Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:19, 6 December 2010

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation

More eyes please.

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#More_eyes_please.

I dunno if this would necessarily be considered an "incident", but since YMMV, and imho, more eyes is almost always a good thing, I thought I'd note it here as well. - jc37

Very Important Business

NW (Talk) 15:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• • You need to make those buttons a little larger, as my eyesight ain't what it used to be. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Not really an incident, though, is it? ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 15:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate the buttons, "um"? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• One down. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This button leads not to specific articles, but to random articles tagged unreferenced BLP, which is not a bad idea. Of the first two I checked, one had been referenced since Feb 20, 2009, with links to published reviews,and should never have been marked unreferenced. (Whether the reviews offer sufficient extensive and reliable coverage to support notability might be another matter); The second can be referenced easily from GNews (though whether they actually support sufficient notability is another matter also)--perhaps the note was placed here to indicate the excessiveness of the fuss over these articles. DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to add a "Source a BLP" link to the sidebar, perhaps just under "Random article"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

BMK, I like that idea. And I'm pleased to say that Halid Muslimović is also removed from that category. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Or can this be made into a templated button, for interested user to transclude on their pages? Jclemens (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. It's also defaulting me back to the nonsecure interface to do this, which results in my other username being used... Jclemens (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody shrink those, please? That's kind of obnoxiously large. HalfShadow 20:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It could be a great motivational tool: let's have the size of the buttons directionally proportional to the number of tagged unreferenced BLPs ;) GiftigerWunsch 21:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

=D Nolelover 21:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm ... could you change the title of the button to "Read a piece of unmonitored potential slander"? Works just as well for either description.—Kww(talk) 21:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• instead of editing the button, source a BLP. that's what i did!--Milowent • 21:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Random idea; could we have this as a watchlist notice for maybe a week? Nothing heavy, just a short intro with a link to this tool --Errant 23:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Template created at {{uBLP refbutton}}. Access Denied 03:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• This is exactly the sort of being on the wrong page and two steps behind that I'm talking about. If you had been reading the noticeboard page where the discussion is actually happening, you would have noticed the existence of Template:Big Red Button, substituted above but transcluded on the proper discussion page, which was created a month ago. Uncle G (talk) 09:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I am forced to Facepalm on behalf of us all. GiftigerWunsch 10:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Kermanshahi and Iranian Propaganda

This user persistently engaged in propaganda and deletes the information from the articles. Made him two warnings to which he responded inadequately and called my actions - "garbage". Balochistan conflict and Jundallah - he edit warring and removes the sources and was promoting the propaganda of the Iranian government and Ahmadinejad. I ask the administration to pay attention to this wikipedia provocateur and limit his participation in the project. Now, in order:
one unsourced change
two unsourced change
three unsourced change
four propaganda by Iranian government
five unsourced change and bias lie
he doesn't red sources but changes the information
unsourced lie
The same thing in another article - Jundallah. For the propaganda his need to block indefinitely.Sentinel R (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree that there is a problem here, though with the personal attacks being thrown by both sides, it's not clear who is in the right or the wrong. Please start by keeping comments civil and focusing on discussing the article's content, not the other editors. --Elonka 19:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

(followup) This seems to be a skirmish between Sentinel R (talk · contribs) and Kermanshahi (talk · contribs), who are using the Balochistan conflict and Jundallah articles as a battleground, both reverting each other and throwing personal attacks at each other. At the Jundallah article, it was especially disappointing to see that the article was undergoing an edit war, but there was no attempt whatsoever to discuss the disputed issues at talk. I have left warnings for personal attacks and edit warring on the talkpages of both users, as well as cautions at the talkpages of the Balochistan conflict and Jundallah articles. Hopefully both users will heed the warnings, and work harder to edit in ways that conform with our policies and guidelines. If not, further administrative action may be required. --Elonka 20:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Again. No consensus changes by Kermanshahi - one (and personal attack in edit summary), two, three. How long will it last?Sentinel R (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you can see from the edits, they were sourced. You see Sentinel R, used a source about Taliban insurgents supporting the BLA, to back up supposed claism that the Afghani government was supporting the BLA. Further he used an article about US and Iraqi (Saddam Hussein) support for a Baluchi tribal uprising in the 1980's to back up a claim that the current Iraqi government is backing the BLA (and completely ignoring the part about the US). He than refered to these edits, where in I reported what sais int he sources, to the article, as "unsourced lies," please Elonka just check up on the sources, read them you'll see what I'm saying. As for my actual "unsourced edits," it was because I do not believe that the whole list of supporters should be included in the infobox, so I moved it into the article instead. I gave up on this eventually, but I still believe that the infobox should only be the for the combatants and not the whole list of supporters under it, cause many are disputed or they supported only in the past and therefore need extra explenation which makes the list in the infobox even longer. These things are actually supposed to be said in the article. Further I notice he calls the edit I made removing unsourced figures "propaganda by Iranian government," but he had provided a non-existent link to back up some "2000" figure and used no sources at all to somehow include the 5,000 and 2,600 figures, that's why I removed them.

non existent link(c). Not even funny.Sentinel R (talk) 14:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Sentinel R has been hiding information in sources, on purpose reporting things wrongly and making up figures while reverting my edits (which only back up what sais in the links) constnatly. So who is making propaganda here? PS. I've explained about the Jundullah article on it's talk page. Kermanshahi (talk) 13:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I also still want to complain about Sintinel R's insistence on the inclusion of Noor Ali Shooshtari and Rajab Ali as Killed in Action commaners in the infobox.

The deputy commander of the Revolutionary Guard = low-level commander?Sentinel R (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

For Pakistan only the top leadership (head of military, presidents, prime ministers) have beeen included. For the insurgents in Pakistan only the top leader of each uprising is included, meanwhile for Jundullah their former nr.1 and nr.2 leaders, the Rigi brothers + the current nr.1 are in the infobox.

You can add more leaders from Pakistan. I do not mind.Sentinel R (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Than for Iran, Sentinel R feels the need to next to the President, the head of the Iranian military (Hassan Firouzabadi), the head of Iran's military's regular branch (Ataollah Salehi) and the head of the military's Revolutionary Guard branch (Mohammad Ali Jafari), suddenly include the deputy commander of the military's IRGC-branch's ground forces branch + the military's IRGC-branch's provincial ground forcs commander (neither of which have an article about them because their names were not even known prior to the incident), only because they were assasinated, just to add Killed in Action to the Iranian side of the table. Is this POV and politically motivaded, or what? Kermanshahi (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm already tired of writing the obvious things third consecutive day. If the administration decides that iranian propaganda is the place to be in Misplaced Pages - then so be it. True about Jundallah: Iran's leaders are clearly skeptical of Jundallah's claims that it pursues no separatist agenda, but simply aims to alleviate systematic discrimination against Baluchis in Iran and thereby improve their daily lives. They perceive the rebel group as a proxy used by the United States and Britain in an effort to destabilize the Islamic republic from within by fomenting sectarian and ethnic strife.Sentinel R (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

What Iranian propaganda? I was only writing what was in the sources.Kermanshahi (talk)13:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The Administrator made you final warning (not to promote your biased point of view), but you still continued after a warning. What is your interest in this? Obviously you all this not just to do so.Sentinel R (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I was told not to get into reverting edits constantly. No administrator said anything about biasm. Now what I did was not revert edits, but add sourced information and delete unsourced information. Now it is clear we have a disagreement here. You claim Jundullah is seperatist, I say they are not. Now, I've brought you 9 sources which say that Jundullah claims not to be seperatist but to be fighting for the rights of Sunnis. Now it's your turn to provide me just 1 source where in Rigi or any Jundullah commander sais he wants seperation of Iranian Baluchistan. As long as you can't do that, you cannot add such baseless claims to the article.Kermanshahi (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Jundallah = Sunni separatist group. How much more do you need links? Million?Sentinel R (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

This is merely a reported working for a website calling them like that. As long as they themselfes deny they are seperatist it is POV to add this to the infobox as their motive.Kermanshahi (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Themselves claiming = WP:NPOV. Need opinions of neutral persons. you doesn't red sources but changes the information.Part 2..Sentinel R (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You see, the difference between my sources and your sources is, you bring me the word of a worthless reporter which labels Jundullah as a seperatist group in one of his reports, I give you the word of Rigi himself which denies being a seperatist in every interview and statement. Bring me one source which sais that Rigi called for seperation. Untill then, all you can do is add to the article that "the group has been refered to as seperatist by various media, however the organisation has always denied this".Kermanshahi (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Own words - not neutral. WP:NPOV - read this, ok? And Rigi said about separatism in this article "Earlier confessions made by Abdolhamid confirmed reports that Washington aided and abetted the armed separatist ring in carrying out its terror activities in Iran,".Sentinel R (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

That is a quote from PressTV, with "the armed seperatist group" being used as synonym for Jundullah. This is not a quote from Abdolhamid Rigi saying they are seperatists. Unless you bring that in, there is still no proof. There is however enough proof, proving you wrong, with dozens of sources about Abdolmalek Rigi saying they are not seperatists.Kermanshahi (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I found two references are cited where Jundallah called separatists. How much a references you needed? A thousand? Million?Sentinel R (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you still not get it? You need to provide a reference where in Jundullah leadership say they are seperatist, not a reference in which some journalist labels them as seperatists.Kermanshahi (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

His own words - not neutral. And this link doesn't work - Why you added broken link?Sentinel R (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

So you say when an organisation declares it's goals, we should completely ignore this, because the organisation is not neutral about itself and instead add some false claims made by (seemingly) unknowning journalists? That is ridiculous and that is definetly not how wikipedia works. Therefore I will not continue this argument. I hope the moderators sort you out.Kermanshahi (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

All of your edits from that - urgently need to revert. Since you added broken links and fine-tune the entire article at your own biased point of view, unconsensus changes after final warning from administrator.Sentinel R (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

None of the links I added were broken, all of the information I added was sourced and and written down in a non-biased and objective way. I was not warned by any moderation to stop editing, I was told to stop blindly reverting your edits. What I did was normally edit the article, using sources to back up everything I said. I see not a single way in which wikipedia would ever disagree with the edits I made.Kermanshahi (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You're biased edited the article and did not take those links that I found. You're not looking for compromise, you just decided that you're in charge here and you can do anything. But it is not. Misplaced Pages - the overall project, and it is not your personal encyclopedia. You do not have the right to change the neutral article to biased article, but you did it. You ascribe to me words that I did not say, and personal attacks on me. I am with you no more to say, you are perfectly revealed today when the article began to change after the final warning to you.Sentinel R (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The links you gave me were worthless, but I can add them if you want. For the rest can you point out what is biased about saying that Jundullah themselfes sais they are not seperatist and adding sources to back it up? I am not changing a non-biased article into a biased one, I am adding sourced facts to a very lacking article. You are biased and therefore won't accept facts. And why should I compromise when you are being unreasonable.Kermanshahi (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You said nothing in fact, you just went and changed the article in the direction in which you wanted to. And do not you decide which journalists write articles on international sites like Aljazeera, your original research can not be authoritative for the encyclopedia.Sentinel R (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not do original research, I reported what the organisations official goals rather than journalist mistakenly calling them seperatist. No-one has the authority to decide which source is right and which one, that's why in this case we use the organisation's own offical goal in the infobox and to be neutral here, in the article we discuss both sides. That's why I added to the "view and goals" section that they have been refered to as seperatist by various media (which is the case) but have denied this themselfes (which is the case), I don't see any other way in which this can be reported objectively.Kermanshahi (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, the administrators' noticeboard is not the location to discuss article content. Please discuss these matters on the article talkpages. I have added both articles to my watchlist, we can continue this discussion there. --Elonka 18:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Wayne Slam

At Ralph Nader, an edit war ensued between User:99.101.128.39 and User:Wayne Slam (see history). The IP was was removing content he thought was biased from the article, but was quickly reverted by User:Mystylplx with the edit summary "Stop removing content just because you disagree. It is vandalism at this point." () The IP proceeded to remove the content again, but also added/changed other information (). Wayne Slam reverted this edit without an edit summary and warned the IP on his talk page. I count seven reversions by the IP and eight reversions by Wayne. The IP was blocked for "Vandalism" for 31 hours by User:Icairns, who went back and told the IP that he was blocked for violating WP:3RR. Wayne claims on the IP's talk page that he kept reverting because he saw Mystylplx's edit summary which called the IP's edit vandalism. () The IP removed Wayne's comment (which is in compliance with WP:BLANKING) and Wayne reverted him. The IP removed it again, and Wayne removed it again with the summary "You are allowed to express your opinion, so stop." The IP's talk page was just removed. What actions should be taken? Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Everything should be left as it is currently. WAYNESLAM 20:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind, Wayne, that you, too, violated WP:3RR. One exception to 3RR is "Reverting obvious vandalism – edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language." However, the edit this user kept adding does not fall under this category. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

My original block edit noted that there were multiple reversions. My 3RR comment was a clarification. Ian Cairns (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you see WP:NOTTHEM? WAYNESLAM 21:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Because that policy has no relevance to this discussion at all... Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

A lot POV-pushing going on there, and Wayne is as guilty of edit warring as any of them. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but it doesn't appear to have been with intent. HalfShadow 21:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It was not intentional. WAYNESLAM 21:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

That's what I mean; generally edit warring is "I want my version, not yours"; this was just reverting what was assumed to be an unwanted/unhelpful edit. Someytimes I technically edit war when reverting edits to an article I have no interest in and am merely reverting because consenus seems to be that the edits are unhelpful. HalfShadow 21:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, but WP:3RR states "Use of standard rollback for any other purposes...is likely to be considered misuse of the tool" and the edits made by the IP were not "obvious vandalism." Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Based on what Eagles said here, and based on the rest of this thread, I would like to recommend one of two things be done:

1. We assume good faith and let Wayne off with a warning.
2. Wayne is blocked for 24 hours (or his rollback rights are removed) for violating the 3RR and misusing rollback, respectively.

--The Utahraptor/_Contribs 21:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't want neither to happen to me. WAYNESLAM 21:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

At this point, I'm inclined to go with #1. Rollback rights removed, maybe, but he should not be blocked because it won't prevent anything that's already happened. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

That would be my choice, as well. The Utahraptor/_Contribs 21:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Using rollback here was an absolute no-no, and he needs to acknowledge here and now that he understands that. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Please don't do anything to my rights or my account, as I'm sorry for doing this and won't let it happen again. WAYNESLAM 21:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not the first time you have misused rollback/Huggle. See User talk:Wayne Slam#Please be more careful, User talk:Wayne Slam#Boscastle flood of 2004 and User talk:Wayne Slam#Incorrect warning template?. Yet every time you say "I'll be more careful" or "It won't happen again," it happens again. I'm about ready to revoke your rollback rights now, unless you can persuade me otherwise (sanctions, etc.) Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't want my rights revoked because nobody's perfect and we make mistakes. WAYNESLAM 22:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we all make mistakes, but that doesn't mean we don't have to eventually face the consequences for unintentionally doing something bad. The Utahraptor/_Contribs 22:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I know, but can I get a second chance because this is something that I won't let happen again about what I did such as I did with that IP? WAYNESLAM 22:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like the stuff the IP was trying to post was blatantly pushing a particular viewpoint, citing one specific source's opinion at some length. That's not vandalism, though. It's a short block, so it's not that big a deal. But Wayne needs to come away from this with a lesson or two: (1) Good-faith edits, even if wrong-headed, are not vandalism. (2) Users have the right to delete almost anything from their pages. Re-posting is not appropriate, as they're assumed to have already read it. (3) Most importantly, edit-warring is futile. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• WayneSlam is just as guilty as the anon in violating WP:3RR, since what he reverted was not obvious vandalism. It was nothing that would warrant it; no profanities were introduced into the article, and the anon did not remove a large chunk of text within it without producing a reasonable edit summary (it was probably following similar anon 99.146.24.18's "moved to 2000 article" edit summary), and as shown on the anon's talkpage, he did not assume that the anon was acting in good faith and really attempting what they believed was an improvement to the article. Furthermore, WayneSlam has revert warred over the anon's talkpage, when it is given in the talkpage guidelines that users are allowed to remove content from their own talkpages if they wish, be it anon or registered users, because it can be presumed that they have already read the messages. I recommend that the article be protected against further edit warring and reverted to the pre-war version and the anon reblocked with talkpage access restored to sort this out till later. This is to allow the anon to discuss their actions as well as comment on this ANI thread. A note should be left on the anon's talkpage not to abuse the unblock template, lest talkpage access is to be revoked again. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• Wayne's a hard-working vandal-fighter, if a bit... overenthusiastic at times. I think in this case his biggest mistake was taking the previous editor's "vandalism" call at face value, rather than critically evaluating the IP's edits on their own merits. If it had been true vandalism, Wayne's actions on the article (though not the IP's talk page) would be uncontroversial. Wayne, would you be willing to agree that:

1. just because an another editor has tagged someone as having vandalized, that doesn't mean that editor is correct;
2. even if that edit was vandalism, that doesn't mean all of the subsequent edits are;
3. every edit must be evaluated on its own merits before rollback is considered;
4. unless an editor is removing required templates or otherwise violating policies, their talk page comments should be left alone; and
5. if there's any doubt at all that an edit is vandalism, you'll consult another editor and let them do the revert if they agree that it's vandalism?

If you'll agree with the above, I think a warning – and the understanding that another visit here will probably result in loss of rollback privileges – are probably the best resolution for this. I think it's unanimous that your intentions are good and that it's just the execution that needs improvement. 28bytes (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

28bytes, the real issue here is edit warring. His reversions without edit summary is another thing, but he could lose his rollback privileges or earn a block due to edit warring. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Understood. It's quite possible a block or rollback revocation is warranted based on the edit-warring. I just get the impression he thought (quite incorrectly, of course) that he was reverting obvious vandalism based on the fact that another editor had tagged the IP's edit as vandalism, which seems to be where he needs some re-training. As HalfShadow says, I don't see the edit-warring as intentional. I doubt Wayne really has a POV on the Nader article or particularly cares what edits are made to it as long as they're not vandalism. 28bytes (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• I read this discussion with much interest. After looking over Wayne's user talk page, his user talk archives, and his contributions, it's clear to me that he is careless and in too much of a hurry with the automated tools, both with Huggle and the rollback button. While I think his heart is in the right place, he is causing disruption to the project. I would support removal of the rollback privilege. I also think he should stop using Huggle or Twinkle or any other automated process for at least a couple of weeks. This has to stop. - KrakatoaKatie 00:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Likewise, having looked over this, it seems clear to me that giving the user another chance isn't so much going to be a "second chance" than an "umpteenth chance", and would support removal of rollback and removal from automated whitelists. Perhaps further mentorship by an experienced user would be good here and rights could be restored when the mentor agrees the user is ready. StrPby (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I also question the judgment of Mystylplx (talk · contribs) in this matter and calling the IP's edits "vandalism". Perhaps the page should be protected against further edit warring. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • TelCo, you can request page protection at Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection if you still think it is needed. But, at this time, there has only been one edit since Wayne’s last revert four hours ago. — SpikeToronto 01:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I actually agree with you. I shouldn't have called it "vandalism." It simply seemed (in the moment) to be vandalism to me, as the IP user had been continually reverted by a number of different editors and simply kept reverting it to his/her version. That may not be the wikipedia definition of the word, but the word has meaning outside of wikipedia as well. Mystylplx (talk) 12:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Mystylplx, just for future reference, you might want to take a look at WP:VANDTYPES. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 19:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support revocation. I think that Wayne has had upteen “second” chances and any more would not result in any change in behaviour. Notwithstanding that his heart is in the right place, and that he really cares about the project, he is not a good vandal fighter at this time. While I have tried to mentor him, as his talk page and talk page archives can attest, progress on understanding the concepts has not been at a pace that would support letting him keep his rollback privileges. Of course, I accept that I just may not be any good at mentoring. Nonetheless, I would be more than willing to adopt/mentor him once the rollback bit is removed — because I cannot get him to slow down while he’s got it — unless he would prefer someone else. Finally, if his rollback privileges are revoked, and he seeks to have them back in the future, he should have to ask at WP:PERM/R where his recent edits can be assessed more publically than through a private request elsewhere. By the way, I am truly sorry to see this end up here at ANI. But, many people have tried to help this editor in this regard without much success. Let’s hope that a period of time without rollback can be used to better acquire the necessary skillset for recent changes patrol. — SpikeToronto 01:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support after a quick look at his contribs. There may be a competence issue (or maybe just this) going on here. access_denied (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• I agree. RC Patrol is very delicate; mistakes must not be common. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support rollback removal. The concern is - and I'm sure many users are plenty aware - that Wayne is obsessive over Huggle and views it as a race. This diff basically states, "if I use the drop-down menu , someone else will beat me to the revert." It's a chronic problem with him, unfortunately; see here, where I had to alert Wayne about complaining about another user (who was obviously offended) constantly beating him to reverting vandalism on Huggle. Revoking Wayne's rollback would benefit him as an editor, since it would relieve him of this "race" mentality and allow him to constructively contribute to Misplaced Pages in other ways. --Dylan620 02:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Fighting vandalism is good. But if someone is in a big fat hurry to revert vandalism and (apparently) doesn't look very closely at it to confirm it really is vandalism, that's not good. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

 Administrator note I have revoked Wayne Slam's rollback privileges and blacklisted him from Twinkle. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I've removed Wayne's Huggle privileges as well, as I think that may well be the proximate cause- using the program way beyond the speed limit. Courcelles 03:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems like Wayne Slam needs a mentor of some sort; I know that Wayne Slam was working with Tommy2010 before he retired. Vandal-fighting isn't my line of work, so someone who does a lot of that would probably be the best person if Wayne still wants to do that; if he wants to do NPP, though, I'd be more than happy to work with him. I think he's trying to help, but just needs a bit of guidance; with said guidance, he could be quite valuable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

He is very valuable but very young. His speed will be an asset once his judgement gets better: when to go fast, when to stop for a minute and investigate more thoroughly. User:The Utahraptor has offered to mentor; he is an experienced Huggle user and all around experienced editor. --Diannaa 04:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Good; I hope Wayne takes it, and I think he'll be fine. He was doing really well with Tommy2010, so I think this is just what he needs to get back on track. I don't know how you vandal fighters do it (I've tried it with Twinkle, with limited success), but we need as many as we can get; we need to do our best to keep our good younger users around, and I can see some serious potential in Wayne Slam. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

He still doesn't get it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not a very helpful comment. How about we actually try to help him rather than drag him over the coals? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually HJ, while it may not be a helpful comment, it is a very helpful diff. For those of us who might have been feeling a little bad about this action, it’s vindication when we read that Wayne’s concern with losing rollback is: “Now my edit count will suffer because now I'm done with rollback.” — SpikeToronto 18:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's another troubling diff, Spike: . Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that that just attests to youth and growing up in a world where “can’t we all be nice” trumps everything else, including reality checks. It’s not that revoking rollback is an action that isn’t nice; it’s that revoking rollback, in this instance, protects the project. I think that, in time, with some better mentoring than I had been able to give him, he’ll come to see that. I certainly hope so … — SpikeToronto 19:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I need some mentoring. WAYNESLAM 16:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily a good choice for a mentor, but here is an example of actual vandalism. That kind of garbage is what rollback is to be used for. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Or look at my recent article edits for more examples. There are probably a few mistakes in there butnot many. access_denied (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

 Delisted  With this edit, I removed Wayne from the list of Huggle users, per this discussion. Also, and perhaps more importantly since Courcelles had already disabled Huggle access for him, with this edit, I removed Wayne from the Huggle whitelist so that any of his manual reverts, edits, etc., will appear on the Huggle screens of other Hugglers. — SpikeToronto 18:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Why are you removing it for? Could somebody look at this? WAYNESLAM 18:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It should stay disabled until your mentor feels that you're ready to have it back. Nakon 19:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry about all of this. This should have never happened. I'm very sorry. WAYNESLAM 19:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I should note that Wayne has chosen me to be his mentor. Like I said on his talk page, there's certainly the potential for him to become a truly great vandal fighter. He's just not able to reach this potential yet. --Dylan620 21:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Ban Jcarleo

Its about time we banned this long time troll. He has caused unending disruption and endless usertalk trolling, and banning him will give us so much more leeway revertin his edits. access_denied (talk) 04:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support without any regret for the ban - enough was enough. Jcarleo has been trolling for years and he was blocked indefinetly in June for his actions. Now due to his trolling and recent sockpuppetry, I can say that serious disruption and trolling will not be tolerated at all, as well as disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove a point. He has also proven that he will not be fit for this site after all. So, this is a necessary end for this user. Misplaced Pages needs administrators, trusted users (like myself), and bureaucrats, but not trolls and users/IPs who vandalize Misplaced Pages. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban - 20 socks!? We can do without this guy. Jusdafax 05:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - 20 isn't even close to the actual number of socks he has. Also see Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Jcarleo, and know that we (actually I) stopped tagging his IPs/accounts after he continuously kept removing them with new socks. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. For those of us who have never heard of this individual, it might help to provide a few diffs as to why exactly he should be banned? --Elonka 22:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support: months of vandalism, disruption and harassment is enough. I see no constructive edits jcarleo has made nor do I see any in the near future. Elockid (Alternate) 19:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: Has there been a SPI to link the accounts? There's not one on the main account that I found...

We have to have reasonable information on which to base ban proposals. This one so far is sorely lacking evidence. Please expand with edit history, SPI, etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

User harassment report

• Editor182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello. I would like to bring attention to a case of harassment against my work from a particular user. In June, we were both involved in a large dispute concerning images in various articles, which resulted in edit warring, page protection, and account blocking. It was only after administration intervened that issue had reached consensus. Although this dispute has long closed, the User:Raeky, has continued to monitor my account and remove my work. After he recently reported an image I uploaded, which may or may not have copyright issues, he stated the obvious; "I monitor your account periodically", in the discussion.

This is not what has triggered this report. Today he removed my image of a photograph I had taken, with the comment "dark low quality cell phone image is not better than previous infobox image... restoring.", as he has had issues with my "cell phone images" and their quality in our past dispute. Since I added the image, at least one or two regular contributors to the article had either made an edit or reverted vandalism without questioning my image. Raeky has had no past interest in the article, except of course, a few hours after I added an image to it.

What happened in the past is irrelevant in terms of who was right or wrong. What I would like now is very simple, which is for Raeky to stop monitoring my contributions, stop removing or questioning my images, and to leave any questionable work that I submit to the rest of the Misplaced Pages community. In short; I'd like this user to be instructed to leave me alone, period. After leaving a firm message on their Talk page, regarding their actions and my notification that administration will be informed if they continue, they've since notified me of taking some sort of administrative action.

I don't want any further issues concerning this user. We don't edit the same articles in general, so we wouldn't and haven't run into edit conflicts concerning text. I'd like what was said and done, and my content to be of no concern whatsoever to this user or to this report. All I'm asking for is as above, for the user to be told directly; to stop monitoring my contributions, stop removing or questioning my images, and to leave any questionable work that I submit to the rest of the Misplaced Pages community. In short, to leave me alone. A much appreciated message on their Talk page could end this issue and stop it from continuing further. I'll await your response, thank you. Editor182 (talk) 06:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

sure was a firm message you left. Given your history of image problems I'm not surprised other editors are following your edits. Quite sensible really. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Note Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts#Editor182 and Talk:Possum#Image are attempting to resolve the image dispute. Netalarm 06:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way I see nothing but ongoing problems here from a user who apparently just doesn't get it. Surely it's at the stage of an indefinite block. Note I've been involved with him/her in this exhausting DRV where his contributions were largely bad faith rants against contributors he/she disagreed with. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The DRV, "history of image problems" and this image have all concerned the same user. I don't care who or how many people follow my work, this is beyond questionable reason, and I have never requested any such complete disengagement in my work from another user. That is all I'm after, and their actions are not sensible, they're harassment. Mkativerata, where do I know you from? The image dispute triggered by a one such user, this is not a broad issue, it's an isolated one. The image in DRV, be it copyright or public domain, was never brought to question since being in a featured article from April this year. This is what the exhaustive dispute we now speak of is based on. Any other editors who've taken any interest or action against other images, have done so amid these "ongoing problems" reported by the very same user. I don't want to drag this on and on.. any user who genuinely takes or has taken any issue to my work has not resulted in me being on an administrative message board..

I'd like Raeky to discontinue interest in my work. It's as simple as that. That's all this is about, not images, this is only a request for a cease of involvement in my work from one user. I'm not sure who this "indefinite block" mentioned above should be applied to, but I'm only asking for a message from administration to another user. Editor182 (talk) 07:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Interesting to note: When Raeky brought my image up for discussion on Wikiquette, he used the heading Editor182, when on response to his request, and yet another discussion opened, but with the heading Image.. so what is this users concern, the image or the editor? If just one administrator could put a close to this now with a message on this persons Talk page to cease their involvement in my work, undoubtedly based on bad faith, it would be appreciated. Editor182 (talk) 07:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Just what in the world are you talking about, I started the WQA in response to your offensive comment on my talk page. Netalarm made the second link on the Possum page about your image. I posted this after you reverted me stating regular editors should weigh in, which is a proper response since Talk:Possum has very low traffic. And FYI, User:Mkativerata is an admin and has weighed in. Not sure what your attempting to accomplish, anyone who views your edit history, past ANI history, and past ban history can clearly tell what kind of editor you are that obviously needs closer monitoring. None of my edits that you interpret as harassment are unfounded edits. If I really wanted to go to town with your edits there are a zillion useless images and edits you've added. Some articles are being benefited by your cell phone images, some are not, yet I've only done a couple things that I felt was copyright violation or clearly not a good edit, like the Possum image that you replaced. Again not sure what your trying to accomplish here, but it seems like another WP:BOOMERANG ANI you've opened. — raekyt 08:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what I'm trying to accomplish? I'm asking if administration can request that you cease "monitoring" my contributions and cease any involvement in my work.

Still don't get the message? I'm hoping an administrator will give it to you, then you might. Editor182 (talk) 08:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Does Editor182 really expect to be backed up by an administrator for a request under the header "F*** off" on a user talk page? Mathsci (talk) 08:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Not even if the header was "Seasonal greetings" - I expect nothing, especially as Mkativerata is apparently an admin, and trying to get another admin to come along and side with me? No. I thought if there was a shred of decency when I opened this request.. but, now I'll just say that it's closed. Won't bother with disputes or contacting admin for help in the future, I'll just accept the decisions of Raeky, who may continue to reign over my account. Editor182 (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My edits hardly justify such a claim, I removed your picture out of Possum today, I nominated your image of the Monster Energy can for deletion on Nov 22, which got deleted, and sparked huge discussion here and is still unresolved... and aside from our previous encounter where you got banned for edit warring to the extreme about your images, I've done nothing else to your edits or history. The only reason I even looked at your account on Nov 22 was because I saw you editing the same articles that you was banned TWICE for edit warring over, and today I looked at your account again after I noticed that those deletion requests was still ongoing and the huge deletion review... I hardly thing this "lording over" your account, lol. Also, again yuo don't know how to use HAT, you didn't close it. Plus it's not your place to close this. — raekyt 08:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Not my place? Who's place is it then, account overlord? I opened it, I closed it.Editor182 (talk) 08:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Your behavior hasn't been entirely resolved, an admin above called for your banning, possibly this is a valid reason why YOU should NOT push this under the rug? — raekyt 08:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like another case of WP:BOOMERANG - Amog | 09:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Big Brother of The Party (talk) 09:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, no. I could see there was no point in the argument after an admin was against the proposal. That's all. Editor182 (talk) 09:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Editor182, admins aren't Gods. - Amog | 09:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note - I reopened this thread, but only because its closing was improper. It should be closed by an uninvolved party: as the filer requests this, and thus no administration action is sought as a result of this report. Doc talk 10:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• What if an administrator who thought for themselves read the review and decided it would be in the best interest of all involved if Raeky did refrain from monitoring my contributions with malicious intent, and ceased involving himself in my media? I personally keep track of articles that I'm interested in and improve them in any way that I can. I don't monitor the editors; in this case, in bad faith; taking courses of action to remove images from articles where their experience is zero, instead of leaving it to the regulars judgement, but instead takes it upon himself to delete my content. Then, when a user suggests it be used somewhere else less prominent, he still advises against it. They are not helping, and not leaving judgement to others in a more suited position to make them on experience. Anyway, I concur, unless an administrator with independent and rational judgement sends a message to Raeky; to stop engaging in the aforementioned; then let's close it now. Editor182 (talk) 11:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

(Sigh) Editor182, you opened this thread, closed it twice improperly, and now want to keep it open... again, for an administrator that may come along who "thought for themselves" with "unusually good judgment". Have you actually read WP:BOOMERANG? Quit while you're behind, and read up on policy is my advice to you... Doc talk 11:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with User:Raecky having any article on her watchlist, especially one that might need help. I don't think she's necessarily harassing you to think that the picture you took is not the best one for the article, either- you're the one who seems to be attacking the editor instead of engaging with her ideas at Talk:Possum. I don't think any administrator action is needed right now, since no one has behaved in a way that seems to make a block necessary, but I'm troubled by your escalation of your disagreement in ways that seem to me to be uncivil, and unlikely to lead to a better encyclopedia. You should know, if you don't already, that there's no way to add a user's contributions to your watchlist- the only way to 'monitor' a user is to periodically check their contributions, when you remember to do so. If Raecky is doing that from time to time, rather than merely watching Possum, I think you'll find that she stops bothering with it once she stops seeing anything but polite and useful contribution and discussion in them. Don't worry too much about it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, having read for myself...clearly, Editor182's work - especially in images - has required some monitoring. I'm 100% sure that Raeky is not the only monitoring, and until Editor182's work becomes less disruptive, the more eyes the better on the situation. Editor182 needs to take the constructive concerns and work on them, rather than attack those who are rightly monitoring their edits. I'm not going to comment on the disruption that Editor182's causing by closing an admin request when it's "not going their way". Editor182 is turning this into something very personal, and this is a warning to stop it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: User:Editor182 has requested the speedy deletion of the photo of a possum at the center of this discussion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with User:Bwilkins. Was this this really necessary? - Amog | 12:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the "my sympathies to your mother" bit actually took me to the "block user" page for a moment ... but then I took a sip of Starbucks Winter Blend and hit the "back" button. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Editor182 has a habit of blanking their talk page after every post. This has the effect of making it much harder for observers to see the accumulated warnings and repeated issues. Rather than blocking Editor182 per WP:BOOMERANG for this diff among other evidence of disruption in this thread, I am merely going to place them under an editing restriction: Editor182 shall not routinely blank their own talk page. All talk page comments are to be retained, and then may be archived to an archive page when they are at least one week old. (We can help you set up an archiving bot.) Only obvious vandalism may be removed. Further talk page blanking may be treated as disruptive editing and gaming the system, and may result in a block. This will help other editors monitor and assist Editor182. It's very hard to help somebody when they keep blanking their talk page. Editors normally are allowed to blank talk pages, but in this case that tactic is being used to game the system. Editor182, Misplaced Pages operates on the principle of transparency. When you are actually causing problems, it is perfectly acceptable for other editors to monitor your work and try to help you improve. Jehochman 12:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support restriction for a minimum of 6 months, at which point they may request an amendment/removal (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You've got to be joking. Object. *It is my Talk page and I will archive it when I want. In regards to "this diff" which you're using to support your argument to take away my privileges, I left the response there and even linked it, to viewed by those on the noticeboard, so they may understand how the situation had been escalating. I came here asking for help, instead I get threats of blocks and a proposal to restrict my own Talk page rights. I blank it because I like it like that. It's my prerogative. Closing this discussion without your help is one thing, but with an extremely unjust proposal against myself? Talk about asking admin for help.. just close this discussion please, and please don't change my rights.

"Try to help me improve?" I don't need help to improve, and I am being provided with no such thing. Editor182 (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess you haven't read WP:BOOMERANG yet? You came here to report a problem. We have looked into the problem, and now, we are trying to help solve it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I see you say 'it is my talk page and I will archive it when I want.' That indicates to me that you think you have been archiving it. You haven't been- you've been blanking it- but I've created a place where you can archive it from now on. Check out my archives to see how it work s- archiving is not what you've been doing, and it's really useful for easily looking back for past conversations. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support per User:Jehochman and User:Bwilkins - Amog | 13:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Editor182 decided to test the validity of their restriction, and as a result they have been blocked for a week. It just goes to show that sometimes it is better to block disruptive editors, instead of giving them a less restrictive remedy. Jehochman 12:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: WP:BLANKING states "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred." I've always felt that users should be permitted to remove comments they really don't want on their page, but routinely removing all comments, instead of archiving, seems counter to the communicative purpose of a user talk page, and in practice often has a certain chilling effect on discussion. If someone agrees with that, perhaps they could suggest (at the appropriate talk page) some kind of clarificatory amendment to the policy. Rd232 13:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• That was POINTy blanking and the block was good. The user needs to learn to be less belligerent in general. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Editor182 has agreed to terms and been unblocked. We've set up automatic archiving of the talk page. If a few experienced users would watch their talk page and help with a little coaching when needed, that would be great. Jehochman 14:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Does this administrative action resolve the problematic issues with images which spilled over onto Commons? Mathsci (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

User:RasputinJSvengali

Another sock of this permanently-blocked User has appeared, right after his last one was blocked for three months (see User talk:174.27.246.236). User:67.2.187.252 is editing in the identical manner as User:174.27.246.236. I think these socks need to be blocked permanently just like the User himself. Rosencomet (talk) 06:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

IPs don't get indef'd but the latest one has three months. S.G. _ping! 11:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no indication that User:67.2.187.252 has been blocked on his/her talk page (he/she hasn't one) or user page. Are you sure it's been done? Just asking. Rosencomet (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I was looking at the wrong one. I have blocked the other now for three months per WP:DUCK, identical article edits and identical edit summary. S.G. _ping! 19:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response. Rosencomet (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that the list of sockpuppets of User:RasputinJSvengali probably includes at least the following:

• User:174.27.235.100
• User:67.177.27.74
• User:67.2.187.252 (Three-month block)
• User:174.27.246.236 (Three-month block)
• User:BackMaun (Permanently Blocked)
• User:Alien666 (Permanently Blocked)

And there may be others. Rosencomet (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

removing words of other users

is this allowed? (Idot (talk) 10:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC))

Broadly, yes, per WP:NOTAFORUM: "Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines." Discussion should pertain to the article not just chatter about the topic in general. S.G. _ping! 11:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

On that theory, the entire section should be removed. Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) was simply answering the question posed. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I have taken the "bold" step and added it back. If someone wants to delete the entire section, that's somewhat different, though it doesn't seem necessary. Questions and answers about the subject can lead to improvements in an article. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

And someone deleted it again, just that one part, rather than the whole section. Maybe someone more familiar with this particular page can explain why. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, just like User:SGGH wrote - discussion pages are for discussing the shape of article, not discussing the game itself. For example: statement like "creature X has better stats than creature Y" shouldn't be on discussion page, on other hand if you write "I think section in article about creatures should be rewritten" is of course OK. If someone wants to talk about the game in general, there are plenty of forums in Internet - Misplaced Pages is just not place for it. Sir Lothar (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at the content of the page, and have removed ALL of the non-related article stuff. Whose Your Guy (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Case is closed, though Sir Lothar (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Insults to Jimbo

See this. WP:REVDEL? Perseus (t • c) 13:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

They call that vandalism? I get nastier vandalism than that free with my breakfast cereal... I don't think it needs to be revdeled... just reverting it is fine. It doesn't contain any personal information that might harm Jimbo, after all. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Praytell, what personal information about Jimbo could possibly still be secret? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 13:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

We can't let anyone find out he's a nerd. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's simply "run-of-the-mill" vandalism, whether it's to Jimbo's page or anyone else. "Material must be grossly offensive...": if this gets "revedel"ed, I'd be surprised... Doc talk 13:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Overreaction much? This is just standard mindless vandalism and certainly doesn't require suppression, or indeed any form of intervention beyond simply reverting it. --Dorsal Axe 13:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out how the vandal would say "fcuk" out loud. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, they may have been trying to skirt cluebot. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Aha. Like those spam e-mails that misspell certain things to get around the spam filter. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep! However, cluebot "knows" about most of those (and as I understand it, gets updated a lot). Gwen Gale (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Fanatic sockpuppets: again

User:Baseball fan4541 sounds just like User:Smiley4541 and User:Baseball Fanatic. Please block. Perseus (t • c) 13:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

See this. Perseus (t • c) 13:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Either a very obvious WP:DUCK or an impostor. Blocked indef at any rate. Favonian (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

He lasted 5 1/2 hours, but it was in the wee hours of the night. I liked the part where he welcomed himself, on his very first edit yet. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Not very subtle, I'll admit. Now, about your username — are you sure you're not a sockpuppet as well? "Fanatic", "Bugs", there is a similarity. Favonian (talk) 13:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure I'm not anyone's sock, unless my invisible 6-foot roommate, Harvey, was messing with my PC while I slept. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the old WP:GOTHACKED defense. Indef with talk page access revoked. Favonian (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, you wascally wabbit. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

He signed his guestbook. I found him by looking at his guestbook. The whole "4541" thing is a real spoiler. Perseus (t • c) 14:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:GOTHACKED? I thought I was familiar with most of the Goth sub-genre's... Doesn't seem to be an article on it, but I suppose it is only a matter of time (frequently midnight on the 13th of a month). LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this has to do with the Cathy (comic strip) maybe (she said "Ack!" a lot, as I recall), about when she went Goth or something. I didn't know Bugs had such breadth in the strips, though. This is worrisome and I think a siteban is called for. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you not heard the expression "a hare's breadth"? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if there was ever a catchphrase ownership lawsuit between Cathy and Bill the Cat. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm shocked... shocked... that editors are talking about poxy comic strips on ANI. I've added a siteban tag to your userpage, Bugs, since consensus is foregone. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Ban "roll-on" or "spray"? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You tweachewous miscweant! Gwen Gale (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

i dont think that User:Baseball Bugs is a sockpuppet of WP:Baseball FAnatic. just because they have similar names doesnt meant hat 1 is a sock of the other, and im a little appalled that anyone would even jokingly make that sugestion in this plcae where people can take things out of context. I have read most of Baseball Bugses posts on the Wiki and he seems like a reasonable and productive editor and not someone who woudl willingly agree to become a sockpuppet for a banned user. User:Smith Jones 19:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Smith Jones. You people ought to be ashamed of yourselves to defame such a model citizen.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not know that Baseball Fanatic was considered to be a model! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your relentless sarcasm support, but I ain't no model citizen. THIS is a model citizen. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Vewy cwever, mista! I was kidding in the previous coment but i really do think that you are the great part of the Misplaced Pages project. User:Smith Jones 20:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

 Looks like a duck to me Perseus (t • c) 15:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

That's Daffy. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

LemonMonday again

LemonMonday (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

LemonMonday is currently blocked for editwarring with User:Fmph at Belgium. This is very interesting because he had just reverted Fmph on Climate of Ireland to an unsourced position in the last 2 days.

Both of these editors have worked the British Isles naming dispute area. LemonMonday has been a single purpose account whose main space edits from 2008 - Winter 2010 were made up of reverts of User:HighKing at articles they (LM) have never edited before. He was also recently blocked for violating WP:BATTLE twice (October 30th and October 8th by Jehochman). Jehochman was convinced to unblock following this promise by LemonMonday. Subsequently LemonMonday raised two malformed article RFCs - he was advised, by me, on how to fix the RFC at WP:BISE but do date he has not. These RFCs discussed the subject of British Isles rather than how to improve the articles. The RFC on Talk:British Isles borders on falling under WP:NOT as it asks a question beyond the remit of Misplaced Pages to consider at all.

The above issues with this account fall under disruptive editing generally, but more specifically, WP:POINT, WP:HOUND and WP:BATTLE. LemonMonday was warned only a week ago that single purpose accounts are “expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda” (per the ArbCom ruling at the Race and Intelligence RfAr). This recent spurt of reverts is alarming because LemonMonday has never edited either of these articles before. LemonMonday is now following another editor around reverting them. LemonMonday has been the subject of a series of ANI threads in 2010, there are also issues with this account going all the way back to 2008. Each one coming to the conclusion that LemonMonday was making pointy edits incompatible with Misplaced Pages.

Proposed remedy

I’ve been enforcing the British Isles probation for the last few months, but I now believe that LM’s issues with Misplaced Pages policy are beyond the scope of just that probation. It is time that this editor learned either to abide by policy or is simply prevented from disrupting others. Hence I put forward to the community that LemonMonday should be either:

• Community banned from Misplaced Pages, per WP:BAN.
• Or given a full topic ban from all British Isles, Britain and Ireland topics widely construed and banned from interacting with volunteers who are editing in that topic area, per WP:GS/BI and WP:BAN.

--Cailil 15:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

discussion part one

Though I'm no longer involved with BISE, I'd recommend waiting until the LM account's 72hr block expires, before continuing further on disciplinary action. It was annoying enough having the LB account's continous protests over it's civility sanctions being passed during its own block. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your point GD but if the community wants to look at a full site ban I'll unblock LM on the condition that he only posts here. If the community wants to take the other road it's unnecessary. This isn't a court proceeding it's moderation of an internet project - our contrib history speaks for us--Cailil 21:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Just looking at your first diff there in your list Calil - if you look at the 12 diffs from 3rd October to 8th October - there is a budding little edit war (8 edits) there about tags involving several recognisable names from BISE. On your second diff, HighKing reverts a different editor, TharkunColl, twice, on an article he has never edited before, in order to exclude the word british isles. LemonMonday then reverts him once. I haven't yet looked through all the diffs but I remember noting in the previous ANI thread on this subject that certain editors were being pilloried for reverting edits on articles they'd never edited before when in fact the editors making the original change or original revert had never edited them before either. I shall look through the other diffs too. Fainites scribs 22:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Number 3 - another little two reverts each edit war between User:HighKing and user:TharkunColl on British Isles versus British Islands (!?!) then one revert from Lemon Monday. Nobody having edited it before.

Number 4 same again. Looks like a series of little articles on fauna, translated from nl.

Number 5 same again.

Number 6 is a little different. It dates to October 2008. However, again it is an edit war between TharkunColl and HighKing started by this peculiar edit by HighKing. Lemon Monday comes in for the last edit.

Number 7 is his contribs.Fainites scribs 22:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I take your point Fainites. HK's edits then, 2008, were extremely problematic but HK's edit pattern changed. That does not excuse LM's wikihounding then, nor does it now of Fmph. LM should not be involving himself in revert warring at all anywhere - he fact that he has chosen to follow users he is in disagreement with elsewhere just makes that worse. He has been doing this since '08 to present.
If there is a problem LM should report it - as he has been invited to do for months. Rather than do so he has breached 3RR and the British Isles topic probation. And he has done so after blocks, warnings and community input (ANi threads etc). Therefore he knows he should be doing this and is choosing to anyway.
On the matter of the usage of WP:BISE (which is/was part of the problem) that is being reformed to come in line with site standards and if I find anyone from either side editing in a manner incompatible with WP:5 they'll be brought here. W.hat makes this especially serious from my perspective is that LM's edits have the appearence of hounding a user he's in disagreement with in an Ireland topic area to another topic area - in other words the BI dispute is being spilt over onto unrelated pages.
I included teh contribs deliberately so people can have quick access to LM's main space edits to see how many are and are not reverts--Cailil 22:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not waving a flag for LemonMonday! It just seems to me that if HighKing changes British Isles where he can and then revert wars to keep it that way, I don't see why the last reverter in line is the only one criticised when none of them have edited any of these articles other than to edit war over British Isles. I don't see how HK's editing pattern has changed that much except that he very carefully keeps under 3 reverts. It also seems to me that if an editor spends his time hunting down and removing a legitimate term he has taken a particular dislike to then it seems odd to complain if other editors hunt down his changes and revert them. Technically the latter could be called hounding or stalking - but then what is HKs activity called? (By the way "British Islands" is not a term I have ever heard in all my puff). Fainites scribs 22:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the later set of diffs - these aren't BISE punch ups. The argument is over adding northern european climate as the norm. Fmph and LemonMonday each reported each other for 3RR/edit-warring.lemonMonday reported and Fmph for 3RR/edit-warring and another editor reported lemonMonday. LemonMonday was 3RR and got 72 hours. Fmph wasn't. I agree they are BISE spin-offs though. Fainites scribs 23:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Fmph wasn't what? And please strike your comment that I reported LM. I didn't. Fmph (talk) 09:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't 3RR. And sorry - it wasn't you that reported LemonMonday.Fainites scribs 09:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Fmph (talk) 09:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to remind anybody who's eyes haven't glazed over at the mention of the word BISE, the terms of the probation are Any editor who systematically adds or removes the term "British Isles" from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification, or who edit-wars over such addition or removal, may be added to the list of topic-banned editors. By that definition, HighKing and TharkunColl's behaviour should be looked at as well. British Islands appears in some translated stubs. TharkunColl changes British Islands to British Isles. HK reverts. TharkunColl reverts it back and HighKing reverts again. Then LemonMonday reverts HighKing. Just looking at number 3, none of them could have looked at the reference which clearly gives a map of Europe. Fainites scribs 10:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I see this is turning into the usual. Let's put up a HK smokescreen and TOTALLY forget the issue at hand. Bjmullan (talk) 10:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

That is a somewhat bad faith way of looking at it Bjmullan. I have not been "involved" in BISE until I looked into it quite recently simply because of it's frequent appearance here and I find a lot of it frankly absurd. I call it like I see it. If you have any detailed challenge to what I say the diffs show - by all means expound it here. I am not - as I said - waving a flag for LemonMonday. I am indicating that examination of the diffs so far appears to indicate that all 3 may well not be abiding by either the spirit or letter of the probation. Obviously diffs will need to be examined further.Fainites scribs 10:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No. It's not. Why exactly am I being dragged into this for edits since 2008 that are nearly 3 years old? Before BISE was started? Before BISE sanctions were even talked about and created? Now *that's* bad faith. --HighKing (talk) 10:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually the first diff is 2010 and most of the others are late 2009. The probation may be more recent but the same arguments and problems have been going for years. I raised this point because the diffs regarding LemonMonday were provided although I take your point that TharkinColl was not involved in 2010. Fainites scribs 11:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

And here's the nub of the problem, and the nub of *your* biased view. Since 2008, my behaviour has changed. I learned, I discussed, I am civil. I work with the community. I follow policy. What is being highlighted here is LemonMonday's behaviour and failure to meaningfully contribute, and *your* failure to objectively look at his behaviour and instead try to turn this into (yet another) "Close Down BISE" or "HighKing is evil" rant. Your own opinion on the merits or otherwise of BISE (which are pretty well known) should not be confused with objectively examining Cailil's opening statement and LM's behaviour. --HighKing (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

And is anyone going to tell the editors in question that their motives and behaviour is being questioned at ANI? Fmph (talk) 11:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Fainites while as I said above I see your point about the edits in 2008 by HK but the reason I bring up LMs edits from 2008 is because his pattern of main space edits is the same as it was then and becuase LM has a very limited number of article contribs - most of them reverts of HighKing and now a new more serious pattern of hounding is starting.
This thread is about a pattern of abuse by LemonMonday from 2008 to present. The reformed BISE should deal with any further 'first mover issues'. LM has a pattern of about 60 hounding reverts from his last 100 cntribs regardless of the topic probation that stretch from September 2008 to present, that is the issue here not whether HK and TharkinColl were sanctioned (btw TharkinColl was sanctioned by BlackKite in the period you discuss). As I have stated many times if HK was continuing in the vein he had been in 2008 his edits would be an issue for me. But he's not. This thread is going back on topic - to deal with the issue of LemonMonday's behaviour at present and his choice to ignore 1 and half years worth of advice and warnings to change--Cailil 14:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. Perhaps I haven't expressed myself clearly. My concern was that the list of edits you raised showed BISE behaviour from a number of editors rather than a pattern of LemonMonday hounding one editor, mostly in late 2009 and one in 2010. It seems to me that if there is a campaign to remove the use of a particular phrase from wikipedia, there will inevitably be a counter campaign in the other direction with most if not all of those involved following each other's edits. The recent diff in 2010 involved several BISE editors. I take my hat off to you for trying to police this situation and keep it within bounds. I have not really commented substantially on the situation with Fmph except to say LM 3RRd and Fmph didn't. I agree this thread should get back on topic. Fainites scribs 16:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No probs Fainites. I just want to deal with what's in front of me first. I do sincerly think that the problem you mention (the firt mover in these revert wars) should be resolved by BISE's review. I see a problem with any campaign to remove any term anywhere on WP and I hope and trust that the preponderance of good editors (those who put WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR firt) at BISE will keep things in order if editing atmosheres can be normalized--Cailil 20:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sanction discussion

What is being proposed is that LemonMonday is either site banned or topic banned from all Britain and Ireland topics and banned from interacting with all editors involved at the British Isles naming dispute anywhere on wikipedia. The reasons are given in full in the first post along with diffs, but in short LemonMonday has a pattern of hounding reverts of editors from the British Isles topic. That is now extending beyond the topic into other areas thus creating a battleground and revert warring thus disrupting the project to make a point--Cailil 14:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• topic ban and interaction ban for 3 months, and see if the editor can do better after a break from the topic. This is a measure I think we should use more frequently, before things come to an indefinite topic ban or site ban. (Part of me is tempted to topic ban/interaction ban the entire BISE crowd for 3 months - Misplaced Pages won't collapse in their absence, and they might return to the topic later on a bit wiser.) Rd232 17:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

SPA adding invalid AfD notices

I recently nominated 2PR FM for deletion. The discussion was joined by a newly registered editor, User:Whitewater111 who used a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument against deletion, citing 101.7 WSFM as an example. He prodded that article, without providing a rationale in the template and the comments in his edit summary didn't justify deletion so I removed the prod. He seems to have taken this to heart, adding numerous {{citation needed}} tags to the article. He also added an AfD notice, but as he only copied and pasted that from 2PR FM without actually creating an AfD discussion, it obviously doesn't apply to 101.7 WSFM so I removed it. He restored the invalid notice so I removed it again, but he restored it again. I've explained why it is invalid on his talk page and asked him to remove it but so far he hasn't. He has made an invalid AIV complaint since, so he must have seen the "You have messages" warning. Since I can't remove it without breaching 3RR, I was hoping somebody could remove the invalid AfD notice from 101.7 WSFM and perhaps reinforce to the editor that the notice is invalid, since he's obviously ignoring me. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Removed the invalid AFD notice, will attempt to counsel user on his talk. Exxolon (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

One has to wonder if Clearwatercity (talk · contribs) and Whitewater111 (talk · contribs) are related. Corvus cornix_talk 21:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Ban Erfurt150?

Erfurt150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaging in sockpuppetry before his block in October 2010. More recently, he has targeted Antandrus' editing as well as my edits using his sockpuppets (one of those actually belonged to the banned user Dr.Mukesh111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He often creates new sockpuppets and persistently reverts others without reason. Please see this for the tagged suspected accounts in question. Due to the ongoing activity, I propose that we ban this user from editing Misplaced Pages. I am bringing this issue to the community, and I hope this is not overkill. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure those are two different people that happen to have the same MO. Today's sockpuppet spree is by Dr.Mukesh. He's from Pakistan, and his interests, and fractured English style, are distinctive -- for example here. I'm not familiar with Erfurt, but looking at the contributions attributed to his sockpuppets (prior to today) they seem to be completely different, and he speaks English well. I've previously been able to shut down Dr.M with this and this range, but without confirmation from a checkuser I don't want to do that because of collateral damage (it shuts down editing from most of Islamabad). Acroterion and Geniac are both familiar with this editor. Antandrus (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Wait, are there more socks from Dr.Mukesh111 than were recently turned up here? If so, please feel free to reopen the case. TNXMan 17:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any signs of Dr.Mukesh111 today, but there's still time for a new crop of socks to appear. @Tnxman, I appreciate your work esterday in shutting down the latest sockfarm. He generally stops for the day around 2200 UTC, as one would expect for someone in Pakistan. I agree that Erfurt150's a different person with the same pattern, and can be formally or informally banned. Acroterion _(talk) 18:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Apparently I was wrong - another dozen today. Acroterion _(talk) 19:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible hacking via a proxy IP

I just deleted a test article about some horribly named album called "To Hell With God." It and the talk page were created by User:91.120.120.149. I thought it might have been a user naming himself after his IP, but that may not have been the case. I was still able to see the WHOIS and geolocation template on the talk page. It resolves out of Hungary and I've blocked it for a month as a proxy. Still, the fact an anon created a new page has me worried. Have we dropped the requirement that an account must first be created before a page can? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The IP only created the talk page, the actual page was created by User:AlexanderBp. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I just caught that. The IP edited the talk page and an article on the, um, band. A registered user created the test page. Nothing to see here.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

To Hell With God... you know, that sort of stuff was interesting when Mayhem and Emperor first made waves, but that theme gets really boring after a while. It's annoying that every single garage band has to be either some "Satanic" group (and it's clear none of them know what Satanism actually is) or Christian music. It's too predictable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Should the IP be unblocked now that it has been determined that it isn't a proxy? Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Yes, I'll do that right now. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Other wikipedias

I have just noticed that someone(s) using the exact same username has been impersonating me on other wikipedias. Where do i go to sort this out? Simply south (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably that wiki's admin board, or Meta. You could try talking to them, it might just be coincidence. Basket of Puppies 21:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

are you talking about other language versions of this Misplaced Pages, or other projects like Wikimedia or Wikisource thtat are in Misplaced Pages, or are you talking about completely separate websites that use the Wiki format?? User:Smith Jones 21:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Other wikipedias. Actually, is this just to do with exporting articles? I've not seen this before. When the article has been exported, if you have contributed to that article will that show up on the foreign Wikipedias? Simply south (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to trouble you. Resolved elsewhere. Simply south (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Mass changes to NPOV without consensus

User:Kotniski

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

Kotniski has a pattern of making major changes to NPOV policy without consensus. Kotniski has again made major changes to NPOV policy without consensus when there is opposition.

User:Ludwigs2

• Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ludwigs2 substantially changed ASF without ever gaining consensus. Ludwigs2 continuously edits NPOV policy without consensus and deletes long established parts of policy. Editors are concerned Ludwigs2 is forcing changes to NPOV policy, while not adhering to the advice of WP:PG#Substantive changes. Ludwigs2 has exported the disagreement with long term NPOV to V policy, and refuse to abide by consensus at NPOV. Ludwigs2 wrote in part: "such as the fact/opinion distinction, which I disapprove of". Ludwigs2 is personally against the intent of long established ASF when the editor admitted he disapproves of the fact/opinion distinction. It is the aim of Ludwigs2 to remove ASF because Ludwigs2 disapproves of the fact/opinion distinction. Ludwigs2 did not explain the mass changes and did not gain consensus despite claims to the contrary. See User talk:Ludwigs2/Archive 12#Continuing to make substantial changes to NPOV without consensus.

Other editors do share my concern on the talk page. Editors have previously tried to rewrite NPOV earlier this year and there was a RFC and it was agreed upon to restore NPOV. Then months later editors rewrote NPOV without consensus that again altered the core meaning or original intent of ASF. For non-controversial text using in-text attribution will dilute Misplaced Pages articles. "According to" implies a serious dispute where there is none. Do you really support the mass changes to a policy page when the changes drastically weakened the meaning of ASF. I see that Kotniski and Ludwigs wanted to rewrite NPOV to be simple. The rewrite is less explicit and vague. They think a more simple version that resulted in a more vague version is somehow an improvement. The mass rewrite is incoherent and makes little sense. Kotniski has a pattern of making major changes to NPOV without support from the community. See User talk:Kotniski/Archive 5#NPOV and the most recent discussion at User talk:Kotniski/Archive 6#Mass changes to NPOV without consensus. Kotniski cannot explain how weakening NPOV was an improvement to the page. The section name "Different points of view" was deleted. See Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 43#Section name for the discussion of the section name. There was some discussion about the massive change to policy. See Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 44#Removal of .22Assert facts.22 again. Too many changes were made without substantially improving NPOV policy. The last massive change by Ludwigs2 essentially deleted long established ASF policy originally written by Sanger. QuackGuru (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The place for this is the talk page of the policy. If people don't share your concerns there, then either abide by that consensus or try a "requests for comment". Nothing here needs admin attention.--Scott Mac 00:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hold on, you said this is "without consensus" on the talk page and then that others "do share my concern on the talk page". Which is it?--Scott Mac 00:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Just adding a note that I am aware of and following this thread. This is a bit of a head-scratcher, so I'll refrain from commenting for the moment unless someone particularly wants to hear something from me. --Ludwigs2 00:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• • This is core policy, and one of the places where we must certainly avoid making significant changes without very good consensus. This is no place to experiment. Alternative wordings that have any significant implications are fine to propose, but not to adopt without full agreement. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

    Further to DGG, policy, even or especially a major one as NPOV, is descriptive rather than prescriptive, and all such policy rewrites can do is reflect what incremental changes have happened in the application of that policy in practice. Any changes that do not reflect that consensus are worthless. Since disputes over the wording are largely irrelevant to the contributors to Misplaced Pages, there is nothing that admins here can do it - at least on these pages. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The diffs for Kotniski and Ludwigs2 are incredibly old for something to be brought here. The ones I checked (more than half) are from April, May, and October. This is ridiculous. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, well, I suppose I should chime in on this point, just for clarification. these changes were made to the policy page in accordance with a fairly lengthy discussion on the talk page between something like 8 or 10 editors. I can recap the rationales for the changes if you like, but suffice it to say that this was not simply unilateral changes made by me and Kotniski. In the subsequent months after the changes, QuackGuru has made frequent complaints about them on the talk page (and on my talk page, and elsewhere). Numerous editors have tried to discuss the matter with QG, but he does not really respond to discussion, he simple repeats the complaint (almost verbatim with the wording he used here). As far as I can see, QuackGuru is the only editor watching the page who objects to the changes, he has had no luck arguing against the editors who respond to him on the NPOV talk page, and so he has come forum shopping over here at ANI.

Anyone who wants to join in the discussion about the changes is obviously welcome to, and I can't see any problem with QG seeking out a wider audience to review them, but this is not really an ANI matter. --Ludwigs2 01:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you revert RexxS after RexxS objected to the mass changes. QuackGuru (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

My feelings are the same as Ludwig's. The modifications were made gradually by several editors and with general consensus, in line with ongoing talk-page discussion; QuackGuru seems to object to certain things, but doesn't seem capable of expressing his objections with sufficient precision to become properly involved in the discussion. While the policy page is now better than it was, I don't think it's entirely satisfactory yet, for many reasons, so I would certainly encourage further discussion (perhaps after a period of reflection) to work on making it better still.--Kotniski (talk) 07:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The only change to ASF I see is cosmetic. The essential bits are preserved. Of the two example removals provided above, only the "according to" thing isn't really addressed (the in-line dilution is certainly a V thing more than an NPOV thing*), and honestly there are a million ways to present things as (un)controversial when they are(n't), and all of that can be and probably has been forked to any one of dozens of explanatory pages. Until more examples are provided, I don't see any fundamental change to policy. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC) * Although I can sort-of see how it's related to the cite-stacking problem. Truth™ by numbers!

Yes, the changes were largely cosmetic. But you're also right about the inline attribution issue, and I think, for QuackGuru that was the key loss. If a non-opinion could be reliably sourced then I believe in QG's reading, it had to be presented as a plain fact in the most direct and assertive way. This made situations where there was, for example an uncontested systematic review in controversial field, an easy situation to navigate, because that finding just had to be stated as a plain fact (i.e. Mars is a planet; Chiropractic is not worth the risk of dying). My reading of the current guidance on assertions is that editors have leeway to determine just how 'plain' a fact is given context and can decide how much inline attribution to use depending on the effect and impression different phrasings have balanced against the usefulness of adding attribution in certain cases. This is a complicated area for sure, but I didn't see any other editors besides QG offering the critique of the changes. Ocaasi (talk) 08:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You did see other editors diagreeing with the edits on the talk page but you chose to dismiss others who disagree with you including the comments made by RexxS. QuackGuru (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Apology if I forgot about Rexxs. I meant that after the edits were made, there was little to no objection for the past two months except from you. That doesn't make the current version right, but I think it kind of squashes this already pointless thread. Ocaasi (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. Basically, the presence of a citation can create the impression of a controversy where there is none (or vice-versa)? I'd agree with that. The solution is trivial, too, by defining "fact" and "opinion" (no disagreement in reliable sources & value judgment or contested). Currently, NPOV does a poor job of explaining what is meant by the terms. Xavexgoem (talk) 09:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyone mind if we move this (part of the) discussion over to WT:NPOV, which is where it belongs?--Kotniski (talk) 09:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

There were other editors who disagreed with the changes. RexxS reverted the changes and explained on the talk page the disagreement were not an improvement. It is disingenuous to claim the changes were largely cosmetic. QuackGuru (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Not disingenuous, but maybe premature. If you could explain how it was weakened? There are diffs and a few examples, but nothing appears fundamental changed (to me). There really isn't much discussion on WT:NPOV, so anyone who reads up on this is going to be confused (or I'm an idiot - but there are many idiots). Xavexgoem (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• It is always a really bad idea for any editor engaged in content disputes where a policy applies, to edit the policy. This always gives the appearance of changing policy to support your own position. Changes to policy - especially core policy - must be discussed if challenged, which this clearly is; WP:RBI covers this, but WP:SELFCONTROL should as well. Guy (Help!) 09:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

According to the edit summary on one of the major changes to policy Kotniski wrote I dare say someone will revert this, but this is my attempt at a true "simple formulation" - if we need more info, couldn't it go in later sections of the policy?). It seems Kotniski knew the edit was controversial because it was unilateral. Kotniski also seem to have known other editors would object to the changes. QuackGuru (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

From what I read here, I think the best way forward is to ignore what's written on the policy page (as policy describes what is done, rather than prescribing what must be done), and continue to assert undisputed conclusions from reliable sources with citation, but without attribution. It's a pity that the ASF section has been weakened so that we'll have to have that debate on every talk page with every POV-pusher who wants to discredit a source they don't like, but eventually I expect the policy page will catch up with best practice. --RexxS (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see why you think anything's been weakened - this point is still clearly - perhaps even more clearly now - made on the page (basically it's the third bullet point in the first section, which gives the matter at least the prominence that's due to it). But perhaps comments about the wording of the policy and how further to improve it can be made on the policy's own talk page, as I suggested above - that way it's much more likely to lead to genuine improvement (which is undoubtedly possible and desirable).--Kotniski (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

A simple formulation

• WP:ASF
• WP:ASSERT

Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. A "fact", for this policy, is a statement about which there is no serious dispute between reliable sources. For instance, the published finding of a reliable literature review is a fact, when it is not disputed by another secondary source. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No reliable source seriously disputes any of these statements, so Misplaced Pages articles can simply assert them. Facts can be asserted in Misplaced Pages's voice (e.g. "Mars is a planet.") and without an inline qualifier (e.g. "According to...", "John Doe believes...", "The book Manual of Cardiovascular Medicine stated...", "A systematic review...").

An "opinion", on the other hand, is a statement which expresses a value judgement, or a statement construed as factual that is a matter subject to dispute. There are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing or killing animals is wrong is a value or opinion. That The Beatles were the greatest band in history is an opinion. That the United States is the only country in the world that has used a nuclear weapon during wartime is a fact, but that the United States was right or wrong to drop the atomic bomb is a value or opinion.

Values or opinions must not be written as if they were in Misplaced Pages's voice. Factually attribute the opinion in the text to a person, organization, group of persons, or percentage of persons, and state as fact that they have this opinion, citing a reliable source. For instance, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band ever", locate a source such as Rolling Stone magazine and write: "Rolling Stone said that the Beatles were the greatest band ever", including a reference to the issue in which that statement was made. Likewise, the statement "Most people from Liverpool consider the Beatles the greatest band ever", can be made if it can be supported per Misplaced Pages's verifiability to a particular survey or reliable source. Attribution in the text must accurately reflect the source presented. Do not use terms like "most people" unless a source can be found to substantiate such a claim (See WP:SYN and WP:WEASEL).

There are bound to be borderline cases where careful editorial judgment needs to be exercised – either because a statement is part way between a fact and an opinion, or because it is not clear whether there is a serious dispute – editorial consideration of undue weight will determine whether a particular disagreement between sources is significant enough to be acknowledged.

A careful selection of reliable sources is also critical for producing articles with a neutral point of view. When a matter is subject to dispute there are competing, contradictory views between reliable sources. When discussing the facts on which a point of view is based, it is important to also include the facts on which competing opinions are based since this helps a reader evaluate the credibility of the competing viewpoints. This should be done without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also important to make it clear who holds these opinions. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.

This is the broad consensus version of ASF that can be worked back into policy in about a couple of seconds from now if you want to keep the original intent of NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Another cartoon vandal

Jpablo95 (talk · contribs) has several final level warnings for adding inaccurate info to Vampires Suck and Mad (TV series). After an unblock, he made this very inaccurate edit to the latter. A search of his edits shows he's never touched a talkpage, nor responded to the warnings piling up on his talkpage. I say a longer block is in order. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 03:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have lowered your ten-pound hammer for you.  :) He's indef blocked and I suspect he's a sockpuppet. Seen this too many times before. PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Eh, he's been doing that for ages. In fact, that's almost all of his edits; some of these oiks, once they start they don't stop until a house is dropped on them. Pity a lot of them are IPs... HalfShadow 04:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No shortage of weirdness on the interwebs. I just can't figure out what's going on in the head of someone like this. Way too much kiddie TV and not enough real world interaction. Sad. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Janu baba's continuing image upload copyright violations.

Janu baba (talk · contribs)'s Talk page is full of copyvio notices, yet they continue to upload suspect images. Corvus cornix_talk 06:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

All images nuked, user warned. Is a warning sufficient for the moment? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Shrug. That works for me. Corvus cornix_talk 07:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that in these cases, we need to go further. I propose an indefinite restriction on Janu baba from uploading any further images to Misplaced Pages until such time that this editor can demonstrate that they understand about copyright. Mjroots (talk) 10:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Look up higher on Janu's Talk page from where you placed a notice. I had already done so. Corvus cornix_talk 19:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Heads up

James Naughtie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) made a slip of the tongue on Today (BBC Radio 4) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) this morning, a spoonerism of "Jeremy Hunt the culture secretary". It's already led to this: . I semiprotected Jeremy Hunt (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and the Naughtie article for 24h, obviously we should not be adding this trivial factoid to biographies until we at least have an indication that it is considered by reliable independent sources to be significant in the context of their entire career. Actually it rises almost to the level of looking up rude words in the dictionary and sniggering. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm suprised the IPs didn't find anything funny about James Naughtie's surname XD --Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"Naughtie but nice" on twitter just now. Guy (Help!) 10:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Regretably, it has made it to the reliable media, eg guardian.co.uk. Mr Stephen (talk) 10:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure any addition on the grounds that it's in the reliable media could easily be rebutted with WP:UNDUE. StrPby (talk) 11:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Easily, moreover in a BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Although I typically consider a "slip of the tongue" in direct relation to this specific spoonerism to be a good thing, clearly, the IP's addition of it throughout the article was both intentional and inappropriate... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Just for info, it also made the BBC, The Telegraph, The Independent, The Herald Sun of Australia, Reuters Africa, and others. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, because it's a rude word. Tomorrow they will be back to Strictly and Justin Bieber. Guy (Help!) 15:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

He didn't happen to mention Ed Balls at any time during this mess, did he? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Being true doesn't make it relevent. Give it a few months. When someone writes an article-length analysis on the use of the naughty word, we may have something. Otherwise, it doesn't rise above the level of triviality for inclusion in any article. --Jayron32 15:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

If someone says a "Naughtie" word publicly and didn't mean to, it's at best a minor source of humor, not noteworthy for the bio unless it gets broad and continuous coverage. Like the time Shepard Smith on Fox News got his wording mixed up and nearly said "blow job" on the air live and apparently with no built-in delay. The red-faced Smith immediately apologized and said he wouldn't let a slip like that happen again. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

News readers known for single events

• Charlotte Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reading up about this has led me to a biography (possibly one of many — I didn't look at the rest of Template:BBC Radio 4) of a living person where a good two thirds of the article is devoted to the person's professional mistakes. Part of the remaining third is busy telling us that there isn't much else to know. I hope that the editors so keen about James Naughtie will work on fixing this, too. Uncle G (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note; we have an intent to disrupt. Tarc (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Repeated block evasion by NYScholar sockpuppet

Despite a one week block by Tiptoety for block evasion on 18 September, User:66.66.47.209 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), assumed to be a sock of banned editor NYScholar has resumed their activities, re-inserting trivial minutiae which had been carefully pruned from the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 months, since it was 2.1/2 months from their last sanction which indicates the address is stable and is more likely to effect any further attempts to evade their ban. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

User:122.60.93.162

122.60.93.162 (talk · contribs) is currently disrupting Talk:United States diplomatic cables leak and my talk page and I would appreciate if an administrator would block this account. Over at the cable leak talk page, the user continues to disrupt discussion by claiming "A retarded 10 year old child can see what is happening." I warned the user on their talk page, only to have them accuse me of lying over and over again, and attack my talk page:

1. (cur | prev) 12:42, 6 December 2010 122.60.93.162 (talk) (18,059 bytes) (Undid revision 400843815 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
2. (cur | prev) 12:40, 6 December 2010 122.60.93.162 (talk) (17,468 bytes) (Undid revision 400843514 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
3. (cur | prev) 12:37, 6 December 2010 122.60.93.162 (talk) (16,714 bytes) (Undid revision 400843284 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
4. (cur | prev) 12:35, 6 December 2010 122.60.93.162 (talk) (16,078 bytes) (Undid revision 400843027 by Viriditas (talk))
5. (cur | prev) 12:33, 6 December 2010 122.60.93.162 (talk) (16,078 bytes) (Undid revision 400842781 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
6. (cur | prev) 12:31, 6 December 2010 122.60.93.162 (talk) (14,905 bytes) (Undid revision 400842569 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
7. (cur | prev) 12:29, 6 December 2010 122.60.93.162 (talk) (14,905 bytes) (Undid revision 400842395 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
8. (cur | prev) 12:27, 6 December 2010 122.60.93.162 (talk) (14,905 bytes) (Undid revision 400842168 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
9. (cur | prev) 12:26, 6 December 2010 122.60.93.162 (talk) (14,905 bytes) (Undid revision 400842071 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
10. (cur | prev) 12:25, 6 December 2010 122.60.93.162 (talk) (14,905 bytes) (Undid revision 400841880 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
11. (cur | prev) 12:22, 6 December 2010 122.60.93.162 (talk) (14,905 bytes) (Undid revision 400841622 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
12. (cur | prev) 12:21, 6 December 2010 122.60.93.162 (talk) (14,905 bytes) (Undid revision 400841471 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
13. (cur | prev) 12:20, 6 December 2010 122.60.93.162 (talk) (14,905 bytes) (Undid revision 400841336 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
14. (cur | prev) 12:18, 6 December 2010 122.60.93.162 (talk) (14,905 bytes) (Undid revision 400841214 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)

Looking into this further, we can see that their entire history at Misplaced Pages, consists of some kind of personal attack: etc... The user also disrupted a recent discussion on the cable talk page about the unreadability of the page by claiming it was "nonsense" and that it was "one of the most "readable" large articles I have seen in Wikipaedia." The user is trolling the talk page, attacking retarded children, and bombing my talk page. Could someone semi-protect my talk page and remove the insults about retarded children from the article talk page as well? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I have semi-protected your talkpage for a week. I agree about the trolling, but do not necessarily agree that there is any specific attack against children with different capabilities, so I have not taken action on that part. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Their entire contribution history is pure trollery, consisting of nothing more than personal attacks against someone or another on talk pages. Viriditas (talk) 12:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree. I've also given them a 3 day vacation. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Transformers: Timelines

Can I have some extra eyes on that AFD? I've got strange stuff going on there, namely.....

New user pops out of nowhere to !vote Delete or Redirect

Another new user appears to !vote Keep

This weird thread on my talk page (note that the user who posted that thread only has one edit unrelated to the AFD)

Divebomb is not British 15:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Movadito (talk · contribs) is  Confirmed as Wiki brah (talk · contribs); consider all others  Unrelated. –MuZemike 18:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Wiki brah again? Yawn. ----Divebomb is not British 18:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat

Martaattnyatlanta (talk · contribs) made a legal threat at User talk:Jadrien. Ks0stm 15:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Already blocked. Someone should check this for sockiness. This is not a new user. --Jayron32 15:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Blocked - about as obvious as legal threats get. ~ mazca 15:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

As for sockiness, I'm not sure about this not being a new user. User:Jadrien only had two edits, so I don't think it's exactly related to any long running dispute between him and another editor...any ideas? Ks0stm 15:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It could be someone yanking our chain. Anyone who knows inside Misplaced Pages culture knows our attitude towards legal threats. I find it interesting that one new account shows up and makes a legal threat against ANOTHER new account, with no credible basis for making the threat. Something smells funny. --Jayron32 15:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

There was a "basis" for the threat (see the contribs, which were to a BLP). I don't see much sockiness here, as such. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Gwen; this seems to me like what a normal human, unfamiliar with WP policy, would do if they found out that someone on Misplaced Pages was defaming a person they knew, but who didn't know about WP's aversion to legal threats. I can't argue with the block, but I think there's a more gentle legal block notice somewhere (can't find it right now, tho). A legal threat made on-wiki for defaming someone isn't evil; it simply isn't compatible with editing here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

  Yeah, on reflection the default legal-threats block template from Twinkle {{uw-lblock}} is rather aggressive and not particularly helpful. Thanks to Floquenbeam for elaborating on the user's talk page, as I probably should have done. If there is a more informative, less bitey template that I've missed, do let me know - although probably custom-written notices are often better here. ~ mazca 17:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

A block is a block is a block. That being said, perhaps we could make it more informative by providing an email to OTRS if need be. Otherwise, just as in real life, legal threats are a serious matter.

Also I ran a check, and there is nothing else that I see. –MuZemike 18:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Edits like this are far more dangerous.].--Cube lurker (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh man.... I must not have realized what I had restored. And the IP is apologized to. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It's okay, we are all human here, do humans not make mistakes? - Dwayne was here! ♫ 22:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

POV

Hi, I wanted to report an edit war on Almoravid dynasty, Almohad Caliphate‎ and Idrisid dynasty. Omar-toons is deleting true informations and adding false information, as you can see here, he added the Idrisid dynasty as the previous dynasty. The same thing here. He is doing a PoV, as he wanted to do on the french WP. Regards--Morisco (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Omar-toons has only made one edit on each of these articles in several weeks. I don't see how this is an edit war. It is slightly dubious of him to label the edits as vandalism, but the ip users appear to be making unexplained and unsourced changes. I think this is a content dispute - have you raised it on the talk page of the articles?--Korruski 16:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree ... wrong noticeboard at this point.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Yes I have already raised it on the talke page Omar-Toons, I started a real work on the dynasties before and after the Almoravids, why have you done this, without any respect for the time I spent to organise the articles, Omar-Toons, I started a real work on the dynasties before and after the Almohad Caliphate, why have you done this .--Morisco (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Eliko

Eliko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), working on Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority, has been canvassing other editors in the hope that one or more of them will perform reversions on his or her's behalf. Since it is a behavioral matter, and because 3RR has not been broken, I thought it best to mention it here (rather than WP:AN3). I came across this activity because I had the talk page of one of the solicited editors watchlisted (a completely unrelated WP:MEDCAB matter). Here are the troubling diffs: , , , , , , , . -- Scjessey (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

That looks like canvassing for help in an edit war. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, but this sort of activity doesn't seem to be covered at WP:AN3, so I brought it here. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, this was is the page for it. I've left them a note. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

According to canvassing guidelines, "canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate". However, this was not my intention at all! My purpose was to cancel a version which has violated the three revert rule. If I could cancel it myself, I would, but I can't, because I can't break the 3 revert rule, so I asked other editors to help me cancel the version which violates the 3 revert rule, and again my purpose was just this, and was not to "influence the outcome of a discussion in a particular way". Eliko (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not the way to handle an edit war. First off, please undo or strike out the posts. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Eliko - It should be obvious that asking someone else to make an edit that is banned by policy is no different to you yourself making it, or you creating a sockpuppet to make it. In any case, forcing through your preferred version of a page by canvassing does influence the outcome of a discussion: the discussion that should be happening on the talk page to decide how to resolve the content dispute.--Korruski 17:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so it's WP:MEAT then? WP:TAGTEAM? A massive WP:EW? One huge violation of WP:BRD? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It's so beyond the pale, I don't quite grok why Eliko doesn't understand this. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Looks like Eliko is reverting those posts, thanks Eliko. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Note that I could only undo posts which haven't been responded to. 4 posts have already been responded to, so I couldn't undo them (unless Misplaced Pages is going to allow me to undo posts that have already been responded to). Note also that we are talking about posts edited 4 hours ago, and that when I posted them, my intention was not to "handle an edit war", but rather to cancel prohibited edits: prohibited - according to the three revert rule. Eliko (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You're mistaken, wholly, as to how this should be handled. As I already said, you can strike the posts out (<s>strike the text like this</s>). Please do this, then we can look at the edit war. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Eliko, the point here is not anyone else's behavior, it's yours. You WP:CANVASSed to get a specific result in an edit war. That Is Not Cool. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"to get a specific result in an edit war"? had this been my intention, I wouldn't have tried to refer to other editors. However, my intention was not to get a specific result in an edit war. The only "result" I was interested in, was to cancel a prohibited edit. prohibited - according to the three revert rule. Eliko (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't undo the other edits, so I stroke them out. Eliko (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I only see one left, which I've noted on your talk page. Given your willingness to clean this up, it's not a big deal at all. When that last one is gone, one will be able to talk about your worries over edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Eliko has helpfully retracted all the canvassing not rebuffed by a few of the editors. I've left a note as to how edit warring can be handled and tagged the article talk page with a reminder that the topic is under arbcom sanctions. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Use of inappropriate language by User:Ibn kathir

The User:Ibn.Kathir has been using quite aggressive language; baiting and insulting users. Such language can be categorized as attacks based on race, religion, /creed, etc. The user is continuously refusing to have a constructive dialogue over disputed content on Talk:Aisha despite being urged to do so by various users. Other users have tried to point out during discussion that they are uncomfortable with her/his words but s/he relies on same language. S/He during discussions at various times have used sectarian words discrediting all attempts for abusive in nature. He is too busy in pushing her/his agenda (of discrediting all Western and Shia Muslim sources & is even selective regarding Sunni sources & selection of matter from them, I quote her/him ,"...most published works in the west are either shia sourced or heavily rely on on your perspective since anything positive would obviously be sourced from Sunni primary sources and the west at this point in time is not Islam friendly, their are no other third party perspectives or sources on this issue since it is entirely Islamic...") to respect anyone's opinion &/or Misplaced Pages policies. It seems s/he has set her/his own guidelines and policy regarding acceptable references. Few of his comments are as follows:

• idiocy of the...
• i wont agree to any sunni sources that are quoted or sourced from shia or shia sources...
• turning this into a shia propaganda piece...
• More idiotic shia misquotes...

S/He has consistently shown his hate/dislike towards Shia, Ahmadiya, and western community in general & scholarship in specific. S/He has shown similar behavior on pages Talk:Criticism of Muhammad, Talk:Abu Bakr, etc.
Also, it seems User:Ibn.Kathir is employing sockpupputs to advance her/his cause, e.g. User:Ewpfpod, User:Howard.Thomas, User:Zaza8675, User:Jparrott1908, User:UmHasan, User:Markajalanraya, User:Allah1100, User:Rehan45n, User:Markanegara, User:MazzyJazzy, etc
--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haiderc_s 17:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute, from your explanation. If you think there's sockpuppetry involved, you should file an WP:SPI report. Also, User:Ibn.Kathir doesn't appear to be registered; did you misspell the username? GiftigerWunsch 17:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Believe it is Ibn_kathir.--Korruski 17:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Informed the user and corrected the username in the thread heading. GiftigerWunsch 17:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"Looks like a content dispute" ? This matter was filed because of bad user conduct, how is;

More idiotic shia misquotes of sunni sources, why dont you just quote from your own books and stop trying to put words in our mouths you seriously have an inferiority complex if you constantly seek our approval like this. Only an idiot would think our scholars havent been over every single hadith with a fine tooth comb in the last 1400 years and suddenly you have discovered something no one else has.

simply a content dispute? Tarc (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I invite you to quote the entire sentence; I made it clear I hadn't been able to locate the discussion and that from the quotes the user provided it appeared to be a content dispute. GiftigerWunsch 17:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Certainly not a content dispute - civility with perhaps a racism undertone starting. Nothing blockable yet from what I see - of course, this is an issue that should have been at WP:WQA first ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, correct name is User:Ibn kathir. And yes it is regarding content dispute but it seems s/he agrees to nothing and keep using allegations and accusations towards users, communities, creeds, etc. I didn't requested for blocking anyone I just reported the happening and my concerns. The attitude of user is blocking activity on Aisha & it seems on other articles also. We have tried to engage the user but s/he refuse to be constructive contributor. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haiderc_s 17:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Chatha

I've repeatedly asked this user User talk:Zain chattha to cite their additions of a "Famous Personality" section to this article Chatha. I've left a welcome template at their talk page and asked several times, pointing them to relevant policy pages, etc. They have not yet responded to my talk page messages and I feel like I'm getting drawn into an edit war with an unresponsive editor. Per their latest edit . Could someone else take a look at this and offer some input please, I'm already at 2RR for the day and maybe some other input would get thru to the editor. Notifying nowHeiro 17:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted it, as clearly unsourced. I'll keep eye on it, and see if Zain chattha responds. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. Maybe having another editor with the same position will wake them up. AGFing for now anyways. Heiro 18:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Block Evasion

• StevenFraser (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) Block Evasion - Sock-puppet of User:Kagome_85. 96.30.191.86 (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Diffs? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

 Confirmed:

• StevenFraser (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• BlossomBubblesButtercup (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• HeatherSM (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Blacknlrose (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Blackmagic1234andMoukityisHiggys (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

All accounts plus a small IP range blocked. –MuZemike 20:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"Imitator" on Facebook

See this. That is not me. This seems like a fake. Perseus (t • c) 18:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hardly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Searched on Google, barely saw the result, and kinda panicked. Better look before you panic. Sorry. Perseus (t • c) 18:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Unprotection of U2

U2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was protected this weekend after a somewhat nasty round of edit warring over inclusion of the term Irish in the lead. There's a consensus on the discussion on its talk to unprotect and include the word, but no one has responded to my request at WP:RFPP DC T•C 19:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Why not just make an {{editprotected}} request? You're more likely to gain a prompt response through that, than requesting unprotection and waiting, just to make a single edit. --Dorsal Axe 19:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

What is the rule, if any, for determining whether an organization is "Irish" or not? Does U2 itself take any position on the matter? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

U2 is canny Irish, Dubliner, way, but if the article narrative is to carry that and some editors don't agree, it's gotta be sourced. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It's been sourced on the talk page by reliable sources and the and itself. DC T•C 19:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

i dont think that sources on the talkpage count for something thats a potential WP:BLP violation here. unless there are credible, consensed sources on the actual article space specifically, I dont think that we can call U2 an Irish or anything of that nature, as per WP:Biography of Living Persons and WP:Music User:Smith Jones 20:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

If they call themselves an Irish band and no notable authorities disagree vehemently, then there's no BLP issue. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The article narrative can indeed read that x more or less widely published source has called them X. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The current wording is "U2 are a rock band from Dublin, Ireland", which is a somewhat weaselly way around the issue; and if they were Americans, it would probably be "U2 is..." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

See this. If you scroll through, there is a direct quote from Bono in which he says "We are Irish. Completely and utterly 90s Irish." Further, on the RFC, there was not one claim that either Clayton or the Edge (the two allegedly non-Irish members) have challenged the common perception (or Bono's belief) that the band is Irish. DC T•C 20:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say that can at the very least be cited as a quote from him, though I must say, he may be pushing it, those blokes are 80s through and through. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe if they had called themselves "The Irish Band" instead of "U2", and played the Clancy Brothers' songbook instead of rock, there wouldn't be a debate. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Another quote for the discussion: "Bono said it was 'amazing' to think of people in Dublin picking up Time magazine and seeing an Irish band on the cover. 'For so long we were thought of as a British band and that was insulting. To be covered by the international media finally means we've been accepted as Irish.'" <ref>{{title=U2|last=Shirley|first=Jackie|page=46|year=1993|publisher=]|location=]|isbn=0681418753|}}</ref> Maybe this can lay it to rest. Heiro 20:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but they're just a band, so what do they know? Misplaced Pages editors know THE TRUTH. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Awww, Bugs, you forgot the " " and all caps for that Truth, you know it only applies then, lol. Heiro 21:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Danke. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, truth is holy, but it's not en.WP's gig. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yup. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

User talk:KeepInternetSafe&Clean

User contributions, User is acting in bad faith and personally attacking other editors over his edits at Softpedia. He is not quite understanding policies like WP:NPOV, WP:RS and others. He's been warned but it seems he has a disregard for what he has done. Input greatly appreciated. Momo san 19:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

While the user definitely got off to an unpleasant start, there are a few signs for hope that xhe'll improve. After initially editing in the same way as User:193.226.140.133 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), xhe's registered an account. After being asked, xhe's started signing posts. The sniping seems to have slowed down, if not stopped. I would urge that we show a little patience with a novice editor. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure that you've identified folk correctly? Isn't KeepInternetSafe&Clean the user who was 69.114.240.113? Surely 193.226.140.133 is the Softpedia CoI editor on the other side of the dispute? - David Biddulph (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Argh, my head hurts! Yes, David's got it right. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Oddity on User:Silenzio76

A question for the geeks: I landed more or less by accident on this user page, which displays the Recent changes. When I clicked on "User contributions" my PC almost crashed, for reasons I can't fathom, and I don't want to repeat the experiment (you know, PCs running Windows and all). In the end, my PC froze for a few minutes and now seems to be back to normal, but I thought I'd ask around to see if some devastating script was running. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I tried it and did not have any problem. One problem I do have is that user has altered the title of his userpage to suggest it is some other page (a "special:" one at that!). That's hella-misleading--cool, but bad to mess with the interface that way. DMacks (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem here either. The userpage retitling apparently comes from his inclusion of {{Special:Recentchanges/100}}. Not sure what the call is on that. Tarc (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Tarc, my screen froze showing that "Recentchanges/100" thing, and I couldn't figure out what that meant. Thanks to both of you. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Tarc, DMacks, et al: please check out this edit and revert if I overstepped my boundaries. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back

Can we indef block this guy? Per this, he's been indef blocked twice already with other accounts, one being the super-troll User:Bad edits r dumb. All of Fat Man's edits are trolling, and he has been calling other users "dumb" constantly as of late. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

For saying what? "I hate admins?". Ceoil (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any recent diffs to support problems recently? Misplaced Pages review notwithstanding, do you have any on-wiki evidence of recent disruption? Perusing his recent contributions, I do find some positive content work, including some extensive work on expanding and cleaning up at least one or two articles. While content work cannot override bad behavior, his edits don't appear to have consisted of, "All... trolling" as you claim. I am well aware of this users past, blocked identities, but given that he seems to have turned over a new leaf, and is not currently causing a problem, on what specific, diff-supported grounds do you wish to see him blocked? --Jayron32 21:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

, , , to name a few. I just think that his trolling has far outweighed any positive contributions he has made. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This ANI section is more disruptive than anything linked above. Please contribute to the encyclopedia rather than attempting to ban a good editor.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Why does everyone keep trying to defend this troll? "Good" editors don't have their main accounts indef blocked four times now. His unblock requests even show that he is just a troll (see his talk page). Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Please side with love rather than hate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"The love you take is equal to the love you make." Such as the love shown for both the editors and for the English language, in comments like "u r dumb." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it's time to block. Per my comments here - Kingpin (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

That's four sketchy edits in the past month. I agree that the 4 edits you provided are bad, and should ideally never happen, but I do not think that they rise to the level of instantly blockable. --Jayron32 21:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Fine with an indef block. --John (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You people are being unnecessarily ruthless and thin-skinned. Users should not be blocked for something they wrote on another website with the exceptions of canvassing and child pornography.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

, , ... all within the past month. I don't read the crap he writes on WR, I am basing this purely on his disruptive editing here and with his other trolling account. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

He said "u r dumb" as recently as today. Having escaped 4 indef's, he probably figures he's teflon. Maybe time to apply the brillo pad. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Teflon is cheap and artificial; I'm more like carefully seasoned cast iron, rich with years' build-up of carbonized grease and free of metallic flavor.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Slippery, either way. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Then why start off with a link to WR? That appears to be the motivation for this thread. These wiki-links (mostly from early November) appear to be attempts at humor. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"Hey, Saturn, U R dumb!" That was pretty funny, yes? :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I LOLed.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I will now file a grievance at WP:EQ.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm shaking in my jackboots. :) Or is it Fat Man who'll be your target? :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The things that really made me start this thread were (1) his post on WR right after BErD was indef blocked, and (2) the diff provided by Bugs to TCNSV's talk page, which is on my watchlist. I searched through WR for the original post (I assumed no one else made the connection between the two accounts yet, for which I was mistaken), but found this one instead. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

After Fat Man's sock was blocked for giving wikipedians the BErD, it's odd that his original account was allowed to continue to operate. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Never mind what I said earlier, based on his last comments here today, he shows no remorse or signs of intending to take the project seriously. I would support an indefinitate block here. Significant is his prior history. I would never think of blocking a user if this was the sum total of problems. But given his extensive history of general trolling, I see no evidence he intends to stop. --Jayron32 21:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I, er, refactored my comments, like when i said that guy was dumb.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, yeh, after the threat of indef started to look realistic, and meanwhile invoking the ID of your indef'd sock. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Every comment here, including this one, is troll feeding. --jpgordon 22:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM P-:--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yup. See ya. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Why, again, are we not blocking him until he starts acting like an adult human being again? --Conti|✉ 22:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, clearly hasn't changed and is evading block. Someone just do it. Netalarm 22:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

NOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!! i will submit to mentorship and adoption and arbcom sanctions and all manner of indignities. but pls don't block me because i have a lot of constructive edit todo before i die. :-(--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I can only hope this means you're going to die soon... HalfShadow 22:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Judging by that block log, the blocked sock and the several nonsensical comments above, the user is either on a long-term trolling campaign or simply does not have the temperament required for useful contribution in a collegial, collaborative, adult environment. I agree with Jayron32 and Eagles247 and support an indefinite block.  Sandstein  22:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Imminent edit war in Viktor Bout

While techically perhaps not at that stage, the article is close to an edit war over quite legitimate and well-sourced statement about the official charges against the person. User:Fleetham's recent repeated deletions of these legal facts (such as this, as well as the previous ones by him), in my view, may amount to vandalism. He does not put any reasons (except utterly specious ones on my page) for his actions and demands, inexplicably, that i stop editing the article (). Please intervene.Axxxion (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and this board is not the place for content disputes, but I have to observe that Fleetham is exactly right and you are not. You cannot describe someone as a terrorist based on a source that only describes him as an arms trafficker. Moreover, a statement of charges pending against an individual cannot be used as a source for the truth of the charges. Note also that good-faith edits to an article are never vandalism, and it is not helpful to describe them as vandalism, even if those edits had substantially less merit than these appear to. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you apparently, have not read what the statement says, nor the sources: it does not call him a terrorist; it names the charges as they are stated in the sources, ie official document of the Justice Dpt.Axxxion (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The first source (an official US Justice Dpt doc) is titled: "Viktor Bout Extradited to the United States to Stand Trial on Terrorism Charges".Axxxion (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The "terrorism charges" are arms trafficking charges; you cannot use that to support a version of the article that claims he was indicted for "terrorism" . See Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid and especially WP:BLP for the policy on this. Again, however, this is not the place for content disputes. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

User:QuackGuru

QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a fairly disruptive editor. He has a strong POV on various issues, often seems not to understand policy, and is a serial reverter. He was blocked 11 times between 2007 and 2009 for edit warring, including one indefinite block. Nowadays he reverts up to 3RR, then stops to avoid a block.

The problem is that he immediately deletes all posts from his talk page, which means it's difficult for others to see the pattern of complaints about him. I know editors have broad leeway on their talk pages, but this has reached the point of being disruptive. Looking through the history, there seems to be one warning after another, all removed instantly. Should we require him to leave messages in place for a minimum period—say, two weeks? SlimVirgin 21:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, I have left a 3RR note on his talkpage today as he reverted at Jimmy Wales three times without any discussion at all. He just deleted it immediately and left me a template when I had only a single revert to the Jimmy Wales article, clearly misusing the template completely. Off2riorob (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I know that you know that 3RR is a bright line rather than an allowance, so have you reported this editor to the 3RR page? There are folks there who are presumably adept at seeing gaming of the restriction. LHvU (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

He made three reverts without a single word of discussion, and then when I warned him about it he left me a warning, I imagine some administrators would have blocked but I didn't make a report there. I would have immediately if he had reverted after my warning. Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

SV appears to indicate that this is a pattern, and I am suggesting (I was using my LHvU account just above) that such behaviour may get more traction if reported to the 3RR board. As for your example, a single or infrequent incident may not be sufficient to draw a sanction and the removal of a warning is taken as evidence it had been read. The subsequent action of templating you is not appropriate, but again it is more serious if it can be shown as part of a pattern of disruptive/dismissive behaviours (recent, or ongoing per SV's commentary about the block history from 2007 - 09). LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I did prepare a report for 3RR, showing three reverts on the 4th and three on the 6th at Jimmy Wales, but I ended up not posting it. The point about the talk page is that, when you encounter problems with him, you look at his talk page and there's no indication that others are having similar problems, because he blanks after each post. If he were required to leave the posts in place, it might give him pause for thought before causing another editor to feel the same way. And it would make it easier for admins to track just how troublesome he's being. SlimVirgin 22:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat?

Looks like a legal threat in edit summary by IP editor here. Haven't informed them of this report, as I believe legal threats are met with blocking without any prior communication. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

He appears to be a zealous fan, and he has conveniently now created a user ID, so that should make the blocking process a little easier. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Well, there is a template ({{uw-legal}}). I'm not sure if you were stating your opinion about whether or not they should be warned before blocked though so I won't put the template. The summary definitely seems like a legal threat to me though. 22:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the edit summaries were zapped and user was warned. We'll see. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Opinions involve both matters of fact and value; see fact-value distinction.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards