Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:44, 3 June 2008

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Harvey Korman

Man just died. People are posting cause of death as heart attack during sex and "complications from stupid head disease". Please lock this biography. Edits are being made in very poor taste.

Incivility and deletion of sources by User:Mrg3105

User:Mrg3105 persists in edit-warring and refuses to even consider a remotely flexible approach to discussion. Frequently noted by Admins for his incivility and uncompromising attitude (, ), the User insists on pushing his POV in the Belgrade Offensive article based solely on his reported "years of experience" and total intellectual superiority over other concerned editors. This is true to such an extent, that he has violated WP:3RR in removing sources that contradict him (sources like Britannica and the US Library of Congress) simply because he personally, based again on his "years of experience", does not consider them valid or "true". Instead, he insists on constantly replacing these refs with a quote (from a book he apparently owns) that does not at all address the issue (see ), calling it "one hell of a lot better". Frankly, I do not know anymore if any source whatsoever that contradicts him would be acceptable to this person. User:Woody is an Admin familiar with this matter, but I'd appreciate a general response from the community, thanks. --DIREKTOR 13:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the 3RR violation on Belgrade_Offensive. Note that Mrg3105 (talk · contribs) has initiated an rfc for the disputed page, so appears to be attempting dialog. I have notified the editor of this discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes he proposed the RfC, probably to spite me because I said I would do it (just above on the talkpage). Perhaps he perceived it as a "victory" of some sort if he beat me to it. In any case, dialog has been attempted in the past, to great extent and with little result. The reason for this is that the User simply refuses to accept sources which contradict him, constantly commenting on the intelligence of those who suggest that he should. Without turning this into a content discussion, I will cite a few, more obvious, examples of the User's attitude toward sources:

The point of contention in the first example is the depiction of the operation in question as one conducted by a "joint force" of two independent Armies. The source I brought forth, namely the US Library of Congress, states, citing "information from Documents on German Foreign Policy, 1919-1945, Arlington, Virginia, 1976", that:
"...Soviet troops crossed the border on October 1, and a joint Partisan-Soviet force liberated Belgrade on October 20."
Upon the addition of this source, my intelligence was criticized by the User, who later removed it and used the following citation to prove that the Armies were not cooperating, but that the Red Army was in total control:
"The Russians had no interest in the German occupation forces in Greece and appear to have had very little interest in those retiring northwards through Yugoslavia...Stalin was content to leave to Tito and the Bulgarians the clearing of Yugoslav territory from the enemy"

The next example, is the use of the English language adjective "Soviet" to describe units of the Red Army. Out of some strange POV, User:Mrg3105 reverted the use of the word and demanded I use the adjective "Red Army" as "Soviet" is in his own personal view, incorrect. He insisted that I use, for example, "Red Army 57th Army" and not "Soviet 57th Army". The dictionary source I provided (dictionary.com) was, of course, "wrong" in his view, and he threatened with revert-war if I did not stop using that adjective. --DIREKTOR 14:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

My alleged incivility is only related to my insistence for use of quality sources in articles. The so called deleted sources were substandard, and User:DIREKTOR refused to produce others. I replaced them with a reputable source,and a direct quote from it that substantially opposes the POV DIREKTOR holds on the subject. It could be I am wrong, but I am so far unable to find a sources that directly supports the POV DIREKTOR holds, and neither does he apparently.

In any case, an RfChist has been requested.

The 3RR has not been in effect because only two reversion were made by myself, DIREKTOR already being limited to one revert per day for previous edit-warring.

User:Woody is in fact mediating in an unrelated dispute between myself and User:Buckshot06 which I hope can be resolved amicably, eventually.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I can only suggest that the specifics of the article dispute be resolved during the RfC on the article talk page.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 15:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to support User:Direktor's request. Mrg3015 has a history of foul, abusive language, edit warring, and general incivility. I raised concerns about his behaviour on this board before, as what I usually get when he disagrees with me is some variation on the following (original is at Talk:Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II#Kharkov operations):

Want to be sure I understand your intent here Mrg. You've change all the battles of Kharkov to their numeric numbering. Here you have a number of redlinks with different names, but referring to the same operations. You've been the primary editor on this page, so I wanted to ask you what you'd think of me inserting links to those operations - since all four of them do have articles. Buckshot06(prof) 10:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

How about this. YOU go and buy Keitel's fucking book in Irving's fucking translation and then YOU write the fucking articles based on that and see how same they look ok. You are so big on talk, but will not spend the money on the books, but the books have nothing. They are written for a perspective of a very senior officer in Berlin. SO, the articles you refer to are NOT same as those on this list. They are the German POV base on a single source, and I will tag them as such when I find the template. Then they will sit there for another year as stubs until someone tries to improve them using Glantz's Kharkov 1942 book. THIS entire sorry issue with these three articles is the sort of bullshit that drives people away from Misplaced Pages. Enjoy. I have taken all three off my watch list. All yours now, or whoever.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually Buckshot06 does not usually get this sort of response. The extremity of my response was due to long discussion that went on about the viability of basing the titles of three articles on a single source which is unreliable, unsupported by other sources and produced by a discredited author David Irving. The use of expletives were directed at the said book by Wilhelm Keitel and David Irving who had been proven wrong and bias by two courts of law. The article Buckshot06 refers to is titled Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II, and therefore lists operations not because they are same, but because they are those conducted by the Red Army and named accordingly. Wilhelm Keitel could not have know their names during the war, and displays this ignorance in his book, which is written from a Nazi point of view (written during the war). I on the other hand use English translations of the operations as found in the books by David Glantz, a recognised authority on the subject. Why should I abandon works of Mr. Glantz to make an exception for three operations as interpreted by David Irving on Buckshot06's insistence? In any case, I would propose that the case/s be moved to the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for arbitration. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No editors should ever get receive abusive responses like that, especially from long-established editors like yourself. It is important that you recognise that this discussion is not about the validity of your sources - it is about your increasingly uncivil and agressive behaviour. Disagreements over sources can, and should, be handled respectfully on the relevant talk pages and, if necessary, noticeboards. Instead you routinely resort to personal abuse and edit wars and are all to often unwilling to accept the consensus of knowledgeable and experienced editors. This is a long running and worsening pattern of behaviour and it is not acceptable. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well Nick, I can express my opinion about books if I want to in any way I want to, particularly those written by confirmed nazis and criminals. I did not hurl personal abuse at Buckshot06, unlike he did.

I have certainly seen other "knowledgeable and experienced editors" express themselves in same terms about sources, administrators even.

Not sure where you came in on this, but all my "behaviour" has been about sources.

Do you know why Nick? Because I edit in the "danger zone". I have the temerity to want to document the history of the Eastern Front during the Second World War, and not the Australian Navy. For that I have to deal with other editors who base their edits on selective use of whatever sources they can get off the Internet. How's that for frustration-builder? If I did that, I can convince you Japan won the war in the Pacific, and all within the Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. I bet you will come up with a few expletives faced with this.

Now that I'm aware of the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, I will take it there. No "knowledgeable and experienced editor" has ever suggested I do so until 19 May, and I missed it then, however better late then never (was too late by then anyway). Certainly Buckshot06 never made the suggestion. Doesn't say much about his willingness to mediate. All I have seen is him vengefully oppose everything I do, and that was after months of stalking me in his self-appointed task of teaching me English. Are you sure you have all the history on this Nick?

Consensus is not accepted, but agreed on. Its not like voting where 20 editors say no, and its done with (though I had seen that staged by Eurocopter). You have a degree in politics, so no doubt aware of vote stacking. In Misplaced Pages the community decided that not only do they need to say no, but also give a half-reasonable reason for it. It is preferable that the reasons given are backed up by some reference to accepted practice, sources, etc. What has Buckshot06 offered? He simply insisted I use an accepted name for an article although its source-of-origin it was based on, actually failed to describe the events depicted in the article.

I talked to Buckshot06 in the article talk, in my talk, in his talk pages. You think that outburst was a result of one reply to his one question? There are a dozen articles-worth of exchange between us on the subject, and same with DIREKTOR. However, I am here to edit not to engage in talkfests. Not only that, but I do quality edits. Almost no online links. No stubs; I have improved several stubs to start that were not even my own. I am guilty of one thing - insistence on quality.

So, I said to Buckshot06, if he thinks that the source he wants to use for the article is so great, he can write the article. Have you read the articles...before I expanded them? If you had, you would know why I said what I said. Has Buckshot worked on the articles since? Well, he replaced the name I suggested, derived from Russian sources, in the intro of one, and replaced Wilhelm Keitel, the actual source of the German single source name with "German historians". Is Buckshot06 unaware that David Irving, who purports to be a historian, is in fact British?

I also advised DIREKTOR that I am unable to, at this time, provide a source and he can do the research himself. He is instead asking me a question I had answered weeks ago. Who took command in the field when Red Army and Yugoslav partisans cooperated? Red Army off course. No Red Army lieutenant would take orders from an officer of any other Army, never mind a partisan one. SMERSH ensured that. To even suggest that a Yugoslav officer fresh out of the woods could take over command of units using combined arms (infantry, artillery, armour and aircraft), and do so in Russian, is just not something any military historian would seriously contemplate. And yet, I AM ASKED FOR A SOURCE. Can you suggest where I can get a source to support what is blatantly obvious?

In any case, neither decided to take my advice.

BTW, I did not see you stepping in and saying "take it to the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard". Where you just enjoying the "show" from the sidelines?

Here is the funny thing, you probably knew about the issues related to Eastern European editing like the Digwuren case. So did Buckshot06. No one from the Project ever warned me, ever came in on the discussions and said, take it to the noticeboards, tried to mediate, naddah, zilch, 0, nothing, no support from the vaunted "knowledgeable and experienced editors" like yourself, until I am driven to destruction in frustration from having to deal with people who base entire articles on a single word. My "increasingly uncivil and aggressive behaviour" only says one thing about me, that I am not a "saint". Are you Nick? If there was proper coordination on the project, and if coordinators and other "knowledgeable and experienced editors" actually were willing to intervene and say something, you may have had something to talk about, but neither you, not anyone else did (at least not until 19 May), except to threaten me with a block, and one of the present coordinators was in on the "fun" in an earlier dispute, so don't tell me about "knowledgeable and experienced editors".

I think you are entirely bias to offer comments here due to your close relationship with Buckshot06 in editing who seems to be just spiteful from issues that have accumulated over time. They are his issues, not mine. All I want is that when people edit, they use reliable sources that are in context and relevant. Full stop. I seem to remember Misplaced Pages policy to this effect. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, mrg3105 approached me offsite for advice. He appears to be genuine in his desire to resolve this situation, and he's frustrated. I've suggested judicious strikethroughs on the more colorful terms and mediation to settle the content side of these disagreements. In fairness to him, he didn't know he was allowed to strikethrough at ANI (he'd regretted a couple of words that he posted about five minutes after they went up, but had been under the impression it was wrong to alter his own posts). So I hope the disputing parties here take no offense where it wasn't (much) intended, and refocus on working out the sourcing and related issues. I've suggested the Chicago Manual of Style to settle one point that doesn't appear to be covered in Misplaced Pages's style guidelines, and impartial review by an uninvolved multilingual editor for a non-English source. That should go a little way toward breaking the deadlock and formal mediation may help the rest. Best regards, Durova 01:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The sooner that the focus of these discussions moves from the personalities involved to the actual encyclopedic issues the better. --ROGER DAVIES  08:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible legal issue on LoJack

I see this on the Editor Requests page, and this probably needs admins. Take a look at this diff and this EAR request. Summitrt (talk · contribs) says he's a legal representative of LoJack, who want the information on their frequency that is sourced to FCC.gov removed for legal reasons. rootology (T) 18:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the individual is also leaving messages to me in the article text. I have already reverted twice. I am refraining from another pointless revert until someone with more authority on Misplaced Pages can help resolve this conflict. CosineKitty (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

If the user is an employee of LoJack and is requesting the info be removed for legal reasons, it should be dealt with by OTRS. I left a message on his talk page stating this as well. Mr.Z-man 18:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the info back, since it was published on the web by reliable source FCC. User was already told on his talk page how to make a formal request --Enric Naval (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not much of a secret. The LoJack frequency is in the Code of Federal Regulations, at 47 CFR 90.20.. It's on the FCC web site in the main spectrum allocation table. The allocation is for "Stolen Vehicle Recovery Systems" (SVRS). Google can find either of those references easily.

I can see LoJack's problem. Newer systems tend to use cellular data networks, which have so much traffic and so many emitters that stolen vehicle transmissions don't stand out. LoJack, an older system with its own infrastructure, including receivers in police cars, is one of the few users of the SVRS spectrum allocation. Lojack is worried, rightly, that chop shops will start looking for transmissions on the SVRS frequency.

Realistically, the cat is out of the bag. Anybody with access to Google can find this info in five minutes. Still, there's an argument for taking it out of Misplaced Pages on the grounds that most crooks are too dumb to read through FCC filings, but might figure out from the Misplaced Pages entry what to look for. --John Nagle (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The dumb criminals wouldn't know how to build a receiver to monitor for those frequencies, would they? The risk seems to come more from smart people in the car-thief and chop-shop community who would build and distribute LoJack detectors, jammers, and the like, and these people would be more likely to be able to find the relevant information without needing us as a source. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone removed that section again. If it's public knowledge, there is no legal issue, and the whole thing is a bluff of some kind. Is there any reason not to put it back in the article? Baseball Bugs 20:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, actually this is public information. Some random redlinked account removing information and claiming to be acting upon a legal request carries no weight at all. Durova 20:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I reverted it, and if the redlink reverts it back again, he'll probably be hitting 3RR, and he'll get turned in for it. Baseball Bugs 20:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur that since the knowledge is public information and is available to anyone who wishes to view it, that there is no legal recourse that the company can use to remove the text. Warn, block if necessary. seicer | talk | contribs 22:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I put this up on Requests for Protection since its beginning to head into edit warville. rootology (T) 02:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

And it has been protected, although the user opposed to posting that info has already basically given up on trying to censor the info. Baseball Bugs 04:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I protected it without knowing of the discussion here, responding to the RFPP request. The history of the article showed a LOT of insanse back-and-forth reverts and edit warring, so I thought a protection was warented. I have no objection to unprotecting if the parties involved clearly agree to seek dispute resolution WP:DR over the issue, but we should not allow the edit war to continue. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion on the article's talk page is also important. The opponents are trying to apply some sort of moral standard to wikipedia, i.e. that they should censor based on what someone might do. They made a strange comparison between this and alleging that wikipedia tells how to make "crack" (a potent cocaine derivative). I pointed out that wikipedia neither originates information nor censors information. Misplaced Pages is about gathering public, verifiable information. Having said all that, the week's worth of protection is probably good. Baseball Bugs 05:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Another editor found a good link to explain why this complaint need not be honored by wikipedia editors. Misplaced Pages:Perennial_proposals#Legal_issues If there are legal issues, they can be taken up with the wikipedia legal authorities. But until such time, there is no valid reason for exclusion. It's public information, and wikipedia does not censor information. Baseball Bugs 21:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Now he thinks that by going to Jimbo Wales, he can override the wikipedia rules. Baseball Bugs 22:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The article's talk page points out that this info is available at Radio Shack, for heaven's sake. There is obviously no verifiability or legality issue. The complainants still have the option of challenging based on other wikipedia rules, such as notability or neutrality, if they care to do so. Baseball Bugs 04:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

While I have no particular opinion on this particular content dispute, I did want to say a few words about ethics. Some people in this thread appear to be putting forward the argument that since Misplaced Pages is not censored, then if there is no legal reason not to include public information, it should be included. Well, that is only true if we drop the full context of the ethical nature of what we are doing here, which is not compiling a huge data dump of all verifiable information, but rather writing an encyclopedia. There are many many valid reasons why some information is excluded from Misplaced Pages, and among them is and should be questions related to human dignity, ethics, harm to others, etc. It is not censorship to exercise mature and responsible editorial judgment. Let me say that again for emphasis: it is not censorship to exercise mature and responsible editorial judgment.

The most important and common case where this comes up is in questions related to the Biographies of Living Persons who are of marginal notability. We can and do, on a daily basis, delete information about such people even if it is verifiable, for the simple reason that it is morally right to do so: we can not responsibly write a full biography of a person who is well known for only a single negative event, and so we refrain from doing so, even though this means that we are excluding verifiable publicly known information. To be more specific: a good encyclopedia is not a tabloid newspaper, but should strive for neutrality above all else, and in some cases, neutrality is impossible because the information available is so limited.

Similarly, we can envision situations - other than strictly legal situations - where the right thing to do would be to exclude information that we as a community might thoughtfully judge to be both useless and dangerous. I have no opinion about the validity of the argument that having the frequency available in Misplaced Pages might lead hobbyists to get into dangerous situations. I did a google search on "LoJack frequency" and it is pretty much very widely available, and the sorts of hobbyists who would know what to do with the information will have access to it anyway I suppose.

So my point is not about this particular case: the facts here are complex and a valid discussion can be had about it amongst people who are better qualified than I am to think about it. My point is about the overall structure of the argument. You can't simply dismiss concerns about ethics by saying "Misplaced Pages is not censored" and "Talk to the legal department". We are better than that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - the argument should not be "we're not censored and it's available, so of course we include it"; rather it should be "does including the information add anything to the article?" I would say in this instance including the frequency adds very little. Neıl 龱 10:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more with what Jimbo said, though I'll point out that "Talk to the legal department" was at least a partially correct response in this case... if somebody is writing in article space that they want something removed for legal reasons, regardless of whether we decided to remove the information anyway on ethical grounds, that person should be directed to OTRS as soon as possible. For sake of argument, let's say the user is correct that there are legal grounds for removal. It could take a week or more before editors came to a consensus on whether the frequency information is "useless and dangerous", but if somebody is making legal rumblings, OTRS needs to be informed immediately. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

The basis of my objection to their objection is that they were singling out wikipedia, in trying to somehow block information which is already widely available. Baseball Bugs 21:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Reporting User:Jammy0002

Jammy0002 (talk · contribs)

Hello,

I'd like to report the above users relating to comments here and here. I feel that they are completely inappropriate. I was being bold in revamping the project and expanding the scope, as it was tiny, and various users commented. In fact lots quit. I then proceeded to make tha changes, having lots of old pages deleted as they were not needed. Electrical went and re-created the newsletter, and I discussed with him that it was inappropriate for Misplaced Pages as it was, as it had things such as cheatcodes, unsourced news about a game, and a list of participants, a lot of which were no longer involved.

Thank you,

BG7even 19:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh and I apologise if this is the wrong place: please direct me if this is the case. BG7even 19:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi One your supposed to alert me of a ANI report on me. Second, What did i say? Third, You don`t run the project it would be violation of WP:OWN. Forth of all You Said on Jammy`s Talk "I have been the only member who has done anything for the project with the exception of a few "founding fathers"." wel I joined after you and I have made majority of my contributions to the project. Sincerely, ElectricalExperiment 20:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

And about the newspaper you didn't discus, you told me. Sincerely, ElectricalExperiment 20:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"Majority of Contributions" - what does that mean? When did I say that I owned it? I aplogise for adding you on here, I have reviewed the posts and it was wrong. BG7even 20:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Majority of my Contributions, You delared ownership here. Sincerely, ElectricalExperiment 20:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

In a rather depressing trend I've noticed nowadays, there's been a lack of actual discussion between these users outside of edit summaries. Second, the comments regarding "seniority" are utterly wrong as it is overly-bureaucratic. However, a list where users add themselves at the bottom is a lot more usual from what I see. But I agree with the point about not having 26 level-4 headings. In short:

1. WP:BOLD is policy and WP:BRD has been followed somewhat here (without much discussion, or discussion that turned into a dictatorship/taking-over debate).
2. The Wikiproject seems fairly inactive, but one does not need a Wikiproject to work.
3. An apology and more discussion would seem the way forward from here.

I would ask all the parties, including Bluegoblin7 (BG7even), however, to stop imposing their views upon each other by reverts, and work things out using discussion, following the spirit of dispute resolution. x42bn6 Talk Mess 20:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I never declared ownership - lead editor and ownership are completely different. Your going on about seniority, which as x42bn6 has said is overly beauracratic - presicely the reason for doing it alphabetically. Can we revert to that version for now, and then discuss. BG7even 15:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What you said there does imply ownership. You should have asked the members whether they'd be interested in a revamp of the project but being bold is good too; however, you encountered resistance which is why you should start discussing. As for the list, I think that the non-alphabetical list is just fine, as I don't believe it implies seniority - it does denote the order of which users joined if people add themselves to the bottom but everyone is allowed to add their name anywhere they want, and there's no seniority for being at the top of the list. You come across as someone who jumped straight into the Wikiproject and attempted to do lots of major things - a good thing but not everyone's cup of tea and if it is a really big change, then consensus-seeking becomes vital. Bureaucracy refers to seniority and ranks - consider everyone equal within the Wikiproject unless it warrants some sort of leader or project coordinator. x42bn6 Talk Mess 16:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

reset Which is (sort of) what i've been saying. I did say what I was going to do, and everyone seemed fine with it, except the scope issues, which I did discuss and we have agreed to cover anything to do with the Sim. Electrical was the one who bought up seniority, by saying the one at the top is the most senior (see Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Sims/members2) and I was saying no. It appears that this is going to remain like this, so I have re-organised with an alphabetical one - no arguments there about seniority. Another option would be to use bullets rather than numbers, but that would I feel still lead some members to believe that they are more important than another. Also, the use of {{user}} makes it look more organised, and also allows for easy links to talk pages, without having to fish through customised signatures for links that sometimes aren't even there! I also don't see why everyone is making a fuss over a project page and members list - it would be time much better spent if they were actually editing! BG7even 16:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, consider it thus: There is no need for seniority in such a small Wikiproject, although coordination could be a good idea if the project gets larger (say WP:CHICAGO). As a result, there is no problem with a numbered or bulleted list. There is a genuine concern that having so many level-4 headings is a waste of space especially considering the project has so few members. There's no need for additional "fairness" if there was no implication of seniority in the first place. The above users have genuine concerns about how you have seemingly attempted to take over the project while you have genuine concerns about the fact that the project is dead and wish to revamp it. To me, all this points to lots of apologies and more discussion, and pointers to WP:OWN and WP:DR. x42bn6 Talk Mess 17:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Where in this have I broken WP:OWN may I ask? The project, as you said, was dead, so I tried to revamp it. I admit that 26 level four headings was stupid, I changed it initially to just those we were using, and then to using the ; sign. I have since reverted to headings, however it is now in a table - see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Sims/members2. Thank you, BG7even 17:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Sims/Archive 2#VOTE gives the implication of ownership. Enthusiasm is good but please avoid being dismissive to others' comments. x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

May I ask how? I was agreeing with what was said - as it was what I had said after a while and indeed what I had been doing as I had been building the project. BG7even 12:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Massive redirect deletions

MZMcBride (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is using a bot (based on his log to delete thousands of redirected talk pages. While some may be valid, he also deleted a whole raft of template documentation talk pages (an example would be Template talk:PD-self/doc). Users are instructed to redirect those doc talk pages in Misplaced Pages:Template documentation#How to create a documentation subpage. Based on his responses to complaints on his talk page, it seems he doesn't understand why these massive robotic deletions are a problem. I'm not sure how we go about cleaning up this big mess. Kelly 01:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again with the pointless redirect cleanup. It doesn't need doing- there is no appreciable benefit to Misplaced Pages from these being deleted. Do we need a redirect from Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive24 to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 24, not really. Does it do any harm, no. Is it of some use, well maybe if someone mistypes the url... No one would bother doing these unnecessary deletions manually so the only time it happens is if someone takes it upon themselves to run a script to do it. Drama ensues, Misplaced Pages gets no better. I'm rather tired of asking MZMcBride to stop doing this sort of thing to be honest. WjBscribe 01:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

He also deleted talk pages that redirect to centralised discussions, on the spurious grounds that "they were all orphaned". This is incorrect - all talk pages automatically link to their articles, and if those articles exist, a talk page is never an orphan. Removing these links - especially in cases where discussion relating to the page is continuing on the redirect target is not only wrong but also disruptive to the point of vandalism. "Misplaced Pages gets no better", as you say - in fact, it gets considerably worse. Grutness...wha? 02:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I also notified MZMcBride about a deletion I questioned. S/he quickly restored it but I agree with the above, there was no need for these deletions in the first place since the deletion sorting list was at the same location as its talk page. I suggest a centralized discussion at the Village Pump or somewhere else to get some conensus on what, if anything, needs to be done about so-called orphan talk pages before another such run since it has apparently happened before. Also suggest a better check on whether or not something is truly orphaned since there's something clearly wrong with that check. _{TravellingCari} 02:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've undeleted a bunch of /doc redirects. There are still a lot more that need undeleting, tho. Why the heck would anyone want to delete useful redirects? --Conti|✉ 02:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Simple, they think the redirects are useless or a script they are using thinks the redirects are useless. FunPika 02:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed remedy: This issue can be quickly closed if he agrees to not delete or blank more than a few non-vandal/non-broken/non-looping/not-otherwise-explicitly-harmful redirects per day without discussing them on Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion for a period of time. I would suggest a limit of 10 per day for at least a month. For comparison, non-admins have a limit of zero deletions per day for the duration of their non-adminship. During this time he can think about whether his judgment on deleting redirects is causing problems, and if it is, either change his personal criteria or simply avoid deleting redirects. This isn't arbcom, so any such agreement would have to be voluntary on his part. However, repeats of this kind of incident may lead to formal sanctions. Personally, I'd hate to see someone who has this much time to give to the project be completely desysoped because of a mistake in one area. On a related matter: It goes without saying that bots should get approval first. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC) PS: The robotic deletes that haven't been re-created already should be quickly undone and screened by a human for re-deleting. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Several users have complained about this on this talk page in the last 24 hours. He's clearly in the minority here and if he doesn't cease doing this, stronger measures may be needed. To his credit, he seems to be starting to realize this. I hope so. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused as to the purpose of these deletions. Even assuming that the bot being used was 100% accurate, what's the point? Given this it goes without saying that if there is less than 100% accuracy, the bot shouldn't be running. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If the bot was working 100% correctly and it was designed in accordance with WP:SPEEDY and approved in accordance with WP:BOT, nobody would notice. Well, nobody except those who are mad because properly-speedy'd redirects got deleted. In general, no article or other page on Misplaced Pages should be summarily deleted - by a bot or human administrator - unless it fits the criteria in WP:SPEEDY. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure this is true: it's certainly possible to make edits with automated tools that while plausibly useful, are disruptive due to a combination of number and triviality. See e.g. the rejection of bots that make minor MOS changes and the warning to AWB users not to confirm edits that make only this type of change. This sort of thing just clogs watchlists and the deletion log for no reason. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletions didn't use to clog up the watchlists, as they didn't appear there, but now they do, this sort of objections to mass deletions are becoming more common, as I predicted. It is good in a way, though I do have some sympathy with those who shovel away in the bowels of Misplaced Pages with deletion scripts having a bright light shone on them. Most of the deletions are fine, but these ones were not. Carcharoth (talk) 03:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I find deletions in watchlists extremely useful. Even if a bot properly deleted 10,000 articles but improperly deleted one I cared about, I might miss it if it didn't show up in my watchlist. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. What I am saying is that those using deletion scripts might be struggling to adjust to the new situation where they are under greater scrutiny. Not an excuse, more something to be said in mitigation. Carcharoth (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think (and I hope MZMcBride will correct me if I am wrong) that his philosophy is to make a judgment call and then undelete if he makes a mistake. This was rather a silly error though, and one that would have been picked up if he had checked with other people. He should do: (1) Ask; (2) Objection; (3) Abandon deletion. Instead, the process is: (1) Delete (after consideration or programming a script); (2) Objection; (3) Undelete. He doesn't often get it wrong, to be fair, but that may be, as I've noticed before, more to do with the pages being deleted being stuff no-one cares about or notices (the recent addition of deletions and other log actions to watchlists may explain why people are noticing these things more). In this case, deletions like that of Template talk:Nowraplinks/doc are clearly wrong. There are two common ways to reach Template talk:Nowraplinks/doc. The first is by clicking the talk page link at the top of Template:Nowraplinks. The second is by clicking the talk page link at the top of Template:Nowraplinks/doc (the same is true for any set of pages sharing a talk page, be they subpages or not. I'm more concerned that there seem to be at least seven threads on his talk page about this. He raises some interesting (if debatable) points here and here. The point is that these things should be debated openly on a project talk page, not batted around user talk pages with limited input, and certainly not as part of a debate triggered by deletions. The debate should have taken place before the deletions. My concerns here are mainly with MZMcBride's bypassing of community discussions in favour of his own judgment (an example I remember is here from April: "I see no reason to stop simply because there's a fuss on AN/I."), as seen in his ideas that it is OK to delete and then undelete if there are objections, rather than discuss first before deleting. There is a time and a place for that approach, and in my opinion he takes it too far. Carcharoth (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Was MZMcBride's bot ever approved? I do not want to see another User:Marudubshinki, who as as an admin ran unauthorized bots using the sysop tools that generated many complaints, and he refused to stop so an arbcom case desysopped him. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • User:Betacommand also comes to mind. I can't find any approval for the bot. Kelly 03:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
    • It is a script, not a bot, hence no approval needed. As I said, most of the stuff is fine. If he would discuss more beforehand, I would have no problems with most of his work. Carcharoth (talk) 03:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Hmm - the edit rate on the "script" is sometimes over 20 deletions per minute, based on a quick review of the log. Seems too fast for each action to be approved, but I could be wrong. Kelly 03:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Massive redirect deletions - arbitrary break 1

For those who weren't here at the time, the longest of the previous discussions was here. That was mainly East718, but at the time it was noted that MzMcBride was also doing a more limited set of deletions (he was using different criteria, mainly he was deleting redirects with no incoming links, whereas East718's deletions were not fully orphaned). There was also a terminology confusion, which Grutness has pointed out here (perpetuating the confusing usage, while also raising an important point that redlinked talk page tabs lead to inappropriate recreations of separate talk pages where a centralised one may be needed). Anyway, I covered the terminology confusion here. Forgive me for reposting this, but I think these redirects for centralised talk page discussions are another variant! :-)

• (1) "Orphaned" talk pages (CSD#G8) are talk pages where the corresponding page does not exist or was deleted. This is an imprecise use of the phrase "orphaned".
• (2) Broken redirects are redirects pointing at deleted or never-created titles. Sometimes these are called "orphaned" redirects. As for type (1), this is an imprecise use of the phrase "orphaned". User:RedirectCleanupBot deals with these providing they have no edit history beyond creation (see type C).
• (3) True orphaned pages are pages not linked to from anywhere else (ie. "what links here" shows nothing). This usually refers to articles not linked from other articles, but can refer to other namespace pages as well. These links from somewhere else are also called backlinks. Redirects can be orphaned in this sense (looking backwards at what connects to it) as well as in the other sense (looking forward at what it connects to, though this is more commonly called a "broken redirect").
  • (3a) Sometimes orphan status can be delimited by namespace. Thus it is possible for a page to be orphaned with respect to several namespaces, but still be linked from other namespaces. This is relevant here because some namespaces (in this case Misplaced Pages and User namespaces) are densely populated with links from article lists, such as the various bot-generated watchlists, wikiproject article lists, user lists, and the WP 1.0 assessment lists.

Also, redirects can be created in several ways and have a varied history.

• (A) Redirects can be created from scratch. These generally never have a talk page, and the edit history usually only shows creation, but in theory a talk page could be created for such redirects.
• (B) Redirects are created by the pagemove function. If the page has a talk page and the talk page is also moved, a redirect is created for the talk page as well. The edit history will only show creation of the redirect at the time of the page move.
• (C) Redirects can also be created by blanking a page and inserting the redirect markup. This is known as "redirecting" and is also a step seen in merging. This can also work the other way round, with a redirect being turned into a normal page, usually when undoing a merge, creating a disambiguation page following a page move, or just creating new content where previously only a redirect existed. These redirects are easily distinguished from others because they have an edit history that is more than just the creation of the redirect. When talk pages exist for these type of redirects, they are sometimes left alone, and sometimes redirected or merged to the talk page of the redirect destination.
• (D) Redirects of talk pages are also sometimes created for the purposes of centralising discussion for a set of pages. This could be a set of subpages where people clicking on the talk page tab get sent to the centralised discussion page (eg. the "doc" subpages of template pages, as described at Misplaced Pages:Template documentation), or they can be centralising discussion for a set of related pages (eg. the talk pages for the [[WP:REFDESK|reference desks). These redirects are normally created from scratch (type A), though if there was existing discussion at different locations before the centralising, then the redirects will be created by inserting the redirect markup (type C).

Hopefully that makes redirect and orphan terminology clearer! Carcharoth (talk) 03:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Among some of the talk page redirect deletions that triggered my watchlist directly tonight were a large amount of talk page archive redirects. Talk page archives themselves almost never have a project page attached to them, let alone a redirect. This needs to stop. -- Ned Scott 03:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I think what should be made clear to those running deletion scripts is that deletions appear in watchlists, so they are coming under greater scrutiny than before, so they need to improve their standards. Carcharoth (talk) 03:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I came here to report MZMcBride's latest talk page deletion spree. But I see many of you beat me to it.

MZMcBride has done similar deletions several times during the last years. He has also been deleting /doc talk page redirects both now and before. (Note that such /doc talk page redirects are recommended at Misplaced Pages:Template documentation#How to create a documentation subpage.) I have discussed his deletions with him several times before and if he has answered it has been to the effect that he thinks that talk pages should never be redirected and that he thinks such redirected talk pages should be deleted on sight.

And yes, it seems MZMcBride was running a bot or a script. That bot could not possibly be an approved one and breaches policy in several ways. Since as far as I remember bots may not do tasks that need admin tools (such as deleting pages), they must be ran from special non-admin accounts marked as bot accounts, they may only do 10 edits per minute, and they should be formally approved before they run. Since I have discussed this with MZMcBride before I think his bot did exactly what he was intending. If it was "just a script" doesn't matter, bots are built from scripts so the difference is only academic, there is no reason that a script should be allowed to break the bot rules like doing more than 10 edits per minute.

I disagree with MZMcBride's deletions. Something needs to be done about this since this is a repeat behaviour and I don't think he will stop voluntarily.

--David Göthberg (talk) 04:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Can a script be used to undo these deletions? -- Ned Scott 04:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I know East718 has said he has an undeletion script. Which reminds me of a Betacommand image deletion issue that probably never got tidied up. The deletion of PNG and SVG images, IIRC. East offered to do undeletions, but the second stage (removing the deletion tags) never got sorted out. This is another point - reversability is rarely built in, at least not with the same amount of convenience. Invariably the undeletion is slower or requires discussion, and if the deleting admin doesn't take responsibility, then often discussion dies out, people mutter a bit, nothing gets done, and the admin responsible doesn't get properly warned or sanctioned. Then the behaviour repeats again. Breaking that sort of low-level cycle of behaviour can be very difficult unless someone keeps pointing out the previous stuff, and someone actually guides the discussion towards an actionable conclusion. Carcharoth (talk) 04:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Massive redirect deletions - arbitrary break 2

See Misplaced Pages talk:Bot policy#When is a script a bot.3F for suggestions on how to keep this from happening in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidwr (talk • contribs) 04:19, 1 June 2008

Geez... what is all the fuss about? I for one do agree with deleting orphaned talkpage redirects. Redirects should not have talkpages; plain and simple. Though on this occasion, MZ made a mistake by not checking if the attached non-talk page was indeed a redirect itself. If that check is added, the script would work fine. — Edokter • Talk • 15:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What about the deletions of template documentation talkpages? Kelly 15:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Same error; MZ should have checked if the non-talk page otself was a redirect. — Edokter • Talk • 22:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Part of the purpose of that discussion is to establish what the difference is between a script and a bot (and whether there is a difference at all in cases like this). The fact that he can run a bot without approval by calling it a "script" is a tremendous loophole in bot approval. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Edokter: You have misunderstood what this is about. Go and look again. MZMcBride is deleting redirected talk pages of existing templates and their /doc pages. And he has been doing so for months or is it years now? And lots and lots of people have begged him to stop for a long time now, but he refuses to understand and just claims "I do no harm since I am an admin". Two examples of many: Diff1, diff2.

--David Göthberg (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been doing some thinking and have come to some conclusions: MZMcBride has been deleting redirected talk pages of existing templates and their /doc pages for months or perhaps years now. I have checked the logs and I see that lots and lots of experienced editors considers this to be disruptive edits and have asked him to stop for a long time now, but he refuses to understand. (I myself have discussed this with him several times during the last year or more.)

Even if an editor doesn't understand why his edits are considered disruptive, if lots of people tell him they are disruptive and ask him to stop he should stop. Failure to stop is vandalism and should be handled as such, no matter if the editor happens to be an admin. Even admins should obey consensus.

I am going to put a final vandalism warning notice on MZMcBride's talk page. If I see him deleting any more talk page redirects of existing pages I would like to block him for repeat vandalism. I hope other admins will agree with me on this? (And do the same if they see him vandalise more talk pages.) Since I am not experienced in blocking people I appreciate any advice on the proper length of such a block. And how long should the follow up blocks be if he continues?

--David Göthberg (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Blocking for running an unapproved bot or not respecting consensus is one thing, blocking him for vandalism - meaning he is intending to harm the project - is absolutely unacceptable, and like that pointless warning template you put on his talk page, only going to multiply the drama. Disruption is not the same as vandalism. Mr.Z-man 23:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The first block should be for the typical 24 hours. If there needs to be a second block, how long it should be will be the least of our problems. I also agree with Mr.Z-man that "disruption" would be a better term than "vandalism". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Z-Man, vandalism is not the same as disruption. Please rephrase the warning message accordingly. Thank you. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm late to the discussion but add me to the list of users frustrated by this pointless deletion spree. It does not comply with any existing criterion of WP:CSD. It adds nothing helpful to the project and has created considerable disruption. Redirects (and, yes, that includes redirects of one talk page to another Talk page) are helpful to those of us who care about and try to research the history of pages that have been moved. Rossami (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Many editors have talked with MZMcBride for months (or is it years now?) about his disruptive deletions of redirected talk pages of existing templates and their /doc sub-pages. He knows the rest of us thinks his edits are disruptive, still he continues. To me that makes it intentional disruption which I thought was called "vandalism" in English. But I am not a native English speaker, English is only my third language.

Anyway, no matter what we call it: Talking with MZMcBride has failed miserably, thus we have to use the next tool to stop his disruptive edits, and that is to tell him he will be blocked if he continues. (And of course block him if he does continue.)

--David Göthberg (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Massive redirect deletions - Call for immediate robot-restore

Seeing as how MZMcBride has taken the day off, I'm calling for the immediate robo-restore of all red-links that are in this list whose edit summary is "(orphaned talk page redirect)", dating back to at least 14:53, 31 May 2008. Shall I ask for help on Misplaced Pages:Bot requests or is this a bad idea? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a good idea, and I support the request. -- Ned Scott 04:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I also support the request. This episode seems to have been a good-faith mistake, and so the best solution would be to restore the status quo ante. Physchim62 (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Physchim62: In what way is it "a good-faith mistake" when lots of editors have pointed it out to him repeatedly for many months that his deletions of talk page redirects are disruptive? I see that you are defending him on his talk page. I suggest you go look in the logs and the archives and see what has been going on for a long time now.

--David Göthberg (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If you have longer-term concerns with this editors' actions, why don't you try dispute resolution? I did not "defend him" on his talk page, I merely disagreed with your actions: there is a substantial difference! Physchim62 (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot requested, with a request that the bot owner place a notice here and wait 12-24 hours for any last-minute objections. Given that this mess started when someone made a decision without asking for others' opinions, it's prudent to go slow on the repair job. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Physchim62 (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think a blanket revert is not the way to go; a lot of those redirects needed to go. However, MZMcBride needs to have the following rules to prevent mistakes in the future: A talk page redirect may not be deleted if...

1. The non-talk page is not a redirect, OR
2. The talk page redirects to a parent talk-page (example WT:ANI points to WT:AN, should catch template docs.)
3. The talk-page has incoming links.

Otherwise, talk page redirects should be deleted. — Edokter • Talk • 23:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The difference between a robo-undelete and a manual or better-coded robo-delete vs. manual undeletes of selected redirects is one of erring on the side of keeping too much vs. erring on the side of deleting too much. There is less harm erring on the side of keeping. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have the data and code necessary to undelete all those "orphaned talk page redirect" deletions. There are 6307 deletions on the list, the bot will currently simply restore all revisions of any redlink. If we want this to happen, post here saying so, or if there are other caveats for the bot to follow, say so. I have no desire to RfA this, if someone wants to they can have the code, otherwise just let me know so I can start it up once there's consensus and it follows the necessary caveats. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I also have 4859 from May 10, 1812 from Apr 12, and 13943 from Apr 7. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 01:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume those 6307 are just the ones from 5/31-6/1. If not, trim the list to just those. Before you run it, can you give us some breakdown by namespace and by sub-page? In particular, how many articles are in a namespace other than the main-article Talk: space and how many of those in Talk: have either a /, \, or extra : in them to indicate some type of sub-page, OR which have the name "archive" in them anywhere? Unless someone objects within 12 hours/by 13:00 Tuesday, please run the bot against everything not in (main)Talk: and run it against everything in Talk: which looks like a sub-page or archive. Then we can discuss what's left. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The 6307 are from that day only. 3940 are in Talk:, 1225 in Misplaced Pages talk:. Of the talk: ones, 105 contain archive, 162 have a /, 77 have a colon. In total, 2602 from that day and 8032 in total are outside of talk or contain a /, :, or the word archive. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 01:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you put a list on one of your user subpages, sorted by date, namespace, and for Talk:, splitting out the likely sub-pages? Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If I can remember how :) --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 01:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This would be the first set of restores. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 01:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Lack of response by deleting admin

MZMcBride‎ (talk · contribs) has simply archived his talk page without addressing the multitude of concerns placed there. I think this is a problem. Kelly 01:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked this particular user until the unwillingness to initiate a response ceases. Considering the blatant misuse of these admin tools as well as the unnecessary usage of disk space I feel that we are entitled to an explanation. There have been problems with this user performing unauthorized tasks in the past and refusing to provide an explanation. Let's stop that now. -Pilotguy contact tower 01:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wish this hadn't been necessary, but at least now he will be forced to address these issues. As an operator of an adminbot myself, I know very well not to automate anything remotely controversial, so I'm wondering what his excuse is. --Cyde Weys 01:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you ask a bureacrat to temporarily desysop him in lieu of a block? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly doubt that necessary. --Conti|✉ 01:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Crats can't desysop. Only stewards can. bibliomaniac15 01:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Forgetting...things...Must...get...sleep... davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think a temporary block makes a bit more sense than a desysopping. Any admin can do and undo the block; no need for a steward. Anyway, it's standard bot policy that the bot account is blocked at the slightest sign of anything being wrong. Anyone running an adminbot on their own account is aware of the risks. Just to clarify, MZMcBride is blocked because of a malfunctioning bot running under his account. He's not being punitively blocked until he answers questions or anything, though answering the questions is now a necessary prerequisite of proving that the bot isn't broken (or at least that he won't do that again). --Cyde Weys 02:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think a desysop would be in order if a good explanation isn't forthcoming shortly. He seems to have a policy not to post on AN/I, which frankly seems a silly policy for an admin, in my opinion. Kelly 01:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, as a regular user, I recommend that we get this feller's attention. I see that he was blocked, but I am thinking that doing a boatload of deletes before taking the day off isn't the the wisest course of action - at least, not for an admin. Like it or not, admins are seen a template for non-admins on how to conduct themselves, and MZM's behavior hurt the Project. Admins are given bigger mops and trusted not to make the place messier than before. This has not been Mzmcbride's finest hour. We block people indefinitely for just this sort of thing, don't we? - Arcayne () 01:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:MZMcBride

Pilotguy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has indef blocked MZMcBride (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), See block log. Pilotguy has been questioned about this block by several admins in the admin IRC channel. Discussion did not go productively, as he was not able to justify his block with policy, citing (in other words) WP:IAR. It is at this time that many agree others should review this block. Regards, Lara❤Love 02:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'd say MZMcBride should agree to restore the previously deleted redirects and seek consensus before future deletions and that Pilotguy should be counseled to explain his block on-wiki when making them. MBisanz 02:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Pilotguy should have brought the matter here before blocking a fellow admin, this was a trigger-happy. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, it appears the block was for actions that took place a couple of days ago. Lara❤Love 02:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the block was triggered by MZMcBride's archiving of his talk page without replying to the concerns raised in the last few days. (He did respond to Ned Scott tho, at least.) --Conti|✉ 02:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Block is discussed above: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Lack_of_response_by_deleting_admin -MBK₀₀₄ 02:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It is standard policy to block a malfunctioning bot. When you're running a bot on your main account, those are the risks you take. This is discussed in more detail in the section above. --Cyde Weys 02:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to archive this four times now. But I keep getting an EC. So I give up now. Lara❤Love 02:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

File an RFC, RFARB, or similar. A block at this point is punitive as would be a desysopping. --slakr 02:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, a block seems more punitive at this point. Support unblocking, it's not like he is going to resume deleting redirects at this point. VegaDark (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd really be happier if he'd post somewhere that he agrees to undelete the page or not delete pages in the future. Or else we'll be back here soon. MBisanz 02:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually this block is preventative, because MZMcBride will continue to use scripts like these if he isn't blocked. --Chetblong (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Moved section inline with previous discussion on matter. xenocidic ( talk ¿ listen ) 02:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• MZMcBride shouldn't have run a script like that without asking others and without making sure it was more full proof than it showed itself to be, and him not responding to others concerns tells me that this block was in order. I agree with Pilotguy on blocking MZMcBride. --Chetblong (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) ::As do I. At the very least. Making a mistake is one thing. Ignoring those people politely inquiring about it is quite another. We block people to protect the project. He doesn't get special treatment because he is an admin, or at least, he shouldn't, if we are all to believe that admins are - as every admin says - just ordinary folk who occasionally make mistakes. MZM compounded and inflated the bot mistakes by ignoring and failing to explain what hell was going on. - Arcayne () 03:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Almost nothing that is good for any society will ever be "fool-proof." Unfortunately, errors tend to be more salient in people's minds than successes, so even if a margin of error is significantly low, people will seem to think that a particular process fails as a whole— even if it actually doesn't. If MZMcBride doesn't want to respond, we have two choices: community ban him indefinitely, or unblock him. Seeing as the former is just plain silly, I'm thinking we should side with the latter— particularly since the block was based on actions that happened days ago. --slakr 03:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)No one is faulting him for the failure of the bot, though it certainly should have been road-tested more before release. What I personally take exception to is the fact that he sets it loose before taking the day off, and then studiously ignoring requests for input. As for Slakr's "two choices", there is a third option: I suggest that any future bot is thoroughly road-tested, and MZM sticks around to make sure its running well. As this is something which would get a normal editor blocked or banned, I don;t support giving him extra leeway that we do not give every other regular contributor. - Arcayne () 03:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue of redirect-deletions has come up repeatedly. MZMcBride has not indicated sufficient understanding of the concerns raised and continues to run the bot/script which causes the concerns on their main account. The most recent concerns do not appear to have been adequately addressed and there is no indication that the script will not be run again. Thus, the block is preventative. Like all blocks, it can be lifted immediately upon the editor recognizing and agreeing to modify their behaviour. Franamax (talk) 03:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds pretty reasonable to me. - Arcayne () 03:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been just as frustrated about these talk page redirects as the next guy, but blocking like this is not how we handle these situations. If he was actually continuing the deletions, then maybe, but until then he hasn't done anything. We do not use blocks to force an editor to spew out some pretty little statement just to make ourselves feel better. Neutrality is a core value for the article space, but it works pretty well here. We don't care if they feel sorry or even if they apologies. We only care about what the actually do. -- Ned Scott 04:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I would support blocking if he resumed running this script without first getting a broader consensus for it, at the moment this seems uncalled for. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's rather the problem, isn't it, Ned? According to David Gothberg, this isn;t the first time this particular issue has come up with MZM. We do not block punitively; we block to protect the Project. How many hours of precious admin time has been wasted on trying to undo the effects of MZM's labor- and time-saving bot which just so happened to Frankenstein on us. We are asking - not for "some pretty little statement" - but some assurances that this isn't a situation that will repeat itself with this particular user. I don't really care if the user is Christ On Toast; if he is disrupting the project with his well-meaning bot, then it would seem appropriate to expect him to agree to at least road-test the bot before release, or to stick around whilst it meanders the thousands of edits (so as to catch/disable/stop it if it suddenly decides to go on a Dick Cheney Duck Hunt). We would ask no less of any non-admin user. The same rules apply. - Arcayne () 04:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused now

Wasn't this the place for centralized discussion of admin actions and situations requiring admin intervention? Doesn't it say above that MZMcBride is blocked? Does it say somewhere about being unblocked now? Any mention of the nudge-nudge wink-wink he promised me privately he won't do it anymore? Oh, how about the admin who refuses to participate at the admin noticeboards, due to "long-ish standing (personal) policy"? Policy apparently adopted after either this edit or maybe this one? Is there a special big purple font for WTF? /rant, but this is not a satisfactory conclusion for the general editorship. Franamax (talk) 07:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Transclusion of MZMcBride talkpage

Below is a transclusion of MZMcBride's talk page to let him respond ot the issues without requesting an unblock. {{User talk:MZMcBride}}

• MZMcBride reverted the changes to his talk page facilitating this transclusion. xenocidic ( talk ¿ listen ) 03:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Detailed look at what happened

I think it might help if what happened here were laid out in a bit more detail. I have tried to be objective in what follows, but my position is clear: I have grave concerns about: (1) User:MZMcBride's approach of carrying out deletions according to a set of sometimes debatable, sometimes reasonable, criteria, without discussing those criteria with others first, and only restoring or discussing when someone objects; and (2) The way MzMcBride responds to concerns raised, including a "standing policy not to post at ANI" (, ). Having got that strong criticism out of the way, I would like to repeat that the following is not intended to be a strong criticism of one or other side, though I have and continue to object to these deletions. Rather, this is primarily intended to clear up misunderstandings on either side.

• Deletion run in question - from looking at MZMcBride's logs (the logs are extensive, but the log summaries do help find what you are looking for, and the runs are fairly discrete blocks), this deletion run with the edit summary "orphaned talk page redirect" started on 14:53, 31 May 2008 and ended at 23:46, 31 May 2008. There were a total of 6306 deletions over a period of 8 hours and 53 minutes (533 minutes), ie. a rate of 11.8 deletions per minute, which is approximately one every 5 seconds for nearly nine hours. I presume from this evidence, and previous statements, that MZMcBride runs a deletion script over a set of filtered lists prepared in user space (see MZMcBride's sandboxes) or offline.
• Why the deletion run ended. I am presuming that the deletion run ended at 23:46, 31 May 2008 when MZMcBride saw a talk page message that had been left for him by User:Rlevse at 23:03, 31 May 2008. This action crossed with a one-minute block performed by User:Gimmetrow at 23:51, 31 May 2008: "To stop unwatched bot". Various discussions then ensued, which I will lay out in more detail below.
• Types of redirects and criteria used for deletion. First, though, I would like to take a look at the type of redirects that were being deleted. The point of doing this is that MZMcBride's deletion criteria don't appear to distinguish between different sorts of redirects. MZMcBride has said here: "When I deleted the most recent batch, the criteria was that they were only one revision, a redirect, not edited in over two weeks, and had absolutely zero incoming links." Using the deletion logs, I've been looking at the list of 6306 redirects that were deleted. By namespace they were: Category talk (10), Help talk (21), Image talk (3), Mediawiki talk (5), Portal talk (39), Talk (3939), Template talk (1065), and Misplaced Pages talk (1224). It is my view that the root of the problem was that this set of deletions included talk namespaces other than article talk namespace (Talk), and that many of the other talk namespaces have what can be called "redirects that centralise discussion". When these started popping up on people's watchlists (it is important to remember that deletions only recently, in the last few months, were added to the watchlists), they began questioning the deletions.
• Ensuing discussion (MZMcBride's talk page). Most people went to User talk:MZMcBride. The resulting threads are now archived at User talk:MZMcBride/Archive 9), though some of the discussions are split over several talk pages. In summary, in 17 different threads (most directly about the "redirects that centralise discussion"), posted over a period of 24 hours, I count 18 different editors expressing their concerns. The threads are:
  • FYI
  • Misplaced Pages talk:List of missing journals
  • talk page deletion?
  • Redirect deletions
  • Indiscriminate deletion of redirects does do harm
  • Suggestion: undo the recent mass deletions
  • Your talk page deletion spree
  • FYI:ANI (notice of this ANI thread)
  • Talk page archive redirects (thread discusses other issues as well)
  • Election box tempate talk page deletions
  • Redirects deletions, another matter
  • Orphaned talk page redirect?
  • Misplaced Pages talk:Dead-end pages/U-Z
  • From WP:RFD
  • erroneous deletions
  • Warnings (warning thread)
  • Deletion of Misplaced Pages talk:Peer reviews by date
• Later discussions, responses and arguments presented (placeholder)

Right. I've run out of time here, but I'll save what I've done for now, and come back to it later. I think detailed looks like this are important, because people are sometimes too quick to gloss over what happened, and many people don't take the time to look in detail or follow all the discussions. Hopefully the above will give a better idea of what happened. Carcharoth (talk) 07:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

User Blaxthos reported me for 3RR with no reason or notification.

Intially I was upset, but the more I think about it the more upset I am. User Blaxthos reported me in violation of the 3RR on the Gretchen Carlson article with no notifcation. I would not have known at all if not for the admin that notified me. I find it particularly upseting because I had removed vague critical matierial from a BLP which was not only vague but had either no references 1 references which did not even mention Carlson or were blogs twice.2 3 no references again 4 and again 5 The anonymous editor was warned by me after the 5th revert. The report was filed by Blaxthos shortly after. The Anoyn was not reported even though they did the same thing that Blaxthos accused me of doing. Futhermore per WP:BLP contentious material can be removed without the 3RR applying WP:GRAPEVINE. The result of the report was no violation. What is most anoyning is that Blaxthos is a veteran editor, yet has had a problem with me personally in the past, and I believe it is this past history which lead to the report. Blaxthos has never commented on the talk pages of Carlson talk history nor made any edits edit history so I can only conclude that he is monitoring my edits here. I suggest that he be warned regarding this kind of behaviour. Arzel (talk) 04:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No reason? After watching Arzel edit war for several days, I submitted an 3RR Report with evidence of Arzel edit warring, the opposing edits came from multiple sources (hence no 3RR report); I registered this account in 2004; I've not once broken 3RR for any reason, and I don't believe these circumstances mitigated Arzel's responsibility in this case. I respectfully disagreed with the admin's response; I won't waste anyone's time making a content argument here. I fail to see how I've done anything warranting discussion here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

So you sat ildly back watching two anoynomous users (who I believe would end up being the same user) add uncited information that says that Carlson has been criticized and you did nothing? Hmm, seems to me that your goal of getting me blocked or reported was more important than following WP policies. You won't waste anyone's time making a argument here, but you will waste their time by making an unwarrented report on me? At least you admit that you are watching my actions and edits, maybe I will have to do the same to you. Arzel (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

1. WP:ANI is not the forum for content disputes.
2. Not withstanding #1, citations were present, but there may have been some concern as to their reliability; the content itself (referencing the allegations of bias evidenced by FNC generally and the subject of the article specifically) does not, in my opinion, rise to the level of "libelous material" requiring edit warring under the guise of WP:BLP.
3. When faced with the prospect of intentionally violating a policy, it is always best to seek a second opinion. There are plenty of other ways you could have handled the problem: WP:RFPP, WP:AN3, WP:ANI, WP:EA, etc.. This was not a situation where edit warring for days was necessary.
4. I fail to see any "policy" that I have "failed to follow." When you make those sorts of accusations towards me, please specifically justify them with explanations and diffs.
5. I don't believe the 3RR replort was unjustified, as you continued in edit warring for several days.
6. If you feel it necessary to investigate my behavior and report violations, I strongly encourage you to do so. It's of no consequence to me, as I've never been the subject of any sort of sanction, admonishment, or block. I think that the "maybe I will have to do the same to you" attitude is immature and unproductive, but if it makes you feel better then I am all for it...
7. I don't really understand what you're asking for here... I am not the one who violated any rule or policy; if you don't like the fact that your behavior has been reported, then it's probably wise to avoid engaging in the behavior that gets you into trouble. You didn't end up getting warned or blocked, so I really fail to see why you're trying to bring this up on ANI. Best thing to do is to learn and move on...

Hopefully this will be the last of this thread, though I'm welcome to have some of the WP:ANI guys weigh in... /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

1. This is not a content dispute. This was in regards to your unjust report filed against me.
2. Ha, as I pointed out in my diff's, three times there were no references. Twice the references were either a blog or an article that failed to even mention Carlson.
3. What policy did I supposedly intentially violate? I removed uncited critical vague statements from a BLP. It wasn't even an edit war, and I at least notified the anoyn of their behavior, something you didn't even do me the favour of.
4. Well you didn't assume good faith, futhermore I consider what you did as a form of wiki stalking me.
5. That is a bold faced lie.
6. Well, I haven't done that before, but you apparently have.
7. An appology would be nice, but I don't see that happening. Perhaps an explanation why you didn't remove uncited or porly sourced criticism from an article you were obviously watching yourself. Or were you more interested in filing a 3RR report on me.

It would be nice for an ANI guy to weigh in. Arzel (talk) 03:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You came crying to WP:ANI because you want an appology because YOU got reported for violating WP:3RR?! You want me to explain why I chose to report your violations instead of engaging in an edit war? I'm embarrassed for you, Arzel. There will be no apology forthcoming, nor will I participate in this petty back-and-forth pity party you've thrown here. Stop wasting the time of everyone involved, most especially mine and the people who attempt to answer real incidents. Good day. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I knew it was too much to ask for. Thanks for not answering my quetion though, pretty much your MO, ignore the question and attack the questionner. Typical. Arzel (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you hope to accomplish here? No one is going to scold Blaxthos for reporting a 3RR violation, regardless of whether or not it violates your personal standards of etiquette. Let it go. Gamaliel (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

A cursory glance at this argument reveals that Azrel's beef isn't that his "standards of etiquette" were offended, but that user Blaxthos: 1. Filed a spurious 3R report against him with the intent to cause distress 2. Monitored Azrel's activities on Misplaced Pages deliberately with the intention of finding a reason to file such a report. Whether or not you agree with the personal politics of the two, if Azrel's accusations are true then Blaxthos' behavior is indeed quite disturbing and disruptive. I would say that if nothing else Azrel's report here serves to establish an e-trail should this behavior ever occur again. Billdozer33 (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

Massive tennis page moves

User:Tennis expert moved a bunch of bio articles about various tennis players from titles with diacritics to titles without. He cites some sort of consensus which I assume refers to this localized discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis#Naming_of_tennis_biographies. Diacritics or no diacritics is a Misplaced Pages-wide issue and individual projects should not carve exceptions for itself. Thus I bring it to the wider audience for comments. Renata (talk) 06:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really the place for that. This page is here to report incidents that require the intervention of an administrator using tools that are only available to administrators. Comment withdrawn. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

See this, this, and the items linked therein. Tennis expert (talk) 06:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The moves should be reversed - this seems to be one side of a very lengthy argument (several months) attempting to get its way by blunt force, and the move is neither required nor suggested by policy or style guides. Orderinchaos 08:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Need help here - a massive number of articles have been moved per this supposed "consensus" - 68 in a very short period of time. Tennis expert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to have been working in concert with Redux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on this one - the latter moved 20 on 20th May, some of those have already been moved back. Orderinchaos 08:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not working in "concert" with anyone, i.e., there is no conspiracy. Redux began the discussion. Several editors, including myself, agreed with his proposal. He closed the discussion and said the renaming and edits should be implemented. And various people have followed through. It's as simple as that. Tennis expert (talk) 09:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for my previous belief that you were aware of previous discussions on this matter. It still shouldn't have been done, but I was incorrect to jump to a conclusion on that. Orderinchaos 09:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I think most have been moved back now. All biographies are usually part of more than one WikiProject so a single project should not really even discuss about doing something this controversial to a large number of articles. Prolog (talk) 10:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

When doing things that might appear suspicious or vandalism to other users, always take care to link on the edit summary to the discussion where the changes obtained consensus. It avoids lots of problems --Enric Naval (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. As Tennis Expert also did: here On the other hand some editor "Pokrajac" just reverted by either no edit summary or "Per all Serbian names". And that editor keeps disrupting the article against consensus for that particular article. So who is to be banned? I loose more and more faith in this whole project. Where is a clear rule, a thrustworthy editor (in the non-wiki sense of the word) when you need one? --HJensen, talk 08:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit War on God

Ooops, I mean User:Jimbo Wales. There has been an edit war with several users over the placement of two letters on the userpage of him. Here is a list of diffs.

It appears to me that no users violated WP:3RR, but ::still.<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 07:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Erm...and I guess a personal attack from an IP on Talk Page. Should s/he be warned for it or blocked as s/he got a warning on the 29th? <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 08:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Wannabe Wiki was blocked for 12 hours for violating 3RR in that edit war a few days ago. Hut 8.5 08:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. It is his user page and that thread on his talk page is trolling no matter how you look at it. This is a waste of time. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not trolling Wannabe Wiki (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have informed all users who participated in the edit "conflict" (in a different light) today, thus far. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 08:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Jimmy_Wales&curid=8202363&diff=216367233&oldid=216231994 QuackGuru 09:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Whether Jimmy Wales is founder or co-founder of Misplaced Pages doesn't mean anyone (not pointing fingers) can edit war on a userpage. Bidgee (talk) 09:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The presumed facts of Wales and the founding of wikipedia are covered in the article called Jimmy Wales. Messing with someone's user page is against the rules. Baseball Bugs 12:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Even if the page is misleading?:) Sticky Parkin 12:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If you think he's being misleading on his user page, then you could raise that issue on his talk page. Baseball Bugs 12:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

And not by vulgar personal attacks, i.e. not the way User:Wannabe Wiki did it, which undermines whatever credibility he might have. Baseball Bugs 13:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The point has been raised on numerous occasions on his talk page. seicer | talk | contribs 14:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)It's nothing I personally would be interested in getting involved with, I'm just saying. Haven't people frequently inquired about it on his talk page? I thought they would have. I agree that Wannabe Wiki is out of line with the reinsertion if he is reverted repeatedly though; but on the other hand that means the userpage claim problems need to be resolved here or somewhere else, because an adequate resolution can not be created by editors on their own. Is this appropriate content for a userpage, or could it be considered advertising, self-promotion or WP:SOAP, given that the information given is disputable. Maybe a compromise in wording could be decided upon? Nothing can be decided on the talk page as it seems those who ask are being frequently reverted. Sticky Parkin 14:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Wales removed the discussion from his talk page. So the next step would be to initiate some kind of formal process within wikipedia rules. Wannabe is free to try to do so, if this is so important to him. Baseball Bugs 15:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What would you suggest? Usually if someone thinks the content of a userpage is inappropriate, isn't that dealt with here, on AN/I? I know you think Wannabe should do it if he cares so much about it, but it's not really about Wannabe is it, I don't think he's the only one who's done this or commented about the userpage on the talk page. What I mean is, we could decide upon a solution to this now so we don't have to hear it all over again quite so often in future.:) No-one is going to make an RfC about Wales or anything lol but we could discuss the page content and how to deal with it. Sticky Parkin 16:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a fair amount of latitude on user pages. The usual complaint about userpage content is when someone is using it to make personal attacks or otherwise inflammatory comments. In fact, it is the user Wannabe who has made the inflammatory comments, so Wales is within his rights to delete anything Wannabe does on his user page. And the actual article on Wales sets the record straight, and presumably Wales has not tried to to edit war against it. So, I don't see where there's an actionable issue here. Baseball Bugs 16:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out that Wannabe started this a couple of days ago, with increasingly flaming comments each time he was reverted by other editors. He also smashed the 3-revert rule in the process. Wales himself didn't do anything except to remove the vulgar comments from his talk page. Wannabe needs to try to get some sort of consensus that Wales' page should be changed. So far, he doesn't have that. Baseball Bugs 16:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I know, but he's not the only one that has an opinion that the userpage isn't ok. That's all I'm saying.:) I honestly don't know how people could think it was ok unless they're like me and think it's a bit out of line but really just aren't that bothered about it.:) On the other hand- no doubt Wannabe will be rightfully blocked if he hasn't cooled it a bit. Sticky Parkin 21:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No, which is why consensus could be built, one way or the other, and then a change could theoretically be imposed. And if Wales himself reverts it, I would leave it be, as it's really not very important. Baseball Bugs 21:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Does Jimbo run over to your user-page and mess with your stuff saying it's "misleading"? I think not. Hell, my userpage used to say my name was Captain Jack Harkness.--Koji†Dude 23:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on that's hardly the same.:) Sticky Parkin 02:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like an obvious case of vandalism, and defionitely not a case of 3RR, all those trolling adding the co- claim should be summarily blocked, that is the obvious and only solution. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That's all I did; revert vandalism and harassment of Jimbo on his user page. I've done that plenty of times before. The real disruption here is the pushing of a POV that has already been debated countless times. It's not on and it's not "restoring NPOV". It's harassment. EconomicsGuy (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If someone makes a questionable claim on their user page, someone else could put a "fact" tag on it. If I have verifiable evidence that the user calling himself Captain Jack Harkness is not actually Captain Jack Harkness, then I could post the evidence. Otherwise, it's a fact tag at most. And prior to that, the question of whether it's worth bothering with. Baseball Bugs 03:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The real issue is with the violation of NPOV all over Misplaced Pages due to POV pushing in article space. Of course, harassing another user (even me) is a blockable offense, but whatever, I am a pretty easy going guy, so I would recommend that everyone just relax. :-) The best response to this is to fix the neutrality problem in Misplaced Pages. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo, my apologies for not letting you know about this thread. It didn't occur to me at all that I should have sent you a note also. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 02:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has mentioned yet that when Wannabe started this account, he admitted that his previous one was blocked . I don't know if in light of his current actions that should count against him because it shows he has a history of acting up, or whether we never consider anything but the contribs of his current identity. Sticky Parkin 02:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That undermines his credibility just a tad. That fact, along with his inflammatory comments, would suggest a grudge. Trouble is, attacking Wales is too visible. He needs to attack something that everyone else does, like the Bill O'Reilly article. Then he'd be almost under the radar. Baseball Bugs 04:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

My two cents - When I first saw that message, I thought it was fine per Misplaced Pages:SOCK#Clean_start_under_a_new_name, as his edits weren't too controversial in the beginning. Midorihana みどりはな 06:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It's hard for a leopard to change its stripes. Meanwhile, as you may know, Wales invites making changes to his user page. So, theoretically, he wouldn't have an issue with the "co-" prefix. However, and I may have said this before, edit warring doesn't make sense. Consensus needs to be reached. Baseball Bugs 06:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I dont understand the problem. If any information found on Misplaced Pages is inaccurate purposely or otherwise, isnt it the duty of and Wikipedian to fix that inaccuracy. Yes, i do admit that Wanabe Wiki's talk comments were quite inappropriate, but were missing the point here. The information is both wrong and misleading, and therefore deserves to be changed. I personally believe that, even if the information is on a user page, it should be changed. Also, i think that the title of this section of the article is quite supercilious, as it seems to imply that Jimbo is God. Magically Clever (talk) 06:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The sarcastic nature of the section's title further undermines the standing of those who want to change it from "founder" to "co-founder". Baseball Bugs 07:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It is inaccurate because it frivilously implies that I was edit warring when all I did was revert harassment and trolling. If doing that is edit warring then I along with the countless number of others who have reverted this POV pushing over the years must be satanic edit warriors out to distort the truth. Oddly enough those who revert this are still here whilst those determined to continue this ridiculous waste of time never last very long. Food for thought isn't it? EconomicsGuy (talk) 07:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's funny how that works out, isn't it? Since Wales invites people to tinker with his user page (within reason), the issue (such as it is) could have been discussed first. But that's no fun. Baseball Bugs 07:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

reply to Midorihana- yes it was 100% decent for you to give Wannabe another chance. But do you think it is relevant given his current actions that he was blocked in the past? He seems quite a young spirit to me, I don't know how old he is. Baseball bug- the thing is I think in the past people sought to discuss it on the talk page but weren't allowed to. Sticky Parkin 11:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

He seems to be elementary - middle school age by the discussions on his talk page. He has a history of trolling (see the following block logs of his socks - , ). His recent behavior follows this pattern.

In any case, there's a discussion for the status of 'co-founder' here. Midorihana みどりはな 05:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Wannabe (The troll), you keep on saying I have made vulgar personal attacks against Jimmy Wales but I don't think I have, the method I used may not have been the most responsible way to create change but it was by far the most effective, I would be happy to get consensus to change Jimmy's user page or change it through a fromal process compatible with Misplaced Pages rules as suggested by Baseball Bugs, lol it has been suggested that I have a personal grudge against Jimmy that is not true this is not personal at all, I admit that I was once a long time ago a vandal and sock puppet but I have changed, to answer Sticky Parkin (thanks for being nice and unbiased throughout the discusion) I am only 14 years old but as Jimmy Wales himself says "And if a person's really smart and they're doing fantastic work, I don't care if they're a high school kid or a Harvard professor; it's the work that matters." Wannabe Wiki (talk) 08:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Steven M. Greer

This article is being edited by a series of single-purpose accounts with identical agendas and editing histories, trying to give Greer a false appearance of legitimacy and make his claims of having ways to violate the laws of physics seem valid.

The accounts concerned are: User:Schouten tjeerd, User:Dancingeyes, and User:I-netfreedOm. I-netfreedOm has been attacking me for reverting their edits, as well as claiming that I am a vandal for preserving anonymity by editing by DHCP, and has been blocked once before. Please stop this. 131.215.220.163 (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I posted a link to this thread at Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, which I think is a better place for it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read my comments on the Fringe Theories page.~~ Dancingeyes (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

At minimum this section of the article seems to contain blatant advertising, as well as links to sites that are purely promotional. I am really not sure how to deal with such a problem. (If it were the whole article I would nominate it for deletion.) Also, I see nothing in the article that establishes notability. Perhaps an AfD would be justified. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Theft of Misplaced Pages content to populate fraudulent web sites for pupose of link farming or similar

Someone has registered a number of web sites whose domain names include the character string "-pedia". Content from Misplaced Pages, related or not to the domain name, is stolen and somehow copied to web pages under that domain name. At the bottom of many pages are a list of randomly-generated links. The links are generated using a PHP script found here: http://www.mutib.com/randomlink/link.php. The links generated reveal the inventory of fraudulent web sites. The aforementioned link failed once and left an error message--that's how I found out about the link.

Some of the pages have banner ads at the top. Surprise, surprise...the ones I've seen look like they would take one to a porn site.

I hope an administrator finds this and can take action against it.

Kelly Carter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellydcarter (talk • contribs) 22:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a page we have to report these, but I've right now forgotten where it is. :/ Can anyone help? Orderinchaos 07:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's Misplaced Pages:Mirrors and forks/All or something similar. Good night, all (it's 02:00 where I live). -Jéské 08:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Admin of Misplaced Pages != admin of the Internet; we don't have any special authority in these matters. If the reproduction in question complies with the GFDL then it's perfectly legitimate, and if it doesn't, chances are the infringement isn't actionable anyway. — xDanielx /_C\ 08:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There could be trademark (confusion among the public) concerns but that's for the lawyer(s) to deal with. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a GFDL violation. They don't credit Misplaced Pages or its contributors anywhere. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll send the standard email to the site owner and web host. Should I get a reply, I'll report back. Kevin (talk) 06:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: create millions of improperly sourced article with MICROSOFT spam by bot

While I love the idea of using a bot to create articles on real places with proper sourcing, the test cases created so far by User talk:Fritzpoll have improper sourcing and include a spam link to Microsoft. This is unacceptable. I tried noting it on an example and was reverted, so I am saying so here. What would Microsoft pay for 4 million articles that say

*

WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... I thought we had a non-vendor-specific map/geoinfo link for geographical places, that goes to a page full of options from Google to M$ to free projects? *Dan T.* (talk) 23:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Notified Friztpoll xenocidic ( talk ¿ listen ) 23:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that needs to not be there. The NGA reference is somewhat unhelpful too, because it requires the reader to do their own search. Black Kite 23:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I was just thinking the same thing about this generic spammy link. Plus, I can't find our example town, Aju, Burma, in Encarta. WODUP 00:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... if there were a way to hot-link it, it would be nice, but if it's just a general "search for {{blah}} here" it's not that useful. We're better off using tools:~magnus/geo/geohack.php or tools:~dispenser/maps.php (whichever one is better). Titoxd 01:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, or use {{coord}} with the display=title parameter which links directly to geohack. Orderinchaos 07:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That's already in the infobox, per User:Fritzpoll/GeoBot/Example. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 07:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Also note User:Andrwsc's change to the flag template. Might as well get it set in the template now rather than 2 million articles later. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

So is the Encarta spam link being removed? I have a feeling the originators of this plan do not want to remove it, given their lack of response. Even though it is useless as geohack is directly linked to in the infobox. Neıl 龱 10:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Lack of response is because it's a workday, and I only just logged in during lunch! :) Yeah, remove it, or rather, one of us can go through and remove it. It was meant to take you directly to a map of the place on the Encarta map - I based it on a sample page I was given to work with by the editors who had the original idea. Clearly doesn't work, so we'll remove it. As you can see from the page itsefl, an emended proposal is in the works, and someone has pointed out to me a template that I can use to directly reference the GNS data. The {{flag}} thing has also been implemented per a line dropped to my talkpage Fritzpoll (talk) 10:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks. Neıl 龱 10:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

user:Abtract

Note: moved here from WP:AIV as a better location for discussion. Black Kite 00:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Abtract (talk · contribs · count) - vandalism after recent release of block. Abtract was blocked for harrassing and stalking myself and User:Sesshomaru, and told to stay away from both of us. His block was recently released, and his first actions were to continue to stalk both of and to falsely tag Meerkat Manor, an article I took to FA and later FT, as needing citations. He also directly contacted me after being told to stop-- ] (] · ]) 00:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• comment - I presume I am allowed to comment ... the so called stalking above comprises an edit to an article I created, and a couple of very reasonable edits to articles I have previously edited and which are on my watchlist; plus a pleasantly worded request on Coll's talk page. How can bringing inline with mos:dab, correcting grammar and asking for citations be in any way wrong? Sadly I am forced back to my original conclusion that Coll is in the midst of a wikibok inspired vendetta against me. Abtract (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Abstract has been involved in an extended wikistalking and harassement campaign for weeks now. There is an RfC/U against him, he was warned and blocked by an administrator, and several others also left warning notes on his page, but he is continuing this campaign. As soon as he came back from his block, he began following myself and User:Sesshomaru just as before. He is continuing to falsely tag Meerkat Manor as needing citations, solely to harass me, an article he NEVER edited until he started his stalking and which he is not an actual contributor too. His "pleasantly worded request" on my talk page was anything but. Some quick action would be appreciated, as he is continuing this actions now. -- ] (] · ]) 01:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, I understand the frustration here but both parties are now in violation of WP:3RR on the article. I would suggest that the article be left alone for the moment until this plays out on the board. Dayewalker (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've already requested full page protection on the article. -- ] (] · ]) 01:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Already done. I have protected Meerkat Manor for 3 hours, rather than block both parties. Abtract, I would suggest that edit-warring on an article with someone, just after you have come off a block for apparently harrassing that editor is a spectacularly bad idea. You are just asking to be re-blocked, really. (I have also turned down the WP:AN3 report, for obvious reasons). Black Kite 01:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I am talking to both of these users in a effort to try and get this taken care of and both users to happy editing moods. Dusti 01:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

While your efforts are appreciated, its really important to look at the whole history here. Abtract claimed he had stopped the stalking, but he did not and was summarily blocked for 31 hours. He frequently tells people he is going to stop disruptive behaviors, edit warring, harrassment, etc, then turns around and does it again within days. He returned from his block and immediately started following his stalking targets around again. This isn't a simple edit war, nor even a real content dispute. -- ] (] · ]) 01:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• I am signing off for a while now, but having looked at the article in question, I do agree that User:Abtract's addition of the {{fact}} tags was extremely dubious, as they were in the lead paragraph and the information appears to be sourced elsewhere in the article. I would suggest that any restoration of those tags (or similar) after the protection expires be met with a block - the previous one was 31 hours. Black Kite 01:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• • I hadn't appreciated that fact citations were not needed in the lead so of course I will not be doing that again (how much nicer if Coll had mentioned that) but I will be correcting the grammar inline with advice on the talk page. I would also appreciate someone insisting that Coll look again at her wikibonk induced error in the debacle over the "bitch of an edit". Abtract (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note my comment on your User talk:Abtract#Your Recent Edits. (linked for other users). I have suggested that you cease editing the article altogether and stay away from Collectonian. collectonian, I suggest the same for you as well, to keep this calm and from blowing up again. Dusti 01:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You're suggesting I stay away from Meerkat Manor or stay away from Abtract? I'm going to presume the latter, which is easy when I have nothing to do with him, nor the area he used to focus on (disambigs), before he started this mess. He is the only one doing the stalking here, and throwing around "wikibonk" as an insult and implied disease (particularly odd considering I have removed that from my user page, and it has absolutely nothing to do with his own actions). -- ] (] · ]) 01:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Abtract put out a "call for assistance" on his talk page claiming that he is the victim of a "vendetta" and that's its all Sesshomaru and I's fault that he is acting this way. His note carefully ignores much of the evidence noted in the RfC/U, and falsely claims that we never interacted before the episode over his edit summary on an edit to Bitch (disambiguation). He also implies that until both of us apologize to him "gracefully", he will continue these actions. Again, an admin told him that he needed to just stop stalking and harassing, and Abtract responded by complaining the response given wasn't what he wanted. During this exchange, he stalked Sesshomaru some more. and, despite having again been told by several editors and admins to just stay away from Meerkat Manor he immediately posted a note after me on the talk page.. And despite numerous notes to stay away, he couldn't resist commenting on my talk page after a technical snafu earlier this morning then reverting a proper moving of his comments from the RfC page to the talk page (per the RfC instructions which note that discussion does not belong in the RfC itself). He seems to have only undid this because it was me who move them, as he never objected when another editor did the same earlier in the RfC. Following his usual edit warring pattern, despite my noting that they were moved per the RfC instructions, he reverted again under the claim that its choice not to follow the RfC guidelines. -- ] (] · ]) 15:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Werdnabot

Werndabot has gone crazy and is recursively archiving talk pages -- Gurch (talk) 08:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. Have blocked the bot - will leave a note for Werdna. WjBscribe 08:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it stopped several hours ago - a block probably wasn't necessary but best to play safe as I don't know when it's scheduled to run and whether Werdna knows about the issue. WjBscribe 08:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It runs every six hours, so the next run would have been due in 25 minutes, and would have created yet another level deep of "/Archive 1" subpages -- Gurch (talk) 08:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the problem was limited to User talk:Brews ohare, and seems to have been caused by the recent addition of the {{werdnabot}} template within one of the sections being archived. Still, the bot definitely shouldn't do that, even if the original cause was user error. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 09:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the nested archives and reverted the original archive page (without the misplaced tag that caused all this). This means it should be safe to unblock the bot now, though we might as well wait for Werdna to handle it himself. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 09:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

User:TheNautilus

TheNautilus (talk · contribs)

I looked into his RfC, and after going through a week of diffs, I found very strong evidence that he is completely incapable of working with other editors on Orthomolecular medicine.

The "smoking gun" diff is probably:

If he classes everyone on the other side as either dishonest or incompetent, then there is no way he is capable of working with others to build an encyclopedia.

He also dismisses all criticism of Orthomolecular medicine out of hand. Here, for instance, TheNautilus claims, in violation of WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience, that all mainstream material is unreliable and cannot be in the article. Another good example is here, where he writes "vitriolic critics are notable in the general sense, their inflammatory misrepresentions & coverage promoting distortions & scientific misconduct that scientifically & commercially interferes & unfairly deprecates others' legitimate results should be discussed where there is space for balancing quotes, references and reader's (yawn) voluntary continued interest" Finally, in discussing information on Orthomolecular medicine in a chapter in a textbook on Cancer, TheNautilus launches into a series of ad hominem attacks on all researchers whose conclusions he doesn't like. A sample quote dismissing a decade of research: "Many are not sure what the "clinical trials" (~1975-1985) really proved, but hubris, incompetence, systematic bias, scientific misconduct, breeches of social contract & specific promise seem to have had a pretty strong demonstration." More specifically, here's an over the top dismissal of a particular piece of research he doesn't like:

Oh, and It had been discussed, actually.

He also has a grand conspiracy theory. Allow me to quickly walk you through it:

Here's a general attack on the American Medical Assosciation. This might be a bit weird, but harmless, right? Wrong. He claims that "many editors " When asked whether he had evidence of this, he replied:

And then claimed that because Tim Vickers edits in ways that he doesn't like, therefore TimVickers must be a member of the evil AMA, and therefore, he must be working for them in their supposed quest to oppress orthomolecular medicine.

I'd suggest a topic ban from all articles related to medicine or alternative medicine. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Shoemaker, you are making too long posts again :) Few admins will read this, and much less if the RFCU is still open. You should wait until it closes, and then come here with a short message (lass than 150 words, and 5-8 diffs at most) --Enric Naval (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Main Page Feature Article Protected

Per for just one hour. Because it was getting relentless. (note only protected to autocomnfirmed so there may be some more Grawpy issues). Feel free to revert me if anyone wishes. Pedro :  Chat  13:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Good call. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, what a history. I would advise not putting a time limit on protections like this, when the page is under concerted, organised attack from a group of vandals, as they will now be waiting for 15:00 to roll around, and it will restart until someone else protects it. Better to make it indefinite and then manually take off the protection at an unspecified time, and spend the interim blocking all the IPs. Neıl 龱 13:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I was mindful of our policy of not protecting FA's on the main page, but I do agree totally with your assesment here Neil. I'm likely to be offline shortly, so if any one wishes to extend and then make a mental note to remove it later that's all good. Pedro :  Chat  13:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Lmao. But really make it an unspecified time within the next 2-3 hours. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 13:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh, look at the history between 18:03 to 18:09; the goatse pic stayed on the front page FA for 7 minutes. Spellcast (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not just move-protect featured articles permanently (or at least during the period they're featured)? The's no reason anyone anywhere should be moving them anyway (they wouldn't be 'featured' if they weren't where they were supposed to be in the first place), and that would stop stuff like this before it ever starts. HalfShadow 18:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

And back to semi. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Half-Shadow's is a good suggestion: protect FAs for the day they are on the main page. The current policy makes them large-scale vandalism targets, and they are, for all intents and purposes, meaningless on the very day they are featured. When I recently assisted in bringing an article to the main page, I advised my friends to read it the days before or after, knowing it would be particularly unreliable on its featured day. ?*&#! JNW (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

RMHED questionable comments in questionable discussion

Disclaimer: I do not make it a habit to complain here, as some do. It seems we have a large body of tattlers whose entire Misplaced Pages career revolves around getting involved in assorted fights on these noticeboards and filing assorted administrative actions, RfCs and RfArs etc. I also have expressed my opinions about what I see is an irrational application of principles like WP:CIVIL to increasingly mild and subtle slights, and the increasing misuse of WP:CIVIL as a weapon (see this for a discussion of my own feelings about WP:CIVIL).

However, there is a limit, and I humbly suggest that this sort of comment might be approaching that limit. It is part and parcel of what looks to be a fairly rancorous discussion that is probably unproductive for fostering harmony and comity. Perhaps when a line like this is crossed, it would be appropriate for people to be cautioned, if not more. I would also suggest that any admins who have taken part in this sort of discussion without attempting to dampen its hostile tone and even encouraged some of its more negative aspects are clearly not acting in accordance with what we would expect of administrators on Misplaced Pages.--Filll (talk | wpc) 13:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you discussed that edit with the user on his talk page before coming here? Not that I disagree with you- then again it was a day and a half ago now. Sticky Parkin 16:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No I have not. I only just learned about it from seeing an announcement of the conversation on Orangemarlin's talk page: . Interesting response, but not unexpected. We will see how important WP:CIVIL is, I guess, won't we? --Filll (talk | wpc) 17:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

? I'm not sure what you mean, but I assure you WP:CIVIL is one of my favourite policies. Why didn't you just warn or advise User:RMHED that his edit was not appropriate? Or I will, I can do that even though I'm only a lowly editor.:) Why go straight to AN/I rather than first speak to the user yourself? Other than that, I'm sure no-one here will disagree with you that the comment was inappropriate, but by the dispute resolution processes you could simply have warned or spoke to him yourself, AN/I is not something to use straight away before speaking to the user personally.Sticky Parkin 17:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I am no expert in dealing with WP:CIVIL. I have never reported anyone for a WP:CIVIL violation before. In fact, I am fairly unimpressed with noticeboards in general, and usually am only here to defend myself from some attack or other, or chime in to defend a friend. And in those instances, I personally have not seen some sort of delicate coordinated dance with escalating talk page warnings, but maybe they were not following correct procedure. The only case I have ever observed this is for 3RR.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with standard procedures but I surmise I am supposed to notify the main party on their talk pages, which I did here. Should I notify others in that conversation who are engaged in questionable discussions or ignoring or encouraging questionable discussions?--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert:) I'm just saying you should have spoken to him first, as you've named part of this thread after one particular person. Maybe it should just be called "questionable discussion" if it's about the discussion? Just that your first comments made it seemed like it was RMHED's edit you objected to in particular. I'm sure after all this time on wiki you are familiar with the dispute resolution process.:) You could post about the AN/I thread in the discussion, that way everyone following it will know about it, but you should have spoken to the individual editor first, as it seems (rightfully) to be this particular comment of his that upsets you, as well as the discussion as a whole. Sticky Parkin 17:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh a thought- witiquette alerts board- Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts, I'd forgotten about that, might be just the thing you're after. Sticky Parkin 17:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

As usual, this just makes things so complicated it is not even worth it. Typical. But of course, calling someone a "homeopathy promoter" or a "self promoter" or saying someone has a "silly argument" are sanctionable under WP:CIVIL. But implying someone is a f@ckwit is not. Ah, so reasonable and rational...--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Clearly out-of-line. I've gone ahead and removed. Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No more out of line than Orangemarlin's nasty insinuations, I've reinstated my comment. RMHED (talk) 20:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but my mommy told me two wrongs don't make a right. I've removed it again. I would request you not reinsert it. You can stand by your statement a thousand times over, but unless you are contributing to the discussion, there is absolutely no need for it to be there, and only adds to inflaming the situation. I won't remove it again, but please consider just leaving it be. Mahalo. --Ali'i 21:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

What you and your mommy discuss is of no interest to me, if you believe my comment is unhelpful then ignore it, but please do not remove it. RMHED (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

And added another example here. I am glad to see that our political correctness police are so anxious to address these violations of WP:CIVIL.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Best to just ignore it. Someone else has added it back, and it is by no means worth edit-warring over. If an admin wants to leave a civility warning, then thats fine, but I don't think any further discussion is warranted about this here. Avruch 21:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well if I was an admin, I would have cautioned several people here to just tone it down a tad, on all sides of the issue. Stupidly, I thought that is what would transpire here. Goes to show what I know. Ah well...--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I added it back (fuckwit). I am very tired of the facist like "enforcement" of the WP:CIVIL policy. I'm all about following policy and I even have admin aspirations in the future, but this is too much. Beam 21:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Fuckwit is not civil, unless one is clearly referring to oneself, in which case it's funny. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 22:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you can read the statement in question, no one was called fuckwit. But yes, Beam is a fuckwit. :D Beam 01:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I have been keeping track of some of the nice examples of alleged WP:CIVIL violations that I have run across over the last while here. And interestingly, none of them are as bad as calling someone a "f@ckwit", let alone doing it more than once and edit warring over it. This has been, and continues to be, an exceedingly nice example of massive hypocrisy which I am glad to be able to point to. I guess it all depends on who is doing the name-calling then, doesn't it? Frankly, the political correctness police and champions of wikilove all look pretty bad as far as I am concerned. And I am glad to have this nice example proving that Misplaced Pages is full of it on this issue. Very very nice.--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Underbelly (TV series)

Anon 124.190.198.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is adding a list of people unsourced and based on original research (Sources added don't state that they have been in the series) and there has also been a past discussions on the very same thing Talk:Underbelly (TV_series)#Brincat and Faure as mr t and mr l Bidgee (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've informed the editor of this page and I've also replyed to there latest comment on the Underbelly talk page. Bidgee (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I gave him another warning. I think he is failing to understanding our OR and V policies (not to mention edit warring and consensus) rather than being deliberately malicious. Sarah 02:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I want a block to be reviewed

If this is not the proper venue for this request, please let me know. Thank you.

User User talk:Psychmajor902 has been blocked by User:DGG. The point is that both of them entered in disputes about the content (Talk:Primal_therapy#Criticisms) and "edit warred" about the cause of the block ()

AFAIK this block is against Misplaced Pages:Block#Disputes

Please, comment. Thank you. Randroide (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

What you fail to recognise here is that these are poor links that would go against the external linking guidelines. They're both very clearly OR. Now, he's been warned for this a lot on his talk page and his problematic actions have spread more than one page. There are situations where an admin may block a user after reverting - I'd say this is one of those as he was clearly being disruptive and had been asked many times to change his behaviour. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"There are situations where an admin may block a user after reverting"...seems to me that goes against Misplaced Pages:Block#Disputes. Moreover: User:DGG stated that the sites are "blogs" (are not). OK. I shall see other opinions here. Thank you for your feedback anyway, sir. Randroide (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"There are situations where an admin may block a user after reverting", yes it is called vandalism. A disagreement about content is not an exception. While the block is most likely correct, this really should have been left to an uninvolved admin. I really don't know how administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute can be made more clear than it already is. _{1 != 2} 15:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I invite you to please check the history of the article before calling "vandalism" User:Psychmajor´s contributions. Thank your for your feedback. Randroide (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You misread what I said. I was saying that an admin may revert then block in the case of vandalism. This was not a case of vandalism but a content dispute. Admins may not block people they are involved in a content dispute with, especially when the reason for the block is directly related to the content dispute. _{1 != 2} 15:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

But looking at the users talk page, he's been having many similar problems with his editing here. I don't think it's fair to label this a content dispute when there have been many concerns about his external linking. In fact, that's all what his talk page is, warnings about linking. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh. You are right. I misunderstood you. Thank you for your attention Randroide (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, what else could a disagreement over the addition of a link be other than a content dispute? I am not saying that the block was not warranted, but it should have been made by somebody uninvolved with the dispute. Not saying anything needs to be done other than a refresher course on the the block policy though, unless a pattern shows itself. _{1 != 2} 15:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Geeez, I just realized DGG had not been notified of this discussion. That is the very first thing that needs to be done when you challenge a person's behavior. I have left a note of DGG's talk page. _{1 != 2} 15:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, RedGreen. I was not even sure this was the proper place for this discussion, so I missed that obvious step. Randroide (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In addition users Psychmajor902's 81 article space contributions, 29 involve adding or reinserting the link debunkingprimaltherapy.com () Clearly disruptive.

• Misplaced Pages:BLOCK#Disruption
  • Persistent spamming

--Hu12 (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

So DGG's reverting of a habitual spammer's spamming, and then blocking the spammer when he refuses to stop spamming, amounts to being in a content dispute with the spammer? Nonsense. No, it's not vandalism DGG was removing, but neither is it remotely accurate to wikilawyer it into a content dispute. Neıl 龱 15:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have enormous reservations about the accusation of "spamming" against User:Psychmajor. I am disccussing the issue with Hu12 here Randroide (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Psychmajor902's contributions. 29 of 81 contribs is adding this link, rejecting community consensus and employing the use brute force for its inclusion. Attempting to interpreting policy looking for technicalities to justify this users inappropriate actions by Wikilawyering the definition of "spam" on my talk page, is innapropriate. This is common sense. Clearly fails Verifiability Policy's sections on "Reliable Sources" and "Self-published material" and there is clear consensus for this links Exclusion, --Hu12 (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hu12 does make a compelling point, it is reasonable for an admin to revert spam then block. I was not aware of the extensive pattern of adding such links. _{1 != 2} 16:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been following this and see no hint of a content dispute, linkspam is not content. I support this block. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There´s no community consensus on the disputed link being "spam" or not. Several editors disagree on that point (me -Randroide-, Psychmajor and Aussiewikilady think that the link is linkable). Please read Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Primal_Therapy to see the relevant discussion. Please do not invoke a "consensus" that does not exist.

OTOH, if Hu12 accuses me of "wikilawyering" as sole answer to my questions at his/her talk page, sorry but I must conclude he/she placed a warning note at User:Psychmajor with no basis on WP policies Randroide (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Once you have justified these edits () beyond a reasonable doubt that this behaviour is not spamming, does any burden of proof shift to others, however the diffs and Psychmajor902's contribution history speak for themselves. This is clear-cut Spamming. please read Misplaced Pages:Gaming the system and WP:TE--Hu12 (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It does seem you are wikilawyering. It sure looks like spam to me in light of all the other attempts to add it. _{1 != 2} 16:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, RedGreen. Randroide (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Support block which user Psychmajor902 is in apparent violation of Wikipedias Disruptive editing and anti-spam guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the WP:TE link, Hu12. I see still no basis for your "spam" warning at PsychMajor userpage, but this TE link at least is something.

Did you notice that Psychmajor is NOT the only editor reinserting the disputed external link?. Did you notice that editors (as you) deleting that link over and over could also being accused of TE? (repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors WP:TE) Randroide (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop attempting to Game the system for your own adjenda. "An editor gaming the system is seeking to use policies with bad faith, by finding within their wording apparent justification for disruptive actions and stances that policy is clearly not at all intended to support."--Hu12 (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an editor who's spent most of his Misplaced Pages life edit-warring to insert external links which obviously lack anything resembling consensus. This is a good block - that is, one which prevents damage to the encyclopedia. When the block expires, this user can either seek consensus to include the links through the dispute resolution pathway, or be blocked indefinitely if they continue to edit-war over the links. If the only argument against this block is a borderline technicality, then we're done here. MastCell  17:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Spam; good block. Durova 17:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your feedback, MastCell and Durova. Consensus is very important here. If so many admins (5 so far) see this issue the way you do, likely I am wrong about my reservations about User:PsychMajor block.
• To Hu12: I have no "agenda", but to write an encyclopedia. I invite you review the history of Primal Therapy since 2006 to check this assertion. I beg you to follow WP:FAITH. Thank you Randroide (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Hu12 and I do not always agree about external links, as anyone can see from the relevant talk pages. But we certainly do agree on the essentials--both the principle of preserving a neutral encyclopedia and on what represents grossly excessive and clearly inappropriate linking. I am not exactly sure whether to call this a spam link or an inappropriate external link in a more general sense--there is not really that much of a clear separation between them. The persistent insertion of either against consensus is wrong. I first looked at these articles in response to an outside request--I have no particular interest in the subject. I tried to achieve some balance between those who were committed to the defense of the therapy and those attacking it, both equally passionate, both equally eager to insert inappropriate material--at a number of related pages. I and other editors--including supporters of his point of view--have warned this editor numerous times, including final warnings from others than myself. I am extremely reluctant to block at all--my block log shows how little I use it. On the other hand, I issue a good many formal and informal warnings, for I find they almost always do the necessary. Blocks are like deletions--a last resort. I've typically blocked only when someone simply does not respond to anything else & seems likely to continue-- and usually only when others have tried persuasion also. I would not have blocked had this been the only item in question--one of the differences between myself & some other admins is that I do not block over a single item no matter how persistent, because there can always be disagreements over that particular one. As my block rationale here says "multiple items, and multiple articles".
• The COI problem is a real one for any admin trying to reduce COI in an article over an extended period. After a while, one can sometimes start to understand the issue, and as one does, one generally forms an opinion. But requiring admins to step down at that point would prevent any continuity in persuasion and enforcement; we are trusted to know when it interferes. I don't think I had reached that point, and I can prove it: there have also been some complaints from the other side of the issue. And there is a less dramatic way of asking for a review of an admin action than coming here--which is simply asking some other admin to comment. People sometimes ask me about other admin's actions, and if I think they're wrong I'll let the admin in question know, so they may quietly fix the problem. If they don't, then is the time for AN/I. I sometime advise my friends off-wiki about this if I notice, even if nobody asks first And other admins have asked me similarly from time to time, both on and off wiki, and I've given their views serious consideration & almost always done as they suggested. Again, even if there have not yet been complaints. I can certainly be as wrong as anyone else, and I'd never pretend otherwise. DGG (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

My $0.02. First, a discolsure: I was the editor that initially brought this matter to the reliable sources noticeboard. And another disclosure: I have previously gotten into disputes with PsychMajor902.

As I said, I intially raised this issue on the noticeboard. Although I did not request that the debunking link be removed, I did request that a quotation of the website author's personal opinion which was inserted into the article text itself should be removed. I approached the issue by placing a notice on the reliable sources noticeboard, and informed PsychMajor902 of the discussion. After I placed the notice, the neutral editors from the realiable sources noticeboard agreed that the quotation was not acceptable.

After which PsychMajor ignored the consensus and pressed "undo" very often, every time an editor tried to remove the quotation. Then PsychMajor was reminded of the consensus, and he continued pressing "undo", again ignoring the consensus. Then PsychMajor was solicited for discussion repeatedly, and he ignored discussion and offered nothing relevant to the topic. Then an administrator showed up and found the entire link unacceptable, and PsychMajor started an edit war with the admin and kept pressing undo. Then the admin issued a warning, then issued a final warning, then issued a second final warning--but PsychMajor kept pressing undo, ignoring consensus, and flouting policy.

PsychMajor902 repeatedly and blatantly flouted consensus, policy, and administrator warnings, including two "final" warnings. At that point, the primary issue was no longer one of content--the content of the link was irrelevant. At that point, the primary issue was one of behavior. Regardless of the content, a user cannot impose his will by warring, violating policy, ignoring consensus, and offering no relevant discussion. I would support the block even if I agreed with the content of the disputed link and even if I thought the link was appropriate.

Not only do I feel that the block was justified, but I feel that DGG was very restrained and probably waited a bit too long to issue the block. I felt that one "final warning" was probably enough.Twerges (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I see above the assertion that the link is not only used by Psychmajor902. Records:

• debunkingprimaltherapy.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

From the COIBot report, which holds the linkwatcher content from the last 6 months (approx.) I see three editors with no userpage:

• Psychmajor902 (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)
• Zonbalance (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)
• Aussiewikilady (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)

one IP recently:

• 76.90.103.220 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

and one IP who adds the link to other wikipedia:

• 67.150.124.231 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

(All other edits (by more established editors) are reverts of removals of links inserted by the above accounts or simple cleanup edits (I can't read Finnish, but it does look like a revert as well))

Seen the focus of the three named accounts and the first IP (all mainly editing Primal therapy, Arthur Janov, The Primal Scream and discussions with editors and on talkpages related to these three), I would guess that these are sockpuppets pushing the same information.

The latter IPs has only one edit on each of the two wikis (fr and sv), both of the same nature, adding debunkingprimaltherapy.com to these two wikis.

Maybe checkuser should check these accounts and IPs. --Dirk Beetstra 18:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

From Dirk Beetstra's report (just formatting)

• Psychmajor902 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Zonbalance (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Aussiewikilady (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 76.90.103.220 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 67.150.124.231 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Note: this is a cross wiki addition

..for checkuser--Hu12 (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Dirk. I don't believe those other accounts are sock puppets. I believe they're separate users because of differences in tone, style, etc.

However I believe (although I'm not certain) that those other users were recruited to edit the page, or were informed of the wikipedia dispute, by the author of the questionable website, who has taken out advertisements etc to find and interview people who are disaffected with primal therapy (see his webpage). In other words, they may be meat puppets. I believe so because those 2 other editors repeatedly invoke the 3 books which the intial editor recommended, and only those 3 books. I also saw that the editor added a notice to his webpage informing people of the wikipedia dispute.

But I don't have any particular problem with it. I don't believe the editors are strictly meatpuppets because I believe they have independent reasons for being disaffected with primal therapy and would have edited the page if they'd found it independently.

So it should not be surprising that those 3 editors make similar edits for similar explanations, as they probably come from the same place and have had contact with each other. Nevertheless, I don't think they're sockpuppets and I have no problem with it.Twerges (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Twerges. Nice to read you.

For the record:

• I live in Europe (so much for the "probably come from the same place" theory)
• I edited Primal Therapy 47 times (to a total of 8000+ edits)
• I added several times the disputed "Debunking primal therapy" link.

User:DGG wrote: "The persistent insertion of either against consensus is wrong"

Where´s the consensus?. I see three editors supporting that link on the page.

User:Beestra wrote: "All other edits (by more established editors) are reverts of removals of links inserted by the above accounts". Beestra, please check my edits to see how wrong you are.

I ask for a checkuser of all involved parties. Randroide (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support block. If someone wants to, suggest unblocking and reblock to eliminate this argument. I consider this all moot as Psychmajor hasn't even asked for an unblock on his page. Let him argue this himself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Psychmajor is blocked, so he/she can not argue anything. Besides, I was not requesting comment just about his/her block (that would be a different issue), but about his/her block by an admin who engaged in content dispute with him/her Randroide (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Randroide. You were not one of the users who was suspected of being a sockpuppet/meatpuppet. When I spoke of the "3 users" who probably come from the same place, I was referring to the users listed above: PsychMajor, Zonbalance, and AussieWikiLady. Anyway I was not referring to the same geographical address but rather the same person/website which led them here (not that there's anything wrong with that).

Nobody doubts your independence, or suspects that you're a sockpuppet.

With regard to consensus. I was referring to a consensus on the reliable sources noticeboard. There obviously was not a consensus including the 3 editors suspected of being sockpuppets, because they all revert no matter what, even after administrator warnings and even when their edits clearly violate several wikipedia policies. As a result, there is no possibility of consensus with them, which is why I brought the issue to the realible sources noticeboard.

If a consensus is reached on that noticeboard then they should abide by it. We clearly cannot wait until we have convinced everyone, no matter hor intrasigent or resistant to discussion they are, before we declare that a consensus has been achieved. If that were the criterion of consensus, then there has never been (and will never be) a consensus on things like evolution/creationism, flath earth, etc. By consensus we do not mean everyone in all circumstances. That is the reason the noticeboards exist, I believe: to gather consensus elsewhere among neutral parties when interested parties are intransigent.Twerges (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There´s neither consensus to remove, the link, Twerges. OTOH you did the right thing posting the contentious link at the noticeboard. Good move. Randroide (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I want to point out, that the addition was also wrong with respect to excessive weight. An article must be balanced, and aggressively trying to unbalance it against consensus is abusive editing. As I commented on the page, I don't really see why anyone would want to do it, because it makes a stronger case for a position if only an appropriate number of sources are added. Otherwise it looks like an unbalanced diatribe, no matter how reasonable the position. This is an encyclopedia, to give information about subjects, not a place for advocacy. DGG (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That´s not the point, DGG. The point is you blocking an user you disputed with, and blocking him/her for the reasons of the dispute. To make things worse you "argued" that the user inserted "blogs" (User_talk:Psychmajor902#May_2008), and that´s just not the case. Personally, in your position I should be ashamed of my behaviour and I would apologize Psychmajor. Unblocking him/here is not the point I raised. Is not the validity of the block what I am discussing here, DGG, but how you blocked him/her Randroide (talk) 08:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Randroide, I was referring to all edits mentioned in the COIBot report, there where you are in the link-addition database, all those edits are revert-like edits: 15:05, 2 June 2008, 'undid', 22:39, 4 May 2008, 'undid', 22:39, 4 May 2008, 'undid', 22:39, 4 May 2008, 'undid' (the last two are the same edit, twice the link). I did check your edits, all edits that I see in the COIBot report that were not made by the 5 accounts were 'undo', 'revert' or similar edits, the link is used by these 5 accounts, and you are an account undoing removals of the external links by others. For other records see the edit history of the documents, but they do not involve that website (except where the linkwatchers have missed the edit). I have named these 5 accounts above, and they appear to be meat/sock puppets, and I do not suspect you are number 6 in that, your edit pattern and focus (if any) is completely different, you only happen to edit these pages as well (what is true for a lot of other people as well); the other 5 (Psychmajor902, Zonbalance, Aussiewikilady, 76.90.103.220, 67.150.124.231) hardly edit outside of the three pages mentioned!

As far as consensus, the link is being pushed by the 5 accounts (which may be 'one', actually), and removed by a large number of established editors (over and over again, otherwise there would not be so many inclusions of the link). You are the only person fighting that (and that is fine/great!), but as I see it, there is large resistance against inclusion of the link, I would suggest to leave it out for now (as that is what happens most, and where the consensus suggests to be), and reach consensus on talkpage first, before reinserting the link and accompanying information again. --Dirk Beetstra 09:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, Beetstra. Did we have a checkuser on this issue I failed to notice? Randroide (talk) 09:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Serial attacks on John Amos and Good Times from Blackberry.net

Several similar IPs from (geolocate says) Blackberry.net have been making prank edits around Misplaced Pages:

• 216.9.250.115 John Amos diff
• 216.9.250.39 John Amos diff
• 216.9.250.96 page-blanking diff

Two of these IPs and some others keep attacking the John Amos article by repeatedly adding a paragraph that floridly describes an interview of Amos on the Howard Stern show. The paragraph as written violates all of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:SOURCE.

The Blackberry IPs have been joined in their crusade to insert this material by single-issue editors apparently elsewhere:

• 208.115.91.252 John Amos diff
• 68.236.2.70 John Amos diff
• 68.236.57.219 John Amos diff
• 68.163.23.111 claiming credit for unsigned comment inserted by 68.236.57.219

Since these are all IPs, I don't know if it's appropriate to file a sockpuppet report. There may be dynamic IP assigments rather than deceptive spoofing. But looking at the edits coming in from those three IPs at blackberry.net, none seem to be constructive.

The origin of the material seems to be an edit made in Good Times in March, 2007: by an IP in Philadelphia . This primordial IP is similar to an IP above that is claiming credit for edits apparently coming in from a different IP.

Other editors before me have long been removing this paragraph from both ] and Good Times. I tried to explain Misplaced Pages policy on the John Amos talk page, but they ignore the policy questions and accuse me of moralizing or "elitist revisionism".

Will Beback was kind enough to protect John Amos yesterday in response to my request for help, but he suggested I bring this problem to ANI. Today, yet another single-purpose IP has just added the material to Good Times instead. . So here I am. betsythedevine (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Since there are too many different IPs to block them all, and since the abuse has been happening for 3-5 weeks, I suggest two months of semi-protection for John Amos and Good Times. EdJohnston (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. I'ave also semi-protected Daryn Kagan, another target of the same editor. He's also gone after CNN, but that article is widely-watched and edited so less suitable for long-term protection. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Question

It's a few days old, but an IP brought this edit to my attention. Anything that should/can be done here, or should it just be ignored? Pastordavid (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

When you look at the next edit after that was reverted (), I think it can be filed under standard vandalism and safely ignored. Black Kite 15:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing that can be done; editors on IPs (generally speaking) move on after a few hours. The contribution history is so sporadic that there's no way we can do anything about it. *shrug* EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You could issue a warning. Unless you do that very soon after (like an hour), EVula's advice applies. Baseball Bugs 16:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"Unreliable prodders"

The Enchantress Of Florence (talk · contribs) has recently decided to deprod articles with the edit summary of "deprod, unreliabele proponent" . A prod may be removed if one "otherwise object to its deletion for any reason", but the deprodder isn't giving a reason for the deletion objection. The reliability of the prodder has nothing to do with the "deletability" of the article. Request at his/her talk page, User talk:The Enchantress Of Florence#Margery Edwards, have been ignored. I basically propose that he/she be told (by someone with a little symbol on top of their userpage) to stop this insulting disruption. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It is insulting to be told that because I am employed, and not paid to engage in Wikipedian disputes during worktime with the apparently unemployed, that I have "ignored" their comments and am otherwise of bad character. The accusation is a conspicuous violation of WP:AGF, not that such principles matter to those eager to rush to an uninformed judgment. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am tempted to WP:IAR here and restore some of the PROD tags given that they were removed tendentiously. Judith Blake, for example, is clearly non-notable per WP:BIO, but is it worth wasting an AFD on? Black Kite 16:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like they're following Qworty. All of the deprods followed a prod2 made by Qworty. Probably started at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Featherproof books. --Onorem♠Dil 16:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

And also at here. I've restored the Judith Blake PROD, and will add others as necessary. Black Kite 16:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Support. All prods should be restored in this instance. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#question regarding BLP application to discussions may serve to clarify. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

All restored or AfD'd except Natasha Bauman, may be some notability here. Black Kite 16:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks as if Margery Edwards may turn out to be a keep, I'm still waiting on a bit more info, but my initial concerns still stand. Reasons for dePRODing should be given rather than what appears to be "I don't like the nom" or prod2er. There also appears to be some history between the two from BLPN _{TravellingCari} 16:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I read WP:PROD to mean you don't have to give a reason to remove it, you can do so simply as a personal privilege. The deprodder is not obligated to explain himself. He can deprod articles because the sky is blue or because he's just bored. The proper response is to either do nothing, take the article to AfD, or find some other resolution such as discussing it on the article talk page or proposing a merger, or even doing a WP:BOLD merge if you think it will be uncontested. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Going around and removing PROD tags based on the user is rude at best and disruptive at worst.-Wafulz (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I could go either way on it. Here are the two applicable lines from WP:PROD: 1) Remove the {{dated prod}} tag from the article, noting this in the edit summary. Editors should explain why they disagree with the proposed deletion in the edit summary or in article's talk page. 2) Contested deletions: If anyone, including the article's creator, removes a {{prod}} tag from an article for any reason, do not put it back, except when the removal is clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article). (The bolding is mine).

I sort of agree with davidwr, as I wouldn't have replaced the PROD tags (as evidenced by my creation of an AfD). However, as it looks like this editor wasn't so much against the deletion of the articles but was on a vendatta against Qworty, I think it's okay to replace the tags. If the editor then removes them again in an appropriate manner, someone can take it to AfD if they are so inclined. Tan | 39 17:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, to get hypertechnical, if I'm behaving like a child and I know you want to delete X, I may object to deleting X at any time in the future simply because I know you want to delete X. Ergo, my deprodding is a legitimate deprod because I am objecting to the deletion of X. Editors who are disruptive like this/behaving like children need to be sent to time-out, but in this case, their individual edits qualify as legitimate, even if as a whole they indicate a disruptive editor. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Wafulz: True, but the remedy is not to undo the prod, the remedy is to take it to the "we have a disruptive editor" sanctioning process. Besides, it's simply more efficient to replace the deleted PRODs with AfDs and let the AfDs run their course. If the original PROD was legit and was likely to have no article-related opposition, it will probably get WP:SNOWballed as a speedy-close/delete or at worst, get deleted after 5 days. Taking the editor to task through the normal editor-dispute process will hopefully deter or, by blocks or other sanctions, prevent, similar happenings in the future. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're right, at least in that you definitely got hypertechnical. :-) I think we can consider this incident closed. Tan | 39 17:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think we can. What I didn't want to do is set a precedent where you can stalk someone around and remove valid PROD tags, thus causing wasted time for other people. All the PRODs I restored were pretty much uncontroversial (one was probably a speedy), and I didn't restore the one I think had a chance at AfD, so we're all good, I think. Black Kite 17:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I see this is resolved now, but I was invited to chime in. One of the articles I prodded recently, Zena Timber, was deprodded by Enchantress after a {{prod2}} by Qworty. Knowing full well that I am not an unreliable editor, I suspected this must have been a problem with Qworty, but I didn't have time to look into it this morning, although I did revert one other deprodding and had planned to do the rest. I haven't looked into the situation so I don't know if removing Qworty's edits was justified, but obviously Enchantress should have reverted only Qworty's edits. Qworty's chiming in on otherwise legitimate prods doesn't invalidate the original prod. Katr67 (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll additionally chime in, one of the articles I prodded recently, Eric J. Wilson was prod2ed by Qworty which then was reverted by enchantress. In this case, qworty's edits were also (I think) worthwhile (he prod2ed, COId and asked for citations on the article) and Enchantress reverted them all with the text 'unreliable proponent'. I don't really care either way, seeing as the original prod is set to go off tomorrow night which'll take all of this with it. Shoopdawhoop-lazor (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

An interesting addition to this apparently-not-yet-resolved event. Tan | 39 03:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Disseminate99 spamming?

Could somebody else take a look at Disseminate99 (talk · contribs)'s contributions. All of their edits have been to add links to the Trojan condoms website to various external links sections. I don't see that the links add anything to the articles that isn't already there, but I wanted another look by other people before I addressed Disseminate99 on the matter. Corvus cornix_talk 18:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

And a none-too-subtle user ID, at that. If he does it again, block him. Baseball Bugs 19:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Editor deleting reliable sources

As much as I understand PetraSchelm's attempts to galvanise the project actively against child-abuse, and the emotional strain that such a self-imposed task must bring about, I cannot support her recent removal of reliable sources, even when pub info was in the source or readily available from scientific databases. The justification for this string of edits appears to have been the discovery of a Pedophile-supported website that hosts copies of scientific papers. She claims that this website is not a reliable source, and in removing the entire source, fails to understand that in most cases their online copy is simply a backup to already reproduced or easily retrievable pub info that would suffice on its own. This has lead to the loss of a number of independent and well-researched sources, none of which I see as supporting the ethos of the website in question.

It would be better - instead of blanking the source without warning, to simply remove the link from the reference, if one objects to it. I do not want to incite any kind of kneejerk reaction against this person, but she does need putting right in this instance.

See E.g.. The entire pub info is reproduced. Even though the paper itself (available in databases) supports the text, she removes the whole lot because someone has backed it up with a questionable link. forestPIG 20:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

ipce--International Pedophile Child Emancipation--is not a reliable source. It's a website hosted with no known author, and we have no way of knowing if anything hosted by ipce is complete/unaltered etc. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of editors deleting ipce, not merely Petra. I think John Nevard's user page provides the clue as to why now, this site is best described as fringe and IMHO admins would do well not to get involved in this content dispute about fringe RS acceptability in the pedophile articles. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

See my comments below regarding low-quality websites reproducing material that has appeared elsewhere as a cite-able publication. Perhaps IPCE material can be treated the same way: If it reprints something from the American Journal of Pediatrics or even from a completed Ph.D. dissertation, let it stand, if it's spouting nonsense that would never be printed by a reliable publication, then don't. Treat each citation on its own merits. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This begs a larger question: What to do when editors use a secondary source which cherry-picks primary sources which support its point of view, particularly when the primary source is a paid-subscription, print-only, or otherwise not-available-to-everyone source. In other words, if I source "Hitler allowed 3 million Jews to live" from a Neo-Nazi web site's reprint of a peer-reviewed print-only scientific journal from 1953, should I leave the source and the link, leave only a reference to the hard-to-find printed paper, or eliminate the source altogether and tag the text as {{fact}}, leaving it up to the next editor to delete it entirely? As much as I don't want to send traffic to neo-Nazi sites, having an online copy is better than having only a paper reference.

Now, if the paper in question was never published in a cite-able publication, e.g. it was only published in some Neo-Nazi newsletter from 1953, then by all means can it. The same goes for pedophile manifestos that were never published in a quality publication. About the only claim those sources are useful for are passages like "Most people consider Neo-Nazism to be an offront to society but at least one group from 1953 disagrees. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I invoke Godwin's Law. Please continue without further Nazi/Hitler comparisons. Thank you. CharonX/talk 22:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read Godwin's Law; it is a mere statement of fact that compels nothing. And as the article says, "The rule does not make any statement whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate"; given that the concrete examples behind this are to pedophile sights, referring to neo-Nazis might actually less hyperbolic than the original.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That is not my concern. Even though the articles are in fact exact copies of independent work, I am concerned by the fact that you extend this observation to delete the reliable book or journal refs that form the core of these sources. This is not acceptable behaviour, and I suggest that you read up on our policies if you wish to continue in this way. forestPIG 20:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Davidwr brings up very good points. And I did indeed notice that there were 138 links to ipce by reading John Nevard's userpage. I think ipce should be on a blacklist, to keep these links from creeping back in (and to get rid of the 100+ that are linked from talkpages). We're not a linkfarm to boost ipce's Google stats, and there's never any reason to cite it; anything published elsewhere can be cited from elsewhere. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

PetraSchelm, could you please pay a bit closer attention to the arguments of myself and David above. I am not asking you to leave links to the offensive site. I am asking you to cease in blanking the whole independent pub info because a copy is hosted on an offensive site. And where the pub info is not reproduced, yet readily available, you should be prepared to put in that little extra bit of work to improve the source. forestPIG 20:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think wikilawyering will get you very far, ForestPig, whose admin sock are you anyway (email me privately if you like). Thanks, SqueakBox 20:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If the sources are reliable sources, then there is no need to link to an iffy website that hosts them. There should be original links available. Corvus cornix_talk 20:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Or a book/journal ref. This is what PetraSchelm has actually been deleting. forestPIG 20:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

keeping the original reference to the book/journal is no sin. Sure it makes it more difficult to a) check the source yourself for more research, or b) figure out if it is used appropriately, but I'd rather not link to polemic sites (of any stripe) if we can avoid it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The letters IPCE stand for "International Pedophile and Child Emancipation" - it is the successor organization to the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE). Among the people who founded both organizations is Tom O'Carroll, convicted in the UK of a couple pedophilia-related offenses and child pornography.

Nothing on the IPCE website can be considered a trustworthy source, since its purpose is activism and has no independent fact-checking oversight, there is no way to know if anything posted their is true or not.

If someone can find them, the sources quoted on IPCE might be reliable as originally published. They would need to be located and vetted on their own merits, and unless someone has done that, they can't be used either. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't discount a source just because its purpose is activism. Political web sites, lobbying web sites, womens- and childrens-issues-advocacy web sites, and many others are inherently activist, but I would not summarily discount the material on them just because they are activist and POV-pushing web sites. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between activism and fringe. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If the standard of extra scrutiny is a site whose "purpose is activism and has no independent fact-checking oversight" that would apply to a lot of non-fringe sources. In fact, most activist web sites run by small- and medium-sized organizations would fail this test because we can't know if they have an independent fact-checker. We can probably trust big-and-popular sites because if they screw up it will be in tomorrow's newspapers. If on the other hand the standard of extra scrutiny is "fringe sites" then we get into wikidebates over where the exact border between "fringe", "nearly fringe," "2 steps away from fringe," and "not fringe" are, and that's a debate that will just waste everyone's time.

A reasonable measure is "Does this site claim to have fact-checking and is this claim credible? If not, how likely is it their reputation will be hurt if they screw up and misprint something, and do they even care about their reputation?" The more fringe a site is, the less of a reputation they have to be damaged, and therefore the less external motivation they have to get it right and the greater scrutiny they deserve. It's a sliding scale that is best decided by the editors of the individual articles where the citation is made, not on a Wiki-wide basis. I suspect articles on controversial issues tend to have a lot of watchlist-ers, so such a discussion won't want for lack of participation. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The thing about ipce is that it's run/maintained by only one person, according to ipce, who has not disclosed his identity. So it's officially maintained by Anonymous, and has all the credibility of Anonymous, who is in no way accountable. -PetraSchelm (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In this case, not just fringe, but extreme fringe. The difference is the reliability of the particular activists; what are their qualifications, are they experts, are they otherwise notable, are they published elsewhere, what is the reputation of their organization, etc... ? In the case of IPCE, the founders include convicted criminals, some of whom have advocated sex with children and distributed child pornography. So, no, don't discount them just because they're activists. Discount them because they are not reliable. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This can be dangerous: There are unreliable activists who are not on the fringe. As a hypothetical, if I were a woman's rights activist from 1972 advocating for abortion rights, but I routinely got sloppy when copying academic work into my newsletter, then I'm unreliable. On the other hand, if I'm a Neo-Nazi and I am meticulously accurate in reproducing others' academic works, then I'm reliable even though I'm extreme fringe. I'd be more likely to trust the reprinted works of the latter than the former. When it comes to original material of course, the Neo-Nazi's garbage-spew would go straight to the trash-can where it belongs. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll jump in as a neutral party. This seems to be a case where the correct procedure is to change the citations to reference the original scientific research papers directly. We ARE allowed to reference offline sources as long as they can be accessed somehow. The correct procedure is to change all the citations thus. Squeakbox, I do not see any 'wikilawyering' in ForestPig's contributions and if you have credible evidence he is an alternate admin account attempting to avoid scrutiny then I suggest you bring this up at the appropiate channel rather than making a wild accusation - WP:AGF applies in the absence. Exxolon (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• ForestPig states on his userpage that he operates "a moderately active admin account" and that this is his alternate account for "controversial articles." -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course we must verify that the papers are actually genuine and not forgeries hosted by the questionable site to further it's agenda that goes without saying. Exxolon (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, we should hold these sites to the same verification standards as we do other non-reliable sites. For example, if DanRatherFanclub.blogspot.com reprinted one of Dan Rather's early newspaper articles, and someone cites it, it deserves the same scrutiny as if www.AdolfHitlerFanClub.blogspot.com reprinted one of Hitler's lesser-known works and someone cites it. No more, no less. WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:YOUSOUNDLIKEAGOODGUY are not good reasons to hold someone to a higher standard or let someone off with a free pass. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement, the original-source citations should stay even if they are not in an easily-accessible form. There is a difference of opinion over whether online copies which are on questionable sites should be allowed to remain. On one hand, an online copy makes it easy to check the reference to make sure it actually backs up the claim. On the other hand, it can allow Misplaced Pages to turn into a link-farm to www.adolfhitleristhecoolest.com. I recommend allowing these types of links but only as a last resort, if there is not another free-and-easily-accessible copy. One solution is to track down the original source, contact the publisher, and 1) ask permission to host it on your personal site or on Wikimedia Commons and link from there, and 2) alert him to the fact that the material is being used on the questionable site. Typically the publisher will either say "okay" or he will send a DMCA request to the questionable site. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This, and Jack-A-Roe sound the most sensible opinions so far. I am able to verify many sources, as I have access to some databases. I am sure that many other users do too. forestPIG 21:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

On an unrelated matter, if a source like www.AdolfHitlerFanClub is KNOWN to frequently mis-copy cite-able material or edit them in a slanted way and misrepresent them as an unedited version, then it's grounds to blacklist that particular site as a source for Misplaced Pages article references. However, that should be taken up on a site-by-site basis. If anyone is making such a claim about IPCE, then please open a separate discussion, call it "Move to blacklist IPCE as a fraudulent source" or something like that. Have your evidence ready before you start, and make sure the fraud is wholesale or at least significant enough to be a problem. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point, but as you wrote, let's keep that question out of this thread. Whether or not IPCE is blackllisted, it still can't be used as a WP:V source. The only thing IPCE can be used to support is statements about its own opinions, not any facts or sources that require independent verification. This needs to be clearly decided in this thread so it doesn't come up again, because the purpose of that website is pedophile activism - its use in footnotes on Misplaced Pages undermines that dependable accuracy of our articles. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"Can't be used as a WP:V source" is the crux of the discussion, and there isn't a consensus yet. Let me explain. If IPCE reproduced an article from George W. Bush's high school newspaper about him, and that article wasn't found anywhere else on the Internet, I would have no problem including a link to it if I needed to. However, I would include the paper-citation information as well and would probably ask someone who had access to check his school newspaper's printed archives to verify the copy was accurate, just as I would if the same newspaper article showed up at www.DubyaIsTheCoolest.blogger.com. Some editors in this discussion disagree with me: They say I should limit myself to just the paper citation and not include the hyperlink. That is the question that is still on the table. I suspect we will not resolve it globally, and frankly, I think it should not be resolved globally but rather by the editors of George W. Bush or whatever article it is we are talking about. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, IPCE may be a good starting point for some research in this area (this does not mean that I endorse their opinions, but just their rather thorough coverage of the topics). They do appear to reproduce accurate copies of scientific and sociological works, and one imagines that this is probably important for a group who have all the dignity of campaigning pedophiles. If people find the EL offensive, I am not opposed to having it removed. Editors should always cite the journal/book/publisher anyway. forestPIG 21:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the question that's being missed here - has anyone looked at the print source to verify that the website is reproducing it faithfully? If not, since the website is of unknown quality, it shouldn't be used as a reference yet. No harm in putting that statement it references back once someone has been able to verify that the actual source supports it. Shell 23:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds fair, but if and only if the same standards are applied to all web sites of similar quality. I would put almost all blogs in that category. If www.ilovemykittycat.blogging.com had an excert from "How To Raise Cats, by Ima Catlover, (c)1990" that would be just as untrusted. Google Book Search is good but only if the book in question is in their database and the page in question is publicly available. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No text at all was removed--fact tags were placed after the ipce links were removed. -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite. This should apply to at least 3 "believe the children" sites frequently quoted in satanic ritual abuse- and false memory-related articles. The bias of the site-owner is clear, and the question of whether quoted articles are edited is open. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Which sites? I don't edit any of those articles, but I'll take a look. -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The question that needs to be asked is, "does the IPCE website have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?" If so, then it's a reliable source; if not, not. I'm not averse to the idea of providing "convenience links" to third-party online copies of published documents which the publisher has not made available online (assuming there are no copyright concerns) but I'm convinced that we should not approve the practice in principle, only on a case-by-case basis, and taking particular care when the third-party is strongly partisan or advocating for a minority, fringe or extreme point of view. In any case, the citation should always be made to the original publisher, not to any mirror site. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 04:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I also believe that removing the whole reference because of a link cannot be justified because someone may not have looked at a reiable copy. How do we know that the referee has not looked at a reliable copy, and is not just giving the online copy for informational purposes? Anyways, if PetraSchelm does not have the original source, a civil way of settling the issue would be to contact another editor, not to go removing sources, because her knowledge or access to databases is lacking in that area. forestPIG 08:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

UserTalk:BanditoLoco

I hope this is the right page to comment on this, but anyway User talk:BanditoLoco has many intresting things to say. He requests the removal of wikipedia editors or maybe even admins(i dont know which) and most intresting is he says he has alot of accounts which means sock puppets, . Any comments? --PandaSaver (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Just one. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Abtract, still stalking at Aladdin (disambiguation)

I believe there was a thread on User:Abtract earlier here. Well, he is still harassing me, ergo edit warring, at the Aladdin dab (note this has been mentioned here). Any assistance would be great. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it would. Abtract (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just want to note, the earlier thread is available above. -- ] (] · ]) 20:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Update: Abtract has been blocked for 48 hours for edit warring. -- ] (] · ]) 01:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Help with a Troll

User:WadeKeller2012 insists that I keep personally attacking him, and leaves messages on my talk page informing me to be civil or that I will banned for it. He also called edits of mine vandalism when I was in fact just correcting a link to avoid a redirect. He has also trolled other user, see here and here, after they left him notices to be civil himself. Help would be greatly appreciated. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 20:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone made mention of the fact the user name (minus the 2012) is identical to Wade Keller, of Pro Wrestling Torch fame? Might this be an issue that needs to be addressed at WP:UAA? Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The user is claiming to be Wade Keller, or at least his comment "Especially since I covered them in editions of The Torch Newsletter", here imply that he is Wade Keller. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 20:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith here, has this been verified through an OTRS request? From my (rather mundane) knowledge of the username policy, if someone is claiming to be a famous figure, or a representative of that same figure, that has to be verified first for WP:BLP reasons. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that (or much else to do with username policy), so I would assume "no". ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 20:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I was slight off, here's the policy for usernames that are identical to real names. Apparently an OTRS request is only needed if the account is blocked. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, no harm, no foul. In any case, the user has responded to me posting this thread this on my talk page. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 21:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's been blocked as he was the "latest in a string of impersonation accounts" according to the blocking admin. Apologies for wasting space! ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 21:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

User:TinucherianBot malfunctioning, and not supervised

I have temporarily blocked TinucherianBot (talk · contribs) (15 min). The bot was approved for the following function:

"To tag talk pages with {{WP India}} banner for assessment purposes, and if the category is a stub category with a class rating of Stub (Purpose:WikiProject India. See related discussion here... I am from the Assessment Team of WikiProject India)."

However, it is tagging articles unrelated to WP India. Despite my repeated request to stop the bot until the issues have been solved, the bot had been running, apparently unsupervised. I had to clean up 50+ mistagged articles.

Examples:

• Pola Uddin, Baroness Uddin, a British-Bangladeshi politician.
• Rudra Mohammad Shahidullah, a Bangladeshi poet.

This is not the first time the bot malfunctioned. I had reported the bot malfunction yesterday to the bot operator (see User_talk:TinucherianBot#Bot_malfunction). I have again repeatedly requested the bot operator to stop the bot till these issues are fixed (see User_talk:TinucherianBot#Miscategorization.2C_again). I'm getting no response from the bot operator at this moment, so I've blocked the bot temporarily for 15 minutes. If I don't get any further response after this block expires, I'll block it for longer.

I put the block up for review here by other admins. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: The bot is still running unsupervised at this moment, so I've blocked it for now, till I hear from the bot operator. --Ragib (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I.R.

Just a few minutes ago I received a personal threat from someone claiming to be the singer I.R. (whose page is currently under deletion discussion) regarding the deletion of an album image he uploaded. He left the following comment on my talk page (diff):

I would like ti adress of the person/administrator whom added the template of deletion for Image:Growing Up In : The N.Y.C.]]. The image is copyrighted by my record label Atomix Productions and is held copyrighted laws by me I.R.. I will remove the template and it shall not be added, its a stricit violation to our policy:

paragraph 7: any information added about our musicians shall stay, may be edited by shall not be deleted as code 412367 states "Editing shalt not be done unless the musician decided to do so."

if this template is shown again in Image:Growing Up In : The N.Y.C.jpg Image:Puakenisweet.jpg your account will be deleted.

I don't know what to do here. I have already dropped the user a note letting him know that conflict of interest is frowned upon (someone else already told him that but he won't listen), and that his images serve no purpose since they're for non-notable albums. I don't know what else to do though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 21:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Riiight. "Editing shalt not be done"? I mean, seriously? Why don't you ask him to point you to this "policy", such as in the label website? While you're at it, you may want to let him know that

If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.

You know, in case he missed it at the bottom of every single edit window on Misplaced Pages ;) A link to Misplaced Pages:Contact us/Article problem may always be in order. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, our policies trump his... EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think the GFDL trumps both, and the GFDL says Ivan is full of it. If he's really the copyright holder, then he has already released the image in question under the GFDL and has forfeited a number of legal rights regarding the intellectual property. If he's not the copyright holder, then the image is a copyvio and deletion is the appropriate response. Either way, I think the proper response is to ignore him, warn him if he doesn't stop, and if he still doesn't stop then report him here to have him blocked.

My prediction: He'll get exasperated when all of "his" articles and images get snowball-deleted, and go back to MySpace. --22:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

He's 14 years old, FWIW. Corvus cornix_talk 22:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the article as an A7, but the fact it included his DoB was disconcerting. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

He also apparently doesn't really understand copyright, since his ripoff at Image:EniSweet.jpg is a copyvio of the original image. Corvus cornix_talk 22:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I just snowballed the last of the articles. The above comments are ridiculous attempts at sounding legal, nothing else. WBOSITG has warned - we'll see what happens. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this looks to be related to this AFD. // Chris 03:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

A personal threat? Are you kidding me? You must be kidding me... --Badger Drink (talk) 04:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

81.110.106.169 (talk · contribs · count) Edit warring on many articles, reported legitimate editor to AIV four times, leaving irrelevant warnings on my talk page, etc. Enigma 21:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Report him to WP:AIV for fast action. Baseball Bugs 22:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

User does not really fit the "AIV" type, as he is not a clear vandal. I mean there have been some constructive edits mixed in there, or at least some attempts at being constructive. Tiptoety 22:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have given the user 24h block for edit warring Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

POINTY article creation

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Adalberto Hilário Ferreira Neto is a deletion debate over some Brazilian soccer players. Since finding that other users weren't willing to dismiss WP:ATHLETE here, User:EconomistBR has taken off on a spree of creating articles that they believe should be deleted. I was hoping someone else can weigh in on this; perhaps I'm wrong, and this isn't inappropriate behavior, and if I'm right, I think I have no chance of successfully communicating with EconomistBR.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that's wrong, I accepted defeat already. I created 4 articles about soccer players just to show in practice what WP:ATHLETE is. The articles about non-notable soccer players are sourced, reflect nothing but the truth and meet WP:ATHLETE.

I didn't disrupt Misplaced Pages doing that since there over 10,000 articles just like the 4 ones I created, but Prosfilaes is for some reason not worried about them.

Can't I create articles about soccer players? If I can't, no problem, I will stop.

I want to create 2 more articles, can I do that?⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 22:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No comment on the merits, but Creating articles to demonstrate a policy seems to be pretty much exactly what WP:POINT cautions against, isn't it? UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 22:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't violate WP:POINT because I was not disruptive. How can the act of creating 4 articles be disruptive?⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 23:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

AFD is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. No one's "won" or "lost" anything. shoy 22:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFC is that way > Gwen Gale (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

FSFS (talk · contribs)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Girl Get it has confirmed that FSFS is a sockpuppet of banned user Brexx (talk · contribs). Can an available admin issue the appropriate block whenever possible, please?

Thank you! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done by Tiptoety. Avruch * 22:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Evolutionary psychology

I need some eyes over at evolutionary psychology. According to the page history, someone is using WP:SPA accounts and anonymizing proxies to delete content from the article, edit war, and avoid the 3RR. Having just seen this, it appears to have been going on for some time. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for semi-protect filed here. Viriditas (talk) 04:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Greg L

(Sorry for the length.)

For several months, User:Greg L has been on a single-minded crusade to rid Misplaced Pages of a standard unit convention that he really doesn't like, by pushing a rule into the Manual of Style without consensus. The issue has been disputed off and on for about 3 years now, but his intrusion has derailed any hope of a peaceable solution.

Incivility

He constantly ridicules and belittles the opinions of anyone who disagrees with him, and doesn't seem to think there's anything wrong with this ( 'That’s “ridicule” of certain arguments, not a “personal attack”. No whining.' ) His tone is very often personally-targeted, combative and mocking:

More inside the yellow box:

...and you can find more in the talk page archives and other related pages. He's been called out on this many times, but continues unabated. Where do we draw the line for "gross incivility"?

Edit warring

His objective is to get his preferred style "turned into a policy as fast as the process will allow." As such, he repeatedly re-adds his text to the Manual of Style, despite a number of other editors opposing the changes and removing them. When they put {{disputed}} tags on the section, he removes them. He's violated 3RR at least once during these wars.

Vote stacking

He repeatedly claims that "his side" has "won" consensus through majority rule (like a 7:5 vote when dozens of people have expressed opinions in the debate), proposes votes regularly, and ridicules the notion that we don't make decisions this way.

After creating a vote, he notifies a number of users about it on their talk pages, selected because they had voted "support" on a previous poll. When criticized for canvassing, he responds, "I never let myself be hemmed in by piss-poor rules."

Few of the people who oppose him are actually participating in his votes, and a number have stated that they are avoiding the discussion altogether because of the poisonous atmosphere and unproductive argument. His claimed majority includes at least one sockpuppet.

He will likely come here and complain about me "abusing my admin powers" by removing the text from the guideline page, but I believe the burden of proof for consensus rests on the person adding the content to the policy or guideline, not removing it. When a number of editors immediately add a "disputed" tag to a new section and then revert war over the placement of the tag itself, it can hardly be said to have consensus, can it? — Omegatron (talk) 05:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realise the squabble over SI or Imperial units was still going on - I remember nearly getting dragged into it back in 2005 when I started editing. Why is this not at RFC? Greg is clearly very upset, but I think a warning from someone wholly uninvolved would suffice, rather than resorting to blocks. I won't do it, as I am very biased in this dispute, having a personal preference for SI.

This dispute needs to go to RFC for concerted community input, to get a consensus on the matter. Neıl 龱 09:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

!BADSITE! hacked?

Not that this is strictly related to Misplaced Pages, but it appears that WR has been hacked - going there resulted in an attempted infection by an ActiveX downloader virus which tried to get control of my e-mail. Just a heads-up. Kelly 06:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Now I feel kind of bad about asking my friend to check to see if it worked for him. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

ActiveX is IE only isnt it? Viridae 07:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it can work in firefox, however, not running windows, I'm not sure. SQL 07:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Since linking to this site now creates a security danger for the 80% of the world using MSIE, can a smarter admin fulfill my request at Spam blacklist and blacklist the site? MBisanz 07:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Viridae 07:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let's not do that right now, given that the link is already on many, many pages (go check) and that it will cause future editing problems, etc. It's hardly likely to have any effect security-wise at this point, so I'm not really seeing a reason to add it ... - Alison 07:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That occured to me, but I would prefer the links were stripped or delinked at this point given WPs ability to reach millions. Viridae 07:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There are 409 pages with links to WR, most are archives and talk pages, so the danger of a user hitting the spam filter and not knowing how to remove the link seems to be less than the odds of some less skilled user running upon the link or it being spammed into articles. MBisanz 07:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

ONly super active page i can see on there is a current arbcom case evidence page. Viridae 07:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Owch! Well, I'm kinda glad to be on a Mac, so :) I note that the site is simply blank right now - Alison 07:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That's how it's appeared to me all day (on Mac and Windows versions of Firefox). I assumed that something was just blocking the site, because I was able to view it via an anonymous proxy site. But I think I also know less about computers than everybody else in this thread, so perhaps I'll stop speculating. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, which one of you guys did this? :-) - Alison 07:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I detect a noticeable improvement. :) And yes, it should be blacklisted, at least temporarily, given the amount of links here and the amount of people that view this site. Enigma 07:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well ok - I think it's ok to break my deep agent cover now.... I'll be accepting the vacant position on the arbcom shortly as a bit of a thank you, and look forward to ruling you people with a rod of iron, working together for a better project.... Privatemusings (talk) 07:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC) (whose poor sense of humour has a tendency to get him in trouble once in a while...... ;-) )

Can someone confirm that activeX is IE only please? I seem to remember that it is, but I would rather like to know. Viridae 07:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope Firefox isn't able to load ActiveX according to their ActiveX FAQ.¤~Persian Poet Gal 07:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

whoop! Thanks PPG. Viridae 07:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like they've caught the initial hack. Don't think any blacklist needsd to be taken.. SirFozzie (talk) 09:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it from the blacklist, as the hack has been fixed. Note it wasn't solely on Misplaced Pages Review - it was to many high traffic sites using Wordpress. Neıl 龱 09:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand and Locke Cole blocked for editwarring on WP:BOTS

I've blocked both Betacommand (talk · contribs) and Locke Cole (talk · contribs) for edit-warring on WP:BOTS. Locke Cole made 4 reverts, and Betacommand made 3 reverts. Part of a long, protracted, edit war on that page. — Werdna talk 06:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

A valid block, let's not this devolve into another Betacommand focused thread. Two blocks, for 3RR, cut 'n dry. Keegan 06:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

User: Archilles last stand

Given the behaviour of Archilles last stand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his edits to Usury, (Incident archive 425) I was bored enough to check his latest contributions. In both his latest page edit and in the edit summaries for Scott McClellan I think he's still being a dick as Neil so amusingly puts it. Can someone wield a cluestick in his direction please? --Blowdart | 07:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Blowdart - I am keeping an eye on Archilles' editing. You don't need to keep reporting this. He's just about okay, for now - the McClellan edits are brash but not really incivil. Neıl 龱 08:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Darwinek

The above user persists in editing an article on Javorník (Jeseník District) on which I have worked hard for very long time and refuses to even consider a remotely flexible approach to discussion. Several days ago, I added a new references to the article to help readers and editors alike. He keeps on removing these without explanation. I have had some experience with this person before and he often acts in league with other editors in order to avoid the 3RR. I frustrated that he keeps on bullying other editors and should be stopped at once. Thank you. Bolekpolivka (talk) 08:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards