Misplaced Pages

Nick Dowling -- I've crossed out "with all due respect" above. I avoid personal attack by focusing on your words. You repeat a disingenuous question and your words have garnered my full attention. --Tenmei (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF offered scant guidance, but I had studied its exposition language carefully, and I was quite proper in being guided accordingly.
:Accusing others of bad faith. Making accusations of bad faith ... can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence .... Although in was ineffective, I did attempt to present the evidence which informed my changed strategy: Please, I encourage you to review the timeline which informed my modest decision to cross out "with all do respect". What you construed as unsupportable allegations were simply a matter of record. Some questions are disingenuous -- regrettable sure, but there you have it. This gambit affected my assessment of Nick Dowling's credibility, which becomes relevant in this context. In the face of a difficult reality, my words have been seemly, appropriate, correct. --Tenmei (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If this were not a pointless kangaroo court, how can I become better informed about what WP:AN/I is intended to be? --Tenmei (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I please submit the above claims that I have been commiting "lying, fraud, dishonesty" as being clear-cut personal abuse? Again, please note the repeated warnings Tenmei has recieved for the rude comments he's posted on the talk page of the article in question (reposted from above, these warnings include: , , and ]). Nick Dowling (talk) 10:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Along with Trout Ice Cream, I left a note for Tenmai on his talk page regarding this thread. Looking at the various diffs and talk pages, I hoped that a polite warning would suffice to alert Tenmai to the disruptive effect his editing was having, and the possible consequences of refusing to let up. This was interpreted as a threat () - if I've stepped out of line, I'd welcome any clue adjustment ;)</small However, as this seems to be partly a content dispute and partly a civility issue, perhaps if Tenmai could just apologise for those comments Nick found offensive we could all move on? The article is protected, and with consensus apparently established on the talk page, further argument doesn't require a response. EyeSerene 10:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Per Eyeserene. Tenmai's edits are indeed having a disruptive effect, and letting him know of that (and what will be done to prevent it if it doesn't cease) requires no clue adjustment. If the disruptive edits continue, I fully support the use of tools. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

In the context created by the purple prose above, EyeSerene makes four constructive, on-point observations which I would rearrange in what I consider to be an interwoven, ascending order of importance:

• 4. "The article is protected ..." -- No, not really, no. Except for the word "political" in the first sentence, the current state of Hyūga class helicopter destroyer needs no protection from me. At the first opportunity, I would substitute the more precise NPOV term, "constitutional," in place of a non-NPOV term which has been shown to have unduly trivializing, dismissive connotations; but otherwise, I would do nothing pending further published developments. However, the moment any change is made to the final sentence in the second paragraph, the WP:NPOV problem re-surfaces anew.
• 3. "... consensus apparently established on the talk page ...." -- No, not really, no. The tag-team ownership charade which played itself out at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer has certainly not escaped my notice -- but it remains naught but a re-telling of the old story of the Blind Men and an Elephant, naught but the sound of one hand clapping.
• 2. "... if Tenmai could just apologise for those comments Nick found offensive we could all move on ..." -- No, not really, no. Empty words would serve no purpose here because, in addition to the fact that I'm not sorry, the fact-of-the-matter is that this tedious whatever-it-is has produced practical, measurable results which were plainly unachievable by any other means -- see third paragraph of Nick Dowling's most recent edit at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer#Complaint lodged at WP:AN/I
• 1. "... as this seems to be partly a content dispute and partly a civility issue ...." No, not really no. YES. In this unique context, it is conceptually awkward to conflate "content dispute" and "civility issue" but this Gordian knot formulation is somewhat congruent with Misplaced Pages Talk:Civility#Should established users be treated different?, e.g.,

'Balancing civility with the needs of the encyclopedia

• ... civility is a tool, but a tool to be used towards what? - obviously, the goal of building a neutrally worded, reliably sourced encyclopedia. To break it down further, the specific purpose of civility is to enable the smooth functioning of the community that works to build that encyclopedia. It's a means to an end, not an end in itself - an element in the scaffolding that supports the structure, not part of the structure itself. Fundamentally, we are not here to build a community; we're here to build an encyclopedia, and civility is merely one of the tools we use to do that. When we deal with civility issues, therefore, we have to focus on what's best for the encyclopedia, not simply on what's best for the community.

It's thus essential that we strike a proper balance between the community goal of civility and the fundamental encyclopedic goals of NPOV, reliable sourcing etc. Focusing on civility to the exclusion of the encyclopedic goals actively harms the encyclopedia ....

• Civility problems shouldn't be dealt with in isolation while other problems aren't tackled, as that will only send the message to editors that tendentious conduct is fine as long as it doesn't involve civility violations - seek to tackle the causes as well as the symptoms,
• Civility is a means to an end, not an end in itself - don't prioritise it above the encyclopedia's goals. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I like where you're going with this. What I think I'm seeing is that we are in a position to develop a strategy for how the community deals with incivility. There's material on the page about how an individual can respond to incivility, but in the type of situations you're talking about, a more holistic approach is indeed required. The approach of enforcing civility as a rule — like a law, with clearly defined "violations" and consequences — isn't the best. It leads to the perception that civility is being prioritized above encyclopedic considerations. That perception is a problem, regardless of how accurate it may be .... Perhaps identifying a problem as an "incivility problem" is not helpful. Perhaps we should embrace the idea that each act of incivility takes place in the context of a larger conflict; perhaps our approach should reflect that idea. The goal would be to identify a conflict, describe its features, and choose appropriate strategies accordingly, right? How can we get better at doing that, instead of enforcing isolated "violations" of some real or imagined rule? -GTBacchus 19:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think you've put it well. We need to look at an approach that deals with the causes of conflict, not just the symptoms. Incivility can be both a cause and a symptom - if an editor is constantly incivil that will obviously lead to other problems .... On other occasions, it can be a symptom of frustration or aggravation at tendentious tactics being used by others. In both cases, it seems to me, the root issue is the problematic conduct on someone's part that invariably accompanies incivility. In effect, incivility is a warning flag that normal editing or talk page participation has broken down for some reason. The tactical challenge is therefore to diagnose what has gone wrong and fix it - not just by giving civility warnings (which may be totally appropriate) but also by dealing with the larger conflict. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be largely on the same page. I'm not too sure about civility warnings; I don't know if they're ever appropriate. They are often not. I'm also leery of strategies that involve identifying and neutralizing "bad guys". I tend to think that the best solutions will be article-based, or conflict-based, rather than editor-based. That said, I'd certainly support trying out just about any strategy, as long as it's done in a mindful and deliberate way. Doing that will at least generate data, and then we can re-assess strategies as to how well they worked. Simply making a conscious effort to identify and apply specific strategies is already a huge step, which should teach us a lot. -GTBacchus 22:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Re-framing record of "Disruptive Behaviour"?

The meritless claim of "disruptive behaviour" can only be evaluated in the context created by the incontrovertible record. Included in that evaluation are two relevant facts which are external to this record:

• 1. Nick Dowling is an administrator; and
• 2. Nick Dowling is Assistant Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject, February 2008 — August 2008.

The only thing "disruptive" is the fact that I persisted in the only way possible -- no other option being available as a practical matter. In the face of an unseemly tag-team ownership game, I attacked the logical fallacy implicit in the way this game was framed.

Yes, of course, I did disrupt "a" game, I suppose... yes. The tag-team ownership "game" was parsed under closer scrutiny than was within the regular players' comfort zone ... yes. But this quickly seems to beg the question - two related questions really:

• Was that irrelevant consensus-building exercise based on the wrong "game"? By this, I mean to say in part, "Was the state of play adequately informed when Jane's Fighting Ships and Global Security.org comprise the only "gold standard" against which all else is measured?"
• When did the task of creating a Misplaced Pages article become a matter of mere gamesmanship? --Tenmei (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to post more, since I think we're going beyond the scope of this forum. Your views on civility might be best taken up somewhere else (the Village Pump perhaps?), as they relate to a general issue rather than this specific one... other than the fact that it doesn't appear you intend do a fellow editor the courtesy of assuming his good faith and retracting your personal comments. We should also not be attempting to resolve a content dispute here. The disruption, however, is pertinent, so (leaving the aspersions aside) as I understand the situation:

• You contest the vessel's current designation as a "helicopter destroyer", preferring the term "aircraft carrier". "Helicopter destroyer" apparently comes from a number of highly respected sources (including Jane's, widely regarded as one of the top sources in the field). "Aircraft carrier" is based on a TV documentary and some newspaper reports, and is argued by other editors to be a loose description for mass-market consumption to enable viewers/readers to picture the ship.
  • You failed to gain support for your alteration on the article talk page, but repeatedly inserted it into the article anyway. Your edits have been consistently reverted by the article's other editors.
• A discussion was opened to gauge consensus on the talk page, and recognising that there was some weight to your assertion (but taking WP:UNDUE into account), a brief sourced explanation was added to the article detailing the apparent naming confusion for the vessel class. However, you decided not to participate in the discussion because you didn't recognise this as a legitimate way of settling the issue.
  • Consensus having been established against your edit, you then resumed agitating for it (in your words, performed a "reset"), seemingly under the impression that, because of Nick's position as both an admin and a MilHist coordinator, the article's other editors had blindly followed where he led.

Spin it how you like, this is a textbook example of disruptive editing. There's absolutely zero evidence that Nick has behaved with anything less than complete propriety throughout, and your refusal to accept the verdict of your peers is digging you into an ever-deeper hole. Perhaps you're the innocent victim of a Nick Dowling-led MilHist conspiracy... or perhaps your proposal is wrong. I've no real desire to keep this unproductive thread alive by posting here again, but please take some advice: don't be a fanatic, stop disrupting this article, and find something else to work on. EyeSerene 08:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, guys? I'm looking at the Jane's article linked in the article itself now, and it refers to the ship as a "CVHG," which translates as "Aircraft Carrier, Helicopter, Guided Missile." What's more, it then lists the section as being "Helicopter Carriers." Given that JFS says they're carriers, and a certain line from the GlobalSecurity.org article points out that "Having a displacement of about 20,000 tons... they essentially can be classified as light aircraft carriers. It is temporizing to refer to this type of vessel as a DD (destroyer). There has never been a destroyer that exceeded 10,000 tons," I think we can safely say that the "helicopter destroyer" term does NOT come from either of these two sources.

No, this fight doesn't belong on here, but it certainly doesn't appear to be as cut-and-dried as EyeSerene is showing it to be. (Full disclosure: While I was completely unaware of these ships until this thread hit, I do personally lean towards the "helicopter/STOVL carrier" designation based on application of Justice Potter Stewart's definition of pornography to the pictures of the ships. It's as silly as if there was a slapfight on Invincible-class aircraft carrier over whether to call them CVHs or "through-deck cruisers," the original politically-motivated designation...) Rdfox 76 (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Rdfox 76 -- You make two very, very helpful points. Thank you.

1. Justice Potter Stewart's definition of pornography is a pirori more elegant than The Emperor's New Clothes, which served as the core of an alternate approach I've been trying to bring out of the sandbox. Your implied simile seems more likely to inspire a willingness to re-visit some of the otherwise unexamined assumptions which are so strongly held that they block access to the threshold I can't quite reach yet.

2. Your language is superb -- better than I could have imagined. It captures the ridiculous with humour and sly derision - yes, good:

It's as silly as if there was a slapfight on Invincible-class aircraft carrier over whether to call them CVHs or "through-deck cruisers," the original politically-motivated designation...)

3. You're on the right wave-length. This is helpful.

I will have to think about this some more. --Tenmei (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I do apologise if it seems like I'm endorsing or promoting one interpretation of the sources over another in my post above. That certainly wasn't my intent; I was trying to set out the course of events rather than comment on the actual content. Whatever content issue Tenmei has (and I'm not saying he has no case) is between him and the other editors. However, a clear effort has been made to compromise, and I think the article currently does a pretty good job of explaining the whys and wherefores of this peculiar designation. There appears to be no corresponding movement on his position though, and editing disruptively and insulting other editors is absolutely not the way to get a consensus overturned - especially when one's stated intent was to disregard the discussion process and any decision reached. That's the cut-and-dried part in my view ;) EyeSerene 14:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

EyeSerene -- 1. Thank you for re-framing the "disruptive" issue in a way that allows me to see how it could appear that my conduct was improper. This was helpful. I need to think about it before I respond further, but this appears to be a template which will help me figure out (1) what I could have done differently AND, (2) what I need to figure out so that I don't make a similar avoidable error in future. For the moment, please consider the hypothesis that you have not made a mistake in investing the time and thought which can help me become a more effective and valued contributor to this Misplaced Pages project.

2. Please believe me when I assure you that it wouldn't matter whether you endorsed or promoted one interpretation or another because we haven't even arrived at the threshold of the argument yet. Also, believe me when I assure you that I'm not trying to be perverse ... nor do I think that entirely plausible "fanatic" label is something we have to worry about.

I will have to think about this some more. --Tenmei (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

EyeSerene -- I have added bold emphasis to one of your sentences above: Spin it how you like, this is a textbook example of disruptive editing. I have studied the bullets in your summarized understanding of the situation. As I read what you wrote, I tick off each element -- yes, yes, yes, yes. This is helpful. Thank you. I need to figure out how to "spin" your text, so that your second and fourth bullets are understood as sub-sets; and then I can more comfortably respond -- no, no. What I need to do is to revisit the record in hopes that it becomes possible to isolate pivotal opportunities for me to have averted the thread which informs each of your four bullets; and maybe at some point in the process, I'll begin to figure out how to do better in future.

Two aspects of my "spin" are easily stated, but this remains an unavailing step forward for now.

• NO, I do not contest the vessel's current designation as a "helicopter destroyer", preferring the term "aircraft carrier" -- not an issue, never was except in Nick Dowling's repeated re-framing. The premises inherent the the re-framed proposition inexorably lead only to a reaffirmation of the status quo ante. In this context, cognitive dissonance and ] converted every edit -- first to last -- into something merely disruptive, hence rejected as irrelevant or worse.
• NO, there was no discussion ...opened to gauge consensus on the talk page. The consensus-building exercise was focused on the wrong question. After the consensus was achieved on the proposition as framed by Nick Dowling, then I thought I was learning from a Bellhalla-inspired "reset" which could approach a new question with the newly confirmed consensus as a foundation from which to build.

This has been an exercise in which I learned more than I expected about metastasis. Make no mistake -- I did devote close attention to every step of this evolving charade, and I'm prepared to invest more time in parsing what could have been done to mitigate the damage. I didn't understand well enough then, and I don't understand well enough now -- but we'll see if I can't figure out how to do better. If nothing else, this tentative analysis indicates that I am seriously engaged in trying to reach towards a constructive resolution to the complaint Nick Dowling lodged in this venue.

It is frustrating to read Nick has behaved with anything less than complete propriety throughout; but it is even more galling to discover that I'm beginning to fathom how and why your opinion has been informed by reason and experience. This is helpful -- not dispositive, but helpful none-the-less. Thank you.

As for your worry that I might be a fanatic, that's probably not a problem here because I'm persuaded that a fanatic is someone who wants to achieve something more than just opening a closed door. My goals are not defined by resolving any issues which surround JDS Hyūga save one, changing its tenor from that of a dogma which is questioned only at the questioner's great peril .... --Tenmei (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Heads up: Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction)

I've fully protected Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction) following edit warring over what to tag the page as. I suggest uninvolved admins look over the talk page. -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 19:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hm. From 2005 to late 2007, it was a "guideline". After some disputes, it was marked as a "proposed guideline". Currently it's marked as an "essay". So what's current policy in this area? RC patrollers await an answer. We need to know what fancruft to mark for deletion. --John Nagle (talk) 05:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

FICT is mostly a summary of WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:IINFO. Though, really, it should have the "historical" tag. Sceptre 21:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Why aren't major changes like that brought to the community's attention? FICT ought to be a guideline or flat out 'crap isn't notable' policy. ThuranX (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol that would make a good policy. In the end, we really don't need so many policies though, notability is about whether something's been mentioned in reliable sources, so there don't need to be different policies for different subjects- why should some be treated differently to others? Sticky Parkin 01:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Because the quality of 'reliable sources' seems to change by subject area, and according to the various projects, and according to the standards of Inclusionists or Deletionists, or those just plain sensible and serious. Asserting it's 'so easy' is oversimplifying. Get an inclusionist Pokemon fan and we wind up with 2500 articles detailing each pokemon because 'not only does it appear on the card but in all the 'how to play pokemon' books. thus it's notable'. and so on. That sort of incestuous sourcing needs to be stopped in all subject areas. ThuranX (talk) 02:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Why does it need to be stopped? m:Misplaced Pages is not paper. To quote: "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia. Each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules, history, and strategy. Jimbo Wales has agreed: Hard disks are cheap."

What exactly do we gain by REMOVING verifiable information on notable topics? The satisfaction of having declared that sub-portion of the topic 'not notable'? I'd rather Misplaced Pages be the comprehensive encyclopedia it was intended to be. --CBD 11:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

To ThuranX's question: the proposed version was brought to a large-scale RFC back during June to get input on it (after the 2006-ish version was contested in part to TTN's actions and the ArbCom cases) - the RFC failed to show consensus, 50% for, 25% against it due to being too harsh on fiction, 25% against it due to being too lax on fiction. Analyzing the results, its been determined that FICT can't really be resolved until we answer questions (via another large scale RFC) on notability in general. --MASEM 11:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

We gain the priceless guarantee that Misplaced Pages treats all subjects equally and from the same real-world perspective. We ensure that the article on Homer Simpson devotes more time to examining how the cartoon character has influenced the rest of the world than to the cartoon character's daily routine and favourite pastimes. Have a look at how Memory Alpha treats Star Trek articles compared to here. If you were a disinterested third party who happened to want to know something about a Star Trek episode, which wiki is more useful to you? "Comprehensive encyclopedia" does not mean "limitless database of everything ever". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

So, we want to concentrate on being useful only to people who AREN'T interested in the topic they are reading about? :]

You state that we have to choose between two types of information... but we don't. There is no reason not to have BOTH the 'real world analysis' and the detailed documentation. Seriously, what does it hurt? Why is it better to limit our coverage of notable topics to the lowest common denominator? We can't cover things which a disproportionate number of people obsess about in any greater detail than things which only a few people obsess about because... that would go too far towards giving readers what they want? --CBD 11:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason not to have both is that by its very nature there's always going to be massively more fictional information than real-world on many fictional entities. Homer Simpson would have a longer biography than almost any living person were WP:N to be thrown out for fictional characters (which is basically what those opposing WP:FICTION advocate). It means uneven coverage and is usually going to result in decreased readability. Dedicated external wikis with different policies on fictional content are always going to be much better for this, and I don't see why Misplaced Pages should try to be a superset of them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Rapid archiving?

Why are three hour old threads being archived? ThuranX (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe some answers may be found at User talk:Ncmvocalist#ANI archiving. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hm. I can't say I agree with the argument that posts should be archived quickly if they seem resolved (ones with an actual {{resolved}} template are ok). It's not over, until it's over. People may wish to respond to those discussions. --.:Alex:. 20:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ncmv's idea of manual archiving before the bot's 24 period to get the page size down, but think archiving 2 hour old threads might be over-reaching. People don't check ANI every 2 hours; they should be able to see how long, complicated threads have turned out without wading thru the archives, or (more important) they may disagree with the fact that it's resolved. Surely there's a compromise lurking in there somewhere; say if it's had a {{resolved}} tag or an {{archive}} tag of some kind on it for (say) 8-12 hours, maybe? Some number greater than 4 and less than 24. --barneca (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As the planet spins at very slightly over 24hours per day, I feel (and have suggested) that the minimum needs to be 12 hours to give every chance of a section being seen by most of the English speaking inhabitants. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes that's a valid point. I could go to sleep and find several threads created and archived during the night when I awaken. Maybe a little longer than 12 hours though. --.:Alex:. 20:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been manually archiving threads that have been sputtering (a couple folks leaving sporadic light-hearted throwaway comments can cause a huge thread to sit essentially stale for days and days) but I'll admit I don't do it unless the latest date is yesterday - preferably early yesterday. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's a much better idea; I have no problem at all with manual archiving after even two hours, if the last remotely serious comment was 18-24 hours previous. Most of those undead, zombie threads that stagger on for days could then be put out of their misery. Of course, ANI will get slightly longer with all the "Wknight94 didn't take my comment seriously! Desysop him now!" threads. --barneca (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(Yes, I've already had a nicer version of that on my talk page...) —Wknight94 (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick comment here.. ANI is not the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, so we really don't need to hear from 100% of the voices 100% of the time. In my mind, if a thread appears, is resolved, and archived all while I sleep, that's probably a good thing most of the time ;) I understand the concern that something might got resolved incorrectly, but for me it's about priorities. Right now, I think the "OMFG moar drahmaz!" problem on ANI is much more crushing than the occasional minor injustice. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Nod. But so far I've not ever heard anyone complaining about Ncmvocalist archiving things too late. Always it seems to be more about "too soon" or "too vigorously". ++Lar: t/c 23:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

'is resolved' is the key element there. The world won't end if a thread isn't archived and there is even the remotest hint that its not satisfactorily resolved.--Crossmr (talk) 08:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with archiving some threads that are obviously finished, but I'd rather they at least be given 12 hours since last activity. A few of the threads were archived too quickly, IMO. I was away from the computer due to personal obligations, and by the time I come back (8 hours later or so), a bunch of replies are in the thread but it's archived so I can't respond. Enigma 23:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any real problem with sections being archived a few hours after the last comment when the discussion is clearly resolved, but I do have a problem with edits like this one, where sections are wrapped in those pretty little archival templates 2 minutes after the last comment. That...I hate. - auburnpilot talk 23:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Phew, wasn't me :D Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think filing parties are capable of looking at their thread in an archive - a lot of them end up having to do so because they might not login for several days. Between the time I logged off and now, there's been an increase of 16 threads (within 12 hours) if that's anything to go by. If people prioritized on responding to unresolved threads (like the one above this one that has 0 replies, or the thread right at the top of the page that has been open for days), there'd be less of a problem. Instead, with the rate of ANIs being opened, and how big this page becomes, I really don't see the issue with going to the archive to read how it was considered resolved. From time to time, of course mistakes can happen (just like the bot) and things might get prematurely archived, just as things might be left lying around, but bear in mind I have read or skim-read through the thread (unlike a bot) to know if it's resolved - if the bare essential admin action has been taken or admin attention been given, there's no reason to prolong it anymore. If I think there is a chance that more attention is needed on an action, I won't archive it straight way. Certainly some people are going to think it hasn't been resolved - it was very recently I had to deal with 1 individual who proclaimed the dispute is unresolved unless their 'restraining order' is imposed. I don't think we need a full thread to repeatedly tell them, this is not possible as it's punitive or inappropriate or...etc. etc. If there's an issue, contacting the person who dealt with the complaint is probably going to be much more effective. But, if there's major opposition to my archiving with a basis we can agree to, I'll gladly stop or modify my approach. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer you not archive so vigorously. You seem to be saying your judgement of whether something is resolved is adequate and that the archive should be referred to. I'm not sure I agree. We have a bot, let the bot do the work. ++Lar: t/c 20:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. The bot is on a timer for a reason. Unless everyone involved in the thread has whole-heartedly agreed that the thread is resolved there is zero reason to archive it early.--Crossmr (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel the same way. -- Ned Scott 04:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. -- Aunt Entropy (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Hillock65 and User:Kuban kazak

Would some uninvolved administrator please review the 3rr edit warring situation regarding User:Hillock65 and User:Kuban kazak? It was reported here and ended up with only one block despite the fact that they were both edit warring. Note that the other party is just coming off a block for edit warring three weeks ago. This really appears unfair, and it would make sense that either they should both get blocked or both only get warned. The discussion can be found here at Hillock65 talk page. Ostap 03:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You neglected to mention that User:Hillock65 violated the 3RR rule, User:Kuban kazak did not, ("The rule is breached when an editor makes more than three reverts.") so don't try to present it as the same thing. While there is a provision that says, "Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive.", this is up to an administrator's discretion, and I see no problem with the blocking admin treating them differently because their actions were indeed different, User:Hillock65 was the only one who crossed the 3RR line. Also, check their contributions, User:Hillock65 is primarily a revert warrior while User:Kuban kazak is primarily a content writer. And why are you asking for an "uninvolved administrator", the blocking admin was an uninvolved administrator.
Furthermore, an uninvolved administrator has already reviewed this decision. User:Hillock65 has already asked for an administrator to review this decision, and another uninvolved admin (User:Mangojuice) declined his demand to unblock him/block the other user, saying, "You made your point about the other editor's behavior on WP:AN3. While there is a compelling reason to review decisions to block users, the same does not hold for decisions not to block users. If you don't like the way it was handled, you can take it up with Scarian afterwards, but neither I nor any other admin is likely to reverse Scarian's decision to issue a warning"--Miyokan (talk) 05:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewd this and the complainer's complaint seems valid on the surface: The other person (Kk) did three reverts *bangbangbang* and rewarding them for that is inappropiate. Kk has recently been blocked for blind reverting, and the message that "three a day" is not an entitlement clearly needs to be driven home. Heck, the person who was blocked said "please use the talk page" in every edit summary, which Kk chose not to do. No one is lily-white here. - brenneman 07:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Lets see then:

1. 15:55, 23 July 2008 I change a blatant mistake
2. 16:39, 23 July 2008 Hillock reverts without any talk page comment (1st revert for Hillock)
3. 13:18, 24 July 2008 I revert the disruption, citing wiki policies under which I did that per WP:1RR (1st revert for me)
4. 14:02, 24 July 2008 Hillock reverts my statement and offers me, with WP:CIVIL to "discuss my grievences on the talk" (2 reverts for Hillock)
5. 14:06, 24 July 2008 I revert and point out the extensive discussion on the talk page (2 reverts for me)
6. 14:09, 24 July 2008 Hillock remembering WP:OWN tells me to literally bugger off (again WP:CIVIL) (3 reverts for Hillock)
7. 14:35, 24 July 2008 I do a complete copyedit of the article, correct many grammatical mistakes BUT DO NOT TOUCH THAT PARTICULAR SECTION THAT HAS BEEN THE SOURCE OF DEBATE (so still 2 reverts for me)
8. 14:43, 24 July 2008 Hillock however does not bother to check the diff, and reverts w/o any though still with the same WP:unCIVIL comment (4th revert for which he was blocked!)

• I recommend to Ostap, who has been Hillock's WP:MEATpuppet since he arrived on wikipedia (check the edit pattern for this and many other articles) to leave it per WP:STICK, otherwise feel free to voice your complaints on my RfC which was started a year ago, but got nowhere then, since I don't even watch that page. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 08:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You respond in your usual fashion, throwing around baseless accusations. If you continue to do this, I will report it here also. Ostap 16:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't make threats that you won't follow through with.--Miyokan (talk) 02:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Theserialcomma and Tucker Max, part 2

Previous AN/I thread

User:Theserialcomma's tenditious editing continues unabated since the last AN/I I filed a little under two weeks ago. He continues to wikilawyer points into the ground. Occasionally he is right, generally he is not - see Talk:Tucker Max and note that most discussions have been instigated by Theserialcomma.

User also demonstrates ownership issues - his talk page edits and edit summaries frequently contain things such as "will be removed" .

However, the real problem with this user is his unwillingness to refrain from personal attacks against me. Even if the personal attacks are not strictly "flames", they definitely violate the policy of discuss the argument, not the person.

These difs are not in chronological order, sorry. .

When I requested that the user refrain from personal attacks , he ignored , prompting me to perhaps inappropriately lash out at him , however, I stand by every last word of the "lash out". Speaking frankly, what I've tolerated from this user would test the patience of anyone.

User also failed to follow the RfC directions and write a neutral statement in the RfC, instead stating his PoV on the disagreement as the RfC summary. I don't have a dif for this as the RfC has ended.

As a concluding note, although there is no policy called WP:DONTBEAHYPOCRITE, Theserialcomma has engaged in hypocritical behavior. Here is a (correct) statement that discussion of individual users does not belong on article talk pages , yet, even in the diffs which while antagonistic, I didn't think warrented inclusion in an AN/I writeup, are alway addressed directly to, and about, individual users.

McJeff (talk) 06:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

New dif, posted while I was writing this - manages to hit both incivil and OWN at the same time. McJeff (talk) 07:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if people are allowed to agree on here, but I figured I would give it a shot. It's almost farcical difficult he has been and it's a shame that he's using Misplaced Pages's own rules against itself. McJeff has been more than patient on this and the article is suffering. He's fighting to have decent sources removed simply out of malice and attempting to drive people away from creating a quality article by making it a frustrating experience - so he can use it to say as he pleases. If something can't be done about him, I think it needs to be locked down. TheRegicider (talk) 07:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? McJeff (talk) 04:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The trickeries of Troy 07

It seems that the administrators have closed their eyes to the abuses of Troy 07. This user, by all sort of trickeries, has been systematically undoing or vandalizing all my edits. In the most absurd cases, he uses his "sock puppets" 66.183.101.6, 66.183.98.107 and 66.183.111.222 (and maybe others). Although some of the articles have been temporarily protected, I will not desist from restoring my edits. I hope that some administrator will prevent him from insisting on his edit war. Ausonia (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

These two editors;

Troy 07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and

Ausonia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

have recently shown up at WP:AN3 (three cases will be found by searching for 'Ausonia'). There was also a sockpuppet report WP:Suspected sock puppets/200.215.40.3 claiming that Ausonia is a sock. No RFCU has been yet run, though a request could be filed. Ausonia's most recent activity has been insisting on changing technical descriptions of various Roman Catholic cardinals and sees to other titles that he prefers. Troy07 argues that the original titles are correct, and in many cases are required by WP:MOS. Pontiff and pope were semi-protected to stop editing by what seemed to be IP socks of Ausonia.

Re-opening Ausonia's closed sockpuppet report to impose more sanctions is one option. Ausonia's behavior does seem sockish; this is an account newly-created on July 2nd as a single-purpose account that edit-wars on one issue acoss a range of articles. I haven't looked into whether Troy07 could be running any socks. Troy07 is also very interested in naming issues, but his account is open for a year longer, and he seems to listen to feedback. EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not edited various, but only two pages about Cardinals: Dean of the College of Cardinals and Odoardo Farnese (cardinal). My edits on the Suburbicarian Sees are perfectly correct. The prior version, however, was not correct. Troy 07 has never argued anything. How and where WP:MOS requires the "original" titles? If you look into them, you will see that those IP are sock puppets of Troy 07. There is no doubt. Ausonia (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note Also see Enigma 20:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

These two have been at each others' throats for the last several weeks. Neither seems to wants to give any ground. I think this should go to an RFC, with a temporary moratorium prohibiting either of them editing articles dealing with the Catholic Church until they can come to some common ground. caknuck _° is back from his wikisiesta 20:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• I should like to comment, as an administrator, that the sure fire guaranteed way of getting sysop help for whatever problems you are having is not commencing your comment as did User:Ausonia. I read that sentence, wrote this and am now moving onto the next section to see if anyone needs any help... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not insist on continuing the edit war. It's hard for me to imagine you making claims like that as you have evidently done so today. Please discuss the issue with me instead of ignoring the issue.

I deeply, deeply regret my part in this and feel terribly sorry for wasting the time of several administrators over such an issue, however, I kindly ask you to discontinue negative comments. I really could do without the insults, and would suggest that you use constructive criticism instead. For the most part, though, I will leave these articles for the administrators to deal with.

I have neither the time nor the desire to keep up with what has been going on surrounding the issue. Please don't assume that I enjoy such ridiculous revert-warring. ~ Troy (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again: topic ban of user:Kossack4Truth from Obama pages for review

OK. Briefly, Kossack4Truth (talk · contribs) is an agenda-driven single-purpose account on Barack Obama. He has been blocked 3 times in just over a month for edit-warring and disruption on those pages. After his most recent block, there was AN/I discussion which, I believe, supported a 4-6 month topic ban. Kossack4Truth promptly "retired", so I dropped the issue as moot.

As in the past when he's briefly laid low, his "retirement" was brief and he reactivated the account today by filing an iffy 3RR report, shopping the same complaint at AN/I. Not to mention rather odd comments: and claiming to other admins that he was never officially topic-banned (, ).

I believe there was and is ample justification and support for a 4-6 month topic ban, and was prepared to implement one after the prior discussion. Kossack4Truth evaded this by retiring. Since he is now active again, I've imposed the topic ban. I'm bringing it here for review and to see if there are substantial objections to the topic ban. Given that these threads uniformly deteriorate into a steel cage match between involved editors, I'd ask that editors actively editing the Obama page refrain from comment here to allow for potentially more objective input. MastCell  17:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk about arrogance. Unbelievable. First you try to get me banned. Then, rather than address the real source of the problem, you topic ban K4T and Then come here soliciting support, rather than even looking like you might consider taking action against the real source of the problem: the editors who keep baiting and provoking us. K4T did what he was supposed to do when he saw a problem. He gave an abusive editor awarning and was blocked three days for it. Now he comes to ANI and he gets a topic ban for it? Unbelievable. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll allow my recent posts at Talk:Barack Obama to speak for themselves without MastCell's spin. I've been completely cordial at Talk:Barack Obama, I've discussed the edits rather than the editors, and I haven't edit warred. I wasn't topic banned in the previous attempt. It's not just a claim. It's a fact. I notice your campaign to get community support for an indef block of WorkerBee74 was a miserable failure, and now you've turned your attention to me. MastCell, stop throwing your weight around in this direction and start paying attention to the ceaseless baiting and badgering coming from certain other editors. Show everyone the edit I've made on Barack Obama or Talk:Barack Obama since reactivating my account that justifies this unilateral action or revoke your topic ban. Go ahead, pick the one edit at Barack Obama or Talk:Barack Obama since reactivating my account that you find most offensive, post the whole edit here, and let uninvolved and truly neutral admins judge for themselves without your spin. Furthermore, I'm not a single purpose account. That accusation used to have some legs, but not any more. I've edited dozens of articles and welcomed dozens of new users.

Other admins are encouraged to take a very close look at my recent behavior and try to figure out how MastCell could possibly be justified in doing this. Kossack4Truth (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban of at least three months based upon the disruptive editing practices exhibited by K4T. "Retirement" is no excuse to dismiss earlier conversations and a consensus for such a sanction. Coming out of "retirement" to file a frivolous AN3 report, which was dismissed by four administrators (sorry to bust your bubble ThuranX), and then shop it around at ANI on an old thread indicates that you haven't given up your old habits a bit.

As evidenced in a prior ANI case, I voiced my support then for a topic ban as an uninvolved administrator, and I am voicing my support for it now. seicer | talk | contribs 17:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Fully support a topic ban; "retiring" to avoid sanctions does not magically undo the behavior that lead to the sanctions. A topic ban was appropriate then, it is still appropriate now. — Coren  17:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No objections. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

IF K4T will sign on to the attempt to give clean slates, forget old feuds, and work as an honest broker for consensus that we spoke of above,, then I vote for a clean slate and let bygones be bygones. If he can't do that, then let the community impose whatever sanctions consensus seems fit to met out. Others who have engaged in misbehavior. Lots of editors could use a fresher start there, and he deserves no less. The atmosphere seems to be changing, and if he wants to be a part of that process, now that he is aware of it, great. If he does not, then I imagine your eagle eyes will be on him and he will quickly hang himself.Die4Dixie (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse the topic ban. As far as I was concerned the result of the last K4T topic-ban discussion was that he was placed under restriction. K4T's apparent attempt at evading sanctions by "retiring" makes matters worse in my view. I'd also like to remind involved users that MastCell asked for "editors actively editing the Obama page refrain from comment here." If you want wider input please allow those for us who are uninvolved to review this--Cailil 18:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• This is a continuing battleground, and it needs to be cooled off. From what I've seen, K4T is a prime instigator in the battles; I'd support a topic ban through the elections. K4T notes above that he has been working on other articles and broadening his spectrum - this is a good opportunity to keep up that effort. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support until after the election. Good editors are spending too much time fighting over the same issue rather than being able to work on the rest of the article. At least one other WP:SPA needs to step back and take on other topics as well to broaden his Wiki horizons. Another editor has taken a recent interest. Please people, do not get hung up in one place only. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

:: I resent your characterization as unhealthy. Which part of civil is the inference. I request that you retract that statement, and I will assume that some momentary lapse has provoked it and charitably forget that it was made. Senseless provocation like that is gratuitous and can't possibly be a part of building an encyclopedia.Die4Dixie (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

For reference, Die4Dixie (talk · contribs) has just edited my comment up above. The context of the statement has been changed because of this. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

And they've just warned via a template for it--Cailil 19:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

And I responded to you there. As a new adminstrator, you should know better than to cleverly template an editor with my longevity .19:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

His reply is pretty poor and assumes bad faith. seicer | talk | contribs 19:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that my good faith efforts to work towards a consensus and peace making efforts on the page have been reduced to an "unhealthy interest". Pages that one chooses to edit are chosen by a principle of free association. I have no obligation to edit anything other than what I choose. there appears to be a bandwagon here. I removed an attack here, was templated, and the band wagon was cranked up. This behavior by three administrators, one recent, can only serve to elevate the level of wiki-drama that I and other editors have tried to dissipate on matters related to Obama.Die4Dixie (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I've noticed a recent trend to defend the Obama article against any incursion of criticism. There are/were at least 3 threads in the last ten days or so here on AN/I, plus who-knows-how-many elsewhere. (I didn't count every WP page to check.) WOrkerbee and K4T both have issues, but so does Lulu of the Lotus eaters, and she got off scott-free. There's a lot of bias showing on AN/I and at the Obama pages. Frankly, it really seems like the liberal bias we're so often accused of having is really showing. So many of these conflicts on the Obama page are because there's nothing negative there. I've looked, and EVERY single item of contention has been shrunk to a minimum. The more I look at it, the more I realize any criticism is white-washed or marginalized. A few editors are opposed to that, but they get constantly shouted down because Obama's got tons of internet savvy supporters, who are pushing criticism off the page. It's hard to see how this is defended when the major offense is INCIVIL behavior in light of the POV swaying going on. They may need a CIVILITY PROBATION, but to topic ban people who offer balance and dissenting opinions specifically during the election period, to 'keep the page quiet' shows an agenda is being pushed. Obama looks good against McCain without Wikipedians pushing things. If this were the other way around, a glistening McCain article, I have to say, I believe we'd be seeing a different result here. It may be societal, but when we see such a push going on, silencing the voices that speak out entirely is a black eye for Misplaced Pages. ThuranX (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse topic ban for K4T, as before. No need for the ongoing disruption. R. Baley (talk) 06:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• As suggested by myself back on 13 June 2008 , my position has not changed and I agree that a longer duration (of 4-6 months is warranted). Endorse topic ban. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

ABSOLUTELY NOT RESOLVED. MCMVOCALIST is the same HIGHLY involved admin in all of these Obama related threads. He closed out the last one, above on this page, in which K4T and others were accused of shit. He dismissed all the pro-Obama editor problems as not problems, then again sanctions those editors seeking to bring balanced criticism to the page. NCMVocalist is absolutely unqualified to neutrally close this section, Especially since his actions were to wait just two hours after a lengthy objection and close it in the position he has previously advocated. Neutral, previously uninvolved editors and admins are needed to review this material. Obama's page is not neutral, and the editors seeking to include balanced criticism are unable to do anything because the pro-Obama editors seek to whitewash all criticism. This is one of the most viewed pages on the project right now, and we are not meeting our responsibilities by keeping fair criticism off the page. I request, formally, that NCMVocalist not touch this thread again. He's got a conflict of interest and, at this point, an apparent vendetta against numerous editors seeking to include balanced criticism. It's a shame that some of Obama's supporters are out to make the rest of us look like partisans, when his good qualities will shien through anyway. but POV pushing needs to cease there. ThuranX (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Your request is denied. Please refrain from smearing me with any part of the title, 'highly involved admin' (a meritless accusation) - you need to take a break and become familiar with (or refamiliarise yourself with) WP:UNINVOLVED, first and foremost.

The ban has been imposed with the overall consensus of the community, with full endorsement by 8 uninvolved administrators. Kossack4Truth is welcome to appeal the topic ban in the future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, you are incorrect. Ncmvocalist is not an administrator. Ncmvocalist, please stop archiving threads. Thank you. Risker (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Bedford and misogyny

• Bedford (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

A bit of backstory: Bedford suggested a rather... titillating... hook at DYK which got accepted. An edit war erupted at Template:Did you know (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) with several female admins - who themselves consulted male users - removing it because of its content. However, his objections to the removal are not that pleasant: "feminist objectons is not good enough of a reason to remove this.", "I feel so sorry for you for being so pathetic", accusations of vandalism and censorship to someone who didn't even remove it, and "Besides, mantis was a dupe due to feminazis". Can we have a male admin warn him against such behaviour? I'm very concerned about his temprament, and I think that, sadly, if a female admin warned him, he'd accuse her of feminism too. Sceptre 17:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

So the argument is that DYK can't contain a hook about scantilly clad women? I'm not seeing how that's misogyny. Nothing on the main page should ever be edit warred over, even if one is being censored by evil femenists. Just drop the edit war and discuss it somewhere. --Rividian (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Not the edit war, his attitude. Sceptre 17:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The only problem I see here is that he edit warred, especially on this template. That's something that deserves some sort of rebuke. Just having unpopular opinions about feminism really shouldn't be an offense; disrupting Misplaced Pages over those opinions is a big deal though. --Rividian (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"It was censorship by a bunch of extremists." How is that acceptable? Sceptre 17:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The quote is okay, the actions he's talking about aren't. I don't really think censorship is a good word for it, but Bedford was just making an argument. There's nothing disruptive about that... I don't consider "extremists" to be a personal attack in this context. --Rividian (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Extremists blow up office blocks and abortion clinics. I don't any of that happening in the DYK template history, especially from the women. Sceptre 17:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't censorship and calling an editor an extremist could be taken as a PA (mind, though I think the DYK was dumb I didn't think it was misogynistic). Gwen Gale (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) An extremist is merely someone with an extreme point of view. I don't think the terrorist context was meant, if it was then yes it would be a personal attack. But "extremist" alone doesn't have to be meant that way. Just for good measure I looked up the word in Webster's and it doesn't mention terrorism. This could be clarified by asking if he actually meant to accuse them of being terrorists. --Rividian (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, these individuals don't both discussing things on DYK, and just arbitrarily remove anything they don't personally like from DYK. There were no Misplaced Pages rules against the hook. There have been things I objected to being on DYK, but I did not remove them. I can diagnose the sentiment against the hook, and call it what it is.--Bedford 17:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on DYK is a big no-no (the last time it happened, an admin was blocked IIRC). Instead of reinserting the same ole hook into DYK, Bedford should have just written a brand new non-controversial hook. He could have then started discussion regarding the problem with the original hook. That's the sensible way to handle such matters... Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:COMMONSENSE. If at least five users disagree with you, I think you should realise you're on the wrong side. Sceptre 17:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Why is a DYK hook such a big deal? A bunch of people disagreed with a hook, a new one could've inserted and no harm would be done. Why wheel-war over it? Maxim_(talk) 17:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what did happen - Krimpet inserted an alternate hook, but Bedford refused to accept it and edit warred to keep his own hook on the main page. Sarah 00:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Point of order: this is about Bedford's attitude, not the DYK hook. Sceptre 18:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

What, that he likes bra and panties matches? It's normal for those of a certain age. Life goes on regardless. All that's demonstrated is that he needs to watch more real porn and has bad taste, because the wrestling in such matches invariably sucks. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Bedford indeed engaged in some edit warring, and calling someone another editor a feminazi could probably be considered uncivil in most any context (no matter what you think about feminism, "anything-nazi" is pretty much name-calling). I don't see a problem with anyone, male or female, admin or non-admin, issuing him a warning and then (assuming the behavior is not ongoing) moving on with our lives. It's not like there is such a thing as an "official" warning... (except I suppose ArbCom restrictions, heh) --Jaysweet (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

His latest outburst I know of was five minutes after I posted this thread. Sceptre 18:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

First off, can I note the sheer insane hilarity of an admin with an attitude that I consider pre-dates the internet lumbering about Main Page-related pages grumbling about uppity women? That said, I think he's demonstrated a total lack of understanding of WHEEL by noting that he stopped short of 3RR in defending his own hook on DYK, stepped well over the line by repeatedly accusing fellow admins who disagree with him of forming a ideological cabal ("bunch of feminists") in gender discriminatory language ("feminazis"), and continues to show a general lack of understanding that he's acting like a total dick. (I'm willing to put that wording to a vote to demonstrate that most users would find it accurate.) I especially love his accusation on his talk page that it's a conflict of interest for women to attempt to remove DYK hooks they find bring disrepute to the wiki, which also includes the brilliantly phrased and punctuated, "I feel sorry for you, to be so pathetic". I figure the only reason there doesn't seem to be a movement to desysop Bedford is because he appears so utterly hapless. It's like one of those fish out of water movies when the Australian woodsman goes to the big city or the big city lawyer's car breaks down in the countryside. I just keep waiting for Bedford to discover the bidet or try to milk a cow, or whatever the equivalent is here. - BanyanTree 22:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've left him a civility warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I was recently reading talk page highlights then clicked over here and forgot which page I was reading. Someone should copy this over. --Moni3 (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This happens :) Gwen Gale (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit that this situation really pissed me off and I should have handled this better. I reacted to being called sad, pathetic, feminist etc. What did Bedford think he would achieve by using emotive language like "extremists" and "feminazis" or comments like this, this, and this? That's definitely not how to "win" an argument.

This was way out of line and I'm glad people called him on it. Seraphim♥Whipp 23:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I see a bunch of purposeful misunderstandings and self-righteousness. The fact is that a few women decided they should rule what is covered in DYK, even through they do not contribute anything. It has been proven that hooks regarding attractive women are popular, which is why it was used. I can't help but wonder if there was some jealously is some contributors hearts. I stand by my actions. Personally, I'm done with this topic, as I have bigger concerns than this triviality.--Bedford 23:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Put away the spade and climb out of that hole, will ya? Sceptre 23:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear me. Now you're resorting to calling people jealous? You clearly still have no grasp of what the issue was here. Seraphim♥Whipp 23:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This isn't about the DYK topic, it's about how the editor responded to disagreement. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Bedford please consider refactoring your post. Attributing the issue bad faith assumptions like "purposeful misunderstandings" is not acceptable. The way to clear up any misunderstanding is to comment on the topic of disagreement rather than describing the people you are disagreeing with. You continue to speculate and comment on other editors in a derogatory way and that is not cool. I realize you must feel under attack right now, and are not likely to be receptive to my critique. But I hope someone who knows you better will take a moment to email you and reaffirm that my concerns about your reaction to this dispute are valid. I would hate to see you dismiss these concerns and possibly cause yourself more grief in the future because your friends do not care enough to involve themselves and help guide you in this area.--BirgitteSB 00:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not want to get back in this nonsense, but if you insist. Would you prefer the term "personal-worldview misunderstandings", as it reflects the fact that those who are trying to bully me have not opened themselves to the fact that not everyone shares their worldview, and they need to be more tolerant of those differences? As I said before, I'd rather be spending this time writing new articles, not get mixed into this abyss.--Bedford 00:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer that you ask a few people whose opinions you respect if they would look at my comments and tell you what they think of my concerns and how the things I pointed out in your edit could cause you problems if you edit in the same vein in future disputes.--BirgitteSB 01:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Could I make a suggestion? Can we put this thread on hold for 24 hours? I would exhort Bedford especially not to comment further at this time, with the assurances that obviously nobody is going to block him or anything dumb like that. Let it go for a day, and see how you feel tomorrow. I can't imagine a normally level-headed editor like Bedford making insinuations like this while calmed down -- even if he feels they are accurate, he must realize how much it will piss some people off?

On the other side, too, let's try not bait Bedford here. Not that I see any baiting right now, but let's not have it start.

If we can all stop making gender-charged comments, I think underneath it all there's really nothing to see here. Bedford made a DYK suggestion that some people found offensive. We don't have to agree that it was offensive, nor do we have to agree that it was inoffensive. We just need to agree to stop hatin' on each other. :D --Jaysweet (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you really replying to my post cause I don't see any gender charged comments that I would need to stop. I am not into baiting people nor rising to bait I am offered much less "hatin' on" anyone. While I understand your concern about the effects of Bedford's temper on his edits regarding of this issue, frankly I see no reason to put off my thoughts on this issue. If you have a problem with something I have said, please bring it up explicitly instead making vague accusations that you are concerned I (among others I suppose) am going to begin baiting him, use gender-charged language, or weirdest of all feel the need to assure no blocks are forthcoming (where has anyone mentioned blocking him?) while explaining that underneath it all there is "nothing really to see." You do realize that last statement only gives Bedford confidence that his behavior is not problematic that his evaluation is correct. What is needed here is someone like you, who apparently is already acquainted with Bedford, to step-up and say "Bedford that is not cool you really need to comment on content not contributers. By the way don't edit war 3RR isn't an entitlement and it sets a bad example when admins edit war." Taking such a principled stance about what the actual best practices for editing Misplaced Pages are, would do loads more to resolve this than all your vague hand-wringing about postponing it.--BirgitteSB 01:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I found Bedford's comments offensive and I think it makes Misplaced Pages look incredibly bad having an admin make such derogatory and sexist comments about his colleagues. I also think it's inappropriate for someone to nominate, promote and then edit war to keep their own hook on the front page. Sarah 00:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Section break

We seem to have several problems here:

• Wheel-warring on the main page.
• A misunderstanding of edit warring ("the only reason is due to 3RR" ).
• Personal attacks ("feminazis" ; "I can't help but wonder if there was some jealously is some contributors hearts. I stand by my actions." ).
• Ascribing motives ("a bunch of feminists decide to censor Misplaced Pages, as they'd rather do that than actually do something fruitful for Misplaced Pages. Sad. Oh so sad. Pathetic, too." ).
• Demeaning behavior ("Then again, those who can't pick good hook are the most likely to critique; it's the way of the world." ; "Thanks for confirming I'm better than you" ).
• Material on their userpage which brings Misplaced Pages into disrepute ("The second greatest country ever the United States of America, and the greatest country ever the Confederate States of America.").
• Absolutely vile offsite harassment: http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=91214440&blogID=418159317, backup in case it's taken down

I've long realized I am a magnet for attracting cretins, who think they will, in wrestling parlance, "get over on me". Sadly, Misplaced Pages ia huge website and, as a result, there are a lot of cretins. Just this morning I had to deal with a bunch of PMS from a few feminazis that did not like a hook used on the DYK section of Misplaced Pages's front page, dealing with a bra & panties match. Not politically correct, so the harpies attack, and then accuse me of bullying when it is they themselves ganging up to bully on me. Is it just a mix of PC and PMS? Is it because they are unattractive and don't like being even slightly reminded of it? Who knows? (Perhaps an attitude like this is why you're 36, single and still in school. - 202.155) The fact they are still moaning over it says I struck too close to home in analyzing the reason fo their being in a frenzy. They are overcome with the belief that their excrement doesn't stink, when it absolutely reeks.

This type of combativeness and unseemly behavior is nothing new from Bedford. I suggest a request for user conduct be filed. I am also declining to post this from my account: I am a person of color who edits under my real name, lives close to Bedford and fears harassment or violence. I do not enjoy playing this card, but I grew up in the South and have good reason to fear Confederates and their ilk. 202.155.167.221 (talk) 01:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear anon, I'm not sure harassment is the adjective for that. I'm not a MySpace member and can't read the full original, but if that's as specific as it gets--suggest replacing with a different adjective. Vile I agree with, but harassment has a more specific meaning. Durova 09:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Urgh! What a bigot :( Well, I guess we know exactly what this guy's position on the whole matter is now - *sigh* - Alison 01:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Bedford, if you really wrote that, I ask you to resign your adminship. I have no opinion right now if such a request is legitimate based on policy, or precedent. I only know you've lost my faith in your ability to act in a reasonable and impartial manner. And if you didn't write it, you need to find out who is impersonating you on myspace, because they're making you look really, really, really bad. --barneca (talk) 01:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Urgh indeed. Seraphim♥Whipp 01:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

202.155, if personal attacks are so bad why is it okay for you to say stuff like "Perhaps an attitude like this is why you're 36, single and still in school"? Two wrongs don't make a right. Also, just because he has an unpopular opinion, such as on the CSA, isn't cause for sanctions. We aren't the thought police. It's only a problem if he's POV pushing or otherwise disruptive. Other than that I agree with the points. --Rividian (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Tu quoque is not a valid defence. Sceptre 01:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It's just not helpful in the first place to make personal attacks while complaining about someone who made personal personal attacks. I'm not saying Bedford's attacks were okay because the IP did the same thing, but hopefully we can agree personal are attacks are a bad idea even if you don't like the person being insulted. --Rividian (talk) 01:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Proof? I did a search on the range. Only two contribs from the entire /16 range I could see this month. One was to a football page. The other to this noticeboard. Though that gadget is buggy. Sceptre 01:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I can't figure out what this comment means. The IP interrupts his quote of Bedford's (supposed) blog to insult him, see the quote "Perhaps an attitude like this is why you're 36, single and still in school". --Rividian (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Didn't catch that. Sceptre 01:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse recall. I was going to initiate recall myself, but reneged after realising that, without the category, it would be an excercise in futility. Sceptre 01:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Bedford was asked about recall in his RfA in April and he answered: "AOR is like a pre-nup, assuming trouble on the horizon when it is vastly hoped there will be no problems, and darkening clouds which should remain bright and fluffy. If editors are uneasy about my nom, I can add myself to it; but, if I am a problem admin, I will be removed by my peers in any event." In the spirit of that answer, he should either resign and stand for reconfirmation or add himself to the recall category. Sarah 02:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse Barneca's request for resignation. If Bedford really wrote that blog his position is now untenable with all female editors and admins on Misplaced Pages and a huge slab of males, too, IMO. Sarah 01:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree - the community needs to take a good look at Bedford's conduct as an admin, especially given the evidence above that this may not be an isolated incident. I unwittingly set off this fiasco last night by removing a DYK some users found offensive and leaving a polite note with Bedford since I saw he was the one who'd promoted it... but his immediate reaction was to call me "ridiculous" and revert my removal. It really disappoints me that he had to escalate this into an edit war and personal attacks - culminating in gross Limbaughesque insults to several female Wikipedians. We expect better from our administrators. krimpet✽ 02:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I see that Bedford's RfA three months ago anticipated him using his bit to work on DYKs, and one opposer raised his inflammatory national language at times as an issue. There are (and not just because of this incident) sufficient questions of judgement that lead me to think that the decision to grant adminship, while supported at the time, was not the correct decision and should be reviewed. Orderinchaos 02:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

A 24 hour break sounds reasonable, as there is a need to cool down for everyone. Much of this is due to warring between the two sides of political correctness. But notice that I am the one being threatened, that I must think and act like others think and act. At no time did I abuse my role as an admin; I even took a careful take on POV. Therefore, to say my adminship should be revoked is purposeful intimidation; nothing I said was against females in general. I was not the only admin to think it OK, as I did not initially move it to the main template. Had I not woken up prematurely, this brouhaha would not had occurred, and the censorship would have been successful. It was not my article; I just came up with the hook; a hook that no one had problems with on the Template Talk page, and none of those who removed the hook cared whether or not people there saw no problems with it. It was the third hook proposed, in order to use the article, as those who submit articles would like to see them used. An admin posting a hook he devised but had no hand in the creation of the article has been done before, so no foul there (although a future rule against it could be debated).--Bedford 02:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is delicious irony - while I definitely bridle about the c-word and the tw-word, nobody seems to care if a male editor is called a "dick". And we're getting righteously upset about PMS jokes now? Please. Come on, ladies - nobody respects a victim. It's better to give as good as you get. Kelly 02:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  Jokes are supposed to be funny. I see no humour in his posts. Besides, we're using the word "dick" in the metapedian sense, not the common social sense which is commonly suffixed by "head". Sceptre 02:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  Eh, whatever - anything he said, I've heard ten times worse in my workplace. This is political correctness run amok. Talk about a mountain from a molehill. So guys like women in their underwear - everyone knows this from middle school. Yes, he shouldn't have edit-warred about the hook but the reaction is extreme. Bedford, I forgive you - go forth and sin no more. Kelly 02:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  Do I need to repeat the point of order? This is not about the DYK hook, this is about his reaction. The language he's used would make Mike cry. Sceptre 02:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  I don't think so. If so, then Mike Godwin has lived a pretty sheltered life. Are you talking about the PMS thing? You should hear what women say about PMS amongst themselves. Kelly 02:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  Vegetarians are evil because Hitler himself was one. Sceptre 02:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  Huh? Kelly 02:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I also endorse Barneca's request for Bedford to resign the tools. I'm not sure Bedford can maintain an admin position when he's using the tools to enforce personal prejudices. It's fine to think differently, that's something I celebrate, but this is a case of being deliberately offensive and antagonistic without purpose. I find that attitude incompatible in the role of an administrator, a role where you deal with all kinds of people. Seraphim♥Whipp 02:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  Did he use the tools? My understanding was that he was just acting as an editor, but maybe I missed something. Kelly 02:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  Edit warring on a fully protected page which is subsequently transcluded onto the Main Page?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  He promoted his own hook and then edit warred on an admin protected page to keep it there. I'm more concerned that the position of adminship is one of trust. Trust that the editor will use the tools responsibly and for the right reasons. Seraphim♥Whipp 02:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  If he was edit-warring on a fully-protected page, then one or more other admins must have also been edit-warring. Kelly 02:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  Separate admins each time. Seraphim♥Whipp 02:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  That doesn't make it any better. Kelly 03:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  If you are reverted by different people each time, then you are the one with the problem. There obviously wasn't consensus for the hook otherwise it would never have got taken down. Seraphim♥Whipp 03:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Two problems I see with this incident, the first is DYK itself but for another discussion. The problem this discussion is about is that of Bedford's actions. No editor should have to wheel warred to defend a DYK hook, its no big deal if a hook is removed or altered many suggestion dont even get a run. The choice of language is indefensible whether we agree with an action or not its just not acceptable to vehemently accuse any person of extremist views because their physiology or imply that a person has some condition. When other admins have made unfounded uncivil accusations and acted disruptively using the tools(DYK template is an admin only edit protected page, like all main page templates) they have resigned their admin bits or had them removed by ARBCOM. As for Bedfords off Wiki comment there are a lot of cretins then to into a rant on one supposed group, to me that means he also express that other editors as unidentified are also a problem in his view and he's likely to react the same again when people dont accept his actions. To me this totally unacceptable any actions taken as a sysop by Bedford are now questionable as to whether he was acting based on the community decisions or his own personal opinions. Gnangarra 02:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  It's been established in numerous forums that we don't sanction people on-wiki for what they do off-wiki. That said, if the only thing that's got people upset is the blog post - yeah, it's not that great, but I've seen way worse. I think an apology would be sufficient, speaking for myself. If someone thinks more is necessary, they should take it to ArbCom. Kelly 02:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Two edits consist edit warring? Look at the Edit history. What were the excuses? That it was "demeaning" and akin to FHM? Not that reasoned a reason. Also, note it was User:PeterSymonds who first placed it on the front page, not me. It should be noted that Ryulong has tried to wipe the history of the hook from both the article's talk page and the Recent Archives page. I think there is a problem with objectivity. If anyone should resign, it is not me. Anything I did was after a consensus of DYK reviewers. I think we need one of those templates used onthe Sri Lanka talk pages here.--Bedford 02:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You promoted the hook. Seraphim♥Whipp 02:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, DYK/Next update says the same story. Peter's only fault was cutpasting. Sceptre 02:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It was reviewed by four editors, one of whome was the original writer of the article, none of whom had problems with the hook (sans one rolling of the eyes). The suggestion was up for a day, the hook was expiring, and as I said before, admins that have suggested alternate hooks have in the past elevated them. If you don't like it, get involved with DYK and let your voices be heard. I feel you did not respect the DYKers.--Bedford 02:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre's original over reaction to petty comments led to a further overreaction ion by Bedford. I say everyone go have a cigarette and calm down. While I'm the first person to call admin abuse when I see it, nothing was abused here. "Tough" language and civility is abused by people to get rid of their enemies way too much around here. Beam 02:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly - this has escalated beyond all sense. I suggest that if anyone really believes Bedford should be desysopped they take it to dispute resolution. Kelly 02:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... open an RFC if you feel so inclined. ANI isn't really going to solve anything except cause unproductive drama... maybe he'll dig himself in deeper but that seems like a poor reason to keep the thread going. An RFC would actually be headed somewhere other than dramaland. --Rividian (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Putting the wheel warring aside, honestly, who cares? It's just a hook (one that probably gained many views in the time it was up), and while I personally didn't see a reason to remove it, edit-warring to keep it on also makes no sense. This whole thing really reeks of something that has escalated far, far too much. The hooks have come and gone, that's over. I'm disappointed my pretty much all sides in this wheel war, of course some more than others. Wizardman 03:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Point of order, point of order, point of order. Sceptre 03:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Bedford's actions may have been very wrong today, but he does bring up a good point above. The hooks stay at T:TDYK for several days. If there were any concerns then why not actually check that page for yourselves to see if anything offends you? This way it saves the drama of removing and adding hooks. I mean, DYK is a hard-ass job for no respect as it is, with people complaining abotu things that could be solved if they spent 5 minutes participating there. Wizardman 03:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Moral of the story: the most important item at an RfA is Question #3. If a candidate gives a vague, evasive, or essentially meaningless answer to this question, don't support their candidacy. MastCell  03:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Bedford was the one who created this drama. Hooks get moved around and thrown back in all the time. It was his behaviour and the edit warring that was wrong. Seraphim♥Whipp 03:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Not on an active DYK unless there's something really wrong with the hook. Wizardman 03:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Which there was! Which is why it was removed in the first place. Seraphim♥Whipp 03:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but was it bad enough to be re-reverted as many times as it was? I'm not getting into that, that's a question for elsewhere. My point at 3:15 stands though as my main one. Wizardman 03:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• I am amazed that so many people are not getting this. Forget the hook. Opinions about the hook are debatable and its appropriateness on the Main Page is a subjective call. When there is a dispute over something debatable and you find the other people making a different subjective call than you would prefer . . . You do not react by speculating on the motives the editors you disagree with. You do not label them with derogatory terms. You do not personalize the dispute. You comment on content that is in dispute, attract a wider audience, and seek consensus. This is the issue; not the debatable point of whether that hook was a desirable item for the Main Page. The behavior displayed after the hook was disputed in real issue here. Some people will agree that the hook is desirable, some will not and some won't care either way. But, who can say that they find Bedford reaction to the dispute acceptable and on what basis do they believe it to be so? I think that inappropriateness of his reaction should be widely agreed on. The only reason we are still here is not because Bedford got upset and said what he should not have, but because he believes what he said was not problematic. Now is the part where the admin community says "Hold up. X,Y, and Z was out of line." and then Bedford stops claiming he has done nothing wrong or at least stops posting about it. And we all go our separate ways either hopeful that he has learned a lesson here and this discussion never need be re-visited again at least satisfied that a unified voice reaffirmed how admins are expected to behave. Or I suppose you can all ignore the real issue here talk about how you liked or didn't mind the hook and the real issue will fester into a premature RfC. Bedford is the only loser in the latter scenario but obviously not many people here care to help guide him out of the hole he has dug himself into. At least not when is a controversial issue to debate. Seriously you all should ask yourselves: Have I actually tried to imagine a resolution to the problem brought here?--BirgitteSB 04:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting timing: as the female editor who recently created this article and got it through DYK, and who is currently running this peer review request, no one can accuse me of being too uptight. Bedford, your action at DYK crossed the line, and your statements since then have been worse. All editors should be able to communicate with administrators without worry that the sysop would screen their words through a filter of perception about the editor's race, color, creed, gender or other external factor. The name for such filters is bigotry and that is incompatible with Misplaced Pages administratorship. I read this thread hoping a well-meaning misunderstanding had taken place, but your own words condemn you more clearly with each iteration. I respectfully request that you resign the tools, and if you refuse I will endorse every step toward their involuntary removal. Durova 08:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to endorse Durova's request here. We have absolutely no room for bigotry within the admin community and an admin who has issues with (arguably) 50% of the population is not going to approach matters dispassionately, IMO - Alison 08:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Resign the tools

So where do we go from here? Seven people are requesting that Bedford resign the tools. Seraphim♥Whipp 13:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have desysopped him. This is not even a close call. He's so far over the line of the conduct - both onsite and offsite - that I expect from admins that nothing short of a full and complete apology for his behavior and a retraction of his comments will do. Additionally, he will have to stand for re-election if he dares. As for me, I would never vote for someone with this kind of behavior in his history.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

And what have you done to those who also warred with him, over reacted, and honestly escalated the situation leading (but not excusing) his poor choice of actions? Beam 15:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I am quite frankly astonished with the kindness and polite reserve that I have seen from those who have tried to help him avoid this outcome. If you can point to anyone else who stooped to vile stereotyping, offensive remarks, and/or offsite attacks, I will gladly deal with that. I may have overlooked something, to be sure. I saw no overreactions, and indeed would like very much for good people in the community to feel empowered to be much more firm about this kind of incivility. It is just not at all acceptable and a casual acceptance of it weakens our moral standing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There were, imho, better ways to handle Bed's actions. I agree that he acted like an asshole eventually but only in response to harsh action and reverts that degraded his opinion. It does not excuse his behavior, as I said, but it does bring into question the actions of others. And honestly Jimbo, you shouldn't be surprised by kindness and polite reserve by some users, we're not all jerks! ;) Beam 16:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Beam, before you start shooting Jimbo down without looking at the facts, take a look at his myspace post and tell me that's befitting for an administrator on this site. It's not in the slightest. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not shoot him down, and I agree Bed acted like an asshole. I also believe I never even insinuated or acted as if I was "shooting him down." Beam 16:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Your first post looked like it was trying to start a battle when it wasn't needed, that's all. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that it looks like that. And I disagree that it wasn't needed. That's all. ;) Beam 16:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, please accept my apologies then. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

NO! I will do no such thing. Beam 16:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Thank you Jimbo - quite frankly, his flippency is shocking in this this whole situation. We don't need admins who show such disregard for our communal norms. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• He's continuing to edit without responding here. User:Durova/Request for comment/Bedford Here's a working space. Durova 15:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, would someone courtesy delete the page in my user space? This seems like enough, and FYI a rumor has come back to me that I requested desysopping from Jimbo. I didn't even contact him with regard to this. Durova 16:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

    Done. If the problem flares up again and you need anything that was on there lemme know and I'll undelete. --CBD 16:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Thank you very much. Durova 16:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  Does he need to respond here further? His overall 'position' on the issue seems to have been fairly clear... something about him being a living god casting down the feminazis. I'd think him going off and working on something else for a while would be all for the best at this point. --CBD 16:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, Jimbo. At least we have some dignity and respect. Sceptre 16:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel that your original reactions to the DYK war weren't exactly brimming with respect towards Bedford. However, due to his reactions it seems that you won't be called on it. Beam 16:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• I fully support this desysop; it saved the community a lot of time and effort. --barneca (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• As do I. Seraphim♥Whipp 16:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for cutting through the red tape and using your discretion to do what needed done Jimbo. Chillum 16:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• I might as well put in my two cents, but by all means don't come after me like you did Bedford, I am totally cool with leaving. As I see it, the hook was potentially controversial, but it was removed without consensus and that initiated the edit war - and the blame for that action and the edit war lies almost entirely with the group of female editors. It was they, who without consensus, initiated the events that led us here. And those editors, as has been fairly pointed out, are not particularly large contributors. If they had a problem with the hook it should have been discussed or removed BEFORE the the DYK update, there was adequate time. Their failure to do so was, in my opinion, the same as approval or neutral position to use the hook. They have been purposefully out to get Bedford for reasons I have not yet divined, the reasons may indeed be legitimate - I don't know why. They instead waited, unfairly, until the update was made so that the largest possible disruption would be made, and then began this squabble. They knew what Bedford's reaction would be before they started, though now they feign innocence. Instead of removing the hook without consensus they should have had a quick discussion and let a decision be made rather than take matters into their own hands. No reprimand or action has been laid against them for these improper actions, which I think is terribly unfair in light of Bedford's punishment. That said, I think Bedford was not as polite as he should have been in dealing with this subject, but I think some his comments have been taken out of context - since no real explanation was given as to why the hook should be removed, what other option did he have except to guess that their actions were motivated because of their gender or other reasons? To be honest I would probably have made the same assessment, though I would no have said so... I make no judgments but only bring my point of view, I just believe that only one side of the story has been told here. That's all I have to say! Happy editing. :) Charles Edward 16:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That was my issue, the over reaction and poor method of dealing with Bedfor in the original DYK context andin Sceptres posting here is being overlooked and, as a result, condoned. Beam 16:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, you're prescribing rather serious charges without any apparent evidence. Do you have any evidence that editors were out to get Bedford? Do you have any evidence that editors waited until the update to make the largest possible disruption? Do you have any evidence that editors were aware Bedford would behave so poorly? If you have any, then please show it. If not I suggest you withdraw your claims. In all likelihood, what happened here is that no one who has significant concerns really noticed the hook until it was on the main page. Yes it would have been better if they had noticed before it got to the main page, and yes there is ample opportunity to do so before hand, but for something like DYK for which we have a large number per day and it's generally resonable to remove items if they are problematic, it's understandable if editors don't choose to monitor the page constantly. Personally, I agree a centralised discussion may have been best before the removal but DYK hooks only stay for around 6+ hours so there is only limited time for a discussion after one is added. More importantly, there is generally no real reason why a DYK hook has to be on in any particular instance so it's perfectly fine to remove an item for discussion and add it back if consensus is reached it's okay. (Yes the articles for DYK are supposed to be significantly updated or created in the past 5 days but I highly doubt anyone is going to reject a DYK hook simply because there was a discussion on it which pushed it past 5 days, that's a clear case of WP:IAR.) The key thing here which you seem to be missing is that from what I can tell, Bedford was the only one who acted unilaterally. If I read the above discussions write, the first editor who removed the item consulted one or more other admins before removing the hook. The subsequent editors (two different editors) were aware of the previous removals and may have consulted further before removing the items again. Bedford however was the only one who added the item back, and from what I can tell consulted no one who told him it was acceptable to unilaterally edit war the item back when there was disagreement. The simple fact is, when an admin is unable to understand it is inappropriate to unilaterally wheel war against multiple other admins to add something to a highly visible portion of wikipedia (the main page) something which you proposed in the first place, in a case when there isn't even any urgency (as I have already mentioned, discussion could have been held and the item added back at another stage if necessary) then they have no business being an admin. When the same person is further unable to understand that obeying the 3RR doesn't mean you aren't edit warring, that just further proves they are unfit to be an admin. When an admin doesn't understand that it is always necessary to WP:AGF and it is best to ask someone why they have taken an action if you don't understand, rather then making assumptions based on their gender or other personal traits (see WP:NPA) in an extremely offensive manner well then I just don't know what to say. (If you don't understand, that means his option was to initiate a discussion rather then wheel war while posting offensive messages.) Furthermore, anyone who can't understand that editors may legitimately disagree about something, and it may have nothing to do with their gender, or other personal traits (which as I have already mentioned, are rarely the relevant to the discussion per WP:NPA) shouldn't be an admin anyway. (There is no policy covering this one, simply common sense.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Jimmy, thank you very much for taking this action. I completely support your decision and I strongly believe it was in the best interest of the project and it has saved us from the inevitable drama-filled RfC or RfArb. Thank you. Sarah 17:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I question what you, and others thanking Jimbo for this action have to say about the poor and faithless actions of others that led to Bed's outburst and asshole actions? Beam 17:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've got to say, I fully support Jimbo's actions here, and I've already expressed my concern with how Bedford acted, but Beam is right in the respect that he was pushed into a corner. A quick discussion here about the hook, getting a consensus, would stopped any wheelwar that ocurred. I suspect there was discussion, but it looks to have been conducted off site, leading to the situation quickly escalating. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• The suggestion page's viewcount compared to the main page is like comparing a golf ball to the Death Star. Most editors view the main page several times every day. Pages like WP:ERRORS are specifically there to combat that difference. And again, point of order: this is not about the DYK hook at all. Bedford's remarks were unacceptable, even if they were provoked. And Beam, please, stop trolling. You're really getting on people's nerves. Sceptre 17:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I know it's not pleasant to have your actions pointed out as less than great but that doesn't mean it's trolling. I honestly hope that yourself and others consider how they could have acted in a different manner, which may have helped lessen the chance of Bedford reacting so poorly. Beam 17:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Sceptre, perception is everything. Someone who disagrees with you is not trolling. And also, I'm sure people could say that you're, likewise, getting on people's nerves. I think you handled the situation very dramatically myself; am I trolling for saying it? Mike H. Fierce! 17:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
    • It's not just this thread he's made a nuisance of himself. He was annoying people in the Tony thread last week. Sceptre 17:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
      • You continue to make ignorant comments, bordering on jerk comments. But I won't take offense, because it seems you're either actually trolling me, or are just unhappy that I have pointed out some truth about you. Beam 18:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support de-sysopping. I am generally not a fan of Jimbo taking direct action, and would have preferred that this was handled through other community mechanisms, but there were many uninvolved voices calling for resignation, so speeding up the process a bit seems fine. Bedford was way out of line, both for edit-warring on a protected page that was a direct feed into the Misplaced Pages Main Page, and also for this appalling off-wiki comment. --Elonka 17:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• Fully endorse the action taken. Good call. And yes, Beam, it's bordering on trolling - the behaviour by Bedford was totally, utterly, completely unacceptable regardless of the circumstances. I'm curious too as to why Sceptre keeps getting named, given his first comments on this matter was a couple of hours after most of the behaviour he's alleged to have provoked. Orderinchaos 17:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. Editors like Ryan agree that the actions of others, like Sceptre lead to this outburst. It's no excuse, but if editors that did act poorly and continue to deny that would take a second and think about it, it may lead to the aversion of such suck as seen enacted by Bedford. Beam 17:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any point where Ryan has named the editor concerned. Incidentally, after investigating Bedford's other edits, it seems he's been in at least one other edit war just this week, not even considering the present unrelated situation. Orderinchaos 17:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that any one editor on the other side to bedford was wrong - I just think there would have been a better way to handle the whole situation and that would have been to bring it to a noticeboard to discuss the hook. I may be wrong, but it looks like discussion took place off wiki here and it might have been better for that discussion to take place on-wiki - a quick on-wiki consensus could have saved a lot of the hassles we've seen later on. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• I endorse this. The behaviour of others had nothing to do with it. As an admin, Bedford said some amazingly snarky and disruptive things (to put it mildly) about editors with whom he had a content disagreement. I would have rathered that the community built up a consensus for this first but I have no meaningful worries about how Jimbo dealt with this and understand why he did it. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• The suggestion that Bedford was pushed into a corner here isn't supported. He made blog posts last September that, to me, reveal a deep (and the next word is not an exageration) misogyny, and a character that makes him unfit to be an admin. Please see User:Barneca/Sandboxen/Sandbox. The threat to stalk someone in real life, even if that person was (evidently) not on Misplaced Pages, is too chilling for words. If people were aware of that post at the time, his RFA would have been snow closed. The choice of hook was, in my opinion, not insulting but just lame. The edit warring to restore it was a mistake, but we all make mistakes; the way he responded to the situation was very concerning; the mindset behind this behavior, as seen in his blog posts, is off the wall unacceptable. To some extent I'm kicking the guy when he's down, so I'll stop now, but the idea that some group of militant feminists (and good lord, people, this is the 21st century, do we really still use this term??) conspired to desysop him is laughable. --barneca (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel this was an over-reaction based on political correctness. If there was a rule against "bra and panties" matches on Misplaced Pages DYK, I would not have posted it. Also, I only reverted twice, and both times I did it because I honestly felt it was appropriate. Look at the stereotyping against me in these series of novellas. In the times this took place, I wrote three new articles on Misplaced Pages; can others say the same. Is there any better term than "militant feminists", as Barneca put it, to describe the overraeaction? If people want to retract all around and apologize all the way around, I'll apologize too. I feel I was the only one to try to use AGF principles. And I never saw User:Durova/Request for comment/Bedford, so that should not be hold against me. A cooling down period was what was needed. If Jimbo does not rtract soon, I will go through Arbcom. And where on My Myspace blog do people get to say I stalk people? No wonder Conservpoedia was founded, if they got hit with the PC ness here.--Bedford 18:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I provided a link to the place where you threaten to stalk someone. I'd appreciate it if you would address that, instead of pretending you didn't say something you know you said. --barneca (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Political correctness isn't inherently wrong. All power to equality for minorities. It's when we buy African-Americanberries and sing about rainbow sheep that it gets out of hand. We're aiming for the former, not the latter. And please, cool your language. Your personal attacks have dug yourself into a hole, don't go so far that you hit the mantle. Sceptre 18:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Unless the could be shown to be a forgery and inconsistent with the editors other behavior, the editor's continued admin status became utterly untenable, so I fully support the direct action by Jimbo. This, indeed, is what trustees are for, when matters are clear but unnecessary disruption could take place if normal process ensues. I am expressing no opinion about blocking of this editor, beyond urging caution: if there is even grossly inappropriate behavior, clear warning would come first, unless an emergency exists, and the offsite comments, while relevant to admin status, are not normally relevant to editor blocks; I have not, however, been following this issue. As to the behavior of others, we do not punish. Bedford isn't being punished for reverting, nor should others be punished for reverting him. Bedford has the right to appeal to ArbComm, but I'd advise him against it. --Abd (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Possibly too dramatic, but IMHO necessary, escalation by Barneca

Having thought about this for a while, in my opinion the scary threats of stalking someone in real life shown in his blog post here, mean that his attitude may be incompatible with participation at all here, sysop or not. And again, I admit this post is likely not Misplaced Pages-related, but I still think it's valid to consider. I'm 100% behind the desysop; I'm only 95% sure about issuing a block, so I'd like comments from others about enforcing his exit from Misplaced Pages completely (indef block, ban, whatever mechanism we see fit). --barneca (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's be really clear about the date: that post is ten months old. Durova 18:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I believe I bolded that fact in the section above. But the mindset behind it seems to be consistent with his behavior over the last day or so. --barneca (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've taken a snapshot of that blog posting into webcitation - you can read it here. Given that this person has vowed to take his on-line activities into the real world, and personally visit people he's had disagreements with to harass them, I'm calling for Bedford to be community banned. This evidence, to me, is chilling in the extreme. To quote; "She would be best to avoid insinuations: I have sworn that anyone who brings up certain slanders about me will get a visit from me, and she's in an area I want to revisit.". While this does not relate directly to Misplaced Pages, AFAIK, and while I'm loath to consider other people's off-site behaviours on here (I'm a BADSITES regular), this instance is of something else altogether. This guy is a danger, IMO - Alison 18:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Alison. Stalkers are unwelcome on Misplaced Pages. I've seen how much the victims hurt. Sceptre 18:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! Endorse ban! Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:BAN#Coercion Attempts to coerce actions of users through threats of actions outside the Misplaced Pages processes, whether onsite or offsite, are grounds for immediate banning. Durova 18:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I oppose this - he's had his punishment for the day here and hopefully he will learn from it. A banning certainly isn't going to help the situation here. I'm not sure we should be suggesting a ban for a blog post from September - maybe Bedford could clarify exactly what he meant by that though, and hopefully retract it. Whilst his recent comments on his blog were seriously attacking, they don't merit a perma ban from this site. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Err, this isn't about punishment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, precisely why I oppose this. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. People usually support such measures that prevent harm - they support measures that are not about punishment. Yet, here you're saying you oppose it because it isn't about punishment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

What? I'm saying I don't support this because it's punishment, I don't see it as preventative in the slightest. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm disturbed that you don't. In any case, Barneca has summed the main crux of it here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. Has he ever retracted it? Durova 18:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I would hope he would seriously consider it, because it's clearly upset a lot of people here. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I started reading this thread last night hoping my own DYK from last week had set the wrong tone, and supposing I'd put in a good word for the fellow and quell the drama. The farther I read, the more his own words disappointed. When someone goes this far, is there really an expiration date if it's never been withdrawn? I pose that question seriously; not sure what call to make here--leaning toward caution. Durova 18:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my point that this was 10 months old, and I strongly believe we shouldn't be banning people for comments they made on a myspace blog such a long time ago. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've asked him for a retraction and clarification, and offered to support him if he does. Durova 18:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Durova - I think this would be the best outcome all round. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

After reading here along with Bedford's latest post above, I began thinking about blocking him for harassment and disruption. His many editorial contributions don't trump these worries and moreover, a review of those contributions might be worthwhile. I support a community ban. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Would we ban, say, Jeffrey Dahmer if he had as many DYKs and well-deserved Barnstars as Beford does? I'm assuming we would once we we found out he was Jeffrey Dahmer. I mean, if I were in charge, I might be inclined to allow Dahmer to edit (from prison, of course), as long as he didn't edit disruptively and was stayed away from cannibalism-related articles. Although I don't pretend to be familiar or really have a strong opinion about this lovely character, I find that bad people don't necessarily make bad edits, and vice versa.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There is precedent for banning stalkers, productive or not. Sceptre 18:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not whether it's in our best interest to do without his contributions. The problem is the chilling effect this has on others in a collaborative effort. He has threatened people he disagrees with with a real-life confrontation. That being the case, no matter how much good content he's contributed, he should not be here. There are some people who's contributions are so stellar that we (or some of us) overlook their occasional outburst. But I can't think of anyone else who has threatened to stalk someone in real life who's been given a similar pass because of their good article work. --barneca (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait, what? Beam 18:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is it that Bedford has been desysopped for the language he used, but User:JzG has not not been desysopped for blatantly sexist slurs like "cunt" and "twat"? Kelly 18:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you're not doing much to shake my belief that you hold grudges. Those posts are one year old and two year old respectively. If (judging from the lack of more recent evidence) such comments are no longer being made, you seem to be stirring for the sake of it... WJBscribe (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where you got your belief, but how can I be "hold(ing) a grudge" when I wasn't even around back then, and I haven't had a dispute with JzG anyway? The point was that apparently different standards apply to different people. Kelly 19:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is in a different league now, Kelly. We're talking about old but never-retracted insinuations of real world stalking and violence. Not to be confused with name calling. Durova 18:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's creepy. Consider me a big fan of the desysopping, based on that. Ugh. Kelly 18:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but let's stay focussed. This is about Bedford and a proposed ban - not JzG or Kelly Or WJBscribe, or their views on a separate matter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, my dear, the asnwer is that JzG does "a lot of good work" for the encyclopedia. Bedford, clearly, does not. In all seriousness, though, it's not a great comparison. I can't remember the last time Guy went on Chapman Central and suggested that he was going to go to over someone's house and, um, kill them.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you for real? It was okay for JzG to use words like "cunt" because "he did good work for the encyclopedia"? Just because there wasn't a death threat in there doesn't make the words any less nasty. I can't believe you are honestly defending such usages of words either. Mike H. Fierce! 19:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've left a warning for Bedford on his talk page about the stalking threat. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The comment was grossly inappropriate. Ten months ago. I don't read it as a threat, as such, beyond a kind of threat like this: "You are grossly uncivil, I'd like to see if you'd be this way face-to-face." Problem is, people often avoid incivility face-to-face because it can arouse violent reactions, so there is, in fact, a possible implicit threat there, whether he intended it or not. Is there any ongoing threat? What is the most recent example of what could be considered a threat to stalk? (Again, I don't see that as a threat to stalk, as such, in that stalking represents repeated behavior. A single phone call wouldn't be "stalking," though it could still be wildly inappropriate. But he didn't make that phone call, didn't knock on that door. I see no grounds for emergency action, i.e., immediate block. Were he really inclined to act in a dangerous way, in any case, blocking him would not prevent such, and might actually increase the risk (though if we knew that for sure, I'd say we'd block anyway, but that's another story). The safest thing to do, with all concerned, is to treat Bedford fairly. He's desysopped for very clear reasons, which are not punitive but protective. Blocking him does not follow, and, if based on these old comments, would clearly be punitive. --Abd (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I didn't block him, but rather asked him to let us know what it means. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That's right. The warning was appropriate, and, given the context and the flap, necessary. --Abd (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• I absolutely disagree that a block now would be punitive. It would be preventative, in the sense of preventing him from "cautioning" another user about a "visit". The "preventative, not punitive" card his now been played incorrectly in so many venues that I think it has become, essentially, meaningless. And if this was an isolated post from 10 months ago, I wouldn't be here. It's because it is echoed in his posts yesterday and today that I think it's fair game. --barneca (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You cannot prevent him from commenting. Period. If he's going to do it, he's going to to it, if he has to go to a public library, or whatever, he will. If the behavior was yesterday, show that, not the ten-months old behavior. Show it all in an RfC, if that is deemed necessary. He's been warned, and he it should really be made clear to him that his comments and actions, on and off-wiki, have taken him to the edge. If he stops, slows down, starts to listen to his friends and those trying to help him, he can keep from jumping off that cliff. Otherwise ... he will join the ranks of those who have refused to listen, who have blamed others for what they brought on themselves. He's an experienced editor, it's a shame about his sysop bit but that was unavoidable for the time being, and I hope he'll listen. What I'm clearly opposed to here is an immediate ban. I think it's worth considering, but not as an emergency. Treating it as an emergency, if there really is any risk of dangerous behavior, could make it worse. So I'm coming at this from two different directions, both protective. --Abd (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• While I understand how some people feel about the situation given the comment and his recent unfortunate behaviour I am opposed to a long term block at the current time. I just don't think a 10 month old message from outside wikipedia is itself enough to take action so unless he continues to suggest he wants to confront editors IRL it's simply not enough. As for what to do, I would suggest Bedford refrain from editing wikipedia for a few days and would suggest he think very carefully before making any comments, either here or elsewhere. It appears to me he was and perhaps is, in a rather poor mood and so may not be able to put aside the way he current feels which is liable to make things worse for him. Indeed I would even suggest a short block, perhaps 3 days - 7 days to give him time to calm down with the clear message that the block is intended to give him time to cool down, the strong suggestion he does not talk about this on any external sites and the clear understanding no decision will be made on his future on wikipedia without him being given the chance to respond. Nil Einne (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait for Bedford's response

Bedford's most recent post was this, and although it's not all I'd hope for it's a step in the appropriate direction. I've asked him to retract the old blog post, and offered to support the continuation of his editing privileges if he does. Those of you who know certain matters I've gone public about offsite are aware that's no small offer. I'll discuss via e-mail if necessary (with a gmail account it's pretty safe to do so). So let's turn down the heat a bit and see whether Bedford is agreeable; this isn't a minute-by-minute emergency. With respect, Durova 19:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Even if he didn't respond I don't see any need for punishment or banishment. Desysoping is pretty devastating, that's enough for now. Beam 19:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It was not about Misplaced Pages; its about an issue that started in May 2001, that I have had to deal with ever since. The story is too long to post here, but I will on the blog. Funny, I thought off-Misplaced Pages comments weren't supposed to be used against others? Anyways, my feelings will become clear shortly on why I would type such a thing, and any reasonable person could understand where I was coming from..--Bedford 19:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Oo-kay. None of us here know the back-story to this and we only have your comments to go on. If you could explain a bit, that might go some way towards providing context - Alison 19:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats may be acted upon whether posted on- or off-wiki, so why would something that (to my eye) is seemingly a threat of physical violence or at the very least an in-person confrontation not be? The same chilling effect against on-wiki action is present. Kylu (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, I think we're waiting for him to either take it back or say he didn't mean it as stalking. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Per the coercion clause in the banning policy, which I quoted above, it is bannable. The instance is old and it appears it was never acted upon, so I'm prepared to extend the benefit of the doubt. Durova 20:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Calling Bedford a "misogynist" is a flat-out lie, and Jimbo had no legitimate authority to do what he did here. I don't like black people who dress and act like hooligans—not because they're black but because they dress and act like hooligans. Them being black has nothing to do with it. Similarly, Bedford doesn't like (and frankly, neither do I) women who get upset about something that's totally stupid to get upset about it—not because they're women but because they're people who get upset about something that's totally stupid to get upset about it. That they were women had nothing to do it; it just so happens that it was women acting absurdly in this instance. And his comments can only have been directed at those particular types of women, not women in general, and it's totally disingenuous to say they were. And you know what? The DYK was already approved; they had no business removing it just because they personally didn't like it. Their sensitivities do not override consensus. As for his sysop bit, well, the community giveth, and only the community can legitimately taketh away. Neither Mr. Wales nor the illegitimate Arbitrary Committee has any legitimate authority to either de-sysop someone or to dictate the terms under which he can be "allowed" to be re-sysopped. That authority, like all other, rests solely with the community. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I posted the long novella. I just wished I could have used the typing to build another article for Misplaced Pages, and not having to defend myself. As I type this, I feel there is something else I must add, so I'll post a supplement to the blog shortly, but the bulk is there.--Bedford 20:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Howard Gotlieb Archival Research Center, yet again

That IP address User:128.197.130.249 who just kept mass-adding a sentence to a lot of biographies claiming that that person's papers were at the Howard Gotlieb Archival Research Center was blocked after attempts to get him/her to stop and discuss it has gone back to just readding them all again after the block expired. Still no response on the talk page. I don't know if this is just a bot or a stubborn person ignoring us or a person who somehow doesn't see the notice that there's a message waiting for them. They may need stronger blocking, and a roll back of edits or something. Most of all some sort of two way communication to get them to understand why this isn't appropriate would be nice. DreamGuy (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the current edits -- I believe the old ones have already been reverted by various editors.

I've had some luck in the past, when some BU IPs were vandalizing my user page, in contacting the SysOp at BU. They never responded, but the vandalism stopped. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 19:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I am an administrator in the office in question, and this controversy has just been brought to my attention. Would someone please direct me on how to initiate the process for opening a dialogue on these problems and concerns? Thank you. Sdnoel (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You should probably look at this for beginners. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 20:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

And this Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 20:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that information. I will confer with the Director on this matter. We are, in fact, attempting to inform researchers that the archival collections of these individuals are housed at Boston University. We report our holdings to the National Union Catalog of Manuscript Collections, but not all researchers go first to the Library of Congress; many of them come to Misplaced Pages. We are a resource for researchers, and our goal is simply to help them to find us. Boston University may not be the first place a researcher would look for the papers of, say, David Halberstam or Oriana Fallaci because neither attended Boston University. Neither did Gene Kelly, Fred Astaire or Bette Davis, but we hold those collections as well! Our only goal is to assist researchers in their work, but apparently those who manage these pages find the simple edit we seek to add is not sufficiently detailed. We wanted to direct researchers to Boston University without adding incredibly detailed listings and overwhelming each entry. Isaac Asmiov’s collection is several hundred boxes large, and the inventory is several hundred pages, for example. UltraExactZZ made use of our “Notable Figures” database to check facts. This database contains information on important correspondence found throughout the various collections, but is not an inventory of each specific collection. For example, we do not have a Tennessee Williams Collection, but there are several collections which do contain TW correspondence, and the Notable Figures database will help a researcher to discover which collections they are contained in. The two or three letters he finds under “Michael Denison” are only those listed in other collections; Denison’s collection is far larger. Another admin, J.delanoy, indicates that it would be physically impossible for us to house all of these collections. It is very possible; we hold the papers of nearly 2000 individuals in over 7 miles of storage space (as calculated by linear feet). These are “good faith” edits, but I understand the community does not find them sufficiently detailed. We appreciate the work involved with maintaining the standards of Misplaced Pages, and will have to consider how to move forward. Any suggestions would be welcome. With nearly 2000 collections, adding detailed listings is simply not an option considering the resources we have to make such entries. Perhaps, as suggested above, adding HGARC as an “external link” might be the most appropriate way to proceed. I appreciate your time. The volunteer who was adding these listings for us was in no way attempting anything malicious. Thank again for taking the time to educate me in this medium. I hope we can find a way to make this work and get the information on our holdings to the people who need it.Sdnoel (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Misplaced Pages isn't a place to advertise your paper storage company. You should try the yellow pages. Beam 18:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That is an extraordinarily rude comment. The person is asking for assistance, it should be offered, within what our guidelines and policies allow. Responses like this are part of the reason I find, talking with academics and others, that Misplaced Pages sometimes has an extraordinarily poor reputation. --Abd (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you took it that way. Just for you, here goes:

Mr Sdnoel: Although it may be helpful to hardcore researches that you house the papers on a specific topic, that alone does not allow for it to be included in these articles. If an article on someone already discusses these papers you house (whether specifically the papers being in your facility or not) than adding that "These papers (or a copy of) are currently stored/available at *****." may be appropriate. But it can't be a wholesale addition of that info to every article. I recommend bringing this fact to the talk pages of each article respectively, and seeing if such an inclusion would be accepted by consensus. Beam 19:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Whatever is going on here, it doesn't look like vandalism. There may be, indeed, material appropriate for inclusion in some articles, and the problem was that material was being mass-added, by an IP editor, which looked like vandalism or spamming. For starters, a registered account should be used, and a few references added initially, to work out what is acceptable and what is not. Then, once that is done, and assuming that appropriate standards are developed, mass-adding could become possible, probably not by someone affiliated with the Center, to avoid conflict of interest. Beam, that was better, and, in fact, the solution Beam suggests is similar to mine. I.e., at least, it starts with single edits and a finding of consensus. --Abd (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There is another possibility. I see that we have a section on this Center: Mugar Memorial Library#Howard Gotlieb Archival Research Center. A category could be created for persons whose papers are archived there, and this category could indeed be mass added. Something like Category:Papers archived at Howard Gotlieb Archival Research Center. This would, in fact, be the most efficient way of noting this in a biography. And the same could be done for other archives. None of this requires administrative action, this incident report should be closed.--Abd (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Sehend1

Sehend1 (talk · contribs)

I recently blocked Sehend1 for a week for his endless battleground-style edit warring without discussion. You will notice from looking at his contributions that 90% of his edits are reverts, while he has only made a total of three comments to a talk page (ever). I initially warned him but he responded by continuing his reverting campaign and making personal attacks on his talk page in which he said "Some user worried why i monitor Azerbaijani-related articles and revert destructive changes specially two enemies of Azeris: Kurds whom without knowing anything about history of Azerbaijan and Atropatane tries to force people that everywhere is Kurdistan." I explained to him here that he should read up on several of Misplaced Pages's policies most notably WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. Instead, he left a message on my talk page with an IP titlted "KhoiKhoi is a Kurd", in which he said:

I don't say this story to you as i am sure you are brain washed kurd and will not affect you. i am saying this to open mind users.

you can call me whatever you like, editing war, POV etc.

simply i don't care. if you have power to block one IP i will come with another one. I am very very serious to defend Azerbaijan in virtual war started by Kurds and Persians againt Azeris and some Europeans or Americans are interested to slightly help them, but who cares from Azeris, we are very strong people with very high self confidence.

In his message to me, he essentially promised to continue his reverting campaign at all costs. Should we tolerate this type of behavior at Misplaced Pages? I'm wondering if this warrants and indefinite block, as he clearly isn't here to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. What do others think? Khoikhoi 20:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall some sort of arbitration-committee restriction on articles in this area? That might be a first step. If it continues, I'd absolutely Concur with a block. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 20:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement. However, I don't know whether the remedies apply only to the Armenia-Azerbaijan articles or if they apply to all articles in the general area (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iraq (Kurdistan), Iran, Georgia, southern Caucasus). —Kurykh 21:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it initially included a much broader range of topics, but this was later amended. I could be wrong however. See this for example. The user in question (Sehend1) has been mainly edit warring in Iran-related articles, so I don't think it is covered in this case AFAIK. Khoikhoi 21:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the comment, it looks like I'm going to have to reset Sehend's block as he's currently evading it. Sigh. Khoikhoi 22:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/FalconPunch2

I wonder if anyone would care to step in and examine Special:Contributions/FalconPunch2? The user has been involved in edit wars in the fairly recent past, but no warnings or actions were taken. At this point, all of his additions have been reverted as simply WP:OR or not WP:V. I've placed a note on the users talk page, and need to step back, and unfortunately there's no other place for me to bring this up. The 3RR notice board won't work, since I'm not risking an edit war myself, so we won't even get to that point. Advice? Intervention? Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Notify him of this ANi. Beam 03:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yngvarr, have you notified him of your personal complaints that you lobbied in front of this notice board? Beam 19:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Grawp vandalising Commons

See http://commons.wikimedia.org/search/?title=Image:Lundeunge.jpg - apparently a vandalised template, though I'm having trouble working out where the vandalism has been done. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, it seems to have been fixed now. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a persistent and consistent vandalism; I've seen it maybe half-a-dozen times in the month or so I've been patrolling. is it the same vandal? also, would it be possible to write a bot to watch for it and snip it (and the IP that posts it) as soon as it pops in? --Ludwigs2 23:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to suspect that some of these moves are being done by copycats, some are targeting specific targets more than once, Grawp constantly jumps to different topics. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

well, the Grawp thing usually aims at templates (which would limit its range of targets), and it's a very elaborate bit of code, so it must be pre-fab and might be passed around between different vandals... it would be nice if we had some data on how often and where it pops up, and maybe from where, to see if we can localize the region it comes from. any admins bored enough to want to do the grunt work?  :-D --Ludwigs2 04:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

well, it's tough to say where all these trolls are coming from. nevertheless, Each of us should Deny them recognition. –xeno (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(Comment removed) -Jéské 18:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Paranoid much? Sounds like Grawp has already won if this is the mentality that you all revert to. Chunkiermunky (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Denying him recognition, or throwing accusations towards a known troll site that has a running beef with us (I have spake with Xeno since; it's not who I thought it was vandalizing Commons; thus, comment above removed)? In either case, we are understandably paranoid - he's recently taken to email bombing people, hoping he hasn't found someone who's heard of a spam filter. -Jéské 18:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley and Lawrence Solomon

• Lawrence Solomon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Lawrence Solomon has criticized, in the press, the actions of User:William M. Connolley in regards to articles on the subject of global warming. (The argument has echoed to other places, including the media blog of the American CBS network. Connelley Connolley has nonetheless continued to edit the biographical article on Solomon, despite being asked to leave it to others because of the obvious conflict of interest. Request outside opinions. Kelly 23:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - apparently a similar issue regarding this user has been discussed here before. Kelly 23:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You can't spell my name. Have another go William M. Connolley (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

<undent>I've moved the conversation here due to the possibility of damage to Misplaced Pages's reputation. We don't need overt battles with the press over ownership of critics' articles by the Wikipedians they are criticizing. I'm just looking for consensus that WMC shouldn't be the person editing Solomon's article. Kelly 23:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've checked the last few edits (and there are only a few in the last several weeks), and see no sign of problematic editing. In particular, with such a low number of edits the claim of "ownership" is absurd. Moreover, if we allow any journalist to simply get rid of critical voices on Misplaced Pages by writing an article on the critics, we will run into problems with WP:NPOV immediately. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, doesn't this open up the possibility of people who have articles about them being able to control, to a certain extent, who edits the article? Mr. X doesn't like what Editor Y has written about him, and would prefer Editor Z, so he criticizes Editor Y to the press and all of a sudden Editor Z's input is no longer balanced by Editor Y. Why Misplaced Pages want to hand over that kind of influence? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 00:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The edits that Connolley has made to that article so far seem fair and uncontroversial. As long as it stays that way there shouldn't be much of a problem. Lawrence Solomon may think differently about it, but that's up to him. Cla68 (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - By way of full disclosure I will point out up front that WMC and I have had our differences of opinion in the past which had become heated. Given that, I would merely point out the following:

• and have already been reverted, the first by me and the second by User:Oren0.
• My reversion of his first edit merely brought the Lawrence Solomon article into conformance with the The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud article where we had extensive discussion, , and had already worked out a consensus wording, .
• WMC's response was to try and start up the same discussion in the Lawrence Solomon article on the same issue as he had in the deniers article.
• I would hope that WMC would see fit to refrain from editing either of the above two articles given the criticism he has received in the press on this very topic, i.e. using the BLPs of his enemies as a forum. I would submit that whether or not that is even true, if he wishes to avoid even the hint of impropriety this particular BLP would be one to avoid for what should be obvious reasons, lest he prove that criticism correct.
• As you are all aware WMC has many friends and there are many editors who share his views in these areas. Those editors will be more than capable of defending those viewpoints without the obvious entanglements that WMC faces or the potential damage that might result to Misplaced Pages.

Take these observations for what they are worth and decide for yourself whether WMC is being controversial in his editing of these articles and whether he has a WP:COI in this case. --GoRight (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Having just reviewed WP:COI in some detail, the opening sentence provides a reasonable summary: "COI editing involves contributing to Misplaced Pages in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups." So, if we are to decide whether a WP:COI exists in this case the first question to answer would be, does WMC have any self interests with respect to editing the BLP for Solomon and/or The Deniers? I think that the allegation of WP:COI here boils done to the following:

1. Lawrence Solomon, rightly or wrongly, has publicly written about the conduct of WMC here at Misplaced Pages in a strongly negative manner, see .
2. It is, therefore, in WMC's own self-interest for Lawrence Solomon and his works to be discredited because this will cast doubt on his accusations regarding WMC.
3. WMC has on several occasions made disparaging remarks regarding Lawrence Solomon's credibility here on wikipedia, see , , , as well as on his personal blog, see and .

I will not offer any opinion here. I leave it to others to weigh this information accordingly and determine whether these issues and WMC's conduct rise to the level of WP:COI. --GoRight (talk) 04:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I will offer an opinion here. This is not a correct application of policy. What if someone notable makes a public statement abusing collectively everyone who edits Misplaced Pages: can none of us then edit their article? You propose anyone with a blog can CHOOSE who is eligible to edit the article about them just by attacking everyone else. Why don't we stop this sort of silly time waste and get on with what matters, like the vandalism problems etc.?--BozMo talk 06:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

In response to your question: If I beat the shit out of him for his comments about us 'pedians than yes, I should not edit his article. Beam 19:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not weighing in one way or the other. I am only offering up evidence for consideration by others who can be more objective than myself. If this evidence amounts to nothing then simply ignore it.

On the narrow issue of this having an effect on Misplaced Pages's ability to offer objective criticism, if the criticism in question is only supportable by one individual (or a small handful) I would question whether that criticism belongs in the encyclopedia in the first place. At that point it begins to look very much like someone (or a small group) using the encyclopedia as a forum (basically Solomon's point) rather than it being truly objective criticism. The encyclopedia has many voices and we should rely on them all, not just a few. I very much doubt that those supporting the consensus view are so limited in number as to worry that the elimination of a single voice on a couple of pages is going to cripple their ability to offer criticism. They are, after all, the overwhelming majority as we keep hearing. --GoRight (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Violation of the guidelines for speedy deletion

This morning, after I created the article about the Open Web Foundation, I was surprised that seven (yes 7) minutes later the article was already nominated for speedy deletion for an alleged, unverified, copyright violation. This despite a clear guideline in the criteria for speedy deletion stating that "Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, ...". No attempt was made by the administrator to check if the article could be improved as he acted mechanically over a bot indication that their MAY contain a copyright violation.

I then had to engage in a race to avoid the speedy deletion by tagging the article with a "hangon" tag, editing the article and providing proper explanation in the talk page.

Two hours later, another administrator changed the speedy deletion tag for another one, still calling for speedy deletion but for another reason. This time because the article did not "indicate the importance or significance of the subject". If this second administrator had spent less than a minute checking the relevance of the subject, they would have found lots of reliable sources. Therefore this second nomination was also violating Misplaced Pages guidelines.

Finally after other edits from myself and another generous contributor who added some references, a third administrator accepted to remove the speedy deletion tag entirely.

My point here is that at no time did the first two administrators consider they were violating their own guidelines of considering whether the article could be improved before nominating it for speedy deletion.

During this process we have exchanged a lot of messages on the discussion page of the article instead of improving the content of the article. A big waste of time for nothing because the cops@wikipedia won't consider they could have been violating their own guidelines and nobody will blame them for that. Uiteoi (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

If an organization fails our notability guidelines for inclusion, it will be deleted after a discussion about whether it should be deleted. The fast track to being deleted, which you have experienced, involves summarily deleting an article when it doesn't state why it's important. The simple way to avoid this is to state why the organization is important. Simply existing is insufficient rationale for notability. If you want to contest a deletion, please consider taking your concerns to deletion review. --slakr 00:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

My point is that no administrator is willing to consider whether the article could have been improved per the guidelines for speedy deletion. So either change the guidelines or notify administrators to not be overzealous and check if the article can be improved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uiteoi (talk • contribs) 00:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a short article about a new org and it was speedy deleted once as blatant advertising (Misplaced Pages gets a lot of org spam). I wouldn't assume the admin was thoughtless. If there is no meaningful assertion of importance, an experienced editor is likely to think there is nothing to improve. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is your point? There is no pending deletion now that the problems seem to have been fixed. The article wasn't deleted, no harm done, we can't unspill the milk. Deletion taggings can be frustrating... but it's a necessary system to make sure the stuff that needs to be deleted does get deleted. --Rividian (talk) 00:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, to correct your misunderstanding, the first two people you mention were not administrators - administrators have the ability to delete articles, so would not have needed to tag them. Fritzpoll (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Admins should not delete things on sight. They should tag them and let someone else look at it before it goes, just like everyone else. The more eyes the better. --Masamage ♫ 00:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Admins will add speedy tags so that another admin can concur with the suggestion. Admins are not perfect. We don't always delete on sight. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh I know, I mostly wanted to point out that if they were admins, this would have been a more obvious violation of policy, but I didn't word it well. The important correction is that the taggers were not admins. Fritzpoll (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Understandable complaints. The trouble is there's a lot of work to do on improving the encyclopedia, and so people frequently do hurry with stuff like this when they believe it to be uncontroversial. The good news is that a deletion of an article can be undone just as easily as anything else--it only takes two or three clicks. So even when people are wrongfully cavalier, you can always get a deletion review as Slakr stated and discuss the article's merits even when it's gone. Meanwhile, no harm seems to have been done; we just all need to be patient with each other.

The next thing to do, as Slakr said, is to add something to the article about the Foundation's notability. As the article's creator, this burden lies with you, and if you don't do it soon, someone else will probably try to speedy it. I would help, but I don't know anything about the subject matter, and a brief google search doesn't reveal a lot of notability. It's of course possible that I'm missing it, but I'm leaving the house soon and don't want to put too much time in. So please add what you know, or if you like, we can move it into your user-space to work it up to speed before putting it back in the encyclopedia-proper. --Masamage ♫ 00:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• This has been talked to death at the article talkpage. There's really no administrator action necessary here, that I can see. He's assuming terrible faith of the both the initial tagger and the deleting admin. This has also been explained to him at the talkpage. I don't know what else can be done for this user. He seems to be wanting to extract a pound of flesh from the tagger and the deleting admin, but I just don't see any actionable mistakes on their part. S. Dean Jameson 00:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The harm done is that we are now spending more time defending edits rather that contributing. This is happening more than ever. I am really tired of this. If these users were not administrators I don't understand why administrators can't consider that nonetheless there was indeed a violation of the guidelines for speedy deletion. Feel free to delete the article, or improve it yourself, I will no longer contribute to this bureaucracy. Uiteoi (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

So long! Tan ǀ 39 01:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You are the one who brought this to this noticeboard... the deletion tags were already gone and resolved. Sometimes articles get tagged for deletion... it seems as if you wanted to sanction everyone involved. That's just not practical... people tag articles, sometimes the tagging ends up being unwarranted... but really it's just water under the bridge in the long run of Misplaced Pages. We do not really sanction people based on one incident that didn't do any actual harm. --Rividian (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

-undent-

This form of behaviour is what I refer to as 'shit and run'; unless used on an article that obviously have no merits, it is extremely rude, especially when done to a new article. People who hang over recent changes like vultures so they can quickly slap speedy or prod tags on any articles that do not spring fully grown from the forehead of Athena are the worst type of editor. Jtrainor (talk) 04:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the first speedy tag was perfectly fine. It was for G12, blatant copyright infringement, as CorenSearchBot (talk · contribs) correctly detected the article to substantially be a copy of content from . Notability or the lack of an assertion of it has nothing to do with it. It is you, Jtrainor, who are rude in labeling routine attention to copyright issues as "shit and run". The copyvio is still in the article, which should be speedily deleted by the administrator closing this discussion as resolved. The second speedy tag was also correct under A7 for lack of assertion of notability, although the tagging admin might just as well have deleted the article. We are not a blog; people who write articles must expect them to be speedily deleted if the articles are not much more than a few sentences copied from teh interwebz.  Sandstein  07:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

What an appalling example of bad faith. I am referring to Jtrainor's comments above. Corvus cornix_talk 07:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

What needs to happen is that wikipedia administrators, and would be administrators, need to be less hasty at slamming these tags in violation of Misplaced Pages guidelines. It is way too easy to slam these tags while someone is actually working on a new edit or article. As for the so-called copyright violation, it was maybe an improper citation of an extract of the charter of a public non-profit organization. Instead of slamming these tags, there are other ways, which in many case would be more appropriate, such as writing on the discussion page or to the (non-anonymous) user. You, the administrators, need to work on facilitating the work of contributors, while helping them provide content complying with wikipedia guidelines. Uiteoi (talk) 08:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that as the editor (not administrator) who originally tagged the article for speedy deletion, I would have appreciated being informed of this action taking place. I originally raised the speedy deletion as the material was a direct copy of text on this site. It also read as advertising, and for a day old organisation I felt that it would be difficult to prove notability (I'm constantly reminded that we don't report news). I considered the merits of the article, as I do with all before tagging them for speedy deletion. I then attempted to engage with the editor concerned, both on my talkpage and the article's talkpage. I am concerned that the original article creator seems to be fixated upon process failings when the process worked as intended, and instead disregards the fact that he introduced copyrighted material. I am also concerned that he has ignored good-faith attempts by myself and ohers to help him create better articles, and instead has focused on this singular purpose. If my action was incorrect, please let me know, however I feel I acted carefully and in good faith. Many thanks, Gazimoff_{(mentor/review)} 09:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've looked carefully, and I agree with Gazimoff's statement above. It is true that editors and admins should always act in good faith, but it is clear that Gazimoff followed this during the talk page discussion. There are no grounds for admin action here. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not want retaliation against any specific user and I fully understand that we all make mistakes, and I certainly did make some mistakes. Maybe this was not the right place to voice my complaint but I did not find any other place and was directed here by an administrator. What I would have liked was 1) an acknowledgment by administrators that the guidelines for nomination of speedy deletions had been violated and 2) to study in good faith, how we could make wikipedia a better place for helping and rewarding contributors contribute instead of hastily slamming tags at them. --Uiteoi (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that they weren't violated. None of the list of actions suggested by the policy as being preferable to deletion could be performed here, and since there was no earlier, non-copyright violating article to restore, deletion via the same guidelines you are talking about was an appropriate suggestion. Once you had made some corrections, presumably removing the copyright violation, another editor reviewed the article and found that there were further guidelines to be followed - given that you had corrected the article, it would not be unreasonable to assume that an assertion to notability would have already been made. All you had to do was add the assertion to notability, then ask the tagging editor to remove it, or rely on the administrator who would have read the article and removed the tag after reading the assertion.

So, as far as I can see, no guidelines were violated. For your other suggestion, perhaps going and talking to the folks over at new page patrol would be worthwhile, or amending the policy on speedy deletion by talking to editors on that page to add some kind of rule on allowing time for articles to be built. I hope this helps Fritzpoll (talk) 10:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

My understanding, following the review of this matter and a brief look at the article in question, is that someone created an article that was in violation of several Misplaced Pages tenets - and is complaining that instead of acting within the guidelines (which they did, since a bot recognised the same text as being on a site with a copyright logo at the bottom), the reviewers should have "improved" the content? I am frankly amazed at such a condescending attitude. It is the writer/creators responsibility to provide content that falls within the encyclopedia's guidelines, to be familiar with the rules and guidelines, and to only copy material that is subject to public domain status. All these requirements are indeed listed in the editing window (and from memory, is even more apparent when creating an article), so the author has no ground to complain - and to wikilawyer over the wording of the deletion tagging guideline when no regard has been taken of the editing rules surpasses even arrogance. All this for an article for a day (or so) old company. Now, if I was an abusive sysop I would hike over the article and delete it as non-notable, as the basis of notability is not "potential" but effect, but I shall allow other contributors make that value judgement. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Colbert vandalism

According to a friend of mine from college who works on the Report, Steven Colbert has discovered that any article he mentions on Misplaced Pages is immediately locked. Consequently, they are going to do a bit on Monday where he reads a list of articles to see how many viewers can get to them before they are locked. Appearently the joke is to say that each thing is not really that thing, but really something else. For example, aardvark is not really an animal, its a hard coating on the outside of a tree. They continue revising the script right up until they tape the show so the list may change by Monday evening, but as of now it is as follows:

• Aardvark
• Bulgaria
• Charlie Chaplan
• Don King
• Elephants (yes we've seen this one before)
• Frank Lloyd Wright
• Gilgamesh
• Hoisin sauce
• Italy
• John McCain
• Kremlin
• Leopold Kronecker
• Marrakesh
• Niigata
• Orcas
• Polo
• Quebec
• Randolph Carter
• Silver
• Tarantella
• Uganda
• Victor Victoria
• Winnipeg
• Xenon
• Yellow Sea -- I can only imagine what this one is
• Zwide

Just thought you guys should have a heads up. -Anon colbert watcher (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Funny guy. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the list--we don't protect articles preemptively, but we'll keep an eye on the Report. --jonny-mt 03:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

We have protected articles pre-emptively for Colbert in the past. I fielded a specific request from Jimbo prior to one of his appearances to lock a few. for instance. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Ya get the feeling Colbert is not taking wikipedia seriously? Baseball Bugs 04:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Phil, while I think your preemptive protection back then was right, I also have to agree with Jonny now. While this anon's warning is good to have, any action before "air" (that is to say, taping) could be used against us. It's kind of a live grenade, in fact. Anything we do or do not do proactively, as well as anything vandals might do proactively, could rebound. I think letting it go and keeping our eyes open is not only the safest, but least show-worthy thing we could do. --InkSplotch (talk) 04:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

What is the wikipedia policy, if any, regarding action to take, if any, when there is knowledge of impending vandalism? Baseball Bugs 04:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:IAR? I suggest someone watch the show and report back here. John Reaves 05:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

maybe we should bite back. whatever words Colbert ends up using on his show, let's work them into his article - for instance, if he mentions 'aardvark', I think we should edit in some scandalous information about his pet aardvark Humphrey. that'll teach him to mess with wikipedia...  ;-) --Ludwigs2 04:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

lol I completey agre. The only way to fight and exortation of violence is to vgiorously violate WP:BLP as oftne as we can :D

w/re: Bugs's quesiton, if there is soid proof of impending vadliams, (as opposed to a threat by a user or forum), i think that an admin might watch out for that article. we dont want to wind up locking down a whole article just because omeone MIGHT mention it and oter people MIGHT come and vandalism it; we want to respond to actual evidnece of malfeasance force. Smith Jones (talk) 04:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Fuck that guy is funny. I suggest we let the articles go haywire for a couple days till they get bored, then we revert back to the good version and carry on. Lets not feed the really funny trolls. And to the fella who suggested Colbert was not taking Misplaced Pages seriously, I suggest that he only mocks serious subjects. Chillum 04:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there are enough administrators who are also Colbert fans that they will react accordingly when they have to. Gary King (talk) 05:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

And subjects that take themselves seriously while having major failings that he can use to show hypocrisy. Like Misplaced Pages. ThuranX (talk) 05:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that the show is taped ahead of time, I doubt there's much to worry about. -- Ned Scott 05:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, to float an idea that popped into mind: why not use this opportunity to give reversion flagging a trial run? All we need is the devs to turn it on temporarily (it's already installed and in use on the German Misplaced Pages), and then an admin to go flag the current versions as stable, and set stable versions to display for those articles. Then people can vandalize to their hearts' content, and it won't show up to the general public. --Slowking Man (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Now there's a nice idea. Enable it as a trial run for a couple of days, then turn it off again. It would be a nice test in any case, but timing it to coincide with a predictable vandalism burst would be icing on the cake. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

A couple of days? The Harding thing went on for like 2 weeks. Baseball Bugs 12:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Turning on a major mediawiki extension because a new user's friend might work for Colbert and they might do a bit about Misplaced Pages on Monday is over doing it. A trial run of flagrev may be warranted but not because there might be vandalism in the future, that's already a given. — 13:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think semi-protecting these at around 11pm on Monday, and leaving the protection for 24 hours would not be unreasonable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I honestly think that the vandal-patrol is up to the task regardless of how much he dishes out. If we semi-protect preemptively, Colbert wins. What we should do is keep an eye on the articles, and only semi-protect if it gets bad, just like any other page. J.delanoy_adds 13:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. Because then he'll say, "Look, we got them to react just on rumors!" Leave the pages alone until or if something actually happens. Baseball Bugs 14:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Colbert is not our enemy. He is not encouraged by how successful vandalism is. He's encouraged by whether people laugh. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

And if any Colbert-driven vandalisms are dispassionately reverted just like they were any other vandalism, then there's a good chance the humor factor goes away... and so does Colbert. Baseball Bugs 19:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Why... would... we... want that? Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake. We love Colbert. We welcome his vandalisms. It will help reinforce the wikipedia motto, "any moron can edit". He could be our poster child for that motto. :) Baseball Bugs 20:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

In addition, the only page I see in that list that would be a huge problem is John McCain, and that has been semi-ed since March. J.delanoy_adds 13:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't underestimate how far-reaching our article on Hoisin sauce is. — 13:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Um has no one thought to question whether the anonymous friend of a supposed Colbert employee is really a reliable source here? This could just be a joke to make us protect a bunch of pages out of paranoia. --Rividian (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Or to see how much time and effort will be put into discussing the matter. Perhaps Misplaced Pages's shameful inability to get anything done without pages of discussion and disagreement, frequently resulting in no consensus to do anything, has become public knowledge. Either way, I'm saddened that I no longer have Comedy Central. It's been over a year since I've seen an episode of The Colbert Report... and I used to watch every episode. :( That said, I'd just protect the BLPs that aren't already protected. The rest should follow the protection policy. LaraLove|Talk 14:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You are on the internet Lara, I am sure there is some way to watch the episodes hehe. Chillum 14:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

They have 'em all online now. :) krimpet✽ 14:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

O!! My life is now complete. The void in my heart has been filled, and the hunger of my starving soul for humor that only Stephen Colbert can satisfy has been relieved! You never fail me Krimpet. *snuggles* XD LaraLove|Talk 14:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Docmartincohen

I previously expressed concern over this user - my concern is, at this point, deepened - it appears to me that the sole or primary purpose of this user's editing Misplaced Pages is to promote his own work, and denigrate that of people he sees as his opponents. Since having his page '101' as a teaching method for Philosophy deleted, which was a promotional article for a book he wrote, he's been making numerous edits promoting his own work: , .

In addition, there have been serious problems with him seeming to crusade against other people in his field - tagging two articles as COI with little evidence, and maintaining a page that is seemingly slated for deletion as an attack page.

I'm not sure what to do here - as someone who nominated one of his pages for deletion and tried to courtesy blank the attack page, I feel too close to really step in, but I think somebody needs to. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Block review for User:Lenerd

Lenerd (talk · contribs) has been editing here for just about a month (with a single edit from one year ago) and has been indefinitely blocked for some minor mistakes, and without any warning. Confusion is understandable, since he did things such as blanking a number of categories from an article, giving a user warning to the editor who reverted this, and making the redirect Pig Empire. He has, however, explained all of these things, and none of them appear to be vandalism.

The first admin to review his unblock request does so pretty blindly, and doesn't even seem to look at his edit history or his unblock request. . The user puts up another unblock request, around the time I was looking at the unblock request category. I leave a note for the original blocking admin User:Sandstein at User talk:Sandstein#User:Lenerd. In this time User:Ultraexactzz asks for a further explanation and Lenerd provides one.

Sandstein reviews, more discussion goes on, and to me it's pretty clear that this editor is not here to cause disruption and understands the basic gist of our rules. See User talk:Lenerd#You are indefinitely blocked for full discussion.

However, for some reason Sandstein has not unblocked this editor, whom shouldn't have been blocked like this in the first place.

So I'm bringing it here for review. -- Ned Scott 05:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested to hear what others think. Lenerd is not your typical vandal, that much is clear; he has made productive (if generally automated) edits and mostly seems to be here with the intention to do good. However, he's engaged in blatantly disruptive conduct in a number of areas in a relatively short span of time, which is why I have blocked him for the reasons given on his talk page. I've made clear at the outset that I don't mean this to be an infinite block. I have stated that I will unblock him if he convinces me that he understands what he's done wrong and that he won't do it again. That has not happened so far. The gist of his responses on his talk page is that, while he may have been excessively zealous in some areas, in general he feels entitled to do as he pleases. I've also made clear at the outset that I won't object if another admin unblocks him if they feel that he is not or no longer a problem. But in that case, I would expect that admin to continue to watch his conduct and to intervene in the event of continued disruption.  Sandstein  06:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• I support an unblock, but only after Lenerd promises to strictly avoid disruptive editing, and familiarise him/herself with our copyright policy. Also, his TWINKLE access should be disabled for a long time due to, which is way too close to outright trolling. MaxSem 10:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• No objection to an unblock, here. I very specifically declined the second unblock request, because it looked like a double-post of the first one - repeatedly making the same request for unblock is forum-shopping-ish. I noted the decline as procedural, in order to avoid prejudicing a future request. I also asked for more detail on the edits that caused the block, as ntoed, and I'm reasonably satisfied with Lenerd's response. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 13:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I add, in reference to Sandstein's analysis, that a mentor for Lenerd might not be a bad idea. This sort of thing is indeed disruptive, and Lenerd needs to be aware of what is acceptable and what is not. Having an experienced user to assist with that would be of value, I think. I think it's a good block, but can be lifted under the conditions that Sandstein cites. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 13:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comfort women

Guys and gals, we badly need more admin eyes on Comfort women, our current Korean-Japanese hotspot. This is worse than Liancourt Rocks. (Not least because it's a much more serious topic and having continuous edit warring on it really looks bad on Misplaced Pages.)

I made the mistake of expressing an editorial opinion (gasp!) on this article while trying to deal with a tendentious sockpuppet (thanks Moreschi for blocking User:Lucyintheskywithdada), so I'm currently not in a good position to wield the banhammer as I'd wish. That means the article is without any close admin scrutiny right now.

There's Japanese tendentious editing in trying to include a long undue-weight passage trying to relativise the Japanese crime by sharing the blame with the evil Koreans, and there's Korean tendentious editing in trying to spice up the article with unencyclopedic emotionalising material such as long repetitive lists of atrocities, detailed witness reports with all sorts of colorful details and so on.

Top of the to-be-blocked list right now are Logitech95 (talk · contribs) and Northwest1202 (talk · contribs). Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: Actually, I have just topic-banned Logitech95 (talk · contribs) and Danceneveril (talk · contribs) from all Korean-Japanese articles for two months each, for their activities on Liancourt Rocks, Korea under Japanese rule and elsewhere. We need very forceful admin intervention in this field, as per the latest discussion here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to take it on my watchlist for a while, as I've never edited in this area (I think). Are there any on-point ArbCom remedies covering this area, or is it basic blocking policy only?  Sandstein  06:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've also protected the article for a week to stop the ongoing editwarring; this should give it some breathing space.  Sandstein  06:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There's only officially the article probation on Liancourt Rocks (Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks). I'm of the opinion that we should just act as if it covered the whole Japanese-Korean mess, Balkan-style. I can't be bothered to ask Arbcom to endorse it though, we should just do it on admin consensus alone. Why not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. We should be able to deal with this here ourselves as well as they can, unless there's dissent about it. DGG (talk) 07:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The Japanese-Korea article area is getting more and more problematic. I support the topic bans. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I have never edited or read the article in question, but will gladly watchlist it. If I am accused of a pro or activist bias in either direction, as I have been on other articles I never actively contributed to, I will resign from Misplaced Pages. This is an important topic, and deserves full neutrality across the board, as any Encyclopedia (and this wiki is supposed to be an encyclopedia, no?) should do. Feel free to decline my offer if you think I cannot be neutral in disputes. Jeffpw (talk) 09:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• It seems Logitech95 has edited the article again, despite Fut. Perf's sanction - I don't think it officially passed when Fut Perf. notified him though (it would've, had a draft sanctions idea like the one below, passed). So I'm going to warn him again - if he continues to edit in the area after that warning, someone needs to block him. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• • It seems Fut Perf. beat me to the warning and blocked him already for 2 weeks. I do think it's excessive, given what I said just now, and that after 2 blocks, 1 week is the usual duration for the next block. Anyway, I'm recording the topic ban as I noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Declined the unblock, but I think a block of one week is more in line of this offense. Feel free to refactor the block or whatever, and monitor his replies on his talk. seicer | talk | contribs 12:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Draft sanctions

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Japanese-Korean disputes, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be notified of these provisions by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Misplaced Pages as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Misplaced Pages's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

Appeals

Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

Uninvolved administrators

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing these provisions will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions.

Logging

All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at Talk:Japanese-Korean disputes/Sanctions#Log of blocks and bans.

Modified from Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy#Discretionary sanctions, removing inappropriate references to the arbitration process. Two things to consider: interaction with the Liancourt Rocks arbitration and I'm not particularly sure whether the bit about the AC and desysopping is appropriate. Hack away. MER-C 10:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Japanese war crimes/Yamashita's gold (redux)

User:JimBobUSA has been warned many times about deleting a credible/reliable references (such as a long article by notable historian Chalmers Johnson, from the London Review of Books) from Yamashita's gold. He has given up on that, but is now attempting to delete the same reference from Japanese war crimes, while misrepresenting it as a "novel".This suggests that he either does not know, or does not care, about the difference between: (1) novels, (2) scholarly books and (3) book reviews.

I have been involved with various disputes with User:JimBobUSA regarding the content of the Yamashita's gold article. Protracted, agonising discussion with him goes nowhere. He seems impermeable to reason and viewpoints other than his own prejudices. He did not respond at all to my suggestion of formal mediation on January 14. User:JimBobUSA seems prone to lawyering and to be disinterested in consensus and cooperation. As User:Hesperian noted here on 18 July:

This thread seems to sum up the problem with JimBobUSA rather nicely. If JimBobUSA disagrees with a statement, it cannot on any account be included. Even a straightforward statement like "Several historians have stated that Yamashita's gold existed", cited to no less than six sources, is rejected as a "novel narrative".

I do not believe it is in anyone's best interests that I deal with User:JimBobUSA directly and this is why I ask that other admins get involved. I think a stern warning, with follow up action if necessary, from someone other than me may help. Thank you. Grant | Talk 06:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've participated in discussions in both Yamashita's Gold and Japanese War Crimes and corraborate Grant's description of JimBob's behavior. JimBobUSA appears to be either unwilling or unable to correct his behavior so administrative corrective action is probably necessary. Cla68 (talk) 11:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

No satisfaction on the previous complaints, so here we go again, eh? Grant65 fails to mention that he is the only one who has warned me, for removing his false references. I will post below (again) from the only source used to support his reference(The Seagraves novel), a long article by notable historian Chalmers Johnson, from the London Review of Books.

• The Seagraves are not fully reliable as historians, they have a tendency to overreach and exaggerate
• Are unreliable on Japan and do not read Japanese
• The book is full of errors
• One of the characters (Lord Ichivara) is an absurdity
• The Seagraves sense that they might have a credibility problem, and have take the unusual step of selling two CDs that support the book

Maybe I am over thinking this, but what part of the above makes a novel scholarly. Moreover, it makes for a grand novel, with bits and pieces of real history, fictional characters and buried treasure. Nevertheless, it falls way short of “proving” the Seagraves conspiracy theories are anything but storylines in a novel.

Here is the last complaint thread: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive453#User:JimBobUSA_.5Brevived_due_to_non-completion.5D Jim (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

To balance out the complaint, I would like to copy/paste this editor posting to Grant65:

"You appear to be asserting ownership. I removed some material and adjusted some other material due to lack of independent evidence of significance. Please find references from outside of the walled garden of the Seagrave conspiracy theories. In particular, please show evidence of discussion of the supposed CIA link in independent reliable sources - discussion in major national and historical journals, for example. Right now you are supporting "several historians" being in support of this theory, but all that is evident to the disinterested observer (I have no history here and am not American) is an amusing conspiracy theory promoted by two people who happen to be historians. There is no evidence of proper historical rigour, and no evidence of peer-review through journal or textbook publications. This applies particularly to the 2002 court finding, where you draw directly on primary sources without the benefit of analysis in reliable secondary sources. Please see WP:ATT, WP:V, WP:RS, and note that this seems to be Grant65 versus all comers, which is never a good sign." Guy (Help!) 09:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The above can be found Jim (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Brian Peck

A new page, Brian Peck just appeared. It makes accusations of sex offences with no citations; and with a bit of goggling around I cannot find any. Obviously removing them still leaves them in the edit history which worries me. Don't know what can be done; but I presume there's some sort of scrubbing mechanism for this type of thing? --Blowdart | 06:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe you're looking for WP:OVERSIGHT--Crossmr (talk) 07:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Aha. Done. Thank you. --Blowdart | 07:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The allegations have returned, but this time are correctly cited. The real question here is is this guy sufficiently notable for inclusion? Most of his acting roles have been bit parts and typically work as a dialog coach is not a sufficient claim of notability. Any objections to sending this up for AfD? caknuck _° is back from his wikisiesta 18:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have deleted this article. The only sourcing in the article was with relation to the conviction, and did not demonstrate that this person was notable otherwise. Misplaced Pages is not the place to house reports of non-notable people who are convicted of crimes. My actions, as always, are open to review. Risker (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Cheers, caknuck _° is back from his wikisiesta 19:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Fabrice Wilmann

Please vanish my account and any trace of my name 'Fabrice Wilmann.' Thank-you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabrice Wilmann (talk • contribs) 07:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, please follow the process as explained at WP:RTV. To vanish, you may request an username change to something that is not your real name, then change all links pointing to your old account accordingly, then request deletion of your user page. That's as much as we can do; accounts cannot be deleted outright.  Sandstein  07:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

SYSTEM BUG: rollback replaced a page by an irrelevant page instead of reverting

• See http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Unidentified_flying_object&action=history .
  • In page Unidentified flying object, at 02:13, 26 July 2008 User:68.6.121.57 replaced a word "they" by "there". This was a good-faith edit, but wrong, so at 04:18, 26 July 2008 I reverted it by rollback. But the rollback mechanism, insteads of reverting, replaced the page by a copy of an edit of page Massoud Rajavi (which is a page which I have never edited).
  • At 08:25, 26 July 2008 User:Rursus noticed the change and reverted it, and complained to me in my talk page.
  • In http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Unidentified_flying_object&action=history , the automatically-generated edit info line "04:18, 26 July 2008 Anthony Appleyard (75,793 bytes) (Reverted edits by 68.6.121.57 (talk) to last version by Kingrook)" gives the page length of the UFO matter that should be in that edit, not the page length of the Massoud Rajavi matter that is in that edit. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The same thing happened earlier today, see here. It replaced the page with Henry Cavill in this case. As above, the byte size was consistent with what the editor intended to do, not with what was actually in the article. Someone needs to do a Bugzilla report I guess. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It happened to me as well, except that, instead of replacing Talk:Pikachu with another page, it blanked the page. I didn't realize it had done so (I could see the edit I made and didn't see a blank page) until User:A Man In Black reverted it. However, in my case I was editing normally, rather than using rollback. -Jéské 09:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's one more instance I encountered today of the same bug. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 09:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a thread over at WP:VPT discussing this issue: Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)#Bug: revisions/pagesizes/pagerendering/wikisource not matching up, resulting in blanking or page replacements. -Jéské 09:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, rollback is for obvious vandalism not something that was done in good faith. — 10:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Filed at bugzilla as bug 14933: "New revisions occasionally created with wrong text on enwiki". —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Per DeadEyeArrow, rollback in such circumstances was inappropriate. "Undo" would have had the same expected result (and may not have corrupted the page as did Rollback) or by editing the previous version. In this one matter it was useful in finding a possible bug, but was rather naughty. I proclaim that Anthony Appleyard look a bit sheepish for not less than, oooh, a minute for misuse of the tool. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem rollback has anything to do with this bug: most of the examples given so far have been ordinary edits. As for the inappropriateness of rollback, I'd say undo without a custom edit summary would've been no better: neither gives any explanation of why the revert was done, leaving the original editor to figure out by themselves why they were reverted. Undo with a custom summary would've been better, though. (Incidentally, if you find yourself doing a lot of such reversions of good-faith but mistaken edits, you may want to consider installing TWINKLE and using its "AGF rollback" feature. It's even available as a gadget these days.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Tony1

Can someone take a look at Tony1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) comments ? I feel that only an Admin can sort this out. Bidgee (talk) 12:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've notified Tony1 of this discussion and advised him to keep it cool and bring such situations to administrators' attention rather than cause talk page disruption. LaraLove|Talk 14:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The refactoring at issue: : first removal, restoration, second removal. AussieLegend (talk · contribs) shouldn't have just removed Tony's comments - twice. Gimmetrow 14:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've rasied this issue at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Tony1 (which is what I most likely should have done). But this latest comment from Tony1 worries me when in no way have I pushed a POV. Bidgee (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You accused me of lacking "good faith" in total disregard to the outrageous behaviour of someone else, who has stripped away my contributions to the discourse twice: that's good faith is it. I repeat my accusation of POV on your part. Tony (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I never accused anyone of not assuming good faith nor have I pushed a POV. Bidgee (talk) 14:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't "just remove" his comments. This is an over-simplification of events. User:Tony1 refactored my comments which I reverted as per WP:REFACTOR and advice I was previously given some time agao at WP:WQA. I explained the reason for reversion in the following post. When another editor again refactored my edits with User:Tony1's comments I again reverted as per WP:REFACTOR and the WP:WQA advice, again explaining the reason why.. Why should it be OK for him to refactor my comments, making the converastion unclear and not OK for me to return my comments to the way they should have been left? --AussieLegend (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It sure looks like you removed the comments. It's OK to object to interspersed comments. Although they are commonly used, Tony's indenting there is confusing and he might have noted the comment splitting. You think Tony is messing with your comments, and by removing them, Tony thinks you're messing with his comments, a vicious cycle. One way out of this cycle is to move the comments as a group to a location after yours. Another is to ask Tony to move them. Maybe do one of those next time. Gimmetrow 15:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I could have refactored his comments but that seems inappropriate and since he was the one who made the mistake it's really his responsibility to fix it. It's not as if I just deleted his comments forever. I did explain, civily, why his edits were reverted. It would have taken him a lot less time and been far more productive to re-add his comments properly than it has been to complain for the last two days, in which time he has been bullying, threatening, aggressive and not assuming good faith. If you were to make the same mistake I'd probably do exactly as you've suggested because you're being civil but Tony1's attitude has been such that there is no incentive to do the same for him. One only has to look at his response to Bidgee for simmply suggesting he assume good faith to see an example of that attitude. I have no doubt now, having watched his posts over the past few days, that had I done as you suggested he still would have complained so I feel comfortable in the course of action that I took. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, thank you for retrieving those links. I've left a message for AussieLegend notifying him/her of this discussion and also warning to refrain from reverting comments of others.

Tony, can you please provide some diffs of the POV pushing you refer to? LaraLove|Talk 14:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The NPOV is the comment directly below my entry in a new section, which s/he is now attempting to recast as "reminding both of you of assuming good faith". I don't see that, given the words, the location and the timing. This page is hardening my attitude towards these people. Tony (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I can see that. I'd like to recommend that you remain calm though, so this can be settled in a polite and positive fashion. Synergy 14:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, this is silly. AussieLegend deleted Tony's valid comments, which in my opinion is vandalism and not acceptable. Removing obvious personal attacks and archiving tendentious off-topic comments is fine, but simply removing valid comments because they're interspersed with earlier comments is aggressive overreaction. From other talk pages, I've noticed that the best way is to refactor such comments by repeating the original post italicised, while adding the new comments. I've done that, hope that suits all concerned and normal hostilities discussion can be resumed in a more amicable way. . . dave souza, talk 15:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

What Tony1 did is a breach of etiquette listed at Misplaced Pages:Etiquette and, from my (albeit limited) experience at WP:WQA, what I did isn't considered vandalism. I find your accusation that returning my comments to the way they should be in order to avoid confusion is vandalism to be offensive. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Judging from AussieLegend's comments above, and here, he is quite agreeable to Tony's edits being restored, provided they are separated out from his original comments, rather than interrupting them. And judging from this comment of Tony's, he would also find a restoration of this form acceptable, but he is unwilling to perform that restoration himself. Perhap's I'm being overoptimistic, but it seems to me that if some other editor were to restore Tony's edits in the form that both editors apparently would find acceptable, that might go at least some way towards resolving the dispute. I am willing to volunteer my services to do this, provided there are no objections from any of the parties concerned.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Dave's already done it and I'm quite OK with the changes. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

David, I agree that such would be helpful.

I've got discussions going on with the involved parties on their respective talk pages. It seems to me that everyone involved has made at least one error in judgment here. It's a heated discussion with some failures of AGF throughout, a bit of confusion and some misunderstanding. No formal warnings have been issued, just some casual reminders, as we all have misunderstands and lose our cool sometimes. I think everyone here was acting on some level of good intention, so I recommend that everyone take a break from this, perhaps for the rest of the weekend, cool off and regain poise. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail in the following week. LaraLove|Talk 16:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that your conclusions and what you've suggested is quite reasonable. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

See WP:TALK#Behavior that is unacceptable – "As a rule, do not edit others' comments, including signatures. Exceptions are described in the next section" and WP:TALK#Others' comments "Editing others' comments is sometimes allowed, but you should exercise caution in doing so." You will note that "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments" do not include "he messed up the formatting of my comment", on the contrary they specifically include "Interruptions: In some cases, it is OK to interrupt a long contribution..." However, that advises using a template, and it would have been better had Tony done that, or repeat your original post italicised. Glad you find the latter acceptable, and agree that there's been a breakdown of good faith here. Don't see any reason that can't be resolved with the acceptance that there was error on the part of both parties. . . dave souza, talk 17:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Pavn123

The above user has vandalized Kamma (caste) article by inserting abusive and hateful input. Please take action.Kumarrao (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

User:S. Dean Jameson

I assume this is the place to discuss this matter; if not, my apologies. I have concerns about the behaviour of the user S. Dean Jameson (talk · contribs), with whom I was recently in a dispute over the article Ashanti (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). S. Dean Jameson removed my comments on his talk page regarding the issue using the rollback feature , in violation of the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Rollback feature to only use rollback in response to nonproductive edits. When I voiced my concerns about his behaviour, he again removed my comments from his talk page, writing "if you took this to ANI, you'd get laughed off the board". I don't think this is conduct becoming of a user who has been entrusted with the rollback feature. 86.1.249.35 (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Users are typically given a wide latitude to administer their own talk pages as they see fit. His removal of your comment can be taken as an assumption that he has read it. –xeno (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

My concern regards his misuse of the rollback feature, not the removal of my comments from his talk page. 86.1.249.35 (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the restrictions on use of the rollback feature are intended to prevent people from edit-warring with it. However, since S. Dean Jameson is fully within his rights to remove your comments (and in fact you were acting inappropriately when you restored the comments) there is no potential for abuse. I see no problems with using the rollback feature this way. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Rollback feature states: "Rollback must only be used to undo edits that are blatantly nonproductive, such as vandalism." An editor who removes legitimate comments on their talk page by using rollback is essentially indicating that they feel those comments are as nonproductive as vandalism. I don't feel that this is acceptable.

I should also note that I did not restore the original comments that S. Dean Jameson had removed; I responded to comments he left on my talk page. 86.1.249.35 (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Users are typically given a wide latitude to administer their own talk pages as they see fit. While it may not be exactly polite, I don't think it's an abuse of the rollback feature. –xeno (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, such a ludicrously strict interpretation of the rules is seen as Wikilawyering. We know what the rule says, but it would be a travesty to censure a good faith user on such an absurd technicality. He did not in any way violate the spirit of the rule on what the rollback feature can be used for. There is nothing to see here. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I thought the "spirit" of the rule was to prevent legitimate edits by good faith editors being marked in edit histories and on Special:Recentchanges as nonproductive. Why should user talk pages be exempt from this? 86.1.249.35 (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I personally vouch for S. Dean and feel any use by him of the rollback feature is in good faith. Beam 14:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This comes up now and then. While I don't suggest editors do either, removing comments from one's own talk page (and using rollback to do it) are both ok. The former is supported by written policy, the latter is supported only by current consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

So if he had used the "undo" function and spent an extra second and a half, this thread wouldn't exist? Sigh. Rollback causes so many discussions, issues, investigations... for nothing. Tan ǀ 39 15:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Tan, which is to say, I think rollback should only be used to revert vandalism (which is what the policy says), but the consensus for use on a rollbacker's own talk page is otherwise. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I know. I wasn't commenting to you; I was making a general observation that rollback is treated like it's a big deal, when it's really not. Tan ǀ 39 15:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I knew you weren't commenting back to me and I think we agree again: If rollback was indeed only used to revert vandalism (as the policy says) it would be much less of a big deal, since any admin can take it away from an editor (I should add that I'm not talking about User:S. Dean Jameson, who acted within policy and consensus in good faith). Gwen Gale (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I should clarify that the main reason I believe that this was a misuse of the rollback feature is because, in the context of edit histories and Special:Recentchanges, rollback has the effect of indicating to other editors that one or more "blatantly nonproductive" edits have been undone. I don't understand why the use of rollback on user talk pages should be treated differently when it has the same effect. 86.1.249.35 (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Rollback should only be used to revert vandalism but there is an unwritten consensus about a rollbacker's talk page, which you didn't know about and couldn't read in the policy because it's not there. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand now. If this consensus was an established part of the relevant project pages rather than in its current unwritten (and essentially invisible) form, I wouldn't have had as much of a problem—there would be less editors assuming that all user talk page comments removed via rollback are nonproductive, and less editors feeling affronted by their user talk page comments being rolled back. As it stands, I think there definitely needs to be a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Rollback feature about this. 86.1.249.35 (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Only as background, this consensus stems from long before rollback was being given to non-admins, when some trusted admins got into the habit of using rollback on their own talk pages. It's never been recommended or encouraged, though. Hence, after rollback was given to some non-admins, every now and then someone would ask, "Hey! How come rollbacker (or admin) X can rollback non-vandal comments on their talk page!" It would get talked about here and at AN and thus came the consensus as unwritten policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Per your suggestion, I've made a slight addition to the misuse section. Feel free to tweak or copy edit as desired. –xeno (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I feel like I should comment here. I had told the IP user that I didn't want him posting on my talkpage, he posted there anyway, and I rolled it back. Since it appears that many people consider this impolite, I will not do so in the future. I'll simply use the undo feature, and be done with it, as I try my best to work within the framework of collaboration and politesse, even when I don't particularly enjoy working with a particular individual. Sometimes I fall short of that, and this may have been one of those cases. While I don't feel I misused the rollbacker tool (and this has been supported by those above), I apologize for any frustration or anger this caused to the IP when I rolled back his comments on my talkpage. S. Dean Jameson 17:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• I've updated WP:Rollback to reflect the consensus above, in the hopes that it will forestall future such issues. Jclemens (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  The reason I put it in the "When not to use" because while it's not presently prohibited, it's still in the realm of "probably shouldn't use it" (WP:CIVIL concerns). –xeno (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Excessive block?

User:Jkliajmi was blocked indefinitely yesterday, after editing a series of articles about EU agencies (see Special:Contributions/Jkliajmi). The reason invoked for the block was "blatant vandalism". Well, is this really blatant vandalism? Jkliajmi is claiming to have acted in good faith... I must admit that blocking him indefinitely seems rather excessive to me. WP:BITE here? --Edcolins (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that posting this here what WP:BITEs rather than taking it up with the administrator directly firsthand. JBsupreme (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Ed, this is a little premature. There's an as-yet unanswered {{unblock}} template on the user's page, and no one has asked the blocking admin, User:Sandstein, about it (and he hasn't been notified of this thread). IMHO, best to nip this thread in the bud, and deal with this the way we normally deal with unblock requests. I'll go take a look, if someone else hasn't already. --barneca (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. May be a little premature to post here, sorry... But if somebody could review the matter (one unblock request has already been declined), so that we do not loose a potentially knowledgable new user (User:Jkliajmi), I'd be happy.. --Edcolins (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed the situation, made a comment on the user's talk page, and left a note for Sandstein. I have some questions for the user I'd like answered before I unblock. --barneca (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocking admin here. I strongly oppose an unblock. Edcolins, I think you have been trolled by Jkliajmi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The user has in very rapid sequence changed the official abbreviations (if any) for a dozen or more EU institutions to Newspeak-style monikers that he seems to have outright made up. Then he provided bogus references for these changes. For instance, he added the supposed short name "Euro lang" to the lead sentence of Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union, and provided "http://www.ogmios.org/234.htm" as a reference. That website indeed makes reference to something called "Eurolang", but (as is obvious from context) that refers to something else, the "Eurolang" news agency (http://www.eurolang.net). All other "Euro-" contributions follow a similar pattern.

This is systematic, large-scale, but non-obvious and therefore particularly harmful vandalism. I am having difficulty to believe that someone is that incompetent that he would make good faith mistakes at this rate and to this extent. The concerns voiced by Ed Johnston on the user's talk page of this being either a "Carol Spears" situation and/or a return of a banned editor are also worthy of consideration.  Sandstein  18:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of a previous block history, I guess a topic ban wouldn't be a sufficient alternative? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It would, if we had any indication that the user is inclined or capable of observing it, or indeed of contributing positively in any way. Based on his other contributions so far (which mostly seem to involve pushing some sort of POV with respect to Taiwan and/or geopolitical classifications), I doubt it. Topic bans can be useful for editors that are capable of contributing positively except where their particular ethno-nationalist (or other) blind spot is concerned. I don't think this user fits the bill. But if an admin urgently wants to topic-ban, unblock and babysit him, I'll not stand in the way.  Sandstein  18:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've already commented on the user's Talk page, and support continuing the indef block. The blocking admin's suggestion that this is subtle but clever vandalism is quite believable. It is hard to intuit any good-faith motivation for such a massive burst of illogical changes. EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I looked at the second unblock request and it has put me off - it's hard to see any good coming out of unblocking him for any alternative remedy. Good block. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Bottom Dollar Food Vandal

The Bottom Dollar Food article has been the traget of a persistant ip vandal. Now that the page has been semi protected the vandal has moved onto vandalizing the user and talk pages of any editor who has previously undone the vandalism. This is teh list of ip's that have made the same edits to the article or have vandalized other editors pages after reverting vandalism by them:

• 161.58.16.27 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 161.58.16.26 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 66.35.79.142 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 72.21.48.138 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 24.254.248.65 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 71.41.126.43 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 74.162.176.32 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 74.235.20.103 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Most of the ip's have been blocked for the moment but the user is persistant in returning and carrying on his attacks on other editors who have undone his work. Assistance with this is appreciated as I am tired of reverting mine and others talk and user pages constantly. Knowledgeum (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I recommend they be semi-protected, the vandal will soon lose interest. --neon white talk 17:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Help with rollbacks and restorations from user Inclusionist

Inclusionist (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) apparently doesn't approve of the work of The Article Rescue Squadron the WP:Intensive Care Unit and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Inclusion. They seem to have made quite a few pointy edits that undoubtably would be seen not only as controversial but disruptive. They have made systematic changes to templates, userboxes, project pages and finally merged all three in some fashion. If someone could help us get much of it restored and rolled back would be appreciated; also page move protects may be in order. Unsure if semi-protect would help since they seem to be an established editor. Banjeboi 19:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Notified user. –xeno (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• Not sure if AN/I is really the best venue for this. Protonk (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and has no place on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents I agree with Protonk.

User:Benjiboi please WP:AGF to say that I don't approve of the work of these fine organizations is absurd. I find this sentence particularly offensive because it is so untrue: Inclusionist (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) apparently doesn't approve of the work of The Article Rescue Squadron the WP:Intensive Care Unit and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Inclusion. Look at my username and my user page. How are these pointy edits? What point am I trying to make, please WP:AGF.

User:Benjiboi, I am deeply troubled that you did not discuss your concerns on the talk page or with me personally before you posted here.

I explained in detail my changes in detail on the talk page. I want these pages to flourish, that is why I took the best parts of all of the pages and combined them into one. Inclusionist (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• I tend to agree that AN/I might not be the best venue. It should be easy enough for non-admins involved in those projects to restore them to whatever they were before the bold moves. What puzzles me, is why, before taking six hours to do this huge merger, didn't you ask people if they thought it was a good idea? Seems like a huge waste of effort should you encounter resistance (as you have). –xeno (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Inclusionist has greatly disrupted and made massive changes against three wikiprojects for which there was likely little or no support. I'm quite active at ARS and was stunned to see our project essentially hijacked in this merging/ deleting/changing spree. If this isn't an incident I guess I'm unclear what would be. Banjeboi 19:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. As creator of WP:WICU, I've had to restore the talk page and undo other very unwelcome edits by this user. I believe he should be blocked, at least temporarily. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

How is deleting and redirecting our projects member list a content dispute? Banjeboi 19:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocking wouldn't really be in line with the Bold, revert, discuss cycle. His changes, while apparently unwanted, were done in good faith. If there's any deleted stuff that needs admin restoring, let me know. –xeno (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't actually delete any significant content, like self proclaimed deletionist User:Realkyhick.

Benjiboi, are you going to apologize for saying this:"Inclusionist (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) apparently doesn't approve of the work of The Article Rescue Squadron the WP:Intensive Care Unit and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Inclusion?" Obviously I have the best interest of inclusionists and this project in mind, do you?

Again, User:Benjiboi, I am deeply troubled that you did not discuss your concerns on the talk page or with me personally before you posted here. Is this tactic the way you usually reach consensus? Does it work?

BTW, the first person to dispute these changes was blocked indefinetely as a sock. Inclusionist (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Who brought the issue up first has no bearing on the propriety of the issue. Furthermore, stop attacking editors in a sinister fashion a la "I didn't actually delete any significant content, like self proclaimed deletionist User:Realkyhick". Your feelings about another editor's wikistance do not pertain to the matter at hand. Don't inflame this issue more than it already is. Protonk (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

outdent. Hmm, you're "deeply troubled" that I "did not discuss your concerns" yet you felt no issue with merging three projects - likely to be met with exactly this reaction - with no discussion at all. Thanks to your efforts the ARS talk page, which was pretty functional no has discussions from all three projects. This seems to fly in the face of BRD as well, which I'm unclear if that applies to projects as well as articles. In any case there certainly wasn't any discussion and I know the ARS page is quite active so even the smallest note about "Gee, should we simply merge these three project" would have certainly got a response. Sorry I see this as awfully disruptive and pointy. Banjeboi 20:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

If Inclusionist had the "best interests" of these projects truly at heart, he would have discussed his proposed actions for a substantial period of time before he took them, so as to gather a consensus among those involved. Instead, he posted reasons why WP:WICU should be merged into the other projects, then — only a very brief time later — redirected the talk page to that of WP:ARS without warning. When I posted a {{uw-v4im}} on his talk page, he posted one on mine with my forged sig. It is obvious that he is trying to hijack WICU and ARS for his own purposes and otherwise acting in bad faith. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if anyone is here with WP:Inclusionists but they've seemingly wiped out that project altogether. Banjeboi 20:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Click on their link or see this. Banjeboi 20:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I really would like an admin to rollback or undue the mess that is now the ARS talkpage. It was pretty clean before this disruption. Banjeboi 20:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Benjiboi, The only uninvolved editor, User:Xenocidic, thought this was the wrong place for this dispute, why not try and talk about your feelings on the talk page. I would have happily reverted the changes myself if you weren't so agressive and went right to ANI.

Benjiboi, you fired the first volley, by posting this ANI.

With no discussion, no comments.

I didn't go to ANI and argue that these changes should be made. I posted my changes on the talk page, and was very careful not to delete any content. As I meticulously explained on the talk page, I merged the three articles together, bringing the best of all three articles together.

I vowed to correct all mistakes. Why have three articles whose purpose is the same duplicated on wikipedia? I want to work together with all incusionists to help save articles. This ANI and the piety template wars, etc just waste everyones time. No one is discussing the content changes, instead they are posturing, throwing template warnings, selectively enforcing wikipolicy, etc.

Benjiboi, You called my changes vandalism, which is a personal attack on me, and violates WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Should I quote Misplaced Pages:Vandalism? In this ANI, you stated things which are completely false on there face, and patently absurd:"Inclusionist (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) apparently doesn't approve of the work of The Article Rescue Squadron the WP:Intensive Care Unit and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Inclusion"

Again, Benjiboi, do you usually reach consensus by going first to ANI?

Protonk said himself: "I don't think that he approached the merger with the intent to do mischief. ", and yes Protonk, it matters if Benjiboi first sentence in this ANI section is patently false. this entire ANI's tone is set up with a lie.

Lets be realistic, I have been around wikipedia long enough (3 years) to know how it works:

1. There is going to be no apologies from Benjiboi for his false statment, and
2. Realkyhick and Protonk will continue to defend that false statment,
3. Just like there is going to be no warnings on Realkyhick page for adding the same template I cut and copied on his page and then got warned about by Protonk.
4. In addition, Protonk will continue to defend the indefinitely banned sock, who started the whole argument and set the tone.

LOL Inclusionist (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

168.208.215.220 mostly vandalizes

I don't really know if I'm barking up the right tree here... but I was correcting some vandalism to a page today by this IP address, and I noticed it had gone uncorrected for nearly two weeks. So I started looking in the IP's history and noticed there is a pattern of vandalism. Occasionally they do a valid edit, but about 3/4 of them are vandalism, mostly of the "Darren is awesome!!!!" type.

So I don't know if you guys ban editing from IP addresses or not (this one seems to be the gateway for an entire company as far as I can tell), but here's a heads-up.

--Plumpy (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yea, it's kindof the wrong tree. We only block IPs when they are actively vandalizing. But if this IP is actively vandalizing after a final warning, you can report them to WP:AIV. –xeno (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Since their last edit was July 14, I'm tagging this resolved, feel free to drop by my talk page in the future if you have questions about stuff like this. By the way, you were right, it is a shared company IP. Thank you for your diligence and future efforts in cleaning up vandalism. –xeno (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Starstyler

I seek an Admin's assistance as this above-mentioned disruptive USER has left a degrading racist remark on my user talk page even though I had politely cautioned him repeatedly not to use weasel words on any articles of wikipedia. --Dave1185 (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you notified him of this thread? If not, please do so now. Beam 20:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That comment's not racist. I'm so sick of people here abusing the term racist. It's a stereotypical comment (i've never heard of that stereotype though) but it is not racist. Please stop calling things that aren't racist, racist. It may not even be stereotypical. Maybe it's him just being a jerk. I don't feel any admin action is needed, a warning would suffice. Beam 20:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• It is racist slur and I had cautioned him previously on three separate occasions on three other editors but this is the last straw, note also I am not a newbie, I had left him a note telling him of this. Check before you speak, please. Anyways, he has been blocked following a series of copyvios, disruptive edits and personal attacks of his own doings. You may strike off OR archive this section later. Cheers! --Dave1185 (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Block review

I blocked Prisongangleader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a self-evident sockpuppet, likely user:Fredrick Day. This was based on the contribution history:

1. 10:57, July 22, 2008 (hist) (diff) N Young, Gifted and Talented Programme‎ (creating article)
2. 10:58, July 22, 2008 (hist) (diff) Young, Gifted and Talented Programme‎ (fixed cat)
3. 10:58, July 22, 2008 (hist) (diff) Young, Gifted and Talented Programme‎ (+ tags)
4. 10:59, July 22, 2008 (hist) (diff) N Talk:Young, Gifted and Talented Programme‎ ({{WikiProject Education|class= |importance=}}) (top)
5. 13:39, July 23, 2008 (hist) (diff) N User:Prisongangleader‎ (hi)
6. 13:39, July 23, 2008 (hist) (diff) N User talk:Prisongangleader‎ (hi)
7. 13:43, July 23, 2008 (hist) (diff) N User:Prisongangleader/monobook.js‎ (importScript('User:AzaToth/twinkle.js');) (top)
8. 13:44, July 23, 2008 (hist) (diff) Thor Halland‎ ({{subst:afd}}
9. 13:46, July 23, 2008 (hist) (diff) N Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Thor Halland‎ (fails wp:bio and about 100 other policies...)

Very obviously not a new user, then, and pitching straight in to AfDs with a brand-new account looks to me to be disruptive. Feel free to unblock if you think the main account has a legitimate reason for this sockpuppetry. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

One comment. this user seemed to require some help with malformed AfD requests. Unless this was a scheme designed to make us think this account was not a sock, I can't imagine Allemantando/KoC/fred day needing help putting an AfD together. Protonk (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

87.196.144.26

87.196.144.26 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) The person using this IP is being really disruptive. S/he keeps making undiscussed genre changes on a lot of pages about pop singers and their albums. According to Realist2,this IP address has actually been doing this genre thing for months. This is really disruptive. If the IP has been "doing it for months",s/he has probaby been blocked before and they keep changing their IP. If this IP has been blocked before,please block it again. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)