Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:41, 1 August 2008

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

Trolling by User:Boldautomatic

I'd be grateful if an uninvolved admin could step in and review the following situation.

Our story starts over at Teaching English as a foreign language where Boldautomatic pops up every now and then to insert a link to a wiki which forms part of the website of ICAL, an online TEFL course provider. The insertion is removed by multiple users, and only when they're on the verge of a 3RR violation does Boldautomatic take it to the the talk page, where they consistently fail to answer (reasonable) enquiries about whether they have a conflict of interest, cast aspersions on the motivations of those who are removing the link, and generally taking umbrage about the fact that their link was deleted.

On reviewing their contributions, ICAL (TESL Provider) had cropped up as a page they created about the organisation itself, which didn't assert any notability whatsoever. I flagged it for deletion under A7 (on the basis that I was semi-involved, so didn't want to delete it myself). That then lead to a whole diatribe of argument on the talk page against deletion by Boldautomatic, which essentially boiled down to (i) other crap exists and (ii) ICAL isn't a website, it's a school. By the time the page, and its talk page, are deleted by Accounting4Taste on the grounds of A7 I'm pretty blue in the face at having to repeatedly explain the concept of notability as it related to online organisations and point the user in the direction of the relevant policies and guidelines.

Sadly it doesn't end there. Boldautomatic then moves to my talk page (starting the conversation with "So, GB, you managed to get the ICAL page deleted. I expect you're feeling very pleased with yourself", which is possibly not the greatest way to open a conversation). You can read the rest of it there, and on their talk page. All the posts fail to actually address the issues with the ICAL article, but instead amount to little more than barely-disguiged baiting and poorly hidden arguments along the lines of "well, if you're not going to let my article stay then this one should be deleted too". By the time the last post comes around this is explicitly clear, but if you're anything like me you'll be bored to tears by that stage.

To cut a long story short (too late, probably), I've answered their questions fully and repeatedly, and once the extent of the trolling became clear, asked them once, twice and three times to stay off my talk page, the last time accompanied by a pointer in the direction of the help desk where they could ask any further questions, and a warning that if they continued to ignore my request I would be asking for them to be blocked. Their response to that post is pretty indicative of their behaviour generally.

It's not clearcut vandalism, so I'm not at WP:AIV, but I'm fed up with the disruption being caused to me by an editor who it is fair to assume has a conflict of interest and I'd be grateful if an uninvolved admin could review and take whatever action they feel necessary. _GB 19:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm having great problems with GB's attitude as an editor. If the deleted page conversation is checked you will find that he requested it be speedily deleted because ICAL is an online school. When I pressed him (I assume it's a him and not a her) on this matter he went back on previous comments and finally admitted that it was requested for speedy deletion because it was not notable enough.

Checking the site, my understanding is that speedy deletion is not actually a remedy for non-notable pages. I am at a loss to understand why GB was so adamant that the page be removed in this manner. Perhaps someone can explain this.

Re talking on GB's talk page - just trying to get a straight answer out of him. They make a comment on my page, I respond on his page. I, for one, am fed up with the rather high-handed attitude GB exhibits and the way in which he has consistently refused to give a plain answer to a straight question, all the time prevaricating and going back on previous comments.

Very disappointed in the standard of this editor! --Boldautomatic (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This is now getting seriously tiresome. My comments on the talk page of ICAL (which I've temporarily restored here for ease of reference) speak for themelves. I start by flagging ICAL under A7 (web) - "an article about a website ... that doesn't indicate the importance or significance of the subject" - he can't say he didn't read that bit, because he quotes it in his first post to the talk page. I end with "None of are predicated about its inclusion or not solely on the basis of whether it's an online organisation, but about notability, and specifically whether it satisfies the criteria of notability as they apply to websites.", and I'm not exactly sure where along the way he gets the idea that I was "prevaricating", "going back on previous comments" or somehow "finally admitted" that it was not notable enough. Halfway through the discussion I am even told to "Forget notability" - an interesting thing to tell me if a little later on I'm supposed to be changing my tune and suddenly saying it's all about notability.

As the talk page shows clearly enough, Bold's responses and arguments were :

1. it's not a website it's a school (answer : no, it's website);
2. why are you biased against ICAL (answer : I'm not);
3. let's delete all the entries that lead onto commercial sites, starting with Microsoft (answer : no, let's not, let's just make sure that non-notable organisations aren't included);
4. I'm going to flag a (physical) school for speedy deletion to spite you then (answer : physical schools don't fall under A7 - have a look right there in the wording of the tag itself, and sure enough the speedy was declined);
5. ICAL is a school because it has students and offices (answer : it's a website, see (1) above);
6. So, online educational establishments aren't allowed on Misplaced Pages, then (answer : they are, if they're notable enough);
7. Forget notability, are ONLINE educational establishments allowed on Misplaced Pages (answer : any organisation is allowed on it's notable and that notability can be verified through reliable sources);
8. "So now we can discount all that you said about about it being removed because it relates to an online instituation" (answer : have you actually read and understood any of the comments above?).

I've been banging my head against a metaphorical brick wall so hard I'm in danger of getting a real headache. Would someone please read the talk page (and that includes you, Bold, since I'm not convinced you actually read any of it first time around) and post their views. When you've finished, Bold, can I suggest you also read this page on speedy deletion - if you had done before writing your post above you'd have found out quite quickly that speedy deletion is a (astonishingly frequently used) remedy for non-notable pages.

As for being "high handed" and being "disappointed in the standard of this editor", well, until Bold answers the (straightforward) question of whether he has a conflict of interest or not, and not that I see anything wrong with how I've behaved, I don't see why I should behave any differently to a user who has, amongst other things, insinuated that (i) the flagging of the page for speedy deletion was an underhand tactic carried out by a rival (oh, out of malice, too), (ii) I must be "very please with self" that ICAL was deleted, (iii) I must work for another commercial organisation because I (and others) removed a link he kept inserting, and (iv) when in the minority, the concensus (sic) is ganging up against him. _Gb 15:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me break this down. GB deleted the page because - in his opinion - it referenced a website which was not notable. Thus there were 2 criteria which he needed it to fulfill: 1) it needed to be a website and 2) it needed to be non-notable.

The article was not about a website. It was about a school. A distance learning school. Like OU only smaller. A school with over 10,000 students operating for over 10 years and arguably the largest and most established in its field.

Later on GB admitted that online organisations can have entries here (if they're notable). So that negated the first criterion. He thus wanted to delete it because it was not notable only.

Is ICAL notable? Well considering the above facts about the school that is debatable. In trying to find out the criteria for notability I referenced several other articles which GB was happy to allow on the site, notably this one which he refused to delete because according to him it was "physical" therefore it was allowed. He did not mention the notability of the article I referenced.

Herein lies the problem. GB allowed the Nanjing school to remain (though it contains no verifiable references) because he must have felt it was notable (physicality having been proved to be irrelevant) and yet he deleted ICAL even though it was similar in style and content.

Furthermore, when I tried to establish from GB what aspects of this page constituted notability he steadfastly refused to explain. I know he's unpaid, but it's hardly professional. (I now note that the page in question has been flagged for deletion - not speedy deletion like the ICAL page, note, but a more considered deletion. It is a shame such care could not have been taken over the ICAL page - why was that?)

As for GB's accusation of trolling, I am afraid that I fear this is GB's excuse for not being able to answer my questions in full! --Boldautomatic (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's late and I'll post a full reply in the morning, but in the meantime :

1. If you're going to break things down, at least get them correct. I didn't delete the page, I flagged it for deletion. The policy two criteria are that (a) it was about a website, and (b) the article didn't assert the notability of the website concerned. If you'd actually bothered to read the policies at any stage you'd know this.
2. That'd be, what, the fifth time you've been asked if you have a conflict of interest? Do you? If you have no conflict why the reticence to answer?
3. It's interesting to note how quickly you back away from your assertions about what I said when presented with the actual record of our discussions. In particular I note the speed and ease with which you moved from " requested it be speedily deleted because ICAL is an online school" to " deleted the page because - in opinion - it referenced a website which was not notable" when presented with the substance of our conversation. If only you could read the relevant policies you're being pointed at repeatedly with such ease.
4. I'm loving the irony that despite having wasted untold posts on you, and having asked on numerous occasions whether you have a conflict of interest, without having received the courtesy of a reply, I'm the one that hasn't answered your questions in full.
5. In the time you've spent discussing this you could have re-written ICAL as a featured article, and yet you persist in running the same argument time and time again. Would you still like to assert that you're not trolling?

Let's try and keep the next exchange short and sweet. Do you have a conflict of interest? _Gb 22:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I await GB's full reply in the morning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boldautomatic (talk • contribs) 08:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're not getting it until you answer the question that I have asked you repeatedly. Do you have a conflict of interest? _Gb 08:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought that it would have been that difficult a question to answer. I've provided you with some pointers on your talk page. _Gb 12:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It is quite simple. It is apparent that boldautomatic has a conflict of interest because it is unlikely that someone who didn't wouldn't be pushing it for this long of a time. Since the school is online, it is covered under webcontent and organizations, under A7. If you want to create an article about this organization, provide 2 reliable sources which cover the subject in depth. As for the other article getting an AfD and not a speedy, that school is actually a subsidiary of a notable university. The question became whether it has any notability on its own, or only in the context of the parent. Your article is not such a subsidiary. End of story is nothing you will do short of providing reliable sources will get the article created. These sources are not press releases, blogs, forums, self-published websites, minor online "news" sites, and don't include trivial coverage like a larger article which name drops the institution or just talks about them for less than half of the article.--Crossmr (talk) 02:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Swampfire

I have been harassed by this user for some time if you go to his User talk:Swampfire page you will see that an admin left a warning there to stay away from my talk page but he has left continued messages there. He continues to edit war on the Forrest Griffin article despite myself and all other users taking part in a disucssion, he takes the liberty of making his own edits without anybody reaching a consensus. I believe his edits are in bad faith as he has distorted the articles references to cite things that they do not reference and he has written the article so that it hides noteworthy information while pandering to his own opinion on a subject as if it were fact. I have tried to get an admin to arbitrate but my calls have gone unnoticed or ignored. --Xander756 (talk) 04:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't really have time to look into this in too much detail (I just wanted to let you know that this is being looked into), however I would remind you that rollback is only to be used for blatant vandalism, not when you disagree with another's edit as you did here, and at several other places in that page's history. I have removed the tool from your account - if you demonstrate that you will use it only for vandalism, it can be reinstated. Regardless, the situation will be looked into - don't think you're being ignored, and I've notified Swampfire of this discussion so that he can explain his reasoning for what's going on. Hersfold 05:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I have not used rollback function in this scenario, all reversions I have used the undo function, not rollback. I use rollback when patrolling recent changes on wikipedia or reverting vandalism on lacrosse articles as part of my function on the wikiproject: lacrosse. I would appreciate re-instation. --Xander756 (talk) 05:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Four diffs have been left on your talk page that show the use of rollback in this conflict. Hersfold 05:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

When you check into him. Also note the reverts that were just made. I believe Xander756 has now resorted to sockpuppetry. After he returned to the page and left the new subsection alone. 2 mysterious accounts were created the first one has one edits in it. And it was to revert my last additon. The second new account also has one edit, and it was to remove the new subsection. Kind of weird don't you think for a new user to create an account and come directly to Forrest griifins page and do this. They both seemed to remove exactly what Xander756 doesnt want on the page, and yet that are their only editsSwampfire (talk) 05:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Also both I and User:Aktsu have rewritten this article to a NPOV. But Xander756 refuses all edits at placing it to a NPOV. What he wants said is in there, it was not deleted. It was expanded on to represent the entire scenario with valid citations. That he has removed more than once. Also he has abuse WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL while attacking me on several occasions. All of which are evidenced on his talk page , but he has tried to hide themSwampfire (talk) 05:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Aktsu has since expressed his doubt over that edit on the discussion page of Forrest Griffin. I wonder if he would be surprised to see you are claiming him to be your ally in this? --Xander756 (talk) 05:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are the 2 accounts that mysteriously showed up to remove exactly what Xander745 has been removing. The first one was Deshicalanor here is the first removal and here is the second by user CthulhuGuldo also I notice that both of these mysterious accounts showed up to remove these at almost the same time, he had his rollback removed according to what is said up there^^^^ by Hersfold. According to edits made by Xander756 he left a comment on Forrest Griffin talkpage at 5:17 then disappears, then still at 5:17 Deshicalanor shows up to remove what I had just editted and Xander756 did not want there and it is the one and only eddit by this user. Then at 5:20 CthulhuGuldo shows up to remove the subsection Xander756 doesnt want on the page and again it is the one and only edit by this user as well, Then at 5:22 Xander756 leaves a message on Hersfolds talkpage asking for his rollback back. Funny how Xander made no edits between 5:17 and 5:22 at the exact time the 2 sockpuppets showed up to remove what Xander didnt want on the page.Swampfire (talk) 05:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

And what I said about Aktsu was he rewrote the article and you reverted it too. The proof of his rewrite is on my talkpage.Swampfire (talk) 05:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If you look at my edit history I actually made an edit to the talk page of Forrest Griffon at the exact time this first "sock puppet" showed up. Links here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Forrest_Griffin&diff=prev&oldid=228752060 and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Forrest_Griffin&diff=228752040&oldid=228745421 I would not be surprised if this was another scheme to try to get me into trouble here by Swampfire. Is it just mere coincidence that after these accounts showed up an IP address began to defile my talk and user page? Is there any policy against accusing people of things without evidence? --Xander756 (talk) 06:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I already stated I have nothing to hide let them check my IP. Also I believe you left the comment on the talkpage at around 5:17:01, while already having a page open creating a new account. Then logged out of Xander leaving the new account page open and made the edits at around 5:17:59. then created a second, to remove the rest. at 5:20, then logged back in and went to Hersfold page at 5:22 to complain about no longer having rollback.Swampfire (talk) 07:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I also found a third and new personal attack on me here yet another clear viloation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL against me.Swampfire (talk) 07:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything in that diff that is a violation of either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Editing restriction

What I see here is both editors aggressively edit-warring on the Forrest Griffin article.

I propose that both Swampfire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Xander756 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are subject to an editing restriction of WP:1RR for 2 months on the Forrest Griffin article. Should either editor violate this restriction, they are to be subject to short blocks of no longer than a week. After 3 blocks, the maximum block duration may increase to 1 month. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No way - these guys have never been blocked, let alone for edit warring. I'm seeing nothing remotely near the sort of disruptive behaviour need for an editing restriction. Get them to file an RfC on the content dispute - that's all that's needed for now. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, this was intended as a measure to be preventative in edit-warring on the article (and possibly more effective in letting the message sink in than blocks). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said, let them file an RfC, if that doesn't work, then mediation might be a better course of action. All of these should be tried before we result to editing restrictions. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

They've tried to get others input for a few days now - but it hasn't significantly changed their editing pattern on the article. I still don't see why we should wait for blocks first, or why they shouldn't be subject to 1RR as opposed to the standard 3RR per 24 hours (note - it's not the 1RR per week restriction). If it was just a content dispute in the absence of edit-warring over a number of days, I'd agree - Article RFC or mediation is enough to deal with content issues. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't give people editing restrictions for edit warring on an article over a couple of days. Send them to MedCab and be done with it. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, it's been 5 days. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan - despite the flaming row that broke out on my talk page after I logged off last night, neither of these editors would be benefited by such a restriction at this time. Should the dispute continue - and this should possibly be considered anyway - the page can be fully protected until both sides can agree on something, even if it is just to disagree with each other. An editing restriction will just continue tensions; what we need to do is try to get these guys to actually talk to each other. Hersfold 16:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the reason that a solution such as this would be unfair is that I have been attempting to get other's input on the subject. I was the one who appealed for admin arbitration and who messaged admins in an attempt to get a 3rd opinion. I have been the one to attempt a discussion before edits while he has simply tried to force his way onto the article. To treat us both equally would then be unjust. If you look on my talk page, the other user who was involved in the debate has posted that he thoroughly agrees with me and that I was right in defending my position. Why then should I be punished for this? --Xander756 (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war - yes, you did attempt to start discussion, but you then need to stop edit warring, which you didn't. It's standard procedure to treat both parties equally, as it would be considerably more unfair for us to "take sides" in that manner. Hersfold 17:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Per Hersfold. Also, it's not as a punishment - it's just so you both don't edit-war, and instead, discuss your differences rationally. Personally, I think that if both of you voluntarily agree to the restriction, you'll feel much more compelled to edit in a way that isn't considered disruptive. But if this dispute grows from being between both of you to several editors on either side, then sadly, the page will be fully protected and you won't be able to edit it at all - you'll only be able to discuss on the talk page (which is sort-of what this proposal was encouraging - discussion to the point you have consensus, rather than revert after revert). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually rooting for the page to be fully protected. I requested it days ago but my request mysteriously vanished. I would be all in favor of full page protection until the discussion can reach a general consensus. As for what Hersfold claimed about how it would be unfair for you to "take sides", I don't see the logic in that. Would it be unfair to block someone from wikipedia for repeated vandalism? In effect by doing so you would be taking the side against him. Obviously nobody here would claim that is unfair, and this scenario is no different. --Xander756 (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well genuine content disputes are different to WP:VANDALISM. When it's a content dispute where you both appear to be genuinely trying to improve the encyclopedia/site in terms of quality, it's generally not so easy to know who's causing the edit-warring, or to rule on content (as in, who's correct, or which version should preside). Obviously, exceptions apply - and sometimes you can see who's causing the edit-warring. Ideally, all editors should follow the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. You boldly insert something, someone reverts it, then you both discuss your differences as to why it should/shouldn't be included, or why/how it should be modified. Consensus does change over time - if someone boldly remove something that's been there for a long time or as a result of a previous consensus discussion, that can be reverted, and then the cycle starts again. When editors use the Bold, Revert, Revert, Revert...cycle (or with unresolved discussion in between each revert), it's considered disruptive edit-warring and damages the encyclopedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not how it played out at all. The other user reverted edits from the page without reason. Another user reverted his reversion. He reverted the edit for a second time so I then reverted his reversion. He reverted AGAIN and I changed it back and added a new reference. He didn't bother reading it and simply reverted it again. I asked for admin arbitration and I asked for a 3rd opinion. I even asked for page protection and NOTHING HAPPENED. I wasn't going to simply sit there for days while someone vandalized an article and the staff didn't bother to step in.--Xander756 (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the 'staff' here are all unpaid so it can take some time before your concerns or issues are addressed. What was the conclusion(s) at 3rd opinion? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It never came. Though another user involved did recently weigh in on my talk page stating that he clearly thinks I was correct in the issue. --Xander756 (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have to log off now and won't be on for some time. I recommend you take a look at our dispute resolution system, and try either Article RFC, mediation, or if necessary, RFC on user conduct (bear in mind that 2 users need to certify the basis of the dispute). See how you go from there, and let me know of any updates (maybe tomorrow), okay? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If you actually look at the edits, You will see after removing the word because it did not belong. I since then have continually tried to add the full context of the discussion. I even incorporated what he wanted said into the article with valid citations. He reverted, removing valid citations as he only wants exactly his wording in it with no explanation over why less than 15% of the crowd viewed it as controversial. To use the word controversial in the context it was used without explanation in an encyclopedia format gives the impression that a majority viewed the fight this way. When in fact 80-85% viewed the fight positively and 15-20% or less viewed as controversial. Dave Meltzer (someone that Xander756 had quoted in this several times) of Yahoo! Sports was there and states. When Griffin was announced as the winner, I made sure to look at the crowd for the reaction. Eighty to 85 percent people at Mandalay Bay standing and cheering, with a large percentage practically dancing and celebrating the title change.. Dave Meltzer also says this In those situations, boos are always louder than cheers, but this was very clearly a decision most of the crowd agreed with, no matter how it may have sounded on television. So in an encyclopedic article over the Biography of a living person to state the fight would in that manner would be going against WP:DUE. So if you actually try looking at the whole discussion. You will see I have continually tried to improve the article while it is Xander756 that has not. I have also been a victim or personal attack by Xander on several occasions. Also I Initiated the discussion on Forrest talkpage not him. He was the one that chose to take it off the talkpage and me responses on his talkpage was just that responses to him leaving something on mine. The timestamps show that. I have tried in every manner to appease this person. He clearly stated his only beef was he wanted it to say controversial. Well I editted to say that that but with a full explanation. In fact let me take this one step farther. If he truly thought it was the fight that was controversial he would of added the word controversial to Jacksons page as well but he had never even been to Jacksons page. In fact I had monitored Jackson page the whole time and the word was never there. In fact when someone finally placed it there a lil over a day ago. I removed it and no one cared. Then I made an addition to Jackson's page expanding over something that wasn't there. Xander756 followed me to the page(making his first edit on it) and reworded a lil portion I had added, which I had no problem with. But in the edit summary he noted that he hoped we could agree on Jackson's article as is. Yet if you look he did not try to add controversial. Which is as I have been saying the whole time. If it is not obvious to others, It is obvious to me that I believe that his only problem is he has issue with Forrest, and not the decision. Otherwise this whole time he would of been trying to add it Jackson's page as well.Swampfire (talk) 13:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Also I have never harassed him, stalked him, and all the other things he has claimed. All you have to do is view the timestamps to see this. I have just merely had to defend myself on about 100 pages, because he goes everywhere making false claims. If he had not tried this stuff on so many pages. I would not of had to go there to defend myself. But he tries to do the same thing on so many different boards. He goes there and make a false claim against me as well as personal attacks. When I go there to defend myself he says I am stalking and harassing him for doing so. Check my edits vs his. You will see to my knowledge I have not been on any other pages after him, unless it was about me. I havent left a message on his personal talkpage unless it was in response to something he left on mine. I can also point to atleast 3 places where he persoanlly attacked me. Not including calling me a stalker. Also note that through all of this I have merely defended myself, and did not try to start any cases against him.Swampfire (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

User:aktsu has weighed in on the subject in agreement with me. --Xander756 (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The original conflict was over the inclusion of the word "controversial". Xander756 added (diff) multiple source with atleast one spelling it out ("Griffin Snatches UFC Title with Controversial Win"). Xander's reverts readdind the word I agreed with, as it _was_ a controversial decision - and it was sourced. The conflict escalated to be about a rewrite of the entire section (which I helped wrote as an attempt at a compromise). Xander felt the rewrite was unnecessary and too long, while Swampfire argued it was a good compromise as it explained the controversy. In that conflict I was originally for the rewrite, but am now unsure - and think maybe simply saying it was controversial might suffice. --aktsu  16:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm afraid there's nothing that can be done here about it. Article RFC or mediation as linked in WP:DR is the way to go. I've basically spelled out the editing rules for both of you, so don't edit-war, and instead, discuss. Until then, try to agree to a temporary version pending the resolution of Article RFC and/or mediation. Currently, that's best for both of you, and for the encyclopedia. Thank you for giving a bit of context Aktsu. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

He has returned again to vandalize removing valid cited references. In an effort to make the article onesided. As I have stated. Also note I think he will never quit vandalizing without intervention. The second paragraph of WP:DUE clearly states using the minority view over the section is not to be done and the reason's why.Swampfire (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well Xander756 has now returned to restore everything I had added. He even left a message on my talkpage stating it. I hope he is thru running to so many pages making false accusations. Peace, to all that took time to review this. Swampfire (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Please ban Jokestress from editing the article about Simon LeVay

Simon LeVay has publicly complained about the way that Jokestress edited the article about him, pointing out that she inserted many misleading and poorly sourced claims about his scientific work, and that she was motivated to do this by personal hostility . However, Jokestress has continued to edit this page , has recently tried to use NARTH (an anti-gay organization) as a source for a quote from LeVay, and has proposed inserting further controversial and derogatory material related to eugenics . I strongly urge that Jokestress be banned from making any further changes to this article; her past behaviour there probably amounts to a violation of BLP. Skoojal (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• This would be extremely unusual for Jokestress, who usually researches content thoroughly and understands WP:BLP very well having been subject to defamatory edits on the article about her. Is there an OTRS ticket? Guy (Help!) 12:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

With all respect, I do not think that this is correct. Jokestress used a defamatory quote from Roy Porter about LeVay, which implied that LeVay endorsed the use of eugenics to prevent homosexuality. Jokestress is currently proposing comparing LeVay to an infamous Nazi, Carl Vaernet. This would obviously violate BLP. Skoojal (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Seems to me more a content dispute than anything else. If LeVay has concerns about his portrayal on wikipedia which can be deemed violations of BLP, then contacting OTRS is an option. Looking at the history of the article, it seems Skoojal could be considered to be approaching ownership boundaries given the substantive nature of recent edits and edit summaries which seem to indicate writing on behalf of the subject. Minkythecat (talk) 13:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Nearly every single piece of criticism of LeVay that Jokestress added to the article was misleading, and it was appropriate for me to remove this stuff (I wish I had done it more quickly). It created a very distorted and inaccurate picture of LeVay's work. In the case of the Porter quote, it was also defamatory. Skoojal (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Jokestress has a substantial history of engaging in off-wiki attacks against scientists she doesn't like (such as by writing letters to their employers recommending they be fired), and creating (or substantially editing) their bio's on wikipedia to make the pages appear to back her accusations up. Typically, these are sex researchers who have published data in RS's that challenge user:Jokestress sociopolitical views. My opinion is that user:Jokestress is in clear violation of WP:COI in editing Ray Blanchard, J. Michael Bailey, Ken Zucker, and related pages. When contested, User:Jokestress will use the talk pages to convince other editors that off-wiki accusations should be recorded on WP, but fail to reveal that she herself was the very person who filed those accusations with the scientists' employers. For example, see Talk:J._Michael_Bailey#Scientific Misconduct?. In my opinion, she should be banned from editing not only Simon LeVay, but sex researchers in general.

In the way of my own full disclosure: I am myself a sex researcher. Although user:Jokestress has never targeted me (outside of snide comments she makes about me on her personal website), I am of course acquainted with some of the people she has targeted, many of whom are colleagues of mine.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 13:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This situation is similar to a number of previous situations where I have edited controversial biographies and editors with strong POVs have objected. My goal is to be fair but not to shy away from controversy. In the case of LeVay, User:Skoojal has been systematically removing quotations from noted academics and others who have drawn clear connections between LeVay's endorsement of "a new eugenics" and historical problems with labeling oppressed minorities such as gay people as biologically distinct. These include Nancy Ordover, who discusses LeVay at length in American Eugenics, and noted historian Roy Porter, whose review of LeVay in the New York Times has already been purged by Skoojal. Skoojal is also resisting any mention of LeVay's connection to eugenics, which I have proposed on the talk page before adding. Most of Skoojal's edits, on the other hand, are unilateral deletions, and his talk page gives a sense of how he interacts with other editors and administrators when confronted about edit warring and BLP (here and here). Examples:

• "I do not need your condescending advice."
• "Please don't be arrogant and tell me what to do."
• "If you yourself don't have the power to block me, you are wasting your time telling me that I can be blocked."

Just as troubling, Skoojal has been systematically removing other reliable sources he does not like. This does feel like a case of WP:OWN, despite Skoojal's claims to the contrary on his User page.

As for User:James Cantor, his first order of business involving me on Misplaced Pages was to add unflattering information to my Misplaced Pages bio: "Some scholars have likened her as 'the Al Sharpton rather than the ML King sort' of activist." The source for this quotation was a blog, and the quotation was made by him. Adding himself as a source for unflattering commentary in my bio reflects his ongoing efforts to suppress dissent and discredit critics of his employer, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. In other words, both complaints above seem to be based on their antipathy for me because I have included reliably-sourced but unflattering information in biographies of controversial people with whom they agree and/or work. In James Cantor's case, he has already gone through a mediation (here) for his attempts to add negative information to critics' biographies, including mine. He reminds me of other editors engaged in questionable "science" who attack biographies of scientific skeptics like Stephen Barrett. James Cantor accuses me of some sort of impropriety daily and is trying to import a style of interaction to which he is accustomed off-wiki.

Thanks to my fellow long-time editors who weighed in above. Jokestress (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Jokestress's claim above is false - I have not removed the quote from Nancy Ordover (although I may possibly do that at some time in the future if, on further investigation, I decide that it is inappropriate). The 'quotations from noted academics' were deeply misleading in almost every single case. Jokestress's quotations from me are also misleading - most them in fact apply only to one edit warring incident and none of them apply (as she implies) to BLP. Skoojal (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The COI seems pretty blatant at Talk:J._Michael_Bailey#Scientific Misconduct?, but past precedent doesn't give me any confidence that proper action will be taken in this matter. SashaNein (talk) 19:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can ban her, but a review of Levay's critique certainly would be right about the duplications being unneeded (id they still exist.) However, looking over the linked articles, she certainly seems to be heavily pushing an agenda against anyone who suggests that homosexuality may be genetically predetermined. If a ban is placed, it probably ought to be a topic ban on the topic of 'research and researchers into the causes and origins of homosexuality', so as to widely cut her off from causing fights, while certainly allowing her to continue editing articles about gay and transgender (transsexual? gender Identity? not sure which is PC these days) topics, like activisms, histories, protests and conferences. ThuranX (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have also removed an odd ending to the article; we don't need to attack fellow editors, nor ... SOAPBOX... (i messed that up in the edit summary)... about how accurate it is. Levay can go to OTRS, he can register and bring this all to the article talk, or other options, but let's not play childish games on the page. ThuranX (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my removal of a WP:SOAPBOX vio is causing troubles at the page now. I removed it because it's a poorly worded attack on Jokestress, citing a blog-like essay by the article's subject, which at best is a Primary source, not personal essay (blog?). I feel that regardless of her behavior, and of the fact that I support a broad topic ban for her, per my suggested definition above, the article should not become or be used in any way as a platform for him to war back with her. This is better accomplished by linking his essay to the talk page and reviewing it to fix the problems. I took a once over of the article, where I find a lot of time being spent playing with refs and warring over how to snipe at each other. most of the article consists of pulling out Levay quotes and SYNTH'ing up an article. Frankly, locking the regs out for a week and bringing in one of the rescue squads would do more than anything else. ThuranX (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe that ThuranX is on the right track, but I believe also that genetics of homosexuality is only one of several agenda’s Jokestress is pushing. Another such topic is conversion therapy. Conversion therapy (or reparative therapy) is a process by which some clinicians attempt to change homosexuals into heterosexuals (usually with some levels of homophobia and religiosity motivating the endeavour). In order to discredit him, Jokestress recently started pushing the agenda that Ken Zucker engages in such therapies (which he does not). Jokestress tried changing the definitions on conversion therapy to make it seem like he does , editing Ken Zucker’s bio to make it say he does , adding the same text to the bio of Susan Bradley (a colleague of Zucker’s)], and editing new pages to express the same idea yet again ]. Thus, I believe a broader topic ban is in order.

I believe that SashaNein is correct to note Jokestress’ obvious COI with regard to J. Michael Bailey. However, Jokestress’ off-wiki involvement includes many sex researchers, as noted above. Her personal website include copies of her own letters to scientists’ employers and others. Thus, this too suggests (to me) that a broader topic ban is in order.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 00:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that Joketress is doing the right thing. Can we take a breather and look into this before a topic ban? Bearian (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have undone ThuranX's change to the LeVay article. It is extremely unusual to attempt to deprive LeVay of the chance to respond to misleading and defamatory accusations about him. Giving LeVay the chance to do this is not a 'childish game' but a perfectly appropriate response to James's insertion of rubbish into the article about him. The fact that Andrea James is a wikipedia editor does not mean that she is above criticism. Skoojal (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have REblanked that part. The edit Skoojal refers to adds a violation of at least three policies: WP:NPA, WP:BLP, and WP:SELFPUB. I am hitting 3RR, but my understanding of BLP is that that supersedes 3RR. Admins who aren't going to log off right after posting they're all over this are welcomed to review this. ThuranX (talk) 03:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal, you may be right or you may be wrong, but doing it this way in a matter this much disputed was not a good idea. As for the blanking, let's wait a while before deciding whether to undo it. Let uninvolved editors do what is necessary.

I've tried to work on some of this before, and i have my own opinion: everyone involved in the editing of these articles mentioned above has COI sufficient to disqualify them from the topic. This should not be read as endorsing any position. It is possible that all their negative criticisms of each other are all of them right to a certain extent--that is often the case in academic disputes. It is also possible that some of it for all of them is unjustified abuse--that is even more often the case in academic disputes. I suggest we leave them all to their own web sites, for we will not settle the issues here. But if Bearian wants to look into all of this and conduct a binding mediation of the issues, or an evaluation of just who should be banned from what, I can think of nobody better who is still with us. That's not formal procedure, but this is a model case for IAR. the alternative is to send this all to arbcom and wait three months for a result that will be no more reliable. DGG (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The No Personal attacks policy is not relevant. Invoking it here in effect means saying that James, as a wikipedia editor, is above any kind of criticism, which I find shocking. If an editor becomes involved in events and does something wrong, then it should be acceptable to mention this in articles about them (and especially in an article about someone that person has attacked - how is it OK for James to insert something defamatory into the article about LeVay but not OK to mention that the person thus defamed objected to it?). As regards BLP, it's up to ThuranX to say how specificially it is relevant in this case. I will be strongly inclinced to restore any deleted content. Skoojal (talk) 07:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also note that ThuranX appears to have made a personal attack against Simon LeVay on the talk page. Perhaps I have misinterpreted that comment, and perhaps ThuranX will be willing to retract it, but if not, then his involvement in this dispute perhaps becomes problematic. Skoojal (talk) 09:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This is childish wikilawyering. One: LeVay makes a lot of disparaging claims about James in his piece. Two, what SELFPUB is perfectly clear about why it shouldn't be included. Three, one gay sex researcher/activist attacking another gay sex researcher/activist in his blog is a violation of BLP, plain and simple. Any of these three is enough to justify removal. Further, it's an out of place comment, placed in the sexual research section. Finally, the claim was made that this dispute was covered in reliable sources. Use those reliable sources to build a criticism section, do not link to what is little more than a blog. I'm not, as Skoojal keep hinting, opposed to Levay standing up for himself. I'm not opposed to Levay at all. However, That link and subsection are not the right way to advocate for his side, which we shouldn't be doing at all. I've made clear how to solve this problem, Skoojal is just not interested in paying attention. There are no personal attacks agaisnt Simon LeVay, this is a red herring to try to keep me from commenting. ThuranX (talk) 13:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Accusing someone (namely LeVay) of acting as though he were using meat puppets (myself and James Cantor) certainly may look as though it is a personal attack, even if it is not. It's important not just to not make personal attacks, but to not make comments that could easily be interpreted as such. In addition, I will note that ThuranX seems to be implying that LeVay's and James's sexuality has some relevance to whether there is a BLP violation here or not. I find this to be a deeply disturbing and unpleasant suggestion. Perhaps ThuranX could retract that comment, or clarify that that is not what he thinks?Skoojal (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggested taht editors here were acting in the manner of MeatPuppets, and not that LeVay was coordinating such. Consider it tagteam violations of policy, then, and not meatpuppetry if it assuages your tender feelings. As to sexualities, I'm stating that it's a childish war between two people in the same highly charged field, at apparently opposite ends of the spectrum of controversy. You're awful sensitive to the emotional state of Mr. LeVay. As for my writing style, I'll say what needs to be said, I'm not in a popularity contest, and no one's suggested I try to by an admin in months, cause I'm too good as being blunt and pushing for resolutions instead of heading upstage for my turn at the drama. If Misplaced Pages editors tried to make sure no one was ever ruffled by what they had to say on a page like this, nothing would ever get solved. That's not how it works here. ThuranX (talk) 03:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Your comment above is deeply uncivil. I do not think that making deeply uncivil comments on this noticeboard is a good idea. Whether something is meatpuppetry or not has nothing to do with anybody's feelings, and it's not sensible to suggest it does. It would be a good idea to stop making insulting comments about someone whose article you have become involved with. As for LeVay's feelings, I never mentioned them. Skoojal (talk) 05:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring by Skoojal

Further, as the history on that page shows, Skoojal is edit warring. I've provided multiple comments and explanations here and at the talk page for the removal of a smear piece against a living person, and without addressing the issues (other than to throughly dismiss them) He has three times in 24 hours restored them, even after being told to stop by user DGG. As such, I request a 24 hour block to prevent further edit warring. As it is a BLP, NPA, and SELFPUB violation, I will have to remove it again fr reasons I've repeatedly made clear, and do not want to see this distract from the major issues at the article. ThuranX (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to ask all of the involved parties to take a break, immediately, for at least 24 hours from this article. I'll block on sight otherwise. Bearian (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. You logged off after calling me an idiot, and now you're issuing threats against people who got involved here? Lock down the article if you really think there's a problem, to prevent sock use. Otherwise, this is just an intimidation technique designed to keep uninvolved editors from contradicting you as you let Jokestress off the hook. ThuranX (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I've never called anyone "an idiot" or anything close to it. Anyway, even if I log off you can always email me at my Hotmail account 24/7. Bearian (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC) P.S. Jokestress is not off the hook yet. Bearian (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have stopped edit warring, having been warned by Bearian. I was not the only person doing this - ThuranX was equally guilty. The description of LeVay's response to the way James edited the article about him as a 'smear piece' is misleading, especially since LeVay was responding to a probably defamatory claim about him made by James. I accept that SELFPUB is an issue; I do not necessarily agree that other policies were violated. Skoojal (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I was not edit warring. Removal of BLP violations is exempt from the 3RR. Further, I used edit summaries and the talk page to explain my actions. ThuranX (talk) 03:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this the right place for this?

It seems that this isn't just about whether Jokestress should be banned - several editors are accusing each other of serious misconduct in different articles, some of which are BLPs. Would it might be better for ArbCom to open a case on this, for all the evidence be weighed up, and for all the contributors' conduct to be considered? SHEFFIELDSTEEL 16:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Several editors asked me to get involved as a mediator. I've tried to keep all parties calm, short of actually banning or blocking anyone involved. Perhaps I got involved too late. It appears to me to be an off-wiki conflict cascading into a BLP edit war. I've insisted on following the rules as near as possibly without Wikilawyering. ArbCom may take months, and as User:DGG has pointed out, may not be a satisfactory process in this case. Bearian (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

While we are discussing this, I would certainly urge Bearian to go right ahead and do whatever blocks he thinks necessary to end disruption. DGG (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've made a final warning here to User:Skoojal. Bearian (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

robj1981

why is robj1981 allowed to edit???? he seems to constantly be in trouble with other user. he is not a very nice editor. he is uncivil editor who is always on civility patrol. can you make him go away already. He runis everything he touces and is always getting someone banned when he is really the problem. is this community so blind they can't see thru this stuff? He is always running to ANI telling on people and doesnt even tell people when he does it. very uncivil. he has 28 days left on his ban to serve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.198.42.104 (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Based on "is always getting someone banned when he is really the problem" I think it safe to assume that the above IP is a block evading sock. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm looking into it a bit more I'm reasonably sure this is either User:SLJCOAAATR 1 or one of his friends meatpuppeting for him. (See his talk page to see what's been going on). I've hardblocked the IP for a week, which is a bit harsh I know but this sillyness needs to stop.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

i have nothig to do with SLJ saying u banning my ip was unjust and rude. i am aware of situation. User:RobJ1981 and User:A Man In Black may very well be meatpuppets of each other. they have both edited 369 different aticles together yet theyve only talked a few times?!?!??!

369 articles in common- noitce they never disagree in AFD

Also look here- amib nominates, rob votes to support in 7 minutes. clikc here alot of fishiness going on here 70.211.199.121 (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Err, Rob wanted to keep the article, while AMIB wanted to chuck it. By the way, I have nearly 300 pages in common with RobJ1981. I also have 364 pages in common with Theresa knott. Does that mean we're meatpuppets? Of course not. I've never even talked to her before. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no denyimg it. The IP sock is on to us;-) Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima - block required

Blocked for 8 days. Nandesuka (talk) 10:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This editor has continually made accusation after accusation; each meritless in their own way, and demands everyone retracts their statements or strikes them when he is the only user who disagrees. He filed a WQA against S Dean Jameson - no editor or admin felt it warranted any action or warnings whatsoever because it was meritless. He disagreed and it remained open for sometime. I closed the WQA with a similar view . He refuses to let the issue go, as can be seen at the bottom of my talk page, and has declared () that Risker is abusing authority because of commenting on the situation at my talk page and asking him to stop being disruptive. It is very clear to me that this editor has no intention of letting it go and will continue to use Misplaced Pages as a battleground. His block log speaks for itself. I request he be blocked for no less than 6 months. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any diffs here. I'm pretty sure this request won't go anywhere without some of those to show the alleged misbehaviour. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm adding them - but his last 20ish contributions contain the bulk of it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, meritless accusations below by Ottava Rima. This is probably the first occasion I've interacted with S Dean Jameson, and here he is claiming bias at every single editor and admin who has tried to deal with the WQA, including myself, who closed it as a complete third party. His behaviour continues to be blatantly disruptive - Misplaced Pages is not a battleground, and the only defending i'm doing is by invoking the DefendEachOther meatball for his inappropriate conduct re: Risker. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I asked the user to retract his closing of a wikiquette request here with the comments "Filing party (Ottava Rima) does not agree with third party input" and "I find that the claims made here are meritless, so I'm of the opinion that it be dismissed. As the filing party has so far not agreed at all with the similar opinions expressed here, I'm closing this as stuck". The reason why can be found here. I believe that the user made false allegations about my feelings on the matter, did not actually read the discussion, and allowed his previous relationship with User:S. Dean Jameson to conflict with his ability to be unbiased in the situation. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Also- "It is very clear to me that this editor has no intention of letting it go" As you can see from 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, et al, I have repeatedly attempted to "let the matter go" but the person Ncmvocalist is defending refuses to. The user he is defended, i.e. Jameson, even criticized a user here for giving me a barnstar for my constant asking for people to stop using personal attacks in disputes. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(with ECx2)Crap. I hate finding myself on the same side as NCMVocalist, who I'd rather have nothing to do with. However, OR's behavior as regards all things Wilhelmina Will has been questionable; in fact, I pointed this out in the thread about WW that was just here on AN/I, and suggested that OR needed some time away from things. I'm not sure 6 months is right, but given that following the WW debacle, OR ran right to swinging wildly to see who s/he could take down in revenge or anger, I'd certainly support a one or two week block to ensure that OR returns to the project with a level head and no more interest in these sort of tit-for-tat antics. Let's prevent more needless drama.

Further, as seen post-EC, OR's insistence that s/he is right absolutely is more than mildly irritating, and this isn't the first time i've seen her throw that attitude around. It's disruptive in and of itself; every time OR sees a response that doesn't agree, the saem talking points and self-righteous indignation appear. everyone's a biased involved party, of course by nature of getting involved in the previous thread as uninvolved folks, and soon we'll run out of such 'uninvolved folks'. Block to prevent gaming as well.ThuranX (talk) 05:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

What am I "right" about? That I believe there is a problem between Jameson and I? And that I sought help via Wikiquette? Otherwise, how is your comment on topic? I am sure you will try to say this is me further trying to be "right" because you established a logical loop that would critique any response as such. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say you were right about anything, I said you 'insist that you are right'. there's a difference. 2+2=5, and I insist that's true! doesn't make it true, but I'm insisting I'm right. Similarly, you continue to insist in multiple venues that you're right about whatever the topic is, no matter how much else is said by however many others. Look at that WQA, or the WW thread above. lots of people say A, you say 17, and insist that it's always been and will always be 17, no matter how many people say A. ThuranX (talk) 05:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Question, are you saying that I would not understand my complaint and why I filed it better than others reading it? It seems to be what you just stated. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment redacted Ottava Rima (talk) 05:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

In no fucking way am I an associate of his, beyond noting him in an AN/I thread and commenting there, and possibly in the related articles. This is the gaming the system that I'm talking about. EVERYONE who ever talks to each other is an associate, thus exploitable by OR to avoid the spotlight on her behavior. ThuranX (talk) 05:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thuran, I suggest cooling down a bit. This discussion is getting a little heated.<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have redacted the above comment in order to further that end. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

A glance through ThuranX's edit history shows he's in a different universe. But I see nothing that would prevent an association, other than the fact we're both here to edit an encyclopedia, and it appears we don't edit any articles in common. --Blechnic (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Blechnic, I have already redacted the line. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I too find myself in the unusual situation of agreeing with Ncmvocalist's actions on the Wikiquette thread. Ottava Rima complained on Ncmvocalist's talk page that he did not have the authority to close the thread because he was not an administrator, so I piped in and said that, as an administrator, I agreed with the close, and asked OR to stop as his behaviour was becoming disruptive. In response, Ottava Rima tried to bully me by implying that I was acting improperly, threatening to start a thread here about my "inappropriate" actions and hinting that admins have been desysopped for such behaviour. It seems that welcoming other editors onto my talk page, and having them ask me to comment on articles, somehow renders me biased in favour of such editors in Ottava Rima's mind. Unfortunately for some who have visited my page, that is not the case at all.

Ottava Rima has some skill at editing and has proven helpful on some articles, but has also been involved in multiple tendentious situations. I would like to hear from some of the people who have found his editing to have been helpful (or some who have benefited from his "mediation work" that he referred to in his post to my talk page) before considering any type of sanction other than to simply say "cool off". Risker (talk) 05:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Please provide the diff and quotation where I said that his closing was improper because he was not an admin. I wrote the section, I've reread the section, and I am unable to find it. Also, there was "cooling off" as per User:Fritzpoll, where I stopped posting responses to Jameson, but I can show where he refused to do the same, and his associates attacked my character in Wikiquette. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Two consecutive posts by you, the first demanding to know if Ncmvocalist was an admin, the second insisting that he remove the closure of the Wikiquette thread or "if needed be, I will apply for an admin to remove your close". Are we done here? Risker (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Two different points. I hope that clarifies things. Also - stating that I would apply for an admin would mean to go to AN or AN/I, asking for an admin to act, as if I were to act, that would be edit warring. Knowing if he was an admin or not would be important to prevent possible Wheel Warring. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Reading through this and the related threads, I strongly suggest that you learn to stop spitting in the soup. Guy (Help!) 09:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima's block log reads like a seven-month long train wreck. Their most recent unblock was on June 23rd, and ironically reads "User has committed themselves to collegial and non-tendentious editing - ergo block is no longer needed". On the basis of the interactions here and elsewhere, Ottava Rima's commitment doesn't seem to have stuck, because this whole interaction has been less than collegial and tendentious. I am therefore blocking Ottava for 8 days, or twice 96 hours. Nandesuka (talk) 10:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've been involved in two lengthy arguments with this user, the aforementioned WW thread and the one above under "Raul's reply". I must admit, that it can be rather frustrating to debate with this individual especially when they say things like: Therefore, you have no argument and your complaint is moot. Please strike accordingly. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC). Support block and agree with Guy's assessment. –xeno (talk) 12:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Per xeno. A special thanks to Nandesuka for being bold and tackling the issue for what it was, and preventing damage for now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima has suggested that his unblock request is just an attempt to get attention rather than to get unblocked (deliberate disruption, it seems). Frankly, I think he's been much luckier than other editors in terms of the circumstances leading to his blocks - in the past 3 months alone, on multiple occasions, he was counselled by several users about his poor conduct. It doesn't seem to be sinking in, even now. All avenues of trying to get him to understand (& stop) have been exhausted (except through mentoring, if anyone is willing and able to handle it). In the absence of any such agreement, assurance or understanding by Ottava Rima (prior to the current block expiring), then I note that serious consideration needs to be given to deferring to Moreschi's initial indef-block. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: after seeing my above comment, he has made the following edit(s).

• (This will be my only comment on this situation.) I completely agree with Vocalist here. I expended a lot of "WikiEnergy" defending myself against Rima's baseless accusations the past two days, and it appears many other editors have been treated similarly over the course of Rima's time on the project. I think an indef-block, until that time when Rima will commit to stopping this type of behavior, is wholly appropriate. S. Dean Jameson 15:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Community patience exhausted; proposal of infinite block

Er... S. Dean Jameson, OR did commit to stopping this type of behavior at their latest block, you know. I think he's used up all his chances and all our good faith and all our patience, and I suggest an infinite block. Yes, infinite, not indefinite. Indefinite was last time, and he quickly reneged on it. We've surely expended enough wiki-energy on this user. Also, note that not even "infinite" is the end of the road; the possibility of eventually appealing to ArbCom will remain, provided there's no socking.
I've removed the "resolved" template and propose that the user be temporarily unblocked to take part in the discussion of an infinite block. (To edit this thread only, not talkpages etc; enough with the talkpage attacks already.) For background, see these ANI threads:

20 June:

23 April, 2008, "Repeated extreme incivility by User:Ottava Rima:

21 April, 2008:

21 March, 2008, "User:Ottava Rima mass-editing articles without consensus":

See also many a talkpage, recently, User talk:Ncmvocalist, a good example of OR's standard manner of communication with other editors: .

Bishonen | talk 16:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC).

The only reason I oppose this right now is that OR doesn't seem to grasp the wrongdoing for which he/she is blocked. If we Indef Ban now, I have every confidence this user will return as a SOCK, and will continue socking. The user is too committed to 'the truth', currently, As such, mentoring offers far more hope that we can get OR to 'get it', and at least understand WHY an indef ban is being proposed. If OR rejects or fails to seriously engage in a mentoring process, then we've truly exhausted all options, OR can appeal to ArbCom, and then the indef ban can set in. ThuranX (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• I was looking for evidence that OR has been prepared to acknowledge the valid concerns raised numerous times over the weeks, but can't see any; feel free to point out any I missed. All I see here is a troublesome user who is taking more time to keep in line than can be justified from the benefit of their contributions, I'm afraid. Guy (Help!) 17:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• I strongly support this. Not only does Rima not acknowledge any wrong-doing, but there seems to be a martyr-complex thing going on. Rima composed a "poem" about this, and has been soapboxing about how s/he's been wronged. It's apparent to me (in reply to ThuranX above) that OR will never "get" why what he does is wrong. Extending the community's good will any further in dealing with this "bad actor" is not necessary in my view. S. Dean Jameson 17:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• There is a fear that OR may disrupt Misplaced Pages whatever course of action is taken. Which then is the lesser of two evils? The choice seems to be between further (arguably good faith/unintentional) disruption of the type documented ad nauseam in the AN/I archives, and presumed new intentional/bad faith disruption such as sockpuppetry. To me, it seems like a logical error for the community to choose not to ban OR based on a bad faith view of them. Perhaps a ban accompanied by friendly advice and counselling about where OR went wrong? I'm not sure who, if anyone, would be qualified to offer that, but it does leave the door open for future positive contributions. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 17:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• No, he shouldn't be unblocked. We can have a discussion transcluded between pages if necessary, though. Frankly, I think the following alternative remedy would be worth considering, and I doubt it is something that would be too different to an ArbCom remedy either.
  • Ottava Rima (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Misplaced Pages for a period of one year. Should Ottava Rima resume editing Misplaced Pages after this period, he shall be assigned a volunteer mentor, who will be asked to assist Ottava Rima in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that continued sanctions will not be necessary.
• Thoughts? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

thought: It's ridiculous that all of this (recent stuff) got started because OR decided to stick up for WW, who just got the book thrown at her. If OR had reread what had been said about WW, all of this could have been avoided. I notice that Kim Bruning is talkign to OR on OR's talk page. SHould we see if that can yield a change in behavior? ThuranX (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• For the record, Kim asked OR, "What was it this time?" OR responded with more obfuscation, denial, and blame. I'm not arguing with you, ThuranX, but just pointing out how this current "interaction" seems to be simply more of the same. S. Dean Jameson 17:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw, And i think we all know how this will turn out, but in the interest of avoiding more sockmaters, I made the suggestion. ThuranX (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support for the "infinite" ban. This is not for "incivility" in the usual sense, because I oppose the usual sense, but for threatening, hostile, and really quite schizophrenic lability. It's hostile to hateful to loving to hostile to complimentary to hostile, and lots and lots of pretense. It's impossible to edit with or near such a user, and the user himself is intent on gathering attention. This is poisonous. Geogre (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Please see here for further tendentiousness. Rima acts as if Fritzpoll somehow concured with him, when in fact, he did not. In fact, when Fritzpoll initially questioned Rima's reasoining in bringing the WQA, Rima accused Fritz of being "involved" and unable to judge fairly what was going on. This is a habitual problem, and there is no remorse at all for the crap he put me (and Blechnic, among others) through the last two days. S. Dean Jameson 19:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Enough is enough. Chillum 19:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'd like to see some clarity whether we are being asked to consider an indef block or a community ban? I agree with ThuranX's concerns about sock-puppetry but I would not consider that to mitigate the problems caused by Ottava Rima rather the opposite. And I second SheffieldSteel's remarks that a ban accompanied by an explanation might be constructive. The fact that I can't find any diffs indicating that Ottava Rima understands why their behaviour is problematic does not help their case (if I missed that please point it out). For the moment I am leaning towards supporting a community ban--Cailil 19:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Uh? In practice it's the same thing. A community ban is decided in and by such a discussion as the one we're having here. If the discussion leads to consensus for a ban (which is beginning to look likely), somebody will indefblock the user. Any admin can put the ban into practice by blocking OR. Me, for instance, since I made the proposal. Is that clear now, or what exactly is the question? Bishonen | talk 19:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC).
    • I do catch your drift Bishonen and I'm aware of the difference and similarity of indefinite blocks and community bans. However I think it would be somewhat clearer to say "community ban" rather than "infinite block". The issue for me is that with a block there is an implied possibility of unblocking, however if we are discussing a community ban we are seeking consensus for both an indef block and for a resolution not to unblock. Especially in case that Ottava Rima appeals this process it would good if we were all crystal clear about what we are implementing. I'm nit-picking and I know know it - but I'd prefer to have all our ducks in a row. Also having considered the evidence further I do support a community ban of Ottava Rima--Cailil 20:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I find Ottava to be a largely constructive editor: Samuel Johnson, which he largely wrote, is only days away from FAC, imo. He is able to collaborate, but in urgent need of socialization into our community norms. I think an outright ban would be self defeating to the project; maybe a probation period during which he is mentored and resticted from posting in cetrain formus and name spaces. Mentoring I'd be prepared to take on myself; although I have no experience in this area, I do get on with Ottava. ( Ceoil 20:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

  (ecx500000)For the record, no one "baited" him in this last episode. (And from the research I've since done into his background, he has rarely been "baited" in the past.) This was written before you refactored out your "baited" claim. He simply started firing baseless accusations of "personal attacks" around, with little regard to the veracity of the claims. And his block log (and recent comments) show a recalcitrance that does not lend itself to the belief that there is any hope that he will forgo this type of behavior in the future. S. Dean Jameson 20:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No Dean sorry; I wasn't being specific about baiting there; that was just a general observation / musing. ( Ceoil 20:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Striking, per your above. Probably still a bit flustered from spending quite awhile defending myself against the baseless accusations. S. Dean Jameson 20:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Understandable on ANI! Look, I'm not denying or confirming or holding any paticular openion on anything above or on either of ye in this; I'm just saying restrictions and mentoring in Ottava's case are worth a try from my experience of him. ( Ceoil 20:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ceoil, this is what I was talking about: lability. He can be fawning, then impossible. "His" is a lot, even though very little of it is. Samuel Johnson is "his?" Why does that make me fear for the article? Is it all Jackson Bate? When OR has insisted most loudly on being expert, he has been novice. His knowledge is limited, his ability to take correction zero, his ability to tolerate edits, nil. I don't know anything about the reality of the person operating the account, but it seems like a "first year," but one with a hideous personality. The inability to recognize, much less respect, other people and their skills, the intolerance of being in error, the histrionic response to being over-ruled, these are the issues that matter in determining fitness for a cooperative editing project like Misplaced Pages. Regurgitating Irvin Ehrenpreis and calling it Swift or tossing out Bate and calling it Johnson is something his professors will teach him not to do, but neither is going to balance out the poor writing, the bad syntax, and the personality. Geogre (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes well, <ahem> I have my own openions about Ottava; which I'm prepared to share with him in private, but not on a public noticeboard ;) Swift and Johnson are outside my area so I wouldn't be able to spot OR there, and for sure I see that in disputes he's well, y'know. But so sanction him, take him out of areas where he most comes into dispute (FAC usually), and restrict him to colleborative efforts at adding content. Put him on strict civility patrol /1RR for a year, ban him from FAC/FAR etc for 6 months, article talk for 3, 9for example) strict mentorship; and if that doesn't work; pah, throw away the key. Dunno, I had hoped earlier (a few weeks ago only), to work with him on pages I would have a stronger grip and more familiarality on the sources (romantic poets), and would be able to reason with him from a more informed pedestal. That I might not get the chance is dissapointing. ( Ceoil 21:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, to be clear, I was not commenting on the person. I don't know the person. I was commenting on the behavior. The behavior is what I have seen (and what I once did) as a first year: you find a textbook account, and you charge in telling the world that this is it. Very, very soon, humility or humiliation will teach you to back off, to look for nuance. I wouldn't just clip Leslie Marchand for Byron; that's something a mug or a fool would do. Marchand has his position, but he's been superseded and augmented and was never sufficient to begin with. What I have seen is a consistent jumping up and claiming ownership of all knowledge on a field based on a single book. It's textbook "fool" behavior (a fool is not stupid; he is unwise). But what makes it a matter of AN/I and people wanting bans is the reaction to any word. I have seen no nuance, just extremes, and that kind of brittle zooming about just makes other people want to stay clear. That's the opposite of collaborative editing. Geogre (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If we indef blocked (or banned) every editor matching the description Geogre gives, we'd lose a lot of editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No, indeed. It isn't the hubris that's blockable. It's the reaction to cooperative editing. I've made this clear throughout. The hubris means that he's going to make big mistakes, and that means that he's going to need to have other people edit. When they do, though, he goes berserk. That renders him unfit for cooperative editing environments. A person who goes about modestly adding "and love Big Macs" to the articles of burger eaters is not going to need to interact a lot, but someone who says, "I know all there is to know about Samuel Johnson, because I checked Bate out," and then "I know everything there is to know about Swift, because someone told me to read Ehrenpreis" is going to be involved, quickly and often, with people having to take away the wide eyed and clumsy mistakes, and such a person needs to have an appropriate temperament. OR does not. Geogre (talk) 12:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I mostly agree with this assessment. The issue is not, in my view, that OR is a great editor who happens to run into trouble with other editors from time to time. He or she is an editor with decided limitations (we all are, of course), who doesn't realize what those limitations are, and tends to react rather badly when they are pointed out to him or her. That is certainly the backstory to the dispute with User:Awadewit, for instance. On the other hand, as I've said, he or she is not always wrong, and can sometime (increasingly, I think) work well in collaboration. I support the idea of mentorship. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Euf sorry Geogre; if only I had the gift of the gab and not the ability to put my foot in it. Sorry, didn't mean to imply; just was having a sly dig at the fact that my own openions are rarely fit for public consumption. I'm just going to leave this settle, my offer is simple, either people think its a good idea or not. ( Ceoil 22:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

4 and a half admins supporting a community ban.... If Guy confirms his support, then that makes 5. Any admin who does not? Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Just throwing it out there, what about a topic ban from Misplaced Pages: namespace? –xeno (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

  Much of Rima's damage was done on talkpage's as well. I'm not sure how effective a straight namespace ban would be. S. Dean Jameson 21:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Add my name to "support indef" if you're counting heads. I fail to see how "but they'll make illegal socks and continue because they are dense regarding what Misplaced Pages is Not" is an argument against a block or ban. KillerChihuahua 21:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No, were only counting admins; see above. Ncmvocalist I find your "4 and a half admins supporting a community ban" comment highly offensive. And your cry to Guy to be the last word beyond the pale. Shame, it seems you prefer a head to a solution. ( Ceoil 21:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Struck cmt; expalined below. ( Ceoil 00:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a shame you don't assume good faith. I suggested a ban and mentoring - not just a ban like above. Strawpolls do not determine consensus - they're just one measure. I called Guy's comment half-a-vote because his reasoning seems to support the ban, but it does not explicitly state 'Support'. If he confirms, then (obviously) it's a full vote. That's why I asked if there is any admin who does not support it. You're reading too much into it; so much so, that you're way off base. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ceoil: I'm not sure I understand what you are saying - pls clarify? KillerChihuahua 22:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"4 and a half admins supporting a community ban.... If Guy confirms his support, then that makes 5. Any admin who does not?" - If thats not stawpolling, then I wonder what is not. ( Ceoil 22:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure its strawpolling. What are you saying about it, please? KillerChihuahua 22:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm an admin and I'm against the ban ( see below ). What does that signify in these terms, exactly? Fritzpoll (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Right. I took offence because I found the remark "Any admin who does not" to be exclusionist agianst us non admins. Maybe a bit over sensitive, but not the best phrased headcount I've seen so far. It came accross as if I was being talked over. ( Ceoil 22:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree - I genuinely don't see the significance of admins' opinions in a community centred discussion, and I say that as one of "them". Fritzpoll (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh. Well, I'm not sure its still on the policy, but at one point at least a community ban was when "no admin is willing to unblock" - so any admin objecting would mean not a community ban. No offense was intended, I am sure. Head-counting the supporting admins has often been used to guage whether enough admins have looked at the situation - 5 is not enough, certainly, for this issue. KillerChihuahua 22:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok Chihuahua, I'm not a frequent visitor here. ( Ceoil 22:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Opppose, sorry, but I concur with Ceoil, and since he has offered to mentor, I think that is a good option. Ottava Rima brought Samuel Johnson to FAC-ready status with about one weeks' work; he clearly can be a productive editor. Further, the way this thread and issue has been conducted is reminiscent of the issues that led to the shutdown of WP:CSN: I see a bit too much of a hurry to indef block an editor who has done good work, and I'm concerned that WQA can't be effectively used as it is intended to be used because threads are being closed and archived. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

  Sandy, I'd encourage you to look more deeply into the baseless accusations Rima was throwing around against first Blechnic, then me. Distracting at best, disruptive at worst. There's no acknowledgement of error from him, no remorse for the distraction he caused, and he's still blaming me for the whole thing. He's a good editor, but is that enough to make up for the disruption he caused (and has caused in the past)? I say no. You disagree? S. Dean Jameson 21:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

  What I see is that someone has offered to mentor him, which makes the issue of an indef block look like a lynching that will end up at ArbCom. In the meantime, Samuel Johnson stands as a testament to OR's work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

  PS This is what Johnson looked like before Ottava Rima started working on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

  There are people one knows just enough to make a hash of, and there are people one knows well enough to know not to try it. I won't edit the Pope page or the Johnson page, because I know how fast-moving they are. It takes a certain amount of hubris or actually supreme work (not the kind done in a week, I assure you) to write a fair job on either author. What's easy is to follow one of the standby authors, to act as a clipping service. What's hard is to be accurate, complete, and concise. I have no problem with an overly bold person rushing forward and making a stew of things, but I wouldn't praise them for it. Geogre (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - I understand the feelings of some of those here arguing for a community ban, but it is not in the interest of the project to ban this editor at this time. It is true that OR is excessively forceful in their opinion, and this certainly has to change. As far as I am aware, however, and certainly in relation to recent events, no lasting damage has been caused by this user. At worst, some users have had their time wasted (and this could have been avoided in some cases by not rising to the comments) and whilst this is in itself disruptive, OR is not merely a timewaster, but someone has done good work and who seems to be genuinely defend the project's principles, albeit in a misguided manner. The best thing we can do as a community is make out displeasure known (as we have) and attempt to mentor OR back into the fold. Banning should be a final step, not our first resort. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

  I'm sorry; first resort? That is almost amusing. Various people have spent a great many hours, and there have been multiple warnings and blocks. Kim Bruning tried mentoring a bit, as did others to different extents. This is hardly the "first resort". KillerChihuahua 22:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

  Well, perhaps "first resort" was the incorrect term. However, the meaning of my post should be clear - I think there is room for one more chance from the community. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I think "do not respond" is a good choice of behavior with User:Ottava Rima. I learned that on my talk page. I have watched over and over as editors have fed into his/her responses. It is not necessary to do this. Responding gives some editors a feeling of unresonable power. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well said Mattisse, though sometimes very hard to do! ( Ceoil 22:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Editors are now responding over and over on his/her talk page. This will just make the situation worse, in my opinion. I think the best way to go about this is to let the eight days pass in peace. After eight days, User:Ottava Rima will have had time to think. Not, however, if there is a constant interchange of emails and talk page posts that are stirring the pot. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Plus, it's getting embarrassing and setting my teeth on edge. Please don't rise, keep it on ANI. Bishonen | talk 23:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC).

• Oppose. I have had my share of run-ins with Ottava Rima; at times I have felt driven to distraction, I admit. He/she often takes up positions that are best described as "odd," and defends them with stubborn tenacity. I can quite understand where people are coming from when they ask for a block. But sometimes, in my view, he or she is right. And an "infinite" block seems to me to be way over the top. Ottava Rima can collaborate productively with other editors. It is true that he/she often falls off the wagon but there has to be a more refined measure (topic bans, 1RR, mentoring, whatever) than the crude use of this ultimate sanction. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose if the editor will simply admit that he or she made some mistakes with his or her attitude, and that he or she will try to do better in the future. Ottava is an asset and I would hate to lose that. Someone who has shown a willingness and ability to contribute should be given many chances. Enigma 23:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

That is apparently impossible for the editor to do at this time. Please, just let the eight days pass. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

So just make it a ban from the namespace, as suggested. Let the editor contribute content and strongly discourage the bickering part of it. Enigma 23:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose none the less a potentially excellent editor in terms of content. I would support a log ban on using WP and WPT space--even indefinite-- to encourage the concentration on article writing. DGG (talk) 23:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Commment I find this editor extremely difficult to work with, but even so, he's clearly a productive article builder. I think that one more chance, with the knowledge that an indefinite block awaits if he continues down this path is merited. A WP/WPT ban also seems like it might be a good idea. -Chunky Rice (talk) 01:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose indefinite block. It appears that OR is a valuable contributer. . .though s/he doesn't know when to just "let it go" at times. It's a big jump from 8 days to indef, and I don't think it's called for at this time. Speaking of "letting it go" this thread should be archived soon. It doesn't appear likely that this will garner consensus, so there's no need to further fan the flames. Suggest that this thread be marked resolved and archived in the interest of moving on. R. Baley (talk) 03:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm still concerned about the breakdowns that are occurring at WQA, which is where this issue should have stayed. And, the notion to ban Ottava Rima from WP and WPT spaces also concern me, particularly considering the breakdown that occurred at WQA and the heavy-handedness that is going on there. It's supposed to serve for dispute resolution. And if OR is prohibited from WP space, then he can't nominate Johnson to FAC or GAN? Not good. Again, this is too reminiscent of the breakdown at the now-defunct WP:CSN and the banning of Ferrylodge, who appears today to be a productive editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose baby with the bathwater. -- Ned Scott 06:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Ottava Rima's attacks against me were so baseless, off target, and hard to understand that it's clear the response his/her attacks merit and should routinely be given: just ignore him/her. There was a level of expertise in the attacks, among the ramblings, that should be dealt with though Also, he/she should have been blocked sooner, for less time, in my opinion. In addition, a cool down period is in order, before banning for a year, in my opinion.
• I'm concerned about people who don't address the level of nastiness of the attacks since they consider OR's contributions worthwhile. Where is that line drawn? I don't give OR any credit that can be exchanged for bullying and threatening other editors for valuable contributions. --Blechnic (talk) 08:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - I was dismayed that Ottava was blocked for eight days apparently just for taking a complaint to wikiquette which he is fully entitled to do. Although I've yet to find the time to wade through the total record, I can say that I've yet to see any truly egregious breaches of civility from this editor - at worst he just seems to be a somewhat difficult person to negotiate with at times. What I have seen from him however, are plenty of solid contributions in Misplaced Pages mainspace. Carcharoth reminded me only the other day that not every productive editor has an engaging personality and that admins needs to take that into account, and I think this may be a case in point. So please let's try and keep a sense of perspective. Gatoclass (talk) 09:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• What's an infinite block? I thought Misplaced Pages didn't do those? Or do you mean a ban? (non-admin comment) --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 12:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose indef per SandyGeorgia. However, I'm not thrilled about OR's comments at the VPP about BLP issues and think that in addition to DGG's excellent suggestion of a ban on WP space, that close attention be paid to any editing by Ottava Rima of non-public-figure biographies. His incivility addressed to us is one thing, but I really saw no indication in that discussion that he understood that articles can harm people even if they are not libellous. Furthermore, you cannot be sued for libel about something that is true is a true statement, but that's not the final word when we're dealing with people's reputations. Darkspots (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Mentorship

It would be a pity to let this thread run out in the sands along with the other four Ottava Rima ANI threads over the past four months, which I linked to above. We're surely not going to do this once a month ad infinitum? <sigh> People are already citing lack of time (see Gatoclass just above) and/or reluctance to "wade through" those threads. Next time, when it's five threads instead of four, the wading will be yet more daunting, and even fewer of those that post will presumably be in the best position for forming an opinion. I suggest, instead, that Ottava Rima and the community should accept Ceoil's handsome offer to mentor the user. Ceoil, thank you for suggesting it. Could you perhaps undertake to do it per WP:MENTOR, and to report to this board in case of serious problems? If appropriate, the ban issue could then be discussed again. Would that be acceptable ? Your thoughts, please?(Everybody's thoughts, not Ceoil's exclusively.) Bishonen | talk 12:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC).

• As the admin who blocked this time, I specifically suggested mentorship to Ottava Rima, and I think that this is a good solution. That being said, in the past some editors have offered to mentor other users, and then found that they didn't actually have the time. But if Ceoil is sure s/he has the time and the bandwidth to take on this project, then by all means let's go for it.
• If the mentorship fails, and OR can't reduce the Drama Quotient, then I'll almost certainly think it is time for a community ban. Nandesuka (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• I could support this measure, especially if it's provided that the next incident of baseless accusations and the like is the last time it happens. I'd encourage those who only looked at OR's article work to take a peek at the accusations he leveled first at Blechnic, then at me (for defending Blechnic), then at anyone who ventured onto the WQA to let him know it was a baseless report. It's an interesting (and frustrating) read, to be sure. S. Dean Jameson 13:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The accusations were not "baseless." How they were pursued may be another question. But, for the record, I was asked by Dean to look at them, and, lo and behold, OR was essentially "right." However, he ran into a brick wall, as is common with such. Being "right" isn't enough here, being able to collaborate with other human beings is also very important. --Abd (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The accusations were completely, utterly, totally baseless. At your talkpage as here, you demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of what even provided the genesis for these "complaints" by Rima. I've placed a nutshell view on your talkpage, so you can fully understand just how baseless Rima's "complaints" were. S. Dean Jameson 19:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)]

If you have accusations against me, Abd, report them to me, to AN/I or somewhere, with diffs, but don't toss them around as if they exist without confronting me with them. As you failed to confront me with the accusations they the poorly built houses S. Dean Jameson calls them. Even OR had to retact his/her last accusation against me, that I was an associate of another editor. Not a crime on Misplaced Pages, by the way, but a quick view of both of our edit histories, which OR apparently did not make, shows we have no association. Accuse me or don't, Abd. --Blechnic (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• At this point the consensus seems to be for not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. After a certain point, however, the house becomes so full of bathwater that you just have to open the front door, even knowing that the baby will surely be swept away. I hope Ceoil will be able to make this clear to Ottava Rima. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 13:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support mentorship for Ottava Rima by Ceoil. Also, SheffieldSteel's comment above resonates with me a good bit, OR would do well to consider it. Should there be a definite time frame on the mentorship? R. Baley (talk) 13:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• The block was entirely appropriate, and WQA is (and continues to be) utilized as it were intended in dispute resolution, often being cited in later steps in dispute resolution (including a few of the more recent arb cases) - despite what a certain FAC-regular has predictably claimed about it all. Although I wanted a definite-duration ban in filing this to begin with, as stated earlier, I'd support a mentorship proposal - it's worked in some cases, and I see no reason not to refuse it here, unless of course, there is no one who is willing and able, and qualifies. But per SheffieldSteel and one of my earlier comments, if mentoring is not sufficiently effective (even moreso if further sanctions/blocks are required), then I think we're at the last option - community banning. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support the mentorship proposal. It is great that Ceoil volunteered here and I hope Ottava will accept Ceoil's offer. Ottava has, to put it diplomatically, a difficult personality and can be obstinate as hell, refusing to let go even when it is clear that the best option is to walk away from a particular conflict. In the WilheminaWill episode Ottava's position on the core issue of the dispute was, in my opinion, quite irrational (It is clear that WW's edit summaries, were in fact insults directed at Blechnic; the attempt to explain them away as meaning something completely different from their apparent meaning was not credible) and O.R.'s dragging the matter to WAQ and beyond only made things worse. However, it is also the case that Ottava Rima has made many valuable mainspace contributions and is a good content editor whose main motivation is to improve the project and not to disrupt. It would be a pity to lose such an editor. Mentorship would be a good way to go here. Nsk92 (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support but with a frown. If C. can manage the user, then that's great. If my doubts are unfounded, that's great. If the person learns how complex major author fields are, that's great. If the person learns to listen to people and accept help graciously, admit faults politely, and let go a bit, that's wonderful. If the user is too much to mentor, then we can at least be sure that amicable solutions have been tried (sorry about the passive). Geogre (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support No reason not to try it. Ceoil, an effective mentoring job would be extremely helpful! Enigma 15:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. There needs to be some kind of formal guidelines set out for this. Something to the effect of, "Before reporting users to ANI/WQA/RfC, please refer the issue to Ceoil" or something like it. I say this, because a mentor in name only would almost be worse than no mentor at all. S. Dean Jameson 16:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support but I do want to point out that some of the people he's come in conflict with on article content issues are every bit as stubborn as he, and any mentor will probably in practice need to be a mediator here as well. DGG (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply; I would be pleased to be able to give this a go, providing of course that Ottava accepts the terms placed on him. I'll be away for the next few days, but will speak to Ottava when I return, and after that talk to others who have done something similar. Note that I'm not an admin, and its been suggested that it might be useful if one work with me, even from the sidelines, in the (likely!) event of drama. Hopefully this thread can be closed now, any restrictions, terms etc can be discussed elsewhere when the current block expires. ( Ceoil 17:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support Mentorship is something that should be used more often. One point is crucial: the one being mentored should voluntarily accept the mentor; and should also be able to suggest other possible mentors. While it is desirable that a mentor be as experienced as possible, any editor in good standing, reasonably familiar with the Misplaced Pages guidelines involved in the apparent problems, should be able to serve. If a mentor, or the mentored one, find that the relationship is not working, either can withdraw and the situation returns to the prior status. To my mind, the real benefit would come if an editor who is experiencing problems (or others are experiencing problems with the editor) finds someone reasonably trustworthy, who is going to understand the issues raised by that editor and assist in their resolution. Which includes telling the "pupil," "You're all wet on this, and here is why," with reasonable chance that the pupil will swallow, read it carefully, and absorb what is acceptable of it. Or, alternatively, "You're right, and here is how to pursue it. Don't touch the live wire, instead, go to the glove closet, etc., etc."--Abd (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support mentorship for Ottava Rima by Ceoil. To plagiarize one of my fellow editors (an associate in Misplaced Pages). There's no reason not to try it if Ceoil is willing, and, above it appears Ceoil is ready to set ground rules and take it seriously. Good luck. --Blechnic (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

User':Fourtildas

Well, it's day two of my adminship and I'm already in over my head! Yikes... All right, so I need some advice from experienced admin-folk. Here's the story. I was contacted on IRC by a user who was the brunt of a rather nasty personal attack by User:Fourtildas (diff) after warning him for vandalism on Israel. I read through his talk page and decided not to immediately block at the time, left him with a level-3 no personal attacks warning, and resolved to look through his contribs later. Well, it's later now and I'm starting to think, just after reading through a few, that I probably should have blocked. He has been frequenting the Talk:Israel page with borderline uncivil comments and today went so far to describe Jews as "totally disgusting" (diff). I'm not sure how to proceed. L'Aquatique 08:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you did fine--just remember that blocks are preventative, not punitive. You might want to follow up your warning with a personal note about what is and isn't acceptable and advise him that further disruption or personal attacks will result in a revocation of his editing. Then I'd suggest watchlisting his page and keeping an eye on his contributions. Warnings sometimes take a little while to really sink in. --jonny-mt 08:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not say "Jews". Where did you get that idea? I was talking about people who try to insert their religious beliefs into Misplaced Pages in ways that would mislead some readers into thinking it was history. The "Land of Israel" article with maps is a prime example. I actually assumed it was mostly Christian fundamentalists doing this. Fourtildas (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you do realize that it doesn't really matter who you were talking about, the comment was still wildly inappropriate, right? At Misplaced Pages, civility is one of our most cherished values. Hostile comments like the one you made at Talk:Israel do nothing to improve the article and only serve to hurt feelings and make the editing climate more tense. Please, cease and desist. L'Aquatique 18:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, people who try to insinuate their religious beliefs into Misplaced Pages and represent them as facts are fine folks, the salt of the earth, I love them. (BTW, you don't need to apologise for your false accusations of anti-semitism) Fourtildas (talk) 05:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I need to get some sleep now, but I will write a personally tailored warning tomorrow and hopefully this can be sorted out with a minimum of fuss. : ) L'Aquatique 09:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Julie Dancer, repeated personal attack and harrassment

Please see Misplaced Pages:Village pump (assistance)#How strange? - personal attack after final warning given; repeated harassment emails to me and User:Kevin (see User talk:Kevin), as well as a professor at my school whom I have no relations with...--Jiuguang (talk) 14:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Julie Dancer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for one week, given that there was a previous final warning. I disabled e-mail, as well, given the concern above. It's clear that she is passionate about her chosen subject, which is good in itself - but this goes way, way too far. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 15:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I also received e-mails from Julie Dancer. Be advised that they have many sock puppets and are likely to continue harassment using these; I advise blocking all of them for a similar period. Dcoetzee 17:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thrilling. Is there an SSP or RFCU page I should see? UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 18:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes - Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Julie Dancer. Also, a new User:Kadiddlehopper have joined in on the discussion using similar tactics, and based on this removed talk page content here, the user has a history of sock-puppetry and antisemitic attacks. --Jiuguang (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked this account for a week for block evasion. I'm going to block for longer if any more socks appear. Kevin (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Given the threats by her and her sock on that VP thread, I am surprised at only one week. DGG (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I blocked before I saw this thread, and the previous sockpuppetry. I've reset to indef. Next stop is WP:RFCU Kevin (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment, but if this diff is what is being referred to as "antisemitic", I'm not sure that is accurate. In a discussion that compared the Patriot Act to Nazi Germany, this user referred to another as a "lieutenant in the SS". While obviously inappropriate (and somewhat confusing), it was contextual to the conversation (i.e. a Nazi Germany comparison), and not necessarily a reflection of an antisemitic attitude. I am in now way defending the comment, but I also don't think an editor should be labeled "antisemitic" inappropriately, as this may severely influence actions taken against them. If I misread the situation, or if the accusation is based on other, more relevant comments, then feel free to ignore me. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

While I concur that the November 2007 comment was borderline anti-semetic at best, I don't think it has a bearing on this block. It's reasonably clear that this editor is working in tandem with Julie Dancer, to the point of echoing similar accusations (utilizing similar phrasing to do so), and is easily considered a meatpuppet. It's quite possible that they're socks, which checkuser would reveal. As for the one week block of Julie, I conceded that it might be a little light for the threats indicated. My thinking was that it was a little heavy for a first block, but that anything less than a full week had limited value. It was also unclear at the time whether it was someone whose article was deleted flipping out about it, or someone with genuine malice of intent (with threats and contacting an editor's college off-wiki, for example). No objection from me if other editors think a longer (or indefinite) block is warranted. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 12:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

odd archiving

and are two examples of NCMVocalist closing and removing to subpages two very large threads. As Kelly notes, Ncmvocalist is not an admin, nor an AN/I clerk. Is there a good reason for him to do this, esp. on threads he's involved in? ThuranX (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you've been around here for enough time, discussions that are getting long are moved to subpages - that's not archiving. And another thing you've got wrong - I'm only involved in one of those discussions - and that was closed from agreement of all involved. The other discussion I'm not involved in, but needs enough space for full discussion. Assuming good faith as always ThuranX...what can I say? :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you ever assume good faith Thuranx? The pages were not archived, they were moved to their respected subpages to keep down on the length of ANI. The page is 256 KB long, with two subpages not included, and it renders slow for many users who have non-high-speed Internet connections. This has been ongoing for a while, to move discussions that have all but ended, to subpages so that it may reduce the page load. This requires no immediate administrator attention, or even any administrator attention, for that matter. seicer | talk | contribs 19:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I brought it up here after noting another editor's comments. ThuranX (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Ncm for doing this myself, even on a high speed connection it made for navigating this page rather tedious. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You're most welcome. :) It was beginning to irritate me too! Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• In regards to thread moves to subpages, I think it would be best to at least ask for consensus before doing so. From what I've seen, moving threads to subpages basically kills all input from uninvolved parties. This means that the only people left talking are the most-partisan, resulting in zero-consenseus max-heat min-light conversations with no result. Stop moving to subpages without agreement. Ncmvocalist has no authority or consensus to do this type of work in any case, and should knock it off, particularly in threads in which he is involved. If it needs to be done, let an admin do it. Kelly 19:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • What I think is...both you and ThuranX need to stop engaging in this unseemly conduct and move on. No, I don't think it's best we let this ANI page go from 375kb to 500kb asking for consensus to do a routine task: moving obviously long discussions to sub pages so that this ANI page remains readily accessible to the sane community. It has never been, nor ever will be a requirement either. I also think both of you have major issues if you think someone is involved in a discussion they haven't contributed to, or they become involved in a dispute just for offering third party uninvolved input. An admin has clearly stated that "this requires no immediate administrator attention, or even any administrator attention, for that matter." I fully agree. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
    • • Another admin clearly stated that it was rude of you to hide a thread just minutes after you closed it. . DuncanHill (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, but as I wrote to the editor who filed the ANI, that was a mistake on my part - I should've put it in a sub-page and waited the necessary amount of time prior to archiving/hiding. The editor who filed the ANI on the other hand was perfectly willing for it to be archived. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
          • So when you described me and 2 others as edit-warring over it, what you meant was that one (an admin) had corrected your mistake, another editor had repeated your archiving, and that I had simply done exactly what that admin had done (in the absence at that time of any explanation or apology from you on this page for your mistake)? DuncanHill (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
            • I didn't realize the mistake until afterwards, amidst, what appeared to me to be an edit-war at the time. Other than that, you've summarized it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Ncm, I see you are not currently an admin. Would you like to be one? Kelly 20:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
      • If only I knew. :) But, again, I'll emphasize...you need to move on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
        • "Move on" from what? Please stop your attempted "clerking" on this page until you have some consensus to do so. The subpaging is counterproductive, in my opinion. Get some authority or consensus to do so before you continue it, please. Thank you. Kelly 21:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
          • Thanks, but no thanks. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
            • Um, OK. That's one of the most singularly unhelpful responses I've ever received. In that case, I'll feel free to revert you in the absence of any other consensus. Kelly 21:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

What's going on at WQA is becoming a big problem and rendering it ineffective as a step in dispute resolution; it looks like those who have "taken charge" of the page are turning dispute resolutions into disputes, it's reminiscent of what led to the downfall of WP:CSN, and some fresh eyes might be needed at WQA so that it can be used as was intended; also concerned about a lot of premature archiving here at ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know who is right and who is wrong, but could people please stop edit-warring on AN/I over the archival of threads? Enigma 21:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd be happy to stop (I already have) but Ncmvocalist continues to disruptively subpage content from this page. Kelly 21:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
    • It was subpaged with approval by User:Seicer, which is much more than I can say for any of your disruptive revert-warring. This is not about archiving threads - it's about keeping ANI accessible; something Kelly is seemingly intent on making unaccessible. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I have no idea which thread you're referring to. If there was consensus to subpage a particular thread, please point me to the consensus to do so. If there is a general conensus to subpage threads once they reach a particular size, point me to that. If there is neither, then knock off the disruptive subpaging. It interferes with obtaining consensus by removing it from general public view. Kelly 21:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
      • With all respect to Seicer, he has no special authority on this page, nor do you. I see no evidence that this page has become significantly more inaccessible lately. Please stop aggressively archiving/moving sections. If it's important to you find a consensus for a solution. RxS (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
        • With due respect to you then, both editors and admins (in their numbers) obviously disagree with you - it is taking too long to load. The claim that it is outside of public view is meritless - the section still exists pointing to the subpage it's been moved to. This has been a long established practice of dealing with ANI complaints when they get lengthy. It hasn't been archived. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
          • • Link to policy/guideline/consensus, please? (I've asked this already, why is it so hard?) Kelly 21:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
            • Well, the last discussion I see shows no consensus supporting your position . Did it develop elsewhere? And is there some evidence that load time has become a problem? RxS (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
              • Several editors and sysops have agreed that it has become a lot slower since the size of this page has been as large as it has lately. That's why they came to thank me on my talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • Because norms are not always (if at all) codified. You're welcome to check the archives and find each subpage that already exists if you like though. You refuse to stop with the unseemly conduct, so I think I'm done here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
                • Thanks. Kelly 22:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
              • That discussion was about standard archiving (leaving no link to the thread), not moving large threads to subpages. Consensus for this doesn't come from some policy or guideline, but (as it often does) from accepted practice. People have been moving many large ANI threads to subpages for the last 6-8 months (see for the complete list, which I remember having only about six pages about six months ago). If the concern is getting fresh eyes on the discussion to promote resolution, you can post a new thread to ANI repeating the link and asking for fresh participants or spam links to the village pump, for example.--chaser - t 22:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
                • I would disagree with the above - there is no such consensus or standard practice. When it has happened, people have complained, and more importantly, discussion has died. Kelly 22:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
                  • Who has complained specifically about moving large threads to subpages?--chaser - t 22:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
                    • Me, and the others complaining in this thread, should serve as a starting point. Kelly 22:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Kelly alone has violated 3RR in deliberate WP:POINT, and nothing's been done. If the entire community is going to sit back and let this group unreasonably and repeatedly continue to do so, then what's the point? I see no need to contribute here any further. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Group? I wasn't acting in concert with anyone, but if there's a group, let me know who my compadres are. Kelly 22:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You've both violated 3rr, but the edit-war has stopped, so blocking shouldn't be necessary.--chaser - t 22:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to dispute the fact that the discussion whose archiving I reverted needed closing. I reverted because it is rude to deliberately hide the discussion four minutes after the discussion is closed. That is what is rude to the participants. The several people discussing on that thread deserve to at the very least see that the current discussion is closed and should be open somewhere else, not that it should be wiped off this noticeboard on an editor's whim. And before someone says "check the archives" or something similar to that garbage, tell me, how many people look at subpages compared to this board? —Kurykh 22:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that AN/I gets big, and sometimes it gets a bit too big, and something needs to be done about it, but moving big threads to subpages isn't the right way to go, IMHO. As has been pointed out above, moving threads to subpages takes away the attention, simply because the threads don't appear in anyone's watchlist anymore. Yes, sure, you can always watchlist the subpages, but first you got to find out that there is a subpage. Depending on how you use this page (Using your watchlist or the RSS feed, instead of visiting ] every now and then, for example), that's not likely to happen. It happened a couple of times to me now that I was wondering why no one was making any edits to a particular thread anymore, only to find out that it has been moved to a subpage a few hours or days ago. Additionally, I think Kelly made a pretty good point above as s/he pointed out that uninvolved parties are not as likely to comment on a subpage. Yes, it's just one extra click, but it's one extra click for every thread that was moved. --Conti|✉ 22:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how else to deal with it. This page is basically impossible on dialup, and it's not as though we can predict what threads will be huge when they're started.--chaser - t 23:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Horologium has archived it, I've moved the thread to the bottom of this page (where people go to look for new threads), and I've also spammed WP:VPM and WP:AN to get more eyes on this topic.--chaser - t 23:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I am much happier with moving large thread for clarity, but we do need to work out a better way of making them still evident. Perhaps the AN/I main page could quite specifically carry a list of currently open subpages, right at the top? DGG (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that something should be done, and I'm not sure what the best thing to do is, either. Maybe we need to rethink how AN/I works in general. Maybe we should use subpages for every thread (That way people will get used to it and regularly check out what they're interested in. Then again, uninvolved people will still be less likely to appear in a given thread). Moving threads about unresolved subpages to the bottom of this page is a good idea, tho. Maybe we could add a short (and neutral!) summary of the subpages to the corresponding threads, too? Often enough, it's not clear at all what a thread/subpage is about until you look at it. A list of current subpages sounds like a good idea, too. --Conti|✉ 23:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, because even on a cable modem (pulling down 15 MBps here), ANI chugs on FF3. That's beyond reasonable, and it's impossible for many on dialup or slower connections to even view this page with any reasonable expectations. ANI needs to be restructured, or at least have a TOC bar for threads that are on subpages. But let me repeat: edit warring over the subpages is never acceptable, and those that continue it will be blocked as such. seicer | talk | contribs 02:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll take an apology for those 'You never AGF' comments now. Clearly I'm not the only person interested in this matter, and since I did it AFTER seeing another person comment on it, I more than AGF'ed. I never edit warred about it, I asked. ASKED. SO you can both, right here, post some nice simple retractions. thank you in advance. ThuranX (talk) 03:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

If there was some way to put all discussion on subpages and have just the first post from each discussion show up on AN/I to give people an idea of what the thread is about it might help. What this thread boils down to though is that regardless of ncmvocalist's insistence that he has consensus to behave as he does, the constant threads and people taking issue with what he does would indicate he doesn't, and continuing the behaviour will become a point of disruption.--Crossmr (talk) 03:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on Ncmvocalist's behavior. There's no consensus, as evidenced by the fact that this keeps coming up, both here and at his talk page. How many ANI threads about him and his premature archiving, and how many times will he ignore requests from other editors (calling them "trolls" and saying their comments had "0% weight") do we have to go through? Dayewalker (talk) 03:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone care to move this thread to a subpage, it's getting awfully long in my opinion. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 04:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're being sarcastic, it isn't really helping the discussion. If you're being serious, that also isn't helping the discussion. This keeps coming up because we have an editor who believes he has some sort of mandate for his behaviour, when there clearly isn't one. When anyone interferes with what he believes to be his mandate, edit warring ensues (remember it takes 2 sides to edit war), and he uses the occasional uncivil and rude comment to refer to those who disagree with him and dismisses them out of hand.--Crossmr (talk) 05:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think he wasn't being sarcastic or serious, he was just cracking a joke. :-) Which I suppose doesn't help the discussion either, but it may help with people's blood pressure! bah, that should be a bluelink! --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 11:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

There's obviously no consensus; that's why the vigorous discussion above exists. I don't really know what the solution is either: on the one hand, the page definitely suffers from excessive load time, but on the other hand, moving to subpages kills discussions on important issues, for the very reason that they are attracting a lot of attention and therefore generating a lot of text. Personally, I think the load time is a price worth paying for having active discussions, although I wish there was something that could be done to solve both problems. Everyking (talk) 08:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The answer seems rather obvious - as DGG proposed above, a box showing currently active subpages would probably be the best route, though I personally don't quite get why a decrease in size from 500KB to 375KB helps anyone at all. The snarky behavior of NMC is rather disquieting, as is the hilarious citation of AGF by seicer above. --Badger Drink (talk) 09:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm just this guy, but personally I liked User:Conti's passing idea of making subpages standard for threads; you could have the main AN/I page just listing a very quick summary (probably the original post would suffice?) and a link to the full discussion, so as to not discourage "uninvolved comments" too much. I also heard a rumour about having mw:Extension:LiquidThreads on Misplaced Pages at some point; I'm not up on how that works, but would it help any? --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 11:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

NO way no how with the thread subpages - this has been disucssed on the talk page and the consensus was firmly against it. One idea I personally Liked was 5 seperate ANI pages with a single splash page - the new thread gets posted to the splash page, a bot moves it to the least full of the subpages and leaves a note directing unfamiliar users to where it has been moved. The note is removed 24 hours later. That leaves 5 (maybe 6 if you include the splash page) pages to watch - not the thousands that would end up accumulating if you were watching a thread per subpage. It would leave the watchlist nbumping that currently occurs in place (people watch for threads of interest in their watchlist) and would mean the continued exposure to the majority of the community, ntot the subset who are interested enough to actually go to a new page to scan the topic. Viridae 12:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Should we bring this up at the Village Pump instead for further comments? This would be an ideal solution if we could have a bot relocate dead or older threads to other pages before full archive. seicer | talk | contribs 12:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It is probably a good idea to have a focused discussion and straw poll of some sorts to determine if non-bot archiving should continue. –xeno (talk) 12:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

(in case this section gets archived before I learn where the poll is...) I'll go on record here and now as being opposed to Ncmvocalist's premature archiving. (as well as premature and unwarranted "collapseboxing", refactoring to other pages, and other moves that serve to stifle and confuse discussion) Ncmvocalist has been asked not to do this several times now. There is no consensus for it. I find Ncmvocalist's responses to be somewhat condescending and not very collegial, as well. Ncmvocalist needs to internalise that not everyone approves of his approach. ++Lar: t/c 22:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Kathleen Battle neutrality conflict

I am not sure I am in the right place or not. There is currently a conflict over the neutrality of the article on Kathleen Battle in relation to the coverage of her firing from the Metropolitan Opera. There are no problems of civility in this discussion, but there are some suspect interpretations of WP:NPOV floating around and some Misplaced Pages:Gaming the system by User:Hrannar. This user reverts or removes information that supposedly is a neutrality violations or violations of living person bio guidelines even when the info comes from multiple major news sources such as the New York Times and Time Magazine. How do I solve this? Please help.Nrswanson (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, the question is relative emphasis. A dramatic event gets a good deal of newspaper coverage, but the rest of the career is notable also. As there were some indications that the article was being deliberately edited in a negative way, perhaps the BLP noticeboard would attract the appropriate discussion. DGG (talk) 03:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Right now we are trying to discuss the issue with the aid of a mediator. If that doesn't work I will pursue the blp noticeboard.Nrswanson (talk) 04:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

DGG, it is true that dramatic events cause noise out of all proportion to their long-term significance; I know (IRL, that is) one Gareth Kirkwood who would give you an excellent case study on that. Guy (Help!) 18:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Large amount of Rangeblocks by Raul654

Moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Large_amount_of_Rangeblocks_by_Raul654

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

Another good threadkill by Ncmvocalist. Good to see that ANI has clerks now. Kelly 19:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This could use some more input from other editors, please.--chaser - t 22:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It won't really get any if it's on a subpage. Kelly 00:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I object to the archiveing/moving/hiding/whatever of a thread only 40K long. - brenneman 00:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Who objects to moving it back? I think that subpaging happens too fast these days. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, just saw the little dust-up above. Whatever. AN/I is a discussion board, people. If things are getting subpaged and we lose uninvolved editors, thats a problem. I don't care if its 375 or 500 as long as it does the job its supposed to do. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion of Ncmvocalist and his recent rapid archiving habits going on currently on this ANI page here. Dayewalker (talk) 07:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be moved back and Ncmvocalist should stop closing discussions prematurely or moving them to subpages, as he has repeatedly been too hasty about it. I don't understand the logic in limiting or halting the very discussions that are attracting the most attention and interest—there's a high probability that the matters being discussed in such instances are particularly important and need to be fully worked out. Everyking (talk) 08:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Posting to say "me too". --Badger Drink (talk) 09:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

CameronPG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've just PRODded a whole pile of articles like this one on Disney songs from this editor, since song articles can't be speedied. This displays all the attributes of being a MascotGuy sock, but has been around since 2007. (Look at the talkpage!) Thoughts? Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Since many seem to be plausible search terms they should really be redirects to the films they are from. --Rividian (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• User also created a bunch of categories related to songs from Disney films. Six categories that I counted, possibly more. Enigma 00:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• User has now been notified of the discussion. Enigma 00:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yes - to be honest I didn't bother informing because the user doesn't communicate - he has precisely zero edits to talkpages in his entire history and practically nothing to usertalk (another MascotGuy marker). And look here... (in association with the LTA page linked to in my initial post). Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Be careful about biting, here. What sort of user would have an interest in Disney songs? Then what sort would create an article per song? You may be dealing with a very young user, so let's be as professional, polite, and respectful as possible. Explain, then explain why redirects are going on. Little guys have endless energy. (Or it could be a vandal or a frenzied person, but it wouldn't hurt to be as polite as possible and assume the first case.) Geogre (talk) 11:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

CameronPG also uses the IP 67.161.238.135 (talk · contribs · WHOIS); often the closest thing you get to communication is for him to repeat edits you've warned him about while logged out. To be honest, I thought he was a MascotGuy sock as well when I first saw him, but his actual editing pattern is a bit different (he makes section edits, for one thing). According to his userpage, he claims (or a parent claims) that he is autistic, which might account for similarities - and if a parent placed that notice, he might also be a child. In any case, Wheelchair Epidemic is correct; he never responds to talk page messages. If that's a problem, he's always going to be a problem. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

He's been using that IP again today to revert redirects. I've put a polite note on the IPs talk page asking him not do to that and pointing him to WP:MUSIC, but I doubt it'll have any effect. I note that both Cameron's and the IP's block logs are quite long for this sort of thing, but if he is an autistic child we obviously want to AGF as much as possible. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Admin help needed for category move?

I need help moving Category:Fictional transgendered people to Category:Fictional transgender people - changing transgendered to simply transgender. I don't think I've tried to move a category before so it may require an admin? Banjeboi 23:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, you can't actually move a category. You simply have to go to each page (manually or with the assistance of AWB/a bot) and swap Category:Fictional transgendered people and Category:Fictional transgender people. When the category is empty, tag it for deletion with {{Db-c2}}. - auburnpilot talk 00:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That explains it. Thank you! Banjeboi 00:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The easiest way I've found is to create the new cat, change the article links via AWB, and then delete the old cat. True, you can't actually move a cat. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Family Guy DVDs

There is quite a persistent unregistered user marked as 151.196.170.14 who keeps adding that Family Guy Volume 6 might have 16 episodes. However, there is no official proof of that, though this user still does not quit. I do admit that I have been changing this person's edits on this article for quite some time now, which I am unsure was the right thing to do, as it seems to have begun a relentless edit war. This does not seem to be noticed, so can someone please look into this? Immblueversion 02:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I've left them a note to find a source or desist. I'll keep an eye on the article. Kevin (talk) 02:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

help needed

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

i don't quite understand why an editor is removing warning template from another editors page, and in the same time threatening me with a block.

User:ScienceApologist removed A LOT of sourced content from water fluoridation opposition article.

I placed a tag on SA's page, and it was removed with a 'harassment' accusation from User:Jehochman.

216.80.119.92 (talk) 05:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess WP:DTTR applies here, but I imagine such a large change should have been discussed on talk page first. As far as Jehochman's actions, I am not sure. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

PS. Both editors notified of thread. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The IP persists in issuing a vandalism warning to ScienceApologist over what is a content dispute. Any edit made in an effort to improve the encyclopedia is not to be considered vandalism. There is no requirement to discuss edits beforehand. If somebody objects, then discussion is a good idea. The IP is abusing vandalism warnings in an attempt to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. That is not cool. Jehochman 05:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh. I tend to disagree. User SA has a history of bad behavior. Removing dozen sourced paragraphs is far from an effort to 'improve the encyclopedia'. In addition, I didn't even participate in the content dispute, but have just noticed SA's unjustified deletion of the content. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 06:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

While ScienceApologist's large-scale edit to Water fluoridation opposition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (and page move to Water fluoridation conspiracy theory) may not have been vandalistic in the strict sense of the term, it was disruptive and did not reflect the good editing practices we expect from regular editors. I find it interesting that a few hours after ScienceApologist's changes were reverted, the new account LOGANA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) turned up, whose only edits consist of continually reverting the article to what looks much like ScienceApologist's preferred version. LOGANA is now blocked without opposition as a vandalism-only account. I would be interested to know whether a checkuser on LOGANA turns up anything in particular.  Sandstein  06:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist had already been brought up on WP:AE for that edit. The IP is now forum shopping, which is itself disruptive. We don't solve problems by instigating huge dramas that disrupt multiple pages. Over at WP:AE I have already suggested rather strict measures for dealing with SA's disruption. A checkuser would be an excellent idea, and if it reveals sock puppetry by SA, that would be grounds for even stricter measures. Jehochman 06:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, most new users don't find their way to AN/I so swiftly. It may be worth checking whether this IP is somebody logging out to evade scrutiny of their own actions. It is not a good idea to act on accusations without first checking the reputation of the accuser. Jehochman 06:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Are there any objections to opening a RFCU on LOGANA and closing and copying this thread to WP:AE?  Sandstein  06:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

First part already done via Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/ScienceApologist. I agree with merging this thread to WP:AE if you like. Jehochman 06:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Guido den Broeder unblocked

Related archived AN thread

Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs) has been unblocked by Prodego (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) after Guido den Broeder redacted his legal threat. Tiptoety 07:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Guido indicated that "legal action has been concluded", and therefore a WP:NLT block no longer appears justified. I asked it be brought up here, since there was a pretty long thread on the matter previously. Prodego 07:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

He retracted the legal threat, it seems. Readying legal threats for publication would not be grounds for an unblock, I think. Appropriety Nazi 14:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Private ISP detailed on talkpage?

I formally vehemently object to highlighting not only my ISP but my private IP number on my talkpage. This is a very, very serious invasion of privacy not to mention leaving my computer open to attack from disturbed users. The IP number is totally irrelevent to the debate an dissue at hand. I understand that wikipedia may monitor PRIVATELY my IP for future violations- but publicly listing is an extremely offensive violation of privacy in extreme. Therefore I request that not only this information be deleted as soon as possible, but permanently deleted from the history of the talkpage (or made only visible to Wiki bureaucrats and admin). Relevant page: ]

Re: User:Aldwinteo

Furthermore, although I am in now civil and cordial relations and I understand we have cleared the air, I request ADMIN to request some written confirmation that as accepted my apology and LEGALLY CONFIRMS HE WILL NOT TO MONITOR MY INTERNET USAGE as he has indicate he may do so: I view this invasion of privacy as extremely serious. I sincerely hope this issue does not devolve into me being forced to lodge complaints of wikistalking Starstylers (talk) 07:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I am going to advise you against making any statement that may be construed as a legal threat. Tiptoety 07:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Response: To avoid repetition here, pse refer to my reply here. Kindly note that I've not interest to engage or continue any discussion with or on this agitator as he has a long history of launching personal attacks or acts of incivility against members of the Misplaced Pages community previously & including recent ones like , and more. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 10:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This edit doesn't exactly inspire confidence. -- The Anome (talk) 10:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Look if he is an agitator and has made numerous attacks againast people, community ban him from Misplaced Pages. But noting his IP address on his userpage does look like an invasion of privacy to me. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 11:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted (not oversighted) the revision in question. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 11:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Levine2112 again

Levine2112 made a personal attack against an admin a while ago.

But recently Levine2112 made a comment about keeping an article on the admin who he previously attacked.

I notified Levine2112 about this issue.

He made a bad faith comment in his edit summary.

I gave him a notice about his bad faith comment and then he made another bad faith comment.

What is the best way to resolve this situation with Levine2112's continued behaviour issues. QuackGuru 07:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The original comment was made in September 2007--nearly a year ago. As far as I can tell, this is not an "ongoing" issue, and any problems arising from that comment were apparently dealt with in due course. Editors are free to comment on any AfD discussion they please, and so while I wouldn't term your warning "harassment" (which to me implies a pattern of behavior), I do agree that it was out of line. It might not hurt for you two to steer clear of each other for a while, but I see no situation that needs resolving here. --jonny-mt 07:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't see a serious ongoing problem here. He did indeed make an attack on that admin, but that was a year ago. His comment on the AfD (while I wouldn't call it a great argument) did not in any way refer to the previous situation or make any kind of personal reference - it's quite possible he'd forgotten it was even the same person after such an extended period. Honestly, I think your post on his talk page seemed unwarranted and unnecessarily stern - I just don't see a big problem right now with what he's done. ~ mazca 10:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru and Levine2112, I will pay each of you $100,000* if you promise not to report the other editor at AN or ANI anymore or warn each other about perceived misbehavior. You don't like each other. We get it. *payable in ZWD dollars --barneca (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• There is indeed an ongoing and wide ranging dispute between these two editors (and many others). This report is overblown. QuackGuru's concern about the AFD comment is not a reasonable concern, and it is not surprising that matters deteriorated after QuackGuru tried to tell Levine2112 that he shouldn't have made a reasonable AFD comment. Disengagement needs to be used more often and better in this dispute - QuackGuru failed to even try, and Levine2112 used edit summaries that didn't help disengagement occurred. GRBerry 14:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Without checking the links (I don't think I need to in order to determine who is involved), although the AfD itself was probably opened in bath faith, there are very few comments other than that of the nominator which are likely to be in bad faith. (In other words, QG, I'm not blocked, and I know where to comment if I see things happening which are inappropriate.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive sockpuppetry

User:Carpaticus and IP 212.17.85.18.
I don't know if Checkuser is needed here, it's pretty obvious. Yesterday the "two" together also broke 3RR despite warnings and stopped using the talk page after I asked them if they were the same editor. Multiple editors including an administrator have reverted their edits across several articles.
Also deleting well-referenced material while adding unreferenced information. I asked the account again if they're the same person, but I received no answer. The account first showed up when an uninvolved editor asked the IP to use the talk page and warned him of 3RR. Squash Racket (talk) 10:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: no Checkuser needed. I notified the IP about this report and I received a message from Carpaticus. So he had seen and read all the warnings I left at both the IP's and the account's talk page. Squash Racket (talk) 10:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparent linkspamming

User:Undertheheavens and User:Binarymonkey both appear to be single-purpose accounts created in order to add links to www.yourlocalweb.co.uk to articles. I've reverted and blocked. -- The Anome (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Beetstra has also noted User:86.157.238.54, which appears to have a similar activity profile. -- The Anome (talk) 11:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

After some discussion with the user, who now seems to understand the problem, Dirk has unblocked User:Undertheheavens, which seems fine to me. -- The Anome (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Solar eclipse of August 1, 2008

This article on the Main Page today is being vandalized by various anons.

The instructions on how to safely view an eclipse are being screwed up into nonsense. This is very dangerous because a reader might believe the nonsense and damage their eyes.

I think this should be protected from anon editors till the eclipse is over. Wanderer57 (talk) 10:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Last I checked wikipedia is not an instruction manual. If we're providing instructions for readers to perform a task, they should be removed entirely.--Crossmr (talk) 10:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. The problem is we provide fairly detailed notes about where and when the eclipse can be seen. This suggests that 'people should see it'. If we totally ignore the question of how to see it safety, I think this is an error of omission. Wanderer57 (talk) 10:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess it is 'academic' now. The event is nearly over. Wanderer57 (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That is why external links were invented. It is a place to put relevant information that might not otherwise belong in the article. An official page from a science organization or something with instructions on viewing the eclipse can be listed there, and people would be unable to tamper with it.--Crossmr (talk) 13:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree, adamantly, that the entire section "Safely viewing ... " violates WP:NOTand should be deleted post-haste. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The edits seem to be slowing now, but let's not take a cavalier attitude, eh? If you see a report on AN/I and think it's no big deal, try not to reply. A soft protect would have been warranted for an ongoing event. We guarantee constant diligence to our articles, not perfection, but that means whipping out the protect button sometimes. Geogre (talk) 11:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

There's so much hand-wringing here over fears that somebody might file a copyright violation suit against wikipedia over a postage-stamp sized image. A more realistic possibility is a suit saying "wikipedia said to do such-and-such and my child was blinded". That kind of publicity wikipedia does not need. There should be no hesitation in acting to prevent such a possibility. Baseball Bugs 14:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur, and I was trying to admonish the initial responders. As for the violation of NOT, it's not really the issue. There are vast numbers of little how-to's running about our articles, and they should all be gone, but the outrage is the bad editing -- someone doing a bad edit by putting in a good how-to or doing a bad edit by putting in a bad how-to -- and so a soft protect would have been warranted. Saying, "tough luck, kid" is improper. Geogre (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Threat of Violence

. Something needs to be done quickly. Shapiros10 _{My work} 11:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed it and will let an admin deal with the rest of it. I come back one day to poke around and this... sheesh. spryde | talk 11:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

user:Rodhullandemu blocked the IP for six months. Is this resolved, or is any other action needed? Shapiros10 _{My work} 11:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't we normally contact the authorities, no matter what? From my POV, if it's a joke, the person needs a wake up call to show that threats are taken seriously, and if it's not, then the authorities definitely need to know. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 16:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

RBI - don't waste their time. Schoolboy vandalism. –xeno (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Outings/Personal Attacks by two editors

I originally posted this on WP:AIV, but I realised that was the wrong forum after realising this was a more complicated situation, and I was advised to bring it here by Redvers. My report on AIV was as follows:

• 216.80.119.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - On Talk:Intermittency (diff);. Outing of another editor, personal attack, abuse of talk page, etc. This user is (almost certainly) Lakinekaki (talk · contribs), who has received many warnings (and this IP has today also). Verbal chat 11:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be an ongoing dispute with Hillman (talk · contribs), who is also outing this user on the same page. This is probably therefore the wrong forum, but I don't know how to deal with this. Verbal chat 12:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This also spilled over onto Talk:Asymmetry. Apparently CH has now stopped editing, so I have redacted his comments to remove the outings, but I have no idea how this, and the "anon" IP, should be dealt with properly, so I've brought it here. Thanks. Verbal chat 12:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a lie. I did not repeat vandalism, I reposted a reply without a personal attack. In other words, I removed PA sentence and have reposted a valid reply. So one warning by Verbal was perfectly enough to me. Verbal, please stop removing valid replies from Article Talk pages. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Note the time stamp of when this was reported. Verbal chat 16:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Note also a history of article edits. It is quote obvious. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

see here for the background. Basically, what is going on here is that Lazar Kovacevic is abusing wikipedia to promote his fringe science theories. Chris Hillman, a mathematical physicist and ex-Misplaced Pages editor, then comes here and objects to that. Kovacevic then defends himself against Hillman by arguing that Hillman has violated some wiki rules.

Since Misplaced Pages's primary goal is to produce a reliable encyclopedia and the rules are merely a tool to achieve this goal, one should always ignore a rule if upholding that rule would potentially cause damage to articles. In this case, we can ignore the issue of whether, according to the wiki rules, Lazar Kovacevic has the right to remain anonymous. What matters is that the editors of all the articles that Kovacevic is involved in are warned. They don't all contain pseudoscience, but it is a good thing that editors are on their guards, because theiy may not be aware of the other articles written by Kovacevic. Count Iblis (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Quite impressive rationalization for harassment. Could you Count Iblis tell us who you are in real life, and what academic papers did you published (as I see you are physicist and have published in academic journals), just so that other Wikipeida editors would be aware of any potential COI, and hidden agendas you might have. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You've got the logic reversed. Suppose someone in real life knows about my work and he sees that many wiki articles have appeared about my work. If my work is considered to be very fringe, then it would be a good thing if that person would notify the wiki community about what is going on. Also, if some wiki editor notices that some other editor is writing new wiki artices on fringe topics, bsed on articles authored by the same people, then that is cause for concern as well. Count Iblis (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the personal attack against Hillman the anon created at Talk:Intermittency. For what it's worth, IMHO, whether the editors Hillman has a dispute with are the real-life authors of the pseudoscientific papers is irrelevant, as long as it's left clear that the editors represent the authors' views. (It's difficult to write without repeating the "outing", but it's not really necessary.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It probably should also be pointed out that one of the editors being "outed" is using his real name. The only "outing" being done is matching User:FirstName LastName to the author FirstName MI. LastName, which seems rather difficult to report as being against Misplaced Pages rules. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I must have missed something. Which exact sentence was a personal attack. I will remove it, but would like to leave the other part of reply there without being completely censored. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I misspoke slightly. It's part personal attack, part comment on the off-Wiki activity of a (former) Wikipedian as relevance to his motives here, and entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand. (Oh, yes, SA's conduct on the "Process" AfD, although not exemplarly, is not at all as you described, so it's an attack on him, as well.) Your comments that the "Bios" and "Process" articles may have met the notability criteria at the time (which, FWIW, I doubt) are also irrelevant to the question of whether the other two articles contaminated with the pseudoscience of Bios theory should be decontaminated. (See, entirely commenting on the articles and edits. No personalities involved.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

O.K. First, articles contaminated with the pseudoscience of Bios theory is quite ridiculous, if you pay close attention to articles edit histories (apart from 3 edits by Sabelli, which BTW he didn't even try to hide -- so no hidden agenda there).

Second, so the part about User:CH posting real names in unrelated article, and references to his history of accusing people publicly is somehow not relevant to his comment and accusations? 216.80.119.92 (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

In particular: :CH (talk - contributions), , seems to take upon supporters of ideas he disagrees with quite emotionally, and is actually going after people accusing them on public websites . Also, visitors should note that User:Hillman violated one of the fundamental policies of Misplaced Pages -- one that prohibits harassment, which this posting of real life names, on a totally irrelevant page, represents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.119.92 (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

About Hillman questioning the credentials of people he disagrees with, he does that in a quite civilized way. Compare what Hillman wrote to Osher Doctorov, to what Uncle Al writes to him here. :) Count Iblis (talk) 18:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Mass template renaming

User:Sardanaphalus has apparently unilaterally decided to rename templates to meet a new naming convention. I can find no discussion in WP space about this issue. It came to my attention when he renamed Template:Texas History to Template: Texas history sidebar and my watchlist exploded. There was no discussion or notice on the template talk page or at the Wikiproject that it is listed under. A quick perusal of his talk page (as of right now )shows that this is not an isolated incident. There are many messages from people who disagree with the renaming of certain templates, warnings that the rename of a template has broken other links, and complaints that the matter was not discussed beforehand, either at the particular template or at a community-wide forum. Despite those, Sardanaphalus is still moving templates with no discussion to meet "standards" that are not codified anywhere. Unlike bold changes in article space, changes in template space can be very time-consuming to fix. As his talk page appears to show that Sardanaphalus is not responsive to individual efforts to convince him to gain consensus first, I felt that this needed to be brought to ANI to let the community weigh in. Karanacs (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Diffs of people asking Sardanaphalus to please gain consensus before making these types of changes: Karanacs (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Please see my responses to Karanacs at the thread on my talkpage. Going by my talkpage alone, "many" messages from people is, unfortunately, an understandable misrepresentation. The claims that I'm "still moving templates with no discussion" and that I'm "not responsive to individual efforts" is also less than accurate, as posts on users' and templates' talkpages should indicate. Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Please move the appropriate discussion here. If you are discussing on certain template talk pages, that is good, but there are apparently more that you are moving with no discussion (for example, yesterday's move of Template:Texas History). Has there been any discussion of these moves in any WP-wide forum? Are these "naming conventions" that you are enforcing for templates codified anywhere? Have you attempted in any way to gain community consensus for these moves? Karanacs (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
    • If you look at the talkpages of those handful of templates that have prompted comment on my talkpage and/or the talkpages of those users who posted comments, you'll begin to get an idea. Otherwise, the discussions are scattered far and wide in time and template talkpage space. I'm sorry, however, if it seems I'm trying to "enforce" my own naming conventions -- although that sounds a little like hyperbole..? My attempt to gain community consensus is via WP:BRD followed by WP:SILENCE (or not). Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
      • WP:BRD is an essay meant to supplement WP:Bold and WP:Consensus. WP:Bold urges caution in non-article namespace, and says of templates specifically "Before editing templates or categories, consider proposing any changes on the associated talk pages and announcing the proposed change on pages of appropriate WikiProjects." You've been very busy, so I don't see if you've proposed the renaming of templates on talk pages and at appropriate WikiProjects, but it seems to be a good idea. :) These have wide-reaching impact and may not be the best case to apply BRD. --Moonriddengirl 17:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't see how it has "wide-reaching impact"; redirects work just fine with templates. --NE2 19:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
          • I'd see them having wide-reaching impact because they don't affect just one article. When BRD is applied to an article--particularly as recommended articles that do not seem to be monitored where conversation at the talk may not attract attention, it has a limited impact: specifically, the one article and its editors. Templates are obviously meant to impact multiple articles--no reason for them, otherwise. This makes questions regarding the template (including the name) of potential interest to editors who work on those articles, which may be a pretty broad spectrum of contributors. Dropping a note at a WikiProject or even the template talk page doesn't add much delay, and it seems to fit within the recommendations and spirit of WP:BOLD, by minimizing fall-out and drama. --Moonriddengirl 20:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
            • They don't affect any articles - you can continue to use the old name as if it had not been moved. --NE2 21:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

A second issue is that I can't find any place that details the naming conventions that are being enforced. If they are important enough that lots of templates need to be moved around to be consistent, then I would think those conventions would be documented somewhere. Karanacs (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Severino

Papa November (talk) 16:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

.. is persisting in violating WP:NPOV, and specifically the WP:TERRORIST style guideline, despite being warned, has removed one such warning from his talk page, and is undoing rollbacks of his edits. Philip Trueman (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's OK for a user to remove warnings from their own talk page. It simply proves that they have read them! I'll check his recent activity now Papa November (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have notified the user of this thread. Papa November (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think administrative action would be a little premature for the moment. There have been no reversions since the latest warning, so hopefully he has now familiarised himself with the style guidelines. I'd suggest reporting this again if similar editing occurs. Papa November (talk) 16:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit war over Water fluoridation opposition

There's an edit-war between User:LOGANA and User:Troy 07. Troy reverted four times, while Logana reverted five times.

Also, one of Logana's edit summaries is classic: "CRAZY PEOPLE SHOULD NOT WRITE ARTICLES". That should be an official policy! ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I just noticed. Troy is an admin and indef-blocked Logana for being a "vandalism-only" account. An unblock is clearly in order and Troy should not have violated the 3RR. The person edit-war'd and the all-caps is annoying, but that isn't blatant vandalism. I agree with their revision and ScienceApologist's. I'd revert the article to Troy's version too, but then I don't want to be indef-blocked for dubious charges of vandalism either. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You're not paying attention. Troy didn't indefblock, it was User:Rodhullandemu. And I do object to the block reason, but not to the block, itself. Troy should probably be blocked for 3RR if there's any likelyhood that others will restore SA version. I'm forced to agree that LOGANA's comments on the talk page certainly looked like vandalism, but he could just be mad (i.e., angry, not crazy). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I am endorsing the block, but not for the reason as well. LOGANA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a single purpose account created 23:25 31 July 2008 only hours after SA had completed the page moves without consensus or discussion. This is not implying that one is a sock for the other. All talk page comments are peppered with personal attacks and gross incivility, not to mention the crap in the edit summaries. He also edit warred on the talk page. A better block rationale would have been, "Gross incivility, personal attacks, edit warring" although given that this was a SPA, "vandalism" edges close.

Logana formerly edited under 66.65.85.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) whose first edit was this, followed by this and this all caps edit summary. This message to Troy is pretty self evident. seicer | talk | contribs 17:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

See also: WP:AE#ScienceApologist and water fluoridation: incivility and POV pushing. seicer | talk | contribs 17:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Also #help needed. I've requested semi-protection of the page to stop the sockpuppetry. --Clubjuggle /C 17:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I should pay better attention, as should Zenwhat. Sorry. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Disclosure: Twenty years ago, when in a position to do so, I voted against supporting fluoridation of water in York, however, that was the last thing on my mind when this matter arose, and that connection has only just occurred to me. I was watching New Users, as I normally do at 3:00 a.m. or so, and I flipped my cursor over User:LOGANA's contribs and saw a number to this article. As is my normal practice, I took a closer look and found this farrago in progress. I saw wholesale removal of sourced content, and good-faith reversions and warnings from User:Troy07, and that's without those from ClueBot. In the normal course of events, the removal warnings would have escalated to a 4im; but there wasn't time for that. I take the view that any rational editor, having been notified that his edits were questioned, would have taken the time to find out why and participate in a debate. But I didn't perceive we had a rational editor, we had a shouting WP:SPA. Hence my block to minimise further damage to the article. Maybe wrong reason, but the right thing to do. Having just checked the article history, I note that immediately before User:LOGANA appeared, an IP was making the same edits and being reverted by ClueBot. Go figure. Taking into account personal attacks, I do not apologise for the block. --Rodhullandemu 17:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll gladly unblock and reblock for the "right reasons" if anyone thinks there's much point in doing that. --Rodhullandemu 18:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin so it's not my place to make a call, but shouldn't this discussion be archived and handled under the existing Arbitration Enforcement thread? --Clubjuggle /C 18:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Only if it can be proved that it was ScienceApologist who was using the account. Bidgee (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That's unlikely.--chaser - t 18:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Not an Admin also but I think it was a "vandalism-only" account and support the block and reason. They removed a large amount of content that was sourced not once but five times and didn't use the talk page and was uncivil. Bidgee (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Just a note here; the water fluoridation controversy/opposition/conspiracy article has been used for years to advance a fringe agenda and for much of that time has been on the margins of POV-forking. More eyes would be good. This is yet another article where it's a burned-out ScienceApologist versus a tenacious group of POV-pushers who I think scent victory thanks to the fact that SA has had so little backup for so long. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Fully protected Due to more wholesale reverts, including that of one administrator, I have protected the page for two weeks. Take it to the talk page and find a compromise. seicer | talk | contribs 22:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Gojira09

User:Gojira09 has had absolutely no constructive edits whatsoever. Every one of their edits has comprised the addition of trivia and/or original research, such as here, here, here, and here. Despite two (!) final warnings, this user has continued their streak of unhelpful edits (and yet they haven't been blocked). I think they should be stopped, because they clearly aren't here to help out the project. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 19:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that what you have here is, to use a technical term, a "child". I don't think they are bad faithed, but just are slightly incapable of following the preferred practices of the encyclopedia. Under the circumstances I think the best procedure would be to revert and ignore, unless they start making bad faith edits, and oppose the inevitable RFA in a couple of months time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

POV and OR pusher at Olmec

Can someone have a look at Olmec please. Godheval (talk · contribs) has inserted statements which I removed as OR. Since then we've gone to the talk page and another editor has stepped in also reverting the OR, but Godheval keeps reinserting the OR/removing OR tags without acknowledging that it needs a source. They've even stooped to personal attacks on the article talk page] and on my talk page. NJGW (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring stopped for now; discussion seems to be going on at talk page, but I think some new previously-uninvolved eyeballs would be good. Although I can't force it on anyone, I'd recommend ignoring the fairly tame personal attacks, and just keeping your focus on the article. --barneca (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Walrus.jpg vandal

The other day, 130.126.39.148 (talk · contribs) was vandalizing several articles by sticking Image:Walrus.jpg on them, the IP got warned several times and stopped. I just noticed that 130.126.39.104 (talk · contribs) did it again yesterday to one article. Any way to keep track of these guys other than to keep watching what articles the image is on? Corvus cornix_talk 20:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Complaint on admins x2

1. I despise reverts, and had to revert an inappropriate edit:here regarding my agonizing decision to DISCUSS Gutting Template:Reflist(edit talk links history)... See the talk bottom.
2. ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Bjweeks#Wrong_decision
   1. In any event, knowing how widely used this template is, a discussion with full community input is I thought the best course, not just us template coders in VPT.
3. Bjweeks felt it was appropriate to close the TFD without even giving me time to tag the template /doc page per the discussion spilling over from VPT to the talk template page. (Template:reflist/doc)) Nor the basic elementary courtesy of discussing his thoughts and reasoning first.
4. When I followed that advice, the link failed per Bjweeks closing the page. Following, I reverted him. Now someone else's reverting me. CFD was officially rename DISCUSSION for just this reason two years back (Were either of these two even editing then?) so "D" didn't carry the stigmata of DELETION... TFD should be of similar nature, imho.
   1. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:reflist
   2. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_August_1/reflist
   3. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_August_1/reflist&action=history
5. So add MBisanz (talk · contribs) to this complaint.
   Unexpected use of template {{2}} - see Template:2 for details.
6. I'm wasting time doing my best TO NOT DISRUPT THE COMMUNITY (Such as a long discussion on the PUMP DOES), and these youngsters are preempting my attempt to do the best for the whole community... per some narrow reasoning about their understanding of TFD. So the question is laid here:

What is so wrong with discussing a community issue on a template DISCUSSION PAGE, and why the hell do these two arrogant excuses for an admin, if they disagree, at least make a compensating edit... to the talk or village pump and/or AT LEAST discuss it with me.

I really hate this kind of shit. I could have been editing productively the last two hours here or the commons if I hadn't dropped in on the VPT and did my duty. POLICE THESE FOOLS. People like this make wikipedia a hostile place to want to contribute 'volunteer time' -- I could be out boating on this gorgeous afternoon! // FrankB 21:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there any action you to be taken, or are you just throwing that out there? Juliancolton 21:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest a boat ride, that sounds great! Chillum 21:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

If the choice is between a) battling people on Misplaced Pages over something on TFD, or b) boating on a gorgeous afternoon, the choice should be very obvious. Grandmasterka 21:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a note: my first edit was July 21, 2005, which was 7 weeks after Fabartus' first edit, and I'm a 22 year old, so thanks for the compliment on being young :) MBisanz 21:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Template:I No hard feelings, but I didn't need another timesink! // FrankB

I expect this forum to adjudicate whether the place to discuss this page is where I set it up, and let people know . I'm not interested in anything but getting away from this, and despise rv's and TFD nominations in general. This was not an easy choice to make, and the topic is serious. // FrankB 22:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC) (Edit conflicted)

Typically, the kind of discussion hosted at xFD is a discussion about whether to delete, keep, merge, or do something else with an article. Raising technical issues at WP:TFD (which is still named "Templates for deletion") probably won't get the right audience for the discussion you want to have. You mentioned WP:VPT; did you also raise the issue on Template talk:Reflist? That would be a good place to do it. Also, if editing Misplaced Pages is causing stress, and you'd rather be out boating on a nice afternoon, then log off and head for the dock. There is no deadline here at Misplaced Pages, and you might find the boat ride relaxing. You might come back more refreshed. Come to think of it, what am I still doing in the office coming up on 5:00 on a Friday afternoon? --Elkman 21:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Template:IIt's not the editting that's stressful... it's the reversions of A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO DO THE BEST THING. // FrankB 22:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem with multi-column reflists has previously been raised at Template talk:Reflist, the response from the "community" there has basically been 1) an agreement that multi-column reflists are not compatible with most browsers, and 2) there is opposition from some of the more "vocal" tech-minded editors for making Misplaced Pages compatible with the most widely-used browsers. DuncanHill (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Template:I AND IMHO, the forum is TOO NARROW... or I would have gone onto to old business. Too important. // FrankB 22:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

So... is there something that you want administrators to intervene in? Anything that is actionable? seicer | talk | contribs 22:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Soapboxing on Talk:Zakir Naik and general incivility from Agnistus

There's been a lot of heated editing on Zakir Naik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which surrounds the insertion of a large amount of disputed content by Agnistus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

There's also been a lot of off-topic comments posted on Talk:Zakir Naik about Islam and Muslims in general (See: Talk:Zakir_Naik#Regarding_Islam and ). Every time I attempt to remove these needless comments, they are resisted. This was raised on AN/I quite recently among a number of other complaints by User:Elazeez. At that time, I had opted to try and step in to resolve the issue of soapboxing, personal comments, and assumptions of bad faith re: accusations of vandalism and censorship in a content dispute.

But along with the soapboxing, Agnistus continues with the incivility and the bad faith. He was previously blocked for incivility and personal attacks on this same page following a discussion on AN/I. He momentarily changed for the better, but has since relapsed back into his old ways. It has now reached a point where I feel intervention is necessary. Regards, ITAQALLAH 21:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• There has been mass removal of sourced content that affected not only the readability, but the actual information available in the article. The above user has cited (incorrectly, in my view) WP:UNDUE repeatedly, even though the sourced information was regarding the Islamic beliefs of a Muslim scholar. He's removed talkpage comments of another user (Agnistus, if memory serves), and insisted that his version was preferable, continually reverting out the content, without anything resembling a consensus to remove it. I'm tired of dealing with the issue, so this will be my only reply here, but it's the ones who are removing the content who are the problem, not the ones trying to keep it in the article. S. Dean Jameson 21:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• One more thing: this is a content dispute, and doesn't really belong here, except for the problem with the OP of this thread removing other people's talkpage comments. S. Dean Jameson 21:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I haven't raised the content dispute here, as we are undergoing dispute resolution for that. I have raised the issue of soapboxing which is being continually restored, as well as the issue of incivility and bad faith. ITAQALLAH 22:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible legal threats

It's a bit unclear due to the editor's imprecise English, but do these edits constitute legal threats by User Dralansun? Edward321 (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess there's sort of an implied threat, but I don't see much there, really. Why don't you ask him? -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Wilhelmina Will and request for enforcement of community ban

There is support expressed for a community ban of Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) from DYK. She did not respond to the AN/I; she did not respond to offers to mentor her; she did not respond to the issue on DYK talk. I would like the ban enforced. I also think this is a good insight into this editor's lack of respect for community policies, including creating an actual encyclopedia with facts, rather than a playground. Someone could appropriately archive the discussion about the ban and post it on her talk page. also. I have only the link to my copy. If there's another page more appropriate for requests for community bans, please let me know. --Blechnic (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

1. http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/news?slug=dm-ufcscoring070708&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
2. http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/news?slug=dm-ufcscoring070708&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards