Misplaced Pages

I am Irish, lived here all my life, and I've never come across the surname Cahole before. Neither has the phonebook for Dublin, Ireland's largest city. . Just sayin' Bastun 23:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if my name is not popular enough, it works fine for the purpose and no one in my family has ever complained of it. I have never contributed to this article before and was looking at it - refreshed my screen - and the Conflict of Interest notice splashed across with nothing in the article suggesting any problems. At invitation I asked the editor to explain what was wrong with the article and they threatened to open an investigation. Go the f%^$ ahead. I am gobsmacked at the hostility shown both towards myself and the other editors accused of somehow causing problems. If they are associated with the magazine they are adding content that would in every way help an encyclopedia, I am stunned at this progression which feels much like a witch hunt. I have no clue who they are and I have no association with them. I do have a problem with self appointed guardians of knowledge beating away those who are here to explain more about the subject. Do you want people to improve articles and update them or does hostility and suspect of every new user help things? Sorry for the brashness however this whole turn is upside of reality and hostile at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcahole (talk • contribs) 03:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been adding sourcing as requested on the page and I think it has helped, am I forbidden now or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcahole (talk • contribs) 03:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

hi dcahole, as an independent observer, i can assure you that not all new users are "picked on". there are just some pertinent questions which people would like answered, don't take personal offense to the questions. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 04:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Dcahole, let me apologise if you have been offended by any of my actions or words. And let me say that I am sorry for your unfortunate surname, which has doubtlessly made you a target of ridicule and the butt of jokes. I added the COI tag at 19:08 23 September. Your first edit was at 10:45 24 September. It is odd that you "refreshed your screen" and that notice appeared. Similarly, the message I left on the talk page was well before your first edit. I fear that there may be caching problems involved and will be contacting technical support. Regards. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

My name is not unfortunate nor has it ever been ridiculed. Cheers for the new set of assumptions that are also insulting. Now that I've asked you several times to clarify what if anything is conflict of interest in the article please explain what you thought was conflict of interest and needed all this? Dcahole (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Dcahole, sorry, I thought I had answered your question in as much depth as necessary at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Healthy2010. Again, I'm sorry if you found anything insulting in what I wrote - I was only trying to be sympathetic towards someone with an unlikely surname. I think you may have misjudged my assumptions. I try to assume good faith with experienced editors (say, just for example, User:Tastes bad actually), new editors like yourself, and even with IP editors, like User:71.139.5.184, to pick one completely at random. Happy editing, as they say! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Unsatisfactory conclusion?

Without meaning any disrespect to User:Timotheus Canens who closed the sockpuppetry case, I don't think we have addressed any of the issues which caused me to bring this here in the first place.

• The COI tag is no longer on the article despite a Rodale Inc-controlled IP making promotional edits such as this.
• The Rodale Inc IP remains unblocked despite, in my opinion, some fairly overt promotional editing. As is customary, the checkuser involved did not explicitly connect the IP to the other two accounts, but the behavioural evidence should have been enough to connect them (again in my opinion).
• The article is worse than it was when this started, thanks to the efforts of Dcahole, who has added more drek to the article rather than remove bare links in the body or trim the external links. There are currently 22 external links and 48 references.
• Dcahole is yet another sockpuppet of an experienced editor who has a grudge against me. I have tried to deal with this through private channels but the results have been less than satisfactory. A rangeblock of 71.139.0.0/19 would put an end to this with minimal collateral damage, should anyone be interested in resolving the issue quickly and quietly.

Perhaps someone would like to take a second look at any or each of these issues? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Article is dire, reads like an advert - I've made a start, some additional hands would be useful. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Cameron. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Protector of Wiki

{{resolved}} No admin action required. However: POW, tone it down - your reply to Michael Hardy was inappropriate, and comments like that are likely to result in a trip to WP:WQA. (And on a personal note: can you start referring to admins as either "admins" or "sysops"? "Mods" is just wrong). TFOWR 12:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

{{unresolved}} Still an issue --Alpha Quadrant 22:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

As can be seen in his notice at the top of his talk page, Protector of Wiki (talk · contribs) migrated to the English Misplaced Pages only a month ago, after being blocked indefinitely from the Simple English Misplaced Pages for incivility (contribs log). Since September 10 this year, he has (mostly) been writing ALL CAPS in his edit summaries. He responded by telling that he will "try to tone down his comments where possible", but yet after that he simply continues using all caps. He has attemped to spam his own talk page by putting a 1000 px large smiley image (reverted). Today, he wrote in an edit summary that Alpha Quadrant is rude. Only two days ago, he received an only warning for posting this comment. As can be seen in his block log at enwp, he has already been blocked one time, for posting this comment. I think all of this are cases of either disruptive editing, intentioned trolling, or he simply has massive temperament problems.

I honestly think at least a(nother) block is in order. HeyMid (contributions) 08:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: PoW was not the user who initially added the smiley face — see 1 and 2. However, PoW did increase the smiley face image to 1000px — see 3. It seems to me that he does not take criticism and advices seriously; is this a case of WP:Gaming the system? Misplaced Pages is not a playhouse. HeyMid (contributions) 09:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Interested parties/admins may also want to have a look at Misplaced Pages:Requests for permissions/Reviewer#User:Protector of Wiki. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 08:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The reviewer request and some of general demeanour reminds of the "SMASH ALL VANDALS MUST DIE DIE DIE"-type vandal fighters they have sometimes around here. WP:AGF and WP:CIR are all very well, but perhaps PoW needs to take the initiative a little less easily and gel a bit more around here? S.G. _ping! 08:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe PoW needs encouragement to be a little more collaborative and a little less abrasive, but I honestly don't see that they've done anything actually disruptive. The ALLCAPS is mildly irritating, but it does not appear to me to be hurting anything. Same goes for the ginormous smiley face. Reyk _YO! 09:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

"not your talk page! not rude at all! you are the one being rude!" It does seem a lot less "rude" without ALLCAPS, doesn't it? Edit summaries should be no exception: type like every other editor when composing them. He can "shout" in lowercase all day, and it's far less disruptive. It's one keystroke... Doc9871 (talk) 09:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I just don't see the big deal. This is not worth sanctioning someone over. Reyk _YO! 09:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

If that were the only issue sure, but users banned on other projects should be on a very short leash and should not engage in behaviour that winds other users up. Spartaz 09:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the big deal with just turning capslock off. That said: I'm quite surprised to see this up now, because he actually seems to be making a decent effort at being, well, tolerable. (Despite the "well, I'm still not going to play nicely" edit summaries.) Take for example, the AfD notification on his talk. I was suitably impressed by his response to it. To be honest, I think that he does have good intentions. This community attracts all kinds of temperaments who are just trying to help, and the most harmful of these aren't the kind like him. He doesn't need another block at this point. Just as long as he can start making less drama, he'll be a good counterbalance. sonia♫ 09:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that pretty well sums up my impressions of this user. Reyk _YO! 09:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with sonia as well. In his defense, PoW was bitten by an admin no less before his arse comment. I've reviewed the article in question and found that PoW was clearly correct while Michael Hardy violated numerous policies in his defense of the article. Nevertheless, I'm troubled by PoW's ongoing defiance of all requests to tone down his/her behavior. —UncleDouggie (talk) 11:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/Special:Contributions/Heymid

"Mod" lesson not learned — see this diff. Note that I now have warned this user about this concern, hoping that he becomes/is aware of this concern. It turned out to be relatively pointless; he responded by refactoring the headline and saying that "Mods are mods" (the opposite). He apparently believed I wanted him blocked (which was not the case).

I'd like to point out that his constructive comments (and mainspace edits; excluding his "shouty" edit summaries and comments) suggest that he may have good intentions of being an active user at Misplaced Pages. He is still a relatively new user though; he has been at the Simple Misplaced Pages only since July 19, 2010, as can be seen in his prev contributions log. He probably just needs more time and experience. I don't know. HeyMid (contributions) 08:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, "mods" is just a personal peeve of mine - if POW, or anyone, really wants to call admins "mods" there's nothing to prevent POW doing that. The real concern is civility, but that's not - at this point - a concern for ANI. TFOWR 08:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

He has also asked User:Armbrust questions about what he would do if he were a "mod" on his RfA; this is just a misnomer though: he's not breaking any policies, it's just mildly annoying that he's using an incorrect term. This doesn't really have any further relevance to a now-resolved ANI thread. GiftigerWunsch 08:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a suggestion: Maybe he needs a mentor? HeyMid (contributions) 08:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I tried that informally on his talk page and finally gave up. He may have taken a few of my suggestions, but it's clear that he's not budging on the remaining issues. —UncleDouggie (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Actually while on the topic of questions at Armbrust's RfA; it seems that PoW essentially asking for a second opinion on a personal attack for which he was blocked previously, and suggesting that a sysop making the same comment would have been treated differently. Does this strike anyone else as rather WP:POINTy and possibly forum shopping? It's particularly disruptive that the user has chosen to add such questions to a user's RfA for no apparent reason other than to make a WP:POINT, imo. GiftigerWunsch 12:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

  It is definitely a point issue that he is having. As for his previous block, is amusing he still thinks its not appropriate now that another user is complaining about some of the issues he was blocked for. -DJSasso (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

  For completeness, I will mention that he did the same thing at Ron Ritzman's recent RFA. —UncleDouggie (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  Yeah, it seems like he is trying to use WP:ADMINSHOP to prove that "mods" are kinder to each other than to "commoners". Buggie111 (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Stalking?

It would appear from his talk page that Clementina (talk · contribs) is growing uncomfortable with Protector of Wiki following her around. I only noticed this following his approval (again, all caps edit summary) of an article she nominated at T:TDYK. This is slightly worrying. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 05:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Appears that POW has read this thread — see this diff. HeyMid (contributions) 07:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

User warned and directed to WP:HOUND. Let's try not to use "stalk"... T. Canens (talk) 08:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, she has complained about being uncomfortable about his hounding on IRC to me as has Griffinofwales, however I haven't heard that he kept hounding griffin since I warned him. -DJSasso (talk) 12:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

ALL CAPS

User:Protector of Wiki has continuously used ALL CAPS in all of his edit summaries. He has also used exclusively, the Only Warning template when a new editor vandalizes or makes a inappropriate page along with a ALL CAPS edit summary. Eight editors, User:X!, User:UncleDouggie, User:Lothar von Richthofen, User:Airplaneman, User:Heymid, User:Sonia, User:Trusilver, and myself User:Alpha Quadrant have asked him to stop using ALL CAPS, as it is considered shouting and biting newcomers and is therefore disruptive. Protector of Wiki has told us that he wishes to emphasize by using all caps. We have suggested using bold text instead, as it is not considered shouting. However he continues to use all caps as well as the only warning template. According to this he has been blocked from Simple Misplaced Pages for incivility and also recently blocked here for 72 hours for incivility block log. Can someone else please try and talk to this user? Thanks --Alpha Quadrant 22:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I give up. That basically illustrates that he's not willing to cooperate with little things like fixing "mods" or capslock, and that he's being pointy. My tendency to err on the side of good faith only goes so far. sonia♫ 00:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I still don't think that his behavior is worthy of a block at this time. He's going to either get his act together or land in more hot water soon enough that will make the course of action clear. I am impressed with his content edits and logic in article discussions. He has been a benefit to the project, but at the cost of some upset editors. —UncleDouggie (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Frankly, POW can call sysops "Purple monkey dishwashers" if they so choose, and so long as their choice of language doesn't fall foul of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA it's not an issue (it irks me, but that's more because it's just incorrect). My personal view is that there are behavioural issues here, and that sooner or later POW is going to cease to be an editor here. But we have in no way reached that point yet. ALL CAPS EDIT SUMMARIES are annoying, and I'd hope POW stops it, but it's hardly an ANI issue. I'd suggest WP:WQA, maybe, but until there's a continuing pattern of behavioural issues this isn't an ANI issue. TFOWR 09:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a point however where his all caps etc becomes pointy editing which is blockable. -DJSasso (talk) 11:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Using inappropriate warnings can also be blockable if he really refuses to stop. —Soap— 11:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I just found this. Buggie111 (talk) 13:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

How many people in this day and age really don't know that ALL CAPS on the interwebz is offensive and uncivil? The diff posted by Buggie111 shows me that this is a highly problematic editor who either doesn't "get it", or is a deliberate troll. The account name itself implies a POV warrior or battleground mentality. POW ought to either be blocked or at least must agree to mentorship. The ALL CAPS garbage and the disruptive editing needs to stop now. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I think our patience has been tested enough - his recent activity (shunning warnings, etc, abrasive tone) has been on the verge of trolling. His calling admins 'mods' has also been irritating, as is his referral to editors as 'commoners' (Misplaced Pages is not a social hierarchy), the worst part is how he refuses all comments, and continues to use these terms, eg. "Yikes! Three MODS and 2 COMMONERS are hounding me! ". Connormah (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

LOL, he sonds like a funny guy, but I think he was probably trolling and disregarding the standard for wiki behavior, so if he got blocked, that was probably the RIGHT thing to do. :-)--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 18:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I applaud PeterSymonds for putting himself out there and making the call on this. It was becoming increasingly obvious that POW was making this into his own little game. He knew that by warning him, others were upset with a behavior, so he continued that behavior just to frustrate others. Glad that this disruptive behavior has been capped with this block. either way (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Good block, POINTy disruption and general unwillingness to edit collegially. 67.122.209.115 (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Good block; I was one of several users who attempted to reason with the user and ask him to stop misusing terminology and typing in capitals, and the response was continued WP:POINTy disruption. It's apparent that the user is doing more damage than good. GiftigerWunsch 23:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Petersymonds, you have my applause. This person has been nothing but trouble the past few weeks. I echo all the comments above. Buggie111 (talk) 03:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Content dispute has escalated into tendentious editing

Hearfourmewesique (talk · contribs) wants to add trivial, and he hopes defamatory, content to the Katie Couric BLP article. His attempts were reverted by several editors. In talk page discussion here, the vast majority of editors rejected the proposed content as trivial, undue weight and against NPOV policy. So Hearfourmewesique tried the NPOV Noticeboard here, where all but one editor also rejected the proposed content as trivial, undue weight and against NPOV policy. So Hearfourmewesique tried the WikiQuette Noticeboard here, where he was again informed that his proposed content was trivial, undue weight and tabloid-ish. Now he is dismissing the consensus input from numerous editors, calling them a "mob" (see this edit summary), and he has chosen to edit war instead. His comments in his edit summaries, (...I am not going to repeat the explanation. Find it.) and (Discussion is over, no one contested my last statement for over a MONTH.) indicate a reluctance to resolve the dispute through discussion. A bit of help in resolving this matter would be appreciated. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• User:Hearfourmewesique notified of ANI discussion involving him.

OK, let's put this in proportion:

• Trivial – this word is being flung around like monkey feces, with no actual solid proof to it.
• Defamatory – it's a video depicting Couric making fun of the Palin family, as reported by multiple reliable sources, not a picture of her breasts exposed in a third world tabloid.
• Vast majority – this article is a fan club; there is not a single entry that counters the constant appraisals of her character and work that this article entirely comprises of.
• Mob – it's wikilinked to WP:Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, again with the fan club issue.
• Undue – we are talking about one sentence of somewhat negative reporting within an article that's entirely biased in Ms. Couric's favor and tenaciously guarded by the "mob" I was referring to earlier. This is a technique that seems to have been well developed on Misplaced Pages: get enough supporters and anything can be achieved under the pretense of consensus. Luckily, User:Drrll (the one in "all but one" that Xenophrenic mentioned) has enough common sense to understand my point, as opposed to any other editor that has been "swarmed" by the myriads of comments that were intended to flood mine and Drrll's.
• My comments – those are my two final comments after sweating bullets over extensive explanations of the validity of my point, being repeated over and over again until I got to that point (of simply instructing Xenophrenic to start listening to me, instead of exhausting me with these techniques). Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

There is strong support on the talkpage that the content has no actual value in her life story, user Hearfourmewesique is not listening and has been replacing the addition anyway, this has resulted in the article being locked. There is a consensus against the user and he should listen to those voices and when the article is unlocked in a couple of days if he again readds it against consensus, that would imo be disruptive editing. Off2riorob (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

A look through Hear4's contrib list indicates that when he veers into political articles he's trying to paint certain people a particular way, and his "fan club" comments above are par for the course when it comes to editors who want to violate the BLP rules. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

...and here we are with the politics: you find whatever you can to try and make me look bad at any cost. Your "look" can be summarized in Couric and Michael Moore, to the latter's article a concise and neutral paragraph being added, with multiple reliable sources, on an issue that wasn't covered before I added that paragraph. Unless you can prove that I want to violate BLP intentionally, I will interpret this as a personal attack. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

So just what was the point of adding a lengthy blurb about how Michael Moore supposedly supports the idea of a mosque on Ground Zero? Do you think his article also reads like a "fan club"? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Supposedly??? Wow man, I though you'd be wiser than that, being a veteran here and all... read the sources, he's proudly "shouting it" on his website! Having said that and the issue being covered by multiple reliable secondary sources, it should be in his bio. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

So, does the Moore article read like a fan club article? I don't think so. And like pundits such as O'Reilly and Hannity, he thrives on controversy. Meanwhile, your continued attempts to make a mountain out of the Couric-Palin molehill skew the matter. That video didn't come out until long after the election, and there is no end of people who made fun of Palin in public, at the time, so the fact that she did so, in private, is nothing unusual and is undue weight in the article. As far as a "personal attack"... well, I merely read what you wrote earlier, and as a "veteran", I saw that it fits the pattern of many, many editors I've seen here who complain when they aren't allowed to put their negative trivial stuff into an article - for example, as with the siege of the Palin article during the fall of 2008, which I helped to defend. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Your position that you can add anything you want that you can find a citation for it the problem you are having. We are writing the life stories of living people and we should use editorial judgment as regards what has value in their life that is worth adding, if you find yourself in a minority that the content you desire to add is worthwhile and noteworthy that is the time to start listening, not the time to suggest all the people that disagree with your position are members of the article subjects fan club. Off2riorob (talk)

Bingo. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Far more important in the grand scheme of things is that despite all the initial hype, Couric and CBS News have yet to make a dent in their ratings deficit - a fact which actually is stated in the article. I wonder if a "fan club" article would be likely to mention that fact? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The "lengthy blurb" is a short four-sentenced paragraph (just finishing the Moore thought). As for Couric... this might seem trivial, but none of you are considering that it's an indication of her being biased against Palin, a fact which influenced the interviews, prompting Palin's supporters to see it as being from the most negative perspective ever. Declining ratings are nothing compared to that. Nowhere is Coric's personal agenda mentioned anywhere in the article. She's not a neutral reporter and this is a clear influence on her work, which is seen by millions of people on a daily basis. Is any of that mentioned in the article, even when supported by multiple sources? No. So... yes, it's a fan club that happens to mention poor Ms. Couric and the declining ratings she can't raise... sniff sniff and sad puppies.

P.S. Just for the record, I happen to agree with her on the Palin issue; I believe Palin is one of the most incompetent political candidates the US has seen in years. On the other hand, I'm not a TV reporter and I'm not influencing masses of people based on my wording. Again: all I want is for the article to be a bit more balanced. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

We are not here to right great wrongs. If you don't understand that, or cannot understand how your editing has taken on that quality, you should not be editing the article at this time. Please consider this a final warning from an uninvolved administrator to cease and desist. NW (Talk) 18:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant. WP:GREATWRONGS is a specific instruction to "only report that which is verifiable from reliable secondary sources". I have supplied seven, and Drrll supplied one more, making it eight. Final warning? It's the first time we interact, pal, chill out.

To BaseballBugs, per WP:OSE, the fact many others were making fun of Palin at the time doesn't make it OK and/or trivial for Couric to have done that as well. Besides, she didn't do it in private, she was reading the script at her stand, with the camera being aimed at her; she just thought the camera was turned off. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be interesting to hear what Palin had to say about Couric also, but that wouldn't mean it belongs in the Palin article. Also, a fact being verifiable is not a ticket to inclusion in an article, it's merely a minimum standard that must be met before it can be considered for inclusion, especially on a BLP. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that Hearfourmewesique actually believes he has some damning "gotcha" content here, as evidenced by his mistaken assertion that Couric "thought the camera was turned off". In fact, Couric asks and is told that they are filming during the first 24 seconds of that video footage, and she even does the customary 3.. 2.. 1.. sound-check countdown before launching into her read-through, which she promptly interrupts with the exclamation, "Where the hell do they get these names?" There is actually nothing defamatory about that video footage, and Couric wasn't "caught" doing anything other than learning for the first time about people with names like Trig and Track that live at the far fringe of our nation, eat mooseburgers, hunt caribou, and leave 90% of Americans scratching their collective heads and asking: WTF?

When, in an effort of compromise, I left the trivial content in the article, and expanded it a bit to describe just what Couric was making fun of, Hearfour reverted those edits, too. Apparently, too much information for the reader ruins the "we caught Katie doing something baaad" aura he was trying to push, and shows it as trivial. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Mountain-out-of-molehill stuff. A lot of Americans wondered the same thing. Maybe she could have asked a softer version of that question during the interview. Like the time Jay Leno asked Frank Zappa why he named his son "Dweezil". Frank's answer was, "Because I wanted to," and that was the end of that discussion. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

For the record I'd like to reply to a point made by Hear.. It appears he is claiming that the incident shows Couric's bias and provides context for the infamous Palin interviews that came after. The sources do not support this -- they merely remark on the trivial details already mentioned. Anything more is from (unreliable) Palin supporters with a grudge. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, so you're claiming that Palin supporters are unreliable – because they're Palin supporters? Why would they even bother getting upset unless something in Couric's portrayal of Palin wasn't all kosher? Have all Palin supporters unanimously decided to scapegoat Couric on an empty basis? Your logic has more holes in it than a bagel factory at 5 AM. Most of these sources point at the fact that the interviews followed shortly after the video was shot, and were seen by some as an extensive smear campaign. Yet I'm the one accused of a smear attempt because I'm stating what's covered by several press outlets... huh? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Not stopping

We could do with some eyes on talk:Michael Moore#Religious view missing, where the same editor is having difficulty understanding basic guidelines. Wikispan (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for edit warring on multiple articles. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Any Pakistani admins?

I just blocked Tariq babur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24h because he keeps creating content and articles about himself and his family members, and has not acknowledged or responded to numerous messages on his talk page or discussed any edits on the talk pages of the relevant articles. Oh, and there was the incident of removing the images from Muhammad, but that is normal. Perhaps someone with a language in common could have a chat with the user? Guy (Help!) 11:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I have left him a message. Its in Hindi, which is very similar (especially if u are writing in English script :) to Urdu, the national language of Pakistan. It basically just explains that we have tried to make him understand that it is not appropriate to make articles on family members; I told him we are sorry to have blocked him, but as he did not respond, there was nothing else we could have done. I told him his block is only for 1 day; but emphasized that it is vital that he responds, in English or Urdu, whatever works, or else he may be blocked again. I recently encountered a similar problem with Shopnomukarji (talk · contribs) - no response whatsoever. I guess it really can't be helped, since obviously they must be understanding English to contribute here. Shiva (Visnu) 00:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I am taking the liberty of copying the translation kindly provided above to the talk page. It will assist anyone who is checking that page who does not know about the posting here, and who reads neither Hindi nor Urdu. If this is a problem, feel free to undo my cut-and-paste. Bielle (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Right thing to do - should have done it myself. Slipped my mind completely. Thanks :) Shiva (Visnu) 17:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No pakistani admins YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 01:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps he can be contacted here:

http://ur.wikipedia.org/صفحہ_اول

Count Iblis (talk) 01:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Radagast3 blocked for reverting copyvio removal

After warning Radagast3 (talk · contribs) twice (, ) to stop reverting me when I replaced copyrighted material (specifically, quotes from the New International Version of the Bible) with public domain equivalents (specifically, quotes from the World English Bible and the King James Version), I have now blocked him for 1 month. The article primarily affected is New Wine into Old Wineskins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but it's happened today now at all the articles in the "Canonical/New Testament" section of {{Parables of Jesus}}. —Angr (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I've unblocked. As far as I can see, you've edit warred to use quotes from your preferred version of the Bible, and then blocked your opponent. That's appalling behaviour. Copyrighted material is allowed to be quoted in Misplaced Pages: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." (Misplaced Pages:Non-free content). I can see from your user page that you don't like fair use, but your preference for public domain doesn't give you a right to force the debate by blocking your opponent. I will leave it to other to consider sanctions against you. Fences&Windows 22:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Poor form this. Using admin tools to advance one's own agenda. Should this person continue as a sysop? MtD (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if the user had been blocked by an uninvolved admin, a month block for edit warring (which usually warrants a 12- or 24-hour block), is like shooting a gnat with a railgun and with the additional context, it seriously calls into question whether or not User:Angr can be trusted to use the bit responsibly and constructively. I'm inclined to believe that this user should be desysopped. GiftigerWunsch 22:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

F&W, it's allowed when we can't use free content to do the same thing. The quotes serve the same purpose and are unencumbered. While the unblock was a good idea, id like for you to clarify to the user a bit here if at all possible so they dont dive back into the same dispute. -- ۩ Mask 22:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

No, you're confusing image policy with the general policy for text. Any text, copyrighted or not, can be quoted in small amounts, as long as it's clearly indicated that it is a quote, and the source is clearly identified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. its NFCC, Non-Free Content Criteria, not image criteria. We pull excerpts of song lyrics off userpages all the time because we dont allow fair use in userspace. We trim quotations frequently to qualify in articles. We dont really argue whether they deserve fair use status because there aren't alternatives to be used. There no freely-licensed Harry Potter to quote from, just the copyright-encumbered edition. There is a free alternative in this case. Please read through our policies as well as Foundation Directives. -- ۩ Mask 23:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see how Angr's clearly corrupt behaviour is dealt with. My guess involves carpets and sweeping. Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This probably wasn't the best way to have approached things, but calling for a desysop is a bit over the top, and Fences&Windows unblock was inappropriate. This use of copyrighted material is not permissible, because copyrighted material can only be used if it is used for a purpose that cannot be fulfilled by free material, which, since there are public domain translations of the Bible available, can only be held to be true if the discussion is specifically about the copyrighted text.—Kww(talk) 22:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

An admin edit wars on a grey area of policy and then blocks his opponent for a month - that's a bad block, full stop. Any block by an involved admin is a bad block and should be reverted. My unblock was entirely appropriate, we should never excuse abuse of admin tools. I'm not calling for desysopping, but at least an acknowledgement of why Angr should not have blocked Radagast3 is required. Fences&Windows 22:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The New International Version translation of the Bible is one of the two most common Bible translations used in English, along with the King James Version. Using a less-common translation is a POV issue; so is universally preferring the King James over the NIV, even if done with the best of intentions. In a great number of cases, discussing the actual text given in the NIV is going to be a part of a proper encyclopedia article. So long as it isn't gratuitous use of copyrighted material, limited fair-use quotes are not only acceptable, but encyclopedically essential. But in any case, blocking with instructions to prefer a Bible translation that nobody actually uses for religious purposes over one that they do is a serious, serious matter. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Its needed when illustrating differences between translations, not for general use. Please see The Five Pillars. We are Free Content. Anytime we add content encumbered with restrictions it represents a failing of our goals and needs to be done only when there is no possible way at all to give the information BUT with encumbered content. -- ۩ Mask 22:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course - we are a free-content encyclopedia. However, in order for use to fulfill the "encyclopedia" part properly, we need to reflect the texts that are actually being used. It's profoundly unfortunate that the NIV is not free content, but in many cases it can't be substituted for, because choice of Bible translations can be a serious POV issue, and the sane way to avoid the issue is to use a common translation, and preferably more than one, rather than using one translation or adding an obscure one that happens to have nice copyright terms. It's not an easy issue, by any means - but he original block under discussion was very poor. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The important thing to note here, is that whether to use a very relevant, non-free source, or a less relevant free one, is a matter for discussion, and edit warring was inappropriate by both parties. But what was vastly more inappropriate, was that one of the parties to the edit war abused their admin tools to remove the opposition, and giving a completely disproportionate block in the process. This isn't the place to discuss the content issue; the issue which concerns ANI is the behaviour of the involved parties, including the misuse of the admin tools by User:Angr. GiftigerWunsch 23:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

When Angr first raised this issue (and I didn't realise he/she was an admin until I was blocked), I encouraged a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Bible. I'm not sure there really is an issue here: most Bible publishers allow "fair use" quotes (the practice to date, which I've been following, has been to quote a range of different modern versions, and to restrict the amount quoted in any one article -- my belief is that use of, for example, the NIV across the whole of Misplaced Pages falls within Zondervan's limits for non-commercial use without written permission). If there is an issue, we need a centralised debate at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Bible covering (1) under what circumstances copyrighted Bible versions can be quoted, (2) how many verses can be quoted in an article, and (3) which are the preferred Bible non-copyrighted versions to use. Such a debate should lead to a clear "Use of the Bible on Misplaced Pages" policy, which editors could then be pointed at and encouraged to follow. In this case, Angr appears to be advancing a strong pro-WEB agenda (and to a lesser extent, of the KJV), which also includes changing standard templates leading to the multi-version BibleGateway site, and using Argumentum ad baculum fairly forcefully. Like Gavia immer, I'm concerned about the single-handed conversion of the whole of Misplaced Pages to a version which is not widely used and which is not respected by scholars. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

If they allow people to use it for some purposes its no dice, generally. We freely redistribute for any one to use for any purpose. Putting restrictions on that means we dont use it except under fair use, and we dont use fair use when a freely available alternative is available. It can even be a crappier illustration of the concept then the encumbered one so long as it still allows understanding. -- ۩ Mask 23:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

For anything other than brief excerpts, we use a free version. Because this is a 💕. See WP:NFCC#1. Block was poor, but Angr is correct in his viewpoint about which should be used. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to edge back into content matters, but I think that actual usage outside Misplaced Pages is the best possible neutral measure of what "allows" understanding, and so the invitation to use a particular, uncommon translation as a way to avoid being blocked is a big part of what's wrong here. The King James Version, of course, is out of copyright and in common use, but relying on only one translation when others are also common can violate neutrality. I would much rather see a guideline on how and where to make minimal use of copyrighted Bible quotes than a ban that hurts our encyclopedic purpose. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not up to us, this is a Foundation Directive. From http://wikimediafoundation.org/Resolution:Licensing_policy :

Whereas the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free content license,"

1. All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License, or which is otherwise free as recognized by the 'Definition of Free Cultural Works' as referenced above.

2. In addition, with the exception of Wikimedia Commons, each project community may develop and adopt an EDP. Non-free content used under an EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users.

3. Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose.

Bolding is mine.-- ۩ Mask 00:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Who are you to say that the World English Bible or KJV serves the same educational purpose as a Bible translation that scholars actually use? john k (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)One topic of debate is what constitutes a "brief excerpt." That's currently accepted, but Black kite appears to be suggesting that the brevity restriction should be interpreted more strictly. I'm fine with that, in principle, but any change to Misplaced Pages practice needs to be discussed and communicated. Any necessary changes to Bible quotations need to be done carefully and with regard to context, not in a single-handed sweep. The existing sweep has caused all kinds of problems, such as in Parable of the Leaven, where the quotation from the inaccurate WEB translation (using "yeast" rather than "leaven") contradicts the (sourced) explanatory text of the article, and indeed also the article title. I would appreciate some clarity as to whether I'm going to be blocked again if I fix that problem. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Radagast, read my comment above for depth, but the quick version is no community discussion will change this. With a work like the bible, which has versions both under copyright and free from it, we have a directive, from the foundation, that simply does not allow us to use works under copyright when a free version exists. Period. End of story. This is one of the few things that the guys who run this show actually felt the need to lay down the law on. -- ۩ Mask 00:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, there are some cases where copyrighted versions must be quoted, such as when discussing differences between translations. We need a policy that articulates the limits on such uses. If there is a directive to apply "fair use" guidelines more strictly (and I think, given the wide interest in this topic, that clarity on this would be a good idea), then we need discussion on which public-domain translations to use. Again, I am concerned about errors being introduced into articles by an administrator advancing an agenda for one particular translation. I'm also personally concerned about the question: will I be blocked for fixing article errors, even where that involves replacing one public-domain version by a more accurate public-domain version, given the context? -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, clearly your first example is one where fair use is reasonable (as long as the excerpt s minimal), but otherwise WP:NFCC#1 is very clear - "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." So if you're quoting from an unfree translation where the free version communicates the same content, you need to use the free one. That's something that isn't negotiable. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

(EC x3)We agree! Looking at differences between works derived from the same source, regardless of the copyright state of the works, would not be possible without excerpts. You wont get any arguments there. What this whole thread is about though is if the point of the section or article isnt about differences, but just the thing itself, you just flat out can not use the copyrighted work. If the article needs the parable, you get it from the free work. If differences between translations is a major bone of contention in the academic world for a particular story or parable, and there are reliable sources that discuss the difference and commentary about why and what the differences mean, then by all means use both, and illustrate why that is important using said sources. I'll be the first one to thank you for improving the project and I imagine every else will join me. -- ۩ Mask

This is a policy discussion and does not belong on ANI. Please take it elsewhere. Note also that NFCC says: "Articles and other Misplaced Pages pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author. Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Misplaced Pages only where all 10 of the following criteria are met." That is, NFCC#1 would not appear to apply to text. But again, that's a debate for elsewhere. — kwami (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

-

While I disagree with your reading of NFCC, I just want to point out that NFCC is our mirroring and explanation of the Foundation's directive. It's useful in the abstract but go read the Foundation Licensing Policy I linked earlier for the authoritative text. -- ۩ Mask 00:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Assuming this is the policy you meant, I still disagree. They speak of uploading files, not quoting text. — kwami (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you think you do when you save an edit on the wiki? You're uploading a file. Thats why we can use diffs, it looks at the difference between the two files. You dont think you just magically think of what you want to contribute and the computer displays it for you, do you? -- ۩ Mask 00:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If that's what they mean, the policy is vague to the point of being useless. It's certainly not a file before you upload it, so you could argue it's not "uploading a file" even with that reading. They mention media several times; they never mention text. The summary is clear that it's not text. If they mean text, they should say text. Until that happens, I will continue reading the policy as if I were a human being and spoke English. — kwami (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I've started a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content about this issue. Evil saltine (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me ask that again: for the two verses quoted in Parable of the Leaven, the public-domain KJV is a more accurate translation than the public-domain WEB, according to the scholarly sources cited in the article. Will I be blocked for replacing one by the other? -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Replacing? Yes. Yes you will. Comparing and contrasting from both editions, with commentary in the text, cited to reliable sources? No. -- ۩ Mask 00:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, missed the switch from NIV to KJV. KJV is unencumbered (in the US anyway, where our servers are. I believe there's still a Crown Copyright on it in the UK). That would be fine. -- ۩ Mask 00:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This is clearly something that needs debate and consensus, but accusations of bad faith on either side are unacceptable. It's reasonable for an admin who sees edit warring on copyvios to block, though of course it should normally not be someone involved in those edit wars. But we have claims above that it would be appropriate to desysop even if he were not involved, so what's going on here? A month is extreme, I agree, but blocks can always be lessened or lifted, as this one was. I'm not familiar with block policy for copyright violations; if the general consensus is that this was out of line, then proper procedure can be explained to Angr. But the accusations that he is pushing some sort of sectarian agenda are baseless: There's no reason not to take him at his word that his choice was motivated by the KJV being dated and the WEB version being free and convenient, and that the block was to protect WP against copyvios, which many of us here see as a threat to the integrity of the project. (Though I agree with Radagast in this case.) — kwami (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• • The blocking admin was clearly in the wrong and as far as I can tell has not apologized. First he was involved, second this is a gray area of NFCC (what makes for a "brief verbatim textual excerpt" is unclear) which makes the block highly questionable, and third the block was way too long. In all seriousness at the least that acknowledgment of error is needed. If that's not forthcoming I'd say a desysop is appropriate as it implies Angr doesn't think anything wrong was done and that is uncontroversially not the case. Hobit (talk) 01:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

My own view on the underlying matter is that all short bible quotations should appear in at least the KJV as well as the most accepted modern translation. All discussions of translated bible passages inherently involve the question of the accuracy & intent of the translation & so will always meet the NFCC criterion for being essential to the discussion. A stricter interpretation of NFCC in this particular context is inappropriate to the fundamental mission of both NPOV and WP:V. Verifiability can only be attained by using the most accurate version available. (And the intent of the copyright on the NIV is a special case, intended to protect the right to publish the Bible as a whole or substantial part, but to encourage its use otherwise--not considering it in this instant is unwarranted hype-legalism. But this is really for elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The necessary action here on this board is how to deal with the inappropriate block in an ongoing interpretation dispute. This is a debated copyvio at worst, not an unquestioned copyvio where an admin can use his tools even if involved. The proof that the block was inappropriate was, as mentioned, the grossly excessive length. there are always dozens of tother admins available, and I don;t think any other would have blocked for such a period. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• TL;DR, but I think it's clear that: a) the blocking admin was an involved editor, and should not have been the one to make the block. It should have been discussed here first. b) A one-month block for edit warring by an involved editor is clearly wrong when a regular warring block is 24 hours. This is unacceptable, and is using a block to further one side's position in a content dispute. c) NFCC applies to all content, no just images; it is however a grey area. d) The unblock was correct, and does not constitute wheel warring since the blocking admin brought it here for discussion — which, albeit late, was the right thing to do; and e) calls for desysopping are a bit far-fetched at this point, unless this has occurred more than once. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 01:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Short short version: Bad block, good unblock, no desysop (live and learn). Policy and guideline discussion elsewhere. Saionara. --Jayron32 01:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with that assuming the blocking admin acknowledges the issues and ideally apologizes. Hobit (talk) 02:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• It may have been in error, but the original block was indefinite. In other words, banning someone from Misplaced Pages. This is not just a bad block, it's an appalling block. We could have lost a good editor, and I hope Radagast3 isn't turned away by all this. Please don'tsweep Angr's poor behavior under the carpet. StAnselm (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't quite understand how one can have a copyright on what is supposed to be God's word. Count Iblis (talk) 01:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The copyright is on the translation into English, not on the original biblical text in Hebrew or Greek or Aramaic. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

As a general comment, it is impossible to apply the non-free content criteria to text in exactly the same fashion as to images. Apart from the issues raised by (for example) quoting a line of poetry or prose, one must bear in mind that even in summarizing the plot of a copyrighted novel or play or film, we are making an implicit fair-use claim. In doing so, we hardly ever think that we are using non-free content, much less apply the NFCC to such content, but that is just what we are doing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

NYB: Your general comment is spot on, but I don't believe that the specific instance you cite, i.e. summarizing the plot, actually involves fair use. Copyright covers the specific implementation of an idea -- the actual words used, in the case of text -- and not the ideas themselves, including the plot. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, copyright does not only cover "the actual words used". Even if there is no verbatim duplication of the copyrighted original, infringement can be found if the new version follows so closely on the structure of the original that copying is clear ("non-literal similarity"). See our article on substantial similarity and its sources for more. In terms of plot summary, these are indeed derivative of the original under U.S. law. See here for more. But I'll leave it at that, as this is wandering afield. :) --Moonriddengirl 13:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

And back to the topic, this was a very bad block. I see it was originally indefinite, then half an hour later it was changed to a month. It was against an editor who has never been blocked before. There was no emergency that I can see requiring any kind of block. Dougweller (talk) 05:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• The block was terrible but if it only happened once, desysopping is excessive. Admonishment about WP:INVOLVED is more standard. Desysopping is for repeated, persistent cluelessness, or (in some cases) really over-the-top breaches that this doesn't reach. Re NIV: that is not a free license. 67.119.2.101 (talk) 07:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Welp, Malleus was right once again. Admin abuse gets swept under the carpet and ignored. Good job, everyone! Skinny87 (talk) 08:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and sarcastic comments are considered very constructive on ANI. GiftigerWunsch 08:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It isn't being ignored. It's being called 'terrible', 'a bad block', etc.. Do you really think one bad block is enough to de-sysop? If it turns out to be part of a pattern from Angr, then he probably will be desysopped. What do you want done? Dougweller (talk) 09:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• I disagree with the "admin abuse" characterization completely. I don't know Angr's full history, but I have been involved in a recent and continuing content dispute with him over an image I uploaded... and he has been nothing but courteous, even when I boldly reverted him, knowing full well that he was an admin and could have blocked me because I'm just a regular editor. He could have reverted me, but he assumed good faith, and we're still in negotiations. I think a reprimand of some sort is in order in this case: but consideration of desysopping is premature, IMO. Angr: please speak up again here, since the boomerang has come back from your filing this report... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 09:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The stylish way forward would be for Angr to voluntarily resign his admin status and ask for community reconfirmation via WP:RFA. Groomtech (talk) 11:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That is the silliest thing I have ever read on here. And this is where I read the Starr Report, so that's saying something.-- ۩ Mask 14:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If Angr honestly believed that there was a copyright issue, then he had a responsibility as an admin to revert it. His better choice would have been to ask another admin to look into it. But editors like Groomtech, who apparently think there is a constitutional right to edit wikipedia freely and without any rules (as suggested on his user page essay), are way over the line in calling for Angr to give up his adminship due to one mistake. (It had best not happen again, though.) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Not at all what I say, but scarcely relevant to this discussion, so if anyone is interested they should perhaps read it for themselves. Groomtech (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

A lot of people seem to think it was inappropriate for me to be the one to block, because I was somehow "involved". My only "involvement" was to remove the copyvio and replace it with a free equivalent. I only "edit-warred" because Radagast3 continued to revert my removal of it (, , , , ). If this had been a content dispute, of course I wouldn't have done the block myself. But it wasn't a content dispute, it was a matter of a user clearly, flagrantly, and shamelessly reinserting a copyvio into an article, even after having been warned not to. It is no different than if I had replaced a copyrighted publicity photo of a living celebrity with a freely licensed photo, and he had persisted in reverting to the copyrighted image. I have no problem with the unblock as long as Radagast3 understands and agrees that quoting from the NIV (or any other copyrighted Bible translation) is unacceptable at Misplaced Pages, except in places where the specific wording of a particular translation is what's being discussed (e.g. at Isaiah 7:14). —Angr (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it was a bad block; blocking by an involved admin is always bad, and an indefinite (or even month long) block is way too long for what's essentially an edit war over a gray area in copyright policy. Buddy431 (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of short passages from the NIV in Misplaced Pages is not a copyright violation. john k (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

However that may be decided, it is clearly not indisputable copyright violation--as is proven by the fact that we have here editors in good standing disputing it. This is not like vandalism--there is no immediate harm in asking someone else to look at it. You may have thought at the time it was indisputable, but do you now understand that it was not? Do you now agree in like circumstance where your interpretation of content may be reasonably disputed, you should not be the one to block? DGG ( talk ) 21:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if when people are talking about a "copyvio" they mean "copyright violation under U.S. law" or "violation of some rule made up by wikipedia which has little to do with copyright law." If the latter, I have no idea if it is a violation of a wikipedia rule. It may be; in that case, the rule is stupid, and ought to be changed. I think that, in general, the rules have not been interpreted in such a rigid manner, but that used to be true for pictures too. I suppose it was inevitable that a rule designed to stupidly prevent us from using pictures we wouldn't get into legal trouble for using is now being used to argue that we should be stupidly prevented from using fair use quotations from a copyrighted work that won't get us into legal trouble. Angr: on what basis is it up to you to judge that Bible translations are interchangeable and that one version will do just as well as another so that fair use isn't in play? This is a judgment call, not a cut and dry rule, or at least it should be. john k (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's clear now that Angr refuses to acknowledge his error. I don't think he should continue as an admin. StAnselm (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the situation with an admin misusing the bit should be analogous to that of a user failing to following editing policies. That is, we don't usually indef someone for a single offense, so similarly, we shouldn't de-sysop for a single admin offense. Similarly, while we prefer that people apologize for and admit their errors, we usually don't require them to do so (because reasonable people, acting in good faith, interpret policy differently). Thus, we don't even need Angr to admit error, we simply need Angr to understand that continued use of admin tools in a way that does not match consensus will eventually lead to de-sysoping. (Side note: I, too, think that Angr was in error, with the block length at least. With the issue of being involved, it seems to me that if Angr honestly believed the problem to be one of copyright infringement, being involved is essentially irrelevant, as that is an exception to the normal rules (much like an admin can block a vandal that they themselves have been reverting). This is not to say that Angr has permission to continue to act this way, as consensus right now seems fairly clearly against the block and length, but that just that a single offense doesn't instantly lead to an "indef-block" (i.e., de-sysoping). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Actual NIV license...

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

Since I happen to have one handy, it says:

"The NIV text may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio), up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses, without express written permission of the publisher, providing that the verses quoted do not amount to a complete book of the Bible, nor do the verses quoted account for 25 percent or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted."

No claim of fair use applies: any reasonable (as per above permissions) NIV quote in Misplaced Pages has the express permission of the publisher. The vast majority of other Bible translations have similar clauses. Jclemens (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the place for the discussion, but I don't see how you can claim that's a free license Nil Einne (talk) 07:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• JClemens, don't forget that we require more than that from our content, and it needs to be available under a compatible license or it'd be considered non-free: our content, given correct attribution, may be used or refactored by anyone, for any purpose, including for commercial purposes. The NIV license doesn't permit that, so it's not free. GiftigerWunsch 07:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder that the King James version is subject to a perpetual Crown copyright in England. Groomtech (talk) 11:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

But not in the US, where the wikimedia servers are and whose copyright law Wikimedia is subject to. -- ۩ Mask 12:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Not what the Foundation resolution says. " in accordance with United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed " 92.233.49.8 (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That 'predominantly' means something like this. The US has more then 4 times as many pageviews as the next highest country (which isn't England. It's Germany. England is number 4 on the list. The note is primarily for informing users of other language wikipedias that the servers are in the US and must follow that law, not just (for example) the user having to follow Romanian law, which they presumably know. Thats why the US is explicitly mentioned. -- ۩ Mask 14:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

92.233, note that in your own quote, it says and, not or. As the servers are hosted in Florida, US copyright law must be followed. In addition, copyright law for countries where many users view the material are also important. That means if it's permissible under the copyright law for one of these countries but not the US, it's not permissible. GiftigerWunsch 14:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

But that is exactly what I'm pointing out. In addition, the law of England imposes a copyright on the King James version. (Logical and is symmetric.) So it's not permissible. 92.233.49.8 (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, got logged out there. 92.233.49.8 was me. Groomtech (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Per WP:C: "The Wikimedia Foundation is based in the United States and accordingly governed by United States copyright law." (Though it notes there as well that we try to respect the laws of other countries, so German Misplaced Pages follows Germany's more restrictive standards--what the "Exemption Doctrine Policy" being quoted refers to--and we don't hold all content from nations with which we have no copyright treaties public domain.) Per Misplaced Pages:Non-U.S. copyrights, "While Misplaced Pages prefers content which is free anywhere in the world, it accepts content which is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries. For example works of the US federal government are in the public domain in the United States and widely used on Misplaced Pages, but they may not be in the public domain outside the United States." Misplaced Pages:Public Domain: "Misplaced Pages, and the Wikimedia Foundation, its legal body, are based in Florida, United States. Although legislation is sometimes unclear about which laws are to apply on the Internet, the primary law relevant for Misplaced Pages is that of the United States. For re-users of Misplaced Pages content, it is the laws of their respective countries. In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world is in the public domain."(footnote omitted) We try to note content that may not be public domain in other countries (for instance, see the image templates Template:PD-old and Template:PD-US), but we do accept them if they are PD in the U.S. --Moonriddengirl 16:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we need to treat this text like any other non-free text content. The danger of operating under that permission, were we so inclined, is that we are not publishing one article, but a collection of millions of them, and the risk that we'll go above 500 verses seems high. --Moonriddengirl 13:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Except that each page is a separate publication. Jclemens (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think we are a compilation, just like any other encyclopedia. (And in terms of practical reality, we are a single website, in spite of multiple subpages.) --Moonriddengirl 20:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't be using the NIV at all, and we should only use the KJV for its importance to the English language. If we want to discuss what the Bible actually says, we should use the NRSV or a similar scholarly translation, and such usage ought to be valid under fair use. john k (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That's your POV and you're welcome to it. The NIV has been the predominant translation in protestant America, and probably some other English-speaking countries, for 30+ years. A lot of Christian homiletics, hymnody, and other related disciplines have been directly tied to the NIV over that time, and replacing the specific translation with a different one is simply not equivalent. There was a bigger fight over proposed inclusion of gender-neutral language in an NIV revision than there ever was in the NRSV--why? Because by and large, people who have a "high view of scripture" don't use the NRSV. It is absolutely a scholarly translation--it is commonly used in Biblical Studies, but rarely or never in Evangelical worship. Each translation has its place in Misplaced Pages's coverage of Christian topics. Jclemens (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

NIV loses to KJV on cultural impact, and loses to NRSV on scholarly credibility. If we want to talk about what the Bible is actually saying in the original language, we should use the NRSV, which is about as close as we have to a translation that tries to do that (it is not completely successful in that, imo, because it has a pastoral purpose as much as a scholarly one, which is why you get stuff like the gender neutral language, but it's still better than any other major translation). If we want to talk about cultural impact and that kind of thing, I'm sure there are contexts where the NIV would be useful, but the KJV is more influential by a level of magnitude. NIV is kind of a distant second in both categories. john k (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll add that on the larger issue, I don't think that copyright issues should prevent us from using the NIV or NRSV when appropriate, that I think it is usually appropriate to use a more recent translation than the KJV (although in many cases we will want to give the KJV as well), and that I think that a translation of such dubious provenance as the World English Bible should not be used at all unless reliable sources can be found which vouch for it. john k (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I can agree with this. KJV has been around for 400 years, and has thus been referenced by a larger body of work. You'll also need KJV to discuss new religious movements that splinter from Christianity. NIV is more currently socially referenced in some places as mentioned above, and is likely the best balance between popularity and comprehensibility. NRSV is used in academic circles. Beyond that, there are probably 20+ other translations that are in use--ASV, RSV, NASB, NLT, TEV, REB, Jerusalem, New Jerusalem, Amplified, NCV, come to mind without stopping to think too hard--which may be appropriate for specific commentary in particular situations. For example, if we're dealing with a difficult or contentious passage like Malachi 2:16, the plethora of ways that different translations render the same passage into English is itself comment-worthy. Jclemens (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Kumar ldh

This is first time I m adding/notifying here. From last 2-3 days there is disagreement between me and user kumar Idh on Sabudana_Khichadi editing, can be found on my talk page User_talk:KuwarOnline#Sabudana Khichdi, I trying to explain him with wiki guidelines like WP:Original,WP:RS,WP:Verify, WP:NICE etc, while replying to his comments. He is reverting my edits see 1, 2, so I did 2-3 time(reverting his edits) but I dont want continue doing that as we all know what is 3RR. He is removing all the reference and adding his own personal view(without single reference) which clearly violates WP:Original, now the article not having a single reference, I added some reference like expressindia,dnaindia which can easily qualify WP:RS and prove that Sabudana_Khichadi is usually prepared in Maharashtra ref1,ref2, I dont have any problem if he provides good reference to his claim made on article. I tried to explain him and even ask to read WP:Original, I thought it will help him but now he it taking personally see his comments on my talk page. Well I dont have any problem if somebody points my problem, I will happily correct it, but he is taking it personally, and following my past edits to point of problems some time foolish like this one history1 history2, just to show me wrong he is adding template COI to category template, I wasn't aware of creating categories will ever qualify for COI, even the template says "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject". Still he added to Category:Companies based in Gurgaon which was created by me. see kumar contributions which can show he is targeting page created by me, I would apologizes if I posted this early to notice board, or I should have wait for more or something but I just wanted not to go for edit war. My concern is just that revert his edits unless his provides reference to his edits. thanks KuwarOnline 21:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, when I have been invited here I would simply like to present my point of view. Here are few of my observations:

• There is no credible/authentic information that proves that recipe in question is exclusive to Maharashtra. Citing numerous references doesn't prove this. I have provided the user links which can prove that recipe is not limited to Maharashtra but to other parts of India too. A simple Google search is sufficient.
• The user have been simply copy pasting information from websites. Just one example, http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=GTL_Ltd&diff=prev&oldid=386986130. User has simply copy pasted content.
• When there already exists a page "List of companies in Gurgaon" with much more exhaustive information then why is there a need to have a separate page "Category:Companies based in Gurgaon"?
• The contributor has never paid attention to grammar.

If all of above qualifies as quality contribution to Wiki, I will be forced to question Wiki policies. If I had taken all this as personal, I would have been the first one reporting KuwarOnline. In fact I left message on user's talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:KuwarOnline#Grammar_.26_content_copying) asking him to pay attention to what he contributes. The content posted by user has also been questioned by other contributor and user's response shows his arrogant behavior. There is no rule on Wiki that says I need to provide references to prove that sun rises in east. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumar ldh (talk • contribs) 07:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have added "Sabudana khichadi is an Indian dish. It is usually prepared in Maharashtra and as well as state like Gujarat, North Indian states" to article see old version I don't know how kumar is interpreting to what he says that only/exclusive to Maharashtrian dish?. The sentence I have added clearly says its Indian dish and usually prepared in Maharashtra and other states too. Again I say if kumar has good reference to article, I dont have problem.
• About copy pasting, I still not able to understand may be some admin can explain me. As every sentence of the GTL Ltd has its own source.
• About category I dont want to explain may be some admin/editor explain him, As I m tired being explaining. He simply dont understand difference between category and article.
• About grammar, see my talk page he is accusing me for grammar mistake e.g "its not chilli its chili", "there is nothing as chilli powder\green chilli pieces, it is red chili powder", "in "chilli powder\green chilli pieces" isn't correct, it should be "chilli powder/green chilli pieces" etc see history author of the article added it, still he blaming to me, this shows that how he desperate to prove me wrong, now he is making false claim to just show me wrong?
• About my behavior, please go through my talk page, let me know how it qualify for arrogant behavior. I will surely comply if I got genuine inputs from editors/admins.
• Kumar says that other editor also pointed about my grammar, e.g. "you wrote "sentence" as "sentance" " but the editor didn't know that how to see history of page before blaming to someone. see DLF History, which shows what I did. for more please see my talk page and DLF Limited history.
• Again, the whole point is just revert kumars edits (history) and let him know where he can improve on editing(follow wiki guidelines), so future edit wars like this wont happens. KuwarOnline 10:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps one way to cover both points of view on Sabudana Khichadi is to keep the first section just about what the dish is and then include a sub-section about preparation in Maharashtra without mentioming the word usually. -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

hmm sounds good to me. KuwarOnline 16:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

No one would have been bothered if KuwarOnline had paid attention to what I have been saying. Secondly, I will not take blame about getting personal. Its really saddening that a bit of advice, I have been very polite to KuwarOnline, to polish his skills sounded him insulting. I am not interested in wasting my time here but I would like to ask KuwarOnline to

• pay attention to whatever he is contributing, specially grammar, it is only going to help him.
• must talk to other users before reverting changes that if there was any specific reason for changes
• its OK to accept your fault, in fact only brave has heart to accept fault

Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumar ldh (talk • contribs) 15:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• About grammar, I already explained in my above comment, now I don't have any simple world to explain than above comments
• See the comments on kumars talk page User talk:Kumar ldh#Sabudana Khichadi‎‎, didn't I notified with reason why I reverted? with wiki guideline. I dont know how people can lie to this extend.
• fault? I already commented above if any genuine comment received I will comply. But till now whatever kumar said is all lie, you can follow my above comments where I given all links which can prove how kumar is lying and diverting topic nothing else, we are discussing here about edit on Sabudana Khichadi‎‎. KuwarOnline 16:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

KuwarOnline, I have better things in my life to do. Your grammar needs correction. I am not talking about your contribution to Gurgaon article. It was a general comment. You are taking it as a personal comment. Better skills are only going to help you not me. Secondly, I can not keep pointing to the fact you have never ever provided any reasonable, leave authentic, source for your edits. You simply keep reverting changes citing Wiki guidelines. I am not more going to reply you but to some admin. And you please do not call me a liar. Thanks for contributing to Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumar ldh (talk • contribs) 09:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks my friend, but let me know where I was wrong I will surely correct it. But till now whatever you pointed was done by some body else wasn't me. Just check history of the page compare my edits if you find anything please let me know, I will correct it. If you say my grammar needs correction its perfectly fine for me but you need to point where I was did wrong so I will know that your not just talking based on your assumption, You cannot just say anybody what you think unless you have some proof, other wise it would be called baseless accusation. About reverting, everybody in wikipedia has full rights to reverts edits if edits not adhere to wiki guideline. Same thing you did here history, you added all based on your experience/point of view/personal analysis etc, unless you provide authentic(in ur word) reference it will violate WP:Original. I m not calling you lier intensionally but whatever happened till now shows it was lie or ignorance/wrong allegation etc. If you say somebody that you did xyz thing you need to have proof for that, in wiki you have history of every edits, so you can shows link here where I or somebody's wrong edits to prove your claim/allegation. Anyways whole point here is about your edits on Sabudana Khichadi which violates WP:Original in my point of view, may be some other editors/admins can check and comment. Thanks KuwarOnline 12:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Soapboxing

In Talk:Libertarianism, Xerographica has been asked not to soapbox by User:Born2cycle, User:North8000, myself and others. Despite this, Xerographica posted the following on Talk:Libertarianism:

Request for Critical Thinking

1. Are conservatives libertarians that are socially conservative?
2. Are liberals libertarians that want more than a minimal government?
3. Are anarcho-capitalists libertarians that want to abolish government?
4. Are anarcho-capitalists anarchists that support capitalism?

Xerographica (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

An editor collapsed this discussion but Xerographical opened a new thread. This is disruptive editing and I request escalating blocks to put Xerographical on the right path. TFD (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Despite repeated general, personal, page wide and mediator given warnings the disruptive effect of soapboxing continues, it has continued despite deleted and hidden threads. Administrator intervention is required to enforce basic elements of NOT where community discussion, warning and informal mediation are not working. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

One of the primary soapboxer has also been extremely uncivil and has repeatedly engaged in personal attacks. This user has been warned about their attacks no less than 13 times without any blocking action having been taken. Yworo (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

User:BlueRobe's continuing incivility

• BlueRobe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Despite a week long block following an RfC/U for incivility, BlueRobe continues with incivility and personal attacks, even after receiving multiple notifications and warnings.

Here are the recent notifications and warnings, which have just been removed by BlueRobe without reply. (I'm told this is not accurate, they did respond to some... to reject them).

• 19 September
  • warned by myself
• 21 September
  • warned by Fifelfoo
• 22 September
  • warned by Fifelfoo
  • warned by Jrtayloriv
• 23 September
  • warned by myself
• 24 September
  • warned by Marknutley
  • warned by FellGleaming
  • abuse4 warning from Fifelfoo
  • warned again by Fifelfoo
  • warned by Jrtayloriv
  • warned by Lawrencekhoo
  • warned again by Lawrencekhoo
• 25 September 2010
  • warned by Born2cycle

Yworo (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a second RfC in progress at the moment. However from the comments on BlueRobe's talk page s/he is not actively seeking a block --Snowded 08:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

From what I've seen of BlueRobe, the user appears to be actively trolling by intentionally being rude and insulting to try to turn factual discussions into arguments. In a AfD I started, he jumped in without having read the AfD (at least judgine from his comment), then went on to call me an "angry freak" when I moved a comment by him to the bottom of the place to be able to answer, claimed that I'm "ranting and raving" instead of answering my question why a copy of an article should be kept, and made rather insulting insinuations about my motive for nominating the article . I don't know if BlueRobe is intentionally trolling (which I suspect) or just unable to control himself, but whatever the case, he is clearly a disruptive user.Jeppiz (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Looking at those warnings tells me a long block is needed; BluRobe simply refuses to listen despite over 9,000 warnings. Some might try a month but I really despair. That's not on, and I don't think this user will ever learn to control xyrself or cease trolling, whichever it is that needs to happen. I therefore propose an indef block of BlueRobe. Who's with me on that? Shall I get blocking? Blood Red Sandman 11:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Only two prior blocks, with the longest one being for a week? A month next, and no indef yet. He's arguably acting like a "dick", but escalating blocks are preferable, IMHO: at least to demonstrate to everyone that blocks are meant to be "preventative" and not "punitive". Jus' sayin'... Doc9871 (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Very well. This is why I raised it first. I don't see any danger of this not repeating, but ho hum. Month-long block coming right up. Blood Red Sandman 12:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

As an involved user on the receiving end of personal attacks; can we list compulsory counselling/mentoring after a block as an element of the block? I don't see why we should lose the editor. Individual oversight and interaction training may save the editor for the betterment of the encyclopaedia in the long run. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If we can find someone willing to volunteer, that's fine by me. If it does no good it can do no harm. Blood Red Sandman 12:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Why are we wasting our time with incremental blocks? There is no requirement for it. It's not like this is a long drawn out problem that has cropped up from time to time. This is an on-going escalating situation that only started a little over a month ago and he's already got his third block. This user has had plenty of chances in the last 37 days to change his behaviour and hasn't shown one ounce of interest as far as I can tell.--Crossmr (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I strongly feel that incremental blocks not only show a measure of fairness and procedural precedence that should be applied to all blocking situations, but also helps gives less "leeway" when editors go for "blocking from the hip". There is no requirement for it, but assuming good faith in a broader sense is a policy. I'm not a huge fan of "one short block ---> community ban". There is a measure of justice, even on WP ;> Doc9871 (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Consideration of context should be a significant component of a fair process. Randomly shooting somebody on the street is a different situation than shooting an intruder. The context of the libertarianism talk page is not the same context as nearly every other wikipedia article. This is readily discernible by the fact that among all the incidents reported on this page, only one is for soapboxing. BlueRobe's behavior was merely a reflection of numerous underhanded tactics that certain editors have used to suppress opposing viewpoints. Xerographica (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't assume good faith blindly when there is evidence to the contrary. there is plenty of evidence to support him not changing at this point. Plenty of users have attempted to get through to him and he hasn't changed his behaviour. He's had 2 blocks already and an RfC, so there is no "blocking from the hip" here. plenty of time and effort has been wasted already and he's thrown in back in the faces of everyone. This wasn't one short block and then a community ban. There were 2 blocks, an RfC, and several AN/I threads.--Crossmr (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The evidence is out of context. Marknutley and Errant are the only relatively objective editors who partially understand the context...you can read their views here...and... here. I say "partially" because to fully understand the context you have to look through all the archives. Personally, the only reason I'm here is because the article on libertarianism was saying that libertarianism is synonymous with anarchism. The bold edits I initially made were quickly reverted. When I noticed that another editor had been patiently trying to reason with the anarchists here's what I wrote..."Wow. I just looked through some of the discussion on this page...you should be nominated for sainthood. Are you an elementary school teacher? Or do you work with the mentally challenged?" (Archive_16).

Obviously BlueRobe, unlike Darkstar1st, is not a contender for wikipedia sainthood. He's a nominee for an editor that has made a completely disregarded Herculean effort to correct a very biased article. This is nothing more than a failure of wikipedia. How so? After I asked Darkstar1st if he worked with the mentally challenged I asked this question..."But at this point...isn't there some higher wikipedia power that can step in and kick the anarchists off our page? There's a disambiguation page so there's no logical reason that they should be allowed to continue to confuse the issue." Basically, the article on Libertarianism is the equivalent of an anarchist Google bomb and wikipedia has done nothing to correct the problem...other than cater to the anarchists by removing an editor that has tirelessly worked towards covering each viewpoint in proportion to prominence. Xerographica (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Screwball23 again

• Screwball23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Said user is at it again - having evaded a ban by the skin of his teeth. has him accusing an editor of "telling lies." has him readding material which is contentious to a BLP against consensus clearly reached (he is the only one seeking to ad the dirt). Seems the clear warning shot across the bow was not going to affect this one. Collect (talk) 12:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC) I disinvited him from my talk page at so he decided to test the WP rules about this almost immediately at with a quite argumentative post. Since he had been clearly disinvited, I suggest that a major behavioural issue exists. Collect (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• One thing - your last diff is by User:Viriditas, not Screwball23. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Two very similar behaviour problems at one time gets confusing. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• - user notified - Off2riorob (talk) 14:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Several complaints have been brought to ANI about this editor in the past and he has been offered advice which he has chosen not to follow. I would recommend a block this time, since other approaches have proven ineffective. TFD (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I would support an editing restriction at this time, his repeated additions that all portray Linda McMahon as negatively as possible are clearly disruptive and against consensus at the articles and he is constantly being reverted and edit warring against multiple users. Off2riorob (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Did'nt we have one of these archived (without action) only a couple of days ago?Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It was this ANI thread I think from seven days ago, same issues. Off2riorob (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Additional comments pending; awaiting response from Jclemens to talk page post.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Jrkso

User Jrkso keeps edit warring at. He has been blocked for edit warring recently and just removed that from his talk page. I have ask him multiple times to make his point through discussion not to edit warring but he keeps going with misleading edit summaries for the last reverts. I am stopping here and i am soon offline so i would appreciate if somebody could have a look at it because i think the article Afghanistan should doubtless have a section about the War in Afghanistan (2001-present). IQinn (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Both have violated 3RR. Jrkso's been blocked for that before. I cannot find a diff of Iqinn being told about the 3RR rule. Anyway, both editors have stopped edit-warring and are now discussing on the talk page, so a block is not warranted. A neutral voice might help.--Chaser (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

First, I have not violated 3rr. That's ridiculous, not all of my edits are reverts. Please have a better look before you throw false accusations.--Jrkso (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you have. From WP:3RR, "A "revert" in the context of this rule means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. It can involve as little as one word." Without looking too closely, all 4 of your edits today at least removed the same information that begins with "These steps have been reciprocated so far with an intensification of bombings..." You can argue that the first was simply an edit, but the next 3 edits "reverted" the restoration of that material. --Onorem♠Dil 15:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok the first may be considered an edit and the last two should be counted as one because I was adding new info and some how (probably due to me being very frustrated at the time) I didn't notice the number of my reverts. I think I did 2 1/2 reverts, I'll try to becareful next time. Anyway the problem should be over with me and IQinn although he is still POV-pushing. Thanks.--Jrkso (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Bad edits r dumb is in violation of WP:CLEANSTART

Bad edits r dumb (talk · contribs) User notified.

User:Bad edits r dumb is in violation of WP:CLEANSTART. Please see the following fact pattern.

User's account is an alternate account

• The user's first edit summary supports:
• At least one involved Check User has confirmed that this is an alternate account (though not directly but by second-hand):
• The user admitted this is a secondary account in a self-filed RFCU:

User's edits are disruptive

• A cursory look at the user's talk page shows multiple cautionary notes and warnings starting on September 14 , which began a mere 20 minutes following the new account creation and an abundance of good faith has already been assumed.

• The user did not heed any of these cautionary notes, requests, or warnings until the user was blocked on September 23 after receiving numerous "final warnings". AIV report can be found here
• The locus of the disruption was the the user was failing to provide proper and accurate userspace warnings to other users following reversion, deletion nomination, etcetera. Additionally, the locus of the disruption was that the user failed to use proper English and grammar which led to a number of confusing situations due to bad edit summaries and messages on relevant talk pages.
• The user showed a willful disregard for Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines up until the point that they were blocked.
• The user's disruptive behavior has generated much editor attention to the point that their talk page garnered nearly 300 hits on September 23.

User demonstrates a willful intent to disrupt

The user's disruptive behavior continued despite having been informed that it was disruptive and a request for it to desist.

• The user was asked on September 19 to refrain from using poor English when communicating. See:
• The user's poor execution of proper English and grammar is purely by choice. The user has demonstrated full-well the ability to communicate eloquently and without the use of the borderline nonsensical, idiosyncratic, and highly-questionable communication. See:
• The user's behavior therefore can be categorically characterized as trolling under WP:TROLL.

User ignores offers for personal mentoring

In order to help show a good-faith intent to improve their own behavior, several offers for adoption were offered to the user, which were each rejected:

• User:MJ94: Adoption suggestion, Mentorship decline and accusation of "being mean to Bad edits r dumb.
• Rejection of User:RobertMfromLI: .

User's disruption continues

• The user contradicts his or herself, sometimes acknowledging their behavior as constructive, and sometimes as disruptive.
• Cursory look at today's edits:

Conclusions

Under WP:CLEANSTART, "...the new account is not merely continuing the same kinds of behaviors and activities." I respectfully suggest that given all of the activity since this new account was created that the behavior which likely led to the setting aside of the original account has clearly resumed. Further, even if that behavior pattern is not matching precisely with the original, I further respectfully submit, that whereas editing Misplaced Pages is a privilege not a right, that it is incumbent upon the relevant administrators and checkusers involved to ensure that NO disruptive behavior recurs under a CLEANSTART account. This user's behavior has garnered significant attention of a large number of editors. I submit that there can be no argument as to the disruptiveness of this user at this point.

Respectfully submitted,   Thorncrag  22:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Involved Editors' Comments

Hi I cannot type a lot of stuff write now because I am on my iPhone but I would just like to say that I acknowledged (see the infobox on my talk page) that my behavior PRIOR to my block was dumb and it was a disruptive thing and I am sorry. However AFTER I got unblocked, my vandal fighting and new page patrol work has been very good. I cannot link to it right now becos I am in my iPhone but pls review the comments in the MfD discussion pertaining to the deletion of my barnstars. Users praised my contributions and noted my improvement. I feel I am being endlessly nitpicked AND unappreciated and maybe even wikihounded. Maybe i will write some more comment when I get home tonite unless I am TOO SLEEPY :-)--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• User thanked you for trolling - I suspect that was not a compliment. ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 23:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I am not talking about the barnstar itself i was talking about the MfD disussion about the deletion of said barnstar. If someone could provide a link that would be appreciated. In that discussion I was not thanked for "trolling", but rather. My contributions were praises and I was called a NET POSITIVE.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 23:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's the link: - nor does it state what you claim. Quite the opposite for the most part. The closest thing to what you claim is that if this is behind us, then let's let it drop. Sadly, you are the subject of the AN/I because it is not behind us. In addition, you may wish to try not to mischaracterize other's statements to form your defense. ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 23:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

And one vote of support as a net positive. Dont confuse one such vote as consensus (hence my comment about misconstruing the statements as a whole based on it). ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 23:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

as a sidenote, CLEANSTART doesn't exactly apply here. Clean start is for problematic editors who wish to return and contribute positively and avoid the baggage and scrutiny of their problematic account. My old account is in good standing but I don't wish to use it for privacy reasons and for various other reasons I dint wish to discuss. --Bad edits r dumb (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to further suggest, that CLEANSTART users must be fully cognizant of the fact that they are being given a second chance, and thus, they should be well-aware that their behavior should be top-notch and practically above reproach. Furthermore, it logically follows that a CLEANSTART user should painstakingly take into consideration the suggestions and warnings issued to them and have a desire to act on each and every reasonable request imposed upon them instead of continuing their perceived disruptive behavior. This user has—if even at all—only very weakly done so, and instead assumed a default position of arguing with and biting those who offer them advice.   Thorncrag  23:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The rest of my (involved editor) comments:

• Continuous disruption, starting 20 minutes after creating a new account, will indeed bring attention to you. Numerous repeated disruptive activities will continue that attention. That is not wikihounding - that is the consequences of your own actions. In these instances, your responses have even sometimes been to tell the people (either directly in text or in edit summaries) to leave you alone. One cannot pretend their bad behavior did not occur by simply trying to prevent those who notice it from pointing it out.
• You claim or imply more experience than very experienced editors, admins, abusefilters and more - yet your actions clearly indicate otherwise.
• You claim admins and abusefilters (as well as editors, who through their track record, prove to be more experienced) are wrong - as one example:
• You have implied or stated that it is we who need mentoring and that we/others should approach you for assistance instead of the other way around.
• You repeatedly try to push the limits and even ask (repeatedly), if you do (disruptive behavior) again, will you be blocked. You've been told yes, then proceed to do so anyway.
• If you are an experienced editor with a previous account in good standing, you should know better than to be disruptive, and to troll.
• If you are on a cleanstart, then you should know better than to violate it's terms (much less in 20 minutes)
• If you are an admin, you (all accounts) should (IMHO) be banned for life. Misplaced Pages editors are not such a person's personal plaything to be toyed with and tested in such a fashion. If that is the case (you are an admin), this is very disingenuous and a betrayal of the trust granted you when the community gave you the additional tools/powers granted (to me, that such tools are not linked to this account is irrelevant - all behavior on every account should be to the same or higher standard that they expect of every experienced editor and admin).
  • Of course, this last one may not apply, but as the nature of the previous accounts are hidden to the rest of us, I bring it up solely because it is a possibility.

Best, ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 23:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have been involved with BErD since I first noticed him. Throughout his time here, as this report says, he has been disruptive. After I posted a report at AIV regarding him and he was blocked, he came back. Although he is now (seems to be) using proper templates, he is still using "textspeak" after saying he would stop, then claiming everyone talks like that, and loves it. Then, he responds to a comment, not with an apology, but with this. The cycle just keeps going. Why are we letting him do this? It's crazy. He's clearly and blatantly trolling. I say, no more chances. He's stopped listening to us. This is his game. If he wanted to be productive, he would listen to everything mentioned here. MJ94 (talk) 23:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Aw, what the hell, I'll wade into this too. I'm the one who made the comment that at MFD user:Bad edits r dumb is a net positive to the project, and I'm standing by it, for the time being. He appears to be using the proper vandalism templates now, which is good. God knows that I'm no fan of text-speak, but I also acknowledge that I can generally understand it, at least as Mr. r dumb applies it. There's really no reason for anyone to get their panties up in a bunch over this editor's behavior. If you don't like talking to him, don't talk to him. Buddy431 (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• With respect (to both you and your opinion), I wish to make the following points. That you understand textspeak does not apply to a large majority of Internet users, nor does it properly portray (in any fashion) the severity (or lack thereof) of warnings given or edits performed. Also, I would surmise that since numerous editors have problems with such, there is reason for concern. Consensus and all, and the way such actions are perceived and all. Additionally, there are guidelines about making one's edit summaries accurate and understandable - and since we can clearly say that not everyone understands textspeak, such should not be used in edit summaries. While (outside of this AN/I and notifying them of the decision at the MfD) I have stopped talking to him, that too does not end scrutiny (or consequences) for disruptive behavior. Nor does the implied "if you think it's disruptive, which I dont, then dont talk to the user" fit this scenario. If that were the case, we'd all simply have to ignore everything (and everyone) who we thought was disruptive. Thus, while you are entitled to your opinion, there are those who thing BerDs actions are disruptive and/or trolling - who should not simply be told to pretend it didnt happen or "go away" (as the editor in question has, on multiple occassions, responded with some form of). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 00:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Additionally, all the things he listed at a self request for CU for leaving his old account, he has done under this account. MJ94 (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• This also coincides with BerD mischaracterizing my statements and concerns, even after I went to great lengths to explain them. I do not dispute the validity of the additional (2nd? 3rd?) account. I wished to request clarification that (1) this was not repeat of previous bad behavior trying to be hidden by no longer associating with the earlier accounts, and (2) this was not something more egregious than that, and thusly (3) the severity of the repercussions were warranted (or should have been more extreme). As explained to BerD, (assuming good faith) and doing so would end the continued speculation they opened the door for by publicly admitting to multiple accounts right after others accused them of possible sockpuppetry. I did explain I did not like the fact that they grossly mischaracterized my statements and actions. ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 00:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• In BerD's defense (as the situation(s) behind the previous account(s) has not been made known to us), though there may be an implication made in their statement that supports previous "bad behavior", I do not see them clearly stating such, and thus cannot act upon/comment on what I see only as an implication - thus, as noted before, I hope for clarification by those with the ability to do so, to confirm or deny previous bad behavior as it applies to current activities. ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 00:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have had a fair amount of interaction with BErD, and was on the fence about his use of improper English and refusing to use templates when warning other users of vandalism. However, based on this edit and this one, I find that this user is quite capable of using proper English, but simply chooses not to despite many warnings from other users. I have come to the conclusion that this user is most likely trolling the project, trying to find out how far he can go with disruptive behavior while still appearing to help the project by patrolling vandalism. Given how much time has been spent by other editors in policing BErD's work, I suspect that the disruption outweighs the assistance, and that it is time to put an end to the disruption. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 11:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved Editors' Comments

• Obvious solution is obvious. Ban/indef block this disruptive user. MtD (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• (Clarify (at 00:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)): Involved Editor's resonse (against at this time)): Without further information regarding (without outing, unless required) this user's previous activities, I would not and could not support an indef ban/block. I believe the only event (at this time) that would allow me to support such is if the editor in question's other account(s) are/were admin (or similar) accounts, in which case, I would fully support a permanent ban of all accounts for the reasons I stated above. Furthermore, at this time, without more information on how either (a) past behavior should/should not be a contributing factor in this or (b) whether or not the user's other account is a special status/rights account, I think it is too early to make any proposals of the sort. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 00:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with Robert. The next time he is disruptive, I say we block. If, after that, he ocntinues, indef block. He obviously did this disruption under his old account also, or he wouldn't have left it. MJ94 (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• I've been watching this unfold since his block, so I'm thinking around the same thing as MJ94, but with trying to persuade him about adoption and how that is the right way to go. Buggie111 (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but even if we were to lay to rest entirely the question of this users multiple account activity, which in my mind still remains highly suspicious, the trolling here is so painfully obvious (note the "nagging busybodies") that it frankly surprises me that we would give the user any additional leeway whatsoever. The atrocious use of grammar which we have already established is purely by choice, which behavior continuing after having been politely requested to be corrected, COMBINED with the faux portrayal of child-like thinking clearly contradicted by some of the users actually eloquent and intellectual postings, can now only be attributed to be clearly trollish behavior. This charade, in my opinion, needs to end.   Thorncrag  01:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• To Buggie111: Adoption has been suggested multiple times and refused. Mentorship has been suggested multiple times and refused (because, BerD (or so he claims) is more experienced than all of us). In addition, BerD has made it very clear on their talk page as currently formatted that: "i do not want to be adopted, i do not want you to be my mentor, i know a lot of things about wikipedia so if u want ME to help YOU i can do that because i am nice, except when i am grumpy and mean (i will try not to edit when i am grumpy and mean)" thus I think that option should be removed from any proposed remedies, as I truly believe, even if a mandatory mentorship is proposed, BerD will fully disregard any advice given. ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 01:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

At some point this user will be flushed down the dumper. The real question is how much time should be wasted before the inevitable is realised. MtD (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Honestly? Hopefully never. Though their own actions will determine that (and the results of the checkuser and more info I requested below, if honored and acted upon). One of my adoptees was recently here (before I adopted him). He willingly confessed to his actions, promised never to do them again (and has been living up to those promises), accepted very strict sanctions, accepted me as his mentor (before having one became a mandatory requirement even) and has turned a stub into a GA article. Only BerD's contributions will determine which path they take; the proverbial dumpster or a contributing editor with no future incidents. I will not and cannot predict their future actions, so, will not make the assumption that they are "irredeemable" until they prove such - or a consensus is reached indicating the community (or portion thereof that responds here) believes such is true. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 01:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

@Rob. I didn't meen flat out offer it now, I meant offer it when more blocks and warnings have been issued. This is a bit of a gruesome example, but think of how the terrorists act in The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974 film), with demands being shown as the better option as each hostage dies. But, your comment about him refusing to listen is also wierd. I might ask for some offline help to aid me. Buggie111 (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the only annoying thing this guy has done (since being blocked) is to use abbreviations on his own talk page, rather than spelling all the words out in full, and delete comments off his own talk page. I think that's really stretching the definition of "disruptive", although clearly it annoys some people. I really, really don't think we should be excluding people from Misplaced Pages based on the dialect of English they write in, unless they're writing stuff in the articles that's hard to read. I suggest an alternate solution: the editors who find his manner of speaking annoying should avoid him, as he is doing his best to avoid them (up to the point of deleting their comments from his talk page). Otherwise, his editing seems to be entirely constructive. Almost all of us were twelve years old once. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 03:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Then I suggest you review their recent contributions from when their block expired. In their defense, they have made an "effort" - but honestly, how much of an effort does it take to speak normally in edit summaries? While it is theoretically possible, I doubt anyone thinks in leet speak, meaning the use of such in edit summaries is intentional: "wut..... think u misspell something here pal", "wut! u added something that was not notable", and admission that "maybe" they will still continue to do such: "ok oops sorry i try not to do this type of thing, but maybe i will still do it, but not very much".
  
  Related note, when i see comments like that, or the previous ones in the vein of "LOL delete some untrue edits" and worse, I for one would not take the edit or warning seriously as the edit summary implies it is a joke. Surely we dont want that. Again, one must make a conscious effort to take mental thought and convert it to leetspeak - and doing so on edit summaries is against policy (you know... the whole clear, unambiguous requirement part). I could care less what they do on their own talk pages - I even would have supported them when they removed the most recent comments there during this AN/I (but chose not to in order to honor their request not to contact them there). On a related note, I find their username offensive. It assumes bad faith and generalizes virtually every single editor with an edit count of over a thousand as bad editors. A bad edit (AGF) can simply be an accident, as I am sure any of us who have edited frequently has made. I also find their userpage statement about such to be offensive in the same vein. I also find it ironic that they told an admin (and other experienced editors) that their restoration of warnings on someone else's userpage was correct and that the admin and others were wrong - all while they wish to have the right to remove warnings from their own page. Yes, they can remove such warnings, but there's an interesting irony there indicating they know the rules when it benefits them, and ignore them otherwise. ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 03:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• @Kragen: WIth all due respect, I don't think you properly reviewed the above evidence or discussion. His failure to speak properly (again, by choice as has been established) in user warnings and edit summaries is what caused this whole charade to begin in the first place.   Thorncrag  04:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• I've asked them to consider changing their username. –xeno 18:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• I am generally one who leans more towards AGF, but I think this is a case where it is time to escort this editor to the county line and say, "thanks, but no thanks." What policy supports this? None that I know of, but sometimes administrative discretion can be used for the good of the community, even if not directly supported by an explicit policy or guideline. In my opinion, this is either: an editor who is intentionally trolling, consciously switching between eloquent English and text-speak in a manner intended to provoke a response; a user in need of developing better skills for working with the community, but who refuses all suggestions and offers for assistance in a manner that shows disdain for this same community; or possibly some misguided experiment to test how Misplaced Pages handles and responds to such behavior (remember WP:NEWT?). In any case we need to put an end to this. I do not think the prior account is a significant consideration, as I think the actions under this account speak for themselves. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 04:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Time to drop per CU results which MuzeMike furnished. From this point on, this is a very dead horse. Collect (talk) 10:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

MuZemike refused to provide such results. He confirmed it was a good cleanstart; which means it no longer is a good cleanstart, and CU is permitted. ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 16:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This also recently happened. Inka 03:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

He has shown, on various occasions, especially recently (through AfDs, CSDs, reverts and numerous posts & other actions) that he does have a very good working knowledge of Misplaced Pages and it's policies and guidelines - but simply chooses to pretend (or imply through his portrayal of himself) otherwise when it suits him. So, I'd let that one go. ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 04:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal so Further Informed Discussion can continue

At this point, I would like to request that an uninvolved checkuser verify/eliminate/elucidate on the following (each individually to ensure each is covered):

• This editor is not part of cleanstart (and thus has violated it's meaning/intent)
• This editor is not trying to hide previous bad behavior by deciding to utilize this account to hide actions under the previous account(s).
• This user is not (nor was) an admin or has held any other position above standard editor.

I do not believe proposals of sanctions/repercussions can be fully determined in a fair fashion (for any party involved) without the answers to those questions. ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 01:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 Support: as proposer, with it clear that WP:OUTING (IMO) need not occur during this process unless a certain procedure or guideline requires it. ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 01:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 Support. Quite sensible.   Thorncrag  01:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 Support. It's the right thing to do. Buggie111 (talk) 02:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 Support Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 Support I agree completely. If he's abusing cleanstart by hiding past bad behavior, that's obviously not acceptable. Sounds good. Didn't MuZemike already say it was an okay cleanstart, though? MJ94 (talk) 02:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• I am looking (cant find it, but the page has changed more than once), though I do recall BerD making some claim on their behalf. As he was brought up more than once (and notified by me via email of such before this AN/I), I will ensure he has been notified about this AN/I so he can speak for himself. ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 02:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose User should be judged on their contributions. If he's being disruptive thats all that matters, not what his other account was. We have CLEANSTART for a reason. -- ۩ Mask 04:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose WP is not a place for fishing expeditions - MuZemike made a fairly clear statement which ought to be sufficient. Collect (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This echoes what User:Shirik (an admin and checkuser clerk) said when he declined my Sockpuppet Investigation that I opened on myself--that this is not an appropriate use of Checkuser. This admin also opined that my edits "weren't really that disruptive" and that he doesn't see "what the big deal is".--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Rationale behind this proposal

It is my belief that appropriate "sanctions", if any, cannot be determined without the community being aware of the information requested above. If BerD is not as experienced as he states, then more strict sanctions should probably not be requested (regardless of the falsity or misleading nature of such claims, I do not believe they should suffer greater repercussions for something not true). If they are, then somewhat more strict sanctions should be considered. If they are, and have shown a pattern of such behavior in the past, then I believe even more strict sanctions should be considered as they are possibly violating an official or unofficial cleanstart attempt, as well as actively and misleadingly attempting to hide such behavior (which my interpretation of cleanstart indicates is not the purpose of cleanstart). If they do have userrights (on their other account(s)) greater than that of a standard editor), then I believe their actions under this account should result in the strictest of sanctions for so grossly betraying the community trust and trying to hide such actions by doing them in a new account.

Inotherwords, cake, and eat it too. The editor has claimed they have nothing to hide (re: their actions on their previous account - see their "archived" talk page and the SPI that they initiated), thus (along with my rationale above) leaving my proposal as an opportunity that serves both the community as a whole or the editor in question; in a fashion entirely dependent on Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines on such repercussions while protecting the user from any false claims (if any) of experience they have made. ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 02:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement from User:MuZemike

I have already ran a CheckUser on the user upon suspicions that were brought up by other users, and I know who this user is an alternate account of. Instead of blithely blocking for what would be extremely weak socking reasons (which I thought would have been more "abusive" and would not helped), I contacted BErD via email and asked what is going on. As he said at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Bad edits r dumb/Archive (diff), he is an alternate account, but for reasons of privacy, he wishes not to have disclosed of whom. Moreover, I feel that it would go against my ethics as a CheckUser to disclose that myself publicly and without his consent.

That being said, this does not mean that I condone BErD's disruptive behavior as of late; I already contacted the admin who first blocked BErD for disruption, and I completely agree with the block. As far as WP:CLEANSTART is concerned, I felt that it was OK for him to edit with the BErD account. Now if the community (or another CheckUser) feels that he is trying to avoid scrutiny, I certainly understand that, and that is a valid point. Having communicated with BErD privately, I feel that I am not in the position to make that assessment and most certainly not to take any administrative action over. –MuZemike 03:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. As I clarified above, no one wants the user outed (or if anyone does, I will vote against it, unless it is an admin being outed). But, surely a concise summary such as "4 blocks (for whatever), 17 warnings for (whatever), multiple bad reverts" (as simply stated as that) will not out the editor and will ensure that sanctions are justified.

"Now if the community (or another CheckUser) feels that he is trying to avoid scrutiny" <-- not sure how we can determine that without the summary of their actions as requested-->. ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 03:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The issue for me is if the prior account was an account in good standing or not. If he abandoned the prior account for disruptive behavior, and this new account was doing similar behavior, that is NOT a clean start, this is a bad sock. If the prior account was in reasonably good standing, was not under a block when it was abandoned, etc. etc. then this one should stay. In general, I trust MuZemike judgement on this, but just wanted to state that, having just reviewed this, the issue is whether or not this is a true clean start, or if this is just someone who wants to reset the sanction meter on a prior dirty account, with no desire to reform his behavior. --Jayron32 05:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts are the same as your's, Jayron. If he was disruptive on the last account, it's a sock, which should be brought to light. If he was a normal editor, this point can be dropped. If he was an admin, than, well, measures should be taken. Buggie111 (talk) 13:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. And this has happened before, done by a rogue admin, with the protection of other admins (I've been around Misplaced Pages since it started, back when IIRC there werent even real accounts in the fashion there are now - this is simply the first account I have edited under). I was not going to bring that up, but steadfast refusal or willing to ignore providing a non-identifying summary (unless it is an admin) kinda raises my suspicions and brings back memories of why I quit using Misplaced Pages for more than half a decade (and it wasnt what happened, it was how other admins handled trying to hide the rogue). ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 17:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Remedies by RobertMfromLI

If this user (their other account(s)) is not a sysop or other higher privilege account

• I believe the message has been firmly delivered and is fully understood (per their recent contributions as noted here: ).
  • I suggest elevated warnings (lvl 3?) for blatant repeat behavior (I also suggest an occassional mistake or two should be allowed for and acted upon based on it's severity; we are all human).
  • I suggest, regardless of their desires in this matter, that for clarity of the elevated warnings proposed above, that templates are allowed for this purpose only - OR clear non-templated wording to indicate the elevated warning level(s).
  • I suggest more severe repercussions on blatant recurrences (14 day or 30 day block?)
  • I suggest the editor continues to purport themself with the clarity and eloquence they have proven they are capable of in all scenarios outside of their talk page and userspace.

pls stop calling me "they". this is bad grammer. my first edit makes it clear wut my gender is.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Is "wut" good grammar, or even English? :-) ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 20:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

do as i say, not as i do.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If the user (their other account(s)) is a sysop or holds other higher privilege account

• I propose a permanent ban (note, I very specifically did not use the word "indefinite") of all accounts they hold for betraying the community trust, using other editors as their personal playthings, and intentionally separating behavior they should know is trolling and disruptive from their account that holds the special privileges.

This just leaves a checkuser confirming that the other account(s) do not hold special privileges. This is solely my proposal, please feel free to make your own.

 Confirmed: other account(s) is/are non-admin (per MuZemike below). ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 19:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed by ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 19:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Support all propositions. --intelati 19:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 Support: regardless of their mischaracterization of this attempt to let them off the hook and mischaracterization of other incidents (since that is not the subject of this AN/I) and since I should not use such mischaracterizations as the basis for creating a biased opinion, I support the proposal I entered above. ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 20:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• COMMENT from Bad edits r dumb: I think RobertMfromLI and MJ94 are spending an undue amount of time and effort Wikihounding me and complaining about me when I believe that my contributions since my block have been EXCELLENT. I do not know why they focus so much time and attention on me after my block; I had to ban them both from my talk page because they would not leave me alone. My old account was NOT an admin account and I have never been an admin and never tried to be and admin and DO NOT WISH to be admin. I think RobertMfromLI means well, but he is way to consumed with minor things like my grammar and when I try to make a lighthearted joke and things like this. Again, PLEASE REVIEW MY CONTRIBUTIONS since I have been blocked. they are so good, that it staggers my mind (with some minor slip-ups, becos no one is perfect). RobertMfromLI is way too involved to be calling the shots here (I think he may be upset at me that I rejected his offer of mentorship and things like this). Some people nitpick too much. That is all I have to say on this matter until next time I have things to say on this matter.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Wow! It's always nice to see an editor in abject awe of their own contributions. Delta Trine 19:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

LOL, sorry. Maybe I exaggerated a little to make my point ;-)--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's alright; sometimes I shock myself (though generally with my own stupidity). Delta Trine 19:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• COMMENT to Bad edits r dumb: I was not the person who created this AN/I, and I just proposed NO sanctions for your previous actions and you decide to make false claims about me and my intent (as you similarly mischaracterized the whole SPI thing)? I'm baffled. I did not propose a block, ban or warning (unless you are an admin, for which I will not take your word - nothing personal, but that's what checkusers are for). And I clearly state that occassional mistakes should be allowed for. Perhaps you may wish to re-read my proposal. Once you clearly understand it, I will offer my support for it. ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 19:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not claim you started this AN/I thread and I have no issue with the user who did. What I mean is that--far more than anyone else--you and MJ94 have been spending an extraordinary and inordinate amount of time and effort nitpicking my edits and trying (largely unsuccessfully) to drum up antagonism toward Bad edits r dumb--this effort could be better sent (pardon the wikicliché) improving the encyclopedia.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggested you find a mentor (as your behavior indicated you may need) - not that I become that mentor. I've spent a lot of time trying to defend you (including above where others read implications in your statements at SPI that I could not support since you said no such thing). I suggest NO repercussions for your previous actions, even though your recent contributions prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that you were fully aware of what your previous actions entailed. I compliment you on your recent edits twice. Please explain the antagonism in that. How is complimenting you and proposing no sanctions for an AN/I I did not start antagonizing? My only other option was to allow others to propose sanctions. ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 19:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment – I can assert that BErD is not an alternate account of any admin here. Hopefully, this puts some people who were concerned about this at ease, even if a little. –MuZemike 19:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Is this trolling or what? 67.122.209.115 (talk) 01:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is, and I've commented over there. He's wasting their time at the Help Desk asking to see CU records because "wut if they r talking about me behind my back and saying rude things (e.g., Bad edits r dumb is dumb)". I am firmly of the "troll" opinion with this one (even though he does revert vandalism, which is helpful). Plenty of non-disruptive vandal fighters out there, too... Doc9871 (talk) 03:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Request to all parties

I'd like to request that all parties please review the ARBCOM's position on trolling located at: m:Troll and m:What_is_a_troll?. The fact that so many good-intentioned editors are still assuming good faith is quite frankly unbelievable to me (many of whom may not be aware of this thread and along with it all of the evidence presented). It is patently and uncontrovertibly obvious that this user is a troll by the clear and convincing evidence that has gone un-refuted. The sooner we can all agree that this person is a troll, the sooner we can do something productive about it.

Further, I would like to point out that when it comes to trolls, whether their overall contributions are a net positive is not relevant. Additionally, while this user has shown extremely weak amenability to reform their behavior, it should be weighed extremely carefully. It's not surprising coming from someone currently the subject of so much scrutiny.   Thorncrag  06:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Addendum. Let's not also forget that by this user's self-admission, that he or she is "a very experienced editor" who does not meed mentoring. Assuming this is true, then the user immediately proceeding registration onto a campaign of disruption, then further proceeding to deliberately provoke other editors who interact with them in response to the user's initial disruption—if this is not trolling then I honestly and genuinely do not know what is.   Thorncrag  06:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not think I am a troll. I think you confuse "troll" with someone who has a bit of wacky sense of humor and occasionally sometimes makes some bad decisions abt what is appropriate but on the balance is a good editor. And i disagree with whether someone is a net positive is NOT RELEVANT that's just silly. I will not name names becos it would be very rude, but I can think of SEVERAL editors who have been here a long time and have a history of saying outrageous and ridiculous things just to upset ppl, but most of the time they are productive and they r allowed to edit. I think u r very very very very wrong, but I still respect your opinion even though i strenuously disagree. :-D--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 06:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• It is abundantly clear that we are being very skilfully trolled here. And we are indulging this because...? → ROUX ₪ 07:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Becos according to some (obviously you are not among them) i am, despite my flaws, a net asset to the community and a skilled vandal fighter and very knowledgeable about policies and things of this nature.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 07:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• To Roux: Because no one seems to want to take action? Because requests for non-identifying summaries of previous activities that may have been in violation of cleanstart were ignored? Because before we get anywhere, all sorts of promises to never do it again are made, taking up lots of space, even while things like this (during the AN/I) take place? A previous consensus for the information noted (and clearly noted it could be provided without identifying information) still sits above. I think, at this point, none of us responding know how to actually end this, and need an admin and uninvolved checkuser to come in and address this. :-) But those are just my guesses... I've actually never ran into an AN/I like this before. ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 07:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Formal allegation of avoiding scrutiny

I would furthermore formally allege that this user is deliberately attempting to avoid scrutiny under a new account. The fact that the disruption began so soon following creation of this new account is highly questionable, and sufficient cause for this question to be raised. Moreover, whereas it is not the place of User:MuZeMike to reveal the user's previous account as he is bound by privacy policy, it may also be true that he should choose not to confirm or deny the user's previous behavior under the same policy. I therefore demand the original account be revealed, or in the alternative, the editing rights of the new account be revoked either by agreement of the user or by force.   Thorncrag  06:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with this proposal, it is a bad proposal. I am not try to avoid "scrutiny"; you can scrutinize me as much as you like--in fact u have been scrutinizing all my edits, and G-d bless you for that. My previous account is in good standing. While i am not trying to avoid scrutiny, I am trying to maintain PRIVACY and if my account is identified, that would compromise my PRIVACY so i would have to start all over again. I think the matters of privacy that cause me to start a different account are none of ur businesines, thx.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 06:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Then would you be ok with a summary of the blocks, warnings and other problems that arose on your past account (ie: 5 blocks for disruption, 2 for edit warring, 3 warnings for whatever)? That would in no way compromise your identity. And it is rather disingenuous to claim that your other account is in good standing. Of course it is, otherwise a cleanstart would not be permitted. But that says nothing about whether it previously wasn't.

I suspect you will selectively choose to ignore this question as you have in the past. ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB

• Support: the proposals and plans above, preferably in a fashion that does not disclose identifying information of BeRD.

And at this point, I find I must cease responding to anything other than proposals of actions or sanctions or remedies. ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 07:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Much simpler solution: the data on the other account is findable via Checkuser. Muzemike should provide it to Arbcom, a member of which can post here to confirm/deny the allegations of evading scrutiny, assess whether the other account is in good standing, etc. → ROUX ₪ 07:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Huh. This question on the helpdesk asking how to see the CU and Arbcom email lists, including the gem "I just don't like it when Arbcom talks about me behind my back," seems pretty clear to me that this account is indeed evading scrutiny of some sort. If the previous account was indeed in good standing, why would Arbcom be talking about it? This is leaving aside the fact that if the user behind the account is so experienced, s/he would know they can't see those emails, and thus why the question? → ROUX ₪ 07:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Again at Help Desk: ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 08:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but that was a legitimate question and not in any way silly.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 08:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) MuZeMike already informed ArbCom (he told me he was obligated to do this via email, and I tole him I understood) of his findings. This is why I was concerned that ArbCom was talking about me behind my back. :-D--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 07:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Roux, I think you are misunderstanding. He didn't inform ArbCom because there was anything especially problematic with my old account; he was ethically obligated to inform them about what he knew about me once I confirmed onwiki that he and I had emailed one another about my alternate acconut.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, I should emphasize that I am not implying that ArbCom has approved, reviewed or even tacitly condoned my every activity; I am just stating that (as far as I know), MuzeMike has forwarded his knowledge of my alternate account to ArbCom, per his duties as a Checkuser.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 07:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have asked Arbcom to comment, here. → ROUX ₪ 07:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Addendum to above proposal

I would also like to propose in addition to above, that the user be instructed not to create a new account without first obtaining permission from the arbitration committee as the user's use of multiple accounts and other behavior is currently highly suspect by the community.   Thorncrag  07:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Fully ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 07:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Bad edits r dumb is not perfect but mostly he is a WONDERFUL editor

Hi everyone, I am Bad edits r dumb and I am the subject of this AN/I section. I would just like to update u about my recent edits to show you that I have been doing a very good job and staying out of trouble. I am getting a lots of good feedback about my edits. For example one editor gave me some compliment and said "nice work" and other editor said my anti-vandal work is exemplary!!!! At the same time i did some more dumb thing, like i ask a silly question on the Help Desk (because I heard some ArbCom ppl were talking about me and I wanted to know wut they were saying, but I think i phrase the question in a very silly way), but later I apologized. Finally, I always try to listen to feedback especially if the feedback is not given in a rude or hostile manner. For example, some highly respect editors said that my user name is inappropriate, so I tole them I WOULD CHANGE it very soon, and I plan to get a new user name within one week :-D. In conclusion, i think I am doing a good job, but if I mess up pls tell me and I WILL FIX THE PROBLEM.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 06:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

For starters, it's been suggested to you that you change your username, like yesterday. It's inappropriate: if this is a "bad" proposal, then it must be a "dumb" proposal, right: "becos Bad edits r dumb". The community doesn't necessarily have to tolerate the antics of editors who have clearly demonstrated a) an ability to function and text normally, yet b) choose to "go against the grain" by being disruptive. It's a diverse project with editors from all over the world, but possibly "smart alec" editors (not a personal attack) need to consider growing up and editing like adults. BTW (and there's nothing wrong with this): is English not your first language, or is their some other reason why you choose to shorten "because" to "becos", yet "serious" to "serios". I'm thinking of Balki when you do this, but it's not an '80's sit-com. And Borat you ain't... Doc9871 (talk) 06:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Well... ok if it will help, I will expedite the process of getting a new user name, but first I have to think of a REALLY GOOD user name, but i will try to do that ASAP. And i don't necessarily want to say whether i was raised with English as my first language or not, but sufice it to say that everyone in my community talks like this as well so it is hard for me to break the habit!! I do appreciate that it can cause a lot of annoyance so i have done my best to minimize and restrict it mostly to my talk page, especially when I am doing new page patrolling and not just having casual discussions. :-D--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 07:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

On the fence until now but this and responses above using child's speak seal it for me: user is here only to troll. Let's not waste any more time here. User's good-faith contribs... however few there are... can be made from his other account. Indef here and get back to encyclopedia-building. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 06:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

But I cannot use my other account for reasons I do not wish to do discuss but they have nothing to do with being blocked or being a disruptive editor on my other account things like that.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 07:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)

• You have chosen to do a good job only after the start of this AN/I.

Bullshit (pardon my swearings). I made a ton of productive edits and started using Twinkle to do appropriate vandal fighting well before this An/I.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 06:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• You repeatedly, on numerous occasions, tell editors who point out your mistakes to stay away from your talk page (thus preventing from abiding by: "if I mess up pls tell me and I WILL FIX THE PROBLEM")

That is is so not true. The only people I banned from my talk age are you and MJ94. Everyone else is welcome to post, and I have discussed and addressed issues in a civilized manner--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 06:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

To give one example, one time this angry Hare Krishna guy had a problem with my edits and he posted a very long and multilingual rant on my talk page, basically condemning me to hell, but I responded in a calm and compassionate manner and then we had a civil conversation, and by the end of the discussion we HAD BECOME FRIENDS. this shows that I do not ignore people just for criticizing me.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 07:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so what you are saying in all of this is, due to what you mention directly above, and your good recent contributions (skipping the whole Help Desk thing), that you were previously choosing to be disruptive, but then decided to stop when this AN/I started? Keep in mind, as noted in this AN/I, the cause for this AN/I was that you resumed the same behavior after your block expired - at which time the AN/I was filed. The edit histories and summary at the top of this AN/I prove it and prove that I was not lying above as you imply (nice use of the word "or" to cover yourself on that though). ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 07:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Even during the AN/I, you decided to ask Help Desk a question you fully knew the answer to due to the issues raised here about CU and related matters.

I admitted alrady this was dumb, but I was very frustrated when i heard rumors that i was being discussed in private.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 06:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• You don't listen to feedback, you reply (in edit summaries) with "pls pls pls pls stay away from my talk page. Feel free to join the discussion on AN/I. Ur not welcome here" or "Pls resist the urge to edit my talk page; I've tole u that ur not welcome" or "i have tole this editor he is no longer welcome on my talk page. he always give me a hard time even when i try to be a good editor" and too many others to list - all for people who pointed out issues you created.

I do listen to feedback (see my examples above), but I don't have patience for Wikihounding.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 06:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• You repeatedly pushed bad behavior asking if you'd get banned for it then request an unblock that states "i will start to use the templates MOST OF THE TIME unless i feel the user would benefit from a personal note" (that you will still decide to do what you want when you want to - until you became the subject of this AN/I, at which time you have proven you could have been constructive to begin with but chose not to.

Again I started using twinkle and fighting vandals in a proper manner almost immediately after I was unblocked. U r either mistaken or telling lies.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 06:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Can we please end this? ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 06:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we should close this AN/I thread and you are free to scrutinize my edits in the future which will be AWESOME and will not have to much mistakes, but maybe ocasional mistakes.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 06:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Look, Bad edits r dumb, you state "I mess up pls tell me and I WILL FIX THE PROBLEM". Many people have told you what the problem is. You are capable of using proper, acceptable English, with correct spelling and grammar. You are messing up by intentionally refusing to do so. To fix this problem, start communicating as expected, with proper spelling and grammar. At this point, you either:

a) Are continuing to refuse to do so to prove a point

b) Are not capable of doing it correctly

Either of these is disruptive to the project. If you cannot use proper English, then you lack the competance to be a contributor here. If you can use proper English, but continue to refuse to do so, then you are just being disruptive for disruption's sake. It stopped being "a joke" or "lighthearted" when multiple editors told you to quit it, as they have done. So please, let it rest, and get with the program. --Jayron32 06:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

A while back, someone created a blog on Blogspot under my name, in an attempt to discredit me by linking me to NAMBLA and communism: . I informed the administrators about it, and we decided that the best solution would be for me to post a disclaimer on my talk page, which I did: .

Now, however, a newly registered user (User: Fairness4all, who is also a possible sockpuppet of User: TPCFanFor Facts, User: Sinekyre or User: FactsRFun2, all three of them being single-purpose accounts that have identical POV and editing styles, and only edit Political Cesspool-related articles), has posted a snarky comment on Talk: The Political Cesspool in which he asks me "By the way, "Mason", when are you going to update your Blogspot blog?"

This leads me to believe he is probably the person who created the blog in the first place; the blog itself is so obscure that I doubt anyone but its creator (and me, of course) is even aware that it exists. Since the blog itself is a blatant, severe personal attack, I think an admin ought to block Fairness4all until he takes the blog down. Perhaps someone should do a checkuser on him to see which of the above accounts are sockpuppets of his, so they can be blocked too. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

What happens outside wikipedia is not wikipedia's problem. That said on the grounds of being sockpuppets they could/should be blocked after due wikipedia investigations. (and not to mention, a warning/block for personal attacks)(Lihaas (talk) 23:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC));

It's not clear that they're socks - Fairness4all was actually created over a year ago , the others are newer. Seems likely that they're all fans of the site and discussing something elsewhere, but only one of them did something somewhat hostile.

We could checkuser them, but it's not clear if there's grounds for it right now.

If there are further issues on-wiki that rise to the level of personal attack, or they appear to be advocating for the site in some disallowed manner here, we should definitely intervene. But so far it's not clear that any of them (or all of them together) have done anything wrong.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Fairness4all has now been blocked by another administrator. —Soap— 15:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Expansion of sanctions at WP:GS/BI

The area of the British Isles naming dispute is under probation as per WP:GS/BI. After numerous attempts, over a period of months, to get the message to User:Triton Rocker (who is serving a topic banned from making edits in this topic area) and User:LevenBoy (currently blocked for the second time for breaches of WP:CIVIL in the topic area) vis-a-vis appropriate conduct. For this reason I have decided to issue a six month civility parole (beginning at the time of their return form their current blocks) to both editors. I am taking this here for outside review.

For further reference this SSPI report alleging tat LevenBoy and Triton Rocker are socks - shows a high level of 'editing in concert' to make a point by these two editors as do their posts to my page. I believe there is a WP:TAG/WP:NINJA issue here.

In the last few weeks two long term sock-puppeteers have popped up once more. First User:Aatomic1 and in the last few days User:The Maiden City. These users are bringing there disruption from areas covered by 'The Troubles' RfAr resolutions to the British Isles naming dispute topic. Other sock-puppeteers such as User:MidnightBlueMan (aka User:Mister Flash) have been working in this topic area already. These users are both encouraging and involving themselves in disruption of both enforcement threads and the topic in general. In the light of this higher level of disruption I believe we need to adjust our remedies to deescalate this situation.

Therefore I am bringing this here as I wish to add the issuing of 3 lesser editing restrictions to the current probation system, and to add a full topic ban to the list of remedies at WP:GS/BI. The lesser restriction are as follows:

1. Civility Parole: a strict enforcement of WP:TPG, WP:EDITSUMMARY, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:HARASS.
2. Interaction bans: editors are banned from editing with, reverting (in any way), commenting upon or to, or in any other way interacting with a defined other user or users.
3. Revert parole: editors are restricted formally to 1RR in relation to all Britain, Ireland, the British Isles naming topics - with the exception of obvious vandalism and reverts of proven banned users.

All to be enforced by escalating blocks. (eg. 24 hours, 48 hours, 5 days, 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year/indef) I'm suggesting we add these as discretionary sanctions for use before we jump to topic bans in the hope that said users will adjust their behaviour. I have already informed the patrolling admin, User:TFOWR, of this and they fully support these sanctions.

Also I'm suggesting we add "TB02: Topic banned from editing in naming disputes relating to Britain, Ireland, the British Isles naming topics widely construed. Banned from commenting upon or otherwise discussing this topic."

Finally I'm also suggesting we add time limits to all current and future restrictions. Triton Rockers current ban has no duration and is to best of my knowledge indefinite. I'd suggest we add 6 and 12 month periods to all restrictions and then go to indefinite if necessary.--Cailil 22:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose time limits as these are a constant source of complication in these schemes; simpler to deal with restrictions which are explicitly lifted. What an admin can do, if he/she elects, is: spell out that in the event that he/she is not willing, able, or available to deal with an appeal, if x, y and z happens for t period of time, then that can be considered as that admin's approval for sanction to be lifted (eg; "If I'm not willing, able, or available to deal with an appeal of this sanction, then: I will approve for this sanction to be lifted if you do not violate your topic ban for six consecutive months. You may ask any uninvolved admin to lift this on my behalf in such circumstances."). The rest is ok. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point, like TFOWR, I'm open to tweaking this. If time limits are a complication I'd be happy to remove them. In that event LB and TR would be placed on civility parole until lifted, and TR is serving TB01 until it is lifted--Cailil 09:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Also noting that the imposing admin's approval is all that is required for lifting the restrictions (community consensus only req if such approval does not exist). Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again Ncmv - I'll add that text when this is closed--Cailil 23:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome :) though you won't need to add that bit as it was part of the original probation terms I drafted/enacted; those details would still apply to these. What needs to be worked on + drafted, well-before this is closed, is what the log will say - and others need to have an idea of this. (Eg; the first line in the log says that TBs may be imposed on any user who add/removes, or editwars over x. So what are the circumstances upon which these other sanctions may be imposed? Disruption?) Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments re civility paroles

• In agreement with recommendations. GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• In full agreement. --HighKing (talk) 00:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed. (For the record, Cailil had discussed this with me (section: "Time to adjust the sanctions") beforehand). I note Ncmvocalist's comment re: time limits, and am open to "tweaks" in that regard. I appreciate that time limits may cause procedural issues; however, I also quite like the idea, as indefinite limits seem - to me - to be a little excessive. TFOWR 08:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed and very much needed. Thanks for the clear and firm intervention - hopefully it will continue to assist a more thoughtful and intelligent approach to BI-related issues, which does appear to be developing sans the recent activity from the listed editors. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Maybe the complaining admin could show us some diffs. I've been watching this from the sidelines. It seems that the complaining admin took exception to some reasonable comments on his talk page by LevenBoy. Together with other editors he has then been engaging in what appears to be a witch-hunt against LB and TR, as have others by raising SPIs, blocking these users, including a talk page block so LB can't even respond to this accusation. This is an extension of the battle between Irish nationalists and others on Misplaced Pages, where one party is trying to silence the other by this sort of thing. The complaining admin should recuse himself from this since he is from Ireland. LemonMonday Talk 12:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  The matter of these restrictions was raised and agreed at the last Triton Rocker ANi- and will be applied to any editor from any 'side' who repeatedly breaches WP:CIVIL.
  Ignoring the spurious accusation of collusion (a breach of WP:AGF on its own) for the moment, by conflating a person's country with their reasons for editing LemonMonday, your comment is in breach of WP:AGF. Basing an assumption of bad faith on an editor's race/gender/religion is not acceptable behaviour and I'm giving you the opportunity to redact that remark before the matter is escalated--Cailil 16:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  Well I resent your intimation that my suggestion of recusal on your part is in any way connected with race/gender/religion. It is a slur against my character of the most serious kind and I urge you to immediately withdraw it or I may have to escalate it. Think of it like this; if there's a rugby match between Ireland and England the referee would under no circumstances come from Ireland. If he did, and someone complained about it, they would not be admonished in the style of your astonishing accusation. Think of this whole issue as a kind of rugby match; it's certainly a conflict, so someone who identifies with one side of the conflict, however indirectly - as in your case - has no place to be refereeing it. LemonMonday Talk 17:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  This is not a rugby match, but if it were it would be one with multiple participating referees and 807 more watching from the sidelines. Every decision Cailil makes is visible; every block is subject to review if {{unblock}} is requested - and every review has been upheld by other admins. If this were a rugby match it would be unlike any I have ever seen.

  Nor is this a conflict or a democracy, where decisions are made based on strength of numbers. It is a consensus-based process. The apparent inability to understand this is tiresome, and is precisely why Cailil has, I believe, been forced to raise this latest proprosal. Until editors - yourself included, LemonMonday - understand that shouting loudly about other editors' nationality is absolutely not going to work, this process will be bogged down. I refuse to let that happen.

  Too many editors at WT:BISE believe that by shouting, socking, complaining, repeating the same irrelevancies, attacking, or otherwise playing in a team of one - too many editors are wasting too much time. It's pissed off the community, it's pissed off too many admins, and it's pissed off me. Well, here's where the push-back happens. Here's where things get put back on track. Here's where the idiots who want to piss about learn that their silly little games are over, and they need to find somewhere else to play. TFOWR 17:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  I couldn't have said it better TFOWR. LM this your last opportunity to redact rhetoric conflating nationality and bad faith. Further off-topic or otherwise inappropriate use of the talkspace will be prevented--Cailil 19:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  A quick way to see some examples would be to go through the history of WT:BISE - any edit I've made with the word "snip" in the edit summary will show an example of civil or NPA problems. TFOWR 12:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  Here's one recent example. I've chosen one from an editor who's now indef'd as a sock, though obviously this proposal is intended to cover all current editors, not blocked socks. TFOWR 12:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments re expanded sanctions

• In agreement with recommendations. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• In full agreement. The community needs to recognize the disruptive editors and take firm action, and allow editors wishing to collaborate to get on with it. --HighKing (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed (with my caveat, above). TFOWR 08:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack

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

Re:Talk:John Birch Society: The following comment by User:Viriditas appears to be a personal attack on another editor:

Collect, that source does not say what you say it says, and I think you know this.... To go to such extreme, convoluted distortions of a reliable source, tells me that there is something wrong with your ability to read and comprehend, Collect. I want to apologize if you have special needs, perhaps you could request the help of another editor who can explain this to you. I hope Collect is mature and sensible enough to recognize that he has made a serious error in judgement and now needs to concede this point.

This is not the way to discuss content disputes and I think Viriditas should withdraw these comments. It is also offensive to people who have special needs.

TFD (talk) 02:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

See WP:DR. Perhaps I missed it, but I don't see any attempt from you to discuss this on Viriditas' talk page. Why are you bringing it here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he's complaining about the content dispute ... but about the somewhat unparliamentary language (your parliament may vary).--Wehwalt (talk) 02:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Correct, so why hasn't he discussed it on Viriditas' talk, which is the first step in dispute resolution? Particularly since a read of that discussion shows Viriditas trying to patiently push water uphill vs. Collect's WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Viriditas presents a clear reliable source on talk, and a long discussion ensues, in which it appears Collect doesn't comprehend. Bringing this one incident to AN/I, without talking to Viriditas about the language used on Viritidas' talk, isn't the most effective use of dispute resolution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Has Collect complained about the language, since he was the intended recipient? If not, then I suggest the question of NPA is moot. As for "special needs" = illiterate; not all illiterate people have special needs (in the medical sense) and not people with special needs are illiterate, but we can hardly censure an editor for inaccuracy (otherwise the depletion of casual editors from WP would be startling!) LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I am now formally complaining about repeated and iterated acts and words by User:Viriditas. He "userfied" ] sans any notification to me, and wothoput going through any actual discussion process of any sort. (Hard to post a diff of nothing, I fear). He routinely says The body of evidence is huge, and for you to dismiss experts in the scientific community on this subject as "self published" is laughable. This isn't in dispute by any rational person, so it's probably time for you to "give it up". Rules, guidelines, and policies do not exist to be "respected" and, of course his own personal RFC/U which splendidly exemplifies his outlook to anyone who disagrees with what he WP:KNOWs. TFD and I do not always agree, to be sure, but he has not gone to the lengths Viriditas has gone. Collect (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you're upset and angered that I moved a user essay that you wrote into user space per Misplaced Pages:Userfication. Is it true, Collect, that "essays mostly written by a single person, and not frequently referenced, may be userfied"? It sounds like you have a personal vendetta against me, Collect. I moved that essay on August 31 after finding it had been created on 30 January 2010 by you, with no edits by any other user during that time, and little to no links. In fact, all of the links found were added by Collect, and stem from other essays he wrote and spammed links to on talk pages. In the above response he spams another essay he wrote, WP:KNOW. If people believe that after seven months your essay should be in main space, then ask an administrator to move it back. Stop trying to copy and paste the material back into the redirect as that is not how we move articles. You've been here long enough to know how Misplaced Pages works, so please follow the rules. Viriditas (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The procedure is to use MfD on any such essays. And notifying people is a grreat idea. In fact, it is required. The essay is now back in mainspace. If you wish to nom it for MfD, do so. Until then, leave it be. Thanks. Collect (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Routine housekeeping requires MfD? Viriditas (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas isn't alone in "having his own personal RFC/U which splendidly exemplifies his outlook", is he, Collect? I don't like incivility either, but more than a few users (scroll down from the link) have considered your behavior to be attacking, too, since you bring up the issue. Glass houses, you know?  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting you found an RFC/U which the main proponent later apologized to me for, and where with 14 people CANVASSED before the RFC, they still did not make a majority <g>. And, of course, the 5 sock puppeteers who were later banned (including User:Ratel, who was quite vociferous, indeed). Sorry - no one charged me with personal attacks in that one at all. What I was charged with was being tendentious in pursuing WP:BLP rules - and where Jimbo agrees with my position on such BLPs. Now do you really want to go there? <g> Collect (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Collect's WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior, could someone address Collect's misunderstanding of WP:PSTS which he has now spread tendentiously to several talk pages? Collect is continuing to misrepresent the definition, concept, and usage of tertiary sources like reference works, claiming that tertiary sources are unreliable. In his latest series of edits, Collect has claimed over and over again, that sources like Encyclopædia Britannica and the Dictionary of American History (published by Charles Scribner's Sons and hosted by Gale online) are unreliable. Since this appears to be a stubborn, fundamental misunderstanding of PSTS, could someone set him straight? I've explained how the sources are reliable, but Collect won't listen to reason. Viriditas (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I "claimed" that the EB online uses "suggestions" from anyone at all -- and pointed out the "suggest edit" tab on every EB online article, and also showed where this had been shown to be true. More than that - how reliable is any encyclopedia which takes suggested edits from anyone? <g>. Collect (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Encyclopædia Britannica article in question was written by Jeannette Nolen, social science editor for Encyclopaedia Britannica, not by a user suggested edit. The material you dispute in that article is supported by scholarly studies, such as Groseclose & Milyo (2005), Turner (2007), and DellaVigna & Kaplan (2007). Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Every reference work contains errors. Ones which have a policy of correcting errors are not automatically less accurate than those that don't. Newspapers are not inaccurate because they make corrections based on reader input. If there is a dispute over the accuracy of EB, that should be settled at WP:RSN. In general, tertiary sources are allowed though we should not based our articles on them. They can be especially valuable in providing overviews and summaries.   Will Beback  talk  22:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No, the dispute is over the use of tertiary sources. In this case, Collect claims that the Encyclopædia Britannica is not a reliable source. On another talk page, Collect claims that the Dictionary of American History is not a reliable source and can't be used because he can't personally verify the information. The pattern here is one of opposition to any edit he personally dislikes, obstruction to normal talk page discussion to resolve the opposition, and deliberate obfuscation, where he tries to confuse the issue under discussion and prevent any resolution that is at odds with his own personal POV. Viriditas (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, though, that Viriditas would do well to withdraw the comment. Editors shouldn't address one another with condescension, and doing so would keep this from turning into yet another long thread of mutual recriminations that take up so much real-estate here.  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I have withdrawn the comment and it is now struck out on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Since Collect has banned me from his talk page, could someone ask Collect to stop making copy and paste moves? He has now, for the second time, restored a copy and paste move. I specifically requested him at 21:52, 27 September 2010, to stop with the copy and paste moves and use the appropriate procedures to request a move. As it stands right now, the essay in question is appropriately located in his user space. Collect has been here long enough to know that we don't move articles with copy and paste, since we want to preserve the page history. Viriditas (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Alexandra Powers photo needed

1. I think for article of little known actress Alexandra_Powers a photo is needed. IMDB has one that could be used for the article. Here's the link: http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3291650048/nm0694490 2. Also, a photo is needed for Julie_Kavner who is the voice of Marge_Simpson. IMDB has a one at this link:http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1859230464/nm0001413 Please let me know about those 2 articles for needing photos. Thanks!Neptunekh2 (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Neither of those photos are acceptable. Both are living persons which mean we can only use photos with a free (unencumbered) license. -- ۩ Mask 04:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not true. If the living individual were in a position where it were dangerous or impossible for any reasonable editor to produce a current photo, a fair use image should be acceptable. Incarcerated or reclusive drug lords as an example. However in this case, these individuals don't really fit that criterion.--Crossmr (talk) 06:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That's why the rule says something about "reasonably" possible to get a free photo. Obviously, if someone is in the slammer for life, that would be difficult. Unless his cellmate had a digital camera and internet access. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Ask at WP:Requested pictures. This page is for incidents requiring administrative attention. 67.119.2.101 (talk) 05:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Bus stop engaged in disruptive editing

User:Bus stop is engaged in disruptive editing in article Judaism and violence. They have repeatedly deleted material (regarding violence in the Book of Esther) that is very well sourced, and clearly within the scope of the article. Bus Stop deleted the material several times including and . Then the article was protected for 3 days (21 Sept to 24 Sept) to prevent edit warring, and a civil discussion ensued on the Talk page between a few editors (sources for the material were requested and provided), but Bus Stop chose to not participate in that Talk page dialog during the protection period. After the protection was lifted, Bus stop has again deleted the material twice and . The material is extremely well sourced. Bus Stop seems to dislike the entire article, and their reasons for deleting this specific Book of Esther material are hard to comprehend (such as the query here or here ). This is a clear case of disruptive editing simply because - apparently - Bus Stop does not like the material, and finds it offensive. A similar ANI was filed 10 days ago here but nothing ever came of it, and the pattern of behavior is continuing. What is the remedy for WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT problems? --Noleander (talk) 06:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing problems with the text that Busstop removed, and that he may well be correct in his elisions. For example, per WP:UNDUE, who exactly is Elliott Horowitz that his views merit a paragraph in the article? As for the other sources, placing a keffiyah is not a violent act in and of itself, so that source does not support the text. Same with Frazer; the text does not discuss violence, it discusses whether or not the burning in effigy is an affront to Christians. What I am seeing is subtle original research and synthesis, and that the removals may well have been warranted. The fact that something is written in a text is not enough; it has to be pertinent to the article without any leaps or assumptions on the readers part and it needs to pass WP:UNDUE. -- Avi (talk) 06:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Those issues are for the Talk page, and were already addressed (in excruciating detail) there. There are vast amounts of reliable, academic, secondary sources on the topic. This ANI is regarding Bus Stop's inability to engage in dialog on the Talk page in a rational manner. --Noleander (talk) 06:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Content being discussed there. -- Avi (talk) 06:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I encourage people to participate in the RFC at the aforementioned article but I am closing this as otherwise I see no admin action neededThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Noleander! Can you please stop your editwars and your anti-Jewish defamation POV push on quite a few pages?Salamaat (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request of behalf of User:BlueRobe

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

I am making a request on behalf of BlueRobe over his one month block. The blocking administrator has said he supports the proposals laid out for the unblock.

• 19 September
  • warned by myself Does not appear to be a PA, certainly uncivil but it needs context, it was in response to this Having an editor carelessly saying it would be better to just delete your proposal is going to get under your skin
• 21 September
  • warned by Fifelfoo Certainly a caustic remark, However it was borne out of frustration over the insertion of an obviously anarchist group The Workers Solidarity Movement into the article.
• 22 September
  • warned by Fifelfoo This is not a warning, it is a request to refactor a comment from a previous warning
  • warned by Jrtayloriv This is not a warning, it is a response to a previous warning
• 23 September
  • warned by myself Definitely an unneeded comment, telling an editor to sod of is not on, but again a comment born of frustration in being told that his talk page contributions are just OR and have no substance.
• 24 September
  • warned by Marknutley This one was certainly another PA But again it is sheer frustration which is causing it.
  • warned by FellGleaming This is the same as my one above, do two cautions for the same thing count as one?
  • abuse4 warning from Fifelfoo Was in response to what looks to me like a mild joke, i would not call it a PA and not a level 4 template one
  • warned again by Fifelfoo Again another warning which does not appear warranted to me,
  • warned by Jrtayloriv This is not really a warning as such, it is a comment in a thread from one of the warnings given above
  • warned by Lawrencekhoo This is also the same as the warnings above. He has been warned three times for the same offence? Is it any wonder he got frustrated?
  • warned again by Lawrencekhoo This is a duplicate diff, Same as the one directly above.
• 25 September 2010
  • warned by Born2cycle This is in response to BlueRobe saying get a life freak a definite PA but taken in the context of a constant stream of warnings (some for the most trivial matters) will lead to these sort of response`s.

From what I've seen of BlueRobe, the user appears to be actively trolling by intentionally being rude and insulting to try to turn factual discussions into arguments. In a AfD I started, he jumped in without having read the AfD (at least judgine from his comment), then went on to call me an "angry freak" when I moved a comment by him to the bottom of the place to be able to answer, claimed that I'm "ranting and raving" instead of answering my question why a copy of an article should be kept, and made rather insulting insinuations about my motive for nominating the article . I don't know if BlueRobe is intentionally trolling (which I suspect) or just unable to control himself, but whatever the case, he is clearly a disruptive user.Jeppiz (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This one is quite interesting, the first diff which Jeppiz says Blue calls him an angry freak has no such comment in it. The second Diff, Ranting and Raving yes he does say that, but then again if an editor had moved my comments (a breach of TPG) and then said BlueRobe now claims to have read the nomination, which is great a clear provocation, given the opening comment from Jeppiz to BlueRobe and his second Very clear provocation from Jeppiz and it is little wonder BlueRobe responded in kind

Results of diffbomb

All in all the above diff bomb which was dropped on ANI is not quite what it was made out to be. A lot are duplicates and some are not as uncivil as made out to be. Some are the result of extreme provocation and a lot of the personal remarks are down to sheer frustration. I e-mailed BlueRobe and told him i would appeal his month long block if he gave his word that he would refrain from further personal attacks on other editors. He has given his word.

Proposal

As blue has given his word he will refrain from further personal attacks on other editors i ask his block be lifted with the following conditions.

• He accepts a 1R restriction on Libertarianism to prevent any further edit warring or perceived edit warring. Time period to be decided on this by you.
• An interaction ban (of sorts) User:Yworo User:Fifelfoo User:BigK HeX and User:The Four Deuces be requested to not post on User:BlueRobe talk page, this is to help fend off further antagonism. If they feel BlueRobe has made inappropriate comments they post on my talk page and i will mediate the matter.
• This will give Blue the chance to prove his worth, i believe he is an intelligent person who is not used to wiki and is letting his frustration get the better of him. An unblock now while the RFC/U is running will give him the chance to show he can contribute to the project in a constructive manner. I am of course taking him at his word that he will remain civil, should he break his word the one month ban can of course be reset.
• I will also offer my services as a mentor to BlueRobe and try to help him along. mark nutley (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments From The Community

• oppose - I have little patience for 11th hour changes of hearts. He had plenty of chances to alter his behaviour before being blocked. He can serve out his month if he wants to prove he can change.--Crossmr (talk) 12:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Without comment on BlueRobe, I am not comfortable with a resolution placing Marknutley as 'mediator' or 'mentor' between a troubled user and the rest of the community. Marknutley has far too much recent and ongoing difficulty in constructive interactions with the community to fill this role. He is himself currently under a community-imposed civility parole (), among other restrictions (summarized, along with conduct issues, in this open Arbitration finding). Marknutley also seems to have a poor grasp what constitutes a personal attack (see this spurious warning to another editor, given in response to this comment). It is of particular concern that this sort of error is being made in the same area where BlueRobe edits. Finally, Marknutley is not an administrator, and lacks the technical ability to restore BlueRobe's block if there is trouble. Requiring that problems be channeled through him is a recipe for failure. While Mark's intentions are good, he needs to demonstrate that his own house is in order before he tries to help other editors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

TOAT that was not a warning, it was a request to withdraw an accusation of disruption made towards another editor. I fail to see how trying to defuse a potential argument can be deemed a concern? mark nutley (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You don't have a firm grasp of what constitutes a personal attack, which suggests strongly that you probably shouldn't be the one monitoring any sort of civility parole. As I said, your intentions are good, but you haven't demonstrated the skills to be an effective mediator. Your response here – which seems to entirely miss the point of my remarks – cements that perception. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose -- BlueRobe's latest bunch of RFCs/ANIs should make it clear that a block was warranted. Even if mark nutley were neutral in this dispute (and he's not), he'd be the last person that I'd pick for mentoring, due to his long history of incivil behavior and POV-pushing. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose -- If he's repentant? he won't mind serving out his block. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose BlueRobe has not only shown poor interaction with other editors, but is unwilling to accept that articles must use reliable sources and that synthesis is not allowed. I find it indicative that BlueRobe will not change by his including editing restrictions on other editors as part of the conditions he is willing to accept. I have only posted to BlueRobe's talk page three times. Two times were to complain about templates he placed on my talk page (one accused me of vandalism) and the third was a polite mention that he had reached 3RR for the day. mark nutley's poor history of interaction with other editors as evidenced by his many blocks make him a poor choice for mediating. TFD (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The interaction restrictions are not BlueRobes conditions, they are mine. He had no part in writing the proposal. The point of the interaction restriction is to help defuse the situation mark nutley (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

User:SluggoOne not allowing me to assist a new user who needs help; keeps reverting me

This is so mind-jarringly simple and clear-cut that I can't believe I am soliciting opinions on AN/I.

• As her very first edit, new user Darya Gorbatyuk posted a general knowledge question on her talk page.

• Before I could welcome her and assist with her question, SluggoOne deleted her question with a terse edit summary

• I scolded SluggoOne for his rudeness (via edit summary) and restored her question and attempted to assist her and welcome her to Misplaced Pages.

• SluggoOne reverted me

• Scarcely believing what I was seeing, I reverted SluggoOne and scolded him on his talk page

• SluggoOne reverted my attempt to assist the new user AGAIN, using rollback

Could some one please give this poor new editor a hand? Apparently, the appallingly rude SluggoOne has some sort of problem with my assisting her.

The only reason I brought it here is that don't want to violate the 3RR rule. I strongly feel this user should be welcomed.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 08:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Bad edits r dumb has, per MuZemike, engaged in sockpuppeting, which is a blatant violation of core Misplaced Pages policies. My first edit was over five years ago; since, I have never been blocked. Unlike Bad edits r dumb, whose "first" edit was fewer than two weeks ago, I have never been blocked from editing. I wait with baited breath for this bored troll to get the boot. Şłџğģő 08:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

What in the world does your block record or my use of an alternate account have to do with your inexcusable rudeness toward a new user?--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 08:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

SluggoOne - Your actions were still incorrect in this situation, regardless of any previous or future block of this user. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The only reason I'm replying to you is because, if I recall correctly, I've encountered you before and you came off okay. I have no idea who Huntster is, and Bad edits is a troll, so neither is getting attention from me.

My point is, since nobody seems to have picked up on it, is that, per this edit summary and several other violations of policy, I believe the reporting user is a sockpuppet who is throwing a fit for no good reason. That you and Huntster missed the fact that you're dealing with a bored troll makes me a little unwell.

This all started here, with this guy claiming, apropos of nothing, that my edit indicated I'd bitten a newcomer. According to Huntster, nothing of the sort ever happened. That the newcomer got rescued by the bored troll Bad edits r dumb is getting ignored. Sadly and predictably, the newcomer has, like so many other editors to English Misplaced Pages who aren't good English speakers, vanished. What is the issue here? Şłџğģő 08:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the user has vanished after what happened on their talk page? Your rudeness is a bit much as well, stop calling people trolls. mark nutley (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I hate to be this guy, but if the user was going to edit so badly, per WP:COMPETENCE, it's for the better that they disappeared. English Misplaced Pages is crippled by legions of articles on various foreign locales that are written in similarly broken English. Also: User:Bad_edits_r_dumb is a troll who needs to be blocked. Call a spade a spade in this case, would you? Are people bothering to click on links here? Or are we, for whatever reason, assuming good faith on a guy who's already failed (so to speak) a Checkuser? Şłџğģő 09:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Replied on Sluggo's talk page. Basically, in this situation, Bad edit's history is irrelevant. He was trying to help someone (unless I'm missing something here), and Sluggo slapped him down. This is not acceptable. To both parties, please stop baiting each other, otherwise the heat to light ratio here is going to get seriously unbalanced. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You are right, and I will not engage Sluggo any further (I was admittedly very harsh when I scolded him). I do, however, feel that someone (if not me) should welcome the new user and try to help her out.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Bad edit your right to greet new users, but unfortunately since you seem to have got into hot water at the moment, I agree with your proposal, wait until your in the clear. On the point of Sluggo I concer he reverted me when I was helping out a newish user who was getting upset, and called me impatient in his edit summary--Lerdthenerd (talk) 08:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added a welcome template to the top of her page, and you've done about as much as can be done with regard to her question. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I make it a point to never edit unless I can back up what I did. Here's Lerd's edit, which was indisputably BITE-y and abrupt; my edit, which came so close to Lerd's it was almost an edit conflict, was far, far more polite and welcoming. But hey. Lerd "concers" that I bite the newcomers. Şłџğģő 09:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

How was my edit BITEY? I posted a message to help wtf09, you posted another friendly message helping him using the welcome template then you deleted mine calling me impatient why did you have to do that? I don't want to start an argument but you shouldn't have deleted my post with a snippy comment like that--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You told the editor his article was "deleted as spam." The word "spam" has tons and tons of negative connotations; I would support removing it from all these templates because it's so mean.

"Impatient" was "snippy?" I disagree. If I recall correctly, and there's a good chance I do not, I used "impatient" instead of my first choice, "BITE-y." I'm willing to step back from my claim your words were BITE-y. I think you approached it like the editor had a thick skin, which you (or I) can't know to be true. The welcome template is far more gentle than calling something "spam." If you're really, really bored, you can look through my edit history regarding this stuff. I almost never call anything spam. Şłџğģő 09:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

While WP:BITE is only a guideline, it is quite clear that it has been violated. Also WP:NPA for calling another editor a "bored troll" appears to be on point. Lastly, use of alternative accounts is not "sockpuppeting" - the user appears to have operated properly in that regatrd, and accusing such a user is quite bad form. Now we have violations "right here in River City" of multiple personal attacks and clear violation of WP:BITE. I suggest that this be clearly noted. Collect (talk) 10:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you even look at the thread on Bad edits r dumb above? If you didn't, then I don't think you can claim he has "operated properly in that regard". Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 11:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

(-indent, reply to SluggoOne) I'm sorry if article deleted as spam came across as rude to Wtf09 but I was telling him why it was deleted so he knows what can and cant go into wikipedia, he asked why it was deleted i told him why and gave him some advice, you deleted my comment which is against the talkpage rule, you shouldn't have done that unless it was a blatant personal attack--Lerdthenerd (talk) 11:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Cameron. Regardless of how inexperienced BErD is, what you did was wrong. Buggie111 (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Bad edits r dumb's past history has absolutely nothing to do with this report, Sluggo, and I would advise that you stop deprecating him/her. It seems quite clear to me that your removal of a good-faith question from a new user was, most definitely, bitey toward them. Bad edits r dumb reverted it and posted a helpful response to them. At that point, you should have left the situation alone, as another user was taking care of it and it wasn't your problem anymore. However, you then started a revert war over the issue, using Twinkle no less, clearly violating WP:TPO more than once. I do believe that some action needs to be taken here. Silverseren 14:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Per my comment below, I think Sluggo1's actions were unacceptable. Even if, hypothetically, the new user's question was so horribly out-of-bounds as to merit immediate removal, on what planet is "not how that works" a response that is in any way helpful to the new user? My word, even our assuming-bad-faith vandalism warnings are more insightful, and I'm surprised that sluggo1 did not tag the user's page with such a warning. On the point of Twinkle, access has been removed for far more innocuous uses in the past, and I'd support the removal of Twinkle access in this case. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 16:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Summary and proposal

I first encountered User:SluggoOne in a dispute over whether an article was or was not advertising subject to speedy deletion. (I was not the first editor to do so that day, either.) In the course of our "discussion", SluggoOne invoked Jesus and extended the invitation "eat me" .

I thought SluggoOne merely needed to hear from a third party that his/her tact needed an adjustment, and was simply going to take my concerns to the incivility noticeboard, but then I noticed this thread.

Though I loathe to repeat, I want to place here the detail that may be needed to take durable action against SluggoOne.

User:Darya Gorbatyuk's very first edit on Misplaced Pages was a post to her user talk page: "Darya Gorbatyuk (talk) 07:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)i have a question "what are some of the sumerian names they had in mesopotamia?"

SluggoOne decided to respond by reverting Darya Gorbatyuk's edit with the edit summary: "Not how that works".

User:Bad edits r dumb apparently noticed this and restored Darya Gorbatyuk's edit, and then answered the question by kindly letting the user know that the user talk page isn't the best place for the question and referring the user to one of the reference desks. .

SluggoOne then returned and reverted both Darya Gorbatyuk's question and Bad edits r dumb's answer, with the edit summary, "I deleted it, because that's not how WP works." Bad edits r dumb then restored the question and answer, and SluggoOne actually deleted it a second time! User:Cameron Scott intervened to restore the question and answer a second time.

When Bad edits r dumb complained on SluggoOne's talk page , SluggoOne called the post "crap" and proceeded to personally attack Bad edits r dumb by bringing up Bad edits r dumb's block record. . The rest of the talk page thread, in all its rudeness, it there for all to see.

My own encounter with SluggoOne proves to me that SluggoOne's rudeness and incivility permeates the entirety of SluggoOne's conduct on Misplaced Pages, that SluggoOne fully intends to ignore policy and guidelines (including those on criteria for speedy deletion, user talk pages, talk refactoring, biting newcomers, and civility), that this user has shown no interest in correcting this behavior (even here, the personal attacks in an attempt to undercut the credibility of the reporting user have not ceased), and that, in my opinion, Misplaced Pages would be much better off without this user.

I think the appropriate action would be a block of at least one month, during which SluggoOne can take the time to read all the policies and guidelines SluggoOne now ignores, and SluggoOne can reevaluate how he/she may contribute harmoniously and constructively on Misplaced Pages. --Bsherr (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose If one disagreed with Sluggo1's edit the correct action would have been to explain one's disagreement on his talk page rather than reverse his edit with a disparaging comment. One could also provide advice to the new editor on their talk page without re-instating the question. Whether or not Sluggo1 was correct to reverse the original comment is a judgment call, and therefore I would close this discussion thread without further action. TFD (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware such a revert was permissible. Could you identify in policy or guidelines where such a revert is permitted, please? --Bsherr (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

How did the new user's question violate talk page guidelines? And if it did not, then Sluggo's removal violated WP:TPO. Silverseren 18:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think Sluggo1's conduct in this matter has been appalling, and if there were an obvious edit restriction that would prevent it from happening again, I'd be all for it. But a block is too much in this case; it would not solve the problem, and would largely be punitive. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 16:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I would at least take away SluggoOne's rollback permission. HalfShadow 16:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose the block as of now, But Yes with the removing the rollback.--intelati 16:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• You can disregard my input if u want to, because I am an involved party (and apparently a "bored troll" according to Sluggo), but for what its worth I do not think blocking SluggoOne would be helpful at this stage. I do fully support removing rollback rights from this user. If he continues to abuse Twinkle, u should remove that as well, but this is just my opinion.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose block, Support rollback removal I don't think this is egregarious enough for a block to be necessary, but I do believe that the user's use of rollback was not within the perview of that tool and, thus, the user should not have access to the tool any longer. Silverseren 18:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose all draconian punishments. Suggest loss of Twinkle and rollback, as a "warning shot" should work. Collect (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose block, support taking away rollback and Twinkle. Reyk _YO! 19:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• half oppose a month is too long. A week is better. He's very combative and not working well with the community right now. his response on his talk page to the last two comments made to him there on this issue show that. His behaviour was completely inappropriate. In addition he marked his initial revert minor, blanking someone's talk page isn't minor. People have conversations and ask each other all kinds of non-directly wikipedia stuff all the time via talk page. There is absolutely no reason why this user whose only edit was to their talk page should have had their question blanked with no explanation. I still haven't seen anything cited by him or anyone else that shows his edit was appropriate. We really don't him interacting with new users if that is going to be how he is going to carry on.--Crossmr (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support I absolutely cannot see how a longtime user like Sluggo could think what he did was acceptable in the slightest. Access Denied  00:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • ADDENDUM: These seem like definite personal attacks. Access Denied  00:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Slightly different proposal

(edit conflict)Everything here has been plainly outlined, so I don't think I really need to repeat it, but I will try if I need to(eg, request it or something).

To the point, per Sluggo's abuse of TWINKLE and rollback, which is only supposed to be used for blatant vandalism(in regards to rollback, just to be clear) is out of line. To that end, my proposal is that both tools(TWINKLE and rollback) be removed, and Sluggo warned against similar edits in the future by an admin. By now, the edits are past, and the new user has been welcomed, however the abuse of the tools is still apparent, and until they can see why their edits were wrong, I am not comfortable in them having them.— Dædαlus 23:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support - As proposer, of course.— Dædαlus 23:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Yes--intelati 23:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support- see my vote for the other proposal above. Reyk _YO! 23:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Silverseren 23:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Concur, both tools need to be removed. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 00:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - As a reasonable intermediate proposal. --Bsherr (talk) 05:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - per rationale of Daedalus969 and rationale in objections raised in earlier proposal. ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 05:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• half support If he isn't acknowledging the behaviour and indicating that it won't be repeated, then he needs to be blocked to prevent further disruption. If he still believes his behaviour is justified then there is an open threat of continued disruption. A block is required.--Crossmr (talk) 06:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support A much better solution than the block proposal. What was done does not really merit a block and as of now, removal of rollback due to abuse would be enough. He hasn't continued the reversions now, has he? Bejinhan talks 06:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - contrary to the statement above, it seems from SluggoOne's edit summaries that rollback was not used, since rollback does not allow edit summaries. (At least that is my understanding). TFD (talk) 06:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, rollback was not used when SluggoOne deleted Darya's comment initially, but rollback was used when he reverted Bad edits r Dumb (i.e., ME) when he re-blanked the page.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 06:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Systemic bias by Editor Varlaam

Editor Varlaam appears to be using Systemic bias in editing some Africa-related film articles by changing the Manual of Stye (MOS) of the articles. He has unnecessarily added a flag icon template into the infobox of this article (Template:Infobox_film discourages the usage of flag icons), and also added a currency Wikilink into the infobox_budget section of this article. WP:FILM's goal is "to standardize the film articles in Misplaced Pages" - the currency data field in the infobox_budget section of film articles (e.g. here) is not wikilinked, thus the addition of a currency wikilink with this explanation in the edit summary is not in adherence with the standardization goal of WP:FILM and suggests systemic bias. I've asked Varlaam to revert his edits but he has decided to ignore the issue. To avoid edit war, this issue is brought to this board. Could an administrator please look into this? Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 09:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hold um horses, Amsaim. Disagreeing with a diktat of Wikiproject Films is not the same as systemic bias. As far as I can see, he has done two things - he has put a flag in an infobox, which I presume offends some edict of the film project re keeping infoboxes tidy, and he has wikilinked to the Nigerian naira, which I for one would find useful, as it is a less well known currency (lets face it, most currencies outside the dollar, yen and euro are less well known!). For that, you have dumped a wodge of text on his talkpage accusing him of systemic bias (do you even know what this means??) and reported him to ANI. I see no attempt at discussion anywhere. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hint, systemic bias would be converting all the currencies in the film infoboxes into dollars, so there was a standard comparison against the Hollywood box office. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This certainly is a novel way to avoid an edit war: ask an editor once to revert a change you disagree with so as not to "cause" one, and if they don't and ignore you, it's straight to AN/I. Whatever happened to Bold, Revert, Discuss? This report seems a bit "much"... Doc9871 (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

And accusing them of "systemic bias" for one edit. Cracking :) Recommend Amsaim closes this now, before thatfootballerwhoshallnotbenamed comes into play. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Six-minute block of TreasuryTag by SarekOfVulcan

Template:Formerly

I mean come on, seriously? SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs) blocked me at 15:03 for a petty non-3RR reversion against an alleged consensus – with which they were anyway slighty involved Within two minutes, I proposed a perfectly reasonable compromise. Then Sarek unblocked me at 15:09.

So aside from the conflict-of-interest issue, I think it is absurd that I was blocked when a decent 'ceasefire' was so transparently within reach. So this either smacks of a poorly-thought-through block which almost immediately proved un-necessary, or a cool-down block designed to push me into making a compromise; and, as we all know, cool-down blocks are not allowed.

Sarek suggested that I refer the issue here for wider input. Note that I am not asking for any sanctions or any particular result other than the fact that admins in general, and Sarek in particular, should not be so trigger-happy with the block button where compromise is just around the corner. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 14:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

So, it looks like your "reasonable compromise" was actually proposed by Sarek, and you ignored him and continued edit warring. Then after he blocked you, you started to behave and abided by the compromise... seems like a good block. - Kingpin (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Erm... can you provide a diff of Sarek first proposing the compromise? Because I'm fairly sure that that is not what happened. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 14:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

here - Kingpin (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So your diff proving that Sarek first proposed the RfC actually took place 12 minutes after I first raised the prospect of an RfC on this issue, did it? ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 14:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

See below. Either way the compromise was discussed before the block (not after as you suggest), but you choose not to do that, and instead to keep edit warring. After the block you suddenly seem to become reasonable and comply with the compromise. Then come here trying to make it look like Sarek is the one being unreasonable. It appears like the block is what made you actually file an RfC and stop edit warring. The block made you stop edit warring, so it was a good block, imo - Kingpin (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually, it was proposed by TT, and I said I didn't think he'd get the result he expected, but he was welcome to try.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Either way, he didn't actually do this until after the block. - Kingpin (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Rule #1: protect first. TT took it upon himself to break WP:3RR and is unapologetic about it. This ANI report will generate far more heat than light. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  At no stage did I "break WP:3RR" – seems you're generating the heat! ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 14:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Much ado about nothing, though no one comes out of this smelling like a rose. Suggest we close.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"...against an alleged consensus"; there you go - good block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, fairly ropey as arguments go, but no more so than I expected... ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 14:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Point of order: The block was 24 hours, later commuted resulting in a block of six minutes total. Admittedly a bit of pedantry, but this should be made clear as the (current) section header is ambiguous. –xeno 15:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• What is the point of blocking someone for something they say on their own talk page? Exactly what disruption does that prevent if you aren't protecting it or blocking them from editing the same? Was TreasuryTag behaving inappropriately to some degree? Probably. Was this a good block? Not particularly. Should SarekOfVulcan be desysopped over it? No. --B (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  Um, the original block was for edit warring on Flesh and Stone, not for anything he said on talk. And WP:NPA applies on all namespaces; hence, the second block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  While it's true that no personal attacks applies to user talk pages, a block alone doesn't stop a user from making personal attacks on his or her user talk page. It's analogous to the police arresting a drunk and then leaving them in the custody of a liquor store. --B (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) This particular section concerns a block for edit warring; you appear to be talking about the more recent block, one that the editor isn't really disputing at this point. –xeno 18:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Good block: TT was edit warring, and a six-minute block convinced them to discuss rather than continuing. I'd say that's about the most efficient block I've ever seen. GiftigerWunsch 21:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

David829

David829 (talk · contribs) creates legitimate, if unsourced, stubs on notable Top Ten hits by country music artists (example: Hey Bobby). I have warned him at least twice that he must put at least one source in the article, but all he does is remove the warnings and continue to make the same mistakes. It's clear that he's not paying any attention to what I'm saying, and he might need a bit stronger action to get his attention. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 15:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• I just swung by to see if my own concern had been covered and I saw yours. Yes, I think this individual needs a timeout. He's one of these editors who focuses on a single subject and never acknowledges the concerns of others. Thanks for posting this. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I find it hard to block him when he is actually creating usable content. After all, many thousands of our users commit the identical fault. Ideas?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:V is part of the 5P. This seems more like a refusal to work with Misplaced Pages's principles. Block seems appropriate due to the ignored warnings. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I had to walk David829 (talk · contribs) through step by step on how to create an article, because he genuinely didn't know how. If TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) had taken but a minute to show him how to add references rather than shouting at him the first time he posted on his talk page and attacking him in edit summaries, we probably wouldn't be here.

There are so few users who are trying to create and improve the country music articles the best way they know how. What are we trying to accomplish by blocking them all? Eric444 (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

While creating unsourced stubs can be annoying, as far as I know, it's not generally a blockable offense. Nor should it be. Plus, it sounds like he's likely to improve at this point. Nothing to do here... Hobit (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sock of recently blocked serial copyright violator?

Hello. Someone - but who? - was recently blocked (indef?) for uploading endless webscraped airliner pictures. I can't remember the username involved, but Verybluesky (talk · contribs) seems likely something feathery that quacks. So whose sock is this? Help please. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Last year we had ANigg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), now indeffed, who sockpuppetted for a while. I hadn't seen this newer one you refer to, but could easily have missed it... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...

Viper 265 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Yattum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Chanakythegreat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

...And a whole rats nest of IP users in 88.106.0.0/16, which I rangeblocked for a week about a month ago.

I'm filing a SPI for Verybluesky on the most recent, Yattum SPI thread. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks GWH, it was Viper 265 I was thinking of. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Magic 8-ball says no: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Yattum. So this is a new user, who needs to have the copyright policy explained to them and have the images re-tagged appropriately as to where they really came from. Do you have time to / are you familiar enough with that to do it? If you're not sure, I can do it later today. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Spamming by a large company

I've seen a lot of spamming by small companies; this is the first time I've ever seen a large company attempt to do so. User:MerrimackPharma attempted to place an article about pharmaceutical manufacturer Merrimack Pharmaceuticals. The article was then repeatedly updated and spammed by a series of sockpuppets. I invoked WP:BOLD, deleted the article and locked down the title. Sure enough, someone tried pasting a verbatim version of the deleted content under the slightly altered title of "Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Inc." This was done by User:Scienceiscooool, a user with no previous edits.

I believe that this is a serious enough situation as to warrant a formal complaint from the Wikimedia Foundation to the upper-level management of this firm. Never in all the years I've edited this site have I seen such a spam attempt from such a company of this size. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a bit of an overreaction unless you have evidence that this was the result of corporate policy or directive. It's more likely that this is the action of one or two over-zealous employees than a corporation-wide conspiracy. ElKevbo (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The socking is a concern, but the company itself is likely to be notable. Admins can do whatever is necessary to prevent re-creation of an inappropriate article, so I'm not sure why the Foundation would need to be involved. The best place to work out issues like this is probably the WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, since the people there usually try to negotiate with the promotional editors and get them to cooperate. No objection to the admin actions taken so far, but the sources of the deleted article were pretty good, and we might be able to use an article on Merrimack Pharmaceuticals. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

PMD is right that this is unusual: companies that large usually spam the mainstream press directly, so that WP can quote the spam as coming from reliable sources ;). I don't know whether the WMF is likely to actually formally protest but you might as well inform them. It has made some news when WP has gotten spammed by offices of US Congressmembers and the like. The admin actions were fine and I'd have no objection to keeping the redlinks protected for a while. 67.122.209.115 (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think the spamming is coming from on high but rather from one or two employees. They might be operating from orders from highers-up, but with no proof, I thought the Foundation might be justified in alerting the company to the problem. The subject is certainly worth an article, but I was concerned about the unusual amount of spamming going on. I admit to being a bit leery deleting an article on a notable subject, but these were extraordinary circumstances. If anyone would like to unprotect the redlinks either now or down the line, I have no objections. PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, while I can't quarrel with PMD's intent, a positive alternative course of action would have been to engage the (likely COI) editor and inform them of WP:COI. As the PharmaCorp is most likely notable, it might be wise to unprotect the redlinks.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of that issue, shouldn't User:MerrimackPharma be indeffed as a likely role account? rdfox 76 (talk) 03:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Never mind, I really should have looked before I posted there... rdfox 76 (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Complaint

Moved here from AN - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I would like a proper investigation to be done(though I don't think it's likely to happen given my past experiences with this site)as the user Higgys is accused of being associated with a past account I had, Kagome_85. This account, Higgys, had nothing to do with me and was in fact made by another user which no investigation was done on this particular user, and this user is Blackmagic1234, who made a new account Mousykit but is no longer using it. The account Higgys was made to harass another account I had, after I stopped using the Kagome_85 account and made a new acount, Kagome_77, which the user Higgys harassed me on. I believed that you could make a new account as long as you did not use the old accounts, which is what I was doing. The user Higgys did accuse me on my Kagome_77 account of vandalizing the Kathleen article, which I had done in the past, and the Ruby Gloom article, which I never vandalized. I would like the accusation of the account Higgys being associated with my account Kagome_85 to be removed, as it was NOT an account of mine, and it was used to harass me with, so why would I make an account just to harass myself with? And the only reason I am pointing out about Blackmagic1234 and his new account Mousykit being Higgys is that what I said in the Kathleen article this user would only know, as at the time this user was someone I knew in person and thought was my friend, and the fact that I would randomly get a message one day on the account Kagome_77 that I was using by the user Higgys saying I made vandalism edits to the Kathleen article(which I had made in the past), however, I do not vandalize anymore, sice I am now more mature and not as stupid. So please remove the sockpuppet accusation of me being associated with Higgys since I'm not and I know probably many people would say they aren't associated with any accounts that vandalize but I'm making a different point: I'm admitting to the fact that I had used OTHER accounts to vandalize, however Higgys was not an account of mine, it was an account created by another user in order to harass me with. 142.177.43.186 (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting how you choose to not insult people here, as you did me on my talk page, when I told you I got CU confirmation the account was created by you. It isn't just IPs CU's look at, it's also behavior, user-agents(your internet browser), editing times(when you log on and start editing), and so on.

Also, you are wrong on our policy regarding alternate accounts. If your prior account was blocked, and you created this new account to get around said block, then that is block evasion. If you do not wish to be blocked, the proper course of action is never to evade, but to request unblocking on your original account.

Lastly, the CU confirmation did not use any old accounts for the link, but one you recently created. Mousey2010 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), to post a harassing message on your ex's new account's talk page(that they used to try and get away from you) over and over and over again(this time with Mousey). It linked the Mousey account with your Higgys account. No other past accounts were compared. It is quite obvious Mousey was yours.— Dædαlus 20:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Threat by FreedomForAll123

FreedomForAll123 (talk · contribs) made a death threat on Aafia Siddiqui (diff) and made similar comments on my talk page after I reverted the threat as vandalism (diff). Fæ (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not that's a death threat, it's definitely block evasion. Indefed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The user provided a phone number, which may or may not be theirs, a couple of times, and in both instances they were redacted, but I notice there's still a live copy here on Fæ's talk page. Perhaps this should also be redacted/oversighted? Delta Trine 03:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible Legal Threats

I would like to get some opinions on this edit and this edit, both on this article. These accounts may also be related. Are these legal threats block-worthy? My opinion is "yes", but I've been editing the article in question, so I will step aside for another admin to evaluate. TNXMan 18:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that's a pretty clear legal threat and I've indef'd both accounts. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

They look like legal threats to me. Elockid (Alternate) 18:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Removing tags and POV pushing

User:JCAla, a heavy POV-pusher, not only fills articles with his own personal anti-Afghanistan POVs but also keeps removing tags. . I warned him many times but he keeps removing the tags and giving nonsense reasons.--Jrkso (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there a checkuser around?

I'm not sure where to address questions meant for a checkuser, so I'll do it here: I recently put up a block on an editor for WP:3RR violation on the IP. Another editor has shown up in the autoblock. You can see the threads at User talk:Magog the Ogre#Block of 217.157.202.160 and User talk:FunkMonk#Unblock request for background. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If you need a list of all CheckUsers at the English Misplaced Pages, they can be found here. HeyMid (contributions) 18:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

ChaosMaster16 again - Can we make this the last time?

ChaosMaster16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A little over two weeks ago I reported User:ChaosMaster16 for persisting in adding content from pifeedback.com despite consensus that it's not a reliable source and numerous discussions including ANIs. He's currently blocked for a week for edit warring, but I happened to notice this question on his talk page. Despite all the discussions, he's still adding information sourced from pifeedback.com in complete disregard of the community's decision regarding that website. Surely it's time to once and for all put an end to this even if it means a much longer block. ----AussieLegend (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Since I've been involved off and on with this, having originally argued him out of getting blocked on one of the previous ANI discussions, and subsequently being approached by ChaosMaster16 for advice a number of times, I should comment. In my view, the user's biggest problem is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. When asking for advice he seems only to be interested in advice that suits what he is about to do anyway, and fails to hear the uncomfortable parts. I agree that it's become painfully obvious that he really needs to understand that he needs to follow community norms. There is also a page at User:ChaosMaster16/Eclipse which seems to store only pifeedback.com data for insertion into articles. I'm sorry I have to agree with AussieLegend here, it means the time I spent trying to help was apparently partially wasted, but in fact I'm still trying to help, even now, since the only way he will avoid long term sanctions seems to be to wake up to the rules now. Perhaps a block until he can convince an unblocking admin he really understands the problems here is a "cruel to be kind" solution at this point. Since he is blocked, I added a note that any responses he would like to make in this thread will be copied across for him. I'd appreciate it if anyone else who has his talk page watchlisted could do that when I'm not around. Sleep beckons right now, actually.  Begoon&#149;talk 20:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ChaosMaster16's attitude has gotten progressively worse, at several places a strong ownership attitude is present. While he often participates and (re-re-re-)starts discussions the end result is almost always a refusal to get the point and he just keeps going. When in discussion he often gives the impression "that's fine" and then later just changes it back again, without edit summary, while normally one is given, followed by some extra edits. On the specific pifeedback.com issue, I think it's time to just blacklist the website, although it seems a bit overkill as it is only (as far as I can tell) this user adding the links. _Xeworlebi  20:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• I went to block ChaosMaster16, per the rationale provided here, indefinitely for disruption in regard to persistently backsliding on promises not to use the pifeedback.com site as a reference, per consensus detailed above, to find that they are already blocked 7 days. From a review of the brief discussion on their talkpage, it appears that this is again related to TV viewing figures. Is this related to the same matter? If it is, then I do not want to vary the blocking admins sanction without discussion. Under the circumstances I will not take any action until the blocking admin comments (which I will now invite him/her to do). LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The block was for violating 3RR, about how many digits after the , to use for the ratings, the color of the episode list and some other nonsense. Last block had nothing to do with the pifeedback.com issue. _Xeworlebi  20:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

    As the 3RR block is for 7 days from the 26th of the month I feel we can wait for the blocking admin to respond to my request to comment here - if no response within 36 hours please ping me and I will enact an indefinite block. I am also thinking that if there is only the one editor using the pifeedback site then blacklisting it when the account is blocked is pointless - or rather, it is a better point to keep it, because if ChaosMaster16 does sock around his block the darn thing will likely use the same site. It makes sock detection easier, and thus any appeal by ChaosMaster16 can be judged against it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks LHvU for the note. My block of seven days was narrowly limited to the 3RR violation about the rather petty issue of colours and decimal places on a TV ratings table. I have absolutely no problem with any administrator extending the block due to these other issues. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the quick response, I shall enact the block. Per my rationale I am not going to blacklist the pifeedback site. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Socks anyone?

Pinknp (talk · contribs)

This user should be watched, per this edit, just in case they decide to come back using their sibling's account.— Dædαlus 22:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I tried to "hint" at that in my replies to that post, and that account hasn't edited since - but nevertheless well worth watching under the circumstances.  Begoon&#149;talk 23:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Timmy Polo

Timmy Polo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has sockpuppeted again as Rajisindian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and I think at this point a community ban should be enacted. This user has continuously exhausted the community's patience, with his incessant {{helpme}} requests, his repeated additions of unnecessary plot details to articles (even though it has been explained to him for the millionth time), and his lack of competence to edit Misplaced Pages. Comments? Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support He's essentially banned already, as no one will unblock him, but an "official" community ban should be no issue. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support I have nothing to say. The user has been annoying with his unencyclopedic grammar and overdetails in the articles. Tbhotch 22:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support. With a caveat: this user appears to be a young child. I'll have no problem with his appealing the ban when he's 18 or so and has learned how to write and communicate with fellow editors at a more mature level. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm trying to find the diff, but I know Timmy mentioned that he was going to college and to shorten his block so he could edit before he leaves. He also edited as User:198.189.228.4, which is the IP address for the West Hills Community College District. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Jesus. I've been basing my interactions with him on the assumption that he's about eight years old. Never mind; if he hasn't learned yet, he probably isn't going to. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Found it: here, here and here. He's very repetitive, and may as well be lying, but he did edit from the West Hills Community College IP. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support User has shown no inclination to acknowledge the problems with their editing. MarnetteD | Talk 00:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Shouldn't this be moved to AN? Access Denied  04:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Two users fighting

173.79.0.63 and Heavydata seem to be fighting. If you look at their user talk pages, it seems like both of them are flaming each other. I seems to me that both of them should be punished. Endofskull (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Too early to report them here - drop a couple of NPA warning templates on their talkpages; if they stop, then great, and if they don't then bring it back here or perhaps AIV. No criticism to you for wanting to sort this out, but there are a couple of steps you can try before bringing out the big guns. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done I removed the ANI notice, and added a personal attack notice. If it happens more, then I'll bring it back here. Endofskull (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

False accusations

After I tried to redirect Once Upon a Time (Marty Stuart album), User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz undid the redirect and said my edit summary was "misleading." I then nominated the article for deletion with a rationale of "no sources found except Allmusic," and his response was to call me out for a "disruptive nomination" and that I didn't have a valid reasoning. This is not the first time he's falsely accused me of bad faith; when I redirected the Big Time Rush discography, he undid my redirect at least twice and said that I needed to discuss it — and when I told him that I didn't feel a need for discussion because it was a 100% duplicate of the parent article, I got the silent treatment. What's more, I withdrew Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Reggie_Young and closed it, and he reverted my closure as "inappropriate" for no reason.

It's clear that Hullaballoo has some sort of grudge against me, and is insanely dismissive when I try to ask him why he keeps making such asinine accusations. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 21:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Are there any other instances of HW and you disagreeing on articles on similar subjects? I am just trying to see if there is any pattern, and not prejudging any reply, and seeing if a voluntary interaction ban might be an agreeable solution? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

So far, just the Marty Stuart album, Big Time Rush discography and Reggie Young. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 21:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You might want to drop an ANI notice on them - I would like to hear their side of the story, in case an agreement to not get into each others hair will resolve this. If there are other issues or a voluntary arrangement is impossible, then I suppose the community might have to discuss how to resolve it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how else I can get through to him; he reverts or ignores me every time I try to say something on his talk page. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 22:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I have dropped the notice on them. Let us see what happens. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Per these comments between HW and me, I think we should wait to see what responses there are. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments Deleted From Talk Page

BigK HeX has on several occasions deleted and/or hid my comments on the Libertarianism talk page. My comments, none of which violated the talk page guidelines...WP:TPO, were all in good faith but BigK HeX removed them because he does not agree with my viewpoint. The reasons he ostensibly gave were that my comments violate the "not a forum" rule and/or the "original research" rule. The "not a forum" rule was not relevant because my comments were all geared towards facilitating and focusing discussion. The "original research" rule was not relevant because I clearly specified that my original research was not intended to be used in the article itself but was merely to help editors visualize the topic.

Here's the list of instances...

• First he moved this diagram I created to my talk page... Scope of Government
• He then hid this comment...Request for Critical Thinking using the "not a forum" justification.
• I reposted the same comment with clarification as to its significance towards improving the article...Improving This Article. He moved both over to my talk page
• On my next comment...Fiscally Conservative, Socially Liberal...I specifically warned him not to remove my comment..."BigK HeX, or any other editors who disagree with my point, let me forewarn you that if you hide or move this section to my talk page...a sufficiently clear pattern will be established and I will definitely report the incident." He did not remove that comment.
• Today he deleted my comment Political Ideology Diagram with the justification that "original research" was not allowed.

Deleting somebody's comments just because you disagree with their viewpoint is highly disruptive and unacceptable behavior. It's exactly these types of cheap tactics which help put BlueRobe's "Incivility" in context. Just to be clear...my viewpoint is based on numerous reliable sources that indicate that libertarians do not advocate abolishing the government...scope of government. Xerographica (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

There's been a lot of soapboxing on Talk:Libertarian which has been preventing progress on the article. Much of it has come from Xerographica. Most of it involves attempting to argue from personal opinion or from generalities without any sources whatsoever and as such it's been a big time waster for all concerned. I approve of BigK HeX's actions in this regard, none of the discussions he moved or hid had any chance whatsover of being productive discussions with respect to improving the article. Yworo (talk) 01:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX did not remove your comments because he disagrees with you but because they are soapboxing, which is disruptive editing. While you are entitled to your opinions, talk pages are not here for that. You should restrict yourself to discussion of improvements to the article using reliable sources and referring to WP policies/guidelines. I would recommend your being blocked in order to prevent this continuing disruption. See the

I am an involved editor at Libertarianism. Xerographica has been soapboxing consistently; examine the provided links for reliable sources supporting the material posted. This makes it difficult to respond to Xerographica's relevant editorial commentary; as, the effect of soapboxing a political article with personal political views is highly disruptive. While the page disruption is a problem, it is less of a problem if it is shutdown immediately after it starts. Removing soapboxing to User talk: was a good thing. It was the right thing to be done. Xerographica should refrain from presenting original research and personal political opinion on Talk:Libertarianism as it is disruptive. However, BigK HeX is too passionately involved in editing Libertarianism for the "seen to be done" component of "done and seen to be done." The editorial and content disagreements between BigK HeX and Xerographica are current, and, as such BigK HeX should let other editors remove OR and soapboxing to user talk pages when it occurs. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Again with the "soapboxing" and "personal opinions". This is another perfect example of the context of BlueRobe's "incivility". My viewpoint is supported by numerous reliable sources...scope of government. Just because you disagree with my viewpoint is no justification whatsoever to delete my comments from the talk page. Xerographica (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The link you claim demonstrates reliable sources is no such thing. The lack of publisher, dates, and page ranges makes both the verification of reliability and verifiability of your quotes impossible. I do disagree with your editorial view. I have never removed any of your commentary from the page. My desired outcome here is that you cease posting in a disruptive manner; and, post your editorial comments about improving the article in a constructive manner. Thanks! Fifelfoo (talk) 03:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be better if we had uninvolved editors still quickly clamping down on the WP:OR and soapboxing. However, in the absence of such, something has to be done about (what is, in my opinion) blatant disruption on the talkpage. In order to stick to productive lines of discussion, I'm willing to be that person, and, consequently am willing to have my actions subjected to the scrutiny. Aside from the roughly 5 editors that engage in the soapboxing on that talk page, I'm confident that everyone familiar with that situation would agree that the OR is adding loads of unnecessary trouble at an already-contentious area. BigK HeX (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's certainly big of you to offer to delete comments that you disagree with. Xerographica (talk) 02:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I stated my intention to delete soapboxing and blatant WP:OR. Being that I am putting myself up for scrutiny which -- if unjustified -- would surely be blockable, I do consider my decision as something of a sacrifice. BigK HeX (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Later today, I plan to defend my actions more fully. BigK HeX (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

In Xerographica's first example of material removed he wrote, "To try and facilitate visualization of the debate in terms of the scope of government, I created a bell curve diagram. For those of you that tend to get original research confused with critical thinking...this diagram is a good example of actual original research" (my emphasis). The next section hidden was "Request for Critical Thinking". It is all original research and disruptive. TFD (talk) 02:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Please specify the policy that states that original research is not allowed on the talk page. Xerographica (talk) 02:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

From: WP:SOAP:

This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages.

You have been politely told you're pushing too far with your behavior there. Let me give you an uninvolved admin's viewpoint: You are just about at your last warning, on pushing that hard there. If you keep going, it's blockable behavior.

Please step back and work collaboratively with the other editors there. Avoid Soapboxing or other advocacy activity on Misplaced Pages. It's not here for that purpose.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you misunderstand my question or are you saying that original research is the same thing as soapboxing? If you're accusing me of soapboxing it would be very helpful if you could please offer some specific comments of mine which you would consider to be "soapboxing". Given that all of my comments have been based on numerous reliable sources...it's very very unclear what is meant by "soapboxing". Xerographica (talk) 03:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

User:BigK HeX presents the Xerographica Soapbox Matrix

Editing other users' talk page comments certainly should not be done without good reason, and I'm aware of the potential problems. I chose to do so, and I feel the extreme persistence in this form of the disruption may justify my actions. In my defense, I post the following examples from the past few weeks of the behavior that prompted my action:

	Soapboxing / WP:OR link	Result	Xerographica's reaction
1	Early soapboxing about his definition of "pseudo libertarianism" ... fairly minor incident	warned about soapboxing	indignation .. minor incivility
2	unsourced taxonomy, pretty clearly original research	asked to provide sources, section eventually collapsed	indignation
3	thread of clear soapboxing on "major tenets"	I collapse thread, eventually informal mediator collapses the thread	attempted to reintroduce thread until intervention by the informal mediator
4	original research premised by "I created a bell curve diagram"	I moved to his talk page, eventually collapsed by a total of 3 editors	attempted to reintroduce until intervention by the informal mediator
5	ranted about earlier Original Research being removed	collapsed by the informal mediator	none
6	started a thread to prompt editors to engage in "critical thinking"	I collapsed this first section	apparently he introduced a new follow-up thread on the belief that "The problem with this article is that certain editors lack critical thinking skills. To solve this problem, we first need to identify which editors fall into this category."
7	original research with calculations based on his personal hypotheticals	warned about soapboxing
8	thread premised with "This diagram...is original research"	I deleted the thread	created this ANI notice

As apparent from the early responses to this ANI, many editors find the extensive soapboxing and WP:OR to be counter-productive. He's been averaging one new disruptive thread once every 2½ days, and since we're here, can something be done to help reduce the disruption? BigK HeX (talk) 04:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments 1

You know why I would never delete any of your comments? Because I'm completely confident that I can counter them with reliable sources and sound logic. Clearly the only way you can counter my arguments is by deleting them and then trying to get me blocked. Such behavior is sad and pathetic. --Xerographica (talk) 04:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Or ... what I've actually said is that I delete those comments because they're disruptive and counter-productive. It really should NOT take dozens of warnings that Misplaced Pages places ZERO value on editors unsourced "facts", and, accordingly, we do not have to waste time on them.

As for you being blocked, YOU started this ANI. If you don't want scrutiny of your actions, then starting an ANI isn't the lowest-profile action to take .... BigK HeX (talk) 04:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

All my comments are well sourced. How you can pretend otherwise is beyond me. I started this ANI because you were deleting my comments. I had already asked you to cease and desist so there was no other recourse. I don't want you banned or blocked...just to play fair. Xerographica (talk) 05:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are NOT well-sourced. You freely admit in some of them that you are engaging in Original Research (see: , ). The obvious recourse, when many editors are telling you to stop posting your personal "sound thinking" on the talk pages, is to stop posting it. BigK HeX (talk) 05:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

See...even if I could get away with it, this is exactly why I would never delete your comments. Of course original research can be well-sourced. If my diagrams weren't well sourced then you could easily provide reliable sources that disprove them. But because my diagrams are well sourced you delete them rather than admit that you can't disprove them. --Xerographica (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It'd be great if you actually did that. Your source has to explicitly make your point. Making arguments attempting to generalize a long list of unsourced quotes, or working from "reason" or "sound logic", is original research and can't be used. Neither can presenting a long list of quotes and saying, "these don't say anything about that". The source has to say precisely what you want it to support, nothing less. If you've got such sources, by all means present them. I don't think you do, thus the long-winded argumentation, which is not what Misplaced Pages is looking for. Yworo (talk) 04:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The quotes were all sourced and they explicitly support the point that libertarians do not want to abolish the government. Libertarians recognize that the government is necessary to protect all citizens from harm. Any long-winded arguments on my part are because you proponents of libertarianism being synonymous with anarchism fail to see the obvious pattern. What happens when somebody fails to see the obvious pattern? You draw them a diagram based on reliable sources. --Xerographica (talk) 04:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"Obvious pattern" is original research. Other editors have citations supporting their points of view. Your "obvious pattern" doesn't override their explicit sources. There are libertarians of both stripes. Yworo (talk) 04:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I've never denied that the word "libertarianism" has multiple definitions. My argument has always been that each definition represents a different ideology...and each ideology should have its own article. --Xerographica (talk) 05:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That argument has been repeatedly rejected, including in a fairly recent RfC that brought in outside opinions. Yworo (talk) 05:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If people with inside opinions can't grasp the basic argument even when I draw you folks a super simple diagram...then what makes you think that outside editors, who don't even care about the topic enough to improve the article, are going to grasp the argument? --Xerographica (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Combo Pwner

Combo Pwner (talk · contribs), besides multiple vandalisms to Barack Obama (), made a personal attack on User:DGG (). When I issued them a personal attack warning (only a second level warning, though they should have received previous warnings for not only vandalizing Barack Obama but reverting their vandalism after it was removed), this was their response to me. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

And they just attempted to delete this paragraph. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh my gosh.. I am so sorry man, that was my little brother messing with my account when I taking a nap. I am truly sorry for what has happened, and I will not let it happen again. Combo Pwner (talk) 01:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I've removed Combo Pwner's closing of this thread. Please don't close threads when you are the subject of them. Dayewalker (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the "admin" user box from his user page, as well as the "trusted user" template which was commented out. This person ain't here to write an encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, there are some cold people on the Internet. Don't you understand the "admin" user box is just a fun, innocuous joke? Wow... Combo Pwner (talk) 02:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Then lighten up, man. It's just the Internet...nobody's forcing you to look at anything.Combo Pwner (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, out there it's the Internet, in here, it's building a credible reference work. Keep that in mind, and stop screwing around. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's my user page, and my user page is not a credible reference work. Combo Pwner (talk) 02:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

So are you saying it was your little brother who vandalized the Obama article? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I was taking a long nap, and upon waking up I caught him red-handed, apparently vandalizing and flaming. Sorry for the trouble. Combo Pwner (talk) 02:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Combo Pwner - It's against policy here to impersonate administrators. Putting the userbox on is a form of impersonating administrators. We routinely block people from editing for impersonating administrators.

We have worse things to focus on and spend our time on, but please be aware that you've pushed about as far as you can get away with before you get blocked for disrupting the encyclopedia.

If you are here to improve Misplaced Pages, don't do any more pushing buttons or joking around until you're familiar with our policy and our social interactions here. Go work on articles, ask for help if you have questions. Things will be fine.

If that's not your intention, please chose whether you want to keep joking around long enough to get blocked, or if you just want to move on and find somewhere else to have fun at. There are plenty of websites whose purpose is having fun.

It's up to you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Edit conflict - I've blocked ComboPwner for 24 hours for incivility, disruption, and because the "my little brother did it" excuse is really old and unoriginal. If any other admin thinks this is too harsh, feel free to unblock. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I won't. Hopefully, he has done the right thing, told on his mother or father or significant other, and had said brother grounded or otherwise punished for what he did. –MuZemike 04:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it. S.G. _ping! 04:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I as well, since he didn't seem to think his brother really did anything wrong. Unless, of course, that was the brother talking... Doc9871 (talk) 04:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Justa Punk, again

User:Justa Punk is back again in the form of RestorationJP (talk · contribs). As of now, she has reverted revisions, placed back a personal attack template at User:Justa Punk and left a threatening edit summary for me. Bejinhan talks 05:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm beginning to see the pattern. That userpage was semi-protected because she edited using an IP. So I'm making a wild guess that those reversions she made with this current account was to bypass the protection. Bejinhan talks 05:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked as a blatant sock of Justa Punk. I don't do much of this, so another admin may want to check that I've not messed anything up. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You probably wanna leave a block notice on the talk page as well as the user page, but otherwise correct, I believe.  :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Block threat to expert contributor

Hi,

I'm an expert contributor who has just been warned of blocking, see User_talk:Optimering, because I have made a number of edit reverts to particle swarm optimization. I have explained in detail on Talk:particle swarm optimization my reasons for these reverts. Could an official administrator please investigate the matter?

I am a researcher and not an expert in wikipedia procedures.

Thanks.

Optimering (talk) 07:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see our policy on original research.— Dædαlus 07:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcome! We don't immediately have a way to confirm who you are, so we can't rely on that. Your edits need to stand on their own. The best way to do that is to cite reliable sources. Misplaced Pages is not for publishing original research (not even accurate, brilliant research), as Daedalus969 has mentioned. Jehochman 07:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I read through some of the diffs, and you seem to suffer from WP:OWN. Also, you argued in your edit summary here about not including a detailed explaination of a topic. Misplaced Pages is not a scientific journal. In regards to the warning, User:MrOllie was perfectly correct in warning you for WP:3RR in a content dispute. Ishdarian|lol 07:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: I've put a welcome message on your talk page that has a bunch of informative links regarding the issues with your contributions. Perhaps you may wish to view it, check over the links, and let myself or another experienced editor know if you have any questions? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 07:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Naxoshk - a flood of COI spam links

Naxoshk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Has been adding (and continues to add at an alarming pace) the following links to Naxos Records on virtually every classical composer article on Misplaced Pages:

• www.naxos.com - The World's Leading Classical Music Label
• www.naxosmusiclibrary.com - Essential Resource for Music Professionals

He/she has continued to do this despite my note on their talk page. Since I left the warning they've added the links you yet another 7 articles on the already huge list. Can an admin keep and eye on their contributions and block if it continues. It's going to be a huge amount of work to revert them all. Note also the huge number of files from Naxos uploaded by this user to commons, all of which claim that the copyright is owned by the uploader but no OTRS ticket. Voceditenore (talk) 07:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)