Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:56, 17 September 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
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Threats to exterminate me, overdose of lead etc. on my User pages

Hi, I checked my User page and talk page today and found it had some very nasty edits made, threats, wanting me exterminated and given an overdose of lead and so on.

I have now undone the edits but they remain in the history record so I reckon right now it will be easy enough for someone to undo my undones and restore the abusive edits so it is not a satisfactory situation right now to say the least.

This is my user page and my user talk page - Peter Dow (talk)

The abusive and threatening edits have been made both by unsigned IPs interspersed with signed edits by one user called GeorgeFormby1

This is one such edit by IP of my user page to illustrate -

diff IP 82.17.219.182

Helo, my name is peter dow and im a retard, i am a pathetic 47 year old nobody who has committed high treason against the Crown and should be traked down by mi5 and exteminatid.

The abusive threatening edits to my user talk page are

diff IP 86.132.166.95

PETER DOW IS A MENTALLY ILL, DELOUSIONARY FRUITCAKE WHO NEEDS TO BE LOCKED UP FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.166.95 (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

and

diff by IP 82.17.219.182

....Including, of course, the Queen and the entire Royal Family, When a government with some balls gets to power he'll get an overdose of lead-Duce Fox, Defender of the Realm and Crown 22:18, 12 August 3008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.219.182 (talk)

The pattern of edits on my user page done by IP 82.17.219.182 can be seen here and you can see that that IP has been used for the abusive edits of my Peter Dow user page, and to edit, I presume, the culprit GeorgeFormby1's own user page. So if he thinks he is covering his tracks entirely by making unsigned edits he is mistaken.

The edits made by IP 86.132.166.95 are not yet directly associated with anything else that I can see but it looks like the same guy in my opinion based on the timings of the edits - within a few days of each other.

So I need some administrator help to prevent this very malicious, abusive and threatening edits to my user page and to my user talk page.

I am quite new to Misplaced Pages and as a newcomer, it seems to be with Misplaced Pages user pages, is that, it is impossible for the user to protect his or her user pages from abusive and threatening changes - is that right? There is no way actually to take username ownership of your user page, to stop such horrible edits, is there?

So I don't know what action one can take - except initially to report the problem to the administrators. Do you ban editing from troublesome IPs? Well perhaps we can get to the solution once an administrator takes a look at the problem.

Thanks for looking at this and for helping as much as you can.

Peter Dow (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the edits have been oversighted (removed) from your talkpage history. Under the circumstances, the persons able to remove the edits are also likely to be looking at limiting such edits in future so I think this matter can be closed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me LessHeard vanU but the history of both my user page and user talk page seemed unchanged when I revisited those pages - no oversight removal of history edits which I could see - are we looking at the same Peter Dow (talk) pages? Peter Dow (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would advise you to request semi-protection of both pages at WP:RFPP to avoid such things from happening again. It is completely allowed to request such protection :-) SoWhy 13:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks SoWhy for the tip about semi-protection. I will now investigate that and take any action I can to protect my user pages. :) Peter Dow (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I've put level 3 warnings on both IPs talkpages. If you want to complain to the ISP the July vandalism on your talk page was from a BT IP - their complaint address is abuse@btbroadband.com and you need to send them this link http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Peter_Dow&diff=next&oldid=224544960. The August vandalism to your user page was from an NTL/Virgin IP address and their complaint line is pim@virginmedia.co.uk you'd need to send them this http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User%3APeter_Dow&diff=231534955&oldid=216438185 ref. Hope that helps. ϢereSpielChequers 13:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Gosh. lol Thanks WereSpielChequers Peter Dow (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection will block any IP address from making any changes to your pages. Meanwhile, I'm wondering what an "overdose" of lead would be? That is, what would be a "normal" dose of lead? Anyway, if a registered user similarly vandalizes your pages, you could also get swift action by taking it to WP:AIV. Baseball Bugs 14:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"Overdose of lead" likely refers to shooting him or her with a gun (with lead bullets). It's a common expression. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Aha, as in "I'll fill ya full o' lead." Not good. And then there's the "exterminate" part, which means the authors probably watch too much Dr. Who. Baseball Bugs 16:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Of the two the one I find more worrying is Special:Contributions/82.17.219.182. From the other contribs it could well be connected to user:GeorgeFormby1, who in any event has a user page that I would suggest an admin look at. I'm not necessarily saying that fans of Mussolini should be banned from Misplaced Pages, but threats of violence? ϢereSpielChequers 17:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look to me like user:GeorgeFormby1 has anything to do with this. He simply removed an offensive sentence, which he may have spotted on RC patrol. Looie496 (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You think? --jpgordon 17:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was these three diffs that made me suspect that user:GeorgeFormby1 might be connected to the vandalising IP. ϢereSpielChequers 18:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/user:GeorgeFormby1 submitted. I hope I only made one mistake in it. ϢereSpielChequers 14:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I think that this should be left open until the checkuser case is resolved. —Sunday 23:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/GeorgeFormby1 has been investigated and closed, user:GeorgeFormby1 was using one of those IPs and is indefinitely blocked and his IP address blocked for a month. Hopefully that will end the matter, but I'd suggest an admin put appropriate notices on the blocked account then this thread can be closed. ϢereSpielChequers 06:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Fancy signatures seemed to have prevented the bot from archiving this. A good reason not to use such signatures... Fram (talk) 08:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Hrafn

Request that user be asked to stop tagging articles and that an admin try and enforce this. He/she says that this is an ownership issues that I may be blocked for (), but I believe his tags are quite impartial and done not so much as to aid wikipedia as to pester me, because of our ongoing dispute resolution () and other encounters such as Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/McDonald's Menu Song. --Firefly322 (talk) 08:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• tags
• reason for tags
• third party editor reinstating tag
• personal attack calling me a "troll"

Hrafn_Stalk 08:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Firefly, as your second link shows you've started mediation as a dispute resolution, and despite requests have failed to provide diffs clarifying what your dispute is. The fact that others have problems with your woolly writing is something to resolve by improving your writing, not by flying off into disputes whenever that's pointed out. Disclaimer: I'm named in Firefly's mediation case, but lacking diffs I'm not sure why. . . dave souza, talk 09:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree, basically, with Dave s. I don't see the "issue" here. Yeah, Hrafn and Firefly disagree on some stuff. That ain't newsworthy. Nobody is trolling anybody here, based on the links provided. This is a non-issue thread, and should be closed. If Firefly has a specific issue with an editor, F-fly should bring it to that editor's attention prior to bringing it to the drama-board. Keeper ǀ 76 01:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree, essentially. The majority of this dispute seems to arise from a misunderstanding of Verifiability policy, particularly WP:BURDEN. I don't think that uncited material should be restored pending verification, and I certainly don't think an editor should be reprimanded for removing uncited material. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 22:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Catherineyronwode

The following is taken from the current version of my own AN/I proposal against hrafn, located on my own user pages.

(removed to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Hrafn by Orderinchaos 07:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC))

catherine yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

tl;dr. Take it to dispute resolution. Corvus cornix_talk 22:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

o.O I think you've mistaken ANI for requests for comment, at the least, or arbitration. Kudos for the substantial amount of evidence gathering here, but ANI's not the place for such lengthy presentations. I suggest an RFC if there's a specific issue with hrafn that needs discussion. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please remove this? Verbal chat 22:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree; it's a nightmare of comprehension and deserves dedicated attention. No way is it an "incident". Suggest at best a subpage, otherwise moving to a Request for Comment. This page is for issues that can be dealt with expeditiously. --Rodhullandemu 23:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>Okay, must i make a Request for Comments first or can this go directly to Arbitration? Please post a yes or no reply. If i must make a Request for Comments first, please tell me how to do it. If i can take this directly to Arbitration, please tell me the relevant URL. Misplaced Pages is not my social outlet; i use it as a volunteeer area to write and edit. I am not interested in bureaucracy (e.g. how this MUD is run), and although i have edited here regularly since 2006 (and since 205 as an IP), i do not know how to make headway in this twisty turny maze of similar-sounding-but-entirely-different "We Can't Help You With That Problem" pages. I request the URL of the page where there will be people whose job it is to read this complaint and see that this problem be dealt with. Thanks. cat yronwode

I believe that that is common practice except in extraordinary cases, yes. Of course, nobody has the job of dealing with user complaints, but a number of friendly volunteers may be motivated to treat with you and discuss intereditor issues at a request for comment. Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment#Request comment on users has the instructions for posting an RfC/U. The request itself should be posted to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct. Please keep in mind that all normal user conduct policies and norms apply to requests for comment, including no personal attacks and no harassment. - Eldereft (cont.) 05:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I've copied it across to RFC - it can't go straight to ArbCom until efforts have been made to resolve the matter through some form of dispute resolution. If the RFC is sufficiently decisive and no change of behaviour is noticeable, then it could go to ArbCom if need be. Catherine's welcome to edit it to get it into the right form before it is listed and goes live (also needs a second observer of the situation to certify it in order for it to be a valid RfC). I have no opinion either way on the matter, but AN/I is definitely the wrong place for it - AN/I is a high traffic area where stuff moves through in the blink of an eye, this would have simply ended up in some forgotten archive within 2 days. Orderinchaos 07:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn (talk · contribs) has now retired, according to his user page, but if someone skilled with POV battles is looking for something to consider, I'd suggest going through this case - it looks like there's a problem here, but it's awfully detailed. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Not too sure this is resolved, despite Hrafn's retirement...Isn't there a saying about dancing on graves? --Smashville 18:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a sad case where three or four, dare I say "cabal"...no better not, unrelated editors...oh wait a minute, they're not. Let me start again, there are three or four editors who think that original research is sufficient for placing their POV on articles. Typical of Misplaced Pages's broken system, instead of understanding that their edits are POV, they game the system through MEDCOM, ARBCOM, RfC, whatever else they can use, which frustrates editors. Hrafn is a great editor. He dealt with arcane subjects on this encyclopedia that we have to clean up. There was a personality clash. There was mild uncivil comments from both sides. Then the three or four editors dancing on Hrafn's grave on this ANI started wikistalking and moved into civil pushing. This is ridiculous. OrangeMarlin 18:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It's also worth noting this exchange and the CVU barnstar above it...it's a sad state of affairs when users drive off other users and then pat each other on the back for doing it. And I think WP:AGF can be ignored once a user tells another user, "I shall remember your persona-names if and when our paths cross again.". Essentially, "Look out, you've made my list." --Smashville 19:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Firstly, please note that I came into this dispute because Hrafn asked for assistance, with particular reference to a page he'd been working on when Catherine and Madman had intervened, with an open statement from her indicating that she was wikistalking Hrafn. A "real legal threat" she had not yet withdrawn had to be cleared before discussions could start. By that time she had posted links to her page which forms the basis of her report here, and which appears to be a very badly researched attack page with ludicrously inaccurate assertions that have been drawn to her attention, but which she still has not fully corrected in her posting here. Other claims are equally invalid, though I've not checked every one of them. The underlying dispute is between "anti-deletionists" who think "You are not supposed to go around deleting things just because they are not sourced. You are only supposed to delete unsourced or poorly sourced claims that you suspect of being false." and editors like Hrafn who take WP:V as having priority. In discussions the "anti-deletionists" have pointed to WP:EP (WP:IMPERFECT as a policy which appears to sanction preserving information regardless of whether or not it has a reliable source – in my opinion that policy is outdated and needs early improvement to bring it into line with core content policies and current practice. If priority is given to preserving unreferenced information, articles would never be deleted, and the instructions in WP:V about removing such information would have to be changed. That's not my understanding of the priorities of Misplaced Pages, but Catherine makes it clear that she feels that we must keep articles about non-notable organisations or individuals with only self-published sources as references, on the basis that she finds them interesting, and keep in information even if a simple check shows that it's inaccurate or unsourced. There's quite a culture clash there. . . dave souza, talk 20:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC) tweaked dave souza, talk 20:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It amazes me that this is an issue about Hrafn -- the real issue is Cat and her belief that any crap, even if not meeting RS and V, is OK because she wants it to be. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me add my name as one of the editors who are unhappy with Catherine's approach to Misplaced Pages. And what did here comment to OrangeMarlin on her talk page mean -- "I shall remember your persona-names if and when our paths cross again." An accusation of sock-puppetry or? Doug Weller (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

In a workplace, Hrafn's behavior as shown in Catherine's report with diffs would surely be a lawsuit waiting to happen. He could easily get fired for targeting a specific religious group like he did. Hrafn retired because his or her bad behavior came to light. If a couple of editors could simply say something not in WP:AGF or unWP:CIVIL or merely cleverly hidden slander to get rid of someone, then Catherine and I would already have retired ourselves considering this apparent backlash against us. --Firefly322 (talk) 23:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a workplace, and doesn't fall under laws (which are, after all, specific to localities) applicable to workplaces. Misplaced Pages is a private organization working off of private rules and regulations. Now looking over Hrafn's actions, it certainly appears that he has a partisan axe to grind - citation tagging every phrase up to and including "He lectured extensively in the 1920s and 1930s is just plain obnoxious - but losing your cool in return is unhelpful.  RGTraynor  05:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

In a workplace, deluded assertions about Hrafn's work and character could result in a libel action. For example "Here is where hrafn made the deletion and also tried to assert that Affirmations are "supplicatory" prayer, demonstrating a basic ignorance of and unfamiliarity with the subject matter:". The example is illuminating, because Catherine does not seem to have realised that Hrafn made just one edit, removing the square brackets on each side of the word Affirmation with the accurate edit summary (rm self-link). This was undoing part of the previous edit by Vernon89 which linked the title in error. Cat's statement below that revision "" is simply irrelevant – it was a new self-link and nothing more. Her statements " " and "it became a "self-link" because hrafn had redirected the Affirmative prayer page out of existance]" are untrue – the "negative word" supplicatory was added by Vernon39, and there was no link to Affirmative prayer, contrary to Cat's erroneous assertion. Assuming good faith, it appears that Cat is simply incompetent and does not realise that she is libelling Hrafn. It certainly demonstrates basic ignorance of and unfamiliarity with analysing edit histories. The other examples I've looked at are just as incompetent, in different ways. Regarding RGTraynor's very sensible point, dealing with repeated refusals to provide adequate references is trying, and without checking, the circumstances of asking for a specific detail to be referenced may have been reasonable in context. . . dave souza, talk 13:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC) grammar and formatting correction dave souza, talk 15:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) It seems clear that either Catherine is incompetent, as Dave charitably suggests, or she has embraced "Misplaced Pages is a battleground" (currently the theme on her talk page) as her method of interaction here. I suggest either mindset would be improved by a mentor. KillerChihuahua 10:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A statement from retirement

Given that I have not been allowed to retire in peace, but rather have:

1. seen no let up to the amount of false information and false charges leveled against me;
2. that without informing me, User:Catherineyronwode tacked her trumped up 'ANI Proposal' onto User:Firefly322's unrelated DOA AN/I complaint shortly before my retirement; and
3. this complaint now seems to have turned into some sort of weird undead RFC/U (which has neither been properly certified with "Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute" and listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct, nor deleted),

I have decided to make this "statement from retirement" answering these false charges and setting the record straight.

I wish to make the following points:

1. On the "War against New Thought and Christian biographies and books" Catherineyronwode
   1. Repeated information knowing it to be false
   2. Simply made up a bad-faith explanation for actions that were demonstrably made in good faith
   3. Fails to demonstrate a breach of wikipedia policy
2. On the matter of "Incivility", both Catherineyronwode, and those who assisted her in compiling this list were themselves guilty of gross incivility against myself, compared to which my own borderline incivility pales by comparison.
3. Her evidence is defective, in that it frequently lacks supporting difs, and/or relies of hearsay evidence.

I will not bore you with the details here -- these details can be found at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Hrafn#Response: a statement from retirement & User:Hrafn#A statement from retirement. Hrafn_Stalk 05:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Delighted and surprised to see your statement, Hrafn, hope you're well. The dispute clearly remains unresolved, but at 08:29, 15 September 2008, Future Perfect at Sunrise rightly deleted "Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Hrafn" as‎ (not properly certified, no evidence of dispute resolution.), not long after I'd endorsed your statement. My muddle in that I should first have provided evidence of trying to resolve the dispute, and another user have done the same.

Confusingly, the page was headed "Not yet active - have created this to move an AN/I matter to its correct location. Catherine or any other user may remove this forenote once she is satisfied with its contents." but it's correct that the 48 hour window had long passed. The page was created at 09:23, 12 September 2008 , and Users certifying the basis for this dispute was signed by Catherineyronwode (talk · contribs) at 22:03, 11 September, WAS 4.250 (talk · contribs) at 09:13, 13 September, and by Firefly322 (talk · contribs) at 10:02, 14 September. Hrafn added and endorsed his summary at 05:25, 15 September, and I added my endorsement at 08:14, 15 September, while still eating my breakfast.

Still trying to wake up, but it's time for us to put this bad dream behind us. There are important principles of WP:V underlying this dispute, and it is essential that Catherineyronwode accepts that her statements and understanding of policy are incorrect, and completely withdraws the baseless accusations against Hrafn prepared at her ANI proposal, posted here and then moved to RfC/Hrafn. I've asked her at User talk:Catherineyronwode#Retraction requested to make a statement to that effect on this page. . . dave souza, talk 09:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"Renounce your faith or meet the consequences" - I thought this was an encyclopedic colaboration, I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. (Cue: Noone expects the Spanish Inquisition!). I put it that both Hrafn and Catherine have nonstandard positions on the issue of verifiability. While Catherine clearly doesn't understand that tagging is a necessary part of the process of improvement of the encyclopedias value, Hrafn acts like an extreme deletionist hounding down unsourced sentences (also clearly and easily verifiable ones), tagging them and subsequently removing them if noone adds citations within a short time. If Hrafn had the time and energy to apply this policy consistently in the entirity of wikipedia in stead of only in his pet peeve topics about non-scientific belief systems only FA's would be left and wikipedia would be a collection of a few disconnected but very well sourced articles. Neither approach is useful if we want to build a wikipedia with both a sensible scope of coverage and a sensible degree of verifiability. And please don't use Jimmy Wales' quote about "some wikipedians have a bias ..." at least not such a time as when Mr. Wales explicitly states that this is supposed to be interpreted as "no sentence no matter how uncontroversial, pedestrian and common knowledge information it provides shall be allowed to remain on the project without a citation", which will incidentally also be the time when I leave this project - that would simply be too much of a waste of the content-adding editors' time.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Your assertion that "Hrafn acts like an extreme deletionist hounding down unsourced sentences" is contrary to my experience, and I've not seen him deleting any "pedestrian and common knowledge information" – diffs please. . . dave souza, talk 12:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" If a statement is tagged for citation and nobody provides one in a reasonable time (remembering that articles drop off the bottom of your watchlist if unedited for a month, tops), it means one of two things: (i) this statement wasn't so "clearly and easily verifiable", or (ii) that nobody's maintaining the article by actively watchlisting it. In the latter case, the question becomes is the unsourced material obvious truth or obvious-sounding but false truthiness that has somehow found its way onto the article? And how can you tell (as a reader or as an editor attempting maintenance) tell unless somebody provides a source? As for the "only FA's would be left" claim, this is ridiculous -- there are large numbers of articles on wikipedia that are fully verifiable, but do not yet meet FA standards. Hrafn_Stalk 12:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is that you confuse "verifiable" with "verified" - verifiable is when anybody can verify a statement by using a minimal effort to hunt down a reliable source. Several times I have been able to reinclude material deleted by you with a new source after few minutes of googling - this about topics that I have no level of expertise in. In this edit you remove the information stating that "wallace wattles is best known for his book he science of getting rich" which hadn't even been tagged (the tag was about whether he was wealthy in his later years). You also remove an assertion that "Much that is known about Wattles' life comes from the text of a letter his daughter Florence wrote after his death to the New Thought author Elizabeth Towne." which I was able to verify within minutes on google, and which you also yourself later admitted. You also removed two sourced statements about his involvement in politics and his influence as a inspiration for rhonda byrne. And you also remove several paragraphs that are explicitly sourced to Florence Wattles' letter (grantedly without having this sourcing in the form of a footnote). In this edit you delete and redirect a stub article about the book "the science of getting rich" - later when Catherine put up a new and much better sourced version that makes several claims to notability reverts to the redirect with no explanation - you later proceeded to tag for merge and notability in spite of there clearly being reliable third party sources about the book. Namely the sources already presented by Catherine and the sources that I could track down within a few minutes on google. While Catherine misunderstands the usefulness of tagging this aggressive deletionist behaviour by Hrafn was clearly against the wikipedia spirit as I knew it and it caused me to step in and defend these articles that I had previously had no interest in. Secondly it should be noted that the sourcing of these articles could have been carried out in good spirit if Hrafn had posted his queries for sources using words on the talkpage instead of tagging and agressively deleting the content other editors had added OR if he had taken the few minutes and checked on google whether there were in fact reliable sources for the statements. In retrospect taking that little time would have avoided this entire dispute and saved Hrafn himself and numerous other editors hours of grief, and would have been well worth the trouble. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Here we part company: I do not think that an implicit claim that 'somewhere out there some source exists that contains this information' makes it "verifiable". This would likewise seem to to go against WP:V, which explicitly clarifies verifiability as: "...that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." This would appear to indicate that 'no citation of a reliable source' = 'no ability to check' = 'no verifiability'. Your definition of 'verifiability' implicitly places the burden of evidence on the removing/challenging editor (the opposite of what WP:V explicitly states) to prove that the information is false, as it is impossible to prove that such a source doesn't exist. As to your example, the article Wallace Wattles originally explicitly attributed to his daughter's letter information that was not contained in that letter. Further, the claim "Much that is known about Wattles' life comes from the text of a letter his daughter Florence wrote..." remains pure original research, on the basis of not being able to find much information outside the letter. Whether it is true or not, it is not verifiable to a RS, so is not fit for inclusion on wikipedia. Hrafn_Stalk 13:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

When you removed this information you hadn't even read the letter (which can be found in twenty copies in a single google search) so that is a very bad excuse. And the fact stands that you removed both sourced, easily verifiable and completely uncontroversial information in one fell swoop without having ever posted on the talk page mentioning that there was a pressing lack of sources or that some particular claims were dubious. This is agressive behaviour and I completely understand that the editors who had this article on their watchlist felt it to be unwarranted.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

When I removed the information, I was not even aware that the letter had been published, nor had any real expectation that it had. Now who was the person that added an explicit citation to the letter to the article (rendering it verifiable), and actually checked the article against its contents -- proving that some of this "completely uncontroversial information" was false? Was it yourself or the "editors who had this article on their watchlist" (but failed to notice the tags there for 2-3 months, until after the information was removed)? No. It was me. Hrafn_Stalk 15:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

After looking carefully through all of the evidence and responses, I endorse Hrafn's statement above. Orderinchaos 09:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I dispute the claim made against me just above. WP:V uses the word "unverifiable" "verifiability" for the very good reason that we do not want vandals to systematically delete any and all non-sourced but able to be sourced claims. It is a shame when people can not distinguish evidence of a difference of opinion from evidence of someone else being wrong. That you disagree with me only proves that I disagree with you and is not evidence for your claim against me. Thus the above is an unsourced attack against me. It appears to be part of the human condition for people to do what they protest others doing. WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

WAS, my search doesn't find the word "unverifiable" in WP:V, but do note that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Since Hrafn indicated he did not wish discussion here, I suggest that this discussion be moved to WP:ANI#A statement from retirement. Your assent to this would be welcome. . dave souza, talk 11:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a notice, I have deleted Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Hrafn, as it was not properly certified. I haven't looked too closely at the underlying dispute, but it also appeared to me that the RfC was quite poorly presented, extremely wordy and probably to a large extent vacuous. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Fut.Perf., as I indicated above you're absolutely correct in your actions. Much appreciated. . dave souza, talk 11:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As the person who moved it from AN/I to RfC, I endorse this action - it appears to have been a laundry list of grievances and the evidence falls apart when examined. Orderinchaos 12:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Even though I have previously taken a stance against Hrafn I agree that there is probably not enough basis for an rfc or ani in the material collected by catherine - in my view this dispute has been caused by two editors who have been equally stubborn in their viewpoints and equally reluctant to use basic social skills in their communication with the other, but who have in turn continued to escalate what was not even a content dispute into what at least one of them envisions as a "wiki-war" of epic dimensions. I propose that the only sensible outcome of this spectacle would be that everyone involved take this as a chance to remember that a proper and colegial tone of communication, the assumption of good faith and staying calm under pressure may help resolve editing disputes even before they occur. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if it is the case that Hrafn is a bit quick to the gun, so to speak, w.r.t. enforcing WP:V, which appears arguable, I see little or no cause for a generalized RFC on Hrafn. I've worked in the same territory as Hrafn on intelligent design and several related articles, and encountered him on a few unrelated articles, e.g. in category:philosophy, and in that context I've found him to be a fairly "strict interpretationist", so to speak, of WP:V-- a fairly vigorous advocate of that policy. Clearly to me, he tends to be fairly intolerant of article content that he considers questionable and which is unsourced or questionably sourced. Several of his statements presented by Catherineyronwode, picked out of many thousands of Hrafn's edits, could I think quite reasonably be characterized as being somewhat impatient, and in several cases angry, with the person to whom they're directed. But overall I've most definitely found his edits to be very productive and helpful on topics where we've met. Catherineyronwode appears to me, judging by the tone of comments on her talk page and elsewhere, unnecessarily turned it into a battleground. I should hope there's a more rational and less personalized way to analyze, and if possible to work through, such disagreements about Hrafn's editing approach. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

·Maunus·ƛ·, thank you for drawing back from the stance you have previously taken against Hrafn. As I've said before, assuming good faith is essential and it is regrettable that Catherineyronwode not only failed to assume good faith, but escalated the argument into the above ANI complaint on the basis of a wildly inaccurate proposal which looks very much like an attack page and was posted here before being transferred to a now deleted RfC. She has been requested to please accept that her statements and understanding of policy are incorrect, and completely withdraw her baseless accusations against Hrafn. Your attempts to pass the onus for finding citations onto the editor deleting unsourced content run completely against WP:V, and you, Cat and Madman should be working in a collegiate way to propose and discuss suitable sources instead of going into attack mode. I remain hopeful that all concerned can study WP:NAM and work to find unsourced material and either show a source or delete such unsuitable material. . dave souza, talk 16:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I am in no way drawing back from the stance that I have had throughout this episode. I maintain that Hrafn has had a key part in creating an intolerable edit environment in the new Thought articles he has been campaigning on. I also maintain as I have throughout that the other large part of the blame falls on Catherines failure to prevent the argument from escalating. Whether Madman has an important part of the blame I will refrain from judging since I consider myself his friend and am quite possible biased in his favour - however I certainly don't believe that Hrafns counteraccusations of "gross incivility" are justified. As for my own involvement I have, contrary to what you seem to suggest, worked only on finding sources for Hrafns removed material and I have chastised both sides for their lack of civlity. I do not believe myself to have been at any point onesided in this matter although it was the excessive agressiveness in Hrafns removement of information and his responses to fellow editors that made me step into the conflict. If contrary to my belief I have been a part of the escalation of the conflict rather than its resolvement I do apologise for that, but my own involvement has not previously been the object of such accusations. As for my "attempt to pass the onus to the removing editor" this is a question of twisting words. My understanding of WP:V is that material that is likely to be challenged should be supported by reliable sources - not statements that are uncontroversial or reasonably could be expected to be uncontroversial. Nowhere does the polcit say that every statement in an article must be sourced. Nor does the policy state anything about how removal of content added in good faith should be aggresively purged from the encyclopedia instead of being amiably sourced and improved. I have my self added several megabytes of unsourced (yet completely factual and verifiable) content to wikipedia over the years - and if Hrafns understanding of WP:V is in fact the gold standard on the issue then I invite him to go through my edits and tag them for citations and delete it when I fail to provide sources within his time frame. HOwever I don't think wikipedia will be none the richer for it.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I happen to have some extra time at the moment, and took the liberty of picking a representative article in which Hrafn has been involved. Hrafn appears to me to have made between about 50 edits to the article on New thought starting 24 February 2008 up until 30 August 2008. The total number of edits to the article in that period of time was approximately 275. Here is the state of the article on 24 February 2008, immediately prior to Hrafn's first edit. Here is the state of the article as of Hrafn's last edit on 30 August 2008. And here is the state of the article on 15 September 2008. Understanding that numerous editors have been involved in this article in the interim, here is the diff between prior to when Hrafn got involved and 15 September 2008. Here are forty-some examples of Hrafn's edits to the article between 24 February 2008 and 30 August 2008. I missed a few of them when collecting them, but these are representative of the sort of edits Hrafn has made. Many of them involve standard MOS and other such issues relating to article presentation, and many of them are WP:V issues.

123456789101112131415161718192021

222324252627282930313233343536373839404142

It appears Hrafn takes a bit of a tough approach w.r.t. WP:V and WP:RS, but I don't see any edits here that deviate from explicit WP policy. WP:V clearly states "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." The section on WP:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence elaborates: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books." When someone challenges or demands a citation for content I've added, I generally take it to mean that within a reasonable time after the citation is demanded, I or another user should provide some kind of sourcing for the statement or set of statements, unless it's common everyday knowledge. I could not find anything deleted by Hrafn that I thought could reasonably be considered to be common everyday knowledge. Please correct me if I'm in error about this.

... Kenosis (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me of that article, Kenosis. I would be curious as to how unsourced material that was being edit-warred over (as was happening not-uncommonly in that article) can be "common everyday knowledge". Hrafn_Stalk 18:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's obviously not common everyday knowledge, but appears instead to be knowledge held by a community of adherents and by others who know this fairly broad tradition and its history, which needs sourcing if there's any question about the accuracy of statements made in the article. In any event, this particular article has now drawn the attention of a few more users including myself. I trust that with some patient work it will come together fairly well in due course. I would also trust you and Catherineyronwode and others involved in this, shall we say, intense debate?, or scuffle?, can somehow see your way clear to letting bygones be bygones and try to move forward to build better cited and more informative content in the topics on which you hold differing POVs from one another. Take care, OK?. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I acknowledge that Hrafn has never acted in contradiction of WP:V. I maintain however that his actions have been detrimental to building a functional encyclopedia with other editors. If my articles were being held to the same standard Hrafn proposes in his "somewhat tough approach" I would have left the project long ago. The way in which he enforces policy is unreasonable in its tenacity and agresiveness in tagging and deleting and paired with his apparently poor social skills and confrontational communication strategies would have made editing intolerable. As an aside an example of what could be considered common everyday knowledge is that "Wallace Wattles is best known for his book the Science of Getting rich", at leasy it is so uncontroversial that anyone with the will to do so could have verified it in a matter of seconds, none the less it was deleted by Hrafn along with several passages of text some of which were untagged in the first diff I provided above - which was also the edit that prompted me to step in. I have said about all that I need to say - and I understand that many of you disagree with my assession that the spirit in which WP:V is enforced is just as important as its letter. I once again urge you to look through my edit history and tag all my unsourced statements and see if it makes you feel that it makes wikipedia a better place. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree he could be more patient in awaiting sourcing. Please make no mistake about it though, I've worked on a fair number of relatively obscure topics, and quite often we see folks' personal knowledge, or what they think is knowledge, being put up on the pages. Quite frequently such contributions turn out to have been inconsistent with what the reliable sources say about the relevant facts and issues. I've done it myself more than once, added some statement that's important to the topic, where, upon checking the sources, it turned out to be a poor or even false representation of what the RSs say about the particular issue(s). And that doesn't even address the additional issues relating to arriving at some kind of consensus about which sources are reliable and how to present a NPOV for the reader in cases where the sources differ in their assertions about a given topic. So I understand what you're saying, and I believe I've already told Hrafn I think he's a bit quick to the gun at times in yanking unsourced content ... IMHO. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Let me say this: when I read every single piece of documentation listed in the Wikiquette entry, I was not at all convinced that Hrafn was a) "uncivil" enough to deserve any specific "punishment", b) nothing but a rather hard-nosed, yet committed editor, and c) a victim of a rather unceremonious drumming out of Misplaced Pages. Nothing I see above has changed that. I mean, let's be serious: there's still an editor's Talk page calling me a racist, and you guys are focussing on a widespread editor that maybe needs a tiny reminder about patience? Let's put our efforts where they belong. BMW(drive) 23:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I only have time for topical issues, and no time at all for personal insults.

I see too little discussion here of the most important portions of my objections to hrafn's editing:

• Hrafn has been grossly uncivil to many editors; this is not an issue of a dispute between the two of us alone. Of the dozen or so episodes cited, only a couple involved me.

• Hrafn has selectively targeted his pet peeve topics, Christianity and New Thought, for deletion; he does not apply the same standards of verifiability to any other portion of Wikpipedia. As a side-note, i agree with Maunus: if hrafn's hyper-verifiability standards are to be applied to all of Misplaced Pages, let us see this made official Misplaced Pages policy now. We writers need a proper understanding of current and future verifiability standards, a timeline for the retrofitting of ALL of Misplaced Pages to these new standards, and we need to see the standrads and timeline given uniform application throughout Misplaced Pages -- not just in a small religious corner of the encyclopedia where hrafn has worked. I am calling for a clarification of verification standards and a statement regarding a strict, uniform timeline of implementation.

• Hrafn has devised a singular method of deletion-by-stubbing-and-redirect -- which, as noted above, he has only applies to pages that fall into his pet peeve categories, Christianity and New Thought. If this method of "editing" (deletion) is going to be endorsed by admins (several have already endorsed it) and is going to spread throughout Misplaced Pages, we writers need a clear adminstrative and bureaucratic statement that deletion-by-stubbing-and-redirect is an acceptable policy and that it will be applied uniformly across ALL Misplaced Pages categories on a specific timeline.

I believe that deleting text in targeted religion categories under false pretences is the mark of a fanatic more bent on deletion than on improving Misplaced Pages. In the case of hrafn's cuts to the Charles Haanel article, he claimed that a citation is anonymous although the author's name appears on the cited web page and he claimed that a citation is itself unsourced although a long list of printed-book sources is given by the author on the cited web page. These are indisputable examples of unreliable editoral deletions that were made in the name of "verifiability" but which were themselves in error. By granting a biased editor leave to use unsupported and false claims as a justification for topic-driven mass, rush, and undiscussed deletions, and to support his destruction of data by claims that he is merely "enforcing verifiability" is disingenuous. He was wrong. His justifications for the cuts were in error. He should have talked to the other editors.

Several opinions of me stated above were rude and offensive, obviously intentionally so. I will not reply to the rudest ones, as they are little more than generic insults. I will respond to one charge among them, since it is the only one that deals with the issues and is not an ad hominem attack:

I am indeed supportive of full inline verifiability. I believe that lack of verifiability has been Misplaced Pages's greatest weakness since day one, and continues to be its greatest weakness at the present time. I do not, however, believe that the oft-cited statement about ripping out unsourced material is meant to be used to target topics by category. Bringing ALL of Misplaced Pages up to well-sourced standards is a barn-raising goal. It should be done incrementally, and across all topics. I support it.

Are those who support hrafn's targeted deletions in his chosen religious categories open to discussing the future course of official Misplaced Pages policy with respect to discriminatory and topic-driven application of the new inline verifiability standards? Come on, you bold and hard-nosed administrators: Let's see a timeline. When will the popular unsourced celebrity pages start to crumble under verification-deletion hyper-tagging assaults? When will all of the unsourced animal species and plant species pages be hyper-tagged for deletion? If this is the new road we are following, why is it not being applied everywhere all at once -- why only in these small religion and self-help categories?

The creation and implementation of a clearly stated timeline for verifiability compliance across ALL of Misplaced Pages is a far more important topic for discussion than "was hrafn biased or topic-driven?" or "was hrafn uncivil?" If hrafn's retirement is more than a sham, let us move on by creating an apropriate place within Misplaced Pages to discuss the issues that his campaign of mass, speedy, unconsensed, and topic-driven deletions have brought up. Name a page within Misplaced Pages, and i will be there to discuss it with anyone, even the rudest among you. But until then, i have work to do, and this is not my work.

catherine yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 05:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think it is only being done in certain subjects (and why shouldn't an editor concentrate on subjects they are interested in?) I certainly do it in other subjects. Othercrapexists is a terrible argument. Why do you ask why it's not being applied everywhere all at once when you think it should be done incrementally? And if it needs to be done incrementally, shouldn't you start with areas you are interested in? So long as you are writing edits like "64.142.90.33 (Talk) (1,822 bytes) (it's easy to add sources. Why not do it, hrafn, instead of playing the lousy, stinking game of hostile cite-tagging? Huh? Cmon, it's fun to imrove Misplaced Pages.)", which I believe is you not logged in, right? please don't talk about other rude editors if you want to have any credibility. Doug Weller (talk) 07:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS appears apposite. . dave souza, talk 08:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"When will the popular unsourced celebrity pages start to crumble under verification-deletion hyper-tagging assaults?" With an infrequent eye to the AfD queue, I'd say celebrity/pop culture actually fits the bill of almost half of the stuff which goes there and gets deleted. Orderinchaos 08:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Catherineyronwode, you are being grossly uncivil to Hrafn, repeatedly failing to assume good faith and instead laying out your fantasy about his motivation and alleged methods, once again failing to provide any diffs to support your argument. Any editor can choose which articles they want to work on, and people inevitably work on related articles. That's normal. Regarding the Charles Haanel article, you're still trying to give credibility to the cited web page even though it's been pointed out to you that it's a commercial advertising page, and hence not a reliable source. "Stubbing and redirect" is not deletion – it leaves the article history available for the original author to find good sources and reinstate the article, as the original editor understood in one of the cases you raised. As you will note, another editor has done just that. That's part of the normal Misplaced Pages process which you don't seem to understand. I am glad that you support verification, but your proposals to introduce new timelines for compliance go directly against WP:V policy and attacking Hrafn is not the way to make such proposals. You concluded "until then, i have work to do, and this is not my work", so why not withdraw your accusations unreservedly and put this argument to rest? . dave souza, talk 08:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking this probably needs to be moved to an RfC as Cat and Firefly seem to have no desire to drop the matter. --Smashville 14:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

A properly presented RfC would have to be prepared, and if it's about user conduct, "Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours." I've made considerable efforts to resolve the dispute and wish to see it ended with no slur on Hrafn's character and acceptance that his actions were correct, but so far have failed to achieve such resolution. Hrafn has retired and does not have email enabled, though he has made some statements from retirement. . dave souza, talk 15:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I attempted to discuss with Firefly, but he merely called me immature and refused to discuss the matter, responding to my request to provide diffs by telling me to provide diffs. Apparently because I was the only one engaging him on his talk page, he found it immature...If anyone else wants to try to give it a go and maybe this won't have to reach an RfC point...--Smashville 16:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Hrafn has enabled his email, so I've sent a request for him to discuss this situation with me. Both Firefly322 and Catherineyronwode have clearly been disruptive in their refusal to accept and work within policy regarding removal of inadequately sourced material, and in Catherine's case by failing to assume good faith, instead Wikistalking Hrafn to press her tendentious ideas about preserving material contrary to WP:V, and making personal attacks on his motives and integrity. Her response above at least shows acceptance of the need for verification, but her ideas of new requirements for a timeline for verifiability look a complete non-starter to me. She is of course welcome to raise her ideas on the policy talk page or at the village pump. Firefly seems to me to be a minor nuisance, and less of an issue. It could help to resolve this dispute if other admins could contact Catherine to advise her that her allegations have no credence, and that she must comply with policies when editing here. Of course if anyone wants to discuss interpretation of policies with me I'll be glad to assist, and none of the above reduces the need for everyone to behave in a civil and collegiate way. If these principles are made clear I'm sure that this dispute would be resolved. . dave souza, talk 21:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we just drop this matter?

Let's all agree to disagree and go about building a better encyclopedia. There's really nothing to be gained by re-hashing the matter. When Hrafn returns and if he resumes his former editing style and targets, then we all can re-open this, but to my mind the matter is moot. Move along folks, there's nothing to see here.  : ) Thanks in advance, Madman (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

See, that's why it can't be dropped. You try to say "let's move along", but then you throw in a little uncivil comment about his editing style. So far, about 3 people agree with you. Nearly everyone else, thinks this is just an attack. So, it continues. But thanks for the diff for future purposes. OrangeMarlin 21:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with OrangeMarlin (I rarely do). After reading the diffs and threads presented, I feel that Hrafn has been blasted with attacks from many fronts in order to "get rid of him". Shameful really. After a close look at the the contributions of Hrafn, I would be very hard pressed to offer or endorse any "sanctions" against him/her, and moreso, I would be supportive of sanctions against those that feel that chasing another collaborative editor away is a "good thing to do". Hrafn has done nothing, in my evaluation, other than promote an NPOV, encyclopedic, wikipedia. He is being attacked by POV pushers, and it would be an utter shame if they "win" and he retires. Keeper ǀ 76 23:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing blocked for edit-warring personal attacks.

Those of you with long memories will remember this user, who has twice been banned by the Arbitration Committee for a year at a time. This user has just come off his second year long ban, and has gotten back into one of his old, bad, habits, which is edit-warring a section on his user page accusing another user of being a stalker. He refused to stop edit-warring that section in, despite a consensus on ANI at the time (see User_talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive_13#Your_.22stalker.22_paragraph_on_your_userpage and sections below that for his intransigence on the issue). He's now returned from his second ArbCom ban, and is edit-warring again. I have blocked him 24 hours for it. I am bringing up this fairly uncontroversial issue because another administrator, User:Neil, who probably wasn't aware of the previous discussion (I'm trying to find the diff of the ANI discussion for it), and wasn't sure that it was controversial. SirFozzie (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive263#User:Pigsonthewing Is the previous discussion on this. SirFozzie (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, so soon? That's too bad. You made the right call here. Shereth 23:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This is in my view a deplorable block and a deplorable block report, a completely wretched administrative action.

Sir Fozzle has provoked an edit war with a user with whom per Archive263#User:Pigsonthewing he has been in dispute with in the past; he hasn't just stumbled upon it, he has been the knowing precipitator of it.

Sir Fozzle knew at the time of his intervention that Neal had already started to talk to Andy in a respectful rather than an imperative tone about the notice but appears to think his own warn, war & ban approach superior.

The notice itself is entirely composed of Leonig's words. It is entirely possible to read it as a statement of facts and not as an attack. If we assume good faith, we must accept that it is not a categorical conclusion that it is an attack, and we should therefore tread with a care entirely lacking in the implementation of this block. We may nevertheless deplore the notice. But we have not been stalked by Leonig and we are in a different headspace entirely.

The block is entirely partisan, precipitate, arrogant, ill-considered and petty. It is absolutely the single least likely means of effecting change in the situation. It is the single most likely means of ensuring this whole notice thing will continue to rumble on with the same pattern of escalation. A completely counterproductive move which once more is most likely to lose us once more the services of an very good & productive editor.

I'm sorry. My view is that this block is both dim witted and abusive, and the block report entirely disingenuous. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You can lay off the personal slander for starters, Tagishsimon. It doesn't further your case or cause. After reviewing the block and the prior actions of Pigsonthewing, I am endorsing the block. seicer | talk | contribs 01:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

As you well know, Tagishsimon, there was a consensus already that the section was a personal attack. You yourself participated in that discussion (linked above). You may not agree with it, I understand, but consensus backs me in this issue. SirFozzie (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

To clear one thing up, I have "known" Andy since prior to his first block, and was fully aware of the circumstances surrounding the issues he has/had with Leonig Mig. I don't think this block was particularly appropriate, as I had already begun to engage with Andy over his voluntarily removing it. SirFozzie was aware of this, and perhaps talking to me first rather than edit warring over the section and blocking Andy might have been a better route to go down. Andy is a difficult character at times, prone to "I know best" - a trait he shares with many admins! - but responds far better to polite requests as opposed to orders. If this ends up with Andy/Pigsonthewing being indef blocked after he responds badly to this baiting, I will be very disappointed but not suprised. Neıl ☄ 06:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, wouldn't it have been better to protect his userpage rather than block him? Most of his editing is fine, and protecting the userpage would have allowed that to continue. Seriously, if a year's block didn't dissuade him from adding the section, what difference is 24 hours more going to make? Neıl ☄ 06:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That was actually tried last time. He started adding it to his user talk page instead. SirFozzie (talk) 07:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• This is a clear case of a vendetta being carried on beyond all sense, since Mig has not edited more than very occasionally all year. Pigs knows this is a problem, and his edit summary accusing others of vandalism for reverting it is unacceptable. If this ends up with him being blocked, then I won't be especially disappointed; if I can learn to walk away from those who bait me then so can he, especially when they do not seem to be active. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support block (of any length) - the stalking note is a reference to events in July 2005 which have been hashed and rehashed dozens of times. 3 years have passed - let us move on. Occuli (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In a clear case of Back to the Future, he is now again adding it to his user talk page (because that is the only page he is able to edit while blocked). The next time he adds the section, to ANY page, I will block him indefinitely, until such time as he agrees to not add that section anywhere. SirFozzie (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The guy twice gets blocked for a full year, waits for his sentence to expire, and starts in again, and gets blocked again? Is there an anti-barnstar for ultra-patient vandals? Baseball Bugs 12:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support blocking at admin discretion. I remember all the previous history of this debate, and in my opinion (as admin and bureaucrat of another wiki with over 3 years' experience) this kind of thing is ultimately detrimental to the project. As the history shows, Pigsonthewing has continued to disregard the Misplaced Pages way of doing things, and has no problem using inflammatory language and personal attacks when it suits him despite his vociferous protestations about others doing the same. Codeine (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In short, he did it twice more, and in response I have blocked him indefinitely, and protected his user talk page for 48 hours due to disruption. When it expires, if he wants to be unblocked, all he has to do is state that he will cease and desist from adding attacks on another user, and drop the grudges. SirFozzie (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but you need to step back and let another admin handle this. You are very clearly involved in this based on the previous discussions, and it seems like you're just looking for an ax to grind with him. I'm by no means Andy's biggest fan (and in the past I've railed against him for his attitude and the actions he takes), but it would be more appropriate to let someone fresh deal with it (such as Neil). —Locke Cole • t • c 01:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Community ban time?

The block log is deplorable, has waited a year to continue the same grudge, has twice been banned by arbcom for a year in seperate cases. Do we need him here anymore? Viridae 13:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• No, we don't, as I learnt from Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2. The problem isn't Andy's encyclopedia-editing skills, it's the fact that he cannot cope with people disagreeing with him. When they do, he flames them, which he's been doing both here and, I believe, on Usenet, for a very long time. Two arbcom bans? And still more drama? Forget it, we don't need this guy. Moreschi (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Agreed, he's here to war with the community, not to write an encyclopedia. It amazes me that he comes of a ban and continues his ways. –Juliancolton 13:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• As Moreschi says, his encyclopaedia-writing skills are actually quite good. There are not many editors who have gone through two year-long bans and returned, still committed to writing an encyclopaedia. For that reason I think it is worth trying to talk to him; if talking him round proves impossible, it may still be possible to work something out. Therefore oppose for the time being. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • People have been trying to talk to Andy for years. They've failed. He cannot get along with people who even mildly disagree with him, and we will not change him. He's too stubborn, as the fact that's returned after two AC bans shows. Moreschi (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• This sort of attitude is not appropriate, no matter how otherwise excellent the other contributions might be. Not getting the hint after two year-long bans pretty much garantees that the point won't be gotten, ever. — Coren  14:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Normally I would say this is being too quick to jump the gun, but given the unrepentant interest in continuing to hold a grudge long after the fact, I am forced to come to a different conclusion. The fact that after a year's ban he wastes no time in continuing with the vendetta, edit-warring over it, and going so far as to perpetuate the problem on his talk page after he was issued a block indicates that Andy has no interest in standing down, and that no amount of blocking or admonishing will get him to stop. Unfortunately I have to agree that a community ban may indeed be in order. Shereth 15:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• I think this is probably a case of Misplaced Pages is not therapy. Everything that can be tried, has been - he and Misplaced Pages just aren't a good fit. Shell 16:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Concur. I wish Potw well in his endeavors - elsewhere. KillerChihuahua 16:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• As noted, he's been through two year long bans, if Neil wants to try and work with him, I believe he should be allowed to do so. But not with SirFozzie edit warring and blocking him... —Locke Cole • t • c 01:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, if he hasn't given in cross two year long bans, he's not going to, period. The consensus here shows that I was right to act as I have. Also, before you posted, I unprotected his page and offered to unblock him if he will agree not to post that section anymore. I have the feeling, he will just seize the chance to insert the section once more. It's worth a shot at extending the olive branch at least once more.. SirFozzie (talk) 03:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
    • You should unblock entirely and defer to an uninvolved admin. Looking at the edit history of his userpage makes it clear that this is something you're too close to be objective with. I won't touch the comment about consensus, since there's really only a handful of people involved in this discussion (certainly not a quorum for an indef ban). —Locke Cole • t • c 03:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Nonsense. PigsAndy's got so many admins on the 'prior conflicts' list that your suggestion is not that feasible. Either we get a new, uninvolved admin to review PigsAndy's history every time, costing any admin sucker enough to try it so much of their volunteer time that PigsAndy can claim stale report by the time adjudication arrives, or we rely on the numerous editors and admins who've been through all this and know the situation to deal with it. And PigsAndy will use up all the uninvolved admins fast if you insist on that approach, leaving us with no one to adjudicate, because everyone will be 'contaiminated'. I hate that idiotic meme that everyone here deserves a totally neutral viewpoint which can only be found in those who don't know the situation, it's naive in the extreme. Ban PigsAndy now. ThuranX (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Sicne he objects to being called by the name he set himself up with, I've struck the nickname, but that all the more shows what kind of editor and person he is. He sets up an obvious, non-insulting shortening of his own username, then objects, claiming it's so insulting. He surely knew it to begin with, so he shouldn't complain, but has. so whatever. ThuranX (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Fantastic, could you please make your comments without resorting to personal attacks ("Pigs") next time? It'll make it easier to take you seriously. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
          • That's part of the name he chose. Baseball Bugs 06:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
            • And anyone looking at anything he's written in talk space sees he signs his name as "Andy", not "Pigs". —Locke Cole • t • c 07:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
              • If he has an issue with his user ID being shortened to "Pigs", then he can bring it to someone's attention. Calling someone by a short version of their chosen user ID is not a personal attack, nor does he need someone playing "nanny" for him. If he has an issue with it, he can post it on his talk page, and I don't see anything there about that. Baseball Bugs 08:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
              • Locke it is part of his username, and therefore not a personal attack. If he wishes to be called something else, I'm sure he can let it be known. Ignore that - he does object to the use of that shortening (though why I'm not sure) See the first arb case. Viridae 11:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
                • Yes, he logged an objection. But by choosing such a name, he sets himself up for it. Baseball Bugs 13:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
                  • I struck it out. Locke cole should be checkusered as a sock. Such a bizarrely trivial point becomes the means to dismiss my entire comment in the same trolling style ANDY, aka Pigsonthewing, is known for. It is clear to me that he couldn't debate my point on the facts, so sought to discredit via trvial distractions. ThuranX (talk) 04:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
                    • WP:RFCU is that way ←. And I'm sorry, but I take personal attacks seriously, as does the rest of the wiki last time I checked. Don't do that again. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• If Andy is to stay around, something's got to change, and given that two ArbCom bans don't seem to have changed anything, I've no idea what would cause the needed change. I don't like getting rid of productive editors, mind you, so if we can think of another solution, we should, but I have no good ideas. Mentorship is the closest I can come up with, but I struggle to believe Andy would accept the idea in the first place and, even if he did, heed his mentor's warnings. So basically you've got me. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Mentorship seems reasonable, but indef blocking and edit warring with him (by someone who was previously involved prior to his last ban) is hardly the way to start. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• My first thought was that maybe he was some high school kid. But he claims to be a professional writer. How about blocking him for another year and see if he improves a year from now. If not, block him again for another year. Even the most stubborn mule (or pig) has a chance of getting the hint eventually. Baseball Bugs 06:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• OK, I should start here by declaring that I have "known" Andy for rather more years than most people here. It must be about 10 years ago that we were both usenet regulars. As such, I suppose that I have had longer than most to understand how Andy ticks! I've also had the experience of meeting him once in person (in a pub in Birmingham). I've had just about no contact with him since we both drifted away from usenet, and by the time I started editing Misplaced Pages in earnest, Andy was already in the throes of Arbcom troubles. So, whilst we are by no means hand-in-glove, I believe that I can understand better than most where the issues are, and I'm happy to volunteer to mentor Andy (if he'll have me). I would oppose a community ban at the present time. Mayalld (talk) 07:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • What is your honest opinion on the likelyhood of him serious changing his ways? Viridae 07:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
    • My honest opinion is that it is very easy to not see the wood for the trees, and to get into a bunker mentality (I've done so on usenet in the past), and to get into a self-destructive loop over it. It is bloody hard to break that loop, but it invariably involves somebody that isn't part of "the opposition" saying something. I can't guarantee to work miracles, but if I'm prepared to put the effort in, I hope the community will support me by backing my efforts to get Andy back where he should be, adding content. Mayalld (talk) 08:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Well my suggestion is that you start talking to him before he digs the hole any deeper. Getting to honestly admit he has done the wrong thing and to give an assurance that he will drop the grudge would be a start. Viridae 11:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
        • I fired off an e-mail to hikm at the same time as I made my original offer. Let us see what transpires Mayalld (talk) 12:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• I would oppose a community ban on the basis that he is a good faith user, and the broad majority of his editing improves the encyclopaedia. This was not the case at the time of his last ArbCom one-year ban, but is now. The latest matter relates to a three-year-old dispute with a single user, and very little seems to be being done in furtherance of it outside the user's own userspace. I think someone like Mayalld may be able to help here. Orderinchaos 07:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• I oppose a ban at this time. It seems to me that anyone in his position would look at this discussion and be nervous enough to cease the problematic editing. Granted, he might be exceptionally stubborn, but I'd rather treat this as a warning. He's a productive, good faith editor, and coming back to us after two year-long bans demonstrates remarkable dedication. I don't think what we've seen so far is severe enough to outweigh all that. Everyking (talk) 07:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • What it demonstrates is stubbornness to an obsessive degree. But if it's just one particular user he has a problem with, maybe a compromise could be worked out to somehow keep them away from each other - to not edit the same articles, for example. That's called a "topic ban", and he could edit other topics freely. Baseball Bugs 08:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I am trying to engage with Andy (see his User talk:Pigsonthewing on the matter) - he has shown a willingness to listen to me in the past (nb - just changed my username from Neil!). I would like to try and see if I can bring about a change in his unfortunate proclivity for picking at old, old feuds through discussion, as he is an excellent contributor for the most part (including being the founder of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Microformats). I would prefer not to see any community block enacted until I have had a chance to try and bring about an amicable solution. Thanks. fish&karate 11:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  Also, please do not refer to him as "Pigs". He - understandably - doesn't like it, and some of you may not be aware this was actually a point of contention in his original Arbcom case (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing#Use of the epithet "Pigs".) fish&karate 11:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  OK, slightly off-topic, but... why does he keep using the name "Pigsonthewing" if he always just signs as "Andy Mabbett" and hates the fact that people abbreviate his username to "Pigs"? Surely a name change would fix that problem and alleviate the frequent confusion about his name. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  Perhaps it would, and I will suggest that to Andy, but we cannot force a user to change their name if it meets our current guidelines. fish&karate 12:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  If he continues to use that name, he has little room for complaint if someone abbreviates it. Baseball Bugs 13:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  No, but now you at least, Baseball Bugs, are clearly aware it's upsetting; if you use it again, I'll consider it deliberate baiting. fish&karate 13:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  If you look closely, you'll see that I haven't called him anything yet. If I were to call him anything, it would probably be "Mabbett", since I don't know him well enough to call him by his first name. And here's a guy who's had a lengthy history of being belligerent, with incredibly long blocks, and you're worried about upsetting him? Why? Are you afraid he's going to get madder? Why are you still messing with this character? Ban him and be done with it. Baseball Bugs 13:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  Besides, its only polite... SirFozzie (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support ban – there is User_talk:Pigsonthewing#Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration.2FPigsonthewing_2 on his talk page which encapsulates his views, and repeats the references to Mig from 2005; and there are his continuing reactions today on his talk page remorselessly repeating the same refrain. The guy is incorrigible. Occuli (talk) 11:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• (ec) Neil Fish and karate (err...interesting name choice :) should be allowed to try and bring about a change. Making Fish and karate his mentor for a few months might also work. Should either measure fail, then I think the community ban should be enacted (but not without trying either of those measures first). Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "Fish and chops"? :) Baseball Bugs 13:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Or "Fish and punch"? :D Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Progress

See User_talk:Pigsonthewing#Another_opinion - I believe progress is being made, and Andy is about to agree not to restore the material again. Again, I don't want to see the editor who made things like this possible being indef-blocked over a silly grudge. fish&karate 12:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Please explain to me what Andy's role was in what I believe is a project by User:Para. --Dschwen 00:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm basing this on what is at WP:UF. fish&karate 10:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Closed discussion aside, I cannot leave this utter misconception about Andy's work uncommented. WP:UF has nothing to do with the Google Maps thing that you linked to. Andy did some good work, but he is by no means the super-prolific über-user you seem to think him to be. --Dschwen 13:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you are mistaken. The system for reading location data in an article and showing these multiple points on a Google map was first introduced on Misplaced Pages by Andy Mabbett. Para became involved and changed things around later because he objected to the way Andy was embedding microformats into the data. --CBD 11:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Reading location data has nothing to do with Microformats per se. The coordinate readout was pioneered by de:User:Stefan Kuehn and de:User:Kolossos. --Dschwen 14:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Fish&Karate (re:Neil) is working on a solution, that if Andy refrains from adding the information again, unless Leonig returns and harasses HIM first, he will be unblocked. I have given Neil my full support on this. Basically, as was stated above.. if he adds it or anything similar to it again, he will be re-blocked. (bah! He beat me to it ;) ) SirFozzie (talk) 12:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

HaHA! :) fish&karate 12:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I see no reason to keep the community ban proposal open - seems to be a moot point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

well, don't do it yet. POTW's response is less promising then I would like. ] SirFozzie (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't plan on doing it, for this one anyway. :) But I do think that given he's blocked, and Neil is trying to discuss it with him, it's a bit of a moot point - expecting the desired outcome to result from those discussions within a few hours is like a complete miracle for a user who was banned for 2 years. It probably needs a few days. If there is no change in 2 weeks (maximum), then I think reopening the community ban discussion would be more productive. My thoughts anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

As he's already indefinitely blocked, unless an administrator is willing to unblock him, he is de facto community blocked. At the moment the only administrator even considerig unblocking him seems to be me, and his response (as Fozzie mentions) wasn't promising. Andy's forthcoming answer to the short question I just posted on his talk page may decide whether I feel up to continuing to engage with him. fish&karate 13:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been staying out of this for reasons similar to those expressed by Locke Cole above... better to let people who haven't been as contentiously involved in the past take the lead here. Fish and karate is doing a very good job in that regard.

Andy's like alot of old Usenet regulars I've known... for him this is a matter of principles. Ordering and/or blocking him will never ever get him to do things your way. It'd be 'wrong' to sacrifice principle and 'bow to authority' that way. You need to convince him of the benefits of your position. If you don't have the patience for that... let someone else do it. Would it be nice if everyone just did what they were told? Maybe, for the people giving the orders, but that just isn't the way the world works. So we can have patience with the occasional non-conformist... or stomp them into paste. In my experience stomping is the usual solution, but patience generally yields the better results. --CBD 13:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"Would it be nice if everyone just did what they were told? Maybe, for the people giving the orders, but that just isn't the way the world works." Good quote to use about people refusing to obey his order not to shorten his chosen user ID. Baseball Bugs 13:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Andy is someone that has been "problematic" for a long time - see, for example, User_talk:CBDunkerson/Archive4#Andy_Mabbet - and I am still trying. Being an old Usenet regular does not mean my patience is infinite, nor is the community's (obviously). What he wants (to be allowed to continue to rake up a three-year old feud) is not going to happen, and if he won't back down on that, he will remain unable to edit outside his talk page. fish&karate 13:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Andy is now attempting to endrun around building a compromise with fish&karate with an unblock request. He's now claiming that since he's offered a "compromise" (which is nothing of the sort), that he should be unblocked. Discouraging... SirFozzie (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I do have to say that I'm losing confidence too. To be frank, I doubt this is something that can change overnight and will need long term mentoring (in terms of weeks/months rather than hours). If no one is willing to mentor him, I think the next few days might turn out in a way that won't be too pleasant. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It's amusing to see a user, coming off a year-long block, dictating terms under which wikipedia will allowed to be graced by his presence. Baseball Bugs 09:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Mm, having looked things over myself, I have a couple thoughts, however non-warm and cuddly they be. First off, someone who's had two year-long Arbcom bans has to know he's going to be under the microscope forever, and really has to keep his nose clean forever. Someone who loses no time to fly off the handle yet again has demonstrated that he has learned nothing and that no sanction possible is likely get his attention. Secondly, I don't give a rat's patootie what kind of editing or article-building skills he might have. Misplaced Pages doesn't need him. Misplaced Pages doesn't need anybody. The project does not stand and fall on his putative skills, and what benefit is there to coddle pervasive and unrepentent offenders except to demonstrate that we coddle pervasive and unrepentant offenders? Seriously, think about it: what is the upside to removing the block?  RGTraynor  22:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  • What a depressing view. We get a contributor back, who is 99% a benefit to the encyclopedia. It's the 1% that's the problem, and unless he is willing to accede to the community's norms, he isn't going to be unblocked. fish&karate 10:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
    • (tapping feet impatiently...) He's banned till he accedes to the community norms - so when he does, someone can inform the community again. So why is this discussion still open? Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
      •  Done fish&karate 12:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What you might not realise...

Is that Andy Mabbett has been trolling Usenet for ages. He's not an old usenet regular, he's an old usenet troll with the stubbornness levels of a moody ox. Google Andy+Mabbett+troll, or just "Andy Mabbett". It's usually microformats and technological stuff, occasionally birdwatching. His negative reputation is clearly quite something. We're not going to change this guy, we really aren't...Moreschi (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. But if this effort fails, and convinces those who are not supporting the ban then it will be eaiser next time it gets brought up. Viridae 22:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Viridae. I tend to be a sucker for giving people too many chances, but Pigsonthewing has a good chain of contributions, broken as it is by ArbCom bans. I think another one wouldn't go astray.

Some of the discussion on this thread is regrettable and people should remember that even though Pigsonthewing may have broken WP:NPA and WP:CIV, that doesn't give others carte blanche to do the same. Stifle (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

While I'm in this train of thought, don't forget that a user is only considered community banned if no admin is willing to unblock him. Stifle (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"Another one" in my above message means "another chance", in case it wasn't obvious. Stifle (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If he's willing to drop the three year old feud, completely and totally? yes, another chance. Till then? No. SirFozzie (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) Sorry, but the troll accusation isn't something that I can leave unchallenged. Trolls set out with the sole purpose of damaging things, and no matter what you think of Andy's conduct, I don't believe that you can fairly characterise him in this way. Andy is tenacious, and single minded. He can probably be fairly accused of not always seeing the bigger picture, in which you sometimes have to accept less than you want out of a situation, for the greater good. However, I am entirely satisfied that Andy is not here with any ulterior motive of damaging Misplaced Pages.

Andy is talking to people, and is currently blocked, so there is no emergency that requires a rushed decision. Mayalld (talk) 06:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Update, POTW Unblocked without consensus or discussion

Sorry, to unarchive this, but I just wanted to call the community's attention to the fact that User:Adambro, either unaware of this discussion, or completely ignoring the consensus in this discussion, has decided to unblock POTW, and has decided to castigate me on the block. I explicity will not wheel war this block, but this action needs to be scrutinized. SirFozzie (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"Terrible unblock. What makes an admin thinkt hey can ignore the consensus from the numerous people who weighed into the debate and u8nblock because they think it is better is beyond me Viridae Talk 22:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)" (adding statement for Viridae per his request on my talk page SirFozzie (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

• Ugh, horrible idea. Poor unblock against consensus. POTW needs to be banned, banned, banned. Moreschi (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Whilst it's preferable to see a user put previous negative incidents behind them and continue to contribute positively to the encyclopedia rather than being blocked, one has to question whether actively encouraging visitors to his user page to research the history of this conflict, and strongly iterating that he is only complying with the requests to cease adding the information under duress indicates that Pigsonthewing has really moved past the issues that led to this block in the first place. -- Codeine (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, no offense intended, but your block was bad. You were previously involved in the dispute over his edits to his user page over a year ago, and it seems like you're just recycling that problem now that his year long block has expired. As I said before, and as I'll say again now, better to have someone previously uninvolved look at this rather than someone who may be (possibly) injecting a little bias in to their decisions.

I'll also note that what you call consensus I call "a small collection of editors, some with prior history with Andy". As you can see on his talk page, Andy has said he wouldn't continue the behavior that caused you to (erroneously) block him. And as a final note for anyone considering reblocking him: blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. As he's indicated he wouldn't engage in the behavior that was allegedly wrong, there's no need for him to be blocked (there's no gain for the encyclopedia if he's blocked again). —Locke Cole • t • c 23:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The block was explicitly endorsed by the consensus here. You may think its bad.. doesn't mean it was, mind you. SirFozzie (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thumping your chest and screaming "I had consensus, I had consensus!" doesn't mean you actually did. You didn't. You were previously involved in the year old issue, it was a bad block from start to finish. I'll also note that you ignored everything else I said, specifically the bits about punitive vs. preventative blocks. Your block prevented nothing and did nothing for the encyclopedia and was a gross lapse of judgment (given your prior involvement). —Locke Cole • t • c 02:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Without the dramatic phrasing of "gross lapse of judgement", which I disagree with, I see you and I had independently come to the same assessment. Andy and I once had a massive altercation on a template talk page, although strangely, after that was over, while he was difficult/uncompromising to deal with, he was never incivil to me again and we cooperated on a few minor tasks. I see users who push POV or bodge references as being far more dangerous to the encyclopaedia than he will ever be. Orderinchaos 08:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That was a year old issue that went to arbcom and landed him with his second year long ban - and you are having a go at Foz because he blocked him for continuing a grudge that is years old straight after coming off a ban that he got as a result of that dispute? Sorry but admins dealign wih user's bad behaviour does not make them "involved in a dispute". Further more the consensus there was pretty clear. Viridae 11:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Adambro (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) had no authority to override the consensus building that occurred here and exercised poor judgement. This discussion was closed under the terms that Pigsonthewing would remain indefinitely blocked until he agreed to stop pursuing old feuds - Adambro neither discussed the prospect of whether the community is satisfied with unblocking the user, nor did he even inform the community of his action. If there are other occasions where this administrator has exercised this sort of poor judgement, then this would need to be taken further and desysopping would certainly need to be considered. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• A terrible unblock, and one that deserves further review. seicer | talk | contribs 01:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• He had as much authority as SirFozzie did in blocking Andy in the first place (and at least Adambro doesn't seem to have any prior involvement, as SirFozzie does). —Locke Cole • t • c 02:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Also it's a bedrock principle that blocks are intended to be preventative and not punitive, I'm honestly failing to see the preventative value. If he started behaving the way he did before his last ArbCom block, I'd support an indefinite ban. But he actually hasn't, he's been somewhat easier to deal with this time around and I think one *can* overlook minor issues so long as they stay behind the containment lines. Orderinchaos 08:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

So the consensus is to keep the guy blocked - then one ignorant admin comes along and unblocks him - a "tyranny of the minority", as the others wring their hands and cry, "Oh, what shall we do? What shall we do?" Baseball Bugs 02:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm at the limit of what *I* can do.. the only next step I can see is ArbCom (where IF I took it there, which I won't.. and IF it got accepted), would be 30 days of drama and hassle, before probably yet another year long ban.. or to RfC, where I would get the 30 days of drama and hassle, and absolutely nothing binding would come out of it, to boot.

And I'm really less then impressed by Adambro logging in, unblocking/unprotecting Andy, and then logging out without discussing it anywhere, or even sticking around to help with the autoblock.

I do note that Andy has at least partially pleged to not add the section any more.. so I would have been pleased if he just said "Ok, I disagree with you, but I will not bring up Leonig any further".. I'm just afraid that it's left things open for interpertation, which means.. you guessed it.. MORE drama! SirFozzie (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Drama you need not concern yourself with in your capacity as administrator/sysop. If you have a potential problem with Andy you should report it here on AN/I and let another uninvolved admin/sysop deal with it, not yourself. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but have been following the discussion here and on Andy's talk page, and have to say that I'm rather depressed by the entire business. I should declare that my editing interests have on occasions overlapped with Andy's, primarily on UK railways and West Midlands-related articles; I've never personally had any difficulty in dealing with him, but of course I'm aware that others have had (one would have to be in cloud-cuckoo land to be unaware of it).

Now, I don't particularly care if Andy has a grudge against another editor or not, and don't particularly care about the notice on his user page that seems to have precipitated all of this. I personally wouldn't put such a notice on my own user page, but that's a personal decision. Also, (IMHO anyway) the offending notice doesn't seem especially, well, offensive (at least on the surface); let's face it: it could be a hell of a lot worse.

It seems that this whole sorry incident was precipitated by SirFozzie taking it upon himself to remove it from Andy's user page , without even remarking on it on the talk page (see the talk page history: SirFozzie made no edits to it when he edited the user page). As far as I was aware, it is an unwritten rule on Misplaced Pages that editors don't unilaterally edit others' user pages; instead you make polite requests on their user talk page and ask them to remove it themselves. (The request made by Neil/Fish&Karate would have been a much better place to start.) With this in mind, it seems hard to disagree with Andy's claim that his user page "is censored by other editors". I'm afraid that it appears to me that SirFozzie has displayed incredibly poor judgement by re-igniting this issue.

It's also just plain common sense not to antagonise someone who you know for a fact will rise to the bait; given the "history" between Andy and various others editors, it's like a red rag to a bull. Similarly, when you know that a user objects to something (e.g. Andy's dislike of being referred to as "Pigs"), it's common sense not to keep doing it!

I should also point out that since the unblock Andy has removed the offending notice from his user page, and has also been editing productively as well as interacting with the community in an acceptable manner (see Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing). So at present there seems no reason to re-block. Let's just leave the matter closed. --RFBailey (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm also not an admin - but I've seen a lot of Andy Mabbett's activity on WP and I wouldn't characterize him as a productive editor. Most of his energy has gone into warring. This is what turns him on. That is why he is here. Previous bans have only reinforced his behaviour by making him more bitter. IMO, he has once again been given licence to game ANI and pit his wits against those involved. The activity on his user page was a classical example of brinkmanship, with Andy walking a narrow line between cooperating and defying those involved, exploiting the scruples of his opponents and trying (in this case successfully) to divide them. The result of all this is a complete waste of everybody's time. We'll have another incident in a week, or a month's time, and the whole thing will be repeated until, and unless, common sense prevails and we see a complete and final ban on this man. --Kleinzach 05:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, I'm seeing positive contributions, such as this, and this and this. It is possible that this is only temporary, but it seems part of the message is getting across. In general, I agree with RFBailey's assessment of the situation above. I also think that a reblock or ArbCom case would be excessive drama. Maybe discuss Adambro's action separately from the discussion on Andy/POTW? Carcharoth (talk) 05:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Not only would I support reverting the unblock, thus reinstating the community endorsed user ban, but I'd further support a de-buttoning of Adambro for his obviously bad faith unblock. His actions are like coming into a mexican standoff, firing one round into the air, and running from the firefight, only with bullets as a metaphor for drama. Unless he rapidly provides some incredible reasoning, he should surrender his toolkit. ThuranX (talk) 05:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Were this up to me and nobody else, I would leave Andy/POTW unblocked, until and unless he posts any further rubbish about his old feuds. I would have done this in the first place, but unlike Adambro, didn't feel comfortable ignoring the rest of the community's less progressive views. Andy is now contributing well. He is very, very aware he is on thin ice. If he does post any further rubbish, then he will be indefinitely blocked, and I would imagine it would stick. I would be inclined to (why do I keep saying this and why does nobody do so) let the matter drop. fish&karate 09:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: I left the unblocking admin a note suggesting he leave an explanation here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Adambro does have 'previous' with Mabbett - see eg Talk:Tinsley Viaduct and Talk:Tinsley Viaduct/coordinates, both illustrative of the pre-reformed-Mabbett technique in 2007 – so is not 'uninvolved'. I too think that Adambro should return the tools. Moreover Mig requested, politely, the removal of the stalker para on 30 Jan 07 and 11 March 07. Occuli (talk) 09:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Yes I have dealt with Andy a good while ago but don't consider this to have any impact on my basis for unblocking. Good morning all. Well there's a lot to comment on there but I'm afraid I'm not prepared to spend any more time than is absolutely necessary dealing with this issue. The core reasoning for this and my unblock is that this nonsense dispute is causing a lot more disruption than the text on Andy's userpage ever had the potential to do. I see a few calls for my admin rights to be removed and this doesn't surprise me. It has been said that I shouldn't simply appear and unblock Andy having not been involved in all the discussions, however, I would suggest this puts me in a good position to take a broader view of this situation. I am under no doubts that Andy's poor behaviour over the years has caused him to have a good number of enemies and as such I have to treat a lot of the comments with a great deal of caution. I don't know who where has developed a dislike to Andy which may influence their thinking. It has been suggested that there is consensus for him to be blocked but I don't think it is really clear and anyhow, I'll happily ignore all rules if I think it benefits the project. By unblocking Andy what I am trying to achieve is for him to be able to return to the positive work he's being trying to do and for the many others who have been involved to get back to doing something constructive themselves. Far too much time has been wasted with this debate and I don't think it is really Andy to blame for this. Whilst is has been said that Andy has returned from his ban to continue a vendetta against Leonig, I think the truth here is probably more than Andy has returned and there are others waiting for him whole hold their own grudges against him. Ultimately, whilst I don't consider this text about Leonig to have ever been appropriate, it is very questionable as to whether it actually violates any policy. I would urge all that have been involved in this issue to take a step back and consider the value of continuing these discussions. There are much more useful things that people, including Andy and myself, can be getting on with and so don't expect me to be commenting on this much. Adambro (talk) 09:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  • The rationale/merits for wanting to or actually unblocking does not override the need to comply with norms. Indeed, it appears that certain admins haven't learnt from the Sarah Palin ArbCom case that is running currently. If Adambro is incapable of acknowledging the issue with the series of actions he took on this matter, then one does have to wonder why an RFC has not been opened? Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  Where complying with the norms would cause more disruption than not doing then I'll happily ignore the norms as I've said. You say in your edit summary that "he doesn't get it", presumably "he" is me. In fact I think I get this perfectly well, there are a lot of editors it would seem who are wanting to get Andy off Misplaced Pages by any means and attempting to blow this issue out of all reasonable proportions seems to demonstrate this. I have no intention of allowing Andy to be forced out of the project due to grudges that a number have against him but would have no problem with him being further banned or blocked if he further causes problems to the project. However, in this situation I am quite clear that it isn't him that is causing the problem, it is others who are looking for any opportunity to get rid of him, what it is that Andy is being accused of here is actually extremely minor and does not merit all the debate that has gone on. The only reason why editors are prepared to spend so much time on this is to try and make it bigger than it actually is. There is nothing more that needs to be discussed now, Andy can continue to edit and if there are any further problems then these can be discussed. Whilst I would prefer to use my time on Misplaced Pages to edit articles, I will however vigorously defend Andy's editing privileges from those who simply don't like him and attempt to generate further controversy around him. I would strongly warn any user from taking part in such a campaign. I would encourage all to take time to cool off and go and do some proper constructive work on the project as I intend to do. Adambro (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  You are in no position to "warn" us that our "campaign" is nothing more than a "grudge." You blindly reverted a disruptive editor that you have prior history with. That's a huge no-no. I wouldn't be surprised if his block was reinstated, and this case taken further to evaluate your administrative tools -- and your abuse (of). seicer | talk | contribs 11:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  It would not surprise me if I become a target of this campaign to rid Misplaced Pages of Andy but I am big and ugly enough to stand up for myself. I have acted in good faith in unblocking Andy in my attempts to minimise the ongoing disruption and have taken the time to carefully explain why I took my decision to do so. I would be very surprised if any attempt to remove my admin rights would be successful therefore. I can warn people about their behaviour as I see fit and my previous dealings with Andy have been negligible but enough for me to know and understand what is going on here. If you choose to dismiss my actions as inappropriate due to these previous dealings then could I perhaps ask you to explain what your status regarding Andy is? Adambro (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  Completely uninvolved outside of the comments posed here. seicer | talk | contribs 12:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• (In reply to Adambro's comment at 11:38) - Although I hope you did get it, to put it bluntly, it's very clear that you don't (particularly from that comment). I consider the controversy is around you and caused by you (rather than by POTV), at least in this section. First, you inappropriately invoke WP:IAR as a justification for your series of actions, then you come here casting aspersions that the editors here are trying rid Andy off the project to justify your involvement, and then indicate that you will use Misplaced Pages as a battleground against editors who are in a 'campaign' (while refusing to listen to the criticism you receive from your peers)? This level of rhetoric, judgement and conduct is incompatible with the status of an administrator, and indeed, needs to be addressed promptly. It is clear an RFC is going to do nothing as he still won't 'get it', nor will he listen to the community - this needs to go to ArbCom. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Without wanting to get drawn into all the rhetoric that is being banded about here, it's hard to see how statements such as "POTW needs to be banned, banned, banned" (Moreschi, ) and "Ban PigsAndy now" (ThuranX, ) are not part of some campaign to see Andy permanently banned. --RFBailey (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Gives appearances of a campaign? Possibly, and no problem with saying that if you're being specific about who or which comments seem to be doing so. Claiming as a matter of fact that there is a campaign or grudge by editors (in general)? It's not borne out of facts, and creates more heat than light. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• If this needs to go to ArbCom then you can go ahead and raise it there but I stand by my actions and my comments above, especially considering you've not really explained why my comments are wrong just stated that they are. Please keep me informed if you decide to raise this for discussion anywhere but beyond that I have no desire to continue taking part in this. Adambro (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  As I've noted below, I do hope you have a good think about the criticisms I and a couple of others left here, sometimes repeatedly in different ways so you understand - you should've given it more thought and gone about it differently. I don't intend on taking it to ArbCom personally at this point, but note: should I find a problem with your judgement again, then I will. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of Andy, but I have to say that I'm not seeing the consensus to ban that many are either saying or implying exists here. A majority, sure, but we need a lot more than a majority for someone to truly be banned. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Admins acting in bad faith

SirFozzie, you explicitly said that if Pigsonthewing agreed not to repost about the dispute with Leonig Mig he should be unblocked. He did so. He was unblocked. Now you are screaming that this is against consensus. It was your own condition. The same condition was stated by Neil/Fish/Karate... and you supported his position. The stated condition for unblocking was met. What exactly then is the problem?

Ncmvocalist, you ALSO claimed to support efforts to get Andy to change his position. He did. He agreed not to repost the material. How is unblocking under the conditions YOU supported 'against consensus'?

ThuranX, you called for a RFCU to determine whether Locke Cole was Pigsonthewing. That's just too ridiculous to deserve any further comment.

Et cetera. The discussion above is littered with personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, threats, intimidation, calls for desysoping for doing the very thing that the people making the calls had previously claimed THEY would do if the user would just concede to their demands, and other unpleasantness.

What we seem to have is a bunch of people who SAID they were willing to try to settle this through normal dispute resolution processes. Discuss... try to get the user to change their position... agree to make no reference to the past dispute. Very reasonable. Helping to dispel any concerns about possible bias in the earlier handling of discussion with the user and the block. But now... when the user has actually agreed to do what was demanded of them. Now suddenly we are seeing a different story. It doesn't look good. Not even a little. --CBD 11:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What we have is another Betacommand situation - that if a user is perceived as being "beneficial", he will be cut a lot of slack by selected admins, especially the ones who call him by his first name, as if he were their pal or something. Baseball Bugs 12:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

'Andy' happens to be shorter than 'Pigsonthewing'. Go figure. As to cutting people slack... I'd settle for a remote adherence to community standards. Things like civility, blocks not being punitive, assumption of good faith. No slacks required. --CBD 13:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"Pigs" is just as short as "Andy" and is actually part of his user ID, despite his silly NPA complaint about it. And calling him by his first name (which is NOT part of his user ID), suggests a less-than-neutral stance on the matter. Baseball Bugs 13:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm... calling him 'Andy', as he requests, rather than 'Pigs', which he objects to, "suggests a less-than-neutral stance". To be 'neutral' we should all use the nickname which annoys him. Got it. --CBD 14:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

A guy with 2 year-long blocks is in no position to be giving orders to other users. "Pigsonthewing" is his user ID, and that's what he should be called. If he really wants to be called "Andy", he's free to change his user ID. Baseball Bugs 14:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

While it is normal custom and practice to address people by their usernames, if they use a different name in their signatures then the waters are muddied a bit. However, if the user in question is clear about what name they prefer to be addressed by, then deliberately going against that is likely to antagonise that person, whoever it is, be it me, Andy, or somebody else. Continually doing so could be seen to be disruptive. (For the record, I personally object to being called Bailey, even though it is "actually part of my user ID".) --RFBailey (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

We could go with 'Bail', 'Bug', and 'son'. That'd be friendly, right? Add in 'vocal' and 'icer' and you've got a party. :] --CBD 20:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

CBDunkerson, please refrain from misstating my position and read the discussion more carefully. I never once said that there was a consensus to unblock - I noted that the moment he accedes to community norms, someone should inform the community, or the moment there was a change, that's when the discussion is worth reopening. Your statement "It doesn't look good. Not even a little." is a perfect characterization of your poor judgement in creating this section in the manner in which you have, as well as what you're creating for yourself - a massive drama invitation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Mmm... yes, because there was absolutely no 'drama invitation' involved in the cries for desysoping above. Pigsonthewing was blocked for trying to keep his comments about Leonig Mig. He subsequently agreed to stop. Ergo... he should be unblocked. The reason for blocking is gone. Blocks are preventive and this one was then irrelevant. SirFozzie should have removed the block himself. He had stated that he would. What we have here instead? Not remotely acceptable. If you are saying that you didn't mean for Pigsonthewing to be unblocked if/when he capitulated (though it still looks that way to me)... well, then you are merely arguing against policy. We should keep people indefinitely blocked even after they agree not to do the thing they were blocked for. Not a position I'd support. --CBD 13:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're unfamiliar with why certain administrators are desysopped, then indeed, it'd merely look like a drama invitation. Ordinarily, my position is that users should not be blocked any longer than necessary as it is the most restrictive remedy - this was not an ordinary case. It is not ordinary for a user to be fully banned, let alone twice, but then to come back and do the same thing again was precisely what had the community very concerned, and in the absence of the user stating that he won't do it again, an unblock wasn't even up for consideration. That is why the discussion became moot, and that is why Adambro felt the need to unblock without informing the community, and invoked WP:IAR (or norms) to justify his intentionally controversial action - he was fully aware that the community would only have an interest in discussing this after Andy took the first step. He could not put his own personal feelings, passions, agendas, assumptions of bad faith etc. aside in taking that action which indicates a major problem in his judgement. He should've (as a first resort) informed the community of his view that Andy seemed to be ready for an unblock. Adambro's prior involvement with the user was also another factor, and perhaps your own involvement is a factor worth considering, given what you're trying to do here. In any case, the manner in which you have responded is once again unhelpful and unbecoming of your status, and repeatedly misstating my position is something I don't respond to well at all, so I won't respond to you from this point on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Conrad, I should point out that Andy never actually agreed to never posting the content again, so it's a little unfair to castigate people over that. I'm happy to assume he won't, and I hope that assumption proves correct. I am done commenting on this issue unless someone does something stupid (this could be either an admin blocking Andy again for no good reason, or Andy posting more ranty stuff about old feuds) - unless someone is going to file an RFC over Adambro for daring to apply common sense and judgement, this really should be done and dusted with. fish&karate 13:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I consider his statement just prior to the unblock, "Accordingly, solely in order to be able to continue that work, and very much under duress, I hereby give an undertaking that I will not return the disputed material to my user page, nor any other; save for reporting further instances of the harassment and abuse to which it was my response.", to be such an agreement. Do you see it differently? --CBD 13:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "nor any other", one could argue that this undertaking has already been violated. Hesperian 01:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I missed that statement entirely - thanks for the heads up. In that case, never mind what I said - Adambro's unblock was completely appropriate, and all this complaining is ridiculous, frankly. Andy has agreed not to restore the material, that's what was required of him, he is accordingly unblocked. fish&karate 14:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

In retrospect, I'm going to guess that some of the complainants missed it also. In which case this has been more of a 'rush to judgment' / 'assumption of bad faith' issue. Normally I'd expect people to have done their homework before calling for de-sysoping, but oversights happen. If they thought there had been no agreement to cease I can see where some of this hostility was coming from. I still wouldn't agree with it, but it wouldn't seem as completely unjustified as I found the complaints in light of that agreement. --CBD 14:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• In light of the link posted above, I apologize for my comments in relation to Adambro. While I supported the block in its original intent, I no longer do in part to the latest comments. seicer | talk | contribs 16:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, I personally no longer supported a block since he agreed and took that first step. My criticisms still stand, and I hope both admins have a good think about it, because should (I become aware that) something like this occurred again, then I know that I wouldn't leave it at this. There's also a relevant note above made at 1:21 (UTC). Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Could have been averted

Y'know, in retrospect, a lot of this hubbub about "wheel-warring" might have been averted if someone had simply come here to the AN/I thread and stated "Hey, Andy agreed to the terms presented to him - how about we unblock?"

This whole thread from the start is depressing. It's depressing that Andy/POTW felt the need to resurrect an old feud for no reason after a long block. It's depressing that people started a heated debate over the matter. It's depressing that so much confusion arose out of a missed comment and an unexplained unblock. It's even more depressing that some people are quick to call for Adambro's head and raise the spectre of Arbcom here. The most depressing part of it all is that just a smidge more effort in communicating our intentions could have prevented a lot of this ... Shereth 20:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for community ban

• Boondocks37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user, after asserting a removal of an autoblock (apparently blocked for POV pushing), disappears for a over a year, then returns for more of the same.

The posting to User talk:Raul654 (diff), really would seem to make it clear that this user does not have Misplaced Pages's best interests at heart.

I am looking for a community ban rather than just a block (indefinite or otherwise) due to the long time "missing", combined with the concern about the autoblock. I think that this user may have been (and be) using IPs and possibly other socks to continue more of the same.

As an aside, when looking over their contributions, I noted that their other edit seems odd based on the reference provided (and because it replaced other text), and have reverted. I did this both because I disagree with how the article is being construed in the article, but also because (in this case, anyway), I won't be the one to block the individual. (I wish to be "just-another-editor" in this.)

Anyway, I welcome others' thoughts/opinion on all of this (including if you think I'm "way off base" on this). - jc37 08:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

A years absence shows that time isn't going to fix this. That doesn't exactly leave us with many choices.--Crossmr (talk) 09:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. - jc37 08:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur with a community ban. Raul654 (talk) 02:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I support a community ban on Boondocks37. If there is serious concern about socking, it would be good to have a WP:SSP case to refer to in this discussion. Even if no additional action is required, it helps to gather the evidence in one place. EdJohnston (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive edits from User:Goethean

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

Content dispute. Please pursue dispute resolution ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to report the disruptive, tendentious edits, and uncivic, personal attacks of User:Goethean. I have recently noticed this (past 1 month or so) when editing the articles : Ramakrishna, The Gospel of Ramakrishna, Kali's Child. Before mentioning my views, I would like to cite other editors and warnings on the talk page of Goethean.

Warnings on his talk page

• User_talk:Goethean/2008a#Assuming_good_faith
• User_talk:Goethean/2008a#Careful...
• User_talk:Goethean/2008a#Word_of_Warning this is what the editor User:LoveMonkey says -

His edit warring, personal attacks, frustrating conduct and article squatting is nothing new, but defending him is taking wikipedia to a whole new level of hypocrisy.

• User_talk:Goethean/2008a#Obama_.2708

Sir, Your characterization of my edit was less than civil in the edit summary and bordered on an attack. If you want to revert, then let us talk on the talk page. Very cordially,--Die4Dixie

• User_talk:Goethean/2008a#That_wasn.27t_vandalism

Now I will briefly describe my own observations:

Ramakrishna aticle

Goethean's POV can be understood from his own edit, as follows :

Two editors have decided that the scholarship of the last 40 years should be rejected in favor of one hundred year-old sources that the Ramakrishna religious organization finds more amenable.

The point I am trying to put forth is that there is difference between improving an article and preventing it from becoming amenable to the Ramakrishna Religious organization. Improving the article may make it amenable or unamenable to someone. But here the POV is to make it unamenable against the guidelines of wikipedia... no matter if there are other scholarly works. I would like to mention that I am in no way affiliated to the Ramakrishna Religious organization, but this anti-religious organization POV prevails in majority of goethean's edits! Note: Above its 40 years.

To push this POV, it is interesting to note that guidelines of wikipedia have been breached. For ex: There is no guideline in WP:BIO which tells that the century old books are unreliable. But Goethean does exactly this here, also pls note the edit summary - "+{{totally-disputed}}. you have essentially destroyed the section by filling it with religious propaganda from the Mission. Sources from 1898 and 1929 are not reliable sources in the year 2008.". It is interesting to note that the books from 1898 and 1929 are from Max Muller a renowned indologist and Romain Rolland (who holds a nobel prize), who are no way associated with Ramakrishna mission and are notable third parties! but just because adding these books gives a +ve dimension, their inclusion was attacked as religious propoganda. This is clearly tendentious. A totally disputed tag was added just because the above scholarly works were referenced in the article! This is clearly disruptive. And moreover my additions were termed as - "What a mess. The new additions by Nvineeth are disasterous. It is comical that he thinks that..."

Further its very important to note that when at a later point of time, other editors started contributing to the article, other books by Christopher Isherwood (1965) was being cited., And moreover there are majority of references from the journals, books from the recent time period ( there is no wikipedia guideline related to this though). Despite this, Goethean adds a totally disputed tag again with with edit summary - This tag stays on until you start using Ramakrishna scholarship from the past 30 years. Its interesting to note that what was 40 years above now has become 30 years, because the Christopher Isherwood (1965) falls in the range of 40 years! And moreover, a quick glance at the Ramakrishna#Notes makes the above claim untenable. Well this is not a place to discuss the reliability of source, so I will cut short here and talk further in the corresponding article.

I would also like mention the crude personal attacks made on the editors and the Ramakrishna Religious organization :

• Not an evil empire, just a bunch of liars. -
• Ah, the work of those industrious swamis again, with their "nobility of character, dedication to truth and honesty, and other fine character traits"

The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna article

The personal attacks , POV pushing continues here,

• A well referenced article was termed as Deceptive editing.
• Here it is interesting to note that the same references which were used by Goethean before were termed as unreliable by Goethean himself, because it supported the relevant article in a positive manner. For example in this edit on 14:57, 3 May 2008, goethean added a reference from Neeval 1976, but when the same reference was used in the The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna article, its reliability was questioned because it came from 1976 - "Quotations from 1976, and two from 1943? You really expect editors to accept this as a neutral summary of the relevant scholarship pertaining to the subject? These tactics won't get far in any Misplaced Pages article.". Why this hypocrisy?

• Personal attack alleging my religious POV.
• Another personal attack, and an edit which is not present in any of the wikipedia guidelines, and calling "pure mindless bhakti, you should be very suspicious of anything coming from the Ramakrishna Mission. "
  • If you read the entire sentence from which Nvineeth very characteristically and misleadingly picked out a few words, you will see that it is not a personal attack at all: "If you are interested in the historical record rather than pure mindless bhakti, you should be very suspicious of anything coming from the Ramakrishna Mission." — goethean ॐ 16:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Kali's Child

The same story continues here, additions were termed as religious prosyletizing. How can adding academic content be termed like this? I honestly agree, there were POV in my edits, but this is no civic to attack a editor.

I have just touched upon just three articles, probably other editors from other articles can throw more light on this. Hope to see a fair investigation from admins. Pls indicate my mistakes if any. I am sure that wikipedia has very good admins, without bias towards religion, country etc., who can investigate this.

Thanks. -- vineeth (talk) 11:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

the content in question in Kali's Child was not neutral & did not in my opinion represent appropriate weight. A NPOV tag on that article in its present form seems highly appropriate, though the edit summary was unduly provocative. I haven't yet examined the other articles. DGG (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have tried to correct my mistakes and those mistakes which were introduced later. Kindly see my comments, and I have tried to make corrections according to the NPOV guidelines of wikipedia. I request another editors to review the POV status now. -- vineeth (talk) 11:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

All additions to that article include Reliably Sourced references that discuss the book's scholarship (positive and negative). At the time, the book was controversial, and drew an extraordinary amount of well-aimed criticism by scholars (religious, psychological, and language). It's been almost 3 weeks since Goethean put the NPOV tag on the article. The specific problems he mentioned on the talk page were addressed long ago. Most of his 'discussion' consists of inflammatory edit summaries while adding tags, with no attempt to discuss on the talk page. This is also his recent pattern on the other articles. ~ priyanath  20:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"The specific problems he mentioned on the talk page were addressed long ago."

Well, even I was under same impression, and was confused with POV words like claim, indicate, argue, allege, say etc., :) , but today when I read the NPOV tutorials - Words to avoid , Mind your nuances, lot of things got cleared. -- vineeth (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I just now saw this extensive critique of my editing history by User:Nvineeth. I hope that it prompts more experienced users to examine the group of pages that Nvineeth is editing. He has been editing in a highly POV fashion which dismisses the past 30 years of scholarship on south Asian studies in favor of thirty-year old sources which are favored by the Ramakrishna religious organization This organization has very blatantly shown that it has no commitment to honesty or to an accurate historical record. I trust that anyone who is familiar with the contributions of User:Lovemonkey or User:Die4Dixie will no be impressed by the attacks on my usertalk page which Nvineeth brings up here. Anyone who is familiar with Indian history, please look at the changes that Nvineeth and Priyanath have made to the Ramakrishna articles. They are systematically removing the scholarly sources and substituting sources more friendly to a purely religious organization. In doing so, they are impoverishing and in fact falsifying the article. All of Nveenth's edits should be reverted and the article should be re-written with NPOV in mind. — goethean ॐ 16:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Goethean, please stop making personal attacks against another editor - an editor who has significantly improved the Ramakrishna related articles, using a very wide range of Reliable and academic Sources. The Ramakrishna article currently gives much more weight to those sources considered mainstream, but still includes the recent scholarship attempts to psychoanalyse Ramakrishna, which you added to the article. Look to the Britannica article on Ramkrishna for a reality check of how a mainstream, non-POV encyclopedia treats his biography, and how much weight it gives to the 'scholarship' of the last 30 years (hint: none). A look at the Ramakrishna footnotes shows arguably a strong over-reliance on some of the recent, and questionable, scholarship, if anything.~ priyanath  17:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Goethean, I can straight away provide proofs to make your arguments above untenable:

• - I have added things which are clearly not amenable to the Ramakrishna Religious Organization, but provides valuable insights in the translation debate.
• - Includes the recent scholarship, in fact a psychoanalysis.
• - A recent journal of 2003.
• - Another recent academic scholarly journal study of 2004, by Hawley.
• - Removed highly POV, unencyclopedic content. and its very easy to know who added this. The presense of "My Ellipses" in an wikipedia article, indicates its quality and sense of ownership one has towards the article. Remember we dont own articles.
• - I have added sil here, who is anti-ramakrishna mission
• - I have added refs to Sil, Kali's child.
• another recent scholarship of 1995 related to psychoanalysis.
• - I have moved the Sil's view to the corresponding section.,
• - When I was told that my ref was not reliable, I removed it, without further disputes.
• , check this addition, and read it carefully, one of the refs say, "His speech at times was abominably filthy.....", and any person doing religious propaganda would avoid this. In this edit I ensured that the major POVs are added, both for and against ramakrishna. How can this be a religious propoganda??
• , I have removed the advertisement flowery language of the mission and improved its quality. Now, How do you prove that I am doing religious propaganda?

If the above examples are not sufficient, I can give more. -- vineeth (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Update, check this latest addition of mine, it includes a variety of recent scholarship. And one scholarship is from 2008. Thanks. -- vineeth (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

What a load of horse manure. Goethean has been doing an excellent job trying to keep mainstream academic sourcing on these pages. Mark this as resolved, keep an eye on the complainant, who's obviously tendentious, and move on. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No, what you're smelling is from Goethean's personal attacks, and previous history of giving undue credibility and weight to a hypotheses that has been rejected by mainstream Asian Studies scholars: Huston Smith, Gerald James Larson, and William Radice—and mainstream psychologists: Alan Roland and Somnath Bhattacharyya. Even then, Goethean's material is still included and covered in the Ramakrishna article, in the section Ramakrishna#Views_on_Ramakrishna. That's where recent scholarly analysis of Ramakrishna belongs, even if it is not accepted by the mainstream. Vineeth has not only kept that material, but referenced it and added more recent academic material. In fact, the "Views on Ramakrishna" section, which is nearly all recent scholarship, is the largest in the entire article, even larger than Ramakrishna's biography (details of Ramakrishna's life). That biography of course depends on sources older than 30 years—Ramakrishna died 122 years ago! The article as it stands is a fine balance of original bio sources and recent analysis, thanks to the efforts of Vineeth. The article is neutral and factual, and the tag should be removed. ~ priyanath  22:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Priyanath, please don't make me lose all respect for you. Per WP:NOR, every section of the article should be referenced to contemporary works of scholarship, not primary materials ("Misplaced Pages articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources"). Why? Because you and I (not to mention Nvineeth) are not scholars who are trained to use and analyze primary materials. And by the way, your list of Ramakrishna Mission-friendly (and RISA-unfriendly) scholars is downright comedic to anyone who knows the debate. The simple fact is that devotees of Ramakrishna don't like Ramakrishna scholarship and do everything in their power to suppress it. Stop asking Misplaced Pages administrators to help you. — goethean ॐ 06:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Why should we "move on"? There are several things still unresolved; the personal attacks should be investigated, instead of sweeping them under the carpet... isn't it? I can prove again and again that I have added more recent academic sources, scholarship than Goethean, so instead of saying "load of Horse manure", just check the proof I have given above. But this discussion is not just about the academic sources related to Ramakrishna, this is about personal attacks, disruptive editing. Even when there is ample evidence indicating the presence of recent scholarship, a untenable "totally disputed tag" is added! There is no question of moving on. -- vineeth (talk) 06:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Your POV changes to the article must be reverted before any progress can be made. — goethean ॐ 14:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

This noticeboard is not useful to resolve content disputes. Please pursue dispute resolution and/or by seeking help from Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Religion, and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Hinduism. You can also start by requesting input from other editors via WP:3O or WP:RFC. Granted, sometimes tempers flare in these disputes, and it would be best to relax and have some tea. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jossi's comment (which I read after I posted my reply to Goethean below). ~ priyanath  15:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Goethean, per your comment above regarding Primary Sources - the biographical material of Ramakrishna in the article is almost entirely from secondary sources. Look at the footnotes—the vast majority are from Isherwood, Rolland, and other academics. Those that are cited to original biographical sources can, and should, be cited to the secondary sources also.

The modern psychoanalysis of Ramakrishna is not biographical, but instead qualifies as commentary and analysis. Those things do belong in the article, and Vineeth has done a good job of collecting them in the 'Views' section. Far from being 'swept under the carpet', they have been collected in that 'Views' section, in a neutral way, with references. Note that those 'views' (including some biographical claims) are not widely accepted in the academic community - they are speculative, with many mainstream academics (Huston Smith, William Radice, and Gerald James Larson questioning their scholarship, translations, and integrity. ~ priyanath  15:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk · contribs) recent edits

I guess it is my day to stumble across completely bizarre edits. I just spotted the above user making an edit to an article in which he cleaned up the cites but the edit was labeled just edited page (well obviously?) . That in itself while strange isn't bad... however I decided to check the rest of his contribs to see if this was a habit and I should leave him a message or what. I found something truly bizarre. He's got plenty of warnings regarding deletions, userfying things, etc. He appears to be using an automated tool of some sort, but whats most bizarre are some of the other edits he's doing. Like reverting a new user in the sandbox , creating this truly bizarre redirect and other things. I'm not sure it needs admin attention, but I see a lot of communication coming at him about some of his behaviour and nothing coming back from him through a few page search of his contribs. He's does have a tendency though to mark a lot of his edits minor with an edit summary of "edited the page" which isn't particularly helpful. Many of his edits do appear helpful, just some seem out of place or strange.--Crossmr (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I've undone the edits to user sandboxes; Tohd8BohaithuGh1 cleared several user sandboxes and replaced them with Misplaced Pages Sandbox templates, and there was no evidence the sandboxes were inappropriate or that there had been any discussion with the users. --Snigbrook 14:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

He's continuing to make bizarre edits -- creating a new page Astrick as a redirect to Asterisk, creating Talk pages for users telling them that they are blocked or putting welcome templates on which thank them for their contributions in "Misplaced Pages:changing username" etc. This new business with talk pages looks worrying.Doug Weller (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have left a note telling the user his edits are being discussed here. DGG (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

apparently this had already been done, but I sure would like to hear from the editor. DGG (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

He edited the section below, yet hasn't responded here. From my skimming of his contribs, he doesn't seem to engage in 2 way conversation. As I said there is a lot of talk coming at him, but not going the other way. This edit is a little weird . He's tagged the vandal from below as temporarily blocked, but he was blocked as a sock. Perhaps someone wants to put the right template there.--Crossmr (talk) 01:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Should we be making these kinds of redirects? article space to wikispace? I was under the impression, no.--Crossmr (talk) 01:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

His creation of Astrick was seemingly to link this page . With the excuse he was doing it to avoid the redirect... yet he redirected Astrick to Asterisk.--Crossmr (talk) 02:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, this user welcomed User talk:Tonytunnycliffe with the {{welcomespam}} which confused Tony. Could an admin confirm with a check of Tony's deleted contribs to make sure there are no speedied pages or other welcomespam worthy material, and let him know what if anything. I took a look through and saw nothing that would warrant a spam notice. The only way I could understand this was that Tohd was spamming with welcome messages, and not welcoming/warning users who had put up spam material. The edits and the lack of responses are confusing, but I'm just chalking this up to relatively new user. Would a second notice with a pointer to this specific section help? I'm not sure the notices got his attention here. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

He's copied a welcome template from User:Cocoaguy to User talk:Westhydeian - no problem, except that the template invites the user to contact Cocoaguy for help. Doug Weller (talk) 07:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

He had a second message from DGG, I'd already left him one. he's had 2 notifications and has been to this page (See section below) I can only take that to mean that he doesn't wish to explain himself.--Crossmr (talk) 07:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

So, what would be the appropriate action to take now? Doug Weller (talk) 08:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can easily admit that some of his edits are helpful (cite cleanup) but that doesn't give him permission to be a nuisance otherwise. If he continues to make these other troubling edits (on other uses pages and and articles) we don't have much choice.--Crossmr (talk) 08:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've left him a notice to make sure that he sees this specific thread. He hasn't made any edits in several hours, so hopefully he'll respond here and this will be all cleared up. -Optigan13 (talk) 09:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd already left him a direct link to this thread. After leaving it for him, he came here and edited the section below this. The only other option would be for someone to call up the page and prop his eyelids open in front of his monitor to make 110% sure that he's seen it. I think we've more than gone out of our way to ensure he's seen it and edited since being notified of this thread.--Crossmr (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

He's come on to make a couple spelling redirects then disappear again...--Crossmr (talk) 07:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

He's still failed to come and explain his edits but come back to make puzzling edits like this . He claims to be bypassing the redirect, but just sending it to another redirect...--Crossmr (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well he's gotten multiple warnings, to no avail. At least the pace he is fairly slow, I've pulled similar errors with redirects in the past only with AWB. Unfortunately I think a block may be necessary to get some kind of response out of him, even if it is just a whoops, my mistake type of response. The problem is these edits are mildly disruptive by confusing other users and forcing people to correct his mistakes without limited acknowledgment/change from him. Could some admin review this users edits and see where to go from here? -Optigan13 (talk)

I've given him a level 4 warning, if that doesn't get his attention, nothing will.--Crossmr (talk) 08:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well sorry about the edits if you think they are disruptive. This edit was a mistake and I apologize for any inconvenience caused. If you want to block me, go ahead and do so if you want to just block people randomly. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's probably important for you to realize that this would definitely not be a case of "blocking people randomly". In fact, it would be the textbook useful block: when an editor, despite good intentions has a negative net effect on the project, we block him until problems are addressed. You seem unwilling to admit mistakes and unwilling to listen to concerns and adjust your editing. Currently, the effort that others are forced to put into monitoring your edits and repairing the damage outweighs the benefits of your good edits. You can stubbornly refuse to listen but don't expect others to put up with it. I'll copy this on your talk page with a few extra problems that were not mentioned above. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've warned the user that I will block if he screws up on newpage patrol again. He's been completely unresponsive for weeks, despite repeated detailed complaints. I also note that he has AWB access, which should also be removed if the pattern of mistakes and unresponsiveness continues. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll admit that I was wrong. I will now adjust my editing as a result. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You've been making far more mistakes than just that. Editing other users sandboxes, reverting new users in the main sandbox, etc.--Crossmr (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

And could you stop with the misleading edit summaries? This is NOT link repair. You're creating redirects.--Crossmr (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Then do you label the edit summary "Redirected page"? Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

With the page that you've redirected to, yes. That would be a far better edit summary so someone knows what is going on.--Crossmr (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I just had to refer his edits of Decipherment of rongorongo as he completely broke the referencing system, rendering it illegible. However, I am not clear that was on purpose. I left him a note of explanation on his page. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well Tohd8BohaithuGh1 is now responding to issues and admitting mistakes and working on it which was the issue here. I've pointed out adoption since Tohd8BohaithuGh1 could use the help as they try new things and find their niche. At this point I would say the edits could be better, but so could a lot of new users. Would anyone else consider this resolved? -Optigan13 (talk) 00:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ban/block - whatever.

Can someone please ban this tiresome twit thank you. Giano (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The user has only vandalized once after his last block, don't block until after final warning. BTW, WP:AIV is a more appropriate place for this. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't go to minor corners I only come here, as more people see things here, so I shall continue posting such things here. He is obvioulsy a waste of space - so just block him and save time. Giano (talk) 11:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but the kind who have a taste for swinging the banhammer are the ones who keep AIV on their watchlist - whereas this is a place for a cup of coffee and a bit of a bunfight. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, buns.
*Flings a range of pastry products.*

Anthøny ✉ 22:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You fling what you like, but "AIV" sounds like some dreadful program for the infertile, impotent or physically unable, I have no intention of going anywhere near such a place - at least publicly. Giano (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Can't you tone your rhetoric down a bit? Synergy 21:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There was nothing rhetorical - is it my fault if WP:AIV sounds like some sort of clinic for the unfortunate? Giano (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

AIV does sound like a syringe bearing some clearish, frightening liquid with a big docking hypo. ANI meanwhile brings to my mind a mix of both the Latin root and its context, life of empire. Uh oh! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh thank goodness! I thought it was just me, not that I have ever needed any help in that department, something to do with a rural childhood I suppose. You are so right about ANI, one can close one's eyes here and be right in the heart of accademia. Giano (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Still, there was no need to retort with such a nasty perspective. AIV was the place to take it. If you didn't like the idea, you could have simply exercised your right to holding your tongue. Which is preferable. Synergy 23:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

<--Resolved means resolved. Move along everyone? Keeper ǀ 76 23:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Step aside, Keeper, I'll handle this! (puts on Junior Peacemaker hat) Giano, I think Synergy is concerned that your comments could be taken as insulting the people that actually spend time helping out at WP:AIV. Synergy, I'm pretty sure Giano was making fun of the name AIV, not the people there; as someone who does spend time there, I certainly didn't take it as directed at me. However, you really should come by sometime, Giano. On Fridays, we have cake. (takes off Junior Peacemaker hat, waits pateintly for phone call from Nobel Committee...) --barneca (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ooooh! I like cake! Is it chocolate???? I also like carrot cake, and if you twist my arm, I'll even eat white-cake. Ok, you got me. You don't have to twist my arm. I heart cake!!!! All this to say, this is fucking resolved right???? Keeper ǀ 76 23:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you barneca for (hopefully) resolving the misunderstanding so that it doesn't spill elsewhere. Keeper76, that unnecessary last sentence created more heat than light and it isn't helpful - why not consider using barneca's more ideal approach in the future? Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(sticks tongue out at Keeper behind Ncmvocalist's back) Yeah, Keeper, you should probably start following my lead more often. Would you like me to be your mentor? (uh oh, Ncmvocalist is looking back this way. start acting all innocent again) --barneca (talk) 01:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Disney Vandal issues

There is a guy, who claims to be a 13 year old kid, who is causing a lot of problems with various Disney film articles, some Teletubbies articles, and some Barney articles. He has been indef blocked numerous times, but keeps changing IP addresses so the blocks only last a few hours, or a day at the most. I started tracking in August. This is a list of ones used so far, all confirmed to be from the same ISP (Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/70.146.241.244):

• 68.220.180.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.184.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 65.0.160.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 72.28.33.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.162.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 70.146.241.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)65.0.163.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 70.146.242.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.174.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.175.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 65.0.187.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.174.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.173.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.177.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 65.0.184.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

He's also been confirmed to have at least registered sock accounts (Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Iluvteletubbies).

• Bambifan101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - first known one
• Iluvteletubbies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Nowthatwasawesome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Bambirocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Sometimes, he does acceptable edits, but mostly he drives myself and a bunch of other editors to distraction by his attempts to return improved articles to bad earlier versions, removing plot points and other major bits of content while adding their own made up stuff, and doing massive refactoring of talk pages. That's just a small sample of stuff, of course. Bambifan101 has the longest history because of actual attempts to talk some sense into him. At this point, I can almost spot this guy on site, report to AIV, and usually he's blocked quick. However, when his in IP mode, its a band-aid at best. He seems determined to keep this stuff up despite knowing its not appreciated and he's falsely claiming that he just wants to "help" in the various communications with him. I suspect he finds it funny watching folks run around behind him having to clean up after him.

Is there anything else that can be done to stop this kid? An IP range block, a word to his ISP, anything? -- ] (] · ]) 00:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Indef'ed Bambirocks, page protecting some of the heaviest-hit pages for now. seicer | talk | contribs 00:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Did a scan of the last 20000 anonymous edits, looking for 68.220.128/14. Here are the results:

• type="edit" ns="0" title="Lincoln Middle School (Gainesville, Florida)" rcid="244126532" pageid="3704564" revid="238376379" old_revid="237806485" user="68.220.150.90" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T15:33:44Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="2008 Auburn Tigers football team" rcid="244027244" pageid="14268766" revid="238280748" old_revid="238273637" user="68.220.163.129" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T03:10:57Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Bambi II" rcid="244001802" pageid="2877925" revid="238256257" old_revid="238254551" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:30:30Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Thumper (Bambi)" rcid="244001417" pageid="8400506" revid="238255883" old_revid="238255500" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:28:32Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Thumper (Bambi)" rcid="244001024" pageid="8400506" revid="238255500" old_revid="236754961" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:25:37Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Bambi II" rcid="243999762" pageid="2877925" revid="238254303" old_revid="238253510" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:18:42Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Bambi II" rcid="243998959" pageid="2877925" revid="238253510" old_revid="238252833" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:13:58Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Bambi II" rcid="243998270" pageid="2877925" revid="238252833" old_revid="238010885" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:10:02Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997912" pageid="4196336" revid="238252501" old_revid="238252423" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:07:53Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997817" pageid="4196336" revid="238252423" old_revid="238252312" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:07:23Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997699" pageid="4196336" revid="238252312" old_revid="238252191" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:06:38Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997573" pageid="4196336" revid="238252191" old_revid="238251963" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:05:52Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997340" pageid="4196336" revid="238251963" old_revid="238251800" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:04:37Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997175" pageid="4196336" revid="238251800" old_revid="238251733" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:03:41Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997105" pageid="4196336" revid="238251733" old_revid="238229539" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:03:02Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Intensive care unit" rcid="243994536" pageid="6332859" revid="238249200" old_revid="237664594" user="68.220.132.129" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-13T23:47:13Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Heaven's Gate (film)" rcid="243962951" pageid="92706" revid="238218287" old_revid="238159037" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-13T20:59:25Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Caligula (film)" rcid="243956202" pageid="243204" revid="238211649" old_revid="236819207" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-13T20:26:30Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Fantasy Ride" rcid="243578053" pageid="16855379" revid="237843196" old_revid="237829341" user="68.220.131.151" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-12T01:43:50Z"

Doesn't look like collateral damage would be high from blocking 68.220.128/14. Kww (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You might try suggesting to him that you will contact administrators at Lincoln Middle School if this continues. It might be a spurious connection, but if not, I bet mentioning the possibility will end this problem quick. Looie496 (talk) 03:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This Disney Vandal has been causing major problems at the Simple English Misplaced Pages as well. simple:WALL-E and simple:The Fox and the Hound (movie) have been indef semied as a result of his edits and Chaorlette's Web 2 was deleted three times . If this is blocked I suggest it be global. The relevant discussion would be over on the administrators' noticeboard. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

When I saw him adding simple links to some of his ideas, I wondered if he was causing problems there too. -- ] (] · ]) 03:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• What about 85.127.170.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? If I have time, I may partake the calling of the school if it is verified that all of the accounts involved are related (user accounts, that is). seicer | talk | contribs 03:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• Well, normal admins can't block anything larger than a /16, although four of those will cover off a /14. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like that would at least impede him some, maybe? Anyway to trace these IPs to see if any go back to that school? The earlier SSP noted that most come from Bellsouth, I believe. -- ] (] · ]) 14:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If we could do some of these partial blocks, it would be good. He just returned again with 65.0.184.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). -- ] (] · ]) 00:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

He's back again with 68.220.177.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Any ideas on how to block him at all? -- ] (] · ]) 21:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• I went ahead and anon-only rangeblocked 68.220.160.0/19 for a week. That should hopefully cover a decent chunk of it temporarily. --slakr 21:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Of The Page 'Firestarter Mini Monster (Truck)' On September 14, 2008

I am posting this in an effort to be taken seriously, and not to be immediately dismissed by administrators abusing their powers...specifically Renata3.

It began when I posted a legitimate page describing the history and technology involved in building an actual monster truck, named 'Firestarter'. Renata3, a self described 'deletionist' in her profile, decided to delete this page due to the fact that 'it was not about a person of note', a statement which I found interesting as my page is about a truck, not a person. (Stop laughing, you have pages and pages on monster trucks on Misplaced Pages...just type 'List Of Monster Trucks' in the search engine!)

Comments by other administrators, left after I posted my concerns to the Renata3 Talk page, addressed a misuse of authority by Renata3, and interestingly enough, one of her replies to a comment referred to 'avoiding the red tape' in the normal process involved when reviewing a page of this sort...aparently she has become judge, jury and executioner all in one.

I have an original, one of a kind vehicle I would like to introduce to the users of Misplaced Pages, it is new, it is groundbreaking, it is relevant, and veterans in the field of Monster Trucks were involved in it's making.

I hope you give it a fair shake, details on the 'noteworthy' aspects of this vehicle can be found on the Kildare2 Talk page in response to Renata3's claims and as an appeal to be involved in the dispute process.

Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kildare2 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I've left a comment on your talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

For reference, also see this DRV request, where current consensus suggests the article should be restored and taken to AFD instead of the speedy delete. Kildare2: you need to read the notability guidelines to determine whether your truck is notable enough to be included. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• While the criteria of A7 in this spirit was not proper, I see no administrator abuse. It was an error, to which we all make at one point or another. The article, though, is crap and doesn't deserve to be included in an encyclopedia because it is not notable. Sending it to AfD would result in its snowball'ed closure and would be a waste of everyone's time. I'd agree on reopening the article just to speedy delete it with a proper rationale, though. Furthermore, Deletion Review is not a venue for rants against administrators, and taking this to multiple administrators is seen as forum shopping. seicer | talk | contribs 03:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• I went ahead and recreated it to redelete it under G11, as it was nothing more than spamming of his YouTube videos and web-site. If anyone wishes to overturn it to take it to AfD or whatever the consensus may be at DRV, go right on ahead. seicer | talk | contribs 03:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Are You Kidding Me!!!???

First, please allow me to thank Seicer for his comments, and referring to the subject of my page as 'crap.' Great input from another wonderful administrator!

After the lovely comments make by Seicer, and the lack of concern for proper proceedure shown by Renata3, I'm going to go ahead and ask that any information I've uploaded to Misplaced Pages be respectfully deleted from your Database. It's been made very apparent that this is not the place for me. Thanks for your time. Kildare2 (talk) 03:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - without getting into a debate on the inclusion of the article, referring to it as "crap" is unhelpful and bitey - it would've been better to say just "The article though doesn't deserve to be included in an encyclopedia because it is not notable." - it wasn't necessary to use an abusive term. Exxolon (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Anyone who calls foul and claims administrator abuse (and all of that nonsense), and then posts this on numerous talk pages is forum shopping and seeking attention. seicer | talk | contribs 15:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

How does that justify calling an editors contribution "crap", exactly?198.161.173.180 (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Seicer, with all due respect, that was kind of uncalled for. He wasn't forum shopping, he was trying to find an admin who would provide him with a copy of his work (something I believe one of our many templates tells him he can/should do). There's a difference between enforcing our guidelines on appropriate articles, and treating new people that don't know how things work here like dirt. --barneca (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I would like to personally thank Exxolon and Barneca for their comments, and especially showing me that all administrators on Misplaced Pages are not abusive and have some respect for the guidelines they are supposed to enforce. And yes, I will be reposting the page concerning the truck after it's debut.

Kildare2 (talk) 04:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats

User Bravo Plantation has made legal threats aginst me on a now-closed Afd and my talk page . Edward321 (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested comment from the user. seicer | talk | contribs 04:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If this is resolved, why has Bravo Plantation made an additional accusation saying I have libelled him continued to press the issue and been less than civil to Siecer ? Edward321 (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP violation on Talk:philosophy

I recently removed an off-topic discussion from Talk:philosophy here . This discussion contained what I consider a BLP violation (eg, the comments by 271828182 about Jimbo Wales). Another editor, Snowded, then decided to restore this BLP violation to the page . Could someone please talk to both these editors and suggest to them that this kind of thing is not appropriate? Skoojal (talk) 06:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That edit can ideed be reverted as much as needed, 3rr has no sway over BLP worries. The edit also carried a blistering personal attack, which was no more helpful when leveled against JW than it would have been if made about any other editor. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried the compromise of only removing the IP's personal attacks on Jimbo while keeping the comments of other editors? Removing offtopic talkpage discussion usually serves mostly to annoy people, so it should be done only for egregious violations of code of conduct, not for simple offtopicness. Kusma (talk) 06:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This edit by Snowded was also somewhat over the edge, both a personal attack and straying from AGF, saying straightforwardly that Wales had done something out of cronyism. At the very least, there are much more civil, polite and helpful ways of putting across such worries. I wouldn't support restoring the thread. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This is getting really silly. Anyone who knows the history of the debates around Peter, some of which have taken place here, knows that it was tied up with serious issues about Misplaced Pages. Several admins felt that Peter was being unfairly treated, in part because he had fallen out with an Arbcom member. It was not possible to make any comment about his final ban so I placed a tribute to his work on one of the pages he edited and also expressed my opinion that wrong had been done. If there is a better forum for that tell me, no one should be immune from criticism in Misplaced Pages. Kusma's suggestion is a good one. --Snowded TALK 07:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's silly to ask that a tribute to one editor not carry a personal attack on another editor. If you have worries about how it all was handled, there are much more helpful ways of talking about them. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Interestingly it was impossible to make comments on the talk page when Peter was banned, the history was deleted. I am happy to agree that one of the comments that followed mine was excessive and should be deleted. Mine I think was fair comment and I didn't say anything that I will not say to Wales in public the next time we share a conference platform. I would also point out that moving the issue to this notice board before any real dialogue on the talk or user pages concerned is surprising to say the least. There are far more significant issues on many pages on a daily basis that never come here. We saw something similar with the speed with which Peter was banned before the final incident. That resulted in the admin concerned having to withdraw having been seen to have acted prematurely and without justification. It does look like a case of sacred cows, rather than the normal egalitarianism of Misplaced Pages. In my judgement Peter was unfairly treated. The tribute should have been left (possibly with one deletion) and then left to archive. Raising it here almost immediately is what is silly and smacks of censorship/threat. --Snowded TALK 07:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anybody minds a tribute to another editor, banned or not. Maybe bringing it up here was hasty but please keep in mind, you were restoring a rather blistering personal attack and personal attacks aren't allowed. What you might say to someone's face in a meeting doesn't fall under WP:BLP and WP:NPA. How you edit with your user account does. Is it ok to drop this now? Gwen Gale (talk) 07:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I reverted a whole scale deletion, not just a deletion of offending material so I think it is unreasonable to imply I was involved in a "blistering attack". However its OK to drop it, it would have been on the page concerned with a civil exchange rather than immediate posting here by an editor who has had prior exchanges with Peter. I would use "imtimidatory" rather than "hasty" but so be it, its over.

Two points: (1) The initial comment by Snowded was criticism of Jimbo Wales, and can not in any way be construed as a personal attack. (2) It seems a bit of a reach to use BLP concerns to remove criticm of Misplaced Pages's self-described "constitutional monarch".

That said, the entire conversation was off-topic for that talk page and a legitimate candidate for removal on that basis. Ed Fitzgerald 08:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly right on your last point, Ed. BLP and CIVIL issues aside, an article talk page is a wholly inappropriate forum for such a grievance. It was correct to remove the entire section per WP:TALK#How to use article talk pages, which states "Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." — Satori Son 15:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) possibly, but comment on the talk page of the banned user had been prevented for anyone who was not an administrator, so there was little alternative but to place some tribute on the page where the user had over the years made a major and significant contribution. It also lacks civility to (i) remove without discussion and (ii) run directly to this page without conversation. A simple posting to the talk page with "anyone mind if I delete this as its not what the talk page is about" would have been civil. --Snowded TALK 19:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If the user's talk page was protected, presumably you could have posted your "tribute" using the "editprotected" template, although it might be tough to get an admin to post it with the criticism of Wales included. Surely there are other places on Misplaced Pages where that part would have been more appropriate? Ed Fitzgerald 22:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried that template, and I was simply told that only an admin could post the template. Your reference to criticism of Wales is I think the issue here. --Snowded TALK 06

32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The 'criticism' of Jimbo was a defamatory personal attack. Posting it wasn't appropriate; removing it was. Skoojal (talk) 07:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Really? Are you talking about my comment or that of another editor? If you are referencing my comment then you are talking nonsense. Even the "constitutional monarch" can be criticised you know, and I don't think he would have any problem with it. I think what we have here is that you had a run in with Peter and were involved in some of the controversy and can't cope with the fact that some people still respect Peter, and have little respect for the way he was hounded into committing a technical error so he could be banned. Given that the edit history has been expunged its not even possible to trace and publish that involvement, which is to my mind a blot on Misplaced Pages's record. --Snowded TALK 08:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking mainly of 271828182's comments, not yours. My motives aren't important; it only matters whether I did the right thing or not, and in terms of BLP policy I obviously did. Skoojal (talk) 08:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you did. This is not such a big deal, in that Wales often winds up as the handy target for all that is amiss with Misplaced Pages, but those comments, about any editor or BLP topic, had no place anywhere on the wiki, much less should they've been restored. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You are right, its not a big deal and given the above clarifications I look forward to similar prompt action and reference to the Administrator's notice board when the offense is not against Arbcom or a ban directly from Wales (so its not a handy target issue). --Snowded TALK 08:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

TTN nominating large numbers of pages for deletion

User:TTN is at it again rapidly and pointedly mass nominating articles for deletion/voting to delete. Notice these edits from September 11 through 15. Many of those discussions appear to be merge or redirect in the actual consensus, thus one has to ask why is this user not trying talk page discussions first? --172.167.135.61 (talk) 07:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Judging from the articles he listed under Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/Deletion, his nominations have significant support for merging/deletion. Like every wikipedian, he has the right to nominate (which sufficiently alerts any concerned editor) any article for deletion or merger that he wishes - and that's what he does. I don't see any reason where or why an admin should step in. – sgeureka 09:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI, his arbcom imposed restriction expired 5 days ago. MER-C 13:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps he didn't try talk page discussions first because he was prohibited from starting discussions for 6 months? Or because talk page discussions on such articles are invariably a waste of time, because they attract primarily people that think the topic of the page is interesting? When the page is bad enough, taking it straight to AFD is usually the only effective technique.Kww (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Shotgun nominations are never a good way to do things. Jtrainor (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If by "shotgun" you mean "widely scattered, without aim", I disagree with the characterization: so far, none of the articles he has nominated are getting "keep" votes, much less a consensus to keep. That's a sign of pretty good aim. If by "shotgun" you are referring to force, I disagree as well. Over 90% of the articles I nominate at AFD get deleted, and opening the discussion on the talk page would just slow the process down. Even if you reach an agreement on the talk page to delete, you still have to take it to AFD to get it done.Kww (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Its still obnoxious/disruptive. Of the 18 active afd discussions in WP:ANIME, this dude has started 16 of them. The majority of them in under 24 hours. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That, I am afraid, is an indication that Wikiprojects are very often inclined to turn corners of Misplaced Pages into fan-wikis, and lose sight of the fact that Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be a repository for original plot synopses and the like. If it would offend you less for the project to prune its own cruft, feel free to suggest that. Guy (Help!) 19:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, spot-checking the articles he's AFD'ing, they've had (not all, but most) cleanup templates for a month or more. While there's no deadline, if people want a topic so much but can't be bothered to clean up something tagged as such, it's likely material for deletion. Nothing I've seen him doing seems to be against the spirit of the general discussion of the ArbCom case at this point, thus no reason for concern. --MASEM 19:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

In regards to having the project members do their own pruning: Good luck. That was tried with Wikiproject Warhammer 40,000, and all it resulted in was a lot of abuse directed at the pruners from the project members. Eventually, one-by-one the people working to clean out the rat's nest of largely copyvio in-universe cruft got banned/harassed/tired until they stopped trying. Hooray for collaboration! --Jaysweet (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to say that surprises me, but sadly it does not. As we see here, fanboys are very defensive of their pet topics. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There are some best practice areas. The area I am (rather obviously, by my name) a fan of is in some ways a poster child for that (lots of short stubby articles and breaches of WP:PLOT and WP:OR). I won't say a poster child for the clean-up efforts as the efforts are rather slow. I also won't say a poster child for non-notable stuff, because so much secondary literature has now been written about the works of J. R. R. Tolkien that it is no longer easy to genuinely assess non-notability and whether things are original research unless you've kept up with the literature. For example, this edit claimed something was OR, when in fact there are plenty of sources for that if you know where to look (the AfD got closed as keep, we recently decided there is actually no deadline, which was one of the more hilarious closes I've ever seen at AfD). Getting back to the issues here, there must be examples out there of good "cruft" (to use a rather pejorative term) editors and good projects that improve an area of cruft? I do find that people intuitively assume that lots of short stubby articles are the way to go, and it takes a while for new (and old) editors to find out that appropriate lists and redirects pointing to sections of lists (and categorising the redirects) can help (though like anything, this can be overdone). Hopefully the "best practice" of using redirects and lists has spread. Whether adequately sourcing such lists (to secondary literature) and avoiding WP:PLOT (the other types of "best practice") have spread, I don't know. Carcharoth (talk) 04:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree with this - the 40k project is now mostly tidy, and the goals established last November (by the project members, no doubt) have now mostly been met. Most of the stop energy over the last few months (when the AfDs started really coming in thick and fast) was from Le Grand Roi, who is no longer with us. I see the 40k project as pretty much the poster child for fancruft cleanup. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

How is that obnoxious or disruptive? I've started a bunch as well, and I'm even a member of said project (we are actually working on cleaning up articles under our helm, but limited number of members makes it slower going). If you look at all of the AfDs for the project, you'll likely find that most in the last year were actually started by the project! And, as already noted, many were already pinged for issues, including notability, and did not have much of a clear target to merge to. Most he's started I believe have also generally been leaning towards delete or merge. TTN is also actively participating in several merge discussions regarding merges of characters to a single list, and I'm pretty sure he even started some himself. -- ] (] · ]) 19:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As much as having WP:ANIME (which I am a member of) compared to the 40K project saddens me (given the giant disparity in quality articles between the two and all the work being directed towards cleaning stuff up), I don't see anything particularly disruptive with the AfD nominations. It's not like the the grand majority of those AfDs are even going to be contentious, given that they have had cleanup tags for a while and are probably going to be deleted. sephiroth bcr 20:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I was going to say something a lot like what Collectonian just wrote, but a lot less succinct and a lot pithy er. So instead I will just "ditto" what Collectonian said. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

In almost all cases it would seem that merging or redirecting is a reasonable solution and one that almost all editors would support. Since deletion policy is that these are preferred to outright deletion, I think bring these to afd without at least having tried to obtain consensus for that was clearly against WP:DP. So much of the drama here can be avoid by compromise. As is, the impression given is that the people are deliberately moving first by the strongest and most aggressive route. some people may not think that at least shows an inclination towards disruption. DGG (talk) 03:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

When we have articles like 'background filler characters in a cartoon', about 'guy with red hair' 'woman in green blouse', do we really need to merge 'characters appear in the background of shows set in cities.' into the 'main article'? Please. These articles were long tagged, long neglected, and are non-notable. I found a couple worth cleaning up in there, and said so, supported a couple merges, but a lot are outright deletions. TTN is now having a number of articles widely discussed. Further, as noted above, no one responded to the prodding tags previously added, why would they react now? Good on TTN. ThuranX (talk) 03:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If the minor character is named, then a redirect is helpful. If the character is not named, then a redirect is probably not needed. More generally, Thuran, do you use Misplaced Pages to actually search for information? The way I think of this, and the way I hope others think as well, is when I search for some obscure topic where we don't have an article, I want to be taken to the most relevant article. If a redirect is left in place, or recreated after deletion (just redirecting is infinitely more efficient), then that helps people who search for that term. The alternative is for them to be told we have no article, and for us to assume they will click search rather than give up. Carcharoth (talk) 04:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Oooh... thank you Carcharoth! If you weren't ALWAYS so condescending, I'd take that as a personal attack. Simply put, there is no reason for rampant holidstic inclusionism. Most of these articles have nothign to offer in terms of information, but we can be assured that the same crufters who disregard all tagging will revert war over redirects, insisting the article was both 'fine like it is' and 'important to the fans, and to anyone who wants to become a fan'. Consensus on many of these is clearly delete, on others, redirect, cleanup or keep. If you think the entire AfD and article review system of wikipedia is that awful, i really suggest you find greener pastures. Conservapedia is certainly missing some topics. I for one support TTN continuing this pace and productive improvement of the encyclopedia.ThuranX (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thuran, I apologise for the personal question. I was trying to say that some editors don't always think from the perspective of a reader searching for information. I didn't mean to make it personal. If you think I'm condescending, could you tell me that politely? I'd be much more likely to change my posting style if you did so. I do try to be clear and helpful. If that comes across as condescending to some, others might appreciate it. I don't consider careful use of redirects to be rampant inclusionism. If people revert war over a redirect, it can be protected. The point I'm making is that if something has a name, people will search for it. If a redirect is in place, that can discourage recreation. I'm not saying it works all the time, but there are areas that are mature and developed, that have redirects in place, and where edit warring over redirects does not occur. Sometimes you have to show people what you mean (by performing a redirect, and possibly a merge) instead of discussing whether a redirect or delete is better. Carcharoth (talk) 04:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

So now you're insistign that TTN instead Bold, Revet, discuss, over and over at pages that are almost entirely neglected, over and over, dragged into the same morass of bullshit edit warring that you want to see him in trouble for. So instead he goes with process, gets community input, nad you yell at him for that too. This is a catch22 for TTN you're constructing. If he'd BRD'd, you'd accuse him of edit warring outside process, when he goes in process, you accuse him of policy gaming. Forget this. More condescension from you topping all that off, it's not worth replying any more to your baiting comments. ThuranX (talk) 04:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

<sigh> For the record, I have not yelled at TTN and I'm supporting TTN's actions in principle (I said below that AfDs for now are probably best). I'm trying to point out that diplomatic merging and redirecting can work. There are loads of AfDs that I would merge and redirect, but I don't do that because it would disrupt the process. Thuran, I've had arguments with you before, but they were so far in the past (months ago) that I thought you wouldn't react to my postings like a red rag to a bull. I was wrong, and like you I'm going to walk away from this now. Carcharoth (talk) 05:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

DGG, I think the reason for the debates is that TTN probably realises that resuming 'blanking-and-redirecting' without discussion would be less than helpful. I hope no-one encourages TTN to do so, but at some point, if someone's judgment on whether discussion is needed (ie. whether to redirect without merging, to merge, or to start a discussion) has improved, then they should be allowed to exercise that new level of judgment. Assessing whether they have that level of judgment will need a few AfDs, probably. Personally, I always merge and make sure the destination article at a minimum has a mention of the redirect name, if not a section on the redirect. If you do that, then when someone follows a link, or does a search, and end up at some anime show article, and then do a search on the page for the name (eg. when there is no goo section to redirect to, though redirecting to a "minor characters" section is good), the search should at least find a mention of the name. It is extremely annoying when following a redirect to find that the article you end up as doesn't mention the redirect. Carcharoth (talk) 04:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

These days I think TTN gets on people's nerves more because he's User:TTN than because there's anything wrong with his noms. I would like to take exception to the claim that WikiProjects are full of fanboys though: the active collaborators on WP:MANGA are all quite rational about deletion of crufty pages. --erachima talk 04:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Random response to some comments above. In my view (I hope I can still express my views without sounding or being accused of being condescending), it is best for "fan" editors to work on the main article for a show or topic area, rather than create or try and improve stub articles on minor characters and minor topics. Deletion nominations and discussion can put new editors off (some might say that is a good thing, but remember that people that come here to edit fan article can sometimes go on to edit other areas and develop other interests). That's why I think careful management, with redirections, merges, and channelling efforts towards the articles that we need and that will be kept, can be a better approach. I'm not trying to overturn years of AfD culture, but just trying to explain the reasons for some of my views. Carcharoth (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I have opened a Request for Clarification in relation to the lapse of TTN's recent Arbcom restriction, and the creation of high volumes of XfDs since. You can find it here. Many thanks, Gazimoff 18:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Facecrusher

Please note all the contributions made by User:Facecrusher (also the user name they chose) and consider if action is warranted.

Wanderer57 (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Already blocked indef. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Support the block, although I don't understand what the name has to do with it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Od Mishehu - I consider the name to be in the "Offensive usernames" category covered in Wp:Username. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Not that clearly an unacceptable name per Wp:Username, but that is really up to the opinions of editors. Edison (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

How is "Facecrusher" offensive? Sounds like a 1970's wrestler...do an ARV if you really think it's bad in some way. BMW(drive) 23:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem offensive to me, either. I still stand by what I say above. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This project is supposedly based on cooperation and civil discourse. If you think that choosing a pen name that threatens violence is a okay thing to do, fine. Wanderer57 (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Vision Guided Robotic Systems

I'm having fun and games with User:Yingz who appears to not notice or wish to respond on his talk page to my concerns. He's uploaded a bunch of images here and on wikicommons which do not appear to be free, despite his tagging them as such. When he uses them he adds an attribution of "Provided by RNA Automation and SVIA". I've reported this on the image Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. However he also appears to be adding what smacks of advertising in "his" article; on a particular system. I've removed the section, and what I feel are non-free images, but he keeps adding them back in. I don't want to hit 3RR myself and I believe he's editing in good faith, if somewhat misguided over what is mean by free images, so could a higher power (*grin*) weigh in please? --Blowdart | 14:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That's an uncategorized robotic article that had gone unnoticed by the robotics community. I added it to Category:Industrial robots, which should, over time, get it more attention and move it away from an article about a single vendor. --John Nagle (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Block review

I've just indef'ed User:Dwnndog as a likely sock and a Nazi apologist without any useful edit. Since there has been no warning, please review. Most of my decision was based on reading Special:Contributions/Dwnndog. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, this alone is worth a block, but it's such an obvious sock that it doesn't really matter anyway. I removed that diff from Valliant1967's talkpage and locked it. Black Kite 16:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• Agree, Looks like indef blocked User:Bannedtruth again. No warning required. --Rodhullandemu 17:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• Actually, I have some doubts about the sockpuppetry, since BT seemed to understand the function of his caps lock key, and his posts were a little more comprehensible. Also, Dwnndog was around before BT got blocked, posting very sporadically over a relatively long period of time. However I won't be sorry to see him go as he hasn't brought anything to the project but ineffectual talk page rants. The trolling alone is reason enough to be rid of him. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Regardless of sockpuppetry, it appears to me at least to be the only solution to editors like this who will not provide reliable sources is to block or ban them outright. I say that because the historical evidence appears to be sufficient to establish a position and that any editor seeking to change a long-standing and commonly-accepted historical viewpoint has an uphill struggle; I do not say that lightly, but if cogent evidence is adduced, it should be assessed impartially. --Rodhullandemu 23:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Community ban

Having said that, I'd like to discuss a community ban on BannedTruth/Valliant1967, as Valliant has vowed to return and continue his previous activities. This will make it possible to revert on sight any further contributions he makes to any part of the project. Is this the right venue to begin such a discussion? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• You can do that anyway. A sockpuppeteering indef-blocked user who makes comments like that above is about as banned as you need to be; nobody's going to be unblocking that account any time soon. Guy (Help!) 18:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• As Guy says, he's not going to be unblocked, and it seems a little moot anyway as practically all his socks' articlespace edits get reverted straight away. Black Kite 18:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• Agreed. He's banned by default ("no admin willing to unblock") and from what I just saw, there's nothing we wouldn't revert on sight anyway. It doesn't hurt to make sure there's a consensus for the ban, sure, but in this case it is unnecessary. Hersfold 18:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• Concur with the proposal, as redundant as it is: we don't need to formally rubber-stamp a motion to ban this user, what with the huge likelihood that no administrator will be willing to lift a block on him. As we're being asked to discuss a ban here, then yes, a ban is clearly justified, Steven. Anthøny ✉ 19:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• Seems to me he's already banned, seeing that no admin is nearly ready ot lift the indef block. A community ban would be a mere formality at this point. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Ok, then, I'll consider this resolved and that all further edits to any namespace from this user's socks can be reverted on sight. That should save a lot of drama at the talk pages. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Requesting experienced editor assistance

Could some experienced editors (especially those without American politics axes to grind) help out at Wasilla Assembly of God, and especially Talk:Wasilla Assembly of God. Coatracking has been a problem since the article was created, and the talk page environment is getting a bit too toxic. Yes, this is another Sarah Palin related mess. GRBerry 17:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that pretty well sums up the editwar going on here between some very experienced editors. Actions are now veering into Misplaced Pages:Tendentious editing. FWiW, I think it's time for an admin to step in and administer some "take a deep breath" and "retreat to neutral corners" logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bzuk (talk • contribs) 19:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree it needs admin attention. I've got no axe to grind one way or the other but had to step away cause it was just getting out of hand. What about an RfC or similar? Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Kimberlyvang

• Kimberlyvang (talk · contribs)

This user has been constantly adding a "Personal life" section to Menudo (band), where she claims to have a relationship with one of the group's members. After removing it as unsourced a few times, I left her a OR-note template which was promptly ignored. The user doesn't display any interest in trying to justify her actions via any kind of communication. Now, I think that she is most likely one of those fans that like posting such nonsense to articles, but I won't take any action without a second opinion. Mostly because it isn't clear if there is malicious intent or if the allegation might be plausible but handled incorrectly due to lack of knowledge regarding our policies. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a typical "fan edit", wouldn't treat it as anything but simple vandalism. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've given them a "vandalism 2" warning. If/when it continues, give them the 3 and 4 warning and then report it to WP:AIV for action. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That didn't work... She just reappeared posting the same stuff after the test2, I upgraded the warning, but my next step will most likely be just block as a vandalism-only account, this user obviously couldn't care less. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

At this point, it looks like a throw-away account anyway, I'd support a block. Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

IPs keep on blanking logos from an article

Hi, can someone help out with this? I don't really get what the beef is, but some IP addresses keep on blanking out logos from the Office of Strategic Services article. This is one of the diffs . They keep saying the logos are trademarked by some OSS Society in Virginia but when I checked on this the logos seem to be genuine (I guess??, theyre on the National Park Service website and also on the cover of a book about OSS). Its just IPs so I cant even e-mail them to ask them to clarify :-( those same IPs are also vandalizing commons the same images. Schweingesicht (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A quick WhoIs search shows the IP they are using is from "TD International, LLC". According to their website, TD International "is a strategic advisory firm providing clarity and direction to corporate and governmental clients". So, I don't think they would know if a logo was copyrighted or not. I say Warn4im them, readd the logo, and ship them off to AIV. This is just the opinion of an non-admin though. - NeutralHomer • Talk 21:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Neutralhomer, and simply because vandalism is not an appropriate way to challenge the copyright/trademark status of an image. I'll inform the latest IP to contact OTRS if he has a trademark complaint, which all future IPs should. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I added the OSS page to my watchlist. A couple ago, Chrismichelle, once again, removed those images from the page. I reverted and added a Warn1, but this appears to be a way to go around the IP user. - NeutralHomer • Talk 19:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have requested a checkuser to see if the IP user, 68.165.208.42, and the registered user, Chrismichelle, are in fact one-in-the-same. - NeutralHomer • Talk 19:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Agenda accounts

I just blocked a couple of agenda / sockpuppet accounts active on 9/11, the contributions make it pretty clear that these are not new nebies but, rather, old hands. If either can show that they have a good reason for suddenly changing accounts then I have no objection to unblocking, but I suspect that they are a couple of the usual suspects. Accounts are: MichiganMilitia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Mass driver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Guy (Help!) 16:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"Michigan Militia" is probably a username violation that should remain blocked regardless of what good reasons are given. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

i am not sure about htat part. While group affiliation names such as 'Michiagan Militari' are unrecommenable via WP:USERNAME, they are not specificaly prohibite dunless they were promotiona l or in nature or that if they were have a substantial conflict of itnterests (an example would be that if someone called 'Microsoft' started posting extmrely promotional textage to the Microsoft accopunt.). Smith Jones (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

User:MichiganMilitia is a sock of User:Bofors7715 - see Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets#User:Bofors7715 Bofors also posted a request on 911blogger for help with the 9/11 article, hence it's likely that User:Mass driver is a meatpuppet. --Aude (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but shouldn't he be given the possibility to defend himself?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

He can defend himself on his talk page like anyone else who's been blocked. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it strange that he has to defend there when the discussion about him is here and possibly he is not aware of this discussion?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Answer: no. That's where blocked sockpuppets always have to defend themselves. He already knows he's been accused of sockpuppetry from his block log. If you think he needs an additional notice, figure out which one of his socks he's most likely to log in as and post one at that user talk page. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed that Michigan Militia is Bofors7715. Mass driver is  Unrelated. Sam Korn 21:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

William Rodriguez

Also, the WP:SSP page has a backlog. I have another request there, pertaining to the William Rodriguez, that really needs attention - Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets#User:Wtcsurvivor. This involves BLP, socks, COI editing, personal attacks, incivility, edit warring, and outing/intimidating users, so some due diligence and attention from uninvolved admins is needed there. --Aude (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Contrivance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) looks like something of a problem. What do others think? Guy (Help!) 19:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm convinced that Contrivance is not a sock, but has edited problematically per WP:BLP and edits just one article. --Aude (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Two, I think, but yes, disruptive WP:SPA is my reading. Anything to be done? Guy (Help!) 20:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's disruptive, and maybe the arbcom decision should apply. The edit warring is unacceptable, as are BLP violations. What I would really like to see is the article adhere to WP:BLP, and be fair to Mr. Rodriguez, but I'm not the best person to be mediating and maintaining the page. --Aude (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, we most likely have other related IPs editing - 67.82.153.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --Aude (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This situation is still not resolved. 67.82.153.235 and Contrivance are still discussing on Talk:William Rodriguez. Right now the article itself is protected due to the edit warring. If I try to intervene myself, users there resort to personal attacks against me, though I think if a neutral, uninvolved party helps, then I think the situation can be resolved. --Aude (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Latest comments from 67.82.153.235 (a.k.a. Wtcsurvivor) are entirely uncivil, with personal attacks. There is no way to productively edit that article, once it's unprotected, with such incivility and personal attacks. --Aude (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Grumble. I've been personally contacted by Mr. Rodriguez for having been "a voice of reason", so I really can't intervene as an admin, but I see a lot of additions of unsourced potentially libelous material by both of those censored editors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

We have checkuser results for this case - Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Wtcsurvivor. Though, I think dealing with one side of the dispute does not totally resolve the situation, since there are also BLP issues and problems with Contrivance's editing. --Aude (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Kairixd Eyes/Drawer Needed

Kairixd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

already indef blocked as a vandalism-only account, see the last version of I Hate Misplaced Pages. Clearly not a new account, but I'm not sure which drawer he needs to be in. TravellingCari 01:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Majorly revising history on old RFAs

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

For reasons that aren't clear to me, User:Majorly is revising the tallies on RFAs. Despite the fact that the RFAs closed long ago, and !votes that happened after the closure weren't counted in the tally, Majorly is now going through them and using his own method for determining which !votes were valid. For example, on Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Nandesuka it clearly says at the top, in bold, ending 18:46 15 September 2005, yet he insists on adding in two !votes that occurred after that time. Similarly, on Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/TShilo12, though it clearly says ended 18:27 11 December 2005 (UTC), he insists on adding a !vote that occurred after this time. I see now he has done this on many other RFAs. I'm not sure what to make of it, but I'm not comfortable the fact that he's arbitrarily deciding when all these RFAs actually closed, and over-riding the tallies of the actual closing admins. Jayjg 01:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried talking to him? DuncanHill (talk) 02:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I understood his rationale, but disagreed with his reasoning and actions, and wanted community input, particularly as he appeared to be revising large numbers of somewhat important pages, and reverting those who disagreed. Talking to him wouldn't provide community input. Jayjg 02:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have gone by the time the user was promoted, and the bureaucrat closed the discussion. The ending time is merely a guide. Since closes were often late, late votes were added. I'm simply updating the tally to reflect this. I don't think this is a problem... Majorly 02:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a problem at all - As long as the votes were cast while the discussion was open, they are valid. Majorly is merely trying to improve accuracy. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 02:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

How are bureaucrats supposed to be able to close discussions without running into some sort of infinite regress, if they have to consider votes that have come in while they were deliberating? And isn't it up to the closing bureaucrat to set the tally? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought; are these revisions over-riding the tallies of the closing bureaucrats? Jayjg 02:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No - if the votes were not to be counted, they should be stricken. The tallies simply weren't updated. Majorly 02:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

And how do you know for sure that was the case for each of these RFAs? Jayjg 02:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Because the bureaucrat would have stricken any vote that wasn't counted. Majorly 02:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a logical fallacy known as begging the question. How do you know that all admins would have explicitly stricken (rather than just ignoring) uncounted !votes in these RFAs, aside from your belief that they would have done so? Jayjg 02:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's standard practice, that's how I know. If the closing bureaucrat intended anything different, they should be more helpful and either strike the votes that were late, or make it explicitly clear that they don't count. As those RfAs stand, to the casual reader, it looks like the tally is simply wrong - and it is, so I fixed it. Majorly 02:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

In other words, you have no idea, you're just making a bunch of assumptions about how each bureaucrat should have acted and thought, and then revising the history of the RFA to suit those assumptions. This, in my view, is both inaccurate and unhelpful. You are not the arbiter of bureaucrat thinking. Jayjg 02:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You aren't the one to say if I don't know what I'm doing with this; please stop making assumptions yourself. I'm updating the RfAs to ensure they are all presented accurately. This, in my view, is incredibly lame drama mongering, and your conduct here has been rather disgraceful. Majorly 03:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but you're assuming they were presented "inaccurately", because, according to you, the bureaucrat should have stricken out any late votes he/she wasn't counting. You don't know because you can't go back in time and read the minds of those bureaucrats when they made their decisions. As for your personal comments, they, if anything, are the "conduct" that has been "rather disgraceful". Rather than attacking those who disagree with your position, address the issues they've raised. And this time, use something better than begging the question. Jayjg 03:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I addressed the "issue" already, but you didn't like my reasons. I can't do much about that. Majorly 03:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You didn't address the issue, you just asserted that bureaucrats should have acted a certain way, and therefore revised the final tallies on dozens of RFAs to match the way you believed they should have acted. Jayjg 03:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know what the issue is, to be honest. Updating the tally to reflect the votes on the page, that were made before the bureaucrat closed, shouldn't be a problem. Why are you making it one? Majorly 03:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that you don't know how the bureaucrats tallied, and you shouldn't be over-riding the tallies of bureaucrats and admins who were actually there at the time. There's no reason to change these tallies; why are you inventing a problem where none exists? Jayjg 03:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have much of an opinion on the matter—my own RfA was closed a day early, just shy of WP:100 (back when that was still significant) and I didn't cry myself to sleep about it—but I am wondering how this serves to improve Misplaced Pages, one way or the other. Kafziel 02:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Meh. I don't really see the use of updating the tallies, but I have no intention of warring over the matter either. After all, they are 3 years old and serve little use other than historical purposes. bibliomaniac15 02:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, as an example, one could also use them to try to modify policy. For example, if an editor was promoted by a !vote of 72-28, and after the !vote ended, another 6 Oppose !votes came in, one could use it to claim that standard for promotion was actually 68%. Jayjg 03:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You're kidding right...? Obviously, despite 4 years here, you're still unfamiliar with the RfA process. Majorly 03:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You're kidding right...? Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg 03:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to come up with imaginary scenarios, basically accusing me of doing this for malicious purposes you can't expect me to be pleased about it can you? Majorly 03:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't come up with imaginary scenarios, or accused you of doing this for malicious purposes. I was asked how it could make a difference, and pointed out how it could make a difference, and, in fact, be abused. I don't think you're doing it for this reason, but you can't stop others from making use of it this way if they want. Jayjg 03:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it Majorly's actions here are at all related to this RFA dispute at Meta m:Meta_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Upgrade_closed-request_template. MBisanz 03:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Not in the slightest. I'm updating these, as I gather some stats which I will presenting at RfA talk in due course. What is everyone's problem? Shall I stop helping? Majorly 03:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No, how about you just stop revising tallies to include !votes that occurred after the end of the RFAs? Jayjg 03:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

RfAs end when the bureaucrat closes. Any that come after that I have removed, and any before that I have added on to the tally. How about you stop trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, and let me get on with this? Majorly 03:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Rather than continually asserting your personal beliefs, please read GRBerry's comment below. Jayjg 03:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Let me put it this way. There is no benefit to adjusting the tallies of old RFAs. Neither Majorly, nor anyone else except the closing 'crat, can know exactly which votes were given how much weight. Indeed, for those from 2005, not even the 'crat would be able to say that. Majorly, your actions are pointless at best and potentially harmful at worst. GRBerry 03:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the mainpoint here is that this is not actionable. What administrator intervention is required here? Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 03:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, lesse, if I restore these RFAs to the way they were before Majorly made his at best useless, at worst harmful changes, will Majorly revert me, as he has done three times already? Jayjg 03:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The edits should be reverted and Majorly should feel free to add additional notation, perhaps on the RFA talk page, to reflect their view of the "correct" count. Then when they eventually present their stats at RFA talk in due course, other people will have a clue why they're doing it. Then there may be consensus to change the figures left in place by the 'crat who closed the RFA. Franamax (talk) 03:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What earthly benefit is there to such historical revisionism? Is there nothing at all in Misplaced Pages that needs editing, so that skilled editors must spend their time revising the final admin votes from years ago to totals different from what the closing 'crats reported? How can this possible improve Misplaced Pages? Please leave the totals alone. Edison (talk) 03:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

In my view, it is harmless. But I honestly cannot figure out a reason why it matters at this point. Especially RfA's from 2005. Resolute 03:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The actions of both Majorly and Jayjg are solutions looking for a problem. Who cares? WP:LAME anyone? --B (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

And drama in search of a timeslot, perhaps?   user:j    (aka justen)   04:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Lame indeed. A lot of time and energy (on both sides) that could be better spent writing an article. Kafziel 04:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• And what administrative action is required here? seicer | talk | contribs 04:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

None, I suggest somebody marks this as resolved. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 04:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, GRBerry, Franamax, Edison, ThuranX, Stephan Schulz, and I all disagree with you. Jayjg 04:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the close here, as jayjg seems to be seeking a community consensus that these edits should stop, and be reverted. I happen to agree with him, this statistical monkeying seems harnless on the surface, but I can see subtle exploitations growing out of it... 'Actually, admin approvals used to be lower/higher/the same as they are now in terms of percentages of vote, and there is/isn't a trend for the votes to go a/b', which can be used as leverage to change policy in various places. I think these should all be rolled back. ThuranX (talk) 04:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There you go! That's the admin resolution I'm looking for. Jayjg 04:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ummm... thank you? or am I being mocked? ThuranX (talk) 05:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I was enthusiastically agreeing with you. Jayjg 06:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Given that all those RfA's have a big notice placed there by the closing bureaucrat that says "The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it." (my emphasis), I would strongly expect and recommend to abide by that request and long-standing practice and not modify it. It's not a vote, anyways, so the tally, correct or not, is not necessarily even used in the decision. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • One would expect that, wouldn't one? DUnno why no one's interested in supporting the enforcing of that though. ThuranX (talk) 05:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Several people are, actually, at least based on this discussion. Jayjg 06:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Pile-on support: No reason to change them, please change them all back. Majorly was bold, he's been (or will be) reverted. No harm no foul all around, ok? - brenneman 06:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
        • I agree, too. But Majorly wasn't wrong to give it a try, and nobody has broken any rules at this point, so I just don't see what admin action is needed. The issue has been raised and now we can revisit it if and when there's ever a problem. Nobody is going to forget this discussion; of all the sins Misplaced Pages has been accused of, a short memory is not one of them. Kafziel 07:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
          • On the topic of memory though, who actually does monitor edits to Archive pages and "preserved ... please do not modify" sections? Don't these generally drop off watchlists? From a very few accidental spots where I've seen it on usercontribs, I suspect it may be not uncommon. It could be called revisionism aka don't believe what you read in the archived discussion, our institutional memory. It may have been subtly changed. Of course you should always check the page history - snap poll though, how many of you obsessively check pagehist when consulting archives? (No admin action required for this particular post - just something that's bugged me for a while) Franamax (talk) 07:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if someone tried to use it to change policy somewhere down the line (as is the supposed possibility), I'm sure lots of people would look at the page history and immediately see it was changed. Then someone at that hypothetical discussion would remember that we had this discussion today, because that's how it always goes. They would add a link to this discussion from that future discussion, everyone there would crucify the person who suggested the change (especially if it was Majorly), they'd write a blurb about it on the Misplaced Pages Signpost, and that would be the end of it. And if it never gets used to alter policy, then it doesn't matter anyway. Either way, it can't be abused. And, either way, it's completely pointless to change them in the first place. Kafziel 08:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There are so many problems and so many things to do on this pedia, yet, you're both arguing over how the tally should be on some ancient RFAs...eugh! Jayjg, if you're in a (obvious content) dispute and want community attention, you need to do what any other user would have to do: make up an RFC on the RFA talk page (and if you need additional admin input, make a note at the WP:AN requesting more input) - this isn't the venue! My own view is similar to that of B and others: this is a complete waste of space on ANI, it's unnecessary drama, and does zilch for the pedia. But as several users have indicated already, no admin action is required. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC) (Just coming to the discussion...) Wow, people are still voting on my adminship 3 years after my RfA ended? I think I'm flattered! Nandesuka (talk) 13:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Massive copyright violations by NickNbeezy

NickNbeezy (talk · contribs) has been uploading massive amounts of copyright images using false/fake licenses for weeks now. I've left him messages and so have tons of other people and bots. What else can be done? JBsupreme (talk) 02:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I've left him a more personalized note on his talk page, asking him not to upload anything else without a full understanding of copyright policy. If he continues, he should be blocked. Hersfold 03:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any image uploads in his contrib list. Is this because they've all been deleted? Ed Fitzgerald 03:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

To be direct, yes. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I suspected that was the case. Ed Fitzgerald 07:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you do when a name per se isn't a violation of the naming conventions, yet...

Somehow Hymie Lebowitz (talk · contribs) doesn't strike me as being this user's real name, nor a valid name. Corvus cornix_talk 02:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Attempt to talk to them first. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 02:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I've left them a warning about blanking the section on the Antisemitism article, but I have no good faith that they're here to help build an encyclopedia. What do I say, "Please don't use a stereotypical Jewish name?" It isn't a violation, per se, as I said above. Corvus cornix_talk 02:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

A problematic username coupled with vandalism augments the username concern usually. They could probably be blocked as a vandalism only account if they continue in such a manner. I wouldn't even bother with the username. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 02:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Improper language

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=238400470&oldid=238400101

User RafaelRGarcia refers to Justice Clarence Thomas as a "Perv" in the edit summary of the above edit. He also uses this term on the discussion page, but I'd have to dig to find it. Also, user is trying to make the page biased against the justice and all his edits are toward that end. I seek only to correct certain verifiably false statements in the article and to have it be fair and balanced (see it's talk page). I know you're thinking, that's what they all say. RafaelRGarcia has also accused me of being a sockpuppet and tried to have me banned. Thank you for your attention to this matter.(Wallamoose (talk) 02:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC))

Stop trying to fight. The article is already locked; your complaining could only keep it locked. I haven't tried to vandalize the wikipage or anything, and it's completely proper to stop you from slanting the page as you have been trying to do. I have no problem calling anyone who's followed Thomas's course of action a "perv," but it's not like I've tried to add that language to the article. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 07:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

RafaelRGarcia--calling someone a perv is hardly conducive to encyclopedia building, whether in edit summary or elsewhere. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Improper username? "BristollovesLevi" blocked indefinitely

Per discussion with GRBerry, I undid his 31 hour block of BristollovesLevi and indefinitely blocked, on the ground that the username violates WP:BLP since the man who impregnated the daughter of Sarah Palin, Bristol Palin, is named Levi Johnston. I invite comment to see if this action is in accord with the understanding of the community as to what makes for an inappropriate username. Edison (talk) 03:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Good block, since that user was disruptively editing Wasilla, Alaska. Just more Palinsanity. Kelly 03:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how inappropriate the user name is, but I have a Null opinion on that. However even if that wasn't an issue, 31 for edit warring is light considering the likleyness this is a bad hand sock and general incivility. If the community decides that the user name is kosher, I recommend a 48 hour at the very least.--Tznkai (talk) 03:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering the context now, I think the username block is a good one. If the guy really wants to come back and be productive, he can do so under a clean slate that a new account brings. User:Zscout370 04:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that's actually Bristol Palin??... Nah. Endorse username block, no reason to stir up more Palin-related drama. L'Aquatique 04:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I do concur with the username block, as Edison said above. I also suspect, as Tznkai does, that this is a bad hand sockpuppet. The problem there is that I have too many possibilities in mind and no significant evidence as to whose puppet it is. If anyone has evidence, please file a SSP case. GRBerry 13:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Palinsanity? You should trademark that one, Kelly. caknuck _° is geared up for football season 01:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet blocks needed

Request some sock blocks based on Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dstern1. Thanks. Kelly 04:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are we blocking the main account indef? I'd be more inclined to say many days since I don't believe the socks were used for civility abuse, just trickery.--Tznkai (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The user can post an unblock request, if he/she wishes. --Aude (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat

Hi there's a vandal making legal threats

Oh, this idiot. IP blocked for a couple of days, LTA page and talk reverted and semi-protected. If he doesn't want us to write bad things about him, he needs to not be a filthy spamming git and to not send me mailbombs. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 08:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That is one of the most persistent abusers of Wikimedia projects, he has, over a period of years, abused the project for promotional purposes including rampant domain hijacking and spamming. His sites are an uncontroversial instant blacklist on Meta. He might be able to get the LTA page blanked if he leaves us alone completely for at least a year, I will pencil in the likely date of his stopping in my diary now. On the other hand, we do not need to say that "X is an evil spamming bastard" or words to that effect when the abuse can be documented in neutral terms. The facts are quite damning enough. Guy (Help!) 08:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked?

Hello. I hope I am at the right place for this. Recently someone called "Garzo" blocked an account over the "three-revert rule" (whatever that is). However, it appears that this account user is on the same IP address as me (and thousands of other users too). This does seem rather odd. if one person using an account committs some real or imagined violation, should everyone on the same internet provider as that account be blocked as well with that person? 41.245.165.140 (talk) 09:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a protection mechanism against the user logging out, possibly creating/logging in as a new account, and continuing the disruption. If you create an account, use it over time, and later get blocked due to this mechanism (called an autoblock), you can request an {{unblock}} on your talk page, and are likely to either get the autoblock released or get your account to have an IP block exemption. Unfortunately, if you don't have an account, or if your account is too new and not used enough, we can't distinguish between you and the user who was blocked. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking that Dr Rgne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is the person that was blocked. Funny, Dr Rgne's edit history (e.g., on TNA World Heavyweight Championship looks very similar to this IP's 41.245.165.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Block evasion? They certainly didn't wait the 24 hours before using the IP to edit... justinfr (talk/contribs) 12:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:196.25.255.218?? seicer | talk | contribs 12:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, was that a reply to me? The only person User:Garzo has blocked (for edit-warring) in the past month is User:Dr Rgne. Now User:41.245.165.140 shows up to complain about being accidentally blocked, and this IP likes to edit the same articles as the blocked user (e.g., wrestling articles, see contribs of both). I expect they're the same, and the IP is crying wolf where none exists, and block evading. Oddly, the block was only 24 hours and it could have easily been waited out. justinfr (talk/contribs) 12:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SSP##User:Dr_Rgne. justinfr (talk/contribs) 12:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, it was meant as a peek into similar abusive or non-constructive IP addresses. seicer | talk | contribs 12:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Now Dr. Rgne is putting provocative messages on his talk page while removing my reply to them . Just keeping everybody updated. justinfr (talk/contribs) 16:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have only discovered this page through looking through your "contribs" history. Note the way this person is now copying what others have said about him/her almost word-for-word. I removed that comment of yours because it was just a diatribe which served no valid purpose as to the issue at hand. Anything else relevant can be seen at this users' talk page, my own, or the "special case" he/she has created. Dr Rgne (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Your hyperbole is amusing. My comment was hardly a "diatribe", especially compared to this and this. I think I'll bow out now until the SSP case is resolved, to avoid increasing the drama. justinfr (talk/contribs) 16:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Confirmed, no evidence of shared edits. Thatcher 22:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for admin to evaluate survey at Talk:Sarah_Palin#Brief_Survey_--_Religious_Perspective.

We recently completed a brief survey in the Sarah Palin article. The survey was to find consensus on whether to delete a section called "Religious Perspective". While editors were discussing the survey, an editor deleted the section before the survey ended, on false pretenses. Regardless, I would like to get closure on the survey and need a fair minded admin with experience determining consensus to review this article and make an assessment and close the survey. (Who has not participated in the survey) Regardless of the outcome, I don't have any inclination to edit the article again anytime soon. Please see Talk:Sarah_Palin#Brief_Survey_--_Religious_Perspective. A quick Consensus, or No Consensus evaluation would be appreciated. Atom (talk) 12:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible range block?

Please review the history of The Pentecostal Mission, List of Chief Pastors of the Pentecostal Mission, and their related talk pages. There has been a persistent soapboxing attempt by an anon user that moves between IPs on the 168.187.176.xxx range. Since this disruption appears to be coming from a single person, blocking would be preferable to protection. Also, protecting talk pages sucks. Is this too large of a range to consider a range block on? --Onorem♠Dil 12:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I discovered that this IP-hopper has used 18 different addresses so far from the given range. (He tells us that Satan is very angry). I have range-blocked 168.187.176.0/24 for two weeks, after a spot-check that did not reveal any good-faith IPs working in the range lately. Let me know if anyone thinks the block is excessive. There is a heavy burst of nonsense comments at Talk:The Pentecostal Mission that needs daily or more-than-daily reverts from the Talk page, so semi-protection of that page for a month or so might be the fallback strategy. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --Onorem♠Dil 22:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's odd that the IP range resolves to Kuwait. I'm not sure how big of a Pentacostal minority Kuwait has, so I'm thinking this is an expatriate Westerner. The ISP owns the whole /16 range, but they may allocate those addresses geographically. caknuck _° is geared up for football season 01:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

User:69.110.68.30

Could I please have someone look into the behaviour of User:69.110.68.30? Currently they have accused me of being a troll and vandal, has totally ignore my warnings about the 3RR (has been reported to WP:AN/3RR and in their latest action has reverted a reasonable rewrite of article Right Now (Van Halen song) with the edit comment of "Repair of damage caused by busy body". Rather than a block, however, I would prefer a semi-protection of the article. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 12:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

My total rewrite where I have attempted to address the anons concerns has now been reverted with the edit comment Repair of damage caused by busy body. I was wondering if I could get an admin to look into this a bit further? I don't feel that my edit was unreasonable, and this is now the 5th revert. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

left a note on his talk. Xavexgoem (talk) 13:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:AIV

Could some admins please help clean up the log over there? Thanks!

Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done Pedro :  Chat  14:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:James Randi

This page is continually being trolled by User:Harry Mudd, a long-standing SPA (July 2005) whose specific single-purpose is (or has become) to attack James Randi. He's already been blocked twice for edit-warring on the subject, though not recently. Currently he's stirring up an edit war on the James Randi talk page. Any advice would be welcome. Baseball Bugs 13:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Coincident with this edit skirmish, the red-link has deleted postings from his talk page from the last year or so that warn him about his activities, possibly thinking that they won't be noticed. Baseball Bugs 13:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I've listed certain facts which Bugs hates. I've given cites for all of them. Bugs may hate the facts I've given, but they are simply true. So he keeps deleting them. Harry Mudd (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

He has deliberately distorted the so-called facts, and several other users agree. Mudd is waging a lone war on this subject. Baseball Bugs 14:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that you have once again deleted a section that does not agree with your view of the world. And you refuse to see the simple obvious fact that Randi lost the case. Harry Mudd (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Those items were previously removed by two other users as being BLP violations and of no contributory benefit to the article - in short, trolling. Baseball Bugs 15:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What is with this comment:

The IP again demonstrates that he's either a troll or an idiot, or both. ] 14:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hardyplants (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What's with that comment is that a guy who can't write English was criticizing the article's subject for being insufficiently educated. Baseball Bugs 23:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Harry Mudd has violated 3RR by reinserting his trolling and BLP violations at Talk:James Randi. 1st revert 2nd 3rd 4th --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I reinserted facts with cites that Randi's followers don't like, so they deleted them. And perhaps you would also care to list the times that Bugs reverted the page. Harry Mudd (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

A. As has been pointed out to you repeatedly at the talk page, they're not facts, they're fabrications. B. Bugs reverted three times, which does not violate 3RR. Furthermore, reversions to enforce BLP are not subject to the 3RR. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Disruptive WP:SPA blocked for now, see what he has to say for himself on his talk page. Bugs, no need to act like 500 copies of Stella here, you have anded this off, let's let others do the rest. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I am not nearly as concerned about this problem as you seem to think I am. :) You blocked him, it's fixed. Baseball Bugs 23:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

To close out this, at least for the time being, I reverted the wholesale deletions on the Talk page. I don't see any reason to remove debate on the matter. I have also chided Baseball Bugs for the comments "You can't even write proper English. What college did you go to? ", and "The IP again demonstrates that he's either a troll or an idiot, or both." FYI, Madman (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have handed it off to WP:ANI, and the above user has been chided by one of the original deleting users as to why that junk should be deleted. Baseball Bugs 23:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Need adminstrator e-mail assistance

The JroseTN (talk · contribs) has been created to purely send an e-mail to me concerning blocked sockpuppet Cowboycaleb1 (talk · contribs). Could an administrator possibly send an e-mail to me as soon as possible to discuss this with me via e-mail. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

User:151.188.213.175

The above unregistered user has vandalised several pages today, and I think he should be blocked. Kraxler (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the IP has stopped for now. WP:AIV is where this belongs, though. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Ministry of Love (a.k.a. Two Minutes Hate for PROD)

Ministry of Love (talk · contribs) has removed a large number of PROD templates in a very short space of time (up to three a minute) whilst providing a boilerplate rationale, under the pretext of "saving horror movie articles from being deleted". I've tried to explain why this isn't appropriate but haven't got very far - could someone else try? Hut 8.5 18:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't want the articles to be deleted but Hut 8,5 says I can only do "one or two" and that I have to convince people to change the process if I don't want horror movie articles to be deleted. Why doesn't wiki want horror movie articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministry of Love (talk • contribs) 18:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I put new reasons for each article. Is that good enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministry of Love (talk • contribs) 19:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The prod template states "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to its deletion for any reason". Ministry of Love's reason may not be great, but it's a reason. The tags shouldn't have been re-added (especially via rollback). If somebody objects to a prod tag, it should be sent to WP:AfD. - auburnpilot talk 19:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That has been done now. i created a group AFD here dealing with the majority of the articles in question. However, while a user may always oppose a prod for any reason this does not mean that it can simply remove it with a random reason not backed up with Misplaced Pages policy. This would be the same as an editor claiming he has the right to edit anything on Misplaced Pages, even if his edits are vandalism. As of such this matter falls under thedisruption guideline. (Something im trying to explain to the user now. Apparently he think im threating to block him from the wikipedia since i stated that guideline). Excirial 19:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. A proposed deletion (prod) is only for a page that "obviously and uncontroversially doesn't belong in an encyclopedia". It's essentially nothing more than a delayed speedy deletion, and anybody can remove a {{prod}} tag for any reason (and they aren't even required to give one). Removing a prod tag means nothing more or less than "I don't think this article should be deleted without a discussion". - auburnpilot talk 19:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

AuburnPilot said I could take the notices off again, so I did. Then Excirial tells me that I can't and that I'm supposedly in conflict with "several editors". And he keeps giving me the link to Misplaced Pages:Disrupt even though I haven't done anything wrong! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministry of Love (talk • contribs) 20:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no. I did not say you could take the notices off again. What I said, was that you were fine to take them off in the first place, they shouldn't have been re-added, and an AfD is the correct next step. Please no more re-tagging/re-removing. - auburnpilot talk 20:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

So, who wants to MfD WP:PROD (or PROD it)? John Reaves 20:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

So it was ok for me to take them off in the first place, but it's not ok for me to take them off if someone replaced them? I really don't get it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministry of Love (talk • contribs) 20:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC) It says right on the notice "If this template is removed, it should not be replaced." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministry of Love (talk • contribs) 20:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

To get this clear: A WP:PROD is a tag that signals a page for admin attention after 5 days. During the time the template is on the page people are free to make any improvements to void the removal reasons stated on the template. A user is also free to remove the template all together if he or she wants, but this should only be done unless a reason for removal is stated.

When a prod tag is removed, an article may not be prodded again, but should instead go to WP:AFD for removal discussion. the AFD discussion will then determine if the article should go or stay. The right to remove an PROD template does not mean that every prod placed should just be removed because it may be removed. In your case the prod tags of a great number of articles were removed without a reason that holds ground in WP:Notability or WP:delete. Technically those articles should have been forwarded to WP:AFD, but in times like these editors or admins might decide to replace the prod tag as it might seem the user is either unaware of the prod procedure, the removal is accidental, or because they suspect Disruption.

Once you removed the templates a second time, the articles went up for AFD since there was no doubt now you contested the AFD. However generally when an issue arises and your notified of it, its customary people talk about it to come to a solution or consensus on what should be done. During that time it is friendly to leave the articles in question alone as is editing them to include your point is often intrepreted as trying to push a point instead of discussing a point. In short: 1) A removed prod should be replaced with an AFD with certain exceptions. 2) Articles that are being debated should be left alone till the issue has been talked about and solved. Compri? Excirial 21:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• The use of PROD is partly due to CSD being so restrictive. If my mate Dave who lives next door writes his bio and sticks it in an article, I can speedy it because he can't assert any notability, but if he disappears into his shed for a month, records an album with his own guitar, puts in on CD and sells it to a few people, an article about that can't be speedied. (Well, to be honest, I've have done, but technically I shouldn't). Ditto self-published books, films made by a random person with a camcorder, a random pet belonging to a famous person... Black Kite 22:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE PLEASE HELP

can someone pleeeaase help me !!; my user ID is "yogagates" - recently a spam user created a username similar to mine with a added s in the end "yogagatesss" and vandalsing each of my post and edits. He create hoax messages and deletes what ever I edit. The discussion page of the topc is overflowing with edits and deletion of name yogagates and yogagatess.

Can someone block this user or request him to change the user ID - please helpp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogagates (talk • contribs) 18:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

S/he even made a re-direct to Yogagates' discussion-page. Clear vandal only! --Floridianed (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. You can report these to WP:AIV or WP:UAA in the future. -- zzuuzz 19:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparent block evasion

It appears from what is posted here that the user admits he is a sock of banned User:Wikinger? Karenjc 19:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah...getting most of them as they pop up - FPaS blocked him, I've tagged the pages. Thanks. _Gb 19:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible move vandalism

Could someone look at Special:Contributions/JGDddad. I don't understand what's going on here (I know very little about vandalism) but it looks like moving articles and putting obscene comments. JASpencer (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Account blocked and vandalism reverted. Pedro :  Chat  19:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Too rapid of RfD nominations

The redirect Misplaced Pages:BRIT was nominated for deletion on 12 August 2008 and 1 September 2008, both times it was kept. The redirect once again has made its way to deletion at 15 September 2008. Shouldn't there be at least three months between nominations to establish a change of circumstances? If proper, please early close 15 September 2008 with a suggested wait time between deletion nominations. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 19:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No, no requirement of minimum time between deletion noms. MBisanz 19:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no technical requirement in terms of a minimum time between a "keep" closure of a debate and re-opening the debate. One day (as the second one went) is obviously too short and it was rightfully closed. Two weeks is still pushing it, but in the end it's up to the discretion of the reviewing administrator whether or not to early-close due to rapid renomination, rather than doing so by default. Shereth 21:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm closing the thing early. By looking at the links and the attitude of the delete voters, it seems to be more of a steamroll rather than obtaining consensus.--Lenticel 00:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Message From Xenu (talk · contribs)

My trollsense is tingling: , , , , , . Note the dates. ˉˉ╦╩ 21:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little thick today. Can you give us a little more detail? Nothing's jumping out at me immediately... Tony Fox (arf!) 21:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a new account created by someone with full knowledge of how to get around Misplaced Pages, as evident by their creation of the userpage and running an anti-vandal tool during the first few edits. Both the username and userpage have these coy, eyebrow-raising aspects to them. First, the editor is aware of Xenu, an obscure subject that's only of interest to Scientologists who deny his existence and those who study Scientology as a cult. Choosing to include Xenu in the username would be rather inflammatory for any editor aware of Misplaced Pages's long contentious history of covering the subject. The userpage reads like an intentionally ironic ED post, "Oh hai. I'm your reigning Lord Xenu, here to make some contributations to Misplaced Pages and stop the spammers from vandalizing what I have created". Then there's the volume of anti-vandalism reverts, after which this new editor suddenly jumps in to the AfD arena to inappropriately close several AfD's less than a day after the nomination. Usage of terms like "non-admin closure" leads me to believe that this editor is perfectly well aware of our deletion policies, and is therefore aware of why such early keep closures are controversial. Altogether, I see mild indications of trolling coupled with a thorough knowledge of the project. I didn't want to jump in and block based on little more than a hunch, so I'd appreciate if someone would review my suspicions. It's entirely possible that I'm just being paranoid. ˉˉ╦╩ 21:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Anonymous/4chan significantly more people are aware of Xenu than would have been a few years back. Viridae 21:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

And we've never had a problem with kids from 4chan before... :) ˉˉ╦╩ 21:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Even I know what Xenu is about, and that particular cult has very little presence in .uk. Is there a problem with the actual edits? This could be someone using an alt account for a bit of light relief. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, the inappropriate "keep" closures mentioned above. I suspect that if this was someone's alt. account used for, say, anti-vandalism work, that they wouldn't venture to AfD and perform closures they know to be inappropriate. ˉˉ╦╩ 22:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    • He does have some inappropriate logged out edits. He may bear further watching. Thatcher 00:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Stale report?

I reported 82.0.190.252 to AIV less than 20 minutes after the last vandalism. This sat at AIV for almost two hours before it was removed as stale. It wasn't stale when I submitted it, unless we are supposed to let vandals be who haven't edited for more than thirty minutes... I admit that I don't know enough about the articles 82.0.190.252 edited most recently to say for certain that they were all vandalism. I reverted one that I was very sure on and another was reverted by another editor. This one I'm not sure of. Help? Thoughts? swaq 21:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't look like vandalism at all to me. This person changes football articles in accord with rumors rather than cited sources (so they made Paolo Di Canio manager of West Ham when Google News is just reporting that Di Canio would like that job). That's lousy editing and they shouldn't do it, but it's not vandalism. Why don't you explain on the editor's talk page what the problem with their edits is rather than just leaving vandalism warnings? It's clearly a stable IP--wouldn't it be better to make this person understand what Misplaced Pages is all about than to block them? Chick Bowen 21:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of them are vandalism, though, like inserting the name "Bradley Corby" (his name?) into random articles (i.e. , ). I'd suspect this is a very young user, so Chick's advice above might be useful. Black Kite 22:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Strange threats - more eyes needed

User:Lostkey has made some strange threats on his talk page . He seems a tad upset following my blocking the account for block evasion. User is also upset with User:RJHall for removing some trollish comments. As the user seems a mite upset with me, I'd appreciate it if another admin (or two) would advise him on the issue of threats and personal attacks. Might not do any good, but RJHall and I would appreciate some company - spread the threats around a bit maybe :-) Vsmith (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What the....??? I'll leave him a note, but I agree it's probably not going to do anything. Hersfold 23:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"...if you delete my post again, I will report to the CIA, that you are a nuclear terrorist, because there are no electrons, and that computer you are using, is violating the law conservation of mass" - I have the sneaking feeling that this user might just not be serious. To be honest, I'd just ignore it and keep an eye on him when he's unblocked. Black Kite 23:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Gotta love creative vandals. L'Aquatique 23:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty imaginative, if he gets blocked hopefully that sends him away for good. User:MrMarkTaylor 00:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

He had been posting his "there are no electrons" stuff on Talk:Electron as an anon for quite a while. Then he began adding his OR to the electron page and became rather angry when his stuff was reverted as WP:OR. He signed up for a user account just recently. Just a bit of background for you all. Thanks - and yes ... waste of time. Vsmith (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP issue regarding Bernardine Dohrn and murder

Could we get a neutral admin to take a quick look to see if we have a BLP issue over a living person being accused of murder?

A couple editors known to regulars here have just reverted allegation in the Bernardine Dohrn BLP six times in just over a day that she murdered a police officer in 1970. The allegations were clearly made but the source was an FBI informant - not reliable - nor was she ever charged or tried over the matter. I removed that and 12 new mentions of the word "terrorism" in her article on the tenth day of the RfC discussion (here), after it was clear they did not have consensus. A number of editors at the RfC voiced that the murder accusation is a blatant BLP concern, and that all of the proposed material has no consensus. I just filed an BLP/N report here but that is going slowly. This is part of a long-running content dispute regarding Barack Obama and alleged ties to terrorists, and I moved the discussion regarding Consensus / RS / NPOV / WP:TERRORISM from here to the RfC in hopes of resolving it once and for all. So no content question here. A simple question: is it is okay to have the murder accusation in the article while we discuss, or does this need to stay out due to BLP while we conclude the RfC discussion? Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No. Accusing anyone of murder when the charges have not been proved and the source is an FBI informant is inappropriate and a BLP vio. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 00:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC) ~~

Care to site the relevant policy, in detail of course, that states that an FBI informant who is quoted in a reliable, third party news source is somehow not reliable enough a source for a BLP? (This should be interesting). Sorry, but I consider the FBI slightly more reliable than a terrorist and alleged cop killer like Bernardine Dohrn. CENSEI (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Care to go around saying that everyone the FBI doesn't like is a murderer? That's half the US population. Let's see, FBI didn't like them, set up wiretaps and other unconstitutional surveillance techniques, put them in jail... sounds awfully familiar. Any special changes to his article you'd like to make? Also, from WP:BLP itself: "It is not Misplaced Pages's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced." (Emphasis added) Take your soapboxing about Dohrn elsewhere. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 00:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no specific policy addressing the relative reliability of such individuals and organizations. Editors should use their own judgment and measured discussion to make a determination. The purpose of the various mechanisms of dispute resolution are designed to facilitate such a debate. CIreland (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Article protected; advice left on talk page. CIreland (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Barack Obama extreme level of vandalism by IP 67.182.14.118

I'll let the history speak for itself. Duuude007 (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverted and warning given. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 00:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

blocked 31 hours. --barneca (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Same editor as 67.182.14.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (likely) just showed up and started vandalizing the page as 76.200.73.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Wikidemon (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

They both WHOIS to small towns in California. Pretty likely the vandal has a dynamic IP. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of getting sucked into a game of Whack-a-mole, I'll keep the talk page wathclisted and block similar edits with no warning. Who knows, maybe they'll get tired before we do. --barneca (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Arbiteroftruth (AoT)

AoT has made various personal attacks since I nominated the article Xidan for AfD and has resisted it very aggressively, warning me twice not to do it on my talk page, accusing me of bad faith, calling me malicious on my talk page and User talk:Equendil, a "liar" (twice), "defamatory" and "libel" and he has accused me of a "campaign of deception" and has called for "sanctions", he also removed the AfD in bad faith until it was restored by Equendil, the only thing that I did was refer to his or her behavior as belligerent, something i apologized for, s/he simply accused me of personally attacking him/her numerous times.

• User talk:Arbiteroftruth
• User talk:Chuletadechancho
• User talk:Equendil
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Xidan
• Revision history of Xidan

These are the relevant pages, I will provide diffs in a moment.Chuletadechancho (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The user in question has requested a deletion of a perfectly notable page, and hid information that would go against the AfD in order to get his agenda passed through. He said he did a search for Xidan, and found nothing. He managed to miss articles from Chinese encyclopedia sources, as well as a page by the Beijing Olympic officials that describes the place in detail. Is that lying? I would think so! Would that make his AfD a "bad-faith nom"? Yes!

Deletions are supposed to be made with full information. Deletions that are made without full information, or (at worst) untruths, would effectively make the nomination process a Kangaroo court proceeding. It is a travesty against the principles of Misplaced Pages, and it defeats our purpose of existence. I cannot stand by while Chuletadechancho is deceiving other Wikipedians, and using technicalities to get his agendas across. Sorry, but I cannot.

Chuletadechancho also said he apologized to me for labeling me as "belligerent". That is a lie in and of itself, as there were no apologies coming from this person. If anything, this user's action reached a new low on the hour, by the hour.

Therefore, I have no choice but to request that this complaint be dismissed with extreme prejudice, and that Chuletadechancho be warned for improper conduct during deletion process and filing false reports. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards