Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:54, 10 November 2010

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

Removing a quote from a user page

In this edit I removed a quote by Brewcrewer from Nableezy's user page. Nableezy has queried my action, but not reverted. Nableezy has been notified of WP:ARBPIA, but doesn't have any special restriction relating to civility etc. Was my action ok? PhilKnight (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

If that's what Brewcrewer said and he's OK with Nableezy putting the quote on his userpage, I don;t see a problem with it. If not, then it could be seen as provocative. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see the generalizable principle that leads to the conclusion that it's appropriate to remove it. PhilKnight, could you please articulate it? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

In my edit summary, I described it as uncollegial. Also, I suspect that Brewcrewer would find it as provocative. PhilKnight (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

If Brewercrewer finds it provocative to have his words quoted in that way, perhaps that suggests that he might do well to rethink his post on that talk page. The fact that Nableezy is quoting it can't be the only thing amiss here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

:::@PhilKnight, I am afraid you removing the quote from Nab's user page shows yet another time that you are not uninvolved administrator concerning I/A conflict area.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Sorry it was a wrong post.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mbz1, could you explain? PhilKnight (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC) No problem. PhilKnight (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Phil's action. WP:civility as the basis. Which, inter alia, says: "editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. In order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment, editors should behave politely". And that "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, disrespectful comments, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict". This appears to be less than civil. What is needed in the I/P area is greater civility by editors, not efforts by editors to inflame, insult, or bait each other.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec w Ep) The edit, especially considering the edit summary, adds more ammunition to an already active battlefield. The rule is that we should always comment on content, not the contributor. The rule is there for a reason, and if editors cannot abide by it they should think about removing themselves from the contentious topic to somewhere they can focus on content. If an editor has problems with another editor, there are ways of dealing with that such as RFC/U. Posting such as this to their user page is not part of the dispute resolution process. -Atmoz (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited." Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles section 4.1.2 - Decorum. The first line is clear. And the trolling line might also apply. There are two problems, though. Previous consensus has allowed Nableezy to do whatever he wants on his user page and another admin has mentioned that this sort of thing should be at AE instead of ANI. Cptnono (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

While it is nice that so many familiar faces have made an appearance, I would like to ask a few simple questions. How is quoting a user and providing a diff for the quote uncivil or an attack or "ammunition to an already active battlefield"? The reason the quote was there was because it is representative of some of the nonsense that users deal with in the topic area. I dont think there is anything wrong with including such a quote, I make no disparaging remark about the quote, I simply show what a user thinks, that the sources are "irrelevant". If somebody wants to make the absurd claim that accurately quoting a user and providing a diff for that quote is either "trolling" or "brings the project into disrepute" that user should be required to back up that claim with more than his imagination. Either that or strike the absurd line. I would like somebody to explain to me why what a user said on a talk page cannot be quoted on my userpage. With a reason with more substance than unsupported assertions that "civility" demands it. nableezy - 18:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, see the first line of the decision. It should be crystal clear. In regards to trolling, if you did it to make a point about the editor and to get under his skin then it might be considered trolling. Is it fostering courteous interaction with the user? Is it highlighting your constructive and collaborative outlook? No. It was a poor comment (assuming there is no other context) and it looks like you are attempting to showcase that and bring ridicule upon the other editor. But like I said, admins have allowed you to continue your behavior. I don't know why but that is the way it is.Cptnono (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Per WP:UP#POLEMIC, "material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws" may not be part of user pages. As such, the removal of the content was correct. This userspace issue does not seem to be within the scope of WP:ARBPIA, though.  Sandstein  18:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

How is accurately quoting a user either an attack or the recording of a perceived flaw? The flaw is with Misplaced Pages in that it allows editors who say that in a conflict on where a place is that what sources say that place is located is an "irrelevant straw man". How is accurately quoting a user and providing a diff of that quote a violation of WP:UP#POLEMIC? And if it were, shouldnt MFD be used? nableezy - 19:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

MfD is only for deleting entire pages. Under the circumstances, notably your repeated disagreements with Brewcrewer about I/P issues, the quote cannot be understood other than as an attempt by you to mock or disparage Brewcrewer. That is not allowed.  Sandstein  19:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

But Im not mocking brewcrewer, Im mocking Misplaced Pages. If you look at the talkpage I thank brewcrewer for his honesty on this subject. I dont have a problem with brewcrewer feeling this way or voicing this opinion. I do however have a problem with the administrators here who think it is a bigger problem that I quote a user saying the sources are irrelevant than the problem that there is a user who actually says the sources are irrelevant. nableezy - 19:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Hadn't noticed the comment until I was notified of the discussion. In general I would not have a problem with being mocked over something silly that I said. But this "quote" of mine is being taken out of context. Anyone who reads the discussion in its entirety will see that I did not mean that in general "sourcing is irrelevant." I meant that for that particular discussion sourcing is irrelevant because the issue was which sourced content should be primary and which sourced content should be secondary. This much was explained to Nableezy at the talk page, but s/he chose to ignore me and post the taken-out-of-context quote on his user page. These type of strawman arguments and incivility are par for the course in my interaction with Nableezy as seen at Talk:Rachel's Tomb#Location and Talk:Psagot#legality.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The context is provided by the diff. You cannot in good faith claim that the quote is taken out of context when the entire context is provided. These type of bad faith arguments are par for the course in my interaction with editors who disregard sources in favor of their own personal wishes. nableezy - 19:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

But you can in good faith argue that "The reason the quote was there was because it is representative of some of the nonsense that users deal with in the topic area" while the edit summary says "return brews finest hour" and it was posted 12 minutes after brewcrewer commented on an AE report concerning you, but almost two weeks after he actually made the comment you quoted? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because what you write isnt entirely true, but that is to be expected from you. Brew made the edit on 21:39, 21 October 2010. I initially added it to my userpage 6 minutes later. I took it down and then put it back up in the edit you reference. nableezy - 20:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Why did you put it back up? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Because it's absurd. brewcrewer basically admits that nableezy is right, that's it's in the West Bank, but that the location should still be decided on who controls the area and his idea of what readers are interested in. The sources against Rachel's Tomb as being in the West Bank include an Israeli High Court decision; even Israel disagrees with brewcrewer's proposed location. The quote sums up the only reasoning justifying the edit. It's in the context of the exact same argument used in every disputed bit of Israeli occupied territory, that we should say it's in Israel because Israel controls it. This cycle is repeated over and over and over in different articles by the same editors, wasting massive amounts of time. Maybe nableezy should have just reported brewcrewer for tendentious editing but it's a perfect crystallization of what goes on here (and looks even worse in context).Sol (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It's obvious brew was saying "the sources are not the issue" not "the sources are not important".

Why did he put it back up when he did, right after brew did something he didn't like? Coincidence? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I dont know, whys the sky the blue? nableezy - 02:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Scattering of sunlight by particles in the atmosphere. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a shame you can't be honest about why you did it. Do I really need to dig up the previous times you put stuff on your user page just to annoy other editors? You didn't used to be shy about it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The placement is intentionally provocative. Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been handled with kid gloves despite a multitude of violations on WP:ARBPIA such as calling fellow editors "certain ultra right-wing nationalists" and assuming bad faith, ignoring factual data as it is presented to him :

• "certain ultra right-wing nationalists" (2 November 2010)
• "I dont exactly believe most (all) of what you claim" (1 November 2010),
• "I will be reinserting this material once protection is lifted." (2 November 2010)

His style is to allege others are bad editors and his efforts are meant to counter them, which is a horrible starting point -- and leads to a horrible editor to work with. One that uses red herrings and ignores content and attempts at reasoning.

With respect, Jaakobou 22:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC) + 22:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC) + 01:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You really want me to respond to this nonsense? You might not look so good if I do. nableezy - 02:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"With respect", after all that?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The usual phraseology would be, "With all undue respect..." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Even starting with an assumption of good faith, and ignoring that Nableezy has just been blocked elsewhere for incivility, I find it difficult to believe, after hearing about the history between the two, that Nableezy was doing anything other than engaging in uncivil mocking. And therefore find it unduly stretching credulity to believe his statements here that that was not his intent. But we need not go there, unless someone is seeking to have Nableezy sanctioned for incivility. All we need to do is let Nableezy understand how his edit is seen by the community.

Understanding (now) the consensus view on the subject, of course he, as a non-disruptive editor who is most assuredly not seeking to mock another editor against core wp guidelines, will be quite happy that the offending language that he had posted has been removed. End of story.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Uhh no, there were a few uninvolved views here, and Ill pay attention to them, but for the most part this section has been dominated by users who havent done much in the past few days except for request that I be blocked. Ill just have to find a creative way to include this quote, a way that would not be "uncollegial". nableezy - 02:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, I would suggest that you respect consensus. You were blocked this week. You now indicate a lack of interest in respecting the views of those who supported you being blocked -- as though their opinions about your editing or disruption are not legitimate. You have it wrong. As you were blocked on the advice of those editors, it is precisely those editors who you should be heeding. WP:consensus does not suggest that Nableezy should only heed the views of those who agree with him, and not the views of those who the blocking admins agree with. If you are indeed intending to be non-disruptive, as you maintained, you will heed the view expressed above.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

In 3 years I have been blocked for 3 hours for civility. I understand why you are repeating this line, Ive seen you play this game before, you like to pretend that a somebody is a "problem user" with a "history of disruption". I dont see a consensus for anything here, and even if there were a drama board is not the place to determine the consensus on what may be placed on a userpage, MFD is. You can continue to comment here, but it wont affect anything I do. If uninvolved users have something to say I will certainly pay attention. Bye. nableezy - 14:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Nableezy. If we start using labels like "problem user" with a "history of disruption" for every editor who's only been blocked 6 times this year , we're setting unreasonably high standards. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

ahh, but all my blocks are in my one block log. How many of your friends can say the same? nableezy - 17:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless you have evidence of socking, you should retract that statement. — The Hand That Feeds You: 19:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The vast majority. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Nab -- as you know, you have an impressive number of blocks, and separately an impressive number of bans. Some of the editors who you don't want to listen to here are the ones who contributed to complaints about your behavior that led to your blocks and bans. Again, I would suggest that those are precisely the editors you should heed, rather than ignore, if your goal is to be a non-disruptive contributor to the Project, which of course I'm sure it is.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It actually appears that adding up all of your blocks results in a number greater than mine. Does that mean that as you have so many blocks your view is irrelevant? Color me confused, I thought you kept raising others history because you had a clean one. Back to the point, Ill pay attention to whatever uninvolved editors have to say. That doesnt include the editors who made a complaint about my supposedly incivility which resulted in a 3 hour block for me and a 48 hour block for the user who wrote the line that prompted my response. Funny how not one of you had any problem at all with what that user wrote. TBS funny. nableezy - 22:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

couldn't be maybe that the other user's block for PA was disputed by all but three out of about a dozen or so editors, whereas your comment was an undisputable PA; could it? WookieInHeat (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• No opinion - If we want to talk about quotes, I think his "All that will happen is that uninvolved users will be drowned out by familiar faces making predictable positions", said in regards to this AN/I filing, was spot on. If we strip out the noise from the above discussion, we're left with one legitimate opinion against the quotation usage (Sandstein). So how about this; all those involved in the topic area zip it, and let people with no horse in the race get a word in edgewise if they wish. Tarc (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Tarc -- I encourage you not to zip it. Let's AGF, and assume that even editors who have observed and supplied information relative to Nab's prior blocks are entitled to contribute to this discussion. It makes little sense to censor out of the discussion those editors who have made legitimate complaints regarding Nab, that have been supported by admin action. If fairness is our goal.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment it would seem the most logical conclusion would be that if brew doesn't mind the comment on nableezy's page, it's fine. that said, if brew feels the comment is being taken out of context in order to portray him in a negative light (which does appear to be the intention), it shouldn't be there. on another note, as per usual nableezy appears to be treading the civility line very carefully, being as condescending as possible without stepping over it (i.e. calling other users comments "nonsense" in this thread). WookieInHeat (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I would like to propose we start a page somewhere called "I/P Bickering", thus allowing the rest of the wiki-verse to return to more productive things. This has already become the predicted forum for attacking favorite targets. Sol (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

User Scythian77 editwarring and POV-pushing at Iran-Iraq War

Scythian77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has been on a POV-pushing rampage for a few weeks by now, adding the US as Iraq's co-belligerent in the campaign infobox, despite the lack of any sources for this assumption , , (note the nasty personal assault- “Please do not start an edit war based on your racist agenda” - in the edit summary), .

It is not only simple edit warring (where our guidelines would warrant warnings for all participants), but impudent POV pushing, aimed at deliberately introducing a fringe viewpoint only shared by this user, a user who looks like someone's sock puppet and one or two other disruptive Iranian accounts like Xashaiar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) , who has been on a similar crusade , , for years by now. They sometimes also add Kuwait, other Arab states or Soviet Union as combatants on Iraqi side (all unsourced, no clarity there), but the main point of their crusade is to include the US. I'd emphasise that what Scythian and his ally have been doing there is simply fringe POV-pushing and violation of WP:OR. It's strictly speaking no longer content dispute, for what kind of content can you write if you have no reliable sources to back up your opinions? They have nothing but their own WP:SYNTH and demagoguery to offer at talk page, all their arguments at talk having been rejected by third parties , and their POV-pushing reverted by clearly neutral parties.

Instead of protecting the page, please deal this time with the POV-pushers. MIaceK (woof!) 09:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I would like to remind you that Xashaiar has already been indefinitely blocked for Iranian nationalist disruption, however, the block was lifted once he “confirmed they will abide by 1RR in disputed area, and use process for resolution”. He failed to keep his promise, going on to spread his POV by edit warring on various articles like Iraq-Iran War. MIaceK (woof!) 13:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Three points. 1. Your labelling me as "one or two other disruptive Iranian accounts like Xashaiar " is beyond what you, as an editor, are allowed to do. 2. Read the wikipedia guidelines and do not mention unrelated things in your complains about another user. However, my block that you mention was on Cyrus Cylinder and was lifted. And as far as I know A: the promise that I will limit myself to 1rr does not relate to my edits on un-related issues like Iran - Iraq war (I am assuming that you know that these two subjects are not related which is obviously a wrong assumption). B: The countries that you keep deleting from the list (whose addition made me "iranian nationalist"!) as "all respected sources" claim were directly involved in military action against Iran during the war (you did remove the sources too, which is a serious problem in wikipedia). Interestingly you keep "deleting" these countries/parties from the list of Iraq supporting countries/parties and still keep some other unknown organisations in the list of Iran supporting parties! I mean lets laugh a bit: the well-sourced additions of (USA navy and arab league) to Iraq Belligerents have been removed by you and their re-additions by many others are called, by you, "iranian nationalism" but the addition of unsourced, un-claimed, parties like "PUK, KDP, SCIRI, Da'awa," to Iran Belligerents is your way of exercising "npov"?! 3. looking at the block-log of you (i.e. the user Miacek) shows that he/she clearly has a history of disruption on wikipedia and has been blocked 6 times in the last year alone for POV-pushing and edit-warring, to push his agenda (which if I am not mistaken is right-right neo-conservative POV pushing). Xashaiar (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

If you had cared to check my block log, you would have noticed that I've been blocked on just two occasions, other entries you could refer to were either sysop mistake that they undid or change in block duration. Secondly, none (and I mean it: none!) of your sources has ever listed the US or Kuwait as co-combatant or co-belligerent of Iraq in its war against Iran. The only cherrypicked quoatation you've managed to lift from some obscure booklet tells about someone being 'were directly involved in military action against Iran'. You refer to this single sentence ad nauseam, coupled with your own WP:SYNTH conclusion that this made the US a belligerent. Others have tried to explain you that the US were also defending the Kuwaiti ships against Iraqi threats: to no avail! Thirdly, your characterization of me as POV-pushing and edit-warring, to push his agenda (which if I am not mistaken is right-right neo-conservative POV pushing) is laughable. MIaceK (woof!) 21:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Schwyz and User:Tobias Conradi

Sorry for brining User:Schwyz up yet again but I think I've linked them to an editor who was blocked three and a half years ago, was involved in an ArbCom case and has a community ban. As such I'm feeling out of my depth and don't know where else to post. I realise this is given more limelight to this user so I'm happy for this thread to be quickly deleted / archive as long as I get some advice.

Anyway both myself and User:JaGa are convinced that User:Schwyz is actually User:Tobias Conradi - we've discussed this a bit here. Although I pointed them at Tobias we reached the conclusion they are the same person independently and largely using different evidence.

Reasons I think it was worth posting here (despite all users already being blocked) are:

1. To see if any admins that were around when Tobias has been dealt with before have anything useful to add.
2. It appears to me that we have uncovered only a small proportion of socks. The users involved have boasted of this and there are several users I have concerns about but which haven't edited enough for me to be confident. Given the disruption these users cause very quickly I think they need spotting and dealing with quickly but only having a couple of people looking for them and the slowness of WP:SPI means things happen quite slowly so I'm unsure how best to proceed although I do think this needs more eyes on it.
3. I have no idea how to go about linking the reports at WP:SPI - as they're all banned starting a new SPI doesn't seem the way forward.

Dpmuk (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak to the first two points, but I think I can help with the third. It may be worth putting a notice on the NPP talkpage to watch for a new user suddenly creating 30 one-sentence articles, and to bring it to the attention of an admin who can answer point 1 above. PMDrive1061, who is an admin, and I were working to head some of this off at the pass by creating a decent, referenced stub for Tuma River, which seems to have been the source of a lot of the latest problems; a liberal dose of salt may also help (I'll watch out for the articles he's looking to create, and see if I can beat him to it if possible). Finally, if Schwyz turns out not to be Tobias, it may be worth a separate community ban to help deal with the socks. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Time for the hammer

I say we shoul ban Schwyz for sockpuppetry, disruption, and refusal to accept consensus ,anyone agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Access Denied (talk • contribs)

Support; it's about bloody time. PMDrive1061 and I were thinking about starting a ban discussion, but it seems we were beaten to it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Speedy close - This user is already banned, per the finding that Schwyz is actually the sock of an already banned user.— Dædαlus 06:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

So are we agreed that Schwyz = Tobias? If so I'll ask for the SPI pages to be merged and update tags etc. As a non-admin I didn't feel particularly happy doing this without an admin making the call they're the same person as only admins make decisions on sockpuppet cases. Dpmuk (talk) 10:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm good with an update. I just told The Blade that I remember Tobias Conradi from new page patrol, but I thought he was an editor in good standing. Hadn't seen him in a long time...now I know why.  :) He's made a fine mess of things and topped it off with some really irritating trolling. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll ask on #wikipedia-en-spi for a clerk to do some merging.— Dædαlus 08:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Need to find a wikiproject to review articles

Clearly this guy has an interest in some topic, but I'm unable to determine what the topic is. The articles he is creating don't have valid intros or descriptions, so it's almost impossible to tell what the topic is. I'd really like someone from a valid WikiProject to take a look at all this work to see what can/should be done. But I cannot determine the WikiProject where I should post the comment. Can someone help? — Timneu22 · talk 16:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The linguistics people would seem to be who you're looking for; SemEval probably stands for Semantic Evaluations. I'm tempted to tag SemEval for G11 as it stands now, though; I won't, but someone should take a look at it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. I added a note to that page. Hope that's right. Thanks — Timneu22 · talk 17:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely not A1, as you tagged it. Have you tried to discuss this with the user? Or notified them of this discussion? -Atmoz (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you identify the context of that article? — Timneu22 · talk 17:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I could barely figure out what the hell it was; although that's an unusual use of A1, I think it was a reasonable application of it, given that the article doesn't have any (I only figured it out after running a Google search, and I'm still only guessing; I could be wrong). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Considering the first line has a link to the conference, A1 is clearly inappropriate. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The article still reads like an advertisement, though; I'll let someone else judge that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. This is a new user trying to write their first article on a topic they are obviously familiar with. It may or may not meet Misplaced Pages's notability standards, but new users are not required to know all the rules. In fact, they are encouraged to be bold and this user was when creating this article. The proper response is not to summarily delete their work, but to work with them to try to improve the article, or communicate with them and explain why their article may not be appropriate for Misplaced Pages. So please, stop biting the newcomers. -Atmoz (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If i may speak, SemEval is a series of conferences discussing on an issue in Natural Language Processing. The reason why you cannot find the details online is because the google engine pagerank gave you the relevant sites but there is no 1 website that will explain to you what the whole idea of SemEval is about. There are 5 workshops held and each workshops have sub-workshops, that they call them tasks. and therefore when you search on google, only bits and pieces of the sub-workshops are reflected. The wiki page was a first step to gather all these bits and pieces into 1 site and it is only a first step. please help to improve this wikipage by giving us suggestions on how to make the wikipage more wikiable to the readers. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvations (talk • contribs) 19:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Please pardon the creation of the multiple page, because it is an attempt to simplify the page after reading the comments on http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:SemEval#why_wikify so i thought of porting out the different sections might be a way to wikify the page. But that's how open source stuff are, one puts up and the rest improve. thank you for your tolerance.Alvations (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

As I have a life outside Misplaced Pages, I made that comment knowing I would have to leave for a while, and I was trying to draw someone's attention to it. Since I won't have the amount of time necessary for at least several hours, and I'm now attempting to deal with another unrelated matter, I wanted to make sure someone would notice it. Honestly, if I was new and I saw my own comments, I'd be more interested in rectifying the problem than anything else, which seems to be the case with this user, so don't worry so much about hurt feelings. The work still needs to be done; I'm more than happy to put in the time, but I'm not sure if/when I'll have the time to sit down and do it. Just relax, OK? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Side not we are on our Second SPA, popping up The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Third SPA The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Fourth The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Fifth. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

{{notavote}} has failed us here's number six The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Three year old spammer account has popped up in support. Definite off Wiki-Canvassing going on. Two of the IPs have been from different continents so socking doesnt seem likely. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing conflict over links and content of the Qumran article

For more than a week I have been involved in a slow edit conflict, not really knowing how otherwise to proceed, over the Qumran article. This is an article about the archaeological site of Qumran. I am attempting to make sure, as I see it, all content is on topic and neutrality is maintained.

1. When the person I am in conflict with wants to post external links that are about other aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls and material of his own production, I remove them. They are already to be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls article, so he's getting the publicity there. At the moment he is no longer trying to post one of his papers, the published one, though he continues to insert his unpublished paper as an external link and has decided to add a link to a Dead Sea Scrolls organization, an organization I long ago created an article for which has the link, The Orion Center, an article that can be accessed from every Dead Sea Scrolls related article through the navbox I put at the bottom. In an effort to clarify the problem to the editor, I divided the remaining external links into two categories, "Scholarly articles about the site of Qumran" and "Other links about the site of Qumran". The editor now removes these categories in order to insert his links.

2. The editor also inserts a comment, I consider both tangential and argumentative. He considers it background to his interpretation of the site. I work on the notion that if material is about the contents of the scrolls, then it is not directly relevant to the site of Qumran. The particular comment follows information about a scholarly opinion from Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, the person who first suggested that the scrolls came to Qumran from Jerusalem, an opinion which reflects a particular approach to the analysis of the site. The editor wants to insert this afterwards:

Rengstorf (p.15) also asked: "What is the explanation of the fact that the Essenes, who, it is claimed, speak, among other things, precisely about themselves and their views and customs in the Dead Sea texts, but always use other names for themselves?" In fact, many scholars have concluded that the Hebrew origin of the name Essenes indeed appears as a self-designation in some Qumran scrolls.

The "In fact" ushers in unnecessarily argumentative material about the Essenes. This for me is clearly not related to the site of Qumran. The editor believes that the Essenes were responsible for the site of Qumran, which is his prerogative, though here the material is gratuitous.

Here are my last two edits: and They represent the battleground.

To sum up the positions, I'm arguing lack of consensus, relevance and neutrality, a conflict of interest, and original research. He's arguing for relevance and against censorship.

The conflict is probably exacerbated by the fact that the editor and I have had conflicts on internet for well over ten years. It continues in a mild form on the discussion page

My desire here is to find some efficacious resolution to the conflict. I'm not interested in any punitive action or discouragement of editing. I just don't want to have to continue in this tug-of-war which is for me fruitless. I can of course abandon the article, though it is the only one I do much work on (though I have written over a dozen articles for the DSS topic), but that would be to me to say that I have wasted my time. The best solution in my eyes would be if I could find an administrator who would be willing to spend the time needed to adjudicate the problem. Though this is a highly specialized topic, an understanding of the problems shouldn't require more than some patience. I would have tried a third opinion but there was no way I could think of providing a neutral presentation of the "facts".

Thanks for your consideration. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The material that Ihutchesson removes from the article should remain in the article because they are descriptive of current major issues in the discussion of Qumran, as I document with peer-reviewed scholarly publications by numerous scholars. Some of my improvements to the article remain. And the link group headings are inaccurate and misleading; I have suggested that link annotations are more helpful for readers. I have published in multiple peer-reviewed scholarly publications, have archaeological excavation experience in Israel, and have a Duke U. Ph.D.; I have not seen any such scholarly peer-reviewed publications from the one who deletes major scholarly views and who classifies links as "scholarly" or not. The article version without the observations that he deletes is certainly *less* "neutral." I recognize that there are issues on which there are different interpretations, no consensus yet. I seek representation for major issues, giving both sides, and giving the reader options to be aware of and to read a range of the major viewpoints. Let the reader decide. The reader cannot be well informed if major viewpoints are censored out of the article, as one editor (who acts as if he owns the article), unfortunately, does. Let the readers have all relevant major facts. Coralapus (talk) 11:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus

This editor has missed the point about my removal of his unpublished research interpreting some of the contents of the scrolls. The article is not about what may be in the scrolls but the site of Qumran. There are other places where he would better find grounds for posting his material, for example in the Dead Sea Scrolls article, where it seems to be more relevant than an article about the archaeological site, if his original research (WP:OR) is well adapted to be anywhere on Wiki going by the Wiki ethos. And posting one's own materials does seem to be a conflict of interest (WP:COI).

The inclusion of material purely because it can be hitched onto another piece of information by the same person, thus allowing for a gratuitous comment still seems to me to be argumentative, provocative and unhelpful in its context.

He has also upped the frequency of his reversions: in the last 24 hours it was three times. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

In simple terms, the majority view of archaeologists and scholars about Qumran is that Essenes lived there; a minority view is that Essenes did not live there. I hold the majority view; he holds the minority view. He misleads readers by excluding--on quite changing, ad hoc, any means to an end grounds--sufficient material from the majority view to be proportionally represented. The scrolls are archaeological facts relevant to the site, in the majority view. I seek to have both views represented and let the readers decide. He prefers to slant the article to the minority view. Readers would be ill served by his biased editing. I allow both views for readers to consider. I have not erased in the bibliography his non-scholarly article that represents the viewpoint of no one (to my knowledge) besides him. That, in an abundance of allowance of a distinctly minority view. His approach, simply, is to seek to erase that with which he does not agree, while pretending to neutrality. I have written articles for Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible, Anchor Bible Dictionary, and other peer-reviewed journals and books, and I know that his approach is neither fair nor scholarly. Coralapus (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus

This noticeboard is not a forum to debate your views about the Essenes. It's a place where administrators consider the conflict set before them. I think you misunderstand what Wiki does and are breaking the rules

1) posting your own materials as references,

2) insisting on material that isn't directly relevant to the article, and

3) publicizing yourself rather than working on a good neutral article.

Your publications are very nice, but again tangential here. Besides, you had editors there, while you are the editor here, and you don't seem aware of the necessities of the job of keeping to the topic or evaluating the worth of the materials you present. For some reason you refuse to see that gratuitous mention of Essenes in a place where such mention is not needed doesn't help the article. Consensus for your material has not been established and I stress that it is your material. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually discussion of Essenes is called for. Descriptively, it is one of the main issues. Your exclusions are unbalancedCoralapus (talk) 10:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus

Misuse of Clean start?

"A clean start is when a user sets aside an old account in order to start afresh with a new account, where the old account is clearly discontinued and the new account is not merely continuing the same kinds of behaviors and activities."

As a result of numerous complaints and this ANI discussion], Gniniv (talk · contribs) wrote at ANI on September 15th "you can see that my user has been retired". On the 19th he posted to his talk page "'This user is now retired, but I have returned to Misplaced Pages as another User per WP:CLEANSTART. There was an immediate complaint about this (about his returning under cleanstart after retiring in the middle of an ANI discussion about his behaviour).

Since returning as Terra Novus (talk · contribs) (who signs himself "Novus Orator" he has made various promises, eg to avoid editing in "large areas of Misplaced Pages (such as Creation-Evolution related articles)" (one of the areas in which he had problems) while at the same time continuing to edit related articles such as Russell Humphreys and giving a Young Earth Creationist spin to others and receiving a one week block for his edits at Heim theory -- see also this discussion at FTN about his edits there. And about his setting up a new Wikiproject for Young Earth Creationism, first without going through the proposal stage (at one point today on the original page, now userfied, there were only 2 members, his old account which was marked inactive) and his new account). You can see at the new proposal page Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Proposals/WikiProject Young Earth Creationism that he admits to having a history of contentious editing.

My question is whether he is entitled to claim that he started a new account under WP:Clean start, considering that he retired his old account in the middle of an ANI discussion, then came back claiming Clean start, while not making major changes in his editing habits and earning a one week block not long after returning. Dougweller (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• That's not a clean start, that's just transfering accounts. He should be blocked for this. Secret 17:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Having observed both incarnations of this User (I have been monitoring contributions though not getting involved discussions), this is most certainly a misuse of Clean start, Either the user switched to new name was to avoid scrutiny or has fundamental misinterpretation of the rules of clean start. Based on the actions of the user as i have observed most likely its the former. I think a topic ban on Creationism might be our only hope here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• If it is known that this is the same editor editing under account, then it is indeed not a cleanstart but a "transferring accounts". However, there's no need to block for that. There's only a problem if the link is not known, and the user is "pretending" to be a fresh user, but doing the same old stuff. If it is known it is the same user, then simply treat the contributions of the new account as a continuation of the old one, and deal with it as such. Would the behaviour been sanctionable if it had been done with the same account? If yes, then sanction. If no, then don't. Cleanstart is irrelevant, since the link is known there is no cleanstart. It's just a change of account - and that's allowed. The old problem is if users hide behind an undisclosed account to allow them to continue the same problematic activity.--Scott Mac 18:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "There's no need to block for that" - generically, no, but given the circumstances of the transfer WP:GAME comes into if the same problem behaviour continues post-transfer. Rd232 01:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• This user has been causing endless difficulties, making promises to reform and breaking them almost as soon as (or sometimes even before) they are made. His edits against consensus on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Young Earth Creationism (now deleted and moved to his user space) are one example of that. Other ploys include creating physics templates to include Heim theory as "emerging physics". Or his recent attempts to introduce what turned out to be Young Earth Creationist commentary on the talk page of the featured physics article Oort cloud. Every time he is criticized he promises to reform, but unfortunately it seems at the moment that his editing patterns have become worse. Every edit he makes requires careful attention from other wikipedians: very few have any positive value. The article he created today is an example of this kind of unhelpful editing. It resulted in this thread on FTN. The article did not survive. If a user requires every edit to be carefully examined, with just cause, that is not a good use of volunteer time. Mathsci (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Topic ban. Enough is enough. Those more familiar with him will be better able to delineate the borders of the topic ban, but he clearly needs to stay away from the topics he sought to escape from under CLEANSTART, an escape effected because his behaviour was coming under scrutiny. Rd232 01:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd support a topic ban on anything to do with Young Earth Creationism, broadly construed. He also needs to remove any mention of Clean start from his userpage. Dougweller (talk) 12:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • In view of the problems with his edits as both Terra Novus and Gniniv, any topic ban should also cover articles, their talk pages and templates in physics and astrophysics, broadly construed. Mathsci (talk) 13:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree, Broadly construed Young Earth Creationism Topic ban. I frankly dont see an alternative here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 13:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • This user has been acting disruptively and misusing clean start. On account of the continuing behavior in related topics, I support a topic ban on Young Earth Creationism, very broadly construed.   Will Beback  talk  00:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'll agree, but I don't think the problem is just Young Earth Creationism or cosmology or fossils or Heim Theory. TN's edit history corresponds very closely to many of the doctrines that are held by the Seventh-day Adventist Church and some of its more recent offshoots. YEC is a central doctrine among Adventists, and I understand that Heim Theory, for example, is claimed as necessary by some factions of that religion as part of an alternative hypothesis to the Big Bang theory. Physics articles would be of special interest for similar reasons: alternatives to mainstream physics are needed to support some of the religion's creationist beliefs, e.g. some Adventists believe that physical constants like the speed of light have not, in fact, been constant over time. It's entirely possible that I'm mistaken, of course, and if so, I'll be glad to apologize. But if I'm correct then I'd have to say that I don't see how a narrow topic ban is going to do much good here. Everyone has a right to his religious beliefs, of course, and I would never do anything to infringe on that. But none of us has the right to push our religious beliefs on others, and it seems likely to me that doing just that has been the principal focus and motivation for TN's presence here, and that a topic ban that's restricted to just the limited areas that have been mentioned so far is likely to prove insufficient for that reason.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Nate2357 and Nate5713

Nate5713 (talk · contribs) and Nate2357 (talk · contribs) are clearly the same editor and edit related or the same articles, and in June I posted to 5713's talk page suggesting that I block one of his accounts. Today one of them created an article which was turned into a redirect by another editor, and the 2nd account has been reverting the redirect. I know that there can be legitimate reasons for having more than one account, but this use of two accounts isn't one of them. As I've been involved with this editor I'm doing what I said I'd do in June, bringing it here for the attention of other Administrators. I can see no reason to let him continue with two accounts. Dougweller (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The "article" that this editor attempted to create was Ancestry of Jesus, which he did because his attempts to use a non-reliable source to add material to Genealogy of Jesus were reverted by a number of editors, including myself. The new article was clearly a content fork intended to get around the editor's inability to get a consensus to use a poster created by uncredentialed amateur researchers as a reliable source . Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The arguably unreliable source that I have been wrongly accused of using has a name: The Adam and Eve Family Tree (and yes, I used your links). One might note, interestingly, that I NEVER use such a controversial reference in my relentlessly deleted article, none of the links provided say otherwise. While you check my real refs, notice also how I never actually undid the redirects, yet my additions are undone anyway.

To get strait to the point, we know that all Administrators have to post some kind of explanation on the discussions page as to why they would want to delete this piece of work. Yet the Talk page remains empty, I have received no notice, no prior explanation, just an angry administrator going, undo, UNDO, UNDO!. Therefore, seeing the obvious lack of prior discussions before deleting the content of this article, I must dutifully report the saddening renegade nature of these particular administrators: Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs), Ironholds (talk · contribs), and Dougweller (talk · contribs).--Nate2357 (talk) 03:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

As to this, "two accounts" bit, I don't really pay attention to what I am doing with which account, I just happen to log in to whatever account the computer I am using remembers. If you ever block one account, then when I inevitably come back to that computer I'll just create a new one. So, it doesn't really matter to me what you do with my accounts, it only gets me adjudicated when people undo my edits (why do we even have that button, anyway?)--Nate2357 (talk) 03:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It's always so much easier when they brag about violating the rules. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Correction, I am not an administrator, and have never held myself out as being one. Any editor can (and should) delete material which is contrary to Misplaced Pages policy.

Your answers suggest that you have very little understanding of Misplaced Pages policies, so I suggest you might like to read this; your "article" is a content fork, which is not allowed. We have an article on this subject, called Genealogy of Jesus, and you can't start a new article on the same subject with a different name simply because you're not getting your way with that one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ironholds is not an admin either. Dougweller is. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I am. If I wasn't involved I would probably block him, particularly after his statement that he will continue to create new accounts if blocked. I'll also note that both Beyond My Ken and I gave edit summaries explaining our reverts, Nate did not. Dougweller (talk) 10:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm about --> <-- this close to doing so. However, in the realm of WP:AGF I have notified him of WP:EVADE and WP:SOCK (on both accounts) and requested him to modify both his behaviour and his statements on this thread. This is clear misuse of alternate accounts, and meets sock clearly. The threat to evade is to be taken seriously, but he has a very short time to rethink that because if he does, all hell's going to break lose. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Both your summaries say very little. As a matter of fact, the only thing they say is: FORK. If the message you're trying to convey to me is that I just created the page because it wasn't allowed on the main article then you're saddeningly misinformed. Did I use a reference that was not appropriate, for instance? You could have, and should have opened a discussion or at worst sent me a message to explain to me what you found disturbing, BEFORE you delete all my work, not after. Administrators are required to do it (even Dougweller), and all other users should probably do it anyway if they intend to delete an entire article.

One very important fact must be known: The section that I created on Genealogy of Jesus (which was mercilessly deleted by Dougweller without discussion, by the way) is NO comparison to the article I tried to make. The only problem, repeat the only problem with the section, which apparently gives justice to delete the whole thing, was that I cited The Adam and Eve Family tree, which we decided was an arguably unreliable source only AFTER it was deleted. This new article I created NEVER mentions the Adam and Eve Family tree, so I am at a loss as to what could possibly be so heinous that it justifies deletion without warning. I really don't know what's wrong with my article. If you had a problem you should have discussed it. Just saying FORK postmortem doesn't cut it. I don't know how else to explain myself.

Like I said earlier, I don't care what happens to my accounts. If both accounts are blocked, I'll probably not make the same mistake I made before and just use one account. But it doesn't matter to me what name I use, so long as I know that it is me. --Nate5713 (talk) 13:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• A note that I am not an administrator, and have never made myself out to be one. The suggestion that I am, however, did provide a good belly-laugh for me and probably the hundreds of individuals opposed to such events, so thanks for brightening my evening. The problem, at the root of it, is that you cannot use multiple accounts in that fashion and you cannot create content forks. Sourcing is irrelevant - you cannot have two articles covering differing viewpoints for a single topic in such a fashion. That's all there is to it. Ironholds (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's the bottom line: The article I created may or may not be a fork. If someone happens to have read both my article and the Genealogy of Jesus, they may post their suggestion of a possible fork in the discussions page like anyone else. If someone out there feels that the content of my article is getting too similar to that of Genealogy of Jesus, then he or she may provide evidence for this claim in the discussion page like anyone else. And if and when we are in agreement, the creator and the antagonist, then may the information, resources, references, and content be stripped away from their home and deleted. But to delete everything without cause, without explanation, without warning, that must warrant some kind of discipline on this website.--Nate2357 (talk) 02:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No, here's the bottom line: the article is a fork, period. It doesn't matter that they differ in specific content the subjects are the same, i.e. "ancestry" = "genealogy". Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Ah.... I'm beginning to think that we are being trolled. NateXXXX just made an edit which changed the date of the Battle of the Vale of Siddim, and gave as a ref "as calculated by James Ussher". Ussher, you may recall, is the Bishop who calculated on the basis of Biblical begats that the world began on Sunday, 23 October 4004 BC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Asked Nate to explain that here, on his talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The above accusation is totally off topic, probably trying to the blame off himself. Last time I checked, the battle of Sidon vale is mentioned only in the Bible (fact 1). Ussher chronology, as you have just stated, says that the world was created 6,000 years ago. In other words, all of James Ussher's calculations come solely from the Bible, with a little help from archeology of his day. Now, if I referenced the Bible, as we all well know, I would be accused of Original research. Therefore, I took pity on the fact that the article's date read, "somewhere around 2000 B.C.", and made it more precise. Because the battle was only mentioned in the Bible, there are only two reliable sources to give a more precise date: Ussher chronology and the Wall chart of World History. Because I was earlier accused of using the wall chart as a reference on Emperor Yao, (which is silly because before my edit there was a citation needed) I was forced to cite James Ussher instead. What else did you want me to do?

This BMK is accusing me of trolling, which is quite preposterous but not surprising. How is this possible? because BMK has a remarkable reputation for breaking Misplaced Pages policy and then blaming others for it. This is not the first time he has accused someone of sock-puppeting, yet he has had at the same time owned not just two but three accounts]. He has also been known to relentlessly revert edits (while refusing discussion) and then falsely accuse his victim of Edit-warring], which is exactly what happened on the Ancestry of Jesus]. He has also been known for hounding and harassment], of which I thankfully have only seen the beginning of so far. In other words, he reputation, unlike mine, is filled with the following phrases: SOCK, hounding, harassment (twice), violations of: AGF, OWN, COI, and 3RR (which he also falsely accused me of), trolling for reactions, and giving away private information. It is he who is the troll by repute, and not me. --Nate2357 (talk) 04:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

A very interesting answer, not for what it says about me, since that's all bullshit, but for what it says about Nate, his POV, his understanding of what a "reliable source" is, and his supposed unfamiliarity with Misplaced Pages and its policies, which he now rattles off with ease. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Nate: Next time you're interested in smearing someone, you'd be better off not taking as examples a puppetmaster who is indef blocked, and a very problematic editor with a habit of misrepresenting the facts, who is also indef blocked.

Jusy sayin'... Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You also missed the fact that my backhistory, including my two previous (not simultaneous) user IDs, is linked on my user page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Back on track

So, as the old joke goes, enough about me... the question here would appear to be: What should be done about a POV-pushing editor (troll or not) who refuses to accede to basic Misplaced Pages policies, such as one account per person, refuses to listen to others when they try to explain policies to him, whose understanding of what constitutes a reliable source is so widely divergent from consensus (Bishop Ussher, the "Wall Chart of World History" and the poster "Adam & Eve's Family Tree"), and who, when confronted, switches to battleground mode? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked Nate2357 for refusing to get the point after BWilkins note yesterday and gaming the system by going right on using both accounts. Courcelles 15:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Wholly uncooperative editor on Paramore-related articles

I recently created List of awards and nominations received by Paramore to be in line with the rest of the band articles that we have here. Since then, Para.leaf (talk · contribs) has been added a bunch of fancruft and non-notable awards to the list. Despite repeatedly warning the editor about their edits and urging them to discuss on the talk page, they just keep editing. Further, they have been warned multiple times about marking their major edits as minor, but they insist on doing it anyway. I'm just about at my wit's end, hence posting here. — HelloAnnyong 23:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't particularly want to comment on what's fancruft and what's notable, but what is notable is that this editor has been here since July and has never once posted on a talkpage of an article or user. I'm minded to use a short block, to get him to talk, but I'll give him one final warning first. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, now we've got this edit from an IP. The edit is basically a big undo of what Para.leaf did. In an earlier edit, the editor basically copypasted the entire {{Paramore}} template into the article, and that's being done now by the IP. It's not really within the scope of SPI (aside from WP:DUCK, anyway) so I'm not going to open a case for it. Does seem like the editor is trying to avoid scrutiny, though. — HelloAnnyong 02:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Now a new page was created at List of awards, nominations received, and miscellaneous awards and honors by Paramore by copying and pasting the contents of the page to a new one, but adding the miscellany. Related (possible sock?)? Yves (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Matt319 and politician succession boxes

Just a quick heads-up before it turns into a conflict - Matt319 (talk · contribs) has been removing the names of successors-elect from the articles of defeated American policitians. I've asked him to at least get some consensus, and use edit summaries when he does this, but he's pressed on regardless. Opinions welcome. Kelly 00:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the user's edits and left them a warning. Report them to WP:AIV or leave a message here if the disruption continues. -FASTILY 04:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Fastily, your actions, and that warning, were wrong. The succession box has a field called Succeeded by (note use of the past tense) which is filled by the name of one's successor. In the US Congress, and state elections as well, that successor does not take office until he or she is sworn in. In fact, those in office prior to the election last week, are still in office; they have not yet been succeeded by anyone.

Yet you have engaged in wholesale reversion of correct edits by Matt, in apparent disregard of the discussion on the talk page, which makes these exact points. And you have threatened Matt with a block. That is very unfortunate, both for the good-faith editor who made the corrections, and Misplaced Pages.

Please undo your edits and remove the unjustified warning on Matt's talk page. Kablammo (talk) 05:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you cleanly ignored my note at User_talk:Matt319#Hold_up. Cheers, FASTILY 06:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Politically and legally correct action is that until sworn in, there is no successor. For example, if one of the recently-elected people were to die before taking office, I believe in most cases the person currently in the job would temporarily continue in it. We cannot add a successor yet, as they have not officially taken the job. Removing said persons from "succeeded by" was a valid line of action. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. We're not crystal balling, here. Barring very unusual circumstances, these people are the successors. Then again, this really isn't requiring admin intervention at this point. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope. They "are" not the successors yet. (Does verb tense mean nothing?) Kablammo (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This is why we use terms such as "president-elect" and "senator-elect", or phrases such as "soon to be senator" - it's because they are not yet the president or senator. As such, they have not officially succeeded anybody. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

If we wish to be pedantic, yes, the correct verb tense is "will be." Still, I see no reason to leave off "will succeed X as Senator on DATE" to the article. Again, though, this is getting off-topic for AN/I. — The Hand That Feeds You: 14:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think many of these articles contain text to that effect (but really should be worded "is expected to succeed"), but the problem here is the succession box uses the past tense. Succession boxes have a field for "heir-apparent" to be used for current monarchs in lieu of the succession field; I don't think we really need that here, but there is no reason why the text for politicians cannot mention the putative successor while the infobox remains accurate. Kablammo (talk) 16:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to amend ban on SRQ imposed at ANI: from 1 year to indef

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

Community-banned unanimously for 1 year for "constant issues with collegial editing" (only to have the ban reset after subsequent sockpuppetry) SRQ continues to disrupt article and userspace through her use of different IPs and named accounts that are routinely being discovered. When the initial ban was reset, it was to be followed by an indefinite block after the ban's expiration: I propose implementing a permanent siteban instead so that her edits can continue to be reverted on sight. The socking has become more frequent and harassing in nature towards her usual targets Crohnie (talk · contribs) and especially DocOfSoc (talk · contribs), and there is neither hope nor intention of this former editor returning constuctively here. With a lengthy and growing list of mostly "one-or-two-off" IP sockpuppets, she mocks the CheckUser process by challenging its ability to detect her, and has recently taken to blaming others for her sockpuppetry (while blatantly and disruptively socking). Many diffs can be provided upon request, but I feel there is more than sufficient cause for a permanent community siteban to be implemented, rather than the fixed-duration community ban that is overdue for another "reset". Doc talk 04:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note This is a request to amend the ban from 1 year to indefinite, so I have updated the header. It appears that there are 21 confirmed socks, 68 suspected socks, and possibly more that have not been tagged. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per Bwilkins, HJ Mitchell, EdJohnston, and others below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• Strongly Support Comment to follow. DocOfSoc (talk) 07:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think she's gone completely out of hand. She still made an entirely constructive revert to a living person just recently before she was blocked. Minimac (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support Clearly SRQ cannot adhere to Misplaced Pages's rules. One occasional good revert does not make up for the harassment and socking she's done and continues to do. AniMate 07:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support I originally had hoped that she would see WP:OFFER or return after the block to edit constructively. I also supported the revdel of her very personal request since it showed some humility and seemed the right thing to do. However, the behavior before the block was so disruptive that when coupled with a complete lack of respect for the block and thumbing her nose at the community (especially the admin who showed some heart) means that it seems appropriate. If an extension of indefinite does not have consensus then it at least needs to be reset to the last edit confirmed to be by a sock and maybe even extended for continued disruption.Cptnono (talk) 07:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support Enough is enough, once you start socking that much there's no hope. --Rschen7754 07:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support. The disruption was so persistent that the 1-year ban was unanimous, and this degree of socking is simply outrageous. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support This user will never stop. She has admitted to stalking my edits and that of DocOfSoc over at Misplaced Pages Review where she immediately set up an account after she was blocked. The latest sock that was blocked put this disgusting message on my talk page on 11/08/10. There are more of her going to editors that don't know her to cause problems like this on 10/26/10. If there is a checkuser about I would also appreciate a checkuser done to get rid of any sleeper accounts she may have too since she said she would set up a bunch of accounts to drive us crazy. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGal 11:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support, with the proviso that "indef" in this case means "at least 1 year" from its imposition. Mjroots (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Unfortunate support I'm one of those who believe that SRQ was pushed into a series of actions that led to the original block. However, their actions since that time have led me to believe that they don't give two craps about policy around here. They had a chance to perhaps come back. They blew it and got a 1 yr ban. They then had a chance to come back after that, and they continue to thumb their nose at policy. Well sorry, as much as I supported them originally, I have to say "feckit, you wasted my faith in you". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Reluctant support. It's always a great shame when it comes to this for a once productive editor, but we can't excuse the repeated socking when it's used to harass and attempt to upset other editors. SRQ, on the off chance that you might read this: Please, stop this nonsense, disengage with Misplaced Pages and serve your time quietly before it's too late for you ever to return. Indefinite does not yet have to mean infinite. Yet. But if you keep this up it will. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support, having had quite enough after participating in the latest unblock-my-sock discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support -- If this editor ever decides to start behaving well, and wants to return to the encyclopedia, they know what they have to do. No sign of that so far. The IPs would be hard to rangeblock, and there is a large number of them. See the suspected and confirmed socks as well as WP:Sockpuppet investigations/SkagitRiverQueen/Archive. EdJohnston (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose procedurally. Because of the model currently in place on WP, indef bans to stop sockpuppetering simply don't work because making a new account or switching IPs to get around a block is too easy. It's best to give the user the possibility to give up sockpuppeting and a chance to come back. -Atmoz (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Serious question

As I would hate to impose a permaban on anyone based on evidence that was not beyond doubt, I have a serious question. First, I believe SRQ was on Verizon - which admittedly has thousands of editors coming from there. As such, SPI's would be quite a challenge. I know I gave a pretty damning !vote above, so I want to ensure that the socking is really coming from them. "Suspected" socks means squat to me. Even supposedly "proven" socks can mean that someone is an excellent impersonator - and we have had damn well enough of those. What really are the odds that someone is not effing us over and pulling some damned fine wool over our eyes? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it would have to be the most epic case of sophisticated trolling ever if that were true. Socks like recently revealed Lazuli Bunting (talk · contribs) edit obscure articles that SRQ is the prime editor for in ways identical to her (esp. changing to surnames later throughout the article), and then try to get the same two users (Crohnie and DocOfSoc) "in trouble". That is how they are discovered: the socks keep repeating the same behavior. Some socks like True Crime Reader (talk · contribs) last a bit longer, until they predictably start harassing the same users and frequenting articles that SRQ did. With her avowed devotion to edit here, and admitted off-site socking, I can't see anyone wasting their time to so closely imitate her. The massive list of suspected IPs was compiled when the SPI was in progress, and the attempt to confuse by changing IPs so frequently is obvious and still continues. A contribution check for any IP or sock, suspected or confirmed, shows this can be no one else. I received an off-wiki legal threat from SRQ just two months ago in response to referencing her medical condition on someone's talk page (which she revealed on WP); and she recently responded instantly with IP socks (always Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon) after I tagged a sock that I was wrong about being her. She's actively watching, socking, and stalking edits, and there's no reason not to be positive that 99% of these are her. I've repeatedly asked for CU backup to tie named accounts together: to no avail. Doc talk 18:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

please remove false statement

Men's Health (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have tried to remove "The magazine does not submit itself to be measured by circulation or demographic companies" from the magazine article on Men's Health but all tries to do so have been road-blocked. I also tried to add sourced content including criticism but these were also erased. What a waste of time! At least remove the false statement or I'll ask Men's Health if they'd like to do an expose on how to decrease your anxiety, by never trusting Misplaced Pages! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allowkeeps (talk • contribs) 06:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Uhm.. was that a threat?? Do you actually expect us to help you now? -- œ 06:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Allow me to be the first to say.. lol. ... But seriously, we've all been editing here for a long while, and even we know wikipedia should never be used as a source. It is a tertiary source, after all.— Dædαlus 07:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• I'm confused How on earth would a site you say can't be trusted become any more trustworthy by allowing some random internet user to remove content that is sourced to a New York Times article just because this unknown user says "no no, it's not true"? See WP:V policy. I can't access the article right now, so maybe someone else could check if it actually supports the statement. DMacks (talk) 07:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • This has a familiar ring. Wasn't someone edit-warring over that same magazine a month or two ago? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    • You're probably thinking of the delightfully-named Dcahole (talk · contribs), who later sockpuppeted as Amongelse (talk · contribs). The similar username of the complainant is surely just the product of the unavoidable quantum randomness of the universe. — Gavia immer (talk) 08:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    • The statement in the NYT doesn't appear to be referring to Men's Health. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Unsurprisingly, there is comparatively little substantial difference (note that some of the differences are just blank line changes) between the preferred versions of dcahole (talk · contribs) and allowkeeps (talk · contribs). Uncle G (talk) 08:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The contested statement appears to be false. At any rate the NYT source given refers to Children's Health (magazine), a related magazine by the same publisher. Rd232 09:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

edit warring on WP:Carlingford Lough

Carlingford Lough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

3 users are involved in tag-teaming edit-warring on this page. All three Users have made contentious revisions without discussion first. These Users have supported each other in countless discussion topics, swaying consensus. This has to stop! Users involved are the usual suspects of Virtual Revolution,O_Fenian and Mo ainm. This is somewhat of a contentious edit as they wish to remove 'Northern Ireland' from the body of the infobox.

Here are the diffs:

• edit dated 2010-11-09T11:36:31 by VirtualRevolution "Undid revision 395720705 by Factocop (talk)".
• edit dated 2010-11-09T11:05:14 by O Fenian "Revert. Please take your concern over the name of that article to Talk:Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border".
• edit dated 2010-11-09T10:19:24 by Mo ainm "remove piping"

Can an admin pick this up and deal with them?Factocop (talk) 12:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• This editor is aware of the editing restrictions on articles which says quite clearly that "All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related."

  With these reverts here and here they clearly went beyond the 1RR for the article. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Well, thats only if you deem the article to be related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism....My reverts were only in response to edits that had not been discussed prior, in the discussion page. Given that there was no discussion, the edits can only be described as disruptive.And it does appear suspicious that all 3 editors appear at the same time on the same page, and only to support each others edits.Factocop (talk) 12:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Have you never heard of a watchlist? You are the one who was edit warring I made a legitimite edit removing an incorrect pipe link that was in the article which you reverted twice. Mo ainm~Talk 12:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Hmmm. This administrator is seeing a rather different view of the situation from the conveniently restricted view through one article that comes from the above. I see the the three edits by Factocop (talk · contribs) that prompted several of the reversions:
  • Changes "United Kingdom" to "Northern Ireland"
  • Changes "United Kingdom" to "Northern Ireland"
  • Changes "United Kingdom" to "Northern Ireland" and "Ireland" to "Republic of Ireland"
• no edits by Factocop to:
  • Talk:Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border#Requested move
• a whole load of edits by Factocop to:
  • Talk:Giant's Causeway#Northern Ireland is a country
• and several people noticing that this is a spillover from the above at:
  • Talk:Carlingford Lough
• We seem to be spoiled for choice as to which sanctions to apply. Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles the Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log sanctions, or even just plain old Misplaced Pages:Edit war for failure to do the "D" part of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle after the aforelinked people did the "R" part. And I can hear a boomerang gently whirring through the air right now. … Uncle G (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • this argument has also lead to a disscussion thread on Sareks talkpage, they still edit warred though on carlingford lough--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

•  
  1. I received a warning for my previous edits and apparent spillover. I opened up a discussion on the topic to discuss further. I have posted a very compelling argument that none of the said users have been able to respond to.
  2. I was unaware of Talk:Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border#Requested move
  3. The 3 users I have mentioned have also commented on the Giant's Causeway page. so what?
• The 3 users troll pages like a pack of wolves making edits and swaying consensus with their greater numbers. It would be a real shame if this is to continue.Factocop (talk) 13:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • the page was under 1RR you broke that rule Facto--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I also think Factocop that you were warned about commenting on other editors so describing them as packs of wolves and trolls I'm sure is in breach of that. Mo ainm~Talk 13:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Do you mean like you have done here? - User talk:NorthernCounties#Factocop. Factocop (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Indeed, told very bluntly. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

To assume that editors with the same views are acting in concert, or suggest they have ownership issues or similar, can be a breach of WP:AGF.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• I am not suggesting anything, it just very suspicious that they should appear on the same page at the same time to make the same edit and without raising the change in the discussion topic. Very suspicious.Factocop (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh, of course. You're not suggesting anything, it's just "suspicious." If I could roll my eyes any harder, they'd pop out of my head. You're making a very blatant suggestion of WP:MEAT here, without evidence. I'd suggest you retract that statement. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Currently blocked for 48 hours, unable to retract at this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The article should be reverted to it status before the edit fighting began & then protected. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Well thats what I tried to do, revert back to the original but obviously very difficult to do with a clique of users intent on forcing the issue.Factocop (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Thats a mistruth look at the diffs supplied by Uncle G Mo ainm~Talk 15:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    • well if I have made 2 reverts and Mo,O Fenian and VR have made 3 revisions collectively then that would mean that the page is not in its original state.Taxi!!!Factocop (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
      • It's a clear infraction, with these edits here and then here there is not "IF" in this matter. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Let me remind my fellow admins of this clear warning to some of the participants - I'm off for lunch. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for that. I'm finding it hard to match with reality Factocop's statements that
    • xe assumed that the border between these two places was not Troubles-related;
    • xe didn't know about Talk:Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border#Requested move, despite the edit summary in the second diff that xe pointed to in bringing this here;
    • this was a reversion to the status quo, when in fact the status quo has stood otherwise since this edit dated 2009-04-06T00:22:28 (citing the house style manual), which seems to be a span of just under one year and seven months.
  • Uncle G (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm too am finding it hard to match with reality Factocop's statements per their admission here, plus this report here and this report here. This is going to be a long term problem. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Ahem! Uncle G (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• • • • As I understand it, they are not this editor. Could we not clarify this? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Factocop was WP:DUCK blocked as a sock of the Maiden City. Somehow he then persuaded Shell Kinney that although he socked as Pilgrisquest, and apparently edits in the same IP range as the Maiden City, and he edits just like the Maiden City, he isn't the Maiden City. If there is more evidence now that his edits make it probable that he is the Maiden City, then the correct course of action would be to reblock as a sock of Maiden City. I'm not familiar with the Maiden City's edits, so I'll go with the opinions of others here. this is the archive sock investigation, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/The Maiden City awaits your new evidence. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Factocop and Blue is better are  Confirmed with regards to each other according to MuZemike. Pilgrimsquest was  Confirmed that this account is the same as Factocop (talk · contribs) by Tnxman307. So regardless of the The Maiden City they are still a sock and block evading editor. Have I got that right? --Domer48_'fenian' 19:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Holy smokers, how'd Factocop manage to get unblocked? GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for review of Rev/Del

I am not the most active admin on the Wiki, but I used RevDel in The Ogre Downstairs just now, admins can view the content, non admins can rely on my log summary. I'd just like a double check on my action, and for someone else to decide what should be done to the IP, as I wrote the article (not my best work, but still) I don't feel comfortable issuing a block. Diff of my revert is here--Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Good call. I've reverted the IP's other edits (none of which was close to that level), but don't know if blocking would be effective (unless its an open proxy or TOR or something). Syrthiss (talk) 14:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked 70.160.15.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) since it has no good contributions. This IP is on a DSL connection. There is nothing on Google about it being a proxy, so a report at WP:OP doesn't seem worthwhile. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

All that is good. When I read it (somewhat shocked), I remembered discussions that there is zero tolerance for that kind of thing here and so brought it to this noticeboard, since I could not block him myself. Well, maybe I could have, actually, but by bringing it here, I made sure everything necessary would be done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

POV forks of Communist terrorism

Left-wing terrorism was created as a POV fork of Communist terrorism and recent edits have deleted over 80% of that article and moved to the POV fork in a coordinated manner. It is asserted that the deletion of 80% was by "agreement" whilst I find no such agreement. Might some admin kindly review the articles and see why the POV fork exists, and the move of material without any merge discussion and without any moving of edit history ought to occur? Thanks. Collect (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried reverting? Is there a discussion on the talk page which supports the move? What you've brought up here isn't per se a problem. Jclemens (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Full list of diffs posted on your UT page. One editor warned me that I would face sanctions if I disputed the new POVforks. Collect (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

is my edit quoting the coordination of editors. (basically saying precisely how they intended to delete Communist terrorism as an article after the RfC to change the title was clearly rejected.

shows creation of the Left wing terrorism article.

shows massive deletion from the parent article. shows Igny reverting my edit.

shows moving a large section (without preserving edit history). shows moving almost all the rest with the claim "per talk." I reverted the move to the POVfork. then redeleted the content calling it delete POV fork content per talk (making the apparent assertion that the original article is the "fork"! Anotether then asserted that the deletion was revert to talk page agreement) which does not exist.

One editor asserts that the article Communist terrorism falls under Digwuren and warns me that I will be sanctioned for edit war if I dispute the POVfork. Sigh. The fact is that two editors knew they were creating a POVfork, established the means for deleting the original article, and are carrying it out contrary, IMHO, to WP policies. Thanks. Collect (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

<sigh...> Communist terrorism is the POV-fork here. this article is being defended (fairly tendentiously) by two editors (Collect (talk · contribs) and Justus Maximus (talk · contribs)) to make the argument that Marxist philosophy generally put explicitly advocates for terrorism, which is not supported anywhere in the literature. The sticking point here is that some early Marxists talked about 'revolutionary terror' (the extirpation of a ruling class, ala the terror in the French revolution), and C & JM are using the coincidental equivalence of the word 'terror' to argue for Marxist support of modern terrorism. It's just a silly argument on the face of it, but there's no getting through to them on the point.

Collect, I imagine, is hoping to use administrative power to defend the POV-assertions being made in the article, since there's no appropriate sourcing or argumentation for his position. You might bear that in mind as you look into the situation. --Ludwigs2 17:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Strange - I made no comments about anything other than the title which was kept in a RfC for title change. The issue about POVforks is which arrticle was on WP first, and attacks on me do not help your case on that. Collect (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Collect: giving my impressions of the failings of your reasoning do not constitute an attack on you. If you don't like that I think your argument is silly, make a better or clearer argument. --Ludwigs2 20:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Collect's claim is absolutely false. He states that "It is asserted that the deletion of 80% was by "agreement" whilst I find no such agreement." In actuality, the key point here is that no consensus was needed for this move. I demonstrated that the content I moved to the 'Left wing terrorism' article did belong to this article and not to the Communist terrorism article. This has been done using a neutrally formulated google.scholar search procedure and noone has pointed at any concrete flaw in this procedure. Since overwhelming majority of academic sources describe the moved content as "Left wing terrorism" and not as "Communist terrorism", the move of the content to the more appropriate article is a neutrality issue that cannot be superseded by the editor's consensus. I explained that on the article's talk page several times (and noone, besides Collect and, probably Justus Maximus, objected). I also encouraged other editors (on both talk pages) who may disagree with my results to do alternative gscholar search, followed by about a week long pause before the move. Collect was perfectly aware of all of that, so the only plausible explanation for all of that is that he tries deliberately mislead people. (Of course, I would be glad if someone proved I was wrong).--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Another Collect's false claim is: "One editor warned me that I would face sanctions if I disputed the new POVforks." The editor who warned him was me . However, I warned him not about disputing some POVfork, but because he reverted the move that has been done in accordance with neutrality requirement, made after a long discussion on both talk pages, and supported by majority editors. In addition, the reverts made by Collect were supplemented by misleading edit summaries (the text was not "deleted", it was moved).--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)IOW the edit summary claiming agreement was wrong? But that edit summary exists - hence your assertion that the statement is "absolutely false" is false itself. Google is not considered a valid source for naming articles. As for your personal attack that I am "deliberately trying to mislead people" - I ask you redact instantly. Read WP:NPA. The issue here, moreover, remains whether setting up a POVfork and then deleting sections (80%) of the original article is proper on WP. Period. Note that the rename argument failed - this is a backdoor method of achieving what was not accomplished by any consensus. BTW, moving without moving edit history is deletion by any standards. Collect (talk) 19:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Not google, but google scholar. You are supposed to know the difference between these two.

With regard to my claim that your statement was false, I doubt it was a personal attack. You claimed that I deleted the content, whereas in actuality I just moved it to the more appropriate article. You claimed that I referred to some alleged consensus, whereas my major point was that the content must be moved independent of any consensus, you claimed that I warned you about sanctions for disputing the new POVforks, whereas my warning had a relation to the reverts made against the neutrality policy and supplemented by misleading edit summaries. Obviously, all these your claims were false, and, taking into account that I explained the issue many times, I have a serious reasons to suspect that that was done deliberately. However, if you will let me know that you didn't do these false claims deliberately I'll gladly retract the statement regarding the deliberate nature of your claims. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't the articles have the potential of being non-pov forks? Surely there an article could be written about general left-wing terrorism with a spinnout of a subarticle specifically on communist terrorism? This seems to be an issue of a content dispiute - namely what the articles should include and how they should relate to eachother. That is outside of the purview of this board. Requests for POV checks should be made elsewhere. If there are ownership issues, as ludwigs2 suggests, or other kinds of misconduct then that should be presented clearly and with diffs. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The original diff the content move was based on is here . I demonstrated that all these terrorist groups are characterised by the words "Left wing terrorism" and not "Communist terrorism" by reliable sources (by contrast to google, gscholar look predominantly through academic sources). These post was made on Oct 24, so everybody had a lot of time for presenting their counter-arguments. However, no counter-arguments followed. Based on that results, I proposed to move the content to the Leftist terrorism which was just an disambiguation page, however, other editors preferred to create a Left-wing terrorism article, which, probably was more accurate, because it was in agreement with what the source said. Taking into account that the move was done based on what majority RS say, that cannot be characterised as POVfork (even if it fits a content fork criteria).--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

PS Interestingly, the 'Left wing terrorism' article was created on 19 April 2006 whereas 'Communist terrorism' only on 29 nMarch 2007 . What POV fork are you talking about?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

@ Maunus: I think there may be a valid article on communist terrorism (or at least a valid subsection on the topic at left-wing terrorism or under revolutionary terrorism), the problem is keeping the POV-assertions in check. that would be easier if there was no content fork on the topic. --Ludwigs2 20:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Concur.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Another problem with a 'communist terrorism' article is that 'communism' and 'Marxism' are not synonymous, whereas the article as it stood seemed to argue that they were. This confusion is likely to be unavoidable in an article that does not go into great detail explaining terms. An article on 'left-wing terrorism' on the other hand merely needs to provide WP:RS that any group included is both 'left-wing' and 'terrorist' - much simpler, and less likely to cause the sort of endless debate that plagues this topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Collect:

• Since I recreated the article Left-wing terrorism, you should have informed me of this discussion thread, which you did not.
• I recreated the article before Petri Krohn commented on my talk page about it.
• The text was moved from CT to LWT after discussion among editors. Your edit-warring on this is contrary to the warning that the Arbitration Committee has issued you against edit-warring on certain topics, that includes CT.
• The article CT includes many topics, including the views of Marx, the actions of Communist governments and left-wing terrorists. Whether or not CT is a legitimate topic is debatable, but it clearly has a broader scope than LWT. Calling it a POV fork is like calling "Cities in California" a POV fork of "Cities in the USA".
• Can you please explain what you find POV about the article LWT. Other than the material transferred in, everything is sourced to mainstream academic writing on terrorism, which defines LWT as a specific type. The others are right-wing terrorism, nationalist terrorism, single issue terrorism, religious terrorism and state sponsored terrorism. Since all the other generally accepted major types of terrorism have their own articles, is their any reason why this type should not?

TFD (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

First - the discussion was not intended to be about any editors at all, just about the article. Diffs were posted only after they were requested, again not mentioning anyone individually. The "discussion" was nowhere near a consensus as Paul recognizes above. So much for any claim of that sort. And the term "POVFORK" refers to setting up a new article in order to remove an older article - I need not assert any specific POV for it to be a POVFORK. And OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is well known as a non-reason for any act on WP, so the existence of an article on "Christian terrorism" would have zilch bearing on whether the new article, and the 80% shrinkage of an existing article in order to make the original article a near stub, is a POVFORK. I assert that it is a POVFORK pretty much by definition on WP:POVFORK. Collect (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Re "The "discussion" was nowhere near a consensus as Paul recognizes above." One more false claim. Although my point was that no consensus was needed, I never stated there were no consensus. In actuality, Collect and, probably, Justus Maximus were the only persons who opposed to the move (without providing any serious arguments)

Re "Whether or not CT is a legitimate topic is debatable, but it clearly has a broader scope than LWT" Cannot fully agree. Since "Communist" is a subset of "Left wing", the LWT is supposed to have a broader scope. However, taking into account that the major part of the 'Communist terrorism' article belonged to the 'Left wing terrorism' (and was moved there), the current scope of the 'Communist terrorism' article is unclear. Instead of starting this useless quarrel, Collect should have find new sources and, based on that identify the scope of this article (which is supposed to be "terrorism associated with Communism sensu stricto, not with the Leftist movement").--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ugh! Ok, if we're going to get into a debate about whether left-wing is a subset of communist or vice-versa - a debate, I'll suggest, that cannot help but devolve into furious polemics - then we should just do the reasonable thing which would be to create an article called Revolutionary Terror and merge left-wing, communist, right-wing and any other terror-forks you care to mention into it. that article might be over-long, but once we've gotten that into a decent shape we can discuss creating content forks in a reasoned and balanced manner (as opposed to the current trench warfare approach). how does that sound? all in favor of creating the Revolutionary Terror article and bulk merging, say 'aye!' --Ludwigs2 23:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I assume Revolutionary Terror would not cover the use of modern terrorism by ostensible revolutionaries. So Pol Pot would be in; but Red Army Faction would be out? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The attempt to combine all of that under the name "revolutionary terror" (without "ism") may cause a problem. Some mainstream sources define terrorism as a "weapon of the weakest", implying that only small groups that conduct a hopeless struggle without well articulated program used to resort to such tactics. These sources separate terrorism from guerilla warfare and state terror. I didn't do any exhaustive search, so I have no idea if these views are mainstream, however, I would say that it would be incorrect to combine small group terrorism and state terror in a single article.

The idea to create a Revolutionary Terror article seems good, because many sources draw parallelism between Jacobin dictatorship and later revolutionary regimes. However, the discussion about this issue goes far beyond the subject of this thread.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Request to close ANI is not the place to discuss content disputes. TFD (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Creation of POVforks and coordinated edits to reduce an extant article by 80% or more is not a "content dispute" but one of WP:GAME on the part of those who coordinated tactics with the specific aim of removing an article which they were unable to get a name change for. Collect (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

One more false accusation. Please, provide an evidence of any coordinated actions. Please, note, that I moved the content unilaterally to comply with neutrality policy, and my post was made not to get a support for this move, but to inform the editors that the content will be moved irrespectively to any consensus if the proof will not be provided that my search procedure was biased, flawed or wrong. This invitation was addressed to everyone, including you, however, no serious counter-arguments have been provided. WP:AT says that "article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources call the subject of the article." The google scholar results provided by me demonstrated that, judging by what reliable sources say, a significant part of the article's content belonged to another article. I am asking you again, do you have any concrete objection against that conclusion?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The only 'coordinated action' here, collect, lay in my recommendation to everyone involved that we stop debating the issue and begin editing the article. The reason I recommended that is because we'd had pages upon pages of talk-space debate in which neither you nor Justus showed any inclination to give a single inch on any point whatsoever. You're both reasonably intelligent, and you are both capable of endless streams of rhetoric on this issue, so the talk page had turned into a frigging debating club. what's the use of that? If you want to go back to talking, let's do that, but the 'King of the Hill' game is over. --Ludwigs2 16:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Pittsburgh Sock Puppet

There's an editor in Pittsburgh who has been permanently blocked under multiple acounts as a result of threats made against me and an admin who intervened. It appears he's back.

He originally used the handle Gypsydog5150. Here were his contributions using that handle. Here is the original ANI discussion regarding his threats.

He then created an account called Hemmingwayswhiskey and used it to go through various articles undoing my edits. Here are his contributions under that account and here is the ANI discussion regarding that sock puppet account.

He also created a (now blocked) account called MisfitsFan10. The contributions for that account are here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John2510 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

He also makes edits using a dynamic IP that all trace back to Pittsburgh.

It appears he's created a new account called Owens&Minor91. Using that account, he's made this completely unsourced edit, which is identical to edits made by the other (now blocked) accounts hereand here. Here are his other contributions, which show a similar pattern to his original and other IP sock puppet edits.

I would appreciate it if an admin would consider blocking this new sock puppet.

At one time there was discussion of banning the range of IP addresses he was using. An admin noted that he reported the guy's abusive behavior to his ISP.

Thanks.

John2510 (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You could file a sockpuppet investigation (although this would mostly be for formality due to the post here). --Ks1stm (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I've indeffed the new account. Looie496 (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. John2510 (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by dynamic IP at 1982 Lebanon War

A dynamic IP (listed below) that geo-locates to Japan has been making numerous disruptive edits to the 1982 Lebanon War. The IP makes no use of the Talk pages, does not explain his/her edits in the edit summary section, engages in tendentious editing, has been reverted numerous times by other editors and appears to be singularly focused on this one article. I am requesting that the article be Semi-Protected.

• 124.86.5.139 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• 118.0.18.192 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• 114.167.46.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• 114.167.63.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• 114.150.252.15 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• 123.225.204.251 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• 114.167.60.80 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• 114.167.43.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• 58.91.49.193 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Thank you--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done for a week. Enigma 22:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Contentious RM needs closing

Could someone close the RM at Talk:El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium? There's a lot of disputation going on that would be assisted by an uninvolved close. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

There was discussion there that the Requested Move process should be allowed to conclude, rather than opening an RFC or--i thought--otherwise canvassing for others to get involved. There's also been productive discussion, including about the tangent of Talk page formatting, now discussed in a separate section, which is fine. I think it's best to let an uninvolved Requested Move editor close eventually, and not call here for a quick close. --doncram (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

In fact, S's posting seems like a small violation of wp:CANVASS guideline, looking at the several criteria there for what constitutes inappropriate canvassing. --doncram (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Could you be clearer please? Wifione _....... 18:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure. SarekOfVulcan opened the Requested Move and had a clear position in the move. S has recently been involved in several disagreements with me, including blocking me (eventually overturned) and opening an RFC/U about me (eventually closed and deleted), and disagreeing at about whether the RFC/U was obviously delete-worthy, and following me closely and reverting edits in several articles, and also challenging me to open an RFC/U about him in some comment (don't have diff right now). Wanting a non-involved closer seems okay and good. But asking here, where SarekOfVulcan posts frequently, seems broadly like "canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way", his way. It's a non-important article naming issue, really. But in 2 of the 4 wp:CANVASS criteria for evaluating inappropriate canvassing, Audience (votestacking) and Transparency (Stealth canvassing), the request here seems off. If the close were left to a regular Requested Move closer (admin or otherwise), that closer would be more focused on merits and less focused on anything about SarekOfVulcan vs. me. On transparency, the posting here was also not mentioned at the Talk page, where there was activity today, including some seemingly useful discussion. And since SarekOfVulcan had, at the Talk page, agreed with Orlady and me that a separate RFC should not be opened, it seems even a bit more odd that S was publicly taking a stance that the Requested Move process should conclude naturally, without other recruitment of other editors to get involved, but then asking here for someone to get involved.

I do get the impression that non-administrators posting here or at wp:AN, perhaps especially if speaking with knowledge about guidelines and policies, tends to get administrators' attention in a negative, closing-ranks kind of way. In fact, the Requested Move was closed by Wifione. Wifione, may i presume that was in response to S's request here? And was it also after reading / in response to my objection here (but i don't guess whether you had seen my posting here beforehand or not). The announced decision statement's phrase "perspectives of seeing guidelines in a unique format by one of the opposing editors" seems to be addressed towards me, i am not sure. If it was SarekOfVulcan's goal to get a closer with that focus, and in favor of S's view, then that was achieved. Note, I myself had just added a new argument to a summary of pro and con arguments about the move there, and ask a question, which could have perhaps swayed other participants' views, but did not get time to sink in or other due consideration. So I think this is a small miscarriage of justice, or at least that letting usual processes end would have provided for a cleaner close. It is really not that important in that the name of the article does not really matter, but there are other principles involved, which is why others and i had continued with discussion. I see no reason why it had to be closed. I do believe that wifione applied his/her best, objective judgment, but that the judgment was informed in the way that S wished. --doncram (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Contentious RMs, by definition, need an admin close. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

So? Do you mean to suggest that RMs where there is disagreement need to be posted about here? --doncram (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

No, they do not need to, but considering this is the board for requesting admin action, it's perfectly acceptable.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Not if it is, or appears to be, inappropriate canvassing.

And in this new edit by you, you revert me on some copyediting which i think improved the article, for consolidating discussion of the NRHPness. That is on the very article being discussed here, but do you have to go out of your way to find little things to disagree with me about? In following me closely elsewhere, you've shown a pattern of reverts like that also on articles where you were never previously involved. Seems petty. --doncram (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment on edits, not editors. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Doncram, editors often disagree on whether an edit "improved the article" or not. That's why we have talk pages. You add something, someone else removes it, you go to the talk page and ask why it was removed... and everyone discusses until a consensus is formed. At least that is how BRD is supposed to work. Blueboar (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course there's room for disagreement on wording, which is why i said "i think" about my own. I am noticing that SarekOfVulcan is not responding about the issue of apparent canvassing, however. --doncram (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought "requesting an action that can only be taken by an admin on the board for requesting admin action is appropriate" was all the response that was needed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Rangeblock needed (if possible).

User on a 69.151 prefix keeps adding nonsense to certain articles; we revert and/or block and he's back with a new number

Current numbers used:

• 69.151.149.61 (talk · contribs)
• 69.151.223.90 (talk · contribs)
• 69.151.220.70 (talk · contribs)
• 69.151.197.203 (talk · contribs)
• 69.151.215.120 (talk · contribs)
• 69.151.192.229 (talk · contribs)

...ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Can anything be done here? SP would stop him, but it would have to literally be permanent and talk pages are involved. HalfShadow 20:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

69.151.192.0/19 would cover that range, but there's a fair amount of collateral damage. — HelloAnnyong 20:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

69.151.128.0/17 blocked 3 months. Any further vandalism will have to result in long-term semi-protection. –MuZemike 20:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur on the collateral damage, but I was checking two more bits to the left (.128/17). (Would your /19 cover the first address?)  Frank  |  talk  20:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Blah, you're right; I skipped that one in my calculation. /17 was right then. :/ — HelloAnnyong 20:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify to Frank and the others that my rangeblock is anon only, account creation blocked; I have made a note in the block rationale to go straight to WP:ACC to request an account. The problem is that there has also been registered accounts this vandal has created, which goes back several months, hence the length of the block. –MuZemike 20:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep, looks perfectly reasonable. Thanks.  Frank  |  talk  21:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Another IP range

An IP range from Pakistan has been following Geniac (talk · contribs) and reverting his edits, apparently over a dispute about Ahmed Rushdi. All of the IPs are from 119.154.XXX.XXX, but otherwise vary greatly. Some samples:

• 119.154.38.129 (talk · contribs)
• 119.154.39.236 (talk · contribs)
• 119.154.41.72 (talk · contribs)
• 119.154.42.35 (talk · contribs)
• 119.154.44.169 (talk · contribs)
• 119.154.45.201 (talk · contribs)

• 119.154.104.231 (talk · contribs)
• 119.154.105.231 (talk · contribs)

• 119.154.114.175 (talk · contribs)

• 119.154.121.27 (talk · contribs)
• 119.154.123.206 (talk · contribs)
• 119.154.124.183 (talk · contribs)
• 119.154.127.90 (talk · contribs)
• 119.154.129.98 (talk · contribs)

• 119.154.132.3 (talk · contribs)
• 119.154.133.120 (talk · contribs)

There are others, but those are the /24 ranges seen so far. Someone with more rangeblock clue than I possess is welcome to examine what might be done, as it's obvious that some selectivity is needed to keep from blocking much of Pakistan. Acroterion _(talk) 21:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

And 119.154.41.197 (talk · contribs) has now followed my edits to an editor who self-identified as a nine-year-old. For the record, my mother's been dead for thirty years. Acroterion _(talk) 21:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I just swatted another one. A high proportion of the contributions from the /16 range appear to be the problem user; one way would be to use short range blocks, e.g. a couple of hours at a time (trolls get bored easily). It might be possible to narrow it down further but it does look like this would cause at least some collateral damage. Antandrus (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Some narrow ranges might work; it's not so fun to have to cycle your router four times to get an unblocked IP. Acroterion _(talk) 22:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's a way to do it in three: 119.154.32.0/19, 119.154.96.0/19, 119.154.128.0/21 (with the ones you've given so far -- I didn't see any more on a quick run through the full /16 contributions). Antandrus (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. It's 0323 in Karachi, so I think I'll do 24 hours to discourage a return in 18 hours. Acroterion _(talk) 22:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually I already did it ... it's tightly focused and shouldn't affect many other editors (there was a good editor, for example, one of the other /19 ranges). Antandrus (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I stepped on one, but set it back to your terms. Acroterion _(talk) 22:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Worldcat use

Dunno if this is the right place for it, but I want to bring a topic up for larger discussion. When & where is the appropriate place to use Template:Worldcat? Reason for my asking is I've come across an editor (User:Matkatamiba) who's been merrily adding it to articles across the spectrum. For example: (which is where it first caught my eye), Miley Cyrus and Kevin Costner. Said editor has added it to about 125 articles to date, and has suspended the addition for now.

But in digging further into this, I can't see any instructions on what articles this template is intended for and as a result it's found in some rather.. unusual places. For instance, both Southern Railway (Great Britain) and Sexual Compulsives Anonymous have a Worldcat link on it. I came across a mention in Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Biography/Archive 18#Proposal:_Worldcat_link where it was first proposed, which then led me to Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 2#Worldcat_link which seems to be the first public announcement of it. A search of the Admins' board here comes up a mention of it at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Community_sanction/Archive2#Adding_100.2B_external_links where one editor placed Worldcar links on 100 articles and got a tentative debate about when it is useful. Nothing seems to have been resolved in that earlier debate though either way... and it seems to have been under the general radar in the interim.

Comments and thoughts from the peanut gallery about where (or even if) this template should be used?? Tabercil (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It was my understanding that the template would be a useful addition to the pages of people who have created artistic content -- books, movies, music, etc. as it provides an overview of their creative work from the perspective of what is held by thousands of libraries around the world (although primarily North America). It gives information on their most widely held works as well as the topic areas their work covers, etc.

However, I can understand the need to determine where it might make the most sense to add these links, so as Tabercil says above I have voluntarily suspended such links until guidance on the use of the template can be determined. I have no desire to pollute Misplaced Pages with unwanted links. Matkatamiba (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) This was briefly discussed on IRC and I have been concerned about it popping up in External links sections on a few articles on my watch-list. Considering that all relevant pages to cite WorldCat on will have citations to publications, the fact that all OCLC links already point to WorldCat and all ISBNs point to a page which links to WorldCat as an option, this template seems highly redundant. If the (Beta) name pages on WorldCat are particularly helpful, I suggest they are first added to the Open Directory Project and interested users ensure appropriate ODP links are added to External links for which there is a well established consensus. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 01:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult for me to determine from the above comment if everyone really understands what the WorldCat template I have been using links to. It links to the appropriate "Identities" page for an individual, which summarizes their contributions to our cultural heritage as well as works others have written about them, all on one page. This template does not link to a particular work in the WorldCat database. In other words, any reference to ISBNs (that represent individual works) is inappropriate. Matkatamiba (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I think the use of the template on pages like Southern Railway (Great Britain) and Sexual Compulsives Anonymous is completely spurious and unfortunately muddies the water around a perfectly legitimate template, when used appropriately. Matkatamiba (talk) 02:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

At the least , the template needs rewording: Worldcat does not offer full world coverage, It is fairly complete for the US, a little less so for Canada, less again for the UK, and erratic for Australia. Elsewhere it covers only the major national and some but not all of the larger university libraries. It can therefore not be used by itself as a valid argument for which meaning of a word is the most prominent, unless the discussion is limited to the US/Canada.

There are times when I think it useful as a shortcut. It's a link to a secondary external resource that will in turn link to many other specific resources. I see no need to do this yet more indirectly through another project. It seems obvious to me that if you want books on a subject, you should look for them in a large union library catalog, but in real life I find people can use a reminder. But isn't this for the VP, not here? DGG ( talk ) 11:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

In my browser at least, the linked page is unformatted XML. I don't see how this is useful to readers. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

If you see unformatted XML, there is some sort of error. Is this consistently the case? Matkatamiba (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. My browser identifies it as a document of the type "text/xml" and that is what it appears to be. What is your relationship with Worldcat, incidentally? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet

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

Possible new sockpuppet of Grundle2600 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)?

Ks0stm 00:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks  Unrelated, but a watch and wait attitude is probably best. TNXMan 00:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

There have been several impostor accounts recently, so this could be the same guy. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate cleanup tag removal

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

Colonel Warden (talk · contribs) has been making a habit of removing cleanup tags from articles without addressing the issues to which the cleanup tags refer. For instance, he often removes the {{unreferenced}} tag from articles that have zero references and zero external links, or he removes {{orphan}} tags from articles that have zero incoming links. A quick look through his contributions for just the last few days brought up many examples: . He ignored my message on his talk page today and continued to remove tags . He even went so far as to edit war about it with another user, as can be seen here. I can't imagine any reason why a user would remove cleanup tags without addressing the problem first. It seems like he is trying to sweep the problem under the rug so that no one notices. Cleanup tags are an organizational tool which help other editors fix problems with articles, and removing cleanup tags disrupts that organization and prevents known problems from being addressed by willing editors. Therefore, since Colonel Warden's behavior is disrupting/preventing (or, at the very least, making more difficult) the process of improving the encyclopedia, I would characterize it as vandalism. While there is a clear pattern of disruptive behavior here, it's unlikely that punitive measures are required. However, is there any consensus to give Colonel Warden a warning such that the continuation of this behavior will result in a block? SnottyWong  00:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Suffice it to say that my actions are all in good faith and I shall be happy to discuss any particular cases with interested parties. Excuse me if I don't go through this list in detail now as it's time for bed and the details seem likely to be wearisome. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• I can't imagine any particular details that would justify the removal of an {{unreferenced}} tag from an unreferenced article without first adding references, or removing an {{orphan}} tag from an orphaned article without first introducing links into other articles. SnottyWong  00:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Orphan tags are regarded by many editors as a nuisance. Banner tags about references are not much better because they merely state the obvious in an intrusive way. There have been repeated complaints about such intrusive tagging at Village Pump and, following a recent discussion of this sort, I have been doing something about it. Per WP:V, references are only required for material which has been "challenged or likely to be challenged" and so should not be insisted upon in a general and indiscriminate way. Again, there have been recent discussions at Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability which confirm this and these inform my understanding of the matter. And so to bed. Good night. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Do you want to cite those actual discussions? If you want to use the as a defense provide them. We're not going to hunting through the archives for you. The discussion you already cited on your talk page has absolutely nothing to do with what's going on here. You cited a discussion about a bot proposal. That isn't blanket permission for you to start going through and removing maintenance tags without addressing the concerns raised in them.--Crossmr (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'd say block for blatantly disruptive edits, maintenance tags have a long history of acceptability on wikipedia except for a very small minority of editors I've run across who view maintenance tags on articles as some kind of personal insult to them, but that usually comes with other ownership issues on the articles in question. This edit is further evidence of disruption. it's a blatantly false and misleading edit summary. Unless Colonel would like to show us where on the article's talk page he added an explanation? He's now claimed that it's the talk on his page, but he didn't state that in the summary and any editor reading that would expect to find talk on the article page. It seems from the talk his trying to remove the other templates is to get the ARS template solo time at the top of the article. This makes these edits come across as pointy.-Crossmr (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Removing orphan tags because "are regarded by many editors as a nuisance" is an action against long-standing consensus and without prior discussion. Moreover, it's pointless because editors and bots will put them back.
• Prod tags removal without any explanation isn't very friendly action neither. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• Using "cleanup" as an edit summary, Colonel Warden removed cleanup and unreferenced tags from an article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• Colonel Warden's inappropriate removal of cleanup tags, dishonest edit summaries, bogus sourcing to "save" articles at AfD, and dissembling when challenged is getting to be a real nuisance. I think a block at this stage would be more punitive than preventive but it should be made crystal clear to the Colonel that his interpretation of various guidelines and policies is seriously at odds with the rest of the community's, and that the way he acts upon his idiosyncratic interpretation frequently meanders over into disruptive territory. If it continues, a lengthy block would be appropriate. Reyk _YO! 01:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• The Colonel is a good wiki-friend of mine. Alas, in his frustration with people who tag when they should be fixing, he has been trying to make a point in what seems a disruptive way. He knows as well as all of us that the consensus is that articles must be referenced to meet WP:V, & that his interpretation to the contrary is not generally accepted. He may not think "unreferenced" tags helpful, but they are used to compile lists and categories that most of us --myself included--find essential for improving such articles. I consider removing such tags without indicating at least some minimal sourcing does tend to disrupt our processes.

As for "orphan", I personally agree with him that the tag is disruptive to readers if used on the article page, but unfortunately there does not seem to be consensus for that. I;d love to do something about it. But calling attention to it in this way is not a good idea

I see no need for immediate block. If our disapproval is clear enough, I suppose he will not resume in the morning. If he does, then I think we will be forced to do that until he agrees to stop. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand (but don't agree with) the argument that tagging articles for cleanup is viewed by some as less constructive than actually cleaning them up yourself. However, using that same argument, how is untagging the articles (and still not cleaning them up) any better? SnottyWong  04:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

There are several helpful routes: fix it if you can, try to find someone to fix it if it's something you don;t know how to do, list it for deletion after considering the other BEFORE options if it is unfixable, or remove the tag if it's unjustified & say why. There is a neutral but unhelpful route: leave it alone. There are some routes that are actively unhelpful: listing it for deletion without trying to source it and considering WP:before, or removing the tag without good reason--both of which impair the ability of others to fix it. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• There is no clear policy on cleanup tags. From my reading of policy this would fall under a content dispute. As such it should first be resolved on an article's talk page and then afterward follow the rest of the dispute resolution process. Lambanog (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Which talk page would you like them to discuss this on? Perhaps if this were one article, I would agree, but Colonel Warden is doing this on multiple articles. The next tag he disruptively removes should result in a block. AniMate 02:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Colonel Warden states he has his reasons for doing so for each article, his removals should therefore be challenged on each one and he should then state his reasons for each. If the removal of these cleanup tags is detrimental there are surely editors watching these articles who will challenge their removal and form consensus against. That is the process. Lambanog (talk) 03:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I can understand removing PROD tags from pages that you think are notable (although a reason would be useful, as suggested in WP:PROD). However, what would you consider a good "reason" for removing unreferenced tags from unreferenced pages? That's just plain disruptive because it stops editors from fixing problems with articles. WP:V is a policy which every unreferenced article violates. Black Kite (t) (c) 03:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Is the article being edited by another editor? Is the unref tag older than a year? Is the article a stub article on an uncontroversial topic? Unref tags are unspecific tags and their usefulness is debatable. I have stopped editing an article because of the insistence of another editor for imposing one and then when addressed, coming up with another tag. Such tags are sometimes used to coerce content contributors. If an article really has a problem a more specific tag can probably be used. For example in the example you gave below the best tag to use wasn't the unref tag but the copyvio or copypaste tag. If that is explicitly stated in WP: V there is no argument—but it isn't. If consensus is for all unreferenced articles to be tagged, then I don't see why it is not automatic and already the case. I seem to recall a proposal for such at the pump, but if it is not in the process of being imposed I presume it was defeated. If so, there would not seem to be consensus on this view. Lambanog (talk) 03:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Yes, there was no consensus to automatically tag articles, and there were some reasonable arguments made - in certain circumstances some tags are spurious - but I still can't see how removing a tag which says "This article has a problem - please fix it" and which enables editors to improve such articles by being able to identify them is anything other than disruptive. You appear to be suggesting that we should hinder editors from doing so; I have no idea why. If I was cynical, of course, I would suggest that Col. Warden is doing it so that other editors don't find non-notable unreferenced articles and nominate them for deletion. By the way, the correct tag for the example below wasn't a copyvio tag - it would've been a speedy delete G12 tag. We don't tag pure copyvios, we delete them. Black Kite (t) (c) 03:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
            • There is something called the general disclaimer which gives the warning. It could be argued unref tags are little more useful than spoiler tags. I'm sorry for not picking up on G12 as the most appropriate action; I could not see the deleted article. But again it illustrates how these tags aren't really as helpful as one might think. The mere existence of the copyvio and copypaste tags tends to shift attention away from the G12 route. Similarly the unref tag distracts from actually fixing the problem and supplying a reference. Lambanog (talk) 04:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
              • Er, what? I can understand how an article groaning under the weight of multiple tags might be confusing, but you appear to be saying that a tag which points out to editors that the article requires references distracts them from actually providing references? How on earth do you come to that conclusion? Black Kite (t) (c) 04:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
                • No need to provide the reference there's already an unref warning—someone else can do it. Lambanog (talk) 04:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
                  • I can't see the psychology of that thinking to be honest, but even if some editors think in that way, it is vastly outweighed by the fact that removing the tags hinders editors who do want to improve articles from doing so - at which point the tags would vanish in a correct manner. Black Kite (t) (c) 04:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
                    • Not if these tags end up annoying editors who would otherwise keep improving the article. Tagging is a relatively lazy way of dealing with issues. If an article is already being actively edited by another editor they are actually likely to be counterproductive. Much better would be to inform the other editor on the talk page to please add a reference. Lambanog (talk) 05:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
                      • I would say the only "lazy" thing is creating an article and then not being bothered to reference it. If editors are "annoyed" by tags then perhaps they could, you know, actually fix the problem so they can remove the tag. I realise that's a can of worms when it comes to tags like NPOV, but for open and shut cases like unreferenced and orphan tags it's not exactly rocket science. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
                        • There are gaping holes in Misplaced Pages policy that allow the abuse of tagging on almost any pretext with only common sense as a bulwark for defense. If you wish I will go through your article contributions and tag all the "flaws" in them. I'll say Amish furniture if not copy and pasted took more than a little work, certainly more than tagging it for deletion. Jealousy (Queen song) and Ace in the Hole (Cole Porter song) are given as other examples of articles where Colonel Warden inappropriately removed an unref banner—but these articles are hyperlinked to album articles that have references. Maybe {{cn}} tags or AfD or merging were options but removing an ugly banner that was larger than the article itself looks perfectly defensible especially since it didn't seem controversial. I find the assumption of disruptiveness here based on the articles presented tenuous. Only the mild 3RR episode looks to be of concern. This ANI action before other dispute resolution forums were tried could potentially be considered more disruptive. Coercion of volunteer editors to comply with certain standards with the use of tags is potentially more damaging to the project. If it is so easy, in all cases the one putting the banner should show they have made an effort to find references before they pretty much demand another editor currently working on the article to do so. Lambanog (talk) 07:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Note that I have attempted to discuss this on Colonel Warden's talk page, but my comments were ignored. SnottyWong  02:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• More of a problem is stuff like Mobile Money for the Unbanked. Col Warden removed a PROD tag from this with no rationale, along with the wikify and unreferenced tags. He didn't provide a reference when removing them, mainly because he didn't look for one - I know this because a five-second search for refs would've shown that the entire article was a straight copyvio from this page... Black Kite (t) (c) 03:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • @Lambanog: Actually, as far as I read it, there is a clear consensus on cleanup tags--note the perennial proposal: Misplaced Pages:Perennial proposals#Move maintenance tags to talk pages. Removing them completely is no different (arguably even worse) then moving them off the topic of the article, or on to the talk page. You're right that removing a particular tag from a particular article can be a content dispute--that happens all the time with things like NPOV tags. As Black Kite says, though, its hard to imagine a good "reason" from removing numerous unreferenced tags from an unreferenced articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
    • It's also initially hard to see how removing sources from an article can be considered good. But I've seen it happen and then have a tag from the unref group put in their place. Lambanog (talk) 04:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
      • If they were valid sources, then that's equally as bad. But that's not relevant to the issue here, which is removing correct tags. Black Kite (t) (c) 04:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
        • But that question has to be answered first: Are they really correct tags? From the examples given I've looked at above, Colonel Warden in my view has some arguments at his disposable to justify his actions. Lambanog (talk) 05:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
          • An unreferenced tag on an article which contains no references is (obviously) always correct. What argument could you use to claim that it was "wrong" and remove it without adding a reference? Black Kite (t) (c) 06:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• I almost never remove an unreferenced tag outright. My normal practice is to change it to "refimprove" as soon as I have added at least one RS reference. Once I've added a variety of RS references, I then remove the refimprove tag. I do not believe it appropriate to remove an unreferenced tag without either adding a reference or verifying that some sort of reference, even if it is a bare link, exists in the article. My understanding of best practices mirrors my own behavior. Jclemens (talk) 04:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This is my own practice as well. If there plainly are existing references on the article, regardless of how they are formatted), then of course it's correct to remove an {{unreferenced}} tag from that article. In most cases, though, if there were no references, then applying a minimal fix for that leaves an article that surely still has referencing issues. As a side point, I myself have removed references from an article and replaced them with an unreferenced tag. If the material offered as a reference is insufficient, inappropriate, or not actually a source for what it is implied to support, that is the correct action. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with both of the above users, as this is pretty much my method of working, and from my understanding "the way things should be done here". Removing tags and not supplying reffs seems like disruptive behavior, dont we even have a vandalism template for it? Heiro 04:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yup, heres one example Template:Uw-tdel2, amongs others found here Misplaced Pages:Template messages/User talk namespace. Heiro 04:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The stark difference between the colonel and snotty is that the colonel actually improves these articles, enriching the encylopedia as a whole, wereas snotty complains and deletes other editors contributions. The same can be said of most of his supporters here too. It will be a truly dark day when such excellent work is punished by such negative editors. Okip 05:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Colonel Warden and Snotty have edited 98 of the same Articles for Deletion.

Snotty has put up Colonel's subpage for deletion, and it was keep snowball keep.

There maybe a pattern of intimidation developing here by Snotty, which may warrant more research if this behavior continues. Okip 05:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Number one, NPA; you can say that without straying into the aforementioned territory. Number two, that's a nifty combination of a red herring and argumentum ad hominem; Snottywong's views aren't being questioned here, it's Colonel Warden's actions. Number three, did you read anything above? The reasons why this is disruptive are pretty clearly laid out; I'm not sure how much clearer it could be. However much of an inclusionist you may be, removing tags for the sheer sake of removing them isn't helpful, as has been said above; you're either not listening or pretending not to. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me why I hate this site so much.

Your response is full of the same old tired unoriginal tripe I have read for years.

The "this is out of the discussion boundaries" argument. Who made you the person who creates the boundaries of discussion? If snotty wants to complain about other users here, he had better be ready to defend his own behavior also. This is the standard policy in RFCs, and it is standard here too.

I disagree with you so you obviously dind't read what was said argument or everyone's favorite acronym: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

The bottom line here, when you strip away all acronyms is that:

1. Colonel and snotty have completely opposite views of what wikipedia is. Snotty does in fact spend an inordinate amount of his time deleting other editors contributions.

Spin that anyway you want, with as many acronyms as you want, but that is what it comes down too. Okip 05:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the bottom line here is Colonel Warden is disruptively removing tags. AniMate 05:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) You're making my point for me better than I possibly could have. Please, I implore you to read what a red herring is, or even the Chewbacca defense. We're trying to deal with one issue; if you've got some sort of problem with Snottywong's attitude, you can bring that up elsewhere, as I'm sure you well know. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Disruptive editor; no surprise. ↑ w/disruptive friends ↑ Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Not quite, extraordinarily constructive editor who has, this time, done something disruptive; and with many friends, who are not all of them all the time disruptive, and not all of them all the time perfect. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Now we are templating the regulars. So predictable. And previously sock puppet Jack is here, (ironic he is lecturing on "disruption") along with his staunchest defender AniMate. No surprise there either.

The Blade of the Northern Lights, if you would like, I will post the applicable RFC policy which states that if you bring a complaint against someone, then your behavior will be scrutinized also. The same would go for here. If Snotty wants to attack other editors on ANI, editors should know the background of this dispute. I can't count how many times someone has brought someone to ANI and their behavior is scrutinized also. Latin terms and cute pop terms aside, you can't quote any policy about how ANI should be narrow because their is none. This is your opinion only. Okip 06:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This isn't an RfC; don't play me for a fool. I'd suggest you try reading denying the antecedent; you may find it informative. But this is getting off track; could someone maybe hat this, as there's no way this little subsection will be productive? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

don't take the bait; he hates this site, from which I infer he's not here to build an encyclopedia. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Blade, I used to know most of those cool sounding latin debate terms too.  :)

Looking through the ANI's I see that there were two others that they argued in. Maybe a non-parital admin can volunteer to mentor the next argument so Snotty does not escalate this to ANI.

Okip 06:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Before it's hatted, I agree with DGG here. CW is a constructive editor although I disagree with some of his actions, and I find this removal of tags a mistake and potentially disruptive and something that he should refrain from doing in the future (on this scale, there are clearly times when it is appropriate to remove tags). The tags are a benefit to the project in that they attract editors who will fix the problem. I tag articles where I don't have the time, the interest, etc to work on them, other times I work on them instead. It would be ideal to always work on the article, but in real life it isn't possible for editors who are very active unless that's their only priority. The conflict between these two isn't helpful of course, nor is stoking the fire here. Dougweller (talk) 06:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

@DGG; wasn't pointing up at you ;) Jack Merridew 06:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there's consensus here that removing these tags is disruptive and Colonel Warden should refrain from doing so in the future unless he has fixed the problem or can easily demonstrate that the tags no longer apply. Are there any other issues to deal with? AniMate 06:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• I don't believe so, it should be hatted now. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Concerning Agadha

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorncrag (talk • contribs) 06:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It'd be great if some kind admin would go over there; it's not too bad yet, but they're starting to pile up. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Dylan Flaherty‎ edit warring with another user on that user's talk page

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

• Dylan Flaherty‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Malke 2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This all started over the user Malke 2010 (talk · contribs) moving an out of place comment to the talk page of a request for mediation case.

Dylan decided to say that Malke didn't have common sense for doing such a thing, a point that they defended in response to an being told it wasn't civil.

Malke didn't like the header due to it's implications, and decided to change it to something more reasonable, something that Dylan didn't like, and proceeded to edit war over. They have also denied any incivility, simply stating they were 'misunderstood', despite the clear evidence to the contrary. Both these editors are currently in dispute, as referenced in regards to the mediation cabal, so the incivlity comes as no surprise. I admit I got a bit riled up myself in regards to their actions; I tried cautioning Dylan in regards to the edit warring, but from the most recent edit(which is also linked above), it's difficult to believe they understand their actions are wrong, especially since they warned the owner of the user talk page that reverting was ill-advised.

Given that this editor has not taken my own cautioning to heart, and that they refuse to admit they've done anything wrong, I request that an admin warn them. There is a better chance of them taking that to heart, than my own words. I am not going to bother further on this matter; I have other things to do, and I frankly don't have the patience to do anything else, so I'm going to go try improving the encyclopedia some, or maybe I'll just go play some games. However, if someone does need me to answer a question, I will reply.(Malke and Dylan notified.)— Dædαlus 08:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Daedalus suggested that my warning to Malke about rule violations was uncivil. While I'm certain he has misunderstood it and taken it to mean something other than intended, I have attempted to redact my words entirely. Unfortunately, Malke refuses to let me. I really don't know what to do at this point other than walk away. (There's some history here, as you might have guessed, but while I'm willing to explain it if it comes up, I'd rather not rehash it now.)

In any case, I have no idea why I'm awake right now. I'm going to bed, and tomorrow I'll see if Malke has succeeded in her goal of getting me blocked. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 08:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't even know where to begin with this editor. It's almost like he has an obsession. He creates these dramas, like edit warring on my talk page, all over the place. Every page he goes, Tea Party Movement talk page, Mediation Cabal talk page, Moonriddengirl's talk page, my mentorship page, my talk page, other people's talk pages. He just won't stop it. All of this is over one word in the Tea Party movement article: 'grassroots.' That's it. He's edit warred against consensus and got the page locked. He's called me a liar and insinuated another editor was a liar because we don't agree with him. He put this on Moonriddengirl's page which she deleted, of course: . He'll say things like, "I'm not going to call you a liar to your face. . ." and he suggests what an editor can do to 'regain their credibility.' In the meantime, no constructive edits can be made because we're all tied up dealing with his circular arguments and insults.

Willbeback has tried to help him and has warned him multiple times on his talk page, yet nothing changes. I'd be happy to supply diffs. It will take a while, since there are so many.Malke 2010 (talk) 09:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Willbeback's comments on talk page: . Malke 2010 (talk) 09:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is past due time to ask both to completely and totally disengage from each other, and now. Mediation being on article content, there is simply no need at all for either to comment on the other, the other's edits, the other's perceived behaviour, the other's intentions, indeed, the other's existence at all. MLauba 13:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Both parties warned in accordance with the above, and I suggest that their interaction has gone way past the threshold of the community's patience. Suggest archiving this as resolved. MLauba 14:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Watch request

Could a few more people please add the subpages of the Article Wizard to their watchlist? The subpages are listed at Misplaced Pages talk:Article wizard/Documentation. We seem to have settled on semi-protecting these pages, which most of the time is fine, but on the odd occasion where this sort of thing happens, it needs to be reverted a bit more quickly. Thanks. Rd232 09:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I indef-blocked the user as an advertising-only account. -- œ 16:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Is wikipedia policy to confirm that the Bible is a story book?

We have two editors, Cush (talk · contribs) and Banzoo (talk · contribs) who persist on tagging biblical articles as fiction similar to comic books and calling the bible a work of fiction. While they are more than entitled to their opinion, forcing it into articles appears to be a violation of NPOV to me. We have always kept the discussion about the Bible's fact or fiction in the appropriate articles such as Historicity of the Bible, and we keep Biblical articles like Solomon's Temple free from fiction or comic book tags. Now Cush and Banzoo appear to be tag-teaming to push this view. Can someone take a look and see if 1) I'm right or wrong and 2) apply any necessary preventative measures? This is getting to the point of an edit war, and despite my believing that their pushing is disruptive and not covered by 3RR, I'd prefer to get an outsider's perspective. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that the Bible is a nice piece of literature in the fiction genre, this seems to be disruptive POV pushing pointy editing. Heiro 13:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Cush and Banzoo warned about disruptive tagging. Adding terms like "mythical" to describe King Solomon is less clear, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is unnecessary. That is handled in Solomon#Historical figure. We have wikilinks for a reason. -- Avi (talk) 13:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Just another example of editors using "myth" to mean "fictional", while trying to hide behind one particular dictionary definition of "myth". The don't do that with the Quran, of course, because there would be hell to pay. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)because there would be hell to pay - pun intended? Agreed though; there is the same aim behind the "myth" edits, even though they are more marginal --Errant 13:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

If it became known that wikipedia editors were labeling the Quran as "fiction", those editors would probably end up on the same list that Salmon Rushie is on: future targets. Those atheistic editors may be POV-pushers, but they're not crazy. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Non sequitur. Hell, I'd do it just to prove you wrong, but I'm not in the habit of being WP:POINTy. This whole "they're afraid of teh Moooslims" canard is tiresome. — The Hand That Feeds You: 14:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs what is your point here? I don't see anything productive in your comment about Islam, and it certainly has nothing to do with the current conversation. Are you implying that we edit Islam related topics here while tip toeing around because we're all afraid of the wrath of some fundamentalist cleric's fatwa? That's completely absurd and the insinuations about Muslim retribution your making are one step from hate speech in my book. Please leave such comments at the door before you enter. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The point is that they're perfectly willing to attack Christianity because they know they can get away with it, but they're unwilling to address the same issues in Islam. If the Bible is fictional, so is the Quran. Yet nobody makes that point in the Quran article. How odd. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The part of the biblical story which deals with such kings as David and Solomon are works of fiction. That is not a personal opinion but the overall understanding. There is no archaeological or historical evidence that even slightly hints at the historicity of said kings or any edifices that would have been erected during their supposed reign. Unfortunately there is not other tag that can be used to indicate that an article is written in a manner that it can be mistaken for representing scientific research based on reliable sources. As I had stated before, "Solomon's Temple" must be presented as "Arthur's Camelot". The Bible is not a reliable source, and until such time as any confirmation for the biblical claims comes from archaeology and historical research the article deals with a subject out of a work of fiction. Of course the editors driven by their religious views differ, but in an encyclopedia that should have no weight. ≡ CUSH ≡ 13:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Historical accounts in the bible should not be treated any different from other ancient sources of infomation. Who is to say that the stuff recorded in ancient steles is also factual and not embellishments or untruths? Chesdovi (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"No historical evidence". That's typical atheistic circular reasoning: "The Bible is fictional, therefore it does not depict historical events, therefore it is fictional..." and so on. Making the bold assertion that the accounts are false brings to mind what a radio character used to say to doubters: "Vas you dere, Charlie?" ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It goes without saying that stuuf in the bible had been verified by outside sources, List of Biblical figures identified in extra-Biblical sources. Chesdovi (talk) 13:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hush! Don't confuse them by presenting facts. It might scramble their brains, such as they are. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, could you please refrain from your generalising slurs against atheists and atheism? I don't know the agenda of the editors in question, but certainly, like fundamentalist Christians are not representative of all Christians, the same applies to atheists? --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Labeling the Bible as "fiction" is itself a slur, so don't go lecturing me about "slurs". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm, someone needs to learn that two wrongs doesn't make a right. With your slurs of all atheists on account of the actions of two editors here puts you in exactly the same category as they are. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't slur all atheists. Just the ones who try to use language to slur Christianity or other religions. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally I don't think slurring has any place in Misplaced Pages at all, regardless of the reasons for it. But you did manage to slur all atheists by claiming something to be "typical atheistic circular reasoning". --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, I am an atheist, but I do think that categorising the Bible as fiction is wrong, if not outright POV-warring. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Should Misplaced Pages have double standards? Is it wrong to add a tag to push clarity into an article? Readers have the right to distinguish mythical stories from historical facts. The current state of the article is highly misleading to readers. I think it is a first to consider adding a tag that encourages clarifying an article as a POV! I did not add any text in the article. The only intention is clarity and avoiding double standards. Why the stories in the bible should not be treated like any different book? Either Misplaced Pages have a single and only standard that is applied to all articles, or it should be stated clearly since the start that Misplaced Pages favor some subjects, therefore they are treated in a way that is misleading to readers. --Banzoo (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Question: does this dispute hinge merely on the use of the word "fiction" in the {{inuniverse}} template? Because eg here the template seems appropriate aside from that issue - the article doesn't really discuss the subject (Solomon's Temple) from a perspective external to the Bible. But there is plenty of discussion about the historicity of the Temple, which shouldn't be entirely tucked away in other articles - it should be at least summarised there. Perhaps the quickest solution to this would be to add a parameter to the template which avoid the use of the word "fiction". Or else a subtemplate, like {{In-universe/Anime and manga}}, i.e. {{In-universe/Bible}}, with a wording that upsets no-one. Rd232 13:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Why can't fiction be called fiction? Does Misplaced Pages bow to religious doctrine?? As soon as I find some time I will suggest a new introduction of the article in question. The mythical nature of the subject must be conveyed unambiguously. ≡ CUSH ≡ 13:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of "double standards", neither the words "myth" nor "fiction" appear in the Qur'an article. Would the anti-Bible POV-pushers here have us believe that the Qur'an is factual? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"Myth" and "fiction" are not at all the same thing. In addition, the historicity of different things in the Bible varies enormously. So in addressing the topic as a whole on Misplaced Pages, we should be neutral: "fiction" is inappropriate. The non-historicity of any specific thing can be discussed in context with appropriate evidence, but that is not what the template is for, and it appears that the wording of the template is the only issue. Rd232 14:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh please. The issue here is not the Bible as a whole, but one particular claim made therein. There are indeed other stories in the Bible that are confirmed by extrabiblical sources, but not the Solomon material. ≡ CUSH ≡ 14:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's an argument akin to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, there is a solid point here; that as a historical account Biblical only data is not generally accepted as accurate historical record. So we have a disconnect; do we present purely factual history or do we present it from a Christian perspective. Clearly the former is preferred; so while Solomon's temple does not really qualify as "fiction" it is also not (yet) historical fact. The article probably needs some tweaking to establish that, but does it need the tag? Probably not; that feels pointy. (it is important to remember in all of this, that the Bible is generally not accepted as a reliable historical document - by which I mean it is widely recognised in scholarship that it contains both historical fact and fiction, and the problem is sorting out a from b. So in the context of Misplaced Pages we are best to treat there articles as Christian history and history as described in the Bible (where no other historical context is available). The articles should reflect that while they are based on a historical document the context and reliability of the Bible in objective history is problematic and so it exists in a "no mans land" of unproven historicity.) --Errant 14:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Why a "Christian perspective", and "Christian history", in relation to a story that originates in Judaism?Griswaldo (talk) 14:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Heh, yeh sorry, Freudian slip there. Should have said "religious" but I was trying to disambiguate (as someone mentioned Islam as well) --Errant 16:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Most of the Bible is fictional, in the sense that a lot of its assumptions and stories are absolutely not supported by scientific consensus about cosmology,history,archeology etc. About the Quran, well, most of it is fictional as well, just like the Bible, the Book of Mormon or the Scientology OT documents. If this is not clear in the Quran article, we have to make it clear. Obvious. --Cyclopia 14:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Those would be the scientists who say the bumblebee can't fly. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

That, appropriately enough, is a myth.--Korruski 14:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is indeed a myth that the bumblebee cannot fly. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, it's a myth that there are "scientists who say the bumblebee can't fly". Why you peddle untruths like that, I really cannot say. DuncanHill (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

That story is based on a study that came from a scientist, as was widely discussed at the "common misconceptions" page. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe any scientist has ever seriously suggested that bumblebees 'cannot fly'. They may have said something similar as a joke, or they may have said that they could not currently explain how bumblebees can fly, as it was contrary to their understanding of physics. If it was the latter, then this would be just one in a long list of things that scientists have, at one time, been unable to explain but, later, were able to explain as their understanding grew. That is rather the point of science, after all. Either way you appeared to be using this strange little fact as an attempt to undermine the credibility of scientists? If so, I simply cannot understand your point.--Korruski 16:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This is getting a bit silly, as a simile it was not a very good one - and indeed incorrect as well. The origins of the story and vague, but it was certainly never suggested in a serious scientific way that Bumblebees couldn't fly. At best it is a story from the early origins of our understanding of insect flight and aerodynamics. In fact the assertion was not that Bumblebees couldn't fly - it was that our current equations indicated they should not be able to fly, and therefore we were missing something. It is simply a scientific quip. It's use here was as a logical fallacy to forward and argument, unsuccessfully. --Errant 16:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

See Bumblebee#Myths. I am not sure what the buzz is about here. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  16:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

They're correct. The bible is a work of fiction. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoa

Of the discussions that really should not take place at ANI, the historicity of the Bible is by far... the most recent. Is there some reason that a neutrally worded version of {{in-universe/Bible}} cannot resolve this issue? Rd232 14:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It's religion. Reasonability (on either side) doesn't enter into the equation. That said, this does sound like a good compromise. Which is why it probably won't happen... — The Hand That Feeds You: 14:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

A tag won't resolve the issue. A rewrite of the article would. ≡ CUSH ≡ 14:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The issue is your tagging and aritcle with a dubious use of In universe Temp. I wouldnt have this proposed one be a variation of "In universe" but some sort of template that is simliar would seem to be an effective and appropriate solution here The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think RD232's idea is a good one, but unfortunately it doesn't solve the problem for editors like Cush, because they are more interested in associating the biblical stories with the term "fiction" than with improving the article. That's the real problem, and it wont be solved with practical solutions I'm afraid.Griswaldo (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

As long the article does not convey the Solomon+Temple story as real history, the term "fiction" does not have to appear. Right now, the article does not make it clear enough that the biblical story is without extrabiblical confirmation. It gives dates and thus gives the impression to deal with actual history. That is unencyclopedic at best. ≡ CUSH ≡ 15:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No your right, It solves reduces the content dispute element but not the conduct dispute The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is not my conduct, but the rampant religionism throughout articles that deal with biblical stories and present them as real history. ≡ CUSH ≡ 15:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

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

---

Resolved – Justa Punk (talk · contribs) is banned by the community. T. Canens (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

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

I am currently proposing a full siteban on Justa Punk (talk · contribs). After his indefinitely block, he has, to date, created over 15 sock puppets within the period of three months. He continually creates additional accounts to harass other users, de-tag all his socks' userpages, well after his talk page editing privileges have been revoked. He has also participated in a campaign of email harassment which has not been constructive, to say the least. He has said he was done with Wikipdia, but obviously he is not. I believe the community needs to step up and collectively say "you're done here" through establishing consensus for a full ban on him. –MuZemike 21:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Full Support obviously not constructive little chance of redemption at this point The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - to help to reduce and deal his ongoing disruption. Off2riorob (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Over 15 socks? That's enough. Jusdafax 23:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support 15 socks? We need a "Puppetmaster of the Month" award. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sol Goldstone (talk • contribs) 23:22, November 8, 2010
  • What would such an award look like? I'm thinking maybe this, populated instead by a gaggle of socks. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Shh... we have WP:BEANS for a reason The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support So we can easily revert and delete any disruptive edits made by his sock puppets. Inka 23:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support- yeah, clearly a disruptive influence right now. Reyk _YO! 00:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Full Support-enough is enough already. Heiro 00:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support I've been involved with him ever since Bejinhan (talk · contribs) brought up socking concerns over an AfD we were all involved in. He refuses to give up, and still believes he is helping the project. I recall him telling Deskana just before his initial block for socking, blah blah ... socking aside ... blah blah, that he was right in his actions. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support Having being one of those dealing with him since the AfD, I strongly support this proposal. He has been creating various accounts and vandalizing my pages as revenge for the SPI. If that's not called harassment, what else would it be called? Bejinhan talks 03:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment (and this had better stay if anyone believes in the right to defend yourself against lies);

1. Of the present 18 accounts that can be described as socks only five have been created since the perma-ban in early September. Each of them with the purpose of righting wrongs still to be corrected (such as letting Bejin know she did the wrong thing - and it was about that article she re-created and not the SPI itself. That article is not notable and I stand by that).
2. I never de-tagged any user page. It was the user talk pages, which is not the same thing - and I have NOT touched them since the perma ban.
3. The harassment on WP has concluded because the message has been sent and received. There has been no email harassment. MuZemike was doing the wrong thing and I was defending myself. If he calls that harassment then he has serious problems. Note that he is the ONLY person I have emailed. There has been NO ONE else.
4. If you want me to stop altogether - there's only one way. Clear my talk page per WP:UP. I've been trying to do it myself but MuZemike won't allow it - against said rule. The stuff there all pertains to the SPI ban only and that ended in early September. The consequent perma-ban is not noted in any way shape or form per anything that WP:UP requires to stay. So I have the right to remove it. You are denying me that right, so I have the right to keep trying to find ways to make it happen - and if it means creating another sock as I have here, then so be it. What do I have to do otherwise to get closure hmm? Or are you lot so anti human rights you won't allow it? Strongly recommend you think about that.
5. Finally - if this comment is removed (unless Bejin's is as well which will indicate this page should not be edited by anyone except the bot) it will prove my point. I will be heard on this and I am entitled to be heard. Thank you for your attention. MasterJP (talk) 04:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC) (AKA User:Justa Punk)

Your editing privileges have been removed and you're not entitled to blank the talk page of another account unless it is the account you are using. I think I wouldn't be wrong in saying that your hatred towards me and your true colors are being unraveled one by one. -grim smile- Bejinhan talks 13:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note – un-archived since he is obviously still at it, as shown above. –MuZemike 15:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - And while we're at it, can someone block and tag the sock above? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support his comment above as User:MasterJP confirms that he just doesn't get it. When you are under a ban arrogance does not help you case. JodyB _talk 16:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

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

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards