Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:15, 15 February 2011

• 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
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

User:David Tombe is being abused by me

I'd like to report myself for losing my ability to not respond nastily to David Tombe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Can't we arrange for another year of two of physics topic ban for this guy? Dicklyon (talk) 05:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Um -- this is a backhanded way of making a complaint, indeed. If you lose your own temper, have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 08:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's magnificent actually. At one stroke Dicklyon admits his shortcomings and accepts any consequences for them, while at the same time focussing our attention upon the real villian, Mr. Tombe, who from a brief glance does look rather a nuisance. In fact it's so good I'm going to see what barnstar I can award the former. Egg Centric (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding my mixed feelings, and for your cool barnstar. I have numerous times advised others to simply ignore David's nonsense, yet I seem to be unable to take my own advice. Dicklyon (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you gave that advice on the cf page and I ignored it. I was wrong but I have now heeded it, you should too. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

David is still under general probation, as listed at WP:Arbitration/Active sanctions. I've not been following the discussion at Talk:Centrifugal force but it looks like he exceeded the terms of that sanction a long time ago.--JohnBlackburne_deeds 18:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If you would like admin action, e.g. a ban from Talk:Centrifugal force, then please present evidence that User:David Tombe has "repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum". Fences&Windows 20:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

He two weeks ago posted some clearly incorrect physics (it's at the top of the talk page), was told by three different editors he was wrong, reminded of previous warnings on pushing his fringe ideas, and stopped. Only since then he's joined and started further discussions pushing the same incorrect physics, , , , , , ,..., undeterred by further editors pointing out his errors. --JohnBlackburne_deeds 21:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The simplest approach might be for any editor who thinks David Tombe is not adhering to proper standards to open a complaint at WP:Arbitration enforcement and ask for an appropriate sanction under his general probation, which was made indefinite by Arbcom. See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Remedies, item 6.2. EdJohnston (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

For those not familiar with the case that involved David Tombe (the Speed of light case, though centrifugal force was mentioned in the scope statement), the final decision is here. My reading (as a former arbitrator) of the general probation (which I voted for at the time as an arbitrator active on that case) is that this was intended to cover the uncivil behaviour mentioned in the other finding related to him. The fringe advocacy finding was dealt with by the physics topic ban remedy (which expired in October 2010). Reimposing the topic ban is something that might be simpler and quicker to take this straight to an amendment request (it depends on whether those active at arbitration enforcement think it is within their remit to renew an expired topic ban under the provisions of the still-existing general probation). My view is that it looks like David Tombe has returned to his previous ways, and that a topic ban should be reimposed, but that it should be ArbCom that is asked to rule on this, at an amendment request. David Tombe would have to demonstrate whether his behaviour has changed or not. Carcharoth (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This can go straight under the general probation, which does not seem to be limited to civility problems. Arbcom knows full well how to write a civility restriction, and the general probation here isn't one. It's more like a discretionary sanctions regime, and AE has routinely reimposed under those regimes arbcom-imposed topic bans that have since expired in cases of renewed misconduct, as far as I know.

Turning to the merits, it seems obvious to me that David Tombe is engaging in exactly the same type of behavior that got him sanctioned in the first place, in the same set of pages, no less. Therefore, in accordance with Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#David Tombe restricted, David Tombe (talk · contribs) is hereby banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to physics, broadly construed across all namespaces. T. Canens (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Fences&Windows 03:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It also seems to directly contradict Carcharoth's words: My view is that it looks like David Tombe has returned to his previous ways, and that a topic ban should be reimposed, but that it should be ArbCom that is asked to rule on this, at an amendment request. David Tombe would have to demonstrate whether his behaviour has changed or not. Dr.K.  03:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I take note of Carcharoth's comment, but the language of the Speed of light case explicitly allows admins to impose additional sanctions on David Tombe. (The remedies regarding Tombe were more strict than those applied to Brews ohare, since Brews' probation was for just one year, while Tombe's probation was made indefinite). Their decision states:

David Tombe (talk · contribs) is placed under a general probation indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions if, despite being warned, David Tombe repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum.

Arbcom used the phrase 'discretionary sanctions' a number of times in their decision. In fact, the log shows that Tznkai took an enforcement action in November, 2009 which imposed a further restriction on David Tombe. If David objects to this new topic ban from physics articles, the usual appeal process is open to him. He can take the matter to WP:AE, and if not satisfied with the response there, he can go to Arbcom. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Ed for clarifying. I would have preferred if Carcharoth was allowed to proceed on the plan to involve the Arbcom further before any action was taken. Dr.K.  04:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I did look at Carcharoth's comment. That's why I specifically discussed the probation's difference from civility restrictions - arbcom has a fixed formula for those as well: "X is subject to an editing restriction for Y. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be briefly blocked...". This is not one of them. T. Canens (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

In Talk:Centrifugal force, David is defending an alternative idea that there really is an actual force of separation between adjacent members of a centrifugally rotating material system and that the system can then be made to transfer angular momentum and associated kinetic energy away from the system due to the existence and occurrence of this Centrifugal force property. The other editors in this matter seem to want to be "left alone" from discussions concerning this aspect of the subject matter. Since the utility of the use of the subject matter is better understand the correct functioning of same, it seems reasonable that such a discussion should be a reasonable topic of discussion in a talk section.WFPM (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I think 2+ years without a source that supports his POV was more than enough discussion, to justify some of us wanting to be "left alone" as you put it; and he never advanced the position that you just described; that must be your own POV. Actually, I don't think I've ever heard of a "centrifugally rotating material system", so don't know what you're referring to even. Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between debating alternative physics and theories (that is better done on various forums that are available around the internet, rather than on Misplaced Pages) and using talk pages to improve the associated article. From what I can see, there is far too much discussion of the physics rather than discussing the writing and improvement of the article. This is what was a problem before, hence the action taken here. Carcharoth (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Noting here that this is also being discussed at User talk:Timotheus Canens and User talk:David Tombe. It may be worth keeping an eye on those pages in case things get out of hand. I will be leaving a comment at the former page advising on what should be done here, but as an arbitration enforcement action has been taken, there is no need (yet) to discuss the matter here, so this thread can probably be closed. Carcharoth (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Charcharoth, With all due respect, I think we need to distinguish between the concept of 'alternative physics' on the one hand, and the fact that two alternative concepts of centrifugal force were being discussed on the talk page at centrifugal force. Alternative physics was not being discussed. David Tombe (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Charcharoth, Thanks for opening the debate surrounding the evidence which was presented. You have claimed that I was using the talk page to discuss physics, rather than for the purpose of discussing how to improve the article. And you hold up the diffs provided by John Blackburne as being evidence that I was promoting fringe ideas. Let's look at the very first diff provided by John Blackburne. It is this . I was responding to an anonymous who had asked a question. I don't see where I have promoted any fringe ideas. I began by referring the anonymous to an excellent source which actually clarified some of the confusion surrounding the issue. Here is the source, . It explains how Leibniz had deduced that centrifugal force is an outward inverse cube law force. But as is well known, there was an intense rivalry between Newton and Leibniz and when Newton saw Leibniz's equation, he criticized it and claimed that centrifugal force is the equal and opposite reaction to the centripetal force. The sources which the anonymous was producing were sources which related to the Newtonian viewpoint. But the Newtonian viewpoint is no longer the foremost viewpoint being taught nowadays at university. I don't see any misconduct on my part. It was a talk page discussion aimed at trying to improve the article, and that involved trying to establish some kind of understanding of the subject matter. In my opinion, dicklyon was being obstructive and on his own admission, he was being uncivil. The truth is that T. Canens engaged in a knee jerk reaction, and as we all know very well, those kind of knee jerk reactions, which are all too common, are never reversed. David Tombe (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not really familiar with WP procedures but I was contributing to talk:centrifugal force and the subject "abuse of David Tombe" cropped up. It seems that another editor reported himself for an abuse and it ends with this David Tombe permanently banned from physics articles. Can this be right? I have now checked back and this is about contributions to a talk page. Do you approve of free speech in a talk page? This was all about merging articles on centrifugal force into one, and got mixed up with interpretations. David Tombe's contributions were all "polite" were they not? The only heated comments came from Dicklyon and they were really minor but he admitted he had lost his temper. What is going on? I also checked back about the earlier fracas and it seems to me the ban was then to close down discussion rather than because of a single immoderate or insulting remark. OK there is disagreement here echoing Newton and Leibniz, actually very interesting stuff and as I said in the talk page, we do not understand the cause of inertia so we must be humble rather than fixed in our views of what is a real force. Is gravity a real force? We don't understand that either . I for one feel that we are seeing an injustice here where one editor (dicklyon) gets annoyed and has another banned - indefinitely.Profstandwellback (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The fundamental misunderstanding here is the idea that Misplaced Pages talk pages are somehow a place to debate what centrifugal force is, or is not (or whatever the topic of the page is). There is often a need for limited discussion of that nature, but it is important to bear in mind the need to keep such discussions limited and to focus discussions onto what edits need to be made to the page and what sources are appropriate. This doesn't mean discussing in depth the science behind what the sources say, but rather the talk page should be for discussing whether and how to present what the sources say. That might seem like the same thing, but there is a subtle and fundamental difference. In other words, Misplaced Pages article talk pages are not areas of free speech where opinions about the topic should be debated (though that does happen sometimes). This misunderstanding is clearly seen in the comment made by David Tombe here: "the topic is a centuries old controversy which was argued about by great masters such as Newton and Leibniz, and it would be a mistake to think that John Blackburne has the last word as regards what is correct and what is not correct in relation to centrifugal force". The aim of collaborating on a Misplaced Pages page on centrifugal force is not to come up with the last word on what is correct and what is not correct. The aim is to document what reliable sources say, and to cover some of the history, and put the rest of the history on the page about the history (see History of centrifugal and centripetal forces), and even there, the aim would be to summarise what historians of science have concluded, not to draw our own conclusions. It is very, very easy to cross the line and end up discussing the content (as you would in a forum), rather than discussing the article and what it should look like. There is even {{Not a forum}} that is put on talk pages explicitly to remind readers to avoid this conduct. For more on the community attitude to Misplaced Pages being treated as a forum, see the recent Village pump thread here. See also here and here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Carcharoth, You should have read the discussion before making a recommendation for a topic ban. Then you would have seen that it was indeed about how to reduce the content of five articles into one article. And if you think that the problem was that I was expressing my opinions on the topic, then so was everybody else in the discussion. As for John Blackburne, he wasn't even involved in the discussion. What is important here is that this thread has illustrated everything that is bad about wikipedia. Tim Song has acted arbitrarily on the back of rumour, without any investigation whatsoever, and he has summarily convicted without even giving the defendant a chance to defend himself. And it's not the fact that he has acted beyond his remit which is the problem here. It's the fact that the system has defended his actions and tried to argue that his actions were correct, even though everybody knows that his actions were badly wrong. Since when has it been acceptable to claim that a warning for one kind of behaviour is relevant to a warning for another kind of 'alleged' misbehaviour 15 months later? And there has been no evidence of misbehaviour presented. John Blackburne's opinions do not count as evidence. Ideally Tim Song should be de-sysoped for his actions. But experience shows that no such good fortune ever happens, and as such I have absolutely no intention whatsoever of appealing against this monumental farce. It is like England's goal against Germany at the world cup last summer. The whole world saw that it was a goal but the referee disallowed it. The decision was not overturned and England went into the second half demoralized. And so it is here. The priority is making sure that Tim Song doesn't lose face. And so be it. Let's end the pretence that there was even the remotest grain of legitimacy in his actions. David Tombe (talk) 12:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, it is polite to use people's current usernames. Secondly, since you have stated you have no intention of appealing, I suggest this thread is closed. I've explained why I think WP:NOT#FORUM applies here (the template is on that article talk page), and it applies to you more than others due to the previous arbitration case. I won't say more on that here, as that will just means things are going round in circles. Carcharoth (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Going around in circles is what Tombe does best. How many hours of pointless, endless discussion with and about him are going to go by before we finally decide enough is enough? I came to that decision about two years ago myself, over pretty much these same issues. ArbCom tried one of their "middle road" solutions and, surprise surprise, it failed. David, don't feel any need to reply to this as I will not be reading it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is great at being sanctimonious to the point that it believes that proper process is not required. You would think a permanent ban would be an instance where you would want to get it right. Even if the believe is that wikipedia is right to act, you might just go that extra mile to be certain.--scuro (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, which is why I said David Tombe should appeal to ArbCom, rather than go round in circles here (and elsewhere). That would be the proper process here. To respond to Beeblebrox, have a look at the voting in the proposed decision on the case. It is one of the few times I voted to support a year-long site ban and was in the minority (the topic ban was passed instead). In general, I wish administrators would enforce "not a forum" more than they do. Discussion on talk pages should be focused on improving the article, and other stuff should go to user talk pages or to off-wiki venues. Unfortunately, some editors dress up their discussion and opinion on a topic under the guise of claiming to be improving the article, claiming that in order to show why the article should be written such-and-such-a-way, they need to give a mini-lecture on the topic first. And the mini-lecture then devolves into an acrimonious debate and lots of hand-waving. But this should be discussed elsewhere. I think we really are done here now. Carcharoth (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, we can only be certain of his guilt by imposing a permanent ban so that it can sorted out in an appeal to arbcom?!?????!! Are not appeals of arbcom an opaque process not viewable to all?! I do not understand at all why this shortcut to proper justice is being imposed.--scuro (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You may want to make yourself familiar with this situation, then. Tombe was originally topic-banned from this subject ~2 years ago, and the entire physics category is under general sanctions per ArbCom. Tombe's ban dropped, and he went right back into arguing his alternative hypothesis, exactly the same thing that got him banned before. Per ArbCom's general sanctions, admins may impose a topic ban on those who are violating the sanction rules. And Tombe is clearly doing that. Process has been followed. — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between what wikipedia can do and what wikipedia should do. An appeal to close the thread right now does nothing to bolster the impression that this has NOT been done too quickly. Another contributor has mentioned his breadth of knowledge that DT has on this topic and that his viewpoint is not fringe viewpoint. Has this situtation been misrepresented in anyway? As a bare minimum you would to know that wikipedia got it right before you impose a permanant ban.--scuro (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• When the case was being heard, I'd proposed a full site ban because I expected the issues to continue like a never ending story. The proposal moved forward to the PD but the majority wanted to give other sanctions a chance to work (which was fine at the time). However, this is no longer a first-timer; we're seeing repeats of the same problems by the same user which the case already dealt with. There isn't any reason for the Community to overturn what has been noted here so if an appeal is wanted, it'll need to go to AC...which brings me to my point...why is this still open? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Because of the possibility of injustice.--scuro (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes we reviewed that. No ban is permanent, and frankly, this restriction isn't even a site ban (perhaps unfortunately)...so if the AC remedy needs to be overturned, take it to AC so they can decide if the way in which their restriction was enforced was 'unjust'. It may not have been perfect, but if they subsequently find that this remedy was too generous, then they can fix that as well. As far as I can see, there isn't any private evidence in this case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes Ncmvocalist, but I objected to that course of action. There are two characterizations of DT by different contributors and they do not at all mesh. It disturbs me that we are so quick to bury this thread and "live" with the permanent ban. Where is the fire? Why factor in the possibility of "fixing" something later? Especially since, as far as I understand this, the appeal process is not a transparent process?!?? Any possible injustice should see the light of day now.

Do you not trust that DT is speaking truthfully or that he is not acting in good faith on this thread? I for one would like to hear him explain things more and I would like to hear more from the character witness.--scuro (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Ms. Black Gold on Stereotypes of white people

The user has been blocked twice for edit warring over this material. Both before and after I reported it to the RS/N.

MBG has once again returned to re-add the material. MBG has once again reverted a user who removed it..

I long ago gave reasons for why I removed the material. Here is a summary of the objections I had made up to when MBG was blocked for the first time. A dozen or so other editors criticised the material or removed it, but she reverted or ignored them all.

If Misplaced Pages means anything, this editor either needs to be warned off or blocked yet again. BillMasen (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems a bit extreme to say that "if Misplaced Pages means anything," action needs to be brought against an editor who hasn't been here since before last Christmas. Dayewalker (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm just saying that the clear consensus, in every case, was against this material. Surely re-adding it isn't acceptable? Or is someone going to have to sit on the page and clean it up every week or so?

If you think you can reason with the editor concerned (after looking at these edits) that would be great. I presume you agree that MBG's contributions on this page aren't acceptable? BillMasen (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Um, the editor in question hasn't edited ANY page since 23 December 2010...GiantSnowman 23:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

So when I revert back to the consensus version, and she undoes the edit, will it be a problem then? Hey ho... BillMasen (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If that happens, then maybe there's an issue. At the moment, it isn't an issue, since they aren't reverting - or, indeed, making any edits at all. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yep - revert back, and if/when she reappears and becomes disruptive, then it's a time to get admins involved - but presently there is no issue to be resolved. GiantSnowman 23:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have indefinitely blocked the account. Respectfully, I disagree with a wait and see approach in this situation given the history of the user. The contributor was blocked on July 7 for edit warring on the same article. The first and only edits she made after return were to resume edit warring, whereupon she was blocked again with a caution that further such activities would result in further sanctions. Her first and only edits after return from that block (albeit delayed by some months) were to immediately resume edit warring, including reverting the contributor who reverted her. If blocks were punative, there'd be no point in blocking months after the fact. But they're preventative, and there is every reason to believe that this contributor intends to ignore consensus and continue pushing her point of view at her leisure. An indef-block, of course, can be overturned by any plausible indication that she understands that this is unacceptable behavior and will stop. --Moonriddengirl 13:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Horrible block. Nothing in contributions that would support an indef block. Support unblock. -Atmoz (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Repeatedly edit warring to restore the same material that got her blocked twice, somehow that doesn't support an indef block? Do remember indef is not forever, just until they agree to stop the edit warring. Support the block. Corvus cornix_talk 18:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Good block. This user's only contributions to Misplaced Pages over the last six months have been to continue the same old edit war. Two previous blocks of escalating duration failed to drive home the point that this conduct is inappropriate. An unblock can be considered if this editor demonstrates an interest in contributing constructively to Misplaced Pages and a commitment to avoid the edit warring in the fugure. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Best block ever made. Clearly preventing disruption, indefinite is not infinite, if they wish to be unblocked and be allowed to edit they can engage in discussion on their talk page and give an account of their actions. --Jayron32 02:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.

To those who think there is no problem here; the user never would have been blocked at all if an admin had stepped in and warned MBG earlier on about POV-pushing (note the first two times she was blocked, I didn't even ask for a block). BillMasen (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

One problem BillMasen, albeit a small one, is that you overused bolding on your comments at Talk:Stereotypes of white people. You make your points on that talk page quite well without it. -- llywrch (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

You're seriously nitpicking someone for how they format their text? Go outside. Jtrainor (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

People get so few compliments around here for doing the right thing, & you're seriously nitpicking someone for giving a back-handed one, Jtrainor? Sheesh! I'll try harder next time to be less subtle in complimenting people. -- llywrch (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Llywrch, thank you for taking the time to read it.  :)

The bold doesn't look to nice; the reason I put it was because I wanted to restate objections I'd previously made as well as make new ones, and I wanted to differentiate the old and new remarks. I didn't want to rewrite the whole thing and I didn't want to be accused of changing what I had said in the past. BillMasen (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Kenatipo, WP:OUTING violation

, Kenatipo is posting information that he claims refers to me that I have not publicly released on this site. This is an attempted outing under the WP:OUTING outing policy, which I note is considered a serious violation of the WP:NPA policy. I ask that this be removed from wikipedia permanently immediately under the WP:Oversight policy as well as proper steps to block this user be taken. _WM 06:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I have sent in a request to RFO. I recommend that you steer clear of Kenatipo. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Suppressed now, per policy - Alison 07:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that swift action, now can we get an admin to take some further action per policy? _WM 07:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Alison, seen this and got your email at the same time. Neat. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I neither know nor care what Salegi's sexual preferences are. I could not possibly have outed him. --Kenatipo 15:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Which is why Oversight deleted the difference, right? That's just blatant lying right there. _WM 19:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't "outing" have something to do with a person's sexual orientation? --Kenatipo 19:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

No, but it has something to do with a WP:COMPETENCE block I can see in your very near future. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's more a "being deliberately obtuse" block. --B (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a serious violation of the WP:NPA policy, I don't understand why no administrator is doing anything about it. _WM _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 22:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiManOne, I would like to apologize to you for the names I called you. I am sorry I did that. It was not appropriate for me to do that, and I apologize. A lot of useless friction could have been avoided had I googled your old username sooner, instead of last night. Which brings us to my note to Moonriddengirl -- I was only trying to explain to her my behavior in suddenly walking away from further interaction with you. Your age, as indicated on your own outside websites, was the determining factor in my decision. "Outing" you, in any sense of the word, was the last thing on my mind and not my intention at all. I also apologize to you for embarassing you in that regard. Sincerely, --Kenatipo 20:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Still an attempted violation of WP:OUTING, an egregious one I might add. Yes, you are correct that you did call me a bunch of inappropriate names multiple times which was a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. So four policies/guidelines violated. That's all there is to it, administrator, please? _WM _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 06:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

What is it that you want done? Please see the blocking policy - blocks are to prevent disruption, not to punish. What disruption is there to prevent here? The user seems unlikely to out you again. --B (talk) 12:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It would prevent him from constantly removing the {{noindex}} tags from his Sandbox pages, for one thing. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Which is another thing that I have clearly shown him the policy for and he refuses to stop removing them. I quote from the WP:NPA policy:

"Lesser personal attacks often result in a warning, and a request to refactor. If a pattern of lesser personal attacks continues despite the warning, escalating blocks may follow, typically starting with 24 hours."

I would say this is a serious personal attack, not a lesser one but even a lesser attack generally starts blocks starting with 24 hours, which he has already had a 24 hour block for personal attacks, so this should bring an escalating block. _WM _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 19:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

My apology to WikiManOne still holds, no matter what happens to me or my userpages here. --Kenatipo 16:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

As a point of information, WMO did practically identify himself on wiki. I was able to find an online profile with the real name in seconds, by using information he himself posted at one point or another. If he is concerned about his identity he needs to do a better job keeping it a secret. Can old edits of his be oversighted so we don't have to hear about this again? In the end this appears to me to be more of the same. These editors have been cluttering up ANI for the last week trying to get each other blocked or banned. WP:BATTLEGROUND is apparently meaningless around here. I say block all the instigators on either side of the ideological divide. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear here. When I read this ANI, I was then able to find the afore mentioned personal information in seconds. I have never previously tried to find it. Indeed, until the recent spate ANI postings I'd never heard of any of these editors. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Then that leaves nobody interested in the tainted ideology. —Jeremy 22:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Unless I made the information publicly available, it is still considered outing, no matter how easy or how hard it is to find such information. I did ask for oversight a while back but it has not happened. _WM _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 21:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If you don't want your identity known, you shouldn't say anything here that could help identify you. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Bidgee

I have WP:3O on my watchlist and noticed a listing at ] by User:Jeffro77 in regards to Cairns, Queensland. The discussion between User:Bidgee on one side, and User:Jeffro77 (with a single contribution by User:BorisG) had become extremely heated. User:Bidgee's contributions were clearly uncivil.

At the same time, I became aware that Bidgee included a reference to me on his/her userpage which was becoming a little shrine to the people with whom s/he had had disagreements (Jeffro77 got the same treatment at ]), stating that I "had a POV" and "couldn't handle the truth". I removed this personal attack at ] and warned Bidgee for the personal attack. He reverted and reworded it, but it was still unacceptable so I reverted and warned again and notified him/her of my intent to bring the issue here at ]

I have had run ins with Bidgee before, most recently because he inappropriately used a personal attacks warning template on a new user, User:MelbourneStar1 at ]. MelbourneStar1 did not personally attack Bidgee any more than Bidgee him/herself did, visible at ] and the edit summaries for the Severe_Tropical_Cyclone_Yasi history at ]. S/he reflexively warned me for inappropriate template use at ] (this reflexive counterwarning was also conducted on User:Jeffro77 at ] in response to Jeffro's warning on Bidgee at ]).

The discussion in regards to User:MelbourneStar1 continued at my page, in the second half of User_talk:Danjel#Top_Ryde_Shopping_Centre_not_largest_shopping_centre_nor_largest_development.

User:Bidgee has a history of removing edits to his/her talk page highlighting his/her misbehaviour but continuing the behaviour anyway. These are some examples in order from most recent:

• ]
• ]
• ]
• ]

I'm sure there are more. I only looked at the most recent 500 edits to the page.

I would like any reference to me removed from Bidgee's shrine. Bidgee is an extremely uncivil editor, and I think a reminder from up on high about the requirements for people to be civil would be great.

I'm not saying I'm an angel. I'm definitely not, but... Wow. WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:BITE, WP:3RR, WP:USETEMP in regards to inappropriate template use. I at least pretend to be nice.</jovial> I'm notifying all users mentioned above. -danjel (talk to me) 13:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Bidgee removed mention of Cyclone Yasi from the list of notable cyclones that have affected the Cairns region at Cairns, Queensland (with the irrelevant claim that effects on Cairns were not notable because other places were worse-affected).

After he repeatedly reverted mention of the cyclone, I posted a 3RR warning on his User Talk page,, which he immediately deleted. He responded by posting a 3RR warning on my Talk page (I had reverted his edit twice; I had also made this earlier edit—not a revert—in which I removed the redundant commented statement, because Cyclone Yasi was still correctly mentioned before and after my edit.) and suggested there were no sources indicating that Cyclone Yasi had a notable affect on Cairns (compare Google search for Cyclone Yasi Cairns). I provided sources indicating that Yasi had an impact on the Cairns region.

I initially (incorrectly) stated that he had breached the 3RR, rather than merely reaching 3 reverts, to which the user responded aggressively at the article Talk page in addition to a personal attack about me on his User page, which I attempted to remove, citing WP:TALKO. I also added a Third Opinion request about the original content dispute.

After realising he had only reached the 3 reverts, I reworded the incorrect statements and removed his personal attack about me from his User page. User:Bidgee has restored the attack, claiming it was "not personal" and that he had not "claimed there were not sources for the effect Cyclone Yasi had on the Cairns region". However, if that were genuinely the case, there would be no contention with listing Cyclone Yasi in the Cairns article as "a notable cyclone that affected the Cairns region".

When he saw the 3O request, User:Danjel also indicated similar difficulties in dealing with User:Bidgee. User:Danjel thereafter warned the user about personal attacks and attempted to remove User:Bidgee's comments about him. See Talk:Cairns, Queensland#Yasi.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

First, can I just point this edit out? Anyways, I dealt with Bidgee a little bit. There was a discussion in the WPTC that seemed to reach a conclusion (), so I went ahead and started moving articles to the more common title. Bidgee posts on the Australian notice board, claiming I was moving it to a less common name, despite the discussion we had. Bidgee went ahead and unilaterally reverted some of the moves I made Around that time, Bidgee got into the discussion, but IMO was ignoring the developing consensus, even calling my analysis of the data useless. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

When I first had a look at he/r discussion page, I was pleasently surprised to see that she was not the subject to violations, there were many editors thanking he/r, It was as if everyone liked her. The "View History" on her talk page, unfortunatley, told me another story. S/he has reverted so many notices, warnings, etc. She has kept all of the "Thank you's" or "Can you help.." or the awards, but has kept a big bulk her/his history reverted to only be viewed in the View History section.

Prior to having an issue with this user, i though of he/r as a strong user, a 'Leader', But all s'he wants, is to be the boss. To get the last word. S/he has used profanity before to get her/his own way , as well as notice templates on other users talk pages to satisfy her own agenda. I have been on Misplaced Pages since the 17th of Decemeber 2010, so a substantial amount of time, I know rights from wrongs...accusing another editor of being disruptive after 2 small edits (that had references) and then getting smacked with a 'stop attacking' template on my talk page after trying to defend myself , Is all wrong. I had apologised to her/him for my actions (which were'nt as bad as hers/his actions) (Feb6) and still have not gotten a reply, with her/his excuse being 'busy'...when her/his contributions log shows that s/he has been editing pages and talking with other users. It is disrespectful, and I honestly take my apology back.

We all make mistakes, I am sure admins now and than make them too. It is normal. We're all human, but this user on the other hand just keeps on making them as well as blaming them on others. This is not what Misplaced Pages is about. It is atrocious that there are users like her/he on here. Someone has to set her into place, tell her/him what s/he is doing is wrong.

I don't want to ever cross her again because I'm 100% certain that she'll stick the issue (our conversation) right onto her/his user page so everyone can see, as s/he has done before, and is currently doing now. I don't think that there are many Bullies on Misplaced Pages, but I think I may of crossed one. A major one. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 09:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• This seems like more of a case for WP:DR, specifically WP:RFC/U. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 10:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

There's no content under dispute here, except in regards to Bidgee's shrine to all those who disagree with him/her, which s/he won't allow anyone to remove. More problematically, while Jeffro and myself have actively tried to get Bidgee to remove the content, there's been no contribution to discussion from Bidgee's side. I doubt that Bidgee would participate in an WP:RFC/U. -danjel (talk to me) 11:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Danjel, the disputed User page content is within the scope of the User RFC, and is central to the purpose of raising it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've endorsed your post there. -danjel (talk to me) 11:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Rather than griping about alleged personal attacks, you would be better off trying to address the content issues that Bidgee raises, and see if you all can reach some consensus. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

That has been attempted. Refer to Talk:Cairns, Queensland#Yasi.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Working with Bidgee has been attempted repeatedly. -danjel (talk to me) 11:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, to be honest, mostly what I see are discussions where both sides have been escalating things - Bidgee may not always be right, but his stance is normally defensible, yet I see few non-aggressive attempts to resolve anything. Edit warring, templated warnings, and discussions through edit summaries don't tend to fix problems.

I note that the current version of his user page is somewhat less intense than the old version - personally I never liked those sorts of "collections" on user pages, but it does seem that he's made steps to alleviate some of the problems prior to AN/I. Is the current version still unacceptable? - Bilby (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the current version is unacceptable. My statements about his edits are factual as is demonstrated on the Cairns Talk page. When an editor requested that Bidgee not post statements about that editor on Bidgee's User page, Bidgee claimed that editor was "harassing" him. Bidgee's attitude and behaviour therein are ridiculous. Danjel and other editors have indicated that Bidgee's behaviour at the Cairns article have not been the only problem.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Using the Cairns article as an example, Bidgee was using a different understanding to what a "notable" cyclone in regard to Cairns was. That's fine, and clearly consensus was on your side in the end. However, there wasn't a clear consensus when you added your edit, which didn't include a source. You were reverted, with a request to take it to talk. So you made a comment, and reverted it back. The two of you went back and forth, and each time you added the same and Bidgee requested discussion or a source. At no point during this did you or Bidgee make another comment on the talk page, and it culminated in an exchange of templated warnings - you to Bidgee for 3RR, followed Bidgee to you for adding unsourced material and 3RR.

My point isn't that Bidgee was right, but that looking through the history I see two seemingly stubborn editors butting heads as they get progressively more annoyed with each other. It is very hard to apportion blame - at any point either of you could have stopped reverting and looked to a better path for dispute resolution, but neither did.

In regard to behaviour about the user page, I agree that the content was inappropriate. However, the attempt to resolve the problem seems to have been conducted solely through more templated warnings, by you and Danjel, and comments made through edit summaries on his talk. Maybe I'm missing something, but again, when someone is annoyed, this isn't the best path to solving the problem - even if you are (as I think you were) in the right. - Bilby (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I provided sources at Talk indicating that Cairns was affected in a notable way (diffs already above). After I reverted twice, I did not revert again, and warned Bidgee about the 3RR rule. Bidgee ignored the sources, based on his own superfluous interpretation that for the cyclone to have a 'notable affect' that it must cause 'severe damage'. If the Cairns article were the only article involved, this would probably not need to be addressed here (or User RFC), but the reports of other editors' separate dealings with Bidgee in addition to Bidgee's behaviour at his User and Talk pages indicate there to be a larger problem.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, those sources were only provided after you edit warred to include the content. You added sources to the discussion almost an hour after you started adding the unsourced material to the article, and not until after you had warned Bidgee and Bidgee had warned you in return. My issue is not that you were in the wrong - although you should have provided sources rather than edit warring to include unsourced material - but that you, as much as Bidgee, could have tried some form of resolution beyond edit warring and templated warnings. - Bilby (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem arose because Bidgee arbitrarily decided that there was not a 'notable effect' on the basis that there was not 'severe' damage and that other towns were 'more badly damaged'. However, Bidgee is well aware of what media coverage there was of the event, but maintained even after the sources were provided that the cyclone didn't have a 'notable effect' based on his own arbitrary criteria. Bidgee already knew that thousands had been evacuated (including two hospitals), thousands of people lost power for days, etc, and such is demonstrated in his opening comment in the section he started. Those emergency response and other actions were notable affects of the cyclone, therefore the sources that were only provided later would not have (and did not) ameliorate Bidgee and were thus redundant as far as the dispute is concerned.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The difficulty is that you are still focusing on why your edits were correct. They may have been, and consensus seems to have gone your way in the end. But the issue in an edit war isn't who is right, but how you responded. Rather than taking it to talk (as asked to do in the edit summaries), or adding a source, you continued to revert, and then dropped a 3RR warning on Bidgee's page. Bidgee should also have stopped reverting and tried to engage in discussion, rather than asking that you do so and reverting. So I'm not saying that I think Bidgee is without blame, (and the content he added to his user page was clearly inappropriate), but the cause of the issue was not a single belligerent editor, but two people choosing to escalate instead of breaking away. - Bilby (talk) 09:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not really the order events. Initially, I removed only a comment, leaving mention of the cyclone intact in the article, as it was before my edit. (At the time, I had not realised who had introduced the comment, and merely noticed that it was redundant because the same cyclone was mentioned immediately below.) After Bidgee reverted the first time (removing the correct information I had previously left intact),, I then realised he had started a Talk section after he commented there and I commented at that section with what seemed a fairly reasonable indication of notability based on information Bidgee already knew. (Perhaps I could have provided a source there, but the intro of Bidgee's section indicated that he was already aware of relevant sources.) My first revert was only after that. Bidgee reverted again without commenting at Talk, and I then did my second revert, which Bidgee immediately reverted. I indicated that Bidgee wasn't using the correct criteria for 'notable effects' and provided sources at Talk. Since Bidgee had made 3 reverts, it seemed appropriate to let him know that with a warning template. (Regrettably, at that point I said Bidgee had breached 3RR, but he maintained his attack after that was corrected.) Another editor later restored the correct information.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That's mostly accurate, except you warned Bidgee for 3RR, Bidgee warned you for 3RR and adding unsourced information, and then you provided sources on the talk page. But that's not the issue. The issue is simply the there was a shared responsibility for how things escalated, and at any point either of you could have stepped back, but neither did. In particular, the don't template the regulars essay is, I've found, quite wise. :) It doesn't excuse what he posted to his user page, which was over the top, in the same sense that his warning to MelbourneStar was inappropriate, but I'm not seeing a pattern here of Bidgee being belligerent, so much as a series of incidents where Bidgee is poked, pokes back, and the editors concerned (with the exception of MelbourneStar's apology) continue to poke harder until something breaks. Anyway, I'll let it sit. - Bilby (talk) 10:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say I was perfect, and I think I've been fairly candid in describing what happened. In my dealing with Bidgee I kept to the issue of the dispute, until it seemed necessary to address Bidgee's attack secondary to the initial dispute. Was not aware of the don't template the regulars essay. I edit on some controversial pages and as a result have had my share of disputes (Bidgee's belligerence is relatively tame compared to some), but I have never resorted to vilifying editors on my User page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

At User_talk:Danjel#User:Bidgee there was a discussion involving Bidgee and his/her interaction with MelbourneStar1 (in particular his unwarranted warning on MelbourneStar1). The discussion basically went nowhere with Bidgee sticking to his/her guns. The critical point that Bidgee was also in the wrong went completely ignored with Bidgee preferring to concentrate on MelbourneStar1's actions. It was a good case of "well so-and-so didn't follow the rules, so I don't have to either". I'm a teacher. I get that a lot. -danjel (talk to me) 13:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, I agree that Bidgee made a mistake with this warning to MoriningStar1 - it was inappropriate. But your response, of giving Bidgee a templated warning about the misuse of templated warnings, wasn't going to fix things. My point isn't that Bidgee was right - I just keep seeing people trying to solve problems with warnings, edit summaries and aggressive statements, (including in that discussion), and I'm unsurprised that there hasn't been a satisfactory resolution. I'm not sure that there could have been, of course. Anyway, I guess we'll see where the RFC/U goes. - Bilby (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

@Billy *MelbourneStar1 :) -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 09:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Any idea who the IP-hopping user is who keeps attacking Bidgee on their Talk page, requiring the page to be semi-protected? Corvus cornix_talk 07:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, MebourneStar☆ is way cooler. And *Bilby. :) - Bilby (talk) 10:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Haha thanks and don't worry :) Oh and **MelbourneStar☆ :) lol -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

No, But I have noticed that, Bidgee may be a little bit of a "difficult" editor in my point of view, but no, he does not deserve that, no one does. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 09:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Outing in an AFD thread

Scamwarning (talk · contribs) has outed another editor in this edit at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ilyas Kaduji. As a new user, Scamwarning may not be aware of the restrictions, but the edit needs to be redacted anyway. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 14:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about this one -- editor is apparently using his own full name, which is linked to the article subject.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Just by the by, I've also listed this page in the BLP noticeboard as I'm concerned where this is going--ThePaintedOne (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at it, and not wishing to confirm or deny an outing, the scamuser editor has only suggested that this agency might have the subject as a client, and there is no apparent link (unless you've seen something I haven't). So there is no particular reason to think that name given is the same person as the one working at the agency, nor that the agency is related to the subject. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: the bellow is also discussed here. It makes sad reading. Egg Centric (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I was also outed in a thread; I'd like this edit to be redacted. — Timneu22 · talk 14:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)The diff you provided only mentions you by your username. I'm not seeing any violation of WP:OUTING in the short statement. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Please note the name of the page being AfD'd. — Timneu22 · talk 02:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the comment, but as a non admin. Still available in history. I've also notified the admin who made it so they can decide if they want to put it back etc Egg Centric (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

And I reverted your change. It's not "outing", and besides which, it was posted by an admin who certainly would not "out" someone. Don't mess with other users' comments. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how it can be anything other than outing, but no worries. However, I reserve the right to alter other people's comments when I believe policy permits me to. If I turn out to be wrong it's no biggy... Egg Centric (talk) 12:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Suspicioning that one user ID might be the sock of another is not "outing". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Before I read that comment I did not know the real life identity of Timneu22. Now I do (or think I do, which is the same thing according to the outing policy). Egg Centric (talk) 12:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

If the guy calls himself by a variation of a public figure's name, and calls attention to that fact, then he has basically outed himself. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I never called attention to myself. A poor admin user did. It's a clear case of outing. — Timneu22 · talk 12:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You called attention to it in this very section. There are plenty of users who adopt names that pertain to public figures. Most of them probably aren't that public figure themselves, and the ones who are don't admit that they are unless they are engaged in blatant self-promotion. If you've admitted here to being that public figure, then you have outed yourself. And if you are not that public figure, then what's the problem? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Not only is this not outing, Tim already made the connection between himself and the account in the copyright notice for this MediaWiki extension. Daniel Case (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Come on, Daniel. Admit your mistake. Anyone had to go digging for any of this information until you did what you did in the AfD. Just admit it. — Timneu22 · talk 16:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not outing to accuse a user of SP. It may be ABF and PA (but as tyhe user appears to have adminted it this is not the case). Also I would aske are you still retired?Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No, but by saying the socking was in the context of a vanity article the connection is far more obvious than it otherwise would have been. On the other hand, given the user has provided their real life identity in other parts of the project they have less of a cause for complaint. Mind you, then again I gave my age and occuption on my original talk page; just because it's visible to any admin I wouldn't want it putting all over the project... I really do feel there is wikilawyering going on by both sides here - whatever the technical definition it definitely was from a duck perspective unneccessary outing - but does Timneu22 actually care about that or is he trying to score points? Egg Centric (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

"Anyone had to go digging for any of this information until you did what you did in the AfD." As I've said before, reread security through obscurity. If you wanted to prevent this exposure, the onus was on you, all the time. As you've said elsewhere, it's your fault for using the same username not only here but on YouTube and several other places. Daniel Case (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

See also open fields doctrine. Daniel Case (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but regardless of what the policy says, and I'm dubious if this was really taken to the floor rather than a thread no one is reading that consensus would go your way (but I defer to your assertion that it wouldn't regardless) shining a light on what was once hard to find is still very much morally outing. Egg Centric (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

This had originally been discussed where it should have been, on SPI. Because we didn't have enough evidence at the time and because people seemed to be unclear about it, it was decided to do the safe thing and not only close the SPI but delete it.

I agree that it wouldn't look nice if it had come up in a content dispute where it was irrelevant otherwise, but how else are you supposed to prove a COI? (unfortunately policy on outing does not recognize what everyone seems to agree is allowed). "shining a light on what was once hard to find" is very much in keeping with Misplaced Pages policy in that transparency helps ensure accountability. It is not enough to say "You weren't supposed to look ..." Daniel Case (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the bottom line is that if someone outs himself, even if in a relatively obscure way, then he's got nothing to complain about. It's a different story if sensitive personal information is posted, especially with the intent to harm, which this wasn't. I should also add that the user Egg Centric acted in good faith in this process, and has stimulated useful discussion about it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Is the page User:Augustusguarin a violation of our licenses?

Is the use page User:Augustusguarin itself a violation of our licenses? It seems to be a translation of Dot-com bubble to another language, which I think is probably Tagalog. However, there is nothing to attribute it to Dot-com bubble. Could someone please help? What should be done with it? Should it be deleted, or should someone encourage this user to send this article to the Tagalog Misplaced Pages if it has no such corresponding article (after properly attributing it to us, first)? Jesse Viviano (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that this page is getting into content categories it has no business being in. Jesse Viviano (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

If they want to transwiki something, userspace doesn't seem inappropriate to do that. I did comment out the categories. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Copying within Misplaced Pages. Attribution can (and should) be provided after the fact; this should take care of that. –xeno 20:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Google translate says its Filipino. Heiro 04:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Tagalog and Filipino are the same language according to what I can find. Jesse Viviano (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed it from search engines. Misplaced Pages is not a free web host, and it's the English Misplaced Pages, not the Tagalog one. They should be doing this on the Tagalog one, but maybe there's no rule against it. A subpage would be even better. Otherwise it's probably a good faith attempt. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Does the "Stock market crashes" template at the bottom of the page put the page into Category:Finance templates? Or is just the template going into that Category? Corvus cornix_talk 07:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Attacks on user:Christopher Monsanto

Apparently Christopher made the mistake of pointing out the non-notability of someone's favorite programming language. The AfD process is simply filled with personal attacks from SPA's and anonymous IP users. You only need to look at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Nemerle to see what I mean. I suspect there's rampant sock-puppetry as well as clear off-wiki canvassing. I don't really know what should be done, but the AfD is essentially impossible to read because of the overwhelming amount of attacks and irrelevant content. Glaucus (talk) 06:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Christopher Monsanto does not appear to be unduly flustered - indeed, his responses are in danger of verging on "brilliant" - and I do not see a closing reviewer being swayed by the SPA's. I think all that needs done is a quiet pat on the back for CM. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yebbut a significant number of closing Admins tend to count votes & make their judgment based on that. Not knowing much about Nemerle -- & I've made a living from computers for 15-odd years -- I would be very tempted by the discussion as it stands to close it as "No consensus" due to the combination of votes to keep & Monstanto's constant refrain of "show me the reliable sources" -- which is the right response, BTW. My recommendation in this case is that if you want to help Monsanto would be to study the AfD discussion, do some research, & add your opinion about this language. (BTW, what is the notability standard for computer-related topics? I've stayed away from this area because I'm not clear exactly what is a notable computer topics -- be it commercial software package, free source program, Linux distribution, or computer term -- & what will be deleted. Some subjects are notable only to its fanboys, & some are actually of interest beyond its cult of followers.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I would hope that the closing admin will note the lack of response to the request for RS by the majority of commentators, who question instead the acumen of the proposer. If there is a possibility that this might devolve to a head count, then perhaps thee and me should comment there? I shall do so drekkly, in any case. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe my title here was misleading. The real issue is the clear attempt to subvert the AfD process. Rampant meat-puppetry, SPAs, meaningless votes whose sole content is to attack the proposer. If it devolves to a headcount, they will win solely because they ignored the rules of the process. Glaucus (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It didn't devolve to a headcount. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Clearly I should have more faith in the process :). Glaucus (talk) 03:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

vanU, deletion sprees, especially of legitimate pages, is never pat-worthy. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Throwaway85, the pat was for keeping his head and responding calmly and rationally to the trolls. I think it's clear that he handled the attacks and canvassing admirably, even if his original judgment on the whole issue was questionable. Glaucus (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's take a step back here and look at what's sparking this: CM is on a bit of a nomination spree, nominating articles that very well may fail GNG for deletion. The response by the "SPAs" is motivated by a strong opposition to the deletion of valuable information on legitimate subjects. These are people who have been informed of CM's actions, but who aren't familiar with the etiquette and decorum rules on Wiki. Nevertheless, their concerns are valid. CM's actions, while within policy, are misguided and damaging. We should not be in the business of removing interesting information on legitimate subjects. I've asked CM to stop his spree so we can discuss this as a community and arrive at a solution. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Let's look beyond the letter of the law and use our rationale, please. If nothing else, this issue obviously warrants further discussion by the community -- what stays and goes on Misplaced Pages should never be up to the discretion of one individual. --Rileydutton (talk) 05:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Two points here. First, the arguments of people who "aren't familiar" with Misplaced Pages rules and guidelines are not necessarily valid. Articles are deleted for specific reasons, if SPAs are recruited to the AfD to votestack without giving any kind of actual encyclopedic reasons for opposing, the closing admin will likely ignore them. And more importantly, deletion isn't at the discretion of one individual, especially a non-admin like CM. If you disagree with the process, Less Heard vanU has left comments in the CM thread below about the process of changing the system. If you disagree with the individual AfDs, add actual content to the articles and show notability through reliable sources. In any case, multiple threads about an editor acting within policy aren't going to help. Dayewalker (talk) 05:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing: http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/fkt7t/nemerle_factor_alice_ml_and_other_programming/

Also I don't object to user:Christopher Monsanto's cleanup, but I think that people are upset because they feel like articles are being deleted at a rapid pace, too fast for them to make their voices heard. Maybe slowing down the pace of deletion nominations while we wait for the reddit article to leave the front page of the subreddit would be prudent. --ScWizard (talk) 06:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

How can an 8 day AfD discussion be considered a rapid pace? Corvus cornix_talk 08:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think more prudent still would be to rethink GNG, as it excludes a lot of legitimate subjects from Misplaced Pages, like little-known programming languages. In theory it's a good thing, but the incremental cost of hosting a new page is so incredibly negligible that there's no reason whatsoever to ban a topic simply for being obscure. Promotional, vanity, sure. But obscure? Why do we want to keep obscure topics off the project? If I wanted to write an article on a 16th-century nomadic Mongolian tribe, why *wouldn't* we want that article? I get that there are OR issues that arrise when there aren't a ton of sources, but that doesn't mean that, for a more pertinent example, a blog post by the creator of a language explaining its features shouldn't be counted as a reliable source. The Internet has changed a lot in the past few years, and simply saying that something is a blog doesn't make it unreliable. Tons of people self-publish these days, and the range in quality is too great to simply throw out the lot. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Srrrgei has recreated the Nemerle article. I've put a db-recreated article on it. Corvus cornix_talk 08:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The AfD is now listed at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2011 February 14#Nemerle. Cunard (talk) 08:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yet another SPA created a new version with even less evidence of notability. Speedied per G4. Guess salting would seem POINTy as long as the deletion review is in progress. Favonian (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Jonasorg

User talk:Jonasorg keeps restoring their machine translation at Puerto National High School. Editors have reverted this machine translated gibberish to a stub a total of FIVE times already. The user has had two friendly, informal requests, four warnings, including warnings in their own language. A short 31 hour block already imposed, was probably not noticed. Request a longer block please so that when they log on next time, they realise they have been blocked, and that the repeated reversion of the article to the long unintelligible machine translation is unacceptable.--Kudpung (talk) 11:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Why haven't you even started a "Discussion" page? IMHO you should try to improve other editors content instead of calling it "gibberish" and blanking it.--Raphael1 11:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you an admin? Instead of throwing in inane comments here, perhaps you would do your homework and look at the page history and the user talk page history where you will see that several editors, including an admin, have agreed that the page is unintelligible.--Kudpung (talk) 11:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week. -- œ 11:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Off topic: Isn't it a shame that about the only intelligible things I could get from that article were the school had both a vision statement and a mission statement. Management consultant wonk even in such a setting... Perhaps that explains the quality of its students! Egg Centric (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

About every school and school district (at least in the U.S.) has some sort of a mission statement and a vision statement; mainly a bunch of words, though, and mostly cookie-cutter. –MuZemike 02:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me guess, it contained the words "commitment to excellence" didn't it? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

And every school in the United States, and anywhere else, that pretends to 'excellence' will have those statements removed from their Misplaced Pages pages. Kudpung (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Sizzletimethree on Lila Rose

Sizzletimethree (talk · contribs) has now twice (1, 2 removed several days' worth of changes at Lila Rose without discussion, in violation of the controversial tag at the article's talk page. Due to intermediate edits I have been unable to undo his edits and instead had to do them manually (1 2). NYyankees51 (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I am not unduly surprised. If you look at the user's talk page and their comment on the Planned Parenthood talkpage + activity there earlier today, you will see a pattern of disruptive editing. Since I have gone to some lengths to try to explain that the user needs to take things slowly and read the rules/heed advice etc, I'm starting to think that this is no longer a case of AGF, despite the user's apparent "newbie" status. - Sitush (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

If the edits to Lila Rose had happened in the past ten hours, I would block Sizzletimethree. However, the edits are older, and Sizzletimethree has received some counsel from a number of editors in the interim. Speaking for myself, I'm unwilling to block for these past actions, but would block without hesitation for any such future edits. —C.Fred (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Call me crazy, but the account looks suspiciously like somebody's bad hand sock. The first night the user was here, he or she went from taking three tries to figure out the {{helpme}} template to reverting Live Action (anti-abortion group) to an arbitrary early version in the history. --B (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Socking was my first reaction, but I couldn't find any evidence in a brief search. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I have a strong suspicion, but nothing I can prove. --B (talk) 04:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Behavioral problems

RegentsPark (talk · contribs) and I are rarely on the same side of content disputes and that's fine since it leads to improved article content at times. The user has however demonstrated behavioral problems on a number of occasions. He launched a personal attack on me by calling me someone with a "single track mind". When I requested him to remove the offensive content, he simply ignored me. I asked him again but instead of removing the content and apologizing, he simply continues to argue, now saying that I am obsessive about a certain position. I am neither of a single track mind nor am I obsessive.

On an earlier occasion, in removing an {{Indian English}} template, he demonstrated that behavioral guidelines such as WP:POINT don't apply to him and do apply to me.

In the past, RegentsPark has been brought to ANI by another editor User:Yogesh Khandke allegedly for misusing his administrative privileges and several other behavioral issues.

Appropriate and timely action will help stop the reckless behavior by RegentsPark. I am requesting that an administrator remove the content that assails my character. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone is blowing things out of proportion... _WM _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 04:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm apt to agree with Wikiman1. The comments may have been offensive to you, but are far from personal attacks and are closer to character observations.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

(1)For an administrator, who has been for a greatly longer time on the project than Zuggernaut it is highly inappropriate that he attacks the person as opposed to contesting the content put forth by the person. (2)No one can be perfect and it not easy for an editor to understand the thin line between being considered tendentiousand perseverant. (3)Regarding the nature of Zuggernaut’s edits, is it not better for Misplaced Pages that an editor restricts himself to a very small spectrum of content of which he has expertise about? Please see the article Misplaced Pages, there is a criticism on it that which goes like this "My Number One Doctor", a 2007 episode of the TV show Scrubs, also lampooned Misplaced Pages's reliance on editors who edit both scholarly and pop culture articles with a scene in which Dr. Perry Cox reacts to a patient who says that a Misplaced Pages article indicates that the raw food diet reverses the effects of bone cancer by retorting that the same editor who wrote that article also wrote the Battlestar Galactica episode guide. (4)The least the concerned administrator-editor can do is to defuse the tension by making appropriate statements as requested by Zuggernaut, so that every one of us can get on with the task of building a better encyclopaedia: for example the The Great Backlog drive seeks our time.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:India for the most recent conflict, where there are many discussions about the Famines and the British. Zuggernaut posts many separate threads on talkpages, so it is easy to see why RegentsPark has come to the conclusion that Zuggernaut has a single-track mind. I don't think it's really an insult, although obviously Zuggernaut has taken offense. As Yogesh says, there is a line between tendentious editing and perseverance, and I think the problem is Zuggernaut sometimes crosses that line in the eyes of others, usually because of starting multiple threads on basically the same topic. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

RegentsPark is one of the most cool-headed and neutral administrators on Misplaced Pages. Zuggernaut, on the other hand, has time and time again pursued his famine edits (and only his famine edits) on the India talk page in the face of strong and sustained opposition. "Single track mind" is a polite term, for it gives Zuggernaut the benefit of affecting "single mindedness," when others might consider him to be a "consensus denier." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

As I clarified on my talk page, I used the phrase 'single track mind' solely in the context of zuggernaut's activities on the India articles. Personally, I would not consider a contextualized characterization of this sort to be particularly offensive but, since he has taken offense, have expressed my willingness to modify the statement so that the context is clear (see this diff). I would suggest to zuggernaut that he not take offense so easily. Being obsessive is not necessarily a bad thing - unless, of course, the obsessing editor knows that their obsession is contrary to wikipedia's neutral encyclopedia building mission. --rgpk (comment) 21:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not of a single track mind, nor am I obsessive in the context described by RegentsPark. My style of editing is focused, i.e, I work on articles till they become good articles. Bulk of my edits to Misplaced Pages have gone to four articles - Upanishads, Deshastha Brahmin, Third Anglo-Maratha War and Famine in India of which three are good articles and the fourth one is being nominated for a good article review. A good way forward would be to completely remove the comments from Misplaced Pages permanently and an assurance from RegentsPark that he will discuss my content rather than me as a person. Is RegentsPark now suggesting that my editing is non-compliant with WP:NPOV? Zuggernaut (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Alleged racism by Badger Drink

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Everyone's points seem to have been made as clearly as they are going to be, and there appears to be little chance of any consensus for any admin action being taken here. Please direct this discussion to WP:RFC/U or some other more appropriate venue. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I saw this edit summary http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Damnatio_memoriae&curid=44345&diff=412838755&oldid=406233625 and thought I would look into the user. Their talkpage is dripping with warnings about incivility. The term used in this edit summary is racist, equivalent to the n-bomb. There is an article on the term itself, which touches barely on the fact that it's offensive. Bitey and snide I can handle, this is too far.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked into the edits much but you cannot say Goyim is equivalent to the n-bomb, that's ridiculous. I don't even know how to respond, they're completely different. _WM _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 04:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

My concern is that he used the plural form when it should have been singular. Other than that, meh. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Ethnic pejoratives of any kind are uncalled for. Heiro 04:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It is a term that has very different meanings depending on the context. For example, in the phrase Shabbos goy it has no negative connotations. In this context, the connotation seems negative and the meaning seems to constitute a slur. It does however seem that in this context the comparison being made by Kintet exaggerates the severity. If it were directed at a specific user I'd say it was a violation of WP:NPA, but given the context, it is more running afoul of not being a dick. It isn't helpful and is needlessly inflammatory. So, um, don't do it again?JoshuaZ (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

As a goy myself, I found it funny, if perhaps a bit too pointed for an edit summary. To call it "racist" is silly. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Ditto Egg Centric (talk) 10:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but Kintetsubuffalo may have a good point. I think he sees the word goy as equivalent to gaijin, haole, Pākehā, Ausländer, and other terms, and he may be right. I suspect every culture on the planet has similar terms to indicate "those who are not like us". Xenophobia may be more than just a cultural or social value. It may be a function of the mind itself. If so, then one should be aware of our tendency to act in such a way, and to be more careful with the words we use. It is even possible that Badger Drink isn't aware of the words he uses, which would explain the continuing civility violations. Viriditas (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

He's focusing on the word rather than the meaning. I interpret Badger's comment as being short for, "Not only would a Jew never make this claim, only the most ignorant non-Jew would make this claim." He's just saying it in a somewhat more colorful way. That doesn't mean he's correct in his assessment, but that's another story. And while I suppose it's possible that some folks use goy the way the N-word is used, in general the idea the goy and n*gg*r are equivalent is... ignorant. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You are correct; the word goy is not used like or as the n-word, but it could be misconstrued as racist because it has xenophobic undertones. In this way, goy is really no different than gaijin or haole. Viriditas (talk) 12:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not racist the way he used it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Oy vey. This goyim doesn't find it particularly offensive.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it's not racist as he used it, as JoshuaZ so elegantly explained. However, it can certainly be misconstrued as racist due to its xenophobic undertones, and this explains the reaction of Kintetsubuffalo and Heironymous Rowe. Badger Drink should remember that edit summaries are used specifically to help other editors know what type of edits are being made as they peruse their watchlist. Was Badger Drink's edit summary helpful? Badger Drink has a history of using edit summaries to make wisecracks, and many are less than civil. Now would be a good time for him to stop using edit summaries in this way and an opportunity to engage in more civil discourse. Viriditas (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the edit summary was an attempt at humor (which I, as a goy, indeed found funny). But I don't see how could that specific comment could be construed as "racist". It doesn't put down any race or ethnic group, it puts down the ignorant. That may be unfair to the mentally challenged, but it ain't "racist". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

"Xenophobia" and "racism" are often confused with each other, and this would explain the reaction by Kintetsubuffalo. Viriditas (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

For the record, Badger Drink's comment that "only a truly befuddled, naive goyim would present something so condescending as fact" is a clear personal attack on the editor who made the edit he reverted. Viriditas (talk) 12:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No question is a sarcastic putdown of the original poster, and may well be unfair. But the comment itself is neither "racist" nor "xenophobic". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It is most certainly xenophobic, and there is no question about that fact. Do a bit of research on the history of the term, please. Viriditas (talk) 13:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

How is that specific statement xenophobic? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The word, not the statement. You are free to consult Google Books, Scholar, or your local library for further information, as this discussion has gone beyond the boundaries of this topic. There is general agreement in this discussion that Badger Drink should be more careful with his edit summaries in the future and remain civil with his fellow editors. As for xenophobia, it is found in every culture, and is part of who we are as humans. Nobody is immune from it. Viriditas (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No, that doesn't fly. The word itself is just a word. Tell me how that specific statement could possibly be misconstrued as xenophobic. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does "fly", and no word is by itself "just a word". Words have meaning, and this word is classically defined as xenophobic in the same way as gaijin, haole, and all the other words meaning "not us". This is not even up for debate. Do some research on the subject. Viriditas (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't fly. Words are used in different ways in different contexts. You can't say, "this word sometimes means this, therefore it always means this." Unless you think I myself am an "ignorant goy", in that I'm not in the least offended by it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The concept is classically defined as xenophobic regardless of the context. In fact, that is exactly what makes it good material for comedy, such that it can be used in any context without changing its meaning. Viriditas (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't care what it's "classically" defined to be. You can find xenophobia and racism anywhere, if you go looking for it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• The statement "only a truly befuddled, naive goyim would present something so condescending as fact" is exactly as racist as "only a truly befuddled, naive jew would present something so condescending as fact" and "only a truly befuddled, naive black would present something so condescending as fact". DuncanHill (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • None of which are necessarily racist in a given context. I'm more concerned about the "condescending" part, as I'm not so sure it's a fair characterization of the uncited statement that Badger removed from the article. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Saying that someone is a "naive goyim" is not racist, it is xenophobic. Saying that someone is a "naive Jew" or a "naive black", is racist and xenophobic. Viriditas (talk) 13:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
      • It's ascribing an undesirable behaviour to a person based on their perceived membership or non-membership of an ethnic group. To me, that is racism. DuncanHill (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
        • No, it's saying that even most non-Jews would know that this supposedly Jewish thing is false, unless they were extremely ignorant. That's not racism. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Well... it's not racism to me. The undesirable behaviour, in this case, is that they're ignorant about jewish topics. You content it's racist to suggest us goys are less knowledgeable about jewish trivia - I think that that's absurd! Egg Centric (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Why did Badger use "goyim" instead of "non-Jew" then? GiantSnowman 17:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
            • Because the two terms have identical meaning? ("How odd of God, to choose the Jews; But the Goyim, annoy 'im" ) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
              • "Non-Jew" is factual; "goyim" can be pejorative. I find the choice of words unsettling to be honest. GiantSnowman 20:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
                • Hmm, perhaps we have different experiences - I've often heard it used, including by Jewish friends, and I've just never seen it as pejorative in itself. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Note that User:Badger Drink incorrectly used the plural form goyim when it clearly should have been singular goy; i.e., "a truly befuddled, naive goyim ." This is a strong indication that he isn't closely familiar with the term and its finer nuances. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Why all of the semantic debate about this term? Our article on the term here even says it can be seen as a pejorative and controversial, as with every other ethnic or religious based slang term. If a term can be seen in this way, it should not be used to describe other editors here, ever, period. Comment on the content not the contributors. Heiro 19:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The operative word term there is "can be". In the way Badger used it, it is in no way pejorative towards non-Jews, but only towards the ignorant. And I'm assuming he meant to use the plural, but that's something he would have to speak to. And he could have said "non-Jews" but that wouldn't have been funny. "Gentiles" would have been somewhat funny, but goyim works much better. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I've heard "Jew" used pejoratively, and even "American" - should we ban those too? If we prohibited the use of all words that *can* be used pejoratively, we'd have very few left. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

So, its ok to use pejorative descriptors, as long as its used as a joke? Or to reverse what was said, if the editor had said "naive Jew" everyone would be ok with this? The fact the user used any kind of ethnic, racial or intelligence descriptor for an editor instead of commenting directly on the content and why said content wasn't acceptable is the problem here. Heiro 21:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No, you're missing the point of the comment. As a parallel, suppose I claimed in an article about Christianity that Jesus said the greatest commandment was, "Go therefore and teach all the world to play soccer." I could be right in saying that only the most ignorant non-Christian would think that could be a correct statement. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

But he wasn't commenting on the contributor. He was talking about the nature of the contributions. The contributions may have been made by Sir Jewsalot for all we know. He effectively said they were so ignorant that almost all jews would think otherwise, which is fair enough. Egg Centric (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Not quite. He was saying the alleged Jewish axiom was so obviously incorrect that even most non-Jews would know it was incorrect. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

We need to err on the side of caution when it comes to comments of this nature; even if he wasn't being openly racist, he was certainly inappropriate. GiantSnowman 21:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Its underlying premise may have been a bit pointy, but the comment was in no way racist or xenophobic. That's not erring on the side of "caution", it's erring on the side of "ignorance". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Re "its ok to use pejorative descriptors": No, I'm not saying that - I'm saying that it's people's intentions that count, not a blanket assumption that every use of a specific term *is* pejorative. And given that "goy/goyim" is often used in a non-pejorative, even sometimes affectionate, way (if my Jewish friends are actually being affectionate, as I think), then we should not just assume the worst. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Belated response from Badger Drink

Apologies for taking so long to respond to what is clearly a very pressing, highly-prioritized concern of merit absolute. I had long heart-to-hearts with my goy half, both before, during, and after the controversial edit in question, and on all three occasions we reached the mutual, unified conclusion that there was, is, and will be absolutely nothing offensive about said edit summary. The critical lynchpin of this conclusion was that anybody can arbitrarily take offense at anything - see the above example about Jews and Americans - and there comes a time when one is letting ones own hyper-sensitive (some might even go so far as to label it with the possibly-quite-pejorative "histrionic", but I myself have made a February Resolution to not use that word in any noticeboard thread, no matter how fitting it may be) sensitivities interfere with collaborative work. It's disruptive to fart loudly in a business meeting, but it's just as disruptive to stop the meeting in its tracks every time one suspects someone of possibly committing to, in schoolyard terms, an "SBD" (and I'm not talking about a soundboard recording here!). I'm sure nobody intends to be disruptive, but intent only goes so far - there comes a time when one must understand that they're being a little bit on the side of things that a neutral observer might be compelled to label as the "ridiculous" side, and when that time comes it's truly best to swallow one's own arrogance and make a sincere attempt at self-betterment. At the risk of being deemed incivil, allow me to rephrase the above tl;dr succinctly:

It's not racist. If you find it racist, you need to grow up. If you find it racist and are already grown up, you need to develop a better understanding of what truly constitutes racism, as spending the rest of your natural life tilting at windmills is in no way ideal for either you or the windmills.

Just to touch upon a couple other points I saw raised:

1. I have no clue who made the original condescending edit, hence I am not altogether sure it can be construed as a personal attack.
2. I'm truly sorry to any and all half-wit ignoramii I may have offended, or continue to offend, with my bigoted intolerance of half-witted ignorance on encyclopedia articles.
3. The text in question, no matter how earnest and good-faith the intent, was completely patronizing, condescending, and the very textbook definition of sheltered ignorance. If it would help illustrate, I would be only too happy to offer similar patronizing, condescending, shelteredly-ignorant yet earnest-sounding statements about other religious, ethnic, or cultural groups, including but not limited to: Women, African-descendants, Christians (excluding Unitarian Universalists and Methodists), Unitarian Universalists, Methodists, Muslims, Asians, Hispanics, Wikipedians, Nupedians, Veropedians, Stratfordians, anti-Stratfordians (including but not limited to both Oxfordians and Baconians), homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, pansexuals, asexuals, and/or resexuals, whatever those are - yet I hope it is not necessary, not least because I'm sure someone would completely duck under the point and label me a sexist, racist, homophobe, bigot, xenophobe, philistine and/or troll while on their way to arrest Jonathan Swift for cannibalism.

   Finally, and perhaps most importantly,

4. I would like to extend my most sincere, heartfelt apologies for my own ignorance in using the plural form when clearly the singular was called for. I am at a loss to even begin to account for this oversight, and I would both understand and accept if a temporary preventative block is deemed necessary to contain such marked disregard for the languages of both Hebrew and Yiddish, the latter in particular in a rather precarious position already, and certainly in no condition to withstand such linguistic attacks.

I believe that adequately covers all matters raised, but if there remains opportunity for elaboration or clarification, please don't hesitate to leave a note on my talk page, and I'll be only too happy to provide. Badger Drink (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure you are doing yourself any good here.Slatersteven (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for that hollow apology; referring to those you offended as "half-wit ignoramii" shows you honestly have no idea about the offence you have obviously caused to fellow editors. GiantSnowman 22:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Nor that they will not do so again as they don't think they have done anything wrong this time. It also implies to me that the user knew exactly what they were saying.Slatersteven (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I should point out I wrote this before either of the above were there. In fact, on principle, given the nature of my comment, I haven't read them - I sincerely know nothing about their content other than that there are replies

Goodness me, that's a perfect response. However, I should caution you that the intellectually inferior offenderati will happen upon it in the next few moments, and frankly the prognosis isn't good. You're not Giano, you see, and the majority of that will go over their heads... and so they will perceive further insults.

I do hope that I'm wrong. Egg Centric (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh crap, I really shouldn't have said that like I did. However, it would be intellectually dishonest for me to remove it, especially as it remains fairly reflective of my thoughts... but it's still not as sensitive as, er, politically it ought to be. Egg Centric (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Egg Centric, are you referring to me and Slatersteven as the "intellectually inferior offenderati"? GiantSnowman 23:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No, hence my oh crap comment Egg Centric (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, that's still unclear now I read it. What I mean is I really should have read the other (i.e. your) comments before just posting that - they were directed at hypothetical responses. Now it looks like some sort of attack it wasn't meant to be. Egg Centric (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No problemo, no offence was taken or anything, was just trying to shine a light through this increasingly foggy situation! GiantSnowman 23:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Which is why we need more then a "if people are thick thats is their problom" from the offender. The user gave offence becasue they did not think (or did not know) about what they were writing. That is why we have rules on civility, and why in this case a full and honest appology would have difused some of our (well my) doudts that the user does realise they did in fact make a mistake in their choice of words.Slatersteven (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Badger Drink, I'll remember that the next time someone throws a ethnic pejorative in my direction that as long as they don't think its hurtful I shouldn't either, because if I do, I'm just too stupid not to get the joke. Heiro 23:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I recommend a user RFC on Badger Drink as the next step. This is clearly a user who does not understand the importance of civility and harmonious editing, and it is very sad to see long term editors supporting his right to maintain his incivility. Wise speech and kind words are needed more than ever in this world today, and we must begin with ourselves. Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

RFC is a sensible idea, I feel. GiantSnowman 23:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure if the original comment was uncivil (just thoughtless), the response clearly is. But this does raise issues about prerogative attacks and what constitutes one? Is it the intent or the reception?Slatersteven (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I was not aware Misplaced Pages was responsible for moderating "this world today" Egg Centric (talk) 23:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

But it is responsible for moderating itself, Do you really belive that if I give you offence (not matter hiow trivial or foolish on your part) I should not offer an full and honest appology?Slatersteven (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Had Badger Drink said "oops, no offence meant, I see how it could have been taken though" etc. etc., it would have been fine. But with this sarcastic and ill thought-out response, he's unfortunately exacerbated the situation. GiantSnowman 23:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

He has indeed. But you can choose not to take it further. If you're able to, it may be better to let sleeping dogs lie. Of course I understand if you do wish to take it further. I will never agree with you, but I will understand :) Egg Centric (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I would never, ever expect you to give an apology for a response merely because it offended me. Of course I would appreciate an apology, but I would prefer a sincere "no" to an insincere "sorry" Egg Centric (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Hold on? So he has not in fact done "the minimum" we would expect (and just apologised) but (If I take your meaning to be what I think it is) we should allow him to get away with saying "Nahhh nahhhh I don't care"? He has virtually said that he will do this sort of thing again and yet we should drop this? As to offering to apologise for offence received, If I were to say "I am sorry that you are so stupid tou have taken offence" would you accept that? That is what he has done, and that is unacceptable.Slatersteven (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I am more offended with his 'apology' than with his original comment...GiantSnowman 23:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

That is why I have commented now. His origional 'offence' whilst stupid and ill informed may have been honest. His resonse is insulting and ofensive and shows no inclinations towards defalting the issues (and indead seems to have been a deliberate provocation).Slatersteven (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The original post of that item was in November of 2008, and augmented in December 2010 by someone else, but none of it was ever sourced. If it were me, I would have removed it with the plain comment "Unsourced and untrue", and been done with it. But as a goy, a Yank, and a WASP, and certainly an "ignoranimous" in many areas, I take no offense at any of Badger's comments, and neither should anyone else. Get over it, lower your antennae, and move on. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

What about his response? GiantSnowman 23:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind being called a half-wit, as I figure half a wit is better than none. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

But you don't want to be one and a third wit, believe me ;) Egg Centric (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather not have my wit (or lack thereof) called into question...GiantSnowman 00:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need to "get over" Badger Drink's continuing violations of WP:CIV. Instead, he needs to read and show that he understands it. I'm going to be leaving this thread now because I have articles to research and write, but if anyone decides to start an RFC on this user and is able to certify it with two users who have tried and failed to resolve this problem, please contact me so that I can participate. This behavior should not be tolerated from anyone. Viriditas (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Clearly we have some folks with fixed world views and I think it is time to close this thread. To me the comment was marginal in the first place. Yiddish has that quality to it that gave the comment a light-hearted tone (has anyone here read Leo Rosten's book The Joys of Yiddish?). Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, close it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The comment was totally unacceptable, and the "but it's Yiddish" defense is indefensible. If I call the President of the United States a schwarze, it is still racist. And if I call a non-Jew a goy it is still xenophobic. No excuses. More to the point, several editors have complained about Badger Drink's comments and behavior. The user refuses to accept that his words could be misconstrued as offensive, and the number of users defending his incivility here is disturbing. Viriditas (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If you continue to harp on this goyim non-issue procedurally, I can assure you I will fight it. It's nothing. It should never have been brought here in the first place, and frankly, doing so was an act of ignorance. The comment was in no way, shape or form "racist" or "xenophobic". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep it open - allow Badger Drink a last chance to give some hopefully more satisfactory answers. Also, to Baseball Bugs - the problem is bigger that the "goyim" comment, it's about Badger Drink's lack of civility and personal attacks. GiantSnowman 00:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a separate issue and has nothing to do with his use of the term goyim nor the ignorance-based original complaint here. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Your need to "fight" other editors here, in a discussion about incivility, reveals your own issues with civility. Instead of fighting, you might want to lay down your sword and prick up your ears, and listen to what other editors are saying. Listening is the first step in civil discourse. Try it for the first time. Until you do, you are only fighting yourself. Viriditas (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You are in no position to be lecturing anyone else about civility and attitude. What I'm fighting in this case is "nannyism". If you've got issues with other comments he's made, fine. I've got some concerns also. But if anyone has ideas about continuing this ignorance-based complaint about goyim, they need to think again. Your argument is tantamount to saying that John Lennon's "Woman is the N*gg*r of the World" is racist because it contains the N-word. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You are not listening to what other editors have said, and you are waging your own personal battle against other editors based on what you think rather than what is said. This is not good. I have not, at any time, claimed that Badger Drink was being racist, yet you have implied above that I have. For this reason, I am no longer going to attempt to communicate with you, because you have shown, in comment after comment, a curmudgeonly intransigence that does not allow for communication. You may want to join Badger Drink in reviewing WP:CIV, as I get the impression from your comments that you are as unfamiliar with it as he is. To conclude, I find your angry, fighting attitude completely at odds with the purpose of this noticeboard. Viriditas (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

And you are not listening either. Your comments about this particular usage of goyim has been, and remains, dead wrong. It was at the start of this section, and remains so now. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I've listened very closely to everyone and everything that has been said, and I've respected the POV offered by both sides. I've even tried to put myself in the shoes of the OP and attempted to think their thoughts and see from their eyes. Can you say the same? It appears you are too emotionally invested in your own opinion to consider the POV of anyone but yourself. Viriditas (talk) 07:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You haven't listened, because you've still got it dead wrong. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Can everyone back up for a second?

I've been following this for a while, and only now feel the need to interject, since the level this has been taken to is just absurd. Maybe this user's edit summary was potentially offensive to some, but by the looks of it he certainly didn't mean it that way. But if he doesn't want to apologize, there's no rule saying he has to. No good is going to come out of pushing this any farther. If the editor starts attacking a specific user, or starts being entirely uncooperative then the issue should be brought up in regards to that specific event. But there's no one right use of "goy," and we're not going to get anywhere by throwing around potential meanings and guessing at the intentions of others. Being a dick is bad, but creating bureaucracy and red tape just to get someone labeled as one is even worse. I'm not taking sides in this argument, but it would be better for everyone if we all just moved on.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Can I second that. I think this is all getting entirely out of proportion. I've described myself as a "goy" on Misplaced Pages talk pages, and I can see no reason why I shouldn't do the same again. There are probably circumstances where the term might be offensive, but I really don't see how this can be interpreted as one, by anyone who wasn't over-keen to look for it. How about getting back to arguing about something more significant instead, like how much of Glenn Becks paranoid ranting we can legitimately report, or whether Sarah Palin's younger daughter's Twitter pages are a reliable source ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, I think the "goyim" comment is now a minor issue; my concern is that Badger Drink has been uncivil and has attacked those (myself included) who have raised concerns, and he doesn't seem to give a damn. GiantSnowman 00:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Badger drink felt that people were making a big deal out of nothing. He responded with a pissed off answer. This is understandable. People were offended by this. This is also understandable. But nothing's going to get done by continuing to bicker about this, and continuing to dig at this issue (and I'm directing this at both sides of the argument) will just escalate things to an unmanageable level.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I must disagree. The fundamental essence of WP:CIV is simple and easy to understand: 1) Participate in a respectful and considerate way, and avoid directing profane and offensive language at other users. 2) Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others. 3)Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and avoid upsetting other editors whenever possible. If for some reason Badger Drink doesn't understand or acknowledge the civility policy, then he might want to consider a different website. We need the civility policy to be understood to make it easy to work with and collaborate with different editors from around the world, all with different backgrounds and upbringing. We might not all agree on our beliefs or our preferences, but we can all agree on the golden rule. There is really no room for debate here. Either Badger Drink follows the civility policy or he doesn't. Viriditas (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well OK, but you should really post that good advice in threads about civility. This one isn't. There are 5000 plus words in this thread and most of them ignore a fundamental point. User:Kintetsubuffalo who started this thread titled it "racism by Badger Drink" and makes it clear he is talking about perceived racism, making the point of saying "Bitey and snide I can handle, this (perceived racism) is too far". His complaint is about perceived racism, not civility, and all mentions of civility should be ignored. The only thing we should discuss here is whether "goy/goyim " are racist. Moriori (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You've nailed it. The issue initially was the false charge that Badger had made a racist comment. It should have been closed immediately as being a frivolous, ignorance-based and uncivil complaint. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, we don't close threads because the OP used the wrong word to describe an ongoing, long term problem with an editor. Instead, we listen very closely to what editors are saying and directly address their concerns. Viriditas (talk) 07:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we all listen closely to what editors say, and sometimes see whether their actions match their words.. Guess who has made TEN edits in this thread since promising "I'm going to be leaving this thread now". Need a hint? Check out this. Moriori (talk) 07:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I changed my mind and returned to this thread. Was I supposed to ask your permission first? The civility concerns surrounding Badger Drink have not been adequately addressed. This has been a long term problem with this user and he has been warned many times about his use of edit summaries. Viriditas (talk) 07:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I wish I did LOLs, but unfortunately I don't. Can I just say Come In Spinner? Moriori (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The wonderful thing about being human is having a choice. You can change your mind at any moment. Viriditas (talk) 07:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want to start a brand-new section on alleged incivility, go ahead. First, close this entire, bogus "racism" section. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Badger Drink responds

Apologies for a second straight sub-heading, but this is perhaps more efficient than trying to fight a multi-front battle in the threaded comments above. I have been asked on my Talk page for further comment. Having glanced over most of the above, I find, to my dismay, that a few editors are now utterly convinced that I called them halfwit ignoramuses. I assure them I did nothing of the sort, no matter what the tea leaves are telling them. A few people seemed to be sincerely worried that nameless, faceless - one might say "hypothetical" - editors would be off-put by my horribly bigotry against halfwit ignoramus musings masquerading as encyclopedic fact, and while I am sorry for the hurt feelings of these hypothetical editors, I feel that encyclopedias are no place for halfwitted ignorance. I wasn't directing that comment at non-Jews, as the charge that "goy" or "goyim" qualify as hate speech is so utterly fucking ridiculous that I could not take it seriously even on the most superficial level required to actually acknowledge it in my statement. I'm sorry that my comments were mis-read, and will strive to my utmost abilities to ensure that further comments by myself, including this one, are harder to mis-interpret. I will not offer insincere apologies - I am a man of many faults, I'll be the first to admit, but two-faced pseudo-political empty-hearted pandering is not one of them. I remain convinced that I was within my right as a Wikipedian to offer a slightly sarcastic remark in the edit summary, and remain thoroughly unconvinced that anything in my subsequent statement merits offense on anyone's part. To paraphrase a catchphrase of the radical fringe: "if you're offended, you're not paying attention". It is my sincere hope that a more careful, thoughtful reading of my statement will enlighten anyone and everyone who feels personally slighted. If someone feels personally slighted that I disagree with their viewpoint vis-a-vis the appropriateness of an apology from my person, then I'm afraid I cannot - and will not - pacify that particular slight. I don't demand apologies for people accusing me of being uncivil or racist - a charge those who know me best in my personal life will know is the furthest statement one can possibly make from the truth - or when people trespass on my own personal hangups and walled mental gardens. I would appreciate the same courtesy in return. If any specific questions remain, I can be reached on my talk page. Badger Drink (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm following the advice of some obviously more experienced editors above and requesting that this thread is now closed - Badger Drink obviously doesn't understand, or refuses to, and so this discussion isn't going anywhere, and I'm sure we all have more important things to be doing with our time. GiantSnowman 02:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

...*facepalms* Wow, just...wow. Silverseren 02:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The section was, and still is, labeled "racism by Badger Drink". Try as they might, no one has come close to demonstrating that Badger is guilty of racism. In fact, the premise of this section is a personal attack on Badger Drink. This whole megillah needs to be shut down. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The title of the section should be "Incivility by Badger Drink". That would be more accurate. And the next section should be labeled "Inability of Badger Drink to understand what incivility is". Silverseren 03:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Civility could be of some concern. But the OP's statement, reinforcing the section title, "The term used in this edit summary is racist, equivalent to the n-bomb", is one of the most ignorant statements I've ever seen on here, so I can't give much credence to the rest of the complaint. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It is true that that interpretation is incorrect, however, it is know that, colloquially, goy and goyim are used as a pejorative to mean inferiority of the person you are speaking about. And the way it was used by Badger Drink does seem to insinuate that usage. Silverseren 03:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. You're reading things in that aren't there. Meanwhile, I checked Leo Rosten's book The Joys of Yiddish, and under goy he states that "just as 'Jew' is used as a pejorative by some Gentiles, goy is used as a pejorative by some Jews." The comparison to the N-word is completely off the wall. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It is used pejoratively, and you cherry-picked Rosten, avoiding his description of the pejorative use of the term on page 133 as "xenophobic depreciation". Game over. Viriditas (talk) 07:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It is NOT used pejoratively, and I did NOT cherry-pick anything, I simply went to the goy item... which, if you read closely, was at one time employed defensively by Jews who felt persecuted by the goyim. You're dead wrong. "Game over." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The term is used pejoratively and that's all that matters, and the Rosten source you cite says it is used pejoratively and in a "xenophobic" manner. Per WP:CIV, editors are supposed to "participate in a respectful and considerate way, and avoid directing profane and offensive language at other users." I should also like to point you to CIV, particularly the part about not ignoring the positions and conclusions of other editors. Instead of telling other editors they are "dead wrong", you should be showing respect and humility. There is no question that Badger Drink's edit summaries have been problematic for a long time now and the fact that the user refuses to recognize the civility policy is well established. He even goes so far as to assert that he is not here "to make friends" which is pretty much at odds with our civility policy which requests editors to "treat your fellow editors as respected colleagues with whom you are working on an important project" and to be "welcoming and patient towards new users." Clearly, Badger Drink doesn't want to be civil. He has made that quite clear. Viriditas (talk) 08:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong about the goy thing. If you want to file a complaint about civility, that's your right, but if you revive the goy nonsense, you won't get away with it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not the user's intent that counts. It is the reader's interpretation that counts. And that there are multiple here who think that the term is being used uncivilly and xenophobically, if not racistly, that counts. Corvus cornix_talk 08:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no way his comment could be interpreted as "racist" as the OP claims. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Your repeated assertion does not make it truer the more times you say it. The OP is not the only person that thinks it's racist. Corvus cornix_talk 08:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

No one here has put forth any evidence whatsoever that the way it was used is racist, xenophobic, or whatever. They're harping on the one word, blind to the context. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You mean other than the provided sources in which the word is indicated as pejorative? And what source have you provided that it isn't? Corvus cornix_talk 08:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

often disparaging How many more sources do you want? Corvus cornix_talk 08:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

"Those are general indications of how the word is sometimes used pejoratively. No one is arguing that it isn't sometimes used pejoratively. Explain to us how the specific statement could possibly be interpreted as "racist" or "xenophobic". And don't say "because it has the word goyim in it." That's a bogus argument. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the assumption of good faith, Bugs. It is pretty obvious from the context just how it was intended, and it wasn't intended as a joke. Corvus cornix_talk 09:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't question your good faith, I question your good sense. There is nothing offensive about the statement. He's saying that not only would a Jew know that the Jewish-related item is incorrect, but almost everyone who's not a Jew would also know it. Where, pray tell, is the xenophobia or racism in that??? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Then why did he not write it in negro and white and say non-jew. Moreover this is about general incivility and refusal to accept he had given offecne (or understand that he should show more consideration for otehrs).Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Bugs - surely a statement can be xenophobic merely by containing a word that is usually/often xenophobic or pejorative? Even if the statement is true and not otherwise xenophobic. By way of a simplistic comparison, if someone said to me "you're a faggot" I would probably interpret that as being somewhat homophobic purely because of the use of a word that is generally pejorative, despite the fact that the statement is, at face value, entirely true. I suspect you would be on to a losing battle if you kept insisting "where is the homophobia in that statement? Show me why it is homophobic and don't just say 'because of the word faggot'".--Korruski 13:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

What action?

Most of what has passed here has been people arguing about the term itself, and arguing about how it could perhaps have been better expressed. But that's not what this board is for - it's for requesting admin assistance. So, what admin action is being requested here? Can someone state the requested action clearly, so we can perhaps get a !vote out of the way and move on? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hard to say but I think (given that the initial intent may not have been to give offence, but the reponses were (it seems to be) deisned to do just that) would be to issue a warning to be less confrontational in future.Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

There are going to be zero blocks for racism at this point in time. If someone wants to file an WP:RFC/U related to long-term incivility (as was already suggested), then go ahead. This ANI report is generating more heat than light, and I'm prepared to close it and let the RFC process do its job. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the bigger issue is that Badger Drink doesn't seem to care that his words were taken in a negative context and, indeed, seems to just be making it worse with his further comments. A civility warning is probably what we should expect here. Silverseren 15:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Back to basics

What seems to have been lost sight of in all of the verbiage above is that the original edit by Badger Drink appears to be incorrect, and the passage he removed to be correct. The phrase ימח שמו וזכרו is indeed a noted curse in Jewish culture. It was created as a back acronym, the initial letters spelling out the word Yeshu, the Hebrew form of Jesus; and it is used as the ultimate put-down. I have restored the edit. RolandR (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, there is still no source, it's strictly original research, hence I have removed the edit. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Help with user needed

Could someone who speaks Finnish please try to communicate with this user? I now believe they may be continually ignoring warnings and recreating pages because they don't understand english. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't speak Finnish, but I do speak Admin. Title salted. Mjroots (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Finnish translation added to warning. --Kudpung (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Editnotice required, apparently...

Per this Misplaced Pages:Hardcore images needs an Editnotice created to let us know that we're not allowed to edit that essay without Herostratus' permission. I was going to create one myself but it seems one needs to be an admin to do it; no doubt he would have himself had he not been desysopped.

Oh, and yes the above may contain a *hint* of sarcasm. Egg Centric (talk) 09:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Account creators may also edit edit notices. --Kudpung (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I can make one if he wants it. Otherwise, I'd ignore him. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar on its way Egg Centric (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Although I think the sarcasm is funny, this is actually a situation where some input from others would be great. Months ago I asked HS to userfy this essay. The request was refused and I took it to a deletion discussion. Editors assumed it was an attempt to censor an essay and overwhelmingly !voted to keep. Since then, HS has locked the page down. Reverts (not my changes) here and here. These on top of the gaul to say anyone can edit but me 'is not only completely out of line, it is against WP:ESSAYS. "Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace.". Time to userfy this essay and I believe HS needs a reminder of protocol if they can dictate who can and cannot edit.Cptnono (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Userfied to User:Herostratus/Hardcore images. If anyone wants to WP:OWN an essay, time to move it out of project space. Fences&Windows 00:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is troubling, Fences. The essay was up for MfD this fall and the decision was "Keep" (the headcount FWIW was 11-3, and one of the "Strong Keep" voters was Jimbo, for whatever that is worth.) So just deciding on one's own say-so to ignore that is troubling, and since you also deleted the shortcut (not called for, since many shortcuts point into userspace) this is an administrative rather than just an editorial action, so this is doubly troubling.

Now, as to "owning", this is an interesting question, and it involves the question of "hostile edits" to essays in Wikispace. Of course what constitutes a "hostile edit" can be debatable in some cases. But not here. An editor (who has repeatedly, vociferously, and at great length expressed his opposition to and rejection of the entire thrust and thesis of the essay) was gutting the essay, essentially a slow-motion page blanking. This was no good-faith effort to improve the essay or make it stronger and clearer, but rather a hostile attempt to destroy it, disingenuous protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. All this is discussed on the essay's talk page, which Fences should probably have read before taking this mistaken action.

In my opinion, edits to an essay that are clearly hostile shouldn't be allowed (instead, editors are encouraged to create refuting essays of their own and link to them on the original essay's "See also" section). I think if the principle of hostile edits to essays is to be allowed, that lead to a lot chaos and basically the potential destruction of the concept of essays, at least for those which are not necessarily popular and well-protected.

But who knows, maybe it would be a good thing. But it would be a major change, and there should be some quite considerable discussion before this is accepted, I think.

So if someone could please undo Fences' action and sort this all out, that would be good idea, I think. As always, I'm open to RfC, mediation, or whatever other good solutions are available. Another MfD would certainly be permissible. But not just, you know, one editor deciding he doesn't like the page. Herostratus (talk) 02:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't one editor not liking it. You reverted two other editors trying to make changes so at least three of us were raising concerns. You are able to make it say so much more in your user space so have fun with it and make your point. If you feel it is sufficient to change policy (which is an ongoing discussion over at Commons which you have been absent from) then please submit it at the Village Pump's policy page. F&W did act a little more boldly than I expected but any admin applying the policy fixes the issue and is exactly the outcome I expected sooner or later.Cptnono (talk) 07:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that in the article history, I see only User:Atomaton, not counting this one edit by Egg Centric, unless one wants to go back to November or earlier.

Well, anyway, Fences, there you have it: if you acted a little more boldly than Cptnono expected (!) then I think it's safe to say you've gone quite a bit off the edge of the board.

OK, well, this looks like a good case for mediation, I think. I'll file a request with the Cabal, and if mediation works OK we'll take it from there. In the meantime, the essay should be moved back into main essay space, and I would prefer if someone do this, but this is not critical, we can do that later on. I am restoring the shortcut, though, as this will make the page easier to point to.

Also, ould it be asking too much if, in future, participants at ANI could suggest dispute resolution or something before taking precipitate action? We do have a whole dispute resolution process, and it would a good thing if admins in particular familiarize themselves with it, I think. Herostratus (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Per WP:ESSAYS, the idea of an essay is to put forward a point of view. These may range from personal to minority views, to views that enjoy wide consensus. If an essay sets out to make the case for a particular point of view, it is legitimate for the author to ensure that it stays true to that point of view. Improvements should be focused on clarifying the presentation of that point of view, but not to change the point of view. Editors who do not agree with the point of view put forward are free to write an alternative essay. Sorry, Fences, the deletion and userification without an XfD was improper, and should be undone. --JN466 16:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• • Reread it, please: Misplaced Pages:ESSAYS clearly says, "Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." Do you see this occurring here? Because I certainly do. The issue is not the viewpoint, it's the refusal to let others edit it. The MfD was about the content, not the actions of the author. None of the content is being changed in userfication. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Here are some of the changes Herostratus reverted: , , .
    • For reference, the previous MfD for the essay at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Hardcore images was a clear Keep. --JN466 17:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course, if you look at the edit history, and detailed discussions in the talk page you would see that no editor has tried to change the point of view being made in the essay. If it is in main space, then the essay is subject to the same consensus rules and BRD rules as any other article. No editor may wp:OWN the essay in mainspace. Clearly the originating editor of this essay wished for no one to modify the article without his approval, and explicitly expressed that he owned the article. Hence, he should be able to do that, but only if it is in user space. having said that -- see my earlier comment below about due process, that Herostratus should have had a chance to express his view before any action was made. Atom (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Another point is that the essay could be broken into sections allowing expression of all major points of views on the general topic. An exclusionist perspective of only allowing one editor to make changes and expressly prohibiting edits of any kind from editors that are viewed as hostile is not functional. Atom (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Note: I've dropped a post about this to the Gendergap list. I would like a few more eyes on this, in particular female eyes. --JN466 17:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course I think that it is clear that a personal essay should be in user space, and community work to develop policies or guidelines should allow opinions and expressions from the spectrum of Misplaced Pages editors. In this case I was bothered by the lack of due process. I would have at least liked to see editor Herostratus express his viewpoint on why his essay should not be in user space before any decision or action was taken. Atom (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Move back to Misplaced Pages namespace because there was an extended deletion debate with the result Keep. The essay which was considered for deletion was the one written by Herostratus, not a denatured version. The extent and manner such an essay can be changed is a question that needs to be addressed. I think edits which substantially change the meaning of the essay as opposed to refining it or elaborating on it are properly reverted. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry, edit warring, unreliable sources, false consensus, business as usual on Aspartame Controversy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

At Aspartame_controversy Brangifer and his friends, particulary Yobol are making the lead into some gossip section, inserting multiple unreliable sources, strengthened with Weasel words and immediately claiming consensus when I removed rightfully the ridiculous sources. Yobol then falsely accuse me of the three-revert rule at my talk page while I only undid an edit once and undid an edit again that contained different info. When someone mentions an unreliable source, the burden is on them to prove it's reliable. These people have a very aggressive attitude towards editors who present the other side in the controversy to level out the article. After all it's about a controversy, a dispute. I would like to see these people being blocked or even banned from the article. Immortale (talk) 11:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• This template must be substituted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Please supply some difs of who the meat puppet(s) are and some of the other things you are claiming like false consenses. From looking at the history of the article, you are at 3 rr which means the notice is good. The sources you say aren't reliable the other editors involved are saying are reliable which brings consensus against you. Please keep in mind the WP:Boomerang. --CrohnieGal 13:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• I think the underlying issue is the prominence given to the Merkel emails, this is a niche event that is rarely even mentioned in serious coverage of the controversy. The article has been having serious discrepancy issues with regard to sources for as long as I have been editing here, to the point that GAO reports were sought to be excluded for spurious reasons. Why something that is rarely mentioned in serious sources and often only in passing if at all, is given the first line in our article is odd. un☯mi 13:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• These pro aspartame editors keep claiming consensus immediately whenever someone tries to make a valid contribution towards the neutrality of the article. They work closely together, support each other, protect each other (here for example where Brangifer demands an apology from me for his friend), and bully all other editors who have a different opinion than them even if they apply the wikipedia guidelines. The three-revert rule doesn't apply because I didn't revert 3 times the same edit. The source was replaced by another unreliable source. If this is what Misplaced Pages is about: bully-editing, then allow it, otherwise I really would like to see a strong and just administrator to do the right thing and ban the aforementioned two individuals from the article, as they are the most prominent. The proof for this is all over the talk page and the history section.Immortale (talk) 14:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Full disclosure, I edit that page a lot. I doubt that the editors mentioned would consider themselves 'pro aspartame' but rather 'pro wikipedia policies' I know that is what I consider myself. As hard as it is, please WP:AGF. I also see no evidence of meatpuppetry. 67.68.139.8 (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC). I am sorry, that was me, I thought I was logged in. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

There, unfortunately, seems to be a trend of false accusations by people who do not want to follow proper behavioral guidelines on the aspartame articles (see previous AN/I threads here, here, and here). Specifically, these WP:SPAs have been falsely accusing others of being sockpuppets/meatpuppets/shills of companies for a while now due this content dispute. Unfortunately, this is the 4th AN/I thread about this subject recently, and unless the community does something to curtail this behavior, I suspect these articles will be further disrupted (as they have been for months now). I note specifically that Unomi's comments above are content specific and really belong on the talk page of the article, not here. The behavioral issues of these SPAs, however, needs to be addressed. Yobol (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The editors complained about are merely enforcing wikipedia policy and guidelines, specifically WP:MEDRS (reliable sources for articles about medicine). TFD (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are a group of SPAs who have been making these complaints for some time now without any evidence. They live on that article and push to have dubious sources, primary sources, and even websites with nothing but anecdotes, included as sourcing. It's really been very tiring. The rest of us edit many articles, have much more experience and understanding of policies, and they keep making personal attacks and claims we're working for industry. Personally I have no great love for the pharmaceutical industry, or for Monsanto or Searle, and I'd love to help bury them if they were wrong, but in this case the scientific evidence is very clear....aspartame at normal doses is not a dangerous substance (except for a very particularly infinitisimally small group of people with a certain illness). The gross assumptions of bad faith need to stop. My latest message for one of the SPAs, User:Arydberg, is illustrative of what we're up against. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not meatpuppetry if there are several different editors who merely wish to follow wikipedia guidelines and improve articles in line with reliable sources. Unfortunately, it might look like meatpuppetry to somebody who wants to get their POV into an article and finds multiple people disagreeing with them. I'm not sure why this has come to AN/I, as it looks more like a conventional content dispute that should be addressed on a talkpage imho. (Full disclosure: I've never edited the article, and don't have any particular opinion on aspartame, but have commented on the talkpage once). bobrayner (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'm the editor who introduced that new ‘unreliable’ source to the article and even though I wasn't explicitly named in Immortale's complaint I guess I'm one of the ‘bad guys’, too, so I guess I should comment here. While I don't think the source is unreliable, I don't feel strongly about keeping it - what I do feel strongly about, however, is the insinuation that I introduced it in bad faith. When Immortale questioned the validity of a source I found a new, better one that basically said the same and added it - I thought that was pretty much a standard procedure here. Instead of saying why this source isn't reliable, Immortale removed it saying if I doubted their assessment I should “take it to WP:RSN”. I know this is what they have been told in regard to some of their sources, but that wasn't until a discussion at the article's talk was fruitless. I'm nobody's meatpuppet, nor am I a ‘pro-aspartame’ editor, and those accusations are very annoying. --Six words (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

These SPAs have some weird ideas about what they consider RS. Here are just a few diffs documenting User:Arydberg, a close ally of User:Immortale, continually and repeatedly seeking acceptance of personal anecdotes on self-published websites as RS. Check these dates (massive IDHT):

• Oct. 10, 2010 - http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)&diff=prev&oldid=389097041

• Dec. 22, 2010 - http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Aspartame_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=403641574

• Dec. 24, 2010 - http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources&diff=prev&oldid=403972845

• Dec. 28, 2010 - http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=404578410

• Feb. 13, 2011 - http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Aspartame_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=413611484

• Feb. 14, 2011 - http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=413820884&oldid=413819099 Done AGAIN right below in this thread!

It's very tiring to be dealing with constant IDHT and total failure to understand RS and MEDRS. This needs to stop and it would appear that only topic bans for all these SPAs will work. They all tend to repeat their attempts to bypass our rules.

These are the SPAs who live at Aspartame controversy:

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

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

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

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

• Writegirl62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Something needs to be done to stop the disruption. I suggest topic bans for a while.

Those of us on the opposing end of these SPAs aren't "pro-aspartame", we're just keeping the article(s) from being turned into an anti-aspartame blog and collection of fringe opinion pieces. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• I made a complaint to ANI and Kim Dent-Brown started looking in. I tried to add a section under the title “Grassroots Efforts”. It was removed. Kim Dent-Brown made the following statement, " I think WP:ABOUTSELF gives us a little freedom of manoeuvre here. It says: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field and then gives a list of further requirements. Personally (nailing my colours firmly to the mast here) I think the DORway site is unscientific scaremongering. But as mentioned above I think it's reasonable for us to refer to it in an article about the controversy. Of the two sides, one relies on peer-reviewed sources which fit our WP:RS criteria very well. The other mostly comprises blogs, YouTube videos and scare sites like DORway, which do not fit our criteria. The problem is that if we exclude all reference to the aspartame critics, the average reader (as I saw myself before I started to read this article) is going to read an antithesis without having had any thesis set out!" When i then posted a section on Grassroots efforts it was removed. Kim Dent-Brown made suggestions which I followed. It was still removed ...twice. The aspartame controversy is a true dilima. One side is composed of thousands of web pages claiming harm from it’s use. The other side claims a majority of research that proves it is safe. In an article titled “controversy” both sides must be told. The editors accused here simply will not allow the two sides to be told! Arydberg (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Wow! Now you've done it again right up above. You have been told to never mention this again until you had taken it to RS/N. Then we can talk about it. We've been hearing about this from you again and again and again and again and again, and that's not hyperbole. We're not about to use your own or any other self-published collection of sob stories from people inspired by Betty Martini's delusions as a RS here. That would be a grotesque violation of our sourcing policies. Kim Dent-Brown came to the talk page without any idea of what you've been up to and you pulled him into a trap. The types of sources he described are indeed allowed in articles about themselves. You were told that, and yet you persist in trying to get us to use your own website, created after you got involved here, and created so you could publish it here. There is no way that is going to happen.

• You again falsely claim that both sides aren't being told, but they are. No reader of that article is in doubt that there is a controversy and about its nature. Although we use much gentler language than my vivid description here, they will discover that there was lots of controversy in the beginning of the approval process. Lots of it, and it's explained in excruciating detail. They will also discover that the controversy (which was nearly dead) has been revived and kept alive by Betty Martini and her hoax email. (Without her the controversy would have died out since all the scientific evidence (that's done properly) shows no great danger.) They will also read how there are literally thousands of websites created by people inspired by Betty Martini who repeat her laundry list of supposed dangerous diseases and conditions caused by Diet Coke and aspartame. They are repeating her delusions and lies. The evidence and the RS we use show she's making it up and it's just lies. The science is against her. The article makes that plain too. So, we ARE covering both sides! We're just not allowing you and your SPA buddies to turn the article in a fringe article that makes the mainstream position look like a fringe position. No, the anti-aspartame position is the fringe position.

• Now you want us to use your own website (or one like it) with a collection of anecdotal sob stories WHICH YOU HAVE SOLICITED ON ANTI-ASPARTAME GROUPS for your use at Misplaced Pages as if it was a RS? This is such a gross example of repeated IDHT that a block is deserved. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• FYI, we already use the non-RS DORway website as a reference several times, even though, as Kim Dent-Brown so accurately describes it, "the DORway site is unscientific scaremongering". It's not a RS, but we still use it to document several things about the anti-aspartame position. We're really stretching the rules to do that, but I think it's allowable in the way we've done it, and to do more would be indefensible. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• This entire business seems to me like a child tattling on their brother for smashing a vase, whilst holding the hammer. Immortale, you keep bringing up meat puppetry- I'd love to see a single piece of evidence that anyone at Talk:Aspartame controversy has been communicating about the article or coordinating edits outside of wikipedia. And if you can't provide that, stop asserting it. I don't want to see it again. --King Öomie 07:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Apparently Immortale has been blocked for edit warring. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• (ec) And Arydberg has received a VERY strong warning. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• And I have handed out warnings to Jmpunit and Arydberg. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• (ec) I would like to thank the courageous admins who have taken action. Would it be too much to ask for a topic ban, including the talk pages, since that's where the most disruption is occurring? That is likely the only way to get this to stop, at least for a while. Also socks have been used in the past and will likely reappear, so we'll still need to be observant. A permanent semi-protection of the article, allowing only editors with autoreviewer rights, would also help. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to get the formalities right, does anybody know if and when any of the parties in question have already had warnings under the WP:ARBPS#Discretionary sanctions rules? I'd otherwise hand out a few of those now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, anyway, I've gone ahead and gave the standard warnings to the three editors mentioned above. Also declined an unblock request by Immortale. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how many straw men are being pulled in here. I reported an incident but it turned into a witch hunt. Brangifer who I identify as the main bully, brings up false allegations against me time after time, which is apparently completely accepted as WP:AGF. Brangifer calls me "a close ally of Arydberg" without any evidence. I've never even replied to Arydberg on the Talk page. But if Brangifer cannot find any good reasons to accuse me, he brings in others to smear and ties them to me. Then when he finds out he's at the winning hand, he sneaks in his unsubstantiated accusation "Also socks have been used in the past and will likely reappear, so we'll still need to be observant." I've never used any socks, have been accused of that several times, but got completely cleared by that. Administrators have apologized to me then. All because Brangifer fights a crusade against pseudo-science and mistakenly puts Aspartame in there as well. He violates WP:BLP every time he mentions Betty Martini, by calling her a liar and a whole other range of insults because of his personal dislike of her (she has a religion he disagrees with). Recently I put a valid secondary RS source in the article, from the New York Times, historical correct, but as always, every time and I mean every time, someone comes with an edit that shows a negative finding about Aspartame, even within all wikipedia guidelines, then we have to go all the way to get it accepted, if it gets accepted at all. Since the ethical standard of Misplaced Pages has become so low, I voluntarily withdraw myself as an editor. Immortale 83.185.26.203 (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

When you claim to never have used socks, you undermine your point by evading a block to do it. From what I've seen, Brangifer's dislike for Betty Martini is based on her work and her insistence on pushing pseudoscience, not her religion, but it's nice of you to make that assumption (while complaining about AGF violations). WP:BOOMERANG seems like a hobby. --King Öomie 14:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Reg1997 six (6) CSD of this article in three days

User:Reg1997 claims to be "Isa 13 year old boy that have an assignment to create article on wikipedia by it's name." The article has been speedy deleted six times in the past three days. The user apparently understands how to game the system by using variations of capitals, etc., for each reincarnation. Request admin intervention to salt the versions of the title and eventually to block the editor.

• 19:43, 11 February 2011 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted "Reg jaycobb jacobo" ‎ (G3: Vandalism: fork of List of EastEnders characters (1985)#Reg Cox)
• 16:59, 9 February 2011 UtherSRG (talk | contribs) deleted "Reg jaycobb jacobo" ‎ (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
• 17:29, 9 February 2011 UtherSRG (talk | contribs) deleted "REG JAYCOBB JACOBO" ‎ (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
• 19:43, 11 February 2011 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted "Reg jaycobb jacobo" ‎ (G3: Vandalism: fork of List of EastEnders characters (1985)#Reg Cox)
• 16:59, 9 February 2011 UtherSRG (talk | contribs) deleted "Reg jaycobb jacobo" ‎ (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
• 13:53, 13 February 2011 Nancy (talk | contribs) deleted "Reg Jaycobb Jacobo" ‎ (A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic: History of EastEnders)

Kudpung (talk) 11:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I have issued a final warning and will keep an eye on the young man. Favonian (talk) 11:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Note the page he's creating is more or less a variation on List_of_EastEnders_characters_(1985)#Reg_Cox but with a different name substituted, thus this is bad faith, rather than just cluelessness. Egg Centric (talk) 12:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I've made a salt request at RPP, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection#Current requests for protection. Lavalamp from Mars (talk) 12:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

These two need salting too: REG JAYCOBB JACOBO and Reg Jaycobb Jacobo. Kudpung (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Assignment to Create an article on 80s Soap opera Character? Little bit of bizarre assignment a character from Slaughter House 5 or simliar age appropriate book tittle I could believe but this sounds fishy... The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Christopher Monsanto

Currently all the activities of this users seems to be trying to remove information from the Misplaced Pages, especially about programming languages. He may be right about single points, some pages may really not be notable, but: overall he is certainly inflicting damage to the Misplaced Pages. The notability-related distinguishing features are often marginal, so this systematic elimination of information, including fast deletion-processes certainly implies the loss of a lot of usefull, and even notable (for statistical reasons) articles. It will decrease the representativeness of the presented programming languages dramatically, and I do not see any benefits in this systematic elimination. In my opinion it is better to keep some non-notable programming languages than to take those risks. Even if a programming language becomes notable in near future it is unlikely that there will be usefull information available at Misplaced Pages due to this process, authors will be shocked by that elimination. Since he has announced not to reply to criticism, I am writing this comment here. I am really worried about the quality of information related to programming languages in the Misplaced Pages. Sometimes we should not be to finicky with notability-policies, when the over-all quality of Misplaced Pages's information about one topic is in danger, this process of deletion should be stopped. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Chricho that the deletion of a few notable, but hard to prove programming languages are a loss for Misplaced Pages. The deletion of Nemerle and Pure alone mean that Misplaced Pages is no longer a reliable source for information on Functional Programming Languages. Cleaning out programming languages is a good idea, but a more conservative attitude with popular, emerging languages would be wise. I gather that this is not the proper place for this argument, however, so I will attempt to find an appropriate place. Morgan Sutherland (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

PS: I'm not a fan of one of the removed programming language, it is just about the quality of information presented here. And I do not follow Christopher's advice not to complain here, because it is not a personal issue, but I care about Misplaced Pages. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

And here I thought the complaints would stop after Nemerle got deleted. I'm very conservative with the languages I nominate for deletion. Read any of my AfDs -- no one, including myself, could find one solid source (i.e., related to the subject, non-neighborhood-of-zero citations, independent, non-blog-post, etc) backing their notability, let alone multiple. In other words, if I nominate something for deletion, it will most likely be a landslide-delete. Seriously, I haven't "lost" a single AfD. Doesn't that say something about the languages I'm nominating for deletion? If you don't think so, please, click the User Contributions link, find my AfDs, and find admissible sources for the languages in question. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I agree with the deletion of articles just saying “this language is usually ignored”. But some of them are really interesting, no orphans and an enrichment for the Misplaced Pages, e.g. Pure or Nemerle, they are notable because of their characteristics, not because of some Misplaced Pages-guidelines, I do not get, how it should become easier “to find interesting programming languages” if they get deleted, although there are some scientific papers. I know that you win your AfDs, but there is something more notable about your user contributions list: just destructive changes. It is obvious that there will be collateral damage. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Then take your complaints up with the WP community, I didn't come up with the notability guidelines. However, I happen to think the deletions are for the better. It is impossible to browse PL lists and categories because of the overwhelming number of pet programming languages on WP. If you want to learn about Pure or Nemerle, use Google. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Ignore_all_rules, we do not have to change all guidelines, if they obviously imply damage in specific cases. Btw: “…because of their characteristics…” and because of agile communities, you should consider that aspect, too. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

“If you want to learn about Pure or Nemerle, use Google.” they aren't pets, they (are|were)n't orphans, they fit nicely into the Misplaced Pages as additional information. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you think why nobody ever complained about all those stubs, about Nemerle, Pure or the size of the list of programming languages and why there are so many complaints about your work now? I think there is a good reason. Btw all those stubs are the main-reason why I prefer the English Misplaced Pages to the German one, at the German Misplaced Pages there are more such people trying to enforce all rules and to delete many articles. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

First thing, regarding Nemerle you are arguing against a AfD decision - you can do that at WP:DRV. Secondly, you appear to be accepting that that and other computer languages may not comply with WP policy but suggesting that this is good. Interesting stance (but perhaps not one to advance at DRV)... The major issues regarding Christopher Monsanto's work is that he is apparently unpopular with various individuals for trying to apply both letter and spirit of policy to an area of WP that appears rather lax in complying with requirements. As one of the correspondents at the Nemerle AfD said, why not make the effort to find the reliable sources required? WP:IAR is only where non compliance is of benefit to the project, and is not an excuse for laziness, ineptitude or simple lack. It is inappropriate to blame the messenger, when it is those complaining who should have found the references for the articles. Since a sizeable percentage, perhaps a majority, of those complaining and opposing AfD's for these computer language articles are those involved in producing, marketing and using these products, surely it would be easier for them to find the relevant reliable third party sources? Or perhaps there are no such references? In which case, start an RfC for the argument that Computer Language articles need not comply with WP requirements. In any event, do stop attempting to stifle Christopher Monsanto from using proper WP processes to improve the project. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not involved in any of those languages. But I think it is not normal to do nothing else than destruction in the Misplaced Pages, deleting articles having been there for three years, that is not the normal process, normally articles get removed after 2 weeks or something like that. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

(OD) Agree with LHvU above. Edits like this one , where you ask CM "What the Hell are you doing?" simply because he puts an article up for deletion, are simply not civil. Blaming the messenger isn't going to help build an article that demonstrates notability. Dayewalker (talk) 05:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have no horse in this race, not having ever read the articles being contested. But I feel like it would be wrong of me not, in the interest of full disclosure, to bring this to the attention of those in this discussion: http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/fkt7t/nemerle_factor_alice_ml_and_other_programming/. Thank you.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It made Hacker News, as well. Suffice to say, a lot of people weren't too happy about it. It's still at the top of proggit and HN, so a lot of traffic will continue to be driven this way. Still, CM has left a message on his talk/user page that should appease anyone with an axe to grind. It's unfortunate that many of those who came from reddit weren't capable of behaving civilly and resorted to personal attacks. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Gonna have to mark some SPA comments, I think.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

@Dayewalker, sorry, I was upset, I could not understand why somebody is trying to damage the Misplaced Pages in that way. I did not come from reddit, but from Misplaced Pages. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

People will always be willing to complain about things, but less willing to go do something about it —Blackmane (talk) 12:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

MediaWiki does not only allow constructive, but also destructive behaviour, so not doing something is sometimes a good thing compared to some activities. That is also the reason why IAR can apply to being lazy. Btw, protesting is also an action, not constructive, but it can prevent destruction. The pros and cons at reddit seem to be very appropriate. I think we should stop the deletion of non-stub-articles about programming languages and articles about programming languages with active communities (Alice, Nemerle, Pure, Falcon, …) instantly, deletions against the will of many people before there is any consensus and against the previous consensus (simply keeping it) are a bad thing, although the formal process might have been okay. There are good reasons for the protests and for the duration they have(had) been existed. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 12:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Quote User:Christopher Monsanto: “Dear internet, You guys win. I will stop nominating pages for deletion.”. Should Nemerle and Alice be restored? --Chricho ∀ (talk) 12:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Not on that basis. The DRV discussions are ongoing -- we'll see what happens there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, considering that SarekOfVulcan started this whole mess (Christopher_Monsato just joined in) I can hardly think that he is a neutral party. Yserbius (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Chircho, you really don't get it. Misplaced Pages is not a majority rule. You don't "win" by drowning out the opposition with numbers. Nor with "It's useful" arguments. WP:IAR is not for keeping articles with no sources. You seem to have a rather poor understanding of Misplaced Pages's rules.

I know the rules (at least those you mention), I know that AfDs do not get decided by the majority, but I have an opinion what is good for Misplaced Pages and this particular topic in the Misplaced Pages, and I have never said that the majority would decide, but I said that this majority against deletion indicates that it is not a clear decision. So stop speculating about my argumentation and start arguing yourself, why those deletions should be good for the Misplaced Pages. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Reading that thread I'm amused by the fact that everyone has an opinion about the contours of our coverage on pokemon but demands that no one have an opinion about our coverage on functional programming language. I'd just give this a few days for it to fall off the reddit front page when someone makes a bacon hat or something. Protonk (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

What should we do without Pidgey, Pidgeotto, and Pidgeot? :D --Chricho ∀ (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

According to the armchair editors at reddit, we should delete it because it serves as an example of how deletionists ruin wikipedia. Really we should do with that subject what we do with any subject. If there are reliable sources with which we can write a factual, neutral and appropriate article, then we should have an article. If there aren't, we shouldn't have an article. The notability policy isn't perfect (and like any rule, is not perfectly decidable), but it works pretty damn well. As a best case we find ourselves with a decision rule which makes the actual subject type irrelevant. As a worst case we have a distribution of articles which represents the past more than the future (and subjects with published coverage over those which do not). But it serves pretty well. I could just as easily turn this around and complain that reddit should/shouldn't frontpage certain articles or images because I have some prior expectations about what should be on reddit. But you know and I know such complaints are pretty Quixotic. Reddit has a mechanism to moderate content and the front page exists as a result of that mechanism. Protonk (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Semi Protect Vex News

Relevant links: ] --Article for semi protect ] --Article subject ] --User harassed off WP for editing the article ] --User harassing above user ] --User who created the article ]

The article on the conservative blog / news site in Australia, VEX News is in a poor state and I'm requesting Semi-Protection so that I am able, along with other interesting WP editors to clean it up without the threats / reverts / undos etc. that have come from a range of anonymous IP's and 2 users (including the user who created the article). All of the IP's in the list below began by editing the article, all but 2 ONLY edited the article. As such I am going to assume they are the same people as the registered users and I am not going to notify them that they are being discussed. I apologise if this is against policy. I will notify SammyAzizMercedes and Gerrydavidson

• ] |175.37.98.245
• ] |175.35.117.201
• ] |58.171.2.174
• ] |58.171.153.94
• ] |SammyAzizMercedes
• ] |110.174.108.177
• ] |Gerrydavidson
• ] |58.171.231.121
• ] |120.156.194.153
• ] |120.156.203.92

For all intents and purposes it appears that this article was created as a fluff piece by user GerryDavidson and protected by a series of anon IP edits and SammyAzizMercedes. When I first encountered VexNews it was during the last Federal Election and there was a considerably nasty piece, near the top of google searches for a labor party candidate in an electorate. The piece attacked her viciously on a number of fronts, not having a single source for its claims and there not being a single mention of the claims on any online source despite their ferocity and intensity. I get the feeling this website and hence the WP article are part of a partisan game of name-blackening and little more and suggest editors be vigilant to assure this doesn't continue. Furthermore, as part of these tactics it seems User: Roooster was bullied off WP as she stopped editing after being threatened by user SammyAzizMercedes.--Senor Freebie (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Rather stale looking at the edit history of the article. Collect (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but there is a pattern. Each time there is an edit, anon IP's turn up. I thought it was worth asking (even if denied) to get semi-protect to ensure editing is more secure.--Senor Freebie (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I noticed after a bit more of a poke around that the article on the author of Vex News has suffered the same problems. Semi-Protect has been granted, then lifted and the problems have returned. I now ask for Permanent Semi-Protect for both neglected articles.

] --Talk page discussing previous semi-protect and Anon IP edits.

Now for a list of suspect editors on the Andrew Landeryou article:

• ] |DoclerWhose?
• ] |120.155.146.242
• ] |120.156.124.244
• ] |Showninner888
• ] |120.152.29.130
• ] |124.180.34.30

Ok forget this ... the amount of IP's is endless, the amount of users with identical talk pages and edits only to this article seems outright stupid. This is downright intimidating.--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I might've found the motivation for this campaign. This character, Landeryou first had an article made about him talking about his arresting and sacking as demonstrated at; http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Andrew_Landeryou&action=historysubmit&diff=358610162&oldid=18461385 Since then, he (or someone acting in his interests) has acted almost as a vigilante attempting to clean his online image in order to support the operation of his news website.--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Surely WP:RPP is the place to go...? GiantSnowman 16:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes and no. Yes, that's the correct page to request protection; and no, the article shouldn't be semiprotected based on the above report. None of those contributors is vandalizing, they are disputing a part of the article, and they have engaged in discussion about it. We don't semiprotect articles in order to pick sides in a content dispute. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I apologise, I looked for that page, thinking I'd been there before but I couldn't find it.--Senor Freebie (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrong Gavin immer, we should semi-protect articles in this kind of dispute. I gave up eventually at Andrew Landeryou, but IPs and new accounts would constantly remove anything that the subject might not like, effectively sanitising it and turning it into a hagiography. IP hopping and meatpuppetry is ground for semi-protection. Look at Talk:Andrew Landeryou to see what I was dealing it. Fences&Windows 00:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

So thats 1 for and 2 against? More opinions would be nice. Thank you for your opinions.--Senor Freebie (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not this is the right venue, I think the honourable Fences is right about semi-protection; it might be a good idea in this case. bobrayner (talk) 12:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I agree on semi-protecting these two articles. We have the responsibility to prevent the recurrence of a chronic problem. DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Toolserver down?

I got this message when going to Toolserver.

Bad Gateway An error occurred while communicating with another application or an upstream server.

There may be more information about this error in the server's error logs.

If you have any queries about this error, please e-mail ts-admins@toolserver.org. Back to toolserver.org homepage

--Perseus8235 19:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

*Cough*

"If you have any queries about this error, please e-mail ts-admins@toolserver.org."

Your email account is → that way I believe. Tiptoety 19:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Just refresh and it should work. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 19:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Refreshed nine times. Oh well. --Perseus8235 20:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like an error in a particular tool. The toolserver itself is not down, at least not right now. What tool are you loading? — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds like a particular tool. I loaded Checklinks and SUL and both loaded just fine. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is this here? What is an enwiki admin supposed to do about this? WP:VPT might be more appropriate, as might be Tiptoety's suggestion. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone thinks we're just a bunch of tools? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

http://artist.maestro.fm/Terry_Weeks.html?v=biography

I know there was a page somewhere where websites that was taking content from Misplaced Pages without proper attribution could be reported. http://artist.maestro.fm/Terry_Weeks.html?v=biography looks like a user content site but I do know this particular page is a copy of Terry Weeks. What should be done?--v/r - TP 21:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

There are so many of these types of sites that I usually ignore them; however, you can email the (new) general counsel, Geoff Brigham, if he has an email set up already (I don't think so). Right now wmf:Designated agent says to contact Sue; I don't know if legalwikimedia.org would be a better alternative. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

persistent Frances Fox Piven blanking and legal threat

(Copy of WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#persistent_Francis_Fox_Piven_blanking_and_legal_threat needing prompt attention)
Please see Frances Fox Piven (history and comments) as well as User talk:Rostz regarding a legal threat from User:Fannielou. Please advise, thanks. Rostz (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I received a similar legal threat from FannieLou, who is past 6RR with blanking the page. She should be blocked immediately.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Fannielou is now blocked by MuZemike, who got there seconds before I did to do the same. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I would have gotten that earlier, but I accidentally blocked Rostz instead. My sincere apologies to Rostz for that. –MuZemike 22:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as the content dispute is concerned, she may have a viable complaint. I have already directed Fannielou to OTRS. She was retracted her legal threat on her talk page, but in the event of her unblock (which I won't oppose) I think it might not hurt to full-protect Frances Fox Piven for a few days to allow discussion on the talk page (or via OTRS if she chooses) to occur. Thoughts? –MuZemike 23:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It is a very crappy situation (person is an innocuous academic from what I can tell, getting death threats due to a harassment campaign, partly about an article she wrote 45 years ago in a drastically different social climate than today). Per "do no harm" please do protect the article or do whatever else it takes to prevent it from worsening her problems. I personally would support an AfD in rather strong terms, but I'm almost certainly in a minority about that. Cloward–Piven strategy appears to be a poorly sourced neologism that should also be deleted. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

One thought that no one seems to have brought up, does Fannielou want her email address included in her posts? It appears several places. JanetteDoe (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's the thing after briefly looking at it (and I agree, this is a very crappy situation). We got this recent incident as documented from The Guardian here, which, in layman terms, Piven is basically in some sort of a shouting war with Glenn Beck (surprise, surprise). We can keep the "criticism" section at proper weight compared to the rest of the article as well as focused and neutral, but even keeping all that in mind, I don't think Misplaced Pages is obligated to protect Piven (or conversely Beck) for whatever fallout might occur as a result by omitting any mention of her ongoing battle with Beck, not to mention most of the other stuff in the article which can be easily found in other online sources as currently referenced in the article (i.e. the "personal information"). –MuZemike 23:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify with my above comment: once something like this hits The Guardian, The New York Times, or any other widely reputable international source (that's the important part, the WP:RS part), then suppressing said information from Misplaced Pages is not going to do too much more good. –MuZemike 00:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ick. What an all-round unpleasant situation. I've nominated this article for deletion, not so much because I'm sure it should be deleted or stubbed, but because I feel like consensus is needed, and I'm leaning in the direction of deletion- I'm not sure that Piven meets WP:ACADEMIC, and I'm not sure that she should be considered notable just because Glenn Beck decided to give her notoriety. Maybe you feel differently, and that's okay. I have a lot of mixed feelings. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Criteria 5 ofWP:ACADEMIC: appointment as a "Distinguished Professor". Publisher's blurb states, "Frances Fox Piven is Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Sociology at The Graduate Center, CUNY". Glrx (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

As the AFD is now underway (and discussion regarding deletion should go there instead), what about the unblock request on Fannielou's page, given that it looks like she has retracted the legal threat. My concern is that she will go right back to trying to blank the Piven article, which is why I recommended above that we should possibly full-protect the article in the meantime; at the very least let discussion about the content itself go on Talk:Frances Fox Piven. –MuZemike 00:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and semi-protected the article; the last thing we need right now is someone who doesn't know better adding stuff in there that can cause further damage. –MuZemike 02:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I hope its OK if I weigh in here, as I have edited both Frances Fox Piven and Cloward Piven Strategy and was one of the editors to revert the blanking of the former earlier today. As someone who sympathizes with Frances Fox Piven and has taken a look at the overall situation, I believe the following: 1. She is a notable academic and columnist on her own, not just because of the attack by Glenn Beck. 2. Though my original reaction was that "Cloward Piven Strategy" was a recent conservative neologism, a Google book search discloses a 1975 book in which she and Dr. Cloward used the phrase and other significant use by liberals and others after the original 1966 essay appeared. While I respect the need to respond to a legal threat and our attention to BLP issues regarding Dr. Piven, the right solution is not to delete the two articles, both of which deal with notable matters and belong in this encyclopedia. Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• I note that currently the material on the controversy is not in the article. I've given my opinion on the talk p. there, that this is the opposite of protection of living subjects--we do not protect here by making it obvious to everyone likely to read the article that we are censoring the content. My opinion of GB is something below what I am capable of expressing in writing, but we best protect his victims by preserving the principles of free expression that he is so outrageously misusing. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Menilek's credentials and behavior

• Menilek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), 2009–present
• Minilik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), 2006–2008 (indefinitely blocked)
• Menelik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), 2004 (possibly related; single edit that doesn't warrant attention)

User:Menilek/Minilik is an intermittent contributor whose edits and behavior (I believe) warrant further scrutiny. On several occasions (for example, in May 2009, diff), Menilek has made the exceptional claim that he is the current head prophet of the Beta Israel (Ethiopian Jews). The only source I have seen to corroborate this claim is his Myspace page, to which he linked in the autobiographical Teru Minilik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (deleted via WP:CSD). More recently (13 Feb.) he claims to be a member of the royal family (diff) (not sure which one; presumably that of Menelik I and Menelek II of Ethiopia). Based on these claims, he has presented himself as both an authority and spokesman on Beta Israel and related topics in Misplaced Pages. His activity has been intermittent, involving two accounts since 2006 (the older of which is indefinitely blocked).

Even if Menilek is who he says he is, Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy trumps citing oneself as an expert. I was not sure where to report this, as WP:SOCK, WP:COI, WP:NOT, WP:AGF and WP:OWN have all been applicable at one time or another. I'm hesitant to take unilateral action given my own (but comparatively minimal) involvement with the subject matter.

In his most recent activity, on 11 & 12 February, Menilek asserted (, ) that Aksum/Aksumite Empire officially embraced Christianity during the first century CE, citing Rey, Sir Charles F., In the Country of the Blue Nile and the New Testament account of Phillip and the eunuch (Acts 8:26-39; ). However, the source (and the Bible) use the term "Ethiopia," which more likely means Aethiopia (Classical Greek term), referring to the Kingdom of Kush rather than Ethiopia in the modern sense. Aksum itself is not mentioned. A more recent text (Hansberry, William Leo Pillars in Ethiopian History, Howard University Press, 1974) suggests the older, rather than modern, meaning of Ethiopia in this context. Ironically, User:Menilek himself pointed out the distinction between ancient and modern Ethiopia in an older discussion (diff).

I reverted his edits and left comments about it on his talk page (diff). Menilek left a lengthy response on my talk page (diff). Regarding my concerns regarding ancient Ethiopia vs. modern Ethiopia vs. the Aksumite Empire itself, he provided a synthesis explaining how the mention of Ethiopia (i.e. sub-Saharan Africa, in the ancient sense of the term) would apply to Aksum as well based on geographic proximity. Thus far he has not re-introduced the material, nor have I responded to his comments (in all honesty, I am quite unsure how to craft a response to what he was written).

I become more and more skeptical about the content (and intent) of Menilek's edits, based on the user's past behavior on Misplaced Pages. As the head prophet of the Beta Israel, Menilek has presented himself as both an authoritative source and as a spokesperson at Talk:Beta Israel:

• 6 May 2009. Presents himself as an expert on the subject (WP:SELFCITING); also makes the argument that only those of "x" ethnicity/nationality are truly qualified to write about "x" ethnicity/nationality (which I feel is racist in any context and, unfortunately, a sentiment I have seen elsewhere on Misplaced Pages).
• 6 May 2009, makes assertions regarding the origins of Sephardim vs. Ashkenazim; asks for sources to the contrary but does not offer any himself (other than the Book of Genesis).
• 6 May 2009, WP:SELFCITING again; WP:FRINGE(?) assertions regarding Arabs as false Ishmaelites, and (modern) Ethiopians as true Midianites/Ishmaelites.
• 6 May 2009, forgive me if this seems uncivil but I am not sure how else do describe this other than as ranting.
• 6 May 2009, again brings up claims regarding Ethiopians as Ishmaelites/Midianites, but (as mentioned earlier) points out the difference between the ancient and modern uses of the name "Ethiopia."
• (Menilek's series of edits to Talk:Beta Israel on 12 May 2009 were generally to copyedit the earlier edits he made on 6 May.)
• 29 May 2009, again making claims about his credentials, along the lines of "Just tell 'em Menilek sent you."

Elsewhere on Misplaced Pages:

• Comments at User talk:OneTopJob6 (diff), and reposted on his own talk page (diff), 29 May 2009: Again, Menilek posts what I can only describe as a rant, albeit in response to a personal attack (diff). Again, Menilek makes exceptional claims ("I am one of the leading authorities on Bete Israel, as one of their 2 highest ranking spiritual leaders!").
• In the Raphael Hadane article (about a Beta Israel priest) diff, 31 July 2009: Asserts that the proper term for Ethiopian Jewish priests is "Kahane," not "Kes," yet the subject of that article (Raphael Hadane) refers to himself as "Kes" (Chief Kes, at that): link.

User:Menilek is highly likely the same person as ] (talk · contribs). The latter account was blocked indefinitely, due to COI username, following the creation of the autobiographical article Teru Minilik. In the article, the subject claimed (deleted edits) to be "rasnebiy (head of the nevi'im)," i.e. the head of the prophets, but the only source to corroborate this claim is a link to the subject's own Myspace page. There was also an uncited claim (ibid.) that the subject is "a descendant of both Minilik the Great (bka Menelik I) and also is descended from Sahle Maryam, when he was king of Shewa by his first wife, princess Alitash, the half-jewish daughter of Emperor Tewodros II and his Bete Israel wife from Aksum,(Sahle Maryam was later coroneted as Menelik II)."

On his talk page, Minilik claimed (deleted diff) to be the the head of the Beta Israel, and asserted his right and authority to enforce the desired spelling "Bete Israel" on Misplaced Pages. Upon being blocked, he claimed (deleted diff) to be the head prophet, and again demanded that Misplaced Pages comply with the desired spelling, using language that bordered on a legal threat.

The older Minilik account also uploaded a number of images depicting ostensibly ancient flags, e.g. File:Aksum Flag.jpg and File:Tigray Flag.gif. The consensus, however, was that these flags were of his own design. The former was later uploaded to Commons, where it was deleted as per discussion (Deletion requests/File:Aksum Flag.jpg). The latter was deleted from Misplaced Pages as per discussion (WP:FFD#File:Tigray Flag.gif).

It seems simple enough to block Menilek as a duplicate account of the indefinitely-blocked Minilik, but I am not sure that this is fair, given that the new account is not specifically writing about himself. At the same time it is not fair for him to defer to himself as the provider of expert opinion (absent any source better than Myspace that would corroborate his credentials). I wonder if it might be a conflict of interest that the user is writing about the Beta Israel, whom he claims to represent, but here I could use additional opinions.

-- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Left notifications at User talk:Menilek and User talk:OneTopJob6. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

A lot of this all looks rather old, is there any evidance for recent (actual) infringments of policy. By your owen admision(by the way why all the locks on the diffs?) he has not attmepted to re-insert the disputed material.Slatersteven (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I wondered about that. My concern is that this is happening long-term, but due to the account(s) being only intermittently active, it has largely stayed off-the-radar, so to speak. I think the most recent activity would fall under WP:NOR but, again, Menilek hasn't re-added the material. I had missed this earlier but he's actually said "As such an expert on the subject, that means that I to, myself, AM a source" (diff). This presumably means the rest of us are non-experts which would not seem to leave much room for discussion. I have to think this falls under WP:CIVIL and probably WP:V, though as it's happening on my talk page (rahter than main space) I am not sure about the latter. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I notice that at least some of the material appears to be sourced to third party sources. In fact he claims that all of the material is attributable to third party sources. Perhaps you could explain how he is in error in this regard (has he falsified sources for example?) in fact exactly what has he done that breached policy that has made it difficult to work with him?Slatersteven (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The cite he sources, and the Biblical account mentioned, say "Ethiopia" (which again, brings up the ancient meaning of that name vs. modern Ethiopia). But his edit specifies "Aksum". This is not what the source says and, to me, looks like synthesis at best. The only place where it says the New Testament mention of Ethiopia is Aksum, is in his comment on my talk page. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S. The locks probably appear because I'm logged in to the secure (https) version of Misplaced Pages, so all the links are to https versions. Sorry for any confusion. Is there an easy way to grab the regular http links without logging out and back in? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

My thanks to Gyrofrog for taking on this matter; from about 4 weeks ago my time for Misplaced Pages has been reduced to almost nothing due to starting a full-time job (on top of helping look after a stubborn & intelligent 3-year-old), & I haven't had the time to investigate what Menilek has been up to. I noticed two of his edits last night, i.e. & , which I found odd. Both of these edits assert tendentious & fringe claims about a medieval province of Ethiopia; this province is located in what is presently Eritrea, which complicates the problem -- viz., many Eritreans claim their country is the rightful heir of Axum, rejecting Ethiopia's claim. (This is not an issue I want to take sides on with the little time I have for Misplaced Pages.) So I reverted the one edit where Menelik's inserted material was the most tangential (the Tigray-Tigrinya people article) & ignored the other, assuming there might be some larger reason for this than an idiosyncratic belief. (FWIW, I did see the earlier Minilik account, but I couldn't find a clear explanation for the block.)

Now that I've read Gyrofrog's statement above, I can see how those 2 edits fit an established pattern: he is pushing (to use Misplaced Pages jargon) his fringe POV of Ethiopia history. Why he insists on using C.F. Rey as his preferred source puzzles me: if he wants to rely on sources "less likely to have suffered latter-day Marxist revisionism", there are the works of James Bruce or E. A. Wallis Budge (both of whom wrote comprehensive accounts of Ethiopian history that are still today cited in the reliable secondary literature); or if he is willing to forgo his bias against Ethiopian historians, he could draw on Alaqa Tayya Gebre Mariyam (1860-1924). C.F. Rey was only an explorer who visited Ethiopia in the 1920s & 1930s. Further, if he is related to the Imperial line of Ethiopia -- which is possible, since there are descendants of the Gondar dynasty alive, to the best of my knowledge, & there is even another senior branch of the Shewan line which may have survived the Ethiopian Revolution -- he wouldn't have made the amazing mistake in his rambling message on Slatersteven's talk page of calling Haile Selassie "Emperor Selassie": "Haile Selassie" is a single name, & only people ignorant of Ethiopian customs would make the mistake of calling him "Selassie" alone. To be blunt, I believe he's a kook whose claims to be a primary source for his contributions fails more than casual examination, & even if the sources he might use are reliable, I'd still be suspicious of his contributions.

I apologize to anyone who saw what I wrote above & decided "tl;dr". If I did have the time to participate fully in Misplaced Pages, this statement would have been much shorter & to the point. -- llywrch (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Because my responses to the above questions, accusations and/or concerns may perhaps be too lengthy to be posted here on the ANI Discussion page, to avoid clutter, as I have been advised, I will just notify whom it may concern, that I have responded to said questions, accusations and/or concerns on the respective person's user_talk pages with more detailed answers than may be prudent to put here. You may read my responses at each of those people's user_talk pages, but I have responded, of that you can be sure. ጥሩ ምኒልክ (ራስነቢይ የ ቤት ዪሥራእል / አበምኔት ቢሥርዓት ናዝረታዊ) 12:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Menilek (talk • contribs)

I have followed up, as well, on Menilek's talk page (but it reiterates what I've already mentioned here). Llywrch, the reason for the block on the Minilik account was given as "{{spamusername}}" (on 30 May 2008 by User:Orangemike), following Minilik's creation of the article Teru Minilik. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I saw that note by Orangemike, but I found it too terse to understand, & I didn't have the time to research the matter further. Now, had he left a note on Minilik's talk page explaining why he had been blocked -- or even a sentence why {{spamusername}} was appropriate in that case -- that would have answered all of my questions about the matter. -- llywrch (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

User request: Please don't post diffs using the secure server URL. NavPopups doesn't display them making it very time consuming to review them. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I have converted my original https links to use {{diff}}. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Diversity

Someone did a VBT on the Diversity talk page. If someone has a link to an old diff they can rollback. Otherwise, we'll need some fancy footwork. Rklawton (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I fixed it. Rklawton (talk) 01:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Biffer1965 making repeated accusations of plagiarism

So Biffer1965 has been warned several times for specious material into Jive Bunny and the Mastermixers. If I were still an admin, I've have given him a time-out for not listening, but that's up to you guys now. He asserts that "someone" (likely him) originally created...whatever Jive Bunny and the Mastermixers did. It's not sourced, and it's usually added as a block of text at the end of the article. Since January he's decided to add it to talk page for the article as well. Clearly he has no intention of sourcing what he's adding, which accuses the subject of the article of plagiarism. We're in need of some intervention, here. Reposting so someone can possibly see it.  RasputinAXP  02:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I've left them another note on their talk page; perhaps they will be willing to at least engage on the talk page rather than just repeatedly copy-pasting. If they continue and choose not to respond, I think a block could well be appropriate. --Kateshortforbob _talk 09:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

AnomieBot is requesting assistance

Please see here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Appears this has been resolved. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Editor repeatedly replacing a removed PROD template

I am having issues with User:Ocean Shores. He is abusing his power as a huggle/twinkle script user by using the tools to repetitively replace PROD templates which are reasonably added, and to send false warnings. He has also refused to acknowledge my attempts to work the situation out otherwise. I assume he is trying his luck in hoping he will get away from following proper procedures because I am an anonymous editor, but I am not a new one and have been editing anonymously for years.

Here are the diffs of him using huggle and twinkle to revert a good faith PROD template removal and re adding it 1, 2, , clearly in violation of WP:PROD. Here is the diff of him warning me here, and my attempt to discuss the issue with him (which was ignored) is on his talk page.

Please let this user know he is not following procedure. Thanks! 118.93.168.227 (talk) 03:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I have already discussed and notified him on his talk page. Ocean Shores 03:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It says directly on WP:PROD, "If any person objects to the deletion (usually by removing the proposed deletion tag), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed." You are out of line here, Ocean Shores. Silverseren 03:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with SS above, this explanation to the IP is incorrect. Ocean Shores, if any editor removes a PROD, please do not reinstate it. Take it to AFD, as you have done. Dayewalker (talk) 04:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that Ocean Shores (talk · contribs) removed the second re-addition themselves - presumably realizing the error , and instead added an WP:AFD, which is the appropriate next level if a prod is disputed.

Based on those edits, I don't see where they have "refused to acknowledge my attempts to work the situation out otherwise". They did acknowledge the issue based on your comments, replied to your post on their talk page, and switched to using AfD. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If I did violate Misplaced Pages guidelines, then I am horribly sorry. I had no intention whatsoever of abusing anonymous IP editors or taunting the Misplaced Pages guidelines. Ocean Shores 04:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It is concerning that a user with a flawed knowledge of fairly basic policy is allowed to edit in such a high volume with script tools. I do not agree with huggle in principal because it allows for users who pass a very basic set of guidelines to run rampant with no accountability or supervision. The issue was partially resolved while I was writing this which is why the above comments are being made, and I admit everything is fine now, and trust the user is now familiar with PROD policy. The article is now up for deletion where it can hopefully be salvaged. Thanks, 118.93.168.227 (talk) 04:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing, meatpuppets,SPAs, oh my!

This. This. This. Some stuff here. The general issue has been brought up before, but this really needs to have its own section brought to administrator attention. There's a lot of SPAs and all that jazz that need dealing with.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

There's not much we can do about it, I'm afraid. It's like trying to deal with 4chan trolls, and I've been dealing with them every day since I virtually became an admin, if not before. –MuZemike 08:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I agree, no action's needed before they move on soon. But it's important that at least the closing admins of the AfD's affected are aware, I think.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the article in question is at DRV right now (not mentioning which one or pointing to any specific discussion per WP:BEANS). –MuZemike 08:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not up on all the details, but from just looking through the user's talk page I saw a few IPs or new editors who's only recent edits were on that talk page and on programming language AfDs.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't Christopher Monsanto' talk page be semi-protected until this all blows over? That has been the general course of action when a user is verbally abused by random IPs. —Farix (t | c) 13:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned it, but ended up just blanking most of the insults. It's over, now. Throwaway85 (talk) 13:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If these people blow off steam on his talk page, it keeps other parts of the wiki from being damaged. Better to leave it, unless Christopher says he's had enough --Diannaa 15:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that "blowing off steam" is a legitimate excuse to overlook a campaign of personal attacks by IPs. When there is a problem with an editor being personally attack, administrators have a responsibility to prevent the attacks from occurring further, regardless of whether the editor asks for protection from the personal attacks or not. The fact that Christopher Monsanto has now withdrawn from editing as a result is the very thing that WP:NPA is suppose to prevent. I honestly don't see any good that has came out of this mess while the culprits now know that they can get away with similar abuse in the future. —Farix (t | c) 16:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

As I said, it's over now. CM went to LHvU to ask for help, and I suggested a temporary semi-prot, but LHvU didn't edit again until the storm was mostly passed. I spent a couple hours keeping an eye on his talk page and blanking any personal attacks (narrowly interpreted). There's nothing for AN/I to do now, so I'm not sure why we're still discussing it. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that personal attacks should be ignored. --Diannaa 00:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Tidal power

User 202.169.177.107 (talk · contribs) used an altered pseudonym for user Rehman here, with hints towards autism. -- Crowsnest (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

"Play the ball and not the man"? Nice irony. Karenjc 10:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:British politicians convicted of fraud

Would any more admins care to join the two currently in a deletion/recreation fest at Category:British politicians convicted of fraud? I will let them both know of this thread. DuncanHill (talk) 10:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems like an ok category to me. Cla68 (talk) 12:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

To me too. --JN466 16:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

And the way things are going, it looks like it could become quite a well-populated one -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Oops, I used the wrong smiley there - I meant the sad one -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, a very sad state of affairs. Even worse that my party seems to be the main offender...GiantSnowman 16:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Political comment: But no surprise. Egg Centric (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Any of you take a look at the logs? DuncanHill (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Category was temporarily deleted pursuant to this close. Apparently User:Scott MacDonald can't handle this delay. That's fine. It's a little bit ha-ha funny, but fine. I'm not going to keep pulling away the pacifier by deleting it again. By re-creating the category three times he appears to have violated 3RR, but I'll let someone else deal with that if they think it's worthwhile. Given his reactions thus far, I doubt acting on it would result in anything approaching a teachable moment. Good Ol’factory 20:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • You don't get to delete something without any basis in the WP:CSD policy, redelete is as a recreation when there hasn't been any deletion discussion (as required by policy CSD G4), then throw the 3RR policy at me. Look, we disagree as to whether this category should exist - so you nominate it for deletion and we calmly discuss it. Just leave your admin tools in the drawer next time.--Scott Mac 22:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    • No, I don't necessarily disagree with you on that point—that's where you assume too much and turn everything into a battleground. I was carrying out a temporary administrative action; the close said the categories could be recreated after the DRV—but no, you just couldn't wait when you were asked repeatedly to do so. And yes, you violated 3RR, which is a bright line rule you can't get around. It's difficult to "leave your admin tools in the drawer" when one is carrying out admin functions of closing an inappropriately timed CFD temporarily. Good Ol’factory 22:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Huh? You early closed a CFD discussion by deleting an category that had not been nominated for deletion - and leaving that populated category as a red link. Nothing gives an admin the discretion to do that. If it were only temporary then why not just leave things as they were? The DRV is due to close prior to the CFD, so there was no need for you to do anything - and I actually don't think the DRV can any impact on this either way anyhow but ymmv.--Scott Mac 22:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
        • "Huh?" indeed. Yeah, I can see you still don't get it, or are at least choosing not to do so. I've no desire to attempt yet another explanation or to continue this lovely banter—I already got a belly full of that on my talkpage. Bottom line: try to respect the administrative actions of other admins, don't bother to inquire on their talk pages about the action if you are just going to do what you want in any case, and don't violate 3RR. Good Ol’factory 23:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
          • (ec)Bottom line: please don't abuse your admin tools. If you want something deleted that's not coverted by the CSD, then use XfD. If revert waring is bad, doing so with admin tools is worse.--Scott Mac 23:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
            • I didn't "want something deleted". You've completely missed the boat, and I don't think it's coming back. Good Ol’factory 23:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
              • If you don't care why did you comment to endorse the dubious deletion of the parent category here?Griswaldo (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
                • My vote was purely procedural and had nothing to say about the merits of the category in and of itself. DRVs are purely about process and are not XFD round 2. The boat's now too far away for me to shout to the shore anymore. Good Ol’factory 23:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
                  • Yes, it looks to me like you were all at sea long before I got to the beach.--Scott Mac 23:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
                    • What I'm saying is your continued stated belief in what I was trying to achieve is so far away and so unconnected from what I have repeatedly stated as my actual intent that I see little point in continuing discussion. You missed it somewhere near the very beginning, I think, either mistakenly or deliberately, and I don't see a prospect for change in that regard. Good Ol’factory 23:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• Groucho on What's My Line, addressing a Mystery Guest: "Are you a corrupt politician? Am I being redundant?" ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Onetonycousins more personal attacks

This user has a number of blocks for personal attacks but still continues Gnevin (talk) 11:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind Gnevin but i adjusted your link to show the edit summary which is the source of the personal attack, it just showed the article and that it was an old version edited by Onetonycousins. Just to add user in question did refer to a reliably sourced addition to an article as "Useless propaganda". Hows its propaganda is another question. User despite two previous blocks appears to still think demeaning edit summaries are permissable on Misplaced Pages. Mabuska 23:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't mind at all, thanks for correcting my error Gnevin (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

"Just to add user in question did refer to a reliably sourced addition to an article as Useless propaganda. Hows its propaganda is another question." A stalker and a genius. Believe it or not, "Hows its propaganda" is the question. Maybe ask the IP who thought it was "pointless". Onetonycousins (talk) 10:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Not my fault that this page is in my watch list and your name appears once again for personal attacks and the like. Though you should know the answer to your question seeing as it was you who said it was propaganda. Mabuska 11:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack while reporting a ANI case. Gnevin (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

This user seems unable to interact with other users in a civil manor . Can a admin please intervene here Gnevin (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean this. You need to link to the actual diff which you find in the page history. Fainites scribs 13:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry don't know why I keep making that mistake, thanks Gnevin (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Several vandalism incidents in my user's page.

Greetings; there has been at least three incidents of vandalism during the last week in my user's page (See history here). The vandalism comes from three different IPs: 87.19.217.18, 95.247.134.126 and 80.116.195.35. User MBelgrano and I have reverted the changes, but it seems that this is going to continue. I request semi-protection of my user's page. Thanks for your attention.--Pablozeta (talk) 12:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

67.142.177.26

This IP address has been repeatedly blocked for vandalism, most recently for three months. User has edited his own talk page () to make it appear that an unblock request had been approved. -- Gridlock Joe (talk) 12:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Revert, ignore :) I don't think anyone will be fooled by that. -- Luk 13:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Andrzejbanas

This user has repeatedly edited/reverted a lot of music articles by not taking into the account as to how many genres there may be listed, e.g. Eyes Wide Shut has at least more than one genre for definite. He has also vandalized a few Madonna articles as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.178.225 (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is DOWN!

The logo isn't loading, the banner is acting funny, images don't load, etc. Assume part of 1.17 deployment? --Perseus8235 14:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Everything is absolutely fine over here. No issues with loads. Could be your ISP. m.o.p 14:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks all okay to me too. Either way, there's nothing admins can do about it if it was down I'm afraid. Pedro :  Chat  14:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait–has 1.17 been deployed already? --Perseus8235 14:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

No: Special:Version. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

For anyone who is curious, http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2011/02/1-17deployment-attempt2/ has the current 1.17 deployment schedule. I assume we're getting it on Wednesday. --B (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought we went over this already? No one at AN/I can do anything even if the servers were down. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't have a turbo button in your admin tools? ;) --B (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, if you can't fix anything and everything, what use are you? HalfShadow 17:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I demand all Misplaced Pages administrators to STEP DOWN IMMEDIATELY if they can't even fix a little broken server. Can't you hear the uproar in the streets? Damn dictators, they are all the same ;) -- Luk 17:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

...also: donuts. We demand donuts. HalfShadow 17:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Chocolate-frosted donuts, please Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Be silent masses. You shall have cake ......... :) Pedro :  Chat  18:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Steak? Did you say steak? I am OK with steak. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If wikipedia is down, how did you post here? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It's possible he just means it's depressed. Here it is St Valentines day, and the poor thing never even got a card... Where is the love?! HalfShadow 22:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

As in, "Misplaced Pages is doo-doo-down, dooby-doo-down-down, comma-comma, down-dooby-doo-down-down, etc."? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for My Talk Page semi-protection or block of Special:Contributions/68.198.135.130

Recently, Theosophical Society was semi-protected against WP:TE by Special:Contributions/68.198.135.130. That same IP has decided my Talk page is the place for his uncivil rants, despite my asking him to be productive or stop. I'd appreciate either a block of the IP or a semi-protect of my talk page. emphasis added

The IP's contributions to the article's talk page aren't particularly productive, either (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything particularly uncivil about the diff you gave to your talk page. The article is already s-protected. I'm not sure what disruption there is to prevent ... users are allowed to have dissenting ideas. --B (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm asking for a semi-protect of my talk page, as I asked the IP to either be civil there or post his anger somewhere else, not that of the article (which should be open to discussion, no matter how uncivil). However, I will note that statements like this on the article's talk page seem to be inappropriate and unhelpful:

• " It must be a conspiracy by the Illuminati or by a bunch of chipmunks. Or you are wrong. Which do you think is more likely?"
• " How about the following, crowning incivility: learning (incompetently) on the job"
• What a joke."

Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

IP 112.205.7.91 - disruptive editing

User IP 112.205.7.91 was indef blocked on two wikis (de, id) and here was temp blocked four times (his block log), last one-month block was ended 24.12.2010. Now is harassing me with pure vandalism and undoing my edits:

1. - vandalism restored

2. - undo valid iw

3. - undo valid iw

4. - vandalism restored

5. - vandalism

6. - vandalism

and so on, as can be seen on his contributions.

In recent days he was warned by Trigaranus and be me, on his talkpage, but without success. Of course, his talk page is full of warnings.

He his uncivil too, as can be seen here (talk to user Velella), b-word here or d-word in comment here.--Yopie (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I have also noticed this highly disruptive behavior. Some of this user's contribution may be acceptable but the vast majority is pure vandalism. Several blocks and warnings and the behavior is resuming. I have blocked this IP for 6 months, while keeping the possibility to create accounts. olivier (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for fast solving.--Yopie (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

In the future, the best way of dealing with this is a Warn and Report policy. Keep warning until the final warning then report the user to AIV.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't blocking while allowing account creation kind of defeats the purpose? (Candid question) -- Luk 17:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a good question. My idea was that a user who has a disruptive behavior when only identified by an IP might refrain from such a behavior once he/she is editing with a registered account. If necessary, the created accounts can in turn be blocked, but I hope that the 6 month IP block will be a strong enough signal to the user to stop disrupting. olivier (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Mass rollbacks?

I don't have time to investigate exactly what's going on here because I have to log off in a moment but it looks like there may be some multiple-article edit warring going on between Golbez (talk · contribs) and some IPs, including 88.246.22.78 and 178.241.94.83. Maybe someone could look into this -- œ 17:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Assume good faith. It's not an edit war when I range-block the other guy. --Golbez (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I was assuming no good or bad faith on either part. Simply reporting an incident. -- œ 17:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You stated I was involved in an edit war (which, due to the two-to-tango nature of edit-warring, implies I was also edit-warring). I was not; I was cleaning up vandalism. I appreciate you bringing this to ANI, since - as you pointed out - he has an IP outside the range I blocked, so, being not an expert in whack-a-mole, maybe someone can figure out the next range to hit? --Golbez (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm ABF with the IPs, they look to be blindly reverting ever one of Golbez's edits - definite disruptive editing. GiantSnowman 17:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Appears to be some sort of content dispute; IP editors are removing Hungarian phonetics from article ledes, no explanation or edit summaries provided. I've asked one of the IP editors to explain themselves here. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It's Armenian, not Hungarian. And it's because they are an anti-Armenian nationalist vandal; note they also retasked some pages to change the meaning entirely, and removed sourced content that could conceivably be taken as not-anti-Armenian. Do some of the Armenian names need to be removed anyway? Maybe. But not by him. --Golbez (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

My bad, I don't know all the IPO codes, and presumed "hy" was Hungarian. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The local name for Armenia is Hayastan. :) The language is Hayeren. --Golbez (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

And now I know something I didn't know before. That makes today a good day. :-) --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen any of the edits in question, but I almost always assume that a veteran editor in good standing, is usually making constructive edits, especially when reverting an ip. That isn't always the case though, but perhaps you should have left a message on Golbez's talk page before making a report here. But who am I, I'm just one of the pencil pushers, and as always I leave it to the more talented of you all to determine the next step.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I was the one rolling back most of 178.241.94.83 (talk · contribs) edits, which are clearly related to 88.246.22.78 (talk · contribs)/ 88.246.30.168 (talk · contribs)/95.5.2.220 (talk · contribs), obviously block-evading IPs of Hedoma (talk · contribs)/Karfiol (talk · contribs). The edits appear to be nothing more than removing Armenian language content (e.g., ) and grossly uncivil nationalistic nonsense (e.g., ). — Scientizzle 18:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Depending on the persistence of this particular vandal, would it be worth a temporary cascading semi-protection of Template:Lang-hy? — Scientizzle 18:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that would be logical, but {{Lang-hy}} is fully protected right now. So checking the 'cascade' box would impose full protection on articles which use that template. EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I just found out from Misplaced Pages:Cascading protection#Cascading protection that cascading protection cannot presently work in semi-protect mode, so that's out as an option. — Scientizzle 19:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I caught 78.171.39.166 (talk · contribs) very early in the act of another round of reverts. Please keep an eye out for further such disruptions. I'm signing off. — Scientizzle 21:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this 3RR?

Yet again, there are a myriad of IP addresses removing the image on Khaled Mohamed Saeed. The image was decided to be returned to the article at DRV. There is already discussion on the talk page about whether the image should be put in a hatted box while being kept in the article or not, though that has little to do with this. But, regardless, is it considered breaking 3RR if I keep reverting the removal of the image by IPs? If so, could someone else please help or place the article under semi-protection? Semi would be a good idea anyways. Silverseren 17:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

No, 3RR is allowed to be violated when it comes to obvious vandalism - which these edits are, given the community consensus at DRV. GiantSnowman 17:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Not quite – editing in good faith is not vandalism, even if it is in opposition to a consensus. And the consensus, if such exists, is shaky, since there were also other, experienced and good-faith Wikipedians who removed the image. And note that IPs are entitled to have editorial opinions too. I semi-protected the article because the IP activity suggests some kind of coordinated campaign or socking, but other than that it's still a legitimate content dispute and not immune to 3RR, in my view. (Note that I'm not entirely uninvolved, as I have expressed opinions about that image myself in the past.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Science kook refusing to back down at Talk:Sun

• Lawstubes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Talk:Sun (edit | history)

Lawstubes is disruptive editor with a history of pure pseudoscientific POV-pushing, and who has been blocked for that in the past. Right now, he's back after an absence of several months, doing exactly what he was doing before he got blocked.

In case you aren't sure that he's pushing pure garbage, he's claiming the sun does not emit light (amongst a long list of equally insane claims). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a content issue. We have no concern for content. He would have to say a naughty word or otherwise breach a behavioral guideline in order for action to be warranted. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

He was previously blocked in September 2010 for edit warring. He has also been warned under his IP User:173.218.85.222 (which I understand he acknowledges is him). This particular issue involves huge interference with the talkpage which can be seen in the talkpage history. He removed his own and other editors posts, shifted things around, left responses hanging in the air and then briefly edit warred to keep it that way. He stopped when this ANI was filed. I have warned him on his talkpage that this is disruptive and referred him to the relevent guideline.Fainites scribs 19:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Reblock without talk page access needed

User:AudioVideo Dimension - Viper 5901 was blocked on February 10, and is now engaging in promotion on his user talk page. Ks0stm 18:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Y Done — Scientizzle 18:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Ks0stm 18:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please protect TFA?

Today's featured article is getting hammered by IP and throwaway account vandalism. Can someone please semi protect it? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Please read Misplaced Pages:Main Page featured article protection. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  18:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection (sufficient to address the type of vandalism described) is permitted on the same basis as any other article, and it looks like HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) has taken care of it. --RL0919 (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Should we be concerned about this?

See this. Is this something to worry about on a sockpuppet level? Oftentimes I see a relatively new account create one other account, but this is the only time I've seen one create so many, and it kinda has me worried what they might be used for. Ks0stm 18:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Benign explanations abound (teacher creating accounts for students, etc.). They'll need an eye kept on them, just in case, but no actions taken unless they start acting up. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that works...I'll watchlist their pages and keep an eye on them. Normally I just let it slide, but so many at once raised a few more alarm bells in my head than normal. Ks0stm 18:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Those are definitely socks of MascotGuy and should be blocked immediately. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

All blocked. Syrthiss (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Serious COI on Danese Cooper

It's pretty clear that there is a big COI problem here with folks on the board at the Open Source Initiative. They're pretty closely connected and editing each others' articles in tandem. Simon Phipps has self identified himself as Open Source Guy (talk · contribs) and Webmink (talk · contribs), Russ Nelson is self-evident as RussNelson (talk · contribs) and Danese Cooper is also on the board. Now a co-worker of Danese's at the Wikimedia Foundation, Steven Walling (talk · contribs) has stepped in and removed the tags pointing out the WP:COI connections. The bigger problem is that several of these editors have been writing poorly sourced articles about each other relying largely on primary sources. This is probably the worst example of COI editing I've come across and now has WMF intervention. Toddst1 (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I stepped in because I watch the article, and this kind of drama is driving away editors who are participating in good faith. Are some of the editors people who know Danese in real life? Yes. Do they they think it needs to be whitewashed and have no notices about the fact that there are problems in the article? Clearly not. No one disagrees that the bio is kind of crappy and needs way better sourcing. But freaking out and pointing fingers at people who clearly are here to collaborate in good faith does nothing to improve a poor BLP. To say that me or people who know Danese are strictly forbidden from participating and using talk page templates to initiate some kind of witch hunt is ridiculous when everyone is completely and intentionally transparent. I don't have a lot of time to waste on this today, but this overly aggressive stance and assumptions of bad faith are only working to push away editors who care about improving the article. Steven Walling 19:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of intentions on either side, if there are editors editing an article that they have a close affiliation with and, thus, a COI, it must be pointed out on the talk page with the usual template which I notice has indeed been removed. Silverseren 20:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that the template is only for the subject of the article. Is that wrong? It seems like the list would be crazy long (potentially everyone at the Foundation?) otherwise. (Yep, you were right Silver.) Anyway, I don't really much care about whether the template is there or not, so long as we can be a little more cordial about the whole affair. The OSI-connected editors involved clearly aren't here to own the article or push other editors around, and I think we need to assume some good faith here. Steven Walling 20:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the folks at the foundation should live up to the standards set by the community and avoid editing articles about each other. Those rules should apply to foundation employees as well. Toddst1 (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Reactions like this are why we need to tone down the hostility. This isn't a battle front to be defended against all outsiders, it's an open community for a reason, and the OSI folks have the right frame of mind in participating. Steven Walling 21:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Would these folks be considered "notable" if they weren't connected with wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing what the big deal is here, are members of churches banned from editing articles about people in the same denomination? No, even though they theoretically could have a conflict of interest. Rather, it is people with some level of connection with the subject, either negative or positive, that have an interest in improving and expanding articles. Why should that be driven away? _WM _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 21:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

(ecx4) I'm not seeing how the WMF staff and the OSI folks are failing to follow community standards. The vast majority of our articles are written by, and maintained by, people who have an interest in the subject. Provided they are following the five pillars, there is no conflict of interest. There is also the fact that, when it comes to personal beliefs, we come down hard when the beliefs of a subject cannot be directly attributed to a statement by the subject; the subject's statement outweighs whatever others say. So I am at a loss as to why Cooper's own statement about her beliefs is considered unreliable, when that is what we would hope to see from other subjects. (And yes, Baseball Bugs, the CTO of one of the top-5 internet sites would be notable enough for a biography; Cooper had one years before she joined the WMF.) Risker (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That's just it, they weren't following the 5 pillars, putting in unsourced information, and when sources were used, most were primary. Look at the mess at Russ Nelson. Toddst1 (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you may be confused about "primary sources" and when they are appropriate. The official website of an organization is a reliable source for the membership of its board of directors, even if it is a primary source. A person's blog, where they state their philosophical beliefs, is a reliable source for the person's beliefs, even if it is a primary source. Primary sources must be used with care, but are specifically not excluded from use of sourcing. Perhaps the "mess" over a Russ Nelson wouldn't be such a mess if people understood this. As it exists right now, it is not a proper article and it serves only to disparage the subject; it is a G10 at the moment, and I'll go speedy it if there's not some resolution. Risker (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I will put on my website that I graduated Magna Cum Laude from Santa's Reindeer Academy. Then I will write an article about myself which cites that primary source. I am, afterall, a reindeer and I have a primary source to prove it! Toddst1 (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, Toddst1, I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to prove here, although I suspect your essay probably explains a lot of the frustrating editing situations you've encountered. However, I think you're being a bit unreasonable to suggest that someone's own words are an unreliable source for their philosophical beliefs (after all, even if they occur in another source, the words will still have come from the subject); or that an organization is an unreliable source for the names of those sitting on its Board. Where do you think the secondary sources get this information? Risker (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That's one of the most insightful and on-target essays I've seen in quite a while. Thanks for the pointer. @Toddst1, give it up, you can't fight city hall. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone else amused that Toddst1 wrote an essay that says "If you think an admin is on to you, quickly accuse him/her of being involved and/or having a bias and report them immediately ANI. You should probably throw in a few uncivil comments to give the air of authenticity to your actions", and then is here doing exactly that? :) AlexandraJackson (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not bad for your 11th edit (only 9 were not having to do with Danese). Toddst1 (talk) 01:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Be careful, don't rile A-Jacks. She's stronger than dirt. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the article, I have to agree with Baseball Bugs, is she even notable to start with? _WM _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 21:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Wow Todd, way to go with the hostility on that talk page. Why not calm down a little and stop being so unpleasant? Why can't we verify someone's religious affiliation with their own blog? "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities". See WP:SELFPUB. And WP:COI doesn't prohibit people with a declared COI from editing articles. You should read up on policy, particularly WP:BITE. Fences&Windows 21:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • AfD at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Russ Nelson. The subject had removed content and prodded it, but this appeared to be more frustration than an actual desire for the bio to be deleted. Fences&Windows 22:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    • As a completely uninvolved party, I have made an edit to the article to diminish the negative emphasis, and I would regard anyone restoring it as being in direct violation of the obvious principles of BLP. DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
      • This is a good example of why we need an edict prohibiting BLPs on marginally notable people. (Yes, I've said this before, and I'll keep on saying it.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

User:GutiLucian02

GutiLucian02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been doing little more than playing with his User page since registering, and looks like he's just doing random things. That itself is pretty harmless (although he's been doing stuff there that's needed reverting), though he's also been making some bad changes to articles, which also get reverted. But now, he's just done this to my user page, after I asked him not to change the dates of tags on articles. I'm not sure I could go as far as to suggest it's a vandalism-only account, but does anyone think anything needs to be done? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't noticed he's already been indef blocked. Sorry to waste your time. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Question

Dear admins/non-admins,

I have a question and want to ask it here: As far as I am aware, iPod Nano is a copyrighted trademark, right? So if a user name has such username, doesn't it violate the Misplaced Pages:Username policy, even if they don't promote anything? An answer would be great. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 21:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You'd be hard-pushed to argue that it's strictly speaking illegal (incidentally, it's not copyrighted, just trademarked, but it hardly matters). Whether it violates policy, of course, is another question. - Jarry1250  21:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

There are actually several users whose ID's start with "Ipodnano". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that the usual answer to this is, "it doesn't matter". We can have user names like "Firefox lover" or "ToyotaCorollaDriver" or "Rock band player". I think this is because the user is not actually infringing on the trademark because they are not offering the same product. I think that if a user named "iPod Nano" offered himself as a portable music player, then that would be infringing on Apple's rights. I found this on a Harvard cyberlaw site: "The standard is "likelihood of confusion." To be more specific, the use of a trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes infringement if it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of those goods or as to the sponsorship or approval of such goods. In deciding whether consumers are likely to be confused, the courts will typically look to a number of factors, including: (1) the strength of the mark; (2) the proximity of the goods; (3) the similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) the similarity of marketing channels used; (6) the degree of caution exercised by the typical purchaser; (7) the defendant's intent." /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The more likely potential problem is POV-pushing. I don't see how the name, by itself, would be much of an issue. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Mad Doggin 7 continuing disruptive behavior despite multiple warnings/reports on multiple issues

The user, Mad Doggin 7 (and likely also editing under the IP 65.254.165.214) has been the subject of no less than 2 ANI reports within the past week for serious and multiple violations of Misplaced Pages policy. These reports were archived without any administrator intervention or even comment. Several warnings were posted over relevant pages, including his talk page(s) and the article's talk page (which he frequents). Please see the following archived reports:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive672#Disruptive_Behavior_by_User:_Mad_Doggin_7_.2F_65.254.165.214

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive672#User_Impersonation_-_Mad_Doggin_7_Making_False_Claims_Using_my_Signatures.2FClaiming_to_be_Moderator

Since then, within the last few hours, he has continued to persist in making these disruptive edits, once again ignoring all evidence against his claims and failing/refusing to provide any sources (as he has done on at least 16 separate occasions over the past several months), and defying community concensus and multiple warnings. He is likely emboldened by the lack of administrator action despite overwhelming evidence and explicit reports of his multiple and serious infractions.

I strongly urge immediate administrator action this time to prevent further disruption to this article and and to other Misplaced Pages users. He has shown consistently over his history that he has no intention of ever heeding any evidence or warnings, and will continue to post his gross misinformation while refusing to provide sources or evidence, and is willing to go to extreme ends to persist, including threatening other users, lying about administrator privileges, and explicit impersonation. CannikinX (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well - having been repeatedly asked for sources, claimed an apparently non-existent source, impersonated another editor to falsly back it up and threatened everybody if they continued to argue - he is now merely re-adding his unsourced additions. Why does Misplaced Pages need an editor like this? I would propose an indef. block - unless there are serious signs of understanding the nature of what he has done. Fainites scribs 23:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Massive trivial insertions, failure to communicate, within 1 day of expiration of 6 month block

This IP 99.26.208.157 (talk · contribs) is within 1 day of coming off a 6 month block for the same behavior. It has begun again. Apparently the user continuously adds the fact that Alvin and the Chipmunks covered a song to a song or album's article. None of these are referenced, and even if they are true, it remains questionable whether they're relevant. What's distressing though is that they've added over 100 of these over the last 5 hours.

More notable, this has happened within 1 day of the block expiring. It almost makes me wonder if this is some kind of automated script.

Of course they have made no response to any attempt to communicate, which was true in the past as well.

I did begin to roll back these edits, but reversed myself, deciding to bring it here first. Shadowjams (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I've also turned this in to WP:AIV, to see who gets to it first. I recommend holding off on the rollbacks until the IP is put on ice again. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What seems puzzling to me is that after looking through some of the edits by the ip, they seem to be adding true information and not vandalism. I don't know if I personally would have added these without a reliable source, but given the fact that none of the other information in the section appears to be sourced either, it seems that Shadowjams could have made better use of his/her time. I don't know what triggered this response by Shadowjams, but these edits are clearly not vandalism and seem to be good faith edits attached to a content dispute with shadowjams.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and this IP has accumulated over 7 months worth of blocks because of a single so-called "content dispute with Shadowjams". I find that hard to believe. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the blocks were for adding this same information which if I interpret them correctly were not vandalism then and are still not vandalism. It troubles me to see that this ip account was blocked for what seems to me to be adding correct information in the past. The ip was warned for adding information to a section of an article that has other uncited information in it. Very Very puzzling.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I had no previous interaction with this user (that I know of). There's no content dispute that I'm aware of. Shadowjams (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The monitors of AIV wouldn't block the IP. The question at this point is, what are the rules, if any, about distributing a particular group's every song among the various song pages? What is notable about the Chipmunks vs. possibly many other "real" artists who may have covered a given song? Or does it matter? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Again I stress that this is most likely a content dispute and less likely that any admin will take action against an ip adding good faith edits, even across multiple pages.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What are the rules, if any, regarding spamming of one particular group's performances across every song article they can find? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I would hardly consider adding cover vesrions to songs to a section full of numerous uncited cover versions, spamming.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

So, in your personal opinion as an editor, are the edits OK as they are? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I would not have added them as they are, but I also would not have removed some of them and then start a thread at ANI, nor would I have reported the editor for vandalism, all of which has happened in the past hour. So much for the Assume Good Faith crowd.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

So someone should start a discussion on each of the many dozens of pages spammed by that user? A user who won't communicate with anyone? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Now we get to the heart of the argument, what to do. Well if I was Shadowjams and I wasn't happy with some particular edits made by an ip or any other user,I would first revert, Do Not Rollback, any edits with the comment that a reliable source was required. I would then begin a discussion at the ip's talk page. If the ip doesn't respond, but doesn't readd the information then the issue is settled, but if the ip readds the info, Do not get into an edit war with an ip, simply add a "Fact" tag to the information and see what may come of it. You may be surprised, you may actually get one. But we'll never know if we Do Not Assume Good Faith. If after a suitable amount of time has passed, then if no source is presented then I would have just removed it, but this information is hardly that dubious, easily confirmable, and does not appear to hurt the project one bit. Not enough to go through all of this trouble at ANI.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Fact tags are unnecessary. The information is easily verified. That's not the issue. The issue is the appropriateness of the added items. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If you and Shadowjams feel thatthe edits are innapropriate, then by all means go ahead and do whatever you seem fit, but its a content dispute and hardly a case for ANI,, nor a reason to ask for a 6 month block.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

A user refusing to talk IS a case for ANI, as it's about disruptive behavior. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well if not partaking in a discussion is disruptive then I guess we must all get 6 month blocks.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No, you and I normally respond when questioned. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

From what I can tell from the available history, it is the addition of information of dubious value across dozens of pages that initiated concerns, and it's the failure to respond, while continuing to do so that led to the blocks. It looks like that's happened 3 times now. What I don't think Jojhutton is appreciating is how there is no communication going on here, only more insertions of the same material. That is disruptive. Shadowjams (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Since the admins won't block the guy, the admin-related question at this point is, should we start doing mass-rollbacks? Or is someone going to yelp about that? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to wait on that question until we get more editors' input. In some cases this stuff could be relevant, in other articles it seems entirely trivial.

It's the continual additions that need to stop until at least some discussion with the user begins. A discussion on the content boards about this will have no effect if the user won't even communicate at this stage.

I certainly wouldn't have started this thread if it was a first time occurrence, but it's the ongoing nature of this that troubles me. Shadowjams (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm waiting for joj to explain how we're supposed to start a hundred talk page discussions, with a user who won't talk. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: edits have restarted after a brief lull. Maybe some new voices on this topic could be helpful. Shadowjams (talk) 02:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The blocking admin (now retired) clearly stated "The block is for six months. If you return after that time and continue on your spree, the block will be for a minimum of one year." Six months to the day, there's another "spree". It's apparently a problem, and point #4 of the WP:DE guideline demonstrates how refusal to communicate is in fact ignoring consensus building. Doc talk 02:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible threat

I noticed in this diff of Oxford Valley Mall, 24.127.142.216 (talk · contribs) made a possible threat to bomb the vacant Boscov's store at the mall. I just felt I needed to report this because I am not sure whether this is an actual threat or not and am also unsure if any precautions need to be taken. Dough4872 00:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure whether not not this is serious, but it is concerning as a possible threat of violence. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

WhoIs traces this back to Monroe Township, NJ. Their Police Department's number is 732-521-0222. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you think the mall needs to be notified of the incident? Dough4872 00:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I would, definitely and I would also notify the PA State Police, Troop M, which serves Bucks County at 610-861-2026. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It might help to call the Middletown Township Police Department at 215-949-1000, which is the local police for where the mall is located. In addition, the main phone number for the mall is 215-752-0845. Which number would probably be best to call? In addition, it may help for someone with more experience on reporting Misplaced Pages incidents to police to call. Dough4872 00:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

When is the IP going to be blocked, before or after he gets arrested? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Good question. For safety's sake, it may help to block now. Dough4872 01:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I would just go with the PA State Police and let them handle it the way down. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone here up to calling the state police. Personally, I feel a little uncomfortable calling the cops as I have never dealt with such a situation. Dough4872 01:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

In addition, should the bad edit be deleted? Dough4872 01:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Has anyone called any police departments in association with this? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Not from what I know of, I would prefer if an administrator with experience do the task. Dough4872 01:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Called the Langhorne, PA police department. They didn't seem real concerned. They seemed more concerned on who I was. But hopefully they get someone out to give the place a good once-over. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Cool, thanks for calling the police. Hopefully everything goes fine. Dough4872 01:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Monitoring. I am also emailing Legal for their assistance. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy delete user JS

Could an admin please delete User:Tom Morris/userinfo.js? I've placed a db-userreq CSD template on there, but because it's JavaScript, it doesn't actually work. Thanks. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. I'm told that putting the tag on the associated talk page still categorizes the javascript page properly, for future reference. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Will try and remember that! —Tom Morris (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Pro-Life move debate: "reporting myself"

A non-admin user with a Christian icon closed the move debate for Pro-Life. An admin reverted because, clearly, a non-admin, should not hae cosed such a controversial subject. I posted this, this, and this on the Talk page, for which User:Roscelese gave me this warning and final warning. I believe it is entirely legitimate to question the non-adim's motivation in this because (a) in the context of this particular debate the christianity icon is highly emotive (b) it's about who closes the debate, not just the motivations of any edit and (c) it's important to get it right in terms of the admin who actually closes the debate for the reputation of Misplaced Pages. To me, this issue is a matter of principle and I've therefore "reported" myself 9rather than post yet again) and am happy to go along with whatever decision is made as I think that in this context my comments were legitimate nd am extremely unhappy with what I believe to be User:Roscelese's rather unthinking and heavy-handed reaction. DeCausa (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, DeCausa. As I already told this user, WP:NPA is painstakingly clear about "using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views," so the attack on Alpha Quadrant would have been inappropriate even if we had known that zie opposed abortion, rather than being "Christian," which could mean Episcopalian, pro-choice Catholic, or any number of other things. I hope, DeCausa, that "reporting" yourself here is indicative of a desire to improve your behavior rather than to see it justified, because what you said is so way out of line. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I believe it is absilutely justified and I am happy to be blocked for this, if that is the decision. It's a basic principle of Natural justice that the decision maker is not seen to be one-sided. I repeat, this is not about the religion of the user, it's about the overt display of icons directly relevant to the issue in debate. The comment about "using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views," is absolutely fine and I support in the context of general editing. In making a decision such as this, it is not fine. And one other aspect, there's possibly a difference between displaying these sort of icons in a US context and in an international context. In the UK (where I'm from) it is a an agressive stance. DeCausa (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Profanity from IP 91.154.107.187 and RD2 required

Sighs another day, another IP and another overzealous editor. This time its over at Talk:Raining Men (song), with 91.154.107.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) using profanity. In particular he/she has directed homophobic slurs at myself (even though I've not professed to being homosexual), not that I have an prejudices against anyone, and more importantly has made offensive comments such as "now i know your a ho-m-o.. thats explains it all.. your so fu*kin stupid" which imply that there is a correlation between homosexuality and intelligence. I would like to see such comments removed from the page. Additionally I think its evident that the IP is unable to respond to concerns about his/her view might be considered incorrect and fails to respect the nature of discussions. There could be a link to sock master User:Iluvrihanna24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has previously clashed with all involved editors multiple times before being banned and marked as a sockmaster. also could be linked to Arky91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who harrassed my talkpage not long ago. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 01:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone said a bad word

Can anyone have a look at the contributions by 98.85.17.156 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? It's pretty bad. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The worst of it is that the guy's IP-hopping. Unless a broad range-block could be applied, ignoring it might be the best option. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked one... Looks like MaterialScientist is watching them pretty closely.  7  02:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Coming after an admin is not exactly an intelligent move, given that the admin can pick them off like ducks (pardon the ironic metaphor) in a shooting gallery. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Repeated religious attacks by WikiManOne

WikiManOne (talk · contribs) has repeatedly brought up others' religion during content disputes.

• Here, he brings up an editor's Catholicism.
• Here, he agrees with another editor who questions the credibility of an editor who has a Christian userbox on his page.
• Here, he questions my credibility (without naming me) and basically says any Christian should not be allowed to edit articles on controversial moral/religious subjects. He is rightfully called out for it.
• Here, he makes a completely uncalled, false, and irrelevant attack on Catholicism in a dispute over sources.
• Here, he is warned on his talk page but shows no remorse and denies everything.

I think I got them all.

There's a fine line between getting heated in a content dispute and making highly offensive and unwarranted personal attacks on someone's religion. This editor is the most uncivil and belligerent I have ever seen on here. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This thread is going to do nothing whatsoever to cool the dispute and ease tensions. --B (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards