Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:15, 10 April 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)

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

ChildofMidnight on Barney Frank BLP

Initial ANI post with timeline of edits on article

ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) has shown a disruptive, tenditious POV pattern on Barney Frank article. Frank heads the US Senate Finance Committee and is very prominent in mainstream media. He is also one of the most visible LGBT politicians, possibly in the world. He is also a continual source of derision from right-leaning commentators and our article is regularly vandalized. ChildofMidnight has made a few constructive edits but has been edit-warring to remove positive content overviewing Frank's career from the lede while inserting badly or unsourced negative-ish content. For instance we have that he's a defender of civil rights but ChildofMidnight insists we need to wedge in gay rights as well. The lede is rather short and the only other civil rights anyone wants to mention is also from ChildofMidnight as they want to insert marijuana reform, which does not seem to be a prominent issue. They may be doing other good work but I think their contributions to the Frank article have been a net loss and major time-and-energy-suck for the community.

Timeline of ChildofMidnight's edits over the past 2.5 weeks on the Barney Frank article.

17 March

Here they remove a positive, sourced and attributed statement and replace it with a "criticized by conservatives" one that is sourced to an editorial and a second source which doesn't support the statement at all. I reverted edits pointing out the sourcing problems. They repeated the edit almost exactly (slightly different placing in lede) with the same bad sources. These are again removed with explanation why the positive content is valid and the negative content is poorly sourced.

They insert "Frank supports gay rights and medical marijuana." Even though a statement regarding Frank's civil rights support is already there and little evidence supports adding medical marijuana to the lede, both are covered in the article. It's removed with explanation.

18 March

They remove the positive (attributed and sourced) quotes again stating "per NPOV. We can have balance. but not just one side". I reverted and encouraged them to find reliable sources for any criticism. They then simply move the lede content overviewing the subject's career to the "Early life" section which is illogical at best. I reverted stating rv, please stop edit warring over this. Per wp:lede and WP:Notability we should spell out why this person is notable; no one is stopping you from adding notable criticism if it is sourced well

19 March

User is asked directly on thier talpage why removing sourced content.

They again delete from lede stating - "does not belong in the lead unless balanced". Reverted with explanation - wp:NPOV does not state we have to tack on negative content to BLP ledes if there is positive content.

20 March

Repeats removal and reintroduced badly sourced negative content; it's reverted (again with explantion) and note concerning the sourcing problems.

Again moves the content (overviewing subjects career) to "Early life" section with edit summary "reorganize". This was reverted and they move it again. It's reverted along with clean-up of poor sourcing regarding Frank and the Fanny/Freddie regulating content which seem to be pointing that Frank should be held responsible for the sub-prime mortgage crisis, and by extension, the financial ecomonic slowdowns.

21 March

Removes sourced content written by the BLP as not reliable and POV; although one source is the subject's own website and the other http://www.house.gov. Deletes sourced and NPOV content unfavorable to Republicans citing "reliable sources needed". Inserts "Frank opposed increased oversight and reforms of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while in the minority." and "Frank is an advocate for gay right and legalized marijuana." prominently into lede. Reverted with explanation "the press release here is actually reliable as people are considered experts about themselves".

24 March

again deletes positive and sourced content from lede with edit summary "Put in body (as I did in the past) or leave out." Inserts somewhat negative and vague "His role on the Senate banking committee and overseeing the financial sector and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has been scrutinized." It too was reverted.

25 March

Removes the same (sourced) content with edit summary - "not discussed in article so doesn't belong in lead. the Fannie Mae subject matter is discussed extensively and should be noted along with gay rights advocacy." This is untrue. Franks civil rights work is discussed in the article and the Fanny/Freddie material doesn't suggest a big Frank controversy or that the current info about him being in charge of the Senate Finance committee needs to be expanded on in this way. Reverted with explanation "a "defender of civil rights issues" of which LGBT issues are a part; Fannie/Freddie bits are a current event that Frank is being blamed for by some"

Reverts it again stating "irrelevancy" and advocating for Fanny/Freddie content to be added to lede. Reverted as "notable biographical description".

27 March

Nicholas.tan now enters the picture and reverts after siding with ChildofMidnight in the thread on ChildofMidnight's talkpage. Nicholas.tan edit summary is "WIKIPUFF" which per wp:Wikipuff is innacurate as ... the sourced content is true. I revert with "sourced and speaks to this career politicians notability" explanation. ChildofMidnight reverts falsely claiming "not appropriate for lead. not discussed in article".

Nicholas.tan reverts more sourced positive ifo from the lede again citing "puff". They are both reverted with explanation. ChildofMidnight again deletes the same content stating - "against policy. this is promotional POV. totally inappropriate for introduction".

(article fully protected)

After talkpage consensus, content is restored. ChildofMidnight edit wars against several editors here and here and here where he also reinserts "Frank is an advocate for gay rights and the legalization of medical marijuana". It's reverted with explanation these other issues are not considered mjor issues for lede (beyond what we have). So naturally they revert again, which was reverted. They then added "and conservative critics note that he contributed to the housing crisis by opposing Bush administration proposals to increase oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." to the lede with no sources, and against the talkpage consensus that this was appropriate. It's reverted so they again revert and stopped after it was again removed, likely because of a 3rr warning on their talkpage.

They were subsequently warned about personal attacks on three talkpages.

They then started a rather pointy "Notable content replaced with cheerleading" talkthread with the intro - Some of Misplaced Pages's most notorious POV pushers have been removing Frank's most notable work. It has been refactored after several requests.

They also brought the excitement to My talkpage accusing me of deleting "notable and well sourced content" and insinuating my homophobia, which is pretty far-fetched even with a quick glance at any of my work here.

Based on this I wonder if the article could use a break from this help? They may have issues on other articles but my interaction has been limited, as far as I know, to the Frank one. Would a pageban make sense? -- Banjeboi 01:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I would endorse a topic ban for ChildofMidnight on any article to do with politics. He created his account on election day in 2008 and then began a systematic campaign to attack anything vaguely liberal, particularly President Obama and anything associated with him or his administration. Frankly, it is astounding that he has managed to avoid bans and blocks all this time. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The trouble has at times extended to Israel/Palestine articles as well. I have been reluctant to broach the subject here because this has been going on so persistently for so long, but there is a large swath of incivility, accusations, edit wars, administrative notices, and protected pages. BTW, has anybody notified the editor yet? No doubt they will arrive and promptly accuse me, ScJessey, Benjiboi, and others of bad faith, POV pushing, and all the usual. Those accusations have been a big part of the overall problem. Wikidemon (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Other editors

I'm moving this header here because we really do need to separate the original issue from the ensuing mud slinging - Wikidemon (talk) 04:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If it is usual for you to be accused of bad faith editing and POV pushing, then perhaps it is you and not the "accusation" that is the problem. Rklawton (talk) 03:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a pretty shocking comment from an administrator - all the more so because you just said it on this noticeboard. On what basis do you justify this off-the-cuff comment? Have you studied Wikidemon's edit history and found it to be problematic, or are you just making an unwarranted assumption? -- Scjessey (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As a clue to the uninitiated, the accounts responsible for the majority of such complaints are now indefinitely blocked and/or banned from Misplaced Pages, in large part for being sockpuppets of the same editor. No, I am one of the harder working non-administrative article patrollers, as well as a frequent commentator on meta and process issues, not to mention a longstanding, very productive article editor. Wikidemon (talk) 04:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon is rehashing an old issue where I responded to a third opinion request and found Wikidemon blocing compromise over a well sourced content addition for months. He refused mediation (the only editor to do so as I recall). He's a very problematic editor whose edit history shows he only works on political articles and only makes political edits. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. The price of editing here should not be responding to month after month of fabricated nonsense accusations from this editor, so I won't. My editing is simply not the issue here. ChildofMidnight was a terribly disruptive presence at the BLP to which COM is referring, Rashid Khalidi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). COM repeatedly made overt accusations of bad faith there too, and by revert warring BLP-violations into the article again and again while alternately ignoring the talk page discussions or hurling insults in them, helped get that article edit protected three times, the most recent one indefinitely. COM also helped get Barack Obama protected during the most recent flare-up, and has lately been coaching and inciting other disruptive users, edit warring in talk pages, on and on. It's quite extensive. I would not have chosen this occasion to finally deal with the editor but now that the subject has come up, we need to put an end to it sooner or later. Wikidemon (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a continuation of the personal attacks and harassment against me. I've tried to be as patient as possible and I welcome anyone who wants to weigh in on the actual content that is at the core of this dispute and have suggested an RfC as a way to get more involvement.

The content has already been discussed in some detail on the article talk page, and numerous editors have stated the obvious. I know this noticeboard doesn't deal with content disputes, but let's be very clear about the content in dispute and the nature of my "tendentious" editing.

I've tried to add:

• A statement that Barney Frank is an advocate for gay rights to the last paragraph of the introduction. This is, of course, very well sourced and covered substantially in the article. It's unclear what the objection to this NPOV statement is, and I find it disturbing and possibly homophobic.
• A statement that Frank is an advocate for medical marijuana. Also discussed at length in the article with ample sourcing.
• Something about his role as the leading Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee (in the minority and now in the majority) and his role and positions overseeing the banking sector. (I'm refactoring to add this point. I forgot it initially)

They've been adding to the introduction:

• The opinion of Bill Clinton's speechwriter saying how wonderful Frank is. This obviously doesn't belong on the lead and has been noted repeatedly by various editors in discussion on the talk page. If it is included it should be balanced with other notable opinions of Frank's work. And of course this trivial opinion isn't discussed anywhere else in the article.
• A New York Times quote taken out of context saying Frank is a bipartisan bridge builder (seriously!) doesn't belong in the introduction and is misleading. I've provided reliable sources that contradict this statement on the talk page. It's not discussed anywhere else in the article.

I'm happy to compromise and have made that clear all along. I've tried to use the talk page, but discussion gets hijacked with soapboxing and personal attacks from Wikidemon and Scjessey (whose been warned repeatedly by various editors and administrators). The opinions of good faith editors are disregarded and the pattern of reversions against consensus and guidelines and without explanation continues.

I know ANI doesn't deal with content disputes, but that's what this is about. Even the thread title seems inappropriate. Where are the supposed BLP violations?

These are some of the same editors who have been attacking anyone who makes suggestions on the Obama article talk page. Their editing is very limited to certain politicized articles. I welcome any and all help and suggestions for how to proceed to achieve an NPOV article that is consistent with guidelines. I am happy to compromise and happy to consider any and all suggestions. I don't hold grudges and if Wikidemon and Scjessey can cease their personal attacks, soap boxing, and other inappropriate actions I will certainly do my best to work with them. I'm not big on ANI reports and diff digging, but their inappropriate actions are there for all to see. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If he is, as you say, the most prominent LGBT politician in the world would it not make sense to include his efforts on behalf of gay rights? Is it just CoM on the one side and everyone else on another, or would mediation or an RfC perhaps make headway on this situation? Unless there is a history of formal dispute resolution or user conduct issues with CoM that haven't been outlined, it seems like some intermediary step might be useful. Also, sidenote, the Senate has a banking committee and Frank is in the House on the financial services committee. Pedantic, of course, but I just can't help myself! Avruch 02:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

CoM's reasoning above sounds, well, reasonable to me. Rklawton (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As usual, CoM has completely misrepresented the details here. The introduction of the article already notes Barney Frank's work with civil rights (which encompass gay rights, of course), and the introduction already notes Frank "has become one of the most prominent openly gay politicians in the United States." CoM inserted an additional line about gay rights in order to act a substitute for the far more expansive line about Frank's civil rights activity. Upon reversion, he promptly accused editors of being homophobic - a disgusting tactic. I said at the time that I didn't think anyone would fall for this ploy, but it appears as if that may not be the case. Please review his activities carefully and do not take any comments he makes at face value. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not the first article where I've had to re-add gay and gender related content after it was repeatedly removed. I'm not sure what motivates the removal of this content against guidelines. Anotehr editor made a wikialert report on Scjessey's recent over-the-top personal attack against me and he or she has been warned numerous times about their personal attacks and other inappropriate behavior. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

In addition to Scjessey's edit war warning to ChildofMidnight, I also warned ChildofMidnight about edit warring not knowing he'd already been warned by Scjessey since ChildofMidnight immediately removed the first warning from his talk page. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 02:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Franks career is quite extensive and a well written article may do more than it currently states - in the lede, that is - but no, it is indeed CoM's POV being injected here against concensus. Their edit-warring has been extremely antagonistic and now they claim censorship and persecution which is rubbish. No one counters that well sourced criticism can't be in the lede. It simply needs to be reliably-sourced and demonstratable that it's notable. Injecting vague and disparaging statements badly sourced or tied to opinion peices is against policy. Yet they tried it many times. No one disputes medical marijuana is an issue - among hundreds - that Frank has worked on but it is being used in a disingenuous way that is not supportable that this is a major issue to Frank. In a prior discussion we decided to weight the policy issues of Frank by the volume of content. None of them are featured in the lede. This has been pointed out to CoM many times yet they choose to edit-war again and again. So the two items stated above they wish to add ... are already covered in the lede under the quote regarding Frank being a leader on civil rights. It would be silly for us to spell out a laundry list and no one has done a good overview of his career to see what issues are most important to him. He's been a politician for decades so this is not surprising - it's a lot of work. The two items CoM is again railing against were agreed by concensus to re-add after CoM's ongoing edit-warring. The New York Times is generally considered reliable on these things. I've listed fuller quotes in part to build consensus in the talkthread so others are welcome to look if our collective sourcing of these quotes is indeed accurate to the sources and presented NPOV; despite CoM's claims they aren't. And CoM's compromise tactic's? I think again deletes positive and sourced content from lede with edit summary "Put in body (as I did in the past) or leave out." and the concept that we can't say positive things unless we also say negative ones. I missed the section in BLP where mudslinging a BLP should balance out their accomplishments. -- Banjeboi 02:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, the content here is not the point nor is the dispute significant content-wise. Who cares whether the Barney Frank article mentions his civil rights position in general or detailed terms in the lead, or whether his anti-regulation record is in the lead or just the body? Reasonable editors can work together on over time on this without revert warring calling each other names. The problem is yet another article fully protected due to edit warring (I'll have to look around to see which), and bald accusations by COM across multiple articles and talk pages that others are problem editors, acting in bad faith, homophobic, trolls, POV warriors, and who knows what else? It's gotten so so bad I don't really bother reading what particular insult COM is making at the moment. Wikidemon (talk) 02:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Process suggestion

Can we simply stop answering or responding to COM's mud-slinging at other editors? Every time COM's behavior has been questioned the editor makes up a lot of stuff and accuses everyone in sight of all kinds of nonsense, and it devolves into a horrible mess. I suggest we thread COM's complaints into a special place, and keep the focus on COM. If we need an RfC to do that, fine, but it would be a lot simpler if some admins can simply make the effort to look at COM's behavior over time and decide whether a block, topic ban, or no-nonsense editing oversight would best deal with this. Wikidemon (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is another attempt to hijack the discussion. Wikidemon recently made another report against me (I think it was recently archived) and he was advised that treating editors with respect is important. I would like to return to good faith editing which is what I enjoy rather than these endless dramas. But I do feel it's important that this type of inappropriate behavior stop. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidemon here. Once given a 3rr warning COM switched tactics to, IMHO, talkpage baiting and claiming censorship while accusing teh rest of us as homophobes. -- Banjeboi 02:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• comment : the content issues are not the point, as a variety of editors were not having a problem discussing and reaching consensus, except when ChildOfMidnight was being unCivil, edit-warring, and not waiting for consensus when multiple editors had already politely informed him of those particular places where they felt his bold work was not representative of a neutral construction. The behavior is the point; as far as the content, we were a diverse group of editors with different political, sexual, and economic POV but we were working along rather well until COM was disruptive, which then opened the door to some poor imitative monkey-see monkey-do attempts by other authors to slip a little bit of non-neutral and non-consensus material into the recipe while it was skewed so severely by ChildOfMidnight's actions. ~_{Teledildonix314}~~_4-1-1~ 02:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think any editor reading the lead's second paragraph will have a hard time siding against CoM. That 2nd paragraph is the worst bit of rubbish I've read in a long time. I doubt even Franks would write that sort of crap about himself. We're not here to write glowing articles about politicians. There is ZERO content about Franks being a bridge builder in the article - and yet there it is in the lead like he's some kind of bi-partisan saint - just as CoM indicated above. Rklawton (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec - responding to Teledildonix314) Agreed, so let's not worry so much about the content details. The point is simply that COM has systematically, across many politics-related articles, edit warred against consensus to force a highly partisan conservative POV, sometimes alongside other editors but much of the time as an army of one. The status quo consensus he fights is not obviously wrong and any arguments pro or con are simply content questions. By the same token, the objections to COM's edits were principled, and in many cases spurred by good faith concerns about BLP, POV, WEIGHT, RS, COATRACK, etc. Whether those concerns were ultimately correct or not is also besides the point because we are supposed to operate on consensus, not confrontation. Wikidemon (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

And the line about Franks supporting civil rights is supported by a source which ONLY mentions gay rights. Content is the issue because CoM is correct in his assertions and his approach, and the editors opposing him are being quite unreasonable as evidenced by the content. Rklawton (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I can see reasonable arguments to be made on both sides of this specific content issue. If you feel the article needs improvement, why not go there to participate in a consensus discussion? Article talk pages are not the place to accuse other editors of things like homophobia and bad faith, and AN/I is not the place to decide what an article should say. It will help keep both venues on track if you keep that separation in mind. Wikidemon (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I second that: please join the article talkpage, your improvements are welcome, we were working by consensus, we will certainly continue to do so. We are here at ANI about the disruptive behavior of COM, not about the content which deserves to be discussed at the article talkpage. And if you look at the talkpages of the people COM edit-warred against, you'll find weeks of unCivil confrontational POV with strangely yo-yo-ing tactics, mostly in a badgering pattern. Think for a second, if you will, at the absurdity that COM repeatedly insisted there must be a homophobic agenda at work when COM didn't get their way; does anybody think the eight or ten editors doing most of the work on that page were "homophobic"? Hello, i'm amazed there wasn't an explosion of Flames much sooner, usually in real life we don't find that many happy gay editors holding back their retorts with such patience and civility for so many weeks. "Homophobic"? I almost fell off my dildonix. ~_{Teledildonix314}~~_4-1-1~ 03:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No one is opposed to civil discussion but that has been completely absent from CoM. The methodoly has been edit-warring reverts, and now, accusations galore. And Rklawton, there is content about Frank working with Republicans and building bridges. We don't bludeon anyone with it but neither are we at even a GA article, it's been a slow vandalistic process to improve the article. And that civil rights quote? It's verbatim, - Frank has since proved to be one of the brightest and most energetic defenders of civil rights issues. If the source had stated something else we likely would have worked with it but there it is, civil rights. -- Banjeboi 03:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

See: Barney Frank#Intro Paragraph for what happens on the article talk page. A small pack of editors who work almost exclusively on partisan content engage in personal attacks and soap boxing, thereby hijacking a reasonable discussion of content. You'll see also that the discussion was archived. Wikidemon likes to archive and/ or remove discussion he doesn't like or disagrees with. I think a topic ban from partisan editing would be a good outcome given his behavior. Even in this discussion we see Wikidemon engaging in refactoring and thread titling to obfuscate and prevent a reasonable discussion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually you have that exactly backwards as you were injecting the partisan content, engaging in personal attacks and soap boxing, thereby hijacking an article. And I archived that discussion as you have been injecting your comments in the middle of previous conversations. This is about your behaviour on that article, and when you didn't get your way with consensus against you, your behaviour towards other editors. -- Banjeboi 03:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As a favorite target of COM and presumably one of the "small pack of editors" he's decided to antagonize I'm not even going to respond to the heaping on of pointless untruths. This would be at least the 50th time that COM has made up something out of thin air to say I did, and I'm not going to waste my time anymore or let COM change the subject with each one.Wikidemon (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

How is providing a link to a discussion hijacked by personal attacks and soapboxing an example of a "pointless untruth"? All you have to do is quick the link and you can see who launches the personal attacks and who hijacks the discussion. Same old story. You've shown the same behavior here. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I was referring to your previous comment which is, like the one immediately above, both pointless and false. It would be very nice if you could confine yourself to the truth and not make stuff up. Not being the subject of this incident, I'm not going to bother defending myself for the 50th odd time against nonsense you care to throw my way.Wikidemon (talk) 05:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I have fully protected the page for one week and encourage the involved editors to work it out on the talk page. LadyofShalott 04:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That's all very good and everything, but it does nothing about the disgraceful behavior of ChildofMidnight documented above. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Diffs please. Here's one of Scjessey's talk page comments . Speaks for itself. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for linking to it. It saves me having to repeat it here. I stand by the comment. At least I didn't accuse you of being a homophobic POV warrior. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The comment by Scjessey to which ChildofMidnight objects is correct in substance if not tone and placement. ChildofMidnight had launched a campaign of harassment against other editors, and out of nowhere came up with a nonsequitur, ad hominem falsehood about what was supposedly going on in an Arbcom case. He was grandstanding about that, egging on a newbie editor who had made a bad edit, and then lashed out at other editors. All on the Obama talk page, which COM knows to be on probation. That's before COM began to actually edit war on that page, reverting at least three other editors to try to delete a long string of comments from the talk page. Here are the diffs from that revert war, which has already been discussed here at AN/I. . I have no opinion on socking, but the manipulative gaming, fabrications, and toxic attitude are a playbook out of last year's now-blocked sockpuppet accounts. The number of diffs it would take to account for COM's bad behavior would fill an entire Arbcom case. The case, if it is ever presented, would be pretty staggering. I'm hoping we can dispense with this more simply. The editor should have been blocked or banned for any of these incidents - edit warring on the Obama talk page alone could have used administrative intervention. It is very sad, and a complete waste of our time, goodwill, and hard work on the project that we have to deal with this awful vituperative nonsense. I really hope an admin can see fit to deal with this. Dozens, probably hundreds of editor hours now, have now gone down the hole for this one editor's needless trouble. Wikidemon (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

LadyofShalott, I appreciate the full protect, this is the second time in a month the article has needed this and only because of CoM. The rest of the editors have been able to work fine with each other - even when we disagree - and have kept pace with CoM's reverting and POV action. CoM has proven themselves unwilling or unable, despite their claims, of even working towards collaborative editing. When they didn't get their way it jumped into a new gear of accusing others of the same behaviours they have employed. Wikidemon's take on this seems most accurate and based on my limited but unfortunate interactions with CoM - an experienced editor with 16,000+ edits on 5,000+ pages - they seem to be gaming to play us for fools here. Looking through CoM's previous visits to Admin pages shows a very experienced editor so this is smelling more like a sock than I had first thought. I haven't a clue who but experienced ANI editors might be able to sniff them out. I suggest looking into the Barack Obama-related articles although there may be smarter ways of sussing it out. -- Banjeboi 13:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to topic ban ChildofMidnight

From their very first edit to their many drive-by comments on admin boards this is a very experienced editor. Whatever their intent, I have little doubt they will find other ways to contribute to Misplaced Pages and hope those contributions will be collegial and collaborative. Despite red herrings and CENSEI's entanglements it seems apparent that ChildofMidnight is more interested in engaging other editors than in improving the Barney Frank article. Every opportunity to explain policies on reliable sourcing, due weight on BLPs and neutral POV on content has been met with silence and quick reverts from this user until a fullpage protect resulted in a consensus also against their edits. They continued to edit-war despite the concensus and page-protect until served with a 3RR warning. At that point they proceeded to personally attack other editors and post a contentious pointy thread to the article talkpage with more personal attacks and red herrings. When confronted on this ANI board we've had a parade of red herrings including the CENSEI drama and an almost mythical misrepresentation of events by ChildofMidnight as the victim of censorship which is in complete opposition to the diffs and edit summaries laid out above. That one editor can disrupt a single article in less than three weeks leads me to believe they have also participated in dramatic activities on other political articles as suggested by other editors here. The case here, however concerns mainly the Barney Frank article. It is absurd to pretend the editors on the Frank article are in any way trying to surpress any information, in fact, great effort has been taken to present all uncomfomfortable content in a RS and NPOV manner. No credible evidence suggests otherwise. I have little doubt that ChildofMidnight has caused problems on other articles but the evidence here doesn't support a community ban, IMHO, as of yet. Socking concerns are also alarming but also need their own evidence. For now I think a topic ban from Barney Frank, and articles/content regarding Frank be enacted. A sourcing ban - if we have such a thing - prohibiting the use of opinion peices may also make sense. Any thoughts? -- Banjeboi 22:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I would endorse a topic ban, but extended to cover articles related to Barack Obama (broadly construed). At the very least, ChildofMidnight should come under close scrutiny in the Obama-related ArbCom case. Running around calling everyone homophobic should've landed him a block. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'm unfamiliar with their contributions to Barack Obama, do we have a record of their efforts there? -- Banjeboi 09:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that CoM deserves a topic ban. I can understand and sympathize with his outburst if he has had to deal with the same sort of stonewalling and bad faith I've had to deal with. Soxwon (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

A topic ban may be in order for all politics-related topics. The problem is the editor has somehow managed to avoid being blocked, and hardly even warned by anyone in a capacity to back up those warnings. If not a ban, is any admin willing to step up to the plate to block COM next time they begin lobbing accusations against other editors, or edit warring articles to the point of blocking? And if we're instead going to send the signal that behavior and policy procedures mean nothing what are we responsible editors supposed to do? Edit war and flame in kind? Ignore it and let important articles degrade? Wikidemon (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It was ChildofMidnight who took us to task for defending the Obama article against the WorldNewsDaily siege 30 days ago. That did not leave a positive impression of that user's credibility. Baseball Bugs carrots 17:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

More importantly, not finding his/her satisfaction at AN/I COM began edit warring the Obama article page eight hours after starting that thread and was the editor most directly responsible for getting it edit protected. I've seen COM's edit wars result in five or six edit protects, and I'm vaguely aware of a number of other instances. All done with impunity. More than impunity, really, a sense of entitlement. Wikidemon (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't that aware of his work in the Obama article, largely b/c we had Freeps and the like. However, in the Barney Frank article, I have met with a lot of assumptions of bad faith and stonewalling in any attempts to change it. I can understand frustration boiling over in that article. As for Obama, I'm wondering if perhaps the editors in question are blowing his roles out of proportion due to the frustration and annoyance caused by the Freep incident? I remember being accused of being a Freep and/or being an extreme POV pusher for suggesting anything contradictory to what Tarc and the like proposed. While I do not blame them (extraordinary circumstances) I do wonder if the harsh editing environment might have led all to edit in ways they are not accustomed to and if this ill will has carried over. Just a thought. Soxwon (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually you have been met with the same standard for content regarding BLPs. In response you, despite all the previous dialog on the exact same issue, presented opion editorials to introduce negative content to replace the positive content. Stunning. No one is opposed to improving the article with sourced content and that article is a hit list of against Frank already. The only thing we don't talk about is his speech impediment and being obese, I have little doubt as to those being injected as well. It's already been suggested. This is a BLP and these standards apply to all BLPs. The same standard is applied to all editors as well. -- Banjeboi 01:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

NO NO NO, from the first I said to remove the cheerleading. Soxwon (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

And then presented opinion peices supporting negative content as the way to go. Neither is supported by policy or consensus. This thread, by the way, is regarding conduct, not content. -- Banjeboi 03:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No, those were arguments against inclusion and not seriously meant for inclusion, as for the subject with the assumptions of bad faith and other comments I have received in the past 24 hours, I can understand his reaction of an outburst. Soxwon (talk) 03:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

CoM's tenditiousness, edit-warring and bad-faith accusations against other editors was not an outburst. It has been an ongoing campaign to remove content they think casts the subject of the article positively and replace it with coatrack-ish POV content - marijuana reform, gay rights, controversies, etc. You seem to be doing the same now filling the talkpage with arguments and, IMHO, disingenuous suggestions which parrallel the same problems CoM had. We don't want opinion peices and mud-slinging on BLPs. "Controversies" need to be well-sourced, presented neutrally and with due weight. -- Banjeboi 10:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Despite my far-left credentials and disdain for CoM's political beliefs, I tentatively agree with him on the Barney Frank article that the quotes in the lead are cheerleading, unnecessary, unduly opinionated, and possibly misleading. I think people can fairly disagree as to whether Frank is really a "bridge" between right and left. I disagree with CoM that the propaganda about Frank's influence Fannie/Freddie needs to be emphasized in the lead. His bad-faith, civility problems, and edit-warring are only marginally greater than the average Wikipedian. There has been a refusal to compromise and present a neutral lead from both sides here. II | (t - c) 18:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying it is okay for someone to edit war an article to the point of edit protection so long as you agree with their content position? I hear you but disagree on the civility - COM overtly accused a number of editors of bad faith in so many words, and then started accusing them of homophobia. Wikidemon (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, CoM is an experienced editor with plenty to say on admin boards, they know better than to editor war and disrupt, make bad-faith accusations and misrepresent their actions when called to task. That they completely fail to acknowledge thrie behaviours as disruptive and tenditious and continue to disparage other editors and mythologize their actions also fortells of even more problems to come. -- Banjeboi 01:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• The lead on Barney Frank may need to re-worked, but CoM's behavior, and advocacy, on both it and about Barack Obama is not good. --David Shankbone
• Oppose For reassons stated. Soxwon (talk) 03:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as premature and unfair given that there is no block history or authoritative administrative warning that this behavior could lead to a ban. But can we please do something about this editor? It's gone from merely annoying to intolerable. Disrupting Obama articles on probation, filing false administrative claims, making stuff up to harass people with with. How long do we have to suffer this? I'll file an RfC if I have to, but if a topic ban is too drastic for now it would be a lot simpler if someone can just watch over COM and step in next time he/she crosses the line.Wikidemon (talk) 05:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban WQA or DR are better first stops; this really didn't need to wind up here. Jclemens (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, take it to DR - while initially strongly supportive to the issues with CoM's obvious POV, the sentiments expressed in this thread by Benjiboi/Wikidemon/Scijessey have become increasingly shrill and demanding and, frankly, indicate quite clearly a much more two-sided POV struggle to me than is being advertised. Two-sided disputes require even-handed intervention, such as you would have found in the dispute resolution process, had you gone there first instead of hopping on AN/I and begging, pleading, and shouting for an admin sympathetic to your POV to simply summarily declare your ideological opponent to be the loser. That's not how we work here. Bullzeye 19:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have basis for making that accusation, or are you assuming that because there is a dispute there must be two sides and both sides must be POV? Opposing disruption does not make one POV, nor does asking the body of administrators for help make one "shrill" I happen to share the concern that a topic ban is premature, and on some of these issues I agree with COM's content position. But we have to do something in the meanwhile short of giving COM a free ticket to continue the trouble. Dispute resolution is for content issues and this is not a content issue. The problem is battlefield behavior, incivility, and edit warring that happens to have a consistent POV. Edit warring articles on probation, and directly and repeatedly accusing editors of bad faith, is not something you can resolve as a content dispute. We're supposed to resolve whether I'm a bad faith editor who is "one of the worst", a liability to the project, and whatever other insults we constantly get? Or that Allstarecho is a homophobe? Administrators have the tools to stop disruption; dispute resolution forums do not. That's the very reason we have article probation in the case of Obama articles, and AN/I in the case of flare-ups that should be addressed sooner than later. I'll add that while COM seems to have a special disdain for me personally, and more recently a few other editors, allowing him/her to make it personal in that way just plays into it. COM has probably insulted, offended, and gotten into edit wars with a dozen editors in the last week.Wikidemon (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I guess I must apologize for not writing up a better report, or something. ChildofMidnight turned the Barney Frank article into a battleground and still claims to have no idea why the edit-warring, personal attacks and using op-ed peices as sources for negative content in the lede of a BLP is problematic. Sadly I see this revisionist take on events as part of the problem, ergo they have the last, and seemingly reasonable, word. My note here is a bit of an "I told you so" post as having spent an unfortunate amount of time looking through thier edits on admin boards and elsewhere I am convinced they are simply playing us for fools with red herrings and other diversionary tactics so no real consensus ensues. Sadly, it would be better if I were wrong on this and they turned around to treating articles and editors, the entire project that is, with respect. Unfortunately my time spent on this report looks to be wasted for now but at least will serve as a more accurate picture of their disruptive editing. Hopefully this will balance out the disingenous bewilderment ChildofMidnight presents as to why they are repeatedly reverted and called to task for problematic content and behaviours. That myself and other editor's motives and actions were questioned, and mischaracterized is unsurprising but that this turns out to simply be the latest round of problems on political events articles foretells this will hardly be the last problem. That they potentially do good work elsewhere seems promising but likely they need to be restricted off areas where they are causing disruption. My, somewhat limited, experience is that this level of disruption combined with such pronounced denial and unaccountability is a recipe for future problems. I don't watch ANI per se so feel free to ping me next time CoM is called to task and I can offer whatever insights might shed light. p.s. Also I have just little more than the sniff test here but isn't a user name of Soxwon (socks won) and their appearance here and a near seemless hand-off at the Barney Frank article all just a bit ... dodgy? -- Banjeboi 13:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I resent that accusation thank you very much. I'm not aware of where CoM is from, but my name references the Red Sox winning the world series, and I'm from Virginia. I've nothing to hide nor am I anybody's sockpuppet. Soxwon (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. (not the location: on SA's user page) seems hard to explain other than with trolling or roleplaying. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, for heaven's sake, ban him! Do we have to go through an RfA? We already had one painful with, this would be even worse.

POV

I'm not sure why I keep getting accused of POV editing. If someone wants to explain how it's unreasonable to suggest noting Barney Frank is a prominent advocate for gay rights in his article's introduction, or that he's the leading Democrat on the Financial Services committee, or that Obama is a Democrat (which, if you can believe it, keeps getting removed from the Political positions of Barack Obama article) I'm all ears (and eyes too). And as far as the controversies and criticisms, yes I think that notable ones belong in the encyclopedia with appropriate weight and according to guidelines. Hasn't that been our policy all along? But this stuff isn't even controversial. Does anyone approaching these articles fairly really think that Obama's political party affiliation shouldn't be included in an article about his political positions? I feel like I'm dealing with craziness, and I know if I dare call the actions of Wikidemon et al. for what they are I'm going to get in trouble. But seriously, this is what it's come to??? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

"If someone wants to explain how it's unreasonable to suggest noting <insert any descriptor that, when shortened and not explained in full, lengthy detail, can be interpreted in many controversial ways, here> in his article's introduction..."

I'm not going to explain it to you, because I think you already know the answer. Would it jog your memory if you thought back to this discussion, where you fought to keep similar descriptions (even though you agreed they were accurate) out of the article lead? Wasn't it you that said,

Let's include the characterization along with others that are notable in appropriate context and with appropriate explanation. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Just an observation. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

These relate to content disputes. You know why - repeated explanations on talk pages have not stopped your from ignoring consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The talk pages show that consensus isn't against these reasonable edits, how could it be? You can't even argue the content issue here because your position is so obviously preposterous. The comments here and on the talk pages clearly show that you and Wikidemon are being unreasonable and behaving inappropriately. By all means lets do RfCs, as I've offered repeatedly, if that's really necessary. But this pattern of obstruction has been the case again and again and includes refactoring, soap boxing and personal attacks. So the real question is how to deal with you and Wikidemon when you refuse to act appropriately? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't know, personally, because I have not acted inappropriately. I agree with you half the time on the content. But the fact that I agree or not, or that you have a POV, is not the issue here. People can have POVs. It's the resulting article that should not. You could mend a lot fences by cutting out the constant accusations of bad faith, edit warring, and declarations of consensus that don't jibe with other editors. An RfC may be a last resort but it would be a lot of time and drama, and we still need to stop the edit warring and all this other stuff while the RfC is in process... plus an administrator to interpret and enforce the results. But if things can be calm for 30 days why not make that permanant? And if the outcome is simply going to be that an administrator says "no more", why do we need an RfC to establish that? It would be vastly simpler if everyone can simply agree to follow the letter and spirit of our various policies, and in the case of the Obama articles, especially so given article probation and the circumstances that make it necessary. Wikidemon (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If you check his edit history, you'll find that Wikidemon has been active in a long string of attempts to ban editors (such as this one). In fact, the cases are remarkably consistent. They involve disputes like (as ChildofMidnight points out here), whether certain facts should be in an article because Wikidemon feels discussing facts conflicts with his idea of what NPOV is. Not only does Wikidemon aggressively push his version of npov (even to the point of removing factual content). He even removes dissenting opinions from view on article talk pages and, as I said, he's got a long history of removing editors (through banning attempts such as this one). Before anyone pursues action regarding this, people really need to examine Wikidemon's edit history pretty closely.-32.166.117.139 (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I must agree with a lot of what User:32.166.117.139 has just asserted, after looking at Wikidemon's history. Wikidemon has attempted to ban editors. (He has not succeeded often enough.) He is remarkably consistent. Wikidemon aggressively pushes for his version of NPOV (which, by the way, is everyone's version, by its very nature). More people should aggressively push for NPOV. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon's version of NPOV involves the persistent, deliberate removal of factual content, the removal from view of dissenting opinions regarding the article's content in the talk page, and an ongoing campaign to ban editors whose views are counter to his own. If this is what NPOV means to you, then we have widely divergent ideas regarding NPOV.-166.197.92.181 (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The above (the IP editor) is almost certainly a block-evading IP sock that has been trolling Illegal immigration to the United States long term. We might have to start doing checkusers soon. For now please ignore.Wikidemon (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, unless the topic refers to an IP address specifically, I consider all IP edits to be suspect. HalfShadow 03:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Considering that the overwhelming majority of sock puppets are -named- accounts, I feel the same way about named account.-32.166.47.15 (talk) 03:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(OD)For both (and any future) IP editors, if you have a problem with an editor, don't waste our time here. Open a thread elsewhere on the page and bring the correct DIFFs to back up your accusations. You're not winning anyone over with drive-by allegations. Dayewalker (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

3 IP editors, two of which have almost identical IPs, suddenly decide to make their first ever Misplaced Pages posts here? Methinks roolz be brokd! -- Scjessey (talk) 04:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA?

Is this - Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/ChildofMidnight - serious? Things are taking a curious turn here. Wikidemon (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, this should be fun. Bring it on! Baseball Bugs carrots 05:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, we all need some Schadenfreude now and again. PhGustaf (talk) 08:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion indicates that it is indeed a serious nomination. I'm at a loss to see why he specifically picked this time and nominator, though. Chamal 09:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

As much as I despise the mindless bleating of AGF that goes on around here, we probably should. I think the simplest explanation for the timing is that COM simply doesn't get why people are concerned about his/her editing patterns and is disregarding them--as any of us would do if we were convinced of our rightness. //roux   09:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It's all an accident - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 09:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I just saw that, and your response. Two things:

1. Please, please back off from COM. It can only end badly.
2. That sort of canvassing, especially the meatpuppet comment, is deeply concerning. //roux   09:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've got already about half a dozen reasons to list in opposing CoM. The list keeps getting longer. Baseball Bugs carrots 09:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Assuming he will see this new sub-thread, I hope he will go on and accept his "nomination" so it can be transcluded and the voting can begin. Or go on and withdraw the "nomination" before it gets ugly. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 09:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

He's already been commenting on his page about the "jokers", i.e. those who would vote against this joke of a nomination. My guess is that come morning he'll see which way the wind is blowing, and if he has a lick o' sense, he'll abort the mission. Baseball Bugs carrots 09:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I see a poor dead equine and people hitting it. Hint. //roux   09:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You're just being a neigh-sayer. :) Baseball Bugs carrots 09:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, this might me a good time to rein in your wit for a while. As Bali suggests below, it's probably best to let the matter pass pleasantly, like a good bowel movement, whilst even a whit of wit might make it pass like a kidney stone. PhGustaf (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The whole RFA thing is just pointy/a joke. If it does go live, i suggest those who would oppose this candidate would simply type "oppose - not good admin material" and move on. If you don't handle it that way, you'll be feeding the three-ring circus this fellow is currently assembling. Like a lot of POV pushers, he enjoyes feeling "marginalized" and a "pariah," convinces him he's fighting the good fight. Why waste any of our time feeding his ego?Bali ultimate (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I've decided to semi-protect this article for 2 weeks. If anyone feels that I'm out of line, please discuss it here and then change it. Bearian (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, the article is fully protected and was done so on April 6. It appears all you did was add the PP template to the article. Did you mean to change the protection from full to semi? - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 01:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It's still fully protected, as of 30 seconds ago. Baseball Bugs carrots 05:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Alastair Haines unblock request

Alastair Haines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has recently posted an unblock request with an unequivocal statement about legal threats. He was unable to archive his talk page to remove previous discussions. Please could an uninvolved administrator consider his new request? Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 07:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was rejected. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Thomas de Quincey is an administrator (and on closer inspection they are currently blocked and definitely not an administrator) so it looks like the rejection was undone. The policy says that "involved editors should be unblocked if there are no other issues that warrant a block." after a legal threat is resolved. I'm not familiar enough with the case to know if there are other issues, but hopefully there is someone here who is. Camw (talk) 10:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Had a quick look but it looks complicated. Could you fill us in a little on the background please. Theresa Knott | token threats 10:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive526#Indef block of User:Alastair Haines from about a week ago; there was a consensus to uphold the block until he withdrew his legal threat. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 11:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks Theresa. There was a previous thread on WP:ANI last week, where - as a condition for an unblock - Alistair was to post an unequivocal statement in any future unblock request that he "withdraw any threat of legal action and promise to make no onsite threat of legal action in the future". That is exactly what he has now written. Over a period of two weeks since his first block, after discussions with many administrators and editors on his talk page who have all encouraged Alastair to take this course of action, showing his recognition of this core WP policy, he has now done so. Cailil and Buster7 have helped particularly, urging Alastair to take this course of action. The formulation above of the unblock request was Durova's, who said she would support an unblock if an unambiguous statement like this appeared in an unblock request. There seemed to be some consensus. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 11:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, so he made a legal threat and was blocked for it and has since withdrawn the threat. In which case I intend to lift the block in a couple of hours unless someone gives me a good reason not to. Theresa Knott | token threats 14:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Theresa, is this a good idea? Ordinarily I'd support your move, but if you (or someone else) don't quiz him sufficiently prior to an unblock to demonstrate he understands what he is promising and why it is necessary, I'm not sure it is a good idea. A legitimate point was raised in the previous discussion that the underlying problem may be that Alastair doesn't truly understand that legal threats are a no-no, and that it can resume at any time for the umpteenth time. But as a content editor, I don't want to see him site banned at any time either over legal threats. When I say "demonstrate he understands what he is promising and why it is necessary", I'm not talking about grovelling, nor is a response that says "as it's the only way to get me unblocked" satisfactory. It needs to get to the heart of the issue on why he should not make legal threats, and indeed, why they are not permitted. Working through the ArbCom decision would certainly help him. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's only fair really The way to demonstrate that you truly understand that legal threats are a big no no is to stop making them. Obviously I will tell him very clearly that if he starts making them again he will be reblocked but surely once the threat of legal action is removed we really don't have the grounds to keep him blocked?Theresa Knott | token threats 14:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we don't have grounds after that. Okay. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I would urge you to tell him that he will be blocked indefinitely if he ever makes a legal threat again. If that isn't clear, he will probably carry on passive aggressively hinting at legal actions to get an upper hand in editing disputes, as has been the very recent pattern. It becomes like serial edit warring or incivility or anything else. At a certain point, there should be no more chances or time wasted by volunteer editors dealing with someone who insists everyone's out of step but Johnny.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree and have every intrntion of leaving a very clearly worded warning on his talk page. Theresa Knott | token threats 16:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

OK I have done it. I also left a pretty clear note (IMO) on his talk page spelling exactly what will happen if he does it again. Theresa Knott | token threats 17:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Theresa. Mathsci (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Despite Theresa's copious good faith, it turns out that Alistair Haines had an agent resume the legal threats via OTRS instead. I've reblocked; and I would request that nobody undoes that block without confirmation from an OTRS agent, the Foundation, or the Committee. — Coren  01:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Why does the phrase "own worst enemy" spring to mind? Mathsci (talk) 03:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Another one that comes to mind is "D'oh!" He lasted, what, roughly 1 shift before being re-blocked? Though I'm fairly certain I've seen worse. Baseball Bugs carrots 04:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh well. It's a shame but some people clearly don't belong here. Theresa Knott | token threats 06:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

hmmmmm... well I for one have some questions about this. My understanding is that the 'no legal threats' policy prohibits any participation in this project whilst a legal process is specifically threatened or is actually ongoing - is this the case? might well be of course, but this isn't clear. I think you're right about some people just not getting on here, Theresa, but we've got to be very clear where the boundaries are, and I can't really see that there's been enough rigour applied in this case. It'd be great, Coren, if you could put a bit more flesh on the bones of the 'agent has resumed legal threats' thing - what's happening? Privatemusings (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the editor who is said to have acted as his agent and made a legal threat on his behalf SkyWriter (talk · contribs). If you go to this version of Haine's talk page and scroll to "Unresolved Issues" you will find SkyWriter prattling on about "defamatory statements" that need to be deleted and generally prattling on about damaged professional reputations etc... So, as long as skywriter was acting on haines' behalf (i trust that coren is telling the truth. Don't you?) Nothing further needs to be clarified. Throw away the key on both and be done with it.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think SkyWriter has anything to do with this reblocking. From User talk:Alastair Haines, it appears that his publisher has made threats on his behalf through the OTRS. --Onorem♠Dil 13:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, this sure makes it look like he was involved somehow.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You do appear to be correct. I didn't notice that. Interesting...I thought that SkyWriter had been intervening as an interested fellow wikipedia editor. I didn't realize that he was also his publisher. --Onorem♠Dil 13:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

PM, the wording in WP:LEGAL specifies that it is the "chilling effect" of the legal threat that needs to be countered, not the specifics of how the threat is couched. There is no difference between "link to that site again and you will hear from my attorney" and "I would advise you that papers have been filed at X Court in respect of this matter" where the intent is to deter other parties in editing Misplaced Pages otherwise in compliance with rules, policies and guidelines. Specifically, in this matter Haines has opened an OTRS with an accompanying legal threat in an apparent attempt to have content reflect their preferred version when discussion has not achieved that aim. It doesn't get much more clear cut, I should think. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

yeah - you could well be right - I'm just trying to make sure that legal action has been specifically threatened here - I mean we're all up for removing any and all defamation wherever it may be, right? - There's no requirement (as I understand it) for a wiki editor to disavow the concept of legal action to protect reputation, just the clear policy that while any such action is threatened or under way, the protagonist shouldn't edit the wiki. Maybe my addled mind is being slow (or cynical) but it's not clear to me at the mo. that we're dealing with the later (slam dunk, very clear) rather than the former (less so) here... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent) LHVU explains it quite succinctly. The point of NLT is to avoid editors using legal maneuvering (or threats of legal maneuvering) in order to bully or intimidate other editors into complying with your demands. Whether or not the threats are sincere, explicit, veiled, or bluffing is immaterial— they are still used as ordnance in "battle".

Besides, at this point, I'm not sure that unblocking Haines would be wise even if they did manage to stop the legal bullying: the cumulative amount of disruption has, IMO, reached the tipping point. But regardless, complete and unequivocal (and definitive) withdrawal is prerequisite to even examining the possibility of unblocking. — Coren  13:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

hmmm... that's not entirely the emphasis I'd place on the legal threats policy, but that's moot, I guess.... I think you've answered my question anywhoo in this post - you seem to me to be saying that the OTRS ticket contained a specific legal threat which is currently being actioned, and must be unequivocally withdrawn prior to any unblock - is this correct? Privatemusings (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

To be more precise, the email reiterates the "deadline" approach, and restates that "defamation" must be removed lest legal action be taken at its expiration. Threat of future legal action is also threat of legal action. — Coren  14:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

In a related point, I really wish they did talk to a lawyer who could take the time to explains the legal basis for the concepts of defamation and libel. They keep using that word, but I'm not sure it means what they think it means.  :-) — Coren  14:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Ok I'm throwing in the towel here. I tried, god knows I tried, to help explain to Alastair, and indeed to Tim/SkyWriter, how WP:NLT works, but if Coren is right (and I have no reason to doubt that he is) then these blocks are sound. As I understood it Alastair wanted certain diffs posted by Abtract to be examined under BLP. He also wanted us/wikipedia/the poster to apologize for posts that were made about him that he doesn't like. I have no idea what Tim and Alastair think they are doing. They were begged to read WP:LEGAL and WP:NLT. I give-up--Cailil 16:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Shakes head* What else am I going to say other than I told you so? :P Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps nothing? Mathsci (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep (obviously excepting this reply). Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I regret to say that I have had recent contact with SkyWriter at List of converts to Judaism. During the discussion there, I very definitely came away with the impression, possibly unfounded, that SkyWriter is very possibly a rather precocious early adolescent with an exaggerated opinion of himself. I can very easily believe that SkyWriter might have intentionally misspoken regarding being an attorney and acted in a way which many youths with ideas about being "big men" behave. I cannot for a second believe SkyWriter is an attorney; for that matter, I have trouble believing he has yet graduated high school. If SkyWriter did arrogate to himself the position of attorney without Haines' approval, which I think very possible, perhaps Haines should not be penalized for the unwelcome intervention of others. John Carter (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

John AFIK Tim/Skywriter is an Engineer - he is not a youth and I would suggest you reconsider some of the above remarks. He's a very passionate poster and lets leave the discussion of him to that--Cailil 02:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, both users were blocked for the same OTRS ticket. SkyWriter was certainly extremely disruptive and outspoken on Alastair's talk page, even when warned by Cailil. He seemed to want Alastair to continue on the defamation tack (he and User:LisaLiel continued to bicker after the second unblock request was posted). So you could well be right - he might have tried to wreck the unblock. Quite a mess, really. Mathsci (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It might just be worth mentioning that per the RfAr I've banned LisaLiel from posting on Alastair's Talk page for 6 months. Though I think it has become fairly pointless right now--Cailil 02:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Community ban proposal

We have more legal threat nonesense within 24 hours after a number of admins wrote a retraction of the legal threats for alastair and spent days begging him to cut and paste it (which he finally did at their urging) so he could be unblocked. He has consistently treated almost every editor who has disagreed with him with contempt and worse (the evidence page from his arbcom case is instructive ). And he has shown no indication that he intends to change the underlying incivility and IDIDNTHEARTHAT problems. This is the indef discussion from late March . I have never encountered alastair while editing, and am completely uninvolved. Having looked at this, I'm convinced that enough time has been wasted, legal threats eventually withdrawn at this point are irrelevant. I support a community ban.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The retraction was at my urging too, a common-or-garden editor. I also have never edited articles with Alastair, although I was aware that he had made valuable contributions. I am extremely disappointed by the legal threat by proxy. Coren has given Alastair the chance to retract and/or explain the threat off-wiki, so at the moment it seems best to wait to see whether any response and/or explanation is in the pipeline. I am not at all optimistic. If Alastair doesn't have a thicker skin, wishes to edit with his real name, claims to have been defamed by remarks uttered in the rough-and-tumble of editing and feels that it his right to take legal action, then, as Theresa rightly points out, this is regrettably not the place for him. Mathsci (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to put my two cents in, I see this two different ways. If this is a case of someone acting on his behalf, but not with his wishes, then he just needs them to contact via OTRS with a "I'm sorry, this was an error, and we retract any and all threats." If this is the case, then I don't see why any ban discussion should take place. However, if the response from Alastair is in the vein of 'I retracted the threat, but the specific wording I used did not preclude having another pursue legal action on my behalf', then I think a ban is most assuredly in order. I think the ban discussion should be delayed until a response comes out, though. 24.99.242.63 (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

He knows exactly what he's doing, and the ban should go forward. Baseball Bugs carrots 17:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you have a good point there. I stumbled into this recently, and I just got to the earlier parts of his talk page. I'd say this is definitely the second case, and if his talk page wasn't blocked off, I'm sure we'd be hearing the 'but I didn't threaten it!'. Fully Support Ban. 24.99.242.63 (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Do not endorse ban proposal. I don't think this is helpful right now. I like to assume he is confused/angry/upset rather than deliberately being difficult. Lets leave this to OTRS/the Foundation - if there is something happening they will not unblock him and this conversation is moot. If however he is unblocked I do think we should investigate what exactly Alastair Haines thinks is wrong with the RfAr findings - I'm not saying we NEED to overturn the ArbCom ruling, I'm saying we need to figure out what his issue with it is so we can get through to him or in the worst case scenario consider a restriction/sanction. Personally I feel exhausted from dealing with this (and I've been here from the beginning last July) but my patience is not exhausted - not yet--Cailil 21:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• Do not endorse ban proposal - There seem to me to be some questions about whether other people presumptively acting on his behalf were either doing so with his knowledge and approval, and whether the actions of that/those people had an effect on the outcome here. I think this matter needs to be looked into a bit more deeply before a final decision is made. John Carter (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

AFD of unrelated articles needs closing

Can someone close Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bosnia and Herzegovina–Malta relations? Two previous bundled discussions have already been speedily kept because notability varies widely among bilateral relations, and discussing some many disparate articles in a single discussion is impossible. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Chile-Whatever relations and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Argentina–Singapore relations for two previous train wrecks created by bundling such articles. WilyD 10:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not the same at all. Argentina has 100x the population of Malta, and Chile more than 30x. Even Leeds has almost twice the population. And the articles are hardly unrelated. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The creation of these state relations articles, though probably well-intentioned, was extremely disruptive if we now deal with them individually. This is a case for WP:IAR if ever there was one. I think the right thing to do is to delete all those which don't contain any interesting information, with no prejudice against recreation if and when there is evidence that they are notable. But we don't need articles such as Malta–Peru relations consisting of gems such as "Peru is represented in Thailand through its embassy in Rome (Italy)." --Hans Adler (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The creation of these articles was not disruptive; it was the extraordinarly lengths to which some have gone to delete them that has provided all the drama. That some of them have closed keep only serves to demonstrate that these are not wholesale commodities, but must be treated individually - just like, well, every other article here. What a concept. Reminds me of the creation of Foo at the 19XX Olympics series about 1/2 of which contained "Foo competed at the 19XX Olympics" and about 1/2 contained "Foo did not compete at the 19XX Olympics". All unreferenced. If memory serves, some of the former were kept (of which, perhaps a few have by now been expanded), and nearly all of the latter were deleted (though a few "boycott" noncompetes were kept). Net effect: positive for WP that we got some more information. We do want new articles, don't we? If we don't want people to create articles, someone ought to make that explicit. And other than WP:CSD if the community cannot decide a priori which new articles are keepers and which are not, it is certainly not disruptive to create them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know at whom the "extraordinarly lengths" comment was directed, but I resent the charge if I'm one of the targets. I made a nomination of related articles (and 10 isn't, you know, a huge number) and participants unanimously favoured deletion. One individual (who didn't even attempt to argue for keeping) came here and created (I suppose) drama. Apparently, he has decided that the only acceptable way to delete these silly "articles" is by individual AfDs for each and every one -- no prods, no bundled AfDs, regardless of their absurdity -- that is an "extreme" measure, not my own very rational nomination. - Biruitorul 19:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I have closed, and suggested individual renominations, especially since one article was already specifically defended at the AfD. DGG (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, at nine votes for deletion and zero for keeping, isn't that a clear indication of the way the discussion was headed? - Biruitorul 18:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, one !vote was to delete "all but one", which I think is the defense DGG is referencing. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 07:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, i've opened up an SPI on the creator of this latest spate of "X-Y relations" articles, which is reminiscent of indeffed-blocked user Plumoyr (talk · contribs) and his sock Groubani (talk · contribs). It's here if anyone cares to review my reasoning.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that prodding all of them would be the best way. Editors can rescue specific articles if they find sources showing notability --Enric Naval (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Since nobody replied, I prodded all of them. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Use of guideline pages for nationalist agendas?

In Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (geographic names) there is a dispute about using the example of Vilnius (Russian: Vilna; Polish: Wilno) to illustrate wiki practice of using "historical" names for certain cities in historical contexts. The example of "Wilno", the Polish form of the name, is being used along with Danzig and Constantinople as examples of historical usage of place names. This was cited in a current WP:RM,Talk:Battle of Vilnius (1655), where this very matter is under contention. The initiator of the RM and author/maintainer of this example's presence in the guideline is the same user (Piotrus). There have been at least four attempts by at least 3 different editors (including me) to remove it or replace it with a less controversial example.

When the example has been removed, 4 times, it has been reverted Diffs with edit summaries

Text added:

• (Piotrus)

Removal of this example reverted

• putting Vilna/Villnius/Wilno back in since it belongs there (Radeksz)
• please don't change examples that gained community acceptance w/out discussion or add new (Piotrus)
• restore useful example, please gain consensus on talk before changing the policy per your liking (Piotrus)
• no consensus to remove (Piotrus)

Application:

• move 1 (Piotrus)
• move 2 (Piotrus)
• list for RM (Piotrus)

All participants in restoring and removing the text voted along the same lines at the Talk:Battle of Vilnius (1655)

Here is the text:

For example, we have articles called Gdańsk, Istanbul and Volgograd and Vilnius, these being the modern names of these cities, although former names (Danzig, Constantinople, Stalingrad or Vilna or Wilno) are also used when referring to appropriate historical periods (if any), including such article names as Battle of Stalingrad and Free City of Danzig.

I'm concerned that, even if done in good faith, this kind of thing doesn't adhere to the purpose of guideline pages, i.e. to reflect widespread consensus on editorial practice, not to add extra weight to advance an argument. I am baffled as to why, given the thousands of available examples, anyone would dispute using a less controversial example, which is what I tried to do.

Opinions?

Needs good-faith mediation from users, default pref. seasoned admins, who are not from the area and who aren't already friends of any of the users. It'll surely just become an edit-war if no-one does, and people will get in trouble, and we don't want that. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is worthwhile to mention the full and chronological context (readers are highly advised to look at timestamps of the above diff). Here are chronologically ordered diffs from the last few days (the oldest diff cited above is from 2005...): Talk:Battle_of_Vilnius_(1655)#Survey, a RM initiated by me, is opposed by Deacon; after I cited I cite the naming policy, Deacon attempted to change the very policy: , (and was aided by another user who also supported his position in the vote: ). I would appreciate input on whether it is good editing policy to attempt to change a an estabilished policy (which as Deacon's diff show was challenged once in the past 4 years) one's opponent cited in an ongoing discussion (vote...)? In any case, input from neutral editors both at Talk:Battle_of_Vilnius_(1655)#Survey and Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#No_consensus_to_remove_the_example would be appreciated. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Why can't this be easily solved by replacing this example with one not under dispute? I just can't understand this. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It was stable and uncontroversial for months, if not years, until some users decided to make it into a controversy. Should we remove the Instanbul/Constantinopol or Stalingrad/Volgograd example next time somebody makes them an issue? The proper way is to take this issue to the talk page of the policy, ensure that there is a consensus for the removal of an example, and remove it then; certainly trying to edit the policy the second time after it has been made clear on talk that there is no consensus to remove them is not the best idea. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I repeat my question. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I answered it above, second sentence. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm requesting outsiders here, please. And Piotrus, you didn't answer my question. Why can't this be easily solved by replacing this example with one not under dispute? Wilno is not a former name anyway. It's just the modern Polish way of writing it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I answered. The example was stable for ~4 years. If we were to remove an example every time somebody challenges it, we would have none left very soon. In particular, removing an examples that are used in a discussion you are engaged in and that weeaken your argument is not the best policy, I am afraid. Further, Wilno is a former name, and is not only a "modern Polish way of writing it". First, you can find it used in English sources dating as far back as 18th century (thanks, Google Print!), so it is hardly modern. Second, it was certainly an uncontroversial official name for the interwar period (see Wilno Voivodeship). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The example is no more controversial than Danzig/Gdansk. It's a matter of historical periodisation versus modern usage - see Talk:Battle of Vilnius (1655) for further details. This is a content dispute. There are Polish users on one side but, so what, there are Lithuanians on the other. --Folantin (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Deacon may be right that the guideline page is being used for nationalist agenda but he's confused about which side is engaging in it. The situation is simple: there's an RM and a naming dispute. The guideline, which has been around for a long time, is cited as part of this discussion. Deacon goes and changes the guideline as if to pretend "what guideline?". Guidelines are there to help resolve disputes. Hence they cannot just arbitrarily be changed every time a dispute comes up because the guideline does not support ... a particular agenda. Let me address Deacon's statement that "Wilno is not a former name anyway. It's just the modern Polish way of writing it." as well. This in fact is the crux of the matter. Deacon assumes that this is true (whereas it's just his POV) and then argues that the guideline regarding Wilno is not needed. But obviously quite a number of editors, myself included, disagree with this characterization of the name "Wilno" (and so do sources) - it is a former, historical name. Hence the need for the guideline for when it should be used - which means it belongs in the relevant text as it was in there originally.radek (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi again Radek. This btw is the other Polish user mentioned above who once against joined Piotrus in yet another nationalist dispute. So I have a nationalist agenda? Being Scottish and having no family links to eastern Europe? Is it Russian nationalism this time? Polish nationalism? Lithuanian nationalism?

At everyone else, WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS are totally unworkable, and WP:GUIDELINE non-credible, if nationalist editors with a conflict of interest are allowed to muscle neutrals out of guideline pages to gain an upper hand in a nationalist dispute in article space. I've noted this here, so everyone can say I at least tried to get more outside involvement. Not much more I can do. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm a neutral. I'm neither Polish nor Lithuanian and I wasn't "muscled out" of the debate. I didn't even cast a vote either way in the Battle of Vilnius (1655) naming dispute. Instead, I tried to steer it away from mutual accusations of "nationalism" onto something more scholarly. It's simply a fact that the name of Vilnius has been through the same kind of historical periodisation (i.e. Vilnius/Wilno/Vilna/Wilno/Vilnius) as Gdansk/Danzig/Gdansk or Lwów/Lemberg/Lvov/Lviv. The Lithuanians of the city of Vilnius were almost completely polonised by the 17th century (see Henri Minczeles' Vilna Wilno Vilnius referred to in the debate). It's very hard to disentangle "Lithuanians" and "Poles" for a great deal of the history of Lithuania (in the widest sense of the term). It's impossible to present an "ethnically pure" view of Lithuanian history (which possibly offends some editors). --Folantin (talk) 08:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Polish became the main language of social life and contacts in Vilnius during the 18th century, while the rural population around the town continued to speak the local Lithuanian vernaculars. The Circum-Baltic Languages: Past and present, 2001. End of story. M.K. (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

And Minczeles talks about Wilno being a "centre of Polishness" in the 17th century. Besides which, Polish replaced Ruthenian in the city, not Lithuanian. --Folantin (talk) 11:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It can be "centre of Polishness" and without language domination actually. I am sure that scholar, who I cited, knows what he writes. M.K. (talk) 11:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Folantin, this is not in fairness my point, and doesn't address it even marginally (historical arguments are for somewhere else). The point is that a controversial name is being included when it doesn't need to be, a point missed per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and its inclusion used by by the same editors who introduced it to gain leverage the Polish POV in nationalist debates with Lithuanians. Three Polish editors are reverting to keep it included, and are the only ones doing so. It makes a nonsense of the wiki system as I said; and shielding these users from reflection on their conflict of interest is just as nonsensical -- the connection is not coincidence. I have now tried "compromise" with the Polish editors in the page by retaining their beloved authorisation of "Wilno" but focusing its range to make it less misleading. We'll see how this is accepted. And yes, I remember you were were supporting Piotrus is many locations regarding the matter, though I never figured out why other than love of him or Frost. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The names on that page are likely to be controversial by definition (what's "uncontroversial" about Gdansk/Danzig)? Your other accusations are unfounded. The evidence is quite clear: I didn't vote for Wilno and I didn't vote for Vilnius. I merely pointed out that the issue is not as clear cut as some might like. I brought Frost up because I knew it would "offend everybody" (Wilno/Danzig). I'm the one who also brought Stone's naming rationale to the page - and he uses Vilnius. Stop personalising the issue and resorting to ad hominem arguments, please. --Folantin (talk) 09:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you actually gonna address the point, or do I have to constantly repeat myself only to get accused of "personalising" and "ad hominems" (point to one please)? Maybe you got the wrong end of the stick on the last sentence (I guess humor doesn't work for everyone), but false accusations of ad hominems are as bad as "ad hominem"s themselves. Cheers. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"I remember you were were supporting Piotrus is many locations regarding the matter, though I never figured out why other than love of him or Frost." Sounds pretty personal to me. Besides which, I don't think I'm the one with the obsession with Piotrus. If you take your blinkers off you'll see I've already given my reasons at great length on the Battle of Vilnius page. Obviously, for some people it's "Vilnius or death". I'm not that invested in the issue (which is why I didn't vote and why I brought Stone to the page). I merely pointed out that the matter was not as cut-and-dried as some editors might like.--Folantin (talk) 10:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

These attacks are just noise. Anyway, the sentence is quotes was a joke and is indicated as such by ";)", and wouldn't be an attack even if it weren't. Blinkers? Your "Vilnius or death" comment does however demonstrate your "neutrality" truly. Thanks. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, which is why I voted for Wilno and tried to hide the rationale for using Vilnius I'd found in Stone. Very one-sided of me. --Folantin (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Guys, remember that this place is not for solving content dispute. Please stick to the original problem. While I was involved in those discussions, I understand, that WP policies should represent community consensus as noted in WP:GUIDELINE. However, adding Vilnius example on WP:PLACE, then there is no consensus (as shown by recent developments), is unfortunate and unproductive approach. Moreover, it misleads of existing consensus. Therefore examples with Vilnius should be replaced wit non controversial ones on WP:PLACE. M.K. (talk) 12:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue seems to be problematic content in the guideline pages for nationalist agendas being used to support a nationalistic agenda. True there is an editing dispute, but the issue of non-neutral content in the WP guideline seems to take it well beyond the borders of an ordinary editing dispute. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Return of Betacommand?

Discussion closed and moved to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#Return of Betacommand?

Why? --Conti|✉ 17:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Why was it moved, or why was it closed? It was moved because that appears to be the common practice once these things have run their course, and it was closed because no one spoke up to support the unbanning and it was just a piling on. –xeno (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't object to the close. But AN/I subpages usually are created solely due to size reasons. Unless I'm missing something, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand is not the noticeboard to discuss everything related to Betacommand. By now, it's an archive, just like all the other archives, and this thread would have been archived automatically soon anyhow. --Conti|✉ 18:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a not unreasonable fear of unnecessary drama? Wiggy! (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

eh, I was under the impression that's where these threads went, so that All Things Betacommand can be housed in one place so people don't have to poke through the AN/I archives to find each block-unblock-ban-unban-etc discussion. *shrug* –xeno (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter much now, anyhow. That page (and all the others like it) should probably get a big, fat "This is an archive!"-tag slapped on it, tho. --Conti|✉ 20:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Good Friday

Hi, Some user just went past the 3 revert limit there. I only have 2 reverts there, and do not want to start an edit war. Therefore please issue a warning. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Done, but you can warn someone about 3RR yourself. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but it is also User:CapitalElll who has passed the limit on Good Friday, and it is no longer a question of warning, but block perhaps. Real question: how seriously is the 3R rule enforced? Is it just there as a warning item, or does it get strictly enforced? If so, CapitalElll's edits should be reverted. Shall I break the rule and revert him, given that he has broken the rule? Or do I assume that he can break the rules and I can not? Cheers. History2007 (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The "myth" stuff is the same kind of POV-pushing snobbish lecturing that Noah's Ark is frequently put through. The editor knows full well that "myth" is an ambiguous and charged word. "Narrative" or "story" would work just as well. And what amazing timing - the eve of Good Friday! I told that editor that I'd like to see him post something in the Muhammad article about Muhammad being part of "Islamic mythology", and see how long that would last. Baseball Bugs carrots 04:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Is the 3 revert rule for real?

Hello, I posted above, but no action yet beyond warning. User:CapitalElll is clearly breaking the 3-revert rule on Good Friday. Is any admin going to do anythig, or shall we all assume that 3-revert rule has been removed from Misplaced Pages policies? I did 2 reverts then stopped. Is that rule forgotten? Please clarify. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You may have more luck at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, which is "used to report violations of the three revert rule, and edit warring." Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 19:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, User:CapitalElll hasn't been warned about WP:3RR - you should probably do that before reporting them on WP:AN/EW. Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 19:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A couple of comments. First, CapitalElll (talk · contribs) has not formally violated 3RR, so a report would be declined even if he had been warned. Second, CapitalElll seems to be pushing the Christ myth theory in a very disruptive way. This editor popped into existence on 18 March 2009 and immediately began to edit in a highly sophisticated way on skepticism-related topics. Looie496 (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit wars usually start because people are a bit to committed to an agenda. Check Talk:Good_Friday#The_Real_Debate and you'll find that his opponent, who reported him, is just as good a used car dealer in this department. He had a go at me as well for imaginary 3R violations. Anyway, the rule is you can make 3 reverts. Hence the name. -Duribald (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

CapitalEll and Duribald have both been warned for 3RR. CapitalElll has removed the last two admin warnings from his talk, so you need to look in the history to see it. History2007, since he opened this complaint, doesn't need a warning. It takes four reverts to break the rule, but people who are not editing in good faith occasionally get sanctioned even before four reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Several editors have been involved today in reverting L's POV-pushing stuff from various articles about Easter weekend. Baseball Bugs carrots 04:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Review of block; invitation to deliberative participants, please

Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is under 24 hour sanction for violation of WP:NPA. I have opined at Giano's talkpage that he has not violated the policy, and have some support, while the blocking admin remains content in their interpretation, and also has some support. As Giano + sanctions related issues have some history in growing into major drama, can I ask some of our more even tempered and less politicized contributors glance over and give a calm consideration of the case. My hope is that when we do block Giano it has to be seen that the community is largely content that violations have indeed taken place, and a dignified discussion there may achieve that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A claim was made on his talk page that there was an off-wiki aspect to this, but it's not evident to me on first review. Can someone clarify that please? Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The off-wiki context was here (scroll down to the replies, or search for "Giano"). Quite frankly, if someone were posting the kind of abuse about me that Neurolysis was posting about Giano on a national newspaper's website, I'd be more than a little snarky as well. – iridescent 00:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been reviewing the situation on his talk page, and I'd rather see a wider discussion on this situation. I believe its getting heated, and conversation needs be moved here if we're going to poll for his unblock. Synergy 23:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Preemptive oppose unblock. Giano knows precisely what he is saying and when, and he is under zero misapprehension about what the rules call for here. He knew what he was doing, the block is entirely justified. We have to stop coddling him because he lashes out--he needs to stop lashing out on a depressingly regular basis. If it were once a year? Fine! It's not. //roux   00:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(reply to Synergy)I feel the discussion there is more civil than has previously been the case when on the 'Boards - which allow passing comments to be made that doesn't help with considered debate. Hi, Roux! LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Part of the argument on the talk page seems to be about whether terms effective through February are still effective. Avruch says they are not. If there are no specific statements to the effect that the term was prolonged, and it doesn't seem that there were, I have every reason to believe the block is probably perfectly acceptable. I can't see any immediate need to lift the block, particularly when it is as short as it is. John Carter (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

@LessHeard vanU: Civil is subjective, which is why I chose to say plainly, that it was getting heated. Regardless. A poll should be done here, not on a blocked users talk page. My primary reason for posting here. Synergy 00:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

@John Carter: the summary for the block was NPA violation - my and others comments can be found below. Synergy: Well, it has been done. I felt the less visited area of Giano's talkpage was easier to moderate, but transparency is also a creed to me so I am content for it to be here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Moved from talk page. Seddσn 00:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• (sigh)Is there a link to the Giano ArbCom where blocks, particularly under civility/attack criteria, are only to be made after consultation... Do I have to don my fucking "Protector of Poor Giano" every fucking time someone blocks Giano without reviewing the history (and if said admin isn't aware, on what basis are they blocking without warning or discussion). LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on the substance of the block... You are referring to the enforcement motion from the SlimVirgin case, which applied specifically to Giano's civility parole. That parole expired in February, presumably rendering the enforcement restriction moot. Avruch 20:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Do you refer to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Motion: re SlimVirgin#Restriction on further enforcement? I was vaguely aware that there was something like that, so I looked it up before issuing this block. The motion prohibits "enforcement action relating to Giano's civility parole". I did not block this user to enforce any civility parole, just to prevent ongoing ordinary policy violations that I came across when viewing an ongoing RfA. Moreover, the parole that must not be enforced according to this motion appears to have expired anyway. But if you feel that the motion must be construed so as to prohibit any block of this user for civility reasons ever (which would surprise me very much, since it would in effect exempt him from the policy), we can make a request for clarification to that effect.  Sandstein  20:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein did provide diffs, so perhaps perusing them before passing judgement might be a good way to go. I think it's fair to say Giano did not take the "high road", and a 24 hour block seems like a pretty appropriate action in this instance. Giano's opinions have certainly been noted, but I think it's reasonable to expect conduct that is slighlty less confrontational. Sorry Giano! I can certainly understand where he's coming from. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Although upon reflection there is a question about whether a warning was given? Rules is rules... ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)*That is the one; fair enough it has expired, so there is no need for it to be examined. As for the purported violations of NPA, I would quote Misplaced Pages:NPA#What is considered to be a personal attack?, bullet point (4) "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki...". Giano has made it quite clear, since it has lead further editors to oppose or strike their supports, that this is in regard to off-Wiki comments made by the candidate in respect of Giano and the Hattersley claims debacle. Unless you are arguing that Giano's perception of events are wrong (which would make your block problematic under COI) I suggest that Giano has provided reason for his claims of the candidate being capable of pronouncing falsehoods; I am uninterested in the veracity of Giano's claims, other than he has provided sufficient evidence to make it fair comment rather than an attack on the individual. Lastly, I have seen worse in the bearpit that is WP:RfA - it isn't right but I have not seen editors blocked without warning before. I feel you should reconsider your action. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

To CoM, of course I reviewed the diffs - which is why I am making the point that Giano is referring specifically to events/comments made by the candidate (in an off-Wiki but public page) which he considers varies considerably from the truth to which the comments cited by Sandstein refer. I do not don my mask and cape without making sure that the stitching is still in place... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Lets take as granted that any one of Giano's comments were correct and not personal attacks. In fact, lets take them all as true and not uncivil, not personal attacks. Does the collective effect of Giano repeating himself stridently and in multiple forums create a significant problem? Perhaps a more useful and functional test: "Did Giano's comment disrupt the normalized editing environment?" I have no answer yet. Also stopping in to confirm that Giano's probation has expired, and thus the related ruling has no effect as well. Its a wash: Giano is, procedurally, like any other long term contributor.--Tznkai (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• (ec)My apologies LessH. I misread your "Do I have to don my fucking "Protector of Poor Giano" every fucking time someone blocks Giano without reviewing the history" comment. Clearly you were referring to the Arbcom issue and not the history of today's edits. And I see you had in fact noted that a warning wasn't granted, and that would most certainly have been best protocol. My apologies to you and to Giano for cluttering up his page. I suggest an unblock would be appropriate, as only now with the block has warning been clearly served. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

My exasperated comment did, in fact, refer to the deprecated civility parole - so my bad there, and therefore nothing for you to apologise for. However, when I reviewed the basis of the block as logged I found another problematic area. My luck not to appear a complete bozo (the mask and cape helps a lot, too). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Concur with CholdofMidnight; unblock is indicated. Also, I have to wonder, did Neuro lie? Its not a personal attack if its a just charge, as there is no nicer way to phrase it. KillerChihuahua 21:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

As I just said on my talk page, in view of the block log of Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I believe he did not need a warning to know that we have a policy prohibiting personal attacks, and that it may be enforced with blocks. A warning would accordingly have been superfluous. I'll be offline for about 24h soon, and assume that any administrator considering an unblock will be so collegial as to seek consensus for it in an open forum such as WP:ANI. I'd like to note that, if the diffs cited above are not incivil and disruptive, I do not know what is, and accordingly would not support an unblock absent a convincing apology.  Sandstein  21:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

On the merits, even if one were to consider "liar" not (as I do) to be a personal attack, "deluded" and "half baked candidact" (sic) certainly are personal attacks.  Sandstein  21:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have invited (dignified) discussion to take place here, where it might not descend into the two usual warring camps, over at ANI. I have made my position clear, so I shall act further only as a moderator to hopefully stop excessive and off-topic postings. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec):::You could have asked him to stop first, before blocking. If what he claims neuro did is the truth I would be upset too, especially if he never apologized until his request for adminship. Giano's comments were certainly uncivil, but blocking was getting pretty carried away IMO. Landon1980 (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

E/cIn an attempt to head any possible drama off at the pass (and in the spirit of the season for certain folks), would you consider an unblock as clemency? That is, Giano requests an unblock, neither denigrating you, nor Neurolysis, nor apologizing either, and that it be granted time served. The implicit understanding of course, is that Giano leave the issue alone, which is biw moot now I believe as Neurolysis has withdrawn.--Tznkai (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Doubly moot as Giano has surely gone to bed. Talk amongst yourselves. Bishonen | talk 22:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC).

• He is not enjoying an evening that may end with a Midnight Mass? I am disappointed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A quick word on the matter: there is no possible situation under which calling another editor a liar is remotely acceptable. Accuracy of statements can be disputed, certainly, but "liar" means someone who makes intentionally false statements or willfully deceives. Given that it posits malice (which is the opposite of assuming good faith), it cannot be anything but a personal attack.

I make no comment on whether a block was an appropriate response, or whether its duration is adequate, but arguing that it was not a violation of NPA is ridiculous on its face. I'll grant that no warning was given, but I am under no delusion that Giano is not aware of the meaning of the terms he uses, or that he has somehow forgotten our policies. — Coren  23:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That is clearly untrue. If an editor has admitted to being a liar, or has been demonstrated to be a liar, then the statement is simply one of fact. Is it your intention to suppress all statements of fact, or just those that you find inconvenient? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I, of course, disagree. A statement made without regard to the facts, and not corrected in the face of such evidence, which impunes the integrity and contributions of another person, may be termed a lie - and the utterer of such statements is thus a liar. I am using the term "mistruths" because it sounds less offensive, but the fact remains that the candidate was caught in a lie, Giano provides the evidence of it, and therefore NPA is satisfied. NPA defends editors against unfounded claims, not protects practitioners of poor behaviour, conduct, morals whatever from being castigated for their actions. Finally, Giano's obvious contempt for abiding by certain policies does not constrict our absolute adherence to the word as well as the spirit in sanctioning violations of them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

But how do we know that Thingy deliberately lied? He might have been mistaken, or just giving his opinion. To WP:AGF or be collegial, we should say he was mistaken, rather than lied. Sticky Parkin 23:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The same AGF that Giano is justified in terming it a lie. I may have given the impression that I am sold on Giano's interpretation - I am answering for him in reply to Corens points (I am sure I am going to be royally thanked and praise by G for doing so...) without taking a view upon it. Neurolysis may have been in error for all sorts of reasons, but in only admitting the error when deeming it expedient for the purposes of applying for adminship but being content to allow the mistaken comments to remain unaltered for that until that time is extremely insulting, I suggest. You might not wish to take such liberties with the many calm editors of this project; doing so with Giano invites responses that we are very familiar with. Again, we appear to be punishing the bear for responding to the poking. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's be clear, there was incivility here. Giano went too far and should have received a warning to cease and desist. He's now been blocked. We've had the ensuing drama. I don't think asking Giano to apologize is a good idea in this instance. I suggest he be unblocked in good faith and asked to refrain from engaging further with Neuro. He is of course reminded that no matter the provocation, editors are expected to abide by the civility guidelines.

• Support Unblocking. No need for futher drama. Message has been communicated. Giano knows what is expected of him. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• Coren, whilst your statements are correct, we also know that Giano flies off the handle the odd time or two. In statistical terms, we ignore the outlier data and we also correct for systemic bias (read here, poke Giano - Giano snarls - whack Giano - Giano roars - block Giano - hilarity ensues) The present case is an obvious injustice done off-wiki, which should be considered as a provoking factor. It's pretty well-established that if you hit Giano with a stick, he doesn't react well. Neuro hit Giano with an off-wiki stick. Support unblocking. Franamax (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

What was done offsite in this? Please provide context... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry GWH for not providing a link, for some reason I thought everyone else clicked the same things I do. :) Anyway, what LHvU says just below. Franamax (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This 09:48 post]. He misrepresented Giano (I suggest - you may disagree) in making points which, later, transpired to be not altogether accurate either. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Misplaced Pages is NOT a battleground, remember? Don't hit people with sticks, and if someone hits you with an "off wiki stick", don't bring your anger and aggression on wiki. Flame away, but go elsewhere. Further, wikipedia isn't therapy. If you've got a bad temper and fly off the handle, don't expect us to make allowances for you. Keep you temper off the wiki. But really? This is the same old script, with just a few actors changing. Can't we get a new script? These repeats are boring me. And, for me, boring is worse than incivility. (Oh, and I don't care whether you unblock or not. Frankly it will not make any difference to the boring script.)--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    • DocG, you're right - but whoah, statements on the website of a national newspaper? Where is the "go elsewhere"? You really can't get any more uncivil or NPA or whatever you want to term it - calling out another editor in front of the world and basically saying "he's not one of us". Hell no, Giano bloody well is one of us, dysfunctional family that we are. I'd support your imprecation to keep our temper off of the wiki (in fact I do, wholeheartedly) - but what about the sarcasm; talking-down, references to inferior knowledge, experience and/or scholarship; use of wikinyms (TLAs) to cow new editors; or any of the myriad ways that editors are mean to other editors? It certainly is easy to pick out a well-definable instance from a known editor and say "this one thing is wrong". I'm not sure exactly how that solves the overall problem. Franamax (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• I think I support Giano's underlying point - Neurolysis' behavior on the blog post wasn't remotely good form. I can understand why Giano would still be angry about it a couple of months later.

But I think two months is long enough that the initial poke should have faded, and Giano should have expressed himself in a civil way regarding this. Especially to the RFA supporters he went after .

Even if we absolve him of guilt in the direct attacks on Neurolysis, the attacks on others were temper getting the better of him... fahadsadah and FlyingToaster are certainly innocent victims in this.

I propose that for the purposes of this unblock discussion, administrators ignore the attacks on Neurolysis and consider whether the behavior against the other two was sufficient to justify retaining the 24 hr block, or not. Whatever the anger at Neurolysis justifies or doesn't, it clearly should not extend as far as allowing anyone to go off attacking random third parties. If those two attacks are sufficient for a block then he should remain blocked. If not, then not. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Question: does the allowance for the statements apply to only those on the RfA? .. or do they also extend to the attacks made on Neuro's talk page? Note: Giano did request that Neuro not post to his talk page, and Neuro did offer an apology. I would think it could be expected that the claims could stop after the apology. — Ched :  ?  00:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there's some disagreement in the discussion over whether the Giano / Neuro back and forth justifies the block. I think it's less ambiguous, considering the unblock now, to consider the other two victims separately from the Neuro stuff.

I have an opinion on the Neuro stuff but I also have a history of controversy with Giano blocks, so I think it's easier to not push my opinion on that out into the debate here and possibly go sideways over that history. The issue with the two innocent bystanders is easier to define and review without having to delve into the things we're likely to not get consensus on. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock - Reading over that blog, Neuro's behavior was slightly troubling, but I honestly couldn't agree more with Roux. With how UNBELIEVABLY MONUMENTALLY GINORMOUS Giano's block log is, I think that Giano's lucky that his block isn't a good 5 or 10 times longer than it is. --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 00:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• Coren: "there is no possible situation under which calling another editor a liar is remotely acceptable.". I'm sorry, but if I have diff evidence that an editor has been lying about an issue, I'll call them a liar. To do otherwise would be lying myself. Withdraw that one, please. Black Kite 00:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  You could have evidence that a statement is false; not that the one who made the statement knew it was false when he made it— for all you know, they might have been mistaken, deluded or just confused. Arguably, even an admission of lying is no proof given that the admission itself might be mistaken and such.

  That's entirely besides the point anyways, even if the accusation is absolutely true, it would still be an attack and not acceptable as such. There are many ways of calling attention to a statement that is false that are not attacks; calling someone a liar isn't one of them. — Coren  01:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  I agree with your exceptions, but you're skirting round the issue there really; accusing someone of being a liar when they have clearly and deliberately lied about an issue is not a personal attack. it's merely a factual statement. Black Kite 01:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  Nice of people to tell me about this thread. Is the suggestion that I have blatantly lied, and if so, where? — neuro 01:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  I wasn't actually making a comment about yourself; I was merely replying to Coren's comment. Apologies for going off-topic. Black Kite 01:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• (e/c) Yes, heh, don't worry too much Neuro. This discussion has gone far beyond what you may or may not have intended to say at the newsblog and is soaring to the meta-sphere of the wiki. :) Do you think Giano should be unblocked? Franamax (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

He may have made the wrong decision in making such comments as he did, but I also made the wrong decision posting those comments on the blog. I see no reason to keep him blocked, no, it takes two to tango. — neuro 01:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Look, I'm not condoning anyone's actions, and I can even understand Giano being upset, even if I do question the timing of it all. But, I really think that this is over the top. Neuro apologized, and the badgering continues. I understand emotions, but refusing to not only accept an apology, but continually berating another editor simply isn't right either. — Ched :  ?  01:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Giano has a point about both the location and timing of the apology in my opinion. Assuming that neuro never made an apology before the RFA (I never saw a link to an apology aside from the one he made on the RFA, if one exists sorry for not seeing it), and assuming that he never apologized on the forum where the post was originally made, his apology is indeed both rather belated and in the wrong forum. The damage the post made was done there, and if no apology is made there than the damage will continue to be done every time someone reads it. Furthermore, (and I know this isn't even remotely assuming good faith) the fact that he only apologized for something like that when called on it during an RFA would give the appearance that the point of the apology was to mitigate damage to his RFA. If Giano honestly believes those things to be true, his reaction is rather understandable. Even given that though, I'm not sure I would support an unblock because of his treatment of the other participants in the RFA, which I do not believe was justified under any circumstances.--Dycedarg ж 01:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC) (Note that the preceding statements were trying to see this from Giano's points of view. I'm not really sure of what comments Neuro made where aside from the initial posts on the blog and the ones he made on the RFA and I don't know enough about Neuro to be able to judge whether or not he was lying/mistaken/what have you.)--Dycedarg ж 01:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If I apologised, it looked like I was simply trying to sway voters. If I didn't apologise, it would be the incorrect thing to do. What would you have suggested? — neuro 01:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

What I would have suggested? Apologize. It was the only thing you could have done under the circumstances. It just would have been a good idea to have apologized sooner, preferably within a week or so of the incident. Belated apologies coming months after the initial incident just don't have the same impact.--Dycedarg ж 01:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) You are right Neuro - a very tricky (read no-win) situation - would have been prudent to apologise at some stage before RfA. However, the nature of the comments was such that you should have made a considerably more concerted effort to really put them in the past and make up for it. The airing of dirty laundry like that is hard to get over. I do feel for you man, but it makes pretty poor reading. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

As I have said, I had believed I did, until Giano told me otherwise. — neuro 10:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support unblock of Giano. As someone who's recently went through Misplaced Pages drama related to off-wiki communication, and after reading what Neuro posted at telegraph.co.uk, I'd say Giano's human reaction is appropriate. Would we even be having this discussion if Giano had called Neuro out at telegraph.co.uk instead of here on-wiki? I doubt it. Nevertheless, it has been done. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 01:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support unblock of Giano. I feel his reaction was understandable given what was written in the blog of a national newspaper. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock A 24 hour block on someone with a history of incivility for bringing off-wiki anger on-wiki and lashing out in an RfA seems lenient and just. Serve the block and learn from it. --John (talk) 02:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Giano can't have it both ways, he can either consider neuro "unworthy of my time and attention" and leave it at that, or he can turn up at the time of the comments and call him a "disgrace to the project" and a monumental liar and everything else he wants to, at a time when it was actually relevant. I don't think for one minute he would have accepted any earlier apologies had they come, but turning up 60 days later to grandstand over the guy's RfA that he didn't even put himself up for, crowing that it's too late/the wrong venue for sincere or even insincere apologies, is just a bit lame really, and should not detract in any way from the fact the language used by Giano in the prolonged exchanges constitues a nailed on npa block, from someone who should know better. MickMacNee (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock, The reasons for blocking are consistent with the evidence and the relevant policies. Come on community, how many times are we going to do this? Chillum 04:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support unblock of Giano per Casliber. - Josette (talk) 05:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Casliber's rationale might be true, except, I don't think that it can be considered so mitigating when commentary that can legitimately be perceived as personal attacks, extended to users other than just Neuro - see here. The meaning of 'deluded' can vary in harshness depending on how it was perceived, but I know my own interpretation would not be on the softer side. I don't see how I could've support an unblock in light of this; FlyingToaster's concern should have been handled with more care. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

User:QuackGuru

Something needs to be done. -download | sign! 21:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I've already warned him. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

He's been warned numerous times. -download | sign! 21:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Difs, anyone? "something needs to be done" is rather vague. (grumpy puppy) KillerChihuahua 21:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh bother. Tilting at windmills again I see. KillerChihuahua 21:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The concern here is QuackGuru editing Jimbo's userpage to state that he was co-founder, not founder of Misplaced Pages. See the history for more details. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the worry is also Jimmy Wales. By the way Download, Quack can blank warnings from his talk page as he pleases, let him. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this the longest running edit war in history?!? He's been doing this semi-regularly for YEARS now. Can we just establish a consensus for a community ban on editing related to this issue? He's just doing it to make a WP:POINT, and its getting quite old now... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

We as a community should think really fucking hard about two things:

1. Jimbo is making quite provably false statements about his role in Misplaced Pages. Is this acceptable? Non-admins are not allowed to claim they are admins. Why should Jimbo be allowed to claim he is the sole founder when in his own words he was not?
2. More prosaically, is topic- or community-banning Sanger an intelligent response to this situation, whatever your feelings about his veracity, given the potential for truly awful PR?

Point #1, feel free to dismiss if you like. Clearly there are some people on both sides who are immovable. Point #2, however, is something the entire community needs to consider very, very carefully. //roux   02:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, this isn't a discussion for banning Sanger. The discussion is about QG. Now in that regard, Jimbo can say whatever he wants on his userpage clearly. Editing the page in that way is more or less vandalism. The next issue is whether he should be banned from Jimbo Wales. I'm inclined to say no given that QG has a plausibly valid point. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

People are generally allowed wide leeway with regards to their userpages. It is important (relatively) that Jimmy Wales comply with NPOV and OR, that User:Jimbo do so is not. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue, as with ALL edit wars, is not the veracity of the information being warred over. It's over the behavior. If it is verifiable and relevent, let someone else add it. Follow dispute resolution and establish consensus. The issue is not the inclusion or not of some nugget of information, its the constant refusal to use proper means to resolve disputes, and the insistance on simple edit warring as the means by which to force through ones edits, whether or not the substance of those edits is "true". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Support an indefinite topic ban on the Jimbo-related articles. II | (t - c) 16:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

We have evidence of him causing trouble on User:Jimbo Wales. Please provide evidence of bad faith editing on anything Article-space related to Misplaced Pages. rootology (C)(T) 17:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support banning him from touching User:Jimbo Wales (users can say whatever they want, true or not, subject to normal rules that apply equally to all of us, including Jimmy), Oppose banning him from touching Jimmy Wales. The funny thing is, it turns out QG was right and has been defending NPOV as seen here. If we're going to ban him from the Article itself, then it's preposterous to not do so for the other chief edit warrior on the other side, User:SqueakBox. They've both been going at it in spades, and it's not just QG. The entire co-founder issue is moot now anyway, with the sourcing from the Wikimedia Foundation itself having been added as the definitive source, so there's nothing else to edit war over there. Add in that a ban on QG would not give any protection to the encyclopedia--whats the point? See also here, currently on AN, where SqueakBox is also edit warring with my sole edit removal of an NPOV tag. This is not just a QG issue by any means. rootology (C)(T) 16:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support a ban from User:Jimbo Wales, but nothing else. He's only causing disruption there. Timmeh! 17:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose QG will very likely stop if he sees a consensus his edits are being taken as disruptive. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Surely a topic-ban would have the same effect (he'd stop such edits) without any unwanted side-effects? ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's needed. Yet. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• We don't ban people that are innocent. If we do, we need to string up those that did the banning. rootology (C)(T) 17:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support a ban from Jimbo-related pages, and history-of-Misplaced Pages-related pages. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  We have evidence of him causing trouble on User:Jimbo Wales. Please provide evidence of bad faith editing on anything Article-space related to Misplaced Pages. rootology (C)(T) 17:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  I am unaware of any specific instances, but I am doubtful of his ability to edit neutrally and in line with policy in relation to Jimbo Wales. (not sure if this next bit makes any sense :-P but it does to me!) He either thinks that he's the co-founder, or he doesn't; he thinks what the sources say to be incorrect, and his belief won't change between namespaces. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  Er... that's why I'm board with you in the bit of keeping QG off of the Jimmy userpage, but not the article. QG's article work there is fine and 100% backed up by the sources, such as here. Jimmy can say he's the founder or co-founder of Misplaced Pages on his user page, or he can see he's the living reincarnation of Abraham Lincoln. I can also say I'm the founder or co-founder of Misplaced Pages, or the reincarnation of Abraham Lincoln on my user page. If it's not a policy violation, I can WP:OR to my heart's content with any wild nonsense, or my interpretation of the truth. Jimmy's page has other advertising type issues that are a separate problem (his booking agent or whatever that is?) but he can say whatever he wants for his role. That's the only QG issue here. rootology (C)(T) 18:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, I understand what you're saying, but edits such as this indicate not only a complete disregard for basic civility (editing another's words in a basically false way) but also suggest that he is unable to edit appropriately with regard to this issue. I accept that others' views may differ, but personally, I don't believe that one person can make such edits on one page and not on another covering the same topic. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  First: how is it false? Yes, Jimmy believes one thing, Larry another, the sources overwhelmingly from before 2004 say co-founder, and from about 2004-onwards say sole founder. That's not false, that's dug-up evidence of revisionist history which I demonstrated on the sourcing I added to the Jimmy Wales article. And, that edit is not uncivil in any way. The subject says, "He did write that he is the co-founder of Misplaced Pages. See Talk:Jimmy Wales#August 2002. (Jimmy Wales identified himself in August 2002 as "co-founder" of Misplaced Pages." and QG added the "co-" prefix to founder as the actual edit. Where is that lacking in civility? The problem is that QG is trying to treat Jimmy's user page as if it was Article space, holding it to WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and the rest. He doesn't seem to be grasping it's not, so that's why we're supporting a ban on USER:Jimbo Wales, but not "Jimmy Wales". His article work is usually from what I've seen mercilessly accurate and even-handed. rootology (C)(T) 18:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  As you wish.

  I do understand what you're saying, and I stand by my opinions, and by what I wrote, but I see I'm fighting a losing battle in an issue that actually doesn't bother me that much! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose ban from article pages. No strong opinion on the user page.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• He was doing the right thing for the article. Keep him from messing with the user page, fine. But don't try to keep him out of articles without some evidence he's been damaging articles. Friday (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose any ban from the article pages. His edits on Wales's user page are already against policy, so I see no need to take action on the matter here. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - The "co-founder" issue, IMO, has now been factually and concretely settled by reliable sources, as seen in the lead of the article. This also supports the addition of the "co-" prefix where appropriate, e.g. Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. Removal of verified, sourced material can be considered vandalism, and what this user is doing is fighting that. No topic ban is warranted. As for the Jimbo Wales page, if Wales says "stay away", then QuackGuru has to respect that. As far as I know, we don't allow users to misrepresent their Misplaced Pages role (i.e. "I'm an admin" when they really aren't), but I don't think we police real-life misrepresentations. If someone wants to proclaim "I'm the President of Mars" on their page, hey, its all good. Tarc (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• I invite anyone to review your history of tendentious editing, almost entirely single-purpose most of the time, that single purpose being to push a particular agenda against me, including harassment on my user page and user talk page. To be clear, I ask you - as one user to another, not in any official role - to please leave me alone and not edit my user page. And I ask you, as a human being, to reconsider your behavior and perhaps find something more useful to do with your life than attacking me. I leave the disposition of your case to others, but to my mind, you're exactly the kind of person who should have been banned from the project a long time ago as a persistent BLP troublemaker. If it were anybody but me (because I am tolerant and kind), I imagine the victim would have complained to OTRS a long time ago. I have a clear and obvious conflict of interest in this case, but I think anyone reviewing your history will be inclined to agree that your behavior has been unacceptable, and that you are clearly here for motives that are not consistent with our values of neutrality and goodwill.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  The above was originally written on User talk:Jimbo Wales, copied here by David Shankbone.

• Oppose ban on article space. I've been involved fairly heavily at times on Jimmy Wales and I think he does well to work within our community standards there. He utilizes the talk page and works for consensus without edit-warring. Use regular warn/block methods for edits in user space, I think. Although, I don't believe it is appropriate for Jimbo's user page to contradict the rest of the project which is accurate and verified. لennavecia 20:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

One agenda-driven Anti-Wales editor shows up to support another. --David Shankbone 20:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support article- and user-space topic ban, per Wales and Jayron32. User, who was previously indefinitely banned, does not appear to be here for WP:ENC, but here for an anti-Wales agenda, per his contributions, block log and behavior. --David Shankbone 20:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not denying that this user has pushed relentlessly to get the "co-founder" atttribute added to Jimmy's articles on here, but to see he's an SPA is simply an out and out falsehood. See here. He's one of the main editors that built up the Larry Sanger article, Chiropractic, and several others. He seems to split his time evenly between articles on science and articles about Misplaced Pages itself. This is the essence of one of those "classic" BLP situations, where the BLP subject doesn't care for what is written about them, but it remains 100% BLP-compliant, sourced, and due to the way both individuals on both sides in various ways created a Barbara Streisand Effect, it's now a notable thing to discuss in the article at length. QuackGuru is anything but a perfect editor, but his biggest fault in this was not leaving Jimmy's user page alone. If we can see evidence of his misbehavior on the Jimmy Wales article, I'll happily endorse a topic ban there too.

Do we have such evidence? So far all I've seen him is his relentlessly trying to get the co-founder in, and it turned out based on actual historical documents from WP and WMF's early days that QuackGuru was right on the sourcing, leaving it all BLP-compliant. Give evidence of article space wrongdoing, and he'll get a topic ban. But this must be treated like any other BLP, with not a centimeter more or less deference because of who it is. Shitty, but that's the price to be paid to keep policy fair for all parties, no matter who they are. rootology (C)(T) 20:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose ban on article space. It's almost Orwellian to let Wales rewrite history regarding his own credentials. ("He who controls the present controls the past. He who controls the past controls the future".) Embarrassing for Misplaced Pages, too. See Essjay controversy. --John Nagle (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support ban on topic "Wales" for this user User talk:QuackGuru he is not going to / never going to stop this aggresive single purpose POV pushing behavior , which is destructive to Misplaced Pages...(Off2riorob (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

• It's already been demonstrated here that calling QG a SPA is an outright falsehood. How is getting the "co-founder" added to Jimmy Wales destructive or harmful in any way to Misplaced Pages? The co-founder description is also totally BLP-compliant, as well as it's been demonstrated effectively with historical sources now. Keep in mind, the sources uncovered now demonstrate that his efforts were accurate. rootology (C)(T) 22:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• Recuse Given QG's treatment of me at Larry Sanger when I was a new user, I wouldn't be able to provide an objective opinion. I'll have to abstain in this particular case. — Ched :  ?  22:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Theadrock13

• Theadrock13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

This new user has been causing trouble right away. He immediately made several unsourced additions. Then when he was warned he started calling people "Wiki-facists". He is confrontational and his comments show that he disagrees with WP:V. Also, I don't deal with biographies much, but this edit seems inappropriate. Thoughts? swaq 21:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I say block away. Surely the above diff, along with the rest, clearly indicate that the user is not, and will likely never be, productive nor constructive. Calling other "fascists" or "Nazis" is surely bucking for a block, no? MuZemike 00:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this user also has at least been utilizing two other IPs before this. Going to SPI. MuZemike 00:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 April 9

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

Something has gone wrong with it. It was OK at this revision. JohnCD (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it. User:Lambmeat vandalised the formatting. I gave them a 4im warning. – ukexpat (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I accidently copied the wrong code from a webpage I was working on instead of the code that would transclude my afd. Lambmeat (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, this was a complete accident. – ukexpat (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Especially when no AFD was made soon before by you (nor were any pages tagged by you). FunPika 22:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ukexpat reverted that only seconds before I did, it looked like vandalism to me then and still does. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This editor needs to go bye-bye quickly. Erratic edits, vandalism, move-vandalism, blanking of warnings on talk page, etc. Look at User_talk:PMDrive1061#Hello. Looie496 (talk) 02:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Lambmeat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Take a look at his various entries and see whether it's time to sacrifice that Lambmeat for Pesach. Baseball Bugs carrots 02:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Duly reported to WP:AIV. Baseball Bugs carrots 02:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Appears that your AIV report is going to be rejected. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

What is up with this? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously he's a vandal, and since I told them at AIV that it was being discussed here, they wouldn't block him from there. So I guess an admin reading this section here will have to take some action. Baseball Bugs carrots 03:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

And I reported that note to AIV. How does a newbie know about AIV anyway? Baseball Bugs carrots 03:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm researching the evidence now, in consideration of blocking.

In the meantime, a clarification of what website the user was working on, might be helpful. (Per: "I accidently copied the wrong code from a webpage I was working on instead of the code that would transclude my afd.") - jc37 03:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is one - it was a lame "reason" for the vandalism. – ukexpat (talk) 04:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I have to say that this looks like one of two things (if not both). It looks like someone who's using wikipedia as a game to play. And someone who clearly doesn't appear to understand the policies and guidelines, yet is out handing out templated warnings, and placing CSD and other tags on articles, among other things. (If I were to be cynical, they seem to be following the "advice" I've seen elsewhere on how to game the system in order to attempt to speedily become an admin.)

Among quite a few other things, there appear to be quite a few cases of WP:BITE. And I see a potential for civility issues in quite a few edit summaries, especially those of their deleted contributions.

The following diffs from just their talk page seem interesting at least. (The last is how it looked before the last time it was blanked.): , , .

While I hesitate to block at the moment, I strongly suggest that this individual be banned from "vandalism work", and in particular the placing of templated messages (whether handwritten by the user, or just using existing ones) on talk pages, or notices/tags on articles.

If they continue along these lines, I think it should be considered intentional disruption, and at that point, deserves a block.

That said, if another admin wants to hurry this along, I won't oppose someone else blocking now. - jc37 04:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If I were an admin, he would be indef'd blocked already, based just on these two edits: which tell us which high school he probably goes to, and what he thinks of the racial mix at that school. I'm also pretty sure he's a sock, since he knows too much for a newbie. Baseball Bugs carrots 04:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's kind of an interesting history. His first day, March 13, he spent doing seemingly useful tasks, mostly vandalism reversions, while also being obviously not really a newbie, as I said. Then nothing again until March 25 when he again seems to be doing useful stuff. Then nothing again until April 7, where he immediately starts screwing around with things, like renaming "Prince George County" to "Pretty Ghetto County" and such, also telegraphing where he lives. I don't know what to make of this guy: newbie, sock, compromised account, whatever. Baseball Bugs carrots 04:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Ouch, I misread that, probably because I looked at the deleted revisions first. There is shows him tagging the redirect for deletion. Didn't notice that he created the redirect through the move, I thought it was the other way round at first glance.

Now I'm more convinced than ever that this is some sort of "game".

And with that diff I now support blocking. That said, with blocks to be preventative rather than punitive, it's merely a question of whether we think that this trend will continue. I'm leaning in the direction of "yes", so blocking now might not be inappropriate, but personally at this point, I won't myself block unless I see additional disruption on the part of the user. - jc37 05:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Some gnomish edits, followed by disruption of back office functions (as reported here) and tagging indef-blocked users as indef sounds like our friend Fila3466757 socking again. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 07:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Somd disgusting troll vandalizes pages about all the disgusting "niggers" at some high school or other and it still isn't indef blocked yet? Lambmeat should be gone already. There is nothing to consider.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Having seen the edit Bali is referring to (note edit summary) and the other clearly disruptive edits, I'm blocking this user indefinitely for disruption and trolling. He's had enough warnings, they just keep getting removed. I get the impression he's trying to see how far we can be pushed before we react despite his constructive edits. If any administrator feels as though the block should be removed or reduced, feel free to do so, but do please contact me to let me know. Hersfold 20:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Lambmeat#Blocked_indefinitely Hersfold 20:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

CSD Backlog

I know 137 isn't that huge in the grand scheme of things, but it hasn't gone much below 100 all night (EST). Anyone want to help clean it out? StarM 03:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

down to 68, pretty good especially given the time. Thanks all StarM 03:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Request to unban a VERY helpful editor

I noticed that User:FUEL TV was banned for "advertising" after he expanded the Fuel TV article by like 2000%. This makes me very angry. He should have gotten a medal, not punished. The way the article was before, it was grounds for AfD,; it was only like 5 sentences. I propose he be unbanned so he can help build better articles like he did in this case. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The user name was blocked for contravening the user name policy. They can create a new user name and continue to edit. – ukexpat (talk) 03:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Will I get blocked if I try to edit the F-14 (codename Tomcat) article? TomCat4680 (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Being that he was making the article seem like an ad brochure and even required a quick post on WP:TVS about his actions, I think it is a good block. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 10, 2009 @ 03:32

Well if you compare what it looked like before he began editing it (5 very vague, general sentences) and after (in depth, detailed descriptions of every single show on the channel), I'd say it went from stub quality all the way up to at least B class in less than 24 hours. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the person is blocked for advertising and a username policy, so I don't see them coming back...so this is really a moot discussion. Like Ukexpat said above, they can always create a new username and continue to edit the page, so if they want, they will be back. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 10, 2009 @ 03:49

The content was lifted directly from the channel's website. The editor was quite properly blocked, and I've removed the copy/paste additions. Acroterion _(talk) 04:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

OK the plagiarism was removed, and the user isn't permanently blocked so I guess end of discussion. i still disagree with the username policy though. It makes no sense at all. Am I not allowed to edit the F-14 article because my name is Tomcat? TomCat4680 (talk) 04:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If your name was User:Northrop-Grumman, you could expect to be blocked as an apparent representative of a real-life organization with a conflict of interest. Acroterion _(talk) 04:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Another oxymoronic policy IMO. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a judgment call, but this was obvious. Blatant spam is frequently added by people who choose the name of their organization. On the flip side, we don't actually know that the person purportedly representing the organization really represents that organization or its best interests. Best if they don't use the name. In this case, even if it wasn't somebody working on behalf of the channel, they were violating copyright like nobody's business. Acroterion _(talk) 04:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The user may not be "permanently" blocked, but he's "indefinitely" blocked, which is the next best thing. :) Here's the distinction, as I see it: I call myself by a name that suggests topics I like to edit, as does TomCat4680. If I instead called myself User:Warner Brothers and spent all my time posting sales puffery taken directly from their website, I would rightly be shut down faster than you can say "Th-th-th-that's all, Folks!" Baseball Bugs carrots 04:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually I don't edit articles about fighter jets (though I do think they're cool). I stick mostly to TV and sports related articles. My name is Tom, I like cats, and my birthday is April 6, 1980, that's how I came up with it. I may be biased about certain topics, but I try to stay as neutral as possible. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

<--outdent: Read the section at WP:SPAMNAME - it clearly explains the rationale for the policy.  – ukexpat (talk) 04:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I agree he was plagiarizing, but he was banned because of the username policy, and it wasn't PROVED he has a conflict of interest, only ASSUMED. BIG difference IMO. What ever happened to presumed innocent until proven guilty? TomCat4680 (talk) 04:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Basically, look at it this way; there are two possibilities:

• contributions is a role account, which is specifically disallowed
• FUEL TV is not a role account, in which case he/she is using a misleading username, which is also specifically disallowed

As said above, the user who operates that account, if he/she wishes to contribute constructively, is invited to make a new username that does not violate the above policies. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 04:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently even if his name was Iamuser9999, he would have been sanctioned for copyright violation. Baseball Bugs carrots 04:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

He's also free to contest the block, i.e. to explain himself, if he cares to. Baseball Bugs carrots 04:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I feel like I'm his defense attorney, since he's pleading the Fifth. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope the job is paying well. :) Baseball Bugs carrots 04:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I'm acting pro bono. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you suppose Bono's attorney does likewise? Or maybe he works on commission. Baseball Bugs carrots 04:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Rimshot. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

And since we're obviously like cinnamon, i.e. "on a roll", consider this: Cher was also once pro-Bono, but things didn't work out. He later went to Congress, but his career ended abruptly when a tree told him, "I got you, Babe". Baseball Bugs carrots 05:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok that crossed the line. Good comedians never make fun of dead people, especially those who died tragically. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Skiing into a tree, while tragic for Sonny's family and friends, also has a certain comedic touch at the cosmic level. I can just imagine Sonny, at the Pearly Gates, telling St. Peter, "I never saw it coming!" Baseball Bugs carrots 05:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I guess so. Do you ever watch Inside the Actor's Studio? He always asks the guest what they want St. peter to say when they arrive at the Pearly Gates. most of them say something serious but some say humorous stuff. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've seen it from time to time. Good, evocative questions. Now imagine that it's Barbara Walters at the Pearly Gates subbing for St. Peter, and she asks Sonny, "So, what kind of tree would you like to be?" Baseball Bugs carrots 06:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Fellas, while I'm glad this issue is largely resolved and we're moving on to less serious matters, I'd like to suggest you converse on IRC or your own talk pages. Misplaced Pages is not Myspace, after all. :-) —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 06:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

What??? This has turned into a thread about bad jokes now? :) You two have a nerve, ignoring WP:FORUM right here on AN/I. Let's stop this here, ok? Chamal 06:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No objections here. Archive it up. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey! "Bad" jokes? That's POV-pushing. That's a personal attack. That guy will hear from my lawyer (oops, legal threat) grandmother about this! Baseball Bugs carrots 06:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced OR at Kali Yuga

Can some admin take a look at the edits by RANA DEVENDRA SINGH (talk · contribs), 121.245.126.123 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 121.245.86.240 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (definitely the same user) at Kali Yuga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ? The information being added is unsourced and fringe OR. The user has been warned about adding unsourced information and the 3RR rule, but instead of discussing the edits on the talk page, he simply logged off and started editing anonymously. I don't wish to keep reverting and violate 3RR myself; so more eyes and hands will be helpful. Abecedare (talk) 05:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Binarygal: personal attacks, incivility and legal threat on Information technology infrastructure library

This is ongoing at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts#User:Binarygal, where you will now find the rest of this conversation. There's no need for multiple parallel discussions. Uncle G (talk) 11:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Grapheus is apparently back.

85.93.199.4 (talk · contribs) See & - both from Luxembourg, typical Grapheus style edits. As I'm involved here and from elsewhere, I won't take any action on this, although his last edit is clearly vandalism, his others his usual original research. Dougweller (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

And signing as Marie-Rose, although not from an account. Dougweller (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Problems with a Senator's press office

An edit was made to remove sourced information from the Tammy Duckworth article which could be considered unflattering to U.S. Senator Richard Burr (R-NC). Since the deleting editor's username was User:Burr press office, I reverted the deletion and blocked the username as a role account (it was their first and only edit, so s.p.a. also applies, as well as COI, but that's not a reason to block as a rule). I later got an e-mail from an e-mail address that seems to be the senator's actual press office, demanding that I reverse the block and remove the unflattering information, because it was inaccurate. I forwarded my response to Mike Godwin, but did not unblock, explaining our rules about role accounts and welcoming the individual human being behind the role account to become an editor here on his own behalf (but warning about COI). I did follow-up on the accuracy issue raised, and updated the article with newer information which might be considered less unflattering to the senator. I thought folks should know what is going on; but is there anything else I should be doing? Is there anybody besides Godwin who deals with political entanglements of this kind? --Orange Mike | Talk 12:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As long as you're satisfied that the article is now verifiable, neutral and accurate, then the Senator's office will basically have to get stuffed. You can point them to this thread, and to the relevant policies; I think that Mike Godwin's the right person to take this further if it needs to go on, however. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 12:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey T-Tag? Since this is the government we're dealing with, with their penchant to get fired up over infinitesimal details of address and honorifics, though it's true to say that they'll have to accept the article once it's NPOV and verifiable, might we not find a slightly more-gentlemanly manner of saying so than "(they)'ll basically have to get stuffed"? Don't want the senators up our....er, don't want the senators upset about our word choice.GJC 18:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I kind of think that if they're going to do such ludicrously unwise things such as edit encyclopedia articles about themselves in their favour, then they've probably got a fairly low image the Wiki anyway... but point taken. They'll have to be content with the status quo. How's that for gentlemanly? ;-) ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Like a garden-party in the Queen Mother's backyard. :) GJC 19:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

There is always the OFFICE/OTRS avenue, but again there is likely to be little change as this is an wiki and verifiable content is permitted no matter how disparaging to the subject it is. I am glad you didn't point the Senators office to Free speech, however; that may have come as a bit of a shock... LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The contention of the press agent was that the verb used ("blocked") has a technical meaning in these matters, and thus was false; that is a legitimate concern, which in fact has been addressed. The difficulties involved were their violation of s.p.a., COI and role account rules here. In my e-mail back to the press agent, I tried very hard not to bite the newbie. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The more things change the more they stay insane. Send the good press office a link to this article: USA Congressional staff edits to Misplaced Pages. And oh the heck with it, I'll out myself: two years ago I wrote this article about the right way to manage this sort of thing. Must've been useful--it got 784 Diggs. So much for pseudonymity. Durova 15:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Giambs0099

User:Giambs0099: (talk - contribs) Abuse and threats hurled at User:PMDrive1061 as seen here. Probably tied to already blocked behaviour of User:Giambs009, a suspected sockpuppet acting in a similar fashion. Check Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Giambracy's speedy close rationale for a complete picture. MLauba (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Reblocked to prevent talk page editing as this sort of thing isn't acceptable. TNXMan 17:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Could some kind WP:DUCK-hunter target my quacking friend?

Nimbley6 (talk · contribs) is an indefinitely blocked editor, with a penchant for socking. Normally this involves IP socking, but Nimbley6 will occasionally register a username in order to create (or more likely recreate) articles and do other fun things that IPs can't do. The most recent Nimbley6 sock, Liam McNeil (talk · contribs) was blocked a few days ago, and with a disappointing lack of subtlety or imagination the replacement sock is called... Liam Nimbley (talk · contribs).

Could some kind WP:DUCK-hunter deal with Liam Nimbley as humanely as possible?

Thanks! This flag once was red_deeds 17:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Done and done. TNXMan 17:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! This flag once was red_deeds 17:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"X-Y" relations stubs

Hilary T (talk · contribs) has created 16 stubs of the type Greece-Nepal relations since April 1, when the account went live. These stubs are controversial; many editors (like me) consider them in most cases content forks from, say Foreign relations of Nepal. The editor has been made aware of this, yet continues to create such stubs (it appears at an accelerating rate -- Mongolia-Vietnam relations Australia–Vietnam relations and Egypt-India relations all created today, while the editor also removed a prod from France–Nauru relations). The intervention i'm seeking is an admonishment to stop creating such stubs, until we got some kind of RFC/consensus building mechanism in place to determine the conditions under which bilateral relationships are considered encyclopedically notable and useful (i must admit some editors think all of this stuff is worth having, it is a matter of dispute). But for now the serial stub creation (most without inline citations or reliable sources) is becoming disruptive. Here's a discussion of this sort of issue from earlier this year involving Groubani (talk · contribs) which seemed to yield a very clear consensus that such serial stub creation was disruptive and should stop .Bali ultimate (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I am creating stubs on notable topics. They all have reliable sources, and the new ones even have inline citations. They also seem to have a reasonable survival rate at AFD. I'm fully aware that people like Bali ultimate don't like them, too bad. Hilary T (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

And can someone please tell Bali ultimate that my articles do have sources, since he won't listen to me. Hilary T (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

My two cents: ignoring the prior precedent, Hilary T, keep on creating them if you wish and people like Bali will keep on listing them for deletion. The smarter strategy for both of you (especially Hilary) is to wait on a few of the AFD nominations and see what sort of precedent we have (not all get deleted but clearly most aren't staying). I don't care either way but Hilary T is the one who is going to be wasting the most time at this. Spend more than a few minutes at each one and you may have a few saved. I say take the same attitude here we do with our most famous serial stub creator. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The only constructive solution here is for Bali (being the only one really concerned as I see it) to draft up WP:Notability (bi-lateral relations), defining what a bi-lateral article should contain to satisfy WP:NOTE, and then take it into the field and start quoting it at Afd, to force people to read it, and edit it if they disagree with it, or say in afd why they disagree with it. It's obvious this editor is not going to give up while consensus is in limbo, and he's not going to get banned simply because it is in limbo (although obviously, there is a line between working in a vacuum of consensus, and editting tendentiously). A good start to get underway would be to simply start the page, cut and paste all prior discussions onto the proposal's talk page, and then start to distill the arguments into proposal content for the main page. What I do know is arguing the toss every time at Afd or at AN/I is a pure waste of time. At the very least, a proposed guideline that becomes a train wreck is still a usefull archive record. At the very least Bali, it will save you repeating yourself at Afd. MickMacNee (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Ricky gives sage advice. Just keep creating and nominate as necessary. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Mick, I don't think anyone is going to create a specific notability argument for bi-lateral relations, as it's just too specific. Let a few of the AFDs settle into place, and consensus will form (wasn't that how fiction, porn bios and other specific ones came about?). If anyone is really interested, I'd suggest a couple of user-space tables of all the various incarnation of bi-lateral relations, so that both sides can see what's red and what's done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The advice above to continue this conflict does not make much sense to me if meant seriously. Hilary, though deletion processes can be unpredictable, there is no chance whatever that these articles will stand unless there is more material than just their mutual ambassadors--even when they have ambassadors, which is not the case for all of them. If you want to establish an actual precedent for articles like this, then work on strong ones and strong ones only. Once you have established these, then try some somewhat lesser ones and see the reaction. When creating, it pays to start at the top (and when deleting, at the bottom, which by and large Bali is in fact doing, appropriately. I saw a number of prods, & as I don't think the articles have a chance, I'm not going to deprod them.) DGG (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Prodding spree

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

This was brought to my attention again after the user added a notability tag to Graeae Theatre Company (and re-added after DreamGuy (talk · contribs) reverted it), also shortly after its AFD, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Graeae Theatre Company, closed as a speedy keep. Take a look at his contribs, though, as he has prodded over 50 articles within roughly a 25-minute timeframe. I smell POINT or similar. Can anyone make sense of this? MuZemike 18:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me add that all the prods pertain to Theme Time Radio Hour - something I didn't readily notice. I still sense something fishy, however. MuZemike 18:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The Theme Time Radio Hour prods are sound; most of those articles are just tracklistings for episodes of a radio show. Previous deletion attempts have been dubious or just plain wrong, and he's also created articles which have been PRODded straight away for being non-notable, and uploaded non-free images into articles where they don't belong. I, too, sense something very fishy. (Edit: look at his user page). Black Kite 18:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I informed Azviz about this discussion. Jauerback/_dude. 18:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we ec'd when I was going to notify him. I went ahead and notified User:DreamGuy. MuZemike 18:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This account seems pretty fishy to me, but it seems to be part of a larger problem. It was created recently and jumped immediately to participating almost exclusively in edits related to deleting articles. It's nomination of Graeae Theatre Company for deletion was odd, as that's a little known article, and one of a few targeted for deletion by another recent editor that shot straight to AFD matters after creating a new account, User:Wordssuch, an account now abandoned. The Wordssuch account also targeted a bunch of articles for deletion -- Gloom (card game), Sploofus and a number of others -- whose sole commonality was that I had created them. User:Unionsoap, another relatively recent account focused primarily on AFD-type matters, recently tried getting Gloom (card game) deleted. User:Untick, also a recently created account, tried getting Sploofus deleted and has a user page similar to Azviz's. All of these account have taken actions that appear to be trying to harass me in some way, though usually not as blatantly as Wordssuch did. These all were created in the last month and a half or so and jumped immediately to making strange edits, including nominating very obscure articles of mine for deletion under very shoddy reasons. I'd list User:Esasus as someone who also seems to make very similar edits (mainly AFD-and related edits, harassment of other editors), but that account wasn't created as recently as these others... his user page is reminiscent of some of these others, though...

Also, for those who didn't poke around Azviz's history, he recently deleted warnings on his talk page, so theolder version shows some recent activity there.DreamGuy (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Just making sure...

Anyone familiar with the history of User:Simulation12--her "mother" logged in today and apologized on my talk page for her darling daughter's transgressions. Shall I block? (Of special note: the Sim13 account, back from "back then" when "she didn't quite understand the policy", was created three days ago and blocked shortly thereafter.) GJC 18:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Block.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Aye. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have enacted the block, as a third party after review, under WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets, point 3. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Gracias, mon peeps. GJC 19:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Linguistic contamination, Gladys? I see three different languages in three words, an impressive feat. (big grin) Horologium (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Romila Thapar: False Allegations of Sock Puppet: Please Investigate.

Posted by User:Lpi-english

I have had correct and unbiased information deleted by someone who is not an administrator.

The aricle I wrote is both accurate and I am personally aware of the integity of the facts and presented both "sides" of this issue.

There are 20 different choises of "dispute reosolution" and as this is my first (and probably last) time to post on Misplaced Pages, I cannot spend days trying to determine the precise process which of the mryiad of possible choices for a resolution is the correct one for me. Like you, I am astoundingly busy.

If what I wrote has no references, it is because there are none. The only "reference" is a book published by the test (the LPI) that I am writing about. Nobody needs this on Misplaced Pages, because the booklet does not tell the whole story.

I am intimately inviolved and extremely knowledgeable of what I am writing. The Misplaced Pages forum is open to those who may disagree. Let them disagree rather than censoring me. Since getting my IP address blocked (but not right now),I have been unable to revert the information about what I am writing back to the form I spent 10-20 hours writing (about 150 edits!). Read it please.

I did not think Misplaced Pages is what I though it is, and this is my mistake. Some things that are important to the people to whom I am writing to on that page (university students in Canada) were provided correct information available nowhere else, including people who are paid a lot of money to teach students something they really don't know about because the LPI (as noted in my page) is quite secretive about the process. Nevertheless, out of respect for the confidentiality given to me, I have not discusssed some aspects of the test that were told to me in confidence, but have written an accurate, unbiased, and frank page that would be of interest to the people who use Misplaced Pages daily (university students).

I have neither the time or interest to battle Misplaced Pages. I have seen endless things on Misplaced Pages which cannot be foot-noted because the subject discussed has not been a part of the academic literature (something of which I know more about than most).

I am angry that the endless hours of work that I have put into this page was made inaccessable to the hundreds or thousands of people who would be grateful for the honest view that it provides.

If there is a short way to resolve this, I would like to do so. If not, I wish to leave Misplaced Pages alone, have my name deleted from your databank and just realize that I need to find a forum that is open to truthful dialogue about a subject that is of interest to the people I serve.

Yes! I am angry. But there is a reason. Sometimes anger is the best emotion, but if this cannot be resolved in a short perion of time, I wish to withdraw from this small battle.

If you do not allow me to write the truth about the subject I addressed, the just post "Read The LPI Book" on that Misplaced Pages page, because no one else will write what I did, and that book has not told students what they really need to know.

I am not even sure how we can communicate on this issue...or even if Misplaced Pages will respond.

If this letter is addressed to the wrong person, please forward it to someone who is willing to talk to me.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lpi-english (talk • contribs) 21:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That was a lot of words just to request a block for edit-warring. "I am edit-warring; please block me" would have been just as effective. I've honored this user's request, as he has multiple warnings about edit-warring on his talk page, and also left a more personal note trying to explain the rules. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards