Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:32, 3 March 2009

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

User:Chesdovi

• Chesdovi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Vandalises articles relating to Judaism and Islam or Jews and Arabs: littered amongst regular non-malicious edits, he continues to either remove Islamic or Arabic references from articles completely, or replaces them with references pertaining to Judaism. Check his edits, but check these most notable ones done recently to see what I'm talking about: , , , , , , , . He also recently attempted to classify the indigenous Arab population in and around Jerusalem as 'settlers': , , , and created a new category for it . He has been warned about vandalism in the past (see his talk page). 82.17.236.83 (talk) 12:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and doesn't belong here; there's no need for admin intervention, and none of the difs you gave are blatant vandalism. Please take this to an article talk page or to dispute resolution; ANI is not the place for content disputes. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 15:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I was told to come here from WP:AIV, so I did just that. Did you actually understand my problem with his edits and look at all the links? Let me explain some of them. The Well of Souls relates to the Dome of the Rock, but he removed the image of the Dome of the Rock and the Islamic Architecture category . The Muslim Quarter in Jerusalem is the largest and most populated part of the old city, and hosts the third holiest site in Islam, the Al-Aqsa Mosque/Dome of the Rock. Chesdovi decided to delete the links to the Al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock from the Muslim Quarter article, and replaced them with two links to the Shomrei ha-Chomos Synagogue and Birket Israel . Do you see the problem yet? If that's not clear cut vandalism, then I dunno what is. Here he deleted the figure for Palestinian deaths in the recent Israel/Gaza conflict, and replacing it with his own biased statement . How is it not vandalism? I'm particularly surprised that you didn't pick up on the "Israeli-Arab settlement" issue, regarding the attempt at categorising the indigenous Arab population as 'settlers'. First he made this change , which is a blatant act of working his own bias into the article - under international law, all Jewish settlements in the West Bank are acknowledged as being illegal, and those who live there are referred to as settlers. Then he went ahead and made the changes to Arab neighbourhoods in Jerusalem to make them out to be settlements (, , , ), which they are not considered to be at all, by any law, including Israel's own. How is that not vandalism? I think you need to brush up on your knowledge of the subject and understand the problem before you can make a judgement regarding the topic at hand. 82.17.236.83 (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say his edits were right; I said they're not vandalism. Not every form of bad editing qualifies as bona fide vandalism. Please take a look at What is not vandalism. This is a content dispute and needs to be worked out someone else, not at ANI.

Also, by the way, please don't insult my intelligence ("you need to brush up on your knowledge of the subject") just because I don't agree with you. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 17:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That's an awkward accusation; please don't take offense. I just meant it was important to have more than cursory knowledge of the situation since it's such a complex issue. A person can still be intelligent and not have knowledge of a particular subject; I wasn't questioning your intelligence at all. Anyway, the vandalism is clear - I wouldn't say it's a subjective opinion; it's either vandalism or it isn't. I've explained his edits and shown that what he did was malicious, so what else would you call it? It's not just 'bad editing', and I don't think it falls under WP:VAND#NOT; which part of it should I be looking at? I've spelt it out as best I can. I've also just found another dishonest edit, also on a contentious subject, which will take some explaining.

Before bringing this topic to light, I reverted Chesdovi's edit on the Muslim Quarter article . He just undid my edit, and gave the reason "these places are not in the Muslim Quarter". I disagree with that, and so would a lot of other people, hence the 'contentious subject'. But forget about my stance on the matter for a second. If you look at the map on that page, you'll see the Muslim Quarter appears to be outlined in a green border, and the Temple Mount area is separate, which would indeed give weight to his argument that the Al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock are not in the Muslim Quarter. Notice the smaller map showing the boundaries of the quarters at the bottom-left corner of the main image. It's split into 5, but it should be split into 4 - the old city is made up of the four quarters, not five fifths. Take a look at the upload log, and you'll notice Chesdovi uploaded the image. Now compare it with the other maps of the Jewish, Armenian and Christian Quarters. You'll notice the Jewish Quarter map also has the inset map split into 5, and again, the map was uploaded by Chesdovi. Look at the Christian and Armenian maps, which Chesdovi did not upload, and you'll see that the boundaries are split into 4. I looked for the source of the original Muslim Quarter map, and found David Bjorgen. Take a look at his talk page, and you'll find a discussion from a while ago where Chesdovi requests an image. The source images are provided to him, and if you take a look at them, you'll see that neither of the original maps of the Jewish or Muslim Quarters have the same boundaries as the ones uploaded by

Chesdovi here on Misplaced Pages. This obviously means Chesdovi edited them himself to separate the Temple Mount in order to provide backbone to his case that the Temple Mount is not in the Muslim Quarter, and which therefore stops me or anyone else from arguing, among other things, for the inclusion of the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque links in the Muslim Quarter article. His whole argument is based on material which he fabricated himself. Do you still maintain that his actions are not malicious? 82.17.236.83 (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I think more people ought to see this. The admin failed to return, and it remains unresolved, but it's glaringly obvious that CAMERA's cohorts and the like are still manipulating Misplaced Pages entries. I'm sure this is only the tip of the iceberg. 82.17.236.83 (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

User: Victor9876 @ Talk:Charles Whitman

(After three editors spoke up in favor of these grammar / voice fixes which he keeps reverting, and now tagging:)

• "Smells of...sniff...sniff-sniff...sniff...GAMING the system."
• "It should be obvious Jwy, I do not consider you or Arima as "good" faith editors! Yes, I have a specific remedy to propose - I just can't do it here!"
• "We have some nice high cliffs here in North Carolina. I could point you towards a few if you would like, out of courtesy of course. LOL! It's a joke Arima, don't respond with your usual huffing and puffing."
• "I'm sorry Ari, I was watching a cartoon and was laughing my arse off. It took precedence over your response. So, since I was distracted, would you please repeat what you wrote a little louder?"
• "Darn TV! I'm sorry Ari, what did say again?"
• "More important questions than yours are: Is Marvin Gaye? Does Helen Hunt? Is Billy Wilder? Does Tom Cruise? Does Gregory Peck? Is Barry White? I don't have all the answers like you do. Make up your own answers, you usually do."
• "Let's call it WP:CIVIL_WAR. I'll be Lee and you can Saddam Hussein."

arimareiji (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, this is another instance where WQA has sway, but since it is a recurring issue, maybe it does need to be addressed in this venue. I have already given Victor9876 the "yellow flag", cautioning him here at my talk page. There are various aspects of what is going on at Talk:Charles Whitman that I don't quite understand, but that still is no reason to abandon WP:CIVIL for an all-out "pith" volley. Admin backup on this is now formally requested, if for no other reason than to calm the tempest brewing here. Edit Centric (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

For reference, wrt the above - it has been at WQA twice in the past week. Once over Victor's editing others' comments, once over his gross incivility to Edit Centric. I followed another editor's lead at that page and took a break in the hope things would improve, but they haven't. arimareiji (talk) 01:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

On the issue of the recent WQA betwixt myself and Victor9876, we worked that one out, even before 3-O intervention. (I guess that's a hallmark of being in that role myself.) IMHO, Victor9876 has the potential to be a very constructive editor here, but the tendency to become flippant gets in the way of that, in this instance to an intolerable degree.

Now there have been some recent developments in this dynamic, involving one Snipercraft, which may or may not have exacerbated the ongoing "troubles" at the article(s) in question. I personally am still not convinced that the creation of the Snipercraft account, nor it's interactions in the articles were completely "on the level", as the timing and circumstances were way too convenient to take at face value. I might be wrong about this, but something didn't feel right about it.

That situation aside, this entire untenable situation between editors needs a more forceful solution at this time. My regards, as always. Edit Centric (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

For reference, the thread where the above occurred is Talk:Charles_Whitman#Request_for_arbitration. arimareiji (talk) 02:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I won't bother the admin that gets this with all of the volley's that Arimareiji has fired and get to the point. This occurred yesterday and today ]. A new user, who followed my edits, reverted or totally changed the meanings of the content, requested Arbitration on the Charles Whitman Talkpage, claiming their writing was better than mine. (Please read it.) I have long suspected that Jwy and Arimareiji were in collusion together, to force changes that Jwy initially suggested and got involved in. After feigning ignorance or other issues, Jwy disappeared and Arimareiji showed up, later to claim as a 30 after he began taking up the same issue. Arimareiji is relentless and unabating in his passive-aggressive style of editing. He can not stifle himself, and will not reason with anyone and always misquotes or mis-applies WP:RULES to suit his purpose. There is no common sense application that he will listen to, and continues speaking, in what appears to be a war of attrition. You better give in or he will talk you into submission. At times, when a discussion has been left, he continues with a few more comments until someone returns, and it all starts over again. We went through a lenghthy RfA with Jwy, Arimareiji posted the content into the article, Jwy edited the content once it was in the article, so I changed the header to reflect what I felt the section read. At this point, I considered the talk page moot, and consensus over the past two weeks of bickering. I even conceded the argument on the talk page. Enter Snipercraft. Almost everyone, including myself, thought there was some merit to some of the edit. However, the disagreement grew back on the talk page, and Arimareiji reverted my reversion. The talk page was not resolved at that point. Follow the path of the few contributions of Snipercraft (note the name also fits the subject content), he cross posts to Jwy, he and Arimareiji have a conversation, and boom, the article page is open for another war. A newbie comes in and reaches a consensus with JWY and Arimareiji, after insulting me and another contributor Wildhartlivie. They were insulting and essentially mocked her and me. My belief is that they gamed the system, a CABAL, or whatever label applies. It became a war of numbers and Jwy and Arimareiji needed another player - enter Snipercraft. As Arimareiji notes in his revert, 3 to 0 consensus, because Wildhartlivie had not weighed in with her opinion of the content of the talk page. I mention on the page, that I do not trust the procedures and way this whole affair has been handled. The above replies to Arimareiji, were really meant to be humorous protests. He acknowledges humor to everyone but me. When I try to make light of something, there is broken rule or passive-agressive question for me. He answers direct questions for other editors, without giving them an opportunity to reply. Then claims WP is open for anyone to reply. I have been around the Whitman page longer than they have and have a grasp of the subject that they can never have. So I know what I can and can not put there. I do protect the page, and also know that I do not own it. So in closing, look at the catalyst today and yesterday, the previous issues went through two WQA's and were both resolved. The issues today and yesterday are about ego's and the suspicious appearance of Snipercraft. Wheeew! Thanks for looking!--Victor9876 (talk) 03:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

(Addendum) I made charges of Arima above and just want to show an example from the first WQA. Please note that after Bwilkens responds to Arima, there are additional posts by Arima that have no response. Finally, when Bwilkens does respond, the tone is the same that Arima drew out of me with his peristence and lack of ability to stifle himself. Below is the exchange.--Victor9876 (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

(The following x-posted by Victor9876 as thread history, I'm simply providing encapsulation)

Arima - give it up now, your replies are becoming disruptive, and you're not helping SOLVE an issue. If you don't believe in AGF then Misplaced Pages isn't for you. There are many reasons that might make someone post in the middle of your comments: a reading disability, lack of knowledge about how edits work, a lack of policy knowledge, etc. AGF. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 19:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You might want to look at the pertinent edits before and after it before you respond. He entangles. I ask him to stop, and disentangle. He entangles again, replying "You're welcome, no problem!" I disentangle again, and tell him that his attempt at humor isn't funny. He stops doing it. But somehow, he only realized it today? Please AGF about how long I AGF'ed on this topic - AGF is not meant to cover repeatedly doing the same thing and pretending every time that you didn't know better. arimareiji (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, please read back to my original response to you, not to Victor's response to it. arimareiji (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

With that, you can rest assured I will leave this alone unless he continues, at which time I will take it to a more appropriate channel. WQA is only for voluntary compliance, and I put you in a bad spot by trying to get you to force anyone to listen. My apologies. arimareiji (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Trust me, you would not have liked the original reply to your response to me: good thing there was an edit conflict. And trust me, I recommend that you do not accuse me of not reading "pertinent edits". I will advise that you take something from this WQA as well: properly explaining issues (most people don't understand the word "refactor", for example) with an editor directly, and not running back for help everytime you perceive a minor issue will help your future cases on WQA, ANI, and anywhere else. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 19:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

(end encapsulation / separation) Edit Centric (talk) 06:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I may have exhausted my WP:AGF on this one. Good thing I'll be away for refill it. A few exchanges on my talkpage related to this incident as well. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 08:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

BMW - I genuinely don't know, but openly seems the best way to ask this: Would it be fair to say that since you typed the responses quoted above, that Victor's actions have cast him in a much-different light? Your initial impression, if I understood correctly, was that these could be innocent mistakes and that I was only jumping to conclusions. Do you still believe he's making innocent mistakes, given his responses to Edit Centric and his responses at the bottom of this thread (which is the topic)? arimareiji (talk) 09:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

(Apparently moot for the time being, as his page reaffirms that he's not here to answer.) arimareiji (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

CliffNotes version of why I believe BMW is likely to have changed his mind about regarding Victor's actions being innocent mistakes since the first WQA. The enclosed are in addition to the comments listed at the top; same pattern of "I was only joking":

arimareiji (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure as arimareiji would admit, Cliff Notes are not the whole story. So allow me to present the whole story ]. I honestly hate to do this because Edit Centric and I both apologized in the WQA and he has offered some great suggestions and we have both developed a mutual respect (at least I have) for each other. But as the reviewer will note in the 2nd WQA, after Edit Centric reviewed his own remarks that I responded to, he offered the apology first, I accepted and apologized myself, and Edit Centric asked for who ever came along to close the WQA because he had recused himself for being the one who brought the WQA and was an involved party. BMW came along after the request to close and apparently made comments, not having read the resolution, nor the request to close. Case closed.

Now again comes arimareiji and wants to resurrect the issue as a basis for blocking or banning me. As I stated in my first respnse, several paragraphs above, arimareiji can not stop. I mentioned and showed his propensity to continue adding messages when no one answers him. Look at the break from BMW's remarks and arimareiji's new accusations. Twice arimareiji posted until the silence drew his ire, and he wants to fuel the ill-will he has had for me since he joined the Whitman talk page. Snipercraft, the newbie that was a catalyst in this formal complaint, has requested and had his/her user page and user talk page deleted - by request. How odd. However, I did produce the link in my opening statement, and it still has the pertinent information with arimariji's contrib's there.

Also, you will note - I have not contributed to the Whitman talk page, nor had any discussions with anyone since this proceeding has begun, except to accept the yellow flag warning from Edit Centric. Arimareiji has, and quite amiciably with Jwy, who also is in the contrib's of the Snipercraft account. Other's have weighed in with great suggestions. I do not believe that BMW nor Edit Centric has any anymosity towards me, nor do I see any one else with ill feelings towards me except arimareiji. He has never posted anything constructive on the article page, nor, anywhere else I have been, to my knowledge. His sole purpose at this time, it appears, is to see his mission of having me banned, accomplished. I am not here asking for anyone to be punished or removed, but at this juncture, I think looking at arimareiji with the eye of the process and seeing his participation as an irritant that helped, in fact was the catalyst of my behavior, and be held to some formal standards as well. Again, I mostly work on the Whitman article, arimareiji has suggested from the beginning that I would eventually be at the least, topic banned. I would ask that arimareiji be banned from the Whitman talk page and article, so future events don't cause anymore friction there or here. This is not my decision to make (a quote from arimareiji to me in one of his opening introductions), but another cursory view of the rebuttals to arimareiji from others might be in order to assess his inability, to see that he is a large part of the problem. Thanks again for looking!--Victor9876 (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The preceding combination of insinuations and allegations aren't worth responding to. A quick review of the talk page and archives demonstrates both 1) their blatant inaccuracy and 2) the fact that the diffs and quotes I've cited only scratch the surface of this ongoing pattern. The "whole story" he links to is simply the second WQA, which I had already linked to because it only backs up the quotes I pulled from it.

My issue is with Victor's behavior, not with him. He has demonstrated a great deal of knowledge that can be a valuable resource for the topic, if he can lay aside the incivility and defer to consensus in matters where he has CoI from personal involvement. arimareiji (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

There has been no previous issue or charge concerning conflict of interest or that he had any personal involvement with Charles Whitman or facts as noted in the article. That he has a personal opinion about issues involved in the article doesn't make it CoI, the policy for which clearly states "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest." That he has some level of personal expertise in the case does not make it CoI. Please don't make insinuations of your own. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Not true. In fact, you later responded to it by saying he had convinced you there wasn't one inherent in those statements. arimareiji (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Find one of those statements in the Charles Whitman Article. You can't because there is not one there. You are digging up your own accusations and displaying them according to your own personal view of what COI is from Talk Page discussions, not the Encyclopedia. I read the COI and as Wildhartlivie says above from the rules, "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest". In fact, you were the one complaining of a heavy COI, and not anyone else. You were the one threatening to have it come to this, and also saying you did not want to see it happen. Yet, here we are. Do you see the irony in that?--Victor9876 (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

And again, arimareiji, what part of any of that indicates that Victor has potential personal gain in this? How are you proposing he might benefit in anyway? He said he interviewed a couple of the policeman involved in an incident that occurred 40+ years ago. He didn't why that was, or that he benefited from it in anyway. He talked to a couple cops. There is nothing - nothing whatsoever - in what you are saying that indicates a WP:CoI based on what the criteria for CoI includes. I talked at length to a writer a few years ago about a couple of his books - does that mean that I can't edit his article here? No it does not. Only if I have something personal to gain from it, would it be a CoI. You continue to attack, dodge, complain, kvetch, about all of this, yet everyone else included has either backed away or didn't choose to comment. Perhaps it is time to consider that you are also biased about the current situation. What is it you think to accomplish here now? Obtaining a chastisement for Victor? Okay. Victor, you screwed up a bit. Don't do it again, or you could conceivably be blocked or banned. He has never had a block or even an official warning on this. All there has been until you posted this complaint was discussion at WP:WQA, which he participated in. He made nice with the other people at the WQA. It's my opinion that you don't intend to let up on this until you can possibly provoke some comment that might get him blocked and don't particularly want to make nice. That's fairly personal and biased in itself. It's starting to look quite vindictive to me and I'm wondering why you continue. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This is completely tangential to the pertinent issue of the gross incivility documented in the pink bar above, and I won't be discussing it further past this:

Your statements revealing personal CoI wrt McCoy and Lavergne were in Talk, as you already know. The diffs are still there, and are linked. It's completely disingenuous to claim they don't exist because they're not in the article. arimareiji (talk) 02:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You cannot take a statement that he can retrieve the links to a site with content that has been taken down to imply CoI. Have you not heard of internet archives? Yes, they can be retrieved. The statement revealed that he knew how to retrieve them. Anything else, is your synthesis. Personal knowledge of that does not equal personal CoI. In fact, not liking someone doesn't equal CoI. Just to note, you added to your comments by including more diffs. You have not proven CoI, although you have proven you are persistent in provoking this further. My comment about McCoy is posted above. Again, what is it that you want out of this? Shall I go cross-country and beat him with a bullwhip? Anything that you dig out is awash in the dissertations you have posted here and there. And let me ask, how is the posting above a response to what I said, unless it bordered on edit conflicts? Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie - It isn't a response to you, it's a response to Victor. Look at the time stamps; edits by you and Victor split the apparent order of who was answering what. arimareiji (talk) 04:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

After I posted that I noticed the time stamps. That's why I said it might have bordered on edit conflicts. it confused me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sockery and assertion thereof

Actually this is a point where I disagree with Livie completely. (Although I usually do- she spends too much time in Michigan being didactic and not enough time in the real world.) If something is no longer posted, using the Internet Archive should NOT be a valid way to make a reference. I personally have had Time and Entertainment Weekly take DOWN erroneous articles. To have persons with excess time like Livie uses them as support via the IA is ludicrous.Actismel (talk) 03:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Note to any adminstrator who is looking at this thread: This posting was made by an account I tagged earlier today as a possible sock puppet of User:ColScott, only bolstered by the comment he made of "I personally have had Time and Entertainment Weekly take DOWN erroneous articles" - something some of the past socks of User:ColScott has said before, and this series of edits he made to his own article. This to me constitutes a personal attack and includes what the poster believes is personal information pertaining to where I live. I would request that this tangential post be removed and if anyone would care to, I suspect that sock puppet confirmation would be easily revealed. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

And has been blocked as a sock. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

All's well that ends well

I just spent a long time looking for arimareiji's link, ] I was answering a request from Jwy, the website came back on line the next day.--Victor9876 (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, Wildhartlivie, I do not wish to see him topic-banned, blocked, or banned. That will be inevitable if he continues to treat people the way he has leading up to, during, and through two WQAs. But as Edit Centric noted previously, being brought up twice at WQA in one week by two different editors made no impact on him whatsoever. He was told point-blank twice there to stop WP:ATTACKing. This forum is the last place I can think of where he might listen.

In response to your claim that I'm trying to provoke him, here are the pertinent thread sections that prompted bringing this to AN/I. I believe any neutral party would see it the other way around from how you see it:

Quoted from Talk:Charles Whitman

3. Perhaps most to the point of all, echoing John's good question - do you have a specific remedy to propose here? arimareiji (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It should be obvious Jwy, I do not consider you or Arima as "good" faith editors! Yes, I have a specific remedy to propose - I just can't do it here!--Victor9876 (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that would make resolution difficult amongst ourselves, so I'm taking a break while I decide what would be my best next step. (John User:Jwy talk) 18:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

We have some nice high cliffs here in North Carolina. I could point you towards a few if you would like, out of courtesy of course. LOL! It's a joke Arima, don't respond with your usual huffing and puffing.--Victor9876 (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Victor: If you can't openly propose the remedy you desire on this specific page, there are other forums. If you can't openly propose the remedy you desire on any WP forum, then you might want to consider 1) why that's true, and 2) whether insinuating it is any better than openly proposing it.

Wrt your immediately-preceding comment, I've noted to you before that adding "LOL!" does not excuse incivility. However, on this occasion your comment is sufficiently indecipherable that it doesn't qualify as overt incivility. arimareiji (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Ari, I was watching a cartoon and was laughing my arse off. It took precedence over your response. So, since I was distracted, would you please repeat what you wrote a little louder?--Victor9876 (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Victor, could you please explain 1) where the reason is stated in WP:3RR that you're granted an exception (per your edit summary), and 2) why you think it's not consensus when three editors think the edits are a good idea and you don't? arimareiji (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Darn TV! I'm sorry Ari, what did say again?--Victor9876 (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

...

Additionally, Victor - could you explain why the lede now needs a wide smattering of fact tags, when its synonymous (but more awkwardly-phrased) ancestor apparently didn't? arimareiji (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

More important questions than yours are: Is Marvin Gaye? Does Helen Hunt? Is Billy Wilder? Does Tom Cruise? Does Gregory Peck? Is Barry White? I don't have all the answers like you do. Make up your own answers, you usually do.--Victor9876 (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you formally giving up on WP:CIVIL, and discussion versus edit-warring? arimareiji (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

:::::Let's call it WP:CIVIL_WAR. I'll be Lee and you can Saddam Hussein.--Victor9876 (talk) 00:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I made my declaration above already. You, Jwy and Snipercraft have gamed the system, so no need for my input, just to be over-ruled by a cabal and not WP:RULES!--Victor9876 (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

End quote.

Wildhartlivie, in response to your question of "how is the posting above a response to what I said, unless it bordered on edit conflicts?" - it wasn't. It was a response to Victor. Look at the time stamps of the comments. You inserted yours above mine, probably unintentionally. A later edit by Victor compounded it by splitting the tab levels, further confusing apparent order. arimareiji (talk) 04:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no valid purpose in reposting such a large block of text when you've already linked to the talk page and posted some of that at the beginning of this thread. This is becoming as disruptive as anything. What is it that you want? You just continue to post complaints but have yet to actually say what you want. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You asserted I was trying to provoke him - the actual text shows it's the other way around, with no room for questioning. Quoting what actually happened is a rather valid purpose when you continue to assert something that is contradicted by what actually happened. arimareiji (talk) 04:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The actual text shows that I answered Jwy's question from the top. I did not consider you, Jwy, or Snipercraft as good faith editors. But you had to keep pressing the issue with other questions. My answers were an attempt to amusingly let you know, that I was not going to answer your questions. But you pressed on and on. I finally had to re-iterate my declaration with my observations, again.--Victor9876 (talk) 04:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I find it hard to believe that you meant it to be amusing to anyone except yourself. I and others had warned you many times before then that incivility in the guise of "joking" isn't funny or civil, but you've continued even in this thread. Telling someone to "stifle" is funny on All in the Family, but not on Misplaced Pages. arimareiji (talk) 04:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)What about your statement to Wildhartlivie to "stuff it with a sock"? But that doesn't need to be answered Arima because this has gone on for weeks now and the game has to end sometime. Your "quid pro quo" line of questioning is never returned with a straight answer and always ends up as "quid pro only". I do not believe this will end with a "de novo".

To any administrator following this thread. Please close this and post your conclusions. I will accept whatever the outcome may be.--Victor9876 (talk) 05:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That was actually "put a sock in" insinuations that I was a sock, after she asserted (plausibly inadvertently) something that would constitute an accusation of being John/Jwy's sock. That was a while back, and that's an odd way for you to call for a halt to quid pro quo assertions that you've been the primary source of. (In fact, it seems to be the entire basis of your response.) arimareiji (talk) 05:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

User:My President is Black

Please take a look at his/her short history and userpage incl. his/her "real-time conversation" with user:TheMatty today (which makes me believe they are the same or at least very close buddies. I have no intention to put more input in that but rather thought to point it out so admins and editors are aware of this and can take a closer look if necessary. That's all. Thanks.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Both accounts have very short histories, too short to tell perhaps. User:My President is Black user page, with "the negros take office" linking to Obama at the top (I removed it), is not too encouraging. Could be taken as slightly offensive. Not sure if I'm that happy either with the file he uploaded, File:Jew_emoticon.gif, as I can't see any great future for it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I am simply editing my userpage and you keep vandalizing it. I'll remove the header, but don't take everything as offensive next time, sheesh. My President is black 00:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Your use of[REDACTED] to attack groups of people suggests we should not take your assurances at face value. I'm sorry that you cannot see there is a problem here, but be clear that you are now under the closest scrutiny. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This user is now proceeding to troll - would someone please do the honours? — neuro 01:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Your baaaawwing is a terrible showing on Misplaced Pages. My President is black 01:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Clearly not here for any positive reason. Black Kite 01:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Good block. (Who's "baaaawwing" now?) Although the user page has been cleared, his talk page is fairly offensive, and someone might consider clearing it and protecting it, or at least clearing it. Baseball Bugs 01:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed that section, if that's what you mean. — neuro 01:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That was the main offensive part, yes. The rest of his talk page is not overtly offensive, it's just pretty much of a train wreck, which shows how much someone can "accomplish" in just 10 days on wikipedia. Thanks for fixing. P.S. You've got one of the calmer demeanors among the editors here, so if he got you riled, he was destined to quickly be toast. Baseball Bugs 01:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It's only Misplaced Pages, getting riled over something as silly as this would be a fruitless idea. As for having a 'calm demeanor', I would beg to differ :P — neuro 01:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I take it back. You're a ruthless tyrant who takes no prisoners. You may quote me. >:) Baseball Bugs 01:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

He was hinting at making an unblock request so I saved everyone time by declining it before he made it. --Deskana (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. A pre-emptive strike. An inspired move if ever I've seen one. :) Baseball Bugs 01:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

*Slides into the room from the other, still tapdancing madly; exits, stage right* HalfShadow 02:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Given the blocked user's main theme, that's kind of an ironic metaphor. Baseball Bugs 04:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't...stopdancing. Call...911! HalfShadow 04:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Should we call the producers of Riverdance instead? -Jeremy 21:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Dance, dance, wherever you may be. Meanwhile, ironically, MPIB's screen has gone dark. Baseball Bugs 12:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:QuackGuru on Larry Sanger

User:QuackGuru has been consistently disruptive to editing of the Larry Sanger article. Mountains of attempts at discussion on Talk:Larry_Sanger have been met with cut-and-pastes of the same comments over and over again. We've tried WP:RfC and WP:3O, and I've even tried quantifying a few of his complaints and brought them to the appropriate forums at the original research and reliable sources notice boards.

QuackGuru's comments on the Talk page are difficult to interpret as anything other than complaints, and his edits are wholesale changes to the page without discussion and without consensus: . Other editors have repeatedly warned this editor that such edits are tantamount to vandalism.

The whole effort could be interpreted as an attempt to push a particular POV about the differences between Misplaced Pages and Citizendium: text which quotes Sanger's opinions is repeatedly replaced with "facts" about the differences between the two projects.

Rvcx (talk) 03:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Rvcx has clearly made four reverts and has violated 3RR. QuackGuru (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I considered the repeated wholesale rewriting to be blatant vandalism. There's not a single issue raised by QuackGuru on the talk page which has achieved consensus. Rvcx (talk) 03:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I've left several comments about this behavior on User_talk:QuackGuru (including warning templates) but they were immediately deleted. Tried raising the problem in initiating discussion as a wikiquette issue but was referred (back) to RfC. Rvcx (talk) 03:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not vandalize the Larry Sanger bio as suggested by Rccx. For example, improving the lead to comply with Misplaced Pages's WP:LEAD is good editing. The lead has been drastically shortened by Rvcx. The lead is supposed to summarize the article. I articulated this at the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 03:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The productive changes to the lead were restored after reverting the complete rewrite of the article. Rvcx (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The counter-productive changes to the lead were made by Rvcx in a revert. The article suffers from several problems as explained at the discussion page including a drastically shortened lead. QuackGuru (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Rvcx has repeatedly accused me of vandalism. These allegations by Rvcx are false. QuackGuru (talk) 04:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The "other editors" cited in the three diffs by Rvcx are User:Ched Davis and...Rvcx himself. Furthermore, replacing the article with one's preferred version in a content dispute is not "blatant vandalism", it's disruptive editing at worst. The noticeboard reports did not yield conclusions of very much weight either way. It's clear that Rcvx has made more than four reverts to the article within a 24-hour period, without mitigating circumstances, and that editor ought to be blocked. What is less obvious is what the article should say; this is not a matter for administrators to decide, and the usual channels of dispute resolution ought to be pursued. QuackGuru is engaging in talkpage discussions and has made unambiguous improvements to the article as well as controversial changes; as such, I don't see what a block of that editor would achieve. Skomorokh 04:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Rvcx has bought himself a short-term "Plaxico". Baseball Bugs 00:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

User:76.252.224.121 and US/British spelling

76.252.224.121 (talk · contribs) seems to have found his niche on Misplaced Pages in fixing spelling and has not heeded requests to cease. At which point does this warrant a block? --Swift (talk) 07:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it does. Show some diffs where it is wildly appropriate and the user has been given warnings.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

See Special:Contributions/76.252.224.121. All of his edits; appears to be a static IP. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Only two warnings. Suggest escalation of warnings and report to the proper noticeboard if continues. Non-admin suggestion. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are talking about Flag of the Earth you might want to take a second look. Most of the article is US based. This appears to be the first edit to use a US/UK spelling, "color", and here are the three edits that changed "color" to "colour" and for some reason piped the name of the US based publication, Whole Earth Catalog with Catalogue. Also according to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (spelling)#English spelling comparison chart, both organisation and organization are valid. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 12:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:ENGVAR. In an article which is not clearly associated with the U.K., if the spelling followed U.S. conventions from the earliest disambiguating edit in 2004, the spelling should not be changed to conform to U.K. practice. How many times do we have to go through this pointless wheelspinning rather than working to build an encyclopedia? "Color," "catalog" and other U.S. spellings should be the only ones used in the article except for usages where it is the name of a British organization. Edison (talk) 03:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Build the web again

continued from #Build the web above

Please can someone with time to look at the issue in some detail come and sort this out (WP:Build the web). It is ridiculous that a group of determined cynics, even including an admin, are allowed to continue this campaign of edit-warring against consensus and reason.--Kotniski (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again Kotniski is telling his version of the events. What is ridiculous is that a couple of users can claim a "consensus" between them to dismantle a seven-year-old guideline, and keep maintaining this claim despite numerous parties disagreeing with them, clearly demonstrating that there is no consensus. If anything, his continual reversions of the article are what bear investigating. -- Earle Martin 09:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Once agin, Earle is simply lying, I don't know how else to describe it. It is not a "couple of users" and it is not "dismantling" a guideline, it was merged with others to make a much better one. Earle and the others are simply craeting noise to distract people's attention from the fact that consensus was reached, and recently confirmed, in detailed and reasoned discussion.--Kotniski (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Give me a break. To quote an edit summary, "you can't just get rid of a seven year old guideline after 40 hours of discussion on an unrelated talk page with no community notification". You proposed the merge on January 9th, and did it on January 11th. That's not enough time to qualify as "detailed and reasoned discussion" on a guideline of this age. And now a number of editors have found out about your merger after the fact, and are unhappy. That is not "creating noise". The "couple of users" are you and Tony1, who can be seen in the edit history of BTW repeatedly demoting it despite having it pointed out to you numerous times that until a dispute over a guideline is resolved, it retains its status with the addition of a "disputed" tag. -- Earle Martin 09:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The merge was done after many weeks/months of discussion, and everyone was very happy about it until someone decided that it would suit his immediate purposes (no doubt from somewhere in the Kafka-esque workings of the ArbCom date linking case) to undo part of what had been universally agreed. And to say it's just me and Tony is simply untrue and you know it - you were part of the discussion where the decision to merge the pages was confirmed, and you know that there were far more than just two people, and you might also have the integrity to admit that our arguments were far stronger (instead of just leaving the discussion when you can't answer them, only to return later with nothing new to say). Really, I've never seen anything like this before from experienced editors and admins - when something's been decided, we accept it and move on. OK you can try to develop a new consensus based on rational argument, but it's totally disruptive to simply deny all knowledge about the consensus that has been reached. This is the same attitude, as far as I can tell, that has led to the date linking issue still not being settled. Whatever people decide, just refuse to accept the consensus. Make noise; admins won't look at the details, they'll just assume each side is being as bad as each other and you stand a good chance of getting what you want. This isn't how WP should be working. --Kotniski (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Here's a thought: you two stop sniping at each other and start providing diffs. //roux   16:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• What diffs would you like? That there was unanimous support for the merger can be seen from the discussion at WP:Linking (and the most recent archive). That there was strong support to keep it merged can be seen from the current WT:Linking. That Earle and co have been made aware of this can be seen from later exchanges there and at WT:BTW. That they have nevertheless kept reverting to the non-consensus state can be seen from the page history of WP:BTW. That they are not even attempting to discuss or provide counter-arguments any more (except the traditional "no consensus" nonsense) can be seen by the absence of such. It's not a case of one or two diffs. If you want to sort it out, you'll need to spend a bit of time investigating and discussing.--Kotniski (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Please provide specific links to those discussions. A past revision of the page would be fine as opposed to just a diff--something that shows the discussion specifically. What you're saying is like saying "There was a discussion on ANI, go spend some time investigating." To put it more bluntly: support your position with specifics or walk away. Thanks. //roux   16:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• See link to the discussion from October in my comment below. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• There was "unanimous" support because many believed you (myself included) when you said a poll had already been conducted on the merger itself. What you failed to mention was that the poll was held over a span of 28 hours (proposed at 12:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC), closed at 16:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)), involved maybe ten editors, and was not even advertised on WT:BTW (meaning people who watchlisted that page weren't even aware of the straw poll!). That's not consensus, that's a hijacking. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Again, I ask how many places are you going to have this discussion going at one time? You've brought it up at Wikipedia_talk:Build_the_web#Overruling_consensus and above at Misplaced Pages:ANI#Build_the_web. Then you brought it up (while the other discussions were ongoing) at WP:AN, where it got moved to Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)#Is_edit-warring_the_way_we_establish_consensus.3F. Now you've started a new section here. I'll make the friendly suggestion that you either pick a single place to have the discussion or start a RFC. Whether you intend it or not, when you start the same discussion in so many places, people will start to think you're forum shopping.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, one discussion is about the general principle, specifically not about this incident. One discussion is pretty well complete and (IMHO) demonstrates clear consensus. I had to come here because that consensus was ignored/disputed. The higher discussion on this page is closed and linked to this one. So this is really the only ongoing discussion at the moment (apart from attempts to reach agreement with various people). Will provide diffs when I get time. --Kotniski (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts. One is that many of the disputants here are the same folks involved in a current ArbCom case. (And yes, so am I, although I haven't heard of this dispute until now.) It does seem that this flame war is growing into a forest fire. Second, at the top of the Talk page of this policy are links to the user pages of a number of Wikipedians who stated that they endorse this policy: I'm one of them, & I haven't heard of this "consensus" until now, probably because no one involved bothered to drop a note to ask me to participate in the discussion. I wonder how many of the other Wikipedians in this list were asked to participate; had this been done it would support an assumption that a Good Faith effort had been made to find a consensus based in the larger community, & not just in one faction of an ongoing, er, feud. -- llywrch (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The consensus brought together both factions of the feud; it's just that one faction has suddenly decided the status quo doesn't suit them. And the question is not whether anyone endorses this policy; it was merged, not demoted. The question is whether there should be two or three separate guidelines on the same topic, telling different sides of the story, or just one comprehensive one with all the information. If you want to argue for separation, please do at the appropriate place. But here is the evidence asked for:

1. That consensus for the merge properly formed after long, detailed discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context/Archive 7#Idea for merge (as a continuation of other threads on that page: search for "merge"), partly continued at WT:Linking (all threads down to - and don't be misled by this title, it was about a temporary problem that was soon settled - "Please reverse the merger")
2. That the merge proposal was advertised at BTW for months: this sample diff (note merge pointer at top of page), and the actual merge was announced there: WT:Build the web#Specific merge proposal, and attracted no opposition from anyone at that page (this redirecting edit remained stable for over a month)
3. That the recent discussion on the topic (advertised at Template:Cent and well known to all involved parties) confirmed, or certainly by no stretch of the imagination tended to overturn, the previous consensus: (the thread "Resurrect this guideline?") - this was substantially how it was when the edits referred to below were made
4. That several editors, being aware of the above consensus (since they had participated in the discussion), continued to edit the page against that consensus by restoring the very {{guideline}} tag that the discussion had concluded was inappropriate: , , , , , (I admit my previous edit may have been wrong there, but still no justification is given for restoring the guideline tag as well as the disputed tag), , , , .

That's me done, I could go into more detail, but I'm not going to waste any more time or nerves on this. I'm on Misplaced Pages to discuss constructively and act positively, not to fight. I get angry when those with no interest in such cooperative action are allowed to get away with destroying others' constructive efforts. Decide which group you want to support. Support the fighters and the cooperators will become disillusioned and leave. (Which I think may already be happening.)--Kotniski (talk) 08:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

User:TungstenCarbide

TungstenCarbide (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user had a WQA raised about him/her here. This user's response to this WQA was this edit. Being warned/advised by non-admin users obviously has no positive influence on this user's behavior, so I believe admin intervention is warrented. Thank you. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Premature to transfer this to AN/I, in my opinion. I refer to my comments at WQA. TungstenCarbide went nuts and insulted editors. I do not condone his outbursts but they are psychologically understandable as the other editors were obstructing his good faith, useful efforts at improvements and even today as we speak the first sentence of the article is a horrible mess due to their obstructionism. If TungstenCarbide is punished for making insults then his opponents should be punished for actively preventing much-needed improvement of a WP article.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree in prinicple, and I am not out necessarily to get anyone blocked, but due to the response of this individual to non-admin advice on altering his behavior, an admin at least should talk to this editor. The WQA demonstrates how he responds when non-admins advise him about civility. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I posted this to WP:AIV also. The guy is a newbie with apparently no clue about the concept of civility. Baseball Bugs 17:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Being WP:RIGHT is not an exemption from being WP:CIVIL. If the policy is to mean anything, this edit (on WQA!) should result in an immediate block. THF (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The comment "we are here to write an encyclopedia" doesn't sound so much like something a newbie would say. Baseball Bugs 17:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I was one of the editors he responded to. I tried to be civil with him and gave him a stern warning, but perhaps what he did warrants a block regardless. He seems to dislike overly long sentences, and anybody who disagrees with him is a "moron" or worse. that being said, I don't think he should be indef blocked as he means well for the encyclopedia, even if its hard for him to communicate that. Themfromspace (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That edit requires some serious admin action. In my opinion, a block is in order. We're not children, at least most of us aren't, and we shouldn't act like children when something doesn't go our way. -- Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 17:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Then there's this gem, one of several in this one article: As far as coddling this guy, there needs to be a policy, if there isn't already, about[REDACTED] not being a nursery school. Baseball Bugs 17:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

He's been blocked for 3 days. He could use that time to review WP:CIVIL and discover that his assertion "we're not here to be polite to each other" is not altogether correct. Baseball Bugs 17:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Please remember to explain civility to people

I don't think that TungstenCarbide got much of an adequate explanation of our civility policy in the leadup to this. There were no good warnings or explanations to him.

I left this note on his talk page to try and lay it out to him.

I urge others who are responding to civility problems from new editors to make similar explanations (not templates, but actual personalized communications) with the problem editor before escalating. Without explaining and putting it in context, we're not giving people enough warning about what they're doing wrong and why it's wrong to act that way. This violates WP:BITE among other things....

That said, no objection to the block, the user here escalated very badly once people started to complain to them... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

My first, uncivil, thought on reading the above was "for {insert expletive here} sake - if TC doesn't understand what the word "civility" means he should be editing the Moron English version of WP. Then I wandered off and actually read what Georgewilliamherbert had said. Kudos to you, Georgewilliamherbert. A fine explanation not just of "what" WP:CIV but of "why" WP:CIV. Let's hope TC reads it and it sinks in. Tonywalton  23:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Tonywalton, One thing that needs to be taken into account is the offended users culture and outlook. In other words, just because you don't find it uncivil doesn't mean it's actually uncivil. I've got a pretty think skin (you can't look like I do and not have a thick skin) but there are weird little things that will bother me more than flat out insulting me (mental acuity for one). It's all relative. Padillah (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Very well said George. -- Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 00:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

His response was an extremely bad sign. Ah well. He'll either calm down or this will be quick. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Now indefinitely blocked. With some light-hearted humor by Baseball Bugs I see. Mark as resolved? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I will, just for fun. And Mr. Rickles says, "Thanks, Dummy!" :) Baseball Bugs 12:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This deal of someone extending a calm and even-handed comment and the respondent starting calm and even-handed and devolving into almost a parody of insults, reminds me of a movie scene, but I can't place it. I'll let that work in my background processor for awhile. Baseball Bugs 12:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Relistings of AfDs by non-administrators

Relisting of AfD nominated by IP/SPA vandal

Special:Contributions/216.15.36.81 vandalized Garrison Courtney. IP was warned. IP then requested assistance in nominating page for deletion. This was declined. At the same time (06:48), Pilkington1984 registered. See Special:Contributions/Pilkington1984.

Pilkington1984 then nominated Garrison Courtney for deletion, improperly as an MfD. Zetawoof then helpfully created the AfD on behalf of Pilkington. The nomination made no proper deletion arguments, the only alleged issue was the verification of the title, which has subsequently been thoroughly confirmed. However, please do not debate the notability of the article here, do so on the AfD page if you wish to participate there. My only concern here is process. The defective nomination is mentioned because helping inexperienced editors to create a disruptive AfD is, itself, disruptive. However, the original AfD proceeded with little attention. Nevertheless, the nominator voted in it, again (besides nomination), as the original IP editor who had vandalized the article. Without that sock !vote and the SPA nominator, the !vote was 2 to 1 for Keep. This AfD would normally have closed as Keep or as No Consensus.

However, 5 days having elapsed, relisted the AfD. This was a blatant disregard of AfD process. I have warned Ritzman. AfD when notability is marginal, can be highly disruptive, wasting great amounts of editor time for articles that are, by the conditions of the problem, marginal. Ritzman is not an administrator, and a relisting "to generate more thorough discussion" by definition wastes more time, and is only warranted when there are only a very few !votes for Delete, or no !votes at all other than the nominator.

A vandal/SPA has managed to disrupt the community, with the assistance of two editors. The clearest problem, though, is Ritzman's relisting. That AfD should have been left to close normally, which would have been minimally disruptive. AfD is bad enough without this serious misunderstanding of "consensus" as it relates to AfDs. Special:Contributions/Ron Ritzman shows a series of these abusive relistings today. It should stop immediately. Please confirm my warning to him and undo improper relistings. I will undo what I can, please ask me to stop if I'm in error. --Abd (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, some of the relistings may be appropriate. I haven't actually undone any yet, and I've got other stuff to do. I'm still a bit concerned about what "may be appropriate," I'd prefer to leave anything marginal to an administrator to decide. (What's wrong with just leaving the AfD there for a while? Otherwise we are generating debate for the sake of generating debate i.e., "finding consensus." --Abd (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked through the others but I think the relisting of Garrison Courtney that you use as an example was the right call. Whether a non-admin should have done it or not I don't know. -Djsasso (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked at the vandalism and sock vote aspects? BTW, thanks for changing the section heading, it's a little better. --Abd (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Non admins have just as much a right to relist discussions as admins do. We discussed this the last time we tried to take a crack at changing the relisting policy. Consensus seemed to be that relisting shouldn't be done where a "no consensus" close is more appropriate, but that when a debate (Even a debate with 1-2 participants) is relisted, that isn't a guarantee of 5 more days. Anyone can close the debate once they judge that some consensus has been reached or is not likely to be reached. Protonk (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

While I'm not a fan of non-admin closings of AfDs (those closures often cause more problems than they solve), I have no problems with non-admins relisting, especially in a case like this. My take on relisting is that if there have been few participants or there is a good chance that a few more days will let a consensus form, relisting is definitely the way to go. It's a far better use of everyone's time to extend the debate a few days than it is to close as no consensus and have the article come right back to AfD in a few weeks. And if the relisting was a bad idea, an admin can always come along and close the AfD, so little harm was done.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree about non-admins, on principle. (I'd have However, AfD process can be abused. What would have been done if the nominator had been IP? Might as well have been! And a glance at contribs showed that the nominator had first vandalized the article? I have a simple request. Please look at the evidence presented with the report before stating that the relisting seems okay.

I came to have a separate question about relisting process, I haven't paid much attention to AfD process over most of the last year, and maybe I didn't have such a good understanding of it in the first place. But it seemed to be designed for minimal disruption. Relisting prolongs debate, and extended debate over deleting articles often generates more heat than light. I.e., there may be some improvement to an article, and then it's gone. Wasted time. Or there is no improvement and lots of editors commenting. Wasted time, no improvement. In the end, it is only one article out of two million. I'm not distressed if it's deleted or if it is kept. I didn't like that the nomination implied a false claim of position with the DEA, and so I went to the article and sourced what is there, to make it verifiable, if it's kept, or even if it's not (it might come back, or, perhaps, as I'd prefer to deletion, it might be merged). Merge could have been accomplished by one editor with possibly no debate at all. We have serious matters of content that are decided by fewer editors than have participated in the AfD.

It's clear from the present AfD debate that the community is divided on Keep or Delete, the likely outcome is No Consensus at this point, but it's the luck of the draw, sometimes. Now, what would have happened without the relisting? Not much different, except that maybe the result would have been Keep, depends. Without relisting, the AfD might have sat overtime, or not. What I find problematic is the idea that there is value in trying to find "consensus" when clearly the community isn't ready for it. As I understood it, the default situation with all articles is Keep. There are countless articles where some substantial segment of the community would want to Delete.

Relisting is a decision by an editor that we need to find consensus on the issue; in this case, that the community should bring broad attention to the suggestion of an IP vandal. Otherwise, leaving it alone leaves it to a responsible closer. Relisting postpones that and just adds more debate. In any case, if someone doesn't like the result, there is DRV, or there is simply waiting (with a Keep, more often) and renominating after a decent delay. Often by that time a consensus has developed. By that time the article might be more mature. Etc. Like I said above, I thought I understood the process. Maybe I didn't. --Abd (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't bother to read most of this discussion since I only really have one thing to say. Relisting an AfD does not cause harm. If an admin disagrees, they can close it. This is really a non issue. It does not "waste another editors time" since you are not obligated to prolong discussion, nor are you required to follow the reslisting templates suggestions. Have a nice day. Synergy 19:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

For a discussion with a small number of participants taking sharply opposed view, relisting is a very useful course and should be done more frequently. It always attracts the attention of other editors not particularly involved in the topic who can provide their possibly more objective evaluations. Trying to judge consensus on three or four comments is often difficult. It's better to have one afd and decide. Relisting is also appropriate if there are major improvements late in the discussion, or if nobody at all has made a policy based argument one way or another. It decreases the number of articles that need to go to deletion review. The times when it is wrong is when there is clear consensus from a number of editors with a substantial discussion of the points, and it is hoped by someone that a different consensus might develop. Closing as nonconsensus without relisting is for those cases where there has been a full discussion of the issues, and it is clear that there is no agreement likely to be reached., In this particular instance, the relist was correct. DGG (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, DGG. Correct if the vandalism, SPA nomination, and the sock voting in the original AfD is considered? I do disagree on the benefits of relisting, except in certain situations, but we can discuss that elsewhere. --Abd (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a guideline on relisting? I didn't see it quickly. If not, we should have one. I didn't find information on how to relist or the allowed and disallowed reasons at all. Can anyone simply extend the time for discussion, regardless? --Abd (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You'll find the guideline at Misplaced Pages:Deletion_process#Relisting_discussions--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. My concern has been increased, not decreased, by reading that. What is see is one editor routinely relisting a whole series of expiring AfDs. Relisting is a form of close, the guideline implies that it is a closer who makes the decision. I'd be concerned if I see one editor closing many AfDs at the same time; could the editor do the necessary research? A close is not simply a glance at !votes, rather the arguments and evidence are considered and checked, unless, sometimes, the consensus is snowing. In the particular instance, the relisting was that of an AfD which probably should have been speedy closed at the outset, as being the nomination of a vandal. There were enough !votes in the AfD to make relisting more questionable (the guideline says "only one or two commenting editors (including the nominator)," whereas there were four, plus the IP sock of the nominator), and when the sock vote -- which would be blatantly obvious to anyone who did the required footwork for a closing -- was excluded, it was two to one for Keep. Given that Keep isn't forever, and unless the closer thought the arguments crystal clear in the other direction, a Keep or possibly No Consensus closure would have been the least disruptive. Instead, we have this. I worked on the article to source it, in spite of my normal policy against fixing articles under the AfD gun, just because it was there, but then I noticed the vandalism and the SPA account created just to nominate, and the sock vote, and that's why I became concerned about relisting. --Abd (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to apologize for starting this dramafest. My only purpose in relisting AFD discussions is to give more time for a consensus to form to debates with few or no comments and I don't look that closely at who's nominating and who's !voting because unlike Abd, I never viewed it as a close. I also close AFD discussions and I'm a lot more careful with those, particularly with all the recent drama surrounding non admin closures.

Have I made mistakes relisting? Maybe I have but this is the first time I've been yelled at for one. I always felt that if someone thinks that an AFD discussion shouldn't have been relisted, then he can just close it. In the case of the Garrison Courtney AFD, here's what I saw at the time it was relisted. 2 "keeps", 2 "deletes" (one unsigned), one editor not sure. At the time relisting seemed like the prudent thing to do. As for how fast they I relist, I use Mr Zman's script which is pretty fast. My goal is to get all the short debates relisted onto a fresh log because they tend to attract more comments that way. I'm not the only one who does it this way either, Aitias and Juliancolton also tend to relist a lot of AFDs early and quickly.

Once again, I'm sorry for all the drama I've caused. In the future, I'll look at the discussions a little bit more closely before relisting. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ron, I regret any distress. Using a script to relist isn't a problem, in itself, but a relisting is a form of close (see WP:RELIST and requires similar care. Earlier today you relisted 10 AfDs in 5 minutes. I don't think it's possible to do them justice in anything like this time, 5 minutes per AfD would be brief, except in clear cases -- in which case it isn't "No Consensus," is it? I also appreciate that you are putting a lot of work into helping with AfD process, but it is not necessarily better to discuss an AfD more widely, if the result isn't likely to be different; and there is nothing wrong with letting an AfD sit for a decision; relisting is supposed to be relatively unusual. I added a comment to Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_process#Relisting_after_more_than_.22one_or_two_commenting_editors.22 based on this incident, perhaps you'd like to join that discussion. --Abd (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

One more point, now that the AfD has been closed as No Consensus by MBisanz. If the original AfD had been left, it would probably have closed with a total of five editors commenting, as Keep or possibly as No Consensus, perhaps depending on whether the closer noticed the sock puppet vote. Most would have. There was more participation than the usual standard for WP:RELIST. Because it was relisted, it consumed far more space, with 16 editors commenting and more back-and-forth. Most likely shift: from Keep to No Consensus, which is a Keep, just not quite as nailed down. Much more fuss, same effective result. The idea that we should keep discussing each article until there is a consensus is ... not practical, the community is not united on what notabilty means and how it should apply, but, meanwhile, we have a project to build and maintain, so we should make our decisions as non-disruptively as possible, and, for this, very often smaller is better. Basically, if there is no consensus for Delete, or clear policy reasons to Delete, articles stay until consensus appears, and there is no particular value in speeding this up.--Abd (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

And here's another point of view for Ron and Abd to consider. I do a fair amount of work at AfD, both in categorizing and closing debates. I've seen a lot of debates that Ron has relisted, and I've agreed with 99% of them. Frankly, when there are only 1 or 2 opinions in a debate, it doesn't take a huge amount of time to decide that consensus isn't there. With a script, all it takes is one mouse click after that decision is reached. It certainly doesn't take 5 minutes per AfD to decide to relist. Keep vs. delete, perhaps, but not relist. Yes, care is important, but the track record has been good here.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Fabrictramp. I'm quite ready to believe that. Note that Ron has apologized (and this really helps me to abandon any lingering doubts about his work). What this has raised for me is the issue of script-assisted relistings; as I pointed out, yesterday Ron relisted 10 AfDs in 5 minutes. I am not claiming that these were "incorrect." A relisting, however, should take almost as much work as a full close, and relisting is a close. If it isn't, WP:RELIST should be rewritten! The subject AfD wasn't "1 or 2 opinions," it was four or five, and some 1 or 2 opinion AfDs should be fully closed. I'd argue that, for example, a nominated AfD with no comment, unless the closer agrees that the AfD is solidly based, should be closed as No Consensus. If the closer agrees with the delete, then the closer could relist and then comment, paving the way for the next step in the process. If script assist is going to be used to close AfDs, quickly, there should be very specific guidelines, a list of things that should be checked before relisting.

Under some circumstances, relisting could take less than 5 minutes. I really doubt that a sound judgment can be made in many AfDs in thirty seconds, in many cases, but perhaps I'm wrong. We need standards. The subject AfD, here, shows that.

I'm a big fan of ignore all rules but when it comes to what we do with automated tools, which encourage snap judgments, we've lost the value of IAR, which is to support and encourage active and individual judgment.

Snap judgment here is to just look at the !votes instead of weighing the arguments and checking the evidence. That is what I infer from 2 relistings per minute. I would suggest that a relister should always then comment (and, of course, shouldn't be one who has commented previously). If one is going to check the AfD out enough to have an opinion that it should be relisted, then why waste the valuable insight by not commenting? A relisting should represent an opinion that Delete is reasonable, not that No Consensus has been found. It is an action predicated on an opinion that the nominated deletion should be discussed further. It would be, in effect, an opinion that the article should be deleted, but that no consensus has been found. Otherwise, I'd say, let someone who will express an opinion make the decision. --Abd (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring on merge of orthomolecular psychiatry into orthomolecular medicine

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

There are 4 editors at orthomolecular psychiatry (now a redirect to orthomolecular medicine) (Orangemarlin, Verbal, Keepcalm, and ScienceApologist) who, in a forum-like thread entitled "This article was a POV-fork", decided that since they agree to a merge, there is therefore consensus. They have edit-warred against 3 different editors to do so at this point. Despite the forum-like tone and title of the thread, Colonel Warden and Coppertwig objected. I didn't (I avoid these types of threads on article talk pages). Since there is currently (based on a loose count of opinions voiced in ) a 5 support (counting SA) vrs. 7 oppose (counting Gohde) opinion on the merge, and there was no no properly titled straw poll, there's clearly no consensus. We have a Requested Moves forum which should be used for controversial cases; at the least both articles need a proper notification with non-forum like titles on both pages. Despite this, the group has continually edit-warred to keep doing the merge, inserting statements like "per consensus" ... removing POV pushing" . The bad faith, personal attacks, and view that people who don't share your opinions don't count is typical but nevertheless surpisingly bold in this particular instance. The objections are mainly based on size and structure, and are entirely legitimate. There are plenty of sources on OM psychiatry as distinct from OMM, and the OMM page is badly organized. The editors pushing the merge should be reminded that editors with opposing viewpoints count in keeping with good faith, and that standard procedure and consensus is required for major actions in Misplaced Pages. II | (t - c) 19:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I should probably mention that ScienceApologist's view can be read at the AE note he raised, or at a FTN thread. Ironically from where I stand, it can be summed as "the opposition is tagteaming". The solution to this issue is simple: the editors who believe the merge is necessary should list it at Requested Moves and abide by the consensus (or lack thereof). These perpetual battles are not productive and waste a lot of people's time. II | (t - c) 19:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This is game-playing. ImperfectlyInformed should probably be topic banned for this kind of behavior. Or maybe even banned completely from Misplaced Pages since he has never contributed anything of value during his time here. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

ScienceApologist is WP:SHOPPING in order see a change pushed through against consensus.

His use of WP:FTN in this is quasi- canvasing as well, given the known biases of that messageboard. Artw (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me there are two distinct subjects here, with significant interest and sources of the psychiatric aspects. There merge seems to be done on the unspoken principle that the fewer articles on fringe subjects, the better. As for POV, both articles fail NPOV. DGG (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not just an "unspoken principle", WP:CFORK, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:Walled garden speak directly to the ideal. In any case, the "significant interest and sources" are not very well established, all of them lacking third party scrutiny. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate DGG's input, but my understanding of OMM is that it was started by a small group of scientists in the 1950s and 60s, mostly Pauling and Hoffer, although we could certainly rattle off a list of several other important figures. There was no distinction made, as far as I can tell, between orthomolecular medicine and orthomolecular psychiatry as separate fields. The approach of megatherapies was fringe even at that time. When third parties couldn't replicate the claimed results, the OMM people stopped bothering with the usual scientific process and established their own journals, their own groups, and took their findings to the public directly, anticipating the current preserve of orthomolecular medicine, the infomercial. This approach is commonly called "quackery", and reliable sources also give OMM this (and other) names. Misplaced Pages takes the point of view of the medical community, and on this one, the medical community's position is, currently at least, very clear. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that we have procedures for merging articles, and we have principles of good-faith and consensus which state that editors should not be ignored out of hand. These were ignored in this case, and now the article has been protected into a redirect for a month because the other side is more aggressive in pushing the revert button. II | (t - c) 21:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Community ban of ImperfectlyInformed

Requested Community Ban for ImperfectlyInformed who is a single purpose account who simply shills for alternative medicine paranoia including water fluoridation opposition hysteria and a true belief in orthomolecular medicine. Misplaced Pages would be a better place and easier to manage without his game-playing as witnessed above.

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• • From his user contributions, I simply do not see this exclusive concentration: I also see a substantial editing effort on economics and insurance topics. And alternative medicine is a very broad field. Nor do I consider all or even most of the efforts on fringe science disruptive. What I do consider unproductive, if not actually disruptive, is the present accusation against him. DGG (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • Would ImperfectlyInformed happen to be a wikifriend of yours, DGG? In any case, a topic ban might be a good start if you think he does good work in economics/insurance topics. However, I've looked through those contributions too and all I've seen is a very problematic edits there as well Note the change to "problematically defined term" which is obvious POV. It's time we start letting people know that this kind of behavior is unacceptable. Enablers of this kind of behavior need to wake-up and smell the coffee. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Really, what kind of example is that? Casualty insurance does not have a definition beyond a list of terms (an ostensive definition). II | (t - c) 21:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Nope - not disruptive enough, only has exhaused the patience of SA not the community. So, II like fringe theories? so do I. I think they are mostly crap, but I like them. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I like them too. What I don't like is the sort of behavior seen exhibited above. Agreed he's exhausted my patience. The only reason he hasn't exhausted the community's patience is because the community acts like ostriches with their heads in the sand when it comes to such articles. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I think there is also lots of ambivolence around the reduction in articles that you generally advocate. I think you'd get more mileage by focusing less on removal of articles on fringe topics, and more on inclusion of reliable source material on the articles. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
      • There is the obsession that some Wikipedians seem to have with maintaining the raw number of articles that exist rather than maintaining the quality of the articles that exist (look at all the silly hoopla over the 1 millionth and 2 millionth articles). We all know that it is just as important to get rid of bad content as it is to maintain good content, and because readers land on individual articles from doing searches, they are not necessarily on the best content. We have WP:CFORK idealizations for a reason. I will continue to advocate redirecting and deleting problematic articles so as maintain efficient documentation and quality control. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as i can recall II is not among the people I know here personally, or who have written much to me. (For the record, SA, I do know you in person, and I consider you a wikifriend despite some disagreements.) As for the fundamental issues, I very strongly do not share II's views on the science-related subjects he works on. I very strongly share your views on the actual merits of pseudo science, but I disagree with you about the extent & manner to Misplaced Pages should cover such topics, and the appropriateness of covering notable but not very-notable figures and organisations in the field. My own view is that NPOV articles will necessarily show them absurd, and people landing on such articles will be enlightened. DGG (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Eh, what do you know about my views on the science-related subjects I work on? I don't share SA's interest in really fringe stuff, and like you I'm purely interested in neutrality. I don't have any background or hard beliefs in much of anything "fringey". II | (t - c) 21:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Could we not spin this out into another endless (and pointless) discussion? If you support the proposal, say so and why; if you don't, say that and why. If you don't have anything but empty rhetoric to bring, please take it elsewhere. The orthomolecular psychiatry is now protected into a redirect to orthomolecular medicine for a month, which seems like the opposite of what should happen with a disputed merge. Further, the article was not fully merged, amounting a half-delete. II | (t - c) 21:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose ban per Rocksanddirt. I also share the same concerns as Artw. →Dyl@n620 21:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

comment I had a brief experience with II and I can confirm everything SA says about him. However, I don't know if he's any worse than a lot of the true believers in flakedom on here.:) Sticky Parkin 00:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That coming from someone who concluded that a category for fad diets fails WP:NPOV is an interesting failure to look in the mirror. (see here why so) Xasodfuih (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose ban. Proposing a ban of an opponent in a content dispute is not a helpful method of dispute resolution. No evidence has been presented of any behaviour that appears to me to remotely violate any policy or guideline or to be problematic in any way. II seems to me to be no more of an SPA than SA; II has recently edited articles on a variety of topics such as Home insurance, Head Start and Circumcision – not that being an SPA would be a bannable offense anyway. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose community ban per Coppertwig but there might be a basis for a topic ban if there is excessive pushing of WP:FRINGE POVs. A case for that hasn't yet been made here. THF (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggest closure

The original post replicated an arbitration enforcement thread. The community ban proposal looks like a WP:SNOW closure and might arguably be in the wrong venue, since the topic is covered by arbitration general sanctions. Not archiving this myself because I mentor Scienceapologist (although he hasn't contacted me regarding this particular incident). Suggesting review and closure by an uninvolved Wikipedian. Regards, Durova 01:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

editor whose only activity is adding links to arxiv.org categories

This spammer needs to be blocked and reverted. Thanks. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Why? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Those links actually seem kind of useful. --Dynaflow babble 19:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I left the "spammer" :) a message about linking to pages with specific content instead of linking to categories listing lots of papers, and a linky to WP:EL. P.D.: (I changed the title of the section, per WP:BITE and WP:AGF) --Enric Naval (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

None of the three that I checked were appropriate. It looks to me like the work of a bot rather than links a person actually looked at. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I blocked him indef--this looks like some kind of weird spambot. Anyone else agree? Blueboy96 20:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like a bot to me; not nearly enough edits to suggest a bot and bots don't usually make secondary edits. HalfShadow 21:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I see a physics student with access to some sort of database he or she wants to share, but who who obviously doesn't "get" EL policy (nor got a chance to -- first warning after last edit, then blocked). For all intents and purposes, it looks like something I'd generate in PsycINFO through CSA Illumina. --Dynaflow babble 20:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I might have been inclined for a shorter block, but in almost two years, his only edits have been to add the same link. That's why I suspected a spam-only account. Blueboy96 21:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not to say it isn't a spam-only account, just that there's definitely someone doing it as opposed to a pure bot account. HalfShadow 21:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)No one's made any attempt to communicate with him or her until now, either. Hell, I would presume my contributions had been accepted by a grateful community if they'd been allowed to stand in peace for that long. Plus, I really don't think this is blatant self-promotion on the part of the Russian Academy of Sciences. --Dynaflow babble 21:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, look Wireader is doing the exact same edits as this editor. compare with , oh, and also Baxxterr and 82.142.132.74 . They are all updating links from the old version of the website to the new one. The IP was asked about one of the additions on its user talk page and on the article's talk page, but he never answered, and two years later it updated the link from the old version to the new one with no comment.

Their only contribs are changing or adding links to xstructure.inr.ac.ru, which seems to be a search engine to arxiv.org, and not arxiv.org itself. It's hosted by the Institute for Nuclear Research from the Russian Academy of Sciences so I suspect a misguided attempt at "improving"[REDACTED] with a link-adding bot with someone with too much time on their hands, as HalfShadow points out, bots don't make random typos and go back to correct them.

Linking to a category in arxiv.org is useless, specially, since a) it's not even arxiv.org b) the target page does not list any actual paper and is confusing. The spamming was already noted at the Physiscs wikiproject back in 2006. Time to indef-block the appartent socks and ask for a blacklist? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

P.D.: There are 149 external links to that website, and I think that every single one of them was added by either these accounts, or by people complaining about the additions. The links also appear on other language wikis, but I can see no spam at all, it seems to be almost in its enterity caused by whole lists of links being copy/pasted when translating articles from the english wikipedia.

P.D.D.: Asked for someo advice in the Physics wikiproject here --Enric Naval (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

P.D.D.D.: 82.142.132.74 is registered to a Russian company, and the website is hosted by a Russian research institute, circumstancial evidence points out that they are adding links to their own website. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

List of television stations in India

At least one anonymous user has been reverting List of television stations in India, a little-known page, at regular intervals since last December. He won't even tell me why he does that, actually, he has yet to answer any of my messages to date. Three requests for intervention at the 3rr notice board have been inconclusive .--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• I've looked at the reverts and it's not clear who is reverting whom and why. If the article had sources, we could tell whether sourced useful information was being added/deleted. Absent sources, people tend to suspect that the person removing stuff (even if it's crap) is more at fault. I suggest that you source what you think should be kept in the article and when the anon's add unsourced crap, you can remove it as being unsourced and be more in the right. But essentially, this is a content dispute that the admins here cannot/will not resolve. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• Except that nothing was removed, it was simply split and sorted by language in different pages. And even if this user didn't agree with this, and was answering me back, there wouldn't have been any problem from the beginning. And no offence, but you didn't solve anything. If this really was a content dispute, there would be a dispute, that is, some kind of communication on both sides, even an unproductive one. That's not the case.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• Differing choices of organizing a list article is a quintiscential content dispute. I take no offense, as I know I haven't solved anything, but there is nothing here that requires an admin's attention: i.e., to protect, block, or warn someone etc. Again, sources will help decide which position, yours or the anon's is the better structure/content for the article - and that is for the community, not for an admin or a coven of us. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

User:T.M.M. Dowd

On 27 December 2008, I and User:EqualRights warned this user that their game of putting non-NPOV categories on politically sensitive articles was not acceptable and needed to be stopped. The user was also warned by User:Andrew c for similar conduct on 14 March 2008. He was warned by User:Escape Orbit on 9 January 2009 for similar conduct.

Today he added Murder, and the non-existant Total Disregard for the Sanctity of Human Life category to the Abortion article again ().

Here are his prior "neutralizing" edits - , , , , .

I cannot speak to the "Roman" controversy he is rapidly revert warring about in here.

Should people be playing sillybuggers with the encyclopedia like this? Hipocrite (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Short answer - no. Some pretty horrible edits recently including - however they do deserve to be notified about this thread which I will now do. Exxolon (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I notified the user in question when I made the thread -> . Hipocrite (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Apologies - somehow completely failed to see that. Exxolon (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Almost a year since my first warning, and still doing the exact same thing? Jee wiz. Almost every edit has not been productive. I'd support an indefinite block.-Andrew c  22:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, not "almost every edit" -- there are a few non-POV ones in there. But I agree: if he doesn't pay attention to the latest warnings, indef block.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Given that the user is now actively encouraging other users to vandalize I'm not sure why we should bother waiting. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. He's obviously not interested in contributing in a way that doesn't involve pov-pushing; give him a nudge with the banhammer. Ironholds (talk) 03:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Re-created article?

While stub-sorting, I PRODded Lifeworx. The edit history shows it as being created 1 Mar 2009, but when I went to the creating editor's talk page to leave a message about the PROD, I found discussion on 1 Nov 2008 about speedy deletion of... Lifeworx. Obviously I can't see the previous version, so don't know whether this article is a re-creation of it. PamD (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

We've no policy against it even if it is. GSD G4 applies only to articles deleted via AFD. That said, the {{prod}} on it is clearly correct. – iridescent 22:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a G4 even if it had been through AfD - the previous article was about the organization mentioned in the current article, and was deleted G11 as advertising. This is a clear PROD though (and I dare say a number of admins would kill it as an IAR speedy, because it's clearly not going to survive). Black Kite 22:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for guidance. I'd not noticed the subtlety that only AfD'd items couldn't be re-created. Will now watch this one with interest. PamD (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Harassment from User:Ludwigs2

Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs) Ludwigs2 has been blocked on five occasions for incivility, some of which after I requested administrative intervention. Apparently, as a revenge, he has begun harassing me on my user page here and here. He's been trying to change basic Misplaced Pages policy at WP:CONSENSUS, well, without consensus it seems, and I've called him on it. But his comments on my page are totally laughable, and are absolutely revenge motivated (you just can't give AGF to someone blocked that many times for uncivil behavior). OrangeMarlin 22:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

if you follow the links I left on OM's talk page (links reproduced for convenience: , , ), you'll see that both these notices were regarding comments OM left on policy talk pages in which he did little more than criticize or insult me. there was no need for these comments on policy talk since they added nothing to the discussion (he could have left them on my talk page, if he'd desired), and I thought that the notices I left on his talk page were a polite and appropriate response. the charges of harassment are unfounded: this is what user talk pages are for, no? --Ludwigs2 23:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

IP puppet of User:Ratttso aka User:RadioShack1234

The indef-blocked sockmaster appears to be editing under an IP address, 71.120.14.192. He got a short block for personal attacks, but a longer block is probably called for.

• 71.120.14.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• RadioShack1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ratttso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Baseball Bugs 23:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

And given the diatribe here the IP is of the same mindset as his suspected sockmaster, as well as essentially threatening to continue disruption. Baseball Bugs 00:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nother IP sock showed up: 4.249.78.161 (talk · contribs). Took'em out. All of the above accounts have been blocked and talk pages have been protected as appropriate. In some cases, in the interest of WP:DENY the talk pages of the user accounts were deleted and redirected to the user page before protection. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, the two IPs come from different ISPs, but they both seem to originate in the Washington DC area, according to WHOIS data. See for 71.120.14.192 and for 4.249.78.161. The second's corporate headquarters indicate Colorado, but the specific IP seems assigned to a pool to Washington. That info may be helpful when nailing down other IPs from this user. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

As did another (or maybe the same?) right-wing sockpuppeteer, KingsOfHearts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), aka Fru23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), etc.. Maybe that connection would be worth looking into. Baseball Bugs 05:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked user who still has rollback

Theoneintraining (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi). TOIT has been under an indefinite block since mid January, yet you'll see from here that he still has rollback enabled. Admin intervention would be nice. →Dyl@n620 00:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the userright. Thanks, Tiptoety 00:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The anti-ochlarcist uprising returns

67.202.78.10 (talk · contribs)
Anna Quist (talk · contribs)

Background

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Anarchist International
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive456#Anna_Quist.C2.A0.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs_.E2.80.A2_logs.29_and_The_Anarchist_International
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Anarchist International (2nd nomination)
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive161#User:Anna_Quist
• Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Anna Quist

The revolution is at hand, once again. Ochlarchists beware! I'm in two minds whether the editor ought to be blocked for disruptive editing, hoaxing, abusive sockpuppeting, legal threats and soapboxing or kept around for entertainment value. Skomorokh 03:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the AI/IAF/AFI has renewed interest in wikipedia. Surely they deserve our eternal gratitude for renewing interest in what is, surely, a minor and largely unknown website? Indeed, if it wasn't for the AL/PHA/BET/SOUP I would never have heard about Misplaced Pages.

Seriously, my view is treat them exactly the same we'd treat any other editor who socks, makes legal threats, posts hoaxes or is disruptive. Plenty of trolls are entertaining; tolerating them just makes them bolder and ultimately harder to deal with. Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 08:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:POINT - Creation of new Village pumps page - "Redundant policies"

• Spitfire19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Misplaced Pages:Village pump (redundant policies)
• Villagepumps header template edit

I've tagged the page for speedy and reverted the template edit. Wanted to make sure this got some attention. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:16, 3 Mar 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that the page is an example of 2nd catergory_{(or 1st)} of Misplaced Pages:Patent nonsense, which explains:
Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever.
If the reson for the page does not make sense to you, please explain. I extremely dislike it when people simply mark up pages with shortcuts to one of Misplaced Pages's forty-some policies. It just does not help with productivity. I wish to be as helpful with people who do not understand the meaning of content is the way I try it write it to be understood, so please be aware that I can not be helpful unless you ask for it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spitfire19 (talk • contribs)

I couldn't find a CSD criteria that said "Creation of ridiculous pages in project space so that a user could make a point." Sorry. Regardless of the page not fitting the particular criteria under which it was tagged, it's still more than worthy of immediate deletion. I can't see anyone actually thinking an MfD is necessary in this case. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:56, 3 Mar 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I didn't give you your explanation. Here it is: If you think a policy is redundant, you should express your concerns on its talk page, or at Village pump (policy). There's no reason to go creating additional Village Pumps pages specifically for a certain type of policy complaint. If you have any further questions please feel free to respond, and I'll do my best to help. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:12, 3 Mar 2009 (UTC)

There is a very good reason why WP:POINT isn't a CSD - it isn't objective enough. I see no reason to continue this discussion - just voice your opinion at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Village pump (redundant policies). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The change in the template violates {{db-t3}}, but I don't see the immediate harm to Misplaced Pages. The {{or}} section that I see on the page clearly doesn't belong there, however. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted per MFD and WP:SNOW. Let the wheel war begin.... wait for it... wait for it... NOW. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Need Eyes

Could I get administrative eyes on Axolotl, Mudpuppy, and Mudskipper? I just removed a bunch of SIHULM vandalism from the latter page and semi'd it indef until we can get more eyes on it. -Jeremy 05:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Good call. Note that the editor that played with Axolotl is a logged in user, but we'll see what they do in response. I guess this gives someone some jollies, but it's beyond me. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• It's channer vandalism - SIHULM is a forced Internet meme, and at present Mudkip's list article is indef-semi'd because anons will not quit adding it past what is already there. -Jeremy 21:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the context. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Lomcevak Question(s)

I don't usually do this, but this one has me a bit stumped. I just archived a WQA that was brought to us by User:Pretzels at WP:WQA#User:Lomcevak, User:Fetler, and Natascha Engel. In the course of this WQA, Lomcevak goes on what can only be described as a politically-motivated diatribe, mentioning things like this, this, this...you get the picture.
So I did a little poking around in the logs, which I would now like an admin to follow me on. I don't quite get how this account was resurrected after an indef block, if that's what I'm seeing here. Given the current disruption(s), I think that this one bears looking in to a bit deeper. Again, could I get some input on this one? Edit Centric (talk) 08:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Explanation for my unblock is on this talk page Raul654 (talk) 08:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"...on the assumption that he is being honest in what he says." That was a year ago. So, has he been honest? Baseball Bugs 12:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that provides a bit more enlightenment than was available before, and it may or may not be related to what we're here for this time. From what I'm seeing, this user is apparently using the account as Single Purpose, to facilitate an agenda at the Natasha Engel article. Over the past year and few months, this is, by far, the focus article of his contributions. Edit Centric (talk) 09:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(WQA Moderator Comments) - Now that I have WQA "under control" somewhat, I can address the loose issues. On this one, I'm again scratching my head. I'm not so sure it's a question of whether he's "been honest", like Baseball Bugs asks, although IYAM, I would say that the reasons for editing are less than such. It's more a question of the nature of the current disruptions, and the "soapboxing" going along with it. It's got me in that "well...huh." head scratching mode. At any rate, this user was given a gigundous second chance a while ago, and what they're doing with it is extremely impeachable, IMHO. Edit Centric (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

An accusation against me

User:Bake1987 has accused me of "intentionally making up caste-conflicts in Misplaced Pages" and has thus made terrible accusations against me. The conflict erupted when I requested the editors of Nadar article to provide evidence here for a claim that Pandyas were Nadars. I had insisted upon such a move because there has been claims of Pandya ancestry for two communities () and () and there has been unpleasant caste-clashes over claims of royal ancestry. As you might notice, I had also raised in the issue in the talkpage for the other party involved. I felt that if such a claim could excite passions to such an extent that people were indulging in fighting and abusing then there is the possibility that someone or the other was here simply to add propaganda, which is very much against the encyclopedic nature of this project. However, User:Bake1987 has been reverting my edits calling it "vandalism". When I proposed that the concerned editors provide references at Talk:List of Mukkulathors User:Bake1987 responded by accusing me of deliberately creating caste-conflicts. So, since, Bake1987 has made this accusation, I wish Bake1987 provide the evidences on basis of which he made such accusations upon me.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 12:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That's hardly a "terrible accusation". Besides, the evidence on which he bases accusing you of "intentionally making up caste conflicts", is in the diff you provide. He said you called nadars "toddy-tappers". I believe you were just quoting someone else, so that seems to be a misunderstanding. Anyway, I have no idea what you guys are going on about, but it looks like a content dispute with some minor civility issues to me. No administrator attention required for that.--Atlan (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Socks trolling RfA

Can someone ensure Tin Whistle Man (talk · contribs), Radio Tramp (talk · contribs) and friends are blocked and their votes at RfA stricken? Skomorokh 13:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like both were blocked. Synergy 14:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Does it seem like there is an uptick recently with vandalism targeting (directly and indirectly) pages like AIV, CSD, etc? I ran across this yesterday, and don't seem to recall encountering such behavior often in the past. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It's vandalism guaranteed to get an admin's attention. I can't see the point, but then I can't really see the point of any vandalism. --GedUK  15:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Notably, it also seems geared to lead admins into making a mistake with the mop, and thus slows us down by casting more doubt on the legitimacy of vandals and speedy candidates. Not that we shouldn't be doing due diligence on anything we delete or block, but this just slows us down considerably. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It's Hamish Ross again.  Confirmed Tactical Battle (talk · contribs), Compsci grad (talk · contribs), Tin Whistle Man (talk · contribs), Radio Tramp (talk · contribs), Page 3 Hubbard (talk · contribs), Eeeeeaaaaaaaggggghhhhh (talk · contribs). Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

AIV

Could someone please wander over there? Especially need 94.246.126.26 (talk) dealing with. DuncanHill (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done AIV cleared. SoWhy 15:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Tollund man biting newbies, abusive edit summaries, VILE warnings

Tollund_man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) user is correcting vandalism, but the non-standard warnings he issues are quite offensive. His edit summaries sometime threaten violence and death. perhaps someone with a little more authority and eloquence than me can explain proper wiki etiquette ?. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wuhwuzdat, thanks for reporting this. Snigbrook has left the user a note. PhilKnight (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)I agree, some of these warnings are highly distasteful, esp. ?this but also this this and this. He has been warned now, so let's see how he responds. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I've also toned down his user page. PhilKnight (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(WQA Moderator Comments) - PhilKnight, I noted your comment about the content removal "hopefully being within Wiki policy". When in doubt, refer to WP:USER and WP:UP#OWN. In this case, the best idea might be to draw the new user's attention to the offensive content (tactfully!) and ask them to remove it. In this particular case, what the user does with this would go a long way in determining their motivations and intentions in Wiki.
I have some major concerns after reading this user's interactions. The account is barely newborn, and came in with "both guns blazing" as it were. This bears a weather eye, in any case. Also, you might want to explain to them that they're not an administrator (any more than I am!), they seem to be under that impression gaguing (sic) from their response. Edit Centric (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Just reviewing this, maybe it's just me, but why do a I get the feeling we are being trolled by this user? New user, as EC just stated coming in "guns blazing" with a "holier-than-thou" attitude. I know, AGF and all, but something seems a bit odd.

(WQA Moderator Comments) - Well again, let's keep an eye out on this one, with WP:AGF as our base. If it's trolling, it will definitely be vetted out in the long haul. If otherwise (and I'm being an optimist here!), this could develop into a good thing. Either way, Semper Vigilans... Edit Centric (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(WQA Moderator Comments/UPDT) - Checked his edits since being warned, the incivility has toned down, but is still questionable. Special:Contributions/Tollund_man

One of my former supervisors told me something once, in regards to difficult customers; "Not all money is good money". Edit Centric (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

He's improving, but it would appear that he still misses the point. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh huh. (Shaking my head,) I don't know what else we can do with this one, I provided him with direct links to the vandalism templates, and to the coaching section on warnings. My heart sinks... Edit Centric (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Problems on Ancient Egyptian race controversy article

This article is on probation user:Wapondaponda is being disruuptive trying to pov and force things into the article instead of leting the talk page solve the issue he has already been warned about being uncivl before at this article by admin User:Aaron Brenneman.can we get some admin assistance on this article thanks--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Judging by Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wikiscribe, who is the problem editor on the article. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Clearly a desperate attempt to avoid a block off the article(because he already has a warning and the article is on probation),i dont see a warning there for me causing disruption at the article of current topic--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarist caught red-handed and refusing to cooperate

I have a problem with Lantonov (talk · contribs), a user I caught plagiarising the other day. Having found at least one substantial piece of plagiarism (Bulgarian dialects), and with several other articles under strong suspicion, I warned him and asked him to cooperate in the necessary cleanup, by coming clean about all remaining articles that may be affected and naming the sources he used () My request went unanswered, and today he unceremoniously removed my warning from his page (through an IP, which is known to be his ), with the laconic commentary of "no, it is not" (meaning, presumably, "no, cleaning up my plagiarism is not my priority".)

At this point, I'd really like to indef-block him, for continued refusal to clean up his own mess, and as a clear statement that he isn't welcome to edit further as long as he hasn't shown he has learned how to edit properly. Unfortunately I've recently been in some content disputes with him (partly related to the same articles), so on second thought I gathered I maybe ought not to be doing this myself. Thoughts? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(WQA Mediator Comment) - I completely agree with FuturePerf's recusing himself from admin action in this case. (I think it speaks well of him!) I also opine that, if indeed the editor in question is not willing to clear up his apparent plagiarism, a block may be in order, the duration of which depending greatly on any previous actions of this type. IMHO.Edit Centric (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

As for "previous actions", I probabably ought to clarify: I basically suspect that his entire output is plagiarised. He has two main fields of editing, Bulgarian history/linguistics, and theoretical physics/mathematics. There are about ten or so articles to which he has made massive contributions of large quantities of text. I cannot judge in the physics/mathematics cases, but the history cases are all of the same style. Not the kind of stuff a Wikipedian would write. All written in the tone of an old-fashioned magisterial history don. For one or two cases I can prove it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, what is "WQA Moderator Comments" supposed to mean, and why the different font colour? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, I thought that it might be a different way to present an outside opinion. As for the WQA mediator line, I do most of my work over at WQA (where I "hang my hat"). Here in ANI, I'll occasionally comment on a situation, especially if it has Wikiquette aspects to it. Edit Centric (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, in this forum here, I found it a bit irritating, because it could be understood as trying to assume some special bureaucratic role and status for yourself, giving your voice more of an assumed weight than it would have otherwise. We don't have moderators here, as you obviously know, and nobody's voice is special. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, i find the self-identification by Edit Centric as playing a certain role, putting on a hat to clarify he/she is playing that role, to be helpful for me reading the discussions. EC is clearly not asserting to be a moderator of this forum. doncram (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at his physics contributions. My impression is that Lantonov has demonstrated sufficient subject-matter expertise that they could be legitimate. However, the style is idiosyncratic compared to the way most wiki writing is prepared, suggesting he may be using some reference work(s) to guide his contributions (which if used loosely would be fine). If he is plagarizing the physics though, I can't find any evidence of that from Google. His sentence constructions appear to be unique to him, at least from the point of view of English language Google-able sources. Without a smoking gun it is impossible for me to draw a definitive conclusion beyond that. Dragons flight (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The good thing is that he often actually names the sources he copies from (meaning he was probably not aware that what he was doing was wrong.) In the Bulgaria articles, he often did it in the edit summaries. He also often works by directly translating from Bulgarian or other language sources. In one of his physics articles, Synchronous frame, he names a Russian-language edition of a standard textbook as his source. If he translated from that, the result would probably look just slightly different enough from its English print editions not to be immediately recognisable, though still structurally dependent if you looked closer. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I've notified the user that he is the subject of an ANI discussion.. I would like to see him explain his actions and the edit summary. I can't read Bulgarian and so cannot verify if the text is being translated directly from a Bulgarian source. If that is the case, however, and if he refuses to a) stop the behavior and b) help clean up the mess, then I agree that a block is in order. Karanacs (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, the term would be plagiarist. Durova 20:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I might have need of that for further reference more often than I'd like to :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing, and sharing the sentiment. ;) Durova 21:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're suggesting a copyright violation, the place is WP:COPYVIO; if not, why not just shut up and stop wasting people's time. Misplaced Pages has plagiarised right from the very beginning, and is widely plagiarised itself. We are not writing a term paper here, but an encyclopedia. Physchim62 (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Bloody nonsense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Plagiarism (among other things), brings Misplaced Pages into disrepute. That it takes place is no excuse for saying it should be ignored. dougweller (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

User:GaryDaFatSnail

Somebody hardblock this guy - just check his recent edits. Exxolon (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest just blocking for a week first, then hardblocking very quickly afterwards at the first sign of this behaviour being repeated - don't want to be toooooo harsh... ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Tarysky

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

User continues to revert MOS changes to articles, after previously being warned several times now to. Please check the user's talk page history. User is also claiming vandalism of others without citing evidence, and is therefore personally attacking them. User has been warned against such behavior as well. Lastly, this user has a history of being uncivil, and has been before.

The user above has also been blocked for said incivility, he has obviously learned nothing, as, after being warned by an admin not to claim vandalism and personal attcks of others without citing evidence, he does so anyway. Here he is commiting vandalism himself, and here he is again throwing accusations of vandalims just because a user was making MOS changes to the article. Lastly, here he is claiming that I have lied after reporting him for obvious incivility. If this user doesn't want to work constructively, then I would suggest a block, as he has been warned against this kind of behavior before, and was in fact blocked for it. All this new evidence shows is that he hasn't learned anything.— Dædαlus 21:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Spam acct?

User:Joannaguy(I think this is the same person, similar edits user:206.136.32.222) has been adding a link to this

• National Geographic World Music: Cajun Music and similar nat geo links to myriad music pages, always in the references and see also link lists, never in the external links list. I went and moved a few to the proper place. But they have made quit a few such additions. Is what this user done considered spam? It seems to be a single purpose acct, the only thing in contribs list is edits similar to this, always concerning the nat geo music thingy. I contemplated fixing all of their edits, but after looking at the list, got a littl daunted. Could an admin or more experienced person than I look at and tell me what they think? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards