were discussed at this very board quite a few times already. Our editing style creates constant disruption to others. We both were accused in personal attacks and incivility, and we both were blocked in the last week. I believe we both should be topic-banned on I/P conflict editing for at least three months for the sake of the project, for saving other editors time and for saving space at AN/I

• Support--Mbz1 (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose --Mbz1 you can take a break whenever you want. user:factsontheground may require a bit more of a hint. Please relax a little!  :) Stellarkid (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, Stellar, I am very relaxed. I will not be upset by topic ban at all. You know why? Because I have so many different interests around wikipedia and commons that I would never be bored, on the other hand "the queen" is practicaly a WP:SPA.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban on Mbz1 Support topic ban on Factsontheground: Please note that Mbz1 is not the subject of this ANI and her overall behavior don't justify topic ban. FOTG behavior on the other hand, certainly does.--Gilisa (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

So you want to sacrifice a pawn for a queen? I don't think so.

Just. Stop. It.

I haven't done anything wrong. I blanked my user page. There is nothing to discuss. This issue is resolved. Factsontheground (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This "I havn't done anything wrong" you refrain on is one of the main problems.--Gilisa (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• • For the attention of the community: The following are only few edits of our "queen" that were reverted in the last few days: ;;; . If the "queen" is proxy editing for banned user user:Orijentolog, the topic ban is well over due.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any basis for accusing Factsontheground of proxy-editing, or is that just another insult thrown at her? — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 20:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I said "if". The edits I reffer to was not reverted by me, but by other editor. BTW while we are at the subject. Did factsontheground have any basis in accusing me in using socks at the article discussion page, or it was just another insult thrown at me, and where were you, when factsontheground did not even let me to remove those PA from the aricle disussion page? Any more questions?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wheelbarrow. Since you don't have any reason to assert that Factsontheground is proxy-editing, you're just engaging in more of your insults. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 21:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Malik, I don't know regarding the proxies issue but it change nothing on FOTG overall behavior, which is bvery disruptive. To remind, Mbz1 is not the subject of this ANI.--Gilisa (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Gilisa, I bet Shabazz knows that, but with all his fairness he brings me up everywhere he can. I was not even going comment on the thread at all, if it was not for the comment by administrator Shabazz, who as always brought me up. As a matter of fact I was rather surprised by his statement because just the other day he explained to the user waht WP:NOTTHEM means. Looks like Shabazz responding to canvasing got a litlle bit confused as usual :)--Mbz1 (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I love you too. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 21:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I know that, you've told me that already few weeks ago. Remember? I guess you do not, confusion you know...:) Malik, please stop bringing me up every time you need to deffend your friend, and I will love you too :) --Mbz1 (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - this is a discussion that screams out for an admin to archive, there is nothing happening here but gutter-sniping all around. Tarc (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

_{No, it doesn't--Gilisa (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)}

As one of the instigators of this mess, forgive me if I don't put much stock in your opinion. Tarc (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Multiparty block - What next

All 3 primary participants in this have variously stepped across multiple lines in our user behavior policy over the last 24 hrs. They've all had prior warnings and are all aware of the policies; as it's escalating again, I have blocked all of Gilisa, Mbz1, and Factsontheground for 12 hours to push the sniping away long enough to start a proper longer term solution serious discussion here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban

I am proposing the following interaction ban:

Editors User:Mbz1 and User:Gilisa are collectively and individually banned from interacting with editor User:Factsontheground, and Factsontheground is reciprocally banned from interacting with Mbz1 and Gilisa.

This editing restriction shall include a complete prohibition from comments on the respective user talk pages, filing reports on admin noticeboards, reverting edits on articles, commenting in other venues about the other party, or directly responding to each other's comments on article talk pages. This restriction by itself does not prohibit mutual participation on articles, as long as the editors stay away from each other. The restriction is to be interpreted broadly.

If any of the parties feel that the other party has violated this ban or other Misplaced Pages policy, and no uninvolved administrator responds to the violation within a reasonable amount of time, they may notify 1 uninvolved administrator of the incident on that administrators' talk page 12 hours after the original perceived infraction, and if that first administrator does not respond by at least acknowledging seeing the report within 24 hrs they may notify a second uninvolved administrator in the same manner, but in no case more than 2 notifications on-wiki. Repeated spurious reports to administrators using this mechanism shall be grounds for blocking for disruption.

This would be logged at the edit restrictions page if enacted by community etc.

Clarification (requested below) - this restriction would be indefinite, until the community choses to revoke it, not fixed duration. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, that should reduce drama at source and remove any ambiguity about who's the guilty party. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support, with caveat. I believe these editors have been interaction banned for short periods before, and while it seemed to help cool things down, I also seem to remember one or more (minor) violations of those interaction bans. I support an interaction ban, but I'd like to see it given some teeth, and strongly enforced. ← George 22:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Question: It isn't clear what you mean by "This restriction by itself does not prohibit mutual participation on articles, as long as the editors stay away from each other." Mutual participation is likely to lead to two editors modifying one another's contributions, isn't it? How, then, could two editors mutually edit an article and stay away from one another? Could you clarify? — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 22:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If they non-constructively modify each others contributions, particularly reverting, then they're in violation and will be blocked. If the community believes that there's no chance that they could possibly be mature enough to handle avoiding that, that they'll necessarily violate it, then the topic bans (and I'd extend it to all of them - they're all at fault to some degree) should be enacted separately alongside this. I want to pose the two questions separately, not in one unified solution, as we have had luck in the past with interaction banning other editors without topic banning them. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 22:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 22:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Question: just to clarify, are you proposing that this interaction ban be permanent? I gather so, from your comments on their talk pages, but I think it would be good to specify this above. --Avenue (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

To clarify - I propose indefinite duration, until the community choses to review and revoke. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. -- Avenue (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- samj _in 23:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support as a measure to prevent disruption yet attempt to preserve those edits that are constructive to topics, such as they are. SGGH 23:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Conditional Reluctant support. I think a permanent interaction ban may not be necessary. I would prefer one that is reviewed after 9 months, say (and expires if not reviewed), but something needs to be done, and this is the best solution proposed yet. -- Avenue (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Given the amount of time and energy this trio has been sucking up, this seems more than reasonable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• What a mess this group has been generating. Support this proposal. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Unomi (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment This is the second interaction ban that would be imposed on Mbz1, within the last week. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support as solution most likely to gain broad consensus. Daniel Case (talk) 06:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Topic bans

Question - do we want to topic-ban any or all of these editors from the conflict area, Israeli/Palestinean topics? Proposed as a question, not a proposed edit restriction (at this time). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Per my comment above, I'd say yes with regards to FactsOnTheGround, yes with regards to Mbz1. I have no first hand experience with gilisa to say anything about him one way or the other. My Canada (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

There was another user that I was involved with at ANI who was topic banned from the same topic, for editing on Israeli Zimbabwe relations or something like that. I'll just check its not the same person. SGGH 22:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that was User:Gilabrand with whom FOTG appears to be familiar. I think I ran into Mbz when dealing with him too. Not sure if this is called connected, someone more familiar with User:Gilabrand might want to check. SGGH 22:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: Gilabrand is a woman, not a man. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 22:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

my bad. SGGH 22:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

No topic ban for any of them, at present. The problem is not primarily POV editing, but edit-warring. There really is no reason to prevent any of them from contributing to articles in this area, so long as they do so within the normal rules of Misplaced Pages conduct. RolandR (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm also opposed to a topic ban at this time. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 22:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose -- samj _in 23:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm opposed for now too, per RolandR. --Avenue (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Support I support an indefinite topic ban on any Israel/Palestine related topics for Mbz1. I've witnessed enough over the last few weeks to know her political agenda is certainly not for the good of Misplaced Pages. She should stick to photography. Vexorg (talk) 04:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I would support a topic ban for facts, but not mbz1. I admit to a bias. I believe that mbz1 is the wronged party and I don't see any "justice" in simply throwing up one's arms and saying, "Well we can't decide who's at fault so ban them all." That isn't justice, that is laziness. If you aren't willing to investigate and evaluate the facts in this case (no pun intended) then I don't think you should vote or comment here. I think the interaction ban is a good idea, and one can avoid a topic ban simply by saying whoever was at such-and-such an article first can edit it... the next one to show up can't. Stellarkid (talk) 05:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Karunyan Continuing Wikihounding/Trolling After 72 hour block

For the third time, Karunyan is trolling and wikihounding me. On March 9th, Karunyan went on a revert spree of my edits in retaliation for one of his edits to the Inuyasha character list being reverted. He then filed a falsified report here after I reverted his continued reverts at this article. It was agreed he was, in fake, wikihounding and administrator EdJohnston asked him to revoke the report and cease the behavior.] Karunyan instead went offline for while, then on march 21st, he returne and began again reverting my edits on the same article from the previous incident, List of The Clique series characters. He reverted five times. During that time, I I left him a note asking him to stop, then left him a 3RR warning noting again that he was warned to stop this and that I knew he did not really care about the wording, so much as he was reverting just to revert. He later removed that note claiming "I DO care NOW!!!", which I take to mean he cares only because its a way to continue his reverting. I also filed a Edit warring report, which resulted in both of us being blocked by User:Sandstein, myself for 48 hours, him for 72.

I made an unblock request on my user page, explaining the previous history again, and there was heavy disagreement from several users over my being blocked in this matter. User:Jéské Couriano reviewed my unblock request and lifted the block a little over 12 hours later.. Karunyan's block has expired, and his first edits were to once again begin trolling and reverting the Blood+ character list (which another editor had reverted back to the pre-edit war state), with a summary of "not trolling anymore", He also is now going around and doing the same to Jack Merridew's edits, who was the one who restored the Blood+ list, including doing one with a summary of "Using a troll puppet to deal with a troll, huh? Admirable.." I reverted his edit to Blood+ once (and will not do so again until this is dealt with), and he restored it stating "I have repented from my errant ways and no longer click the "contribs" link; but I do watch pages that I edit." However before this, he never edited that or any of the other pages he hit. He is also now going back and randomly reverting other edits I've done on the InuYasha character list, where this apparently all started

I have left notes with JC and , two admins involved in the discussion of my unblock, but neither are online right now, and this guy seems determined to just continued this disruptive behavior. So please, someone deal with this guy! -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I left the appropriate ANI notice on his talk page, but he removed it with a summary of "Don't care; you're welcome" -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Account blocked for 1 week by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for 3RR violations - whether this relates to this matter, I do not know. Anyhoo, this gives you time to contact the previously involved admins (and Cml,I'mtC). LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I unblocked Collectonian. Not sure what that was about. From looking through everything, there was absolutely no reason to block her. --Smashville 18:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Blocking Collectonian was unacceptable. Karunyan is clearly the one causing the problems here, and I actually think Karunyan should be blocked indefinitely until a promise to stop this edit warring can be extracted. Then, if he breaks the promise, the block can be reinstated permanently. We don't need such disruptive individuals "helping out" here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

There may be more here - jpgordon rejected the unblock request; in his decline he indicates Karunyan's been socking. —Jeremy 19:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be Kagome1977 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) —DoRD (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, seriously??? I never even suspected they were the same. I know the Kagome editor has had a few other accounts (under claims they keep losing their password)....-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Note: Kagome1977 is now editing under the IP 59.92.120.74 (talk). —Farix (t | c) 00:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Further Note: Above IP blocked, he's now moved on to 59.92.114.224 (talk) as seen here . Dayewalker (talk) 01:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
    • This is getting ridiculous. I've blocked 59.92.112.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for one week and reset the block on the main account. Haven't looked at this in more detail yet w/r/t the indef suggestion. Tim Song (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Given the socking, I'd say indef him. —Jeremy 02:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

IP inserting image without a fair-use rationale and uncivil comments

Moved from WP:AN

67.216.243.127 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) keeps on inserting File:Zrocrack.jpg into Z-Ro, even though he has been told that this is unacceptable. He has also been resorting to uncivil edit summaries. Please intervene. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

A bit stale now, but he did receive a warning for the personal attack: . I think if he continues with the personal attacks or edit warring to insert the NFCC-violating content, a short block may be in order. –xeno 14:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Warned user. Report the IP to WP:AIV if the disruption continues. -FASTILY_sock 03:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

User:ElEditordeWiki

Moved from WP:AN

ElEditordeWiki (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

This user made some controversial edits in es:wiki today. He along with his IP 24.201.16.139 (talk · contribs) removed or changed information in several articles based solely on his personal opinion and POV of history. I've noticed that he is a native user of en:wiki, according to SUL and apparently he made similar POV-biased edits here. Please, review this user and his edits. Thank you. KveD (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that this user was warned in en:wiki before about POV pushing, but he deleted the warnings. See: . KveD (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that this same user has gotten in some trouble at the Spanish Misplaced Pages, so we should review all his contribs here? I don't think that's too likely to be done. If you would care to comb through his contributions and identify any problems you find, you are of course free to do so, but you should try discussing the matter with the user before asking for action here. You should also have informed them of this report, as the edit notice that opens every time you edit this page says quite clearly. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Edson Rosa

Moved from WP:AN

Edson Rosa (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)

This user is consistently uploading images without proper information. All attempts to engage user in discussion have failed as the person refuses to use talk pages at all (in the past 500 edits, the only 3 edits to any talk pages were to move the talk pages). I request a block until this person is willing to talk about such edits/uploads (blocks are corrective in nature, not punitive). — BQZip01 —  15:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this user has been very busy uploading material. Some random clicking through their contribs shows numerous blatant copyright infringements (e.g. company logos marked as self-made). Previous blocks (24 and 72 hours) have done nothing to help here. I agree that a block is unfortunately necessary here until the user agrees to help us out with the copyright issues. Blocked for 1 week. Papa November (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

User won't discuss

Off2riorob (talk · contribs) continues to revert my edits without explaining why on the talk page. This is the second time I have posted about this. Can somebody just block him already?--Sinistrial (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Unlikely, because he's right. Posting contentious information on a BLP and referencing it only to foreign-language sources - in one case a video - without providing quotes with English translation goes against both WP:BLP and WP:V. Black Kite 21:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You haven't notified the other editor about this discussion as you are required to do, so I have done it for you. —DoRD (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

An English translation was provided, but nobody said anything about quotes.--Sinistrial (talk) 21:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You can't just post contentious information by providing a link to a foreign-language video. "When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text or in a footnote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians.". Frankly, if you post it again, there's only one person that's going to be blocked here. Black Kite 21:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

How the hell am I suppose add content if this same user refuses to give me details on the problem with it but keeps hitting REVERT REVERT REVERT anyway?--Sinistrial (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Even if I did provide translations and quotes, this user would still revert anyway because he won't say what's is wrong with the source.--Sinistrial (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If anyone wants the utube link to see how poor it is I will link it for them. This is the second thread this single purpose IP account has opened here about this, he is refusing to listen to multiple editors and is repeatedly reinserting contentious poorly cited content to the article of a living person, he has no support at all from anybody, imo it is time he was restricted. Off2riorob (talk)

(edit conflict) This was all explained to you the last time you brought it here. —DoRD (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Multiple editors? Who? Only you are the one who refuses to explain why this isn't a reliable source, but just keeps reverting anyway.--Sinistrial (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Try posting at the reliable sources noticeboard -- maybe they'll validate the use of the documentary. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Looks to me like this has been thoroughly explained via Talk:Marina Orlova, the previous ANI discussion, and in edit summaries. Please stop pretending otherwise. —DoRD (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Eh, its not really a documentary. Its a Russian Entertainment Tonight type show. There has been discussion on the talk page, but no consensus that this contentious material is well supported enough to be added. Off2Rob seems to be reverting Sinistrial based on those discussions. I don't know when "3RR" kicks in exactly here, but they've gone back and forth a few times rapidly in the last few hours.--Milowent (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

IP altering AfD notification and placing an AfD template on an article falsely attributing it me.

76.200.153.184 (talk · contribs) altered a courtesy AfD template, about the AfD nomination of Jake Bernstein, that I had placed on User talk:Geoffrey.landis diff1 and then placed it on Talk:Geoffrey A. Landis , altering it to change the article title to Geoffrey A. Landis diff2 and diff3. The same IP placed an AfD template on the article page Geoffrey A. Landis diff4, but did not list the deletion discussion at AfD.

Although it is obvious that I did not do this, by examining the artcile histories, I am quite upset about this and not surprisingly received a note from User:Geoffrey.landis about this on my talk page, User talk:Jezhotwells#Deleting? Or vandalism?. This appears to be vandalism related to the deletion discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jake Bernstein, which I nominated and also a reminder that i posted to the IP 76.200.153.184 (talk · contribs) asking them to stop making personal attacks. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for a week for disruption. I was actually watching the IP and the article from a few days ago, but didn't see this happen until you brought it here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I will regard this matter as closed for now. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Sex segregation text deletions

DJ Clayworth (talk) has deleted a large amount of text, put into the article by several editors including me, from the Sex segregation article without any discussion prior to deletion. Much of this text contained citations to articles from experts on the subject of sex segregation, its various forms, and/or association with inequality. I include the urls as diffs for each deletion. In addition, efforts to reach consensus have succeeded a couple of times, yet this editor refuses to restore the text to the article. When I have tried a revert, the editor undid it. When we had reached consensus on a section such as Origins and I reinserted that section, DJ Clayworth (talk) undid it again. DJ Clayworth (talk) has issued two personal attacks which I will include from the Discussion page for the article. The other editor apologized for the first when I brought it to attention, then later issued a second personal attack. I include both. The best Misplaced Pages description for DJ Clayworth (talk)'s actions is disruptive editing. Our discussion so far is included under the section What is this article about? on the Sex segregation discussion page. I have discussed these matters there with DJ Clayworth (talk).

Personal attack #1: "Nothing here is about neutrality, or even about correctness." Apology: "First, when I wrote "Nothing here is about neutrality, or even about correctness" I meant that I wasn't removing things because I thought they were incorrect or not neutral. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear."

Personal attack #2: "I think what may be going on is that you have some ideas about sex segregation in your head, and you wrote in the article things that are relevant to those ideas."

Diffs in reverse chronological order: most recent at the top. A couple of these appear to be minor, but the final result was to revert the article back to a version of three months earlier, and to keep it there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sex_segregation&diff=351359243&oldid=351335848

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sex_segregation&diff=351099217&oldid=351098897

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sex_segregation&diff=351095039&oldid=351094967

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sex_segregation&diff=351094967&oldid=351094843

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sex_segregation&diff=351094843&oldid=351094711

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sex_segregation&diff=351094711&oldid=351094602

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sex_segregation&diff=351094602&oldid=351094321

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sex_segregation&diff=351094321&oldid=351094205

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sex_segregation&diff=351094205&oldid=351093794

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sex_segregation&diff=351093794&oldid=351093705

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sex_segregation&diff=351093705&oldid=351093575

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sex_segregation&diff=351093575&oldid=351093376

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sex_segregation&diff=351093376&oldid=351093303

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sex_segregation&diff=351093303&oldid=351093248

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sex_segregation&diff=351093248&oldid=351093026

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sex_segregation&diff=351093026&oldid=351092905

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sex_segregation&diff=351092905&oldid=351092827

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sex_segregation&diff=351092827&oldid=351092728

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sex_segregation&diff=351092728&oldid=351092575

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sex_segregation&diff=351092575&oldid=351092473

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sex_segregation&diff=351092473&oldid=351091288

If any additional material or information is needed please let me know. While previewing this entry I received, "Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you." I have entered "Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents" into the Wikiedia search and looked through the list but have found none that are familiar. Can whoever sent the message be more specific? Marshallsumter (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I certainly haven't read through any of the diffs you provided yet, but your "Personal attack #1" and "Personal attack #2" are not, in fact, personal attacks. They seem like attempts to address an editing dispute. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, you haven't notified DJ Clayworth that you are discussing him here. Since you pasted the text of {{ANI-notice}} above, I'm sure you meant to notify him; I've gone ahead and given him a pointer to this thread. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments! I did put the subst:ANI-notice in the text, hopefully correctly, so if it didn't work I appreciate your efforts accordingly. DJ Clayworth is not trying to discuss the current article's content. Please check the diffs. The previous article content contained numerous sections and citations to experts in the field, added in response to tags at the top and interest by myself and the other editors. I will be happy to discuss that text when it returns to being the text. DJ Clayworth deleted my contributions and that of several other editors without discussion prior to the deletes against a fundamental Misplaced Pages principle. We have been discussing the previous content, but no inclusion of that text has occurred even when consensus was reached. With all due respect, I believe DJ Clayworth's efforts currently at discussion are not in good faith and match Misplaced Pages's description of disruptive editing. Please revert the text to that earlier version prior to DJ Clayworth's deletions, then I sincerely concur with you that discussions are in good faith. Marshallsumter (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

With regard to notification, the {{ANI-notice}} template, or any similar manual notification, should go on the user talk page of the editor you are notifying, for example User talk:DJ Clayworth. Placing it here will not help. With regard to the editing dispute between yourself and DJ Clayworth, he is just as entitled as you are to edit the article, so long as neither one of you violates policies such as the three-revert rule. As nearly as I can see, neither one of you has violated any policy in your editing of that article. Misplaced Pages's administrators will not intervene in this dispute simply because you ask for it. Instead, you should continue to communicate on the talk page as you have been doing, and try to come to an agreement about what you would both like to see in the article. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I just reviewed the changes at Sex segregation and its talk page, and it is clear that DJ Clayworth is editing very well, and has been totally collaborative. The claims of a personal attack above are without foundation, and the "apology" was just a polite reply explaining that the removed material did not have a POV or accuracy problem – it was removed for reasons that DJ Clayworth has explained in detail on the talk page. I have not fully studied the situation, but the removed material seems out of place to me (i.e. the removal is justified). Johnuniq (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards