Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:02, 23 September 2009

False positive block of User:Elengul

I would really like to unblock a new user and sooner rather than later, who I think was mistakenly blocked by SarekOfVulcan, but obviously I don't want to undo another admin's action without discussion. There's good faith on both sides. This brand new user made what appears to me to have been a good faith request to remove vandalism as their first edit, which was itself misinterpreted by Sarek as blatant vandalism, which the edit could be mistaken for out of context. The misinterpreted "vandalism" edit can be seen at this diff. Everything else is explained at the bottom of SarekOfVulcan's talk page, who unfortunately appears to have gone offline.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem here was that the title he was requesting the move from didn't show up in the page history, so I thought he was pulling a fast one -- I didn't know to check {{Hinduism}}, which is where the vandalism actually happened. I've unblocked and cleared the autoblock: hopefully that will let Elengul edit without problems going forward. Thanks to Fuhghettaboutit for running this down. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Admin cabalism and spidey holes

If admins are going to use off-wiki discussions to coordinate and collaborate actions, these activities and discussions should be fair game for discussion on Wiki. Transparency and accountability are critically important. Those who refuse to be trustworthy should be desysoped post haste.

I'd like to offer this thread as a chance for any crooked admins to come clean and acknowledge that they haven't been forthright and have been violating the spirit of our policies and the collaborative and collegial nature of this encyclopedia building effort. Those who refuse to do so should be shown no mercy when their activities are discovered. I encourage those with the knowledge and links to do so to post the content from inappropriate discussions on or off wiki so we can root out the corruption. The double standards and sleazy collusion (while telling good faith contributors to discuss things and abide policy) should end now. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I assumed you were talking about IRC. I don't use it (I used to, but frankly the admins channel is dead 99% of the time). Soooo .... what are you talking about? Black Kite 01:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I assume it's this. TNXMan 01:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming that's the main criticism against WP:SPOTLIGHT because of its inherent "off-wiki" live-collaboration. MuZemike 01:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that it's necessary to ban IRC channels, but if they are used there should be no restrictions on posting the logs. What objection is there to the light of day being shown on discussion related to article development work? If there's nothing untoward going on then there's no issue. There shouldn't be any teaming up or coordination for editing advantage, as that would be equivalent to socking and meat puppeteering. If there are any real names involved or issues of real life identites being disclosed then redact those parts. But I expect other editors and admins in particular to be transparent in their activities. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur with ChildofMidnight. IRC channels and off-wiki mailing lists have been around since the very beginning. Where there is transparency, inclusiveness and openness there should be no problem. Manning (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• I shot JR. Protonk (talk) 01:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I am Spartacus. Kuru 02:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

seems reasonable. Not sure what the previous comments are meant to add.--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

They are poking fun at the suggestion for "crooked admins to come clean..." Dallas (TV series) ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 02:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT ::In fact, there are a lot of areas on Misplaced Pages that can only be viewed by administrators, which does lead me to be suspicious of what the administrator's get up to behind closed doors. I have to admit that my trust in the administrators we have now has shrunk so much over the past month or two that I find contributing to the encyclopedia to be a less honorable task as it once was, which has been leading me to contribute less and less. Yes, there are good admins out there, but there also admins who seem to abuse their rights in various ways. I will stop editing if the bad admins out there cannot sort themselves out.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 02:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be some evidence that Arbcom is willing to be more proactive, so I think that's a good thing. The problem of a workable dispute resolution mechanism for areas of confrontation is also an issue. Arbcom deals (sometimes ineffectively) with behavioral issues, but I've always thought it would be nice have a binding mediation mechanism for content disputes. I believe the issues Russavia is involved in, the issues WMC and SciApologist were caught up in, the disputes over Ireland, and the political feuding could be sorted out if we empaneled a group to consider sourcing and content issues once the existing boards have been exhausted. They wouldn't have to decide every issue, but they could direct and mediate to the appropriate existing venues and make sure article content and sourcing remain the focus so disputes don't deteriorate into bickering. The existing alternative of a time consuming and seemingly endless Arbcom proceeding that only considers editor behavior and not the content seems ridiculous to me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"...these activities and discussions should be fair game for discussion on Wiki." And are they not? Any activity is clearly able to be discussed, I don't think anyone can dispute that - this thread is in-of-itself proof of that. There is however an issue with so-called public logging, considering that what people type on IRC is not inherently released under CC-BY-SA 3, and so quoting an IRC conversation of mine here could be construed as a copyright violation. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 02:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

(quote)In fact, there are a lot of areas on Misplaced Pages that can only be viewed by administrators.(end quote from Sky Attacker).

Um... what? I don't know of any pages anywhere in Misplaced Pages which have restricted viewing. I'm no techie, but I was under the impression that the Mediawiki software doesn't even support that possibility. (By all means correct me if I'm wrong). Manning (talk) 02:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• A volunteer ambulance worker was being berated for being an hour reaching the scene of a wreck, just before dawn. As the ambulance pulled away (she was too tired to drive the ambulance safely, a deputy Sherrif had to do it, and already late for work), she climbed up on he porch and said: You are all 100% correct! It takes too long when I have to drive from home in the south part of the parish to the north part, get the ambulance out, drive to pick up the only other volunteer EMT at his house because he has no car, then drive to the scene of the emergency. The only other @#$% VOLUNTEER driver is down with the flu (but he made the 1st run tonight so I could sleep a couple of hours). And Friday a new VOLUNTEER EMT class starts up. And you can volunteer, and you can volunteer, and you can volunteer, and YOU can volunteer. And then she climbed in the seat of the deputy's car and went to sleep. Aren't we lucky that Adminship doesn't require expensive weeks of training to be even minimally useful?
• Clearly the admins need to at least be able to ask one another "Am I hallucinating or did Sinneed just call me an ambulance chaser?" or "God as my witness I hate vandals at 2AM." or, worse "I can't remember rule x, what is it @#$% called?" without people's hair falling out of their collective heads. - Sinneed (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I can see deleted pages... are there secret admin pages at Misplaced Pages that I wasn't invited to? I feel left out. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Same here. J.delanoy_adds 02:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Both of you need to contact your admin nominator to get your decoder rings, which allow to access the ADMIN: namespace. Horologium (talk) 02:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Horologium - you are clearly suicidal. By telling them about the decoder rings you risk them finding out about the secret "super-admin" permission. Only TCTISSTAEMOW can decide who gets to know about such things and I fear they will be coming to punish you soon. Manning (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Jokes aside, there appear to be mailing lists and admin channels. And I've seen pack mentality take place that isn't constructive. Anyway, I mostly wanted to spur discussion. I like the I am Spartacus statement best so far. And we'll see what comes of the Arbcom case just opened. Let's make sure we all look out for one another and keep things collaborative and collegial. The neutral point of view core policy makes clear there are appropriate ways to include diverse viewpoints and opinions. Thanks! ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a hunch that if someone contacted everyone who complained about off-wiki cabals, and offered to organize them all into an off-wiki cabal, most of them would join. Then they could have leaked logs of their very own. Wknight94 04:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If ya can't beat 'em, join 'em! ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 04:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, lol. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 04:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Am I alone in thinking this referred to WP:SPIDER? Because it certainly sounds as if someone needs a ladder to come down off the Reichstag. Guy (Help!) 12:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • No. Also, what admin action is needed here? None that I can see. → ROUX ₪ 14:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you now or have you ever been a member of the communist party? Please fess up now. It will only go worse on you if you don't. Syrthiss (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it looks very much like a communist conspiracy. As we speak they are trying to go after the whistle blowers who uncovered the wrongdoing (related to article content having to do with Russia). Perhaps those who disclosed the impropriety will be quietly sent to the gulag. The Supreme Democratic Committee of Administrators should never be questioned. And outing their indiscretions is a high crime that threatens the foundations of this Federation of States that is Wikitopia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation.

I am concerned that this is a clear violation of the owner's rights to the image. It appeared on the page of the subject and has now been removed. Could it be speedily deleted? File:091009 Wilson.jpg .--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• You could tag it w/ the appropriate tag. Protonk (talk) 02:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I did , and it was changed.--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a fair use rationale for File:091009 Wilson.jpg, and it is disputed. Unless fait use can be justified it will be deleted after 24 Sept, as the page says. ≈ Chamal  ¤ 02:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well it had a FU claim (however vacant the justification) so F9 didn't apply. Protonk (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• A note. When linking a category or file do like ] with the colon right before the file. Otherwise it adds the category or transcludes the image. Protonk (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

What the...?? I did that. How come it didn't work? ≈ Chamal  ¤ 02:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I will contact the owner tomorrow and see how convincing they feel the argument is.--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

What owner? Protonk (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That of the image.--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Three things. The AP has a ...unique...interpretation of fair use that isn't consonant w/ US Law. And wikipedia's "Fair use" guidelines are deliberately much more strict than US Law requires (because we want to actively promote free content as a substitute). And I strongly suggest you simply deal with this through the normal image deletion policies rather than bringing in third parties. Protonk (talk) 02:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That sounds omnious. I would think the owner ( Chip or the AFP, if chip didn't retain rights) would be primaries, rather than third parties--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, misread it. AFP not AP. Regardless. Please just use the normal deletion channels. Protonk (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm now really curious as to what their position will be. Curiosity killed the cat.--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Do whatever you like. I suspect the answer will be rather mundane. Protonk (talk) 02:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I broke it in the edit conflict, I think. Protonk (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I nominated if for deletion through our files for deletion process. Protonk (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

TY. I never could figure out where and how to do it.--Die4Dixie (talk) 04:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

From the open-mouthed look, resembling a codfish, Wilson appears to be suffering from a bug that a lot of Republicans caught this past year - the dreaded disease called "disenfranchisement", colloquially known as "the outs". Baseball Bugs carrots 04:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Lol. Inc. complaining about BLP. ;) Protonk (talk) 05:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

All this fuss over a picture taken at a bingo parlor? -- Atama頭 07:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

One curious thing is that someone got a nice, clear photo from a supposedly spontaneous outburst. You don't suppose this could have been an orchestrated event, do you? GASP! Baseball Bugs carrots 13:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Doubt it -- I'm sure there were cameras all over the place watching the "audience" to get reaction shots, and this one happened to be in the right place at the right time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Guitarherochristopher, again

Greetings. Once again, I'm here to report Guitarherochristopher (talk · contribs). I reported him ten days ago, but the report seemed to get brushed aside (see Archive). Well he's still being non-responsive and adding nonsensical and/or false information. But also of note is a new-found knack for profanity Deserted Cities (talk) 04:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Pretty clear-cut vandalism. User blocked for 72 hours (this is the user's first block). Manning (talk) 05:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Deserted Cities (talk) 05:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries. All part of the service. :) Manning (talk) 06:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

BOT at an IP address

Noticed this on a friend's talk page. It is obvious the BOT has signed out and it still working. Not sure if it should be blocked until it signs back in or what the procedure for these things is, but I thought I would bring it everyone's attention. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Radiopathy

I reverted an edit yesterday by this user to Automatic double tracking, which asserted that ADT was "the same thing American engineers had been doing for ten years", and inserted the word "supposedly" into the statement that ADT was developed at Abbey Road Studios. This editor offered no proof of his claims, or documentation to back them up. Not long after, he inserted WP:OR and "synthesis of data" tags onto the same page, asking for references, and left a comment on the article's talk page. I provided the references he requested (happened to have time off work, and the book handy), removed the tags (since there was now documentation), and pointed out that he still hadn't provided any similar grounds for his own claims. (He says he wants "neutrality" for the article, against "worshipers of Beatlemania and Abbey Road"; while I can sympathize with the latter, "supposedly" is hardly a neutral word... it's more of a weasel word, and his general tone is hardly "neutral".)

I just logged in, to find a WP:CIVIL message (my first, in almost five years editing on here) on my talk page from him (and about my edit summary, of all things), and "unverified" tags on each and every header of the ADT article; far more than is called for in such a situation. (Somebody wants to edit-war, and it's not me.) I went to leave a reply at his own talk page... and discovered it was blank, and that he regularly erases messages, warnings, etc., from other editors. Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black, from here... and life's too short for me to keep dealing with such people. Zephyrad (talk) 08:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the wp:CIVIL violation. I myself have been guilty of the over-flagging thing, and have learned to avoid it...I hope. I did add a {{refimprove}} article flag. There are large chunks of text (entire sections) that are entirely unsourced. - Sinneed (talk) 09:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Editor adopting username very similar to mine to spamlink with

I have in the past removed linkspam from a set of articles, and reported the spammers, who have been indefblocked, one as a suspected sockpuppet. E.g. Wikipedik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), BennyObama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Just noticed a new editor called Struway22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), i.e. my username with an additional '2' on the end, adding the same linkspam to some of those articles. Don't know if this breaches the username policy, or whether I should just be flattered they've remembered me, but thought I'd mention it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The account was obviously created for purely disruptive purposes, so I have blocked the account. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair Use Images on User Pages

Is Fair Use Image Bot dead, because I see many user pages with fair use images. See this for example. miranda 15:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

FairuseBot (talk · contribs) hasn't edited since March. Is that the bot you were thinking of? --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. But I do see a lot of fair use images on user's pages. I think people should start manually removing them per FURG since the bot is not working. miranda 16:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it is down indefinitely due to some changes in the MediaWiki software. See also User_talk:Carnildo#FairuseBot. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Brandon runs a removal bot. I also have a report at Tools:~betacommand/NFCC9.html that lists the issues. β 18:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that Brandon's bot does not remove non-free content from the template space. That has to be done manually. J Milburn (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

FairuseBot doesn't handle images in userspace -- it's simply not a fight I want to get involved in. The closest the bot comes to it is that if it finds a non-free image that's used only on a userpage, it will mark the image for deletion as unused. --Carnildo (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

What happened to the bot which places a big C on copyrighted images in userspace? Can't someone make a clone of that bot to deal with the userspace issues? miranda 17:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked user User:Rejace3836 back as User:Jigkiller3836

Rejace3836 was blocked for being a vandalism only account. She claims to be an actor by the name of Jalen Carter , and takes an interest in horror films, specifically Saw VI. There were blocked after several vandal edits, including personal attacks. It appears that they are back as Jigkiller3836, first creating a page for Saw VII then creating an article about Jalen Carter, and now posting at the Saw VI talk page. Thus far they have not done anything as bad as they did under their previous account, however they are evading a block. After three years I'm still not up on the ins and outs of a block but I was always lead to believe that block evading is a blockable offence, however innocuous the new edits are. If someone could let me know what the lay of the land is, or warn the new version of Rejace3836 I would appreciate it. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I've blocked Jigkiller3836 and suggested they request unblock as Rejace3836 if they'd like to continue editing. – Luna Santin (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

To the extreme

Administrators, the activities of By78 is getting intolerable. He is going and vandalizing the pages. Please take action.Bcs09 (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this seems to be referring to a dispute on Fast Attack Craft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? A little more context would be helpful. Looks like there's been some reverting back and forth, maybe three or four in the last three days, but people are at least talking to each other via edit summary. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's over which pictures to use. Evil saltine (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... following up a bit, I've notified By78 of this discussion, and noticed Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/By78, which seems connected to a different dispute at Stock market. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks for disruption, edit-warring, and sockpuppetry. MuZemike 17:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not the only incident see loeth's talk page for more details . Vedant (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's see what happens. If he so wishes to come back earlier, I'm sure we'll see another sock or something. MuZemike 17:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

There was a lengthy discussion about this user a few days ago on AN. Evil saltine (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Problem with IP editor repeatedly hounding me for months

I have been having issues with 206.170.111.187 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) repeatedly hounding me over the last few months, including repeated personal attack on my talk page. I had previously reported this to the Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts. (Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts#Repeated personal attacks by an IP) While the personal attacks have largely gone, the hounding has not. —Farix (t | c) 02:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I issued a final warning. –Juliancolton |  02:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see your warning before I blocked Julian, and I did so (for three months as the ip appears quite static) for multiple harrassing personal attacks over quite some time as well as numerous other vandalistic edits with a bent toward the homophobic (see e.g., ).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Not nearly as static as I thought so changed to 1 week.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

fine by me. –Juliancolton |  03:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a week is not going to phase the individual harassing me. They only leave these personal attacks on my page about once a month and rarely ever edits between such times. I doubt they will even noticed the block until after it has expired. If there is a way to keep this particular IP from editing my talk page without affecting other IP editors, then that would be the preferable solution. —Farix (t | c) 11:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this situation allows for semi-protection of your user space see your talk page for further details.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

At once very three to four weeks (if not longer), it's not really worth the semi-protection. —Farix (t | c) 20:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I am being harassed by an admin User:Frank

I feel that I am being trolled by an admin, I am not saying they are a troll, they may very well just be having a bad hair day and are an otherwise good admin (I do not know him at all, first time meeting the admin). A bit of background, I had to along with others request an arbcom due to years of drama on ADHD articles by user scuro. This resulted in policies, including no incivilty and no personal attacks being passed by arbcom as well as other editing restrictions on scuro. I saw what I deemed a personal attack on ADHD talk page, it was in response to another editor (Doc James) but was aimed at other editors as well. I thought about going directly to arbcom and requesting enforcement but then thought, nah I will just send a warning template first, I don't want to go running to arbcom enforcement for every violation. I hoped my level 4 warning template would do the trick. Instead I got 2 disruptive editors for the price of 1 sadly, as one admin showed up and said "it wasn't a "personal attack", anyway I disagreed. I expected the conversation on my talk page to quickly fizzel out, with us agreeing to disagree but sadly this admin is just going off the deep end. I have requested 3 times for them to leave my talk page now and they refuse. They are now resorting to the level of twisting facts, quoting people out of context to "win an argument". I am getting messaged multiple times daily now, message after message. I find them obsessive and to be quite honest displaying similar behaviour to problem editors that I would usually end up reporting to admin noticeboard or getting into drama with. Basically the issue really is beyond the point of whether I "should have went straight to arbcom enforcement" and was wrong (to be nice) and give them a warning first or whether I was correct or wrong in interpreting comments as a personal attack. The issue is that I am actually now being trolled and harassed by an admin and I would like the people/admins here to basically just say stop harassing literaturegeek, let it go, leave him alone, stop making a mountain out of mole hill etc. This is the first time to my knowledge that I have had to report an admin and do not like to do so but I can just see the signs that I have seen in other disruptive editors I have dealt with in the past and would like someone to put a stop to it. My evidence links are here.User_talk:Literaturegeek#I_have_requested_administrator_Xeno.27s_help_with_regards_to_your_threats I would rather deal with the initial seperate drama via reopening arbcom (if that becomes necessary) rather than here.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to state that at this point I DO NOT want admin Frank blocked, unless it is just blocked from my talk page. I have no gripe with him, I do not know him, I just want him to go away is all and let the subject drop. I am tired of being harassed over and over again over what is in reflection a trivial argument over a subjective interpretations of what is or is not a personal attack. It is at the point of craziness please intervene.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Some diffs would be a good starting point.. Never mind, found them. Thanks Manning (talk) 14:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

LG, perhaps just simply archiving that discussion on your talk page would work? Not sure anything more productive is going to come from it. While I'm a bit surprised Frank (normally pretty laid back, IMHO) hasn't respected your three clear requests to stay off your talk page, you're replying to him and then requesting he stay away, and sometimes it's hard for imperfect humans to leave things alone when that happens. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

More background information can be found here on user Xeno's talk page.User_talk:Xeno#ADHD--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Fluoquen, that is a good idea and I think any future comments made by admin Frank that I will just ignor. On my second attempt to get him to leave my talk page, I specifically worded my response in a way not to invite more debate and gave him a "carrot" by suggesting that we agree to disagree and part company. As it was an admin and has administrative powers and influence I felt compelled to respond.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

There's far too much wall-of-text to expect poor uninvolved people to wade through it all, but at a glance I see some unreasonable behavior on your part. I would suggest just letting this drop, and refraining from giving editors warnings in the future. You don't appear to know when a giving warning is or is not appropriate. If there's a real problem, someone else will come along and deal with it. Friday (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually just DID read most of it and came to the identical conclusion that Friday did as well. Let it go and move on. Manning (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your views. I have used the twinkle tool on a daily basis thousands of times without problems. I will avoid in future all warnings for scuro however and just request his immediate block on arbcom enforcement. I feel being a nice guy and giving a warning first is not worth all of the drama. Friday and manning you are not familar with the arbcom or the situation on the ADHD talk pages. I understand and appreciate that you both cannot wade through mountains of text or arbcom evidence and findings. That is why I specifically requested intervention regarding why an admin will not let this drop and what I can do when an admin who I do not know has taken an intense displeasure of someone disagreeing with them to the point of harassing me. I did not want any admin to do a reassessment of the arbcom findings and the drama on ADHD talk pages. I must say I disagree that uninvolved admins are going off-topic and passing judgements on ADHD drama which is covered by arbcom. I will go back to arbcom if that area needs covering as they are familar with the background and have enforcement policies.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Frank's initial point was correct; while Scuro's comment included a characterisation that you reject, I don't think it was a personal attack per se and clearly it did not warrant the template warning given. Inaccurately weighted warnings are a problem when using the pre-loaded Twinkle options, but there are multiple levels and Twinkle (and other tools) make it abundantly clear that you are solely responsible for your edit. No harassment has occurred that I can see. Having said that, I'm not sure why the conversation continued much beyond that and it seems clear it doesn't need to go any further. Archiving the section and moving on is the right way to go. Nathan 15:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Frank's initial comment about it being not technically a personal attack may have been correct who knows, subjective. That is not the problem. The harassment may not be the best description but problem was not leaving talk page after several requests and my suggestion to agree to disagree and also and most importantly Frank resorting to quoting out of context people, knowingly posting very dishonest interpretations of the situation to make me look bad. Essentially being very dishonest to my face knowing full well that I knew he was being dishonest, this was very antagonistic especially from a complete stranger, this was the issue. It is being discussed in the below section.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Been reading this and felt the need to interject. When you continue responding to a discussion and don't like the result in the end, that's not harassment. It's just a discussion that didn't go the way you planned, and the other guy just won't see how wrong he is. There are no extra rules for admins concerning how reasonable and agreeable they have to act towards those they argue with, so you won't get any leeway just because the user you're arguing with is an admin. His "interpretation" of the situation probably seems about as "dishonest" as yours does to him. If you feel annoyed by the discussion, there's no need to ask the user to leave your talk page. Simply stop responding, archive the discussion, and be done with it. If he then continues to post to your talk page regarding the same issue, that might be a reason to come here and complain. Equazcion (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a lot of wisdom in what you say. I did continue to respond after asking him to leave. Ignoring him would probably have been a better move. In the past I have had problematic editors on my talk page and I just undid (removed) their edits from my talk page. I felt doing this in this instant could have backfired as he was an admin.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Response from User:Frank

(sub-heading used because I'm responding in general, not to the comment directly above)

My opinion of the edit that led me to LG's talk page hasn't changed one bit; it was an inappropriate warning. I generally don't think that "leave my talk page alone" is sufficient answer to "your warning was inappropriate" because it doesn't address the core issue of civility. However, I've said all I needed to at the page - and, perhaps, more.

Having said all that, I hope, LG, that you understand that me being an admin has nothing to do with this. Nowhere did I threaten you, and nowhere did I assert or even imply that what I was saying had more merit because I'm admin. I made my comments purely as a member of the community, which is what all of us (admin and otherwise) are expected to do. If you perceive otherwise, please re-evaluate without attaching any ulterior or power-hungry motives to my actions. I never escalated, and I never brought my status as an admin into the picture, and I never said anything remotely like "you'd better agree with me or else". That would be highly inappropriate. Instead, I've tried to get you to see not my point of view, but the community's point of view on the matter. Indeed, I actually asked you to provide support for your assertion that it was a personal attack, giving you the opportunity to show me where my interpretation of community values is incorrect. I have steadfastly declined to investigate past drama and have also declined to ask anyone else to support my point so I could say "see?", and I have also avoided looking into your past edits. Those things would be harassment; none of my actions fit that profile.  Frank  |  talk  15:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I just want to agree here with Frank that "leave me alone" is a useless, inappropriate response. Anyone who says such things is probably not well suited to a collaborative project. I don't believe Frank's actions were out of line in this case. Friday (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Can I start off by saying that I DO NOT care if scuro made a personal attack or whether it was "technically just uncivil or inappropriate. I do not want Frank or anyone else to divert this conversation off-topic. This is what I mean, he has resorted to levels of twisting facts, this is what I mean by saying he is being antagonistic, harassing (perhaps there is a better word for it) and disruptive. He states that my response to him disagreeing with his interpretation of the situation was to tell him to go away. Nope, that was my response to him resorting to twisting facts, to imply I sent a warning because an editor requested consensus and NPOV. He had resorted to being nasty resorting to dishonesty, that was why I asked him to leave. I politely engaged him at first. More to come...--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not quite exactly what is meant by "letting it drop". Friday (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok to address the rest of Frank's comments. Actually Frank I DO see your point of view. Your interpretation of the situation was it was not a personal attack, but was more an uncivil or inappropriate comment? At least Xeno saw it that way and you didn't disagree. My point of view arbcom passed a dual motion of no personal attacks or uncivilness, there is an enforcement block for violations (although I am not completely sure if personal attacks OR uncivilness is blockable by them would have to confirm). My point and PROBLEM is NOT that we disagree about subjective interpretations of demeaning comments, my problem with you is that you have on several occasions escalated the situation by twisting facts, quoting out of context and just generally being nasty. THAT is my problem, not to mention suggesting that we agree to disagree and asking you to leave my talk page and you ignoring my request to agree to disagree. It was the form of lying, distorting what issues were, quoting out of context people to "win an argument". I cannot deal diplomatically with people who resort to these tactics. Can you not see my point of view that resorting to dishonesty is very antagonistic? Please address this.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Friday, according to a wiki tool, you have edited just under 100 of the pages that Frank has edited so I would consider that you have a conflict of interest as far as Frank goes and you may not have a neutral interpretation of this situation. He is also a fellow admin. I am not criticising you at all, I myself have sometimes commented in drama situations where I probably wasn't neutral, none of us our perfect and I could be entirely wrong about you being friends with frank, so please do not take offense. Just saying I am not comfortable is all. Hope you understand.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

"Friday, according to a wiki tool, you have edited just under 100 of the pages that Frank has edited so I would consider that you have a conflict of interest as far as Frank goes and you may not have a neutral interpretation of this situation." - Sorry, but this means nothing at all. Friday and Frank are both admins, so obviously they're going to edit the same pages (RFA, ANI, RFPP, AIV, etc). –Juliancolton |  16:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

What is your point in saying that Friday and Frank have edited a lot of the same pages? Are you accusing them of colluding with each other, or of being sockpuppets? Warofdreams, the closing bureaucrat on Frank's Request for adminship, has edited 110 of the same pages as Frank has. Would you consider him to be "too close" to Frank to be impartial? Are you planning on demanding that Frank stand again for RfA because the closing bureaucrat has a conflict of interest with him? Because by your definition, Warofdreams has more of a COI than Friday, who has 98 pages in common. J.delanoy_adds 16:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised that it's only 100. Generally, I'd thought admins across the 'pedia should have about 150-200 in common, given the tasks we need to do. ↪REDVERS 16:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Holy smokes! User:J.delanoy and I may need to be checkusered. :( (Of course, with 283659, User:J.delanoy and anyone may need to be check-usered. User:Redvers, I think we have to bundle you in on this, too.) --Moonriddengirl 17:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

J Delanoy and Redvers, I was not making an assertion but a suspicion. My whole post also said this, I am not criticising you at all, I myself have sometimes commented in drama situations where I probably wasn't neutral, none of us our perfect and I could be entirely wrong about you being friends with frank, so please do not take offense. Just saying I am not comfortable is all. Hope you understand. I thought that I worded it in such a way that I was not casting judgement on them or accusing them of being a bad person. I have never met Friday before so it would be impossible for me to judge them. I was just trying to say that I felt uncomfortable. Friday has posted on my talk page and I would like to publicly state that I do not believe Friday and Frank know each other and have said sorry to Friday.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I can see admin board discussion is not going to address my complaints. I just wanted to be left alone by Frank. I believe that this posting on the admin board has achieved that objective. I never did want any of the admins here to take any administration action against Frank.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If you don't want admin action, then ANI is probably not your forum. As it says at the top, "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Misplaced Pages that require the intervention of administrators." If you think you're dealing with harassment and you can't resolve it in conversation with the other user, WP:WQA may be a better place to go. --Moonriddengirl 17:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I felt admins could help as far as just requesting Frank to respect requests for him to leave me alone after he had made his point multiple times. Thank you for your suggestion moon. Perhaps WP:WQA would have been better.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not happy

I have moved this text to the talk page as it is better served there.Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#I_am_not_happy--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry vandalism?

• User talk:90.233.167.166
• User talk:Eliminiatedguy

Dear administrators, I am not sure if the following is more appropriate for the sockpuppetry or vandalism admin board and so am bring it here. Anyway, please compare the following:

• From the IP: , , ,
• From the account: , , ,

As seen above, an IP and now account are making the same kind of "she is hot" edits to the same articles and even after multiple warnings. I appreciate attractive women as much as the next guy, but even if the claim that these women as "sexy" or "hot" is something we can agree on, we still cannot just add our opinions over and over, with swearing, poor grammar, etc. That it seems to be the same person from IP to account, I bring it forth here for admin attention should the individual do additional IP/account hopping. Please help! Thank you for your time and consideration! Sincerely, --A Nobody 20:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Procedural Note I have informed the users of this thread, on their talk pages. Basket of Puppies 20:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Basket, you beat me to it! Sincerely, --A Nobody 20:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems like the user just decided to sign up for an account. That in itself isn't against the rules. He or she probably did not see your warning to the IP due to creating the account. I would just treat the user like any other vandal, warn then block. If the user returns as a sock, we can deal with it then. Thanks. Evil saltine (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Eliminiatedguy indefinitely blocked as vandalism-only, IP for 2 weeks. MuZemike 21:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast action! Sincerely, --A Nobody 21:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Sweetfornow disruptive editing and now personal attacks

See previous discussions at:

Sweetfornow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Previously this user has edit warred on 3 different pages, introduced copyvios, original research and numerous problems into various articles. Their initial response to all the warnings they got and previous AN/I threads was to blank the warnings and carry on. Only recently have they engaged in any communication, their first of which was basically a violation of WP:OWN, along with borderline personal attacks , and assumptions o bad faith. The user may be engaging in pointy edits as evidenced by this . Several of the users contributions were removed for using bad sources, or no sources. Today I noticed a couple of problems in addition to this.

• This prod in only a few seconds of googling I was able to verify most of the info on the page, I reverted it and added one source I'll add more later. The claim that no sources could be found just doesn't ring true at all.
• The serious gutting of Matt the Knife with extremely dubious claims . A well formed cite went 404, so their response was to take out whole paragraphs rather than find the source. Regardless if an article or link goes 404, especially to a news paper or radio show, it doesn't invalidate the citation. They were also removing citations and large portions of the text because a newspaper cite went to the home page and not the article itself. It took me less than a minute to check the newspaper site and find the correct link .
• Here the user is removing most of the article (including a citation). because they apparently can't read the entire article since its a for pay article.

These edits are very disruptive and creating a lot of work for other editors.--Crossmr (talk) 07:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that this user has not done much wrong. Please post more evidence of wrong doing if you still feel we should sanction this editor in any way. C.U.T.K.D 10:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Come again? This users first 100 edits had to pretty much all be undone because of various problems. Since then the user has inserted copyvios, tried to own articles, edit warred to try and push/remove content into articles. The editor has now stated on my talk page that anything not perfectly sourced is "libelous" . They're not even taking the time to check to see if the sources are valid before gutting articles. How is that not disruptive?--Crossmr (talk) 10:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like they've been warned by other editors as well. Dougweller (talk) 11:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

they have been warned plenty they like to blank their page and others see mooops talk history for that. I'm mobile now can't link--Crossmr (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The history of Terry Evanswood, a magician who's apparently not a favorite of this editor, shows an example of editing that harms the project. The article was prod'ed for notability, but it took very little effort on my part to establish notability. I came to the Evanswood article after reverting this edit to Brandon Hein, in which this editor removed a valid and necessary citation with the false edit summary "corrected links". --CliffC (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow missed that one. That is a blatantly false edit summary in an attempt to hide citation removal. Here is there attempt to hide talk about them on another users talk page .--Crossmr (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I suspect this may be a sock of indeffed Headlikeawhole (talk · contribs). This account appeared about a week after Headlikeawhole and his socks were blocked and some early edits were to topics that Headlikeawhole was interested in, like Crunk rapping and Paris Hilton. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The user is still trying to edit war on the Terry Evanswood article after more than one explanation that we don't have to see the content on the web for it to be a citation. If you have the evidence for thisi multixfer, can you do up a sockpuppet case? Or exactly how much evidence of disruption do we need here?--Crossmr (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I made those edits because the links doesn't reference the page. I click through each link and read the content. I removed the links because they don't contain any reliable info. Removing info and fake citations isn't against Misplaced Pages's rules in any way. People shouldn't vandalize articles and write whatever they want to. Some of the paragraphs do not have reliable citations. The links only take you to a homepage of a website, not the actual content stated in the Wiki articles. Without reliable sources, then the article would be false. Crossmr: I'm sick and tired of writing the same shit over and over again on your talk page. I have a reason to remove the links. Unless you have a good reason to complain, get over it and stop whining like a child. Jumping to immediate conclusions won't help. Sweetfornow (talk) 02:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The citation isn't fake just because the link has gone 404 or there is no link. You removed a citation to a radio show. It is unlikely that that radio show is online anywhere, but that doesn't mean you can just go through and gut articles because you can't see the citation this moment conveniently on the internet. As I already pointed out it, it took me all of 30 seconds on the homepage of the newspaper to verify the article existed.There are probably tens of thousands of citations in[REDACTED] articles that go to physical books without a weblink. By your logic those citations and any information drawn from them should be torn out of the articles. you have had numerous editors undo your edits, and either warn you or attempt to explain this to you. Read WP:NPA as well as you've now crossed the line into blatant personal attacks. As for your reasons for removal, let's look at them:

• Here you complain of a broken link . Yet look at the source. The link provided is simply a link to the radio series, not the individually cited episode. While the link to the series needs to be updated there is zero problem with this reference. Yet you went through and removed every single time it is used and then yanked all the content.
• Here you claim to remove "several" broken links yet again its just one, plus several uses of it . It is again not a broken link. Its a link to the main page of a newspaper, but the article, date and authors are cited. Within 30 seconds of going to the website in question I was able to find the article.
• Here you removed an entire section because you can't take the time to check the websites in question to see if the articles are there . The section you removed was also cited with the radio show which you pulled out in your first edit.
• More of the same. The article, author, date, etc is cited. Direct links to the articles are not required for citation
• Here you remove another episode citation from a show.
• here you remove more citations which are perfectly fine and gut more content
• And then after ripping almost every single citation out of the article, you tag it for notability .

That is an absolutely atrocious series of edits. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding on the citation system on wikipedia.

• here you complain of an inability to find sources. Taking the name and putting any book name in quotes I returned a plethora of sources in under 1 minute.
• At the Terry Evanswood article you keep removing sourced content because you can't read the whole article. We assume good faith and the editor that added content based on that article is assumed to have added it correctly. Unless you have access to the full article and want to provide it to contradict some claim that was made with it, you shouldn't be removing it.
• As pointed out above, you provided a false edit summary here to try and hide what you were really doing to the article.--Crossmr (talk) 03:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

A lot of "dead links" are often stripped from ref lists and their content blanked when the information is often available on the internet archive. Just another point. I see way too many people blank legit online references when the link is dead simply because the article was moved or something. Just a general comment. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Also a general comment: among the edits of Headlikeawhole (talk · contribs), mentioned above as possibly a related account, this gives an interesting insight and makes me realize once again how much time is wasted managing disruption. --CliffC (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with trolls is definitely a time waster, I'll give you that. Worrying about what trolls think is pointless and self-defeating. The fact that anyone feels pleasure at acting like a dick on a collaborative website and getting blocked for it is pathetic to the nth degree. That's why WP:DNFTT is such a great policy and why revert-block-ignore is the best possible response. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 22:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be a nice response, but after 3 days of this sitting here, not a single admin has commented on this.--Crossmr (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

This wasn't even an issue of going to internet archive. Look at the first removal. They were removing content sourced to a broadcast radio show. There is no online copy of it that I know of. So removing it just because the series about page is dead is completely wrong. If a citation is ONLY a link with no information about an author, date, publisher, etc and it goes dead, it can be hard to find out what was on it. This is why we include these things. We don't run around gutting articles because a link in a citation is bad or has gone 404. This almost looks like a concentrated effort to trim the article so that it could be tagged for notability.--Crossmr (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Bcs09 suspected sockpuppet account of indefinitely banned User:Chanakyathegreat

I'm not sure how to submit a suspected sockpuppet but I thought it was important enough to submit this one here because User:Bcs09 appears to be a sockpuppet of User:Chanakyathegreat, who was blocked indefinitely after a long history of very disruptive behaviour. This case is based on judging by both accounts have an almost identicle edit history pattern, both have the same arguments with the same editors, both have the same edit wars, and the creation of the User:Bcs09 account was just after the indefinite block of the User:Chanakyathegreat account. 81.170.18.20 (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, I doubt it. Anyone else smells dirty socks? HalfShadow 00:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

User:BertramJohnson

BertramJohnson (talk · contribs) was repeatedly creating a bio of himself. Although there were several warnings on his Talk page, nobody sat down and actually told him about WP:BIO, WP:N and WP:RS. By the time I got involved and explained that to him, he was blocked. I know he was given a final warning, but he did seem to be reaching out to people to ask why he couldn't have a bio. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet abuse at MfD

• Gurrenlaggan (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Orangesodakid (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

See Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Orangesodakid/hidden page challenge. The first account posted a personal attack five minutes after being created. It appears that the user is using socks to talk to himself to make good appearances for himself. The spelling mistakes further make this obvious. Triplestop x3 00:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Might be a few off-wiki pals involved, there, by the looks of it. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, orangesodakid does not know how to talk on this page he says that he cant say anything because he is blocked what should he do?--Coldplay Expert 00:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

He is not blocked as far as I can tell (see his block log). Evil saltine (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

And the IP he is claiming to be caught in an autoblock by is not currently blocked, either. Regards, Javért 00:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I forgot about the autoblock. It doesn't actually the show the IP that is blocked, does it? I see an autoblock for User:Gurrenlaggan on Special:BlockList, but it does not give the IP. Evil saltine (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, it's actually Coldplay Expert (talk · contribs) who is blocked. The latest developments at user talk:Orangesodakid in regards to sharing accounts is also quite interesting... Regards, Javért 01:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

豪庸

豪庸 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is constantly inserting false information into music articles. Completely unresponsive: he's at final warning level for unsourced and false info, and repeated today. Despite the warnings, he has never made an edit to user talk space or article talk space, nor has he written an edit summary.—Kww(talk) 00:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I smell sock, but cannot remember of whom. MuZemike 00:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The only moderately likely candidates for this area would be JuStar and Petergriffin9901. This doesn't feel much like JuStar: JuStar was big on detailed citations to garbage sources: generally one-off references to obscure music charts. His big trademark was edit-warring: if you moved a comma, he'd move it back. I'm mentoring Petergriffin9901, and believe him to be reformed. 豪庸 (Goyo, if you will) doesn't edit war and doesn't fight. He just silently inserts errors into articles.—Kww(talk) 00:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I personally gave him a final final warning to quit and explain himself (I also notified him of the discussion here while I was at it) upon threat of a block if continued. MuZemike 01:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hoax article

Two hoax articles from the same user have been tagged for speedy deletion for a few hours. The articles are Sees Me Through and One by One (2010 TV series). Joe Chill (talk) 01:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That first one sounds like a show about Superman's X-ray vision. Baseball Bugs carrots 02:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Mikhailov Kusserow issue

I didn't do anything. I just answered questions on his talk page, that were posted by other users. However, he refers to it as vandalism, and so he puts a warning template on my talk page, without stating a logical reason, so I warned him about the use of such templates.--BoeingRuleOfThe9th-700 (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I twitch just before I make a 3rd-party post on someone's user talk page: Some folks are very sensitive about that. It looks like you may have offended one. But I don't see how it would fall under wp:vandalism. It appears the editor went on a warning-spree that doesn't make much sense. I am interested to see if one of the Admins has an idea how to help here, as I can't see a way. - Sinneed (talk) 09:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that this isn't the first time that Mikhailov has required admin attention:

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive552#User:Mikhailov Kusserow and RfA irregularities
• Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikhailov Kusserow/Archive

Rami R 10:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Mikhailov's contributions seem to consist mainly of posting welcome messages to users and asking for personal information such as where they live. (diff, diff, diff, diff). They're also adding username warnings to various user pages: for examples, see here, here and here. I've contacted Mikhailov about the username warnings (my concern was that they didn't specify what was wrong with the username), but didn't get a response other than Mikhailov archiving my question (maybe due to a language barrier?). I too would like to see if anyone has an idea on how to help get through to this editor. Jafeluv (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Strangely enough, he asked personal questions on talk:Relly Komaruzaman this talk page that were not in English, and funny enough I had to answer in Indonesian. Anyways, he really went on a spree there, warned 5 users that is yet to be understood by any of these contributors (including me).--BoeingRuleOfThe9th-700 (talk) 05:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate behavior by Off2riorob

• Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please see this inappropriate comment by Off2riorob (talk · contribs) . He has been blocked numerous times in the past for disruption .

As this inappropriate comment was left at my talk page, I would appreciate an uninvolved admin taking action here. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The comment is obnoxious and uncalled for but seems more like a WP:CIVIL than a WP:NPA problem. In any event, I doubt it rises to the level of blocking by itself. However, the general pattern of behavior by Off2 is clearly very less than idea. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not see anything in that comment remotely requiring any form of action. The linked comment was "you seem focused on A ... do you happen to be A?" It's likely rhetorical, but not a vio of WP:NPA or even WP:CIVIL from what I can see. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

EC. It is a bit much to come rushing here for this simple question. It is also not disruptive or obnoxious. I have been asked to declare my interest in topics before and I have been asked if I have any other accounts, both questions I have answered and it is overly senstitive imo to come rushing here to report an editor after being asked Off2riorob (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I've had a few interactions with RioRob. He has made rough comments about my conduct. He is willing however to explain himself in a reasonable manner. Maybe a smoother touch would be helpful but thus far I've seen quite a few admirable qualities in this editor, including the ability to help out. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there's nothing actionable here. Off2 isn't being the most diplomatic, but it's not egregious. He asked a question.. one he apparently thinks is relevant. You may choose to answer it, or not. Friday (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I would also request that there is no reason to actually bring this here that this not develop into a general discussion about me and I would politely request it to be closed and if any editor would like to discuss my editing they could open a RFC. Off2riorob (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I would like to think that if I had problems with your editing, that I would discuss it on your talkpage - that's what it's for, and the first place before WQA, ANI or even RFC. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Cirt's reaction is understandable and Off2riorob might not have been aware of the context. Cirt is very protective of his pseudonymity: he previously abandoned an account and restarted due to legitimate fears of offsite harassment. Rob asked Cirt whether he was Rick Ross; Rick Ross edits Misplaced Pages under his real name. Cirt is not Rick Ross. Most people seek to truncate a sensitive discussion when the opening query accuses them of obsession. Rob may not have realized he was opening a cupboard that had several cans of worms on a low shelf. Durova 16:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad there is a reason for it. Do you think posting that would be the smartest thing here? If there are people trolling and they possibly don't like Cirt we would be setting him up to go through it all again. I am very sensitive to somethings though so you made a great point aside from that. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It's been spelled out in much greater detail as arbitration evidence, so there's no harm to mentioning here. Cirt's security issue with the previous account has been resolved. Durova 17:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this previous issue that Cirt has had regarding his identity the reason for Cirt rushing me to the noticeboard? Off2riorob (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't read his mind, but it seems possible that might have a bearing on why he would take a hard line on WP:OUTING. Both Cirt and Rick Ross were parties to that arbitration so your question was tantamount to asking whether he had socked an arbitration case. Not sure whether you were aware of that; the case grew so long and tangled that it's almost unreadable. Durova 17:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No, that was not on my mind, it was just a feeling and it was in my mind and I asked, I have seen other editors ask these type of questions on talkpages and thought that it was ok to ask.Off2riorob (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• I find the spelling problems in the disputed comment troublesome, and yet we're not supposed to refactor. Such are the trials and tribulations of Misplaced Pages. Do they have deprogrammers that can help with this addiction? Rick, are you reading this??? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I am also involved in editing the page. I think it's pertinent to point out that while there is one editor who has openly admitted a conflict of interest (and this has been handled perfectly well) he has suggested that there is more than one editor with a COI, and that (in a comment he later said was a joke and withdrew after Cirt complained to him) Cirt was editing on behalf of the COI editor. The apology factored as part of rob's talkpage is here.I don't think rob is trying to uncover anyone's real world identity; he's just not happy that consensus has gone against him and is carping. He simply doesn't like that the article exists.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

IP User:68.187.219.254

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

User:68.187.219.254 persists in posting WP:OR of his view point on the Michael Richards page, 6 different editors have reverted his (and same) edits, with already given on his talk page. He just violated 3RR. It's becoming quite disruptive. Tendancer (talk) 05:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Jw120550

I have received an email from Jw120550 (talk · contribs) in regards to being unblocked, and requesting me to mentor him. Looking over his edits, I see nothing much more than juvenile vandalism, and am inclined to accept barring any other issues I haven't seen. Posting here to get some feedback on whether unblocking is appropriate. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It's best to wait a bit and see if they're really serious about wanting to contribute. –Juliancolton |  02:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's more than merely juvenile, it's politically motivated. If you're willing to mentor him, I would be okay with an unblock but only if we can be assured he won't make any edits to articles relating to US federal politics for the next year. This guy goes a long time between periods of editing. Also, I was particularly troubled by the way he refused to answer my question as to why he vandalized. It made me think he's just saying what he thinks he needs to in order to be unblocked. Mangojuice 04:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that he would need to not edit anything at all, in either article-space or talk-space, on US federal politics. For at least a year, but I would prefer longer. We should also agree that if he were to vandalise again then an immediate block, without cascaded warnings, would be imposable. On that basis OK give him a last chance, but I also feel that his edits were political rather than juvenile. --Anthony.bradbury 13:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Fresh eyes needed for Prattville COI/spam problem

The article Prattville, Alabama is being repeatedly edited by an IP (User:98.89.12.105 who is Mtp1960, self-identified as being a principal in the "ourprattville.com" web site. The user in question has added numerous spam links for their site to Misplaced Pages articles, and has repeatedly reverted against three sysops (myself, AniMate and Mahanga) and two editors (Themfromspace and Baseball Bugs). They remain convinced that their site has a "right" to be mentioned. I've temporarily locked the article, but I'd like fresh eyes to assess the matter. Thanks in advance. --Ckatz_spy 05:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ckatz - your actions seem legitimate and fair. I note the user is now using an account to get around sprotect. I would endorse a 3RR block based on prior activity. If you feel you've intervened enough let me know and I'll come and assist. Manning (talk) 05:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Better idea: Misplaced Pages:Spam blacklist. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ckatz - I've left an instruction on the talk page to work towards consensus. I'd like to change the protection level back to sprotect if that's OK with you. The user *might* start to be cooperative, and if not then further reversion will be grounds for a block. Manning (talk) 05:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me; the protection was only intended to allow me to place get some feedback here. (I actually went to semi-protection first, but the IP returned to his/her registered account to circumvent that.) Thanks. --Ckatz_spy 06:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Done - back to sprotect for a month (to stop IP spam). If the user adds the spam link back despite the repeated warnings in then I think a block is well in order. Manning (talk) 06:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The COI is obvious, but I am concerned that these news services might be legitimate. I've gave several options to the user on how to proceed, but it appears they've decided to edit war instead. I just wish that instead of edit warring back, there was some real attempt to engage them and make them understand where we are coming from. AniMate 07:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Where the IP address (or one of them at least) made their mistake was in spamming that so-called "online newspaper" to other articles (I think Tim Conway was one) in an effort at self-promotion. If it had stayed as solely a link in the Prattsville article, it might have stayed under the radar. Baseball Bugs carrots 13:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, efforts to explain the EL guideline have been countered with what are essentially demands to be included, as well as claims that we are questioning their journalistic integrity. --Ckatz_spy

Again, there is a spam blacklist. Cut them off on a technical level and they'll be bored soon enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Better yet, XLinkBot. The website doesn't look as if it always would be inappropriate to link to, so I think the blacklist is overkill at this point. Xymmax _{So let it be done} 13:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

AIV backlogged

WP:AIV Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This user should be indef blocked immediately....User talk:Somody long term pattern of vandalism Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at his contribs I'd tend to agree. Someone should get on this. Equazcion (talk) 03:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

User uploaded File:RookSame.jpg and is using it to vandalize Asia-related articles. It needs to be speedy deleted and he needs to be blocked. Is anyone here? Equazcion (talk) 03:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef, file deleted. Camw (talk) 03:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Camw. Equazcion (talk) 04:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• AIV is again backlogged. Let's get this cleaned up before some of these reports "time out" and aren't blockable. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Why would it matter if they "time out". If someone stops vandalizing without being blocked, then what is the need for a block anyways? --Jayron32 06:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I should have used the term "stale". After awhile the reports just become "stale" or "time out" and blocks aren't given, but it leaves the vandals room to come back in an hour or two and keep on vandalizing. It is better, in my opinion, to block them immediately and not let AIV get backed up, then to give them a free pass on the vandalism they have committed. That is just me though. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Generally like Cockroaches they come back..,..Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Except when they don't. --Jayron32 06:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Terminix. (my comment has been in no way spnosroed by Terminx.)Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Reference Desk vandalism

I collapsed an entirely inappropriate post by IP address 70.171.239.21 on the Humanities Desk, "Irish vs Germans in America", on the grounds that it was soapboxing, trolling and using the Reference Desk as a discussion forum. The user has twice reverted this and accused me of vandalism in doing so .

Note that he brings up User:Taxa, who has recently returned to the Ref Desk making disruptive posts that are extremely similar in tone and content to those by IP 70.171... I believe that this IP address very likely to be Taxa himself. His own IP address is in the range 71.1* and he has been caught in the past using a false signature to disguise this (ie normal text formatted to resemble a Wiki signature) . He has twice reverted my efforts to collapse his trolling thread on the Humanities desk about "Irish vs Germans in America"; I have no intention of breaking the three-revert rule to deal with him, so I'd request an immediate ban on the IP address, and sanctions of some sort to be taken against User:Taxa. Malcolm XIV (talk) 11:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I would have outright deleted some of those threads, except I get yelled at for "censorship". That stuff is purely intended to create debates, which the ref desk is not supposed to be about. Baseball Bugs carrots 11:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

And if you had deleted them, the troll would reinstate them. Which is why he needs to be stopped. Malcolm XIV (talk) 11:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The ref. desks aren't articles, they're just ref. desks, so simply not responding is a better approach than deletion. But silly me, assuming more good faith than is warranted, I keep hoping an actual question will emerge from those lengthy essays. Baseball Bugs carrots 12:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If somebody has an answer to what I have asked, which is not ad hominem (re: above nonsense from those two), but simply academic, then the discussion will cease, as I will have understood with more clarity, the topics raised. I have no perennial interest in the subject matter. It's just unresolved questions I can't seem to get straight answers on, especially if I asked directly of some people who are at the center of my scrutiny in the issues. I'd rather not provoke belligerent people. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be impartial and neutral, but all I am getting here is misdirection and ad hominemism which doesn't address the issues referenced, so much as call foul on the individual with a "stupid question". I may be stupid, but the questions are not...or at least that's what my old schoolteachers used to tell everybody in the classes I went to. So, perhaps there are too many non-academically, non-intellectually, non-philosophically inclined people, such as Malcolm XIV and Baseball Bugs, who don't have the answers and instead of leaving well enough alone, decide to crap on the person who might get better replies from more knowledgeable scholastics here.

The above, unsigned as usual, is typical of the kind of meaningless rant the IP posts on the ref. desks, containing no discernible question, just a lengthy and obscure essay. And when we ask him to actually ask a factual, answerable question, he acts upset. Baseball Bugs carrots 12:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you address me without being negatively ad hominem? What specifically have I stated that upsets you? Are you a German who fancies himself nativist? Do you take offense to the rise of Irish Catholics in America? Please be honest why you oppose my questions, or I shall assume that is the cause of your belligerence.

Sign your posts by using 4 tildes (the squiggly thing in the upper left corner of your keyboard). Baseball Bugs carrots 12:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This looks like another sockpuppet of the reference desk sockpuppeteer (forgotten the name now, but I've dealt with a few relevant SPI cases). Blocked. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Good block. The other complaint was about Taxa, but he at least signs his posts, and occasionally makes useful comments, although most of his questions are debate bait. Baseball Bugs carrots 12:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I think talking to TAXA would be the best way to proceed, either on their talk page, or the ref desk talk page. As I recall all their posts haven't been half as soapboxy as the recent ones.

I think we need a prescribed method of dealing with soapbox type questions (not deletion since that causes hassle), but some closing method. Please discuss on the ref desk talk pages.83.100.251.196 (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The best method (which I plead guilty to not following sufficiently) is to simply not respond, since if no one will play, they will likely go away. Baseball Bugs carrots 12:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Taxa is a sockpuppet of the Ref Desk troll. Observe also the similarity between the responses given above by 70.171.239.21 and those given by User:Multimillionaire (another sockpuppet of the same user) when called out on his abuse of the Ref Desk. Malcolm XIV (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Neutralhomer - request supervision or close mentorship

In August, several editors (including admins) edit-warred with an IP over the placement and removal of a WHOIS template on User talk:94.192.38.247. (This is the static IP of User:Izzedine.) The IP was blocked for edit-warring. Neutralhomer was one of the main participants in this episode and left several aggressive messages, including "Keep it going and I will personally see to it that you are blocked indef". When cooler heads prevailed, there was some discussion (which incidentally called the treatment of the IP harassment), the IP was unblocked and two admins issued an apology about the whole debacle.

On 11 September, Neutralhomer ignored the resolution of the previous episode and replaced the WHOIS template after it had been removed by the IP, thus restarting the edit war. Neutralhomer started a thread on ANI. Both Izzedine and I directed readers to the previous resolution, but it had no positive effect. Subsequent to this, Neutralhomer began a series of very aggressive postings on Izzedine's user page, which prompted Izzedine to start a discussion at WP:WQA. Neutralhomer also began berating me on my talk page and would not stop posting there despite being asked several times (see my talk page history for 12 September). Neutralhomer eventually closed the ANI thread and declared himself "retired". He ended up being blocked for edit-warring.

Neutralhomer is obviously not retired, since he continues to edit. His conduct on 12 September can best be described as throwing a tantrum. This is not an isolated case - Neutralhomer has a long block log for incivility and harassment of other editors. I am requesting that if he continues to edit here, it is only under supervision or close mentorship. Since this may be an emotional issue, I plan on removing myself from the discussion and letting others decide if this is a reasonable idea. Someone please notify Neutralhomer of this thread. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou DC for giving an accurate and well-articulated description of the incident, and suggesting that Neutralhomer be subject to supervision or close mentorship as a result of his behaviour. Izzedine (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I see on that talk page history that you suggested a couple of times that he get professional help. Not terribly CIVIL of you...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think DC's edit summary comment in context can be viewed as understandable - after having being repeatedly confronted by an aggressive and uncivil editor. Izzedine (talk) 00:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

What I said in a single edit summary was: "Please get some qualified professional help. I don't mean that insultingly. This is not an invitation for a reply". This was siad out of genuine concern after requesting that Neutralhomer stop posting on my talk page to no avail and this was the third time I had simply deleted his comments unread. It wasn't intended to be uncivil. I'm replying here to set the record straight because I think your comment is likely to poison any serious discussion otherwise. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I have advised Neutralhomer of this thread. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You forgot this diff: "I'm letting this one slide because I know you have some form of disability, but that excuse only cuts you so much slack." I think you've done a good enough job poisoning the discussion without my help, actually.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

And you forgot that the disability is self-declared, namely Neutralhomer's past claims of Asperger's Syndrome as, in effect, a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card for his behavior. --Calton | Talk 00:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Considering that he had self-declared a behavioural disability, and that this comment was a response to his uncivil behaviour, it was not particularly unreasonable. Izzedine (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This will be the only edit I will make on this subject. My Asperger's Syndrome is not "self-declared" or a "Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card". I can provide documentation that I was diagnosed with Asperger's in 2003 and have had it since I was born. I don't use my Asperger's as any "card" to get out of trouble. That is mentioned on my userpage as something I am proud of and something others should be aware of if I make a weird joke or something. My Asperger's is always kept in check. I would really like people to stop using my Asperger's against me as if I use it as some sort of crutch. Walk one day in my shoes with Asperger's and you will change your very misguided opinions of me. This will be my only response. Thank you. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• "My Asperger's Syndrome is not "self-declared"
  • Having declared it on your userpage yourself, that makes it self-declared. Izzedine (talk) 01:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Huh. Deny using your claim of Asperger's as a "Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card" -- followed immediately by trying to use Asperger's as a "Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card". Which, as I've said, you've done in the past. Pay attention here and don't go off on your usual irrelevancies: if your disability or however you want to characterize it keeps you from behaving within the lines, then you need to disengage instead of using it as an excuse to continue. --Calton | Talk 14:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Calton, you're way out of line there. Neither of those diff's is using a disability as a "get out of a jail free card". In one of them he effectively says "my Asperger's forces me to treat others the way they treat me" ... is that an attempt to get out of jail free? Heck no. You're going borderline incivility related to a disability, and mischaracterizing badly. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I didn't start this topic to attack Neutralhomer or speculate about the cause of his actions. It is a fairly straightforward issue - we have a user with an established history of being periodically disruptive. He was warned about 3RR again yesterday. I believe Neutralhomer would benefit from having someone -- a mentor -- with whom to discuss things before they turn into problems and Misplaced Pages would benefit from fewer of these episodes. If you have snarky comments or complaints about my conduct, feel free to leave them on my talk page, but can we do something to address the issue here? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, ad hominems shouldn't detract debate from addressing the issue. Izzedine (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Calton, you're way out of line there. Bull. According to you, he's using it as an excuse for his behavior, which is exactly what I said he has and is doing. And Izzedine needs to learn the actual meaning of ad hominem. Hint: describing bad behavior =/= "ad hominem". --Calton | Talk 22:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

My comment was a reply to DC, and a reference to those comments critiquing DC - instead of his message, which unfortunately has been ignored. Izzedine (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Since the insults spread to me after my last comment on this, I had hoped it was simply going to be allowed to blow over. It seems clear to me User:Neutralhomer, User:Delicious carbuncle and User:Izzedine all need to behave better: and that quite possibly the only way that is going to happen is to simply leave one another alone. Surely the 3 can do 1 or both without the community telling them to do so? - Sinneed (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• "Since the insults spread to me after my last comment on this"
  • I don't see any insults there, at all.
• "...I had hoped it was simply going to be allowed to blow over"
  • Why should a legitimate report of harrassment be ignored and allowed to "blow over".
• "It seems clear to me User:Neutralhomer, User:Delicious carbuncle and User:Izzedine all need to behave better"
  • To equate the three of us as troublemakers without pointing to any of my own or Delicious carbuncle's 'bad behaviour' is mischaracterizing the issue.
• "...and that quite possibly the only way that is going to happen is to simply leave one another alone."
  • Myself and Delicious carbuncle have left each other and Neutralhomer alone. It is Neutralhomer who wouldn't leave us alone. Izzedine (talk) 02:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle, all I have seen from you are unproductive threads. To reuse your own phrase, I don't mean that insultingly. They just are. — neuro 22:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant and unnecessary ad hominem. Izzedine (talk) 02:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This guy routinely undoes my factual edit to an article irrelevant to his knowledge. He calls it "vandalism" that I add a true, verifiable statement to the article regarding the music mix of a Minnesota radio station, then keeps threatening me with blocks every time I undo his deletion of factual info. He's not behaving fairly at all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.226.27 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You can sign your comments by typing ~~~~ after your comment.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 23:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The anon can also not edit war at KKCK any more. 7 8 reverts so far today against 3 editors. Blocked back on 6 Sept 2009 for the same thing. But here again, user:Neutralhomer is calling repeated insertions of wp:OR vandalism and has just kept on reverting. Part of the edit would be covered by wp:SELFPUB, but part is pure opinion of the station about what its competitors do. Clearly 208.101.226.27 is a fan (or, ignoring wp:AGF a station staffer bragging), with a wp:PoV based on experience as a listener(or whatever), not a vandal. - Sinneed (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The above anon IP has also blanked the Whois template from their talk page, which I have reverted. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 01:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

...and did it again, and I encouraged the anon editor to create an account, after the edit warring block expires, so the editor won't see that banner. - Sinneed (talk) 02:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If I may provide an outside opinion,

If I may provide an outside opinion—which is by no means aimed at anyone in particular—it is that Izzedine and NeutralHomer, far from being requested to make amends or to refrain from frictional contact with one another, could possibly be seeing only a thread full of possibly even well-meaning editors (I say "possibly" because I have only read this thread twice and do not fully know each editor's intentions) degenerating virtually into name-calling and diff link warring. Is this an example for other editors? How are new editors, who may be unfamiliar with Wikiquette, supposed to do when they see things like this?

I don't mean to be outspoken—it just saddens me when I see the efforts of an encyclopædia built by years of experience and expertise by thousands if not millions of people, users and otherwise, diverted into resolving disputes that are often petty and waste time that could be used to build the encyclopædia's article space and improve the world's access to human knowledge. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  19:14 16 September, 2009 (UTC)

So it's just me then, I guess?

From the limited feedback here, and despite what this a quick search of the ANI archives would suggest:

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive532#User:Neutralhomer_abuse_of_rollback.2C_again
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive494#Neutralhomer
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive529#Violation_of_topic_ban:_Neutralhomer
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive313#User:Neutralhomer
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive488#NeutralHomer
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive366#Sockpuppetry_of_Neutralhomer
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive255#Neutralhomer
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive351#Incivility_block_on_Neutralhomer
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive346#User:Neutralhomer_removing_WP:CfR_tags_from_categories
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive267#Neutralhomer
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive107#Continued_violations_of_WP:NPA_by_User:Neutralhomer
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive314#Abuse_of_WP:TW_by_Neutralhomer_.28in_Hal_Lindsey.29

it would appear that I am the problem, not Neutralhomer, so I'm letting this drop. I'll do my best to avoid interacting with him. Thanks for the lesson. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

86.178.34.152

Someone is trying to stop me using 86.178.34.152. Note that I use endless I.P.'s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.202.116 (talk • contribs) 10:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I cannot see any active blocks or autoblocks of that IP address. How about get a unique username for yourself and have a whole whack of benefits, including true anonymity?! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat on Welcome to 18

An anonymous IP has twice left a "cease and desist" remark on the Welcome to 18 article. The latest reason being that "Green Griffin owns this film. A cease and desist is declared. The film was never released and the posting is in violation of our copyright". I have no idea who Green Griffin is and, far as I can tell, the article isn't inflicting on any copyright. The film was released in 1986 (I remember watching it), but it hasn't seen a DVD release so perhaps that's what the IP is talking about. Pinkadelica 13:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for 3 months (there doesn't seem to be anyone else using it). Thanks. Evil saltine (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That was quick! Thanks! Pinkadelica 14:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

IMDB has as it's primary user comment "Pretty stupid, even for an 80s teen movie" and yet the IP is upset about what's on Misplaced Pages? Manning (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Missing link

What is going on with the Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report all the names are redlinks? Off2riorob (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

As if by magic it is better now. Off2riorob (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoever had edited Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report had forgotten to put "User:" in front of the names, so they were taken to be (non-existent) articles. Baseball Bugs carrots 16:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I guess that's not it, as earlier versions don't have it and are OK. It looks like someone's messinge with the format and hasn't got it fixed yet or else doesn't know it's broken. Baseball Bugs carrots 16:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Now it's fixed. Baseball Bugs carrots 16:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

And now it's not fixed. There's something screwy about this, or my name isn't Larrimore. And it isn't. Baseball Bugs carrots 16:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Not fixed here, its red again are the pages being renamed, or redirected? Off2riorob (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thats the problem, they are named crat instead of admin. Off2riorob (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC) So we have this Misplaced Pages:Requests for bureaucratship/IMatthew 3 when it should be Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/IMatthew_3 Off2riorob (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

No, the problem is (a) you are looking at and talking about the wrong page (Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report hasn't been edited since April 2009. The relevant page is User:X!/RfX Report‎.) and (b) you are here instead of at User talk:X!#RfX Reporter which is the place to actually get something done about the problem. If there's a problem with a 'bot, talk to the 'bot's owner first. Uncle G (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I should have known that. Off2riorob (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikihounding

I seem to have attracted my own WikiHound. User:Opensource4ever's account was created two days ago, and his only edits have been on otherwise unconnected pages edited by me, on which he has reverted my edits, including twice restoring copyvio material (despite a request on his talk page to discuss edits), and his latest edit is to insert the word "banana" in Cavalié Mercer, a clear case of vandalism. I am reluctant to engage further with this person or to revert his latest edits, as I fear that will just provoke further stalking. I assume that the user is a sockpuppet. Cyclopaedic (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Opensource4ever is basically a vandalism-only account that defends and inserts copyvio. User hasn't posted for four three hours, and has received the appropriate notifications on the user and article talk pages from multiple users/administrators, but if it shows up again with the same song and dance, I would request an indefinite block. Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears that Opensource4ever (talk · contribs) is continuing to re-add copyrighted content to articles (as well as blanking cited prose from within articles) here, with no evidence that the copyright holder has permitted the use of it here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Within minutes of my reverting Opensource4ever's edit, and posting a copyright warning to his userpage, a new account for Themuffinmaniscool (talk · contribs) was created, restoring the copyright violation, and re-removing the cited material. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Sarah777 making disruptive moves.

The above user, User:Sarah777 has been making a series of disruptive moves without consensus. She started at M1 motorway, moving it to various pages without understanding WP:PRIMARYTOPIC which resulted in me starting a WP:RM discussion on her behalf, which has now closed in opposition of the move. Now she has moved on to M2 motorway moving it to M2 motorway (United Kingdom) with no consensus, again blatantly ignoring WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I request that some action be taken against this user, and that an administrator move the article back pending a proper RM discussion. She has also tried a similar edit war at M50 motorway, this time with redirects.

Her conduct in discussions on these topics both on article talk pages and on her own talk page has been far from civil and constructive, and instead turned in many cases to attacking "British Editors" Jeni 23:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Also just for the record she has been making changes to disam pages at M1 and M1 motorway (disambiguation) changing M1 motorway (Republic of Ireland) to M1 motorway (Ireland), despite the fact Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) says not to pipe on disam pages. It also is complicated because there are two M1s in Ireland, and she is aware that there is ongoing debate about how to deal with matters relating to saying Ireland / Republic of Ireland in articles at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration, a project set up following an Arbcom ruling. Her changes to the status quo whilst such things are being debated are most unhelpful although not a violation of the rules (i dont think). BritishWatcher (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sarah is quite entitled to edit the roads articles. I have never seen you edit any roads articles. Tfz 23:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I made an alteration to M1 before she did, that is why i spotted the change happening earlier, id already put it on my watchlist. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sarah has edited 10000s of road articles. Tfz 23:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That does not give her the right to go around moving articles without consensus or following procedure, especially when an identical move request was being strongly rejected over at M1 motorway. Or messing around with dab pages despite the points i mentioned before. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Do you have anything constructive to add to this discussion other than a personal attack? I've never seen you edit any roads articles either (and given I'm heavily involved in the UK roads articles I think I'd notice) Jeni 23:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

What personal attack are you talking about? Tfz 23:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

"I have never seen you edit any roads articles" - not exactly assuming good faith now is it? Jeni 23:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to add perspective, I think that is good faith. Maybe you are making a personal attack, but I won't accuse you. Tfz 23:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Before this descends further into snipes and bickering, let me say I fail to see what positive role administrators could have in this situation. Content disputes belong at WP:DR, civility inquiries at WP:WQA. If you feel this is a longstanding pattern of unhelpful conduct on the part of the editor, a Request for Comment might be productive. I'm not sure there's anything needing to be hit over the head with a blunt object, but if such a need emerges, come back here.  Skomorokh  23:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

She has been sanctioned by Arbcom for her AntiBritish POV pushing but she makes such comments on talk pages across wikipedia. Theres certainly a pattern! lol. However if admins are unable to get involved in this, we should just restore everything to before Sarah started making the changes and oppose the changes on talk pages if she seeks to make them again. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)It is an issue with a user who refuses to gain consensus, who has been bought up here multiple times, has been at arbcom. I'd say this is certainly an administrator issue, as administrator action needs to be taken. I have had to start *another* RM discussion on her behalf because she seems to think she is above gaining consensus. Jeni 23:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be an issue of wp:idontlikeit, you should calm things and gain consensus. You should talk first on the user talk page. Tfz 00:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Not really - it's a content dispute. Follow BritishWatcher's suggestion; WP:BRD, people. If there are civility problems (and I've yet to see any diffs) then this isn't the place to deal with them. See the menu titled "Please select the closest request from the following categories." when you edit? That links you to places to go for these problems, none of which are AN/I. Ironholds (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No incivility. We either have standards in regard to naming conventions or we don't. Seeking "consensus" merely leads to the British editors imposing their parochial pov; pointless exercise. We need to adhere to some naming conventions. While I have (reluctantly) backed off the M1; the notion that the M2 and every other British instance is the "primary" use, when a dozen countries (including minor states like Russia!) use 'M' designation for motorways, is pure and manifest chauvinistic pov. There really is no argument about this and "votes" are utterly pointless given the ratio of British to Irish editors on Wiki. WP:NPOV is a policy or it is a joke. Simple as that. Sarah777 (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Seeing how Sarah sees gaining consensus as a pointless exercise the perhaps this is a behavior issue that admins do need to take a look at. Chillum 01:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that a closer reading of Sarah's statement is not an objection to "gaining consensus" per se, but the use of votes to do so.

Regrettably, imo, voting is used to settle issues, this is described a "gaining consensus", a description which I consider to be a misnomer.

There are far more UK editors than Irish. Therefore to use votes to settle an issue is a pointless exercise - it is a foregone conclusion.

It is unfortunate when the search for a logical or correct solution is ignored; when seeking to understand other arguments and views is abandoned, in favor of a majority POV masquerading as consensus ClemMcGann (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Move discussions are not votes. They are not judged on strength of numbers, but strength of argument. Any admin that does a bare headcount without weighing up the arguments is not doing their job. Similarly, closing a debate in favour of a weaker argument supported by a majority is wrong. In the case of the M1, the argument that prevailed was that the pageview statistics showed a clear primary topic, the opposing view was that this was "British POV", which was unsubstantiated. I suspect the reason this was brought to the attention of administrators was nothing to do with the actual articles concerned, but that when User:Sarah777 didn't get her way with the M1 group, she proceeded to move the M50 articles to mirror the scenario, and that having been brought to task over both of these, she continued this pattern of disruptive behaviour. It's been said before that we expect both good contributions and good behaviour, and that excelling in one does not excuse users from the other. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 09:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• I suggest bringing the issue up in the most neutral way possible on the Misplaced Pages:Content noticeboard to get outside input. This does indeed appear to be a content dispute over naming. Surely there are experienced editors who have worked through similar issues and know the proper way to determine whether something is a primary name or needs to be disambiguated with other subjects of the same name. Good luck. I also support blocking Chillum. I didn't like his comment. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks CoM. I am glad you don't have the block button, people would have to run around undoing your actions. Chillum 16:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Advocating for a block isn't the same as instituting one. I am very cautious and judicious and would be deferential to consensus in all matters. I trust I will have your full support at my next RfA. Thank you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you have the good judgment to be an admin. Though, that is not really on topic here. You are always welcome to start a conversation on my talk page. Chillum 20:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Problems with sockpuppetry accusations

At Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#User:Taxa editor User:Malcolm XIV is accusing another editor of being a sockpuppet, in an unpleasent way, violating AGF. The accussed editor User:Taxa is under vague suspicion relating to some vaguely similar edits or a blocked user, but I personally don't see anything more than a aura of suspicion, and some vaguely 'soapboxy' questions on the reference desk - which isn't currently anything like a major problem.

It's not clear why the editor is accusing the other user of being a sockpuppet without using WP:SPI.

I would appreciate if an admin could look at this (possibly doing a SPI if that will help resolve the problem), and also explain how to behave (or cool off) to User:Malcolm XIV.

Thanks83.100.251.196 (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I take objection to the suggestion that I have been "unpleasent" or "bullying". All I have done is state the facts, calmly and level-headedly. See Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#User:Taxa. Malcolm XIV (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• See also Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Reference_Desk_vandalism

Here's a paper trail: . See in his latest guise that User:Taxa is again being antisemitic: He is also making endless disruptive edits and soapboxing , which is not the purpose of the Ref Desk. Malcolm XIV (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Jesusandashley's "supposed biography article"

He slapped on a notice saying that "If you try to edit this page and the information does not match with the information we provided, you will be in trouble with the FBI, police assoiciates. They will charge you a fee of $25,000.00 and you will be sent to court-

Thank you."

If this isn't enough for this section, then it might still be noteworthy at WP:BLPN. A notice should be made saying that if you want to make stuff about yourself to leave it at their user page. Again, might be also noteworthy for WP:BLPN. ConCompS (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is the link to the page in question Jesus Jimenez.Shinerunner (talk) 00:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Notified user about this discussion. Shinerunner (talk) 00:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I have indef blocked the editor under WP:Legal, and the article has been deleted by another sysop. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

166.127.1.225

I must request that IP address 166.127.1.225 be blocked. He has been editing for months and all of these edits are obvious vandalism. His contributions can be found here. Thank you for your time and consideration. --15lsoucy (talk) 01:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Лъчезар

I'm not sure what to do about the comment left by this user here: Talk:Igor_Panarin#The_main_author_of_this_article_and_the_article_whose_contents_you_deleted_received_a_last_warning_before_his_banning_or_blocking. It should probably be removed, but it's a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy and will probably lead to further problematic behaviour. The editor doesn't seem to understand[REDACTED] (calling the view that American's visited the moon " pet theory" - I'm not American by the way!) Anyway, I find his comment a bit disturbing, and inappropriate - and it does actually leave me worried for him. Maybe leaving[REDACTED] would be good for him, but I'm involve and not an admin. Fresh eyes, advice, opinions, etc might help or find a solution. Cheers, Verbal chat 12:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That Bulgarian writer with the unpronouncable Cyrillic name is a conspiracy theorist, and essentially booted himself off the Apollo moon hoax article since consensus was against him. He's mostly flown under the radar with this pet article of his about this Igor Panarin who thinks the U.S. will go the way of Yugoslavia next year. Now that the article is getting some scrutiny, he's not happy about it. The connection between those articles is something he kept saying on the Apollo hoax page, that somehow this impending collapse would reveal "the truth" about Apollo - a comment that's the hallmark of someone who does not understand wikipedia's role. Baseball Bugs carrots 12:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I just deleted that section before coming here. It was pretty clearly not in line with the talk page guidelines, but if someone else wants to deal with it in a different way, no worries. As far as I can tell, this post was just a reaction to discussion consenseing away from their favoured version, so no further action should be needed. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI: I just copied the deleted comment to his own user page. It's clearly inappropriate from the article talk page, but I don't see that sort of screed being inappropriate at all for his own talk page. Copying it there might actually calm the situation some as well (or not, but we'll see).
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 23:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, that username is pronounceable. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Réseau de Résistance du Québécois

Hi, members of the Réseau de Résistance du Québécois keep deleting information from the article about their organization. These RRQ members do not have a NPOV. One guy keeps creating sockpuppets and shows up a few times per day. Can you send some administrators over to monitor this article. A similar issue happened on the Scientology article a while back. Perhaps, you can just block all IP's that start with "70" that would probably stop the sockpuppet. Thank you. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at a few edits, it appears that there are two distinct POVs--it can be seen either as one side insisting on keeping material that serves to promote the platform of the group while removing less creditable information, or as one side another trying to remove explanatory material and insert material unduly critical of the group. Most of the material on either side is sourced to Canadian newspapers, respectable RSs, but of different political orientations. The question is balance, and judging that would take more familiarity with the topic than I am interested in acquiring, but a priori based on dozens of similar situations here, it is possible that neither side is altogether espousing a NPOV. I didn't check about sockpuppettry, but from the talk p. it seems that one ed using an ip address is complaining that other editors are using both a name and ip addresses. I have protected the article for 4 days so that this can be resolved, but I invite anyone prepared to resolve it to remove the protection earlier than that.. DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the user who has requested this is involved in an edit war at the abovementioned page with user:Quebecois1837. There has been significant edit warring in this article (50 changes in the last 33 hours), and I've placed an RPP on this article as well as issued a warning to both parties involved. I'm not an admin, just trying to make your lives easier. Frmatt (talk) 01:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

well, I've just done that protection, without trying to judge the merits DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

(possibly OT) - I spent some time on this one back in March, but marked it up as hopeless soon after the talk page sprouted: "No personal attacks please? I didn't do personnal attack and I speak the language I want! Phil" and '"At least get it right", I get it right, you are arrogant, a federalist, no other word needed... Phil'

The subject meets wp:NOTE but POV of its self-proclaimed-supporters ranged from We're a great organization peacefully pursuing freedom. to We are terrorists and @#$% proud of it. Phear meh!...and I dropped it off my watchlist as a bad bet. - Sinneed (talk) 02:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Am doing some work on it here Frmatt (talk) 03:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Quebecois1837 was another sock of User:Philbox17, This was confirmed via checkuser tools. I have blocked him. --Versageek 04:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Rodgarton

Rodgarton (talk · contribs)

This user, a single purpose account promoting Parapsychology, engages in egregious abuse of sources. He came to my attention when I was looking at a long section he added to Parapsychology, a featured article, which contained many surprising claims. When I checked the sources, I discovered a pattern of consistently stating things that went far beyond what the source justified.

The clearest example is probably one where he said two completely different things in different articles, with the same source. One article contained information that completely blew the claim he made in the other out of the water - and he edited the one that showed the other claim false first.,

26 July, at Meta-analysis, he makes the following change

The claim he makes there is probably false, see http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/full/100/12/579 - a comprehensive analysis of the history of metanalyses that makes no such claim, and lists numerous examples that certainly sound comprehensive, including Pearson's. His cite for the claim is to a conference paper presented at a fringe theory conference - however, more interestingly, he went on to make a very different, very much more inflated claim in Parapsychology, which directly conflicts with this. :

Parapsychology, 9 August.

The source for that is: Bösch, H. (2004). Reanalyzing a meta-analysis on extra-sensory perception dating from 1940, the first comprehensive meta-analysis in the history of science. In S. Schmidt (Ed.), 47th Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association (pp. 1-13). Vienna University. I'm afraid I don't have access to obscure conference papers, but the title's addition of "comprehensive" would cast doubt on whether even that paper makes the claim he used it for.

The large table near the top of Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Parapsychology/archive1 has full details of a section I analysed in full, and (since he edited it to add such discussion) various responses by him. Some of his points are false, some of his have a grain of truth but are overstated, and others may be true, but cannot be backed by the sources he claims for it, for instance, he uses primary sources to make claims for the historical importance of themselves. I would encourage other people to check other things he has created for accuracy to sources, and see if the results match.

This user has other problems, for instance, his civility issues and WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT make him pretty much impossible to talk to. He has also been revert-warring all attempts to fix the articles he created, by me or others. Shoemaker's Holiday 12:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Step one should be a temporary page ban from the article itself, I would say. The novel synthesis issues and the revert warring make that plain to me. Does anyone disagree? Guy (Help!) 12:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd probably encourage a topic ban, not just the one article. Check his recent history, in which he reverts all attempts to clean up several articles he made. Shoemaker's Holiday 12:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• It should also be noted that he tends to make personal attacks on editors who disagree with him, calling us "pseudo-skeptics" and making statements assuming bad faith.Simonm223 (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I fully and openly invite reviewers of the above missives to review the edits and discussion of the cited articles. There will be found relatively little from these complainants apart from rapid-fire put-downs, and mostly statements of opinion given up in Edit Summary. Conversely, I have continually opened and invited discussion of all and any substantive issues they would raise; this includes discussion of (autonomous and un-discussed edits of) articles on Displacement (parapsychology), Joseph Banks Rhine, Rene Warcollier, Pavel Stepanek and Joseph Gaither Pratt. I would also invite reviewers to give close attention to the continued efforts by the above editors, acting in a league (cf. the close times between even just the above edits) to eradicate a source of information from WP that conflicts with the position they characteristically advocate. I have continually sought to discuss the issues, without reference to any individual, and always referring to these complainants in the third person, while being obliged by them to address their opinions, offered to us as self-evident fact, of personal reliability. I should think that such a personally targeted campaign, of which the above is but the latest issue, should be beneath the respect of WP editors. I continue to evince a keen intention to discuss the substantive issues, whenever the above complainants offer a point of fact rather than ad hominem slight. --Rodgarton 13:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, is there a reason why your signature doesn't link to either your userpage or talk page? Syrthiss (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's an example of Rodgarton's NPOV issues: . The only edits not by him have been to add a POV tag, which he reverted. It's pretty much a straight out POV-push, no criticism whatsoever appears, though he does use fringe sources to pre-emptively attack Martin Gardner, without stating Gardner's criticisms.

On the talk page, he writes:

In other words, he rejects WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, and sees no problem with writing an article entirely from the perspective of the proponents of a fringe theory. Shoemaker's Holiday 14:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

He just broke WP:3RR at the parapsychology displacement article. Will put up a report in 15 minutes, got things to do at the moment.Simonm223 (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, he's at 5 there, 4 at Joseph Banks Rhine, and the displacement one came after I gave him a polite warning about the Joseph Banks Rhine problem. Shoemaker's Holiday 15:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, well just to dot the T's and cross the I's I'll give him a second warning. But I can't edit the article any more today so if other interested eyes could take a look, perhaps contribute on talk that would be a good thing.Simonm223 (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

NM, he's already been blocked.Simonm223 (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a guess, but Rodgarton's archaic style of prose and inability to comprehend WP policies could indicate that English isn't his primary language. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively it could simply mean he thinks using a thesaurus will make him sound more informed. I would, however, prefer not to speculate.Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it seems like he's someone who is not aware of this. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

outdent) Still wonder why this user will not use four tildes when signing for easy(ier) navigation. --98.182.55.163 (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've blocked the user 24 hours for edit warring, but given the above issues, I think a longer duration may be in order. –Juliancolton |  15:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Should we move this to WP:AN, to give us a bit more time to sort through before it's archived? We probably shouldn't do anything until Rodgarton can defend himself. Shoemaker's Holiday 23:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to reiterate my proposal for a temporary topical ban; the issues need in the first instance to be kept out of mainspace. If he continues to make problems through talk page interactions then some other sanctions may be necessary, but I would think a topic ban of some sort would gain consensus based on what I've seen of his editing history. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Guy, if you imposed a topic ban of any sort, there would be no objections from me (or anyone else for that matter). That said, I agree with Juliancolton - a longer block (a week?) would be more useful as a temporary measure to minimise the overall disruption he's caused/causing, and it also works to give the community some time to consider where to go from here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Entertaining the most pervasive and permanent of bans will not surprise me, and I can welcome it; just, please, thereupon, cull all my contributed content; WP is not fit to host it. I have, in any case, long resigned from contributing any substantive new content on WP, and have, without contest, allowed several sections of information I contributed to be culled from the articles in which they were offered. I have elsewhere expressed the evident futility of representing, in WP, academic research on so-called "psi phenomena." WP editors seem to prefer offering a Readers' Digest type of authority on the research, while ornamenting it with ad hominem slights, trivialization, marginalization, and so on, as gleaned from the popular reviews by career-debunkers of the field. Fans of the latter pulp too easily abuse - apparently with administrators’ license - the policies and procedures of WP, such as by teaming up to make multiple redirects from, and to routinely cull, anything that might seem to objectively offer a positive interpretation of the research. For the information which is in dispute here and which is cited against me in this campaign is precisely of that quality; I will discuss particular items below, but would here note that it is the culling of information of this type that is the objective of the above complaints; not "goodwill" nor the policy of assumed good faith nor the fair treatment of so-called "fringe" issues behind which these campaigners hide. The reasons given for these culls are rationalisations after the fact, as is obvious from the fact that they are only given when pressed; and that no discussion of the substantive points I raise in the defence of the information are ever addressed; they are simply ignored, or responded to with non-sequiteurs, adjectival and emotive magnification of opinionated claims, ad hominem slights; in fact, the full repertoire of crooked thinking represented in Sagan's well-known "baloney-detection kit". The latest offering of the latter we see in the above comments that I fail to understand English, or that I write from a thesaurus. While members of the editors' club will be amused by these jokes, they are plainly silly, and demonstrate the poor level at which the issues my contributions raise are discussed. I mistook WP as a site for the representation of academic information in an academically responsible manner. Finding only an infantile level of discussion, and a low, coffee-table criterion of authority, I have, at some points, offered to engage at that level; I no longer see value in even these exchanges with the perpetrators of such silliness.

A few further points on the specific issues raised in the above complaints.

+ re development of meta-analysis in early psi research: It is not a claim I make that is offered for dispute, but a thesis authored by a widely published authority on meta-analysis, H. Bösch, on the origin of meta-analysis. The complainants are here offering original opinion in place of the researched opinion of a real-life authority. In any case, I some time ago made clear I would not seek to restore the information I offered, so its leading representation in this missive as some kind of evidence of unreliability and unco-operativeness can not be seriously taken. Also, that information was subsequently restored by another editor (doubtlessly again culled by the above campaigners), so its citation as evidence of disruption by myself is just blindly repeated and unexamined opinion.

+ re contributions of psi research to other research disciplines; http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Parapsychology/archive1. This is another of the sections I have allowed to be obliterated, without any effort at its restoration by myself at all. Still, it is cited as evidence of disruptiveness. Here, the culler is one who seems to believe that s/he has discovered some gross unreliability in my representation and citation of two papers, and that this has merited the entire blanking of the information. I have shown how my representation of these articles, and this information, is consistent with (and even more softly stated than) its representation by others; and yet the culler is permitted to freely repeat her/his scurrilous story - based, in any case, only upon her/his personal interpretation of the information in those articles; and this opinion is apparently further blankly followed, without examination, to claim my "disruption" on WP.

+ re replication of J. B. Rhine's findings by other researchers at other institutions: this information is readily found in reliable secondary and tertiary sources, such as ; I have provided references to original papers of just a few of these studies, and to a review article published in the J. Communication. Still, the information is repeatedly culled by the present campaigners as a whole - with specious arguments, if any, for doing so. How can this be supported without question? Evidently it conflicts with the commonly peddled pseudo-skeptical myth that "there has never been an independent replication of any of Rhine's findings," and similar. For that reason alone, it seems, the information is repeatedly culled, and its restoration on WP is blankly drubbed as "disruption".

+ re the displacement effect: This article has long ago been the subject of an Afd deletion debate; the result of the debate, in which I did not at all participate, was "keep". It seems this article has recently come to the attention of the campaigners responsible for the above-mentioned culls, and they have sought to delete it indirectly, by redirection to the parapsychology article, and blanking of the article itself. Presumably this is because the article on an ostensible psi phenomenon contains references to its discussion in mainstream journals, by mainstream psychologists and statisticians. I would have thought that the independent notability of the article had already been demonstrated by the failed AfD request. When pressed to justify redirection, we are only told by the above campaigners that it "SHOULD" be so; i.e., we are given blank assertion without any basis for debate. Plainly, embedding this information in the parapsychology article would be like demanding that an article on operant learning or any other psychological process should be embedded within the article on psychology. Still, my attempts to simply restore this information are here dubbed as "disruption". Compare this decision and description to the fact of information that I provided within the parapsychology article on objective surveys of academic opinion on parapsychology: that was actually shunted off to an obscure article of its own, presumably because it might be seen as reflecting too positively on the field, and in preference to subjective picks of qualitative opinion by WP editors themselves. There is no consistency in these decisions at culling and redirection apart from the motivation to obliterate anything that smells of academic respectability for psi research.

+ other articles or sections of articles that I have authored have also come under the attack of the present campaigners. The article on Joseph Gaither Pratt has been repeatedly tagged for one or another reason; as I plainly argue the insupportability of the tag, another is attempted. The same occurs for the article on Warcollier. I should point out that I was responsible for the information within the parapsychology article on the definition of psi by Thouless and Wiesner, and Rhine's adoption of the term; this should also now be culled, let us say, on the basis that it only cites primary sources, or that it has been authored by me, and so merits immediate description as "disruption".

+ re drubbing of references to the J. of Parapsychology as "fringe" – a major point of attack offered by the above campaigners; but see: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Parapsychology#Citing_the_Journal_of_Parapsychology

Generally, it is charged that I exist on WP only with the interest of promoting psi research. That would be quite a poor reason to disparage an editor, even if it were true, given that there are no doubt many personal, extra-encyclopedic objectives that WP editors work through. What is true of my objective is that I have sought to supplement what appears to be mostly populist and unrepresentative information with information that is more authoritative and academic, and more objectively limited. I would not be at all familiar with this information if I were not myself a skeptical reader of it; my skepticism has taken me much further into the literature than I had originally envisaged, and were I simply a promoter of psi, or some kind of fanatical "believer," I would not have bothered to read so deeply in the field, and to find out what academics in various disciplines have made of the field. I have not been content to read only the pseudo-skeptical and populist "scriptures" authored by Hansel, Alcock, and so on (pseudo-skeptical, because they denigrate, deny and campaign against scientific enquiry; and reviews of their work have repeatedly found them to be unreliable). Rather than spoon-feed readers of WP with personal samplings from these poor critiques, I thought it would be useful to represent well-credentialed academic information on this research for readers of WP to calmly assess for themselves. So I have cited information not only in the journals of the field, but mainstream ones including Nature, Psychological Bulletin, Journal of the Am. Statistical Association, J. of Philosophy. These of my contributions have included what might be seen as negative estimations of the research; e.g., I originally authored the article on the apparently fraudulent Samuel Soal; I included Soal's critique of the studies of Warcollier; I added information to the article on precognition on fraudulence in the research domain; I included information on the problem of statistical artefact in demonstration of the displacement effect; I included description, as much as seemed academically defensible, of critiques in the article on Pavel Stepanek; I added information on the critique of popular claims of retrocognition.

Naturally, there will be contention as to how this information is represented; that is the nature of reading academic sources; it is all interpretation. The challengers of my interpretations and representations could well have elected to improve the representation of this information in virtue of their own interpretations and their experience with the encyclopaedic form. Instead, they have been motivated to cull it all, and to use my offer of the information as a pretext for a giggling campaign of denigration and slander; to blankly reject all such information.

I would offer in summary that the editors of WP, as represented in the current missive, maintain an infantile version of a pre-1980s approach to assaying psi research, showing themselves to be simple disciples of long ago peer-discredited and pulp pseudo-skeptical scripture. In chiming in with the phrases of "distortion," and so on, and showing no evidence of independent examination of the more or less serious and trivial opinions raised in this notice, the administrators of WP risk betraying themselves to be similarly limited and abjectly motivated.

BTW, although a swansong this might necessarily be, such is not my own intention. In order to help my culling stalkers in their campaign, let me note that, should I be permitted, I will probably and shortly add to the article on Warcollier, given there some expressed requirement for further sources, and that I will also seek to contribute on some topics more strictly related to my abiding psychological research interests in signal detection and visual recognition, semantic memory, and the relative consciousness of perception.

Oh - as to the silly slight about linking via the signature, such is what is offered when one uses the "Your signature" button in the toolbar above the edit textarea. Please offer a more serious effort at denigration if you wish to stoke my fanciful prose. --Rodgarton 13:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of eliciting your "fanciful prose" I wanted to point out that the request that you use four tildes to produce a linked signature line was not a "slight". Rather it was a politely phrased request that you adhere to the normal courtesies the rest of the Misplaced Pages community generally follow. Simonm223 (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

(delayed by edit conflict) An article not mentioned so far is Precognition. There are the same issues of clear agenda-pushing (privileging fringe sources, even pre-prints, over mainstream scientific sources) and incivility. That article is now actively misleading about its topic (the definition of precognition in the first sentence clashes with that in the sources, but Rodgarton claims that his interpretation of one source wins out). Since he's reverted the addition of sourced mainstream material, I can see that trying to fix the damage, while he and I are pretty much the only ones editing the article, is going to be lead into an edit war. I've discussed at great length with him on Talk, but he just throws up great walls of incoherent text and shows little interest in following WP policy (e.g. repeatedly arguing that Misplaced Pages is a source for itself ). It sounds like this is a repeating pattern of behavior across multiple articles in a single topic (and the Parapsychology FAR).

The above comment by Rodgarton is yet another example of how his descriptions of his behaviour differ wildly from his actual behaviour. He describes himself dispassionately adding encyclopedic facts while his biased opponents use bad faith, non-sequiturs and personal attacks, but as already mentioned in this discussion, it's not hard to verify that it's the other way round. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It probably doesn't need saying, but Rodgarton's above claim of a "swansong" isn't credible. He has previously said goodbye to the Parapsychology article in his customary style, writing "I will better expend my energies communicating this travesty rather than contributing to this twisted forum. ... Sufficient for Misplaced Pages, but not to the real world, to which I return, pleased to see you and other WP editors picking self-congratulatingly through the debris thereof." but that was back in early August. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)