Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:56, 12 July 2008

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

Giovanni33 part 2

Please leave this thread open for a while so people can discuss their concerns, and please be respectful toward the banned user. Thanks. - Jehochman 05:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

See prior ANI thread

Some of us are very uneasy about Giovanni33 (talk · contribs) getting banned indefinitely based on a very short discussion, and when he's already been banned by arbcom for a year. It certainly wasn't a decision that the community came to. To avoid another edit war on Misplaced Pages:List of banned users I'm asking that this be discussed without premature archiving. -- Ned Scott 05:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Quick clarification: the disputed community ban preceded the ArbCom ban (the community ban occurred while ArbCom was voting on its ban). Ned's account unintentionally implies the opposite. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. -- Ned Scott 05:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Now that nine arbitrators have unanimously declared him guilty of having "repeatedly engaged in prohibited sockpuppetry and/or some form of proxy editing", is there anyone who feels the community ban was in error? If the positive CU results presented in the ban thread were available before the ArbCom case, there probably wouldn't have been any need for the case at all. (Also note the various legal threats on his pre-blanked talk page.) Since he's hard-banned by ArbCom for a year anyway, the only practical effect of the community ban is that we must agree to him being unbanned after that point in time. Sounds like a reasonable precaution to me. - Merzbow (talk) 05:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are we even discussing this now? It's not even an issue for another year. Let a year pass and G33 can appeal to be reinstated. The flames will have died down and the uneasiness will be put in perspective. But discussing now will only create more drama with the onl youtcome beign that Giovanni33 is banned for at least a year. Close this down and move on. Ignoring this now as there is no resolution that changes the status quo. Stop the drama. --DHeyward (talk) 05:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"...nine arbitrators have unanimously declared him guilty of having "repeatedly engaged in prohibited sockpuppetry and/or some form of proxy editing", is there anyone who feels the community ban was in error?" Yes, those who don't trust this ArbCom on sockpuppetry, for excellent reasons. --User:Relata refero 06:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose, considering my comments elsewhere, that I should be counted as one of those uneasy regarding the indefinite ban. Indeed, I am concerned. But, at the same time, I find myself in agreement with DHeyward: waiting a while (perhaps not a full year, or perhaps a full year as DH suggests) before revisiting this particular issue seems like an acceptable plan. --Iamunknown 06:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

To DHeyward, the reason I bring this up is because we should not take "community banned" lightly, regardless of the situation. I could easily see this as working against Giovanni when a year is up, and he asks for his ban to be reviewed. There are a lot of admins that will blindly support a ban without looking into the matter, seeing that it was listed as a "community ban" and trusting that it really was. This is a calm and rationale discussion, demanding that it be closed and saying things like "stop the drama" is exactly what creates the drama in the first place.

In general: Arbcom went with a one year ban, not an indef. Their decision is not an endorsement of the indef ban in any way. -- Ned Scott 07:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The Committee 1 year ban is a standard remedy. Even if an administrator is willing to unblock (god help us all), this will not change the fact he will remain blocked as part of the ArbCom remedy. It's futile and tendentious (and some might suggest it's trollish) to insist a ban be reviewed when an overwhelming number here continue to say "We are not willing to unblock. We will reconsider after sometime, whether it's before or after the Committee year-long ban is up, but not now." Take note. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

For about the 20th time, in the 30th place, an admin being willing to unblock, only invalidates an undiscussed community ban that exists when NO admin is willing to unblock. However if the ban has had community discussion the willingness of a single admin to unblock, will not overturn the ban. That requires more community discussion. The first is an effective community ban, it exists when an indef blocked user cannot find someone willing to unblock them. The second one is an actual community ban - a ban in effect after community discussion. (Ncmvocalist this is not specifically aimed at you, more at everyone who perpetuates that myth) Viridae 11:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. To clarify: I was making a massive assumption that after discussion, the community agreed for the 'willing' admin to handle it (even if it meant that the community-ban was overturned). Essentially, my point was that even with that assumption, the Committee ban isn't going to move, so those jumping up and down for review of this ban should go worry about that first. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you maybe clarify the wording of WP:BAN? If the discussion end changes the situation so much, there should also be a stated minimum length of time to discuss to help prevent gaming the system (like we have on RFA and other processes). Jehochman 11:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• There is a reason the arbitration committee only does blocks/bans for a year - it trusts the committee in a year's time to get a review right. The community is more fickle and changeable, so it does indefinite bans because that both allows more and less flexibility (early unblocking and ignoring the matter forever). I said at the time that there was no need to have a community ban discussion, and that ArbCom had matters well in hand. Leave it as a year-long block and trust the committee in a year's time to handle the matter. Carcharoth (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any uninvolved admin willing to unblock Giovanni33 AND the ban will be in place after the discussion. Can we endorse and close this ? --DHeyward (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that this discussion is kind of pointless. If, in a year's time, there is a good reason to unblock Giovanni33, we can do so then. Nothing we decide now will bind us anyway. Sam Korn 13:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose ban and discussion closing. Ned Scott makes a lot of sense. I'm also very uncomfortable about the rush to close either of these discussions. This discussion is not pointless nor is it drama, as process never is. And since Giovanni is ArbCom banned for a year (without auto renewing), why even bother with a community ban. The ban discussion earlier was extremely short and occurred during a extended national holiday in the USA which clearly reduced participation well below the level that could be considered necessary for a community ban. This discussion should stay open for a significant time period, like the five days we normally give AfDs or seven days for RfAs. — Becksguy (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• I really think this is much to-do over nothing. "Indef" does not mean "permanent." Given the ArbCom decision, this will be reviewed in 1 year anyway. If the ArbCom decides there is no need to reniew their ban, then the community can discuss the community ban as well. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, I find it difficult to believe that anyone would be willing to say G33 is innocent with a straight face after looking at the mounds of evidence to the contrary, and especially since he's been making noises about legal action all through the arbcom case and even after it on his talk page. Jtrainor (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• He certainly should have an indef ban while he threatens legal action. --DHeyward (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

He said his lawyer would consul and facilitate and he specifically disclaimed intent to litigate at this time. That's not a legal threat (ie - do X or I'll sue you) per WP:LEGAL, so that fails as a reason to community ban per se. As to innocence, I am not taking a position on the merits of the charges, since I haven't gone through all the evidence and discussions, although there has been a concern expressed about the validity of the sockpuppet charges. This discussion thread, and the earlier one, is about process, and the first discussion here was out of process, both prima facie, and as supported by the significant concerns expressed here and elsewhere. So no, do not endorse, as this ban does nothing but inappropriately trample on Giovanni's pride and dignity, per WP:BAN. It's dehumanizing and it lessens Misplaced Pages to beat him up with a community ban while already banned by ArbCom. We don't rub salt into wounds. — Becksguy (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Like Ned, this tries my faith in the community and it's ability to function in anything approaching a just manner when an ongoing, months long ArbCom case can simply be ripped out of the hands of the Arbitrators and decided by by the votes of a dozen unelected, unaccountable editors in just a few hours of discussion, especially when timed on a holiday to ensure the least possible number of editors would be around to complain. A community that behaves this way is hardly one I want to be a part of. Why do we even elect Arbs? Is it all for show? -- Kendrick7 01:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion was open for almost 18 hours; I'm sure you remember it was re-opened. Consensus to ban was overwhelming, which was why it was SNOW closed by two different admins. And this new thread has generated almost no interest by anyone to revisit the issue. Come to "Allegations..." and enjoy the newfound peace and quiet we have there. - Merzbow (talk) 03:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

When you're just an unpaid volunteer, it's hard to justify spending time on someone that is deserving of some kind of block/ban, one way or another. A lack of interest isn't an indication of anything significant, because that in itself isn't an endorsement of the action taken. If you would care to actually respond to any of the points Kendrick7 made, or any of the other users who have stated valid objections, please do so. -- Ned Scott 03:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It's impossible to discuss something with someone who ignores all evidence that doesn't support their viewpoint. Jtrainor (talk) 11:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Is that directed at me? Because I personally think the guy had it coming. I just don't agree with the assessment that this is a community ban, and that an indef ban is appropriate when Arbcom has already given him a year ban. -- Ned Scott 06:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Merzbow says "Consensus to ban was overwhelming", yet at least six of the users (Ice Cold Beer, Jtrainor, John Smith, Merzbow, Sceptre, The Evil Spartan) voting to community ban were editorial and/or ideological adversaries of Giovanni. According to Red Pen, ignoring the six adversarial editors leaves 5 endorsing, and 3 opposing. Calling that an overwhelming consensus has got to be one of the most absurd and outlandish claims yet. — Becksguy (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The original thread was the discussion on whether to apply the community banning, and had at least 15 votes to do so, and was closed twice as SNOW, so you are greatly misrepresenting the situation. This thread is about whether to overturn that decision, and there are no new editors here in support of that, so sorry. And as long as we're putting people in ideological bins, I distinctly recall your name editing or advocating for G33's PoV on "Allegations...", as have most of the small minority against the banning. But thanks anyway for the attempt to turn this into a political WP:BATTLEGROUND. - Merzbow (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This thread is not about overturning a decision, it's about finding out if the current ban is actually supported by the community. Not by a small click that was closely involved in the dispute, but by the community. -- Ned Scott 06:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ned for reopening this. Several comments:

• He is correct, this is a continuation of the earlier thread, not a new discussion on overturning the ban.
• I have no intention of turning this into a battleground, and I don't think others do either. As an indication of that, I'm striking a strong sentence in my comment above. Also no interest in rehashing the discussion arguments in Allegations of state terrorism by the United States.
• One of my concerns is that this community ban discussion seems like a rush to judgment. If Giovanni did all that he is charged with, then he deserves to be banned. ArbCom banned him for one year (and this is not the place to discuss that), but why do some people here feel the need to kick him while down by community banning him also. And with very little initial discussion (originally less than five hours).
• Another concern is that six editors that voted to ban had adversarial relationships with Giovanni, and therefore their voting might be perceived as a lack of impartially. For the process to work and be accepted by the community as fair and transparent, it needs to be free from the perception of systemic and/or personal bias. Which is why we require that uninvolved administrators close deletion discussions, for example. Anyone looking at the terrorism article debates and edit wars will agree that there was extreme rancor between the parties. This is not a cry in the wilderness, six editors have expressed concerns about the impartially of this discussion.
• This discussion is about process and community involvement, and without the acceptance that process works, we have no Misplaced Pages, as that is the glue the holds this massive project together.

— Becksguy (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Becks, I am not sure that you have taken on board Jehochman's earlier comments. I am re-posting them because they are very informative. John Smith's (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

We do not vote on the fate of people. A strong case has been made that Giovanni33 has exhausted community patience. No administrator has objected. Therefore, Giovanni33 is community banned, until an administrator objects. Even then, Giovanni will remain blocked until there is a consensus to unblock. Jehochman Talk 12:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Becks, I had an adversarial relationship with G33 because he kept using socks on an article I was trying to improve. The egg indeed becomes before the chicken in this case. Jtrainor (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni should be unblocked after one year and the moment another admin objects to the current indef ban. The burden is not on them to find consensus to unblock, because the community never endorsed a community ban. -- Ned Scott 04:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That's your view, Ned, but all the administrators that have commented here disagree with you. They're the ones that get to decide whether the community endorsed a ban or not. Also when an admin objects that will only lead to a discussion over unblocking. If you don't believe me I suggest you contact Rjd0060 and Jehochman on their talk pages to clarify the situation. John Smith's (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Admins don't decide things for the community. Saying they have a right to lie about what happened, to make what they said seem true, is absurd. Admins do not have a higher authority than any other user for simply being an admin. They are not little dictators. -- Ned Scott 07:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't fully understand Jehochman's quoted comment. On one hand he says: We do not vote on the fate of people. Very noble principle. But on the other hand he goes on to say: A strong case has been made that Giovanni33 has exhausted community patience. But that case was made by voting from what I can see, especially based on a comment made here that the community ban "had at least 15 votes". I just don't see community endorsement, and neither do five other editors. And no one has explained why Giovanni has to be community banned when he is already ArbCom banned. — Becksguy (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

At the time of the community discussion, the ArbComm case hadn't yet closed. That answers one of your queries, probably the least significant one. GRBerry 19:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think his view was based on the fact that the administrators were lining up to support a ban. As he or someone else said, it is not practice to have people further humiliated by having a list of people asking for a ban.

As for why, well no one "has" to be community banned. But they are. I have already recommended you talk to the admins concerned. If you really want to know the answer, rather than stand on a soapbox, go talk to them. John Smith's (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that explains some of it, and avoiding a pile-on is, indeed, the decent thing to do. But then why not also do the decent thing and drop the community ban after the ArbCom decision rendered it moot. And what about the issue of six non-impartial editors voting in less than five hours during a major weekend holiday. — Becksguy (talk) 08:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The arbcom decision does not render the community ban moot. As it stands, if the arbcom decides not to renew their ban on the 1 year anniversary, the community can then decide whether to remove the community ban, or leave it in place.

Regarding the non-impartial editors, it's really not an issue. The decision was not a vote, as such, and there were many more people supporting the ban than the involved editors. More to the point, no admin has been willing to oppose the block, which is the minimum to consider overturning it. At this point, I'd say the issue is settled for the 1 year arbcom ban. After that point, if arbcom does not renew the ban, the community can discuss the community ban again. — The Hand That Feeds You: 11:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is premature and should be closed. It should take place when the ArbCom-imposed ban expires, at the earliest.  Sandstein  13:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding. This is not a discussion to overturn a legitimately derived community ban, rather it's a continuation of the first discussion and in which the community ban validity is being challenged as being out of process per all the arguments by Ned Scott,The Red Pen of Doom, Sarah, Badagnani, 220.236.108.16, and myself. In other words, the ban is illegitimate per se and should be stricken from the list and nullified based on the concept of the fruit of the poisonous tree. — Becksguy (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, IP editors who make one edit to just join in a discussion should be ignored for obvious reasons. Second, Redpen is an involved editor. Third, neither Badangani nor Sarah said that the ban was invalid - Sarah openly backed it. Please do not misrepresent the situation. John Smith's (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Complicated legal threat situation

I'm an involved user in this situation, so I will take absolutely no admin action here, but I'm not sure if any admin action is needed or not. User:Guido den Broeder posted on the 3rd July on the talk page of User:Oscar, an admin on the Dutch Misplaced Pages and the mentor of Guido den Broeder over there (it's an arbcom appointed mentorship, but is not recognized or accepted as such by Guido den Broeder). Guido was blocked by Oscar on the Dutch Misplaced Pages, and posted here: "Oscar, ik raad je aan om per onmiddellijk mijn blokkade op nl:Misplaced Pages ongedaan te maken. Beschouw dit als je laatste kans." (Translation: "Oscar, I advise you to lift my block on the Dutch Misplaced Pages immediately. Consider this your final chance.") Another user interpreted this as a physical threat, which seems unrealistic to me. However, some four hours after this message, Guido den Broeder has been indefinitely blocked on the Dutch Misplaced Pages by decision of the Dutch Arbcom for making serious legal threats. Quote: "Na het indienen van deze zaak heeft Guido den Broeder in een email van 3 juli aan gebruiker:Oscar en een afschrift daarvan aan de arbcom aangekondigd strafrechtelijke stappen te zullen ondernemen tegen Oscar." (Translation: "After starting this case, Guido den Broeder has in a mail of July 3rd to user:Oscar and a carbon copy to the arbcom announced to take legal action against Oscar.) The Dutch arbcom has also contacted Mike Godwin.

I know that normally actions and blocks on other Wikipedias are not transferred to this one, but since the user has brought this problem to the English Misplaced Pages as well (and to meta]), and has made a post which, in light of what followed, can hardly be interpreted aas anything but a veiled legal threat, should he be warned and/or blocked here as well until this is resolved? Fram (talk) 08:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course. Good analysis of the case. The threat was made here, and in any case, even if it wasn't, these two users, with recognisably the same user identities as on nl-wiki, would pose the same problem if they had to interact here on en-wiki while at the same time engaged in real-life legal issues, so yes, the spirit of NLT would demand that we block him even if he hadn't spoken about it here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've always found WP:NLT' reasoning rather tenuous. I do wish we'd treat it simply as an extension of being civil and polite, and that we'd ask that users make no threats at all, rather than giving tenuous legal reasoning. — Werdna • talk 09:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• In addition to using English Misplaced Pages to further conflict on another wiki and make legal threats, Guido was blocked several times for different kinds of misconduct here, so I don't think that unblocking him will make any sense, even if he retracts the legal threat. As such, I propose to impose community ban on Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs). MaxSem 09:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • From what I saw, Dutch wikipedia editors followed him here. Possibly both sides are "using English Misplaced Pages to further conflict on another wiki". I said this last time, and will say it again. In the era of SUL (single-user login) we need to think more about cross-wiki issues. Traditionally, sanctions and remedies on other wikis were not applied here, and I think that should continue. I also think the tradition of giving people a second chance on other wikis is sometimes good, but also shouldn't be abused. The language issues are a problem as well. I am always uncomfortable relying on people to translate what has been said on other wikis - it is simpler to look at behaviour on just one wiki. Carcharoth (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban, leave blocked until legal issues sorted. I haven't looked recently, but I don't think his problematic editing conduct warrants a ban. Legal threats are not allowed, though, and those issues need to be resolved before any unblocking. Unfortunately, we can't judge the legal threats aspect of things properly here, as there is off-wiki stuff (Godwin and Dutch Misplaced Pages). If Guido withdraws the legal threats he can be unblocked - but we need a way of making certain that the legal threats have genuinely been withdrawn, I don't think just a post to his talk page would be enough. On the other hand, (for example) a lack of response from Mike Godwin (has he responded to confirm anything, or has someone just sent him an e-mail hoping for a reply?) or a lack of response from the Dutch Misplaced Pages, might leave Guido in a particularly nasty kind of limbo, even if he has withdrawn his legal threats. Anyway, as I was saying, if the legal stuff gets sorted, I'd be happy to mentor Guido on chess articles. From what I can see, the most problematic of his editing is on medical articles. Carcharoth (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Agree with Carcharoth, who basically said what I was going to say, but better. Having dealt with a few disputes that have spilled over from other wikimedia projects, I find the best thign to do is to deal with each in isolation. Neıl 龱 12:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Block him indefinitely, tell him to convey his legal requests to info-en@wikimedia.org, he's welcome to be unblocked when he removes his threat. Simple. As well, the lack of response from Mike is not a big deal, he does not deal with every single legal threat we get, the majority of them are dealt with on OTRS before they ever get serious enough to go to him. ⇒SWATJester 13:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The point I was making was that the comment "The Dutch arbcom has also contacted Mike Godwin" is pointless and shouldn't be taken to mean anything unless someone hears from Mike Godwin. We shouldn't take the word of others that a particular situation is urgent or serious enough to require Mike Godwin's attention. The only person who can decide that is Mike Godwin himself. We should be wary of people using the phrase "we've contacted Mike Godwin" as a way to bolster their argument. We should also avoid getting into a situation where people say "we haven't heard back from Mike Godwin yet, don't do anything". Carcharoth (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The comment Guido made contains the kind of "intimidation" contemplated by the legal threats policy, although I don't see that it affects the free editing of articles. If Guido agrees to stay away from Oscar here, I think unblocking would be OK, but the precipitating comment doesn't reassure me that he'd do so.--chaser - t 10:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have clashed with him before, but I cannot see how one can threaten legal action on one wiki and remain an editor in good standing on another. It is unacceptable behaviour regardless of whether it has happened here or elsewhere, and it should be discouraged in the strongest possible terms. JFW | T@lk 19:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What? How is that "unacceptable behavior"?

Making threats of legal action against Misplaced Pages is clearly unacceptable behavior. — The Hand That Feeds You: 19:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I note he had signed himself up to the Misplaced Pages:Harmonious editing club which seeks make WP "a more inviting and friendly place for our contributors.... by resolving disputes, answering user's questions, helping editors with their contributions and participating in requests for input". As the Misplaced Pages talk:Harmonious editing club#Membership requirements is not to exceed 1RR, previous blocks for 3RR & current WP:NLT seem inappropriate. I'm guessing issue for the club to decide on membership ? David Ruben 01:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

David, Misplaced Pages:Harmonious editing club is completely irrelevant here. The last time I looked it was more like a voluntary pledge than something where people were elected to membership. It's just like anything else on Misplaced Pages - you can sign up to practically anything around here - it is your actions, not what you are signed up to that counts. Carcharoth (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is a complicated situation indeed. This guy started with putting in his name as a respected scientist everywhere, and ended as an ME-patient complaining about his disrespect. In both cases rather uncalled-for from a distance, but you could comply with his conduct. Only after threatening his mentor with legal file his behaviour was regarded as unacceptable. His mentor felt privately threatened as well. Now if he would withdraw his legal accusations, and make public excuses towards his mentor, would that be enough to undo his block? What would the English community do in such a situation?

1. Continue the indefinite block

...

2. Undo the indefinite block

1. First choice (conditional on legal threats being withdrawn on both projects, or a clear statement that no legal threats were made). Carcharoth (talk) 07:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

3. Under conditions, give this member a new chance

1. Second choice, with a probable restriction on medical articles (conditional on legal threats being withdrawn on both projects, or a clear statement that no legal threats were made). I've offered before to mentor on chess articles, and that offer stands. Carcharoth (talk) 07:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

- Art Unbound (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC) member of the Dutch Arbcom

Could someone who can read Dutch confirm this, please? Carcharoth (talk) 07:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If you meant if you wanted a confirmation that Art Unbound is a member of the Dutch Arbcom, he is mentioned on the members list for the Dutch Wiki: nl:Misplaced Pages:Arbitragecommissie/Leden. --Dirk Beetstra 09:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the Dutch for Arbitration Committee is fairly obvious, and I could have found the link from his user page or the interwikis at our ARBCOM, but thanks! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 09:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

4. Keep Dutch and English Misplaced Pages actions separate

1. Carcharoth (talk) 07:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

5. Sort out a proper process to deal with cross-wiki issues in the age of single-user login

1. Carcharoth (talk) 07:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Some more options that should be explored. Carcharoth (talk) 07:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the intervention. My only motivation was sincere concern about this case. - Art Unbound (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Rollosmokes again

This is essentially a continuation of this ANI thread which ended with no resolution. The user continues to try to impose his will on certain TV station articles, particularly his continued insistence that The CW does not have the right to call themselves The CW. It's not just original research and POV-pushing on his part, it's also disruptive behavior, since he refuses to discuss the points made to him. His answer is "I'm right and you're wrong". There are now at least a couple of pages protected to keep him from his antics. Are we going to have to protect the pages one by one? Or can something else be done? Baseball Bugs 18:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

From reading the previous ANI thread, it seems that he is continuing his pattern of disruptive editing. Regardless if it is grammatically correct or not, the fact that the company name is The CW trumps the grammar rules when it comes to editing. If the editor continues to make these edits against consensus, and article need to be protected to PREVENT the user from doing so, a block may be in order. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Two articles today have been protected for just this purpose. Please note the attitude in the user's edit summaries: Baseball Bugs 18:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have recently warned this editor regarding edit warring over a related matter. I suggest the bluntest of the clue sticks need applying. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The second of the two incidents I listed came after your warning, and used the same "I'm right and you're wrong" language that the first one did. It's plain to see that he isn't really interested in what anyone else thinks about it. When an ANI thread comes along, he waits until the heat is off, and then starts up again. Something needs to be done. Baseball Bugs 21:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Between Among the two threads, I've seen various admins say that "something" should be done, but so far no one has acted upon that "should be". Baseball Bugs 03:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There was one more edit by the editor after the one linked above, and the article concerned was then protected. Let us see what the editor does when they resume. I will execute a short block if there is any revert warring in the next 24 hours from this account. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

He'll be watched. Baseball Bugs 13:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

He's back and doing it again... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the CW and WB stuff, he's also making needless reverts like this one to change "Ultra high frequency" to "ultra high frequency". What's up with this guy? Baseball Bugs 17:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

He's telling selected users that he's "taking a break", presumably another tactic to take the heat off. Baseball Bugs 17:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, let him take a break. If he doesn't take a break, than maybe action should be taken to prevent further disruption/incivility. Beam 17:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that his user page says his break is "to let the tension die down". Well, the tension is of his own doing, and if he doesn't change his approach, the "tension" will resume immediately upon his return. FYI, I intend to roll back his nonsensical UHF / VHF changes. The articles start with upper case U and V, so his changes to the links to lower case were pointless. Baseball Bugs 17:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Also please note what amounts to an "enemies list" he has compiled on his talk page, as reasons for why he's "taking a break". Baseball Bugs 17:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I am correct on this -- and I will prove it all to you when I return. - so he's not going to change. --Allemandtando (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)From what I can see it look like he is trying to game the system here. He makes these edits, it's brought to AN/I, pages are protected, and after a day or so the editor "takes a break". Come back a few days later and it's the same thing all over again. It's disruptive, at least to me and some action needs to be taken regarding this, especially if article have to be repeatedly locked down due to his actions. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I love how he paints himself as the defender of what is right, and throws around thinly veiled insults ("an oversensitive editor", POV puushers, "IP abuser", "vultures") at those who do not share his views. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Response

First, despite what Baseball Bugs says, I have discussed my opinion on this issue ad nauseum. (See Talk:WGN-TV#Here we go again..., Talk:WGN-TV#Before anyone loses their carrots... User talk:TV9, and my own talk page.) This is not "my will" or "POV-pushing" -- THIS IS CORRECT, PROPER USE OF GRAMMAR. You should ignore what you see and read the various writing style manuals I have cited (Penguin Handbook for Writers, the Chicago Manual of Style, MLA Style Manual, etc.).

Second, this has gone way beyond bizzare. Baseball Bugs has appointed himself as my own personal watchdog? Nitpicking over every single edit I make? Who made him a private dick, or a Misplaced Pages administrator? And why is his name all over this place? To me he's nothing more than a bully.

Finally, as far as me taking a break, I will not discuss that other than what is written on my talk page. If you feel that it's "to take the heat off", believe that if you want to. I'm done. Have a good summer. Rollosmokes (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The editor continues to ignore the issues raised, specifically that it is not his place to tell The CW what they can call themselves. Their trademarked name trumps so-called "grammer rules". Baseball Bugs 17:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Your "correct, proper use if grammar" is a misinterpretation of the style guides. Others, including myself, have given you other links to show you that your interpretation is incorrect, and that other style guides show that for some uses ("The CW" being one of them), the capitalization of "the" is correct and proper. This should no longer be an issue, if you would just admit that you made a mistake - we all do from time to time - it happens! TheRealFennShysa (talk)

A far more pressing question is that when we reply to the user who made the above comment, is it grammatically correct to say, "I agree with TheRealFennShysa," or is it more appropriate to say, "I agree with theRealFennShysa"??? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Based on Rollosmoke's "going-away" posts, he'd just call me "the Vulture". :) TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

All I see here is a single editor edit warring with multiple other editors over a long period of time. If he continues to ignore consensus (which he cannot claim not to be aware of at this stage) - he should be blocked for progressively longer periods of time. --Allemandtando (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Almost pointless disruption. Surely there's something more pressing here for him to be doing. How about address the countless uncited assertions and unreferenced articles that we have? Amazing how many people spend all their time on stupid stuff when we have important matters to deal with. File this thread under WP:LAME and let it die. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• If the editor is wikibreaking and if they return with a will to edit collaboratively per consensus then there is no need to end/force the break with a block. I am certain that this matter will be raised again if the editor returns and resumes, and I think we can then respond a little more quickly. In the meantime, I'm off to mediate a grammarian dispute at Spud U Like Spud You Like Baked and Filled Potato's One Is Partial To... er, KFC? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The user has virtually "promised" to be disruptive if and when he returns. He'll be watched. Baseball Bugs 21:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks and fair use violation

He's not taking any kind of break. He's just focusing on using his talk page to build personal attacks against at least 7 specific users who disagree with him. The latest, equating his arguments to the 1968 Olympics protests, is offensive in the extreme. Baseball Bugs 16:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and as a mundane point, he's using that fair use photo of John Carlos and Tommie Smith on his talk page, which is against the rules. Baseball Bugs 16:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed. seicer | talk | contribs 17:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that I couldn't care less what he calls me. But some of the other 6 editors might not like being called "vultures". As Neil pointed out to me last week, a personal attack still needs to be sanctioned, even if the target of the personal attack doesn't care about it. Baseball Bugs 17:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

He's not on break, he's monitoring. And calling everyone who disagrees with him a "vulture". Baseball Bugs 12:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if he makes one more edit that is disruptive, I support blocking him for 100 years (ok fine, 48 hours), to prevent further disruption. Perhaps someone should warn him? Beam 12:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, someone should - someone who's not on his list of The Seven Vultures. Baseball Bugs 12:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm not assuming good faith here, but why hasn't this user already been blocked for disruptive editing? He's made it clear he intends on making the same edits, and is now attacking other users. It seems that the reaction has been "wait and see", yet this editor continues his same actions. Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec - Wildthing61476, I was just saying...)*...and indefinitely blocked, for disruption. I should be glad of some uninvolved third party review of this block. I would comment that I would be happy for the block to be lifted or the tariff varied upon Rollosmokes undertaking to edit more in keeping with the principles and practices of Misplaced Pages, so any such action need not be referred to me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Was an indefinite block truly necessary? The user was going on Wikibreak anyway, so the amount of disruption to the encyclopedia should have been minimal. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite does not mean infinite. Baseball Bugs 13:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware. I'm also aware that indefinite blocks are used to prevent significant disruption to the encyclopedia. Removing a note on his own talk page with an incivil edit summary is hardly grounds for an indefinite block. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That was merely the next-to-last straw. He then resumed editing articles, with the same "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude. So it was clear that he was not going on break and that his disruption would continue. Hence the block. Baseball Bugs 13:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

And why on earth are you reverting his edits edit-war style, Bugs? That seems like disruption to me. The material you've added back in looks pretty dubious, too. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw that his changes (while allegedly on break) included some of his self-styled "grammar" fixes, so I reverted the lot. Feel free to fix anything in that article that actually needs fixing. Baseball Bugs 14:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I cannot believe you reverted a perfectly good edit because you were angry with him. In that edit, you've removed manual of style formatting and re-added material of a dubious nature. Please do not damage articles like that. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not angry with him. And you are free to make any legitimate corrections to the article. Baseball Bugs 15:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

"You should be ashamed of yourself."? Yeah, sure, you're not mad at him. I still cannot believe you would damage an encyclopedia article by reverting good content corrections just because you were angry with him. Awful. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

He had equated his little battle with John Carlos and Tommie Smith, and that was shameful and offensive. And I saw no merit to his edits today. If you disagree, feel free to install any that you think are valid. Baseball Bugs 15:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

He put up the sign and then carried on editing - I can only assume it was a tactic. --Allemandtando (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. He wasn't going on break, he was just temporarily scaling back. And in fairness to the admins, they tend to focus on extreme cases, such as some seen elsewhere on this page. With an offender whose activities aren't as widespread, they may tend to wait until "enough is enough". Baseball Bugs 13:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Why would you assume it was a tactic? Firsfron of Ronchester 13:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Because of how it went the last time he was posted here. Baseball Bugs 13:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse the block. seicer | talk | contribs 13:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU, please consider changing the indefinite block to something more reasonable. Yes, indefinite does not mean infinite, but it is still overly harsh and may further aggravate Rollosmokes - when we are trying to work with Rollosmokes. Kingturtle (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It's unclear how long of a "wikibreak" the user will need. When he declared he was going on break, he pledged to behave the same way as before, once he got back. I have seen nothing to indicate that he plans any revision to that approach. So I recommend it remain indefinite, with the ever-present option of his requesting reinstatement whenever he feels he's ready to collaberate. Baseball Bugs 16:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think anything less than an indef block is just inviting him to come back and raise hell. He's stated continuously that he'll continue editing the same way. I'd watch out for socks. MrMarkTaylor 18:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

His latest remarks indicate that his stance and intentions remain unchanged. Baseball Bugs 18:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

His appeal contains misleading information. "For some time"? Less than 2 days, in fact. Baseball Bugs 18:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I agreee with Firsfron and Kingturtle. One must consider that until today, he hadn't been blocked since December. Were his actions blockable? Certainly. But indef? Some proportion here, please ... Blueboy96 20:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been reading back into this, and my question to Firsfron, Kingturtle and Blueboy96 is how long should the block be to ensure the cessation of disruptive behaviour? If you can qualify a period, then please perform (or request) a unblock/reblock for the appropriate tariff. Indef blocks are not severe (unless it is done with the intent of there not being an unblocking), since they need last for only as long as they need be; it can be less than hours or longer than months depending on the situation, they are flexible. Like I said, my permission is not required for the block to be varied - once it is determined what will be sufficient for the return of consensual collaborative editing, then that should be the sanction duration. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I would think 72 hours is sufficient ... I would be inclined to drop the block altogether if it hadn't been for the fair use violation in his talk page. Blueboy96 20:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No. He has shown no indication that he plans to make any changes to his disruptive editing, in fact he has said he will continue as he always has. Therefore, there is no justification for lifting the block. He has also taken a content issue and turned it into a personal issue. He should do as he said he would, take a wikibreak and decide how badly he wants to edit wikipedia. In short, he himself should determine the length of his block, based on when he demonstrates a willingness to collaborate. Baseball Bugs 20:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

To put it another way, as soon as he's unblocked, he'll start in again on his bogus "grammar" corrections, about The CW and other such stuff, and we'll be right back here again, this time with three ANI threads on the same topic. What would be the point of doing that? Baseball Bugs 20:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for it being lifted ... I simply suggest cutting it down. The behavior issues, to my mind, only merit a 12-hour block, but taken with the fact that a user who has a good deal of experience with fair-use images (a necessary part of TV station articles) chose to violate the fair-use policy, a longer block is certainly merited. But an indefinite block for a user who hasn't been blocked since December? Overwrought. 72 hours is appropriate to my mind. Blueboy96 21:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

He was blocked for disruption. What evidence is there that any finite time will make any difference to his plan to continue disruption? Baseball Bugs 21:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

His unblock request was denied due to his off-topic rants and complaints. As I said, he needs to take a real wikibreak and decide his priorities. When and if he decides he wants to collaborate, then he'll be in position to make a proper request for unblock. He decides. Baseball Bugs 22:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

← I have to agree with Bugs here. Smokes has shown no indication he understands what he did wrong, and has indicated he intends to continue his disruptive behavior. Any shortening of the block at the moment simply means he'll go back to his behavior as soon as the block expires. Until he is willing to reign in his disruptive behavior, there is no need to change his block time. — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Rollo had not been blocked for over six months. He was not making threats, disclosing personal information or violating copyrights. This was an edit war. He received no warning on his talk page that he was going to be blocked temporarily or blocked indefinitely. Therefore this indefinite block is over the top. His previous block (which was also for an edit war in Dec 2007) was for 48 hours. In this case, a week would suffice along with a warning that the next time would be an indefinite block and would have to involve some sort of arbitration. Kingturtle (talk) 05:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Previously warned here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair cop. Mind you, it was four days prior, and a warning that said you may be blocked from editing. No mention of indefinite. Kingturtle (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There's really no reason to mention "indef" in a warning. The warnings generally don't specify a block time limit, as that can be altered after the block is put in place. — The Hand That Feeds You: 11:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

One among many. This is his fifth WP:ANI incident, various pages ranging from WP:RFPP to WPIX to {{Infobox Broadcast}} (plus one other The CW station article, at least) have been edit-protected by admins due to his WP:3RR issues - WPIX repeatedly, an attempt by User:SilkTork to mediate a dispute he was starting and restarting against User:Lantana11 regarding KCBS and other LA stations met with refusal to co-operate and there have been other warnings issued, including some asking that he stop reposting attacks to other users talk pages after the affected users had removed them. He has also occasionally been reverted on WP:AIV for invalidly naming opponents in content disputes as "vandals". You will need to go through the entire edit history to find all the warnings and complaints he's removed from his own talk page, but there have been plenty of incidents which somehow were falling just short of being taken seriously enough to add another ban to the three he'd received for various revert wars in 2007. So yes, he should be more than aware of the issues at this point; claiming no warning is a wee bit of a stretch. Odds are that he would be capable of making a legitimate contribution to the project were it not for the ongoing WP:3RR WP:OWN WP:NPA WP:GAME issues, but the problems have been ongoing for months if not years. And no, I doubt he is on a voluntary "wiki break" if I must go back to May 26 to find one day that passed without his editing Misplaced Pages. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 04:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Baggini and Stangroom: The problem of 'living persons'

Okay, I think after several years of watching this 'from the sidelines' as it were, I can’t stand it any longer! Merzel has swung into action on behalf of a user called Chris who reads books for a living’. They may or may not know what they are doing. If not, I spell it out below.

There are important issues surrounding this apparently unimportant page. It involves numerous fake accounts, users creating misinfmatonon exisiting pages (to create edits) and creating junk pages to become admin figures to further their non-encyclopedic interests. Its a long story, and I certainly have only a sense of a tiny part of it. But, in sum, it is about the use of WIkipedia pages by individuals and organisations for advertising (at minimum) and propaganda (and most) purposes.

Allow me to go through some of it.

The page was started in 04:13, 1 August 2005 by SlimVirgin who at the same time started one for Jeremy Stangroom (05:02, 1 August 2005 ).

Julian and Jeremy are joint founders and editors of the Philosopher’s Magazine. This magazine they describe on Amazon as “one of the pre-eminent philosophy publications in the world “. This is a nonsense claim. (incidentally, such material on Amazon is usually added (In my own experience, as an author, such material is added not by the publishers but by the authors direct to the website though I can’t of course say what happened in this case.)

The pictures of both Julian Baggini and Jeremy Stangroom are described as being created by ‘Chris who reads books for a living’. This user, wanted to be called User:Continuum Photos ) but was obliged to change name for breaching WIkiguidelines on using Misplaced Pages for crude advertising efforts.

A glance at this user’s contributions ] indicates that he is a particular interest in the publications of both Stangroom and Baggini, along with an interest in the neoconservative Adam Smith Institute in the UK.

It is this user who has just reversed an entirely proper contribution to the Baggini page Why do that? But the page. like Stangroom's, like Butterflies and Wheels the two ‘philosophers’ website’ like individual promotional pages on the style of The Dictionary of Fashionable Nonsense: A Guide for Edgy People are not intended as public information, but as publicity, promotional pages. To this end they are assisted by gullible editors.

That is why, on the 8 July 2008, the page contains the information that there is a website for for Baggini 's forthcoming book , on the philosophy of complaining. That is why Stangroom’s page contains an image for the cover of his latest book, Identity Crisis: Against Multiculturalism by Jeremy Stangroom, an image Chris etc. says ‘created entirely by himself’.

This fine Wikipedian is backed by SlimVirgin and Merzul, amongst others. Let’s see some of his edits. Under an earlier ID (he has used many devious routes to hide his tracks, including ‘adopting’ disused IDs) we can see a not entirely creditable interest in the ‘Great Philosophers’.

At 09:45, 18 June 2008 Anonymous Dissident made two small edits to the highly prominent Misplaced Pages Article on Aristotle. One was to change:

"Aristotle (together with Socrates and Plato ) is one of the most important founding figures in Western philosophy. "

which is correct, to:

"Aristotle (together with Plato , his teacher, and Socrates , Plato's teacher ) is one of the most important founding figures in Western philosophy. "

which is not, as the term 'teacher' is quite inappropriate in this context.

The other change, at the end of the first paragraph, was to add a reference, which seems unnecessary in the context. It is to a book called 'The Great Philosophers' by Jeremy Stangroom.

ref name="stangroom">Stangroom, Jeremy (2005). The Great Philosophers. Arcturus Publishing Ltd. ISBN 184193299X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)/ref

These edits are here: ]

At 10:16, 18 June 2008, Anonymous Dissident added this source to another prominent article, this time in the second paragraph,

The sentence previously ran:

"He is best known for his treatises on realist political theory (The Prince) on the one hand and republicanism (Discourses on Livy) on the other. "

After revising, it runs:

"He is best known for his treatises on realist political theory (The Prince , which he considered his Magnum Opus ) ref name="stangroom">Stangroom, Jeremy (2005). The Great Philosophers. Arcturus Publishing Ltd. ISBN 184193299X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)ref> on the one hand and republicanism (Discourses on Livy) on the other. "

There is no known record of Machiavelli saying or thinking this. Indeed, the Discourses is the earlier and more substantial work so it seems unlikely.

Similar edits show up for Marcus Aurelius (09:57, 18 June 2008 , no content added), Thomas Aquinas (Revision as of 09:57, 18 June 2008 (edit ) ( undo ) no content added) , Socrates (Revision as of 09:41, 18 June 2008, in which a gross error is introduced: the sentence "His work continues to form an important part of the study of philosophy." becomes "His work continues to form an important part of the study of philosophy , even though he did not leave behind a great deal of textual material ref>Stangroom, Jeremy (2005). The Great Philosophers. Arcturus Publishing Ltd. ISBN 184193299X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)/ref)

), Nietzsche (Revision as of 07:15, 16 June 2008 ) etc. etc...

It is quite legitimate, indeed very helpful, for authors to share their expertise on matters. But this is a long way from that. No new information is being added, indeed some misinformation is. It looks just like crude advertising.

It is a reasonable assumption looking at the various pages that there is a sort of conspiracy here, with many users with far more usernames several of and them now administrators. It is not possible for me to unpick it all - I wonder if there ANY honest Wikipedians left to worry about this. (It’s tragic to see all the honest users futile efforts to use Wiki procedures to hold back the tide, eg at ]

Certainly SlimVirgin, apparently (to judge by all the ‘brown nosing’ by other editors that goes on the Bagging discussion page) a key figure in WIkipedia is deeply involved in all this. User:Nick_Mallory, again curiously intimate with Stangroom and Baggini’s publications, seems to have created vast numbers of ‘mock’ pages in an attempt it seems to become an administrator. ]

Few enough of these editors attacking myself and others for ‘vandalism’ of the page has shown any concern for the blatant advertising under the picture of Bagging, only removed last week: ‘Courtesy of Continuum”, or the information about a website‘ for Baggini 's forthcoming book , on the philosophy of complaining’, surely so clearly contrary to Misplaced Pages’s purpose.

I offer a few possible conclusions:

1. I urge some independent administrators (if there are any left) to pick up the leads that follow from this page and the one’s mentioned, via all the different usernames and IDs and to take, as they say, ‘appropriate action’.

2. SlimVirgin in particular needs to be desysopped. Whatever their intentions, they have clearly become a kind of negative role model for other users in the abuse of admin status.

3. Far from ‘protecting’ BLP and pages linking to living persons (which are the vast majority of course) editing BLP etc. needs to be made more democratic, as for sure powerful interests are there in these pages which otherwise will triumph.

Of course, given the ‘wikirot’ I wonder whether this contribution will even be allowed to be seen. Docmartincohen (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, I just wanted to point out that I laughed out loud at the way you spelled misinformation: "misinfmatonon." Beam 00:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think I don't get it. What particular action do you think is 'admin abuse' that should be evaluated? I'm not saying you don't have a valid point, but the long explaination you've given isn't very clear as to the specific problem you have with these editors and what your conclusions are. you've given some recomendations for action, but I'm not seeing how they follow from your discussion. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

tl;dr. Could you summarize your point in a few sentences? --Carnildo (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You beat me to typing those 5 letters, Carnildo. Maybe I shouldn't have first actually tried to read this, & figure out what Slim Virgin did that deserves to be "desysopped" for. (I think this editor means she be denied root access to the servers.) In any case, her chief crimes here are: (1) starting two articles on philosophy topics, & (2) having a lot of people "kiss-up" to her. I have to agree with this poster -- shame on everyone for starting articles! Stop that immediately! (And everyone who starts articles on Misplaced Pages ought to be denied root access to the servers immediately -- including me!) And as soon as I figure out what Docmartincohen thinks Anonymous Dissident did wrong here, I'll agree with that. And he should be denied root access to the servers, too! -- llywrch (talk) 00:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I tried reading that, but I'd appreciate a TL;DR please. Also, I have seen on the intarwebz (no not just ED) some pretty shady stuff involving SlimVirgin, with diffs and other proof. so I wouldn't say that this person's allegations are so outrageous. Of course I don't think SlimVirgin is really evil, but from all the things I've read it doesn't seem, as Ralph Wiggum would say, unpossible. Of course it's also not unpossible that it's all bullshit. But if I get Caballed out of no where, than it's even more valid. ***looks over shoulder*** Beam 00:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• It's a known fact that SlimVirgin is one of the major malign influences of the 21st century. UN resolutions have been passed calling for her desysoping, but all to no avail. Her reign of evil continues, and as the above ramblings conclusively prove, the 'Pedia is but a handy tool she's using to bring about her self confessed aim of world domination. RMHED (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Since everyone becomes sarcastic and mocking when it's brought up, it's either obviously not true, or very true. Meh. Beam 02:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me drop the sarcasm for a minute, Beam, and explain the problem here. First, long, rambling posts complaining about another user get ignored. Second, any dispute that could possibly involve content gets a brief "Take the matter elsewhere" response & the matter is either closed or ignored. Third, accusations of a "cabal" get ignored -- unless there are a bunch of malingering Wikipedians reading WP:AN/I at the moment, who then engage in some sarcasm &/or mocking. Lastly, complaints about certain people (like Slim Virgin here, but others are Giano, Betacommand, Giovanni33, & a few others whose names I have forgotten) come up so often that people stop reading the first time their name appears & move on. (Not to say those 4 are always unfairly treated or above the rules, but a lot of Wikipedians are tired of reading rants about them. Any complaints about BetaCommand, for example, will get moved to a special WP:AN/I page.) The OP managed to hit a Grand Slam here, & scored all four runs.

So what if you honestly believe that you have a case that involves one of these tired topics? Simple: be short, get to the point, & furnish plenty of diffs & relevant details to prove your point. Punctuation, spelling & grammar also help. Definitely use the conflict resolution process first. But know some people would rather handle a nationalistic edit war, which is part of an off-wiki war that involves bullets & bombs, than read a post with one or more of the above. -- llywrch (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, at least part of this has to do with new editor User:Wikigiraffes finding the page Julian Baggini and attempting to edit it. He added a non-profane, highly literate put-down of Baggini sourced to the well-known reliable source, Mr. Some-Guy-On-A-Blog. He added something about Baggini writing sympathetically about British National Party voters, citing a The Guardian piece by Baggini which was indeed sympathetic of certain BNP voters on its face, that was its raison d'etre, though clearly it's pretty controversial/WP:SYNTHy to say so in an article. He added something about a Guardian review of a book of Baggini's, which mentioned that it was similar in concept and structure to another. This was fine. He added something about an extended discussion between Baggini and the author of this other book, on these similarities, which was sourced to an article on some kind of philosophy website connected to the other author, and which reprinted parts of emails the two authors exchanged. Probably not cool, as you can imagine.

Baggini complained, basically of WP:UNDUE, Slim protected the article, Tim Vickers supported and renewed the protection, numerous editors directed the new editor to our policies. The new editor, like many smarter-than-average people, read some policy pages and immediately assumed he had grasped everything and was armed to fight a case, which he did at several venues at some length, and in such a manner as to get himself blocked, after which he resorted to socks.

He had a point in that short WP:BLP articles here are often bland C.V.-like entries, but obviously he could not find a way to edit in accordance with our policies in this area, and he was, I think fairly, described at one point as "a POV-pusher with a grudge". 86.44.27.87 (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

So, how do I gain access to the cabal to do my bidding on articles? Seriously. Beam 04:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The alchemy by which User:Slim Virgin and User:Tim Vickers can be made to act in concord is indeed mysterious, little one. 86.44.27.87 (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And I'm sure it is just a stunning coincidence that Wikigiraffes (talk · contribs) and Docmartincohen (talk · contribs) are on the same ISP and IP range and share other technical similarities. No direct IP match but it's an ISP that assigns a new IP every day. Thatcher 11:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been on Misplaced Pages for almost 6 years now, & I'm still trying to figure that one out. And I have a specific, pressing need: forget winning edit wars, I want free child care! Someone to look after my daughter while I try to create content. -- llywrch (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You have children? I doubt, then, that you are taking Misplaced Pages seriously enough... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If I took Misplaced Pages as seriously as some folks you & I could mention, I wouldn't have lasted here as long as I have. -- llywrch (talk) 05:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Executive Summary

Sure, there’s a need to summarise things. But that’s difficult! Misplaced Pages has 10 zillion pages, the information needs summarising - don’t blame me for that.

Right:

The issue is about the abuse of Misplaced Pages for personal ends - ranging from mere advertising to more sinister propaganda purposes. The strategies for both are very similar

1. I gave a detailed account of how one user whose interests seem to revolve around one Jeremy Stangroom, has planted misleading and plain wrong information on key philosophy pages whilst adding apparently unnecessary references to ‘Jeremy Stangroom’.

2. I also indicated how this user has been creating numerous junk pages and running through user names apparently in pursuit of editing privileges.

3.Baggini is not important in himself, but the issue of his page’s function is.

4. All pages about individuals on Misplaced Pages, whether alive or not quite, need to be open to editing so as to present a range of perspectives on the individual and their work, subject to academic standards of factual accuracy only.

Baggini’s page is not, and has not been open to contributions for several years. ('Established users' only can put them on, but even so, they'll be off the next day!) Already, in many ways, the Encylopedia is a ridiculous animal, click on if you don’t believe me! full of pages designed to flatter egos but the process has barely started yet...

It is not coincidental that ‘Chris/Continuum Photos’ user also edited Julian Baggini’s page as ‘real life’ Baggini and Stangroom are colleagues. His edits have been allowed to stand there, indeed the page has been ‘protected’ to make it difficult to challenge them

No one has expressed any alarm at the idea that a user is floating around Misplaced Pages under various names adding misleading information and spurious references. Perhaps, that is because editors assume that this is what most people are doing, but in that case, we get to my general point , which is that

4. there is evidence of a network or conspiracy here which can be traced to several hundred dodgy pages.

I don’t spend ‘all’ my time looking at edit histories, not least because administrators continually falsify them. (Someone ought to check closely the voters for or against admin positions, not just the IP addresses, for example... The problem for Misplaced Pages is that there is an awful lot of shared ‘POV’ pushing going on, with networks of users stifling contrary views and administrators not so much editing pages as manipulating them. (Note, yes, Thatcher is right I have done a bit of POV networking in talking to friends myself, but not to stifle views only to air them.)

5. The most obvious network is that of SlimVirgin.

I have noticed how criticism of SlimVirgin is immediately drowned out by supportive comments from other users (off hand I recall particularly) Merkel’s “I think we ought to thank SlimVirgin for all her good work here”, and then there is Tim rushing to reinforce SlimVirgin’s protection of the Baggini page even as he argues that it was ‘inappropriate’ for an admin to protect pages they had started to stop others adding information from a different POV.

Point of View is of course is fundamental to Misplaced Pages. Take Mao for instance, there is a lot of negative comment on Mao, (I would say) much of it ill-informed and prejudiced. That reflects some editors' agendas, and in particular the views of the ‘administrators’. Similarly, the Ayn Rand page deifies this dubious bigot as ‘a philosopher’ of some importance. We can imagine why that might be. But POV is a subtle concept, in proactive the Neutral POV is the point of view of the dominant group or individual.

6. To make any sense of the NPOV concept we have to allow a range of opinions on subjects

Some of which some people agree with and some of which these people dislike. To some extent the Rand page has done this, Baggini’s page, again, provides a particularly blatant example of how that principle has not been applied.

Ok, I got too long again - hope this helps even so.

Docmartincohen (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

too long, didn't read

I posted up what I 'naively' thought was evidence of systematic abuse of Misplaced Pages. This was the response of several editors... tl;dr

(Here it is as short as I can make it... but to make sense of it, you would 'have to' read up not just what I wrote but lots of the pages cited too... so sorry!)

WIkipedia's structures, notably the NPOV policy and the division of Misplaced Pages into two groups, a secretive network of powerful adminstrators and a deliberately ineffectual mass of powerless editors, are designed not to promote the interests of truth seeking, but to promote sectarianism and propaganda.

Docmartincohen (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

How does NPOV divide administrators from non-administrators? You've lost me. The stacked adjectives are fun, though. Orderinchaos 12:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

What is this secret network of admins? Is there a cool t-shirt and a secret handshake? How come I haven't been invited? Is it because I'm not "powerful"? Sarah 13:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait, you're not powerful? I've been living a lie! —Wknight94 (talk) 13:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh man. I've been getting it so wrong! Ever since I became an admin, I've been being powerless and deliberately ineffectual. Damn. Is there a quick reference card I can keep by my computer so I'll know for next time? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have an old IBM punch card I could send you. That should work as well as anything. It works for me, even though I'm just a powerless and ineffectual editor. :'( Baseball Bugs 15:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Although I try to make up for that effeteness by being a nattering nabob of negativism. 0:) Baseball Bugs 15:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Listen. If you really wanted to join the P.F.J., you'd have to really hate the Romans. --Kbdank71 15:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow. With such a short contribution history I'm startled you were able to glean all that so fast! Has the secret decoder ring been cracked/hacked? Gwen Gale (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I find the sarcastic comments above to be inappropriate. If you disagree with the argument and don't want to make a counter-argument, you can just ignore it. Everyking (talk) 14:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's glow of systemic bias along with the lopsided and unhelpful PoVs of many high profile articles is very much acknowledged. However, it has yet to be meaningfully quantified and understood. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but the short version makes me glad I didn't read the long version. Quietly filing such things in a drawer labelled "Unfounded claims of systemic abuse by administrators" doesn't seem to work. They keep coming. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If these charges were true, why wouldn't the admins have removed all traces of this discussion? Or... maybe they did? Baseball Bugs 15:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Request permission from the cabal to just wave my hands ineffectually in the air at this point and let out a heartfelt harassed wail of "but what do you want from us!!?!!?!?!!" Is there any admin action that could satisfy this user, other than mass harakiri? SHEFFIELDSTEEL 16:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Careful - don't make any promises you can't keep. :) Baseball Bugs 16:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Docmartin, the problem is that you don't have any evidence. All you've done is claim that "some articles appear to have bias" is proof of some vast administrator conspiracy. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Strange, isn't it? I put the evidence up (with a summary paragraph explaiing the reasoning) and several users asked me to summarise it. Then several more users say, 'where's the evidence?'

Look, take just a couple of the egs given. Machiavelli and Socrates. These edits are plain spam, with errors added that make Misplaced Pages look ridiculous too. Yet they are all being left there. Then take Chris who reads books a lot or whatever his name is - he used to call himself by his supposed company's name. This was plain spam. Before I posted he had already been obliged to change his username, but his promotions elsewhere stick. Then I pointed out linked users creating junk pages, adopting old user ids etc - no one has checked that. TimVickers and Thatcher, who like us to think of them as decent chaps doing a dirty job as they run round Misplaced Pages blocking users and deleting 'sockpuppets' have not shown much interest in any of that!

The bizarre 'protection' of Baggini's page is still in place, despite it only protecting 'this philosopher' from having his work quoted. In fact, the only thing that has changed is on Bagginni's talkpage - there's a mysterious new box about "a request emailed to the Wikimedia Foundation concerning addition of entries intended to misrepresent the subject". And the edit history has been oversighted to shift the latest change from 'Chris' to some previously unheard of user...

'One' connection I see is SlimVirgin, for the reasons in the tl;dr piece above - which is offered as just a starting point for investigation. My 'deduction' if you like, is that Misplaced Pages is as I put above, ' a secretive network of powerful adminstrators' whose function is sectarianism and propaganda. Of course I don't know what's going on. I'm just a contributor who read some lousy pages in my subject area and wondered why they were still there.

90.62.158.129 (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Everyking - I kind of think there maybe a method in this suffocation of users raising concerns... anyway, if not, here's a link that describes a possible 'club' for Wknight94, TenOfAllTrades etc to try to join...

http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Oversight_%28Or_Lack_Thereof%29

90.62.158.129 (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, DocM, but you still haven't provided any evidence of a vast Wiki-admin conspiracy here. All you've shown is that a particular editor may have a conflict of interest, and that a couple people still think the information presented is reliable. You've given us zero evidence of "a secretive network of powerful adminstrators whose function is sectarianism and propaganda." I understand your concerns, but I think you've blown this way out of proportion. At best, this is a content dispute or a matter for the COI notice board. There's really nothing for admins to intervene on here. — The Hand That Feeds You: 11:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I've read loads and loads of 'evidence' by many users, all of which seems to be going nowhere. I really don't think there's any shortage of serious issues to address, and the list is getting longer... Its curious, isn't it, nothing is a matter of concern until the press report it and then suddenly Misplaced Pages sorts it out. Essjay-style...

- there are numerous pages including ones argued about on this page! that are not open to editing which should be, due to abuse of admin powers. My favorite example though is the Baggini page, guarded as it is by the internet's most famous abusive editor, SlimVirgin - there are numerous pages that have no reference merit at all, created either for advertising (I gave some examples as above) - and there are 'junk' pages created it seems for 'gaining admin status' purposes - I gave the links to follow to see a few of these. - there is regular abuse of the 'oversight' power by admins, to change edit histories. Again, I have seen this happening on the Baggini page to change responsibility for various actions, editing and administrative - and lastly, and this is what the above discussion has certainly revealed to me, there is almost no interest in correcting false information!

I pointed out a couple of examples and indicated where I believed there was a whole vein of deliberate mis-editing to be followed up. I'm not, as I stressed, an administrator, I'm attempting to add 'content' but have got definitely side-tracked! I'll go back to adding content soon... don't worry. (I'll go mad otherwise, that's for sure.. like lots of good editors before!) But those who have sought the 'authority/ power/ prestige or whatever it is, ought to be following up the leads I gave, if only to be sure they're misinformed. It 'might' all be a case of I've spent too long looking at WIkipedia and addled my braincells, yes.

Obviously there's a lot of stuff to be corrected/ watched/ patrolled or whatever - but I think the worst failing is systemic. That is why these in a way trivial cases are worth raising and why I think they 'would' have been taken up here, if the system was functioning.

I'll offer a view if you like on what is a possible solution: it's not complicated, it's a US style division of powers. All administrators should be obliged to forego any content role, they cannot create or edit pages, only adjudicate between editors over claimed breaches of policy. Any pages historically they created/ edited they are not allowed to have a role in, nor can they have others (obviously no 'sockpuppets) edit content for them which they then guard later.

Docmartincohen (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You think the Baggini page is protected incorrectly? According to its protection log, the last protection was not done by SlimVirgin. It was done by someone else in response to an WP:OTRS request. Why don't you make a WP:OTRS request to unprotect it? WP:OTRS is not something that many of us casual volunteer administrators are wont to overturn. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who is doing what anymore! One day I see SlimVirgin has protected the page, the next day that edit is oversighted and someone else 'appears' to be responsible (takes over). If you check the edit history, (http://vs.aka-online.de/cgi-bin/wppagehiststat.pl) you will find SlimVirgin has made 25 edits of which only 18 are left on the wikipedia history page!

Docmartincohen (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That page says she made 17 edits, 8 of which were minor. That's exactly what I see in the history now. If your concern is oversighted edits, you'll have to bring it up elsewhere - ArbCom perhaps? Administrators are not able to see oversighted edits. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

LHC fringe theorists

Hi, I'd appreciate another admins input on an article I'm involved in, hence I cannot take any actions. If you have 10 spare mins read through Talk:Safety of the Large Hadron Collider.

User:Jtankers is part of a fringe theory group on the web who believe that the LHC will possibly destroy the world. He's continually adding original research links and adds material in a WP:ATT join the dots type of logic to make readers come to his conclusions. For 6 months we (myself and a number of other editors) have been trying to explain to him the meaning of reliably sourced and verifiable information. Yet he still continues to add his links and tries to sway the article to his own agenda. A quick google search of his name (James Tankersley) and a look at his user page shows his involvement in these fringe groups.

I myself work at CERN but have I believe at no time compromised my position either as an administrator or via COI by the fact I work at CERN. This can be seen on the talk page as well, when James made some unbased accusations and eventually he recalled them when pressed to show where I had abused my position.

Myself and a number of other editors have repeatedly try to explain to Jtankers why his links are not suitable, and have given him far more leeway than WP:FRINGE recommends. But all we have in return is alot of handwaving and how we are repressing him and the article is biased agianst his position. Though we have repeatedly explained to him the type of links he should find to promote his position, yet is unable to do so. We revert and he goes past 3RR, and we explain to him about 3RR and yet we are threatening him.

Yet the OR links keep coming, we keep trying to explain why they aren't acceptable but it's falling on deaf ears. You may also wish to read the LHC talk page as this is where it started before the subject matter was split away. Any help pointers etc would be appreciated. 17:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I got as far as where JTankers alleges a Vast ecritKabalConspir'cee to get him and his, and got sick of it. There are three regular editors there, WWheaton, Khukri, and Phenylalanine desperately trying for ... over a week? to get this guy to pay attention. It's a great deal of CIVIL POV PUSH, till he gets to the conspiracy to suppress him. He refuses to acknowledge a lot of their gaps, instead purporting some great theoretical idea and demanding they all disprove it. He seems, at this point, to be actively ignoring policies. The only way he couldn't understand the policies by now is if he's deliberately refusing to ever read them, which may well be possible, but then, he's deliberately being disruptive. Another editor came in and offered an opinion, but that too, seems to have fallen on deaf ears. The editor could well do with a topic ban. ThuranX (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

More on this: JTankers has brought this, in one day, to : AN, 3RR, NPOV, and COI in the last 24 hours, in what's got to be the Memorial day sale of Forum Shopping.

I note that the user's User page is being used as a SOAPBOX for his viewpoint, since it cannot be achieved in the article. ThuranX (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The editor has been notified. ThuranX (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I MfD'd the user page, as you are right, it is a blatant WP:SOAP violation. (There is an ongoing controversy about another user's page which has WP:SOAP-ish problems, and I feel I would be a terrible hypocrite if I did not take action against this page as well) --Jaysweet (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I immediately removed all content I thought might violate WP:SOAP as soon as it was brought to my attention. --Jtankers (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

But where to next, we've tried to explain and he claims he wants dispute resolution but when a new editor HaeB came in and explained the position he was ignored and the information was re-added. I've said from the outset when it was included in the LHC article that it deserves an a section/article, although it does fall squarely into the realms of fringe theories it has received main stream press hence deserves a mention. But it's been a continual fight to try and keep these theories in perspective, and it's far in breach of WP:UNDUE and yet we cannot seem to explain this clearly enough. 18:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What's this about black holes??? Is that for real? --Dragon695 (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Really? That's the best response we can get at AN/I? read all that material. I did. (Well, msot of it. after a while, it's repetititve.) ThuranX (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobody who has responded is an admin. The admin's are terribly overburdened, and the best us non-admins could do here would be to try to explain to the user what the problem is -- which has already been tried extensively and failed.

If you can get an admin's attention, that would be great, but "That's the best response we can get at ANI/I?" is not likely to endear you to them ;p --Jaysweet (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, my name is James Tankersley Jr. I am a US Army Officer veteran, a computer programmer with some college physics back ground, and founder and co-administrator of the web site LHCFacts.org. The safety opposition are not fringe, supporters to one degree or another include the following scientists:

• Professor Dr. Otto_Rössler, Max Planck Institute, University of Tübingen
• Teresa E Tutt, Ph.D, Nuclear Engineering Texas A&M University
• Dr. Paul J. Werbos, National Science Foundation
• Nuclear physicist and lawyer Walter L. Wagner
• James Blodgett, Master's degree in statistics and leader the Mensa Special Interest Group Global Risk Reduction.
• Many others, including some wish to remain anonymous.

I have been contributing to the Large Hadron Collider and Safety of the Large Hadron Collider article and for several months without incident, including content related to legal action against CERN in US Federal Courts. I respect and follow Misplaced Pages rules and admin instructions to the best of my ability, and my only goal is to prevent unreasonable censorship of the Large Hadron Collider safety issue.

There is an effort to censor the views of recognized experts on Hawking Radiation. Credible scientists including Professor Dr. Otto_Rössler who warn of potential danger from operation of the Large Hadron Collider have been censored from the article in violation of virtually every aspect of WP:NPOV in my opinion. Peer reviewed published references that meet WP:VERIFY and challenge Hawking Radiation are being censored by members with apparent WP:COIN concerns. The validity of Hawking Radiation is a primary safety argument and a significant component of legal challenges to CERN currently before US Federal Courts in Hawaii. Misplaced Pages admin and CERN employee Khukri (talk) recused himself of admin duties when I asked him to intervene against rule violations by user Phenylalanine (talk) during the period of July 4th through July 9th 2008.

Details of activities in apparent violation of WP:NPOV by editors with potential WP:COIN concerns are detailed at Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Safety_of_the_Large_Hadron_Collider and Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard and Talk:Safety_of_the_Large_Hadron_Collider. Thank you, --Jtankers (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I see an argument from special knowledge above. I see an attack on Khukri for doing the right thing. I see forum shopping. I do not see Jtankers acting ina responsible manner. The assertions of censorship aren't borne out by the talk page, where his sources are ripped apart by numerous editors who oppose his edits. ThuranX (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Editor Phenylalanine (talk) removed the content without discussion multiple times and editor Wwheaton (talk) argued for keeping the references. What actions were not responsible? I am not getting help and assistance, just attacks. There is a clear conflict of interest, the issue is before US Federal Courts and CERN editors outnumber the opposition. Shouldn't we error on the side of inclusion rather than on the side of possible censorship? --Jtankers (talk) 03:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Here we err on the side of Misplaced Pages policy; one policy is WP:NPOV, which specifically charges us to avoid undue weight given to fringe claims. You shouldn't need to have this explained any further. If you continue to ignore Misplaced Pages policies, you may be blocked for tendentious editing. — Scientizzle 04:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not wish to violate Misplaced Pages policy. There are no fringe claims that I am aware of, I believe that the article violates WP:NPOV by excluding references to published peer reviewed papers that directly challenge safety arguments (Hawking Radiation) used by CERN related to operational safety and to argue for dismissal of the lawsuit currently before US Federal Court in Hawaii. I wish to pursue formal dispute resolution, I am not sure exactly how this is done, but in the mean time I plan to limit my efforts primarily to the discussion page. (fyi: Of a quarter million AOL voters, 61% do not feel that the risks have been reasonably addressed, not fringe theories and not fringe concerns). --Jtankers (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

While it may or may not be undue to dispute the existence of Hawking radation on the article Hawking radiation, peer-reviewed papers that dispute it do not belong in an article on something else! And that's because, NPOV concerns aside, a tangent on a merely related topic constitutes original synthesis if it is placed there to draw a conclusion unsupported by those high quality sources. That is to say, there is a difference between Hawking radation doesn't exist and Hawking radation doesn't exist; the LHC will kill us all! Aside from the one blog, none of the sources I've seen from you even mention the LHC. So until you find a high quality source to demonstrate that this belief is significant, it is adequately covered by the statement already present and a link to the article on the topic. You can carry your Hawking-radiation-doesn't-exist argument to that page if you wish. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The article Safety of the Large Hadron Collider currently contains the statement:

• "One concern is that Hawking radiation is not an experimentally-tested or naturally observed phenomenon, and might not exist at all".

It seems reasonable to me that Professor Dr. Otto_Rössler's work would be a reasonable reference to support that statement. He argues that mini black holes created by the Large Hadron Collider might become charged, grow exponentially and destroy the planet. His theory Abraham-Solution to Schwarzschild Metric Implies That CERN Miniblack Holes Pose a Planetary Risk has been published on the web for several weeks and Dr. Rossler had an appointment to meet with CERN scientists July 4th to discuss safety issues Grösstes Verbrechen der Menschheit, Chaos, conspiracy, black holes. CERN's also addresses charged micro black hole, a concept that does not appear to have existed before Dr. Rossler published his work, and it appears to be in direct response to Dr. Rossler's theory. It seems reasonable to me that this reference should be included, as both his report and CERN's reports are almost equally new and both published similarly on the web and both in the process of peer review.

Variations of the following references have been in the article previously. Hawking Radiation is a significant safety factor, if it is found to not be valid, delay of the Large Hadron Collider would be much more likely. Both of the references speak at least to some degree about the "probability" that Hawking Radiation might be found to be invalid.

• Do black holes radiate?, Dr. Helfer Rep. Prog. Phys. 66 943-1008, Published 12 May 2003 by Reports on Progress in Physics The possibility that non-radiating `mini' black holes exist should be taken seriously; such holes could be part of the dark matter in the Universe".

• Universality of the Hawking effect, William G. Unruh and Ralf Schutzold, published 24 January 2005 by The American Physical Society "Therefore, whether real black holes emit Hawking radiation remains an open question and could give nontrivial information about Planckian physics."

An AOL poll is hardly a meritable source for your arguments, I'd wager that a sizable minority, if not majority, still think Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, that Bush is doing a great job, that global warming's a myth from the liberals, and that the earth was created in 7 days. Big deal. Uninformed people given questions that push that the world could end immediately, and would that be bad? will answer that the end of everythign would be bad. Duh. ThuranX (talk) 05:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the "founder and co-administrator of the web site LHCFacts.org" should probably not use conflict of interest as an argument against another editor. The rest of it looks like a content dispute, as has been mentioned. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 14:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, I was afraid that this would be labelled as a content dispute & the involved parties told to go away. (I stumbled across this thread late last night, & so was unable to offer any comments.) Looking at the discussion on Talk:Safety of the Large Hadron Collider, it's obvious that this is a far-to-familiar one person vs. a group of editors; the problem is not the content, but interpersonal dynamics. Can one person veto the assumption of a consensus? I don't know the answer, but I can think of reasons to say "yes" -- & "no".

More to the point in this case, while I have the utmost respect for anyone who has earned a position at CERN, Jtankers has a point here, after a fashion: the article lacks any explanation for why the people who filed an injunction think that the LHC is a potential danger. It doesn't matter whether their reasoning is based on a Ouiji board, or that a mistake was in CERN's rationale by an undeniable expert (think Klaatu or Sheldon Cooper :). A sentence or two in the proper paragraph ought to meet that need. And please note carefully: doing this does not give undue weight to a fringe theory, it is explaining the motivation for one group's actions. Thus writing more than the amount I suggest, IMHO, would give undue weight. -- llywrch (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I's more than a content dispute, it's more of the Civil POV Push we have seen increasingly on WP as the Pushers of all sorts of POVs get smart about how to abuse Misplaced Pages. He's a POV pusher, and end is near kinds guy who won't stop till forced to. ThuranX (talk) 01:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone should feel they need to "go away" at this point, and I'm sorry if my post gave that impression. Either there is enough material to justify a WP:RFC/U or continued attempts to resolve this are needed. I just don't think AN/I is the right place for it just yet. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 16:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It is clear it is a content dispute, but it's more along the lines of a number of editors trying to explain what is acceptable entries to a couple of editors with an agenda. But even though there is a COI with JTankers and even more so with another editor, they are very relevant to these issues currently ongoing and I feel can/should be able to contribute. However trying to explain what is acceptable and what is unacceptable is falling on deaf ears. Maybe RFC/U would be the place to take this, but I have a horrible feeling another group of editors explaining a position would be ignored as well. However Jtankers has said he will no longer edit the article until he "wins" dispute resolution, how one wins a resolution I don't know. I brought this to ANI to avoid the request for mediation channel as it's lengthy and some form of resolution is needed rapidly. It's been through asking for third opinion, spammed across various noticeboard assitance, but still goes on.

I'm asking if someone could take this on and act as an unofficial arbiter, taking an impartial view pointing out to all issues, take some time to look through the LHC article talk page and it's archives, and look through Talk:Safety of the Large Hadron Collider. 17:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm somewhat aware of the topic in question and uninvolved in the on-wiki frufru over this. I will start taking a look as an uninvolved administrator. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

GreenEcho

I believe that the user GreenEcho (a.k.a. 63.216.113.124, a.k.a. 77.42.187.118) is in violation of Misplaced Pages's behavioral guideline on disruptive editting. Additionally, GreenEcho seems to be pushing very specific views, showing bias in edits involving the Druze religion, leaders, and political groups. The Druze are a minority group in Lebanon. Furthermore, their interactions with other users appear far from civil in most cases.

I've outlined the details of the violation, as well as a series or quotations from the user and diffs here. ← George 05:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope the Administrators will interfere concerning the issue since GreenEcho is twisting reference to force his POV and then reporting anyone who disagrees with him to the Administrators rather than using the talkpages and he simply sends vandalism warnings to those who disagree with him, he actually engaged in edit warring on my own talk page as in here,here and here eventhough he was notified by the administrators that I have the right to remove his warnings from my talk page

actually he is smart enough that he forced his POV on the Druze page saying that they are pagans with virtually no reference, and now I have to get his consent to remove this Libelous information since he ordered the page to be protected. I hope that the issue would be dealt with seriously, my best regards Hiram111 (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a reference concerning the pagan part. GreenEcho (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This would have been a good source had you chosen to cite it in the article, or in the discussion on the talk page, rather than edit warring over the point until the page got protected. Now, please consider addressing some of the points outlined here, involving your behavior as an editor in addition to the lack of sources in your edits, as well. ← George 00:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

All my edits are sufficiently sourced, thank you. Every edit I made, whether in Druze, Walid Jumblatt or Saad Hariri, was accompanied by more than reliable sources. I chose not to waste my time by adding the source I provided above because it was most likely going to be contested by the user who considers John Esposito and Mordechai Nisan "unreliable" and "unscholarly". GreenEcho (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

well thats a good example of twisting references your referencesays :Their religion was an eclectic mixture of Islamic, Christian, Greek and Pagan beliefs. while you only chose to place the Pagan part.

And No I don't consider John Esposito and Mordechai Nisan "unreliable" and "unscholarly" but I used the Druze Talk page to say that the scholars you cited don't say what you wrote and that you twisted the references and that your references don't say what your edits say, as i did here but you refused to go into the dispute resolution processes.

But anyway the issue is not about content dispute but its about disruptive editting. Hiram111 (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think the important thing here, and what we should be discussing, is GreenEcho's disruptive behavior as an editor, not any particular content disputes. It's not so important that he violates policies on content, repeatedly. The key problem is that he seldom discusses his edits, refuses to work towards consensus via the dispute resolution process, often mischaracterizes sources or fails to cite them, and continues to edit war for his preferred versions, ad nauseum. ← George 07:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Clubjuggle/User:Shem incident

Using own blog as a source: Russ Nelson making a point in article about his friend

I don't know if this is the right place to ask for help on this, but... Russ Nelson is disrupting the article about his job friend Eric Raymond to make a point.

Among a series of minor corrective edits I've made to the article, I have changed a passage about Mr. Raymond being an "initiated witch and coven leader", because its only source was a blog post by Eric himself, where he claims to be an "initiated witch and coven leader".

After that, instead of saying "Eric is a witch leader", the article said "Eric claims to be a witch leader", because this is the best we can have from a self-published source (his blog).

During the discussion (and revert war) that started about the many minnor edits I have made, Russ Nelson vandalized the article text to say "Eric claims to" in almost every passage, even for totally verifiable facts. When asked to stop, Russ Nelson confirmed he was just making a point.

I have tried to explain him the differences, but he keeps reverting to the blog-based version.

I don't think I can explain him things more clearly, and I'm also not sure if he's really interested. Help is welcome. --Damiens.rf 20:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

claims is a word to avoid usually. You could say 'says that he is' or something? You could ask this editor nicely on their page to stop disrupting wikipedia to prove a WP:POINT(which is a low-grade, first warning), and if they've breached 3RR report them on the appropriate noticeboard, but other than that, which you really would be best to share on the editor concerned's talk page. Also, refering to another's edits as 'don't be so childish' and 'vandalism' won't help the situation, even if it were the case. Sticky Parkin 22:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of the time, we accept self-sourced non-controversial biographical details without the need to qualify them. Is there any particular reason why this particular claim is controversial? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Yamna_culture

I want to bring attention to the discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Yamna_culture that degenerated from subject article into editor bashing. The editor/admin dab, who was already warned against pushing his POV, assails this editor for using term "Türkic", adopted in the UN publications, instead of his preference for semantically dissimilar "Turkic", falsely accuses this editor in sockpuppeteering, and threatens with banishment for my contributions. The editor/admin dab consistently avoids subject discussions, and instead uses forceful enforcement of his opinions without a need to back them up with any references. Instead of heeding the POV warning, and obstain from the field where he holds strong views, dab is systematically engaging in removing referenced materials, pertinent illustrations, and whole articles, impoverishing WP in Türkic-related class of subjects, and aggressively discouraging contributing editors like me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barefact (talk • contribs)

Mugs2109

I am having some problems with edit conflicts involving user:Mugs2109. I have done the usual thing of placing messages on his/her talk page, , , , but instead of responding in the traditional way, this user has either not responded or posted my text from their page back to mine. With the first posting of my text back to my talk page Mugs2109 include a section heading:

== Talk that this User put at another user's page instead of at the discussion(s) for the specific pages Mugs2109 (talk) ==

So I thought maybe there was a misunderstanding but instead of replying to my next posting which was by way of an explanation my reply was simply copied back onto my talk page by user:Mugs2109.

This lack of traditional bilateral communication is a problem because Mugs2109 and I are editing several pages in common and we are starting to edit war. (See Area bombing directive‎, Dehousing‎, Shuttle bombing, Butt Report, Singleton Report (a redirect)). I would like the situation defused, but to date Mugs2109 has been very sparing on the talk that (s)he is willing to engage both on user talk pages and on the article talk pages. Please could an uninvolved admin have a look and make some suggestions (to both of us if necessary) on how best to defuse the situation. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if an admin would look at the editing history of Mugs2109 over the hours since I last post to this section and see if in their opinion Mugs2109's edits are disruptive. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Anybody out there? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

So far this looks like more or less a content dispute with an editor who doesn't want to talk much. I've left a friendly note. Please feel free to update here or on my talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It is content disputes, but without discussion it is very difficult to resolve such disputes. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested fix

Someone who knows how please remove "big boobs" from the Mandy Moore article.24.10.111.154 (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This has already been seen to by someone on RC Patrol. Lradrama 22:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours to due to vandalism after a final warning. Lradrama 22:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If the photo is realistic, that's some serious POV-pushing. Baseball Bugs 22:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Laughable, yet egregious.

I replaced a warning on one IP's talk page which had been removed by a different IP today, and issued a warning to IP #2 about removing stuff that's not theirs. Here's what I found on my watchlist a few hours later... apparently someone's unhappy. (I know--I should be kind, after all. Obviously this person's had a rough day...maybe they missed their naptime, or the straw got stuck in their juice-box or they got a time-out or something.) Seriously, though...this is all because I refactored some useless forum-chat off Talk:Teletubbies a couple of months ago, and somehow the IP just KNOWS that EVERYONE knows I was talking about HIM. Please do whatever needs doing...this place is wearing me out, really.Gladys J Cortez 04:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That person needs a new keyboard, their b, e, and p keys seem to be sticky. L'Aquatique 05:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I have given him or her a level three no personal attacks warning. Probably that won't stop 'em, but at least we can say he or she has been warned. L'Aquatique 05:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps an EUI is in order? — xDanielx /_C\ 06:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

At 11:00 in the morning?! (his/her time according to whois) Suppose that's the fairest explanation, thought. L'Aquatique 07:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: User has removed both the offending remarks and all warnings from his talk page (). L'Aquatique 16:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

From ONE of his/her/its talk page, at least. Scientizzle cleared another one; I can't say for sure that there aren't more, as who knows how many IP's this charmer has access to? (And no, I don't think it was WP:EUI; I think it's some kid who has a grasp of reality so tenuous that he/she thinks people will connect him/her to each and every IP he/she uses, and possibly their real-life identity to boot. Spare me the paranoia, the narcissism, and the drama; isn't there some awful navel-gazing music they could be listening to instead?)Gladys J Cortez 21:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Banned editor Prester John is back, reverting madly

An editor called Madingogo (talk · contribs) is on a delete rampage, going through my history list and reverting/deleting sections of articles I've edited. All Madingogo's edits are following my contribution list. I believe he is very likely to be a sockpuppet of the banned editor Prester John (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), however, because of the rate of deletion, urgent action is required (hence reporting it here). --Lester 04:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I reverted a couple of the edits but then stopped because I don't know enough about the situation to be sure they're improper. Please don't block me - I'm happy to self-revert if anyone thinks I shouldn't have done it.  :) Wikidemo (talk) 04:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Wikidemo. User:Madingogo (Prester John) set up this account for no other purpose than harrassment. He has taken the userboxes from my userpage and put them on his. Then he has just gone through my contributions list to revert things. Every single one of Madingogo's edits are on articles I have edited, editing out contributions I'd previously edited. --Lester 05:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that there's a second recently created account, Scrublett (talk · contribs) that has also contributed nothing else but to revert my contributions on a variety of different article subjects. This is exactly the same activity that user:Prester John was banned twice for.--Lester 05:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no question what the two new users' intent are - on talk pages the Scrublett account is removing all comments by Lester going right back into June. It should be noted Prester John (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked on two occasions for stalking Lester. The matter appears to be resolved as both accounts have been blocked and their edits reverted, but it might not hurt to add these ones to the checkuser. Orderinchaos 12:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Madingogo was only blocked for 15 minutes and Scrublett was only blocked for three hours so I've reblocked both indefinitely. Sarah 14:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Also blocked Pricklyshark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (thanks Bidgee). Sarah 15:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And Sharif Abdul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I Wake Up Screaming (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Matamoros (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Sarah 16:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you --Lester 18:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

He now seems to be back as 166.190.20.66 e.g., , Voceditenore (talk) 06:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

And as 166.191.206.160, 166.190.241.149, 166.190.32.161 etc. etc. Quite a spree today Voceditenore (talk) 07:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

There are more in that IP range. Simply reverting editors he doesn't like, myself include, with little regard to the article or content reverted. (by the way, I think Prester John is indef blocked. I didn't know he was banned). --Merbabu (talk) 07:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Voceditenore. There is also a long list of IPs in this same range and another close one that Bidgee compiled and posted on my talk page. We've implemented two range blocks that should cover these IPs but it's only a short term measure at this stage. Cheers, Sarah 10:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Stuthomas4, NYScholar and others

Stuthomas4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and NYScholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Sarah 01:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Stuthomas4 Contributions

Revision History of Talk:The Dark Knight (film)

Diffs. -- For the record, link to "Diffs." --NYScholar (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)]

Continual personal comments about me and escalating violations of WP:HAR, most recently making threats on my talk page. (Most recent Diffs.) Following Misplaced Pages User space and user talk page guidelines (which I have referred this user to and which I link in my talk page prominently), I have been deleting such continual postings after seeing them. I find these continual remarks personally offensive and see them as increasingly-escalating attempts to harrass me. (I remove such offensive comments from my talk page; I explain my editing practices clearly in my user space.) Please also see this user's uncivil comments posted about me in Talk:The Dark Knight (film), on other users' talk pages, on the user's own talk page, and on the user's own user page, where these comments about "NYScholar" violate Misplaced Pages:Etiquette and WP:CIVIL, as well as Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines (particularly, WP:UP#NOT (#9): "Material that can be construed as attacking other editors") and WP:NPA. This user and the others with whom this user engages in such conduct need to receive warnings from administrators about this behavior; this user and others may need to be blocked for this kind of behavior if it continues. I seek administrative help with this matter. Thank you. (Please note: I have no time or inclination to become involved in what I have found in the past to be extremely-time-consuming Misplaced Pages administrative dispute procedures; I am simply asking for assistance with this matter so that it stops before it goes any farther. Thank you.) --NYScholar (talk) 06:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

, in my view. The user's comments below are in my view inappropriate and should be understood in the entire context of that user's postings about me throughout Misplaced Pages space, where they appear to me to be further personal attacks and an attempt to marshall other users to silence me and to drive me away from editing an article or articles on which I have contributed a great deal of good-faith editing. These attempts appear to me to be a violation of WP:HAR. In order to see how this problem began, one really needs to review Talk:The Dark Knight (film), so I have posted the editing history link to that page above. I have other work to do offline, and I cannot take further time to comment about this matter. I updated my comment below and updated my comment in the film article's talk page. I have also updated my own talk page and archived the most recent comments by some of these users posted in it. I expect to be offline doing non-Misplaced Pages-related work. --NYScholar (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)]

Rubbish. You started the ANI but that doesn't give you control over it. Any user and any administrator may contribute here. The heading needs to be descriptive for people scrolling though. Also, please make use of the preview button. Your hyper-editing on a busy noticeboard such as this causes edit conflicts for people. Thank you. Sarah 01:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have made several good faith efforts to engage this user. Tonight He/She/It (this user insists on no gender identification) has requested administrative help. By looking at the edit history of Dark Knight (film) and the comments by several users, ThuranX, Erik, among others, you will see that there is a consensus that this user has been abusive to other good faith editors. This user declines to engage the real issue of their abusiveness by instead resorting to quoting wiki laws and shouting that they have been the victim all along. I admit that there has been some hostility that has arisen from this entire interlude and I am guilty of an uncivil tone at times. Nevertheless, I believe that there are several users that will attest to the fact that NYScholar has driven many long-time and collaborative editors from this article through brow beating and the sheer mass of the number of edits. I have copied this response to the NYScholar talk page with the full expectation that it will be summarily deleted.--Stuthomas4 (talk) 07:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Additionally if you actually look at my comments and those of others, you will see that a series of successive criticisms (valid I might add) were just deleted without comment. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 07:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And as far as threats are concerned. I specifically stated that I would be "watching for abusive tactics". Not intended as a threat, just that this user can't continue to brow beat and condescend to other user with impunity.--Stuthomas4 (talk) 07:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And furthermore, NYscholar claims a violation against WP:UP#NOT. I quote the rest of the passage here, conveniently left out in the above quotation: "An exception is made for evidence compiled within a reasonable time frame to prepare for a dispute resolution process. This exception is subject to common sense, but as a general rule, two weeks is a reasonable time to prepare such a page." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuthomas4 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Lastly NYScholar claims that "I have no time or inclination to become involved in what I have found in the past to be extremely-time-consuming Misplaced Pages administrative dispute procedures" which is clearly false as his/her/it's extensive quoting of several wiki rules and long-winded argumentative responses to good-faith queries, one that are laden with what can only be described as sarcastic and condescending language and, if he/she/it had been in person would have been "air-quotes". I have stated before that I did indeed inflame the situation but I feel that the consensus is that NYScholar, while an intelligent person and valuable Misplaced Pages editor, is nonetheless in need of a lesson in civility, not unlike the one he/she/it has prescribed for me, and others. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what is going on here but can I suggest you refrain from calling other users "its" if you expect administrators to take you seriously. Sarah 10:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This editor insists on gender neutral language and in-fact has used that pronoun in their own writing. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies; I did not know that NYS wanted to be referred to as "it". Sarah 00:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at that talk page and it looks like NYScholar is once again being an obstructionist and driving people away ala the Heath Ledger article, however, the last time I dealt with a complaint about NYS I felt like I was pounding my head into a brick wall, so I'm going to leave this to other admins. Stuthomas, it might help if you can get ThuranX and the other users from that page to come and comment. Sarah 11:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Hi, I have encountered both of these editors at Talk:The Dark Knight (film) and through associated edit summaries. Stuthomas4 has made comments that he/she has admitted have had an uncivil tone, in response to comments from NYScholar that some have interpreted as not in the best spirit of collaboration. I happen to agree with that assessment of NYScholar's attitude, but I would urge that no action is taken at this time against either editor. Stuthomas4 has apologised, and NYScholar, judging by his/her past editing practices, will not be online for a few hours. In the meantime, I will leave NYScholar a message in the spirit of reconciliation, explaining why certain editors (myself included) took issue with the editor's tone, and hopefully this whole episode can be put to one side. All the best, Steve 11:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I read and appreciated Steve's comments and archived them. I do have to go back offline again, but I wanted to make clear that I appreciated what Steve said. I do not appreciate the others posting comments here (as Sarah instigated them to do, despite recusal), which further creates an impression that they are "ganging up" on me. I have "disclosed" the entire situation; I've posted links to it, which anyone can follow. The editing histories of The Dark Knight (film) and Talk: The Dark Knight (film) and of my own and others' talk pages bear witness to the history of this "incident". Some people have deleted my own and their own comments from some of the film's talk page, but they can be found in the editing history; as for my deletions of material from my own user talk page; I rarely completely delete users' comments; I generally archive them; but when I find the comments personally offensive and harrassing, I do delete them, as I state I will do in "N.B." on my current talk page and in user boxes. Users are not required to archive comments on their user talk pages; but I generally do so; exceptions are the offensive and harrassing material, which I properly delete. Examination of talk pages of some others commenting below will show that they have deleted my warnings; it is permissible to delete warnings, according to current user talk page guidelines; deleting them is taken as a sign that they have been read. Usually, I archive warnings. If I do not archive a user's continual barrage of comments, it means that I find them obtrusive and offensive and that I do not feel obliged to archive them. Obviously, I read them in deciding whether or not to archive them. In my experience, I archive far more material than many users do; many simply delete comments that they do not like or agree with from their talk pages. This AN/I was not intended as a way for others to attack me further; frequently, the posting of an AN/I turns into a "free for all"; I hope that a neutral administrator will review my request and stop the barrage. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I said I wasn't going to act as an administrator here but that doesn't mean that I'm prohibited from commenting. Sarah 00:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To weigh in on this, I think it is a bit strong to say that Stuthomas4 is "most recently making threats on talk page". NYScholar has not fully disclosed the entire situation, that there are several editors who are uncomfortable working alongside him/her due to his/her inflexible tone in discussions, particularly at The Dark Knight (film). I'm not considering Stuthomas4's comments completely appropriate, but I really think that filing an AN/I report over open, multiple concerns regarding this NYScholar's conduct is improper. I've tried to explain to Stuthomas4 the best way to describe situations like these, and Stuthomas4 has acknowledged that calling the editor a "royal pain" was a mistake and struck it out. This was not accomplished with any difficulty, so I think that going to AN/I is extreme. NYScholar believes that our criticism of his/her conduct is failing to assume good faith and that continuing it was detracting to his/her work. I think that much of NYScholar's edits have been excellent, but he/she seems unable to cordially discuss challenged edits, so the focus has moved from his/her contributions to his/her conduct with other editors. I'm not trying to say that this is blowing up the community as a whole, but I think a group of editors should be able to exchange constructive criticism in a collaborative manner. I do not believe that this mindset and transparent discussion in favor of it warrants a call for administrative action and possible blocks for Stuthomas4 or anybody else. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Since ThuranX is a regular watcher here, ThuranX saw this thread. ThuranX is not at all surprised that NYScholar ran here. In addition to being a rampant obstructionist, NYScholar deflects all discussion by invoking various rules and policies. Any use of pronouns voids all that an editor may have to say. Should pronouns be avoided, NYScholar deflects by asserting that since most comments want to discuss a change, or set of changes made BY NYScholar, then the commenting editor is 'attacking the editor, not discussing the edits', and thus, guilty of violations of WP:NPA. No matter the approach an editor takes, there is a counter invoking policy, guidelines, and so on. All responses by NYScholar are presented as coming from the right way, and deride either directly or implicitly, the intentions, ideas and character of all other editors. For the most part, editors Erik, Steve, and ThuranX have dropped this article as a result of the constant frustration the group of editors just identified feel. NYScholar refuses to present an acceptable pronoun, asserting male when identified as female, female when identified as male, neither when ‘Hir’ type is presented, gets offended by ‘it’, and so on. No matter what other editors do, there is simply no way to broach the actual meat of a topic. NYScholar basically asserts that only civil comments will be responded too, and all responses thus far are incivil.

Such behavior makes it beyond frustrating to deal with NYScholar. ThuranX notes that NYScholar has a lengthy block log for edit warring, which seems to have dropped off as the reputation for being obstructionist in tactics grew. Clearly a mastery of the text of policies allows NYScholar to invoke them to NYScholar’s advantage, and bully editors into submission and retreat. Consider the false accusations against Erik, on Erik's talk page, that he has been a problem on the Heath Ledger article, when in fact he hasn't edited it recently, if ever. Erik seems willing to assume that this was an honest mistake, but ThuranX believes this was a deliberate intimidation tactic. ThuranX feels NYScholar needs a topic ban, as NYScholar simply can not engage in cooperative editing. ThuranX (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The above comments by this gang of editors is a clear violation of WP:HAR. I have added a link to the Revision history of Talk:The Dark Knight (film), where one will see that the above user (ThuranX) said to take this matter to ANI, which is indeed what I have done. I have asked all these users to stop posting comments about this matter on my talk page, to no avail. I have requested "administrative assistance", not this barrage of further personal attacks. Misplaced Pages has become a very unpleasant place to edit, and it is not surprising that so many editors who edit in good faith (like me) are continually being driven away from it. The aim appears to be to drive me away, which violates WP:HAR and which I have and am protesting. I stand by my edits in the articles that I have edited and I stand by my explanations of my edits in editing summaries and in talk pages when asked for explanations (which I have provided in good faith). The above users violate WP:AGF and Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines, as well as many other Misplaced Pages guidelines pertaining to Misplaced Pages:Etiquette, WP:CIVIL. In my view, they are making false claims above, and I welcome the examination of Talk:The Dark Knight (film).

I filed the ANI in response to a suggestion on that talk page (by one of the above users, ThuranX Diffs.) that I do so after the constant barrage of posts on my talk page from the user in this section heading, despite my civil requests that stop posting them. --NYScholar (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well this just proves the point. Good faith efforts have been made and NYScholar refuses to acknowledge any wrong doing. People with more level heads than mine have extended the olive branch and it has been refused. The point is not to drive NYScholar away, the point is to create a more civil environment for all editors. NYScholar has quoted no less than three wiki rules above, which was part of our original complaint. It is fine to stand by your edits because we have all agreed that you are a valuable contributor - we have said it time and again. But you cannot hide behind regulations and continue to interpret any criticism as a violation to WP:HAR. I have and will continue to press the issue until you understand that it was your uncivil tone that started this entire affair. If you feel ganged up upon it is because you have managed to alienate many editors on many different pages. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

One other thing. NYScholar complained that the thread on the Dark Knight page was inappropriate because it veered off topic. But when we moved the discussion to the NYScolar talk page, to me the most obvious place to discuss NYSholars actions, the user delete most of the comments saying that they are harassment. I'm just sayin' --Stuthomas4 (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

NYScholar, you have never asked me to stop posting on your talk page. Indeed, I have only posted once on your talk page, today. This was a good faith attempt at reconciliation. If you please take the time to review my comments both there and in this AN/I thread, you will see that I have urged no administrative action against you. Please do not classify my olive branch as harassment; it was intended at bringing about a harmonious atmosphere in which we could all work together in the proper spirit of collaboration. You do not appear to have read it. Please do so again before you present false accusations of attempts to "drive you away". Good day, Steve 21:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Addition: as a message to the administrators watching this, NYScholar's response to my blatantly good faith attempts to put an end to this are exactly the sort of behaviour the editor has become renowned for in such a short time. Either misunderstanding or deliberate misrepresentation. I would prefer to believe the former. There is still time for the editor to prove that. Steve 21:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, Steve missed my comment in archive page 20, where I said that I "appreciate" Steve's comments; I just had added the same point above before seeing this comment by Steve. I certainly do "appear to have read it": I stated that I "read and appreciated" it. (I'll post the diffs. in a moment.) --NYScholar (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course I missed the comment. It's on "Archive page 20"! Never appearing on your talk page or mine. And yet, I shall strike my comment and apologise. Steve 21:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Diffs.; see also the editing history of User Talk:NYScholar. I state very clearly on my current talk page that I archive exchanges that I feel are finished and/or when I cannot take any more of my time to participate in them. This is the case. I do not want to take any more of my time discussing this matter; that is why I filed this AN/I. I hope that some neutral administrator will review this matter and end it. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC) --NYScholar (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)]

We both appear to have been editing at the same time; while I don't think I can be expected to have seen your comment on Archive page 20, I have read it now. I have struck out my second reply and apologise for my side of the misunderstanding on this thread. Steve 21:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The above sections are more indications of the games NYScholar plays. NYScholar hides responses on archived pages. NYScholar asks that no one use NYScholar's talk page to communicate with NYScholar, as such communications would be 'off topic', and thus verboten. Further, NYScholar regards such communication as a personal attack, or harassment. Note that NYScholar lumps all editors into a group which violate WP:HAR by communicating on his talk page, when apparently, few if any of us have done so. However, when the article talk page is employed, all topics are deflected in the aforementioned manners. Note also that here as well, nothing which has been said has been directly addressed, it's all deflection and accusations. It needs to stop. As for the idea that all of us are trying to push NYScholar off the project, to the best of ThuranX' knowledge, there is no conspiracy to do so, ThuranX certainly didn't receive an invitation. ThuranX (talk) 22:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur. We have repeatedly stated that NYScholar's edits are generally constructive but the intimidation and condescension to other editors is the problem. --Stuthomas4 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, NYS's disruptive talk page practices were the subject of a previous ANI #NYScholar_block_overturned which lead to discussion about rewriting part of the talk page guidelines but I don't think the changes were ever actually implemented, unfortunately, but I'll have to go back and check. Several people advocated for indefinite blocks of NYScholar and I note that NYS has been blocked numerous times for disruptive editing, 3RR on his own talk page, and making legal threats in the lead up to an Arbitration case in his/her name. I think it's time for the community to consider implementing community-based sanctions such as talk page and archiving restrictions. Sarah 00:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sarah was involved in a weeks-long editing controversy which I have archived. Sarah needs (as already acknowledged earlier) to be recused. Misplaced Pages has policies on this kind of situation. My archive documents the involvement of this user in previous attempts to block me, which were overturned. I've done my best to edit in good faith, but this user and others violate WP:AGF. I do not use "sarcasm" as some state. My words need to be read literally. I state exactly what I mean to state, without irony and without sarcasm. Those who perceive sarcasm are simply reading their own interpretations into my statements, which are intended to be taken literally. When I intend emphasis, I use italics. I do not use emoticons. Tone of voice is extremely difficult to interpret accurately in written communications and online communications like talk pages in Misplaced Pages are written communications. Sarah's interpretations of my intentions have been misinterpretations; and I have clearly stated that in my archived talk pages. I believe that Sarah is still nurturing the same grudges as earlier, which has already been recognized by other administrators. The only mistake that I have made is to devote my time to trying to correct errors in Misplaced Pages and to explain my edits. I have answered questions posed to me as forthrightly and sincerely as possible. That Sarah and others make the mistake of assuming otherwise is their mistake, not mine. --NYScholar (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

NYScholar, once again I have to ask you to cease making false and unfounded accusations. You have just accused me on my talk page of abusing administrative rights in realtion to you yet I have not touched a single tool ever in dealing with you. I have never blocked you or used any other administrative tools. And here you are claiming that I tried to block you but was overturned and that other administrators said I held a grudge against you. These allegations are all blatantly false. I have never blocked you and if you think otherwise you need to review your block log. Furthermore, no administrator has ever said or "recognised", as you claim, that I was holding a grudge against you or acting with a grudge. Your false accusations are outrageously disruptive and they cause damage to people's reputations. Please cease doing this or I will be moving for a community ban. I will also have you know that I did not delete any of your comments, as you falsely allege on my talk page, but simply changed the header to a more descriptive one for admins scanning the page. Sarah 03:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I still remember the archiving drama, where NYScholar was rapidly archiving user talk page rather than engaging in any form of discussion, then throwing bad faith accusations around without foundation. Sarah was not involved in a "weeks-long editing controversy", on that occasion we were all trying to uphold the rules of the encyclopaedia against wanton disruption. Please do not mischaracterise past events in such a manner. Orderinchaos 03:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Diffs. --NYScholar (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC) (added above, for the record).

Sarah should be recused; obviously holds a grduge from previous problems. I really went through a terrible ordeal as a result of previous involvement of that person, and the person has no business changing the heading of this AN/I. I filed it. Strenuous objection to these and earlier comments by Sarah; the full record is archived in my talk page archive. It was a horrendous experience and one that I have no intention or desire to relive via this. The purpose of filing this AN/I was to stop the personal attacks on me and on my editing; Sarah simply aims to continue them. I object in the strongest possible manner to such tactics. --NYScholar (talk) 01:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's the link to archive 19 of my talk page: ; it is a continuation; my life was made miserable for weeks as a result of the actions of Sarah, and that person should not be posting further comments about that resolved past matter here. This is a separate matter that I filed. If Sarah or anyone else wants to file their own AN/I they can do so. But I will not be participating in them or in any dispute resolutions in Misplaced Pages. They are, in my experience, a total waste of time. I tried to bring attention to this matter in a cordial way over and over again, but the incivility of these other users, their grudges based on sometimes a single word or phrase taken out of context, This is really beyond the pale. To those of you engaged in this attempt: Please get a grip. Thank you. I appeal to another administrator who is actually neutral to review my requests. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

So, NYScholar is now saying the cabal that's out to get NYScholar is huge? NYScholar has included no less than 6 people in it so far explicitly, and if I've been reading right, closer to 8 or 9. When that many people, as well as the raft of admins who've blocked NYScholar 7 or 8 times, hard to tell how to count a couple, and the people who showed up to NYScholar's arbcom and previous AN/I threads, doesn't NYScholar think it's possible the problem lies not in everyone else, but in NYScholar? (Note, no pronouns used.) ThuranX (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That was not my heading; Sarah needs to recuse herself and to stop inserting her views in this manner. Thank you. I posted this AN/I, not she. --NYScholar (talk) 01:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)]

Rubbish. You started the ANI but that doesn't give you control over it. Any user and any administrator may contribute here. The heading needs to be descriptive for people scrolling though. Also, please make use of the preview button. Your hyper-editing on a busy noticeboard such as this causes edit conflicts for people. Thank you. Sarah 01:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I will be looking for my original heading; Sarah needs to be recused and to stop editing my AN/I to make it into something it was not. The changes are escalating a matter into a worse situation than it was, and are entirely counterproductive. I seek a neutral administrator.

I will also suggest that those claiming that I have so many blocks etc. have a good look at their own block records and at the complaints filed against them on their own talk pages and in their editing histories. Sarah is clearly not a neutral observer, as my archives document. There is a policy in Misplaced Pages pertaining to grudges against editors, and I suggest that Sarah and ThuranX (both involved previously) review it. I stand by everything that I have already stated and object most strenously to the judgments made by Sarah, by ThuranX, and by others that I engage in "abusive" editing; the record simply does not support such claims. It is easy to block users; what matters is why the blocks are removed (sometimes within minutes) and what the end result has been. Taking these situations out of context to support long-standing grudges is not going to hold up in any administrative review, so I suggest please stop doing that. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 01:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I most certainly do not have a grudge against you. I have raised prior cases to show that this is not a once off issue with you and that in fact it is a very long term and on-going problem, not because I have a grudge. If you are unwilling or unable to deal with other editors then you should refrain from editing Misplaced Pages because this is a collaborative project. Saying that you're permanently too busy off-site and unable to respond to queries while you hyper-edit every single day just doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. I do not intend to act as an administrator in this case, however, that's not because I feel compromised in anyway but rather for the simple fact that I find you incredibly tendentious, disruptive and impossible to work with. Having acted as an administrator in a case involving you six months ago does not prohibit me from commenting on other cases if I so desire. I do not excuse the personal attacks from other editors but your editing style and practices are extremely antagonistic and I am not at all surprised that other editors have become so frustrated and reached the end of their tether with you that they have abandoned articles you're working on and eventually snapped and made inappropriate comments. If you would edit in a more congenial manner, you would not have these ongoing interpersonal issues with most editors you edit with. Sarah 01:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Seriously NYScholar, edit warring on this page really doesn't do anything to help your case; please leave the title and convenience links alone. I would also have to agree with he above assessments of your behavior; you are very combative and skilled at winning by simply wearing down anyone who disagrees with you. This has been a problem since your first interactions on Misplaced Pages; I think the community is saying that you either need to find a better way to handle disputes or you may find yourself placed under restrictions to help limit the damage. This is an excellent opportunity for change; try to take the comments here in the spirit of constructive criticism and see if you can't find a way to edit harmoniously with others. Shell 01:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Shell, I must set the record here straight. I have not been "combative"; I have defended myself against others' personal attacks (which continue in talk pages among them, in the talk pages of articles cited above). It takes more than one "to edit harmoniously with others"; I believe that if you yourself examine Talk:The Dark Knight (film) and my talk page archive 20, and the editing histories of these pages, my current talk page, and The Dark Knight, you will find ample evidence that it is not I who have been "combative" or, in any way, "abusive"; I have been entirely civil, as I am being now. I have just updated my current talk page to state that I will make no further comments about this matter. Enough is enough. I have no desire to deal with it anymore, and no time to do so. This process is so unpleasant that I am steering clear of it. I will be doing my own other non-Misplaced Pages-related work and not dealing with this matter any further. I will also not contribute anything further to The Dark Knight (film). I devoted enough time to it. If there are errors, other people can find and correct them, if they wish to spend their time doing so. Repeatedly, I have found Misplaced Pages a hostile and unpleasant environment (not a "community") and unconducive to productive work. It would seem to me that it would be the task of neutral Misplaced Pages administrators to sort out the useful contributors from those who are lurking in talk pages and fueling controversy. I do not see that happening. It is not a "community" in which I feel welcome and not one which I believe deserves my contributions. "Physician, heal thyself." --NYScholar (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have purposefully stayed away from this discussion as I felt that I was perhaps unnecessarily fueling the conflict but I can see that it continues unabated. It has truly gotten to the point where I can't believe anything that NYScholar says, including protestations that they are innocent, declarations that this is either beneath them or that they don't have the time to engage the discussion further. The real truth is that NYScholar has only one opinion, and that is his/hers and is not willing to admit to any culpability in the matter, no matter what the matter is. Any criticism is met with a quotation of wiki policy and a cry of victimhood. We would all welcome NYScholar's contributions, just without the condescension and attitude. If this is not forthcoming I welcome a neutral administrator's input on how to address this pervasive and ongoing issue. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 06:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Another denial of wrong-doing from NYScholar. One hand distributes distractions and redirects all fault at ALL who dare speak back to NYScholar, the other hand show a flat palm out, saying 'Sorry, NYScholar has no time to face the situation or learn about pronouns, or identify a gender for the writing convenience of others, so only a proper noun may be used.'. Same shit ,different day. ban this editor already. Two admins are telling NYScholar to knock it off, and the jerk keeps swinging, saying all teh admins who comment are cabal/conspiracy. ThuranX (talk) 06:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It is "I told you so" time. Back in February, I blocked NYScholar for refusing to discuss his edits - the specific methodology was (a) a wikibreak notice placed permanently on his talk page, while editing at full pace; (b) a message at the top of his talk page demanding that people not post there; (c) the immediately archiving of any messages posted there, citing "harassment", i.e. disregarding his request not to post; and (d) responding to posts, if at all, only in his archive, which others are not permitted to edit, thus allowing false accusations of harassment to stand unchallenged.

For reasons beyond my ken, some of you guys decided to characterise this block as Hesperian blocked NYScholar for archiving his talk page, and overturned it. And here we are five months later, and nothing has changed except that it is a different group of people who are going insane from frustration. NYScholar's management of his talk page is disruptive. I don't care if it meets the letter of WP:UP or indeed all our policied put together. It is disruptive. Hesperian 15:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

And judging from the overwhelming consensus against NYScholar, that criticizes the editor for gross incivility/disruption, edit warring and refusal to discuss any changes, I would support an extended block. seicer | talk | contribs 15:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I would endorse a block, too, but I would also support some type of community sanctions, such as a restriction on archiving his talk page less than 24 hours since last posting to that section, civility parole, a blanket prohibition on making accusations without presenting evidence and so forth. I note that NYScholar has continued making utterly false accusations without a single piece of evidence on my talk page, accusing me of violating 3RR on this page (untrue - I made two edits in 45 minutes and none were reverts), deleting his posts (utterly untrue), of violatinmg LOP "at whim or will", (go figure) of abusing administrative privileges in relation to him (despite the fact that I have never once used admin tools against him). These false accusations are easily dismissed since they are all patently untrue and the actual evidence disproving his false accusations is easily available but it is time consuming dealing with his false accusations. I would prefer to ignore them but I don't want passers by thinking my lack of response isn't an admission of guilt. And if i do respond, he accuses me of harassing him and upsetting him. Regardless of what he says, it's really not my goal to ban him from contributing to Misplaced Pages; I just want him to stop this incredible disruption that simply rotates to other people - same problems, different editors. I read over the arbitration case earlier today (Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/NYScholar) and the behavioural and attitude complaints from other editors 15 months ago were practically identical to what people still complain about today. This is such a longterm and ingrained issue that I don't see it improving without external intervention. However, apparently I am one of a cabal who are holding grudges against him and trying to get him banned so my opinion should be taken with a grain of salt, I guess. 8-/ Sarah 17:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(after EC with below) Might I suggest that a better preventative measure would be for everyone to stay out of each others' way for a while? No more comments on the editor's talk page, no more communication from the editor to this thread or the Dark Knight talk page (the editor has indicated as much), and absolutely no response to comments the editor might make on his/her talk or archive page, no matter how unfair you/we might feel the editor is misrepresenting yours or others' words; the record is already clear enough without further escalating matters. A cool off period might serve to open avenues of constructive criticism and collaboration that aren't immediately obvious right now in this atmosphere of misunderstanding (whether deliberate or not on his/her part) and mistrust. Steve 17:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Steve, I would see merit in a cool off period if this was a once off issue that suddenly came to a head. However, this has been going on for way too long and needs to be dealt with one way or the other. I feel a cool off period would just serve to delay the inevitable, and I don't think it is an effective way to deal with this sort of disruption. As Shell said above, these issues have existed since NYScholar first came to Misplaced Pages and that has been around three years now. This should have been dealt with properly in February but it wasn't and now here we are again and I would not support once again delaying a resolution. I don't think it is fair on the community, involved editors or NYScholar himself to have this hanging around unresolved. Sarah 18:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I was not planning to return here to comment further; but given the false statements and false claims made above, I feel compelled to do so (by those making them). I suggest that you find evidence of "gross incivility/disruption, edit warring and refusal to discuss any changes" in Talk:The Dark Knight (film).

Those are false claims. Post the diffs. This is not a arbitration/dispute resolution; this is a notice that I originally posted due to the personal attacks against me posted in Talk:The Dark Knight (film) by User:Stuthomas4 initially, and that user's continuing unwelcome posts on my talk page and restoration of them or similar ones despite my civil request that the user desist; I posted this AN/I report when the user posted negative comments about me in the user's own user page (since deleted by the user: see the editing history of the page) and what I regarded as a threat on my own user talk page. The history of the talk pages will bear out what I have stated. I posted the links some time ago now at the top. The way I initiated this AN/I was changed by Sarah, who continues now in what appears to me to be a concerted effort (a campaign) to ban me from Misplaced Pages. It is not true to say that I do not explain my edits. The complaints made in Talk:The Dark Knight (film) are that I explain them too much. That is not evidence of incivility; that is not evidence of disruption; and that is not evidence of lack of good faith, etc., to name some of these what I regard as entirely false claims. I made all the edits that I have made in Misplaced Pages only in good faith. The insinuations and innuendoes and false statements made by those summarizing this situation are not accurate, are taking comments made out of their contexts, and are being fueled by one another. One needs to return to the actual comments that I have made in Talk:The Dark Knight (film) and in the editing summaries of The Dark Knight (film) to see if there is actual evidence of "gross incivility" etc. I do not believe that there is. I have probably been the most civil of anyone posting on that page. I edit in good faith, and others continally violate WP:AGF in stating that I do not. I have spent hours of my time trying to correct errors in that article to benefit "the project" Misplaced Pages; instead of recognizing that, others have focused on one sentence or a phrase or what they perceive as a "tone" of voice of "condescension" that I do not intend in the sentence or phrase. They have misinterpreted my reasons for my explanations and construed them as other than what they are. Among my academic fields is literary and critical analysis and interpretation, including many genres of writing. The evidence that others see of "tone of voice" is subject to their own interpretations; accepting one another's interpretations as fact, they have collectively decided that I am "condescending" and project other negative "attitudes" on me which I do not have. If I had such "attitudes" toward others in Misplaced Pages, I would not have devoted so much time to editing articles in this project, nor would I have taken so much time to respond to others asking me questions about editing. That I took the time indicates not "condescension" but responsiblity. I feel responsible enough to explain my edits when asked. If I write with more words than one would like to see, it is because of the propensity for misinterpretation in Misplaced Pages. I try to be clear. Sometimes clarity requires stating a point in more than one way and repeating a point for emphasis. I cannot apologize for the comments that I have posted in good faith. I made them in good faith, just as I make this statement in good faith. If others are unwilling to accept the fact that I edit in good faith, that is a function of their own attitudes toward me and my work. But it is not a statement of fact about me, my attitudes, or my work. --NYScholar (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

There are many different kinds of people who contribute to Misplaced Pages; I am an academic; my style of writing is an academic style of writing. If Misplaced Pages wants to keep from Misplaced Pages writers with an "academic style of writing", then its WP:MOS and core editing policies need to make that clear. It is common in Misplaced Pages to label as "disruption" any explanation that someone writes that has more words than people prefer; my above comments are not intended to be a "disruption"; I write them in good faith; when a situation has become as unnecessarily complicated as this AN/I has become, it does take some additional words to point that out. If those posting in this AN/I section have not got the patience to read this explanation, that is their lack of patience with this project, not mine. I am a very patient person. But I do expect fairness in this proceeding. When I see unfair accusations tossed about, I feel compelled to point to the unfairness. Those of us who have been contributing to Misplaced Pages for over three years have a responsibility to others like ourselves who contribute in good faith but who are maligned for being who we are. I believe that the kinds of statements being made about me and about my editing are extremely disrespectful and themselves uncivil and violations of Misplaced Pages:Etiquette. My words are not "rubbish". --NYScholar (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to avoid this editor because my only prior interaction was so unpleasant and unproductive that any comment here would be taken as a grudge or attack. It was a long time ago so water under the bridge. Briefly, in August 2007 NYScholar decided that BLP needed a rewrite so as to ban any self-published external links in BLP articles (he/she/it also took the matter to WP:EL and WP:V on the iffy claim that EL and V were in conflict because we were allowing external links to other than reliable sources). The policy dispute doesn't matter, other than how misguided the editor was on policy. In any event, over the next month or so it made 72 edits to the policy and more than 700 edits to the talk page, occasionally hitting 50 or more edits per day. The edits were full of sniping, snideness, attacks, statements of outrage, accusations that others didn't know what they were doing, etc., and more or less shut down the policy page for a month. Feel free to look for yourself if you want to wade through 800 diffs. That could have worn most anyone down on most pages but I'm pretty persistent when defending Misplaced Pages against disruption, and he also ran up against Geni, Jossi, and SlimVirgin. Obviously nobody is going to be banned for something they did almost a year ago. The only reason I rehash this is in relation to the question about long-term disruption and the likelihood of reform. The issue isn't bad faith versus good faith. Whether sincere or not (and there's no reason to doubt the editor's sincerity) their presence on Misplaced Pages has been disruptive, causing lots of grief and wasted time. Wikidemo (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to Sarah's addition, the matter that she alludes to ("February") was "properly" dealt with at that time. She was overruled at that time and the entire record is archived in my own talk archives. As I said before, from my own perspective, she made my life miserable, misinterpreting out of context material that did not support her claims and continually referring to my explanations of what I intended as "rubbish" or similar words ("crap"), continually assuming bad faith when I was responding in good faith, accusing me of "lying" when I was actually telling the truth.

Now she has taken this opportunity to restate the same misinterpretations in her own talk page archived content, which she posted on mine (since deleted, since it is already archived there).

That she is now back to restate points she made before, again taken out of context, in this AN/I that I filed about another user — what about that user's violations of civility, etiquette, and user space guidelines? That user takes this opportunity to continue to malign me, despite my objections to those earlier transgressions of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines — indicates to me that she now intends to have me "banned" from Misplaced Pages.

Her earlier failure to block me before was based on administrative review. There are good reasons why her attempt failed, and, just because people in Talk:The Dark Knight (film) do not like the fact that I was responsible enough to answer a user's query with more words than they would like or a sentence that they objected to is not a reason for banning someone who has worked as hard as I have over three years to contribute in good faith to this project.

There would not be such a mess going on here if one would examine with an open mind and fairness what I have been objecting to in my initial reasons for filing this AN/I and to stop trying to make it into another witch hunt. I am not a witch, and I should not be treated as if I were one.

I am a responsible editor who edits in good faith. That should be valued, not maligned. --NYScholar (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral administrator supports block of above editor, based on previous discussion and discussion above. John Carter (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral editor seconds that emotion. Responding to someone in your archives, like the editor did to Steve, then responding with "Apparently, Steve missed my comment in archive page 20, where I said that I "appreciate" Steve's comments"? That's beyond comprehension. Just wow. Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I filed this AN/I about User:Stuthomas4; after first posting here, Sarah has directed everyone posting here to make this AN/I about me and changed the heading to include me; after her doing that, no one has focused on the continual posts by USer:Stuthomas4 attacking me on my own talk page and in other user space; attacks continuing unabated in this very AN/I. I have already told STEVE that I appreciate his comments posted on my talk page (archived in archive page 20), and I do. But I do not see the others posting in this thread taking his comments into account or trying to act in their spirit. I have indicated to Steve that I appreciated those initial comments (more than once). I do not, however, appreciate the comments of Stuthomas4, Sarah, and some "others" (cited in the heading), which I find inflammatory and unfair. Posting this statement does not make me a "jerk", by the way (another uncivil epithet); it makes me a responsible contributor to Misplaced Pages. --NYScholar (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

"Her earlier failure to block me before was based on administrative review." - please stop making false accusations. As you've been told multiple times now, I did not block you previously. I have never blocked you. Click on the block log button at the top of this section and you will see exactly which admins have previously blocked you. The administrator who blocked you only to have you unblocked by another administrator was User:Hesperian. I really wish that you would stop making these claims about me that are paatently, provably, false. I also do not want to ban you from Misplaced Pages. I want to end this disruption that is always around you but I prefer to do that by means that allow you to continue editing. That is, through use of community-based sanctions. I am not advocating a ban or even an indefinite block, but if you don't stop making these false claims and accusations about me I am likely to change my mind about that. I would ask that you stop talking about me and instead focus on the issues that brought you here. I had nothing to do with the article on The Dark Knight or your dispute there and have never edited that article, ever, so I suggest you get back to responding to the issues raised pertaining to that and the editors you are currently in dispute with. Thank you. Sarah 18:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason people are talking about NYScholar and not me is because I apologized for my comments and struck them out as has been noted above. I deleted the one comment that was on my user page for the same reason. For those of you who haven't seen it it said only that "I find NYscholar to be particularly annoying." Not really the most awful thing that could be said, but nonetheless it wasn't nice so I deleted it. I have made mistakes in the past and I have exactly one block to my name for an edit war, and one recent warning from another page. As I have not researched the entirety of NYScholar's history I cannot comment on the above users' claims. I only know what I saw at Dark Knight. Anyway, that's why you're still the focus. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Why should others focus on Stuthomas4? He has already acknowledged his incivility at the beginning of this report. You have accused many of attacking you here, but I don't see it. What I see is your assumption of bad faith of quite a few editors indiscriminately. Good faith is a two-way street. Aunt Entropy (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec/2/3)\(ec)

For the record, here is the direct link to my "block" log: NYScholar block log. Hesperian has apparently not gotten over administrative overturning of his block. Frequently, people who look at this block log (which is the entire list of blocks over 3 years) miss the fact that some were done in error and quickly unblocked (scroll down); some occurred when I was a relatively-new user of Misplaced Pages and not aware of all the "rules and regulations" (policies and guidelines). Over these three years, I have tried to familiarize myself witht Misplaced Pages's WP:LOP, though there are so many that I may not have full knowledge of all of the subtleties, and there are frequent inconsistencies that confuse me and other users. Project pages are often revised and edited frequently and changes occur. I do my best to be aware of what constitutes "edit warring" (a term I had not heard of before I was accused of doing it), and I try not to engage in edit warring; my user boxes indicate my preferences in editing practices. I prefer using talk pages of articles to reverting others' changes; when they revert my edits, and I believe that they have done so improperly, I explain why I think that way. If they convince me of their perspective, I do yield to it. In the case of Talk:The Dark Knight (film), I figured out a compromise that in my view solved the problem so that one could have an EL in the EL sec. without causing a conflict relating to (how I read) WP:EL (and I have read a lot of the pages of discussion about WP:EL in the past. I believe that my "compromise" by re-casting the section of The Dark Knight involved improves the article. It will undoubtedly change in the future (future film) when more reviews are published; right now, it's rather stable. I will not be editing that article any further (as I say above). --NYScholar (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC) + ::(ec)Why should others focus on Stuthomas4? He has already acknowledged his incivility at the beginning of this report. You have accused many of attacking you here, but I don't see it. What I see is your assumption of bad faith of quite a few editors indiscriminately. Good faith is a two-way street. Aunt Entropy (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Re: my original complaints about posts by User:Stuthomas4: After posting a so-called olive branch, that user went on to post further negative personal comments about me and added the post on his user page that the user has since deleted; the time stamps indicate the order of events. I did not accept the apology because I had already read the additional negative comments and I was referring to them in my response to the "olive branch". There was no direct apology to me about the user space posting, the continual posts and re-posts of unwelcome further personal attacks on my user talk page, or clear indications in editing summaries of an apology. The material was deleted only after I posted this AN/I and it took some time for that to occur. In the meantime, the same user and others turned this into an AN/I about me, neglecting what I was objecting to initially. I suggest one return to what I was objecting to in order to see why I filed this AN/I report. See the top links. As far as I am concerned, this matter is partly resolved because I will no longer edit The Dark Knight (film) at all, and these users can edit it themselves to their heart's content, without my contributions; but the matter of Stuthomas4' original personal attacks against me have not been sanctioned, as they should have been (in my view). To me that kind of lack of even-handedness among those responding to this AN/I indicates a problem in this process. --NYScholar (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense - I tried to be civil and you were, in my opinion, ungracious abut it. I am sorry that I maligned you. I have retracted, redacted and retreated. What more do you want? It's over. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, I do not "play games"; my work in Misplaced Pages and my comments are serious and people reading them should take them seriously. This matter is not a "joke" or a "game". --NYScholar (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

NYScholar seems to not understand that just because User One complains here about User Two does not mean that only User Two's actions will be assessed, but both users', to make a sound and reasonable decision. What has happened here is the community has looked, seem one apology, and one pattern of continued disruption. With apology, for an action many find understandable, if not justified, that editor's part is settled. However, the disruptive editor is seen to be persisting in the behavior which provoked the incivility, and seen to be deliberately obtuse about the disruptive editor's actions and their effects. As a result, numerous other editors, who have experienced the deliberately obtuse disruption from the editor before are speaking up. You opened the door to this by coming here, NYScholar, and asking others to look at how someone treated you. They also looked to see what caused that treatment, AND how you treated that person. ThuranX (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)\

Post the diffs. to support claims being made; look at the time stamps; stuthomas4 did not apologize to me for the personal attacks made after the so-called olive branch; Stuthomas4 continued to re-post the same or similar messages on my talk page complaining about me (making the same "criticisms") after I read and deleted them. I deleted them because I considered and still consider them to be ongoing personal attacks. ThuranX participated in fueling these personal attacks and "criticisms" of me further above; I have "treated" all users engaged in this matter (including the one who referred to my work as "crap") with respect; I have not been uncivil; many of them have been uncivil. When I have pointed that out, I have been accused of being "tendentious" and "disruptive". There are policies and guidelines in Misplaced Pages re: WP:CIVIL, WP:Etiquette, WP:AGF, and Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines, which I felt (and feel) are being violated in this discussion and in Stuthomas4's previous actions about which I filed this AN/I. Turning the accusations against me, people are doing so without posting "diffs." from The Dark Knight (film) to support the charges. Let us compare the "incivilities"; I civilly responded to Stuthomas4's "olive branch" with the knowledge that Stuthomas4 had already continued the personal attacks on me elsewhere despite filing that "olive branch"; thus I referred Stuthomas4 to Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines, giving the section that pertains. --NYScholar (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I acknowledged my uncivil tone here and elsewhere and have retracted my statements several times. I have apologized above. I'll do it here again. I am sorry. Am I done here? --Stuthomas4 (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(I was offline taking a shower and the computer was still on; so I checked this thread again.) Yes, Stuthomas4, I accept your apology for past statements about me. My acceptance of that apology does not give Stuthomas4 or anyone else carte blanche to attack me personally in the future, or to claim that I do not edit in good faith. I edit in good faith, and I am probably more "civil" (WP:CIVIL) than many of those "criticizing" me here (including some administrators). Being an administrator does not excuse any Misplaced Pages from WP:LOP. In turn, I apologize for being wordy. Many academics appear "wordy" to non-academics. As I have said before, however, I have been "wordy" in good faith. From my perspective, I do not appear to be "wordy"; I am trying to be clear. (Back offline to eat and to go to the Post Office to check my mail; it closes at 4:30 p.m. ET; then must do some non-Misplaced Pages-related work; I work seven days of the week.) --NYScholar (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

"Many academics appear "wordy" to non-academics." I just had to point this out. Now that's funny. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, Let's. You bring all the diffs that you're using to accuse everyone of conspiring against you. Do you understand that people are uspet with you? Do you understand that you have irritated and alienated numerous editors? Do you understand that in asking others to examine his conduct, the people looked at your part in the situation as well? Do you understand that they found your long term behavior more problematic than his short term loss of good temper? ThuranX (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

User:AlmeidaManga

Someone created this account for the sole purpose of making a personal attack against me on my talk page. They admit this is a sock of their real account in their second message to me (before they were indef blocked for obvious abuse of editing privileges). Is it at all possible to track/trace which editor this was so they can be dealt with (presuming they would be at least warned for it, if nothing else) -- ] (] · ]) 20:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Locate a checkuser. I'll see if I can find one on IRC, or make others aware. — _Maggot 20:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. -- ] (] · ]) 20:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a response yet. But I'd recommend you proceed with a request for checkuser. If you need help let me know, I'm willing. — _Maggot 20:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Request submitted. -- ] (] · ]) 21:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I doubt you will get far with the request without some evidence on who the coward account is, and naming them on the request (which may be more trouble if your suspicion is wrong), as CU is "not for fishing". However, if another sock pops up and there appears to be a concerted campaign of harassment then you might get a result. It isn't nice, but it appears to be the practice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

True, it might be a bit hasty. Worse case scenario is that its delisted. It can be reslisted upon further evidence. Collectonian: I transclulded it and signed for you. Feel free to remove the unsigned template, and remove the case as you see fit. — _Maggot 21:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I know of at least one case where an account advertising itself as a sockpuppet got checkusered without knowledge of who the sockmaster was... that may have been a coincidence, as I believe it was a CU who happened to stumble upon the sock (as opposed to via RFCU), but like I say, it did happen at least once.. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Dmcdevit was the CU in the previous case I alluded to. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...hopefully maybe they will be able to do a little something. -- ] (] · ]) 21:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Restored this one from the archive. The check user confirmed that this sock belongs to User:HouseOfScandal, an editor I had a recent disagreement with (and ironically enough, "lectured" me on civility). What should be done now? -- ] (] · ]) 06:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I left a courtesy note on his talk page so he's knows he's being discussed on ANI - Alison 07:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I got distracted *doh* -- ] (] · ]) 07:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for giving me an opportunity to respond. Simply stated, I'm unequivocally not the AlmediaManger user and edits were being made from a shared computer at the workplace. However…maybe the matter is not a total coincidence as I was indeed venting angrily offline about Collectonian's editorial style to a young co-worker and he may have he taken it upon himself to "speak up for me". I don’t know how this fits in with AlmediaManger's claims to have a long-standing beef with Collectonian. Maybe it was a red herring, or maybe these two had tangled in the past. The later seems especially possible because Collectonian has fiery disputes going on with multiple parties at any given time. Her talk page is a daily battleground. I myself had only made her acquaintance about a day previously. I did respond to the nastiness when I saw it as I had Collectonian’s page on watchlist as she had mine. I’ll state anecdotally that for a moment I was just going to warn AlmediaManger about incivility in hopes of engendering at least a slightly less nasty attitude from Collectonian, but soon changed my mind and did indeed take the opportunity to express my displeasure with Collectonian by telling AlmediaManger “Two wrongs don't make a right!” -- an unabashed criticism of Collectian's manner. Alison, Thanks for noting me as a good editor. I try hard. I’m especially fond of birthing new articles and have a DYK on the front page and several more in queue at the moment as I am striving now for the 100 DYK mark. Until crossing paths with Collectonian, I went perhaps a year and a half without any significant disagreement with any editors other than the blatant vandals I report. I hope to refrain from contesting this issue further. Arguing with people online makes me uncomfortable. It’s undignified and silly. If my account is blocked or whatever I will be a bit offended given the hundreds of hours I’ve spent improving the project, but I’ll deal with that by going to the beach and sipping beer in a lounge chair. Like many, I’m somewhat vexed by the amount of time I spend here anyways. Thanks and best wishes. - House of Scandal (talk) 08:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Further commentary on my talk page here - Alison 08:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I don't believe HouseOfScandal's excuse for it. Seems extremely convenient to me that his coworker would just happen to decide to have a beef with me and would leave a personal attack tailored to HouseOfScandal's beef with me. In either case, my question is what action, if any, is going to be taken to deal with this? -- ] (] · ]) 14:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As the provider of the technical evidence, that's not my call - Alison 15:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No prob, I meant it to be sort of a general questions for admins in general. Should have unindented :) -- ] (] · ]) 15:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, do not find House of Scandal's story that a fellow coworker, to whom he "vented" about Collectonian (presumably about this discussion), did the following only a few hours after HoS's interaction with Collectonian: knew how to create an account, knew to bluelink both his user and user talk page, knew how to spell "Collectionian" and find her talk page, leave two signed (albeit not dated) messages with edit summaries that used lots of Misplaced Pages jargon (such as vandals, sockpuppets, blocking, edit sumamry), and knew the shortcut way to link to said sockpuppet policy (he also used a ] prefix, instead of a much more commonly used ] prefix, which HoS has used before, to list a few instances) to be anywhere near credible. Thatcher says here that the vast majority (96%) of the edits from that IP are from HoS. I doubt that the other 4% of editing time (which could just as easily be HoS under the other account name, or editing as the IP) has given another editor enough experience in the inner workings of WP to do the things I listed above. Even without the above, I find it odd that an editor would comment to his co-worker about an editor on Misplaced Pages in any manner that would result in said co-worker behaving in such a manner. Sorry, but I find absolutely no reason to believe HoS's story, and all the more to believe AM is indeed his abuse sockpuppet. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• I don't find the story at all credible either. Looks like obvious, basically admitted, and checkuser validated sockpuppetry as an attempted bad-hand account. However, the main account is a high productivity editor that has been around a long time, and has a reasonable but imperfect block log, not too much in the way of user page warnings (well except for image issues). (But man, they do some odd things, e.g. these edit summaries.) I think a short block is in order, lest they be encouraged to repeat the behavior. GRBerry 02:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Erm, so that would be a punitive block then would it? As the bad-hand account is now blocked and is now two days old? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

  Pretty obvious you didn't read to the end of my statement: "lest they be encouraged to repeat the behavior". GRBerry 17:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Abusive use of multiple accounts results in blocks. Happens all the time. No reason he should be exempt, particularly when he seems to have absolutely no regret over doing it. -- ] (] · ]) 03:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do not believe HoS should be able to get off scot-free, especially considering the vitriol in the comments, and use of a blatant sockpuppet to do so. I am minded to agree with Casliber that such a block would probably be punitive, but I do not agree with doing nothing more. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

There are two questions here, to be addressed separately:

1. Is HoS telling the truth? I'm defauling to "no." It's incredibly common for caught vandals and socks to say, "My younger brother did it!", and "A younger co-worker did it!" just appears to be the grown-up version of the same lie. Others may have more good faith than me, but I don't buy it.
2. If HoS was indeed using a bad hand account, should he be blocked? Well, did he promise never to do it again? If so, I might consider saying we should let this go. But he's not even admitting he did it. Doesn't exactly bode well. Also, this was not like he just created a bad hand to do some trolling, etc., he created a sock with the specific intention of hurling abuse at a user that he had a recent disagreement with. None of this exactly point us towards leniency.

Lastly I would look at HoS's contribs. This is where it gets murky. The vast majority of his contribs appear to be helpful and uncontroversial. I'd hate to see a productive editor like this get indef blocked because of one instance of highly abusive sockpuppetry (although there is precedent for this).

I really can't come to a decision on this, personally. However, if he were to escape a block, I would think the minimum conditions would be 1) whether it was him or a "younger co-worker" (cough) he needs to guarantee us that nothing like this will ever happen again, and 2) he should be restricted from interacting with Collectonian, since it is likely HoS was highly abusive towards C.

Those are my two cents on those two questions (so does that make four cents???) --Jaysweet (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems he has no intention of doing anything. He is still continuing the hypocrisy by chastising other editors on my talk page for being uncivil . If he isn't blocked at least temporarily, then I at least hope some binding version of condition 2 is enforced, and he is required to stop watching my talk page and leaving little notes on it. -- ] (] · ]) 18:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I left HoS a note on his talk page advising him that commenting on your talk page, whether it is with good intentions or not, is probably a really bad idea right now.

Heh, I just noticed he has Kanji and Hiragana on his talk page. But you know, HoS wouldn't know the first thing about Manga... hehehe... That was his "younger co-worker!" <eye roll> --Jaysweet (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Can this guy do this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:MaxSem&action=history68.148.164.166 (talk) 07:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. He's an administrator therefore he can protect pages if necessary. D.M.N. (talk) 07:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well he has the ability but is it appropiate if he's an administator to protect his talkpage so Anon IPs cannot message him when he may well be taking actions that affect them? Exxolon (talk) 10:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the IP's block log he was block evading. Dunno whether that is true though. MaxSem (talk · contribs) has been informed of this discussion. D.M.N. (talk) 10:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I just dropped a note on his talk. Exxolon (talk) 10:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ow, yeah. This gentleman was active at Julian Baggini making questionable edits for some time, causing a complaint to the Foundation (OTRS ticket #2008060110003568). No surprise he was blocked. Was the semi-protection too much? I prefer to participate in a meaningful discussion - not when a blocked user evades his block by changing his IP and then throws templates at me. I don't participate in RC patrolling these days, so my contact with anons is pretty limited and previous anon edit on my talk prior to its protection was in early May. MaxSem 14:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Month-long semi of a talk page in response to two edits from a single IP? Sounds a bit excessive... – Luna Santin (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Before I started reverting all protection attempts on my talk page, I had it indefinitely protected because of SIHULM-related vandalism (including a death threat) from two or three throwaway IPs. Nowadays I have two talk pages - my main one (which is always unprotected) and a "discussions" one (which is semi-protected and allows me to respond to peoples' queries without being edit-conflicted by vandalism). -Jéské 21:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Kaka12o

This user is persistently edit warring on Club America. They are not providing edit summaries, have ignored warnings posted to their talk page, have ignored the discussion on the article talk page and persistently revert changes made per consensus at WP:FOOTY. They also removed the tag indicating that the article was semi-protected. Paul  Bradbury 18:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Pan-Turkist label

Editor User:Ghirlandajo falsely labeled me or my work as Pan-Turkist ], ]. I object to being false labeled as nationalist of any color, including Pan-Turkist, i.e. a "political movement aiming to unite the various Turkic peoples into a modern political state". Nowhere in my contributions is even a remote relationship to any political movememts or unification of any states. My interests are entirely in the ancient and Early Middle Age history, and general science of Turkology, and being labeled with a political term is a personal insult for me. Will you please help Ghirlandajo to retrieve this insult? Barefact (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you need help. The original incident happened on a public message board, and you've already brought your problems there to another noticeboard (this one) (twice). The only thing I can suggest that you haven't done is post at User Talk:Ghirlandajo. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Multiple-IP trolling from 190.51.0.0/16

There's multiple-IP trolling from the 190.51.0.0/16 range, with the usual tricks of trying to sow confusion: pretend anti-vandalism, user-page trolling, calling for and/or protesting blocks of their other IPs, etc. See User talk:190.51.149.229 for a sample of the IPs active at this. I've softblocked the whole range for 15 minutes. -- The Anome (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And more of the same from the same range on the expiry of that block (see for example recent edits to this page). Range-block extended. -- The Anome (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Weirdness: NJGW (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And more weirdness from the 190.51. range here. I'm assuming the editor involved might be the same one. John Carter (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Have some more 190.51.154.4 and 190.51.153.116 -- ] (] · ]) 19:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

"Gabriel Murpy" Article

-- belongs in WP:DRV

The article "Gabriel Murphy" has been nominated for deletion on 3 occassions. The links and results are listed below:

1st Nomination on September 25, 2007 - Result was keep

2nd Nomination on February 12, 2008 - Result was delete

3rd Nomination on July 5, 2008 - Result was delete, though I believe the closing administrator errored in the closure of this AfD, as there were as many keeps as deletes.

Every time the article is nominated for deletion, it is revised and improved- hence the time delay between the three nominations. The latest version of the article that caused the 3rd nomination was actually completely re-written in a userfied space with the assistance of several administrators during the deletion review process. The "Gabriel Murphy" article went through and it was voted 3-0 to move into mainspace. Just 1 day after it was moved into the mainspace, on July 5, the same user (Wolfkeeper) who had nominated the article for deletion the first time re-nominated it for speedy deletion. If you review the deletion log, you will see about an equal number of keeps versus deletes. The main argument put forth by the deletes was non-notability. Per Misplaced Pages, notability is defined as "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable". I think anyone objectively reading the article will find:

1. Significant Coverage - there are 30+ references to news stores about the subject;

2. Reliable Sources - the sources include Cornell University, , The Kansas City Star, and , which is the largest trade magazine within the web hosting sector.

3. Independent of the Subject - all of the sources above have no ties to the subject, none of the references are blogs or other sources that have anything to do with the subject.

I strongly beleive the 3rd Nomination on July 5, 2008 should have resulted in a neutral closure, or even perhaps keep as there were equal votes to keep and delete, and my understanding of consensus policy is that if no concensus is reached, the article remains and is not deleted. Additionally, consensus says that "Misplaced Pages's decisions are not based on the number of people who showed up and voted a particular way on a particular day; they are based on a system of good reasons". I think if you review the 3rd Nomination on July 5, 2008 log, you will see sound arguments put forth to keep. While a few editors who voted delete argue that it is a resume, most of the arguments are that:

1. The sources are not reliable;

2. That the Kansas City Business Journal is not reliable (though it "is the largest publisher of metropolitan business newsweeklies in the United States, with 41 papers across the country reaching more than 500,000 subscribers each week", according to their website).

3. It is an advertisement (no one would specifically point-out what part of it is an advertisement);

4. It is an orphan article so it is not notable;

5. It does not have many page views so it is not notable.

What I am asking for is first, for an administrator to review the 3rd Nomination on July 5, 2008 dialogue to determine if the closing administrator did error in closing it with the concensus to delete. If this was an error, then I ask that the article be restored and no other action would be required. Otherwise, I am asking forthe community to review the latest version of the article via Google cache (since it was wrongfully deleted today) and vote keep and protect as it will undoubatly be re-nominated for deletion by Wolfkeeper again when it is restored. Alternatively, I would ask to have the article userfied yet again so I may improve it based on logical feedback from the community. I think this article clearly meets the notability threashold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. Thank you. LakeBoater (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Two points:

#You already posted a link to a deletion review, so why not start one for this deletion? If as you say the closing admin incorrectly assessed the consensus, the deletion will be overturned. I see that this has been cross-posted to DRV.

1. Asking people to vote in a specific way is generally frowned upon (see WP:CANVASS for more on this). Luckily, in this case you're not referring to a specific vote, but it's somethign to bear in mind.

Hope this helps. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As SheffieldSteel hinted, ANI is not the place for deletion reviews and hopefully someone uninvolved will mark this thread as resolved. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

O shtrr. Yhis belongs in WP:Deletion Review. Adminstirators do not usually bypass wikeipdia procedures for no reason and there is not much any admin can do re: this topic. In deletion review, the closing admin for your article wil have his or hjer judgment reviwed by other users tod etermine whether or not it was correct co close it and if consensus was appropriately determined or wehther or not this issue should be overturned and the deletion be revoked. Smith Jones (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Thanks so much for everyone's feedback on this. I assumed it belonged in DR but thought it might be relevant here if the closing admin had wrongfully closed and deleted the article based on the AdF discussion. I hope some of you might consider speaking out at the Deletion Review for this article as everyone seems very helpful and knowledgable. Thanks. LakeBoater (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Your welome. glad We could be of help. Smith Jones (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Notification: Rangeblock on 72.76.0.0/16

The IP range 72.76.0.0/16 has been soft-blocked (AO, account creation allowed) for a month due to ongoing activity related to harrassment of David Shankbone and vandalism to porn and adult themed articles. This rangeblock may need to be expanded if the stalker moves outside that IP range and will be extended in time if the harrasser returns. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

According to whois, the full range is 72.64.0.0/11, but I haven't yet seen this one operating outside of 72.76.x.x, so a /16 seems the obvious place to start. Had figured this might come to a rangeblock if the abuse continued. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there were some back channel discussions on the /11, but as nearly all the abuse happened from that /16 I'm starting there. If they step outside that range please let me know. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediawiki can only block /16s. Blocking 32 different /16s (2 million addresses) to stop one vandal would be a really bad idea. Thatcher 01:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have undone George's block, since it is not the correct IP range for this particular miscreant. The three that are (71.127.224.0/20, 72.68.0.0/17, and 72.76.0.0/17 for future reference) are all blocked now. east.718 at 10:15, July 12, 2008

IP editor disrupting to make a WP:POINT

User:77.248.185.98 is continually attempting to insert "This man looks like saddam hussein, omg!!! " into the the Talk:Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria page . When other editors have tried to discuss the matter with him, he refers to them as vandals and claims that talk page comments cannot be removed except for profanity.

Editors have tried to talk politely to him, but every single one of his edits have been to place this entry on talk pages, and then fight off anyone who tries to discuss anything with him. He's obviously gaming the system, and disrupting wikipedia to make a point. Lil' help? Dayewalker (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours after arguing on his talk page. Horologium (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparent legal threat

A number of editors have been dealing with a group of editors (or a single editor with many sockpuppets, since they all have the same grammatical style) on the article Sloan Bella (and the miscapitalized sister article Sloan bella). Now we're all apparently receiving threats that we should personally identify ourselves or we will be blocking freedom of speech, committing unethical acts, committing discrimination, and this: "All You deleting who are absuing the editoral pocess, please identify yourself, if you wont identify yourselfs, outside of screen names and identify yourself with substance and validy, except to have the IPS address traced and it will become a legal issue, because what you are doing is illegal and cowardly, not to mention discrminatory and Misplaced Pages and the editors need to be more unifrom." I think we need some help from the ANI here.

The group of editors are: 76.169.216.222, Flygirl14, Kristysixt, Margaret wendt, and Sloanbella. The legal statement came from new user Flygirl14.

Brilliant Pebble (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Just needs explanation on how the editorial process works on wikipedia, not a serious threat IMO. Though that could all be one person. Viridae 22:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the page to the proper location. I agree, should be contacted first, and then if persists in threats should be blocked. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 22:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If this is all the same person, then we have been trying for the better part of a week to explain how the editing process works, including a couple of attempts to explain WP:RS, WP:COI, and the methods for undeleting an article that was deleted by consensus. Brilliant Pebble (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, this isn't the first time we've been told to identify ourselves or be made "accountable" per Bella: "Perhpas you two editors need to identify yourselfs directly, so you can be held accountable for what you imply." Brilliant Pebble (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

First, a list of users mentioned above, for helpful links:

• 76.169.216.222 (talk · contribs)
• Flygirl14 (talk · contribs)
• Kristysixt (talk · contribs)
• Margaret wendt (talk · contribs)
• Sloanbella (talk · contribs)

For now, I've left a note with Flygirl14. Will watch for a bit. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• I note that I've tagged the page for G4 yet again. There is a caveat that the newer version has different links/sources than the prior. I don't think it reaches the point of mattering, but wanted another set of administrative eyes on that decision. If it is not G4 deleted, the prior history is needed for GFDL reasons. GRBerry 22:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• • "Absuing the editoral pocess?" Them's fightin' words. Baseball Bugs 22:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
    • "Fightin' woirds?" WP:AGF, Baseblal bugs?? Smith Jones (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
      • • Yeh, them's fightin' words. (Just quoting Yosemite Sam here.) Baseball Bugs 23:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
          • Hm i drefcongize the Yosmeite Sam post I m just saiyng that you should not asume that this user intends ot start a fconflifcft. Smith Jones (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
            • You're so right, "what you are doing is illegal and cowardly" could so easily be an invitation to a friendly chat... – iridescent 23:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
              • Any statement can be used as an invitation for a friendly chat, if one was so inclined. Beam 23:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
                • iridescent, pleae be reasonable. It could easil ybe a statement of fact and not an invitation for a childish flamewar. Thiws thread waas created in the hope of getting administrative assitance and not for snide remarks and wp:abfing. Smith Jones (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
                  • Gentlemen, enough of this! How about taking up the tax?! Baseball Bugs 23:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
                    • LOL! Youre a real wise guy Bugs! Totally made Smith Jones (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Para and Crum375 for edit warring on Brown Dog affair

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

Unblocked by Quadell; now turning into a WR-related philosophical debate. Discuss Viridae's WR comments on his talk page. Discuss MONGO's Viridae comments on his talk page. —Giggy 11:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Para (talk · contribs)
• Crum375 (talk · contribs)
• Brown Dog affair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Para has been edit warring over the inclusion of links in that article for several days. His block is 48 hours. Crum has been edit warring over the same link (in opposition to Para and several others) for close to a month. His block is one week, due to the length of time he has been edit warring over the same link, while referring to the talk page where consensus has not been reached either way. Several other people have been involved in that edit war, on either side, but not as recently as these two, and not for the length of time that Crum has. Both users have previous blocks for edit warring. I originally protected the page, but removing other peoples ability to constructively edit the page is overkill when there are currently two main protagonists. Any further edit warring by anyone else over this issue should also result in a block. If either of these users agreed to stop the edit warring and conduct the argument solely on the talk page, I would of course support an unblock. Viridae 01:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you show me where a report was filed regarding Crum375 edit warring, such as 3RR or similar that would lead you to block him? In fact, your block has come a good deal after he last edited that article and I see no 3RR violation...are you familiar with 3RR? 3 reverts in 24 hours...why not just protect the page...and where was the page protection request? Considering your long standing dispute with Crum375 shouldn't this have been a block performed by a neutral party? Why not post the evidence here about the edit warring you claim and have someone else do the blocks/protection, whatever?--MONGO 01:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

1. No long standing dispute with Crumm375 exists. 2. I didnt block for 3RR. 3. A report doesn't need to be filed for a block to be made. 4. I already covered why blocks are a better idea in this case. Viridae 01:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of folks that are reported for trolling and disruption to AIV etc....so how come you don't do much blocking of them? If you expect me to believe based on your comments here and offsite that you don't have an axe to grind with Crum375 as well as SlimVirgin, then that would be news.--MONGO 01:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

MONGO I may as weel ask why you don't write more articles on Economics... Viridae 01:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That answers my query then..you blocked Crum375 since you do have interest in him and his situation.--MONGO 01:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Come on, MONGO, that's a plainly ludicrous line of thinking an unsubstantiated line of argumentation. If you have evidence that Viridae wikistalks Crum or otherwise displays inordinate interest Crum's activities, provide it. Until you do, though, I'm chalking the blocker-blockee combination here as being up to the vagaries of chance. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Viridae's logs, ...I don't see a lot of admin actions overall...aside from a flurry fo schoolblocks imposed on some IP's in June...no evidence this guy actively follows AIV or other noticeboards looking to help out with blocking trolls and vandals. In fact..looking at Crum375's edits, I see that he made three edits to the article in question over a period of three days, two more a couple days before that and only two more since mid June. Crum375 has also been active on the talkpage of that article as well...so it's not like Crum375 was just doing blind reverts without discussion. I see no rational for any block based on the reasons Viridae has given...edit warring need not be immediate of course, but this is definitely a low level edit war if I ever saw one. Furthermore, Crum hadn't edited the page in over 10 hours! So...explain why the urgency with a week long block.--MONGO 02:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, there are often only two main protagonists in cases in which full protection is granted. I think it probably would have been better to stick with your first instinct here. I also think that given that both parties were well away from 3RR, a warning would have been good before the blocks. Finally, one week seems very long for Crum, though hopefully this will be resolved with an agreement to stop edit-warring. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a week because he has been edit warring over the same material for close to a month. Both have been blocked for edit warring before. Viridae 01:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, low-speed edit wars can sneak up on even experienced users. I still think a warning would have been good, and I still think page protection may have been preferable. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, I weighed up all possibilities, but here is no way either of them missed that they were edit warring - in paticular crum reverting that many times while using edit summaries that were variations of "per talk" would be really hard to miss. Viridae 01:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, I first mistook this for another April Fools Day joke. — CharlotteWebb 01:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• (e/c) I have to agree with Mongo here; Viridae should not have blocked Crum375. I am not actively following the C68/SV/JzG arbitration, and have no editorial interaction with the editors involved in the case, but even I recognize that Viridae and Crum375 have a long-standing disagreement, and that alone should have been grounds for Viridae to punt to another admin, one who is not involved in the case or with either of the editors involved in the dispute. As to the blocks themselves, I do not disagree with them, although I disagree with the asymmetric nature of the block lengths. Horologium (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • What long standing disagreement? I am only involved in that case because arbcom was silly enough to merge the FM/SV case with the unrelated JzG case. Viridae 01:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
• I have to agree with MONGO as well. I'm not comfortable with this block and I'm not comfortable with Viridae being the one the implement it. You may feel you have no dispute with Crum but there is a perception that you do and perception matters as much as the actuality. I also agree with Sarcasticidealist's comments about protection, warnings etc. Please consider unblocking.Sarah 01:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry but the long standing disagreement card is something MONGO plays every time I do something he doesn't like. Repeateing it endlessly doesn't make it true. Viridae 01:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, I think in this case he is right but aside from that I think it's a bad block and I think page protection and a reminder to the users about edit warring would have been a more effective and a less drama-full way of dealing with it. Sarah 01:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

If Viridae had some beef with Crum, he would have just blocked Crum, not both users. Also, don't play the "he has a beef with the participants" card and look at the block besides any given disagreement he has with any of the parties if such disagreement exists. Kwsn (Ni!) 01:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kwsn. As far as I can tell (though I remain open to being convinced otherwise), the argument that Viridae was biased here boils down to

• he posts on WR
• WR contains attempts at violating SlimVirgin's privacy
• SlimVirgin is often identified as being close to Crum
• he has poor relations with JzG, who is also the target of some amount of scorn on WR

Frankly, that combination of facts does not a conflict-of-interest make. I'm no great fan of the block, but I am a great fan of WP:AGF. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Good grief, was any attempt made to resolve the issue short of blocking? And a week-long block of an admin for a slow edit war? There's no preventative reason to issue a block here and no need for a drama-causing block without going to ANI or getting a second opinion first. And for the record, I post at Misplaced Pages Review, which has nothing to do with anything here. --B (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Common sense and Newton's third law should be applied when investigating an edit war. This one seems to have been going on for a while, a month as you say. Would you agree that both users have made roughly the same number of reverts in roughly the same amount of time? — CharlotteWebb 01:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Crum has made far more and has been engaged in the edit war for far longer. Other users (SEWilco, SlimVirgin , Sfan00 IMG, Yamakiri ) have made at least one revert None of those have been active in that edit war in the past 4-5 days. Viridae 01:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually SEWilco and SlimVirgin both reverted 4 days ago. Viridae 01:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Were there any warnings given? Beam 01:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• (ec x???) Folks, look at the history of the page. Remember that 3RR is not an entitlement, it is an electric fence, and edit warring is sanctionable even without 3RR being reached. Additionally, the edit war is over the most utterly trivial of things - what extrenal links to use for geolocating the thing-a-ma-bob. This does feel like a bad April Fools joke, particularly that these editors would have been doing this; they should know better. But the edit history shows that the conflict is real. This has been nothing but edit warring for a month, something needs to be done. (This is a matter on which we have a style guideline...) Frankly, if someone really thinks the block is appropriate but that Viridae isn't the one to have made it (a position I don't adopt) they should go unblock "to put an uninvolved admin's name on the block" and reblock for the same duration. That is an excellent way of solving the problem if that is the real concern. If that isn't the issue, lets stop talking about it and get to the real issue. GRBerry 01:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree that something should have been done. I just think that "something" should have taken the form of warnings/gentle reminders to the users, followed by a period of protection. I don't think the block was the right instrument here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Drop a warning, and educate the users in edit warring. And if/when they continued than block them. I also don't like this block if there is even a perception of an involved admin doing the blocking. Beam 01:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Despite MONGO's claims I am not involved as already demonstrated. Really By MONGOs criteria the whole admin corps is involved with every semi active user. As to education - both have been blocked for edit warring before, and both quite clearly knew what they were doing. Viridae 02:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Deliberately re-attributing of the block, without changing the duration or any other practical effect, could be considered process wonkery, or a meaningless gesture, or more generally, block-log pollution. — CharlotteWebb 02:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I point out that blocks don't have to last the prescribed time. If either fo them pledges to stop the silliness then they should be unblocked. If they refuse to stop the silliness, having the block in place is the best course of action anyway. Viridae 01:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, which is why I said above that hopefully this will be quickly resolved with agreements to stop edit-warring. I just think it's preferable to give them the opportunity to agree to that before blocking them. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree wth Grberry, except for hte part re: block and reblock. It seems like a sill way to fix the problem. If Viridae has a conflict of interest but his block wias valid, whats the point of unblocking and then reblocking? The blocked editor remains blocked and Smith Jones (talk) 02:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC) also, i think that warnings should come before blocking, alhtough I can see why a block would be acceptable int his zenario since these users are clearly tendentious. Smith Jones (talk) 02:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

In an effort to move on from this, would anyone have any objection to asking both blocked editors to agree (1) to stop reverting and (2) talk it out on the talk page, possibly using dispute resolution, and, upon their agreement to the same, unblock them (essentially, formalizing Viridae's proposal)? --B (talk) 02:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be best I think.--MONGO 02:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as they're aware that A) Any new editwarring by anyone will be harshly dealt with, and B) They're aware this quite possibly should go on WP:LAME as a featured edit war, that unblocking would be best, after getting their agreement. SirFozzie (talk) 02:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

As already stated. No I have no objection. Viridae 02:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have left a message to that effect linking to this thread on the talk pages of both users. --B (talk) 02:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Review editors should be careful about blocking anyone that has been a target at that website. Especially if they themselves have participated in this targetting...just saying.--MONGO 02:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of Crum375 being targeted by anything other than the infamous April Fools Day thread, though I could be wrong. — CharlotteWebb 02:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

And Misplaced Pages editors should be careful about ascribing ill motives to anyone who posts at this website. Especially if they themselves have participated in this ascribing ill motives where there are none. Also Just saying. SirFozzie (talk) 02:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem...if I decicde to call you a "wolf" least I'll have the courage to do it here rather than offsite as you did to me recently...where nothing of course will happen except you'll get further accolades from many a banned editor and other miscreants.--MONGO 02:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I love the word miscreants. Thought I'd throw that out there. Beam 02:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

If the problem with the block is about Viridae doing it, rather than the block itself, then this discussion is pointless. Wizardman 02:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

break 1

Guys, can I suggest that instead of getting sucked into a tangent about Misplaced Pages Review, we focus 100% on the merits of this block. I think a WR tangent will be of no benefit to anyone and just result in a very long and very drama-fueled thread that achieves nothing but bad feelings all round. Just a thought. Sarah 02:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably best...then reposting from above...Looking at Viridae's logs, ...I don't see a lot of admin actions overall...aside from a flurry fo schoolblocks imposed on some IP's in June...no evidence this guy actively follows AIV or other noticeboards looking to help out with blocking trolls and vandals. In fact..looking at Crum375's edits, I see that he made three edits to the article in question over a period of three days, two more a couple days before that and only two three more since mid June. Crum375 has also been active on the talkpage of that article as well...so it's not like Crum375 was just doing blind reverts without discussion. I see no rational for any block based on the reasons Viridae has given...edit warring need not be immediate of course, but this is definitely a low level edit war if I ever saw one. Furthermore, Crum hadn't edited the page in over 10 hours! So...explain why the urgency with a week long block? No forewarnings were issued...--MONGO 02:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, remember, Blocks are supposed to be punishment and revenge for past actions. Beam 02:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You should've just said that in the first place MONGO ;). That being said, I actually agree with you. Looking through the log of Brown Dog affair and the user's contribs, a week long block just doesn't make sense. a 24 hour one would've been questionable. I'll read up on Viridae's side, but it's hard to see him in the right. Right now I would support an unblock on both of them. Wizardman 02:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

PLease note the length of time Crum was involved in that edit war, against 4 different people, all the time citing a talk page consensus that didn't exist. He knew what he was doing. If he was going to stop on his own accord he would have done so weeks ago. Viridae 02:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The point is that they were discussing it on the talk page during this (slow-moving) edit war. If they weren't then that would be a different story, but they were. How can they reach a consensus on th talk page if they're blocked? Wizardman 02:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Para was discussing it, Crum hardly. Continuallt reverting and citing a talk page consensus that did not exist is not discussion. Viridae 03:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Viridae, will you revert your blocks now? Mediation, more discussion, dispute resolution, a warning, any of those would have been a better action to pursue. Your block was the wrong action. I'm asking that you revert it. Beam 03:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Both users have been given a suitable out of their blocks. Until there is assurances that ridiculous ewdit war won't continue I see no reason to remove the blocks. Viridae 03:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Scarcasm aside, blocks are to prevent an immediate damage being done to Misplaced Pages. The last edit was 10 hours ago. There are editors there who are aware of the consensus on the article. Having worked at Kosovo, I know the greatest thing about wp:consensus is that it's not up to one editor to revert it. I feel that can be extended that a block isn't necessary for a slow "edit war." If the user was reverting/editing against consensus rapidly, he would have came close to 3RR violation. He didn't. IMHO the block was unwarranted. Beam 03:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

And even if they have a "suitable out" that doesn't mean the block was right, it wasn't. Beam 03:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That is your opinion. It is not one I share - and I am hardly alone in this discussion. Viridae 03:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You first protected the article..then blocked Para and then Crum...why not just stop at page protection?--MONGO 03:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Eyes, MONGO, use them please. Viridae 03:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I did...the protection was first...neither was editing at the time...so why THEN block them as well...why not just leave it protected?--MONGO 03:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

...that question has been answered. Once again, eyes MONGO, use them. Viridae 03:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) protection would've been useless anyway, seeing as how Crum's an admin but Para isn't. Wizardman 03:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I thin it's fair to assume that Crum wouldn't have bypassed protection to ensure their version of the pages persisted. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, back to the topic at hand. Viridae, you state that you're hardly alone in your opinion (inferring from your text), but reading this over again consensus seems to be against you rather clearly. Am I misreading? Wizardman 03:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Beam, pelase read WP:BLOCK. Blocks are NOT punitive and they are nivedintieyl not punitive. However, i do find it somewhat creepy and WP:ABF that the user:Mango has chosen to analyize Viridaes past contribs in an attempt to concoct an argumetn atht his user sbehaved editting negatively without evidence. At the very least, you could say that User:Virdiae should have left the block to sanother admin but there is nor eason th tink that this was another front ina content dispute. Smith Jones (talk) 02:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm almost certain that Beam is being sarcastic. — CharlotteWebb 03:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay SJ, you've tied one on me. What word was "nivedintieyl" supposed to be? I think I agree with you and your OUIJA board, but I want to make sure. Dayewalker (talk) 03:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem with these blocks. They can promise to stop the edit warring at any time, and if they won't do so, then naturally they should remain blocked. I also agree that Crum's misbehavior seems more serious than Para's, warranting the longer block. Everyking (talk) 03:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Viridae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) needs to stop following around users that he has disputes with looking for a reason to harass them. He has done this before. If he wants to help and fight edit wars and vandals, there are forums that track those problems and need the help. But trolling his opponents talk pages and articles looking for an excuse to use the tools is more problematic than problem solving. --DHeyward (talk) 03:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

For the uninitaited DHeyward believes that I protected United States intervention in Chile because I am looking for a reason to annoy him. Despite it being pointed out that there was an edit war taking place. When it was poineded out to him that I was not following him around, and had infact reversed a block given to him by WMC, he accused me of still following him around but wanting to wheel war with WMC more - in the process also following him around. Relevant discussion: . Viridae 03:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

For the ununitiated, I've disputed your admin actions before and you took it to my talk page. I have simply asked that you stop wathcing my talk page and stop following me around. You became interested when ad editor apparently thought 3 edits in two weeks was a 3RR violation and the warning attracted you like flies to ____. You protected Joe Scarborough when there wasn't an edit war and you protected United States intervention in Chile when it is clear that the only "edit warring" was an IP that had made a total of 3 edits to wikipedia, all just reverts of me. Instead of helping deal with harassment, you chose to protect the article after they made their last revert. All that I ask is that you stop watching my talk page and you stop involving yourself in articles and incidents in which you have no prior history and which involve me. It's a simple request and you must realize that your use of the tools in these situations will not resolve anything but, instead, will only lead to more drama and strife. I don't particular care if you are looking for a reason to annoy editors or whether it's purely random. Please just stop it. --DHeyward (talk) 06:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

IT is clier that this thread hs develoved into the generic Bash Viridae Section and it has been labelled as such. Smith Jones (talk) 04:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's a reason for that. Viridae's history of stalking JzG and undoing his admin actions appears to be the reason he is currently in front of the arbcomm. It's also pretty clear that the Misplaced Pages Review crowd consider Crum and extension of Slim Virgin (you just need to read the arbcomm Workshop page). So basically Viridae, while in front of the arbcomm for just this sort of behaviour, is engaging in blocks against someone solidly on "the other side" of that arbcomm case. He is clearly an involved editor here and under no circumstances should he be issuing a block here. It's all the worse that it smells like a bad block. Guettarda (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Your behaviour in that affair is of course lilly white Guettarda... Viridae 04:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know any of the parties involved, and I have no interest in the old resentments apparently on display, but I have to say that a week-long block for one party seems really disproportionate. Crum375 has been involved in the article for longer, yes, (helping to make it featured in the process), and there's no doubt that a slow and unhelpful edit war has been taking place. But a week-long block, compared to a 48 hour block, seem pretty effective in the punitive department while ineffective in the preventative department. I have shortened Crum375's block to 48 hours. (If the edit-warring continues, further action may of course be warranted.) – Quadell 04:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Look, I don't carry any water for Crum375, Viridae, etc and I'm not particularly interested in an archaelogical expedition to sort out what on- and off-site grudges might or might not be at work. These look like two otherwise sensible good-faith contributors (Crum375 and Para) who got caught up in what is undeniably an incredibly lame dispute. Blocking for a slow edit war is certainly allowable, but with two generally decent users involved, a simple, shaming reminder to stop would probably have been useful as a first step, before week-long blocks. What's done is done; if Crum375 and Para are as reasonable as I think, they're not going to re-start edit-warring over this, so why not just unblock them both, word to the wise to let it go on both sides, and move on? If you do that and it starts up again, I think people might be more generally supportive of the blocks here. MastCell  04:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think that would be a better idea. – Quadell 04:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Virade, thank you for bringing this to ani. I wouldn't have blocked. I'd have left the page protection on. But, as you noted in your opening remark, if these editors agree to stop edit warring they will be unblocked immediately. Sounds pretty straight forward. --Duk 04:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with MastCell. Let's unblock them and let it go. If there are no objections I move to unblock and warn. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No I do object. Para had just come off a 24 hour block from the same article, following a warning given by none other than Crum. They both definitely knew what they were doing - until I see a definite answer from them agreeing not to continue the edit war, I will not be happy with either being unblocked. Viridae 04:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That seems petty. It now appears you did have a personal issue with one if not both, from your attitude. I'm not saying it's true, but your unwillingness to see the consensus here at this ANi section.... well that's odd. Beam 04:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Also agree with unblocking both users. A block is too much for this kind of low grade editing back and forth. . .long as there is talk page discussion. R. Baley (talk) 04:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again Para has just come off a 3RR block from the same article! The 3RR was reported by Crum! Crum cannot help but know he was edit warring and instead o fstopping he reported his "foe" for breaking 3RR. THere is no indication whatsoever that either will stop - crum edit warred over that same link for a month against 4 different users and used 3RR as a weapon against Para and Para just came off that block and went back to edit warring. Viridae 04:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe they get it now, I don't know. But I do know that this is a lame edit war. Most people reading the article (who don't edit, and probably even most editors) wouldn't even notice the change in content. I also know (because of my watchlisted pages that I saw this a while back and didn't think it worth the bother, but maybe that's me. Personally I wouldn't block anyone in this type of situation unless they did cross the bright red line. R. Baley (talk) 04:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No blocks were warranted. No immediate threat to Misplaced Pages was present, and that's the bottom line. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Or at least they shouldn't be. Dispute resolution, some form of mediation, more discussion, simply reverting the edits, more and detailed warnings, any of that would have been better. And Vir is right that this is only my opinion, but the opinion is based on the facts of the situation, and policy. Beam 04:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

My .02: People make mistakes in judgement. Since Viridae posted this message on the ANI board obviously requesting that other people review it I do not see why there is so much "hatin". Sure the block may have been too long. But that's what the community is for: to help others make the right decisions and choices. Can't we all just come together to give a final recommendation and review of Viridae's actions and be done with it? Viridae will learn something, we'll learn something, everyone will be happy. At least I would be. --mboverload@ 04:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Right. Viridae came here in good faith looking for feedback, and he got it: next time, warn first. Live and learn. – Quadell 04:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the feedback and consensus, from reading the thread, is that the blocks weren't warranted and he should revert them. But I'm starting to think he didn't want feedback, he wanted a pat on the back. Beam 04:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Remember, please: AGF, or rather WYCAGFALKITY. (When You Can't Assume Good Faith, At Least Keep It To Yourself.) – Quadell 04:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm removing both blocks. And I'm going to feel rather dumb if the lame edit wars continue unabated. – Quadell 04:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

If it doesAs of now you, the unblocking admin, should suggest mediation/dispute resolution, instead of blocking. Beam 05:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well ... no, if it resumes THEN blocking would be appropriate. The whole problem here is that neither user was asked to stop before blocking them. There was no emergency need to block and no reason that Viridae (or anyone else) couldn't have just left a message on their talk pages reminding them that just because an edit war is slow doesn't make it ok. Now that they have such a warning, if they continue to edit war, a block would be appropriate. I seriously doubt it's going to come to that, though. --B (talk) 05:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it's almost 2am, I misspoke. Those things should be suggested now, and i've struck my statement accordingly. Good night! Beam 05:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

MONGO

As this thread deomnstrates MONGO continually criticises my actions on the basis of 1. my being a member of WR and 2. on imaginary long term disputes he thinks I have. He has also made repeated threats amounting to "someone should desysop you". Despite repeatedly being asked for evidence of the long term disputes, he continually fails to provide it. Despite being continually pointed to DR with regard to the the "desysop" threats he also failed to follow through on that (until the recent Jzg/FM/SV/C68 arb case - which I am partially responsible for opening), instead content with repeating the threats periodically. I am asking for community input with respect to MONGO continually posioning the well without providing any evidence. Broadly I would like MONGO to cease to comment or make threats about me or my admin actions unless he comes with evidence to back it up. His behaviour is in my opinion highly disruptive. Viridae 06:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

When asked to stop commenting his response was this: "I will review your actions anytime and anywhere I want to.--MONGO 06:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)" Viridae 06:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This may also be of interest: Viridae 06:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, I'm not thrilled with MONGO's allegations, given how thinly they've so far been substantiated, but I can't help but to notice that most of your fighting seems to be taking place on his talk page. This is a sincere question: have you ever considered not posting there anymore? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I find MONGO considerably easier to deal with than Viridae, mostly because while MONGO may be angry on occasion, he's never snippy, sarcastic, or petty. Viridae is all three of these things on MONGO's talk page. Jtrainor (talk) 06:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Have I been any of those to you? You try and deal with continulally unsported allegations time and time again and see how you react? Viridae 06:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Just have. MONGO usually seeks me out (as he did here). The most recent bit started on MONGO's talk page because DHeyward objected to the article he was edit warring on being protected. Viridae 06:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You didn't ask me to do anything...you threatened me. I have posted further evidence at the arbcom case regarding you over your goading, threats and other harassment completely unbecoming an administrator. I posted plenty of comments above that discussed your block of Users Para and Crum375...the community that has had time to examine your actions do not agree that you did the best thing and your blocks have been overturned. You have no authorization to demand I never comment about your posted requests for review of your admin actions..as you did on my talkpage...your comments such as "When posting things for review, I never ever want your input unless I specifically ask for it. Is that quite clear MONGO?" and "Either stay well away from me and my actions unless you are DIRECTLY involved or make sure you have a buttload of evidence you are willing to provide to support your claims." are absolutely over the top. Furthermore telling me that you are aruing on my talkpage because you (hopefully sarcastically) trying"To annoy the living shit out of you of course MONGO - I stalk you too, didnt you know?" is completely unacceptable behavior...surely. Your argument on my talkpage with DHeyward was over an article I have never edited and I was offline for two days and only noticed it upon my return...all DHeyward was asking me was what to do about YOU...well, it seems pretty obvious what to do about you now. Hopefully arbcom will do something before you continue to abuse more people.--MONGO 06:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

MONGO you have time and time again over a time span of several months been asked to provide evidence when you make an accusation. You have continually failed to do so. I have asked you to go away. I have told you to go away. Now for the love of god would you try and do that? (by the way MONGO, that last link is sarcasm...) Viridae 06:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You're asking me to go away...yet you have the right to use my talkpage to argue with another editor over a matter that doesn't involve me in any way fashion or form...now that is rich. I have provided plenty of evidence, as has Felonious Monk, on the arbitration case which you are named in. To continually state that I provide no evidence is false. I had almost the same evidence assembled that Felonious did and seeing no reason to repeat it, posted only what I had that was different than his. We have been over this before.--MONGO 06:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

And for the record, my request is simply for Viridae to stop patrolling my talk page and looking for opportunities to abuse the tools. No reasonable person would conclud from the 1) editors engaged in reverting my edits (i.e. trolls) and 2) 3 reverts in two weeks amounted to an edit war. It's the second time in a month that Viridae protecte a page that I was editing apparently after following my edits. This is entirely inappropriate behavior and I have simply asked him to stop. If Viridae wants to stop edit wars, he can patroll the 3RR noticeboard and if he sees my name, he is more than welcome to protect the page. But the wikistalking has to stop. --DHeyward (talk) 06:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's the relevant discussion and request on Viridae's talk page. This was after the second questionable article protection and it's clear from his comments that he was looking to block me for 3RR (but 3 vandalism reverts over 2 weeks isn't a 3RR violation yet) but to Viridae it is apparently an edit war requiring protection instead of simple harassment reverts that need semi-protection oe even a warning. When it happened to the Joe Scarborough article, I figured it was a good faith attempt, even though that article wasn't an edit war either and was part of the now perma-banned Giovanni33's attempt at disruption (it was his first and last edit to that article and was a revert he made it without an summary). Giovanni33 was supporting an editor that posted material in the edit summaries and on my talk page about me that needed to be oversighted. Viridae showed up shortly after Giovanni33 to protect the page indefinitely rather than dealing with the obvious trolls and harassment. All I ask is Viridae to simply avoid me. Stop watchlisting my talk page and stop following my edits. --DHeyward (talk) 07:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's hopefully unrelated, but the question is, regarding Viridae's block of Crum375...has he wanted to do this for some time? This posting is baffling. Neither block actually took place...but it helped spread the mythology. Oh...am I poisoning the well...is this inadmissible...am I not authorized to bring it up...shall I be now sent to a gulag?--MONGO 07:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Enough with the conspiracy theories, MONGO. The harassment and stalking are tired. Time to let it go and archive this. --Dragon695 (talk) 10:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? That was an April fools joke, playing on the supposed "meatpuppetry" between the two. --NE2 10:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

From Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MONGO:

Users, especially administrators, who are associated, or suspected of association, with sites which are hypercritical of Misplaced Pages can expect their Misplaced Pages activities as well as their activities on the hypercritical website, to be closely monitored.

MONGO is of course correct to raise the issue of an administrator's involvement in Misplaced Pages Review. Viridae in particular has apparently posted on an attack subforum on that site that specifically targets MONGO. Although comments there by forum user Viridae (who I will for the moment accept as those of Misplaced Pages's User:Viridae) on that particular subforum of the site do not seem particularly problematic, his involvement and condoning of such attacks naturally brings his good faith involvement in Misplaced Pages into question. --Jenny 11:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Suspending a moot sanction

Martinphi (talk · contribs) and ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) were under a community sanction designed to ensure that the two editors disentangled from each other (see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi). Martinphi has since retired from the project. Some discussion has taken place about this matter. Myself and the other editor (Nealparr (talk · contribs)) that were the principal architects and proponents of the editing restrictions both feel that it is largely moot at this point. GRBerry (talk · contribs) recommended raising the matter here to ensure there is community approval to suspend the sanction. It was intended purely to separate two editors who had a difficult time extricating themselves from each other and it would seem to serve only as a one-sided weapon if left in force (since only one of the two editors is active in the project). Thoughts? Comments? Vassyana (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think "suspending" is a good way to describe it. It can always be reinstalled if they were to 1) both be active editors and 2) continue to be at each other throats. Otherwise there's really no need for it since it only applied to edits regarding each other. --Nealparr 01:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi has edited Misplaced Pages this month, so I would be reluctant to say that he's completely gone. If he is absent for a few months, then it might be worth revisiting this, but it probably really will be moot at that point. Also, for those who are wondering why this is even an issue, it's because ScienceApologist today abused the "undo" button to specifically target an edit of Martinphi's from March. There have been several edits from other editors in the meantime, so ScienceApologist could have easily just edited the article to his preferred version. But that he is going through article history, looking for edits of Martinphi just so that he can undo them, tells me that the ArbCom restriction is still necessary to avoid disruption to the project. In any case, this probably isn't a discussion for ANI... A better venue would be a request for clarification at WP:RFAR. --Elonka 01:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not completely up on the latest incident was that caused this note, but if Martinphi has left, why would it matter if the sanction were in effect? Shouldn't it be rather impossible to interact with someone who's not present or, if this is a case of ScienceApologist selectively reverting Martinphi's edits now that he's retired, should we still be discouraging that? Maybe I'm placing too much emphasis on the method here, but I think if ScienceApologist were to make editorial changes to articles Martinphi had edited instead of specifically undoing Martinphi's edits, it probably wouldn't even catch anyone's attention. Shell 01:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Shell - Am agreed with you in principle, but in practice it's tough to read that and quickly understand that it's really only meant for SA-Martinphi interactions. To save everyone time and headache, I'd support suspending this, just so there's no ambiguity. Antelan 03:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion, I obviously support it. I had proposed suspending it so long as one editor has been retired for two weeks. Since 23 June, MartinPhi has commented on his retirement, but not edited anything but his user talk page and user page. The last edit to the user page could be interpreted to say he might consider returning, but since he is quoting someone else I think it would be a stretch to put that interpretation on it. He might, he might not. I wouldn't object to a longer term prior to suspension, so long as it is defined. (Also, this is a community sanction rather than an Arbitration sanction, so the community is the right venue to modify it.) GRBerry 01:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This is pre-mature for a couple reasons, not the least of which is that people usually come back. Let's look at the restrictions: "...should not enter into discussions solely to fight against..." I don't doubt that some of the discussions Martin participated in (before leaving) are still ongoing. "...should not make a comment about..." We should not condone attacks against departed users any more than we should condone lower content standards for, say, articles about dead people (but unfortunately we still do). "...should not edit policies or guidelines based obviously on his interactions with..." Sounds like open season. SA's marked difficulty in abiding by the restrictions is not a strong argument to lift them. I would recommend waiting a few months, both to see if Martinphi returns and whether ScienceApologist's behavior improves during this likely brief hiatus. — CharlotteWebb 02:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hate to point out the elephant in the room, but this is about the 3rd block by Elonka on SA that is dubious. It's time to see what this is and that's Elonka on some mission to reform SA via blocks, blocks and more blocks. Shot info (talk) 03:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Support suspension. On the one hand, if one editor is gone, this sanction is inherently inapplicable. On the other hand, it is easy to miss that point, making suspension worthwhile with respect to reducing drama from accidental applications of an inapplicable sanction. Antelan 03:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I retired partly because my sanction devolved into having an admin (who was quite well intentioned) looking over my shoulder and banning me because he thought I wasn't right about what the sources said- even when I explained fully how I was using the sources. I can't base my editing on what I think an admin, who is no expert on the subject, might think of the content. I retired mainly because I saw no hope that Misplaced Pages would come to its senses and notice that debunking is not NPOV. I will remain retired as long as Misplaced Pages doesn't wake up and notice that debunking is no more acceptable than promotion of fringe ideas. People must recognize that WEIGHT is relative to the subject of an article-- Mainstream science is highly notable in an article on Creationism, but doesn't really have a lot of WEIGHT; certainly not more than Creationism (I don't edit that article). And Creationism is notable in an article on the science of evolution, but not very notable. And I remain retired because of the absolutely abominable actions and nastiness which debunkers heap upon pro or neutral editors in the paranormal articles. I remain retired because of the double standard which applies to debunkers versus those, like me, who oppose debunkers. This double standard allows debunkers to get away with almost anything, while those who try and follow the rules but nevertheless oppose debunking, have to endure month after month and year after year of abuse, even when they don't desire to make the articles sound positive toward fringe ideas. I see little hope that this will change, and so I intend to remain retired. Misplaced Pages has already suffered because of the debunking: its articles are much less developed, most of its editors who know the subjects have been driven away, and the negative tone is the best way to make people reject mainstream science. Even if mainstream science is wrong about some fringe things, this is a very bad outcome.

However, I might come back if Misplaced Pages wakes up (though I do feel I have lost the joy of the thing). I monitor the situation, but so far Misplaced Pages seems to be ascending into a flight of chaos (see the ArbCom situation). However, at least some people are making a noble attempt, including Vassyana, even though I disagree with part of his method as relates to me (being a judge of content). ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

With regards to your editing, I hope you let us know when you decide to come back. If we were to change the NPOV policy, your modified version of WP:WEIGHT that you summarize here could certainly be considered. Antelan 13:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Martin is correct in his assessment about fringe views being pushed against policy from both sides. All over the encyclopedia non-scientists are being presented as scientists and their speculations are being presented as science. James Randi, for example, is not a scientist, yet in many places his blog is cited as the scientific view - here for example. This has of course been pointed out, but now with Martin gone there are not that many people left willing to do something about it. 208.43.113.147 (talk) 14:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This account appears to be operating from a proxy. The contribution list of this account makes it appear to days old at Misplaced Pages, an assumption that is incompatible with such knowledge of the SA/Martinphi controversy, and incompatible with antagonizing SA on his talk page. Therefore, the next good-faith assumption is that someone is using this instead of their real account in order to avoid backlash on a topic in which they are involved with another account. This behavior would be in violation of the sockpuppet policies. Finally, this could be a banned user such as User:Davkal, back to push his agenda. It is unclear which this is, but none of the probable options are allowed by WP policy. In other words, this IP's comments should be ignored or perhaps stricken. Antelan 14:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place to debate your novel reinterpretation of NPOV's WEIGHT clause. Antelan 14:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop using proxy servers to try to evade blocks and bans. Antelan 16:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Debunking is POV?! So Misplaced Pages should knowingly propagate discredited information just because some people believe in it???

Debunking can be WP:OR, but not inherently. If a reliable 3rd party source presents facts that prove a fringe theory is false, then Misplaced Pages better present those facts. Or should we modify Coriolis effect to say that toilets flush the other way in the Southern hemisphere, just because most people I know believe it to me factual?

The day debunking becomes pov is the day Wikiality has taken over. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Do not support. Many of you assume that Martin dislikes SA and that is the reason for the altercations. If you took the time to review Martin's edits, you would see that he opposes SA's edits, not the person. SA is very skeptical, and by his own admission on his personal page, his skepticism leads him to be a strong protector of the status quo. His way of doing that has been to push what he thinks is the status quo point of view at all cost. Martin has only tried to balance SA's tactic.

With that said, Elonka's first reason to block SA--edit-warring with Martinphi, using "undo" to remove an edit of his from March as "irrelevant"-- acknowledges the reason for the earlier sanctions. SA made exactly the kind of point of view edits that has brought them in conflict in the first place. The article was "...it says that it..." and SA made it "...it admits that it ..." "Admits" establishes a denouncing point of view by innuendo.

It is clearly the operational policy of Misplaced Pages to preserve the process by which it has arrived at what it is today. Unless you plan to kill off Martin as an editor, the processes are still alive and active. I am a little astounded by how quickly SA supporters have seized the opportunity to unleash SA from this one enforceable requirement that he be nice. The reasons for him to be nice are still active. Tom Butler (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No one is talking about lifting the ArbCom-imposed civility parole (to my knowledge), which is the only "enforceable requirement that he be nice". Vassyana (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sock farm targetting Cloverfield related articles

Dear admins, please note that a confirmed, but not yet all blocked sock farm (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Thedayicametowhiskershouse) has been targetted the following Cloverfield related articles for vandalism edits: Cloverfield‎, List of characters in the Cloverfield universe‎, and Clover (creature)‎, as well as some other pages. I believe that I and others have reverted their vandalism edits, but please note that only one of the four accounts has been blocked as of this posting. It may be worth keeping an eye on these articles should the same user create additional accounts. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

They should all be blocked now. Cheers, Sarah 02:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep an eye on those articles for similar attacks. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Thaigear

This account hadn't edited since 11 July 2007. It's history up to that time had no problems . 11 July 2008 it returns to vandalize fast food articles that it never edited before and harass another user. . I blocked it for twenty four hours. It smells compromised. Seeking other opinion. — Ѕandahl 03:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I was just looking at that account myself after responding to the report at AIV and came to the same conclusion myself. Has someone checked if the account has email enabled? If so, maybe we should drop the owner of the account a note... Tiptoety 03:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Email sent... Tiptoety 03:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that the last edit was literally a year ago, do you really think it matters? HalfShadow 03:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It was a not a vandal and yes I think it matters.— Ѕandahl 03:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I would have blocked indef until the person at least claimed that the account was not compromised. Evidence of compromise is too strong. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and extended the block to indef and will await a reply from the user via email. Tiptoety 03:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Good. They can always request unblock.— Ѕandahl 03:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

In cases like this, there's nothing wrong with an indef. Just make sure to include a note in the block reason like, "Possibly a compromised account?" —Wknight94 (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Almost word for word! ;) Tiptoety 03:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that was a general suggestion for whoever cared. I didn't check what you had done. Great minds... —Wknight94 (talk) 03:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Lajolla2009

I'm having issues with User:Lajolla2009. I disagreed with their edits to David K. Jordan and List of University of California, San Diego people regarding the inclusion of Mike Hou, and so I reverted them, explaining why on those articles' talk pages and asking for discussion. Lajolla2009 proceeded to re-revert, and then delete my comments on those articles' talk pages, as well as the comments I made on User Talk:Lajolla2009. I don't want to get into a revert war, but I'm not sure of the proper course of action. Would you please advise? Many thanks. Realitycookie (talk) 08:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment I did not revert back the notability under UCSD's Notable People. According to WP:TALK I have the right to remove my own comments off my talk. At the same time, when an issue is resolved, the talk can be removed to prevent future complications.

Thanks.

Lajolla2009 (talk) 08:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you did remove my comments the discussion page for List of University of California, San Diego people previous to the ones that have been left. I also don't believe that the issues were resolved, but rather that you are now unilaterally declaring them resolved, as I don't feel satisfied by your explanations. Also, WP:TALK which you cited, specifically says, "Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission" and I haven't given you permission to do this.

I don't dispute your right to remove comments from your talk page, but my questions have as a result gone unanswered and I believe that is relevant. Realitycookie (talk) 08:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

First, on the "protocol" side of the dispute. Realitycookie is correct here. Lajolla2009 removed Realitycookie's comments to Talk:David K. Jordan twice: and to Talk:List of University of California, San Diego people once . This is unacceptable conduct that constitutes disruptive behaviour. Comments of other users on talk pages other than your own talk page should not be removed, but for a a few exceptional circumstances (e.g. obvious vandalism). Lajolla2009, if you disagree with another editor's comments, you should add your comments below them. This way other editors will be able to see the entire exchange and to add their comments as well. Second, on the substance of the dispute. Realitycookie is quite correct there as well. Adding the name of a person, who only received his undergraduate degree in 2008 and has no other significant accomplishments yet, to the list of notable alumni of UCSD (such as this edit here) is clearly inappropriate. Nsk92 (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

IP Block Exemption concern.

Chemistrygeek (talk · contribs) was granted IP block exemption by Pedro on June 25, claiming that they were getting caught in an IP block on their college IP. However, the IP is softblocked. I'm bringing this to ANI as on another wiki, not a Wikmedia wiki, but a wiki, he has been found to use open proxies abusively, and had wiped the database twice. This was also discussed among us checkusers there, Alison included, and the evidence was very clear, server logs showed a clear connection, and the user agent was the same. Anyway, I'm bringing this to ANI, as seeing their pattern of editing on that wiki, I do think it's quite possible that the exemption may be used in the wrong way, and should be revoked. Thoughts? Steve Crossin (contact) 09:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

^ What he said + The fact that the college IP he requested the exempt for has never been hard blocked I would love to know how he considers himself inconvenienced. It appears that the IP block exempt is not required and should not have been granted in the first place.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 09:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I've notified Pedro about this thread --Chris 09:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, the IP address history does suggest that there are regularly users who get blocked from that IP address and Chemistrygeek would be caught in the autoblock. Having looked at CheckUser, I don't see any reason to think the flag is being abused. Sam Korn 09:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• That may be the case, but given their recent conduct on a different wiki, I thought that the issue should be raised. Steve Crossin (contact) 09:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

And what would you have us do? The person who is in a position to determine if there has been abuse (Sam Korn) has indicated that there is none; with the relative paucity of remaining evidence to go on, how exactly do you propose we move forward? It might be helpful to have Alison weigh in here regarding the cross-wiki issue. east.718 at 09:58, July 12, 2008

Regardless, there is precedent (erm, me) for users to use Tor via ipblock-exempt. It gained unblock-en-l consensus in my case; if others deem it necessary Chemistrygeek might want to contact the list with a similar request. But best for Alison to speak first, I think. —Giggy 10:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Alison has been emailed. She wont be up to responding for awhile though because it is currently 4am in the US :)   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 11:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, just to clarify one thing, it may have been unclear. Chemistrygeek was checkusered on AnarchyWiki, due to concerns that he had created sock accounts, which he alleged were sock puppets of mine (he named them as usernames like Steve Crossin Sock), then blocked them and me. Checkuser showed that the user agent of Chemistrygeek matched the user agent of the sock account that was created using an open proxy, but of course, just a user agent alone generally isn't sufficient evidence to mark it as confirmed. We discussed the issue some more, and decided to check the server logs. After doing so, we found irrefutable evidence that Chemistrygeek was using an open proxy, where his IP address accessed recent changes, and 2 seconds later, the open proxy accessed the same page. I know Prom3th3an can make clear exactly what I mean here in regards to the server logs, and I don't mean to cause drama, but I do think that such conduct should be addressed, and I brought it to ANI so it could be looked into. Alison can provide the local checkusers with any info that they need, though as aformentioned, she is still asleep. Steve Crossin (contact) 11:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me preface this by stating that I'm exceptionally inactive at the moment. Thank you, Chris G, for the courtesy in advising me of this thread. This user has a history of Sockpuppeting and other issues - this shoule be made clear. However I and two other admins (User:Keeper76 and User:Nancy) have been working to keep this guy on the straight and narrow here on WP. As noted by Sam above, the request by the user was legitimate, and my granting was a good faith response to the request. Having said that, I'm not that fussed about anyone removing the right whatsoever. If that's deemed the best thing just do it, as I'm very unlikely to be active in the near future for any discussion. Pedro :  Chat  14:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi all. As this involved checkuser and other privacy-related information, I shall try to say as little as possible here. I have seen irrefutable evidence that Chemistrygeek has been involved in vandalism, impersonation and disruption on another non-WMF wiki. I have permission of the server owner to share this information with enwiki checkusers only, if needs be. I'm not a big fan of transgressions on another wiki (esp. a non-WMF one) having an influence on this wiki, but in this instance I think it would be prudent that IPBlockExemption be revoked from this editor. It is true that he also edits from a shared IP which has been particularly troublesome in the past but this is, and has been, softblocked so it should not have affected him. I'd also like to point out that there is no evidence that Chemistrygeek has been involved in any shenanigans whatsoever here on Misplaced Pages. To summarise; I don't see any technical reason why he should have this controversial flag granted on enwiki at this time - Alison 17:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Not to start a smear campaign, but I think that this legal threat on the wiki is relevant. He's also been creating more sockpuppets there too. Steve Crossin (contact) 18:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have evidence off-wiki and via checkuser that he may well be involved in a team of abusive sock-puppeteers but want to hear an explanation from him, first, before taking action. I am removing IPBlockExemption right now - Alison 18:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Chemistrygeek was just blocked as a sock of User:Chris19910. As a staff member of BionicTest Wiki(Anarchy's sister wiki) I was investigating this myself.A tool called special:lookupuser info shows preferences for users but also shows the email if provided.I checked multiple users. Chris19910 exists on BionicTest too. I looked him up. Same email as Chemistry. They're the same person. All of Chem's socks on BionicTest are blocked indef.I have contacted him over email.He refuses to admit it.--Xp54321 20:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

User: Kalindoscopy

In the past few days, this user has gone on a rampage of 3RR violation (at the bottom) , personal attacks, threats of violence, religious intolerance and vandalism. He is making editing miserable for a large number of users. He has already received a plethora of warnings from users and administrators, most of which he has deleted from his talk page, and all of which have gone unheeded. I feel that only a significant block (something not unknown to this user, who has already received blocks of up to two weeks) will make him appreciate the severity of his misdeeds.--Yolgnu (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Get off your high-horse Yolgnu. You're bitter that none of your edits made it to any of the Malta-related pages.. understandably. The reason is, they were generally malicious and didn't really contribute much! So far as all the other things you've said.. User_talk:Slakr#User:Kalindoscopy might shed some light on that. If I'm making 'editing miserable' for you (speak for yourself rather than a 'large number' of fictitious editors) I suggest you stop trailing my edits. Anybody who'd like to take a look at my older talkpage entries has only to look at my archive/history. 'Threats of violence': humbug. I never threatened you and I certainly didn't threaten Tourskin. Your misuse of wikipolicies/the English language is, in a word, staggering. 'Religious intolerance': you obviously scanned the text for words that would fit your agenda; read it again and you'll realise there was no intolerance from my end. 'Vandalism': Maltese women deserve some wiki-limelight too! You seem very comfortable sitting high in judgement, lording it over other editors. I suppose that's your style.. and you do it so well. Kalindoscopy: un enfant espiègle (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Kalindoscopy blocked 1 month by east.718.  Sandstein  12:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I was reviewing Kalindoscopy's contribs, as well as the links given, and feel that a block was appropriate. If K is reading this, I would really suggest that the next unblock request acknowledges your unfortunate tendency to respond inappropriately to perceived stalking and has an undertaking not to continue to do so - then you can get back to content creation (which you are quite good at). LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Close AfD that has been withdrawn

Could one of you please close Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/T. K. Sukumaran asap as the nominator has withdrawn it.

I would ask that the nominator's attention is redirected towards WP:POINT and especially to WP:IDHT. Despite the advice he received from another editor, he went ahead with a pointless AfD even though the article clearly indicated the subject's notability and quoted a verifiable and widely-used source. His subsequent behaviour on the AfD page and on the article's talk page seems to me to be in breach of a policy I think I have seen somewhere about actions focussed on a single article.

Thanks. BlackJack | 10:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, for the record. —Giggy 11:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, for the record, one need not be an administrator to close withdrawn AfD's in which nobody !voted to delete. See WP:NAC. Skomorokh 11:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've noted WP:NAC because we get a few of these cases affecting WP:CRIC. BlackJack | 17:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Dwain

I thought User:Dwain was inactive, but apparently not for as long as I thought. His userpage consists of nothing but an external link to a Geocities website as his "profile" here, which has a bunch of linkbacks to his userpages. Other than the fact that there is no reason to have an external site hold your WP profile (unless there's something in it which makes it WP-inappropriate, which there is), what specifically concerns me is his "my private website" link and the "Freemasonry" page therein, which is full of all the stuff various people would not let him put on WP for various reasons, and a list of Wikipedians who he thinks are Freemasons here. Then as now, I see this as an attack page, and while this issue was brought up a long time ago, it apparently wasn't quite resolved. Therefore, I'd like to see Dwain's userpage blanked and locked. If he can't use his userspace responsibly, and has to find ways to get around policies, he should simply not be allowed use of it. MSJapan (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It might be germane to this discussion to point out that you are one of the Wikipedians whom Dwain alleges to be Freemasons. Skomorokh 11:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless you're attempting to suggest the existence of an actual Freemason conspiracy, no, it's not germane at all. --Calton | Talk 11:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Freemason conspiracy? I thought it was Jewish... Sceptre 12:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a timeshare thing, with the Freemasons on Saturday, the Jews on Sunday, the Trilateral Commission on Monday, and the Vatican on Tuesday. --Calton | Talk 12:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Note Wednesday through Friday are still open. John Carter (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

When someone comes to ANI with a complaint about another editor's behaviour, it is somewhat less than scrupulous not to disclose their involvement in the situation. In this instance, the OP's claim that the external link is to an attack site has different weight coming from an uninvolved outsider than it does coming from someone who may see themselves as a victim of the alleged attack. Sincerely, Skomorokh 13:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

So, if there is a notice regarding possible links to racist websites it beholds the reporter to comment on their own ethnic background? I think it is the link/content that is the issue, and not the motives of the reporter - unless it is a particularly egregious report (which, per AGF, I am certain you are not insinuating). LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous strawman of course, but it is my fault for not being specific enough in my wording above. User:MSJapan is explicitly listed among a short list of Wikipedian Freemasons on the linked page. I assume good faith on the part of all concerned, but the way you read an account of a particular situation varies dramatically based on your information of the source of the account. It is often difficult to be entirely neutral when you feel personally attacked. Sincerely, Skomorokh 14:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not a strawman argument; my point is that the decision here can only rest upon whether the link is appropriate or not, and not on who initiates the discussion. Yes, a personal reason might be involved in the reporting - but not on whether it is an appropriate link; therefore it is irrelevant on whether MSjapan has a personal stake in the matter or not. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, implying that I was committed to mandating racial disclosure is a strawman. No, I never commented on what the decision should rest on, nor on the appropriety of the link, and do not understand why you are bringing this up in response to my minor, obvious, and procedural point that as JASPencer's comment below shows, is quite relevant. Good day, and regards,Skomorokh 15:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest, respectfully of course, that if you don't wish to read a sysop's opinion on a matter, that you do not interact upon any of the admin noticeboards - it would certainly allow me to concentrate on helping those who might appreciate it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly there's no link on Dwain's Talk page to this discussion. This is discourteous, but I don't really expect much courtesy on this matter - all things considered. More practically it's bloody confusing. I came on here because there seemed to be some unprovoked vandalism and I suggested it go here. And what do I see? Something that makes it all clearer.

Secondly the original link was a compromise between sensitivity and free speech. This seems to be the pertinent edit. I personally think that this blanking out of any content critical of Freemasonry is poor show, but even so this compromise should not be overturned on a whim.

Finally censorship may at times be necesary, but it should be carefully examined and not done on a whim.

JASpencer (talk) 12:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

To those editors who are saying that it doesn't matter who lodges a complaint... what are you talking about? Of course it does. A simple note like "accusing editors of freemasonry, including me" would have been the right thing to do. Beam 14:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, JASpencer was clearly tracking my edits; there was no vandalism involved with this at all. It is a long-term incident that was supposedly dealt with and wasn't. Frankly, what it is is a guy maintaining lists of Misplaced Pages users outside of Misplaced Pages because of what he thinks. That's simply inappropriate. And why, if it didn't affect me, would I come across it or bother to bring it to anyone's attention? "Then as now" should have pretty much made my past involvement clear anyway; it's not the accusation so much as the maintenance of the list that concerns me, and the circumvention of policies that indicates. MSJapan (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Truthfully, it doesn't matter what lists someone maintains off wiki of various WP editors, even if it is only based on the listers own opinions - until there is a link from the listers userpage. If an editor wants the general public to know something about themselves then they use their own userpage; they have the right for any conjection about who they are or why they edit to be removed from other accounts pages. To have a third party list "facts" about a user is not appropriate without the consent of the individual concerned. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I myself have the impression (rightly or not) that the individual is free to say on wiki anything that he wishes to. However, to use that as an excuse to set up an off-wiki link, which that person uses as a wikipedia userpage, which directly links to what appears to be a form of conscious derogation (at least in the eyes of the user creating the page) seems to me to be unacceptable. It might be possible to restore the user page using the material from the off-wiki page, and not allowing the link to the apparently intentionally (if not factually) derogatory page? And I have left Dwain a notice of this discussion. John Carter (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The material is off-wiki because (IIRC) it was MfDed out of userspace at least once and possibly twice for precisely the same reason I've brought it up here now. This is nothing but policy circumvention and chronically arrogant behavior. MSJapan (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Was it the content on this page which was MfD'd, or was it the list? I personally don't see much wrong with the page above that isn't at least as bad on some other pages. I wouldn't have any objections to that being restored myself, although I would object to any links from wikipedia, direct or indirect, to the list of Freemasons which the author seems to consider to be derogation. I do note that some members of Masonic bodies prefer not being identified as such, respect that, and consider that possibly/probably sufficient grounds for removing such a list and ensuring that it is not linked to from wikipedia. But the main page above seems to be to be basically no worse than a lot of other userpages I've seen. John Carter (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that originally there were objections that the user page was too strong, and a succesful attempt was made to suppress it, the author then thought that he had been censored (as obviously he had, but there may have been some justification) and so set up a mirror page off-wiki and linked to that. This was then objected to as it was still too strong, the off wiki page was then toned down and everyone was happy. Now the whole thing starts again. JASpencer (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I just checked through Misplaced Pages:Userpage and noted this, which appears to allow what Dwain has done - since the problematic listing is a link from that site. I also think that the language of the ArbCom regarding Badsites permitted the link to a site that wasn't directly directed to contentious material. My opinion is that Dwaine is wikilawyering around policy to enable a campaign against an ideology he disagrees with, and is doing so succcesfully. However, if the editor is no longer active on WP and has links on the userpage that is offensive to current contributors then I can't see that there is any good served by keeping it up. When not actively contributing such information does not help in building the encyclopedia, but rather falls under WP:SOAP. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It's more like a series of problems - content was shuffled here and there to superficially comply with policy until said content was found again, and LHvU has summed up my position and reasoning (plus some) for bringing it up here again. The simple fact is that if Dwain did what he was supposed to instead of trying to play policy games, I would never have had to bring this up again. MSJapan (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to set up a policy or guideline to deal with what sort of external links are acceptable on user pages. Unfortunately, Dwain as per here has been active once recently, reverting his user page, so I'm not sure if he can technically be called "inactive." Welcome comments from others. John Carter (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Dwain was active in a controversy about whether George Washington became a deathbed Catholic. JASpencer (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

When? LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC) ps. The answer I am not looking for is 14th December 1799! ;~)

He asked for my help at the end of May, beginning of June. I think that was when it died down but it had been going for some time. JASpencer (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It stewed for a long time, but things really broke out in February 2008 as fallout of a project to cleanup and improve the citations of List of United States Presidential religious affiliations. This led to looking at George Washington and religion, which in turn led to Leonard Neale. The issue was sourcing of the claim; I removed it from the second and third articles mentioned because of substantial doubt that the source even existed, and because it conflicted with eyewitness accounts. This went on for some time, and we eventually ended up with a compromise version. Mangoe (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I am tired of these periodic attacks by people with differing opinions. My account is NOT inactive! MSJapan is now taking issue with a page that I edited and where a compromise was already established by me and another freemason editor. Originally:I was attacked by several people who purported to be freemasons years ago because I had made some notes on freemasonry on one of my Misplaced Pages pages. I had these notes so I could possibly use them when editing an article concerning freemasonry. These notes were successfully deleted by MSJapan and others. My userpage was also attacked and I removed it onto another location. I have tried to stay clear of these people in editing and elsewhere but apparently that is not good enough. If MSJapan does not want to be listed as a freemason I suggest he remove the information box which purports that he is one and stops telling people on talkpages that he is one! My information on Wiki-masons came from the editors own userpages and assertions. I pointed them out because they were editing articles on freemasonry and because as masons they takes oaths not to reveal things about the group and they are obligated to lie. As a result, if one is a good mason they will lie when talking about certain aspects of the group. I wonder if he realizes that by making attacks, such as this, may make some people think that his beloved organization is made up of petty, ignorant, zealots. He may be doing more harm for his cause then he is helping it. My Misplaced Pages userpage has a warning and the link to my personal page has a warning. I have not added anymore information to these pages. This issue was settled years ago. I have worked with a purported freemason on Misplaced Pages and resolved an issue in an article by compromising. I just want to be left alone. If MSJapan thinks that he can remove any mention of freemasonry not sanctioned by his organization on the internet he is just plain wrong. Dwain (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't found Dwain the easiest person to work with, but frankly it seems to me that this is rather a tempest in a WP:ATTACKSITES teapot. It doesn't seem to me to be worth the fuss. Mangoe (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

A request

Will someone please semi-protect my user space (talk page) or block the troll currently playing there? Thanks, Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I know we don't fish, but...

Uppermile (talk · contribs · count)

It's never good when an account's very first edit is to slander a long-retired former admin. Third edit was to accuse an IP of socking, and only mainspace edit, while not destructive, is somewhat pointless (wikifying %? Um, okay...). Sorry to assume bad faith here, but I gotta guess that mainspace edit is only to get that contrib count above 10 so this can bust out as a sleeper sock four days from now.

I have not notified the account of this thread yet, because if nobody else sees a problem I'd rather not stir things up, y'know? But this just does not bode well. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Notify the account anyway, please. Beam 14:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm? If it's obviously a trolling account, block it. If it's not obviously a trolling account, let it edit. If it does something stupid, block it. There's no need to notify it and no real need to discuss it (unless you consider it an obvious troll... I'm leaning towards that but don't really care). —Giggy 14:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

@Giggy: I'm trying to get a second opinion on the obviousness of the trolling -- and failing that, someone should have an eye out when this account becomes enable to edit semi-protected pages.

@Beam: I stand by my decision not to notify the account at this time. If everybody else says "So what?", then there is no need to drag the account over here to explain him/herself. If you want to notify the account, that's your prerogative, but I think it would do more harm than good at this point. Heh, it's not like I can take the account's contribs out of context -- there are only six of them! :D --Jaysweet (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, an admin already blocked indef. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Another banning request

In last few days I have become very popular. Until now 3 accounts are created with only intention to revert my edits. 2 of this account are banned, so can we make 3 out of 3. Banned accounts are:user Fiumena and user PravdaRuss. Account Fiumina is not not banned and in my thinking this need to be changed . Thanks--Rjecina (talk) 15:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Save humanity

Save humanity (talk · contribs) is conducting some disturbing behaviour at the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena‎ article, introducing bloggish/spammish/soapboxish commentary (like posting contact phone number of the party), breaching 3rr, creating a fork article and not responding to the various warnings posted at his talk page. --Soman (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

User has been notified, please notify the Subject of AN complaints in the future. Also, I recommend you file a 3RR report by going here and filing a complaint. Beam 16:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Can someone delete the very clear POV folk that is Maharashtra Navnirmaaa Sena (MNS) --Allemandtando (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I redirected it. --Allemandtando (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of Admin Powers

User:William M. Connolley blocked me for 3 hours today, citing vandalism - here

This is an abuse of admin powers. The block was upheld by User:Jza84 citing untrue reasons. It's not about the length of time, this is about the principal. The admin did not point out any incident of vandalism, had no discussion beforehand, and gave no warning. It appears to me that my placing a warning template on his user page for personal comments is the real reason for the block. --Bardcom (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards