Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:02, 12 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 admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

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

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

Edit-warring on Spongebob Squarepants related articles.

Moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Barack Obama probation issue

Twice this evening, a drive by editor Neophytesoftware (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has posted a "POV" tag on the article, with an obvious conspiracy-theory angle as indicated in the edit summary, but without bothering to post anything to the talk page. Someone with more authority than I (i.e. more than "none") needs to say something to that character about the probation on the article and about frivolous tags. This article has been under scrutiny for months now, and the supposed "bias", having to do with Rev. Wright, birth certificate, etc., are already covered at length in other articles. Baseball Bugs 01:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Obvious WP:BLP attack in edit summary. Although edit summaries are not specifically mentioned in WP:BLP, I think we can all assume that it is inappropriate. -- Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 01:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest a stern warning from an administrative figure - that article is under probation for a reason, and 'terrorist ties' is definitely a WP:BLP vio. — neuro 02:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The user has now had a polite probation notice posted on his page. Also, the user has been inactive for nearly 2 years and suddenly turns up with this drive-by "shooting". There's something fishy going on. Baseball Bugs 02:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI, WND did an article on the WP entry and the Drudge Report linked to it, so expect a spike in activity over there. --64.85.217.74 (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to say, admins here might find this relvant: Kangasaurus (talk) 02:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, that would explain the sudden surge in drive-by activity. They're abusing wikipedia in order to generate a "news" story. Baseball Bugs 02:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, right. That makes sense. — neuro 02:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There are separate articles that talk all about the stuff that is alleged by that WND rag to have been "scrubbed". They conveniently left that fact out. But considering their advocacy, it's pretty obvious they're on the looney fringe themselves. Baseball Bugs 02:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

So disagreeing with YOUR point of view puts you on the 'looney fringe'?!? Perhaps following Wiki rules "According to Misplaced Pages rules, however, a "fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." There have been many including court cases in the U.S. Supreme Court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.115.111 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Disagreeing with Bugs is a sign of being a crank. And we have something called WP:WEIGHT to consider. Rklawton (talk) 03:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention every single one of them has failed. Obama has never even had to address this in any form. It has very little, if any impact on him. --70.24.182.79 (talk) 03:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

See report on AN Guettarda (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The "Point of View junk edits" mentioned at the end of the WND article was my revert. This is actually the 2nd time that WND has commented on an edit of mine. Awesome. We're probably going to need a full protect shortly, this is a rabid and vocal minority that has just been given today's marching orders. Tarc (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I second that emotion. Unfortunately, I don't know the name of the page to request article protection, or I would have done so already. :( Baseball Bugs 02:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFPP. Guettarda (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I say let more sleeper socks come out of the woodwork - maybe we can catch them all and see where their IP address is coming from. There's a strong suggestion that the folks at World Net Daily are behind some of this. I can forgive a partisan organization's ignorance of Misplaced Pages reliable sources and neutrality rules. WorldNetDaily and its editors do not practice neutrality themselves, or much of a truth test at all - they say whatever scores a point for their cause. But this piece seems deliberately misleading. If it's true that they have been "monitoring" Misplaced Pages, it would be obvious (and should have been disclosed) that Jerusalem21, the Misplaced Pages editor Klein leads off with and who was supposedly pounced on by the whitewashing Obama-lovers, is an SPA and suspected sockpuppet, whose entire sparse but long career on Misplaced Pages until causing disruption at Barack Obama, was to edit the Aaron Klein article. Even before the incident the editors commenting on Jerusalem21's talk page were placing COI tags and assuming Jerusalem21 is connected in some way to Klein. "Monitoring" indeed. Wikidemon (talk) 02:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was just about to post at WP:RFPP, but if you want to let these idiots expose themselves (pun intended), then I'll defer to your judgment. :) Baseball Bugs 02:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt it was anything but a coincidence, but a couple days ago, after Ann Coulter posted a story about Keith Olbermann, several accounts came out of the woodwork that hadn't edited in years. Same thing here. Are they sleeper socks, or are we at the stage where everyone has a Misplaced Pages account, and when their favourite columnist calls forth his minions, they pick up their old account that they haven't used in years? Guettarda (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The next time one pops up, maybe we could ask the account if they could get us Ann Coulter's autograph or something. Baseball Bugs 03:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes. It's obviously more than one person. They could be novice or infrequent editors coming out of the woodwork because something got their goat, they could a coordinated meat / sock attack, and/or it could be a deliberate manipulation by someone connected with the author of the article. The past year's experience on the Obama article was that the majority of disruptive POV editors crying whitewash/censorship/terrorist/scandal turned out to be socks of a handful of puppetmasters, some of whom had been blocked/banned before. Jerusalem21 was quacking from inside the encyclopedia. The World Net Daily article about Jerusalem21 quacks from the outside. Plus there are new accounts, SPAs, and accounts that haven't edited in months or years all showing up on the exact same bogus claims raised in the article. If shenanigans are going on it's helpful to let it play out for a bit so we can connect the dots. But if it continues we may have to protect the article. But we can't reasonably full protect the talk page, and much of the weirdness is going on there. Wikidemon (talk) 03:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Or we could fix the article so it includes mention of notable controversies that have been covered extensively by independent sources and improve the article so it provides links to the appropriate articles covering these issues. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I find it disturbingly impossible for someone to claim to be unbiased when referring to those with whom they disagree as the "looney fringe" "idiots" or "socks" (sock puppets). Do you really think these terms convey the idea of "neutrality"? Tlwitness 02:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yawn, try again. I guess this is another account to add to the list... seicer | talk | contribs 03:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Another matching sock.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, I don't think this fellow intends to contribute productively and civily once his block expires: . Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No, and he'll have to wait 17 hours longer for that. Since you nobly overlooked his personal attack on you, I dealt with it by extending the block from 31 to 48 hours.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

3RR violation here... Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Make a tub of popcorn and head over to the article's talk page. But pay careful attention to the rv's on the talk page, or you might miss some of the best comments. Did you know that unless you've seen someone's original birth certificate, you don't know where they were born? What does that remind me of? Of yeah - that good old creationist retort to evolutionary claims: Where you there? Did you see it happen? Guettarda (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Kind of the Baron Münchhausen retort - "Vas you dere, Charlie?" And the flip side of Criswell narrating Plan 9 from Outer Space: "Can you prove it didn't happen?" Baseball Bugs 06:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Temporary 3RR exception for article patrol?

Wondering if that is a good idea. At least, please consider giving warnings and only blocking if an editor persists after being asked to stop, if what they are doing is good faith attempts to keep the article and talk page stable.Wikidemon (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm bringing one here prescriptively... hold on for just a moment.Wikidemon (talk) 12:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

An aggressively misguided editor, Expertfp1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just filed a 3RR report on me which I've deleted per WP:IAR so as to avoid wikidrama. Technically I think the editor's 5 diffs only show 1 reversion on my part. The rest is nonsense, and another editor has already called it "crazy", but I would like to get a ruling and some guidance on this. Not whether the 3RR report has any merit, but whether it's okay to be doing talk page patrol. I've been on article / talk page control for many hours, holding down the fort, organizing various talk page comments, etc. If you want me to go away and keep the peace without me, fine. I won't do this if the opinion among administrators is that I should not be aggressively patrolling the Obama talk page. Thx. Wikidemon (talk) 12:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Eh. When the Mark Foley scandal broke I went well over 3RR trying to keep crap out. No one seemed to complain. Not sure the situation is that different here. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

RFCU filed

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Barrack Obama. seicer | talk | contribs 03:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

3RR violation by Axmann8

Axmann8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) For some reason, he chose this night to start violating established reliable sources and consensus and much discussion, to push the idea that Obama is not the first African-American President. He has violated 3RR as well as probation, and refuses to retract. Another blockhammer, someone? Baseball Bugs 05:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Was coming here to report same user for obviosu trolling, wiki-lawyering, and so on. ThuranX (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

blocked for 24 hours. Mfield (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

He was once indef-blocked (briefly) and was given a second chance. Has he used up his second chance yet? Baseball Bugs 05:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

And his unblock request makes it perfectly clear that he intends to continue pushing the conspiracy theory stuff in defiance of consensus, and presumably in defiance of article probation. Baseball Bugs 05:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I looked at that but the last block was a standard indefinite for legal threats which were retracted and he had nothing else. Had this been another legal threat then I would have thought no second chances but this is different in nature and . If he continues once his block lifts though which seems likely (hardly a good argument for being unblocked) then he is going to find good faith harder to come by I suspect, I for one will certainly be watching him closely. Mfield (talk) 05:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Mfield, the legal threat was against me after I warned Axmann8 about edit warring on Obama's discussion page. --Bobblehead 05:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Duly noted, I don't feel happy about changing the block to an indef at this point, having given him the benefit of the doubt. But I think he has a fair amount of attention now and he is certainly burning bridges faster than he should with that in mind. Mfield (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I declined the unblock request, and he has reverted it. —kurykh 05:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

He's at it again. Appears to be fishing for an admin who will unblock him. Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Posting that rant slamming everyone he can think of is not likely to get him an early unblock. After the first one was refused he wrote a second one that was basically the same as the first one. If he keeps this up, he might be among the few tagged for 3RR on his own talk page. Baseball Bugs 06:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Claiming "I have the right to do whatsoever I wish" is hardly clueful either, or telling the declining admin they have "corrupt leftist liberal trash fogging up their mind". Man he sure can dig fast. Mfield (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

He really shouldn't be blocked indefinately. He's a newcomer, and has made many constructive edits previously. As I'm his adopter, I'll be sure to look over more of his edits. -download | sign! 02:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

He will be blocked indefinitely (not by me) if he continues on his crusade for truth, justice, and the American way. </snark> —kurykh 02:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

3RR violation by Kfedup

Kfedup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Four, three, two, one, liftoff. Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

done Mfield (talk) 05:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Presidency of Barack Obama

The stuff is spreading. Guettarda (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Full Protection

I am leaning towards full protection of the article until this dies down. A look at the history shows a lot of editing warring. Unless opposition is voiced here I am going to protect it in one hour. Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

One potential issue with full protection is that it might push edits to the daughter articles all the more, and there are likely to be fewer eyes watching them. Not saying I'm opposed to protection, just that it may cause additional problems. Guettarda (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm watching several daughter articles. I'm sure I'm not the only one. PhGustaf (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I support this. In the last 15 hours, there have been 50 revisions to that page, including 26 reversions explicitly stated as such in their edit summary (not counting the reversion of the grammar fix at 1502). There has been exactly zero blatant vandalism in this time. J.delanoy_adds 15:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to see protection for the article's Talk/FAQ page. This isn't a place for random comment; it should be subject to the same consensus constraints as the man page. It's attracted at least one soapboxer so far. PhGustaf (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Protecting a high-traffic protected articles talk page should not be done except in response to actual vandalism. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless there is blatant vandalism, the article should not be protected. These are content disputes and possible policy violation corrections, not vandalism. -- Avi (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Rjd0060 is referring to the talk page, not the article itself. Protection policy specifically authorizes protection for content disputes resulting in editing warring. However, I am not going to protect the article right now as things seem to have quieted down. I will check back every hour or so to see if this changes. Let me know if you have any questions. KnightLago (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Can someone put full protection on Barack Obama? They are edit warring over an NPOV tag now.;) --Bobblehead 16:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I am watching it. There have only been 4 edits in the last hour and a half. KnightLago (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Excellent point. I was more looking at the count of the edits rather than the timing. Thanks for keeping an eye on it. --Bobblehead 16:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Things picked back up quickly and I have fully protected the article until things die down. I am going to notify the communications committee. KnightLago (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the protection (overlooked this subsection). I've doled out enough blocks, filed enough RFCU's, and given notices about the probation that I should have recognized something more should have been done earlier. seicer | talk | contribs 16:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I went with the full protection template over the small so the "this is not an endorsement..." language was there. It has since been changed. Is there a preference for high traffic articles? KnightLago (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I notified the communications committee and also changed the template back to full in order to have the explanation. KnightLago (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note this Foxnews.com story which riffs on the WND business, mentions the current full protection, and also links directly to the Obama talkpage. --guyzero | talk 19:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Quite frankly, everything dealing with Obama either has or is degenerating into a massive clusterfuck and, frankly, outside sources really aren't helping us out here, unless by 'helping' you mean 'making our job multiple times harder by attarcting drive-bys'. HalfShadow 19:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • And cracked accounts. seicer | talk | contribs 19:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Glad to see the Wingnut→Drudge→Fox News cycle is still working. Now, question is, will the "→Everyone else" portion of the cycle kick in. --Bobblehead 20:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• You're missing the "→Olbermann/Maddow" part before the "→Everyone else". -Jeremy 20:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, I'm not missing the Olbermann/Maddow part, I'm just lumping them in with the everyone else. --Bobblehead 21:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• From my transatlantic impression of Olbermann, that's not entirely wise. When the most powerful right-wing lobby in the US launches a stinger at Misplaced Pages, it's not prudent to side with the closest left-wing equivalent. Common sense and reliable sourcing is plenty sufficient justification for the status quo that is being attacked. Bigbluefish (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Fox News has picked up the "story" now and plastered it on their front page: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,507244,00.html Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if anyone is following it, but the supposed story is not exactly what it seems. I'm going to do an SSP on Jerusalem21 and cohorts shortly. I'll post back here when that is set up.Wikidemon (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sock report

I went ahead and filed a sockpupet investigation on Jerusalem21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the editor who was according to the Aaron Klein article that started this mess blocked by Misplaced Pages administrators for submitting sourced info. As you can tell if you poke around people have long suspected that this editor is in fact Aaron Klein, and has been sockpuppeting. A couple issues there.

• First, other than Jerusalem21 none of these editors have been active for a year or more - Jerusalem21 may or may not be subject to banning / long-term blocking as a disruptive hoax account. But as for sockpuppetry that may be stale. Does anyone have any advice there? I haven't notified the accounts yet. If the report is unlikely to go anywhere I'll just withdraw the report instead of making a go of it.
• Second, the earlier report on multiple editors was declined as premature. That may be, but it's almost certain that there is some serious sockpuppetry going on now in the Obama article. Mostly a hunch and there are some alternate explanations, but the editing patterns, insults, tactics are familiar and last time it did turn out to be a sock farm. If this issue brings a new flood of problem editors to the encyclopedia and we can't tell who is real and who is not, we are in for some long-term trouble. The other regular editors and I are unlikely to be in a mood to rehash what happened last fall there. Okay, thanks.

- Wikidemon (talk) 08:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, when WND and Aaron Klein were asked their relationship with Jerusalem21, instead of answering, they removed all references to the User name in their "article" and replaced it with "one Misplaced Pages user – acting as part of WND's investigation". Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that Jeusalem21 be banned. Sock or no, he is not here to build an encyclopedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If who then was a gentlement has got that quote right (don't doubt him but a link would be nice) then WND has admitted to a major conflict of interest involving the whole premise of their story -- whether or not the Jerusalem account is klein, they're saying it was someone working with them, who appears to have deliberately run up against 3rr with the express purpose of getting blocked and then deceptively whining about it elsewhere. If socking is unproven, i suggest a broadly construed politics editing ban on the COI basis. ALso, a minor point. I keep reading about the Jerusalem account being "banned" but i see only a 72 hour edit warring block in the log. That appears to be another inaccuracy in their reporting.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I suspect he will never edit again from this account. If we block or ban him, we at lease cause him some inconvenience in setting up a "new" account, and maybe we'll catch him again.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I am very tempted to block him myself per the "major disruption" clause in WP:INDEF, but that may well be locking the barn door after the horse is long gone.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's the link: . Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Even so, unless there is objection, I'm going to block for "conduct inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interfering with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia." per WP:BLOCK--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Some updates

Aaron Klein has apparenty admitted to "supervising" the edits. I would wait for corroboration but the purported threatening letter / admission reprinted on Valleywag looks credible - not a reliable source for article editing purposes of course, but a good clue as to what is going on. Wikidemon (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Also please see User talk:Jimbo Wales#Aaron Klein for a discussion I started there, suggesting that Jimbo may want to consider banning Klein, the individual, from Misplaced Pages. Given the sock report that means he may have been supervising the edit warring over his own article for some time. Please be aware that any action taken against Jerusalem21 or Klein would just be grist for the mill for Klein, and for the on and off-wiki malcontents who consider Misplaced Pages a liberal conspiracy. It's not my decision but I would suggest that dealing with a problem is ultimately better than capitulating to people who don't want to solve it.Wikidemon (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I guess he might take a ban as a badge of honor. But don't know if that is a sufficient reason not to act.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Likwidshoe

Likwidshoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This individual made a personal attack (and WP:SOAP) here and was reverted by an anon here. He then proceeded to attack the anon in this edit summary. He has thrice reverted the anon and me (, , ) by readding the WP:PA and WP:SOAP violation. Once more and, of course, he'll have violated 3RR as well, but the invicility (particularly in relation to an article on article probabtion) should probably be noted beforehand. Note that he has been blocked for incivility before. Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

New version of the PA/SOAP added here with a snarky edit summary. Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Nastiness and disruption continues. I've left a second civility warning, left a notice of this AN/I report, and also an article probation notice. The editor appears incorrigible but we'll see. Can we please get a block if they continue disrupting the Obama talk page? We can't afford to go soft on that page. They've been blocked before for incivility and they know the drill. Wikidemon (talk) 09:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

About the claim of a "a second civility 'warning'", I never got the first.

I won't touch your precious Obama "talk" page anymore. I am apparently not of the correct opinion to have opinions and any disagreements will be crushed with a "second civility warning" that followed a phantom one. Add in the promises of blocks for some kind of continued disruption (two comments total there) and we find that the claim of "an encyclopedia that anybody can edit" to be a bit of a sad joke. All of this stemming from a "talk" page of all pages.

BTW, whatever happened to the Wikipedian who invented AN/I? He left, didn't he? Said that he created a "monster" or something to that effect and along those lines? Looks like he was right.

Closing note: thanks for proving Misplaced Pages's detractors right. It didn't take much before you guys fell right into that partisan censoring line. You guys are pretty shameless about it. Likwidshoe (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks are not allowed, regardless of personal opinion. Assuming bias because we don't want people verbally abusing one another is a bit over-the-top. — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, this page and so many others begs to differ. Personal attacks are allowed - for certain individuals offering certain opinions on certain highly contentious issues and subjects. The supposed assumption of bias wasn't over the top - it was simply an observation of what is actually going on. It's okay though. Most don't want to admit when they're being hypocritical or when the place they're representing has some glaring double standards. I noticed it and brought it up, which has ruffled the feathers of a few here and has gotten quite a response! Oh, boy, did it ever. Likwidshoe (talk) 06:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Your claim of never getting the first civility warning is not true: . Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Not only that, but you then responded to the civility warning 'you never got' four times. *cough* HalfShadow 18:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know about the one from more than two years ago about a completely different subject involving completely different individuals. Silly me for thinking that some were talking about the same incident and were possibly overlooking the time stamps of the one from more than two years ago. Likwidshoe (talk) 06:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget to add "responded to the civility warning ... with increasing levels of additional incivility..." (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I'm wondering if it would be considered rude to ask him if he knows where he is right now... HalfShadow 18:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

See? You're a rude smart alec and then you wonder why people push back in kind. You really don't get it, do you? Do you know where you right now? You're reaping what you sow.

Now sit back and watch as only one of us gets the childish "responded to the civility warning ... with increasing levels of additional incivility..." remark suggested by Bwilkins above. The hypocrisy of this place is sometimes pretty damn shameless. Likwidshoe (talk) 06:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for public / official statement

This kind of sockpuppetry is simply unacceptable. But blocking this user has been used to leverage some kind of political cause, when really the problem is disruptive behavior: edit warring, POV pushing, sockpuppetry. I think this is the kind of thing that should go to arbitration, if not Jimbo, if only so that Misplaced Pages can defend its reputation and deliver an appropriate response. Randomran (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should post at Jimbo Wales' talk page? We're just admins here, we clean up the messes, we don't make policy. Excuse me, spill in aisle 12.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any kind of "official statement" needs to be made as this is just an extreme case of vandalism. The policies are already in place, so I don't see any reason to give those articles any more attention than necessary. ···日本穣 03:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I would be extremely averse to dignify this incident and its perpetrators with a "public/official statement". The people behind this incident already accuse Misplaced Pages of a liberal bias, and no statement by us will change that. The general populace does not give a damn about such frivolous attention-seeking antics. —kurykh 06:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Nadya_Suleman_(2nd_nomination)

This Afd is bizarre. The first AfD was closed after a few hours by a non-admin, leading to this second AfD. This second AfD has now been closed early, by a non-admin. I have no idea why we couldn't let it run for the regulation five days, but let that pass. Could an admin (one used to closing awkward AfDs would be best, I think) look over the AfD and agree or disagree with the closing and the decision? TIA Mr Stephen (talk) 12:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• I can't see much point in having an AfD for someone who is mentioned in the media virtually every day. Better to wait until media attention to her dies down before trying to nominate the article about her for deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • What you've got there basically is one editor who absolutely can't stand the fact that this baby factory has an article here. He objects on the grounds that there's already an article about the octuplets. I would argue the octuplets article is the "not notable" one, because they haven't done anything except to be born. Baseball Bugs 14:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I personally think the woman in question is an messed-up idiot, and the doctor involved could not pass an ethics board to save his life, the sad fact is that this issue overally does merit some encyclopedic entry because of the same reasons I just gave. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Baseball, it may not be right but you can't say that only one editor questions this bio, several voted delete. Non admins shouldn't really close early or close contentious AfDs, I think per WP:NAC, which I know is just a guideline but makes sense. It should be reopened as the close was not in accordance with standard practice, the snowball clause or guidelines. Having said that, it would eventually have been an obvious keep, but why not wait till the end so no-one can say it's not been handled in the standard fashion. Sticky Parkin 15:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

At the AfD, some editors want two articles, some editors want them to be merged, some editors want no articles at all. A contentious AfD with 30+ contributors should be closed with more explanation than 'keep'. Non-admins shouldn't be anywhere near the closure (IMHO). One problem with these AfDs is the appearance of trying to stifle debate: firstly by closing AfD/1 after less than twelve hours here, then trying to get AfD/2 closed in equally quick time here, then appealing to this page to get AfD/2 closed early (see above), finally getting another non-admin closure. If there is consensus for anything, then fair enough. But let's discuss it, find consensus, and close the debate properly. (MHO is no consensus, but whatever.) Mr Stephen (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, I initiated the first AFD on BLP policy, albeit a section of policy which has been poorly enforced and may very well not be policy at all. I don't believe that a NAC was inappropriate in that case, since at that point it was not particularly contentious (i.e. WP:SNOW) and I as nominator had withdrawn it. I was not involved in the second AFD and have no opinion there. SDY (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The first AfD's close complies with WP:Speedy keep, clause 1. Flatscan (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Talking of BLP, we should probably be more careful about slinging around phrases like "baby factory", "messed-up idiot" and the ethics board comment. Exxolon (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I was careful to state that it was my personal opinion. If it was anywhere near an article, there would be an issue, as it would be WP:OR. I'll never be called to provide testimony at said ethics board, so it's not an issue. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 22:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Making it clear it's a personal opinion helps, but BLP does apply outside non-article space. It applies on ALL pages. Exxolon (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what admin action is really required here. If you don't like the article being kept WP:DRV if always availablt to contest that. Disclaimer: I opined that the article is a keeper given the significant coverage of her. It would be interesting if WP:DRV came out differently (don't hold your breath), as we'd have a much higher bar to get rid of some articles on marginally notable (under the current regime) subjects....but I digress. Should this be marked "resolved"? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Would an admin simply endorse/overturn/reopen the AfD? DRV shouldn't be necessary, as this NAC is clearly outside the limits suggested by the relevant guideline and its supporting essay. Flatscan (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC) —striking per information provided by MBisanz Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Seddon (talk · contribs) is an admin, see WP:FORMER, he just currently does not have the sysop flag by his own choice. MBisanz 04:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No wonder we have problems with BLPs

I am gravely concerned when a thread supposedly started to discuss concerns about article deletion promptly turned into an opportunity to bash the subject of the article: "baby factory", "messed-up idiot", "the doctor involved could not pass an ethics board to save his life". This is unacceptable. The editors who have made such comments should consider themselves warned, and I hope they will give thought to striking such commentary. Very disappointing. Risker (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I understand your possible concern, fromWP:BLP: Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Misplaced Pages page. None of my statements are being passed off as biographical material about a living person. If you would like, I could go and find properly sourced versions of those statements (they've been printed in a number of the papers I've written for - and many others), but that would be completely contrary with what I was trying to achieve with the original statement, wouldn't it? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(NB: I say the above out of total respect, and not attempting to be flippant. I readily take criticism, but appreciate things being kept in proper context. I was, indeed, supporting the inclusion of an article about a controversial individual (and their doctor) who both have performed highly controversial actions - I placed personal statements that have indeed also been made by sourcable/notable professionals. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

If this is what you consider context, there is a bigger problem. This is the noticeboard for people requesting administrator assistance, in this case about a dispute relating to certain discussions. The place for you to add your personal opinion about the discussion is at the discussion, not on this noticeboard. And stating that someone is a "messed-up idiot", or that "the doctor involved could not pass an ethics board to save his life" is most certainly a biographical commentary. If you put that in an article without attribution, as you have on this page, there's a relatively good chance you would have been blocked, let alone warned. Your personal opinion about these individuals is completely irrelevant to this or any other discussion page, the article, or the encyclopedia - as is mine. Risker (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, an ARBcom has spoken. The phrase "lunatics running the asylum" comes to mind. Fear not, I'll be dutifully reporting that phrase to the BLP noticeboard ASAP. Badger Drink (talk) 10:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh!?! Shot info (talk) 11:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly who coined the phrase or when they coined it, but I'm worried that it may refer to living lunatics. Badger Drink (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This from a User whose User page has once been deleted as an attack page and once deleted for vandalism. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Risker, I won't mention any names, but I know a current member of arbcom who might argue that this problem doesn't exist because Google doesn't index it. I don't accept the "all about the juice" argument. However this is nothing new. AFD has long been a toxic environment where people have nothing better to do than ridicule the subjects and editors of articles they don't like.

Bwilkins, that sounds like wiki-lawyering. Non-biographical intent would not make it acceptable for me to refer to you on Misplaced Pages as an asshole, for example. — CharlotteWebb 02:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

For crying out loud, this is gone from bad to worse. First I have been wrongly "warned" by an ArbComm member, and now I'm being accused of Wikilawyering, all within 24 hours? I go away to a military base for one little week to write a series of real life articles with bullets flying over my head, and come back, and I'm public enemy #1? The original intent of my original statement stands: unlike some editors, just because I disagree with a subject, that does not mean that it does not have encyclopedic merit. Yes, I used phrasing about 2 living people that appear throughout the press around the world - indeed, one of the phrases was said by that person's own mother in a number of real world articles, so it's not original (unfortunately, I don't think you can find any reliable sources calling me an asshole, that's just WP:OR ;-) ). I did not participate in the AfD, I have not touched the article in question, nor do I plan to. I mean really...do you want me to source the 2 statements? Is it worth the drahma for me to go back and put quotations and references? Can we not get back to the subject of the original AN/I report, and if you have an issue or need clarification with any of my edits, then let's deal with it in a way that does not make it look like I had involvement in the original issue? You want to call me out, then do it in the right way...if you want to discuss, I will discuss...you want to take wild stabs in the dark, forget it - I'm used to wearing kevlar. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the closures were correct. It is sometimes impossible to figure out whether a person is merely known for one veent, or could become notable. I'm goign to semi-protect the article if it hasn't been done already. Let's call it a day. Bearian (talk) 12:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

IPs using Misplaced Pages as a storage location.

This diff shows an IP tucking away a character file into an article, no doubt for later recovery. This is not the first time, either see this as well. I'd like to request that both be oversighted out, as a preventative measure against such behaviors being commonplace; this is not the purpose of WP. ThuranX (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's already fairly commonplace. HalfShadow 22:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

From my experience, Oversight will not deal with such edits, Thuran. Sorry. -Jeremy 22:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Damn shame. Such edits ought to be deleted to discourage them entirely. On the other hand, good to know we can all abuse the site ad nauseum from now on. ThuranX (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Admins can, with some effort, nuke the revision out of the publicly visible history (deleted revisions of page, etc). However, is that even justified? Is just deleting it out of the active page good enough here? Yeah, it's not completely gone, but it's fairly gone, someone has to know about histories to go find it now.

I'm open to the answer being "It needs to go away harder" but that should be explained and justified if you think it is... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

stray question....what is that sort of thing used for? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That is a HeroMachine save "file". I just happen to have the software and I've loaded his character onto my computer. Looks like some sort of Asian Sith Lord.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and the other one is some assassiny knife wielder.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

thank you for filling my head with yet one more piece of irrelevent garbage. --Ludwigs2 01:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)To be honest I can't see the point of considering oversight for this specific form of vandalism. Add together "Misplaced Pages is on the Internet", "Misplaced Pages is freely editable" and "I am a complete numpty who will happily use freely editable resources on the Internet for my own purposes" and this sort of thing will happen, as will people using talkpages as a message board, people thinking an article on their dog/band/girlfriend/cake recipe must appear on here. It's no different to people seeing "L1z suz c0k" on a page and saying to themselves "aha! i could create a page like that too", and nobody (surely) is considering oversight for all vandalism "as a preventative measure against such behaviors being commonplace". WP:RBI, applies, doesn't it, just as for any persistent vandalism? Tonywalton  01:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(EC, servers were acting up, ryulong said a lot of what I'd tried to say) For those unclear about this, this string represents the save data for a character for an internet game of some sort. The difference between this an 'joo allz zuk kawk' is that this editor is seeking to squirrel away actual usable data in our edit histories, which he can recover and use later. This is far more a WP:NOTMYSPACE violation, or WP:NOTYOURHARDDRIVE, perhaps. Misplaced Pages shouldn't be abused as an off-site storage site. ThuranX (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There are other possibilities. See Numbers station. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If this is doubting the fact that what the text is used for, I can provide an image of the output. :P And, yeah, this is a vio of notmyspace or notharddrive because this can be saved in a freaking .txt—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Because of the sticky nature of oversight (interaction with WMF policy, real world copyright issues, local policy, and dramaz) its highly unlikley a drastic measure will be taken. I would support however, a single revision deletion of that edit - although we need to actually get that featured installed for us non-OS admins.--Tznkai (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It can be done, I've done it on occasion- I thought it best if people elsewhere weren't able to see the diffs (ED related rubbish). Just delete the page, and then restore all revisions apart from those that you don't want to be seen. It's a bit of a hack, but it can be done. J Milburn (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that what User:NawlinWiki was doing incessantly a few months back that caused the whole site to freeze up and watchlists to backlog by thousands of seconds? No thanks, we have an encylopaedia to write. Skomorokh 21:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL, he still does that, God love him. 211.30.25.62 (talk) 08:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, if you must know, it was a threat involving me, being linked to "for the lulz". Not something I want sitting around. J Milburn (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

scriptural reasoning article

I am writing about the article 'Scriptural reasoning'. I am happy to admit I am an officer of the Scriptural Reasoning Society. I am not 'scripturalreasoning' but am part of the same society and we all know about the history and editing conflict. I made a single edit on this article a long time ago. I have not done so since because of the conflicts and I do not have time nor sufficiently interested.

But I am concerned that 'thelongview' seems to have added a lot of references to himself and people from the organisation which he is part of or works for, and his editing seems biased towards the Society for Scriptural Reasoning. Two other editors 'mahigton' and 'laysha101' arrived at the exactly same time last November and they have all admitted they know each other. This all seems dodgy.

Other admins have noted that this article has been a conflict between the two organizations and suggested that it should be edited by people who are not linked to either organization, and don't use it to promote either organization. There are hardly any references from people who aren't directly involved in scriptural reasoning. Thanks. --Kurteasy (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Scriptural reasoning for ease of editors. KillerChihuahua 15:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Is there a really good reason for this article to exist and not just be a redirect to Exegesis? Just because multiple people join the same two words together doesn't really mean we need an article about it. For example, "my stupid parents" gets plenty of g-hits, but that's obviously not an article topic. --B (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Scriptural reasoning is not exegesis... I'm not convinced about its notability, but a redirect to exegesis would be profoundly misleading. ] 16:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I thought "scriptual reasoning" was just another synonym for prooftext. -- llywrch (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please also see this recent discussion here at AN/I regarding Scripturalreasoning.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

From what I can tell Scriptural reasoning is a (relatively) new interfaith practice. A more accurate description may be "interfaith discussions concerning Abrahamic scripture". We've got an obvious COI problem, but it doesn't seem unmanageable. Cambridge University's interfaith programme seems to be involved, but I'm not sure if the notability is inherited. All that having been said, what exactly, if anything, are admins needed for?--Tznkai (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

A search for scriptural reasoning on wiki reveals that the lead scholars have their own articles, some of which may have been autobiographies, but this appears to be an editors needed problem, not an admin intervention required problem.--Tznkai (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, Tznkai. The article certainly needs to be improved, and more editors are needed. Most scriptural reasoning activity worldwide takes place under the aegis of the Society for Scriptural Reasoning, so most editors familiar with the practice will be affiliated in some way with it. There is an expanding literature on the topic, and over time I would expect a corresponding increase in numbers of editors able to form independent judgements. Thelongview (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thelongview, in the Google-searching I did a couple of days ago, I got the impression that everything relating to the Scriptural Reasoning Society was probably generated by a single person. I presume you know something about this -- can you shed any light? (No personal identities, please, though.) Looie496 (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Looie496, the website relating to the scriptural reasoning society is, I think, maintained by a couple of friends/colleagues. I think one of them, Carpathy2009 (recently blocked), originally designed it, but he has said on a talk page that the board of trustees of Interfaith Alliance UK approves the content. I don't know who drafts the content that the trustees approve, but it represents the views of Carpathy2009. It's difficult to be more precise than this, or verify it, as the website lists no trustees, and does not name sponsors or participants. Thelongview (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The Scriptural Reasoning Society is not run 'by a couple of friends'. If you buy tomorrow's Baptist Times there's a full feature article on the Scriptural Reasoning Society, description by the journalist of one of our group meetings, interviews with people, photos etc. It is true up to now we haven't blown our own trumpet enough to the media and we've been too modest. There are names of some SR Coordinators under the affiliated local groups (click 'Events' on our website). I think names of Coordinators, Trustees etc should be much more prominent, but one or two of my colleagues have been vocal that it would apparently make us 'unequal' and a 'personality cult' like the other SR organization. We also have over 200 members and we aren't going to put their names up on the internet just because a couple of anonymous Misplaced Pages tell us to. Due to conflict of interest it would be better if non-involved editors edited the scriptural reasoning article. --Kurteasy (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Looie496 asked a specific question about what he found by Google-searching. My response relates solely to the maintenance of the website, not to the scriptural reasoning society. I agree entirely with you about publishing names of coordinators and trustees. It is normal for societies to do that. (And wholly unusual to publish full lists of members - no-one is asking for that.) Thelongview (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Collect and Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/Rick Warren

User:FimusTauri

FimusTauri (talk · contribs) is engaging in long term disruptive editing. The issue resolves around what he perceives to be a "pro-myth" lobby group. He has started discussions on article talk pages (notably Talk:Noah's Ark - see the archives), WT:NPOV/FAQ (see here), The Village Pump (see here), new policy pages (see Misplaced Pages:Ambiguous Words), selective canvassing (see here for one instance), and now WikiProject talk pages (see here). They're the ones I've noted in my interactions with FimusTauri, though I haven't gone through his edit history too thoroughly so there may be more.

I have previously asked FimusTauri to lay off of the forum shopping here and here, carefully explaining the details including why I'm making the request, offering wikilinks and letting him know it is a blockable offence. Another editor has noted it here. The latest posting at the WikiProject talk page I noted above offers a threat of more forum shopping if he doesn't get the response he wants.

His persistence has exasperated many editors, including myself, so I'm bringing the issue here. Cheers, Ben (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You say he is involved in disruptive editing, but you haven't posted any diffs to article space. Can you back that up? Or is it simply that his talk page choices are a problem? --Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I read through Misplaced Pages:Canvassing again before posting this, and based on that reading, I thought disruptive editing was the correct term to describe the problem. He has very few article space edits, in fact, the account is only a few months old whose almost sole purpose is what I linked above. Ben (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That diff you say is canvassing doesn't seem objectionable in isolation. How do we know there is selective canvassing going on? Has he only invited editors on one side of a discussion to take part in another?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Dreadstar had no apparent interest in the discussion, including making no edits to pages related to the alleged myth problem. Fimus made the request quite some time after he started his RfC, and in isolation of any other requests for editor comments. The NPOV/FAQ page is locked, and Dreadstar is an admin, which he paid particular attention to in his request for that editors comment. The request seemed dubious at best, but you are welcome to discard if you think it isn't relevant. I have no objection to any one of Fimus' edits in isolation, it's the general pattern I have a problem with. It has been ongoing for months in spite of him being aware of WP:FORUMSHOP. Ben (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I don't have time to dig in depth, so I will have to leave it to someone else to look more closely. Thanks for coming here. If you have not done so already, you should inform FimusTauri that there is a discussion concerning him at AN/I.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your time. Cheers, Ben (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You missed this, on Islamic mythology. Ilkali (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've had some dealings with FimusTauri in three locations (Christian Mythology, WT:NPOV/FAQ and Misplaced Pages:Ambiguous Words), all loosely based around the same issue (use of the word myth). My impression is that he has no intent to be disruptive, but is determined to disregard any outcome that does not favor his view, frequently taking the same issue to new venues in hopes of a different outcome. It's leading to a disproportionate amount of editors' time being taken up with his campaign. Ilkali (talk) 02:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue of ambiguous words in any articles (not just "myth" and not just religious articles) is of great importance to me, because it is my belief that ambiguity leads to lack of neutrality (or leaves the door open for it). Hence, I have been attempting to gain attention for this issue. As Ben points out, I am still fairly new to editing and may not have followed procedure as correctly as I should. If so, it is due to unfamiliarity with procedure and certainly not due to an intent to be disruptive.

The main reason why I have attempted to open this discussion in different places is because every time attempts are made to discuss the issue, editors such as Ben and Ilkali come along and simply refuse to admit that there is an issue. As a result, the discussion stalls before it gets anywhere. When this happens, I have attempted to find an alternative means of gaining wider attention for the issue. Up to now, this issue has only been discussed by a limited number of editors (around half a dozen regularly, with maybe twice that number making occasional contributions), so I have been trying to get more editors involved. For the same reason, I asked an admin to get involved. This was a simple request to one who had been editing in related articles. That admin neither got involved nor responded. I respected his wishes and have made no further attempt to contact him about it.

The allegation of "disruptive editing" is wholly false, at least with regard to articles. Whenever one of my edits has caused contention, I have immediately gone to the talk page to discuss the issue. I have made many edits on a number of talk pages, but do not see how that can be called 'disruptive editing'. Surely the idea in Misplaced Pages is to discuss issues? This is the heart of the problem: on the NPOV/FAQ discussion page, both Ben and Ilkali have implied that "there is nothing to discuss". Because they feel that, they are of the opinion that somehow "I don't get it" and my persistence in this issue is therefore "disruptive". The simple fact is that there is an issue and neither of these editors are willing to accept that. This is yet another attempt by Ben to stifle this debate. He has made numerous accusations against me in the past: of being a sockpuppet, of "not getting it", of having religious motivations and now of being disruptive and forum shopping. If I were not assuming good faith, I would be inclined to believe that this is an example of Wikibullying.

Because of the utter refusal on the part of the aforementioned editors to see a problem - and because they continually attempt to stifle any debate - I have become increasingly exasperated. Another editor has siggested that this should be a case for ArbCom, so I investigated the procedure for taking it there. One aspect of the procedure is that the issue should be raised in the relevant WikiProject. Hence, my most recent post at the WikiProject Religion talk page. Again, if sufficient editors can be brought into the debate, then maybe this issue can be resolved.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That explanation is fine the first time, which is why I explained the problem on their talk page (linked above). But this explanation has been used before; see for instance: In my defense, I started the Village pump discussion when I was still relatively new and unsure of procedure. Note that that defence was used after the talk page explanation, and still the pattern continues. Ben (talk) 11:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't make it entirely clear. The "newbie" excuse applies to the initial opening of different forums. Later openings are explained above.--FimusTauri (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Duncan Ferguson

Hi. I'm back after a while and I screwed up my attempt to reverse an old redirect, page move, thus accidentally deleting the edit history of one of the pages. I wanted to recreate a disambiguation page after an old deleted page was recreated as there are two people with the exaxt same name. There should be a page for Duncan Ferguson (political activist), Duncan Ferguson (Scottish football player) and a disamb. page. Sorry and thanks for the help. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 02:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Can an admin help with the above? Thanks! Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 03:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That is contrary to recommended practice. Skomorokh 06:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for assistance at ANI withdrawn.Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved – IP and all known sock accounts blocked.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved – blocked 2 weeks Toddst1 (talk)

Resolved – Pages moved to other locations, considerably updated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 11, 2009 @ 16:06

Resolved – User unblocked per statement released on talk page. Did anybody bother to notify Johochman of the ANI thread? Nope. seicer | talk | contribs 11:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved – User blocked. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved – Restored, offending comments redacted. seicer | talk | contribs 18:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Resolved – Reported, reverted, lets now ignore him

Resolved – user blocked for 12 hours. –Juliancolton 23:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

This user is a participant in WikiProject Neutrality.

“	What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite.	”
— Bertrand Russell, "Skeptical Essays", 1928

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards