Misplaced Pages

<undent> OK, this is what I'm not getting. I was monitoring the Muhammad al-Durrah‎ article before I ever discussed copyright violations with SlimVirgin. To make a long story short, I initially was watching BLP violations on Geert Wilders (I have added many articles to the BLP watch category, including that one), which led me to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, which led me to Pallywood, which led me to Muhammad al-Durrah. There is a nasty dispute there that I read about on this noticeboard (here), and SlimVirgin showed up there after I did, where I was attempting to offer a neutral opinion and defuse the dispute. Part of the problem at that article seems to be that the Arb decision is being used as as hammer against some editors, and not others. So, in an attempt to neutralize the situation, I ensured that all parties were made aware of the decision, and logged the notification at the Arb case page. I also logged notifications of SlimVirgin's "opponents", ChrisO and Nickhh A formal notification of the case is not a "warning", as I have been told, but just a notification. However, my edits that log that SlimVirgin was notified are being reverted and I am being threatened with blocking for logging the notification. Would somebody please investigate and get these admins, and their threats, off my talk page? Kelly 21:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, just back out now. Drop it. Let others deal with this. If you continue to tangle in this in any way on any level whether right or wrong, you could end up blocked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, Sandy, thanks. It seems I have stepped into a minefield, thanks for giving me a map. Kelly 21:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

These notifications are to be used when users are being disruptive on the page so they are aware of the arbcom sanctions that are in place. They are not given to every editor who edits a talk page, or in fact the article itself, unless there's problems. You are yet to show one diff that merits SVs inclusion on that list. I still don't believe for one second that this was just an unlucky coincidence - you were in dispute with a user, then chose to bait them by templating them for something completely unrelated. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I see Kelly posted at Talk:al-Durrah at 13:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC). SV posted at Talk:al-Durrah for the first time in ages at 19:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC). I think you need to rethink your knee-jerk assumptions. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I echo others' confusion about just what Kelly intended here; as far as I can see, Slim hasn't even edited that article recently, let alone did anything that's worthy of warning given the ArbCom sanctions. There are plenty of legitimate things to criticize Slim for (as seen in the current ongoing ArbCom case, as well as the valid concerns Kelly expressed regarding images) without bringing in something as dubious as this. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

My intention was to ensure all parties discussing the controversy there were aware of the ArbCom case. But apparently making the notifications is controversial, apologies. I would make the accusation that SlimVirgin is stalking me (as opposed to vice versa) but I am out of tinfoil. Kelly 22:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The revert war at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles seems to me a separate issue, albeit tangentially related to the image licensing dispute Kelly and Slim are in. There is no evidence Slim edited a P-I article after the arb case, and the consensus here supports that. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the templating, as unnecessary, but may I point out that the wording of the ArbCom remedy isn't "editing" but "working in the area of conflict". If defending a version that one largely wrote extensively and enthusiastically on the talkpage isn't "working in the area".... --Relata refero (disp.) 22:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)As I said, it was only a notification based on the fact that she was discussing the dispute on the article talk page, and I notified the other parties there. Could someone point me to the consensus that only disruptive editors are to be notified? I re-read that decision multiple times and didn't see that. So far as templating goes, the decision seems to encourage that. Kelly 22:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the page to end the revert war. FWIW, I think we should consider stipulating that only uninvolved admins should make the notifications. PhilKnight (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, except replace "admins" with "editors". Kelly 22:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think notifications should be restricted to uninvolved admins to minimize drama. PhilKnight (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Just to note that Rlevse edited through protection to revert the logging. (Possibly on an inaccurate reading of the remedy, as I note above.) Also, I understand any editor can make the notification, but only uninvolved admins can block, and changing that would require a request for modification to be submitted to ArbCom. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Relata refero, yes I guess it would. PhilKnight (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Why edit directly when you can have your very own meatpuppets do it for you? --Dragon695 (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you read wp:sarcasm is really helpful? PhilKnight (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The tagging of images (ie, licensing) is a separate issue. Also, Kelly, you are involved in this, and the remedy says P-I "range of articles". You're using the P-I case to get at Slim. And if I'm not mistaken, admins should normally give arbcom warnings, your involvement in the issue clearly taints this. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)OK, please read the above. I was involved in the particular P/I article before she was (at least in the recent time frame). I notified all major parties in that dispute, including her. The fact that I also found her copyright violations during a similar time frame is coincidence. SlimVirgin is the person who made this a personal dispute, not me - so why am I getting all the negative publicity? Neat trick - allege fake harassment and get a free pass on everything else. Kelly 22:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You're mistaken. Any user can give a warning, the remedy uses the passive. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, but exactly which part of the remedy are you talking about, pls quote it. Regardless, Kelly is stretching the bounds of it and using the arbcase to get at Slim. The arbcase clearly refers to a "range of articles", not image tagging. In fact, I can't recall any arbcase that included image tagging. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"...the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision.." Nothing about adminship. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know for sure who Dragon695 comment is directed to, but I can't recall ever being involved with Slim or Kelly before and I have a lot of experience with arb cases, and I have to agree it's best to leave the arb warnings to admins, and even if editors make them, they should be uninvolved and Kelly is clearly involved and at the center of this. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Without reference to the statement about Kelly, which I have no opinion on except that the timing does not add up, I'd like to point out that ArbCom did not appear to intend the notification be left to admins alone, and doing so would severely hinder enforcement in difficult areas such as AA and EE. --22:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Even given that, the warner should be uninvolved and Kelly is not uninvolved and that clearly taints the warning, and in my opinon invalidates it, esp when considered in light of the scope of the arb ruling. Also, making a talk post is no justification for being added to an arbcase warning list. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "warning", but a simple notification of the decision. I'm really not seeing the problem in logging that a particular user has been notified of the decision. Kelly 22:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Putting someone on an arbcom warning list (notification list or whatever you want to call it) is a warning and makes them subject to those. Plus, you're involved and shouldn't have done it anyway. Plus, you're stretching the scope of case beyond all reasonable bounds. Image tagging is not part of case and talking on talk pages is not disruptive, at least no in the issue at hand. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom ruling specifically defines "involved" as relating to editing in the area of the dispute, not the interpretation you are giving it. This is also for good reason, to prevent problem users from claiming that uninvolved editors or adminstrators are stalking them, an accusation that is common in areas subject to such discretionary sanctions. --Relata refero (disp.) 00:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. Apparently I misunderstood the ArbCom decision, and I see that others are being added at will to that list for reasons I don't understand, but whatever. SlimVirgin is not allowed to be added to that list. I don't know why you're saying I am "involved" because I am not, I went to that article to try to help by offering an uninvolved opinion, apparently that simple action makes me involved. To conflate this issue with totally unrelated copyright violations by SlimVirgin is dumb, I think, but all right. I'll trust other editors to handle this. Kelly 23:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of completeness, Kelly today asked for a BLP that I recently semi-protected to be unprotected. He has also asked Tim Vickers who endorsed the semi-protection to explain why. This is clearly no longer about images, if it ever was. He has also removed warnings from his talk page, so I'll link to them here in case they matter later. SlimVirgin 00:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the fuss is about here. I see nothing that requires an administrator to be "uninvolved" for the purposes of notifying editors about a general sanctions regime. Moreschi, Fut.Perf. and I are heavily "involved" in the general area of Balkans articles (since we monitor them regularly, work with editors to resolve problems and deal with the nationalist silliness that regularly arises there). Does this mean that we are not allowed to notify editors or block them, assuming that we are not engaged in conflict with them? Some clarification would be helpful here since the log of notifications, blocks and bans is very long already and getting longer by the week... -- ChrisO (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

RV, it wasn't about you, sorry if it gave you that impression. --Dragon695 (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

About General sanctions notifications

Ok, this definitely requires some clarification, probably from the Arbs. The template itself very clearly states that "This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions." and later that "This notice is only effective if given by an administrator ". To me this means it is not at all a warning given for disruption, but merely a notification, but one which can only be given by an admin. If this was not the intent, and it really is a warning that only an uninvolved admin can give, then (a) the template should be changed to reflect that intention and (b) several of the recent logs by ChrisO, a heavily involved admin who has been edit warring on these article he "notified" users on, and did so in a one-sided fashion, should be immediately removed; just like SV's notification has been removed. Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as official notice of ArbCom sanctions goes, my understanding is that to actually template someone and log it at the case page, is something that should only be done by uninvolved administrators. The exact wording at the P-I case may not put it like that, but it's pretty much standard procedure at other similar cases such as Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren and Misplaced Pages:General sanctions. Otherwise pretty much any editor could use these templates and case-logging as a "club" to beat up opponents. It's still fine to post casual reminders about an ArbCom case, but official warnings should be done only by uninvolved administrators. For more, see WP:UNINVOLVED. Administrators dealing in an area of dispute as administrators are not therefore "involved" in the dispute. --Elonka 02:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, would you please undo all of ChrisO's recent logs related to his edit war at Muhammad al-Durrah, and sternly warn him about abusing his admin privileges in a content dispute. Canadian Monkey (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• ChrisO, I don't know the circumstances here, but to answer your question: you're uninvolved if you have not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing provisions of a decision is not considered participation in a dispute. OK? Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, the circumstances here are that ChrisO is a heavily involved edtor on this page. He has edit warred on it (some recent examples - , , , ,) and at the same time, warned all those of the opposing viewpoint on the artcile, and logged that warning on the ArbCom enforcement page, while claiming he is just "notifying" them of the case. Needless to say, he did not similarly "notify" his fellow edit-warriors who held a POV simialr to him. In light of Elonka's comments above, this seems like a very inappropriate abuse of admin power. If that is the case, his logs need to be undone, and he should be warned about this behaviour. Canadian Monkey (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting pretty far off-topic, but I did look into ChrisO's efforts here. On the one hand, he is definitely an involved editor, so should be cautious about using admin tools in the dispute at the Muhammad al-Durrah article. Then again, I think he was acting in good faith, as the rules at the P-I case page are indeed ambiguous about who can or can't log cautions there. I would recommend that ChrisO not add any other names to the page, but instead alert other uninvolved administrators about the issues, so that they can make that determination. As for the three editors that ChrisO added, I looked into their contribs, and I agree that a caution was appropriate for all of them. So even though ChrisO may not have been the right person to make the warning, the log should stay, since even if he removed it, another uninvolved admin, such as myself, would reasonably just add it right back. --Elonka 05:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I have absolutely no intention of using admin tools in that dispute, since I'm clearly involved. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's the best solution. About the ambiguity in the term "warning/notification": Does it mean: "I just want to make sure you are aware there's that rule in place", or does it mean: "I want to make sure you are aware there's that rule in place, and you are currently running the risk of having it applied to you, the way you've been acting"? I personally find that the second type of message is a lot more helpful, because the first type leaves the addressee confused whether their behaviour has been coming across as disruptive or not, and whether or not they are expected to change it. It's also much more in line with how "warnings" are used elsewhere. We don't go round telling people: "Hey, you can't make more than three reverts in a day", unless they are actually revert-warring. But if these notifications are supposed to be of the "warning" type, the person who makes them should be competent to make them. That doesn't necessarily mean they need to be the same uninvolved admin that might also carry out the sanction, not even that they need to be an admin, but it should only be done by experienced editors who can truthfully claim they have an objective, neutral judgment of the situation and know very well in what circumstances these sanctions are likely to actually happen. So, not usually a direct opponent in a dispute, for instance. I've given WP:ARBMAC-related warnings myself in some cases where I was "involved" and knew I wouldn't be allowed to carry them out myself – but then, I know very well that even in such situations my opinions carry some weight in that field and that if I ask for sanctions, it's more likely than not they will happen, so I thought the warning was fair.

In any case I'm opposed to having warnings themselves logged at the Arbcom pages as if they were already a kind of sanction. It's a "list of blocks and bans", not a "list of notifications, blocks and bans". However, if people want to log these, then of course the criterion for who should warn and when should be a lot stricter: only an independent admin and definitely only where actual disruption has already occurred. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say this makes a lot of sense - its pretty much what I was pointing out earlier - and should be clearly set out as the customary approach in an essay somewhere, perhaps. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Some clarification. Notifications are give to new editors who won't be aware of the relevant case. They are also give to old-time editors who may not be aware of the case. They are never given to old-time editors who are certainly aware of the case. Notification does not mean you have done anything wrong, and hence the logging of the notifications should be done using neutral wording. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Logging the notifications seems a bit like overkill, but I supposed it is needed to ensure people are aware. Is there a time limit though? It would seem a bit harsh if someone hadn't edited the topic area for a year or more, but had a year-old notification waved at them, followed by a block. About notifications in general, I think this is one area where a personal note can help more than a templated message. Overall, though, it seems like the system is slowly evolving into a more structured version of what already exists - a series of warnings and then a block. I suspect that it is the structure and formality, rather than anything new and exciting, that is helping these processes calm certain areas down. That and people seeing that they can get a fair deal - that is absolutely crucial. If people think they won't be treated fairly, they are more likely to react badly. Carcharoth (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • What I said was not quite what I wanted to say - so I'll restate and clarify what I meant here.
    • Moreschi has summarised what a notification is - making someone aware of the decision/'regime' with neutral wording. A warning is where the user is told something like "you are currently running the risk of having it applied to you because...." - obviously, sometimes both are combined.
    • Involved administrators should from now on not give any further warnings (of course, they strictly cannot give sanctions) - they should bring it to the attention of the appropriate administrators' noticeboard so an uninvolved admin takes any necessary formal action. This is a step that must be taken if you've been editing in that area so that the warnings are taken seriously in the way in which they were intended (when this was added as a provision in the remedy). The purpose of this process is to ensure impartiality and to avoid the chilling effect, among other adverse effects. Admins should be aware of their abilities, feelings, passions, agendas etc. to avoid making any ill-considered actions that (even potentially) do not comply with this purpose - where an admin gives a warning, particularly where they are involved, it is interpreted very differently from if it is given by any other uninvolved user. Gaming the system is not on. On the other hand, notifications by any user is ok - but they must be worded appropriately, particularly if you're an involved admin.
    • However, I'm suggesting the problems in this area have gone on long enough - an uninvolved administrator should investigate and give warnings to those editors who are have recently not complied with the principles of the decision, while notifying all other involved editors of the decision. This way, ALL editors editing in the area have absolutely no excuse for 'not being notified or warned by an uninvolved admin'. These should replace the logging of formal warnings or notifications by involved administrators and would clear up a lot of the issues. This applies to all warnings or notifications that were made during or after an administrator became involved in a dispute - see above where I have defined what an uninvolved admin is. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
      • At the risk of beating a dead horse, I'd still maintain that pure "notifications" in your terminology (i.e. without the "your actions are disruptive!" part) are quite useless, and I doubt it was the Arbcom's intention to make us use those. The pure "notification" just boils down to saying "it is forbidden to be disruptive". Great. Everybody knows that anyway. But what counts as disruptive? The definitions of disruption are so vague that it's perfectly possible for a user to be disruptive and never become aware that they are being perceived as such. In fact, barring trolls and vandals, we should assume nobody is disruptive intentionally. So, being aware of the rule as such, in the abstract, won't help. "You can be blocked if you are disruptive" is useless. It only becomes meaningful if it's coupled with a concrete message "... and you will be blocked if you continue to do XYZ". Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Questions and comments about images

The status on a number of disputed uploads hinges on whether People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals or Animal Liberation Front release all their images to the public domain. I see no confirmation on either site that they actually do, and I did find a PETA statement that strongly implies they do not. I also found a statement from ALF that said some (but not all) of their site's images are fair use reproductions, and no indication which images they own and which they do not.

OTRS has been filed for quite a few of these, but the documentation has been done in a manner that raises concerns. For instance, Image:Marshalsea-plaque-December2007.jpg is an obvious copyright violation. Yet SV asserts the image is under a Creative Commons Attribution licence by e-mail. E-mail to permissions. That doesn't explicitly say whether OTRS has been filed or not. The photograph may be copyleft, but the plaque it depicts is not. And the Flickr source link goes directly to the image file rather than to the hosting page that would specify the license.

Another example is Image:KeithMann1969.jpg, which has a clear OTRS ticket statement. Yet the accompanying text is contradictory. The photograph was shot in 1969 before the Animal Liberation Front existed and the public domain argument is Released into the public domain, as are all images originally owned by the Animal Liberation Front. Obviously the Animal Liberation Front cannot be the original owner of this photograph. Although OTRS is generally trustworthy, this raises an eyebrow--particularly so since the previous example demonstrates a weak understanding of derivative work.

Third example: Image:JerryVlasak.jpg. The uploader claims this is public domain, but the source website clearly places a copyright mark and the words all rights reserved on its website.

Fourth example: Image:DavidMertz1.jpg. Simultaneously claims PD and fair use. Assertion of PD release is unverified, and no indication that OTRS has been filed.

Fifth example: Image:GushKatif1.jpg. False license claim. Site clearly declares full copyright.

Sixth example: Image:PABombeat3.jpg. PD rationale is invalid. From an old Toshiba catalogue; catalogue out of print, model no longer made. No copyright issues. None of these factors amount to an expiration of copyright or a public domain release.

I could go on, but this is enough to convey the point: there are weaknesses in the rationales for these uploads, and there are enough weaknesses of enough different varieties over a long enough period of time to cast a cloud of doubt over much of the remainder, despite OTRS. Although I have not been informed which items were deleted from Commons, it is not hard to imagine why the site rejected this material. Had I seen these on the Commons deletion board I would have contacted the uploader not with templates but with notes (which I have provided for every image at the discussion Kelly started). Yet it is disturbing that an administrator as experienced as SlimVirgin not only created so many problems, but made a public insinuation that Commons deletion standards are either inconsistent or politically motivated, and that she transferred those problems from that site to this one without seeking better information. I would like to host much of these on Commons if the copyleft/public domain status were clear because these are valuable encyclopedic images, but frankly I don't want this problem. And Kelly could have articulated it much better. This was not well done. Durova 03:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The appropriate place to discuss whether images of dubious provenance would be Misplaced Pages:Images for deletion - people seem to ignore IFD a lot these days, instead preferring to tag things and leave them. If Kelly believes these images have ropey rationales or tagging, they should be taken to WP:IFD, rather than creating a big fuss over this, and I would suggest she does this now, if she hasn't yet. Agree this was not well done. Neıl 龱 09:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Kelly listed them at WP:PUI and/or IFD from the start. The big fuss started only when they got into a disagreement over Slim removing the tags out of process. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

They were listed at PUI, yes. When SV started removing the tags out of process, they should have gone to IFD, rather than here. Neıl 龱 10:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Why would one want to shift them from one forum to the next, from PUI to IFD? The right thing is to have them run their course where they are. (That said, I can never understand why those are two different fora anyway. We should merge them.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

IFD is for images that are obsolete, orphans, unencyclopedic, low quality or copyright violations, where further discussion is needed as the addition of a speedy tag is either inappropriate or disputed, or the user is unsure if deletion is warranted. PUI is for listing images where fair use is disputed. I agree the two fora might be merged, but this is not the venue for that discussion. As it is, based on Durova's six eamples above, PUI isn't the appropriate venue (the disputes aren't about fair use). They're at Misplaced Pages:Possibly_unfree_images#June_7 anyway, though, so this is moot, I guess. Neıl 龱 10:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, no. PUI isn't for disputing fair use. That is indeed done either through a speedy channel ({{Dfu}}) or, in less obvious cases, through IFD. PUI is exactly for these types of cases: images where free status is claimed but the factual basis for that claim is in doubt. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It is always appropriate to address the central issue of a long ANI thread. The bottom line is that Kelly's concerns are substantive, although poorly expressed. I stepped in principally because of an unsupported allegation regarding Commons, a project where I am a sysop. The person who made the allegation failed to respond to two requests to substantiate it, so I took time away from other matters to examine and note each of the images in Kelly's list. This subthread summarizes highlights of those findings in enough detail to halt the he said, she said-ishness that stretched the thread to absurd lengths in the first place. Now I'll return to those other priorities. Durova 11:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned on Kelly's talk, I was under the impression that the FBI considered ALF a domestic terrorist organization. Are terrorist organizations even granted intellectual property rights? IP rights are not a Constitutional right, they are a privilege granted that can be revoked by the government. For example, consider the fact that convicted felons loose all ip rights to anything associated with their crime. I highly doubt that news organizations have to get permission from terrorists to use their content to report on stories, I imagine the same standard applies here. Let's apply a bit of rational logic here, ALF has no standing with the law seeing as how I imagine that anyone involved with them would be arrested as co-conspirators. --Dragon695 (talk) 02:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting line of reasoning. I wouldn't call myself qualified to comment on it. Even without going down that path, two points look quite clear:

1. The ALF website grants generous reprint permission, but I see no statement placing the material itself in the public domain.
2. The ALF website states that some of its images are fair use republications of other people's/organizations' copyrighted material, but does not specify which ones. So a visitor cannot determine which images are covered by their republication permission. Durova 05:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no law which removes intellectual property rights from organizations or persons which may have carried out criminal acts. There are some laws in some states restricting the ability of some people who have been convicted of crimes to profit from their intellectual property, but that doesn't address the issue at hand. FCYTravis (talk) 05:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by User:Andyvphil

I'd like some assistance. After reminding User:Andyvphil that he's not to edit others' Talk page comments , he immediately altered my comments (to an uncivil quip) in his User_talk space and continued his tenditious editing at Talk:Barack Obama . I'd normally leave someone so clearly in the fast lane for a block to their own devices, but I don't appreciate his repeatedly editing others' remarks; Andy's been blocked repeatedly for his hostility toward other editors, and while others have tried to work with him, he doesn't seem to be learning from past interaction. Shem 05:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Btw, none of my blocks were for "hostility toward other editors". Which is not to say that I take kindly to the abuse of process that Shem is engaging in here. Andyvphil (talk) 07:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Andyvphil has now edited my comments on this page and again on an article talk page . Shem 13:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

What part of "A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it"(WP:TPG) is lost on you? You don't own this page, or the Barack Obama talk page, and you're not allowed to use headers to make abusive assertions ("tendentious editing by User:Andyvphil"). Keep your "comments" in the text area, where your signature marks them as the opinions of dubious origin that they are. Andyvphil (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Shem will take this opportunity to realize that warning and threatening every user he edit wars with is counterproductive, and will only make enemies, and will not help out his cause in the slightest. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's always been a collaborative work, so there aren't any "enemies" here, Evil Spartan. I stand by all of 'em, and was glad to step back in and remind some of y'all that Misplaced Pages's not a battleground. Shem 05:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

By all means let's look at Shem's examples of my "edit others' Talk page comments " and "continued... tenditious editing". Both involve only the header on an article's (not a user's) talk page, where the guideline is: "A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it."(WP:TPG) Shem's header was "This is a policy matter, and this poll is not useful for establishing consensus" and I first changed it to "Further comments by Option 1 supporters: 'This is a policy matter, and this poll is not useful for establishing consensus' and, after Shem reverted, to "Argumentative header redacted, per : "A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it.'" (edit comment "...I'll leave replacing it to someone else.") So the real question is whether Shem's right to protect the integrity of his remarks means that his argumentative headers can't be made neutral. And whether he should escape rebuke for filing completely bogus complaints like this. Andyvphil (talk) 07:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I do think this editor is headed for a long-term block or ban, if he does not either improve or lose interest in the project. Replacing talk page headers with complaints and personal attacks (here's another, and in this very section he edits the headings to turn a report on his behavior around to a complaint about the poster) is one of the least of the problems. The site of the most recent trouble, the Barak Obama article (where he has joined forces with three other accounts to pester his perceived enemies with taunts like "Obama campaign volunteers" and "Obama fanboys", and broke ranks of the consensus discussion to renew an edit war), was recently taken unprotected with a stern warning to not edit war that soon lead to the article's full protection. The other place he has been most tendentious of late is a sockpuppet report Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth (where he called User:Josi "bad, arrogant", "arrogant abuse of admin power...for whom an admin bit is an opportunity to stoke their ego..."and me an "imbecile" and a "liar". We can and should have a thick skin about all this, but it's lead to protectio of an important article and the more or less complete breakdown of consensus discussions.

I have had a couple of prolonged unpleasant run-ins with him myself and left quite a few warnings. Andyvphil has not responded well to repeated warnings, and shows no sign of self-reflection or moderating his behavior. However, now that he is a party to a sockpuppet request, and much of his incivility and tendentiousness is occurring there, I would say he's already under scrutiny so I'm not sure a separate forum is needed here for the moment. Wikidemo (talk) 08:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It was admin, not merely "user" Jossi whose actions in blocking Fovean_Author with no plausible justification I called arrogant. My retitling of this section so that it does not assert my guilt is in accord with the guideline I've quoted above, and if you read "accusation" into the perfectly neutral descriptive title "Allegation by User:Shem of tendentious editing by User:Andyvphil", that is entirely in your own head. Not that I am unwilling to accuse when it is called for. You point to my calling your addition of my name to the list of sockpuppets operated by "suspected sockpuppeteer" Kossack4Truth an abuse of process, and I stand by that 100%. Since your cohort in the hagiographic clique (you, Scjessey, Lulu, Shem...) called me a racist without rebuke it's hard to credit the notion that calling the group Obama Campaign Volunteers would merit one. That's assuming I used the term. Where's the diff? I'm sure I never used "Obama Fanboys", though it's not an epithet in a league with "smells of racism" either.

I won't bother refuting the rest of your off-topic rant. Shem has reported an "incident". He alleges that I have engaged in "tendentious editing" by first contextualizing and then redacting his argumentative header on the Barack Obama talkpage. Did I or did I not -- that's the question in this section, and I am confident that the answer cannot possibly be the one he wants. If you want to raise a different complaint against me, start another section. Andyvphil (talk) 10:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo correctly, below, appears to consider that the "racist" issue is moot here. However, that incident reveals more about how Andyvphil responds to disputes. He links above to the place where he was allegedly "called" a "racist." The diff does not support that. Nor was "smells of racism" (not the actual language) a personal attack, and that Andyvphil thinks it was is diagnostic. Scjessey's edit summary was this: "Undid revision 211967788 by Andyvphil (talk) - rv disruptive edits that are starting to look suspiciously like racism." While this may not be the soul of cooperative civility, because it could indeed be taken in an inflammatory way, it merely noted Scjessey's impression of the edits, their appearance to him, and a concern. That was not a personal attack, for a totally non-racist editor could make an edit that "looks like" racism to another editor. Had Scjessey called Andyvphil a "racist," it would have been an entirely different matter, or if he had made some broad statement clearly implying that, such as "All his edits appear to be racist," a personal attack would have been visible.--Abd (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The editor seems to claim his ongoing incivility and name calling are okay because he was provoked by supposed "cohorts" who called him a racist a month ago. I can't quite follow that, and I wasn't involved during his last visit to this page. But he has clearly been confrontational and upset many editors over a long period and has no interest in stopping. Indeed, he continues after making the above statements to edit war on the Obama talk page over the very edit that was first complained about in this report (though he is now defacing rather than merely altering the heading). That is particularly disruptive given the consternation, disagreement, name calling, and allegations of sock puppetry surrounding the repeated polling, with the polls becoming a springboard for edits that got the Obama main page fully protected. Yet another warning would not seem to help; he dismisses this as "administrative arrogance" and "abuse of process". Whether or not the disruption would justify a block at this very moment, in the long term something ought to be done to mollify things.Wikidemo (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

What I've dismissed as abuse of process was Shem's bogus assertion that I had edited his "comments" (again, its only his headers I've insisted follow WP:TPG) and your bogus assertion that I could possibly be a sockpuppet of Kossak4Truth. Another bogus "warning" that I shouldn't interfere with Shem's misuse of headers will indeed be dismissed by me. What part of "A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it"(WP:TPG) is lost on you? Andyvphil (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I won't take the invitation to snipe back. He is edit warring on the Obama talk page, citing a misinterpretation of WP:TPG, to deface one option in a heated poll to Argumentative header redacted, per : "A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it." There's a bona fide concern of sockpuppetry or at least meatpuppetry, per Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth. He's recently called me a liar and an imbecile. That's all in the last day or so. He and Shem are revert warring again in the past half hour over the title to this section.. This is not looking good. - Wikidemo (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

While I agree in principle that changing a section header is not the same as refactoring someone else's talk page comments, and I think that some of the header modification edits made by Andyvphil were probably okay, this is unacceptable. Behavior like that could rapidly lead to a block. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

(ec)Andyvphil is also repeatedly editing section headers placed on his Talk page, turning warnings to him into taunts of other editors. See , changing "Do not edit others' talk page comments." into "Shem's sham outrage," undone at by Shem. changed "Edit warring." into "Hypocritical hagiographers threaten," removed by Wikidemo with with summary: "remove personal attack heading and replace with original" (Next edit from Wikidemo also replaced another header Andyvphil had removed, and added text warning about NPA.) Andyphil then, today, replaced the "sham outrage" attack header,, claiming "wider latitude on my Talk page." Most recently, as this is written, Shem reverted that last change, and notified Andyphil of this AN/I report..

See also the SSP report, Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth. Sock puppetry has not been proven, though there is reasonable suspicion remaining. However, for our immediate purposes, the behavior of Andyvphil in this report should be reviewed. He is generally attacking administrators and others who warn or restrain him. He consistently fails to assume good faith, instead imputing hypocrisy, bias, "plethora of bad, arrogant, admins," "abusing process for the purposes of harassment," "arrogant abuse of admin power," "Arrogant and unaccountable admins," "admins equally incurious as to the facts but eager to boost their fagile egos by pissing on any non-admin "peon" handy."

Those are some of the facts, a review of this editors history will find much, much more. As to the implications, Andyvphil is correct that he has greater latitude on his Talk page, but that does not extend to using his Talk page for personal attacks. Further, a section header added by a user with the user's edit of the page is part of the user's edit, and changing it can alter the meaning. Changing it into a personal attack is even worse. His provocative, taunting ABF comments are disruptive and confuse efforts to find editorial consensus. Readers may be aware that I've often complained about administrative abuse. It happens. But it is not necessary, dealing with it, to impute bad faith, hypocrisy, spite, and all the rest, and, in fact, administrators are accountable. I commented in the RfAr proceedings of User:Physchim62 and User:Tango, who made blocks apparently as a result of alleged personal attacks directed at them, violating conflict of interest rules, and not for the clear protection of the project, which might have justified the blocks under IAR, and those admins both lost their bits. Other administrative errors happen, often through inattention, but are remediable. Attacking the administrators' personal motives, absent clear proof, isn't legitimate. I'm amazed that this editor isn't blocked yet. --Abd (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The Talk:Barack Obama page has been a toxic combustion chamber of editors behaving badly, getting other editors offended who then behave badly and so on. To get involved in discussions there is almost guaranteed to make yourself the target of an attack. There is plenty of bad behavior on both sides -- and I do mean sides. Only part of the problem will be solved with blocks or topic bans. What's needed are more adults with patience taking a little time to get involved in discussions about an article that gets tens of thousands of page views on a typical day and on June 4 got a quarter of a million page hits. It's inevitable that controversial subjects get debated heatedly on certain talk pages. What's odd about this talk page is the low heat/light ratio and the worse drama/constructive discussion ratio. I know that's not an advertisement for recruiting cool heads to the page, but it would be good for Misplaced Pages if you'd come. It's not only a great exercise in trying to keep cool, but you might learn somethng about one of the most important topics of the year. Slap permanent bans on every editor whose signature appears in this section, and you'll have the same problems on the page within two months. Wider participation is the only way out. Noroton (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Moi? Slog around in the mudfight? Ask me personally, on my Talk page, and I'll consider it. Just like I'd consider helping my neighbor who asks me to help clean out the remains of a racoon that died in his basement. I don't need "exercise in keeping cool," I need cool. It's over ninety out today. I prefer, usually, to seriously work on articles where I'm expert on the topic, at least in some way. I actually use what I know to judge what is notable and what is not. Horrifying, I know, but I don't remove stuff because it isn't sourced if I think it is true and balanced. (If I put such in, and I often do, I can't complain if it is removed because of lack of RS, though I'd consider it more polite, if it seems like it might be verifiable, to tag it.) Anyway, thanks. As to the issue of Andyvphil, I've seen his attitude be a problem across more than one article, it's not just Obama. And it goes way beyond the too-common incivility between disagreeing editors. It's divisive, us vs. them, wikiwarfare. And it doesn't belong here. Given how much he's been warned, and how many times blocked, I'd say it's time to pull the plug. Will this stop edit warring? Probably not. But it will lessen it, at least a little. (Some might be surprised to know that I think we should block far more quickly, but with less ongoing effect. When the police see a fight going on, it is *not* their job to decide who was right. They say, "Stop!" and anyone who does not stop gets stopped, immediately. Has nothing to do with who started it, who was the evil-doer and who was protecting all that is Good. Stop. Now. Then, when the smoke clears, the police decide whom to more permanently arrest, if any, and who can walk free. Let me put it this way: there should be an "everyone involved, stop" block reason that doesn't create any prejudice with regard to future, more serious blocks. It would not involve any judgment of blame. And I'm pretty sure that I'd be blocked in this way, at least occasionally!) --But maybe evenly distributed warnings would serve for this. And article protection does stop edit warring.--Abd (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Toi! (Et vous!) Sometimes the raccoon dies in the volunteer firehouse. And the trick with working on an article like Barack Obama is that almost everybody has some knowledge, most everybody needs more knowledge, anybody would benefit (even off Misplaced Pages) by getting more knowledge, and it's good for the soul to find out you're wrong every now and then. Aux armes! Aux armes, citoyens! (for the French-defficient, see my edit summary)Noroton (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sanctions

← Barack Obama is a featured article and one of our most often-viewed and high-profile pages. The editing behavior there is a disgrace to Misplaced Pages, and has been recognized as such by the mass media (). No one person is wholly responsible, but any attempt to deal with it has to start somewhere.

• Andyvphil (talk · contribs): Four escalating blocks for edit-warring; has wikilawyered each of them by arguing the letter of 3RR and accusing the admins of not knowing how to count or recognize a revert (see here, here, here, etc). Citing the talk page guidelines to justify changing another editor's overly "argumentative" heading () is odd coming from someone who himself routinely alters others' headings into attacks: , , , , , etc. This editor is gaming WP:TPG as part of an ongoing pattern of inappropriate editing. His level of civility is poor even by the standards of the Obama talk page; he's dismissed every attempt to reason with him or moderate his approach (e.g. here and here); and the denial of his last 3 unblock requests led him to conclude not that his behavior violated this site's standards, but that admins as a group are a capricious, ignorant "mullah class" conspiring against honest editors like himself (). I haven't seen any potential for improvement here. This editor is playing a major role in the devolution of one of our highest-profile articles into a battleground (even drawing the attention of the popular press). I'm going to go ahead and block him for 1 month for disruptive editing on top of 4 previous blocks for edit-warring, and if he resumes the same approach after the block's expiry, I would support an indefinite block.
• Kossack4Truth (talk · contribs): Editors with "Truth" in their username seem to run into problems with NPOV and tendentiousness fairly often. This is an evident tendentious single-purpose agenda account contributing heavily to the poor quality of editing and behavior at Barack Obama. S/he has racked up 2 blocks in the past few weeks for edit-warring on the Obama article. Third edit blued out his talk page with a pre-emptive defense against charges of sockpuppetry (). I would recommend a topic ban to see if there is anything more here than someone dedicated to abusing Misplaced Pages as a venue to advocate for a specific, narrow agenda. I won't impose this without further uninvolved feedback, though.
• A number of other editors at Barack Obama have contributed to the poor atmosphere there. This is not an exhaustive list, but an identification of a starting point for improving this situation. Experienced or constructive outside editors without an axe to grind are essential, but I don't think we'll attract many of them until the current debacle is addressed. I would welcome uninvolved feedback on the above, as well as any additional review of these or other participants in the article.

The bottom line is that this is one of our highest-profile articles, and its current atrocious state as a WP:BATTLEfield of tendentious edit-warring is a high-profile disgrace to Misplaced Pages. Feedback welcome. MastCell  17:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• • 1/ Is a month enough? 2/ A topic ban...well, is that going to be effective? A short block might be a better step. 3/I want to review this whole article further (as an outside opinion) - I'll check back within 12 hours. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Re: a month, I'm open to feedback on that. Re: a topic ban, for most single-purpose agenda accounts a topic ban ends up being functionally identical to a block - they came here to push a specific agenda, and if they can't, then they leave. On the other hand, if Kossack4Truth has other interests and something of value to contribute to the encyclopedia, then the topic ban may facilitate that. I think it's a less blunt instrument. MastCell  18:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
      • It's very troubling behaviour. I'm absolutely certain that (at minimum) a topic ban is needed for Kossack4Truth. Will continue looking through everything, including other involved editors conduct (amidst the edit conflicts) in a few hours or so. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
      • You pretty much nailed it, MastCell. 1 month for Andyvphil is exactly what I'd recommend, given the history and behavior, which isn't marginal, balanced with gradual escalation of blocks. --Abd (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• (ec)I'm an involved editor and I've been in agreement with Andyvphil and Kossack4Truth in terms of some of the broadest issues, but I can't criticize a single thing MastCell says. Noroton (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Support Mastcell's summary of the problems over at the obama page as a good first step --It jibes with what I've observed over on the talk page on the few occasions I'm able to look over there. One of the main problems with SPA pushing a point of view is that each edit by itself is plausibly defensible, if not scrutinized too closely (a big thanks to Mastcell for doing the legwork on putting his summary together). Support the 1 month block for Andyvphil and the 1 month topic ban for Kossack4Truth. The remedy is appropriate for each. R. Baley (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Are you proposing a 1 month topic ban on Obama related articles for Kossack4Truth? He currently isn't under such a restriction and while MastCell did recommend a topic ban, he did say that he wasn't imposing it and didn't include a time frame. --Bobblehead 01:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Has K4T been notifed that he's being discussed here? By my count, in the 14 hours since this report was opened K4T has participated in a minor edit war (to be fair, on the right side of it), placed a warning logo on the Obama talk page and that of a user relating to the edit war, re-added disputed information that Tony Rezko was convicted of bribery, and accused one editor of "distortion" and another (the edit warrior) of "indefensible" conduct. But he seems capable of good editing. Perhaps a warning is more appropriate than a topic ban.Wikidemo (talk) 02:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• MastCell has, as is often the case, summarized this mess rather nicely. I'd say that the block and topic ban seem to be quite appropriate in the pursuit of slowing down the mayhem on this very, very busy page. If other adherents of the combatants pick up the sword and start to charge, though, an attempt at article probation might be a good idea - it probably won't slow down anytime before the elections. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• As noted by Noroton

  Slap permanent bans on every editor whose signature appears in this section, and you'll have the same problems on the page within two months.

  However, MastCell's suggestion seems likely to have the effect of removing the immediate problem, giving the parties time to consider the consequences of their actions, and discouraging future POV warriors from participating too disruptively on the subject; I support the proposal. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• No opinion on the merits of the block, but Andyvphil (talk · contribs) has requested unblock for the purpose of contributiong to this discussion, and I have advised him to post any pertinent comments or unblock requests on his talk page.  Sandstein  22:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't have any real objection to unblocking him specifically to post here, but given past history I think it might be most productive to adopt Sandstein's suggestion, which is fairly standard practice, for Andyvphil to post his comments on his user talk page and have another editor copy them here as needed. MastCell  22:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Good call by MastCell, a more long term block seems necessary at this point and a month seems appropriate. I've seen Andyvphil at the related A More Perfect Union (speech) article, and while he has made some constructive edits there the overall approach to editing and the tendency to comment pointedly on the supposed motivations of other editors troubled me from the outset (the behavior there does not at all approach the problematic level at the Obama article however). Andyvphil can no doubt be a constructive contributor but needs to recognize that his behavior up to now has been problematic. I also fully agree that the main Obama article is a big problem for Misplaced Pages and we need more admins (and editors) who can keep a cool head over there helping out. I've intentionally avoided it but will probably try to lend a hand at some point. The situation over there could easily lead to worse press for us than that which has already been published.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• I support MastCell's analysis of the problem and his block and ban recommendations. EdJohnston (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• MastCell's spot-on. Shem 02:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Would suggest the topic ban be enforced then. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse MastCell's analysis. Would support the month-long topic ban if Kossack4Truth enters WP:ADOPT. Further on evidence support site ban/ indef blocking of Andyvphil if he does not address eth substantive behavioural issues raised here - too much disruption to make a point & too much wikilawyering--Cailil 20:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Having just found out about this (gee thanks), I would like to offer a word in my own defense. It is clear that there are POV pushers on the other side of the dispute at Barack Obama. I'm somewhat new to this and was unaware that being a single purpose account is frowned upon. I would voluntarily and cheerfully start a week, or even month long topic ban on Obama related articles, if admins can promise me that the POV pushers on the other side of this dispute are monitored carefully, and blocked without hesitation as needed, in the interests of protecting the Misplaced Pages project. In particular, they're trying to gut the section on the presidential campaign and remove virtually all references to Tony Rezko, even now. Hit Scjessey with a month-long topic ban at the same time. Kossack4Truth (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing revert war

Now that this editor does know of the proposed topic ban, he jumped in to a revert war on the Barack Obama article anyway to restore a list of criminal charges against Tony Rezko.. He reverted the "bribery" charge part of it two other times in the hours before learning of the proposed sanctions, so he is at exactly WP:3RR. There was another edit yesterday in a revert war over a broader section that included this material. So the editor has been at a state of WP:3RR for some time. There's also ongoing debate, with the editor claiming on the talk page that those he is reverting are POV-pushers and issuing warnings and appeals on their talk pages. You might want to take a look at the behavior of other editors as well here. Kossack4Truth's four reverts are among a total of 12 reverts in the last +/- 36 hours (by my count) to the Tony Rezko section of the Obama article - all that after edit protection was lifted and people warned to not edit war. Wikidemo (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

a total of 12 reverts in the last +/- 36 hours ... and at least half of them were by Wikidemo, Scjessey, Loonymonkey and the other exclusionists who make substantive edits without consensus, in defiance of repeated warnings from admins on the article Talk page. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not wish to respond to this editor's tit-for-tat accusation except to say it factually incorrect. The three editors mentioned above made a total of four edits to the Obama article in the last 36 hours: 1 each by me and Loonymonkey, and two by Scjessey. Only three out of four would plausibly be described as part of the 14-edit (two new ones now) revert war. Kossack4Truth has no cause to lump me in with the group he taunts as "Obama campaign workers" - my edit was uncontroversial, unopposed, and if anything supported Kossack4Truth's position more than his perceived opponents. I've left a caution for Scjessey over his two edits today, urging him/her not to take up a revert war. As I said, any administrator examining the mess should probably look at the editors on both sides of the revert war. Perhaps this can be untangled without going to page protection again. Wikidemo (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we need some intervention, pronto! The Tony Rezko portion of the Obama article has now been reverted 1516 times in 36 hours, 1213 of those (by my count) in the last six hours. Multiple editors are involved - two are at 3RR, one at 2RR, and quite a few people have jumped in now at 1RR. I'll makeI made one last effort on the talk page to get people to stop but I don't know what else to do. A user has now proposed a possible compromise, and there seems to have been no reverting for the past hour, maybe a good sign. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• FYI: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:WorkerBee74_reported_by_LotLE.C3.97talk_.28Result:_.29 (LotLE×talk)
• Also: Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters - an odd sock puppet that could be another piece of this puzzle - Wikidemo (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, when somebody's presumed "wrong," it's OK to denigrate his motives and edits, as Andy's are above; but if that person returns the favor and denigrates----in this case, the Obama-biography exclusionists as "hagiographers"----why, it's grounds for an incident report! As for the New Republic, apparently a partisan in agreement with the side of an issue that's presumed "right" must show incredible genius while somebody in disagreement would show their imbecility, as why else should how Andy's editing is seen through the prism of the New Republic be thought to have any bearing here? — Justmeherenow (   ) 08:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if it is time for a WP:FAR on this page. It certainly is no longer stable. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Massive POV push by a handful of exclusionists

I would like very much to take a 30-day voluntary break from all Obama-related articles. But I would like a commitment from the involved administrators that they are going to monitor the conduct of a small but determined group of exclusionists on these articles.

User:Life.temp gutted the article, removing a total of 732 words in two consecutive edits: I placed the following warning on his/her Talk page and on the article Talk page: He/she removed the warning from the user Talk page with a personal attack in the edit summary and discussed this warning in two edits on the article Talk page, proving that he/she had seen the warning and was aware of increased concerns about edit warring. Nevertheless, last night Life.temp again gutted the article, ripping out nearly 1,000 words this time: None of these edits were accompanied by anything resembling consensus.

It is obvious that Life.temp's goal is to expunge any controversy from the article. This goes hand in hand with similarly intentioned efforts by User:Scjessey, User:Loonymonkey, User:Wikidemo and User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. I request a block of at least 24 hours for Life.temp, a warning for the other four, and a seven-day topic ban for all five of them. Thank you. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I support this action but with a modification: the topic ban for Life.temp, Scjessey and Wikidemo should be six months in length. They're POV pushing on the Talk page, edit warring on the article mainspace, making nasty remarks in Talk and in their edit summaries, distorting Misplaced Pages policy to excuse their misconduct, and using summary style as an excuse to delete major controversies while leaving in such trivia as Obama's struggles to quit cigarette smoking, his alternate career choice as an architect, chili is his favorite food, etc.

The proper style for Misplaced Pages biographies about major politicians is well established at such articles as George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Ronald Reagan, John Howard, John Kerry and, of course, John McCain. Major controversies are dwelt upon at length in the biography, and announced by name in bold section headers, such as "The Lewinsky scandal," "Whitewater and other investigations," and "Iran-Contra affair." Critics who use these controversies to bash the politicians are frequently quoted, even if they belong to the opposing party or faction. I believe in precedent. This style represents a broad consensus of the thousands of Misplaced Pages editors and admins who have worked on hundreds of biographies of prominent politicians over the years.

Life.temp, Scjessey and the other three are deliberately defying that consensus. They've been warned repeatedly. WorkerBee74 (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Unfounded Harassment by User:Odd nature (and endorsed by User:Filll)

User:Odd nature has posted a bogus RFC at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Sceptre, Sxeptomaniac, SirFozzie, B on a whole range of users they disagree with. He's labelled me a "supporter" of the subjects of the RFC, among a few other editors, and insists that the entire group "steer clear of participating in discussions regarding members of the project occurring anywhere on Misplaced Pages". He's also labelled Cla68, LaraLove (LaraHate at WikipediaReview), Giggy, Dtobias (Dan T), The undertow, ThuranX, and Gnixon in the same manner.

I'm uninvolved and have participated as a third party in several disputes (whether it be here, or at WQA), and at ANI, I repeatedly requested him to stop making unfounded accusations against me as being involved in the several disputes I have commented on. This behavior has clearly not stopped and he continues making such unsupported accusations, now with a RFC in WP:POINT. This further seen by the unacceptable manner in which he tried to have it certified - as if it is one dispute, when in reality, all he's done is referred to several disputes with several different users.

This is atrocious.

I request

• The users be informed of this discussion.
• User:Odd nature is blocked for disruption, harassment/personal attacks and using Misplaced Pages as a battleground.
• The RFC be deleted.

Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that unsupported accusations are a perennial problem with Odd nature et all, Ncmvocalist, I tend to think that A) This would best be served as evidence IN that Request for Comment (I would like to see it more neutrally named, mind you), rather then in a seperate ANI report. And B)As for the legalities of it, as long as it serves to focus on the issue, I think a bit of WP:IAR should be used here to let it run. ArbCom has stated they want an RfC on the issue, and everyone knows if the issues aren't resolved at the RfC level, it's probably time to bring it back in front of ArbCom. SirFozzie (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The reason this is here is because this conduct has not, and will not change until there is admin intervention against this user in particular. Unsupported unwarranted accusations against third parties is purely harassment, particularly when they're repeated as a smear campaign. An RFC is to make claims with evidence against parties of a dispute. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

How fun. I come here to notify on another Colbert incident incipient on wikipedia, and find my name in the thread above it. I'm not sure why I'm included in this based on a few comments about bad behavior and the willing impotence of admins when confronted with it. ThuranX (talk) 03:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I hate to say it but I was also concerned about pages such as User:Filll/Abuse_of_Civil_Hall_of_Fame -such pages recording the abuses of others and commenting upon them are quite often deleted. Sticky Parkin 12:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

MfD'd Viridae 12:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well the CIVIL Abuse Hall of Fame is not meant to insult or offend anyone. It is data about how we are applying policy like WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Are we doing so consistently? Does our approach make sense? Are our standards for WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA at the appropriate level? Should they be more stringent or more lenient? Are WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA ever used inappropriately as weapons against opponents in disputes? These are just examples I have come across in my travels, and not meant to be exhaustive or an appropriately random sample.

I do not pretend to know if Misplaced Pages is enforcing WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL appropriately at the moment or not. I do not pretend to know if the most commonly held assumptions about CIVIL are reasonable or not. However, these are interesting questions to consider as Misplaced Pages evolves as an enterprise.

If we are ever to move beyond our current "intuition-based management" of Misplaced Pages, based on gut feelings and on who can be the biggest bully or who can scream the loudest, to "evidence-based management" we need data, and we need to analyze it. We need to understand what our current stance on a given issue is, and what it was, and how it is changing and why. We need to frame our policies and enforcement in terms of our actual goals, and then try to determine the best means to reach these goals, and then implement these means if possible. And that is what the CIVIL Abuse Hall of Fame is. It is a tiny step on the road towards "evidence-based management". --Filll (talk | wpc) 13:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The instructions for the RFC at the top of the page say, "In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users." Since it is unquestionably impossible for this RFC to be certified (there is not a single dispute with a single user for anyone to certify), the RFC should be deleted (or courtesy blanked, if it is needed for arbitration evidence). --B (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this would fall under ignoring all rules. People have good faith concerns, and should be allowed to address them. They should not be deleted on some technical wikilawyering. If the substance of the request for comment is the concern, then the evidence should show that, and it can be closed as unsubstantiated, but not on some small procedural rule. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes rules are there for a good reason and this is one of those cases. An RFC is not for launching complaints at a group of people and then seeing what sticks. Virtually all of the complaints in there have nothing whatsoever to do with me. Even where Odd Nature makes statements in his description of the dispute that all four of us did something, he provides no evidence of me doing it - it's just a false accusation. The one and only complaint that does have anything to do with me is that I have presented evidence of abuse of the administrative tools by Felonious Monk. This is nothing but retaliation for my daring to offer arbitration evidence. There is no campaign of harassment on my part, rather, it is the correct response to an abuse of the administrative tools. Unlike some of the other presentations at the arbitration case in question, mine was brief, contains only recent material (who cares if someone cursed 3 years ago), and contains only the clearest of examples. This is not harassment and if anyone considers the actions that I documented or this RFC as a response to be an acceptable behavior, there really isn't any point of agreement from which to have a discussion. --B (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment RfCs are for dispute resolution not for airing of grievances (as B puts it), not for compiling loosely connected evidence, and not for investigations of off-wiki activity. That type of RfC discredits the process and its use in future dispute resolution attempts--Cailil 19:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC nuked. First, the diffs that purported to show attempts to resolve the dispute were unbelievably tenuous, and secondly, we don't do RFCs on a random group of users. Individual RFCS on individual people would be fine, and a big RFC on the topic of intelligent design would also be great, as ArbCom requested. Maybe you could even model that on the RFCs we have now and again on RFA. But not this way. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I have opened Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Intelligent Design and would appreciate drafing help. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks much better. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I second that, this looks like it will try to work towards a resolution of the dispute--Cailil 20:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I third.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't, I wish that the now deleted RfC had been merged to the THIRD RfC "Bite at the apple". Making the community post AGAIN seems problematic. SirFozzie (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Immediate Full protect Warren G. Harding

Colbert on it, claims harding was a 'negro' based on Mclaughlin report, probably worth protecting all 43, after the litany of accusations he just made. ThuranX (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Requests for protection should be made at WP:RFPP :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 04:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Generally, yes. In this case, WP:IAR prevails. Within a minute of a televised suggestion by Stephen Colbert to his audience that they check out a certain Misplaced Pages page and make alterations, we can pretty well count on significant vandalism without immediate full protection. It's one of those "find the first possible admin" cases, and this is the page most watched by admins so it's the right place to come. Risker (talk) 04:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

To paraphrase Groucho Marx, you're fighting for this man's honor, which is more than he ever did. Maybe we should go to the Stephen Colbert page, and vandalize it by calling him a journalist or something. Baseball Bugs 04:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. And while we're handling this, Franklin Pierce is getting hit as well, let's lock it before his show hits the west coast.. ThuranX (talk) 04:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

We've come a long ways since McLean Stevenson would be on the Carson show and ask everyone in Bloomington, Illinois to flush their toilets at the same time so that his pal at the city reservoir could watch for a sudden dip in the water pressure; or since Soupy Sales asked all the kiddies in the audience to mail him some of those pieces of paper with Presidents' pictures on them, that they could find in Dad's wallet. Baseball Bugs 04:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't there a town in Iowa that voted that way during the caucuses a few years ago? Can't remember which one. They measured the water levels to determine the winner. Oh, and I semiprotected Pierce for you.  :) Antandrus (talk) 04:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't know. But I know this: Harding and Pierce are one thing. But if they mess with my man, Millard Fillmore, there will be blood. Baseball Bugs 04:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I copied Image:Warren G Harding portrait as senator June 1920.jpg from commons and protected it (just to be safe). So someone remember to delete it in a couple of days. --Selket 05:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

He didn't actually say anything about vandalizing wikipedia, but he did show on-screen a version of the[REDACTED] article on Harding asserting that his middle name is "Gangsta". --Random832 (contribs) 01:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Good work on dealing with the flood of vandalism, but do we have an extended long term plan on what to do about this? JeanLatore (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If you mean this specific incident, they will move on. If you mean what to do if Colbert keeps doing this sort of this then I intend to laugh each time. _{1 != 2} 01:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't think we need one, outside of the usual "keep eyes on it" method. Semi-protect if needed, full if things get heinous. Hot spots like this show up from time to time, from any number of outside sources. Rather than fighting it, we can turn it into an opportunity to recruit new or returning users. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I've combined this from a new section below, to keep all this in one place. ThuranX (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if Colbert would like having it pointed out that he's a modern-day answer to Soupy Sales. He might like it. Then again, he might not. Baseball Bugs 01:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Various irregularities in AfD for Allegations of Israeli Apartheid

This here is a perennial AfD so there's always been a fair share of eDrama surrounding it all, but iteration #8 is getting to be quite a mess.

• HandThatFeeds files the AfD, admittedly on behalf of another user Wikifan12345 aka 70.181.148.148. (self-identified as such here, this isn't an accusation) It was pointed out that this is not allowed per Misplaced Pages:Speedy keep criteria 1. Was unaware of this rule myself, and no one else has commented on this angle as of yet.

• Wikifan12345 has ex post facto altered the nomination rationale, reverted by Thetrick here, then reverted back by Wikifan's IP.

• Wikifan12345 has been violating WP:CANVAS, namely the votestacking section, by only posting alerts to the AfD to editors of a particular (i.e. his own) side. This should not in any way be taken as casting aspersions those who were canvassed, but the fact that the users who he contacted... Humus Sapiens, Amoruso, et al...are either regarded by regulars who edit Israeli-Palestine articles as "pro-Israel" or may appear to wikifan to be such based upon their own userboxes, self-categorization, etc... (all of which is what WP:CANVAS suggests can be used as identifiers) is undeniable.

Tarc (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I fully endorse Tarc's comments, and would add that the anti-Arab sentiments outlined in this statement would seem to undercut WikiFan12345's credibility somewhat. Seriously, this afd is even more of a partisan mess than previous nominations, and that's saying quite a bit. CJCurrie (talk) 04:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I think it's reasonable that those most active in this area of discussion know what's going on. I merely made them aware of this important happening. I see nothing wrong with that. I personally wanted the opinion of the Israeli wiki section, as the discussion going on in the nominations page was going nowhere. It became a single-view for keep and the reasons remained the same. If I violated any rules, I'll gladly retract my statements made to the alerted people and accept the appropriate penalties. In response to CJ's concern, I edited those statements seconds after submitting. It was an error of mine and I regret it. Thank you Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment If we're talking about name calling, I'd like to mention several users involved in the discussion attacked me and others with inappropriate terms (Israeli Defenders, for example) that offered nothing to the issue. But, I'm quite forgiving and understand users get very heated in these types of discuss. I just don't want people to consider me something that I'm not, which seems to be the case here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have little interest in this AfD because I know how it's going to end up (though in the interest of full disclosure, I have consistently voted to delete it in the past, and believe it should have been deleted long ago), but since Tarc's first bullet point raises a "process issue" that may affect other AfD's, I just want to respond to it. I believe the person who mentioned SK criterion 1 on the AfD page is taking one sentence of it out of context and misinterpreting it. If you read the sentence in question, all it says is, "Also, there are some cases where the nominator specifies they are nominating for the sake of process, for someone else, or some other reason but are not stating an opinion themselves." It doesn't say there's anything wrong with doing so. (And if you look at the Misplaced Pages:Guide to deletion, the last sentence of this section also states that this happens sometimes, and there is no suggestion that there is anything wrong with it.) If you read criterion 1 in its entirety, basically what it is saying is that if, at some point in the AfD, nobody (including the nominator) is currently supporting deletion, the AfD can be closed as a speedy keep. Then it goes on to point out that sometimes the nominator is doing so on behalf of someone else and this does not count as a support for deleting the article. It is irrelevant here, because four or five people have "voted" to delete the article, so there is no unanimity regardless of whether the nominator counts. (I think criterion 1 needs to rewritten so it can't be misinterpreted this way. I am not even sure why criterion 1 is necessary, since WP:SNOW also seems to apply, and does not require unanimity.) 6SJ7 (talk) 05:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a mess, but it looks like the AfD, like the preceding seven attempts, will come out as Keep.

Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs) isn't really to blame for the fact that someone else had to set up the AfD properly. This account was created on June 7, and on June 8, he tried his first AfD, botching the mechanics of the process somewhat. He was trying at one point to post an AfD in the deletion review log . He asked other editors for help, went to the Help Desk, and someone else stepped in just to get the process straightened out. So he shouldn't be bitten (WP:BITE) for that process error.

On the other hand, this is close to being a Misplaced Pages:Single-purpose account. The canvassing is somewhat disturbing, especially after the CAMERA editing-team debacle. --John Nagle (talk) 06:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've stated this more than 3 times, twice in the nomination page (if you were reading it): I've been editing at[REDACTED] for more than 6 months, it's only recently did I register an account. I pray this is the last time I have to say this. *prays* Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I stand behind my interpretation of the WP:SK #1 guideline as discouraging nominations that the nom-poster immediately attempts to distance himself from. Especially when the nomination is controversial, this method of sparking an AfD seems like bad process. Townlake (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It may be your opinion that it's bad process, but the page that you're citing doesn't prohibit it, or even discourage it. Quite frankly, it is so badly written that that particular sentence doesn't really say anything. The Guide to deletion, on the other hand, says that this is what sometimes happens, and doesn't say there is anything wrong with it, which strongly suggests that it is acceptable (especially since WP guidelines are supposed to be "descriptive" of current practice.) In my own opinion, there is nothing wrong with a more experienced editor assisting a less experienced editor who is having difficulty navigating the bureaucratic requirements of the deletion process, even if it means that the "helper" actually has to post the AfD. Otherwise, we're saying that if you think an article should be deleted but you can't immediately figure out the process, just go away. That doesn't seem to be in the "spirit" of Misplaced Pages. 6SJ7 (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply I certainly agree with you on the community spirit of WP and how much we should all support it. We clearly disagree on SK #1. I'll respectfully bow out of the discussion here, since I don't want to sidetrack this ANI conversation. Townlake (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

IMO, everything except for the WP:CANVASsing issue can be immediately dropped. For all intents and purposes, Wikifan12345 was the nominator and HandsThatFeeds was just giving him technical assistance. His ex post facto modification of the nomination should be treated as if he was the original nominator and just decided later to revise his nomination.

Frankly, without Twinkle, I doubt I could get all my ducks in a row for an AfD. That's kinda hard. So I am very sympathetic to Wikifan's predicament.

The canvassing issue can be debated separately. I have no opinion on that at this time. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

Question: Have any of the "canvassed" persons even posted to this afd? I don't see the named individuals in the list at all. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No disrespect intended, but I have to ask if it matters? IMO even if a canvas violation was a failure, it is still something that is not allowed. But to get to the answer to the question, yes; Oren neu dag (vote) and FrummerThanThou (vote). Ynhockey also voted in the AfD, but the vote cast precedes Wikifan's notification. Looking at the remaining contrib histories of the rest, none have been active since the notification; some as little as a few hours, others as much as a month or more, while one is even in the middle of a 60-day ban. Whatever user list was consulted in this, it was a peculiar and somewhat out-of-date one. Tarc (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently they didn't vote until after these charges were brought up here. Maybe you'd have more of a chance of having canvassing stick had there been some foul play that could be directly linked to the canvassing charge, but it does not appear that the canvassing really had any real affect on the AfD. Looks like a snowball close anyways. What real admin action is required here? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment I wasn't aware of any rule that restricted the notification of a deletion process to other wiki members. The members who I notified all belonged to the wiki-Israel project. I felt it was only fair to let the people most involved in this area of discussion know what's going on. As far as ethical violations, I did alert some people involved in the wiki-palestinian project, I think. Not everyone in the wiki-project Israel is "Israel Defender" or "Zionist Pig", as many of you describe them to be. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Er, "Zionist Pig" ? "Many of you" who? This tactic of leveling veiled charges of antisemitism against one's perceived opponents here is a very bad road to go down. Tarc (talk) 02:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah read the nomination and discussion pages. There is one particular person (forgot name) who has made a strong effort to outline my unspoken political relationships as negatives. His name starts with an E...I don't feel like looking it up lol. 70.181.148.148 (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• I did alert some people involved in the wiki-palestinian project, I think.

  This is a truly dishonest statement (with obvious placement of weasel words) from Wikifan12345 since his contribs are easily found and he made 13 consecutive notifications, all on the user pages of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Israel/Participants. Participants of Wikiproject Palestine are just as easily found yet none of them were notified. --Thetrick (talk) 06:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Stu8912 and repeated copyvio image uploads

Stu8912 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly uploaded copyvio images (and has uploaded a certain few multiple times), and has not repsonded to his fellow editors' requests to stop doing so. His talk page shows his somewhat lengthy history of copyvio problems, as well as a prior 24-hour block for copyvio uploading. He seems to be fixated on topics relating to and including Angelo State University and San Angelo Stadium, and I honestly think he is unaware that what he is doing is wrong. I suggest another block of an even longer timespan as a way to get this point across to him, and a semi-protection of the Angelo State University article.--Dynamite Eleven (talk) 06:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't been online for about two weeks, so my inclination is that this is kind of stale. A block would likely expire before the editor comes back. Semi-protection won't do anything since he's a registered user. --Selket 06:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You're gonna have to forgive my relative ignorance on this complaint process (I prefer doing smaller edits; I'm only doing bringing this up here because he's been a recurring annoyance). Stu8912 has a pattern of going offline for a while, then returning to upload many of the same copyvio images, before going back offline for another while, etc. This is why I suggest a substantially longer block (if possible) for the user, because when he DOES return, he'll likely resort to his same shenanigans all over again unless action is taken.--Dynamite Eleven (talk) 06:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Dynamite XI makes a good point, so I have blocked the editor for one month (per this, with comments) so they will have their attention drawn to the communities concerns. While the tariff may appear harsh it seems to be the only way further disruption can be countered, and I would have no objection to it being reduced when the editor makes contact and realises the problem. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

User:77.102.168.180

User is a persistent Date of Birth and infobox vandal, specifically on pages of Kellie Shirley and Matt Di Angelo. See 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7. User has been warned constantly (and has only just been released from a block) but continues to vandalise and ignore the warnings. ~~ 11:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Moulton is asking to be unblocked

Last night, when I was creating a new login for myself on MetaWiki, the registration page invited me to avail myself of the new Global Account Management feature. That sounded sensible, especially if I was going to register also on WikiBooks and/or Wikiversity.

However, I ran into a small technical glitch...

Login unification status

---

From Meta

Your home wiki (listed below) is blocked from editing. Please contact a sysop in this wiki to unblock it. While it is blocked, you cannot merge your accounts.

Home wiki

---

The password and e-mail address set at this wiki will be used for your unified account. You will be able to change which is your home wiki later.

    * en.wikipedia.org (home wiki)

So I would request to be unblocked on the English Misplaced Pages for the express purpose of availing myself of the Unified Account Management feature so that I may ply my craft, under a unified WikiMedia Login ID, on more collegial and congenial projects (other than the English Misplaced Pages) sponsored by the WikiMedia Foundation.

Note, also, that I had previously asked you to remove the block which prevents me from creating or editing subpages in my user space here on the English Misplaced Pages.

Also, please see this item, which raises the issue of which party has the ethical responsibility to undo an unethical act, once it's raised to their attention.

Moulton (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The above was posted at User talk:Moulton#Civility As a Tool Against Academic Excellence. I am cross posting this at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Moulton. I suggest the conversation take place there. I believe we should AGF and unblock. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

/facepalm.

Right, everyone stay calm, please. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion - temporarily' unblock Moulton, allow him to merge his accounts, then reblock his en.Wiki account. This will allow him to edit on other projects, and does not commit us to unblocking Moulton here. Neıl 龱 14:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

He is allowed to edit on other projects, he can create an account there, he just can't do it through unified login. Fram (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I am unsure what harm it would do to allow a user to use SUL. Moulton, in particular, is an unusual case - he was never really a bad faith editor, more that he is unwilling/unable to work within the parameters of en.Misplaced Pages. Neıl 龱 14:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(editconflict) I don't see what this has to do with AGF. He can still create those accounts the old-fashioned way, one by one, where needed. If he is blocked on en.wikipedia, he is not allowed to create or edit subpages here. When he has an account on Wikibooks or wherever else he prefers, he can probably create and edit user subpages over there. I don't see the need for us to undo his block for the specified reasons. Fram (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion please. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I refuse on principle to use AN subpages; they are stupid. If you wish to copy my comment to there, that would be okay.Neıl 龱 14:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Be that as it may, if you don't discuss there, we're going to have conflicting resolutions to the problem. Possibly leading to wheel wars. So, just this once then, please give in to the evil and keep discussion in one place. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Done This is fairly routine and has been done for users much more annoying and troublesom than Moulton, so no reason to refuse, especially if he plans to contribute productively to other wikimedia projects. Thatcher 14:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  Thank you, Thatcher. Neıl 龱 14:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This user keeps creating hoaxes faking a game that either does not exist or a totally not popular fan game of the original Galaxy Angel

The user Galaxyangelnew is creating hoaxes in a few articles faking a game(Galaxy Angel Eternal Lovers Shooter Version) that does not exist. The game is not sourced and on top of that got no google results. If the game can contain units from two Japanese company as well as a North America company and uses so many music from different series just because it is from the same composer(while it is not by the same composer as well like his/her claim), it must be extremely easy to find sources and does not have to keep reverting the pages without having one and ignoring the warnings. MythSearcher 14:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This user created a new account: User:Galaxyangelwork and uses the IP: 122.53.166.111 for his/her vandalism acts. MythSearcher 15:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I watchlisted the article. And those accounts. We'll see what happens. Grandmasterka 21:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

user:AvantVenger will need a close eye and/or a longer block

AvantVenger (talk · contribs)

See user's response to being blocked for gross incivility. (And I'm talking gross incivility, e.g. after having a relatively polite Wikiquette alert filed regarding him, his first comment at the WQA ended with "you can all go to HELL!") Maybe he just needs to cool down, but either this block needs extended, or somebody needs to be waiting tomorrow at 08:34 to make sure he is actually calmed down. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Instead of laying on more heat, I left a friendly note with some links. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If it comes down to a re-block, we can cross that bridge when we get there; for the time being, I believe de-escalation seems more appropriate. It's difficult for some users to quickly get into the "wiki way," but we should do what we can to nudge those users along. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, no de-escalation will be helpful here. I now believe that AvantVenger is the real-world person Charles Collins <> - who appears to be the indefinitely-banned User:Fraberj. My evidence is here User_talk:AvantVenger#Is_AvantVenger_really_Charles_Collins.3F. SteveBaker (talk) 04:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

User:SmartBoy222

User SmartBoy222 (talk · contribs) has made no contributions other than to remove prod templates from articles. According to policy I'm not supposed to restore these, but is this sort of editing considered vandalism? BradV 15:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

His latest contribs though are a number of page move vandalisms, sent to WP:AIV. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocked. Looks like some of his/her contributions got deleted, and then turned to vandalism. I would restore the prods as removed in bad faith. Pastordavid (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The prod removal was obviously just to get his edit count up and were not done in good faith, I've reverted them. Any good user can recheck them. This is the UK grawp groupie, no other open accounts on that IP. Thatcher 15:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I speedied a bunch of the prods as they were rubbish - a couple of the prods he removed were actually justifiably removed, though, so someone may want to go through them as Thatcher suggests. Neıl 龱 15:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOAPy user talk

Would User talk:Dzonatas be considered a little outside the bounds of the standard unblock requests, etc. that might be brought forward by an indefinitely-blocked user? I'm tempted to blank and lock myself, but thought I'd request some other thoughts first (besides, I'm kind of busy). Tony Fox (arf!) 17:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As much to help the indef blocked editor as anyone else, I have blanked and locked the talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Spammer?

Meddevicefan (talk · contribs)is adding tons of external links to a particular set of websites. Second opinion wanted, is this spam? Corvus cornix_talk 18:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks problematic. Some form of advertising? Even if not advertising, the additions aren't improving the pages. It could likely be good faith additions, though, might want to first address with the user things like WP:EL. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It sure looks like promotion for a manufacturer of (an admittedly cool) surgical device. There's no reason to have external links on every Misplaced Pages page for every condition that can be treated laparoscopically. They can have a couple of links on the page about the device itself (see Da Vinci Surgical System); the rest is overkill. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

These links have been removed in the past (first half of 2007) due to their being determined to be spam-related. See Dfiinter (talk · contribs), 68.33.211.237 (talk · contribs), and 65.160.57.101 (talk · contribs). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Spam Advert only account, blocked accordingly. persistant spamming--Hu12 (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the second opinions. Corvus cornix_talk 21:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Outing on my userpage

Hi,

I wanted to listen fully to a user who was critical of Baggini. This editor seems to now have more against SlimVirgin that the subject of the article. I assumed good faith and was kind to this editor, but he is now postings about speculations about SV's real life identity. I was aware of these speculations before, but I don't want them on my talk page.

I'm asking admin actions, and perhaps these things to be over-sighted from my userpage, if possible. I feel little inclined to continue discuss the topic with this editor now. I would appreciate if someone not involved with SlimVirgin took care of this as there are accusations of cabalism, etc.

Thank you, Merzul (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I EC'd with SlimVirgin in deleting the talk page to remove the revision. The user in question, Wikigiraffes (talk · contribs), was indefblocked by SlimVirgin. While I concur wholeheartedly with the block, it may have been better for SV to wait for an uninvolved admin to handle it. That said, I agree with and second her actions in this matter. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 19:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I presume someone has requested oversight; if no, I'll handle it in a bit. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 19:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

While not a fan of involved blockers or indef's, the user in question seemed to have earned this the old fashioned way (repeated poor behavior). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There was no need for SV to wait for an uninvolved admin - wholly appropriate to indef block Wikigiraffes for that. Neıl 龱 09:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

G11 deletion

• • NOt exactly resolved, but nothing left to do or see here. Archiving. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been an admin for 90 minutes and I already am bringing stuff to you guys. To take my tools for a spin, I deleted some easy CSDs - no problem there - and Koingo Software this one keeps popping up. Certainly G11 when I deleted twice, its now back and I'm second guessing myself. Can I get another pair of eyes on this? Tan | 39 19:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Keeper76 deleted it already. Water under the bridge.--Atlan (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it too late to retract my nom? What have we done? Are you in CAT:AOR? Obvious, blatant adverting, and WP:COI to boot. Deleted again, if it comes back, then a strong usertalk warning may be in order. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not an admin but there's some claim to notability (featured in numerous Mac and technology magazines and web sites - including MacAddict) so ask the editor to provide third party references. If they can't, prod it. --NeilN 20:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(ECx4) (!) Welcome to Adminship. You'll see a lot of these. In this case, the author appears to be attempting to comply with policy (they removed links to products, for example). So, I'd recommend that they draft an article in their userspace, citing independent sources (Google news offers several), and focusing on what the company is and why they are notable, not necessarily why their products are awesome. Either they'll come up with a neutral piece (the company may be notable, after all), or they will not. Either way, giving them a Plan B (the draft in userspace) avoids WP:BITE. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 20:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

After three rapid recreations, salted for 6 months. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest a usernameblock for the account that keeps creating the article.--Atlan (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Keeper User already indefblocked after a fourth recreation. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 20:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't indef block anybody, check the log. This user is getting railroaded at the moment, way overboard compared to his "crimes" of attempting to write an article. Like life in prison for stealing a loaf of bread, really. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I suggested usernameblock. No need to block indef just yet.--Atlan (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The user involved (Koingosw (talk · contribs)) continues to blank his talk page following the block. While I have no problem with blanking one's own talk page in general, I do believe that past discussions have said that messages such as block notices need to remain. Can an admin comment and/or take a look? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind - the page was protected while I was posting here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like that takes care of that, though I imagine we could have gotten by without taunting the block-ee. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 20:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, my bad. I get a little upset when people keep posting self-promotional stuff. I see this all the time on new-page patrol, though most aren't as stubborn as this one. Having said that, he should have been blocked much earlier on a username violation. OK, time for a brief Wikibreak - or as the little lady calls it, "Go mow the dang lawn before it starts raining!" Oh, well ... - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to wheelwar over it, and I agree the article doesn't belong here in it's current state (I deleted it twice myself). But this user has just been railroaded out the door, and can't even edit his talkpage to make a plea. He's pissed off right now, likely rightfully, but perhaps he has a case/or could build an article? I'm recommending an unprotection of his usertalk. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course. He should at least be allowed to suggest a new username on his talk page. I don't even know why his talk page was protected really.--Atlan (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I just unprotected. Left him/her a message explaining why everyone reacted how they did(repeated recreation is generally frowned upon). We'll see if he/she is still around. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

To Tanthalas - thanks for bringing this issue here. Admins new and old should bring things they're not sure about or are worried about straight to one of the admin boards for discussion. We're a collaborative editing environment, so it always helps to talk stuff over. In this case, yes, you're right to pause after repeated recreation of an article and ask yourself if you've done wrong, just in case. Then, as here, if you haven't, move the article to the creator's userspace, salt the original title and move-protect the copy and then contact the user on their talk page and, without using templates, explain where the article now lives, what is wrong with it and how they can improve it and how they can contact you. A spammer will detonate all over you, so can be ignored. A genuine fan of the subject will tell you more or ask for help. Either way, Misplaced Pages has won. We should always be ready to userfy and help, just in case, despite the extra work. And I'm aware I've got someone waiting for help in exactly these circumstances that I haven't yet provided, so don't point it out :o) ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 20:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary vandalism intervention?

An anonymous editor added a patently offensive edit summary to the Terry McAuliffe article. Is there anything that can be done about that? Please direct me elsewhere if appropriate -- I couldn't find any resources that explained what to do in the case of "edit summary vandalism". Thanks, -- Shunpiker (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:OVERSIGHT. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, maybe not. This guy has quite a few offensive edit summaries (). I've deleted one from the history - the others? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

While WP:OVERSIGHT is typically a little heavy-handed for simple vandalism, I don't think we want this guy's racist and sexist tirades preserved for posterity any time someone opens up the page history. I'd be in favor of getting rid of it. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted all the offensive edit summaries except for the first two remaining on the contribution list, which are to articles that probably have over 5000 edits. Can someone with greater powers than I help with this? NawlinWiki (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)`

Blocks by CSCWEM

I am concerned by the lengths of some blocks that CSCWEM has issued recently. He does not seem to be editing regularly, but has returned to issue some very long blocks against IP addresses with histories that do not seem to warrant them. I have raised this here, but have not received a response. I am tempted to reverse some of these blocks but also suggest that this is something which may need to be addressed if it continues. I understand from AuburnPilot that this has been raised to CSCWEM frequently, but that the blocks continue without any clear justification. Any input would be appreciated. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

For reference: Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Toddst1 (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I definitely think that 3, 6, 12 month blocks should be reserved for those persistent IP vandals that have already received the customary 24h, week-or-two and 1 month blocks. xenocidic (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I left a comment about these blocks on CSCWEM's talk page, but of course received no response; this isn't the first time I've had to ask him to respect the blocking policy. The most troubling of blocks are the ones that occurred without warnings, hours after an editor stopped editing, or those where CSCWEM changed another admin's block without discussion. Hodge04 (talk · contribs) was blocked on 7 May 2008 for one month, in what was already an excessive block, and CSCWEM unblocked and reblocked the account indefinitely without contacting the other admin (and no further abuse from the editor). It needs to be made clear to CSCWEM that his actions are inappropriate, and the lengths of his blocks are excessive. - auburnpilot talk 21:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Without input from CSCWEM I can only make comments, with the application of liberal AGF. An indef block of a one post vandal, after the expiry of the initial month block, indicates a history that is not apparent from the talkpage to me. The block summary is not exactly comprehensive either, but as noted CSCWEM was executing a great many blocks in a short period. I note in the one example that there was no request for unblock/howl of indignation, sometimes (but not always, of course) and indication of a bad faith account being abandoned upon discovery.

However, I should prefer a response from CSCWEM and would enquire if anyone has mailed them to make them aware of this discussion/these concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness, do we really expect an editor who replaces an entire body of text with "YOU SUCK" to really constructive in the future? Granted that this is the sole edit of the account, but I have yet to run into a good-faith account who started off the bat with vandalism. On the flip side, it would be nice to see CSCWEM reply here. seicer | talk | contribs 02:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

And if that were the only questionable block, nobody would be complaining, but this is a recurring problem. For example, the last time I had to point out CSCWEM's inappropriate blocks, I made a list of ~250 registered accounts seen here and here (note all have email disabled as default). That was several months ago, and he's still making bad blocks - auburnpilot talk 02:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• As a note, CSCWEM doesn't answer his talkpage. The only reason it isn't 100 screens long is because I set up the archivebot awhile back, maybe even the archives themselves I don't remember. Avruch * 22:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

An admin making questionable blocks who doesn't answer his talkpage, not exactly ideal is it? Maybe it's time they gave up the mop, as it seems it's all too much trouble for them. RMHED (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

"Users are responsible for the editorial and administrative actions they undertake, and must be willing and prepared to discuss the reasons for their actions in a timely manner". Daniel (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

All I can say is that I have asked CSCWEM a few times to cease and desist his questionable blocks, and like others had received no response. I'm all for the community forcing an answer out of him. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Is he editing from an alternate account or something? He just has an incredible number of logged actions for someone with zero edits. But I guess it really doesn't matter - if he's issuing blocks and not stopping to talk about it, that's a big problem. I support a block until such time as he is willing to discuss his actions. --B (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness, I am with the several other editors who have asked politely and have been rebuffed (I believe I may have had the same experience at ANI over the issue). AGF does not mean willful ignorance in the face of repeated actions that show otherwise. I strongly suggest an RFC, regardless of a block; I will sign it myself if someone opens it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a number of users are concerned, here; an RfC sounds appropriate. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) He has not edited a single page since 11 April. I have not checked deleted contribs, but expect them to be similar. He has, however, continued to perform blocks up until 28 May. This is problematic from a procedural basis, simply because he is blocking users withotu actially templating them to let them know when, why, and for how long they are blocked. Some of the blocks are problematic, as noted above - for example, do we block IPs for two years? Most of the edits look like tests and vandalism, so block away, whatever, and I am familiar with escalating blocks... but two years? UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 02:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I have randomly clicked on some of his blocks. A lot of them are just factually incorrect (ie, saying "repeated vandalism to various articles" when the IP only had one edit). This block of a US Department of Justice IP is slightly troubling and even though that isn't on the list of sensitive IP addresses, it's still a darned good idea to put some diligence into it. He has not blocked anyone since May 28, although there are frequently holes in his logs, so that may not mean that he has stopped for good. I think an RFC is appropriate, but regardless of that, I think that he needs to understand (and I will leave this message on his talk page) that if he makes another questionable block, he will be blocked as a preventative measure unless/until he is willing to discuss his actions. --B (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This address falls within the 149.101.0.0/16 - United States Department of Justice block as noted on the sensitive IP addresses, and also on the IP talk page. Kevin (talk) 03:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops ... I missed that one. --B (talk) 03:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This reminds me that i had occassion to contact CSCWEM in April with regard to a spam block he made without any warning on a user who had made three edits. Sure, the guy was adding links to his own website but he was never warned at all and also had the email disabled. He said he sent CSCWEM 4-5 emails directly over a six month period but all were ignored and eventually he sent a fax to the Foundation. I raised it was CSWEM on his talk page (User_talk:Can't_sleep,_clown_will_eat_me/Archive_2#DoctorGs) but, like everyone else, was ignored. I don't think people should be using admin tools at all if they are not prepared to respond to messages from users and fellow administrators and I am concerned that he seemed to be routinely disabling people's email for no apparent reason (I haven't checked to see if he still does that so it might not be an issue anymore). Sarah 03:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Given the lack of a response and interest by CSWEM, and the concerns raised, I think that the next step is to file an RFC? Has anyone tried IRC to see if he is still on? seicer | talk | contribs 03:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, the last time CSCWEM actually replied on his talk page was over 5 months ago. Needless to say, this is concerning if he is still using the tools while ignoring users asking him questions. I hope he will reply somewhere to clear this up. VegaDark (talk) 07:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I love CSCWEM who did a great job back in the days, but I must admit that I am concerned by the blocks he placed on 28 May. He can't really be using his admin tools and be unwilling to communicate. -- lucasbfr 07:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask a silly question here - has any checkuser reading this looked to make sure this isn't a compromised account? CSCWEM was one of our best anti-vandal admins. --B (talk) 11:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The whole "Repeated vandalism to various articles" phrase is one that he's been using for years. I have to say that none of this is new. CSCWEM has been blocking single-edit IPs for "Repeated vandalism" for as long as I can remember - and I've been around a while. Why is this only a problem now? It seemed like his actions were quietly accepted back then so what happened? —Wknight94 (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

He communicated before. If he was misusing block summaries, that was always a problem. Was it ever brought to ANI bringing wide community attention to it? --B (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I highly doubt that. This seems like an admin who has burned out and lost some of his better judgement because of it. That happens. More importantly, I don't see how an RfC would help. CSCWEM should be blocked indefinitely to be forced into talking, as admins especially are required to do. An RfC would just take time and lead to no clear conclusion while the problem persists... It reminds me of a commercial I saw long ago where a group of bystanders form a committee to solve the problem of a man sinking into quicksand right next to them. Some problems need a quick (and obvious) solution. (I won't block him, because I have to go to bed and don't have the time to deal with the fallout right now.) Grandmasterka 11:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask a stupid question, then. CSCWEM does not edit talk pages, or any other kind of page for that matter - that's part of the problem. Would a block have any effect at all? I mean, technically, would a block prevent him from blocking other users and continuing just as he has been? UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 12:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:UAA backlog

Looks like Usernames for Administrator Attention could, uh, use some administrator attention. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Zachary Jaydon

Clarification : primary problem is at The Mickey Mouse Club, not Zachary Jaydon itself.Kww (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm here to seek input about what steps are appropriate. User:TragedyStriker (whose signature reads "Skyler Morgan", so don't get confused by that) has a pretty single-minded contribution history: the inclusion of every detail of Zachary Jaydon's career in Misplaced Pages. He has been accused more than once of including details of Jaydon's career that are counter-factual, specifically the claim that Zachary Jaydon was a cast member on The Mickey Mouse Club, a claim he has been making for nearly a year. Editors of the article have consulted two works that claim to provide a complete list, The Wonderful World of Disney Television: A Complete History, by Bill Cotter. New York: Hyperion (1997) and Disney A to Z: The Updated Official Encyclopedia, Dave Smith, Hyperion, ISBN 0-7868-6391-9, and have found no Zachary Jaydon. Editors have scanned the credits of the YouTube copyright violations, and found no trace of Jaydon in the credits. The only sources that list Jaydon on the MMC are IMDB and another "edited by user contribution" site.
After a lull of several weeks, TragedyStriker included the following:

• ] (Seasons 1-7)<ref>Stevens, K: "The ALL-NEW Mickey Mouse Club!", pages 33-36. The Disney Channel Magazine, April, 1989</ref><ref>Venable, B: "MMC Rocks The Planet", pages 16-17. The Disney Channel Magazine, June-July, 1992</ref><ref>Stanza, M: "MMC, The Album", pages 14-19. The Disney Channel Magazine, May, 1993</ref>

A nice set of paper references, but, unfortunately, nearly impossible to verify. I live on a Dutch-speaking island in South America, so our local library hasn't been eager to stock house magazines from American cable children's networks. I've put out requests for people to look it up via e-mails to editors on the article, postings on the reliable sources noticeboard, and the talk-page for the article. So far, no one has been able to physically obtain a copy of this information to validate it. Accordingly, User:Saratoga Sam,User:C.Fred, and myself have been reverting this information, until someone can physically validate this source or TragedyStriker can pony up some credible scans. TragedyStriker has been blocked once for 3RR for this, and socks seem to be involved as well (sadly enough, on both sides of the debate: this, this and this seem suspicious, but here we have an editor with one edit created two minutes before that one edit, and he is removing Zachary).
So, my real question ... what's appropriate behaviour in a situation like this? If Tragedy never comes up with the scans, and no one ever finds a copy of this magazine, can we just keep blocking the addition of the information? Or do others think that our supply of good faith should come in larger bottles?
Kww (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a blog post out there that I won't link to with a lot of allegations about Mr. Jaydon which indicates that he also goes by the name of Skyler Morgan (you can find the blog posting if you Google Mr. Jaydon's name). I am not making any claims one way or the other, but the blog posting is worth reading if anyone wants to delve into this. Corvus cornix_talk 23:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It's also worthing noting that there was already a consensus deletion of this article: ]. Corvus cornix_talk 23:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That was overridden in the second deletion review. Most people don't deny the existence of Zachary Jaydon, and his verifiable accomplishments can be seen as sufficient to warrant an article.Kww (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Georgian article vandal

A vandal with the IP 68.81.195.69 is daily vandalizing articles having to do with Georgia. He or she is changes mostly speaker counts or inhabitant numbers, sometimes only slightly, without giving a source. I've had quite an edit&revert war with him, as I thought after some time he'd stop anyway. He didn't. That person is getting very annoying, so I hope someone can block him now. Thanks! — N-true (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

He has not edited past your final warning (at 23:17 UTC on 10 June). Let us know if he does so. EdJohnston (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

self promotion links

Hi. User Mikemaadogg (talk · contribs) has only added links to one website which leads me to believe this might be self-promotion. I originally removed the links because I felt much of the info on this website is incorrect or not necessary. I wrote on his userpage a few days ago but he has not replied and has undo my removal of the links. What do others think about this? Thanks --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a factual website relating to Chinese finance, and the ".gov.cn" reference is a bit of a giveaway. In what way is it promotional? This site does not sell products as far as I can see. And how do you judge the accuracy or relevance of the information on it? --Rodhullandemu 01:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rod. I'm not sure which edit you are referring to but most of them are to the SWF institute, which is a non-profit organization. Some of their information is incorrect or in some cases copyrighted materials. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Left a note requesting some response from Mikemaadogg; no particularly strong feeling on the site itself, as of yet, but the single-minded pursuit of links to it suggests a possible COI. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Luna. Let's see what he says. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The CAMERA lobbying effort may be on again. Maybe.

This is more of a heads-up than a request for action. Today we have three anon editors engaged in somewhat aggressive editing on some highly-contentious Israel-related articles that had been quiet for a while.

• 70.181.148.148 (talk · contribs) a/k/a Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs) - started AfD #8 on Allegations of Israeli Apartheid. (This matter is covered in an incident above.)
• 24.62.5.76 (talk · contribs) - editing CAMERA to add Gabriel Ini's (CAMERA staffer and banned user Gni (talk · contribs)) comments to the press on the CAMERA/Wikipedia controversy.
• 128.252.174.116 (talk · contribs) - edited If Americans Knew to insert very negative statements about organization's board members. (Many edits; see contribs.) Article now semi-protected and worst items reverted per WP:BLP.

This bears watching. CAMERA may be making another try. It could just be a coincidence, but the classic line "Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three times is enemy action" seems relevant. --John Nagle (talk) 04:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this has anything to do with CAMERA in particular, but there has been a definite uptick in IPs and new / single-purpose account activity promoting a "pro-Israel" agenda on a relatively small subset of pages, esp. Muhammad al-Durrah, of late. Probably bears a little scrutiny. <eleland/talkedits> 07:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

AN/I semiprotected

I have indefinitely semiprotected this page, anyone may bump it back down to just move protection at their discretion. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ehh I don't think it was really necessary for an indefinite coming from 2 apparent GRAWP socks. Maybe 24 hours :). Just my input =D<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 07:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree, I just left the expiration as "indefinite" so the move protection wouldn't be accidentally removed. I don't expect semiprotection to be necessary for more than a few hours. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd've blocked the IPs AO ACB three months apiece. These aren't Grawp; these are 4channers, and I wouldn't be surprised if these guys are just "following orders" left by Grawp on /b/. Here's a hint: Grawp registers and signs in. -Jéské 07:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ehh I don't understand the whole story about Grawp, I just presume stretched anus' are him. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 07:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Grawp has imitators, but even his imitators register/sign in. 4channers do not because of their preference for "anonymity". -Jéské 07:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Any idea how he's did the stuff up at the allegations of israeli apartheid above? I've looked at the diffs but I can't find an easy way to fix it. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Template vandalism: {{u}}. -Jéské 07:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I just found it. Could someone please protect that like the other user templates are? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I will; I just blocked the IP. I'll also remove that revision; this looks like 4chan vandalism again as it all appears to be the same damn edit, with the PAGENAME parameter added. -Jéské 07:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done Edit deleted, IP blocked for a quarter, page protected as high-risk. -Jéské 07:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Not everyone who visits 4chan is like this... Sigh. :( Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I know; I have two channers as friends RL. As a side note, we need admins at User talk:Persian Poet Gal; she's been under attack, and I've blocked a few 4channer IPs for three months there because the wethers are following the shepherd off a cliff overlooking the Columbia River. Likewise, I would like some eyes on my talk page; I'm also a frequent target. -Jéské 07:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Archilles last stand and related IP's

Master account:

• Archilles last stand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

IP's he uses to avoid 3RR & other conduct policies:

• 124.168.36.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 65.49.14.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Related articles:

• Scott McClellan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Justin Raimondo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other relevant pages:

• User talk:Blaxthos (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Since joining the community less than a month ago, this account has caused nothing but trouble (see contributions, edit summaries, and his talk page. He's consistently inserted POV, and in some cases outright libelous statements, on several biographies of living persons. Seems to have no understanding of (or desire to understand) some very important concepts, including WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE, and what constitutes vandalism. They've hurled several bogus sounding "warnings", and have continued to behave disruptively after being warned multiple times (and reversions being explained on associated talk pages). Not sure where to go from here... any advice or help would be appreciated. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 08:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I was about to do the same; he's back to his original behaviour; including POV pushing and using Scott Stevens (weatherman) as a discussion page, after I asked him to stop). Previous discussion was archived Incident archive 425 --Blowdart | 10:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. It would have been shorter, but he was already using the IPs to edit-war and avoid 3RR (obvious, as he had been caught up in autoblocks). Neıl 龱 12:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

User:The SRS

Various issues have been coming up revolving this user:

• He claimed that his account was hacked, and that somebody else was getting on his account to make userspace edits, and that it was not him. After Alison preformed a checkuser it was found to be that he was lying, and was making all of those edits. He has been warned time after time to stop making userspace edits, and get into namespace, and he basically refused to.
• He appears to be good friends with indefinitely blocked user User:SexySeaClownfish
• He created this video on his YouTube account. The link to his account was found on his userpage.
• He attacked myself, Alison, and even his adopter The Hybrid with a middle finger in ASCII form on his userpage, but I have since removed it.

He has recently apologized, but after all of this, I believe some sort of action needs to take place. -- iMatthew _T.C. 10:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I have an opinion on the matter, but I'd rather not express it. I will submit to whatever decision is reached here without objection. Cheers, The Hybrid 11:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)