Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:54, 3 November 2009

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

Join or be banned?

I posted this at the Jimbo Wales talk page, but A: He may not be around. B: It may not be the appropriate Venue.

I have been ordered to create an account:

As judging by the discussion at WT:SOCK, the unanimous consensus is that you should create an account and only edit while logged in. This is your last chance to comply voluntarily. If you choose not to comply, technical means will be instituted to prevent you from editing anonymously. Please do not make that necessary. Just login, create an account, and then only edit while logged in. Thanks, --Elonka 20:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this appropriate? I looked at posting at ArbCom on this issue but it is locked. I seem to be in the crosshairs at the moment as User:Elonka and I are currently in disagreement over an interpretation of a WP:RSN discussion which itself was started, by me, but at the request of User:Elonka. I'm also not comfortable with Elonka baiting with leading questions editors engaged in a content dispute with me. which interestingly may have produced this response to my edit here:. Further my participation on the page at the heart of this issue began recently when it was at this stage: as a stub without references. This was my work:. I don't believe that my edits are disruptive, I believe my contributions to be civil, well referenced and supported with clear, concise reasoning.

As an IP I have received some very quick blocks, the most recent was for a week because I made a revert after 6 days. (I reverted an Editor on patrol making multiple edits a minute - and who never returned to the article, or any other page) Apparently Elonka thought I shouldn't make two within 7 days. This was immediately reversed under pressure from the community, but is being used to label me as a troublemaker. As is this edit discussed here for which I was also blocked and which was quickly lifted. No attempts to evade have ever been made, nor have I ever shown anything but the utmost regard for community rules and respect for sanction. That I've been blocked is without question, but I have done my time so to speak and moved away from the source of the tension. That blocks come quickly and easily to IP's puts me at a disadvantage on paper, the black marks are there. A previous discussion on the Wales page regarding IP editing can be found in this edit history (not sure how to link to the archive of the section). I realize it's a narrow question, my thoughts regarding IP can be found in the section noted and also here. I also realize that the debate over IP's is quite significant, many make no attempt to hide their contempt for non-reg users - and discrimination is simply a reality. But as anyone can see by my contributions they are the serious and well supported work of a dedicated Wikiauthor. And although I make a reasonable attempt at discussion I have always left articles if too contentious. None of my work shows any signs of being poor research, bias, SPA or deception through the artificial illusion of multiple personality's (Sock). I had the temerity to believe myself equal to my fellow editors and attempt to participate on administrative forums such as RSN and the like. It would appear that this has caused a great deal of strife as my mere presence as an IP is quickly referred to as all manner of bad things. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.174.186 (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

"None of your work" shows such signs? Seems that the way that Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Troubles is going, that statement seems a bit doubtful. Tarc (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

99.1x has been using dozens of accounts, has accumulated countless warnings, and been blocked several times. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Troubles. 99.1x, sorry, but we're onto you now. The disruption must stop. The only debate now is whether to completely block or ban you from Misplaced Pages, or give you a chance to start over fresh on a logged-in account. --Elonka 17:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)X2: From reading the entire section, WT:SOCK#Dealing with a disruptive user on changing IPs, things are apparently not as innocent as you'd have us believe. There are personal attack blocks, edit warring blocks, etc., etc. Since we can't tell when the IP is you and when it is someone else, we have to assume it is you. Low-key editors doing low-key activities in low-key areas over a range of IPs won't even be seen, let alone cause consternation. You apparently are not doing low-key activites, nor are you doing them in low-key areas. You need to register an account. Otherwise, you appear to be changing identities to obscure your record here. That is the part of WP:SOCK that you are violating. Wknight94 17:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is a discussion over Polanski. I was accused specifically , as you can see by the blocking admin, of adding "fugitive" , and "convicted" and changing an S to lowercase s. As I said, it's pretty easy to get blocked. But I have respected the sanction and removed myself from the source of controversy. The discussion linked to is ample evidence of Ip editing issues, and my moving away is a positive that is being re factored into a negative. One can only imagine the accusation if I had not moved away but become entrenched in the article. -99.135.174.186 (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Even now, you're sugarcoating. The nature of that discussion began as you said, but then moved on to contentious changes at other articles - inserting text saying that Anjelica Huston was present when Polanski raped a girl, almost as though she were involved somehow. I'll repeat what I said: low-key dynamic IPs in low-key areas are fine - neither apply. You're editing subjects apparently include pedophilia and The Troubles - what's next, war in Iraq, 9/11 conspiracies, and Holocaust denial? It's as though you are looking down the list of closed WP:RFAR cases and editing only those areas! If you're going to do that, people need to see who they are fighting, so you need a stable user name. Wknight94 17:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

My edit at Anjelica Huston is still the stable version. I alone added each and every word of this and the supporting ref's:

...and included an incident in which she became a witness for the prosecution at Roman Polanski's 1977 trial regarding the rape of a 13 year old girl in Nicholson's home.http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/27/zurich.roman.polanski.arrested/ Her testimony, in which she arrived unexpectedly at the residence she had just recently shared with Nicholson, was used to place Polanski definitively in the bedroom with the victim.http://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=ZkjtLnkozWQC&dq=roman+polanski+anjelica+huston+rape&q=+anjelica+huston+who+place#search_anchor

And although I was criticized mercilessly for "disrupting" Huston, that - and my Talk page comments, are the entirety of my edits there. Feel free to revert them if you feel they are still disruptive and inappropriate. I honestly believe them to be GF additions to the Encyclopedia. -99.135.174.186 (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Your original content was worthy of criticism. Your cleaned-up version was after being reverted and discussion - and even an RFC - on the talk page. Regardless, you're missing my original point - you're in contentious areas so you need an account. Wknight94 18:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not add the incident, this was my first edit there. I improved, wikified and ref'd the mention. My editing there lasted about 60 hours, a handful of edits and one sentence.99.135.174.186 (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I see I'm also being accused of disruptive at Black and Tans. Here is the section as I found it:. Here are my changes:. Still the version. Added to this piece of supposedly disruptive editing in which I arrived at a dormant stub without references and brought to this stage:. Which again is still there and has been added to by others now.99.135.174.186 (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Get an account, get an account, get an account. Wknight94 18:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Folks, you're wasting your time, trying to persaude the editor to 'create an account' & 'sign in'. If he/she wants to be blocked or banned, that's his/her choice. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no precident to block an ip simply because the person using it will not log in. If there is vandalism, then block, but no one should "rewrite" policy to require a person using wikipedia to log-in or be banned.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, we as administrators lack the authority to compel someone to edit while logged in. Indeed, as was pointed out elsewhere, Special:CompelUser seems to be broken. We can treat this IP user (and the IPs connected to him/her) as one user, per policy, and block them from editing through technical means. If they choose to then acquire an account and begin editing while logged in, that is their decision. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 18:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not requiring, just strongly suggesting. S/he is going to be viewed with far less suspicion if s/he were at a constant identity. The more s/he protests with pointers to contentious areas, the clearer it is that s/he needs a constant identity. It would work out better for everyone. Wknight94 19:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Based on the wording of your "suggestion", it sure did sound like you were giving the person a choice of creating an account or being banned from editing. Perhaps a nice WP:Trout would be in order. We don't like it when the police tell us not to do something thats not against the law, nor do some of us like it when admins decide to rewrite policy to ban people.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not "a protest with pointers to"... - and I didn't mean to leave the impression that they were being introduced without cause. I'm rebutting the charges that Elonka has directed at me and that are referred to above.99.135.174.186 (talk) 19:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Note:(As a nod to the genuine sensitivities of the community at large, should I regain my privilege to edit I shall refrain from any discussions here or at other administrative forums for 3 months. If this requires some sort of formal direction and attachment to a neutral admin for probation oversight and ip id - that's fine.) 99.135.174.186 (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's explained it to me yet, as to why it's so difficult to 'create an account' and 'sign in'. What's the point of refusing to do so? is it out of spite? GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

allowing people to edit without requiring them to register an account is a founding principle. So, really, you need to re-word the question to "Why is it a problem that someone decides to edit without an account?" - it isn't; problem editors still get blocked, pages still get locked, etc. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Why does the IPs 99 prefer to go through all this hassle? It's so easy to 'create an account' & 'sign in'. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

My earlier concerns were indirectly linked here ], you'll see that I felt that IP editing had become quite difficult around two years ago, things had just changed. In a related discussion more recently I said. "It may not honestly be possible much/any longer to contribute effectively without an account. Neither right nor wrong - just reality.". I accept that it's now time to part company with the project, "anyone can edit". Good luck on achieving your goals, whatever they may be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.174.186 (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: The editor-in-question, was given the option of creating an account & signing in, nobody prevented the person from being able to. Regrettably, the person chose not to. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

@NotAnIP83: To answer your question, the problem isn't that someone is editing anonymously. The problem is when someone is IP-hopping to continually reset their warning and block history. This is a violation of WP:SOCK, which states that alternate accounts "must not be used to avoid scrutiny". If an anon is making non-controversial edits in non-controversial areas, there is no problem with editing anonymously. But as soon as they're editing in such a manner that they're accumulating warnings and blocks, while using a dynamic IP to then mask the fact that they have those past warnings and blocks, that's where they're violating policy. --Elonka 20:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't ask a question. There's some beans around the effects of IP hopping editors, whether they're logged in or not. Someone deliberately hopping IPs to avoid block-logs will continue to do so, they'll just use different accounts when the do. You mention "non-controversial edits in non-controversial areas" - what about "non controversial edits to controversial areas"? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeeed, the anon would've helped him/herself, had it stopped hopping from IP to IP. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Let's remind ourselves of WP:IAR: we're here to build an encyclopedia, not to protect the rights of people to edit using IPs rather than with a free, equally or more anonymous, alias. This crops up often enough that I'm inclined to say it should be written down somewhere (if it isn't already). There are good reasons to give users the right to edit via IPs, but editing from a dynamic IP can cause particular problems, and a user consistently refusing to solve those problems by getting an account is being disruptive and should be treated as such. Rd232 22:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No one is telling you not to block IP editors when they're being disruptive. Editing from a dynamic IP without an account is not disruptive. I have no idea how you come to that conclusion. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

From long experience editing from IP addresses, those of us who edit without using accounts get a little more scrutiny on each edit, which is appropriate and is generally good enough to handle most issues. And as Rd232 says, users exposing their IP addresses are less anonymous than users with made-up account names. It is also harder (though not impossible) to manufacture IP addresses in large quantities than usernames. In general Elonka is right to have decreased AGF towards the activity of IP addresses (or named accounts) in battleground topic areas, and as she is an experienced admin her judgement towards that particular IP should be taken seriously.

Regarding GoodDay's query about not signing in, all I can suggest is trying editing from IP's for a while. If your edits are mostly of good quality, nobody will bother you much about not using an account, and you'll probably find that there are things to like and dislike about it. For some of us, the "like" outweighs the "dislike". If on the other hand your edits are persistently of poor quality, you should find something else to do instead, whether or not you use an account. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh, many people can tell you that editing from an IP will get you accusations of socking, trolling, bad faith, etc, even if you're making good edits. Suggesting an IP is bad faith *just because* they're making edits to battleground topics without being logged in is not a good thing. Obviously, as soon as any of their edits are bad faith (even borderline BF) all bets are off.

It sounds like you're doing it out of spite or to make a point, to be honest. I have never seen one good reason given for why unregistered editing could be considered a positive thing. If you think it gives you more anonymity than a registered account, it doesn't. Tarc (talk) 04:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter whether you think it's a good thing or not - it's a founding principle. Supposedly that means it's not up for discussion, but meh. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The idea behind allowing unregistered editing is that it allows users to make their first edits to Misplaced Pages with minimal effort; a person doesn't have to do anything besides click "edit this page" to fix an error, and that is a Good Thing for most people, since such drive-by edits are how most editors start off. The idea is that, for your first few edits you edit anonymously, and once you get "hooked" you create an account, and then spend the rest of your life commenting at ArbCom cases and voting at RFA... erm, I mean improving the encyclopedia. Anyhoo, the idea is that most people won't jump through the hoop of creating an account just to fix a spelling error; however the ability to fix that spelling error is the bait that gets most people to create an account in the first place. The downside is that people can continue to edit forever anonymously, either to game the system and avoid scrutiny or to Make a point about something or other. The deal in this case is we should probably take the good with the bad; there would be a drop off in good registered accounts if we disallowed anonymous editing, not an increase, since its the ability to edit anonymously that gets a person interested in the first place. --Jayron32 05:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I said "There are good reasons to give users the right to edit via IPs, but editing from a dynamic IP can cause particular problems, and a user consistently refusing to solve those problems by getting an account is being disruptive and should be treated as such." Thanks for spelling out the good reasons, but that's not really relevant to my point. To clarify, my point is that we should have a policy that explicitly says something like "when a particular user's use of a dynamic IP causes problems in communication or behaviour monitoring, that user may be required to get an account and edit logged-in." Rd232 09:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Totally agree with Jayron. --John (talk) 05:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

All I can say is that Jayron and Tarc are both wrong. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 08:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well you could explain your thinking, instead of making cryptic remarks. Rd232 09:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be cryptic. m:exopedianism discusses some of the motivation, though hanging out at ANI like I'm doing right now wouldn't fall under that category, unfortunately. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well if you'd mentioned that, I wouldn't have complained about making cryptic remarks. However I don't buy exopedianism as a good reason not to get an account if you're making long-term contributions from a dynamic IP. It just makes communication and monitoring easier, which aid the purpose of creating an encyclopedia. You don't have to create a userpage or do anything else you consider non-relevant. Rd232 18:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The only reason monitoring is important is if someone is making bad faith edits. It is trivial (easier) for a person to sock with logged in accounts than with IP hopping. I'm gently worried that the desire to force people to log in is yet another example of the pettifogging overarching bureaucracy that engulfs WP. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I've heard anyone give for editting Misplaced Pages without an accounts was from Ward Cunningham, who once told me it is "because I can". However, he makes few edits, to the best of my knowledge none are controversial, & he has since created an account for himself here. The point here is, however, that we have an instance where you need to create an account so that other editors can have (to use the phrase as a metaphor here) a face-to-face talk with you -- which is essential in controversial subjects. Your refusal to create an account gives one the impression that you have little interest in discussing your edits -- beyond an exchange of anonymous notes. -- llywrch (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Communication on troublesome articles can (should?) take place on that articles' talk page. It's then easier for editors to hold a conversation with someone who's IP is changing. An editor that doesn't discuss anything anywhere is disruptive, and thus blockable. An editor who doesn't return to the pages they've edited isn't disrupting those pages (their changes either stick, or they get reverted, but if there's no revert war what's the problem?). NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Good points. Misplaced Pages is a community that works because of collaboration and transparency. When a user sets themselves outside the community and lays impediments in the way of collaboration, as well as refuses to edit transparently, they are being disruptive and don't deserve to be here. Editing is not a right, so get an account or find some other hobby. If you don't do it now, I move that you be blocked, and that all articles where you edit have semi-protection as their default status. In fact, all controversial articles at Misplaced Pages would benefit from such permanent/default semi-protection. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The key to editing controversial topics is exactly the same for named and IP editors: write from the neutral point of view, and source every disputable assertion carefully. If everyone did that, there would be no purpose to having user accounts. And feel free to identify any edits of mine that you think are improper, and to request default semi-protection for articles like Fundamental theorem of algebra, Decision problem, Prime number theorem, and San Francisco – Oakland Bay Bridge, all of which I've edited in the past day or so. I think such a request would be more POINTy than anything I've ever done. I therefore don't feel like discussing this any further. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(End indent): Actually I'm an admin who performs roughly 90% of his mainspace edits from an anonymous IP, and I have done so quietly for the last seven years. I obviously don't think there should be any attempt to deny IP's access to editor rights.

My reasons for editing anonymously are because I personally believe that "edit count scoring" is wrong and harmful and that edits should be judged by the content and not by the author. But rather than make any noisy protest over it, I choose to just edit away quietly and prove my point with actions rather than noise. (And apart from an impressive collection of "Welcome notices" and some trivial reversions by a handful of slightly over-zealous hugglers, I've never had a problem in all my years of anon postings.)

The issue here is someone (allegedly) attempting to use anonymity for bad faith purposes. That is a VERY different state of affairs. Manning (talk) 02:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. If Elonka is correct she should (gather and present evidence and then) just block. No one cares if someone is blocked for poor behaviour. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm also editing as an IP and getting demands that I register. I'm not doing because I was once burned by violent, extreme nationalists as I think can be seen operating here. As long as the community seems unable to control such people I'll not go back that way and I've since discovered the problem is severe in other nationalist topics. 86.158.184.158 (talk) 10:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Then edit in a truly anonymous manner, by registering. Your IP is telling where you live! -- Brangifer (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. A reverse lookup on your IP number (a free service you can find through a Google search) shows you are posting from London, UK. While there are a lot of people in that city, someone with sufficient time on her/his hands could narrow this area even further, perhaps as closely as the street you live in. -- llywrch (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The only "anonymity" afforded by editing from IPs is the hiding and scattering of edit histories, and THAT is forbidden here. The basic rule is ONE person/ONE account/ONE edit history, and since every IP is counted as an account with its own edit history, it is not allowed for one individual to edit in that manner. Register an account and use it, then it makes no difference where you happen to be when you edit, or how many hundreds of IPs you happen to be using. It's all collected in one edit history, so there's no problem. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I told myself I'd stop posting here, but Brangifer is quite confused: editing from IP's is not forbidden and has never been forbidden, and it has never been limited to newbies. See m:founding principles item 2. While there have been some proposals to change the practice, they have not gotten anywhere. Brangifer, please stop posting incorrect information. If you want to post your opinion that things shouldn't be as they are, that's fine, but label it as such. (Better do something about all those enrolled users running multiple accounts, too.)

To 86.158.184.158: Brangifer and Llwrch are correct when they say using a pseudonym makes it harder (though not impossible) to track you down than if you disclose your IP address. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 08:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

??? I never said it was forbidden, and I'm well aware that multiple accounts are allowed when it's done properly and openly. It's the hopping and disruptive use of multiple IPs/accounts that's the problem. That's why I wrote the "basic rule" is... That principle still stands, even though there are exceptions that are allowed. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Suppose you opened an ccount and did most of your editing from it, but some anonymously. Even if checks confirmed it was you, how could they tell a computer glitch hadn't logged you off without your noticing? This happens quite often. It's happened to me a number of times. In other words, an order to edit logged on might be very difficult to enforce. Question: is it a good idea to have unenforceable rules & orders (e.g. NPOV &c.)? Peter jackson (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You misread policy. Nothing forbids editors from having multiple accounts - indeed, there are some very valid reasons to do so. Nothing forbids an editor from editing from an IP address. It does become disruptive when being used to circumvent policy (ie if your account was blocked, and you went on editing as an IP), vote multiple times in AfD's etc, play good hand/bad hand, and other similar issues. Using an account and IP address disruptively is enforceable quite readily. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

What I said was that it could be difficult to tell whether anonymous contributions had been made deliberately or accidentally. Peter jackson (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That's usually solved by going back and signing your accidental IP edit. If one has malicious cyberstalkers who make your real life miserable, you might not choose to do so because you'd be outing yourself, but if you have your PC settings right, it should be a rare occurrence. I've had it happen when visiting friends and using their PCs, and forgetting I wasn't logged in. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, anon-editors who don't hop from IP account to IP account, should encourage those who do hop, to stop. It's the hoppers who are causing problems. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

At the substantial risk of yet another false accusation, I'll respond to that invitation, GD. The previous WP:ANI report about this problem editor and this article revolved around accusations of sockpuppetry and assumptions of bad faith, which only intensified when LotLE was reported here. In the flurry of accusations against well-intentioned IP editors, LotLE got away with his misconduct. All users need to stop assuming that every IP editor is a sock, or editing in bad faith. Many of us have been here several years and have racked up thousands of edits. We have no control over the frequency with which our IP addresses are changed by our service providers; but usually that happens about once a year. Misplaced Pages was founded on the principle of individual freedom. We are free to edit under an IP address, or choose to create an account. That personal freedom is fundamental.

When an editor edits from a dynamic IP address, however, it creates opportunities for mischief. In my opinion, that pushes the situation over the line. The community requires some form of accountability for past editing history. If you can walk away from that history every 24 hours, you aren't submitting to that accountability. I suggest a voluntary change in service providers to a more static IP address, if the user insists on continuing to edit as an IP address. Then there will be an editing history (and other histories) for review, which should satisfy everyone. I hope that helps, and best regards all around. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 12:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That block is hitting random editors in the same geographic area. It looks like those rules no longer exist. According to the report above the user claimed all of his IP's in writing more than a month ago and no one ever said he violated any rules or evaded any blocks or engaged in any sock puppetry. But a block has been done anyways, it looks like a dinamic ip is now itself blocakable.99.151.160.21 (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder: having a dynamic IP does not sockpuppetry make. (my own address never seems to last more than a couple of days) Additionally, there's no reason to assume that choosing to edit anonymously is "for spite" any more than you'd want me to say you only log in to inflate your 'edit count'. Some people prefer to make constructive changes without committing themselves to headaches of constant drama, bureacracy, and abuses.

And yes, we know it isn't as 'anonymous'. Bullying IP's (including reverse-lookups followed by "I know where you live") isn't unheard of.

And sometimes I wonder why being 'anon' somehow condones a double-standard wherein we can be accused of anything willy-nilly, insulted randomly, and nobody else has to follow the same rules when dealing with us.

This case in particular is absurd. He (she?) was essentially told, "there's no grounds for blocking you if you have an account, but there are if you don't." I realize that IPs are always treated differently from 'regular' users, but it isn't usually so blatant. And then it's flagged as "resolved" as though the original issue was ip editor, and not the issue over whether or not a person can be compelled to register. (of course, it should've been moved to the pump anyways, as it's really about policy, not a specific incident) There's no such thing as 'sockpuppetry' when the editor freely admits to being the same person, but that doesn't stop them being being blocked without cause.

For my own part, I used to have an account. I saw too much crap here and left. I eventually came back occasionally for fixing typos, dealing with BLP and media copyright issues, and offering the odd bit of technical expertise. But I still don't feel like logging in because I don't want the temptation of a 'watchlist'. Because then I'll check that watchlist. This is cleaner. Whatever pages I can remember to check back on, I do. Everything else, I let go. 72.88.55.196 (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

User mcjakeqool's block was unfair and disproportionate

I am rasing the concern that User mcjakeqcool's block was unfair and disproportionate, and it should be investigated by Misplaced Pages Administrators noticeboard/Incidents. In my opinion the biggest flaw was not letting User mcjakeqcool have his/her say at Misplaced Pages Administrators noticeboard/Incidents, I have other concerns but I am not certain they are appropriate for Misplaced Pages Administrators noticeboard/Incidents. Also may I state that I have taken on board the unsolicited comments User Guyinblack25 has made on User mcjakeqcool's talk page, and I have taken on board what he/she has said or typed to be more acuate and I will work from NOW on with User Guyinblack25 and other users & may I state I have already worked with him. As I said above, the block was unfair & disproportionate, User mcjakeqcool should have had his/her say & finally I am working with user User Guyinblack25 other users, aswell as already doing so. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you seriously referring to yourself in the third person? Jauerback/_dude. 17:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The block has expired. Learn from it and move on. Under Preferences > Editing there is a box marked "mark all edits minor by default". Make sure it is unchecked, that way you will have to fill in the check box to mark an edit as minor. If you forget to do that when making a minor edit no harm will be done. Mjroots (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

And yet, every edit, including this complaint is still being marked as minor. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Jauerback - yes, he pretty much always refers to himself in the third person. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

McJ - as far as I can see you've never 'worked with' GuyinBlack, or me, or Tim Song, or anyone else who has offered to help you. Could you define what you mean by 'work with'?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

IIRC there was substantial support for indef at the last thread, but I was of the view that Tan's one-week block might have some effect so as to avoid the need for indef. I think it is now apparent that he has no intention to follow WP norms, even after Guyinblack's detailed explanation on his talk page, and after Tan's warning that continuing his behavior may result in an indef block. As such, per Tan et al. and my comments on his talk page here, I'd support an indef block. Four ANI threads later, his presence is still not a net positive. Tim Song (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh, Mcj, it was the folks at WP:AN/I who imposed this ban on you. Any reasonable person would assume that any investigation by WP:AN/I will simply confirm that decision -- especially with the lack of evidence you have supplied to show that this decision was "unfair and disproportionate". (see this archived thread for further details.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said on his talk page, McJackqcool has obviously learned nothing and refuses to edit according to how the community wishes, as such he's left us little choice. I support an indef.--Crossmr (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree with those above who find Mcjakeqcool's actions bothersome. They have received multiple warnings and comments on his talk page to not mark non-minor edits as such and even received a one week block of editing privileges for it. What is the first thing Mcjakeqcool does when the block is lifted? Create a new section here at ANI and marks it minor. This is the fourth ANI discussion about this editor (admittedly, they opened it on themselves this time.) Mcjakeqcool does not get it, does not listen, does not cooperate. This has gone on too long. I'd support an indef block of editing privileges. --TreyGeek (talk) 12:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I haven't opened a thread to discuss a community ban about this user is that maybe he is actually working with Guyinblack. (It's what Mcj claims on his talk page.) So the moment Guyinblack reports here that mentoring Mcjakeqcool failed -- or he has not even heard from this alleged Brit rapper -- we should take that step. -- llywrch (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I've asked Guyinblack if he cares to comment. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I must admit, I'm a bit confused by Mcjakeqcool's comments. My communication with them has been very minimal. Though I've posted comments to their talk page, I have only gotten two responses back: first to "deny" adoption, and second to enlist my help. However, Mcjakeqcool have never come to me after that for help on articles or discussions.

So I can't say that we've ever worked together. Not like how I regularly do with WP:VG members. I would welcome a collaboration with Mcjakeqcool, but no such discussion has occurred on or off the Wiki to lead to that.

The only conclusions that come to mind are:

1. This user is not a fluent English speaker and has a limited and different understanding of many English words used here.
2. This user is just trying see what havoc they can cause and attention they can get.

I hope it's the first one. Either way, not being able to communicate with someone because they are unable to or unwilling to gives us few options. (Guyinblack25 19:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

Agreed. But I'd rather exhaust all reasonable options before we resort to a community ban. The grounds for one would be, to put it bluntly, he's too stupid to edit Misplaced Pages. We should use that rationale as rarely as possible due to endless opportunities for misuse. -- llywrch (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't use the term "stupid" but WP:COMPETENCE is sometimes cited with certain editors. A person who is absolutely brilliant but can't type well enough to be understood, or a person whose poor grasp of the English language precludes any positive contributions to the project are examples of people who aren't stupid at all but are still incapable of properly editing the encyclopedia. It's seems cruel but just because anyone can edit the encyclopedia, that doesn't mean everyone should. -- Atama頭 23:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

We've exhausted all reasonable options at this point. He's been blocked twice, he's had several editors reach out to him, his behaviour is evident elsewhere on the internet as I pointed out before and goes well beyond wikipedia. Misplaced Pages isn't reform school. The only willingness he's shown to "work" with the community is when facing an indefinite ban and so far that has proven rather fruitless. I cannot see any compelling reason to keep beating our head against the wall here.--Crossmr (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) According to off-wiki sources, McJ is born and raised in the UK. Now we do have a few communities where children are raised in a native language and start school without a full grasp of English, but McJ doesn't appear to belong to one of these communities. This is what McJ says himself about his grasp of english: I can speak in english, however I can only speak politically correct jargon, think of a MP and the houses of parlament, medical communication, police delacet etc. And also I do have poor english skills, and I am not reluctant to admit my english teacher gave me a F- in english. Also this is wikipeida, so we are MEANT to speak in jargon! This was in response to Chocobogamer and myself both asking him what this meant: I have seen proof that it exists with my own eyes, however I still it's existence and it is therefore orignal research In reply, he copied the text, and reposted it below our queries, as if we hadn't heard him. If you try saying his comments, and imagine a dub beat of some kind behind them, you can almost hear him speaking, so I think it's fair to say that his problems aren't just because he is being asked to use written English -he may be hard to follow when he is talking as well.

For me, he is more a nuisance than disruptive. Even the thing about the minor edits is just a nuisance - he never actually says anything on talk pages that make much sense. As I said before, he made a mistake a year ago about minor edits and promised at that point to do it properly , but for some reason when he made the error more recently, he decided that he was right and Misplaced Pages was wrong. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Which is the rub. There have been a few people who make good faith edits, yet just not capable of contributing to Misplaced Pages. We shouldn't ban them unless we are sure we are doing the right thing. -- llywrch (talk) 05:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

But once again, wikipedia is not reform school. If he is incapable of editing and yet persists, then there is little choice. He shouldn't be banned, he should be blocked. If at some future point he can demonstrate that he can write an article or contribute positively, then he can be unblocked. Beyond his nonsensical talk comments, he has had issues with article creation and other main space problems. So long as that is an issue and he fails to recognize what is wrong, we can't force him to edit properly. I don't think anyone expects Elen to go to his house and stand behind him and watch him edit and barring that, I can't see how we're going to make a change here.--Crossmr (talk) 06:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I'll pass on that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

I've read the discussion above and the recent contributions of Mcjakeqcool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and agree that the lack of quality in his contributions, which mostly create cleanup work for others or are meaningless talk page comments, is a serious concern. I'm blocking the user indefinitely until he can prove to an administrator's satisfaction that he is competent enough to contribute productively to Misplaced Pages.  Sandstein  07:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

He has requested an unblock, but added the request to that interminable blog of his at the top of the page, instead of using the unblock template - which he previously used correctly (ie he managed to add it to it to the page with the words he wanted to say in the proper place) but unsuccessfully (because he never gave a reason why he should be unblocked). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Which is, of course, part of the problem. I've never liked WP:COMPETENCE for a number of reasons, but Mcjakeqcool is practically a walking advertisement for it. NYScholar (talk · contribs) was indef blocked for being systematically incapable of following the norms of interaction here IIRC and he was a far more productive contributor. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Good block. Jauerback/_dude. 13:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, Sandstein has not been involved in this matter previously, & his block is the judgment of a disinterested party. In other words, a decision has been made & the matter resolved. If Mcjakeqcool wants to be an accepted member of Misplaced Pages, he's got some larnin' to do. -- llywrch (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that User mcjakeqcool, should be unblocked, ONLY if he can follow wikipeida guidelines. 86.21.66.162 (talk) 12:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

He has posted another unblock request It is addressed to me, and in that wretched blog. This is what it says

I have decided that if I am to be unblocked, to some exstent I have to change my tactics, I will seldem argue against wikipedia and when I do it will be in a professional manner, I am going to create a restraint order, which will NEVER allow me to mark any wikipedia edit as minor, article space or talk page and I will take a english course of some kind, however I can not promise good english as my english is very poor, I can speak english fluently but my gramma is not far off abysmal. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Would an admin like to look at it? Should I post it into an unblock template for him (I have a feeling that will bugger the template up and the admins will think it is me making the request). Should I take up Crossmr's suggestion and stand over him until he gets it right? I feel involved because it's addressed directly to me. Advice would be appreciated. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

He's been told what he needs to do. He's not a child. If he cannot (or will not) follow simple directions, nobody else should help him and we should just leave him be. He's not the first and won't be the last editor who demands that we change the entire encyclopedia for their ego, so I say ignore him and move on. He's not worth the energy and in my mind, further help just tells him he doesn't have to follow any rules to get what he wants because someone will always be there to follow him around. Besides, he's acting like it's some sort of negotiation where if he promises to do one thing, we'll get the benefit of his help here, not that he'll do what's needed to continue the privilege of editing here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, while he's amazingly not marked those two edits as minor, he has continued his ability to create more work for other editors as it necessitated elen posting here, or creating the unblock request for him. Unless he can demonstrate, completely on his own that he is a competent editor, I can't see the point of spending any further time here.--Crossmr (talk) 01:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel because User mcjakeqcool has changed his tactics in a postaive way, he should be unblocked. 217.204.11.196 (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jake. HalfShadow (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

WHAT?! 217.204.11.196 (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

A geolocate lookup assigns the IP address 217.204.11.196 to the National Autistic Society in London, England. If this actually Mcjakeqcool, that would explain a lot. Doesn't excuse his behavior, though. -- llywrch (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Edits aren't consistent with Mcj - for one thing this editor identifies and corrects typos and poor spelling. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you are talking about, Elen; this IP has not edited in more than a month before suddenly coming out of nowhere to defend McJ. The old edits are of very limited value here, as this is probably a shared IP address. No, this is most likely a sock. The ducks are quacking loudly. Tim Song (talk) 01:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Attacks at AfD

Various articles in Category:Technocracy movement have gone to AfD recently. Pro-technocracy editor User:Skipsievert has attacked many of those who have initiated the AfDs or have spoken against the articles; these editors include myself, User:Lawrencekhoo, User:John Quiggin, and User:Beagel. I am concerned that Beagel in particular has today been drawn into this, see and , as he is a very hard-working editor who is always civil and considerate to others. I am also concerned that the situation is escalating and that SS is discouraging editors from airing their views at the AfDs, and that a distorted outcome may result. The AfDs in question are:

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Technate (2nd nomination)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Urbanate (2nd nomination)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Energy Survey of North America
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Technocracy Study Course (2nd nomination) -- Johnfos (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There was an aborted mediation attempt between many of these users. I recommend a conduct RfC. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I've not been involved in any aborted mediation attempt; could you provide details please. Johnfos (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

here's the abortive mediation attempt, with some context for why it ended here. I don't really recommend spending much time on it if you weren't involved. CRETOG8(t/c) 23:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. My main concern here is that many editors are being subjected to repeated personal attacks at Technocracy AfDs and so are being warned off registering their views and comments at AfD. Johnfos (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I also received attacks from Skipsievert accusing me of tandem editing and have already set up a discussion at WQA. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Skipsievert causes grief with other groups as well, but Misplaced Pages seems to have no procedures for countering an editor like this. Some administrators enable him. For example, this admin offers him protection and tutors him on how to play the system, while this admin blocked an attempt to seek community redress. Apparently all is well, and we should just let him get on with it. --Geronimo20 (talk) 01:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Inform me on my talk page for future violations of conduct. I'll see what I can do... before this hits arbitration, which seems otherwise likely. I hope this sounds OK. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Skipsievert's conduct is a frustrating problem for numerous groups. Regarding Geronimo20's problem with User:Protonk, I couldn't follow the dispute in detail, but I'm confident Protonk was acting in a good faith attempt to make the procedures work. JQ (talk) 06:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Clearly something needs to be done. There is also this very recent ANI discussion regarding this editor: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive571#Incorrigibly disruptive editor. Rd232 08:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this has been dragging on, and obviously there are bigger issues about SSs behaviour to be considered here. But what are we to do with the AfDs where SSs intimidation has derailed the process? What about the hard-working editors who are getting innocently caught up in all of this nonsense? Johnfos (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

But that is the whole point John, that probably nothing will be done. Misplaced Pages processes seem broken, and without oversight, when it comes to an editor like this. Yet another thread on Skipsievert has been started at Wikiquette alerts, but I doubt anything will come of it. We bluster impotently on various noticeboards while Skipsievert marches happily on, leaving behind an ever enlarging trail of discouraged editors. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned on my talk page, Skip has consistently refused to compromise and listen to other people, and he's spinning out of control into paranoia, wasting a lot of people's time. I'm one of the very few people who was able to work with him in a few times, but even I can't handle it anymore. He's using Misplaced Pages to preach Technocracy and thermoeconomics, and when people call him out on he says they're all in a conspiracy. Harassing people who disagree with you is disruptive and shouldn't be allowed. II | (t - c) 22:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I ran into Skip in Representative money and you can read my complaints in sections 5-8 of Talk:Representative_money, total POV misuse of sources, deleting WP:RS info in favor of WP:OR, etc. I haven't been involved in the AfD issues mentioned above, but have seen the accusatory pattern. Skip is the first editor I ran into who got me so frustrated that he alone made me want to quit editing - and I'm someone who constantly has been drawn into various Israel-Palestine related disputes over the years. At least one knows the opponent's motivation for policy violations in those cases! Misplaced Pages can't have credibility if this sort of chronic violation of Wikipolicies is allowed to continue. It just drives editors away. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

In my view, the only workable remedy for Skip's conduct is a ban from editing Misplaced Pages, for a period long enough to discourage him, and with the prospect of a permanent ban if he does not reform. Is there an admin willing to implement this?JQ (talk) 07:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

See also Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Encyclopedia_of_Earth_.28eoearth.org.29 where editors who don't agree w/ Skip are lumped into a collection of "mainstream economists" with a COI who can be treated as "one voice". This appears to be the default mode of disagreement for Skip. Anyone against him is a solitary POV pusher until more than one person is against him, then it is a conspiracy. Protonk (talk) 22:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

There has been another personal attack reported here. But apparently nothing can be done because WP processes are broken? Certainly Wikiquette alerts, ANI, User conduct RfC, and Mediation have so far failed as far as Skipsievert is concerned, although they have provided some opportunity for editors to share their views. Johnfos (talk) 08:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Is the next step an RFC/U??

Haven't we already tried that? JQ (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, RfC. Isn't that the board especially designed so nothing happens, and people just vent? Perhaps you are right, John, and the admin boards are broken for cases like this. Surely SS is the most intransigent and destructive editor on WP at the moment, wreaking havoc among many content editors across several different topic areas. Please, anyone, correct me if that is not the case. The recent An/I called for a topic ban in one of those areas, with 13 agreeing (mainly the affected content editors) and one opposing admin. Now you would think that was a fairly strong consensus, yet nothing happened. The An/I was left to drift off into oblivion, with no action taken by an admin, and worse, no concluding comment by an admin that could have allowed us miserable content editors to make any sense of it.

Later, I discovered SS had asked an admin for guidance, and was advised thus. Apparently a consensus among affected editors is called a "tag team" by admins, and that is something that "most admins should see through". So now we know, there is a tacit rule, understood by admins, that nothing will happen in a case like this if there is consensus. When I tried to ask another admin for some guidance on how to best proceed, I just got the bums rush.

With the failure of this An/I, the sustainability project has attempted to regroup. There are nine committed editors (plus skip). However, the project seems bogged in a somewhat stunned state. This is the end result of a year of aggravation and attempts at mediation. And still nothing. SS is effectively still in control, with what is, in effect, the blessing of the admin community.

My impression is that there are a relatively small number of admins who patrol a given board, and effectively control what happens on it. Over time , they build tacit agreements among themselves about how and when they will proceed. So they operate background rules, not always made explicit, and which you can be privy to only by following the activity on a given board for some time. Now that is precisely what dedicated content editors do not do, and do not want to do. Their interest is in contributing to WP, and they should not be expected to be privy to every quirk on the various admin boards. But I know for myself, that lately I've stopped adding serious content to WP, and instead scan the often strange stuff that goes on at the various admin boards, trying to understand their failure to protect content editors. I wonder how many other editors have recently become unproductive as a result of our inability to reign in SS, and what the collective cost is to WP.

Is there a graph that shows the content added to WP over time, comparing it with the volume of text added to the various admin boards. Are we nearing the crossover point, when wiki dramatising on admin boards exceeds content contributions? I started out with the idea that the role of administrators was to provide a workable environment for content editors. Now I'm not so sure what they are about. It seems, often, that content editors just get in the way, and at times like the one in this thread, content editors are just left to wither on the vine. Anyway, I charge the admin community with a failure to address situations like this one, and invite them to consider whether a better approach can be found. --Geronimo20 (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Skip Sievert is the most disruptive editor I have ever had the mis-fortune to encounter. I've taken a partial wikibreak from editing because he gives me stomach cramps. I've seen him drive other editors away as well, something which his style of passive-aggressive comments and 'warnings' seem designed to do. If any admin is reading, can you advise on how this large group (I would guess more than 20) should proceed with this complaint? LK (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems like this large group, which I could consider a faction that edits together toward mainstream views, in my opinion is using the thread here as mostly an attack post blog/forum. I see no diffs that back up points given, and I think a large point of what this may be about is related to editors that prefer a certain viewpoint as being weightier in regard to editing practice on Misplaced Pages. Mostly this chain of events with LK above leading it, started here, when I thought he was being unfair to another editor on the Wiki econo project page here. Then a group of these editors that edit articles in a similar way, in the sense of mainstream presentation having weight started organizing and making a series of personal attacks such as this by Cretog8 that edits with Lawrence Khoo and John Quiggin often on economics articles, both of whom have gone from page to page inciting people such as this which points out related problems. Also Lawrence Khoo was warned to not remove cited information for various reasons on the main economics article which he and Cretog8 and John Quiggin were doing as noted here.

I am a neutral pov editor. And try to stick with r.s. and generally do not bring personalities into things, but the general un-diffed attack stuff above is not really appropriate, and there probably is a larger issue of a faction with a pov... being a desire to consider some things fringe or not mainstream enough and a desire to make some sources more weighty connected with so called mainstream, that may motivate negative comments on another editor, rather than actual conduct. No, I am not a conspiracy person, mostly it seems that conflicts of interest toward a certain viewpoint regardless of reliable sourcing to other viewpoints is at issue, and possibly some people that are uninformed as to some related viable information. Mostly I have tried to explain and defuse aspects of this, but have been met with a lot of negative commentary. More information on this issue here :::here's the abortive mediation attempt, with some context for why it ended here -

So, this may point out larger issues connected with factions editing to a pov... maybe equaling conflicts of interests in some cases, in my opinion, on some article topics, mostly related to energy and economics by people regarding themselves as expert editors that seem to be editing toward weight being determined by in their view mainstream. as expert editors expert editors which seems problematic in regard to issues here now. Both L.K. and J.Q. are known economists and appear also to be on a tangent to edit to a pov in regard to conflicted in regard to other information that is viable and reliably sourced. Also the person that started this thread has a long history of following me around and making negative commentary such as this, which are just the older ones. - Sorry about the length of this. - skip sievert (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

As requested, here are some diffs:

• Skip posts elsewhere about a possible topic ban for LK, in spite of it being an informal discussion with no support beside Skip.
• Skip again posts that LK "is currently under consideration for being topic banned". Accusations of "tandem editing" and wikihounding.
• Skip responds to editors weighing in on the "topic ban" by implying those editors are part of the problem.
• One of several places Skip refuses to accept consensus on the reliable sources discussion, at the same time accusing several editors of being so compromised that they should be judged a single entity.
• Talk:Economics_and_energy#eoearth.org This discussion at Talk:Economics and energy, where I had gone through several additional hoops to get Skip to recognize the consensus.
• , Skip accuses me of wikistalking and tells me to "Go elsewhere".
• Weighing in on a user talk page notification which was on a completely different topic with accusations involving the posting editor and others who were not involved.
• another accusation of wikistalking.

• After I had attempted a rancor-free discussion of the substance of some material causing conflict , one editor responded productively, and then Skip responded with an attack . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cretog8 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Good lord I have no specialist knowledge in economics, but focusing on this guy skips behavior it's just... godawful. Topic ban him from economics articles, broadly construed and be done. Until a firm line is taken on stuff like this, tendentious game players have the upper hand over well-meaning editors.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• I am not a tendentious game player. You probably ought to do some research, and not add to disinformation for an editing faction here without knowing some background. Notice the way the editor above has treated me in the past. You want to ignore that Bali ultimate,? and disregard others opinions? Think about the bigger picture here and how a group of people, with an ax to grind can use an attack mode on others here. skip sievert (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, everyone's out of step but Johnny. I get it. That people get fed up with this kind of endless BS is natural, and I don't blame them. Hopefully you'll be dealt with appropriately soon.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• No, but coming here to make an attack is pointless, you maybe should comment about the actual issues here, comment on content, not on contributors. Maybe you should read the related material instead of pontificating. skip sievert (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this speaks louder than my words here as to your approach toward me Cretog8 making an extreme personal attack. It seems to me that an effort to confuse normal editing and, and trying to bring out issues in regard to actual Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines is happening. - skip sievert (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

As someone who has attempted to work with Skipsievert on the Sustainability pages without success, it is distressing to see that this pattern of personal attacks not only continues, but intensifies. A block would be in order, IMO. Sunray (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sunray and L.K. edit together in a group and Sunray has gone from article to article with an accusation that I am a sock puppet. among other things. This proved false. Sunray edits with Lawrence Khoo here and is part of other efforts in regard to attacking me in general. Mostly this thread is a poor excuse for an attack. This editing team to faction aspect is now piling people here again. The person that started this thread also edits there user Johnphos. - skip sievert (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This is one of those conflicts that leads people to avoid -- for good reason. It's hard to tell whether the problem is Skip Sievert's behavior itself, or he's behaving this way because he's championing an opinion the folks at this WikiProject disagree with. (I say this as someone who has little exposure to contemporary currents in economic thought, & was surprised at some of the answers in the mediation over what is "mainstream" vs. "heterodox" & "fringe" theories.) The simplest solution here, IMHO, would be for Skip Sievert to concede some ground here in order to show good faith to those who aren't experts on economics. Stay away from economics-related topics, & edit other articles & show us that you are capable of working with other people. (Free clue: people often start resorting to name-calling when they are frustrated & see no way towards working out a compromise or understanding.) The alternative would be for an uninvolved party to perform a thorough study of this conflict & state her/his findings -- as Bali ultimate has. And a second investigation might just confirm B's opinion -- although perhaps with different words. -- llywrch (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe llywrch, but there is an ongoing effort to attack an editor instead of the actual issues involved, so that to my mind is the real issue. I edit a wide variety of things on Misplaced Pages now besides Economics articles. Also Bali showed no indication of being familiar with any aspects of the actual background issues concerning this, but seemed to be going completely by others opinions that are editing in a faction aspect in my opinion mostly. You at least seem to understand the actual background issue in regard to this and I appreciate that. Note the kind of canvassing going on at page after page concerning an attempt which is pointed, to bring people here. I will concede some ground, as I normally do when reliable sources are used and ordinary editing practices. I try to stick with reliable source and n.p.o.v. - I do see a larger problem of faction editing and then that steam rolling in attacking another editor as I think this may show. I do believe this is the larger issue and connected with weight and fringe aspects according to some editors, that some disagree with, and those discussion have turned into a hunting down of people that dissagree. For this reason I think this boils down to a content issue, and probably this larger issue of weight to mainstream and Fringe issues needs addressing more than anything. Thanks. - skip sievert (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This stuff sickens me. Seriously. One user has been been holding up efforts for months. Literally, months. Many places. For better or worse? I don't know your subject matter, so I can't comment on that precisely. It's really this simple; Skip is of the opinion that 1 person alone can be consensus and is the ultimate truth to the world, even in the face of literally very other involved (and some uninvolved) persons on Misplaced Pages. It's not because it's Skip, but anyone who tried to get away with stuff like this I'd be disgusted by. I'm not going to pretend to know anything about all your projects so I literally have no opinion of the content. Seriously. I've tried to read some of it and kind of spaced out for awhile :) Does not matter who, though. Some of his regular "foes" in editing don't look like saints, either, but they're at least speaking with consensus, and that means a lot on Misplaced Pages. Skip-- just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're out to get you. It just means they can't find any logic in how you think Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines work, since it's clearly not the view that anyone else shares. Putting a WP:DGAF box on your userpage isn't an excuse to force conflict. Consensus is consensus. You go with it. That's how it works here. Period.

No type of dispute resolution on Misplaced Pages has ever worked, all the way up to mediation which Skip walked away from. No ANI is ever actually closed in favor of Skip's position (5+ of them, but rather the entire complaint and discussion are clogged with text from the solitary conflicted person and point of view and no admin seems to be able to jump in to render a decision before it gets too large to follow it all. Literally, canvassing discussions with Skip's own user to shove everyone away. Literally! Sixteen edits to this page over the course of 2 hours just to try to put static into the consensus of everyone else. Ironically, Skip complains of canvassing quite often, just in the opposite direction. I can't seem to ever see Skip actually answer someone's question with anything other than "yes", "no", or "u tandem". Messages in left in good faith get deleted with harassment warnings sent back. Oh, then there's the whole matter of Skip replacing large sections of text in articles with 100% new content, then complaining after it gets reversed for "see talk page" because there "wasn't consensus to stop him"? Very rarely does Skip actually ask in advance about making changes. Results as pathetic as this and here show where Skip seems to think it's okay to add text cited from the NY Times and leave it infallible in the article even if it's seen as fringe and not related-- just because it's the NY Times means you can't remove sourced into! Really. This is not cool to look at from any angle. No one is blameless, and levels of frustration from "mildly peeved" to "holywtf?" that I have of persons dug far deep into this. Sorry Skip, but as the sole outlier you makes the situation far too obvious even if the hubris of many is open to interpretation. Everyone involved seems to be at least a little insane, but at least most will pause article changes to discuss at least at least. Anyway, I'll just sit back and wait for Skip to come around a yell at me for ... I don't even know what. I'm just some freaking loser lowbie editor who that responds to misc help and comments in posted discussions. I bet s/he'll claim everything has been a neutral view from his point so s/he is infallible, then forget that an overwhelming consensus decided a source Skip used was not reliable and is very literally continuing the discussion on WP:IDONTHEARYOU. Sigh. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

S.S. almost singlehandedly motivated me to come up with a list of fixes for the MetaPolicy Taskforce advertised on top of pages maybe 6 weeks ago. Now I can't find the link. Anyone know where it is now so I can give them the list of things to do to get more editors in to help out in these areas?? )(Beside of course just becoming an editor who opines more on the various Notice Boards!!) Thanks!!! CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Skipsievert has said above: "I am a neutral pov editor. And try to stick with r.s. and generally do not bring personalities into things...", but what has happened in relation to the Technocracy articles over a period of several years demonstrates that this is simply not the case. My opening post in this thread shows that SS is regularly bringing personalities into things, and judging from my own experience and from what others have said here, SSs repeated personal attacks have resulted in much time-wasting and in some editors leaving WP (or at least thinking of leaving) and others taking wikibreaks. Moreover, I have never seen such a blatant case of POV-pushing and poor sourcing, across a whole suite of articles as in Category:Technocracy movement. POV pushing was an issue that was discussed at SS's 2008 user conduct RfC, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Skipsievert.

I am concerned that SSs own brand of pro-technocracy views have unbalanced articles such as Technocracy movement, Technocracy Incorporated and Energy accounting, and SS's agressive promotion of his own agenda and personal attacks have resulted in many hundreds of posts from him to the Technocracy movement talk page. There are many scholarly books written on the issue of Technocracy but these are not being referred to, and the WP articles typically rely on the slanted views of a few self-published and wiki sources. One of these dubious sources is Encyclopedia of Earth, which was discussed here: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Encyclopedia_of_Earth_.28eoearth.org.29.

There is a lot of overlapping content in the Technocracy articles (ie., particular paragraphs and chunks of text appearing in several articles), see Talk:Energy accounting#More repetition and , and it appears that repetition of content across articles has been used by SS as a way to blatantly push technocratic ideas. And there are many separate articles on individual jargon words used in Technocracy, such as Urbanate and Technate, which again represent repetition and just seem to serve to increase the footprint of Technocracy issues on WP.

I would also mention that I first became aware of Skipsievert and Technocracy issues when SS posted at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Energy in February 2009, requesting help with the Energy accounting article, see . And I responded to that request in good faith and offered advice. Previous to reading the Energy accounting article I had never heard of Technocracy Incorporated or the Technocracy Study Course. So I don't have anything against Technocracy per se, but there are many problems with the way the subject is being presented and dealt with on WP. Johnfos (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not pro anything or pushing anything, and I find the above disturbing. Misplaced Pages is only about sources and verifiablity, not truth. See also the disclaimer. I also have not canvassed anyone to come here or to other pages, and do not plan to. The person that started this thread has on multiple pages... one example of many, I could list many. Here is another place you have canvassed called Please see, here. There are multiple other ones connected with yourself and a couple of others here that have gone from page to page to solicit people to come here. Since you started this thread this maybe should be known that you are beating the bushes for contributors. Also noted again from user User:Johnfos, that you have trailed my editing negatively in the past Johnphos past connection. - skip sievert (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this whole thing should be thrown out as it is noted that the main contributors here have almost all canvassed each other to come here for a negative attack... another canvassing action from a poster here. I could give other multiple examples of this. - skip sievert (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

At the very least could an admin speak to him about using 'it has been noted' and 'it is noted' to preface his own personal opinion? They imply a consensus (or at least a plurality of opinion) that is not there. In almost every single one of his edits it should be appropriately replaced with 'I feel that'. Everytime I see that phrase used dishonestly by Skip, it gives me a stomach ache. LK (talk) 04:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

All this business from SS about "canvassing" is nonsense. The instructions at the top of this page clearly say "You must notify any user that you discuss", and that is what I did following my opening comment on this thread.

SS, you need to be aware that you are highly visible on WP now. Many users know who you are and they watch what you do. There is no need to follow you around or canvass, because the disruption you cause is highly visible. Johnfos (talk) 04:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Moreschi

User:Moreschi with the help of User:Grandmaster tries to merge the article of Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan while no any consensus (3v3) at the talk and no admin made any decision on merge. Using his admin privileges, Moreschi is supporting one-side actions at the Armenia-Azerbaijan enforcement area which is quite dubious and a neutral view on these actions could be very helpful! Gazifikator (talk) 10:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

it does look to me that he is abusing his privileges. maybe his administrator status should be challenged. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Gazifikator, if you want this to be able to stand on its own, you need to expand Islam in Azerbaijan to the point where summary style article is warranted if that article is not to become grossly swollen. Please read that guideline and abide by it, otherwise you are just disruptively content forking. Moreschi (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

so should we merge Fundamentalist_Christianity and Christianity or are those two separate things? 212.200.205.163 (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you could read Misplaced Pages:Summary style as well, and stop sticking your nose into areas where you patently have no clue just to piss me off. Shoo. Moreschi (talk) 10:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

man, are you unpleasant type. i'm going to "stick my nose" where ever i want. piss your self off as much as you want, i don't give a damn. Shoo you. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 10:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Moreschi, the policies regarding civility and no personal attacks apply to administrators even more than to other editors. Please observe them in the future.  Sandstein  10:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, since when is "shoo" incivil? As to the rest, it was a factual description of what this IP is doing. He's pissed off because I blocked his friend Ludvikus, posted in this thread, not because he knows anything about the long-running armenia-azeri wars, but just to annoy me. Moreschi (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I know what it's like to do admin work in a highly contentious ethno-political subject area. Just keep your cool and try not to sink to the level of discourse preferred by the various ethno-warriors, is my advice.  Sandstein  11:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

i really don't need to have a harvard education to be able to make a distinction between radical islam and islam. it is quite obvious to me. no need to look into talk page archives for the "reasoning" behind their merge. (ps. i saw this thread only because it was right above my thread below -- i didn't "chase" you through this page to find you and "piss you off") 212.200.205.163 (talk) 11:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

p.s. Ludvikus is NOT my friend, nor do i know him/her. I simply don't like seeing unjustice, and i see it quite a bit here on wikipedia. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 11:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Harvard education or no, you have clearly not read Misplaced Pages:Summary style, or, for that matter Misplaced Pages:Content forking. If you had, you might understand why it is the correct style to treat "radical islam in X" as apart of "islam in X" until the "radical" section becomes too big and has to be spun off into its own child article. Which it probably will do in most cases, but clearly not here. Moreschi (talk) 11:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

you're right, 212.200.205.163! That's what we discussed with other users, while Moreschi preferred to merge the article with no explanation and in the same 'civil' manner he/she has. Admins with such a 'civil' language and no interest to discuss or even explain his views do not add any honor to Misplaced Pages! Like in our post-soviet semi-democratic countries where the government is less civil than the citizens. That's sad... Gazifikator (talk) 11:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You are being highly disingenuous. I quick glance at the talk page shows 5 users supporting a merge with 3 opposing, one of whom just said "per Gazifikator". Looks like ample consensus for a merge to me, particularly as all the actual content is retained at (you guessed it)

your mention of Misplaced Pages:Content forking shows that you don't understand the distinction between radical islam and islam. they are not POV's, they are different things. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 11:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• To address the original point made by Gazifikator, after looking at the history of Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) it does appear that Moreschi has misused his admin tools to win a content dispute. After having revert-warred over the merger of the page to Islam in Azerbaijan previously (, , ), he protected the page in his preferred (merged) version (). That is a very serious matter. I do hope there is a good explanation for this, because otherwise a request for arbitral removal of tools will be unavoidable.  Sandstein  11:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, please. Have you bothered to have a look at the history? 5 users support the merge, 3 oppose, all the content is retained at the target article, I do the merge as uninvolved admin. This is how consensus works, no? A couple of SPAS and IPs (presumably socks/meatpuppets of Gazifikator) revert, they are in turn reverted and the redirect semiprotected. Locked out because of the autoconfirm requirement, Gazikikator immediately logs back in to revert himself. The original consensus stands, so he is reverted and the redirect locked. This is in no way violation of tools, just administrative enforcement of legitimate talkpage consensus. The fact that I happen to agree with the merge is irrelevant, as I did not participate in the original talkpage discussion. Moreschi (talk) 11:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• (ec) I assume you refer to Talk:Islam in Azerbaijan#Merge. It is not common practice to enforce a merger consensus with page protection, since consensus can change (and 5 to 3 doesn't look like a consensus for merging to me). Should there be edit warring about a contested merger, your duty as an uninvolved admin would be to sanction the edit warriors or protect the m:WRONG version, not revert to your preferred version first. It is also not clear from the history that you acted as an uninvolved administrator in this merger discussion, and contrary to what you say I can't see where you made the merger. Your contributions to Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan are limited to repeatedly reverting the unmergers of others, without discussion, and finally protecting the page in the merged version.  Sandstein  11:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you please bother to review the history? The merge was made (can't remember who by) Gazifikator reverted, I reverted back. By doing so I was signalling my approval as uninvolved admin that the merge should go ahead. Which it did with no dissent, apart from IPs, SPAs, and Gazifikator, who seems to have reverted to meatpuppetry. Gazifikator does not get to ignore a perfectly valid talkpage consensus (and, frankly, not only did the mergists not only have better numbers but also better arguments by far, and yes, we are supposed to evaluate that) simply by reverting back to his content fork. Edit warring, ignoring consensus, content forking, and apparently meatpuppetry. This is disruption. Moreschi (talk) 11:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You may be right that there's disruption going on, Moreschi, but (a) admins have no special authority in content issues, and (b) one can either act as an editor or as an administrator in a content dispute, not both. At no time during your reverts of the unmerger did you indicate that you were acting as an administrator to enforce a consensus (even if "enforcing consensus" was an admin job, which it is not). This means you acted as an ordinary editor, and can't later put on your admin hat to stop an edit war that you were a part of. I'm sorry, but I am very disappointed.  Sandstein  11:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I'm sorry: it is generally accepted practice that admins close contested merge discussions. We have a whole page for it. The only valid criticism to be made here is that, yes, I arguably should have explicitly stated on the talkpage "I am closing this merge discussion". Calling for an arbcom case just because I didn't fill out all the form is just bizarre. Why not just AGF that was I not trying to edit war, and was instead trying to close the merge discussion? Clearly it seems I should have posted on the talkpage, although no one seemed to complain at the time. FFS, I think dealing with disruption is far more important than making sure each microscopic step of process is followed to the letter, in triplicate. This is process wanksterism, and it's highly unconstructive. Moreschi (talk) 12:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The page you link to is WP:RM, which is about moves, not mergers. Maybe you meant WP:PM, but that page does not mention the intervention of admins anywhere. I am sorry, but I do not see you acting as an administrator trying to close a merge discussion. Had you wanted to, you would have actually closed it. Rather, you simply reverted to a redirect multiple times without any discussion whatsoever. That would be bad editing practice for any normal editor, let alone an administrator.  Sandstein  12:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, why not AGF? Why are you assuming I am lying? The discussion had been done on the talkpage, and IPs, SPAs, and the article creator were trying to ignore it. Since we can assume the IPs and SPAs to be meatpuppets of the article creator, this is disruption in the form of ignoring consensus. While the vast majority of merge discussions need no admin intervention, it is common practice in nationalist disputes to get an uninvolved admin to help out (my talkpage archives are chockfull of such requests) as the parties realise any attempt to deal with a contested merge themselves will simply lead to a vast bout of revert-warring. Moreschi (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd very much like to see it your way, because I appreciate your work in these topic areas, and fully agree with your essay, User:Moreschi/The Plague. But what I see in the article history simply does not match your explanation. All I see are three reverts (1, 2, 3), with no useful edit summary or talk page explanation or anything. That is typical edit-warring behaviour, but more importantly, by repeatedly reverting to your preferred version (whether or not it has consensus behind it), you became an involved editor in the content dispute. That was why it was completely out of order for you to suddenly put on your admin hat after the last revert and protect your preferred version.

I would like to have a committment from you that you will not use admin tools again to enforce what you perceive to be consensus in content issues, and that you will more generally not use admin tools again while involved in a content dispute. If that's fine with you, the matter is resolved as far as I am concerned, and we can go ban a few nationalist trolls together.  Sandstein  12:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Reverting a single-purpose account, or a random one-edit IP address, is not edit-warring. It is responsible use of the revert button in accordance with maintaining encyclopedicity and consensuality. Yes, I should have posted on the talkpage, but since everybody concerned knew who I was and what I do, they understood perfectly well what was going on. You are wikilawyering, enabling trolls and forum-shoppers, and seem totally unable to understand that banning or blocking nationalist trolls is only a means to an end, not an end in itself. That end is encyclopedicity. You can either take this to arbcom or quit this thread. I am not going to change my methodology. I have used admin status and tools to nudge the nationalists towards WP:ENC for 2 years now. It has worked well, far better than any robotic enforcement of the rules, and is not going to be altered. Moreschi (talk) 13:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. I'll drop it here, if only because I have no intention of supporting whatever assortment of POV-pushers are on either side of this dispute, but I do believe your approach of involving yourself in content disputes with admin tools is profoundly mistaken, and very likely counterproductive.  Sandstein  13:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Unfortunately, if admins have no authority in content issues, Misplaced Pages effectively has no way to enforce consensus. There's a highly mistaken notion out there that consensus will enforce itself just by the continued editing of the community. In areas like this one that are classic nationalist hotspots, this is more or less guaranteed not to happen due to the truth crusaders who will stop at nothing. This leaves us with a need for occasional bending of the rules (which, may I point out, is entirely accepted within policy). Also, Sandstein, your patronizing attitude is not helping anything. If you cannot see that Moreschi is trying to enforce Misplaced Pages's content policies, you're missing the point completely, and being patronizing toward someone like that is also missing the point completely. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not mean to be patronizing, but please show me the policy that says that admins have the authority to enforce consensus with administrator tools. The proper way to deal with truth crusaders is to ban or block them, not to take sides in their content disputes, as Moreschi did here.  Sandstein  12:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, lord. You just don't get it, do you? Our job is the maintence of encyclopedicity. Everything is secondary to that - everything. The nationalists actually understand that, which is why, by and large, my role as a neutral voice settling their disputes is largely accepted. The encyclopedia is the patient suffering from plague. Our role as admins in curing the plague consists largely of minimizing disruption, yes, but this dependent upon establishing which side of the dispute is most in accord with encyclopedicity. If we don't do that, we're doing more harm than good. Acting out of ignorance is worse than not acting at all. Encyclopedicity here means Misplaced Pages:Summary style, incidentally. Moreschi (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good, but of course it assumes that we administrators are the judges of encyclopedicity. Misplaced Pages just does not work that way. Content is determined by consensus, not by decree, and we were elected as administrators, not as content moderators.  Sandstein  13:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Heimstern's post is correct, of course, but doesn't actually go far enough. People like Gazifikator are always going to revert as much as they can even when consensus is against them. They'll use up their 3rr allowance, and the other editors (Grandmaster, etc), if they are to "enforce consensus", have to revert as well. Of course, to people like Sandstein, this will look like nationalist gang warfare (as indeed it would be, to a certain extent). So everyone gets blocked and heaven knows what happens to the article.

This is clearly not sustainable, hence we have admins (that's me) dealing with disruption, closing merge discussions, and enforcing consensus. Yes, this may be skating on thin ice as far as WP:ADMIN is concerned, but the alternative is far worse. At the price of (arguably inflated, yes) sysop power, we get a massive reduction in disruption and drama (or we would do were it not for Sandstein stirring the pot here). A price worth paying? You decide. Moreschi (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

"..At the price of (arguably inflated, yes) sysop power.." You said it all with that statement. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Shrug. The disruption that caused 2 massive arbcom cases has not revisited arbcom since - and that's only in this topic-area, let alone the other areas I monitor. I'd say it works fairly well, given the passion of the editors at hand. Moreschi (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • While I accept Moreschi's explanation in principle, I agree it looks a little bit borderline; however, I too find that in light of relevant guidelines and on the basis of strength of policy-based arguments there was a valid consensus to merge, so I have removed Moreschi's protection and replaced it with my own, as an entirely uninvolved administrator. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
    • The article was a clear POV fork littered with weasel words and original research, and note that at least four editors including Moreschi were redirecting, versus Gazifikator, an IP and a clear sock. Whilst in a perfect world Moreschi should've asked someone else to protect it, There's certainly no need to get all dramatic and start asking for an ArbCom case. There's nothing here that demands that. Black Kite 11:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Just an example of OR from the article, please! And could you explain, why the only 2 uninvolved users are supporting that "weasel worded OR"? Gazifikator (talk) 11:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• In fact the far more serious issue appears to be that Gazifikator has either been sockpuppeting or soliciting meatpuppets. It is certainly highly suspicious that the minute my semiprotection locks out the IPs and SPAs he reappears with his main account to revert again. This suggests either a highly improper degree of coordination or just plain socking. Moreschi (talk) 11:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Quite possibly, but that is a matter for a WP:SPI investigation. Though I am frankly tired of seeing Gazifikator and Grandmaster (talk · contribs) repeatedly involved in every one of these A-A wars; maybe both need a long topic ban.  Sandstein  11:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Well, yes, this is a tempting way to look at it. Unfortunately if I banned every single one of these people, they'd be replaced by a new crowd of nationalists within about six months (including some reincarnations). And we wouldn't get anywhere. We just have to deal with the disruption as it comes and keep things at a low leve, periodically blocking those who sock, edit war or violate WP:BATTLEGROUND too blatantly. It's a perennial problem that has to be solved by constant supervision. There is no way around this. Moreschi (talk) 11:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again we have this , so I prefer to not be called a SPA-user by Moreschi. He can't attack me using non-confirmed accusations! Gazifikator (talk) 11:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't call you a SPA. Stop being silly. That comment was for the one-edit account who did a revert. Moreschi (talk) 11:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • The only 2 uninvolved users voted 'oppose', and what's wrong if one of them preferred just to support my view. While you failed to express your views on support of under AA2 users (you know, I mean the Azerbaijani users who obviously dislike the existence of such an article: one of them vandalized the article previously and another was noticed for non-civil comment). And about "SPA"'s and IP's - they have no relation with me (I wasn't the only active editor), others also just see injustice in your unexplained actions! And FYI: there is still no admin's decision in your "5/3" Gazifikator (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

•  Note: I have blocked the 212.200.205.163 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) for disruptive editing. It also appears to be a duck test sock puppet of, or else somebody with an identical agenda as, Ludvikus (talk · contribs), who is indef blocked. Jehochman 13:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, the IP's use of English was better than Ludvikus. Then again, I appear to have already made an blunder by WP:AGFing on Ludvikus for so long. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Involved admin in topic areas shouldn't be using ops in any kind of regard. Ryulong was desysopped not too long ago with ArbCom making very clear statements to this effect. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocking of “A” “nationalists” – looks like support of “B” "nationalists" . May be such definitely not easy issues better to be handled not by opera prolific editor with a big admin guns?94.179.181.178 (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm late for the party, but if you read the entire talkpage, there is 5v3, not 3v3 as indicated above. Hope, that says it all. Moreschi's actions are entirely justified, no need for a storm in a teacup. Brand 21:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The blocking policy makes it clear that involved admins are not justified. By making such a claim as you do above, you do not benefit to Moreschi, but you undermine your future credibility in responses. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, the majority of your response is quite counterproductive, and I think you appear to have troubles accepting that anyones opinion can be different to yours. This is highlighted by your choice to focus on Brand's last sentence which is his opinion on the merits of this, rather than on his first sentence which notes a useful fact that there were clear issues with the filing complaint to begin with. This is further problematic when you bring up a user's credibility - neither is it needed at this discussion (or by policy), nor is it appropriate. By contrast, your first sentence would have been both appropriate and sufficient, on its own. You really need to start taking on the advice you were given during your previous block (or when it was lifted): to change your approach in responding to others, particularly those you disagree with. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocking policy is rather clear. It is not "opinion" based. If you disagree, please look at many ArbCom cases with such individual desysopped. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand why Moreschi is being criticized here. Let's have a look at the history of the article. The article was merged after the discussion at talk by User:NickPenguin , an editor, who has previously never been involved in AA issues. Gazifikator reverted the merge, and started an edit war, despite the fact that he was placed on 1 rv per week parole. Gazifikator got blocked twice for edit warring on this article, trying to undo the merge. First time he was blocked by Sandstein, and second time by Moreschi: When edit warring on Radical Islamism became problematic for Gazifikator, it was suspiciously picked up by SPAs and anon IPs. First it was reverted by an obvious SPA Ptrustct (talk · contribs): , and then twice by 91.210.40.251 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). This pretty much looks like meatpuppeting, as the sock and the anon were continuing the edit war led by Gazifikator. Note that once the article got semiprotected, and edit warring using anon IPs became impossible, Gazifikator resumed the edit war on that article: To me this looks like an off-wiki coordinated effort. And then when the redirect got permanently protected, Gazifikator took it here, complaining about the admin who protected it. I'm surprised that no one takes any notice of disruption by Gazifikator, of the off wiki coordinated edit warring with the use of SPAs, but the admin who tried to stop the disruption became a target of criticism. If someone is not happy with the merge, there are procedures for contesting it, but edit warring should not be tolerated and encouraged, especially when it involves violation of editing restrictions and apparent meatpuppeting. Grandmaster 06:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

User:7107delicious - seeking attention

I'm sure that 7107delicious (talk · contribs) has nothing but the best intentions leaving unwarranted username warnings, "clerk" notes, and now oversighted messages on Jimbo's talk page, but perhaps they could use a mentor? They are apparently the same user as "retired" RuleOfThe9th (talk · contribs). Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The user name warning appears to be a good faith edit - possible suggestion of paedophilic tendencies. Agree re the clerk note though. That template should not be used by anyone except clerks. Mjroots (talk) 12:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(interjecting) No, what 7107delicious said is that "Kidshare" "matches the name 'Rapidshare', which is a promotional username". Given that "share" is a common word, this comment doesn't make sense. —Finell (Talk) 17:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I took off the bad use of template from User talk:Kidshare (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Another unusual behavior of User:7107delicious is that this user's displayed signature does not in any way resemble the actual user name and this user changes the displayed signature frequently. This, in effect, disguises who is posting and also makes it appear that the posts with different signatures are by different users. However, I have not seen this user use different signatures in the same discussion, which would be a new form of socking. —Finell (Talk) 17:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You have never read the username change request page. On there, it specifically recommends changing one's signature in lieu of changing a username: "As an alternative, please consider changing your signature. This will change your "public appearance" on talk pages and other places where you sign your username with ~~~~." In situations such as votes in an AfD, an Admin would look carefully at the sig links. Pretending to garner consensus through multiple sigs (making it look like more people) would be bad. Some links to where this might have happened would be beneficial. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

But to change it so often? Why? Also, I specifically said above, "I have not seen this user use different signatures in the same discussion", so I don't understand your request for diffs. —Finell (Talk) 18:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I tend to WP:AGF, so let them "personalize", as long as they don't disrupt. My comment about posting diff's refers to "if you ever actually see a violation in the future". Sorry if it was not clear. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I asked 7107 recently about this and he did say he thought he'd settled on something he liked. Kidshare could potentially be a promotional username , so a little more AGF wouldn't go amiss. Also 7107 reported here Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive573#It.27s_User:Mikhailov_Kusserow_up_to_the_case_again. that he was having problems with a user who appears to be definitely bad faith templating editors (sticking on half a dozen vandalism templates without any vandalism reverts......what's going on there then?) Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. I did not say that 7107 did anything in bad faith. Again, I explicitly said in my first post here, "I have not seen this user use different signatures in the same discussion". Nevertheless, I'm satisfied, and I'm done with this issue. —Finell (Talk) 19:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. You certainly didn't. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That's OK, thanks. —Finell (Talk) 19:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The user changed their name, and deleted the userpage at the old name, because they wanted to move away from a warning template on their page. (See their edit history for the conversation. ) I don't think they'll accept mentoring, but someone could try. Remember Civility (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I was only changing due to the fact that I can't seem to change my username. Again, the username is less frequently changed. And would you explain why your thoughts are thinking of incivility and WP:SOCK? I have never stated that I expected this account for any disruptive contributions, or for any incivilitized activities. Do you guys mean that I am following the bad faith duites of Mikhailov Kusserow?--One moment, Reciever | Thank you for your instructions. 12:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, ok, ok, so I see that this all began with WP:CHU, the Kidshare issue, and my signature. First off, what's a clerk? If anyone joins a CHU discussion, other than a 'crat, who could that be? Next off, I just took a look at the link, and I see that this username (Kidshare) is something from an educational link. Thank you for the help, but why should the template be removed? I am concerned of the username given. And, to finish today's "script", I liked unique signatures. Then what signatures should I use? 7107delicious|Spricht mit mir?--One moment, Reciever | Thank you for your instructions. 12:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the angry-expressed posting, BTW.--One moment, Reciever | Thank you for your instructions. 12:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:CHU is not a discussion - unlike say ... where we are now. CHU is the technical process. A Clerk is someone (usually an admin) who understands the related policies and has volunteered/been assigned the task of pre-vetting the requests for completeness, etc. A Bureaucrat then performs the actions. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --One moment, Reciever | Thank you for your instructions. 14:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I just picked a few recent examples, but there are plenty more where those came from. They have now declared Das Sicherheit (talk · contribs) as an alternate account but it has no contributions yet. They also appear to be connected to 202.47.69.212 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which is a school IP. If I wasn't brimming over with good faith, I'd suggest blocking the IP for persistent vandalism with account creation disabled and being done with it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not using Das Sicherheit (in which I am currently logged on) for sockpuppetry activities. I have never used this IP for a single month. And I am not committing to sockpuppetry.--Das Sicherheit 02:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

FWIW user 7107delicious has been above board with his changing of accounts, and his asking permission for a new account. Hopefully he will stick with his latest signature, as it is getting a tad confusing... LOL! Anyway, I have had a fair few interactions with the user over the past couple of months (both old account and new), and my general opinion is of someone who is very keen to support Misplaced Pages, but a bit too keen to respond to others on someone elses talk page (which is why I think Mikhailov Kusserow responded the way he did). With a bit of nudging in the right direction when required, he will make for a fine editor. Stephen!

After posting a notice that they are on "wikibreak" until 15 December, they subsequently left some a note for a newly banned user which doesn't seem very helpful. When does the "nudging" begin? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just looked back over the edits of the user since he went on this wikibreak. It looks very much like he is still adding comments to people's talk pages which might not be adding value. I did talk to him about it a while ago, but I suspect that a bit of reigning in on his edits on peoples talk pages wouldn't go amiss. I am not sure of the motivation behind some of his edits are, in particular this one. At a guess, I would say that he is trying to behave like an admin, to prove that he is ready for the mop (his recent application did not succeed). Unfortunately, he appears to be stepping on toes rather than getting on with the job of proving himself. Also, the disparity with the notices on his user page and what he is actually doing does appear to be causing concern.

If anyone has any ideas as to how he can be nudged in the right direction, please suggest it! Stephen! 17:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Still adding "clerk" notes despite the earlier discussion. Just block the accounts and school IP already... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Kurt Weber

Kmweber (talk · contribs) has begun editing again, and asked on GlassCobra's talk page for his user and user talk pages to be unprotected. I have done so, and have also undeleted the histories of both those pages. I vaguely remember some drama around the time that Kurt left the community, so I would appreciate it if someone could look over my actions. Thanks, NW (Talk) 18:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the user vanished. Vanished means vanished; it's not the same as a wikibreak. Majorly talk 18:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This was the state of the ban proposal during which Kurt retired. I don't think there was consensus to ban then and he seemed to acknowledge that his behaviour had been disruptive in a way that he had not intended, so unless there have been developments between then and now, I don't see why he does not deserve a wait and see approach.  Skomorokh, barbarian  18:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the consensus to ban was pretty apparent, but was made moot by the retirement of Kurt. If Kurt wants to edit again, then the obvious thing to do is to make a new account; if he stays away from the type of interaction that got people so exasperated then there will be no reason for the accounts to be linked. I don't know why Kurt is so keen to reactivate the old account, and am afraid that is indicates that Kurt still does not "get it" why people previously complained about him. That said, I would not be adverse to the content editor that previously edited as Kmweber returning. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you would want him to create a new account. We should encourage him to stick to the old account if anything. Whether or not he should be allowed to edit is another matter altogether. And he did not vanish, he left. That's not the same thing at all. He left, he can come back, if he wasn't banned, he can edit; if he was banned (or would have been) then he can edit only if we let him. BTW, protecting his talk page was out of process.--Doug. 18:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Doug is right. Creating a new account would make it look as if he tried to trick the community into thinking he was a new user. Just let him edit from the old account, if he does exhibit a problematic editing pattern again, we can act upon it when it happens. It's not as if he does not know that. Regards SoWhy 19:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

And looking back at the discussion, I do not see a consensus for an outright ban. A topic ban restricting him to article and article talk space does appear to have been getting solid support but I concur that we should let him edit and wait and see what he does. Has anybody talked to him about his choice to come back?--Doug. 19:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I just notified him of this thread on his talk page. I note that he returned on the 9th with four edits in the article/talk space and two edits yesterday, one in article space and one requesting assistance from an admin with a deleted page. That plus the request for unprotection don't give me a whole lot of concern yet. I think we can close this thread as resolved in that no one has suggested that NW's unprotection was improper.--Doug. 19:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I unprotected the talk page to let him do what he needs and so the tabs look right for other editors.Mitch32 20:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about the community ban part, but it's certainly clear that there are a lot of people who would be happy if he refrains from posting in WP:RFA indefinitely. If he wants to prove to his detractors that he is interested in making good faith contributions to Misplaced Pages, I strongly advise him to stay far away from there. -- llywrch (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The rfa stuff is fine; there's a fucking huge slab of text there now about ignoring some votes. anyone running for admin who doesn't even read the rfa rules doesn't deserve to pass. anyone who thinks he's trolling shouldn't be feeding his. anyone who thinks his point needs rebuttal can e pointed to the fucking huge slab of text, and reminded that closing vote counters ignore his votes. He's a lot less disruptive than many other editors. (eg most frequent poster here) Remember Civility (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

With a name like that & all of those f-bombs in your post, I figure you live under a bridge yourself & have nothing to contribute here. -- llywrch (talk) 07:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

A general comment. Please stop recommending that past banned users should start up new accounts. Apart from the fact that such an action is technically possible (thought see Durova for an argument that evasion is eventually futile), it does us no good to suggest that obscuring account history is valuable. We have this bizarre community hallucination about the ideal banned editor who starts up a new account and edits productively outside a narrow topic area that got them banned. That either describes an exceptionally narrow band of editors or stems from rampant wishful thinking on the part of a community known for wishful thinking. I'm not disputing that some bans are de facto topic bans and that circumventing those bans may actually result in a net-good, just arguing that the track record is pretty shitty. The blanket suggestion should look like this: for bans imposed hastily or unilaterally, some unblock or unban without conditions should be considered (or with a topic ban as a sole condition). For bans imposed after some time (as KM's was), the standard offer should be extended. Not this garbage about starting a new account. Protonk (talk) 08:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Also a specific comment. Linking to the most recent ban for KMW obscures the fact that prior bans and topic bans had been enacted. Full disclosure, I supported one of the ban proposals after he left a particularly nasty comment to a new user on AN. But if he is back and wants to act like an adult, then welcome back. Protonk (talk) 08:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I was going to make a rather snarky addition to this discussion, but re-wrote my comment here because Protonk is 100% correct. The Misplaced Pages community has an amazing capacity for giving people second chances and AGF in the rehabilitation of formerly-former editors. If Kurt is willing to stop doing the things that nearly got him banned last time, then welcome back. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, let's give Kurt a chance to show us what he can do, and hope that he knows enough to stay away from RFA. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Mario1987: implied threat of real life stalking etc.

Durova 00:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Mario1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not new to wikipedia. Originally blocked for using sockpuppets and only allowed back with the message "last chance" (see his block log). He was afterward the subject of this AN/I thread, where I brought up cases (acknowledged by Mario himself) where he had been disrupting wikipedia by providing false or misleading info in articles or DYK hooks, and that he had responded to my concerns with racist attacks. He was ultimately blocked for one month for the racist comments.
No sooner had he returned that, having started an FL application where I evidenced some problems (note: without even voting on the matter), he produced all sorts of renewed accusations and claims that I'm out to get him. I would have not especially minded were it not for the follow-up on my talk page: 1) this message in Romanian, where, among several subtle threats, he proceeds to ask me how old I am; 2) this message in English, after I deleted his original post, where he poses the question yet again; 3) after I tell him no, this post where he repeats the claims that I have an agenda against him, and again persists in making this look like a personal problem; 4) after I answered (trying to let him know yet again that he is walking down the path that got him blocked, and urging him t stop and reassess his position), this most disturbing post. I would like to administrators to assess the nature of this statement: "Keep in mind that i know some things from where one can find many more information about another." And: "I told you before and i tell you again that i know you have friends that tend to follow your oppinions and i know that i don't have any chances but i'm willing to fight to the last man just like this guy." Dahn (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• You're a real joke aren't you. I mearly reacted to ironical and demeaning comments like your loose interpretation of norms, and the irresponsible "devil may care" editing style that you posted at the same FL project, where you further threatened me. Regarding the FLC you should read what issues this user raised and than you should read the post of User:Geraldk who incidentally supported my claims. Regarding the supposed threat i don't know what to say, if he understands "Keep in mind that i know some things from where one can find many more information about another." as a threat that i willingly request to be blocked forever. Mario1987 19:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Beginning your defense with a personal attack is not the best of strategies. Chillum 19:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I know but this has lasted as long as it can and i am tired of it. Mario1987 19:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Whoa, Using this diff as an important example, I think this needs to either a) be oversighted, or b) be taken really seriously. Comments like that should not, and I repeat not happen. It is not a smart decision to ask people their age, as this can be taken in WP:STALK, which may or may not constitute other problems.Mitch32 20:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Gimme a B! Gimme a L! Gimme an O! Gimme a .. so on, so forth. You were up here before for similar problems, obviously haven't learnt your lesson and as the cherry on the cake added some lovely extra threats into that "most disturbing post". "miss, miss, but he started it" is not a valid excuse; if you are tired of it, just walk away. If you refuse to do so, my suggested remedy will make it mandatory. Ironholds (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Ugh. Anyone who would allude to that travesty of a movie deserves what's coming. (Alluding to the actual incident is a far different matter.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not all, folks

Mario1987 was previously sitebanned for running a vote stacking sockfarm at featured picture candidates and for dozens of copyvio uploads--one of which was even promoted to featured picture (until his scheme unraveled). See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive131#Votestacking_at_WP:FPC. He was unblocked by a single admin without discussion. Time to reinstate the community ban. Durova 20:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

And would anyone please explain how the copyright mark on the lower left corner of one of Mario1987's uploads from yesterday is anything other than resumption of the copyvios that contributed to his ban in the first place? Proposing that the admin who unblocked him be personally tasked with the cleanup. Durova 20:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is this fellow not indefinitely blocked already? He basically said he has "people" who could track down and bring harm to an editor he doesn't like? (I mean, you'd think the serial copyvios would be enought, but this? What on earth is there to discuss?)Bali ultimate (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It mystifies me that he was allowed back, considering the seriousness of what he did before. Durova 20:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I've just been reviewing his uploads, and 9/10 of them are without doubt copyvios. Sadly only a few can be directly proved though. ninety:one 20:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The burden is on the uploader to demonstrate legitimacy, not vice versa. Durova 20:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• "We're sorry, Mario, but your copyvio uploads are in another castle."? HalfShadow (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted several of the images that Ninetyone tagged and pulled Mario1987's autoreviewer status. --Doug. 21:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Hm, yes, a random example: The "own work" File:Lotus Market Oradea.jpg, allegedly made yesterday (like about a dozen other photos from very dispersed locations) but with no camera metadata, is found on the Web at , on the website . We do not accept serial copyright violations. I have indefinitely blocked the user.  Sandstein  21:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

He was never unbanned at Commons (thank goodness) so my ops have limited value to fix this. A couple of copyvios got bot-transferred and I've deleted them. Basically, everything that doesn't come with full camera metadata (as opposed to Photoshop data and scanner DPI notes) should go. He's trying to claim that Romanian Government material is under CC license, trying to claim that anything which looks 'old' (of ambiguous age) is under copyleft, and sourcing material to copyrighted websites with false attributions of GFDL license. Even the nonfree rationales need examination: they're supposed to be low res, but one was nearly half a gigamegabyte. Durova 21:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

How the hell can you have an almost half-gigabyte photo? HalfShadow (talk) 21:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the typo. Am working with a composite offline which will be in the 1 gigabyte range when it's finished. Thinking of the wrong figures. ;) Durova 21:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thank god for that; you scared the christ out of me for a minute there. HalfShadow (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Durova, being a good manager, always keeps an eye on the Big Picture. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, the Phase One P65+ medium format digital back () produces files which are 340 Mb or so - I wouldn't breathe that sigh of relief quite yet... :) --Xdamr 00:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: TinEye is a helpful tool to identify image copyvios (but it will only find byte-identical copies).  Sandstein  21:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless something's changed recently, TinEye will find byte-identical copies. But it will also find scaled copies, copies with certain types of watermarking or other modification (eg. it can sometimes find the original of a lolcat), copies where the image you're searching for is cropped from or which are a crop of the one you've got, and more. --Carnildo (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support block / reinstation of ban. Found immediately two blatant copyvios, one with camera data. The one above (ec) and File:Plaza-romania.jpg deleted by another admin. Not to mention the other stuff above.--Tikiwont (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support indef block/de facto ban. There were a total of 14 images so far tagged as F9s. Every one of them he claimed was his own work. All but one had a good link to a commercial website where they'd come from. The other one had a great big copyright tag on it.--Doug. 21:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with Sandsteins' block - if the editor has a problem with it, they can provide the rationale (like they are supposed to with the images...) for it to be overturned. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Heading out for a bit. If any other probable copyvios turn out to have been bot-transferred to Commons, please leave links at my user talk and I'll check in on them. Thanks all for resolving this swiftly. Durova 21:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support indef, generally per LessHeard vanU. Ironholds (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Mario, Misplaced Pages is a free content encyclopedia. That is, "free" meaning "free content" and not "free beer". MuZemike 22:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support ban per above. Infrogmation (talk) 22:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• A little late as the block has already happened, but I support an indef block in this case. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Per that second diff Dahn provided, I'm not only endorsing reinstating the community ban, but I'm readding his listing at WP:LOBU as well. Even without the copyvios, it's not likely anyone who wants to keep his or her bit will unblock someone who makes that kind of veiled threat. Blueboy96 00:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• My only question is this: are we sure File:Hotel-Astoria-Satu-Mare-1.jpg, File:Nisco City Center final.jpg, File:Calvaria Satu Mare.jpg, File:Palatul administrativ sm.JPG, File:Prestij.jpg, File:Ikarusbus.jpg, File:Irisbus vechi.jpg, File:Irisbusnou.jpg, File:Traian Plaza 01.jpg, File:04 - Hotel Aurora.jpg and File:Palatul administrativ sm.JPG are all copyvios? The reason I ask is because, yes, he did have a persistent tendency to violate copyright, but those pictures are all from his home city of Satu Mare, so there's at least a greater chance some of them may be his. I suggest an administrator double-check with this in mind. - Biruitorul 00:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Even in the unlikely event they aren't copyvios (it would be difficult to assume otherwise, given his history), this is beyond unacceptable, and would be an indefable offense by itself in my book. Blueboy96 00:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Biruitorul's comment reverses the actual responsibilities here: it's the uploader's obligation to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the uploads are legitimate. When an editor has an exceptional history of copyright violations, all uploads may come into doubt. Our obligation is to comply with the law, and it's best to err on the side of caution. Remember, if this fellow hadn't been caught the last time he would have gotten a copyright violation onto Misplaced Pages's main page as Picture of the Day. We have no reason to trust him. Durova 00:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• I also support the formal community ban, just in case the user ever tries to obtain another chance and someone counts !votes. Even without the copyvios and the "last chance" the threats would be sufficient reason. Hans Adler 00:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Most obvious ban ever. PhGustaf (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Pile-on support for this ban. Good call. --Jayron32 03:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Briefly returning from a wikibreak to endorse ban (as original ban proposer). MER-C 04:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• I deleted all of his remaining uploads; those can be replaced. User:Zscout370 04:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

  Not quite - Special:Nuke kills only the stuff in the recentchanges table (about 1 month). There are some left from June-August this year (e.g. File:Kolcsei.jpg). See User:Mario1987/Images. MER-C 04:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

  Duly noted, snagged the rest using the same edit summary. User:Zscout370 05:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• One more (related) things, ladies and gentlemen. Here is Mario's probable sockuppet. It's inactive, but one is never too sure; plus, no matter its uses, it was created to evade an earlier block. Also note the upload of images under that name, some of which are on commons! Dahn (talk) 06:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• What makes you believe it is a sock of Mario1987?  Sandstein  08:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Both have an innate interest in Romanian power plants, buildings, football teams and Satu Mare (see latest deleted uploads). Images on Commons that need to be dealt with: File:Calinestihydro.JPG, File:Manastire certeze.JPG and File:Calinestilake.JPG. I also remember that some of (the first batch of) Mario's deleted photos were taken with a HP Photosmart (537?). MER-C 09:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Well, for one he comes from the same geographical region, in the narrowest of senses (his name, "Terra Awas", is the quasi-Latin rendition of Oaş Country, right near Satu Mare). Terra Awas emerged out nowhere very shortly after Mario's second block, and was able to push a DYK entry within for this article that interval (when Mario had developed an obsession with DYK, and when it matched and matches his editing style). The moment I shared with the world my belief that he was a block-evasion sockpuppet, Terra Awas more or less vanished. This is harder to provide diffs for T:TDYK, where I mentioned it, doesn't keep an archive; I did discuss something on the issue with another editor, who seems to have shared my suspicion, and actually brought it up (see here). Of the other edits he made, 100% are in Mario's fields of interest: Romanian football and List of wind farm projects in Romania (for which he created a new spin-off article exactly where Mario had left of). Of the four images on his user page, two were Mario-made. I would keep going, but I don't want to give out all the clues and risk having him come back more subtly. Dahn (talk) 09:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Sounds quite plausible, plus he has a history of socking. I've indef-blocked the Terra Awas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) account, but am reluctant to nuke the Commons images that do appear self-made (judging by camera metadata and lack of photographical sophistication).  Sandstein  09:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Would it be worth filing SPI? Last time around, CU found more socks than had been suspected. Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Mario1987 Durova 14:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, I apparently unblocked him after his last community ban with a last chance warning. I don't remember that situation at all, but obviously his actions here call for a ban reinstatement, and this certainly would qualify as a "last chance" violation. You'll find no objections from me over anything here. ⇒SWATJester 15:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll go ahead and file SPI before deleting the Commons uploads. Best to make sure. Durova 16:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mario1987 if anyone wants to comment. Durova 16:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser has turned up an additional account: Player bio. So far Player bio remains unblocked. Durova 23:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Crotchety Old Man : WP:TALKO violation/warring and abusive edit summaries

Crotchety Old Man (talk · contribs) engaged in repeated deletion of an IP user comments on the Richard Gere talk page (diffs: ) with different reasons, sometimes claiming BLP violations while the comment -even if about a BLP-sensitive issue- was absolutely fair and by far not libelous or problematic in any way other than trying to constructively reopening a previous discussion.

When notified and/or approached on talk pages to discuss the issue by several users, he regularly deletes notifications and attempts at communication -which in itself is not a problem- but does it with edit summaries which are either insulting (diffs: , ,) vandalism accusation -even to editors sympathetic with his point of view (diffs: ,) or at best condescending (diffs: , , ). Just for the sake of completeness, the user has a habit at condescending remarks also in unrelated discussions (example diffs: , ).

Given that the user seems to dismiss any civil attempt at communication with him, I think some admin action could help. Thanks.--Cyclopia 10:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Further comment: I forgot to include that the issue has been previously brought at the edit warring noticeboard by the IP editor; the 3RR issue was deemed "stale", and given the kind of violations the admin suggested to bring it here. --Cyclopia 10:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

User notified about this thread. The repeated removal of viable (IMO) talk-page material is a serious problem. Discussion of an article's (non-)inclusion of BLP content on talk-page, even if it comes to consensus to exclude, sounds like exactly what a talk-page is for, and this talk section does not even make the specific BLP-concerning statements. The repeated incivility in edit-summaries is a problem too. Makes it hard to WP:AGF that he is working collaboratively if he's that antagonistic towards everyone. DMacks (talk) 10:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment: I had notified the user too -it seems we did it at the same time. Thanks! --Cyclopia 10:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of blatant BLP-violating material is well within the guidelines here. The consensus on Richard Gere is clear, plus an admin CSD'ed the separate gerbil page when WebHamster skirted consensus and created it on his own. Plus, an admin has my back. I'm all for drama and witch hunts here on Misplaced Pages, but it looks like some people need to grow up. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 12:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

A couple other issues. First, 3RR on the talk page was never violated. Any accusations of such will require an immediate apology. Second, there should probably be a CU instigated for the IP in question. A bit too convenient that they jump into the Richard Gere debate with his/her first edit, magically knowing all this Wiki-policy. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The point is, the talk page comment was not blatant BLP-violating material. The fact that there is consensus, incidents with another editor months ago etc., are completely irrelevant. You cannot erase civil and constructive comments on a talk page, even if they resurrect a long gone discussion and you disagree with their content. If the IP is a sock, this is also not really relevant -two wrongs don't make one right, at least until there is certainity of such sockpuppetry. I am also curious to know how you justify your edit summaries with which you rebuke any attempt at a civil conversation. --Cyclopia 13:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The gerbil stuff IS a BLP violation and theoretically should ALL be deleted. The dilemma with doing that is that it makes it appear no one has brought it up. What doesn't make sense is that Crotchety removed the recent comments while leaving all the other gerbil stuff intact. Consensus is not forever. If the one section is allowed to stay visible, then other editors can surely revisit the issue. However, if it's PROVEN that the IP is a sock of a blocked user, then the comments could be removed on those grounds, as blocked users are not allowed to edit. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Crotchety: First I'm "vandalizing" the page, next I'm violating BLP, now I'm a sock puppet. This is getting to the point of being downright libelous. Please take your own advice and realize that you are wrong here and just walk away. As an aside, I think it's funny that you've asked for apologies from people about 10 times, all while insulting them and maintaining the same mocking tone. Also, if you want to debate the gerbil thing, please do so on the talkpage, that is the appropriate forum. This discussion isn't about that, it's about your inappropriate behavior. 98.251.117.125 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC).

Oh, there's no more gerbil debate. Don't worry about that. It stays out of the article. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Another snarky comment. Thanks. I've taken the liberty of going through this user's history and he seems to be a serial offender of incivility: " you probably destroyed any chance you had at being admin. good work!" "idiotic discussion" "I have no idea why you think i care about your opinion." "don't be dense!" "this article is about the film, not any other crap". That's just from his edit summaries and just from the last 3 days. Looking at it I'm surprised this was the first time he's been reported. 98.251.117.125 (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh my. I don't know how I missed it for so long, but just checked and saw that you were on the wrong side of the gerbil debate. I was dumb enough to think you were an uninvolved editor. That explains a lot. Commence the witch hunt. Maybe then you'll be able to add the gerbil crap to the article. LOL. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 14:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I am just following the talk page since the discussion. I have no intention to get such stuff into the article -consensus is against, and that's fine. But I cannot accept user's comments on talk pages being repeatedly deleted with preposterous reasons, nor I can accept incivility, no matter which side comes from. --Cyclopia 14:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

No. You're being petty and vindictive. Like I said, I wish I had realized who I was dealing with just a bit sooner. Wouldn't have wasted my time replying to this absurd report. You're wrong about the gerbil debate. Accept it, and move on. For everyone's sake. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I would have done the same report if you agreed with me about the debate. The "gerbil debate" is irrelevant now. Your behaviour is not. --Cyclopia 14:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

BLP does not prevent discussing this issue on the talk page or else almost the whole talk page would need to be deleted. This is not about 'sides' of an argument. Simply thinking that another editor is flogging a dead horse or is potentially a sockpuppet is not an excuse for repeatedly edit warring to remove their comments. Crotchety Old Man has gone on to mischaracterise the edits of people including myself who have commented on his talk page as vandalism and has used abusive or mocking comments in his edit summaries. He's refusing to listen to reason or to discuss his editing in a mature manner. Fences&Windows 16:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

If there's any actual, useful discussion that takes place here, someone be sure to let me know. I've had enough of the playground bullying for now, so I'm removing this from my watchlist. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've tried my best throughout this whole ordeal to remain as cordial as possible, but I can't help but point out that "I've had enough of the playground bullying for now" could be read in one of two possible ways and given his repeated attacks and bad attitude I find it hilarious. 98.251.117.125 (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

This keeps getting weirder. Not only has he not stopped with the abusive edit summaries since his actions were brought under scrutiny here: , but now he seems to be picking a fight with admin Master of Puppets by reporting him for a name violation . I can only imagine that he either wants to get his account banned, or this is some kind of crazy preemptive defense, whereby he biases admins against himself, thinking they won't then be able to ban him because of a conflict of interest. 98.251.117.125 (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• As a first, remove twinkle. The edits he's been tagging as vandalism are quite obviously not, and he's experienced enough that I'd expect him to know how to use such things properly. Ironholds (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Alteration of protected 'high risk' template without discussion

Philip Baird Shearer (talk · contribs) altered protected template {{hat}} from stating that the template "archived" the contents to stating that it "refactored" it. Given that there was no discussion, and no indication that WP:REFACTOR is meant to cover the use of such a template (where the contained text is neither removed nor altered, merely hidden), I would seek a review of this unilateral use of administrative powers. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 17:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is suitable for AN/I, considering that no attempt appears to have been made to contact the editor and ask about the change. Further, while I agree the change should probably be reverted at least until some consensus is reached, I see the reasoning behind it. Archiving is generally understood to mean moving the content to a separate page and providing a link to it. However, many discussions are rolled up such that they are effectively archived through collapsing or enclosing in a box of a different color (see WP:DRV, WP:RFD, and completed WP:RFAs, for example), so it's definitely a gray area, but I don't think this rises to the level of an incident. Let's try a discussion elsewhere.  Frank  |  talk  18:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

PBS is in an ongoing dispute about the use of this template, so this does appear to be an abuse of admin tools to gain the upper hand in a dispute. Verbal chat 18:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Didn't see anything recent on PBS's talk page; can you provide link(s) to ongoing dispute?  Frank  |  talk  18:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

, also see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive571#Refactoring or archiving. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 18:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Could an admin at least undo this change as it is unsupported on the template talk page, where two editors (myself and Hrafn) have disputed the change. I have asked PBS, but I'm not sure he's online. Verbal chat 18:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Since I have commented above, I'm now "involved" and won't make such an edit myself. However, I do support the edit being undone. I prefer if PBS would do so after a request for same so as to avoid a potential wheel-war, but I definitely don't think "refactor" is a better term than "archive".  Frank  |  talk  18:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Where is this dispute that Verbal is alluding to taking place? Unomi (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Unomi, thanks for dropping by. The dispute over the template use doesn't involve me, you'll be pleased to hear - I was just aware of it. Verbal chat 19:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is a matter for AN/I. I reverted the change (loosely citing BRD). Should it get restored or some other problem erupt, then we can worry, but at the moment "no blood no foul" Protonk (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully that will end this particular matter. Verbal chat 19:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so it seems that hrafn and verbal are defending a neologism by unilaterally 'archiving' discussions regarding it and then accusing PBS of being disruptive for another editor bringing up the same point? Or am I missing something? In the current context it seems clear that the previous discussion was not 'archived' in the traditional sense, it was refactored so as to be contained in a hat along with instructions to not bring up WP:NEO lines of argument. Clever. In either case PBS clearly objected to having the discussion cut short, if you want to call it impromptu archiving or refactoring does not really matter, hrafn and verbal should likely undo it. Unomi (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Huh? I don't know what all the disputes are, but if PBS was in some argument over whether or not archiving was refactoring then he went over and edited an archive template to read "refactor", that's not too cool. Protonk (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not involved with the use of this template at denialism, it's a shame Unomi is trying to make this personal again. This does show that PBS acted inappropriately, but he's willing to justify his edits now. Verbal chat 20:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't really understand how you can claim that you are not involved with it when you are the one utilizing it here? I would also ask you to refrain from deviating from WP:AGF, the fact that I read and summarized what I saw from the link that hrafn posted above does not make it personal. Yes, apparently hrafn added the hat (along with a rather unfriendly description) here, but verbal clearly supported and expanded its use. Being bold and changing the template text to reflect actual use is not 'inappropriate', but rather what we should all do. Bringing this issue to ANI, seemingly 8 (eight) minutes after before attempting to contact the user is, however, likely inappropriate. Unomi (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
      • The dispute I was referring to followed that, which is stale by now. The current dispute was to a pointer, which I had said I was ambivalent about. As you say, the renaming of the template was done during a dispute and therefore inappropriately. Also, the change in no way reflects "actual use", but that shouldn't be debated here. I think ANI is an appropriate place request administrators undo the change, as it could only be undone by admins and PBS wasn't around at the time. If a page is protected you should have a good reason to change it, leave a note, and not do so while you are involved in a dispute. Verbal chat 20:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I have just seen the comment on my talk page. I would have reverted the change that only an admin can make to the template, but I see it has already been done. Now that I know there are objections to my bold change, I will discuss it on the talk page of the template. -- PBS (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Ezra Friedlander - likely sockpuppets

If I'm not in the right place, or did something wrong in filing this, let me know and I'll fix it...this is kind of a combination of edit warring, BLP violations, and sock-puppetry, so I figured AN/I was my best shot.

There are several users (Bogram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Jessey09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Jamessoar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Sams20091010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and 24.188.59.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) who have been attempting to add the same unreliable sources and unsourced facts to Ezra Friedlander over the past couple of days. None of these users has any contributions outside of this article (except 24.188.59.164, who had one edit to Marty Markowitz, another Brooklyn politician). All are adding the same unreliable source to the article (, , and the same material added without the source ). What really leads me to suspect sockpuppetry is the tendency to put internal wiki links inside <ref> tags ( )...I cleaned these up when I still thought the article had potential.

I've nominated the article for deletion and so far nobody has !voted to keep. The article's subject is interesting, and he'd be notable if there were any good sources on him, but there aren't. The AfD notification template has been removed a couple of times, but as the level of disruption is fairly low I didn't think it was worth the effort to do an SPI. I just didn't want to keep reverting and get into 3RR trouble. What to do? MirrorLockup (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

(I started a BLP/N thread about this on Friday, as well: ) MirrorLockup (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Even if the article is deleted, as it seems like it will be, the disruption is a problem and the AfD could last for days still, with an article continuing to violate WP:BLP policies until the deletion occurs. As such, I've opened a sockpuppet investigation here, feel free to add input. I've included Abrahamss. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in the list of sockpuppets (and I've also left them a message about this ANI notice). The disruption has been bad enough to get you into 3RR territory and their use of sockpuppets allows them to technically avoid 3RR, so I think that the SPI report is worth it. -- Atama頭 21:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input...I didn't include User:Abrahamss. because he didn't do anything bad...wouldn't surprise me if he were another sock, but he hasn't caused any disruption himself. I had two reverts yesterday, but there have been enough other users watching the article since I filed this report that I haven't had to revert again. I'll comment on the SPI report as well. MirrorLockup (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikihounding by User:IP69.226.103.13

"New" user IP69.226.103.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be singlemindedly Wikihounding me at my AfD nominations (and only my AfD nominations). I find this behavior harrassing to me, and disruptive to the AfD process. Can anything be done? Abductive (reasoning) 00:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I have also noted the curious behaviour of this IP and I endorse the concern of the complainant. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC).

I must also agree that the behavior of this user concerns me. They have been very aggressive and almost disruptive when relating to bots and bot policy, the user in question is also threatening to go to arbcom over comments that I made regarding the fact that they needed to read specific information. they claimed that I had said that they could not read, making my informative comment into a personal attack. This behavior is on going and log term. I suggest something be done in order to address the issue now, before it has a chance to get out of hand and become a larger issue in the future. β 02:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Just as a point, the user in question is NOT apparently interested in discussing his own disruptive behavior: see . I think that there is also a very good chance this is not his only account. He showed up, fully knowledgable in Misplaced Pages editing, less than 2 weeks ago. --Jayron32 02:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I would concur in the conclusion that IP69.226.103.13 is not her with forthright purposes, having seen his behavior at WT:BRFA and WP:BN. Given that he is opposed to discussing his behavior, any objections to an indef block? MBisanz 02:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

would recommend a CU then indef of all related accounts too. β 02:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I first became aware of this user (as an actual IP editor) during the cleanup of the anybot mess; it may be that people involved in the relevant WikiProjects know more about him. This person's IP seems to change frequently (I've seen edits from 69.225.5.4, 69.225.5.183, 69.226.111.130, 69.226.106.109, and 69.226.103.13 apparently from this same user on WT:BRFA in the past 5 or so months), and I guess he eventually created this "IP69.226.103.13" account to answer concerns over that; at times he still neglects to log in. I have no indication as to whether he has other accounts or just extensive experience as an IP user. I know of at least one short civility block for this user, although I don't recall the specific IP. In general, I've found the user helpful when not overreacting to various issues, which unfortunately does occur rather often. I'm not sure whether an indef would be a net positive for the project or not. You'd have to identify and examine his contributions under his various IP addresses to get a full picture. Anomie⚔ 04:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

To Jayron's point, it appears that something else is going on here. Clearly not a newby and the behaviors appear to be disruptive. If another admin disagrees then feel free to reverse this block, but to me it quacks fairly loudly. Toddst1 (talk) 05:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, hold on a second... I'm not 100% certain that a block is fully justified here. Anomie notes a perfectly reasonable explanation for the sockpuppet issue; I think encouraging this user to keep a single account is MUCH preferrable to using multiple IPs, which hinder communication. The hounding behavior is a seperate issue, but I have not been personally convinced that rehabilitation is not possible here... --Jayron32 05:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright then. I've unblocked. Can we get a CU please? Toddst1 (talk) 05:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't you file a SPI request and lay out the formal grounds for an investigation with CU? Crafty (talk) 05:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably not required to file a formal SPI case here; we only need a checkuser to verify Anomie's explanation that this is a former IP editor who has recently created an account, which as I note above is actually an event we wish to encourage. All a checkuser needs to do is confirm this; and we don't really need a formal SPI case to do that. Also see WP:BURO; no formal process is required here or anywhere, especially for a simple case like this. --Jayron32 05:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(←) Makes sense. I do remember this editor from some months back when he edited as an anon. Trying to fix up science (biology?) articles, an area in which he has expertise. If memory serves Fisher Queen was trying to help him. I think he's on the level as far as sockpuppetry goes, but CU will resolve that. As for the other stuff, well greater minds than mine will have to judge. Crafty (talk) 05:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The user is almost certainly not a sock. While editing as 69.226.103.13, the user revealed an enormous blunder whereby a bot had created thousands of error-filled articles in a highly technical area (the user is one of the few available who could recognize the errors). Most of the background can be seen here. The two barnstars on User:IP69.226.103.13 are genuine. The user took a tremendous amount of flak while trying to alert people about the damage performed by the bot. Unfortunately, the user has shown signs of damage from those skirmishes and is highly critical when potentially dubious statements are made at WT:Bots/Requests for approval. I have no idea what the current dispute is about, but some firm counselling may be all that is required. Johnuniq (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes! That's it! It's a shame he's had such a rough trot here. Crafty (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by apparent newbie block permanently without diffs without warning

Most of my most recent IP addresses are simply listed on the mistaken register-user name I thought of using for a while. Other ones are in the Anybot clean-up. And still more are in the User:Kurt Shaped Box anybot clean up pages, where I went through a couple of thousand bad redirects to save some of them from a love of eating seaweed.

1. I sure won't be editing as a registered user anymore.

A user puts a notice on my page saying an AN/I post may be about something I was involved in. The user accuses me of stalking her for disagreeing with half a dozen of the many AfDs she has posted with bad justifications for deletion. All articles about academics. Certainly not about minor fictional characters. She offers no proof.

A user who has been before arbcom twice, is sanctioned from editing, gets his rights back, calls me names and stalks me at bots supports the unsupported initial accusations. I get permanently blocked on no evidence whatsoever. No diffs required to kick me. Betacommand gets to continue his personal attacks on me. One of his mentors who allows him, while supposedly mentoring him, to call me a 13 year old and say I can't follow instructions, in other words allows personal attacks by a user who is supposed to be on probation comes by and supports his buddy.

So, 0% proof by anyone. But, the damning evidence is there in my edit history, the exact reason, by the way, that Betacommand assumed rightly that personally attacking me would be a freebie: I appear to be a newly registered editor, and I can go to hell without the least bit of consideration.

Don't bite the newbies, just permanently block them based on nothing, allow Betacommand to stalk and personally attack them freely, then be done with them. That will teach new editors to think they can edit wikipedia.

Let's see, if I wasn't a newly registered user what would you have done, asked for evidence? Required a notice that says I AM the subject of a post? Require diffs? Give me a warning? Any of that?

Well, it doesn't matter, does it, because I appear to be a newbie, so you can just shoot me. --69.225.9.98 (talk) 06:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The block and the like have been questioned; please don't let this take you off WP, at least as a registered user. You've done some damn good work, and I'd hate to see you go. Can we all just start from a clean slate here? You edit, Betacommand edits and everyone stays the hell away from one another? Ironholds (talk) 13:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I note that the actions above were immediately questioned by other, more reasonable members of the community. Registering an account would get rid of future issues such as this one. Ironholds (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Ironholds raises some darned good points here; upon more further review, I concur that this user has done nothing at all wrong. The biggest problem appears to be the lax attitude towards using his registerred account. It highlights the problem with editing for a long time with anonymous IP addresses, and/or being lax about logging in. This is no way excuses anyone from failing to follow WP:AGF and WP:BITE; a problem I have been guilty of as well here. We all should work towards taking a little more time to investigate allegations of sockpuppetry and the like, especially for situations like this, myself included. IP69... should still work towards using his registerred account exclusively to edit. This does not absolve those of us who overreacted to this situation, but by doing so it would be an intelligent move towards avoiding the overreaction of others. My hope is that all sides of this issue can learn from it, and that everyone, the accusers and the accused, will learn a bit about how to avoid situations like this in the future. I know that I have. --Jayron32 16:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The opening sentence above, which started this discussion, is discussing the User's behavior, not sockpuppetry. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It's only because my account was newly registered that everyone felt it was fine for an admin to indef block me, even to request an indef block, with no supporting diffs, and no warnings on my user page. I have learned that lesson about being a registered user. It's not worth it. The hostility, especially from admins, toward newly registered users on wikipedia is rampant.

No admin would have fallen for this set-up if I had been a long time user on wikipedia. Abductive would have had to provide diffs and would have had to notify me that I was being discussed, not notify me that there was a discussion about "an issue with which you may have been involved."

Betacommand's comment would have been discredited for what it is, since he is stalking and attacking me, or he would have been asked to provide diffs, and his mentor MBisanz might have thought twice about asking for an immediate indef block in support of Betacommand, considering MBisanz's personal antagonism toward me, or maybe would have been asked to provide diffs. Talk about appearance of impropriety. IMO this was clearly abuse of power on MBisanz's part.

But none of this happened. No diffs, no evidence, no benefit of the doubt for the accused, no assumption of anything but the absolute worst bad faith without any supporting evidence, simply get out here, and attack me without diffs, a community sanctioned user with 2 arbcoms and dozens and dozens of complaints against him suggests something be done, his mentor suggests without diffs or evidence, just unsupported accusation, that I be indef blocked, and almost immediately an administrator jumps in and does just that.

It's stupid to edit as a newly registered user. You are treated worse than shit on wikipedia. Certainly you are treated worse than an IP as I have always contended.

Yes, I've learned something: don't edit as a newly registered user. Don't piss of MBisanz. And post the request for enforcement the first time Betacommand personally attacks you. --69.225.3.198 (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Ottava Rima: bizarre personal attacks

Extended content

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Resolved There isn't any use of continuing this discussion, Ottava has been warned to stop the continuing discussion of Chillum's possible use of drugs. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 07:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I've seen a few bizarre personal attacks lately, but User:Ottava Rima is taking it to a whole new level with his behaviour towards User:Chillum. He's presently going from door to door after initially starting this ridiculous thread at User talk:Jimbo Wales. This would be amusing if there wasn't an actual person on the receiving end of his attacks. Unfortunately, there is. user:J aka justen (talk) 05:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I've notified User:Ottava Rima. user:J aka justen (talk) 05:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Iridescents thread was there long before I posted there. Furthermore, those statements do not violate WP:NPA, but your statements do since false accusations are against WP:NPA. And Chillum has admitted to using drugs and I have emails from him with attacks confirming his use of drugs. He has posted already that I can post them: "Take a hint, nobody gives a shit what drugs I do. The more you harp on about it the more you are going to look foolish. Misplaced Pages is not the place for people to wage drug wars." The above thread is just more people trying to disrupt in order to protect Chillum from being asked -questions- about his posting that he was on acid and his admittance that he regularly takes Class A drugs. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I rest my case. user:J aka justen (talk) 05:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC) By the way, User J was involved in disputes with me over at the David Shankbone DRV. Him and another user have been involving themselves in the above dispute while over there and their actions on both are highly suspicious per WP:WIKISTALK. I have defended Jake Wartenberg and this user has made it very obvious that they want Jake to be desysopped. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC) this diff shows Ottava Rima's standard MO. He starts an entirely inappropriate discussion, and as soon as other editors call him on it, he starts to give "official warnings" and all sorts of other inappropriate responses. He has been blocked on numerous occasions, and occasionally conditionally unblocked that he would behave in a civil manner. I don't see where he has ever, in the long term, shown the slightest interest in maintaining civility, and I think that his behavior has stretched the limit of community patience to the breaking point. I would support any and all sanctions anyone else would deem necessary to curb this sort of behavior. --Jayron32 05:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC) If my discussion was inappropriate why did Jimbo respond to it in a very serious manner? And Jayron, please don't make false statements about my block log. All of the recent blocks have been overturned as being inappropriate and lacking consensus. The only one seeing incivility are those like you who are acting inappropriately. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC) He, in fact, effectively told you to drop it. Instead, you've proceeded to escalate your attacks and harassment. user:J aka justen (talk) 06:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC) "I would prefer that all users, not just admins, conduct themselves with dignity and professionalism at all times. Certain kinds of references to illegal drug use would not be appropriate in any normal workplace, and are therefore similarly are not appropriate for Misplaced Pages." That negates your claims about the topic being inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Ottava's take on Jimbo's comments is a matter of some disagreement. Frankly Jimmy really didn't say a lot about this and his comments certainly don't offer the clear cut position Ottava claims. More generally, Ottava responds to any criticism of his position with shrieks of "uncivil!!" and "personal attack!!", whilst doing precisely those things to those he sees as his detractors. I believe this is his standard operating procedure in a dispute. I cannot see what objective good will come of Ottava persuing this. More ominous is Ottava's accusation of sockpuppetry against Chillum. He is yet to make good on that and lodge an WP:SPI. Crafty (talk) 06:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I have never claimed there was a clear cut position. I claimed that he answered in an honest and straight forward manner, which verified that -I- was not the one disrupting. Those, like yourself, that turned to hyperbolic statements, cried about witch hunting and the rest, were completely inappropriate and highly disruptive. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC) The remainder of Jimmy's post, does not seem to verify that take of his serious comments either: "If there's an ongoing pattern of behavior which appears to be disruptive or which would tend to reflect negatively on the project, then it could be addressed - preferably with a minimum of drama and hand-wringing. But based on my experience with hundreds of Wikipedians all around the world, we are in no danger of being overrun by drug fiends or anything. :-)"Synchronism (talk) 06:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC) You must realize that Jimbo was stating that he believed that it could have been a joke or a minor issue. This was before it was made clear by Chillum through email confirming that he is a regular user and sees no problem with drugs interfering with his wiki state. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC) The fact that Ottava is still arguing despite stirring up essentially no vocal distrust of Chillium (at least in everyone else's view) can be taken as an implication that nothing will come of his further posting on the issue. If we all stop feeding the fire, I'm sure he'll just burn himself out. And I'm going to pre-emptively respond to Ottava, since I don't wish to forsake my own advice: I'm not saying that you were wrong to be concerned, and I don't mean to make any disagreement with Jimbo's sentiments. However, you must realize that you have been the only one beating the horse for quite some time, so you can take it as a good indicator that no consensus will ever appear to censure Chillum in any way, shape or form because of this. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Prodego, Malleus, Moni3, and Iridescent have all expressed blatant and open disagreement. Your claim that there was no vocal distrust is absolutely false. I was not the first one to bring up the topic. I merely posted on Jimbo's talk page about it per Chillum's recall standards which are quoted above in a link. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC) It is very easy to find comments taken out of context that reflect badly on an editor. However, many editors have been upset by the high standards that Ottava Rima has insisted upon. Can anyone provide an example where Ottava Rima has hindered the improvement of any article or where his actions have damaged any article? The Four Deuces (talk) 06:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC) When was he accused of doing so? I'm not sure what harming articles has to do with an issue of what largely amounts to harassment. Seraphimblade 06:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Nearly sixty edits in the past day leading a respected administrator to temporarily leave the project is harassment, plain and simple. That does not improve the project, and it's unacceptable. user:J aka justen (talk) 06:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Harassment, by definition, is following someone to multiple arguments you werent involved with in order to create a battleground state. You are doing that by entering this other argument in retaliation for me defending Jake Wartenberg, who you have tried unsuccessfully to have desysopped because you disagree with his judgment. J, what you state applies to you and only to you. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I will respond to this once and only once: I've found your commentary at that deletion review to be most interesting (and sometimes even entertaining) reading, and I don't consider you to be my "enemy" in that discussion. The talk page you originally posted this to is on my watchlist; I only took notice of it due to the frequency with which you have edited that talk page today. What I found when looking into your edits there, and that alone, led me to bring this here. Not your username, not your edits elsewhere. If you wish to believe otherwise, that's fine, but your conspiracy theories don't wash away the fact that your edits here are the issue, not your belief that I'm your "enemy." user:J aka justen (talk) 06:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC) "is on my watchlist" amusing coincidence, because Seraphimblade said the same thing when he was questioned as to posting on one discussion, not getting the outcome he wanted, and starting to intervene with the Jimbo page in a highly aggressive manner which this thread also shows. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Might you post the diff in which I was aggressive, please? Seraphimblade 06:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC) There are your diffs. Your tone up and down that DRV has been highly aggressive. Your following people to other discussions is further sign that the aggression boils into harassment. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC) What, precisely, is aggressive or harassing about those edits? Crafty (talk) 06:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC) "Wiki-hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor" Two users who were disagreed with on one page who were together in the argument have one go to the page and talk about impropriety while the other starts an ANI thread, each with the same explanation is problematic editing behavior. It is revenge editing and wikistalking. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I anticipated that response, and that's why I implied that you haven't stirred up any vocal distrust. They acted independently of you. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Um, what? So, the last person to come to an issue should be blocked because they are the last? Is that the next logic? Furthermore, Prodego followed my posting. That is one person that definitely came after me, so your own new logic doesn't work. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I never said you should be blocked - only ignored (and here I go immediately ignoring my own advice, for the second time). My point is that except for the first four people who looked at what Chillum wrote and voiced a concern, no one else has hopped in, desipte that aforementioned 60+ edits you've made pressing your case. And Prodego never supported you, unless I missed an edit he made; he voiced his belief that Chillum was, in fact, on drugs, but did not judge it in any capacity. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC) The argument boiled down to people claiming that there wasn't an issue because it was a joke. Prodego stating that there was drug use verifies that it was not a false and disruptive concern. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC) The trouble with disruptive users like this is that although everyone agrees they are best ignored, most of the time they are not – they cannot be, because sometimes they make such an outrageous attack that the person attacked feels compelled to respond. Thus continues the cycle. This just wastes the time of everyone involved. LK (talk) 06:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC) There are times when Ottava cannot be ignored. His recall proceedings against SarekofVulcan spring to mind. How well has that sideshow progressed? Crafty (talk) 06:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Crafty, you would do best if you recognized that using processes and following standards is not disruptive. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Can an admin on drugs be trusted? This is the true topic of the thread, as many of the people here mostly want to push the claim that an admin on drugs as self admitted can still be trusted, and they do not like the idea that they cannot. Chillum has already declared that I am operating a "drug war" in claiming that a drug like acid impairs the judgment and admin judgments should be made only in a clear and objective manner. He admitted to using drugs, and, though people claim it was a joke, he was asked many times and not once said it was a joke. Now, Acid has the effective range of 12 hours. There is only a 7 hour gap. We know he edited to post the original statement about being on acid and he has a secret secondary account which cannot be verified as to having edits or not. His talk page also made it clear that he is a regular drug user and it cannot be known which of his administrative actions may or may not have been altered or affected by drug use. When questioned, he refused to make any answers regarding the matter. Very simple questions brought a very harsh response. Of course, many people who are sympathetic to Chillum or to drug use in general (as many have admitted on Jimbo's talk page) will probably soon declare that questioning such use is disruptive. Such aggressiveness and hostility to question is strong evidence as to how there is a problem with allowing such conduct to happen. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC) And the response is "we aren't seeing evidence of on-wiki actions that raises concern", and on-wiki behavior is the standard by which wiki editors gain trust of other wiki editors. DMacks (talk) 07:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC) No - an admin on Class A drugs cannot be trusted if they admittedly use drugs while working on Misplaced Pages. Drug use should not be made public, nor should an admin operate Misplaced Pages while impaired in any condition. Such conduct is unsuitable and does not reflect properly on Misplaced Pages as a whole. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC) So if he didn't make it public, we wouldn't be here because nobody would know? At worst, stating it was the only mistake (if indeed it's true). DMacks (talk) 07:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Are you experienced? Jehochman 07:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I think admins and everyone else should be allowed to self-deprecate as much as they want without fear of it being taken literally. There's no evidence of actual drug use. This is straw-grasping. Equazcion (talk) 07:13, 2 Nov 2009 (UTC) This whole discussion is harshing my mellow. Toddst1 (talk) 07:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC) He admitted to drug use and was asked multiple times directly if he was joking. He refused to. He also has a prominent blog in which he broadcasts his constant drug use. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC) (ec) Ottava, you're supposed to be extra civil, man. Like, everybody has told you to drop this. You're giving me a bad trip. Please, won't you drop it. Jehochman 07:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Isn't it an oft-repeated credo that we're supposed to be commenting on EDITS, and not editors? Where's the diffs of questionable edits? Dayewalker (talk) 07:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Adminship is about trust, and admin who admit to editing while impaired have interfered with this trust. There are many, many people who believe that Chillum has crossed the line and acted inappropriately. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Mohito anyone? Crafty (talk) 07:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Ottava, people have asked you to drop this matter. You made your report to Jimbo, you made your report here. Leave this be, or you might be facing a block for harassing this user. User:Zscout370 07:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC) As I have pointed out, there is nothing harassing about this. Even Misplaced Pages Review, who hates me, has stated that there is nothing appropriate in his action. Notice some of the respected Wikipedians who responded there. You need to correct your tone immediately. You wont be protecting Chillum's complete abuse of adminship through intimidation and harassment. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I've left Ottava a final warning, and am now heading offline. Any administrator is welcome to enforce my warning if it is ignored. Earnestly, Jehochman 07:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Jehochman has been told by the community he has no such authority and his long history of harassment and proven abuse of tools against me only verifies that he is being disruptive. Ottava Rima (talk) 07:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I don't think I've ever seen a more nauseating display of self-righteous obnoxiousness on Misplaced Pages. I don't know if that's a blockable offence by itself, but you should be ashamed of yourself. Just drop it, OK? -- ChrisO (talk) 07:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Ottava Rima user conduct. Closing this. One thread is enough. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC) The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. (For those wondering what my involvement in this situation is, these are the related diffs: ) Yes, i know this topic has the same subject as the other ani topic so yes, perhaps i am beating a dead horse (Though currently it still seems to walk). Apologies for this as i was sound asleep during the last half of this discussion. For those who don't know, the entire situation seems to have sparked when chillum posted a drug reference on his talk page, which sparked a topic at Iridescent's talk page. Eventually the discussion spread to Jimbo wales talk page , Chillum's talk page, ANI and back to Iridescent's talk page. The entire discussion took a good 16 hours. For now i do not wish to focus on the topic of the discussion, but rather on the behavior of User:Ottava Rima during this discussion, which i deem not acceptable under any form of civility guideline we have. Ottava became involved in this topic when posting ..... W.T.F on irediscents talk page, followed 4 minutes later by the starting the topic on jimbo's talk page. During the discussion that followed no less then 4 editors were being accused of incivility by Ottava Rima: User:Hans Adler , User:SqueakBox , User:Jayron32 , User:Crafty and Another 5 users were being accused either of not following behavioral guidelines, or threatened with warnings, uncivil behaviour or reports in several sections, including ANI and ARBCOM User:RxS User:Seraphimblade User:Chillum User:Jehochman User:Zscout370 The result of this entire situation is that Chillum is currently on a wiki break, citing harrasement as his reason for temporally departure. Note that at 21:58 on 1 november (far before even halfway the discussion) chillum stated that he would not use his admin tools anymore. Even after Chilum stated his wikibreak which should have been sufficient to counter any drug related issues (As i assume he wouldn't edit anymore), even that was not enough to stop the conversation. . Personally i deem this kind of behavior uncalled for in any kind of situation, especially when an editor already received several other warnings for incivility. Because of this i don't deem the current "Slap on the wrist" an appropriate measure, also because it just keeps going and going. Regardless of this I can easily see that User:Ottava Rima is otherwise an incredibly valuable editor, and i hold no doubts of his or her commitment to the project, nor do i think that that he\she is out to intentionally harm the project. Yet part of the project is working together as a team in harmony, a part which i believe has been compromised to far now. Excirial 14:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I have made it very clear and pointed out to our policy that the attacks against me were highly inappropriate and incivil. I have -not- made any incivil comments and you cannot quote any. Any claims about my comments being incivil, especially without any diffs (because none exist) is a direct violation of WP:NPA. Either back up your claims with diffs or remove them. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Excellent summary, Excirial. However, you were right about beating a dead horse - people still talking about this are just feeding the embers of a dying flame. If somebody wants to RfC Ottava or something, then go and do it already - this issue has devolved far from the original purpose. Let Ottava breathe, let Chillum rest, and cut this off before it gets any worse (I'm talking to everyone involved, just to clarify). Master of Puppets 15:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Ottava Rima, do you realize you spent an entire day -- yesterday, November 1, 2009 -- doing nothing but creating drama? That's all you did. Nothing else. Look at your contribs! You were abusive towards Chillum; towards Folantin; towards Seraphimblade; towards Squeakbox; and there are numerous others. I take it from your attitude that "anyone who disagrees with you for any reason whatsoever is behaving inappropriately, disruptively, and committing a personal attack or violating civility". Is that about right? Yesterday, and evidently continuing into today, you have wasted, and are wasting an immense amount of the time of our volunteers. Would you please stop it and go do something useful instead? Go ahead and add me to the list of "people behaving inappropriately" for calling you on your nonsense, as I seem to be in the company of a lot of fine editors. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 15:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC) You're feeding the flame. Please stop. Take this to the appropriate venue or end it here. Master of Puppets 15:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Antandrus, like many others, has been in a long line of personal disputes with me, in which they have followed me to various things. Like Jehochman and others, I took them to ArbCom with it split 3/3 on accepting the case (some thought more time could resolve the matter). I have posted in the above area how Jtrainer had attacked me during an RfC dealing with Bishonen. Many of those involved here are directly linked to that matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC) (ec)Ottova Rima, would you please explain how you can possibly think (in other words, why) other's comments towards you have been any more uncivil than your own? Looking over the entire discussion at Jimbo's talk page and the diffs provided here, your's seem to be much more like attacks (and some like the comment directly above this seem to border on WP:WL than their's. Ks0stm 15:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I have not made the same attacks let alone any attacks. Users accused me of outright disruption, trolling, etc, for merely asking Jimbo a question, a question that he -responded- to, which verifies that it was not disruption. One such user was asked multiple times to provide diffs and refused to. I have never refused to provide diffs for my statements. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Ottava, I'm not going to give anything more than pure, honest advice. Get off the computer, go get yourself a drink, and sit down and read a good book for a while. I find that it works wonders when I'm feeling stressed over a situation. At the very least, go take a walk or watch some tv. It'll do some good. Ks0stm 15:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Excirial just provided diffs and you deny there are any diffs, Ottava; given Excirial's well reasoned piece I support a temporary block and then hopefully he can calm down and focus on real editing when he comes back in a week or so; Ottava, as long as you make everyone else wrong you are likely to continue building up blocks until one becomes indef; you should really apologize to Chillum and then focus on editing in the areas where you clearly have specialist knowledge and a valuable contribution to make. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 15:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Alright, guys. Stop. Please. Enough with the personal attacks and incivility. I'd appreciate it if this section could die here. Master of Puppets 15:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Ugh, this is clearly going no where I stand with Master of Puppets conclusion of beating the dead horse,Straight Edge lifestyle and all.--SKATER 15:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Possible community ban I dunno if this should be closed just yet. I think a community ban is in order here. Jtrainor (talk) 09:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I'd say start a new section if you want, but given his history here, I doubt it'll stick. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC) There has apparently never been a WP:Request for Comment/Ottava Rima. Or so I'm told --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC) We seem to always mention that and one never starts. If indeed that's a necessary step, I suggest starting on it now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC) If doing so, I suggest including his astonishing behaviour at Talk:George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron and the WQA that followed (I can provide diffs if you didn't see that circus go by), plus this, but not go back months and months. I will sign off on the basis of the Byron/WQA incident as I was directly involved (and contrary to Ottava's apparent opinion, you actually have to be involved to certify one of these things). Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC) To clarify: I will not be initiating any such thing as I've no personal dispute here; someone involved needs to take the initiative if this is to happen. I'd probably participate if it happened, though. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Now that I have walked away from Misplaced Pages for 14 hours or so I can come back with renewed patience. While I will not object to the idea of a community ban, I will also not support it as Ottava has on multiple occasions accused me of conspiring to get others to go against him. I will say that if he stops now then it may not be needed. If he continues then I will leave it up to you folk. Chillum 14:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Misplaced Pages Review even defends me, the people who hate me. If I get banned because I followed every single guideline and questioned an Admin making such a post on his talk page, then every single person involved in this has really proven that they don't care about our policies. The fact that Jtrainor repoened this and no one has blocked him even though he has clearly crossed the line, as with many people here, is so incredibly disturbing there aren't even words to encapsulate these events. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC) If you just make everyone else wrong, Ottava, and continue with your pattern of behaviour you aren't going to last very long anyway; I would have thought a week long block and then civility probation would suffice. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 14:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Seeing as how Jtrrainor is retaliating against me for posting an RfC against Bishonen, and that Elen and others were involved, there is a very clear reason why the maker of this section made this section. SqueakBox, if anyone should be blocked it should be you for your countless personal attacks and your making of statements with unwillingness to provide diffs to back them up, even though you were asked four times to provide them and not providing them was a direct violation of WP:NPA because you were making claims about impropriety. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Can somebody remind me please: Jehochman mentioned an existing civility restriction on O.R.'s talk page, which O.R. promptly denied existed. When and where was such a restriction formally installed? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC) There was never a restriction. Jehochman, who has a long history with me and was involved in an incident, tried to claim that he placed me on a permanent civility restriction and would block me if I ever said anything incivil. The community said that not only did he not have any authority in the matter, but that his own statements were highly inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Well, I found the discussion. It doesn't really matter: a "civility restriction" is nothing else than a formal warning connected with a suggestion to other administrators to enforce usual policies on you with a lowered blocking threshold. Every administrator can make such a warning, and that warning was certainly appropriate. Many other people have warned you again today; I'll be the next. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Warnings without proof of incivility are violations of WP:NPA. Not one has linked a diff that showed any incivil comment. Furthermore, Jehochman was an involved user so his "adminship" does not apply. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I repeat my comment from below: Ottava, I'm not going to give anything more than pure, honest advice. Get off the computer, go get yourself a drink, and sit down and read a good book for a while. I find that it works wonders when I'm feeling stressed over a situation. At the very least, go take a walk or watch some tv. It'll do some good. Ks0stm 15:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I'm not feeling stressed, nor do I know why I would. The attacks upon me by the same people who have been attacking me for a month, combined with the issue of merely asking a question without any diffs (after being asked for quite a long time now) to prove that I made any incivil comment, only verifies that I am not the one causing a problem. If anything, that is a rather good thing as it only proves that the same people are constantly disrupting and its not me. It is only inevitable that the community ships them out. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Still, getting off the computer for a while and visiting some coffeeshop in Amsterdam will do wonders. You'll see things in a different perspective and not bother to engage in these sorts of silly disputes. Count Iblis (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Seeing the circumstances, isn't this a bit of an bad time to refer to drugs again? Excirial 15:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Actually, since the main problem here is not so much "incivility" in the classic sense, but perennial drama-stirring and vendettas, how about a different form of community sanction: the drama plug? I hereby propose the following: Ottava Rima is to be restricted, by community consensus, in the following way: Whenever O.R. feels he needs to raise an objection against the conduct of some other party, he is allowed to make exactly one single post about it to a forum of his choice, and no more. From that point, he is required to leave the discussion of the issue to others. If the complaint has merit, somebody will adopt it. Note: Complaints arising as follow-ups from such a situation, i.e. complaints about somebody's reaction to his complaint, do not count as legitimising another post. How about that? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC) That's not fair. Ottava should have the right to defend himself. Just because he's got a tendency to attract commotion doesn't mean he should be rendered helpless by the community. And just because commotion annoys some people doesn't mean they should get rid of the source because it's causing them stress. In my eyes, everybody's doing wrong here. I'd sincerely appreciate it if this could stop here. Master of Puppets 15:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I agree with Master of Puppets here, any user has the right to defend his or her statement; If we would limit O.R to a single post he or she would never have the chance to defend his or her opinion. Personally i'm more concerned with what i perceive as the constant lack of good faith which results in issuing warnings and threats, alongside with the in my eyes aggressive way of communication. One of the problems is that O.R denies even the remote possibility of him or her being wrong, which makes this subject harder to address. Yet it has to be addressed less this will keep going out of hand. Excirial 15:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Warnings don't imply a belief that another is editing in bad faith. Most of my warnings were asking people to stop with certain comments or stop making comments without diffs. People refuse to post diffs to what they claim about my comments. I have checked each and every one of my comments before posting and I am very guarded on what I say or don't say. I have been for a very long time, so when people claim I post incivil comments, they better show it. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Regrettably, your actions appear to not always be in line with your stated standards: above, after accusing an administrator of stalking and attacking you, you were asked for diffs to back up or back off your claims. You responded with a link to the history of a page and with: "There are your diffs." The bad faith assumptions on your part are, frankly, becoming increasingly disruptive, and every time someone responds with a valid criticism of your behaviour, you obfuscate or begin attacking them as well. user:J aka justen (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC) See the topic i started below, i quoted plenty, yet you immediately discarded them as "Not true" with yet another warning towards of me being in violation of WP:NPA. Similary there have been several other editors cautioning you for being uncivil. If you believe that several editors are all talking nonsense, how can anyone "Show you" that they deem something uncivil, if you immediately discard those concerns as baseless? In other words, if you aren't open for criticism in any way, how can you expect people to show you may be wrong? Excirial 16:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Anybody recall the kids fairy story about the mice voting to put a bell on the cat? That's what we have here. The responses of Ottava to anything that Ottava disagrees with are so aggressive that people simply give up rather than start that RfC/U and put up with the attacks that will follow. A mere suggestion to change the name of an article produces an outpouring of invective, accusations of bad faith, accusations of untruthfulness, and accusations of disruption and general mendacious conduct. Any attempt to calm the situation results in another outpouring, this time usually accusations of working with others one has never heard of to do Ottava down, being involved in things one has never heard of, being a sockpuppet, meatpuppet, or generally not being yourself. It's not worth it to the individual. But this state of affairs really cannot be allowed to continue. I agree with the statements above that restricting Ottava to one post at ANI or whatever is not workable - also it does not address the fact that these dramas are usually only the last act. Conduct on talk pages in content disputes concerns me far more, because of the effect Ottava can have on a debate when he goes off on one. If he could present his arguments without it sounding like a rant he would put forward a more persuasive suggestion a lot of the time, and retain good working relations with other editors. Can a way be found to achieve this? Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I agree with you on the points you make elen. Simply sounding less hostile and vindicative could have prevented the absolute majority of this issue, as it would less likely have turned into a shouting match. Im against using strong arm tactics such as strait out blocking as this is simply a stopgap measure - it will only set bad blood between Ottava and other people, and it won't have any positive effect in the long run. Likewise ottava has demonstrated (s)he is an excellent editor who actually does excellent work most of the time. A community block would therefor also benefit noone. The major problem, however, is that Ottava seems convinced (s)he did absolutely nothing whatsoever, reinforced by the idea that people are out to get him\her. It is so hard to change a man who made up his mind that i am at a bit of a loss on how to solve this without causing any unneeded damage. Any suggestions? Excirial 16:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC) "The responses of Ottava to anything that Ottava disagrees" - I have worked with User:Haiduc on Nicolo Giraud while having 100% opposite views of him and got the article to FA. I have worked with Malleus on two FAs and we do not agree on anything personable, disputed quite a bit over grammar and weight issues and the such. I have worked with Ironholds and we have 100% opposite views and dispute often, yet have an FA there. I have worked with Ceoil and got through a lengthy page. Each of these times, there has been heavy compromise, working together, and dealing with people directly. I have no featured credits with anyone who is my "friend" and agrees with me on issues. Most people come from very conflicted backgrounds and have majorly different views from me. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Support drama plug for this user per Fut.Perf. We have wasted a ridiculous amount of time catering for this user's eccentricity across several forums over the past 36 hours. I would be loath to see any repetition of this. It may be that a block or the threat of one is needed to let this user know how inappropriate their behavior has been. --John (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Comment This is just another of Ottava Rima's vendettas against anyone who has ever crossed him (see the recent recall proceedings against User:SarekofVulcan). Chillum's mistake was to refuse a request for unblock from OR on October 27:. Ottava was obviously too busy with the WikiCup competition to pursue the grudge at the time but right after it finished (October 31) he was back drama-mongering. Funnily enough, Chillum was the admin who unblocked Ottava early back in September:. Maybe he was "under the influence" when he made that decision.--Folantin (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I object to a community ban at this time. WP:RFC/U might be a next step if people have lingering concerns. Jehochman 16:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Ottava's "Seeing as how Jtrainor is retaliating against me for posting an RfC against Bishonen.." posted above is kind of silly. Jtrainor seems to be a very sensible chap/chapess, but I don't actually know him/her. Also, noone should take the trouble of retaliating for RfC Bishonen 4, seeing as I enjoyed it, especially the cupcakes. Pity it was deleted so soon! Bishonen | talk 17:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC). The user repeatedly claimed at the connected AfD that I put up the RfC because "I hate Bishonen" and was asked multiple times to provide diffs or refrain from making such comments and refused. I do not hate you Bishonen, nor have I ever hated you. Do I trust you as an admin? No, but that has nothing to do with you. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Oppose any sort of community ban at this time. I disagree with Ottava on a wide range of issues, and I acknowledge that he goes overboard quite often, but this is silly. Have a little WP:FAITH that he's doing what he's doing for the right reasons, even if his process is a bit off. The Wordsmith 18:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Support the application of the scold's bridle as outlined by Fut Perf. Crafty (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Comment - we need to do something because the amount of trouble and ill will stirred up by Ottava Rima is not acceptable, and it is apparently not going to improve on its own. This is as good a time as any to cut out the waffling and inaction and actually do something to improve the editing atmosphere here. Perhaps a mentoring-style approach would be more a more workable version of the so-called "drama plug". Ottava Rima should be restricted from initiating or participating in editor behavior discussions, or otherwise disparaging other editors' actions, without first getting leave to do so. If he feels that he is personally involved in a situation that directly affects his ability to make content edits or discuss content edits on article talk pages, he can request help directly from an admin who volunteers for the duty on the admin's talk page, and that admin will screen the issue for whether or not it can be mediated or quickly resolved, whether it should be dropped, or whether it is worthy of a wider community discussion. Conversely, he should not participate in behavioral discussions that do not affect him personally, until and unless he has demonstrated to the community's satisfaction that he can get along with other editors here. It's a shame to close off Misplaced Pages's normal dispute resolution venues to an editor, but as an alternative to an outright ban, it only makes sense that if someone repeatedly abuses the forums here they need to take a break from them. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I see the editor has been blocked repeatedly recently, then unblocked. Maybe that would help diffuse things for the moment. Right now he's in a war of words with several administrators who he accuses of harassment, abuse, personal attacks, etc., for describing his behavior as uncivil. He certainly has not gotten the message that he needs to stop advocating against Chillum over Chillum's drug use comment. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Please provide a diff where I have ever advocated about anything. There is no such statement as I have not made an advocation. I asked a question. There is a major difference. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Just ban him. He's proven that he can't or won't work cooperatively and reasonably with other editors. Everyking (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC) This proves that I have multiple large DYK hooks in which I worked with others, and I have 9 FA pages in which I co-nomed with another person, all of which I do not share a similar background with and have been able to work with that individual to get the article up to FA. There is no evidence to verify Everyking's claim, but there is a lot of evidence of a long history of him making such attacks against me that have been proven as baseless. His comments over at Misplaced Pages Review verify the problem with his edits. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I have never seen you do anything that did not involve an attack, insult, or provocation. I'm sure you've done some good article work, but the level of disruption and malice is simply unbelievable. If you can work cooperatively and reasonably with others, then why on earth are you constantly getting into some kind of fight? Everyking (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Seeing as how most of the fights are caused by the same group of people following me to places, you might want to re-evaluate the problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Wait, I thought Chillum said that on his userpage. Was that "following you"? Thinksme you might have it bass ackwards ;-). --SB_Johnny |  21:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC) 1. The fight here was started by User J, who followed me. 2. Many participants in the fight, such as Antandrus and others who responded were part of the Bishonen dispute, part of the Oscar Wilde dispute, part of the Persian Empire dispute, part of the Ludovico Ariosto dispute, part of the Christopher Smart freemasonry dispute all the way back to being part of the Geogre DRV dispute. I was not referring to Chillum in the above. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Ottava, in all due honesty i have not seen you accept even the remote chance you share part of the blame for the current situation. Both Hans and me provided diffs to illustrate uncivil behavior and you whacked them of the table claiming them to be nonsense and personal attacks, while in the same sentence even claiming that RxS two comments warranted a direct warning and ANI threat while yours were all harmless. Similarly you are now pointing to "The same group of people who are always Wikihounding me and are causing all the fights". Sorry, but by now i have the feeling you are using different standards to measure yourself and for the rest of the community. In other words, give me proof that editors are indeed following you around and hounding you, and seeing your "Most / Same Group" comment i expect that the majority of the editors commenting here is actually doing so, so i look forward to some diffs. I got nothing against you personally, but by now i want to know if you are indeed threated so badly by a group of editors that you can put the blame on them. Excirial 20:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Ottava has proven no such thing. In fact he's proven quite the opposite. Ottava and I are like chalk and cheese, but we've successfully collaborated on several FAs, and I'd have no reservations about working with him again, even though we'll probably never see eye-to-eye on a whole bunch of issues. Like this AN/I report, for instance. It's no secret that I believe Chillum to be the worst kind of administrator, and I found the posting of his that precipitated this unholy mess to be inappropriate and childish. Unlike Ottava though I haven't bothered to pursue the matter because I believe that the fundamentally corrupt system here at wikipedia tolerates behaviour from administrator it would not tolerate from regular editors. Hence it's just a waste of time to draw attention to it. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Chalk and cheese, good one. It's a fair point that admins should not be bragging about personal drug use or keeping alternate accounts (with a few exceptions, as has been discuseed at great length). Jimbo agrees with the first, per his talk page, and I think I do too. I would hold administrators to a higher standard of decorum, and of maintaining the trust and respect of the community, at least while they wear their administrative hat. Some might disagree and think it's okay to let it all hang out, so to speak. Anyway, I think Ottava Rima has a reasonable point in the first place about the statement. The problem was how it played out, and turned into an issue over actual drug use. He surely can't be enjoying this either. Looking at this, I stand by my observation that he's most directly responsible for this mess. He's the one whose comments in multiple forums got everyone so riled up, and for whom a changed approach would be the simplest and most likely to avoid further trouble. No need to declare a winner or make anyone feel punished. Ideally we could work out something that minimizes the contention, without impairing his ability to edit productively where he wants. I wish I had a good suggestion. I proposed something above but I don't think it's exactly right. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Oppose a community ban. Ottava is pursuing something he sees as important and is taking the steps he believes need to be taken. I don't believe he's doing this be disruptive, instead he's doing it because he feels that it's the right thing to do. This discussion and the few following seem to be beating a dead horse, someone should end this discussion since it's not going to get anywhere.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 20:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Simply believing that you are right doesn't mean that you actually are right. That's kinda the problem with the absolutist approach to problem-solving. Tarc (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC) But it doesn't mean he should be blocked, which is kinda the point.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 20:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Sorry, but i'm going to have to call bullshit on this one. Ottava is not murdering thousands of innocent people using hijacked civilian airplanes. He's not harming anyone at all. He sees something he sees as potentially damaging to the encyclopedia, and he is attempting to correct it. Just because other people don't agree that it is damaging, doesn't mean that he's being disruptive. He's only trying to protect us. So next time, pick a better example, please. Hyperbole will get you nowhere. The Wordsmith 20:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Oh please, stop being such a drama queen. Yes it was an extreme example, but the notion of "what Ottava did was OK because he thought he was right" was so patently ridiculous that such an analogy was quite fitting, IMO. Regardless of whether or not you think we need to be protected from acid-dropping administrators, the sheer aggressiveness and vitriol from Ottava's direction while pursuing this is what the ultimate issue is at hand. Tarc (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Weak oppose There will not be a consensus for a community ban here and this is no longer productive. However, I think that Ottava clearly is disruptive, as evidenced by this sad episode and the Bishonen RfC debacle. That being said, I do still think a better direction to focus everyone's energy in is WP:RFC/U. Considering the excellent content Ottava has provided, I think pursuing dispute resolution is much more appropriate than any contentious ban, block, or restriction that we come up with here. A centralized discussion that doesn't encourage back and forth sniping would give him a chance to see what users really think of his behavior without him responding to every single criticism. If that doesn't work, taking this to ArbCom would probably be a better forum to enact a ban to avoid any appearance of administrator cronyism (a regular complaint of Ottava's unless I am mistaken). AniMate 20:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I honestly don't know about Ottava's content contributions, but I'm willing to believe what others have said about them being good. That does not give him permission to act like the fucking cops and try to force a confession out of Chillum. This has been one of the most disgusting episodes I have seen yet on Misplaced Pages. It's needless drama-mongering over one tiny little posting on a talk page. Ottava should stick to what he is good at and not try to bully admissions out of other editors and stir up shitstorms for no good purpose. Same goes for Malleus, who actually started all this. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Asking a simple question as to clarifying what his statement meant when others were repeatedly saying that it was a "joke" is not bullying a confession like any kind of law enforcement officer. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Honestly Ottava you are utterly shameless. You must know that the "Who me? I just asked a simple question!" defence holds no water in your case. Crafty (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Maybe if you had asked just once and then dropped it when you didn't get the answer you were looking for, but you asked repeatedly, and threatened a user who tried to get you to cut it out. Then you quickly began stating that you believed the true answer to the question would lead to Chillum being desysopped if it was revealed. You are a bully and a dramamonger. Statements like these are pretty plainly intended to intimidate others: "This is an admittance of taking Class A substances while editing Misplaced Pages" " What is the closest proximity of you taking a drug to you making an admin related decision?" "your hostile response shows that it is a question that has an answer that you know would damage Chillum and possibly result in his desysopping" " If you want to continue, please be advise that you are walking off a short pier." "I would like to know if you use drugs while making admin actions. A simple yes or no will suffice." "It was a simple matter of being open about your drug use so we don't have to worry about your judgment." Frankly, you make me sick. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Again, the horse is dead. Consensus for a community ban is not going to materialize here. Draft an RfC, or let this go. Complaining about and rehashing events here is a waste of energy and is not doing anything to fix the problem. AniMate 21:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Support a temporary block as I pointed out at Jimbo's page "...it's time to add a block to your (Ottava's) block history so you have time to calm down and think about the disruption you created today., although I didn't check the editors history (besides his block history) to call for a community ban that might or might not be warranted.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Concur with temporary block if only for his own protection. Else, in 24 hours, he'll just have dug 24 more hours of hole. PhGustaf (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Support a temporary block The amount of incivility in this entire debate is just over the top. Also, seeing the insistence that RsX made two comments which were apparently worth both a warning and an ANI report threat while the 25 comments Hans and I linked were apparantly only to be condemned as personal attacks i deem this a also a gross breach of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. I support a block mostly to have it listed on the block log for future reference, as i deem that this amount of disruption warrants it. Excirial 22:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC) You have been asked multiple times to provide a diff of an incivil comment and you have yet to provide any such thing. You have violated WP:NPA over 5 times so far in this very method. Merely throwing out allegations of impropriety is inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC) "Incivil comment"? I can provide you with a diff about one from you against me if that helps (my response included there for context) , yet, you still didn't provide any diff's you where repeatedly ask for by several editors regarding your accusations against Chillum's "inappropriate and bad behavior" even so you had plenty of time by now to search. find and "put out" as you where kindly asked. Your credibility equals zero.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Yet when you do it, you're striking a blow for justice and the project. Crafty (talk) 23:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Time to put down the sticks 1)Bragging about personal drug use on Misplaced Pages is unhelpful and disruptive. 2) A lot of people have grudges against Ottava and he would be wise to tone down his confrontational approach instead of handing out ammunition. 3) The best way to stop the drama mongering is to stop the drama mongering. Those who keep pushing this along and calling for heads aren't helping anything. 4) There's an interesting discussion to be had about the role of drugs in society, but this isn't the place. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC) 1) Who is "bragging"...????? 2) I, like many others, don't have any (past) grudges against Ottava and he should not only tune it down but cut it out. 3) With other words, Ottava should stop pushing and just cut it out. 4) Yes, indeed, this isn't the right place! So again, Ottava should take a deep breath, relax and stop pushing before he will be stopped by the community. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC) User:J Something needs to be said regarding the conduct of the editor who began this thread. During the past week J has altered or blanked three different editors' talk page posts without their consent, and responded aggressively to feedback. In fact, it is possible that this thread ostensibly about Ottava Rima may have been an outgrowth of that problem. On October 30 I attempted to play peacemaker at Jake Wartenberg's user talk. Jake had made a mistake that had gotten a few people rankled, and complaints had continued even after Jake had admitted the mistake. Another editor had already archived the discussion and I had taken no part in the dispute. So I collapsed the discussion and announced that Jake had undertaken a new featured content drive. J completely blanked my post. J had been active in the dispute. To the best of my knowledge I had never interacted with J before. Both Jennavecia and I arrived at J's talk page at roughly the same time to ask him to discuss our posts with us if he disagrees with what we write, rather than reverting us unilaterally. J had recently blanked one of her posts from David Shankbone's user talk page. J's response, basically, was to point fingers at everyone other than himself. After three different attempts to communicate I informed him that if the problem continued I would seek outside opinions. His response in edit summaries appears to be angry. J's very next post after telling me off was to start this noticeboard thread about Ottava Rima. J appears to have had no prior interaction with Ottava Rima (at least no recent interaction), but it wouldn't be very hard to get to Ottava Rima by checking my recent edit history: it was the only other user talk page where I had been active yesterday. I had posted to Ottava's user page in the attempt to defuse another conflict--suggesting a joint featured picture/DYK drive about the poetry of William Blake. Without taking sides in the Chillum/Ottava Rima scuffle, anyone can agree that the site would be better off putting our energies there. Well, nearly anyone--because half an hour after J expressed resentment of my media contributions, he began this ANI thread. J's behavior related to this thread was also disruptive. He attempted to unclose the discussion, which drew a complaint from Toddst1. J's reaction to Toddst1 was worse than his reaction to Jennavecia or myself: J attempted to strikethrough Toddst1's posts. Toddst1 rightly pointed out that striking through is not okay because it implies retraction. I've seen people get blocked for less than this. We really don't need someone turning olive branches into whipping sticks at the David Shankbone article deletion debate and Ottava Rima's disputes. Durova 16:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC) You can't honestly believe that I brought my concerns with User:Ottava Rima's recent conduct here because of you, can you? His conduct has nothing to do with the David Shankbone article, and the assumption that it does is just about as bad faith as it gets. I see the tit for tat strategy you are pursuing here, but it's just remarkable to me the extent to which you apparently plan to pursue it. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Tits? WHERE?! HalfShadow (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Fava beans and a nice Chianti, Clarice. Master of Puppets 16:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Nonetheless, habitually blanking and altering other editors' talk page posts is blockable. Three separate people have attempted to communicate this to J this week. His reaction has been defiant and disruptive. Durova 16:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC) "Habitually"? Refactoring personal attacks or (intentionally or otherwise) disruptive edits, which unfortunately applied to the edits you and Lara made, is not "habitually," it's two edits. I note that other editors concurred with both changes: Lara's comments have since been collapsed, yours were since refactored by the owner of the talk page. I struck Todd's poorly considered comments on my talk page and noted that I had done so; he objected and later struck his most inaccurate comment himself (after three administrators agreed his close here was inappropriate). You, madame, are making a mountain out of a mole hill, and I'm afraid your motives speak for themselves. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Deruva, before i comment on anything else, i would like to point out that i started an identical section below regarding the same topic. I believe we are in no way related par the venture of previous contact to any degree (at least recently) so wouldn't it be more appropriate to move this section to a separate topic as the relation between these two topics in only flimsy? Also, Im not exactly sure what kind of situation i suddenly wandered into; I keep seeing users blaming each other for attempting to ban each other for past interactions. I remember Ottava saying something about "Editors out to get me for something of the past, and we all know why". I also remember chillem voicing the opinion that Ottava may be after him for some kind of block, and now i see you pointing to J for being after ottava because of past interaction with you? Glad my main line of work is vandalism \ new page patrol. At the very least i don't have to deal with these kind of intrigues. Excirial 16:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I beg your pardon if this duplicates a thread you started; feel free to move if you think that's appropriate. The sequence here doesn't rise to such eloquent terms as intrigue: problem, three attempts to communicate and solve the problem; problem recurs three times with three different people in short time frame. Manifestation of problem is already at ANI, so articulate the problem with diffs. The rest is spin. Durova 16:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Sorry - that statement i just made was horrible on the grammar part. What i intended to say was that i started a section below as well regarding Ottava - Since it doesn't seem that there is any form of interaction between us in the past i think this means that more editors signal this issue as ANI related. Therefor i would think that J's conduct is more of a separate issue rather then being a sub header towards the current discussion. Since i do not know the magnitude of the situation i leave it to you to decide if these are related or seperate. Excirial 16:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I don't wish to diminish anything said in the long thread; but it should be noted that it is possible for two editors to both be behaving poorly, even if they are on the opposite sides of an issue. I am not stating that J. has misbehaved here, but even if he has, it does not absolve Ottava Rima's long history, which was being discussed above. It's entirely possible that everyone is in the wrong here. I am not saying that is what happened, but I also think we need to avoid letting that possibility cause one set of problems be swept under the rug merely because we are faced with a different set of problems. I have no idea what the interaction history between Durova and J. is; but it should be emphasized that there was apparently no interaction history between J. and Ottava Rima; we often complain that "involved" people bringing complaints about other users or acting to sanction them. However, we seem to have had a genuine case of a complaint being brought forward by an uninvolved user. If J and Durova has issues to work out, it would be best not to let such a situation cloud the initial set of problems involved Ottava Rima. --Jayron32 17:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Jayron, there is no interaction history. I was unaware that User:J existed before October 30. This is a normal subthread about recent actions. Please put away the wiki-scorecard and review the matter on its merits; I've returned to higher priorities and this is the first time checking the page in hours. Durova 21:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Boy, having read these related threads here & most of another on Jimmy Wales's Talk page, I have to wonder: are there too many editors contributing under the influence of pyschoactive drugs -- or not enough? -- llywrch (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Not enough. Count Iblis (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Doug Hoffman promo photo.JPG

The image File:Doug Hoffman promo photo.JPG is under a disputed fair use claim, but the subject is a living person, which should be replaceable under Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. Could a sysop review the situation and determine the appropriate action? This will be a touchy situation, because Doug Hoffman is currently running in the New York's 23rd congressional district special election, 2009--Blargh29 (talk) 05:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• The same goes for File:Dede Scozzafava promo photo.jpg--Blargh29 (talk) 05:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Both are replaceable and should be deleted and replaced with File:Replace this image male.svg/File:Replace this image female.svg. This will hopefully motivate their campaigns to donate free images. If not, their loss.  Sandstein  06:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

They DID donate free images. They provided hi rez images for download and/or media use. Notice that "media" is in the very name of the Wikimedia Foundation. The only thing missing is associated legalese. Another triumph over bureaucracy over common sense.Bdell555 (talk) 06:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• • They are both tagged as such, but awaiting a sysop to delete them. I am not one, which is why I made this note here.--Blargh29 (talk) 06:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Anon IP ongoing problems on euthanasia-related pages

There is a Colombia-based IP (dynamic IP, can't be blocked without using a range) who has a long history of editing pages on subjects related to euthanasia disruptively. At one stage, he reduced the entire talk page at Action T4 to a shambles see what it looked like. On Talk, notice how he repetitively added the text:

PEOPLE ARE BEING MASSIVELY AND COERCIVELY KILLED UNDER THE GUISE OF EUTHANASIA, THE CURRENT WIKIPEDIA VERSION IS PROPAGANDA PRO EUTHANASIA, therefore CRIME APOLOGY

Currently, he is targeting Involuntary euthanasia, and now has started in on Euthanasia in the Netherlands.

The problems with this person are

1. He is not natively English-speaking and most of his edits are garbled.
2. He does not really understand how wikipedia works and puts off-topic details into articles.
3. He edit wars everything and doesn't know or care about 3RR or any other rules.
4. He has an obsessive religious objection to euthanasia and is determined to edit hostile and sometimes incoherent comments onto pages.
5. He is immune to arguments. Admin TeaDrinker (talk · contribs) tried long and hard to reason with him at Talk:Action T4 to no avail. Only page protection stopped him at Aktion T4, but my recent request for page protection of Involuntary euthanasia failed because (apparently) there is only one person involved.

Small selection of his IPs:
190.25.97.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
190.27.152.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
190.25.192.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
190.25.104.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
190.27.99.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
201.244.200.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Would appreciate input on how to handle this ... ► RATEL ◄ 09:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Revert, block, ignore? Maybe have someone try in his primary language first? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say, block the IPs without warning, since it's most likely the same person and warnings would just waste time. A range block doesn't appear possible since, other than the 190.25's everything else is different.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 20:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Intentional misquote of a reference?

Not sure if this is the right place, anyway, User:Jake73 seems to have intentionally misquoted a reference he introduced in this edit. For actual reference, see here. Perhaps whatever is appropriate to do in such cases should be done. Nikola (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, seeing as that edit was made in June 2007 (!) and Jake73 hasn't edited since August 2007, what administrative action do you want? If the information in the article is wrong (I don't know, because Google Books says "no preview available"), then feel free to change it; that doesn't require admins. Bencherlite 11:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Page protection

What's the procedure if an admin considers that a page would benefit from temporary semi-protection but it hasn't been raised at WP:RFPP. Can that admin apply the protection anyway or must it be raised first? Mjroots (talk) 12:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

As long as the admin is uninvolved or there's no COI, I would go ahead and protect. The objective of protection is to prevent disruption, so there's no point in standing by and watching it get out of control until another admin comes along and does it. ≈ Chamal  ¤ 13:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Seconded; think of it as the same as if an admin blocked a vandal without an AIV report. If they can see the disruption going on, have no other direct involvement and feel they can provide a remedy, there's no need to wait for an official report. Ironholds (talk) 13:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If the page is under a consistent barrage of vandals, I wouldn't have a problem with an Admin semi protecting without having to go through WP:RFPP, just makes it easier on us vandal fighters.--SKATER 13:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. In the end protection was requested and I granted it, but it's good to know for the future. Not so sure about COI, as it's an article I've contributed to, but the reason for protection was to prevent vandalism / OR. Mjroots (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry if there's COI; as long as you're protecting only for clear, persistent vandalism, and the length of time is appropriate, you'll be fine. Master of Puppets 13:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Assistance at the Virtual Folders article

Can someone please take a look at Virtual folder and Talk:Virtual folder? A choice quote from the talk page:

WITHOUT ACCUSATION, I must tell you I have a direct contact in the Obama Administration regarding a Federal Attorney I have a contact for who can look into this independently if a Rational Debate is refused for a Company receiving Public Funds, POSSIBLY, from Microsoft Corp. and/or Apple Computer.

I really don't have the time to deal with this right now. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Diff, please, just to confirm. Sounds like a simple legal threat. It is not our role to look into companies receiving Public Funds, POSSIBLY, from Microsoft Corp. and/or Apple Computer, nor is it our role to post information about Companies receiving Public Funds, POSSIBLY, from Microsoft Corp. and/or Apple Computer without some kind of reliable source. Ironholds (talk) 13:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is the diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Virtual_folder&diff=323366676&oldid=323312613

Sorry I wasn't clear. The accusation is that I'm receiving Microsoft/Apple funds, or Misplaced Pages is. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 13:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Robert.d.thompson (talk · contribs) indef blocked for making legal threats. Toddst1 (talk) 13:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

New Account

Query answered ϢereSpielChequers 19:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey there, I have a question. "Nezzadar" has been good and all, but I want to distance from the account on account of my reprehensible beheaviour. Is it possible to create a new account? I am willing to agree to some standard terms to prevent sockpuppetry, including staying away from using my old account, not voting on things I already voted for, etc.

I don't know where else to put this. Advice? Nezzadar  14:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:RTV might be what you are looking for. Ks0stm 15:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think WP:RTV applies, as this user is not talking about vanishing. How about WP:CHU? As for "willing to agree to some standard terms", hopefully you understand they are policy and not something you can "agree to". They are enforced for all users, not only those who change usernames or get new accounts.  Frank  |  talk  15:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I was just implying I knew about them. Poor wording apology. Nezzadar  15:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you might be looking for wp:CLEANSTART, but personally I would advise against it. You have kept your block log clean for more than three years now, and whatever you've done recently I would suggest apologising where appropriate, withdrawing from things that agravate you and concentrating on areas of the pedia that you enjoy without aggravation. ϢereSpielChequers 16:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes that was what I was looking for. Here is the problem though. This account has problems. I've been dragged into fights, including one with an admin, that I wish to forget. Also, this account has been Twinkle blacklisted, something I do not think I deserve anymore. Nezzadar  16:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Well Cleanstart does say "This is permitted only if there are no bans or blocks in place against your old account, and so long as no active deception is involved, particularly on pages that the old account used to edit." So in my view it would be deceptive to use Cleanstart to get round the Twinkle blacklist. Have you contacted the admin who blacklisted you from Twinkle three weeks ago and asked them how long you need to edit for before they would consider unblacklisting your account? ϢereSpielChequers 17:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha, yeah, umm remember when I said that I got into fights, including with one admin? That was the admin. I had accused him previously of harassment and hounding, and this didn't help the situation. Nezzadar  17:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC) for the record, it was User:Hesperian

Apart from checking your block log I haven't reviewed the incidents that got you into conflict, and have no view as to your recent edits. But since you regard your recent behaviour as reprehensible I would suggest saying so to Hesperian, and asking how long you would need to edit constructively for before Hesperian would be willing to unblacklist you from Twinkle. ϢereSpielChequers 17:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Nezzadar, just keep up the solid good work and you'll be fine. OK, you've a history but 3 years block free suggests that you've learned from that and have improved as an editor. Twinkle is probably a bit like being a admin, an extra button but no big deal (OK, we admins get 2 extra buttons but you see what I mean). Mjroots (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I never use Twinkle, myself. It makes the job too easy. HalfShadow (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The block was because I told an admin my account was compromised. I had left it logged in at a public place. I was unblocked when I got the situation fixed. As for Twinkle, I really liked having the drop down menus, as I have a hard time memorizing the templates. Nezzadar  17:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Posted at Hesperian's page: "Quite frankly, my behavior has been reprehensible lately, and I want to make amends and restore my good name. After recently being verbally assaulted by another user, I came to realize how uncomfortable I must have made you. I am deeply sorry, and I hope you can come to forgive me. Thank you Nezzadar  18:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC) "

As for the Twinkle thing, I'll worry about that later, when I feel I have done enough to deserve getting it back. Thanks everyone. Nezzadar  18:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

IP posting about blocked user FrancisLightHouse

The IP 74.99.83.3 (contributions) is posting all over the place with demands that all "content" about User:FrancisLightHouse should be removed from Misplaced Pages. No actual legal threats, but needs to be nipped in the bud all the same, I think. It's probably a sock of the user. --bonadea contributions talk 16:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Left a stern note/final warning. If they post again, they'll be blocked. TNXMan 16:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Not having read this message, I have blocked the IP 6 months for block evasion as well as deleted and salted the previously-recreated user talk pages. If any other admin desires to undo my block and/or deletions, I am open to that. However, I know that everytime this vandal comes back, he is up to no good (just like a similar vandal that deals with courthouses). MuZemike 17:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Tnxman, for going over your head. MuZemike 17:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries here. TNXMan 18:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Block review for User:hAl

I've blocked hAl (talk · contribs · block log) indefinitely for continued edit warring and disruptive editing at Office Open XML immediately after his seventh block for the same. I've also informed hAl that he can be unblocked provided he consents to a topic ban from this and related articles, and preferably a 1RR restriction on top of that. I'm coming here for review of the block, and community support and consensus for the conditions set forth. Thanks. Hersfold 17:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I've dealt with him before, and while he has some constructive ideas, he seems unable to follow consensus or participate in collaborative article development, only repeatedly edit-warring for his desired article content. DMacks (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support Sounds fair to me.--SKATER 18:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support. I gave one of the previous blocks. A lot of trouble has occurred at Office Open XML, and given the past criticism of his edits, I would expect hAl to work actively toward a compromise. All I see up till now is a battleground attitude. A sample of his uncooperative style can be seen in his recent responses at the talk page. Another editor sums it up well when we refers to an 'atmosphere of aggression or recrimination.' If this is still not convincing enough, please review his two previous requests for unblock which can be seen on this version of his talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support and also support the topic ban if he wants to come back. I have (occasionally) looked at into these articles, and this is a big problem. Verbal chat 19:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support Looking at the history, I'm surprised he wasn't indefblocked earlier. Topic ban is a good idea as well, as in all likelihood it'll have the effect of a siteban. Blueboy96 19:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support No problems here. Also support a topic ban if the user chooses to come back.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 20:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support: I support the indefinite block. User:HAl has been problematic on Microsoft-related articles, articles about Microsoft products, and formats created by Microsoft or related to Microsoft, such as Open Office XML. If he returns with a topic-ban, it would have to include subjects related to Microsoft and its formats.--Lester 23:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Weakly support: I'm not a fan of indef blocks with conditions on which the block can be lifted, as it seems like we're giving the editor the option to work in an appropriate fashion. Collegial behavior should never be construed as an option. But I see that there probably isn't an alternative in this situation. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 00:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Request WP:KEEP

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Yaakov Teitel: conclusion Speedy Keep is reached. Request closing by an admin. Editor is notified-DePiep (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Not yet, no; only two people have asked for a speedy closure, one of whom was yourself. When and if it reaches that point, an admin or experienced editor will close it. Notices here aren't necessary. Hersfold 17:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The debate is no longer unanimous, either - one editor has recommended Deletion. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 18:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The AfD has been closed as speedy delete. NW (Talk) 20:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That was equally wrong: the person is a confessed serial terrorist & multiple murderer, with excellent news sources. and the deletes were based on the fact that he had not yet been convicted. BLP is important, but this was not an urgent case of do no harm, and time should have been allowed for debate. I've removed the resolved tag here. Over-reaction. I've notified the closer. DGG ( talk ) 22:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with DGG. The whole point of BLP is that Misplaced Pages should never originate such material. Anything that's carried in multiple appropriately reliable sources is fair game. This is yet another example of why BLP remedies allow overreaction without providing appropriate protection to unexamined issues that no one catches. Jclemens (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to re-open it if there is consensus to do so, but an article on someone who hasn't even been charged, let alone convicted, seems very shaky to me. Surely better suited to WikiNews at the moment? Black Kite 22:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the reason you first gave on your talk p. when asked was NOT NEWS-- where is that given as a reason for Speedy??? As for BLP, he has confessed, remember, a/c multiple irreproachable sources. DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

While Misplaced Pages is not the place to argue with the statements of what we consider reliable sources, irreproachable or otherwise, I would consider a confession extracted under police custody shady basis on which to support anything. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and moreover as this is not only a WP:BLP situation, but one dealing with allegations of terrorism, we should tread very lightly. One is reminded of Taner Akçam and similar situations. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 23:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

With the page being deleted, it is hard to tell what it actually said. However, I do not like the sources being based solely on notability that comes pre-trial. "terrorist" and "multiple murderer" would be sensationalistic to talk about, so it would be hard to separate what is actual news and what was written just to sell papers. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, however given concerns, I have undeleted the page and re-opened the AfD. Will monitor. Black Kite 23:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is there any discussion of an AfD here? —Finell (Talk) 23:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think everyone knows about 'deletion review'. Now that I can see the article, I see why it was speedy-deleted. But before seeing it, I guess I can see why people would've been concerned. 72.88.55.196 (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring over 30 Seconds to Mars

I already reported it at WP:AIV and even told this admin and even tried to settle it myself through discussion but this IP has continuously edit warred regardless of the fact that this is fully sourced content and doesn't even have a valid reason to what edits they have been making. Their edits have been continuously reverted (since ysterday and not just by me). There's absolutely nothing I can do, I've tried everything, I'm now at this point leaving the IP address warnings for the disruptive edit wars. -- GunMetal Angel 18:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't care one way or the other, but the IP has made almost no attempt to open a discussion concerning their changes beyond screaming about it on the talk pages of the article in question and then deciding that they'd 'discussed' it. I'm only reverting because he appears to be doing this without consensus. HalfShadow (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

All Music Guide says post grunge and neo prog. if A Beautiful Lie is an emo album, under the heading "Styles" there was written "emo". So, there aren't the sources thay say "30 Seconds to Mars is emo". Please, read the review.--151.49.225.4 (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to thank the IP address for pointing this out, the source that they are referring to is being misinterpreted. Let me explain; the "styles" section are not genres and do not warrant what is written on a Misplaced Pages article's genre section. Either way or another, this still would have "emo" stated, because emo is mentioned at the end of the allmusic review for 30 Seconds to Mars' A Beautiful Lie album. This IP address continuously denies this, and continuously edit wars, I've left this IP address already four warnings and should be blocked. -- GunMetal Angel 18:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

To GunMetal Angel: Please don't use WP:AIV for content disputes. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that's kind of my fault; I wasn't sure exactly where he should being this up. AIV seemed the best place. HalfShadow (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

At this point, on the content dispute, both parties appear to be in a 3RR violation on the page. I've posted warnings to the talk page of both 151.49.225.4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and Gunmetal Angel (talk · contribs). This needs to be resolved on the talk page, not endless reverts. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: A new IP (95.239.182.215 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)), which is demonstrating an interest in the same articles, is now also editing the 30 Seconds to Mars article. A checkuser would be needed to confirm; but the quack test suggests the new IP is being used as a sockpuppet to attempt to circumvent the 3RR warning. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Akuvar & Cold Stone Creamery discussion page

Could some one please interject themselves in the discussion at the Talk:Cold Stone Creamery page. A contributor, Akuvar (talk · contribs), is being obtuse, he has launched into a tirade of personal attacks and will not stop accusing me of vandalizing and adding false information to the article. I have repeatedly tried to explain to him what I did, why I did it, what has previously been to the article by other contributors and what he is doing is wrong and he simply will not stop. He is still a new user with less than 100 edits to his credit, and while I have left notes on his page, including a welcome template, my attempt at explaining my points has come to no avail.

At this point, I am done with him and his refusal to listen to reason; someone else needs to try to get through to him and explain what the proper way to go about doing things is. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You both behave impatiently, but I would hardly say that the level of animosity warrants admin intervention. You have to explain your edits point by point, in separate paragraphs, rather than in a long speech, so that you both see each other's logic. It is next to impossible to negotiate minor details by mising all them into a single paragraph. Item by item, please. Nevertheless, the issue doesn't look like the admin's action. I would suggest you to follow the rules of wikipedia:dispute resolution and concentrate on article content. If you are offended by particular phrasing of the other wikipedian, please say it plainly and briefly to him, what exactly you consider an offense and why. It is quite possible you will receive an apology. - Altenmann >t 21:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I did, the first response was snappy but I explained why I he was mistaken in his assumptions. The second response was a six paragraph breakdown responding to each of his points of contention, telling why I did each thing and describing the reasons behind my edits and their relations to the various policies. I spent a good deal of time on the response, trying to keep the tone more level and giving clear answers that put forth the information as succinctly as possible and my points were still disregarded.

He responded with the same accusations while ignoring my examples and policy links. He is basically stating I rewrote the whole article, filling it with untruths and factually incorrect information. I have even removed said factual errors that were there before my edits and he still accuses me of vandalizing the article. I may have been brusque with him in my first response, but how do you respond to someone who keeps repeating the same false information and ignoring my counter arguments? --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 21:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've given an opinion on the talk page. There are no conduct problems from either side of the dispute except for calling each other uncivil, which isn't necessary. It's a content dispute, that's all. -- Atama頭 02:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Pezzy

Supposedly blocked yesterday. Two declined unblock requests. Keeps editing and gets a new warning. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 21:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Toddst has now indeff'd --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Muntuwandi violating the terms of his probation

In July, the user Muntuwandi was unbanned from Misplaced Pages under the condition that he follow 1RR and avoid engaging in disruptive behavior. However, over the past three weeks he has been violating these conditions, and multiple attempts to resolve this issue with him on his userpage have been futile.

Most of Muntuwandi’s disruptive behavior has been related to the Race and genetics article, and his desire to remove a certain image from it. Each time that he tries to remove it, he’s cited a different Misplaced Pages policy that he claimed it was violating; justification he’s given for removing it include original research, unreliable source material, that it’s “misleading”, and the availability of a better image. He’s also nominated it for deletion at Wikimedia commons based on based on the claim that it violates its source material’s copyright. Since none of these claims from him are rule violations per se, I don’t think it’s necessary to provide diffs for them, but the relevant point is that his desire for this image to be removed is not based on any one specific policy. Each time that one of his efforts to remove it based on a particular policy has failed, he’s begun a new attempt to remove it based on an entirely different policy; I don’t think he disputes this fact.

The important point here is the one reason for removing this image that Muntuwandi has brought up again and again, which is based on a personal attack and nothing else. Muntuwandi has found some of what I’ve written about this topic at a website outside Misplaced Pages, and based on what he’s inferred about my motives from what I’ve written there, he’s come to the conclusion that my motive for editing this article is not acceptable. Several of the times that he’s removed this image from the article, it has been because he dislikes my motives and for no other reason, such as this diff—he did not explain this removal on the basis of anything wrong with the image itself, but only that he believed me to have been intending to push a POV when I added it to the article.

WP:NPA states that in content disputes, arguments for the removal of content should be based on what we think is wrong with the content itself, not based on attacks against the editor who added it. Since Muntuwandi has been arguing for this image’s removal based on my motives for adding it, in some cases to the exclusion of all other reasons, I think this is a pretty clear violation of NPA policy.

Here’s a brief history of Muntuwandi’s use of personal attacks as a justification for this image’s removal:

Oct. 24: (1): “Occam on his talk page and blog has stated that he believes that there is a "biological basis for the concept of race".”

Oct. 25: (2): “On your blog, you state that this image proves that there is a biological basis for race. You have introduced the very image into the article race and genetics. It is pretty clear to me that you are trying to use this image in the article to prove that there is a biological basis for race.”

After the first two examples of this, I warned him on his userpage that this behavior from him was a violation of NPA policy. However, his behavior did not change.

His next personal attack, on October 28th: (3): “Occam stated on his blog that he believes that his image proves that there is a biological basis for race, though the authors of the image make no such proclamation... Occam has been insisting on using this image and he would like the community to pretend that the comments on his blog don't exist.”

At around the same time as this comment, his violated 1RR on the Race and genetics article, with two removals of the image (1) and (2), which were a little less than 21 hours apart. Because of this violation as well as his continued personal attacks, I warned him about this behavior on his userpage a second time.

Here is his latest personal attack, from earlier today: (4): “Naturally I don't expect you to care about such, since the most important thing for you is to show an image that you believe proves the existence of biological races.”

As can be seen from his response to me on his userpage the first time I warned him about this, Muntuwandi has tried to justify these personal attacks based of the fact that I linked to my DeviantArt gallery (it’s not actually a blog, but he can call it that if he wants) in a discussion with someone else in my user talk. However, this is irrelevant to the problem I have with his behavior, because my problem is not that I mind anyone knowing about what I’ve written elsewhere. As I’ve explained to him multiple times, the way in which he’s violating Wikipeda’s policies is by trying to get this image removed by attacking the contributor who added it, rather than the content itself. As pointed out by Misplaced Pages:Tendentious_editing, everybody has a bias, and the fact that any particular editor is biased does not matter as long as their contributions follow Misplaced Pages’s policies. But despite how many times I’ve pointed this out to Muntuwandi, he is continuing attack my motives as a reason why my contributions to this article aren’t acceptable, regardless of whether he can find a policy that my contributions violate or not.

There’s no end to this in sight. Neither of my attempts to resolve this issue with Muntuwandi on his userpage have made any difference, and neither does the fact that of the four editors currently involved in this article, (him, me, Varoon Arya and David.Kane), he is the only one who wants this image removed. His repeated attempts at this, citing a new Misplaced Pages policy after each of his earlier attempts based on another policy has failed, have filled more than half of the article’s total discussion—that is, including all of the archives—which could be considered a disruption even if it weren’t for his violation of 1RR and his repeated personal attacks. I think some admin intervention is necessary at this point. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

User notified per WP:NOTIFY. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, and not the central point, that image is from 1994, and there ought to be a more accurate one available, considering all the work that has been done in the following 15 years on genetics of human populations. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

There might be, but the section of the article that currently includes this image is discussing the research of one specific person--Luigi Cavalli-Sforza--and this image is one of the most frequently-reproduced representations of his results. The current reason for including it is just as an illustration of Cavalli-Sforza's research in particular.

In any case, I'd rather not debate about the content of the article here, since a content dispute wasn't my reason for posting here. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure where to begin so as to add as little to the ]. What Captain Occam fails to mention is:

• Captain Occam has been reverted on this by several other editors. One of the main objections (raised by at least 4 editors that I'm aware) was that the graph was not taken from Cavalli-Sforza, but from Jensen, who has been criticized for misinterpreting Cavalli-Sforza's results for his own ends.
• Muntuwandi in his objections has always relied on content policies (he's cited more than one, true) and not on Captain Occam's words on his own site.
• I fail to see how most of Muntuwandi's observations can be construed as personal attacks (personal attack = "you're an idiot" or something similar), although I can understand that Muntuwandi's guessing about Captain Occam's motives may have irritated him.
• Captain Occam's behavior, both on that page and on Race and Intelligence, has in fact benn called tendentious editing in its own right.

In conclusion, all I see here is basically a bitter content dispute, and little in the way of sanctionable behaviour. I'd say let the drama end here and point this dispute back to its talk page where it belongs.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of raising this issue at ANI as well. To start with, there is an essay at WP:TLDR regarding long threads. There has been a recent surge in editing activity on a number of race related articles. Much this recent activity can be accounted for Captain Occam's edit, which at present are consistent with WP:SPA. Captain Occam made this image file:populations.png, and uploaded it to the article Race and genetics. Captain Occam also placed a link on his talk to his personal blog in which Captain Occam states about the image

This image can be considered a visual representation of my argument against the claim that there’s no biological basis for the concept of race, which is a popular belief among sociologists.

It is not unreasonable to think that Captain Occam is insisting on using this image, because he believes that "it proves that there is a biological basis for race" as stated on his blog. I have therefore suggested that Captain Occam may be violating WP:NPOV by WP:ADVOCACY. This is because the author of the original image, Cavalli-Sforza, stated that this image should not be interpreted "racially". Captain Occam's racial interpretation of this image is his own original thought and personal opinion, and it would appear that he is trying to use this image as a way to skillfully advocate his opinion on wikipedia. Wapondaponda (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ramdrake, I’m not sure why you’re getting involved in this issue, since you’re no longer participating in the discussion about this article. Probably because of your unfamiliarity with it, most of what you’re claiming here is simply false.

“Captain Occam has been reverted on this by several other editors. One of the main objections (raised by at least 4 editors that I'm aware) was that the graph was not taken from Cavalli-Sforza, but from Jensen, who has been criticized for misinterpreting Cavalli-Sforza's results for his own ends.”

Not anymore, it isn’t. When this objection to the image was raised originally, I found Cavalli-Sforza’s original study online, modified the image to be based on the original source material, and cited it to Cavalli-Sforza rather than Jensen. It no longer uses any information from Jensen and is no longer cited to him, and this has been pointed out on the article talk page. After I fixed this problem, Muntuwandi was the only editor who continued trying to get this image removed.

“Muntuwandi in his objections has always relied on content policies (he's cited more than one, true) and not on Captain Occam's words on his own site.”

If you look at the diffs I’ve linked to, as well as the explanations Muntuwandi has provided in his edits themselves, you’ll see that this is false also. Several of the times that he removed this image, my motives for adding it were the only justification he provided.

“I fail to see how most of Muntuwandi's observations can be construed as personal attacks (personal attack = "you're an idiot" or something similar), although I can understand that Muntuwandi's guessing about Captain Occam's motives may have irritated him.”

Actually, Muntuwand’s behavior is a perfect example of the description of an “ad hominem” attack at WP:NPA.

“Captain Occam's behavior, both on that page and on Race and Intelligence, has in fact benn called tendentious editing in its own right.”

Yes, primarily by you and Muntuwandi, and several other users have said the same thing about you. Let’s not distract the administrators by bringing up irrelevant issues here.

Muntuwandi: continuing your personal attack in this thread is probably not the best way to defend yourself here. Everything you’re saying here has not only been addressed, but is a further example of what I’m talking about. But just to summarize:

The current discussion about this image is whether, as an illustration of Cavalli-Sforza’s results, it belongs in the section of the article describing Cavalli-Sforza’s research in this area. The image does not mention race, and neither does the section of the article which includes it. For this reason, the image is being used in a way that is consistent with how its author intended it.

However, whether there is anything wrong with the actual content of the article does not appear to matter to you, because you believe that my motives are unacceptable, even if there’s nothing wrong with my edits themselves. You are supposed to criticize edits on the basis of the edits themselves, not the motives of the editors who made them. This has been pointed out to you multiple times, but each time you ignore it. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

User Mutuwandi has clearly broken his 1RR condition by repeated removing the graph. Off2riorob (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is a semi-formal community, one cannot make comments off-wiki and expect wikipedians to switch off and pretend that those comments were not made, especially if they relate to a wikipedia article. I have cited many policy issues regarding the image but this has mainly because Occam has shown little interest in the surrounding text and the article in general, which I believe is consistent with WP:ADVOCACY. Apart from introducing the image, Occam has made no effort whatsoever at integrating the image with the surrounding text, as a result the image improperly sourced. The image is from one publication, History and Geography of Human Genes and the surrounding text is from another, Genes Peoples and Lanuguages. Simply inserting an image from one publication into text based on another creates WP:SYNTH issues. I have removed the image for this reason. I have further stated that if indeed Occam had good faith intentions with using the image, then he or Aryaman, should write up text that is consistent with the source of the image and include it in the article. Occam or Aryaman have yet to do so but are claiming that I am edit warring when I have suggested what I believe, and hope others will too, is a reasonable compromise that an editor acting in good faith would definitely consider. Wapondaponda (talk) 00:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, this isn’t the place for a content dispute. It also isn’t the place for making allegations against me that aren’t relevant to the topic of this report—although your claim about what contributions I’ve made to this article is false, I also know that debating about this will only serve to distract the administrators from the topic of this report. What this thread is about is your personal attacks and your violation of 1RR.

Once again: I am not expecting anyone to pretend that my comments elsewhere were not made. What I am expecting, as I have explained both on your userpage and on the article talk page, is for you to only point out problems with the content of the article itself, rather than with the editors who added it.

Claiming that the article has synthesis issues is acceptable, although Varoon Arya has addressed this point the previous time you made it, and I suppose we can discuss this issue on the article talk page after this report is resolved, if the resolution doesn’t involve your ban being reinstated. But you’ve already made it clear that the reason you keep searching for new policies that you think this image violates is because you don’t approve of my motives for adding it. That’s the one point that you won’t stop bringing up, and as such it’s what I’d like to discuss here. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Muntuwandi has removed this image, which was added on July 4th with (as far as I can tell from the history) no negative response from any of the other involved editors, at least 5 times:

• October 16 () with the edit summary: "image meant to push a POV".
• October 24 () with the edit summary: "removed misleading image"
• October 27 () with the edit summary: " caption says "one of eight genetic groups to which all human populations belong", not what Cavalli-Sforza says"
• October 28 () with the edit summary: "replaced image with dendograms related to genetic distance matrix"
• November 1 () with the edit summary: "some reorganization especially human genetic variation"

Muntuwandi is fully aware that his/her actions are considered unwarranted by at least three other editors, and yet persists in removing the image with the apparent approval of one other editor (who has also removed the image at least 3 times (, , ). The reasons Muntuwandi provided for his/her actions changed every time s/he removed the image, and even when Occam made efforts to satisfy his/her concerns, Muntuwandi persisted in having the image removed.

I tried to diffuse the situation by suggesting a compromise between Muntuwandi and Occam in the form of an entirely new image, and began trying to discuss the issue with Muntuwandi in a rational manner. Just when the discussion seemed to be moving in a positive direction, Muntuwandi performed this edit, which not only removed the image yet again, but which also made substantial unilateral changes to the very section under discussion. Now he refuses a compromise, and instead insists that his preferred text and image be presented along side what other editors are proposing.

I was only recently made aware of the fact that Muntuwandi was formerly User:Earl J. Redneck III and was banned for disruptive behavior. I have tried hard to help resolve this dispute, but I find Muntuwandi unreasonable on this point. --Aryaman (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that you have cherry picked your diffs

• Image removed on 22 October by Ramdrake
• Image removed on 25 October by Wobble
• Image removed on 25 October by Ramdrake

So please don't give the impression that I have been unilaterally removing the image, or that there is near unanimous support for the image. I am no saint, but Aryaman is not exactly a saint either. I have seen some grumblings from other editors about Varoon Arya and Civil POV pushing . His introduction on his user page is quite provocative. I believe he is entitled to his own opinion, but one wonders whether he can be neutral party in a dispute. Wapondaponda (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, a prime example of Muntuwandi's weird style of argumentation. This incident report is about Muntuwandi's behavior, not about the article, and not even about the image. I limited my comments to the appropriate scope accordingly, but he criticizes me for "cherry-picking" my diffs, ignoring the fact that such a thing in this context is expected. And what does my personal opinion on another, tangentially related topic have to do with Muntuwandi's behavior? Only Muntuwandi knows. --Aryaman (talk) 01:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, I think it’s worth pointing out that since October 26th—that is, for the past week—you have been the only person who’s continued to remove this image. You’re removed it a total of three times since then; this can be seen from the last three diffs that Aryaman posted, as well as the article’s edit history. You may not be the only editor who had issues with this image at first, but now that I’ve addressed some of the concerns that were originally raised about it, it appears that at this point you really are the only editor who still wants to remove it. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just noticed that no decision was ever made in response to this report from September about Muntuwandi edit warring on another article. Since that report apparently remains open, I encourage administrators to consider it in addition to this one in whatever decision they make. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's make this easy for you...

You're both edit warring over the image. I don't care to delve into correctness of the content issue.

Rather than pick one of you as "at fault" here I am simply imposing the following - you are both on 0RR (may not revert, in any way) on the article Race and Genetics, for the next month (as you've been doing this for at least that long so far). You both should have known better than to do this, and could have handled it in another nonconfrontational manner. Both of you are playing the abusive edits game - and you're both on time out.

If you can edit the article without reverting anyone over the next month, feel free. I don't see any sign you're being disruptive other than with the edit warring. But revert and be blocked.

Cc'ed at ANI, User talk:Captain Occam, and User talk:Muntuwandi Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and:

WHACK!

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi George, I understand that you have tried to create an "easy solution" to the crisis. But I have to disagree because this is not an necessarily an "easy problem". Captain Occam has been described by other editors as clearly "belligerent". He has already racked up two blocks for edit warring within the last month per his block log. He has openly asserted that he will engage in edit warring and he has also stated that he intends not to engage in consensus building with myself because there is no need since I am on a 1RR probation, he will simply revert my edits . Per his blog, Captain Occam has stated on his blog that he has a particular point of view, and that he intends to advocate it on Misplaced Pages. I have no demonstrable point of view regarding this article and I am simply interested in improving it. I don't know whether removing the image 5 times over a period of about 3 weeks is intense edit warring, I recall Occam having made about 10 reverts in a single day. My removal of the image may in fact help to improve the article. Occam stated on his blog that he hadn't read the original paper in which the image was published, stating Since I haven’t read Cavalli-Sforza’s original paper, this image is based mostly on Arthur Jensen’s analysis of Cavalli-Sforza’s results in The g Factor. After others had pointed out that Jensen is not a specialist in genetics, the general consensus was that the image could easily be misrepresented. Since then Occam has said he has read Cavalli-Sforza original paper and changed the sourcing from Jensen to Cavalli-Sforza. Lastly I have not said that I oppose the images that Aryaman and Occam propose under all circumstances. I have suggested that they can use their image if the cited correctly WP:Citing sources and if they avoid WP:SYNTH by not combining information from several different sources, all of which are Misplaced Pages guidelines. All this is on Talk:Race and genetics. Should I therefore have restrictions placed upon me for following wikipedia's guidelines to try to improve the article. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Man, what’s the point in even responding to you about this anymore? Apart from the things you’re saying that are completely irrelevant (such as my content in unrelated articles), it’s been explained why the rest of what you’re saying here is false in this thread. But you aren’t attempting to address my or Varoon Arya’s explanations of what’s wrong with your claims about this, or why these kinds of personal attacks don’t belong on Misplaced Pages at all; you’re just repeating them.

What will it accomplish if I explain all of this again? This has been explained to you so many times before that I don’t think it will change very much as far as your behavior is concerned. And it will make the discussion even longer, and confuse the administrators into assuming my report is about topics that have nothing to do with what I wanted to discuss here. Your use of this tactic so far has already apparently made this topic look like it was about a content dispute, despite my efforts to avoid that, so I suppose this is working.

There is one thing you’ve said here that I simply can’t ignore, though: “Per his blog, Captain Occam has stated on his blog that he has a particular point of view, and that he intends to advocate it on Misplaced Pages.”

That’s a pretty serious accusation, but it should be easy for you to support if it’s true. If I’ve specifically said not only that hold this viewpoint, but that I actually intend to engage in WP:ADVOCACY about it, it should be easy for you to provide a quote in which I said that. If you can’t, then you’re in direct violation of this part of WP:NPA:

What is considered to be a personal attack?

Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Sometimes evidence is kept private and made available to trusted users.

But you wouldn’t be violating that policy, now would you? --Captain Occam (talk) 06:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don’t think this is the best decision. The relevant point here wasn’t the edit warring; it was that Muntuwandi was violating the 1RR that he had been placed under when he was unbanned. Since I didn’t have this restriction, the fact that I was reverting this article as often as he was shouldn’t have been the same type of problem in my own case.

This isn’t a content issue, and I’ve been trying to avoid the content disputes that other editors have been bringing up in this thread. It’s just an issue of whether Muntuwandi’s conduct has been violating the terms of his probation.

The fact that he’s been making personal attacks isn’t a content issue either, and that was the most important issue I wanted to resolve here, since both of my attempts to resolve it on his userpage have been unsuccessful. Is no one going to respond to this aspect of my report? --Captain Occam (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You are both misbehaving in a very public manner and place. The fate of editors who do that is usually short and unfortunate. Would you both please accept the Trout of Shame and knock it off, before I or another admin takes sterner action? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Suspected Bambifan sock

Please see Scratte Lover (talk · contribs), I'm not quite sure this fits the exact pattern however it does seem suspicious. Triplestop x3 22:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Not an admin, but I'm curious as to how exactly you can discern a pattern from two mainspace edits, one of which was reverted and marked wrongly as vandalism, and one which appears to have simply been a name correction and can be easily verified (I know IMDB doesn't qualify as WP:RS, but I checked it there...and the edit was accurate). I'm going to ask that an admin close this as no issue. Also, I've left a note at the talk page of the user who marked this user's first edit as vandalism about "biting" newcomers, and asking for an explanation about why they marked that edit as vandalism. Frmatt (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Nothing biting about it. Pure vandalism. Either from Bambifan, or the pain in the butt sequel vandal who has repeatedly thrown a ton of fake and incorrect sequel claims on a ton of these b-movie articles. As noted below, I suspect more Bambifan just trying to be annoying. Further reply on my talk page. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

There is already a new SPI checkuser being done. That one I'm less sure of if he is Bambifan or the sequel vandal User:A4d49f4a, but from his creating Scatte and his name, I'm inclined towards the former. Unfortunately, one of Bambifan's fun ways to try to get my attention is repeating another vandals vandalism. The CU will help clear which it is. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the bad grammar fits BF101's pattern well as well. Triplestop x3 00:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

On a semi-related note, Pe De Chinelo is back, too. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have left an apology for User:Collectonian on their talk page because I didn't notify them that I mentioned them here. Frmatt (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

So that's his name!!! He's been driving us nuts at Green Mile and Shawshank too! Already had like 2 IPs blocked today-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I left a note at User_talk:Tiptoety. He/she's been good at swatting all the socks. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 00:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think Tiptoety has retired; he last edited in August. -- Soap /_{Contributions} 02:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

To Frmatt - It's amazing how easily some administrators can identify a sockpuppet after they've blocked so many of them in the past. I suppose that when you see so many of them what may not be apparent to people like us would be obvious to them. -- Atama頭 02:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Socialist Alternative (Australia) and IP conduct in relation to the inclusion of office holders in Student Unions.

User:118.138.192.123 has been slow edit warring on Socialist Alternative (Australia) over the inclusion, or non-inclusion, of various student union office bearers. The problem isn't the content dispute; but, rather, that the IP has stated they will continue removal, and has ignored Talk: and User talk: discussions on the point, and warnings. What do you do with an otherwise well behaved IP who has a bee in their bonnet and won't discuss?

Discussion attempts: Talk:Socialist_Alternative_(Australia)#Notability_of_current_members User talk discussion attempts and warnings to discuss: User_talk:118.138.192.123 Example of stated willingness to continue without discussion: User_talk:Fifelfoo#Re:_Socialist_Alternative Edit history of nine reversions without discussion since September: Special:Contributions/118.138.192.123

Advice, help? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment from a non-admin: Misplaced Pages:Notability_(people)#Lists_of_people does not specifically mention student union office bearers. It mentions alumni, but says that "only those with verifiable notability" should be listed. It also says "On the other hand, a list within an article of past school presidents can contain all past presidents, not just those who are independently notable" - but whether this would include Student Union office bearers is debateable. My take on this would be that Union Office bearers should only be included if the appointment is for more than a year. Some offices are for a few years, others for one year. I would say that any President/VP/General Secretary could possibly be considered notable, whereas "Education Officer", "Welfare Officers" and the like would not be. But that is merely my take on this - the policy does not appear to be clear-cut in this particular case, so I would be interested in what admins would say. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 01:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

  Hi Steve, I don't know if you know the Australian union systems, but usually the President, General Secretary and Education officer (due to disposable budget) are significant local positions. VPs tend to be sinecures in non-militant student unions (cough cough). The other context is that Australia's relatively unitary student unions system means that holding local yearly positions influences the weight a faction exerts on the National Union of Students (Australia). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks for that, Fifelfoo - but as I said, I'm not an admin! I'd be interested in seeing what an admin will have to say about this though - this is a learning opportunity for me to get to know policy better. Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 02:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Whatiswrongwithwiki problematic edits

Somebody needs to take a look at the edits by Whatiswrongwithwiki (talk · contribs). Already warned about vandalism, they've added to their User page that they originally intended to use the account for vandalism, but changed their mind, but the edits they've made since them are pretty problematic. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The edits i made were to erase vandalism. I clearly stated that in my edit reports, and my user page was a joke. I consider this a personal attack, an very much against wiki love. Whatiswrongwithwiki (talk) 00:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The edits you made were to erase your own vandalism, which was made after the edit to your User page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. But still, i erased the vandalism, an if i was serious, the vandalisms not only would have stayed, but went un-noticed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatiswrongwithwiki (talk • contribs) 01:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

QED. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I dont think a block is deserving yet, however I would advise Whatiswrongwithwiki to change they'r username per WP:USERNAME. And remember WP:AGF Lets see it the pattern of vandalism continues.--Coldplay Expert 01:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a block, yet, but what good faith am I supposed to assume when they explicity say they came here to vandalism, and then proceed to vandalize? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but what does QED mean? Whatiswrongwithwiki (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Q.E.D.. Bencherlite 01:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for defending me, coldplay expert. I have already filed for a name change. Whatiswrongwithwiki (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Its Coldplay Expert not that it really matters but... Well anyway I hope that you will live up to your promise and I must warn you that some editors will watch you for a while.--Coldplay Expert 01:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. I will. I will stick to my areas of expertise, and i have sent Who then was a gentleman? a peace pipe. I will send a Cheezburgr to you too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatiswrongwithwiki (talk • contribs) 01:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You said "if i was serious, the vandalisms not only would have stayed"; so the vandalism was a joke, was it? Please make sure that there will be no more "jokes" of that type. You can't expect people to assume good faith with you when you edit like that, whatever your intentions are. ≈ Chamal  ¤ 01:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

understood. Whatiswrongwithwiki (talk) 01:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Severe Wikihounding and Disruptive Editing by Arthur Rubin

I first crossed paths with Arthur Rubin on October 30th while making my first ever edit to the page on New World Order Conspiracy Theory at 19:00 Oct 30 Diff1. My attempted contribution was simply to add an entry to the book list, Windswept House, and this included a wiki link to the book title as well as the ISBN number, and I left an edit summary that reads, "addition of one of the most well-known and important books on this topic that is strangely absent." A mere four minutes later at 19:04 on Oct 30, Arthur Rubin reverted my edit, and rather than asking for more information (which I would have been happy to provide) or stating a valid reason, he identified it as vandalism, and marked his revert as a "minor edit", Diff2. A mere three minutes after this at 19:07, Arthur Rubin visited the page on "faction (literature)" and reverted a change I made, a page where he had again no previous editing experience faction (literature) Diff3. I had changed the page on "faction" to redirect to the page on "roman a clef" because I believe the literary device of faction is equivalent to that used in a roman a clef and the second page was more developed, with "roman a clef" being the much more well-known term. Arthur Rubin notated his edit summary, identifying it as vandalism and marking it as a "minor edit." A mere one minute after this at 19:08, Arthur Rubin did a batch reversion of my contributions at the "roman à clef" page, another page where Arthur Rubin had no previous editing experience Diff4. He removed the aforementioned book from the book list, and removed the term "faction" that I had added to the page as a related term. Rather than give reasons for his edits or requesting talk on the discussion page, he marked his reversions as "minor edits" and identified my contributions as "vandalism" in the edit summary. A mere one minute after this at 19:09, Arthur Rubin did a batch reversion of edits I made to a recently created and rather undeveloped Wiki page for Windswept House, a page where Arthur Rubin again had no previous editing contribution Diff5. His edit summary stated that, "Changes appear not to be helpful." For example, one these changes I made was a conspicuous correction of a spelling error for a character in the book, "Maestroianni". Another change I made that he deleted was a switch of the descriptor of "Irish writer" for the author and substitution of "Catholic priest", since he was actually a U.S. citizen and lived and did all of his writing in the U.S. during the last 35 years of his life, and this "roman a clef" book was about the Catholic Church's role in a New World Order Conspiracy. He made no other edits to the page except to revert "my" contributions.

I'd like to point out the timespan over which all of the above occurred. It occurred apparently over a span of around 9 minutes. I posted a simple addition of a book to a list on the New World Order Conspiracy page, not exactly something that should cause alarm, and over the course of the next nine minutes, Arthur Rubin not only reverted this edit and labelled it as vandalism, but hounded me by visiting multiple other pages I had contributed to where he had no previous editing experience and did batch reversions of my contributions calling them also vandalism or "not helpful", even if it included the fixing of spelling errors.

I did make limited attempts to undo the reverts that Arthur Rubin made to most of my edits, as can be seen in the history of the aforementioned pages after October 30. For convenience, my attempts to undo his reverts can be seen on one screen at my user contribution page. If you take a look at the history page for faction (literature), you can see where Arthur Rubin initially reverted my edit and labelled it as vandalism. This was followed by my undo of his revert with an explanation to him that it wasn't vandalism coupled with a request for him to open discussion on the talk page if he had other reasons to revert my edit. Rather than do this, Arthur Rubin again reverted, and again labelled it as "vandalism" calling his revert a "minor edit." When reverts are labelled as "minor edits" for vandalism, I believe this keeps other editors from bothering to investigate when they have pages in their watch list.

I have made efforts to reconcile this directly with Arthur Rubin on his talk page, and also included multiple warnings in edit summaries as can be seen in my contribution page after October 30. Despite this, Arthur Rubin continues to block and frustrate any attempted contribution I try to make to any page, and he'll make successive excuses to keep me from contributing to any page. If you look at the history page for roman à clef, you'll note that Arthur Rubin made three reverts of my contributions that included my inclusion of the book "Windswept House" to the list of roman à clef books. The first time he called it vandalism(1). The second time he called "Windswept House" a "film" even though it's a book, and this was after he reverted multiple edits of mine on the Misplaced Pages page for this book (2)! The third time, on November 2, he took out the book again and noted in his edit summary that, "still NOT notable."

After all this, Arthur Rubin also posted warnings to my talk page telling me I was coming close to violating the 3RR rule. Notice of this complaint has been posted to Arthur Rubin's talk page. MeSoStupid (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be more impressive if you had made a correct, constructive, edit. Perhaps we could have a discussion on the relevant talk page, noting that WP:BRD suggestion you should not reinsert your preferred version until you obtain consensus. Windswept House is not very notable, whatever medium it's in, and is clearly not appropriate to any New World Order article. Whether Windswept House fits Roman a clef and/or faction is a separate question, but it's not particularly relevant to either article.

It might be noted that your addition of Windswept House to New World Order (conspiracy theory) was removed by two or three established editors.

Some of your edits to Windswept House may have been appropriate, but it seems clear that none of your other edits in the field have been appropriate. To the extent that your edits were corrections of errors in fact, I apologize for reverting them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have previously suggested to Arthur Rubin that the use of the word "vandalism" in edit summaries and reversions for edits that are not clear vandalism is more harmful than helpful. I'm disappointed to see that it continues.

(I'd also suggest to User:MeSoStupid that his concerns are more likely to be addressed if they're described a bit more concisely. :) ) kmccoy (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What kmccoy said. I also happened to notice Rubin's rather inflammatory blanket use of the term 'vandalism' in edit summaries, and have left a message with a few diffs where I hope he can see for himself that he's been using the term inappropriately although the underlying edit may be supported by one of our policies and guidelines. Ohconfucius 04:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel no need to post a rejoinder to Arthur Rubin's response. I'd only like stress that I believe my particular case extends beyond inappropriate use of tagging good faith edits as vandalism, and into the realm of Wikihounding and Disruptive editing. MeSoStupid (talk) 04:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I can see why you as a new user might be taking it personally, but what he did is not hounding or disruptive so far. Please focus on editing - if you make good content edits nobody will be bothering you about it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. In my opinion, it's a clear case of Wikihounding, and the core summary of my complaint as to this can be found in the second paragraph of my original complaint, with the tedious details and proof noted above and below this. Thanks. MeSoStupid (talk) 05:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I respect how you feel about this, but as I said, I don't think his actions rise to that level. Could he have handled this better? Sure. But it's not the sort of thing we typically sanction anyone for.

You have had feedback on the issues with your edits, and I think that you can succeed at editing articles going forwards if you listen to the good advise above and try to focus on content. That's what the encyclopedia is all about, after all. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hernando de Soto

Could we get a semi-protect for this page? Not sure whats going on, maybe he's in someones school project or something, but there has been a pretty fair amount of ip vandalism lately, just look at the history. Thanks in advance. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You need to make your request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 02:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 02:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Wreid

Hi. Wondering if someone could look at the edits by User:Wreid. There has been admission of some kind of off-wiki dispute between him and Alexander Halavais (who edits as User:Halavais, and they had an edit war recently that has seemed to calm down. However, Wreid seems to have taken interest in Halavais's article (which I fear might be a COI), and also went so far as to include critical commentary about Halavais at Criticism of Misplaced Pages. I feel this most recent edit is quite problematic, and that their off-wiki conflict is spilling into this space. Thx. 130.132.143.49 (talk) 02:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Wreid has been notified of this thread. Basket of Puppies 02:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I tried my best to deal with this when it was on my talk page (section). I told both Halavais and Wried to stop editing articles related to their field (internet studies), but both of the users did not take my advice. However, Halavis made suggnifigant improvements to the article Internet Studies, in the process adding a wikilink to his Center's wikipedia page. I felt that the wikilink was a good compromise to the external link that they both appeared to be debating. Tim1357 (talk) 02:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Terror threats

122.104.198.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) at Talk:Barack_Obama. Dr.K. _logos 03:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a clear terror threat, bust out the hammer.--SKATER 03:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Got it. This kind of thing can go to AIV in the future. — Jake Wartenberg 03:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought he had to get a level 4 for that. Thanks for the tip anyway. Dr.K. _logos 03:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh my. What is the thing to do in cases like this, other than revert? Basket of Puppies 03:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Not resolved just yet. Some admin, please expunge this item from the history, as was done with a similar threat a day or two ago that was posted in the OBL page's history. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Gonna need a steward for that one. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Needs not a steward, but Oversight. Beyond the reach of admins because the page is too large. Needs an oversighter since the devs seem to be sitting on bugzilla:21165. — Jake Wartenberg 03:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Revdeleted an Oversighter. — Jake Wartenberg 04:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Rangeblock for University of Maryland vandal?

For the last six months, an IP user from the University of Maryland, College Park (UMD) has been vandalizing articles, primarily inserting defamatory information about Misplaced Pages users. We block the user's UMD IP address, and then they show up again at a different UMD IP. Most recently, they were blocked at 128.8.73.83. This user has abused their user talk page when blocked, impersonating UMD staff in their unblock requests. A sampling of this user's work:

Selected contributions histories:

• Special:Contributions/128.8.193.130
• Special:Contributions/128.8.73.77
• Special:Contributions/128.8.73.61
• Special:Contributions/128.8.73.76
• Special:Contributions/128.8.73.72

User talk page abuse (impersonating UMD staff):

• User talk:128.8.79.2
• User talk:128.8.193.115

I've discussed this matter with Mentifisto at User talk:Mentifisto#UMD vandal, and with Arjun01 at User talk:Arjun01#128.8.73.83. The discussion with Mentifisto included an opinion about notifying UMD of the abuse (which I haven't done, since this seems better handled in-house), and then Arjun01 suggested a rangeblock. I was a little wary of rangeblocking because it would affect a large chunk of innocent users, but considering that legitimate users could still request accounts and log in through the block, I've warmed to the idea. What do others think? SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Rangeblock them and notify UMD, providing diffs of each abusive edit so that they may be able to discipline the wayward student. -Jeremy 05:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Legal Threat

Noticed this from a Wikiquette thread. User:190.25.80.226 has made legal threats (claims he is being discriminated against) on Talk:Involuntary_euthanasia. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 05:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Which specific edit are you referring too? It would help a lot if you provided a diff. Chillum 05:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried to get a diff, but the user makes many edits in succession, and I can't yet find it. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 05:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Got it. . ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 05:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a description of the "Euthanasia is murder" multiple IP spree disruption incident up a few incidents. I have blocked this IP for 48 hrs. Please block any more IPs participating in this as well.

If they won't slow down generating new IPs, consider rangeblocks and/or semiprotection of pages. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive/warring editor (and perhapsdefinitely blockable on that alone), but not legal threat IMO. DMacks (talk) 05:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Tweaked after looking at previous discussion of this edit pattern. DMacks (talk) 05:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Disruption and whining, but I don't see a legal threat there. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've protected the article for two weeks. Hopefully the block works, but he jumps IPs pretty often. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Why you protected the article? why you blocked me? It was not a legal threat, even the user who asked if that was a threat realized it was not a threat, that happened more than two hours ago, the thing was resolved and we continued discussing the article content!!! Now you blocked me saying that I was editing warring, but since we were discussing in the talk page two hours ago, I made no editions to the article. Should I think that this is a way to avoid the discussion because a lack of arguments and sources? 190.25.110.56 (talk) 05:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

¿Cómo se dice "disruptive" en español? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"...The Committee is well aware that the new Act does not as such decriminalize euthanasia and assisted suicide...The new Act contains, however, a number of conditions under which the physician is not punishable when he or she terminates the life of a person"

And involuntary euthanasia is defined as a crime, be it as a murder be it as a assited suicide, that is a legal fact, why do you think it is disruptive and a pretext to block me??? see the source. Actually we were not discussing if that was true but if it was pertinent to include that information on the article and where. 190.25.110.56 (talk) 05:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not what it says in the quote box you posted. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

To the anon - we will block any IP you use in this series of edits and protect any page, until you agree to stop vandalizing and inserting your own point of view into articles rather than relying on published sources, and agree to not use wikipedia to fight your external political or social battles.

What you are doing here is a gross violation of why Misplaced Pages exists and is offensive to our core goals and purpose of existence. Please stop. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Then what is the source saying? it is an example of the Netherlands, and says that euthanasia has not be decriminalized, it means it is still a crime. And I refered to the Netherlands because it is the only country were the involuntary euthanasia on new born has beeen declared not punishable and you can read that the definition of involuntary euthanasia in this wikipedia refers to that specific case!!!. 190.25.106.87 (talk) 06:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Stop this. We can block the entire IP range you're coming from if need be, and protect this page if necessary, along with all the others you're contributing to. You're being unspeakably rude to us by behaving in this manner. Stop now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Instead discussing the thing you are just blocking me. Even although I'm not editing the article, and eventhough I'm providing the reliable sources and arguments anyone asks for. I'm just inviting you to the discuss page. Let us continue in the talk page of the article instead of threating with blocks. When you arrived with your blocks we were already discussing the thing there, and I was trying to reach a consensus, for example, I was asking and waiting for a reliable source which demonstrates that the legal definition of involuntary euthanasia is NOT relevant to define it as whole. Now I will also wait for a reliable source showing that involuntary euthanasia is not a crime in some country on the world. Asking for those sources is a violation of the wikipedia policies? 190.25.110.182 (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Your contributions to date, and your approach to "discussing this", have been unspeakably rude and abusive by Misplaced Pages standards. If you do not stop this behavior we will stop you by blocking anonymous editing on the pages you're discussing on and if necessary blocking the IP ranges you are editing from temporarily.

Please believe me when I say that both:

• Your behavior has been unacceptable over the last day or so.
• We can stop you, and we will if you do not stop behaving badly.

If you actually intend to discuss this in a reasonable manner and in the appropriate places we will not do either of those things. But your comments so far have been grossly unacceptable. Please stop that behavior rather than force us to stop you. What you have done is grossly counterproductive. If you actually care about the topic and point you are trying to make, please look back at your behavior and think about it, and then change that behavior.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm just waiting for the sources and the arguments. You are the one accusing, threating and blocking. If you think you are right, it is not my ethical problem. Three hours ago when I was warned and invited to discuss in the talk page instead of editing, I understood the right proceeding, I went to discuss the thing and I stopped editing, and anyone can see that we were discussing, in fact I was waiting for the answers to my questions, until you arrived blocking me and the pages. 190.25.98.152 (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

*sigh*

• Folks, I would like to begin by apologizing to anyone who has been reading this noticeboard of late for what I am about to do, but here it is nonetheless: User:Malleus Fatuorum, apparently unsatisfied with amount of drama that came of his issues with certain editors suggesting they might be "on acid, " came by my talk page today to poke me with a stick as well . I gave a very brief response which I felt made it clear that we did not see the situation in the same light . Then he proceeded to edit war with me over the content of my talk page:and the last time going back to the tired drug related accusations in the edit sumarry . This is sooo lame. That is all I have to say on the matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Don'cha love it when other editors conduct a fight on your talk page? There's an important point to be considered, though. This is the second time in recent memory that an admin has made some stupid comment about being under the influence of something and as a result all hell broke loose. Some weeks or months ago it was an admin claiming he mistakenly indef'd a user because he was drunk. And then this recent stuff about an admin being on LSD or something. Comments like that guarantee a firestorm of uncivil yet theoretically justifiable remarks. Admins need to try to keep their personal lives out of the discussion. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but edit-warring on someones's talkpage in a manner that can only be described as trolling isn't helping either. Soxwon (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

For sure. And Beeblebrox could have protected his talk page if necessary, but sometimes it's better to let the trolls combatants run their course. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me put my foot down on that point. Calling someone who is genuinely working for the betterment of Misplaced Pages a troll is a personal attack, and not OK. Even if you see someone who is a longtime editor do something like that, please do not personalize it in that manner. When used in behavioral or content disputes where neither side is being intentionally provocative or disruptive it just lowers the conversation level and makes it harder for anyone to resolve it or let it go.

That said - Malleus earns himself a civility warning for the sequence. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me ask a totally ignorant question, which is one thing I know how to do: What practical effect does a civility warning, or any kind of warning, have on anything? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The above was a fair question. Where does Basket of Puppies get off deleting my comments here, including reverting my striking of my uncivil comment about trolls? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

To answer the question:

1. Civility warnings are a mirror held up to your behavior. Sometimes people look at their own behavior and change it. That's the goal.
2. If they do not, the warning serves the same purpose as other behavioral warnings do - put it on the record, and if the behavior continues past multiple warnings, leads to a block.

There's no template for civility warnings because they're impersonal, which is the exact opposite of what we want to do with civility warnings (hold up the mirror and ask people to be reasonable and human and adult). See Misplaced Pages:Civility warnings - my essay on this point. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the second point would be far more effective if users weren't allowed to delete them. Currently the only restriction is that they can't delete their own unblock notices while they're blocked. Otherwise, anyone looking for such warnings would have to look through the history. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Not quite 3RR

Could we get some more eyes on Thomas Suozzi? There appears to be some concerted vandalism in the last couple days by at least two users who reverted right up to 3RR (but didn't technically break it...yet), as well as some vandalism by some IPs. I know that this isn't the greatest place, and a request has been put in at AIV and an RFPP will be put in shortly, but some more eyes would be helpful. Thanks! Frmatt (talk) 06:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The RFPP was declined, but there is now a third user making the exact same edits to this article, all three of them appear to be single-purpose accounts, specifically to vandalize this particular article. Frmatt (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, taken care of...ignore this section! Frmatt (talk) 06:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Note. Sockpuppetry by Lemonyellowsun (talk · contribs) has gone underway to violate 3RR and I've filed a report at WP:SPI, if there are any interested uninvolved admins to issue blocks quickly. — ξ 06:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards