Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:34, 11 July 2008

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

• 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

Cleo123

User:Cleo123 has refused to respect my wishes and remove off topic comments from my talk page. As you can see here, I made it clear that my talk page is not for those comments. Cleo123's comments were then duplicated here, which verifies that they do not need two copies of the same comments especially when it is addressing that other user. Other pertinent information can be found here and here. Could someone please explain to them about talk page respect? This user insists to fight with other members of the community on my talk page, and I do not enjoy it. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Remove the comments yourself. Since it's your talk page, you can do that. Then tell him to kindly refrain from posting to your talk page and to use article pages instead. If he persists in this behavior, let us know. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Did that, twice. Hence why I am reporting it now. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

For the diffs, see this, this, this, and this. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

They have responded to my alerting of them of this thread here. As you can see, I am accused of posting derogatory remarks and being incivil by removing comments. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Reprinted from my talk page:

":: Well, let me begin by apologizing. I did not intentionally revert your removal twice. I was, in fact, still editing my message when I lost power. I mistakenly thought that it had not posted the first time. You had apparently reverted my remarks unbeknownst to me. I did revert your second removal (which I thought was your first) which occured within one minute of Tendancer's removal of my message from his talk page. Now there is a very odd coincidence! Nice edit summaries - very civil. The time stamps and similarity in tactical strategies, will also undoubtedly be of interest to administrators. Perhaps you can explain what would appear to be very uncivil behavior. You and Tendancer post derogatory remarks about me on a notice board with a link to your talk page. When I attempt to respond to these false allegations with facts, both of you seem to be reverting me with in seconds of one another. What's that all about? If you truly object to "our dispute" being on your talk page, please, explain why you haven't removed Tendancer's "off topic" remarks? Cleo123 (talk) 03:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)"

More pseudo legal threats from the above user and claims about "libel" and "defamation" that are not based on actual text found here. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, enough is enough. As the link from the BLP noticeboard clearly indicates, I was explaining WP:LIBEL and WP:BLP to this disruptive editor for the umpteenth time. Can he be blocked for incivility and disruption? This is getting to be ridiculous. Cleo123 (talk) 06:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Enough is enough. Forcibly restoring comments which have been removed by the editor on whose page the comments were placed is unacceptable conduct. The editor in question is under no obligation to explain to anyone which comments he chooses to remove. The above editor's failure to recognize this is troubling. John Carter (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Stalking editors from page to page and harassing them, as John Carter has been doing to me for over a year now is unacceptable conduct. It looks particularly bad when an administrator continues to engage in behavior of this sort against an editor in good standing, after they have repeatedly been asked to stop. It looks even worse when that same administrator escalates his campaign of harassment after the editor (who has good cause to complain) supports a motion to have him desyssoped as I did here and here. John, again I ask you to stop following me and attempting to create conflict and confrontation on articles that I am editing. As I have stated previously, I deliberately avoid articles you are involved with. Extending me the same courtesy might be considered conduct befitting an administrator. Cleo123 (talk) 03:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears that on top of attacks and claims about rule violation without any real proof, the user also resorts to bullying others as seen here. Not only is the above user dramatically reinterpreting Wikipolicy, but making outrageous claims about US law. This disruption has spread to multiple talk pages and seems to revolve around one person in particular. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I have reinterpreted policy? Gee, WP:BLP seems pretty clear cut to me. What part of this do you think I'm misinterpreting?

"Basic human dignity. Misplaced Pages articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Misplaced Pages aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Misplaced Pages editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."

Now the numerous sources available make it clear that Steve Windom was the victim of defamation that resulted in criminal charges. The incident is currently discussed in a neutral and fair manner in the article. Yet, you have been arguing for a detailed reprinting on Misplaced Pages of the material that a court ruled to be libelous. You have even encouraged a new, inexperienced user to create a free standing article in order to showcase this libel, insisting that Windom who you claim to have contacted in real life, (in violation of Misplaced Pages's policies on original research) will have to sue Misplaced Pages if he wants to get it removed! When users attempt to explain Misplaced Pages's libel policy to you, you have repeatedly taken the unusual stance that only actual libel victims are allowed to mention the word WP:LIBEL on Misplaced Pages.

For the record, I do not think I've made any "outrageous claims" about US law. I've said that a court ruled the material in question to be libelous, which it did. I've cautioned you about knowingly reprinting libel on Misplaced Pages as you could be exposing Misplaced Pages to potential legal problems. I think WP:BLP is very clear that libel about living people is to be removed immediately. Please, explain what part of these policies you think I am reinterpreting? And if you are, in fact, so confident that your interpretations of WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL are correct, please, go right ahead and create this free standing article yourself instead of encouraging a newbie to do it for you. Cleo123 (talk) 01:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you just admit that your incivil actions are based on the possible language of something you have not yet seen? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. You entered the article's discussion late in the game and have been defending the view of an editor who was repeatedly inserting defamatory material into the article. It would appear that you may not have taken the time to review the contribution history of the editor you've been encouraging. I have "seen" the material, and removed it from the article in accordance with WP:BLP some time back. The editor in question has apparently "seen the light" thanks to my intervention and stopped reinserting libelous material into the article. As I see it, the conflict between the two editors was resolved a while ago. For reasons unknown, you are still on the page fighting like hell to "mediate" a dispute that no longer exists, even going so far as to contact the article's subject and argue for the creation of a separate "scandal" article for reasons unknown. You seem to be trying to create some sort of new conflict, not mediate one. Cleo123 (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Game? You think this is some game that you can go around making up rules, harassing users, and the rest? No editor is listening to anything you say, because you are a disruption. Audemus and Dem came to terms before you started attacking people. They are waiting for you to stop your harassment so we can continue to expand the page. You already admitted that you are here to attack people, and now you admit that you have no grounds for your attacking people. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I am a disruption? LOL! Sorry, but that is downright amusing coming from a user who has been banned from participating in FAC discussions (for behavior that is strikingly similar to your conduct in this matter), cited by numerous editors for extreme incivility and blocked numerous times. I, by contrast, have never been blocked for anything during my years on Misplaced Pages. Please, do not make false accusations against other users. I have not harassed anyone. I have not edited the talk page of the article in nearly a week. So, I'm not sure what anyone might be waiting for. Although I haven't edited the article in a while now, none of my edits to the article have ever been reverted by anyone. Considering Dem1970's message on your talk page, in which he says I am "right on", your above statements seem to be very misleading at best. Cleo123 (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

None of your statements have support except by yourself. That should clue you in about the nature of your comments. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think its obvious to everyone here how blatant your misuse of the truth is especially when you quote that I was "banned" while linking to a post I made in which I stated I would be gone from the FAC review process until the end of the summer. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Upon closer review, I see that the vote was never actually tallied. Although the majority voted to ban you, you essentially banned yourself and took a wikibreak before the vote could be tallied. My apologies. It was not my intention to mislead in any way. Cleo123 (talk) 06:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It's more fact twisting by Cleo123--as usual. Looks to be like John was open to recall for desysop'ing while involved in a content dispute with another couple editors, and haven't even corresponded with Cleo123 for about a year. Then Cleo123 can't let go of his old vendetta after all that time--which's really sad--and WP:STALK'ed in and reposted his old WP:CIVIL-violating diatribe from the year-old and already-resolved dispute from List_of_converts_to_Christianity, a dispute which Cleo123 lost and twice refusing to accept the outcome of mediation (against him) and insulted the mediators, and got his tag-teaming friend User:Bus_stop indef-banned for disruption, incivility, tendentious editing among other vices (The mediator back then already noted Cleo123 has a tendency to misstate facts and "twist other's words in obvious ways", this is just another example). Don't worry, RFC is coming in a few days once I find the time to assemble the factoids, hope you'll all participate. Tendancer (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Please, provide some links for these less than civil allegations. Cleo123 (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You have provided the links re: John's self-open-to-recall which in turn contained a diff directly to your own lengthy diatribe against John Carter two posts above, as if you think your WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL violations are something to be proud of. Not to mention you already twice vandalized my talk page in response to the links I provided re: a mediator's comments against you. In light of that fact and your sudden amnesia about those diffs and your requests for links; it seems at best disingenuity, at worst yet a disruptive ploy to waste other editor's time. The links above to List_of_converts_to_Christianity and User:Bus_stop also contain reams of info about your tag-team edits and how that eventually got Bus_stop banned (while you pretended to go on a wiki-break to hide from actions against you ), it's actually rather comical if you're actually claiming you need links/references to that history as you were centrally involved for months. Please stop being disruptive. Tendancer (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, I ask you to provide links to substantiate all of your less than civil allegations. What's the matter? Can't provide any? Oh, and BTW, that's quite a jump you're taking where Bus stop is concerned! Arguing some points on the same side of a debate with someone is not the same thing as "tag team editing" with them. I'll remind you that quite a few admins were involved with the discussions you've referenced, none of them seem to have shared your view of my conduct. I know that it was very upsetting for you that your POV on the Michael Richards article did not prevail. But Misplaced Pages has its policies where living people are concerned. It's policy. It's not me - and stalking and harassing me for a year does little to change policy. Want to call Michael Richards a racist and Kyle Doss a hero? I suggest you start a blog and stop disrupting Misplaced Pages with your seemingly childish vendetta. Cleo123 (talk) 06:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I filed a report over Cleo's personal attacks found above here. I do not appreciate being attacked in such a way. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, if you want links at last count I have 23 in the RFC to outline your deplorable conduct, expect that to be submitted sometime within the next 24 hours. Thank you for link #24 with yet another evidence of your WP:NPA violations and yet another example your twisting other's words (as a mediator already pointed out http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:List_of_people_who_converted_to_Christianity&diff=prev&oldid=138303758) and inventing lies to falsely accuse others of WP:BLP. Why don't you go ahead and see if you can even attempt to find a diff where I wanted to call Michael Richards a racist or call Kyle Doss a hero. What's the matter? Can't provide any because it doesn't exist and is a complete invention? And once again you avoided the question, please explain why you would need links re: John Carter's voluntary recall and a direct diff to your length diatribe when all you had to do was to scroll up and see your own post from Jul 6. (and that reposted diatribe is a year old for heaven's sake, I really hope you still haven't let go because you lost that "fight"? Misplaced Pages is WP:NOT a battleground. To quote you, please consider "start a blog and stop disrupting Misplaced Pages with your seemingly childish vendetta" if you're being disruptive because you can't let go. Tendancer (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"Can't let it go?" My contribution history clearly shows that I have avoided articles you and John Carter are involved with. The two of you, by contrast, have been following me from article to article for over a year now, attempting to provoke confrontations with me. During the course of your little cyber vendetta, I've watched the two of you repeatedly flame, knowingly argue against Misplaced Pages's policies, file bogus complaints and most recently, we have John Carter arguing for the creation of an article designed to malign a living person, just to antagonize me. I am not the one who is disrupting Misplaced Pages. You two are. The record is quite clear. Cleo123 (talk) 05:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of BLP

The above user has proven that they are using a misinterpretation of BLP to make unnecessary changes. Look at this current string of actions which incorporates WP:CHILD, a policy that has nothing to do with pages on notable children - here, here, and here. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Your posting here is quite misleading. Why not provide copies of the messages I've exchanged with CalendarWatcher, which you've clearly seen, as they explain the very routine edit that you are taking issue with. I made a very minor edit to the biography of a child actress, removing the exact day of her birth while leaving the month and year. As I explained:

I believe that both of the policies I cited do, in fact, apply in this case. WP:BLP specifically states:

"Privacy of personal information

"Misplaced Pages includes dates of birth for some well-known living persons where the dates have been widely published, but editors should exercise caution with less notable people. With identity theft on the rise, people increasingly regard their dates of birth as private. When in doubt about the notability of the subject, or if the subject complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth."

The minor in question does not appear to be widely notable and her DOB has not been widely published. More importantly, the private information may well have been posted by a WP:CHILD".'

I honestly, don't see what you seem to think is so controversial about this edit. The information does not appear to be publicly available anywhere. The user who inserted it, has edited little other than articles related to the child actress. I think one can safely assume from the user's edits, that they may be a child. More importantly, the young actress does not appear to meet Misplaced Pages's notability standards. I am simply exercising caution, in accordance with policy. It seems to me that you are following me about. You also appear to be trying to create conflict where there shouldn't be any and disrupt Misplaced Pages. Please, stop. Cleo123 (talk) 06:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I will also note that considering the substance of Ottava Rima's latest complaint (a minor edit to a date of birth), the title he has given this thread "Abuse of BLP" could be seen as a violation of WP:CIVIL Cleo123 (talk) 06:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Child has nothing to do with pages, only with Misplaced Pages users. That is just one of a constant trend of outright miss-attributing policy. Furthermore, birthdates are not personal information. They are part of public record. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

As Cleo123 seems intent on holding up our 'exchange'--not really an exchange since Cleo123 didn't bother responding on my user-talk page, where'd actually see it--I found both responses unconvincing, eccentric, and--especially in the first case--wildly off-topic, Cleo123's original response showing interest not so much in the issues as in scoring points against his or her enemies (the passive-aggressive formulation 'Interestingly enough' absolutely triggered my alarms). The attempt at back-pedalling by claiming that WP:CHILD might apply because a child might have edited sounded particularly grasping at straws. In my opinion, Cleo123 doesn't really understand the actual policies he or she claims to uphold--or at the very least is applying their own standard and looking for justification afterward. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 04:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The editor in question has on more than one occasion cited a non-existent policy that notability requires "wide notability" (an undefined term) and stating that notability should be established by national sources, a statement which is in no way supported by policy. I believe the editor in question would be very well advised to review the policies in questions, and, should they wish to make changes to those policies, to request such on the talk pages of the relevant policies, rather than by fiat elsewhere. John Carter (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. Please, do not misrepresent my statements. Cleo123 (talk) 06:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

At 9:00, June 30, as per here, you stated the information was not notable on a national level, which is substantially similar to the statement I made above. Also, it has been stated by others that you have yourself at least one leveled an accusation against Ottava which might, in itself, qualify as libel were it to be included in an article. And you also appear to think that inclusion of the subject's date of birth in the Imdb database here somehow qualifies as being not "widely published", a statement I personally find absolutely ridiculous, and I imagine most people would agree with that assessment. You have also made it clear that you are yourself have a good deal of difficulty of assuming good faith of anyone who disagrees with your original interpretations of policy, as can be demonstrated by the recent exchange on your own user talk page. John Carter (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my remarks. Taken out of context they may appear harsh, and perhaps they are, however, I think that any user who actually takes the time to review Audemus Defendere's contributions to the Steve Windom article and its talk page will agree that the user was editing both the article and the article's talk page in a manner that was clearly demonstrative of a personal vendetta against the article's subject, whom he repeatedly accused another editor of being. Most troubling of all, however, were statements he inserted into the article which seemed deliberately designed to give readers the false impression that material that has been proven in court to be libelous, was in fact true. I removed those remarks from the article some time back and since then no one has reverted my edits, including you. I can only assume that the community agrees with my "misinterpretation" of policy. I stand by my assessment that Audemus Defendere was making Misplaced Pages a battleground for a real life dispute. Rather than discouraging Audemus Defendere, who seems to have a personal involvement in the criminal libel conviction, you have actually gone so far as to encourage this newer user to create an entire free standing article apparently designed to defame Mr. Windom and showcase salacious details of libelous material. Thankfully, Audemus Defendere has heeded my advice and stopped disrupting the article. You, by contrast, appear to be trying to create a new conflict.

The trial does not warrant its own freestanding article, as it does not meet Misplaced Pages's notability standards. I am apparently not the only user who has told you this. The criminal trial, which involves misdemeanor charges, did not receive significant national news attention and does not meet Misplaced Pages's notability standards. That's all I was saying. Please, stop taking my remarks out of context, in what would appear to be some sort of attempt at retaliation for my support for your desysoping.

No one has reverted any of my changes to the article, because my interpretation of WP:BLP is, in fact, correct. If you sincerely feel that I am wrong, well then, please, explain why haven't you reinserted the libelous and misleading statements into the article???? If you really think that this matter deserves its own freestanding article, why don't you create it yourself, rather than encouraging a newbie to do it for you? With the exception of Windom, all of the key players in this event are private citizens who do not meet Misplaced Pages's notability standards. Likewise, the trial did not receive widespread national news coverage. If one were to logically follow your argument in this situation, Misplaced Pages would have thousands of useless articles dedicated to local libel suits, just because they are salacious. I'll remind you again, Misplaced Pages is WP:NOT a tabloid. Cleo123 (talk) 06:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleo123, please explain to everyone how you are capable of seeing into the future, because you keep claiming that you know exactly how everything would turn out before any proposals or drafts are made. I'm sure the government would also like to know how you came across such powers. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, I note once again that Cleo123 seems to repeat, bordering on insistence, that anything be notable nationally to be included. That is, to my eyes, a laughable and possibly conscious misinterpretation of WP:NOTABILITY. In fact, Cleo has made that same mistake earlier, and has had it pointed out before as well. I have yet to see any evidence provided by that individual to support this frankly ridiculous interpretation of policy, but would be very interested in seeing anything which does support such an remarkable claim. And, as Ottava has said above, you seem to be indicating that somehow you have already reviewed all 1600+ articles in the main Birmingham paper, not counting any additional articles elsewhere, to jump to your rather amusing conclusion that the content does not meet notability standards. Have you in fact done so? If not, then your statement is an irrational jump to conclusions by an individual who has to date so far as I can see done no research on the subject at all, and on that basis, basically what it seems to be, an unsubstantiated, pre-emptive, presumptuous, jump to conclusions. John Carter (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

John, as you know, I am not the only editor to tell you that your proposed spin-off article, which you proposed titling "The Steve Windom Scandal", does not meet Misplaced Pages's notability standards and is problematic on a variety of fronts. There are undoubtedly thousands of libel cases filed each year in every state in the union. If this case, which involves misdemeanor charges, is to be dubbed notable enough for a free standing article, it would have to have received significant national media coverage, which would set it apart from all the rest. Your argument that a thousand or more local newspaper articles makes this event notable enough for a free standing article, does not mesh with WP:Notability. For example, my sister lives in a town where local residents are fighting the construction of a power plant. With all the local media coverage, I get over a thousand google hits. Does that mean that Misplaced Pages should have a free standing article on the subject? Of course, not! If notability were based purely on the number of google hits, as opposed to the quality and caliber, Misplaced Pages might be overrun with articles on minor lawsuits that received lots of local media coverage. Again, if you think I am wrong, go right ahead and create the "Steve Windom Scandal" article. What are you waiting for? Why waste your time here complaining about my viewpoint? Why do you care what I think? Your time might, in fact, be more productively spent creating this article that you purport to so earnestly believe in. If my interpretation of policy is incorrect, as you seem to think it is, your article will survive a deletion debate. If my interpretation of policy is correct, the article will be deleted. Why not let the community decide? Cleo123 (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

outsideish note

I'm not uninvolved here (see my talk page), but it seems to me like John Carter and Ottava Rima are in the right here. Cleo123, you're GROSSLY overstating the issues here with vague threats about lawsuits and the like. You are not the subject of the article (who I might add, is a public figure, being the Lt. Governor of the state. If the subject of the article has a concern, (apparently not, since they're supposedly in contact with Ottava Rima), they can contact the foundation with any legal threats. You keep bandying about libel this, libel that, without any significant evidence that it is in fact libel. I reviewed the article and found a perfectly neutral article on the subject. Misusing BLP the way you are, and you're starting to edge into the "chilling effect" zone of "no legal threats". ⇒SWATJester 01:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes! The article IS perfectly neutral, thanks in large part to my edits! I think you need to slow down and review the article's contribution history and the talk pages, before jumping to conclusions, which is what you seem to be doing. I do not object to the article in it's current state - it's my version! LOL! As I see it, there is no dispute. The dispute seems to have been resolved. The problem is that Ottava Rima, who seems to have appointed himself as some sort of mediator, now seems to be arguing that the libel which was removed from the article should now be expanded upon and showcased in it's own free standing article, based on some unseen offline communication he claims to have initiated with the article's subject.

As for "legal threats" - I have done absolutely nothing of the kind. That's a really outrageous statement. You need to go back and review the discussion. And I am not "bandying about libel this and libel that" - OMG! The article that we are discussing concerns a libel case, for goodness sake! I've responded to Ottava Rima's unusual interpretations of WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL. Cleo123 (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not say the article in its current state. I said the article as I reviewed it. You are indeed bandying about libel this and libel that. The article concerns a libel case. Ok fine. It's not libel for us to discuss the case in the article. Commenting on documents of public record, which are allegations made by others, does not equate to libel committed by us. That's the part I don't think you seem to get. I saw the article with all that material in, and I didn't see anything that struck me as BLP-worthy that should bring out the machetes. ⇒SWATJester 21:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, I ask you to review the article's contribution history. Why do you speak and offer inflammatory opinions without investigating? At the point at which you entered the discussion, I had already fixed the article! Frankly, I believe you owe me an apology for jumping to conclusions. I think you are way out of line - that's "the part I don't think you seem to get." This is about a user inserting POV commentary from a juror designed to leave readers with the false impression that court proven libelous material might actually be true. Cleo123 (talk) 06:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a little note - if any admin wants copies of the emails that the Lt. Governor has sent to me, I can provide. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Email is not a reliable source. At best, you could forward it to OTRS. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, he has the information, or should have the information, that I sent him about such (in case there was a problem). These are just correspondence about opinion on the matter (Cleo claimed before that the page's subject, Steve Windom, would never talk to someone like me because I am too "libelous"). Ottava Rima (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I never said anything of the kind. I said you do not represent Misplaced Pages. You are not an employee of Misplaced Pages. It is very inappropriate for you to be contacting the subjects of articles on behalf of Misplaced Pages, and having legal discussions with them. Likewise, you should not be asking another user for legal advice for Misplaced Pages as you did here. Sorry, but I think you are way over the line. Cleo123 (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

SwatJester is an active member who has experience with Misplaced Pages and legal matters. It is quite appropriate to contact people like him in order to get an opinion on how the policy works. Now, here are your actual comments that prove you as being completely wrong: "and we certainly do not go running around contacting the subjects of articles! Oh, ya, right Steve Windom is busy chatting with you offline - telling you it's okay to republish libel about him! LOL! I believe that like I believe a group of five administrators asked you to be a mediator on this article! LOL! BTW- I'm still waiting for the links that substantiate those claims" found here. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have filed a RFC for Cleo123 here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cleo123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tendancer (talk • contribs) 06:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni33 part 2

Please leave this thread open for a while so people can discuss their concerns, and please be respectful toward the banned user. Thanks. - Jehochman 05:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

See prior ANI thread

Some of us are very uneasy about Giovanni33 (talk · contribs) getting banned indefinitely based on a very short discussion, and when he's already been banned by arbcom for a year. It certainly wasn't a decision that the community came to. To avoid another edit war on Misplaced Pages:List of banned users I'm asking that this be discussed without premature archiving. -- Ned Scott 05:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Quick clarification: the disputed community ban preceded the ArbCom ban (the community ban occurred while ArbCom was voting on its ban). Ned's account unintentionally implies the opposite. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. -- Ned Scott 05:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Now that nine arbitrators have unanimously declared him guilty of having "repeatedly engaged in prohibited sockpuppetry and/or some form of proxy editing", is there anyone who feels the community ban was in error? If the positive CU results presented in the ban thread were available before the ArbCom case, there probably wouldn't have been any need for the case at all. (Also note the various legal threats on his pre-blanked talk page.) Since he's hard-banned by ArbCom for a year anyway, the only practical effect of the community ban is that we must agree to him being unbanned after that point in time. Sounds like a reasonable precaution to me. - Merzbow (talk) 05:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are we even discussing this now? It's not even an issue for another year. Let a year pass and G33 can appeal to be reinstated. The flames will have died down and the uneasiness will be put in perspective. But discussing now will only create more drama with the onl youtcome beign that Giovanni33 is banned for at least a year. Close this down and move on. Ignoring this now as there is no resolution that changes the status quo. Stop the drama. --DHeyward (talk) 05:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"...nine arbitrators have unanimously declared him guilty of having "repeatedly engaged in prohibited sockpuppetry and/or some form of proxy editing", is there anyone who feels the community ban was in error?" Yes, those who don't trust this ArbCom on sockpuppetry, for excellent reasons. --User:Relata refero 06:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose, considering my comments elsewhere, that I should be counted as one of those uneasy regarding the indefinite ban. Indeed, I am concerned. But, at the same time, I find myself in agreement with DHeyward: waiting a while (perhaps not a full year, or perhaps a full year as DH suggests) before revisiting this particular issue seems like an acceptable plan. --Iamunknown 06:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

To DHeyward, the reason I bring this up is because we should not take "community banned" lightly, regardless of the situation. I could easily see this as working against Giovanni when a year is up, and he asks for his ban to be reviewed. There are a lot of admins that will blindly support a ban without looking into the matter, seeing that it was listed as a "community ban" and trusting that it really was. This is a calm and rationale discussion, demanding that it be closed and saying things like "stop the drama" is exactly what creates the drama in the first place.

In general: Arbcom went with a one year ban, not an indef. Their decision is not an endorsement of the indef ban in any way. -- Ned Scott 07:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The Committee 1 year ban is a standard remedy. Even if an administrator is willing to unblock (god help us all), this will not change the fact he will remain blocked as part of the ArbCom remedy. It's futile and tendentious (and some might suggest it's trollish) to insist a ban be reviewed when an overwhelming number here continue to say "We are not willing to unblock. We will reconsider after sometime, whether it's before or after the Committee year-long ban is up, but not now." Take note. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

For about the 20th time, in the 30th place, an admin being willing to unblock, only invalidates an undiscussed community ban that exists when NO admin is willing to unblock. However if the ban has had community discussion the willingness of a single admin to unblock, will not overturn the ban. That requires more community discussion. The first is an effective community ban, it exists when an indef blocked user cannot find someone willing to unblock them. The second one is an actual community ban - a ban in effect after community discussion. (Ncmvocalist this is not specifically aimed at you, more at everyone who perpetuates that myth) Viridae 11:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. To clarify: I was making a massive assumption that after discussion, the community agreed for the 'willing' admin to handle it (even if it meant that the community-ban was overturned). Essentially, my point was that even with that assumption, the Committee ban isn't going to move, so those jumping up and down for review of this ban should go worry about that first. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you maybe clarify the wording of WP:BAN? If the discussion end changes the situation so much, there should also be a stated minimum length of time to discuss to help prevent gaming the system (like we have on RFA and other processes). Jehochman 11:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• There is a reason the arbitration committee only does blocks/bans for a year - it trusts the committee in a year's time to get a review right. The community is more fickle and changeable, so it does indefinite bans because that both allows more and less flexibility (early unblocking and ignoring the matter forever). I said at the time that there was no need to have a community ban discussion, and that ArbCom had matters well in hand. Leave it as a year-long block and trust the committee in a year's time to handle the matter. Carcharoth (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any uninvolved admin willing to unblock Giovanni33 AND the ban will be in place after the discussion. Can we endorse and close this ? --DHeyward (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that this discussion is kind of pointless. If, in a year's time, there is a good reason to unblock Giovanni33, we can do so then. Nothing we decide now will bind us anyway. Sam Korn 13:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose ban and discussion closing. Ned Scott makes a lot of sense. I'm also very uncomfortable about the rush to close either of these discussions. This discussion is not pointless nor is it drama, as process never is. And since Giovanni is ArbCom banned for a year (without auto renewing), why even bother with a community ban. The ban discussion earlier was extremely short and occurred during a extended national holiday in the USA which clearly reduced participation well below the level that could be considered necessary for a community ban. This discussion should stay open for a significant time period, like the five days we normally give AfDs or seven days for RfAs. — Becksguy (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• I really think this is much to-do over nothing. "Indef" does not mean "permanent." Given the ArbCom decision, this will be reviewed in 1 year anyway. If the ArbCom decides there is no need to reniew their ban, then the community can discuss the community ban as well. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, I find it difficult to believe that anyone would be willing to say G33 is innocent with a straight face after looking at the mounds of evidence to the contrary, and especially since he's been making noises about legal action all through the arbcom case and even after it on his talk page. Jtrainor (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• He certainly should have an indef ban while he threatens legal action. --DHeyward (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

He said his lawyer would consul and facilitate and he specifically disclaimed intent to litigate at this time. That's not a legal threat (ie - do X or I'll sue you) per WP:LEGAL, so that fails as a reason to community ban per se. As to innocence, I am not taking a position on the merits of the charges, since I haven't gone through all the evidence and discussions, although there has been a concern expressed about the validity of the sockpuppet charges. This discussion thread, and the earlier one, is about process, and the first discussion here was out of process, both prima facie, and as supported by the significant concerns expressed here and elsewhere. So no, do not endorse, as this ban does nothing but inappropriately trample on Giovanni's pride and dignity, per WP:BAN. It's dehumanizing and it lessens Misplaced Pages to beat him up with a community ban while already banned by ArbCom. We don't rub salt into wounds. — Becksguy (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Like Ned, this tries my faith in the community and it's ability to function in anything approaching a just manner when an ongoing, months long ArbCom case can simply be ripped out of the hands of the Arbitrators and decided by by the votes of a dozen unelected, unaccountable editors in just a few hours of discussion, especially when timed on a holiday to ensure the least possible number of editors would be around to complain. A community that behaves this way is hardly one I want to be a part of. Why do we even elect Arbs? Is it all for show? -- Kendrick7 01:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion was open for almost 18 hours; I'm sure you remember it was re-opened. Consensus to ban was overwhelming, which was why it was SNOW closed by two different admins. And this new thread has generated almost no interest by anyone to revisit the issue. Come to "Allegations..." and enjoy the newfound peace and quiet we have there. - Merzbow (talk) 03:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

When you're just an unpaid volunteer, it's hard to justify spending time on someone that is deserving of some kind of block/ban, one way or another. A lack of interest isn't an indication of anything significant, because that in itself isn't an endorsement of the action taken. If you would care to actually respond to any of the points Kendrick7 made, or any of the other users who have stated valid objections, please do so. -- Ned Scott 03:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It's impossible to discuss something with someone who ignores all evidence that doesn't support their viewpoint. Jtrainor (talk) 11:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Is that directed at me? Because I personally think the guy had it coming. I just don't agree with the assessment that this is a community ban, and that an indef ban is appropriate when Arbcom has already given him a year ban. -- Ned Scott 06:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Merzbow says "Consensus to ban was overwhelming", yet at least six of the users (Ice Cold Beer, Jtrainor, John Smith, Merzbow, Sceptre, The Evil Spartan) voting to community ban were editorial and/or ideological adversaries of Giovanni. According to Red Pen, ignoring the six adversarial editors leaves 5 endorsing, and 3 opposing. Calling that an overwhelming consensus has got to be one of the most absurd and outlandish claims yet. — Becksguy (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The original thread was the discussion on whether to apply the community banning, and had at least 15 votes to do so, and was closed twice as SNOW, so you are greatly misrepresenting the situation. This thread is about whether to overturn that decision, and there are no new editors here in support of that, so sorry. And as long as we're putting people in ideological bins, I distinctly recall your name editing or advocating for G33's PoV on "Allegations...", as have most of the small minority against the banning. But thanks anyway for the attempt to turn this into a political WP:BATTLEGROUND. - Merzbow (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This thread is not about overturning a decision, it's about finding out if the current ban is actually supported by the community. Not by a small click that was closely involved in the dispute, but by the community. -- Ned Scott 06:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ned for reopening this. Several comments:

• He is correct, this is a continuation of the earlier thread, not a new discussion on overturning the ban.
• I have no intention of turning this into a battleground, and I don't think others do either. As an indication of that, I'm striking a strong sentence in my comment above. Also no interest in rehashing the discussion arguments in Allegations of state terrorism by the United States.
• One of my concerns is that this community ban discussion seems like a rush to judgment. If Giovanni did all that he is charged with, then he deserves to be banned. ArbCom banned him for one year (and this is not the place to discuss that), but why do some people here feel the need to kick him while down by community banning him also. And with very little initial discussion (originally less than five hours).
• Another concern is that six editors that voted to ban had adversarial relationships with Giovanni, and therefore their voting might be perceived as a lack of impartially. For the process to work and be accepted by the community as fair and transparent, it needs to be free from the perception of systemic and/or personal bias. Which is why we require that uninvolved administrators close deletion discussions, for example. Anyone looking at the terrorism article debates and edit wars will agree that there was extreme rancor between the parties. This is not a cry in the wilderness, six editors have expressed concerns about the impartially of this discussion.
• This discussion is about process and community involvement, and without the acceptance that process works, we have no Misplaced Pages, as that is the glue the holds this massive project together.

— Becksguy (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Becks, I am not sure that you have taken on board Jehochman's earlier comments. I am re-posting them because they are very informative. John Smith's (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

We do not vote on the fate of people. A strong case has been made that Giovanni33 has exhausted community patience. No administrator has objected. Therefore, Giovanni33 is community banned, until an administrator objects. Even then, Giovanni will remain blocked until there is a consensus to unblock. Jehochman Talk 12:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Becks, I had an adversarial relationship with G33 because he kept using socks on an article I was trying to improve. The egg indeed becomes before the chicken in this case. Jtrainor (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Complicated legal threat situation

I'm an involved user in this situation, so I will take absolutely no admin action here, but I'm not sure if any admin action is needed or not. User:Guido den Broeder posted on the 3rd July on the talk page of User:Oscar, an admin on the Dutch Misplaced Pages and the mentor of Guido den Broeder over there (it's an arbcom appointed mentorship, but is not recognized or accepted as such by Guido den Broeder). Guido was blocked by Oscar on the Dutch Misplaced Pages, and posted here: "Oscar, ik raad je aan om per onmiddellijk mijn blokkade op nl:Misplaced Pages ongedaan te maken. Beschouw dit als je laatste kans." (Translation: "Oscar, I advise you to lift my block on the Dutch Misplaced Pages immediately. Consider this your final chance.") Another user interpreted this as a physical threat, which seems unrealistic to me. However, some four hours after this message, Guido den Broeder has been indefinitely blocked on the Dutch Misplaced Pages by decision of the Dutch Arbcom for making serious legal threats. Quote: "Na het indienen van deze zaak heeft Guido den Broeder in een email van 3 juli aan gebruiker:Oscar en een afschrift daarvan aan de arbcom aangekondigd strafrechtelijke stappen te zullen ondernemen tegen Oscar." (Translation: "After starting this case, Guido den Broeder has in a mail of July 3rd to user:Oscar and a carbon copy to the arbcom announced to take legal action against Oscar.) The Dutch arbcom has also contacted Mike Godwin.

I know that normally actions and blocks on other Wikipedias are not transferred to this one, but since the user has brought this problem to the English Misplaced Pages as well (and to meta]), and has made a post which, in light of what followed, can hardly be interpreted aas anything but a veiled legal threat, should he be warned and/or blocked here as well until this is resolved? Fram (talk) 08:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course. Good analysis of the case. The threat was made here, and in any case, even if it wasn't, these two users, with recognisably the same user identities as on nl-wiki, would pose the same problem if they had to interact here on en-wiki while at the same time engaged in real-life legal issues, so yes, the spirit of NLT would demand that we block him even if he hadn't spoken about it here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've always found WP:NLT' reasoning rather tenuous. I do wish we'd treat it simply as an extension of being civil and polite, and that we'd ask that users make no threats at all, rather than giving tenuous legal reasoning. — Werdna • talk 09:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• In addition to using English Misplaced Pages to further conflict on another wiki and make legal threats, Guido was blocked several times for different kinds of misconduct here, so I don't think that unblocking him will make any sense, even if he retracts the legal threat. As such, I propose to impose community ban on Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs). MaxSem 09:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • From what I saw, Dutch wikipedia editors followed him here. Possibly both sides are "using English Misplaced Pages to further conflict on another wiki". I said this last time, and will say it again. In the era of SUL (single-user login) we need to think more about cross-wiki issues. Traditionally, sanctions and remedies on other wikis were not applied here, and I think that should continue. I also think the tradition of giving people a second chance on other wikis is sometimes good, but also shouldn't be abused. The language issues are a problem as well. I am always uncomfortable relying on people to translate what has been said on other wikis - it is simpler to look at behaviour on just one wiki. Carcharoth (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban, leave blocked until legal issues sorted. I haven't looked recently, but I don't think his problematic editing conduct warrants a ban. Legal threats are not allowed, though, and those issues need to be resolved before any unblocking. Unfortunately, we can't judge the legal threats aspect of things properly here, as there is off-wiki stuff (Godwin and Dutch Misplaced Pages). If Guido withdraws the legal threats he can be unblocked - but we need a way of making certain that the legal threats have genuinely been withdrawn, I don't think just a post to his talk page would be enough. On the other hand, (for example) a lack of response from Mike Godwin (has he responded to confirm anything, or has someone just sent him an e-mail hoping for a reply?) or a lack of response from the Dutch Misplaced Pages, might leave Guido in a particularly nasty kind of limbo, even if he has withdrawn his legal threats. Anyway, as I was saying, if the legal stuff gets sorted, I'd be happy to mentor Guido on chess articles. From what I can see, the most problematic of his editing is on medical articles. Carcharoth (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Agree with Carcharoth, who basically said what I was going to say, but better. Having dealt with a few disputes that have spilled over from other wikimedia projects, I find the best thign to do is to deal with each in isolation. Neıl 龱 12:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Block him indefinitely, tell him to convey his legal requests to info-en@wikimedia.org, he's welcome to be unblocked when he removes his threat. Simple. As well, the lack of response from Mike is not a big deal, he does not deal with every single legal threat we get, the majority of them are dealt with on OTRS before they ever get serious enough to go to him. ⇒SWATJester 13:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The point I was making was that the comment "The Dutch arbcom has also contacted Mike Godwin" is pointless and shouldn't be taken to mean anything unless someone hears from Mike Godwin. We shouldn't take the word of others that a particular situation is urgent or serious enough to require Mike Godwin's attention. The only person who can decide that is Mike Godwin himself. We should be wary of people using the phrase "we've contacted Mike Godwin" as a way to bolster their argument. We should also avoid getting into a situation where people say "we haven't heard back from Mike Godwin yet, don't do anything". Carcharoth (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The comment Guido made contains the kind of "intimidation" contemplated by the legal threats policy, although I don't see that it affects the free editing of articles. If Guido agrees to stay away from Oscar here, I think unblocking would be OK, but the precipitating comment doesn't reassure me that he'd do so.--chaser - t 10:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have clashed with him before, but I cannot see how one can threaten legal action on one wiki and remain an editor in good standing on another. It is unacceptable behaviour regardless of whether it has happened here or elsewhere, and it should be discouraged in the strongest possible terms. JFW | T@lk 19:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What? How is that "unacceptable behavior"?

Making threats of legal action against Misplaced Pages is clearly unacceptable behavior. — The Hand That Feeds You: 19:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I note he had signed himself up to the Misplaced Pages:Harmonious editing club which seeks make WP "a more inviting and friendly place for our contributors.... by resolving disputes, answering user's questions, helping editors with their contributions and participating in requests for input". As the Misplaced Pages talk:Harmonious editing club#Membership requirements is not to exceed 1RR, previous blocks for 3RR & current WP:NLT seem inappropriate. I'm guessing issue for the club to decide on membership ? David Ruben 01:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

David, Misplaced Pages:Harmonious editing club is completely irrelevant here. The last time I looked it was more like a voluntary pledge than something where people were elected to membership. It's just like anything else on Misplaced Pages - you can sign up to practically anything around here - it is your actions, not what you are signed up to that counts. Carcharoth (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is a complicated situation indeed. This guy started with putting in his name as a respected scientist everywhere, and ended as an ME-patient complaining about his disrespect. In both cases rather uncalled-for from a distance, but you could comply with his conduct. Only after threatening his mentor with legal file his behaviour was regarded as unacceptable. His mentor felt privately threatened as well. Now if he would withdraw his legal accusations, and make public excuses towards his mentor, would that be enough to undo his block? What would the English community do in such a situation? - Art Unbound (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC) member of the Dutch Arbcom

User:Rollosmokes again

This is essentially a continuation of this ANI thread which ended with no resolution. The user continues to try to impose his will on certain TV station articles, particularly his continued insistence that The CW does not have the right to call themselves The CW. It's not just original research and POV-pushing on his part, it's also disruptive behavior, since he refuses to discuss the points made to him. His answer is "I'm right and you're wrong". There are now at least a couple of pages protected to keep him from his antics. Are we going to have to protect the pages one by one? Or can something else be done? Baseball Bugs 18:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

From reading the previous ANI thread, it seems that he is continuing his pattern of disruptive editing. Regardless if it is grammatically correct or not, the fact that the company name is The CW trumps the grammar rules when it comes to editing. If the editor continues to make these edits against consensus, and article need to be protected to PREVENT the user from doing so, a block may be in order. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Two articles today have been protected for just this purpose. Please note the attitude in the user's edit summaries: Baseball Bugs 18:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have recently warned this editor regarding edit warring over a related matter. I suggest the bluntest of the clue sticks need applying. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The second of the two incidents I listed came after your warning, and used the same "I'm right and you're wrong" language that the first one did. It's plain to see that he isn't really interested in what anyone else thinks about it. When an ANI thread comes along, he waits until the heat is off, and then starts up again. Something needs to be done. Baseball Bugs 21:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Between Among the two threads, I've seen various admins say that "something" should be done, but so far no one has acted upon that "should be". Baseball Bugs 03:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There was one more edit by the editor after the one linked above, and the article concerned was then protected. Let us see what the editor does when they resume. I will execute a short block if there is any revert warring in the next 24 hours from this account. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

He'll be watched. Baseball Bugs 13:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

He's back and doing it again... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the CW and WB stuff, he's also making needless reverts like this one to change "Ultra high frequency" to "ultra high frequency". What's up with this guy? Baseball Bugs 17:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

He's telling selected users that he's "taking a break", presumably another tactic to take the heat off. Baseball Bugs 17:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, let him take a break. If he doesn't take a break, than maybe action should be taken to prevent further disruption/incivility. Beam 17:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that his user page says his break is "to let the tension die down". Well, the tension is of his own doing, and if he doesn't change his approach, the "tension" will resume immediately upon his return. FYI, I intend to roll back his nonsensical UHF / VHF changes. The articles start with upper case U and V, so his changes to the links to lower case were pointless. Baseball Bugs 17:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Also please note what amounts to an "enemies list" he has compiled on his talk page, as reasons for why he's "taking a break". Baseball Bugs 17:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I am correct on this -- and I will prove it all to you when I return. - so he's not going to change. --Allemandtando (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)From what I can see it look like he is trying to game the system here. He makes these edits, it's brought to AN/I, pages are protected, and after a day or so the editor "takes a break". Come back a few days later and it's the same thing all over again. It's disruptive, at least to me and some action needs to be taken regarding this, especially if article have to be repeatedly locked down due to his actions. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I love how he paints himself as the defender of what is right, and throws around thinly veiled insults ("an oversensitive editor", POV puushers, "IP abuser", "vultures") at those who do not share his views. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Response

First, despite what Baseball Bugs says, I have discussed my opinion on this issue ad nauseum. (See Talk:WGN-TV#Here we go again..., Talk:WGN-TV#Before anyone loses their carrots... User talk:TV9, and my own talk page.) This is not "my will" or "POV-pushing" -- THIS IS CORRECT, PROPER USE OF GRAMMAR. You should ignore what you see and read the various writing style manuals I have cited (Penguin Handbook for Writers, the Chicago Manual of Style, MLA Style Manual, etc.).

Second, this has gone way beyond bizzare. Baseball Bugs has appointed himself as my own personal watchdog? Nitpicking over every single edit I make? Who made him a private dick, or a Misplaced Pages administrator? And why is his name all over this place? To me he's nothing more than a bully.

Finally, as far as me taking a break, I will not discuss that other than what is written on my talk page. If you feel that it's "to take the heat off", believe that if you want to. I'm done. Have a good summer. Rollosmokes (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The editor continues to ignore the issues raised, specifically that it is not his place to tell The CW what they can call themselves. Their trademarked name trumps so-called "grammer rules". Baseball Bugs 17:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Your "correct, proper use if grammar" is a misinterpretation of the style guides. Others, including myself, have given you other links to show you that your interpretation is incorrect, and that other style guides show that for some uses ("The CW" being one of them), the capitalization of "the" is correct and proper. This should no longer be an issue, if you would just admit that you made a mistake - we all do from time to time - it happens! TheRealFennShysa (talk)

A far more pressing question is that when we reply to the user who made the above comment, is it grammatically correct to say, "I agree with TheRealFennShysa," or is it more appropriate to say, "I agree with theRealFennShysa"??? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Based on Rollosmoke's "going-away" posts, he'd just call me "the Vulture". :) TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

All I see here is a single editor edit warring with multiple other editors over a long period of time. If he continues to ignore consensus (which he cannot claim not to be aware of at this stage) - he should be blocked for progressively longer periods of time. --Allemandtando (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Almost pointless disruption. Surely there's something more pressing here for him to be doing. How about address the countless uncited assertions and unreferenced articles that we have? Amazing how many people spend all their time on stupid stuff when we have important matters to deal with. File this thread under WP:LAME and let it die. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• If the editor is wikibreaking and if they return with a will to edit collaboratively per consensus then there is no need to end/force the break with a block. I am certain that this matter will be raised again if the editor returns and resumes, and I think we can then respond a little more quickly. In the meantime, I'm off to mediate a grammarian dispute at Spud U Like Spud You Like Baked and Filled Potato's One Is Partial To... er, KFC? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The user has virtually "promised" to be disruptive if and when he returns. He'll be watched. Baseball Bugs 21:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks and fair use violation

He's not taking any kind of break. He's just focusing on using his talk page to build personal attacks against at least 7 specific users who disagree with him. The latest, equating his arguments to the 1968 Olympics protests, is offensive in the extreme. Baseball Bugs 16:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and as a mundane point, he's using that fair use photo of John Carlos and Tommie Smith on his talk page, which is against the rules. Baseball Bugs 16:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed. seicer | talk | contribs 17:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that I couldn't care less what he calls me. But some of the other 6 editors might not like being called "vultures". As Neil pointed out to me last week, a personal attack still needs to be sanctioned, even if the target of the personal attack doesn't care about it. Baseball Bugs 17:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

He's not on break, he's monitoring. And calling everyone who disagrees with him a "vulture". Baseball Bugs 12:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if he makes one more edit that is disruptive, I support blocking him for 100 years (ok fine, 48 hours), to prevent further disruption. Perhaps someone should warn him? Beam 12:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, someone should - someone who's not on his list of The Seven Vultures. Baseball Bugs 12:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm not assuming good faith here, but why hasn't this user already been blocked for disruptive editing? He's made it clear he intends on making the same edits, and is now attacking other users. It seems that the reaction has been "wait and see", yet this editor continues his same actions. Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec - Wildthing61476, I was just saying...)*...and indefinitely blocked, for disruption. I should be glad of some uninvolved third party review of this block. I would comment that I would be happy for the block to be lifted or the tariff varied upon Rollosmokes undertaking to edit more in keeping with the principles and practices of Misplaced Pages, so any such action need not be referred to me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Was an indefinite block truly necessary? The user was going on Wikibreak anyway, so the amount of disruption to the encyclopedia should have been minimal. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite does not mean infinite. Baseball Bugs 13:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware. I'm also aware that indefinite blocks are used to prevent significant disruption to the encyclopedia. Removing a note on his own talk page with an incivil edit summary is hardly grounds for an indefinite block. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That was merely the next-to-last straw. He then resumed editing articles, with the same "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude. So it was clear that he was not going on break and that his disruption would continue. Hence the block. Baseball Bugs 13:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

And why on earth are you reverting his edits edit-war style, Bugs? That seems like disruption to me. The material you've added back in looks pretty dubious, too. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw that his changes (while allegedly on break) included some of his self-styled "grammar" fixes, so I reverted the lot. Feel free to fix anything in that article that actually needs fixing. Baseball Bugs 14:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I cannot believe you reverted a perfectly good edit because you were angry with him. In that edit, you've removed manual of style formatting and re-added material of a dubious nature. Please do not damage articles like that. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not angry with him. And you are free to make any legitimate corrections to the article. Baseball Bugs 15:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

"You should be ashamed of yourself."? Yeah, sure, you're not mad at him. I still cannot believe you would damage an encyclopedia article by reverting good content corrections just because you were angry with him. Awful. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

He had equated his little battle with John Carlos and Tommie Smith, and that was shameful and offensive. And I saw no merit to his edits today. If you disagree, feel free to install any that you think are valid. Baseball Bugs 15:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

He put up the sign and then carried on editing - I can only assume it was a tactic. --Allemandtando (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. He wasn't going on break, he was just temporarily scaling back. And in fairness to the admins, they tend to focus on extreme cases, such as some seen elsewhere on this page. With an offender whose activities aren't as widespread, they may tend to wait until "enough is enough". Baseball Bugs 13:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Why would you assume it was a tactic? Firsfron of Ronchester 13:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Because of how it went the last time he was posted here. Baseball Bugs 13:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse the block. seicer | talk | contribs 13:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU, please consider changing the indefinite block to something more reasonable. Yes, indefinite does not mean infinite, but it is still overly harsh and may further aggravate Rollosmokes - when we are trying to work with Rollosmokes. Kingturtle (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It's unclear how long of a "wikibreak" the user will need. When he declared he was going on break, he pledged to behave the same way as before, once he got back. I have seen nothing to indicate that he plans any revision to that approach. So I recommend it remain indefinite, with the ever-present option of his requesting reinstatement whenever he feels he's ready to collaberate. Baseball Bugs 16:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think anything less than an indef block is just inviting him to come back and raise hell. He's stated continuously that he'll continue editing the same way. I'd watch out for socks. MrMarkTaylor 18:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

His latest remarks indicate that his stance and intentions remain unchanged. Baseball Bugs 18:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

His appeal contains misleading information. "For some time"? Less than 2 days, in fact. Baseball Bugs 18:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I agreee with Firsfron and Kingturtle. One must consider that until today, he hadn't been blocked since December. Were his actions blockable? Certainly. But indef? Some proportion here, please ... Blueboy96 20:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been reading back into this, and my question to Firsfron, Kingturtle and Blueboy96 is how long should the block be to ensure the cessation of disruptive behaviour? If you can qualify a period, then please perform (or request) a unblock/reblock for the appropriate tariff. Indef blocks are not severe (unless it is done with the intent of there not being an unblocking), since they need last for only as long as they need be; it can be less than hours or longer than months depending on the situation, they are flexible. Like I said, my permission is not required for the block to be varied - once it is determined what will be sufficient for the return of consensual collaborative editing, then that should be the sanction duration. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I would think 72 hours is sufficient ... I would be inclined to drop the block altogether if it hadn't been for the fair use violation in his talk page. Blueboy96 20:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No. He has shown no indication that he plans to make any changes to his disruptive editing, in fact he has said he will continue as he always has. Therefore, there is no justification for lifting the block. He has also taken a content issue and turned it into a personal issue. He should do as he said he would, take a wikibreak and decide how badly he wants to edit wikipedia. In short, he himself should determine the length of his block, based on when he demonstrates a willingness to collaborate. Baseball Bugs 20:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

To put it another way, as soon as he's unblocked, he'll start in again on his bogus "grammar" corrections, about The CW and other such stuff, and we'll be right back here again, this time with three ANI threads on the same topic. What would be the point of doing that? Baseball Bugs 20:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for it being lifted ... I simply suggest cutting it down. The behavior issues, to my mind, only merit a 12-hour block, but taken with the fact that a user who has a good deal of experience with fair-use images (a necessary part of TV station articles) chose to violate the fair-use policy, a longer block is certainly merited. But an indefinite block for a user who hasn't been blocked since December? Overwrought. 72 hours is appropriate to my mind. Blueboy96 21:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

He was blocked for disruption. What evidence is there that any finite time will make any difference to his plan to continue disruption? Baseball Bugs 21:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

His unblock request was denied due to his off-topic rants and complaints. As I said, he needs to take a real wikibreak and decide his priorities. When and if he decides he wants to collaborate, then he'll be in position to make a proper request for unblock. He decides. Baseball Bugs 22:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

← I have to agree with Bugs here. Smokes has shown no indication he understands what he did wrong, and has indicated he intends to continue his disruptive behavior. Any shortening of the block at the moment simply means he'll go back to his behavior as soon as the block expires. Until he is willing to reign in his disruptive behavior, there is no need to change his block time. — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed indef block of User:Muntuwandi

I hereby propose an indefinite block on Muntuwandi (talk · contribs). The user has claimed to have "retired", but afterward came back with several socks to evade a block: it was certainly not the first time, either: Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Muntuwandi. I came across this editor for the first time nearly a year ago, when he was edit warring to insert a picture of Barack Obama into white people, and using a likely sock to back it up. This user has unfortunately done little other than engage in POV pushing (mostly racial agitation), and edit warring (he is currently serving his seventh block for this offense). It is clear that increasing block lengths have done nothing to tame this user, nor will they ever. This proposal is to make it clear that Muntuwandi, or any of his socks, are no longer welcome to edit Misplaced Pages on account of disruption. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

An indef block seems sound. Numerous blocks on his record show he's not getting the message, and using multiple socks to evade a block is a dead giveaway he's not going to follow the rules. Dayewalker (talk) 07:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Or at least a number of topic bans and a longer block. I posted about this above but have had no response yet: Misplaced Pages:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Heavier Sanctions needed. Still waiting for the community to take some kind of action other than simply indef blocking his socks.PelleSmith (talk) 10:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Before this turns into mob justice, at least MW should be given an opportunity to defend against some of these allegations. Evil Spartan for example has made one accusation that is clearly false. Unless he provides evidence that MW used socks on the white people article, he should take that statement back. BO's is half white.Muntoowandi (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Another sock? Mathsci (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, him and Bucky Burnside (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I would make the standing one-month block at least a three-month block, and would have no qualms about making it indefinite. Sam Korn 14:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, I have semi-protected origin of religion. Sam Korn 14:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

As we know indef blocks are not community bans, and can be shorted. So if the block is lengthened, even to indef, I would like to see a community sponsored topic ban or other types of topic related sanctions that apply should he return as Muntuwandi or under some other name.PelleSmith (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

← Using at least 5 socks to evade his latest block is sufficient for me, given his long history of disruption and lengthy block log. I've blocked Muntuwandi indefinitely; future socks can be blocked on sight or with checkuser confirmation. MastCell  17:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser confirmation is sensible, because there are frequently multiple accounts that can be nipped in the bud. Sam Korn 13:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

His newest sock (please block) is going around voting in AfDs, perchance to seem credible, as if that is possible. While most of these AfDs seem like clear deletes they are not all so (one editor unwittingly appealed to him to check the entry again after adding sources). Pile on the disruption.PelleSmith (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I clarify that Muntuwundi is hereby banned and not just indefinitely blocked? There are technical reasons for this. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That's always a tricky one, but you can assume that someone indef-blocked, whom no admin is willing to unblock, is de facto banned. That could of course change the second an admin voices an intent to unblock him. If your question has to do with reverting his contributions on sight as those of a "banned" user, then I think that would be justified. MastCell  19:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That was indeed by concern (though there may be other issues I haven't thought of yet), thank you. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban

The above conversation about "ban" v. "block" is exactly why I've been asking if we can't resolve to actually "ban" Muntuwandi from certain topics/entries. This would be a much more complete resolution if he were subject to a topic "ban". There is no reason whatsoever, should he be allowed to return at some later date, that he should be let anywhere near entries related to religion (especially related to the origin of religion): Origin of religion, History of religion, Prehistoric religion, etc. I'm fairly certain that he edited some other areas less contentiously, though I know there are other topics he showed a similar lack of collegiality in. Any takers?PelleSmith (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• While I appreciate your suggestion and sincerity, I would not support a simple topic ban. Muntuwandi continues to sockpuppet to edit these article even as we speak. It has become abundantly clear that this editor cannot and will not abide by the community's principles and policies, and he will not be constructive anywhere. A topic ban would in effect be a ban anyway, and it would have the disadvantage of people having to come here and complain when and if he didn't abide by it. And I don't think Muntuwandi would not sockpuppet anyway, so we'd be back here in 3 days. Edit warring and further sockpupppetry should not be rewarded with the lift of a block and a topic ban which can be further wikilawyered. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I would not suggest lifting his block at all. An indef block is fine in my book. I'm simply saying that since an indef block isn't actually a community ban some admin could end up lifting it. If that happens I'd like to know that he's on a short leash and will get banned for good should he resume this behavior. Having topic related bans in place I think would help in such a scenario.PelleSmith (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Obsessive linking to Barefoot

While RC patrolling these past few days, I've noticed a rather bizarre pattern with a set of accounts who apparently have an obsession with barefeet. Various new accounts are adding links to barefoot to artists, fictional characters and other topics. These are then all linked into the article making a huge mess of a list. The edits are usually marked with "minor copyedit" in the edit summary. Looking at the backlinks for barefoot, the obsessive edits are extensive.

I'm not quite sure what to do with the whole mess as undoing everything is going to take a lot of work and it's a bit late here and I'm getting a little punchy. Here is a list of the sockpuppets that I've found, but I know the list is incomplete:

Thoughts? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This smacks of either an internet message board-organized prank, or a sudden insurgence of foot-fetishists. I hope for the former, and pray for the latter. Dayewalker (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This actually sounds like the work of User:BorisTheBlade, although foot fetishism is common enough that he wouldn't be the only one with a foot fetish wanting to make Misplaced Pages be in line with his perversion. JuJube (talk) 09:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There was a ridiculous section on "characters renowned for being barefoot", which was a list of every fictional character they could find that did not wear shoes; I've removed this. Neıl 龱 09:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What? If it was sourced, why did you remove the list? Seems odd to remove a list, albeit a freaky list, but of course I AGF no matter what all the time forever and ever, so can you explain your actions? Thanks! Beam 14:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for late reply, only just noticed the question. Misplaced Pages is not a directory of loosely-connected information. The characters are not known for being barefoot, they happen to be barefoot. It would be like having a list of every cartoon character with blond hair in Blond. Neıl 龱 14:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've started on the cleanup :P Are all these from the same IP or IP range? (too much to hope for I suppose) EyeSerene 10:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser says there are dozens .... and dozens of new accounts, all SPAs like the above, and all under the one domestic IP. I can maybe list them here (it'll take ages!) but for the meantime, I'm hardblocking the IP - Alison 10:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That's good news at least. Will listing them here achieve anything? If it's all the one IP, and that's blocked, hopefully they'll stay inactive from now on. EyeSerene 10:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've blocked all the ones in Gogo Dodo's list above, and rolled back their contribs where I can. Neıl 龱 10:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed - the following accounts, all under the same IP and all barefoot-obsessed. Each account is a throwaway one, used a few times and then ditched for another one:

1. Libbelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. DuffJee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. Celestone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. SpecLady (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5. Anodice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
6. Nekkra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
7. TaraJungle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
8. JunglGrrl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
9. Nmrita (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
10. Marrinna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
11. Vlcnm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
12. DCWS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
13. Bmygirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
14. MadmX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
15. BftGpsy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
16. Acronm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
17. FlyDive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
18. ODF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
19. PrincessPowera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
20. TTekkenn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
21. Necrom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
22. Slimdancer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
23. GoodGoth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
24. Twilekzone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
25. Silverelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
26. Undrwtr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
27. Creattor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
28. G-Surf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
29. SignetR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
30. Sweetbiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
31. JuneRites (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
32. Starylt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
33. Deviwings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
34. Gemmisat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
35. DFDren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
36. OroRogue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
37. Cherylene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
38. Veneshare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
39. BikiniGL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
40. CaveGrrrl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

.. and moar! I need to take a break .... this is about half.

 IP blocked

Someone might want to take the onerous task of going through the edits histories and reverting the nonsense. 4am here :) - Alison 10:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It's in progress - I was going through backlinks from Barefoot, but your list will make it much easier :) EyeSerene 10:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed - the rest:

1. Gurat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. EveApples (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. Pantheons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. AnthrosCave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5. R24U (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
6. Trailong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
7. Gypyss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
8. JessesRun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
9. Dreamstimes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
10. Treadssoft (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
11. DanceGrrrl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
12. ObsidOne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
13. SurrfGirrl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
14. SoGoodFine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
15. Shareline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
16. VampiSire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
17. RockGrrl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
18. TheTimeMachine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
19. Gorunner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
20. OnTheatre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
21. Purecountry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
22. Deepfile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
23. Shelldiver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
24. SlickZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
25. Alatem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
26. Lightriders (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
27. Doooz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
28. Firehearth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
29. Tinderset (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
30. Gfren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
31. Tinsm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
32. Acrodance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
33. GracefulDance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
34. AeonFlexed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
35. AthleticDiver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
36. MaxiMage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
37. My-Chi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
38. Mythics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
39. SoulfireGrace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Note to self: all checked above this line. EyeSerene 14:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

1. RomKnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Dolphinin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. DownTownM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. CenterStaff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5. Emeraldt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
6. AllTheseDays (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
7. Salvationrun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
8. Seasideplace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - the first account, apparently, dating from mid-May.

Ok, that's the whole drawer emptied out. Lots of "grrl", "girrrl" and "dance" names. Thanks, guys, for starting on the work of sifting through all this mess. Ugh! - Alison 11:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

And a /18 sweep of the IP range shows everywhere else is clean - Alison 11:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

All these are now indef blocked. Kevin (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well done, All; Quite the project, I should say. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 12:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, nice work all, and good catch Gogo Dodo. I've now been through the contribs of Alison's first list of 40 - I've left wikilinks in place, but removed everything else. Don't think I'll ever take my shoes off again... EyeSerene 12:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic, y'all might be interested in Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Creepy Crawler. I wrote an essay based on inspiration from this guy/girl. I actually don't recognize any of the userids, but based on the editing pattern have been tracking him/her for a year or so now. User:FisherQueen has been my usual point of contact mostly because I know her, but if there's a better way I'd love to take it. See here and here and here. At what point to we track down a real person and staple shoes to their feet? WLU (talk) 13:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It's truly extraordinary behaviour. I'm currently going through the contribs of sock no. 57, and after who knows how many articles and ~80 corrective edits, I'll happily put up the cash for shoes, a hammer and nails, and a large pot of glue. EyeSerene 13:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thus far, I've tagged all 87 of the above as Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Seasideplace, but if a CU comes back linking these to the 70+ of Creepy Crawler/EJBanks, I'll update the tags. — Satori Son 16:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

So do we know if Seasideplace and Creepy Crawler are connected? Or does there have to be a CU first? 67.162.108.96 (talk) 23:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Seasideplace wasn't the first account. Miheco (talk · contribs) was active on May 3rd, several days before Seasideplace. Perhaps Alison can provide us with the earliest account? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Miheco account isn't related at all, as it happens. Totally wrong IP address and location, unless there's a secret cross-country cadre of meat-puppeteering foot-fetishists about. Something is definitely afoot! - Alison 06:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, looking at the edits, you're right that it doesn't fit the MO. (Perhaps I'm still blurry-eyed). I did include a few suspect accounts in my original list. As for that pun, well, that deserves a groan and a thwack. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not Creepy Crawler. The styles and goals are coompletely different. CC makes up dreamcasts for movies, fake movie plots, bizarre comic book movie categories, bizarre OTHER categories, and compulsively edits Days of Our lives, doing much the same there. I've never noted a foot fetish related editing pattern for him. And as the guy who's helped file a couple of the RFCU's and SSP's against CC, I'm surprised that WLU has never contacted me taht he's also looking for CC. ThuranX (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Then it's entirely possible that some of the socks for Seasideplace (or someone else) have been attributed to CreepyCrawler by mistake. 67.162.108.96 (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This "barefoot" linker has been around for a while. Note that there are well over 250 backlinks to barefoot article, which is, if I may be so bold, completely freaking insane. Common words should not be wikilinked without good reason. More cleanup needs to be done. Nandesuka (talk) 01:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to help out. Note too that the backlinks page is still showing quite a few pages that have since been delinked - I assume it's waiting on a bot update or something. EyeSerene 07:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If someone could provide some history, with some recent links to confirmed Creepy Crawler socks, I could take a look. Behaviourally alone, it seems highly likely, but I'm not totally familiar with the history of that editor - Alison 23:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Here’s the most recently active Creepy Crawler socks: Godcthulha (talk · contribs · block log) and SteveNix (talk · contribs · block log). — Satori Son 13:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(bing)I've also posted a note here on WP:COMICS since s/he seems to like spamming barefoot to comic pages. I'll leave a link to this discussion and if there ever arrives a centralized solution to him/her, they'll probably be able to help ID any new socks or contributions. WLU (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

*amused by the irony of someone obsessed with bare feet having so many socks* —David Eppstein (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

*HAHA!

Lol :D Cleanup is now finished, I think, with massive thanks to Neil, Ryulong, Smith Jones and all the others I've noticed in the article histories while wading (in boots; big, heavy boots... with thick socks) through this horrible mess. Great work all ;) EyeSerene 16:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Based on the fact that shi attacks comics articles with this nonsense, behaviorally I'd say it's Creepy Crawler (I've dealt with hir in the past). Unfortunately, the most recent I've dealt with is from what, January of this year? -Jéské 06:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to everybody for helping clean up the mess. Sorry that I wasn't able to help out. Like I said, it was pretty late for me (though not as late as Alison!) and I was getting a little blurry-eyed. Nice work, everybody. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Incivility

Miyokan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - personal attacks - Need your glasses checked - What the hell are you talking about - your ability to interpret logic is heavily flawed - trolling claims --windyhead (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What personal attacks?--Miyokan (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. - Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks --windyhead (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

And?--Miyokan (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a big problem with the "glasses" or "what the hell" comments, but the "ability to interpret logic" comment was indeed out of line (comment on the edits, not the editor), and one needs to be very careful about accusations of trolling. I can't say I am innocent of ever calling someone a troll, but general speaking you shouldn't do so unless you have reason to believe that you will never cross their path again on-wiki. Accusations of trolling pretty much destroy any sort of collaborative spirit on Misplaced Pages.

Miyokan, I am a little worried you don't see any problem at all. As I said, the "logic" comment was way out of line. If personal attacks such as that one persist, it could definitely result in a block. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What planet are you on? Minor "rudeness" is not personal attacks, if you want to see personal attacks, check out User:Folantin's insults and racial comments on Russian editors here.--Miyokan (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You're pushing it. Miyokan, do you honestly not see how that could be considered uncivil? Also, your question of what planet he is on is also approaching poor conduct. While I have a really lenient idea of civility, the fact that you can't see how one could take offense by those comments (whether rightfully or not) is more worrisome than the comments themselves. Be careful. (3 God Damned Edit Conflicts)Beam 17:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC) And pointing out others' comments is not a defense of YOUR comments. I want to know that you see how your comments are not helpful and can be taken as offensive, again regardless of the intent. Beam 17:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought the glasses comment was funny. Ostap 17:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

ok removing it then --windyhead (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought the "3 God Damned Edit Conflicts" comment was funny! Bishonen | talk 07:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC).

"what the hell are you talking about" is minor rudeness, I agree (although one could always make a case even that was covered under the civility policy). That's why I wasn't worried about it. Saying that someone's "ability to interpret logic is heavily flawed" is an ad hominem attack, no two ways about it. Calling someone a troll also is a comment on the editor rather than their edits. This is prohibited on Misplaced Pages, whether you want to accept that or not. Pointing to someone else who has also been incivil and/or made personal attacks is a complete red herring, and we will not be fooled by that. Your actions are your actions.

(BTW, saying "What planet are you from" to me when I am trying to provide a balanced response is in itself highly incivil. That's not going to win you any friends)

At this juncture, you really have two choices: Recognize that some of your comments have exceeded what is tolerable on a collaborative project such as Misplaced Pages, in which case no further action will be taken; or continue down this path and see where it takes you. I am not an admin and do not have the ability to enact a block, so I am not threatening you -- it is impossible for me to threaten you. However, I have been around the project long enough and am familiar enough with the policies to tell you that if you continue with those comments in an unapologetic manner, there is a high likelihood that it could result in a block. This is just reality, not my doing. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• This should be at WQA - not here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
• Those comments weren't personal attacks, at worst they very mildy uncivil. Looks to me like you're trying to kick up a fuss over nothing. RMHED (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Looks to me that windy here is just upset that he lost an arguement. p.s. I suggest you review the arguments that windy made before you judge Miyokan's "insult" of his logic. --Bogdan 19:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It was not me who degraded to discuss the editor --windyhead (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No personal attacks observed. Minor incivility, but this is not a big deal. Closing this as no administrator intervention is required. seicer | talk | contribs 22:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If there was relevant context, Miyokan should have mentioned this instead of ridiculing the entire concept of civility. While I wouldn't ask for action for what I agree are not severe civility issues, it sort of bothers me that Miyokan is like "So fucking what?" and the community is willing to endorse that attitude. But you know, whatever... --Jaysweet (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, Miyokan sent a gloating message to everyone who expressed concern over his "minor incivility".

It's fine to say, "Look, this is a relatively minor issue of incivility, we are not going to take administrator action. User is warned to maintain civility." It's another thing entirely if a user is saying, "Neener neener, I can be incivil all I want as long as I keep it 'minor'" and for the community to implicitly approve that attitude. As my initial response showed, the concern was not the minor incivility itself, it was that Miyokan thinks incivility is okay as long as it's minor. Perhaps we should change the Nutshell summary at WP:CIV to read "Participate in a respectful and minorly uncivil way. Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others without first subjecting them to mild ridicule. Don't worry if others are uncivil, and avoid upsetting other editors unless they recently lost an argument with you"? Hmmm? --Jaysweet (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol. This is the third dispute I've removed seicer's resolved tag of no personal attacks (although, the other two were on WQA). There are legit. concerns here, however minor they might be. If non-sysops who've expressed concerns about incivility get those sort of messages (noted above by Jaysweet - ), then sysops should be stepping in because the message has not sunk in. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Tennis expert causing disruption

Basically, a few weeks ago in the Maria Sharapova article, I enacted some fairly non-radical but (I believe) worthy edits, cutting away some irrelevant information and giving the article more flow. User:Tennis expert appeared to take great offence at this, and initially reverted my edits over and over again, until he was defeated by consensus and he subsequently gave up. Since then, however, he has continued to cause disruption in the article and seemingly is intent on discrediting my work on the page without reason: he continually adds tags to the page saying the article requires cleanup, and yet, he never gives a reason for why it requires this and says this in spite of general consensus being that the article is fine as it is. I have repeatedly requested he gives reasons for why he believes the article is poor, and he never gives one, instead just automatically adding the tags back (1). In addition, in what appears to be a further attempt to discredit me, he has in the past accused me of being a sockpuppet of three separate registered users: User:Dudesleeper, User:Musiclover565 and User:Masha4ever, with no evidence to support any of these claims. I have attempted to discuss our issues on his talkpage, but each time, he removes my comements, often with a sarcastic remark (2). Please can he be told he cannot continue to disrupt the Sharapova article in this way. Thank you. Whitenoise123 (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not found Tennis expert to be disruptive in my interactions with them. Have notified them so they can comment here. Orderinchaos 19:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Whitenoise123, I suggest you consider filing a request for comment on user conduct.--PhilKnight (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I would rather hear the other side of the story first - I've looked at the history and it seems to be an obscure content dispute to me. Orderinchaos 20:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, here is my side of the story.

First, let's deal with sockpuppetry. BanRay started a still ongoing sockpuppetry case that originally involved Musiclover565 (temporarily blocked earlier this year for disrupting the Maria Sharapova article), Masha4ever, and ultimately more than 20 anonymous IP accounts. Whitenoise123 then interjected and said that he owned the IP accounts and that, therefore, none of those accounts could possibly be sockpuppets of Musiclover565 and Masha4ever based on the transparent assertion that otherwise, Misplaced Pages would not have allowed him to register as Whitenoise123. Because Whitenoise123 publicly claims the anonymous IP accounts in question (and even edits one of their discussion pages), he is also a suspected sockpuppet of Musiclover565 and Masha4ever. That suspicion is logically inescapable. By the way, I never "accused" Whitenoise123 of being a sockpuppet of Dudesleeper - I merely asked Dudesleeper if one of the anonymous IP accounts in question here was his sockpuppet. I have clarified to Whitenoise123 what I did, only to be met with the classic "You say potato, I say pot-ar-to".

Second, I am responsible for initiating the tag in the "career" section of the Maria Sharapova article. The tag in the career section is needed for the reasons stated in the Maria Sharapova discussion page (as I stated in the edit summary when I originally added the tag and on several subsequent occasions) and in the tag itself: (a) the tone of the section needs improvement; (b) the section is confusing or unclear for some readers; (c) the section needs to be expanded; and (d) the section needs copywriting and rewriting. Dudesleeper originally added the tag at the beginning of the article. BanRay and I agree that the tag is still needed. I cannot speak for him about his reasoning for the tag. All I can say is that I believe the tag is justified given the well documented problems that Whitenoise123 and his sockpuppets introduced. Whitenoise123 and his sockpuppets revert these tags whenever they appear based on his sole opinion that they constitute vandalism, are invalid because the complaints on which they are based are invalid, are absolutely unneeded, or are no longer required. See: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.

Third, the Maria Sharapova article was high quality and stable for months after the problems caused by Musiclover565 and his sockpuppets were finally resolved. See, for example, this version of the article. The article was consistent with the standards that longstanding and established tennis editors had developed for the highest quality tennis biographies on English-language Misplaced Pages. The detail of the article was consistent with the detail of other biographies of highly ranked or successful tennis players. But then, without prior notice or explanation and without attempting to gain consensus, Whitenoise123 and his sockpuppets arbitrarily cut vast amounts of important information from the article and greatly decreased its quality: 1. Naturally, this was seen as vandalism. When these cuts and quality degredations were contested, he used repeated reversions of myself and other editors to impose his unilateral conception of what the article should be and denegrated all efforts to restore the article as, e.g., mindless, vandalism, and illegitimate. He then shockingly claimed that there was consensus for the article to read in accordance with his efforts when there was not a scintilla of evidence to support that claim. I finally listed on the Maria Sharapova discussion page 32 important things that were wrong with Whitenoise123's version of the article (there were other less important problems with his version that there was no practical way to list). Although he made a few changes in response to the list, he flatly rejected my other suggestions or claimed that he was accepting some of them when in actual fact he did not. To clarify matters, I then on June 24-26 attempted to address each item on my list one-by-one and provided a detailed edit summary for each of my edits. This, too, was rejected by Whitenoise123, without explanation. After butting my head against the wall for weeks, I decided to add the tag to the career section of the article and then leave that section alone because to do anything else was met by passive aggressive obstructionism. But, as I have explained already, even that was unacceptable to Whitenoise123. It was either his way 100% or no way. That is where things stand now. Tennis expert (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to bother with the sockpuppet claims again. As has been established, apart from being incorrect, they are completely irrelevent considering ML565 wanted completely different things to me.

As for your second paragraph - once again, you do not give proper reasons for why the tag should be added! What is wrong with the tone of the section? How is it confusing or unclear? Why would it need copywriting or rewriting? If you can answer these questions, with examples from the article for each one, then we can talk and improve the article. I probably will not be able to respond until tomorrow though. I am, however, going to take issue with your calling my anonymous IPs "sockpuppets" - whenever I use one of these (my ISP constantly gives me a new IP for some reason), I have always made clear that it is me, so they are not sockpuppets.

I am not going to bother with the last paragraph either. It was established long ago that I was perfectly within my rights to enact those edits, so anything I write now would just be a rehash of something I wrote a few weeks ago. Lets keep this discussion directly relevant to the topic of the complaint please.

And thank you PhilKnight for the advice - I will follow it if Tennis expert continues to add these tags and downgrade the rating of the article without proper, valid reasons. Whitenoise123 (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(1) The downgrading of the Maria Sharapova article to "C class" was done by BanRay, not me. Whitenoise123 promptly reverted the downgrading. Because I honestly agreed with BanRay, I reinstated the "C class" designation. Consistent with Whitenoise123's belief that only he knows what's best and that other editors are therefore wrong, he has repeatedly reverted to the "B class" designation despite his being the only editor who has expressly supported "B class" and notwithstanding that two established editors have expressly supported "C class." Once again, Whitenoise123 makes a lot of "noise" about his having consensus for his edits when the facts clearly show otherwise. This is the typical disruptive tactic that he uses and that his suspected sockpuppets, Masha4ever and Musiclover565, used earlier this year. Notice some of the edit summaries that Masha4ever and Musiclover565 used in January 2008: "As BanRay as yet to provide a legitimate reason for why these edits are apparently not allowed, I'm going ahead with them. Others are more than entitled to edit statements they feel are uncited or POV." "Please do not mindlessly revert my edits." "Please do not revert edits without reason." The similarities between these edit summaries and those of Whitenoise123 (and his sockpuppets) are inescapably obvious. For example: "Please stop mindlessly reverting my edit. Thank you." "Please stop reverting my perfectly legitimate edit or it will be reported. Thank you."

(2) Whitenoise123 himself raised the sockpuppet issue in his initial post here. When I responded appropriately and factually, the issue suddenly is not worth discussing. Very strange, indeed. He also claims that he has no control over which anonymous IP sockpuppet accounts he uses because his ISP "constantly gives ... a new IP for some reason." Again, the facts do not support this story. He rotates among the same anonymous sockpuppet accounts, returning periodically to many of them. I guess that's pure coincidence and nothing he controls.... The problem with sockpuppetry is clearly shown by the edits that Whitenoise123 makes, sometimes with his "named" account and sometimes with anonymous IP sockpuppets. This appears to be a continuing tactic, especially considering the edits made to other tennis biographies from the same IP range as Whitenoise123's admitted IP sockpuppets.

(3) Compare the complaint made here by Whitenoise123 to the almost identical complaint made by Masha4ever here. Are the similarities merely coincidence? I think not. Tennis expert (talk) 03:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You just don't get it. I have provided reasons for why I believe the article is B-Class: It is well-written, has all the essential information, well-structured, and in terms of citations, is extremely strong (and I intend to find citations for all uncited statements / remove all uncited statements by the end of the day). If you believe this not to be the case, you need to EXPLAIN why you think this; for instance, if you believe it is not well-written, you need to give examples and say WHY it is not well-written. I am not expecting you to do this of course, considering you have not done so so far despite many requests, but it is not good enough to just say you think it is C-Class.

And again, you fail to grasp the sockpuppet claims are completely irrelevent to the issue. I only raised the issue to pre-empt what I knew would come from you: an attempt to fight your case using the claims. I needed to make clear that, as ML565 intended completely different edits to me, the claims were irrlevent. If I "rotate" around anonymous IPs (which I'm not sure is true), that is completely out of my hands. I also do not appreciate your downright LIE saying I rotate between Whitenoise123 and IPs... since I registered this account on Monday (the sole cause for this being to make cases like this easier to deal with), I have always operated with this account and never with an anon IP.

All that complaint you cited proves is that your unresponsiveness to my requests for discussions is not a one-off, as you apparently were so in that case too. Once again, in this discussion here, I requested you answer those questions I posed about your problems with the article, and you completely ignored them in your response, instead resorting once again to pretty and irrelevent smears. Instead, you have returned to trolling, restoring your version of 2008 (automatically reverting many edits to the page since) despite consensus having already rejecting it. Rest assured, if you persist, I will be requesting a comment on user conduct, something that would be valid, given both myself and Orderinchaos have requested you engage in a proper discussion about this in the last 24hrs, and you have shown no willingness to do so. Whitenoise123 (talk) 09:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Rest assured that I "get it." I am very familiar with your behavior and the behavior of your sockpuppets (self-admitted and otherwise) since January of this year.

Yesterday, I added back relevant information concerning Maria Sharapova's results during 2008 that myself and numerous other editors had carefully written and included in the article for over 6 months, i.e., since the beginning of this year. Two hours later, you summarily reverted it in its entirety with the following edit summary: "Removing irrelevant information, in line with consensus." Although reasonable people could disagree about the amount of detail that should be included in the article, none of what I added back is "irrelevant." As for your "in line with consensus" comment, where is the evidence of that consensus? It simply doesn't exist. Six months of the article having the detail that I was merely trying to restore is persuasive evidence of there having been consensus to include that detail. You ignored that consensus when you deleted that detail and now you are trying to dress-up your action by claiming a non-existent consensus for your position. What is most telling about your latest reversion is that you made no effort to compromise. You simply rejected everything I did, as you did before. See my efforts on June 24-26 to address each item on the Maria Sharapova discussion page list of problems with your unilateral edits and your out-of-hand rejection of those efforts, without explanation.

The tools you have used since June to defend your unilateral action include, but are not limited to, sockpuppetry, frequent reversions, mischaracterizations of facts, false statements of consensus, and now intimidation and threats to seek administrative action unless I go silent and abide by your wishes. The latest example of your behavior is the third paragraph of your statement immediately above. To be clear about what I'm talking about, let me quote it: "Instead, you have returned to trolling, restoring your version of 2008 (automatically reverting many edits to the page since) despite consensus having already rejecting it. Rest assured, if you persist, I will be requesting a comment on user conduct, something that would be valid, given both myself and Orderinchaos have requested you engage in a proper discussion about this in the last 24hrs, and you have shown no willingness to do so." Let's look at the various aspects of your statement: (1) Name-calling. Calling my behavior "trolling" is inconsistent with numerous Misplaced Pages policies, including, but not limited to, WP:CIVIL. (2) Falsely stating that I restored my version without regard to intervening edits. First of all, I did not restore "my" version. As I already said, I simply restored the detail that numerous editors (including myself) had included in the article for 6 months before your unilateral action. Second of all, my edit yesterday was not a robotic restoration of the 2008 text that existed before your unilateral action, as this comparison plainly shows. (3) Falsely stating that there is consensus for your unilateral actions. See the previous paragraph. (4) Attempted intimidation and threats. "f you persist, I will be requesting a comment on user conduct, something that would be valid...." (5) Falsely stating that I have not responded to the request of Orderinchaos and yourself to discuss these issues. I can understand your discomfort with my numerous responses to your allegations. But clearly I have responded in full (here and in the sockpuppetry case involving you), and I have reasonably documented your behavior with numerous examples and why I believe it has been disruptive. Tennis expert (talk) 05:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, I am not going to bother with most of that; the sockpuppet claims are as silly as ever, and we settled that you were out of line to continually restore your version of the article ages ago, so there is no point responding to your stuff in regards to that. I am going to respond to (4) and (5) though.

"Intimidation and threats"?! Please! You know full well that is not what it is, and this sums up your entire input to this dispute - instead of sitting down and calmly debating the issues, you instead almost invariably resort to stupid accusations, irrelevent points or twisting my statements. This was not a threat, it was merely a warning, which are perfectly permitted on Misplaced Pages; I think I am probably already entitled to request that comment on conduct, but I would rather not further this dispute if I can avoid it, and so, I was just letting you know that, while I would let you off this time, I would not in the future. As you also know, that warning was not a threat to "keep silent"; as I have said, if you could actually come up valid criticisms of the article, to justify the cleanup tags and the C rating, I would be forced to accept them. But you have not.

It is not false to say you have not fully taken part in these discussions. Orderinchaos and I have both asked you to fully explain why you feel the tags are necessary, and that does not just mean saying "it needs rewriting"; you need to break down by citing examples and saying what you think is wrong with them. If you feel so strongly about how the bad the article is, why do you find it so difficult just to say what exactly is wrong with it? In your next response, please answer these crucial questions, giving examples for each and explaining in full why you believe them to be poor: what is wrong with the tone of the section? How is it confusing or unclear? Why would it need copywriting or rewriting? What is wrong with the grammar? If you do not respond to these questions with valid answers, I can only assume that you do not have sufficient problems with the article, proving you only added them in an attempt to cause trouble, thus completely justifying my complaint. Whitenoise123 (talk) 09:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You would assume wrong. But this is your usual tactic: tell editors that unless they respond in the way you dictate by the deadline you impose, you will assume that they agree with your position. Ridiculous. Tennis expert (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This is almost a textbook case of what C-Class is designed for, in my view. It seems the correct rating for this article to me. Orderinchaos 20:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining why? It seems perfect for B-Class to me: every single statement requiring a citation now has one, it contains all key results so has no omissions, it certainly has a very defined structure, it is grammatically sound and flows reasonably well even if not perfectly (and certainly much better than the previous version, which for the most part contained statements like "She defeated Venus Williams. She then defeated Lindsay Davenport"), and it does not use overly-technical terms. In any case, it needs to be viewed relatively; there are many other female tennis player articles rated B (such as Venus Williams, Serena Williams and Jelena Jankovic) and I fail to see how they are higher quality than the Sharapova article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitenoise123 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

C-class was introduced quite recently to reduce the gap between Start and B-class. Now that three established editors have graded the article as C, I'm going to restore the C-class template. Now as for this edit, we are still waiting for you to point out the consensus you were referring to. BanRay 13:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

And I will revert it back to B unless you start giving proper reasons for why it should be C. If you beliieve so strongly that it is C, how hard is it to list what exactly is wrong with it, with examples? This is a reasonable request, and until you start doing this, how on earth can you expect to be taken seriously?

And the consensus refers to the fact countless editors have edited the page in the past 3 weeks, and none have taken issue with my edits, apart from yourself and Tennis expert, who have not even provided proper criticisms. Whitenoise123 (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:CON please BanRay 14:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. "generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it. In essence, silence implies consent". Of the countless editors to have edited the page in the last 3 weeks, only two have found issue with my edits. That is realistically as close to consensus as we are going to get. Whitenoise123 (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Another misrepresentation of fact.... At least 4 editors have expressly objected to your edits: BanRay, Tennisboi13, 121.152.80.151, and myself. How many editors have expressly supported your edits? One. You. At least 4 editors have expressly supported a "C class" designation for the article: SWik78, BanRay, Orderinchaos, and myself. How many editors have expressly supported a "B class" designation? One. You. Tennis expert (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if I remember rightly, "Tennisboi13" reverted about one sentence. And there is no proof whatsoever that that anon IP is not your sockpuppet. As for me being the only one to support my edits - once again, as the page that BanRay so kindly pointed me to, "silence implies consent".

I also notice you have once again rejected my attempts to reach consensus. I started a discussion about the grading on the discussion page, and posted a polite note about it requesting input on your talkpage... you responded by removing my comment without reason, ignoring the discussion and reverting the grading back. This only leads me to assume you do not have genuine concerns about the article. For now, for the very short term, I will leave the article as C, but unless someone gives full, explicit reasons for why it should not be B shortly, I will revert it back. Whitenoise123 (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

See this. Tennis expert (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop being patronising. I have gone to the trouble of clarifying my stance, it is now your responsibility to clarify yours. Whitenoise123 (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If all the time and energy in the above squabble over class was put into improving the article, it'd be on the main page by now. 14:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Haha, very true. And I am willing to start working with BanRay and Tennis expert to improve the article further when they start calmly debating the content rather than silly accusations of sockpuppetry or adding cheap tags for no reason. Whitenoise123 (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That's true Tanthalas, but even though I do prefer Tennis expert's version of the article, this isn't as much about the article as it is about the User's trolling and sockpuppetry. So up until the sock case is taken (and with the current backlog it may well take a while), I will try to refrain from any communication with the user. BanRay 14:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

And I think that shows how impossible it is to calmly discuss things with this guy. Whitenoise123 (talk) 14:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have outlined my case for a B rating on the Sharapova discussion page. Any input would be appreciated. Whitenoise123 (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Any chance y'all can adjourn to WP:DR? Mediation or whatever? I'm not hearing anything that requires administrator intervention. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have already attempted to start this (see the Sharapova discussion page), but Tennis expert has thus far not responded. Whitenoise123 (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Baggini and Stangroom: The problem of 'living persons'

Okay, I think after several years of watching this 'from the sidelines' as it were, I can’t stand it any longer! Merzel has swung into action on behalf of a user called Chris who reads books for a living’. They may or may not know what they are doing. If not, I spell it out below.

There are important issues surrounding this apparently unimportant page. It involves numerous fake accounts, users creating misinfmatonon exisiting pages (to create edits) and creating junk pages to become admin figures to further their non-encyclopedic interests. Its a long story, and I certainly have only a sense of a tiny part of it. But, in sum, it is about the use of WIkipedia pages by individuals and organisations for advertising (at minimum) and propaganda (and most) purposes.

Allow me to go through some of it.

The page was started in 04:13, 1 August 2005 by SlimVirgin who at the same time started one for Jeremy Stangroom (05:02, 1 August 2005 ).

Julian and Jeremy are joint founders and editors of the Philosopher’s Magazine. This magazine they describe on Amazon as “one of the pre-eminent philosophy publications in the world “. This is a nonsense claim. (incidentally, such material on Amazon is usually added (In my own experience, as an author, such material is added not by the publishers but by the authors direct to the website though I can’t of course say what happened in this case.)

The pictures of both Julian Baggini and Jeremy Stangroom are described as being created by ‘Chris who reads books for a living’. This user, wanted to be called User:Continuum Photos ) but was obliged to change name for breaching WIkiguidelines on using Misplaced Pages for crude advertising efforts.

A glance at this user’s contributions ] indicates that he is a particular interest in the publications of both Stangroom and Baggini, along with an interest in the neoconservative Adam Smith Institute in the UK.

It is this user who has just reversed an entirely proper contribution to the Baggini page Why do that? But the page. like Stangroom's, like Butterflies and Wheels the two ‘philosophers’ website’ like individual promotional pages on the style of The Dictionary of Fashionable Nonsense: A Guide for Edgy People are not intended as public information, but as publicity, promotional pages. To this end they are assisted by gullible editors.

That is why, on the 8 July 2008, the page contains the information that there is a website for for Baggini 's forthcoming book , on the philosophy of complaining. That is why Stangroom’s page contains an image for the cover of his latest book, Identity Crisis: Against Multiculturalism by Jeremy Stangroom, an image Chris etc. says ‘created entirely by himself’.

This fine Wikipedian is backed by SlimVirgin and Merzul, amongst others. Let’s see some of his edits. Under an earlier ID (he has used many devious routes to hide his tracks, including ‘adopting’ disused IDs) we can see a not entirely creditable interest in the ‘Great Philosophers’.

At 09:45, 18 June 2008 Anonymous Dissident made two small edits to the highly prominent Misplaced Pages Article on Aristotle. One was to change:

"Aristotle (together with Socrates and Plato ) is one of the most important founding figures in Western philosophy. "

which is correct, to:

"Aristotle (together with Plato , his teacher, and Socrates , Plato's teacher ) is one of the most important founding figures in Western philosophy. "

which is not, as the term 'teacher' is quite inappropriate in this context.

The other change, at the end of the first paragraph, was to add a reference, which seems unnecessary in the context. It is to a book called 'The Great Philosophers' by Jeremy Stangroom.

ref name="stangroom">Stangroom, Jeremy (2005). The Great Philosophers. Arcturus Publishing Ltd. ISBN 184193299X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)/ref

These edits are here: ]

At 10:16, 18 June 2008, Anonymous Dissident added this source to another prominent article, this time in the second paragraph,

The sentence previously ran:

"He is best known for his treatises on realist political theory (The Prince) on the one hand and republicanism (Discourses on Livy) on the other. "

After revising, it runs:

"He is best known for his treatises on realist political theory (The Prince , which he considered his Magnum Opus ) ref name="stangroom">Stangroom, Jeremy (2005). The Great Philosophers. Arcturus Publishing Ltd. ISBN 184193299X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)ref> on the one hand and republicanism (Discourses on Livy) on the other. "

There is no known record of Machiavelli saying or thinking this. Indeed, the Discourses is the earlier and more substantial work so it seems unlikely.

Similar edits show up for Marcus Aurelius (09:57, 18 June 2008 , no content added), Thomas Aquinas (Revision as of 09:57, 18 June 2008 (edit ) ( undo ) no content added) , Socrates (Revision as of 09:41, 18 June 2008, in which a gross error is introduced: the sentence "His work continues to form an important part of the study of philosophy." becomes "His work continues to form an important part of the study of philosophy , even though he did not leave behind a great deal of textual material ref>Stangroom, Jeremy (2005). The Great Philosophers. Arcturus Publishing Ltd. ISBN 184193299X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)/ref)

), Nietzsche (Revision as of 07:15, 16 June 2008 ) etc. etc...

It is quite legitimate, indeed very helpful, for authors to share their expertise on matters. But this is a long way from that. No new information is being added, indeed some misinformation is. It looks just like crude advertising.

It is a reasonable assumption looking at the various pages that there is a sort of conspiracy here, with many users with far more usernames several of and them now administrators. It is not possible for me to unpick it all - I wonder if there ANY honest Wikipedians left to worry about this. (It’s tragic to see all the honest users futile efforts to use Wiki procedures to hold back the tide, eg at ]

Certainly SlimVirgin, apparently (to judge by all the ‘brown nosing’ by other editors that goes on the Bagging discussion page) a key figure in WIkipedia is deeply involved in all this. User:Nick_Mallory, again curiously intimate with Stangroom and Baggini’s publications, seems to have created vast numbers of ‘mock’ pages in an attempt it seems to become an administrator. ]

Few enough of these editors attacking myself and others for ‘vandalism’ of the page has shown any concern for the blatant advertising under the picture of Bagging, only removed last week: ‘Courtesy of Continuum”, or the information about a website‘ for Baggini 's forthcoming book , on the philosophy of complaining’, surely so clearly contrary to Misplaced Pages’s purpose.

I offer a few possible conclusions:

1. I urge some independent administrators (if there are any left) to pick up the leads that follow from this page and the one’s mentioned, via all the different usernames and IDs and to take, as they say, ‘appropriate action’.

2. SlimVirgin in particular needs to be desysopped. Whatever their intentions, they have clearly become a kind of negative role model for other users in the abuse of admin status.

3. Far from ‘protecting’ BLP and pages linking to living persons (which are the vast majority of course) editing BLP etc. needs to be made more democratic, as for sure powerful interests are there in these pages which otherwise will triumph.

Of course, given the ‘wikirot’ I wonder whether this contribution will even be allowed to be seen. Docmartincohen (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, I just wanted to point out that I laughed out loud at the way you spelled misinformation: "misinfmatonon." Beam 00:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think I don't get it. What particular action do you think is 'admin abuse' that should be evaluated? I'm not saying you don't have a valid point, but the long explaination you've given isn't very clear as to the specific problem you have with these editors and what your conclusions are. you've given some recomendations for action, but I'm not seeing how they follow from your discussion. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

tl;dr. Could you summarize your point in a few sentences? --Carnildo (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You beat me to typing those 5 letters, Carnildo. Maybe I shouldn't have first actually tried to read this, & figure out what Slim Virgin did that deserves to be "desysopped" for. (I think this editor means she be denied root access to the servers.) In any case, her chief crimes here are: (1) starting two articles on philosophy topics, & (2) having a lot of people "kiss-up" to her. I have to agree with this poster -- shame on everyone for starting articles! Stop that immediately! (And everyone who starts articles on Misplaced Pages ought to be denied root access to the servers immediately -- including me!) And as soon as I figure out what Docmartincohen thinks Anonymous Dissident did wrong here, I'll agree with that. And he should be denied root access to the servers, too! -- llywrch (talk) 00:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I tried reading that, but I'd appreciate a TL;DR please. Also, I have seen on the intarwebz (no not just ED) some pretty shady stuff involving SlimVirgin, with diffs and other proof. so I wouldn't say that this person's allegations are so outrageous. Of course I don't think SlimVirgin is really evil, but from all the things I've read it doesn't seem, as Ralph Wiggum would say, unpossible. Of course it's also not unpossible that it's all bullshit. But if I get Caballed out of no where, than it's even more valid. ***looks over shoulder*** Beam 00:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• It's a known fact that SlimVirgin is one of the major malign influences of the 21st century. UN resolutions have been passed calling for her desysoping, but all to no avail. Her reign of evil continues, and as the above ramblings conclusively prove, the 'Pedia is but a handy tool she's using to bring about her self confessed aim of world domination. RMHED (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Since everyone becomes sarcastic and mocking when it's brought up, it's either obviously not true, or very true. Meh. Beam 02:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me drop the sarcasm for a minute, Beam, and explain the problem here. First, long, rambling posts complaining about another user get ignored. Second, any dispute that could possibly involve content gets a brief "Take the matter elsewhere" response & the matter is either closed or ignored. Third, accusations of a "cabal" get ignored -- unless there are a bunch of malingering Wikipedians reading WP:AN/I at the moment, who then engage in some sarcasm &/or mocking. Lastly, complaints about certain people (like Slim Virgin here, but others are Giano, Betacommand, Giovanni33, & a few others whose names I have forgotten) come up so often that people stop reading the first time their name appears & move on. (Not to say those 4 are always unfairly treated or above the rules, but a lot of Wikipedians are tired of reading rants about them. Any complaints about BetaCommand, for example, will get moved to a special WP:AN/I page.) The OP managed to hit a Grand Slam here, & scored all four runs.

So what if you honestly believe that you have a case that involves one of these tired topics? Simple: be short, get to the point, & furnish plenty of diffs & relevant details to prove your point. Punctuation, spelling & grammar also help. Definitely use the conflict resolution process first. But know some people would rather handle a nationalistic edit war, which is part of an off-wiki war that involves bullets & bombs, than read a post with one or more of the above. -- llywrch (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, at least part of this has to do with new editor User:Wikigiraffes finding the page Julian Baggini and attempting to edit it. He added a non-profane, highly literate put-down of Baggini sourced to the well-known reliable source, Mr. Some-Guy-On-A-Blog. He added something about Baggini writing sympathetically about British National Party voters, citing a The Guardian piece by Baggini which was indeed sympathetic of certain BNP voters on its face, that was its raison d'etre, though clearly it's pretty controversial/WP:SYNTHy to say so in an article. He added something about a Guardian review of a book of Baggini's, which mentioned that it was similar in concept and structure to another. This was fine. He added something about an extended discussion between Baggini and the author of this other book, on these similarities, which was sourced to an article on some kind of philosophy website connected to the other author, and which reprinted parts of emails the two authors exchanged. Probably not cool, as you can imagine.

Baggini complained, basically of WP:UNDUE, Slim protected the article, Tim Vickers supported and renewed the protection, numerous editors directed the new editor to our policies. The new editor, like many smarter-than-average people, read some policy pages and immediately assumed he had grasped everything and was armed to fight a case, which he did at several venues at some length, and in such a manner as to get himself blocked, after which he resorted to socks.

He had a point in that short WP:BLP articles here are often bland C.V.-like entries, but obviously he could not find a way to edit in accordance with our policies in this area, and he was, I think fairly, described at one point as "a POV-pusher with a grudge". 86.44.27.87 (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

So, how do I gain access to the cabal to do my bidding on articles? Seriously. Beam 04:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The alchemy by which User:Slim Virgin and User:Tim Vickers can be made to act in concord is indeed mysterious, little one. 86.44.27.87 (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And I'm sure it is just a stunning coincidence that Wikigiraffes (talk · contribs) and Docmartincohen (talk · contribs) are on the same ISP and IP range and share other technical similarities. No direct IP match but it's an ISP that assigns a new IP every day. Thatcher 11:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been on Misplaced Pages for almost 6 years now, & I'm still trying to figure that one out. And I have a specific, pressing need: forget winning edit wars, I want free child care! Someone to look after my daughter while I try to create content. -- llywrch (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You have children? I doubt, then, that you are taking Misplaced Pages seriously enough... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If I took Misplaced Pages as seriously as some folks you & I could mention, I wouldn't have lasted here as long as I have. -- llywrch (talk) 05:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Executive Summary

Sure, there’s a need to summarise things. But that’s difficult! Misplaced Pages has 10 zillion pages, the information needs summarising - don’t blame me for that.

Right:

The issue is about the abuse of Misplaced Pages for personal ends - ranging from mere advertising to more sinister propaganda purposes. The strategies for both are very similar

1. I gave a detailed account of how one user whose interests seem to revolve around one Jeremy Stangroom, has planted misleading and plain wrong information on key philosophy pages whilst adding apparently unnecessary references to ‘Jeremy Stangroom’.

2. I also indicated how this user has been creating numerous junk pages and running through user names apparently in pursuit of editing privileges.

3.Baggini is not important in himself, but the issue of his page’s function is.

4. All pages about individuals on Misplaced Pages, whether alive or not quite, need to be open to editing so as to present a range of perspectives on the individual and their work, subject to academic standards of factual accuracy only.

Baggini’s page is not, and has not been open to contributions for several years. ('Established users' only can put them on, but even so, they'll be off the next day!) Already, in many ways, the Encylopedia is a ridiculous animal, click on if you don’t believe me! full of pages designed to flatter egos but the process has barely started yet...

It is not coincidental that ‘Chris/Continuum Photos’ user also edited Julian Baggini’s page as ‘real life’ Baggini and Stangroom are colleagues. His edits have been allowed to stand there, indeed the page has been ‘protected’ to make it difficult to challenge them

No one has expressed any alarm at the idea that a user is floating around Misplaced Pages under various names adding misleading information and spurious references. Perhaps, that is because editors assume that this is what most people are doing, but in that case, we get to my general point , which is that

4. there is evidence of a network or conspiracy here which can be traced to several hundred dodgy pages.

I don’t spend ‘all’ my time looking at edit histories, not least because administrators continually falsify them. (Someone ought to check closely the voters for or against admin positions, not just the IP addresses, for example... The problem for Misplaced Pages is that there is an awful lot of shared ‘POV’ pushing going on, with networks of users stifling contrary views and administrators not so much editing pages as manipulating them. (Note, yes, Thatcher is right I have done a bit of POV networking in talking to friends myself, but not to stifle views only to air them.)

5. The most obvious network is that of SlimVirgin.

I have noticed how criticism of SlimVirgin is immediately drowned out by supportive comments from other users (off hand I recall particularly) Merkel’s “I think we ought to thank SlimVirgin for all her good work here”, and then there is Tim rushing to reinforce SlimVirgin’s protection of the Baggini page even as he argues that it was ‘inappropriate’ for an admin to protect pages they had started to stop others adding information from a different POV.

Point of View is of course is fundamental to Misplaced Pages. Take Mao for instance, there is a lot of negative comment on Mao, (I would say) much of it ill-informed and prejudiced. That reflects some editors' agendas, and in particular the views of the ‘administrators’. Similarly, the Ayn Rand page deifies this dubious bigot as ‘a philosopher’ of some importance. We can imagine why that might be. But POV is a subtle concept, in proactive the Neutral POV is the point of view of the dominant group or individual.

6. To make any sense of the NPOV concept we have to allow a range of opinions on subjects

Some of which some people agree with and some of which these people dislike. To some extent the Rand page has done this, Baggini’s page, again, provides a particularly blatant example of how that principle has not been applied.

Ok, I got too long again - hope this helps even so.

Docmartincohen (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

LHC fringe theorists

Hi, I'd appreciate another admins input on an article I'm involved in, hence I cannot take any actions. If you have 10 spare mins read through Talk:Safety of the Large Hadron Collider.

User:Jtankers is part of a fringe theory group on the web who believe that the LHC will possibly destroy the world. He's continually adding original research links and adds material in a WP:ATT join the dots type of logic to make readers come to his conclusions. For 6 months we (myself and a number of other editors) have been trying to explain to him the meaning of reliably sourced and verifiable information. Yet he still continues to add his links and tries to sway the article to his own agenda. A quick google search of his name (James Tankersley) and a look at his user page shows his involvement in these fringe groups.

I myself work at CERN but have I believe at no time compromised my position either as an administrator or via COI by the fact I work at CERN. This can be seen on the talk page as well, when James made some unbased accusations and eventually he recalled them when pressed to show where I had abused my position.

Myself and a number of other editors have repeatedly try to explain to Jtankers why his links are not suitable, and have given him far more leeway than WP:FRINGE recommends. But all we have in return is alot of handwaving and how we are repressing him and the article is biased agianst his position. Though we have repeatedly explained to him the type of links he should find to promote his position, yet is unable to do so. We revert and he goes past 3RR, and we explain to him about 3RR and yet we are threatening him.

Yet the OR links keep coming, we keep trying to explain why they aren't acceptable but it's falling on deaf ears. You may also wish to read the LHC talk page as this is where it started before the subject matter was split away. Any help pointers etc would be appreciated. 17:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I got as far as where JTankers alleges a Vast ecritKabalConspir'cee to get him and his, and got sick of it. There are three regular editors there, WWheaton, Khukri, and Phenylalanine desperately trying for ... over a week? to get this guy to pay attention. It's a great deal of CIVIL POV PUSH, till he gets to the conspiracy to suppress him. He refuses to acknowledge a lot of their gaps, instead purporting some great theoretical idea and demanding they all disprove it. He seems, at this point, to be actively ignoring policies. The only way he couldn't understand the policies by now is if he's deliberately refusing to ever read them, which may well be possible, but then, he's deliberately being disruptive. Another editor came in and offered an opinion, but that too, seems to have fallen on deaf ears. The editor could well do with a topic ban. ThuranX (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

More on this: JTankers has brought this, in one day, to : AN, 3RR, NPOV, and COI in the last 24 hours, in what's got to be the Memorial day sale of Forum Shopping.

I note that the user's User page is being used as a SOAPBOX for his viewpoint, since it cannot be achieved in the article. ThuranX (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The editor has been notified. ThuranX (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I MfD'd the user page, as you are right, it is a blatant WP:SOAP violation. (There is an ongoing controversy about another user's page which has WP:SOAP-ish problems, and I feel I would be a terrible hypocrite if I did not take action against this page as well) --Jaysweet (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I immediately removed all content I thought might violate WP:SOAP as soon as it was brought to my attention. --Jtankers (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

But where to next, we've tried to explain and he claims he wants dispute resolution but when a new editor HaeB came in and explained the position he was ignored and the information was re-added. I've said from the outset when it was included in the LHC article that it deserves an a section/article, although it does fall squarely into the realms of fringe theories it has received main stream press hence deserves a mention. But it's been a continual fight to try and keep these theories in perspective, and it's far in breach of WP:UNDUE and yet we cannot seem to explain this clearly enough. 18:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What's this about black holes??? Is that for real? --Dragon695 (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Really? That's the best response we can get at AN/I? read all that material. I did. (Well, msot of it. after a while, it's repetititve.) ThuranX (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobody who has responded is an admin. The admin's are terribly overburdened, and the best us non-admins could do here would be to try to explain to the user what the problem is -- which has already been tried extensively and failed.

If you can get an admin's attention, that would be great, but "That's the best response we can get at ANI/I?" is not likely to endear you to them ;p --Jaysweet (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, my name is James Tankersley Jr. I am a US Army Officer veteran, a computer programmer with some college physics back ground, and founder and co-administrator of the web site LHCFacts.org. The safety opposition are not fringe, supporters to one degree or another include the following scientists:

• Professor Dr. Otto_Rössler, Max Planck Institute, University of Tübingen
• Teresa E Tutt, Ph.D, Nuclear Engineering Texas A&M University
• Dr. Paul J. Werbos, National Science Foundation
• Nuclear physicist and lawyer Walter L. Wagner
• James Blodgett, Master's degree in statistics and leader the Mensa Special Interest Group Global Risk Reduction.
• Many others, including some wish to remain anonymous.

I have been contributing to the Large Hadron Collider and Safety of the Large Hadron Collider article and for several months without incident, including content related to legal action against CERN in US Federal Courts. I respect and follow Misplaced Pages rules and admin instructions to the best of my ability, and my only goal is to prevent unreasonable censorship of the Large Hadron Collider safety issue.

There is an effort to censor the views of recognized experts on Hawking Radiation. Credible scientists including Professor Dr. Otto_Rössler who warn of potential danger from operation of the Large Hadron Collider have been censored from the article in violation of virtually every aspect of WP:NPOV in my opinion. Peer reviewed published references that meet WP:VERIFY and challenge Hawking Radiation are being censored by members with apparent WP:COIN concerns. The validity of Hawking Radiation is a primary safety argument and a significant component of legal challenges to CERN currently before US Federal Courts in Hawaii. Misplaced Pages admin and CERN employee Khukri (talk) recused himself of admin duties when I asked him to intervene against rule violations by user Phenylalanine (talk) during the period of July 4th through July 9th 2008.

Details of activities in apparent violation of WP:NPOV by editors with potential WP:COIN concerns are detailed at Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Safety_of_the_Large_Hadron_Collider and Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard and Talk:Safety_of_the_Large_Hadron_Collider. Thank you, --Jtankers (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I see an argument from special knowledge above. I see an attack on Khukri for doing the right thing. I see forum shopping. I do not see Jtankers acting ina responsible manner. The assertions of censorship aren't borne out by the talk page, where his sources are ripped apart by numerous editors who oppose his edits. ThuranX (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Editor Phenylalanine (talk) removed the content without discussion multiple times and editor Wwheaton (talk) argued for keeping the references. What actions were not responsible? I am not getting help and assistance, just attacks. There is a clear conflict of interest, the issue is before US Federal Courts and CERN editors outnumber the opposition. Shouldn't we error on the side of inclusion rather than on the side of possible censorship? --Jtankers (talk) 03:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Here we err on the side of Misplaced Pages policy; one policy is WP:NPOV, which specifically charges us to avoid undue weight given to fringe claims. You shouldn't need to have this explained any further. If you continue to ignore Misplaced Pages policies, you may be blocked for tendentious editing. — Scientizzle 04:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not wish to violate Misplaced Pages policy. There are no fringe claims that I am aware of, I believe that the article violates WP:NPOV by excluding references to published peer reviewed papers that directly challenge safety arguments (Hawking Radiation) used by CERN related to operational safety and to argue for dismissal of the lawsuit currently before US Federal Court in Hawaii. I wish to pursue formal dispute resolution, I am not sure exactly how this is done, but in the mean time I plan to limit my efforts primarily to the discussion page. (fyi: Of a quarter million AOL voters, 61% do not feel that the risks have been reasonably addressed, not fringe theories and not fringe concerns). --Jtankers (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

While it may or may not be undue to dispute the existence of Hawking radation on the article Hawking radiation, peer-reviewed papers that dispute it do not belong in an article on something else! And that's because, NPOV concerns aside, a tangent on a merely related topic constitutes original synthesis if it is placed there to draw a conclusion unsupported by those high quality sources. That is to say, there is a difference between Hawking radation doesn't exist and Hawking radation doesn't exist; the LHC will kill us all! Aside from the one blog, none of the sources I've seen from you even mention the LHC. So until you find a high quality source to demonstrate that this belief is significant, it is adequately covered by the statement already present and a link to the article on the topic. You can carry your Hawking-radiation-doesn't-exist argument to that page if you wish. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The article Safety of the Large Hadron Collider currently contains the statement:

• "One concern is that Hawking radiation is not an experimentally-tested or naturally observed phenomenon, and might not exist at all".

It seems reasonable to me that Professor Dr. Otto_Rössler's work would be a reasonable reference to support that statement. He argues that mini black holes created by the Large Hadron Collider might become charged, grow exponentially and destroy the planet. His theory Abraham-Solution to Schwarzschild Metric Implies That CERN Miniblack Holes Pose a Planetary Risk has been published on the web for several weeks and Dr. Rossler had an appointment to meet with CERN scientists July 4th to discuss safety issues Grösstes Verbrechen der Menschheit, Chaos, conspiracy, black holes. CERN's also addresses charged micro black hole, a concept that does not appear to have existed before Dr. Rossler published his work, and it appears to be in direct response to Dr. Rossler's theory. It seems reasonable to me that this reference should be included, as both his report and CERN's reports are almost equally new and both published similarly on the web and both in the process of peer review.

Variations of the following references have been in the article previously. Hawking Radiation is a significant safety factor, if it is found to not be valid, delay of the Large Hadron Collider would be much more likely. Both of the references speak at least to some degree about the "probability" that Hawking Radiation might be found to be invalid.

• Do black holes radiate?, Dr. Helfer Rep. Prog. Phys. 66 943-1008, Published 12 May 2003 by Reports on Progress in Physics The possibility that non-radiating `mini' black holes exist should be taken seriously; such holes could be part of the dark matter in the Universe".

• Universality of the Hawking effect, William G. Unruh and Ralf Schutzold, published 24 January 2005 by The American Physical Society "Therefore, whether real black holes emit Hawking radiation remains an open question and could give nontrivial information about Planckian physics."

An AOL poll is hardly a meritable source for your arguments, I'd wager that a sizable minority, if not majority, still think Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, that Bush is doing a great job, that global warming's a myth from the liberals, and that the earth was created in 7 days. Big deal. Uninformed people given questions that push that the world could end immediately, and would that be bad? will answer that the end of everythign would be bad. Duh. ThuranX (talk) 05:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the "founder and co-administrator of the web site LHCFacts.org" should probably not use conflict of interest as an argument against another editor. The rest of it looks like a content dispute, as has been mentioned. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 14:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, I was afraid that this would be labelled as a content dispute & the involved parties told to go away. (I stumbled across this thread late last night, & so was unable to offer any comments.) Looking at the discussion on Talk:Safety of the Large Hadron Collider, it's obvious that this is a far-to-familiar one person vs. a group of editors; the problem is not the content, but interpersonal dynamics. Can one person veto the assumption of a consensus? I don't know the answer, but I can think of reasons to say "yes" -- & "no".

More to the point in this case, while I have the utmost respect for anyone who has earned a position at CERN, Jtankers has a point here, after a fashion: the article lacks any explanation for why the people who filed an injunction think that the SHC is a potential danger. It doesn't matter whether their reasoning is based on a Ouiji board, or that a mistake was in CERN's rationale by an undeniable expert (think Klaatu or Sheldon Cooper :). A sentence or two in the proper paragraph ought to meet that need. And please note carefully: doing this does not give undue weight to a fringe theory, it is explaining the motivation for one group's actions. Thus writing more than the amount I suggest, IMHO, would give undue weight. -- llywrch (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Template vandalism

There's some template vandalism in Avril Lavigne. It's also on Ann Coulter and template:Infobox Person.-Wafulz (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Avril troll

I was looking at the history of Thandie Newton and made an edit. Then a message about Avril Lavigne and a message from the "Avril troll" showed up and remained in the same place on the screen regardless of where I scrolled. If it only only occurred on Thandie Newton I suspect the perpretrator may have been the anon who made the previous edit: 86.136.128.101 (talk · contribs) Ward3001 (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It was in the template, as per the conversation above. First few times that sort of thing happened to me, it confused the hell out of me too ;D --Jaysweet (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

So any ideas on how to fix it? I'm still getting it on Coulter's and Lavigne's pages.-Wafulz (talk) 18:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Try WP:BYPASS. Ctrl-F5 on IE. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It's on the Angelina Jolie and Elton John pages too. Ariadne55 (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it was a cache issue.-Wafulz (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, so is the template used for the vandalism protected now? I'm going to full protect infobox person, but was it a different one that was used here? UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 18:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what I wanted to know. I can't even see which one was vandalized. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I cleared my cache but am still seeing the vandalism on Angelina Jolie and Elton John's pages. One is infobox actor and the other is infobox musical artist, but those infoboxes don't seem to be the cause. Ariadne55 (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Found it. RockerTed (talk · contribs) changed Template:Image class names, then did this. All relevant blocks & protections are now in place. — Scientizzle 18:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Strange that doesn't appear on any of the articles' recent changes pages. Transcluded pages don't go there? —Wknight94 (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Transcluded templates are a favorite target for vandals like this because they're on multiple pages and more difficult to detect & revert with your standard recent changes patroller. — Scientizzle 18:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I also found and blocked Avril troll User:Wasy Ples who was transcluding code from his talk page onto articles. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 20:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently now resolved - see this thread at the Help Desk: Misplaced Pages:Help desk#Vandalism on Gregory Peck.3F. – ukexpat (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Still appers at the Bon Scott Page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.135.171.140 (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Clear your cache (Shift+F5 on IE or Shift+Ctrl+R on Firefox). That should remove it. -Jéské 22:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Try viewing the Galileo Galilei article, but Logged-out. I'm getting it, but not when logged in. Fribbler (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Only in firefox when logged out. Not in IE. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I just had my brother on his computer check the Galileo article while logged out. He just thought that the lock was off. The issue seems to have been resolved.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Can be seen on the Sex Pistols page now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.240.16 (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Note Monty Python -209.204.170.139 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"Avril Troll" has vandalised the Screaming Trees page too - unfortunately I don't know how to remove it. In page source it appears below "Copy Editing" note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.29.75 (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

All of these pages do not appear to be vandalized on my computer. Any of the templates affected have been reverted and fixed. In the case at Screaming Trees it was a template transcluded onto {{infobox musical artist}} which has since been fixed.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The Avril Troll? (moved from below)

Somehow a fixed text box appeared on the page without any changes being noted in the page's history file. Not sure if this should be vandalism as a quick Edit clears it away (without even modifying the History page). Pakopako (talk) 14:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Template vandalism. It was fixed earlier, but the template vandalized was on several thousand pages. It should be fixed, but it's taking its time to fix everything. Editing the page will fix it, as will purging your cache.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)Not showing up for me so I say your ISP may have cached the page? Do you use a proxy? Also possible that the ISP may use a transparent proxy. Bidgee (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I checked in an IE tab, I asked my brother who was logged out on another computer, it's because the server is taking a while to catch up.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Cali567

I have been debating about a certain controversial study involving many Argentinian articles. But one of the people who I been debating turned it personal. That user is User:Cali567. This user is accusing me and another user who disagrees with him/her of Sockpuppetry. This user did on Dúnadan's Talk page and now in my talk page. This is really unprofessional for wikipedia. User Cali567 is trying to kill the debate by trying to remove to people who disagrees with him/her. This is a violation of wikipedia's policy and something should be done. Lehoiberri (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, first, one thing: You shouldn't really be "debating" anything on Misplaced Pages. Kinda forumish. Secondly, seems like a content dispute. Accusations of sockpuppetry is bad faith, but not a personal attack. Have you tried any WP:RFC? Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 21:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is being dealt with at WQA already and I don't think it needs sysop attention, so if anyone wants to close it...? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Verwoerd

Probable sock puppet of banned user Auno3 (see Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Auno3 (5th)) now edit-warring to include a "dysgenics" section in the Human article. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As I have mentioned on talk, I believe I have followed all standards as an editor and scientist. Now, Timvickers, Wobble, and another accuser seem to be angry that some editors support my position. I have tried to debate the validity of sources, but they are playing hardball by accusing me of being those editors who support me. If I were a "sock", how come no one has yet come to my defense. That's right. I dont even canvass like what this gang does. I wanted to wait until editors SEE my edits, but Timvickers doesnt even want anyone to see an edit that I made in good faith and I am sure anyone will agree conforms to all of Misplaced Pages's standards. I can only plead that there are a few people with enough common sense to see through this intimidation. Verwoerd (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Somebody may want to take a look at this diff. Sort of tells us where this editor is coming from.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Why, just because of my belief that you are putting this on ANI? To set the record straight, I have been very clear that I believe that races are different, but none is superior. It is just science. If humans were any other species, as biology dictates, the races would very clearly belong in subspecies. It is only because of political correctness that this concept is not upheld. Verwoerd (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That may be your belief, but it is not apparently shared by the majority of the academic community, and thus too much content relative to it would violate WP:Undue weight. Also, the fact that you expressed an opinion which is not shared by the majority of the academic community and are seeking to add material relative to that belief can make you appear to be violating WP:COI, which I suggest you read. If and when the consensus opinion of the academic community changes, then the changes you seek to make might be acceptable. Until then, however, they probably aren't. John Carter (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are two statements, one from Auno3, one from Verwoerd. The topic for both is "Continuing evolution"

Auno3 "There is no doubt that the human population continues to undergo evolution, a topic which has gained renewed interest when the new research was published. I added the section in the light of the overwhelming evidence supporting inherent differences and fertility between humans. Gold Nitrate 17:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)"

Verwoerd It's a simple matter of two and two is four. If human evolution is not occurring, then obvious dysgenics is moot. But the fact that humans are evolving shows that the theory can be true, that it cant be discounted. And then there is the mountain of research on dysgenics. Verwoerd (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)"

Likewise:

Here, Verwoerd removes an image from the Interracial marriage article...

A confirmed sock of Auno3 removed the same image from the Miscegnation article. (See Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Auno3_(3rd)).

I'm sure we can compile lots of evidence. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Many other editors have supported these actions. Not only me, but the editors of two scientific papers who put their name on the line to publish their research on human evolution. Auno3 may agree with me on many matters, but so does half the editors at many of the articles you just mentioned. An examination of the talk pages of those articles confirms this. These accusers dont want to discuss the matter at hand, only at accusing me of using other accounts to create "false support". I have been acting in good faith, yet these editors have been canvassing and trying to direct attention toward a meaningless and false issue. Verwoerd (talk) 03:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Likewise this user is using an inappropriate username considering he's been removing images of people from different ethnic backgrounds marrying, naming oneself after the "primary architect of Apartheid" (Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd) while editing interracial marriage articles must be considered inflammatory behaviour surely? Surely this user should change their username? Alun (talk) 06:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this user changing between differnt user accounts is the primary problem. Tim Vickers (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, looks like a duck to me BTW. Cheers. Alun (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I am deeply offended by this. You have all made it much more personal. For what? Because you want to stifle me? Accuse me of having an "inappropiate" username? Verwoerd is a last name of many South Africans. It's like saying that someone can't have the username Bonds because there is a man named Barry Bonds. The inappropiate username rule only applies to a word that is unambiguous. For such insensitivity to a mere name, I believe Tim Vickers has acted in a way contrary to the responsibilities of his position. Tim, Wobble, and possibly Ramdrake are only able to muffle this discussion for so long. No one has come to my defense, yet they say I am participating in sockpuppetry. They couldn't prove that, so now they say there's something wrong with my name. I can only imagine why no one has said anything. Because they too will be accused. I only plead that there are other administrators with enough common sense to see through their objectionable behavior. They have repeatly deleted my revision to Mainstream Science on Intelligence. I did it because there were no sources, it was not expressed in the opinion section of that newspaper. And most science articles are somewhat opinionated, so all they wanted to do was add emphasis and POV push to make the article seem false. Yet, my addition to the Human article is deleted despite having sources. They say Dysgenics is fringe, yet even the largest journals in Biology Nature has commented on the importance of dysgenics trends. I also had a reference linking to the Science (journal) on the current state of human evolution that was deleted. That these people would delete a source from the best journal in the best category of sources according to Misplaced Pages (third-party peer-reviewed journals) is testament to the inappropiateness of their behavior. Verwoerd (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't take it personnally, because it isn't. It's however very much a matter of respecting Misplaced Pages policy. What you wish to do is in direct violation with policy.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, looking at the book review you linked in Nature it states:

So what is to be done about eugenics? It is now almost universally reckoned to be a Bad Idea, as Elof Carlson's title makes plain. A book, a chapter, or even a seminar tut-tutting about all those famous supporters of eugenics who should have known better — from Beatrice Webb, H. G. Wells and Oliver Wendell Holmes to Julian Huxley, Peter Medawar and Francis Crick — is a sure step to success in today's politically correct academy. And those with the temerity to suggest that the large numbers of the Great and the Good who did support eugenics were not temporarily unhinged at the time should only do so from the safe haven of retirement (like Richard Lynn).

You are misrepresenting references as if they supported, rather than refuted your arguments, and edit-warring against a clear talk-page consensus. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Dont misrepresent what I mentioned. I clearly said that they said the topic was important, which they did. So a discussion should be written on dysgenics, though not necessarily supporting it. Verwoerd (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If the topic was important to genetics, it should be easy to find articles from geneticists that discuss dysgenesis. Several of us have gone through this search, to find out zero articles on dysgenics by geneticists. That, in and of itself, should speak to the lack of importance of the subject in genetics. As per TimVickers below, redacting comment. You're absolutely right, of course.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss the text of the human article, that is talking place at Talk:Human#Continuing_evolution and a straw poll is showing a clear consensus against adding this material. This is however the best place to discuss what should be done about this obvious sock of User:Auno3 Tim Vickers (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Tim, I believe your edits and accusations have been odious. You have even smeared my name saying that it should be changed because I share it with a controversial figure of the 20th century. Your closely aligned man Ramdrake then said that it was not personal. You should read WP:No personal attacks. Verwoerd (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's Alun\Wobble who suggested you should change your handle. And for the record, TimVickers and myself aren't closely aligned at all, except for haunting biological science-related articles,every now and then and for the both of us being trained scientists.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I love looking at specifics. In this edit, Verwoerd removes the following pictures from the interracial marriage page:

1. A black man in a tuxedo and white women in a white dress with veil, and a description of ""
2. A black man in a tuxedo and a (probably) south-east Asian woman wearing a white dress, veil and holding flowers, in a church, and a description of "A couple leaving the altar

He cites in his edit summary "I think the discussion shows that only relationships where the races are known based on sources should be pictured" - that's kinda ridiculous objection given the descriptions and the pictures themselves. On Mainstream Science on Intelligence, Verwoerd is attempting to describe the Wall Street Journal as a science publisher, when deor accurately describes it as an opinion piece in a newspaper. This may or may not be axe grinding, but it's certainly sloppy editing. Verwoerd may not be stifled but he does seem to be being corrected. Also:

• This edit contains inappropriate focus on intelligence and evolution and eugenics (which is rejected pseudoscience, when artificial selection would ‘’perhaps’’ be more appropriate). Also, the NYT article linked to does not to support the idea that evolution has been accelerating since 5,000 years ago.

Verowoerd might be helped by a re-reading of WP:UNDUE and WP:OR; if you’re having trouble finding sources that explicitly back up your points, you shouldn’t make them up or extrapolate to a version of the truth. WLU (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

3RR and dynamic IPs

Sorry, what should I do about a person who uses dynamic IPs to edit war? See the history of Medea Benjamin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)] and Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Thoughtman. It looks like the user came back editing anonymously to avoid the consensus on the article talk page, but I don't want to edit-war and possibly get blocked over this. Should I just wait until the checkuser goes through and request a block or ban? How would this work for a user with a dynamic IP? Thanks. Kelly 23:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not editing waring I changed computers for personal reasons.

kelly is just being a bully because she knows I'm right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.143.4.221 (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. If anything, you're asking us to investigate *you* because of that personal attack against Kelly.

Sadly, Kelly, the only thing I know that can help is full-protection (this is a content dispute, after all). And looking at the article history, I'm inclined to issue a three-day full-protection. -Jéské 23:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I ended up with this article on my watchlist because of a previous edit war and am trying to prevent another one from breaking out. I thought consensus was achieved, and was attempting to protect it, but if I'm doing wrong please let me know. Kelly 23:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't issued the full-prot yet - but one more bullet and I'll force the ceasefire. -Jéské 23:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Full protect seems kind of excessive, actually. Why put up with someone who edit wars while refusing to participate in discussion? The edit war started, a discussion opened up, and Thoughtman continued to edit war while offering only meaningless comments...There's a point at which we can just abandon AGF and call him a vandal. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

On its face, actually, full-protection is the only option. This is, flatly, a content dispute, and the protpol forbids using semi-protection in such circumstances as it locks out one side of the dispute. Besides, Thoughtman's account has no edits newer than 6/13, and his block log is pristine. -Jéské 00:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess we should wait for the checkuser, then. If CU shows that Thoughtman is the same person as the IPs, then the person has engaged in 4RR despite a warning and will be blocked. Kelly 00:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope. 3RR only applies within 24 hours, and barring egregrious vandalism, harassment, or legal threats checkusers' hands are tied. You'd only be able to block the IP. -Jéské 00:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice. Wikilawyering apparently applies to edit warriors now. Well, one more article off my watchlist. Kelly 01:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not WikiLawyering; I'm telling it like it is. The privacy policy won't permit a checkuser to reveal the edit-warrior's master account when given an IP, especially when the supposed master account is three weeks fallow. Sorry, Kelly, but all you can do is hope for another revert. I have the article watchlisted; if he reverts again I'm blocking for 3RR. -Jéské 02:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(←dent) Is the range of IP addresses short enough that a range block wouldn't be too disruptive? I get the impression from Kelly that this anon user is the sort that depletes our energies while simultaneously failing to play well with others. Maybe a semi-prot as an alternative would filter out the IP craziness, and force folk to the discussion page. - Arcayne () 08:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

User Video777 and Youtube links

Video777 (talk · contribs) is an SPA who does nothing but link to a specific Youtube video, despite being reverted by both the XLinkBot and me. My concern is that this link violates copyright; Video777 claims the copyright holder uploaded the videos, but I see no way of verifying that. I was going to protect the article or block the SPA, but I thought I'd bring the issue here first for review. Jayjg 00:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand why you are being so vague. Beam 01:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Vague how? What's vague? Corvus cornix_talk 01:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I chimed in on Video777's talk page and explained that I agreed with you, since there was no proof presented that the YouTube user calling himself Kempler was actually Kempler.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

COuldn't it be further argued that since the film in question isn't even available, it's an irrelevant link; it focuses on the person, not the topic. ThuranX (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Death threats made against user by IPs in the Sandbox

Example diffs (there are many more from apparently dynamic Roadrunner IPs) - probably connected to User:Inaethofdrug.

Reporting here just in case. Thoughts?

--Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(I'm not an administrator)Hi. Have they (~a dozen or more?) all been blocked? Thanks. ~AH1 01:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, all blocked as far as I can see. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) You did the right thing. I was just in there using it to preview something, and I happened to glance over the history. I was debating on whether or not I should request semi-protection for the sandbox, of all things. J.delanoy_adds 01:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess it would help if I paid attention to who protected it. I was going to say that you protecting it was the right thing to do, but since you didn't protect it, that may come off as a little strange. J.delanoy_adds 02:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I've semi'ed the sandbox for a few hours; let's see how that goes. seicer | talk | contribs 02:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I had my finger on the protect button at the same time as you, I guess... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should punish the "editor" who just refined it to say different death threat, he was just being creative. Beam 02:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

What, the guy who threatened him with martinis? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Just ignore them. Block for death threats, but other than that, don't worry about it. KnightLago (talk) 02:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Per Threats of Violence, I suggest you inform the threatened editor and let him/her decide to call the police or not. Bstone (talk) 03:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. That admin has already been informed, and says it's just "stupid 4chan/Grawp wannabees", and ignore. ~AH1 13:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Red Dead Kennedy

• Red Dead Kennedy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above user has responded to a final personal attack warning with the following: . --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Move on, folks - nothing else to see here. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

User:24.77.204.120

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

This IP user has broken the WP:3RR . This user is also removing comments and stating that "this section is for votes, learn to use these templates before you impliment them", which is not true. This user is also on the verge of starting an WP:EDITWAR on the talk and main page. — NuclearVacuum 02:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

User:199.106.52.17

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

This IP user has repeatedly added unsourced opinion to the Doug Duncan article despite the edits' being undone with explanation, and warnings issued on the user's talk page. —Adavidb 03:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: the same content had been added a few weeks prior, and a year earlier, by registered user Pkostrze. —Adavidb 03:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

GreenEcho

I believe that the user GreenEcho (a.k.a. 63.216.113.124, a.k.a. 77.42.187.118) is in violation of Misplaced Pages's behavioral guideline on disruptive editting. Additionally, GreenEcho seems to be pushing very specific views, showing bias in edits involving the Druze religion, leaders, and political groups. The Druze are a minority group in Lebanon. Furthermore, their interactions with other users appear far from civil in most cases.

I've outlined the details of the violation, as well as a series or quotations from the user and diffs here. ← George 05:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope the Administrators will interfere concerning the issue since GreenEcho is twisting reference to force his POV and then reporting anyone who disagrees with him to the Administrators rather than using the talkpages and he simply sends vandalism warnings to those who disagree with him, he actually engaged in edit warring on my own talk page as in here,here and here eventhough he was notified by the administrators that I have the right to remove his warnings from my talk page

actually he is smart enough that he forced his POV on the Druze page saying that they are pagans with virtually no reference, and now I have to get his consent to remove this Libelous information since he ordered the page to be protected. I hope that the issue would be dealt with seriously, my best regards Hiram111 (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a reference concerning the pagan part. GreenEcho (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This would have been a good source had you chosen to cite it in the article, or in the discussion on the talk page, rather than edit warring over the point until the page got protected. Now, please consider addressing some of the points outlined here, involving your behavior as an editor in addition to the lack of sources in your edits, as well. ← George 00:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

All my edits are sufficiently sourced, thank you. Every edit I made, whether in Druze, Walid Jumblatt or Saad Hariri, was accompanied by more than reliable sources. I chose not to waste my time by adding the source I provided above because it was most likely going to be contested by the user who considers John Esposito and Mordechai Nisan "unreliable" and "unscholarly". GreenEcho (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Involved admin protects BLP article

Admin Míkka reverted Michael I of Romania back to a version which reflects his edits -- and has protected it. Before proceeding to make edits, I called for concerned Wikipedians to reject the ownership of the article which has been held hostage since 9 March 2006 by Stefanp/Carbunar/Parisian2006/John Mathis/CrownJewel/Throne&Altar/Lil' mouse/Lil' mouse 2/Lil' mouse 3/Nontricky (several of these accounts were banned as sockpuppets, but a quick glance will expose the striking similarity in the edits & talk page comments of all of them). Although I didn't know Míkka was an admin when he demanded, on threat of my being blocked, an explanation of my edits, I replied at length about the concerns which led me to edit it extensively but selectively. Bottom line: the subject of the article is a living person, and the article, along with several others such as King Michael's Coup and Radu Duda, Prince of Hohenzollern-Veringen (Michael's son-in-law, a living person who has publicly complained about the content of his and Michael's wiki articles!) etc., accuses him of betraying his country to Soviet Communists during World War II by ousting pro-Nazi dictator Ion Antonescu, switching Romania from the Axis to the Allied side, and then fleeing abroad with stolen national treasure. This point of view is not the prevalent view of Michael -- see the more mainstream historical assessment reflected in the Encyclopedia Britannica's article, which gives an almost opposite impression of Michael's wartime deeds. Prior to making edits, I had reported the POV & undue weight, and the ownership which protects it, requesting deletion of King Michael's Coup (and, subsequently, asked that Michael I of Romania also be protected from renewed violations of BLP) at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Meanwhile, Stefanp/Carbunar/Parisian2006/John Mathis/CrownJewel/Throne&Altar/Lil' mouse/Lil' mouse 2/Lil' mouse 3/Nontricky reverted all of my edits (which had toned down but did not eliminate the article's anti-Michael slant) and he threatened to continue doing so on the talk page. I reverted, however, no violations of 3RR have occurred and the anti-Michael reverts had stopped, so I hoped the "owner" realized that someone is on to the anti-Michael pattern since '06 and has exposed it, and that therefore he would desist -- or at least that it would be a while before the BLP violations were re-inserted. Instead, today Míkka, declaring that the article had become "corrupted", reverts all of my edits on Michael I of Romania, re-instating the reported BLP violations which are pending a decision at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard -- and then protects the page! Since this concerns a pending BLP complaint, and since the admin had been one of the last 5 editors to work on the article and and whose edit I had removed (in error actually), I request that his revert and protection be reversed, and that Míkka be banned from using his powers as an admin on articles relating to Michael. FactStraight (talk) 06:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You always need to notify people when a discussion is going on on ANI about them; I've just done it for you. That said, it's a bit concerning to call one party's edits in an edit war "corruptions"; I'll AGF and guess this is just some dodgy word choice. It's also a bit concerning that he's already got a 3RR warning from another article and a warning not to threaten to block other parties in content disputes. I don't know who is "right" in this case but he probably needs to be a bit more careful. I don't really see much previous involvement with the page though. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 06:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to notify him, as I'm still online, but you beat me to it. The real problem here is that the BLP violations have been locked in place by admin revert & protection -- even though we know that the subject of the article's son-in-law (who has his own wiki article) has publicly complained about both articles' content, and the content on Michael I of Romania is radically different from what other encyclopedias say, violating NPOV. Action is needed. FactStraight (talk) 07:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you failed to check your facts first. When I wrote "corrupted" I meant "corrupted". The whole bottom piece of the page (categories, references, bottom sections) was lost in the heat of the war. Obviously the warriors cared more about their egos rather the article. Also, in the talk page I explicitely wrote that any admin willing to be involved in the dispute resolution may override my actions. Because of the stubborn revert war I had to protect the page but it would have been insanity from my part to protect a page with half article missing. My another option was blocking both paries since they both are far beyound 3RR, but I opted for aricle proection giving them chance o contine discussion. Rather than using this opportunity for content discussion despite several invitations, or at least to ask me for explanations user:FactStraight jumped right into complaint departments. Now I have serious doubts as to his willingless to engage in discussions and next time I see him in revert war I will block him instead of protecting the aricle. `'Míkka>t 15:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC) `'Míkka>t 14:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the corruption was due to a comment becoming unclosed out somewhere inside the "Personality and personal interests" subsection; the revert definitely closes out a comment there and it is where the article died previously. Míkka, it would have been better if you had figured that out and fixed just it before protecting. Otherwise, what you did is fine. The alleged BLP violation is too subtle for me to see at first glance; WP:UNDUE is a legitimate concern but not one a quick acting uninvolved administrator can give any help with. GRBerry 15:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If I did like you say, don't you think that the opposite side in this revert war would have thrown the exact same tantrum? As for "suble" thing, this was the exact reason why I notified wikipedia:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board, who are expected to have expertise to mediate. `'Míkka>t 15:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe they would have, but for an edit that trivial (adding " -->" to close a comment) anyone neutral who looked at the diff would have laughed at the description of you as involved, even before you replied. This looked like a substantial edit at first, thus creating unnecessary smoke to support the complainants smokescreen. GRBerry 17:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

For anyone interested, this was posted before. I did not see a BLP problem at the time. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The comment initiating this thread is too long and confusing. Your chances of obtaining the intervention you request are much higher if you state very briefly and very clearly what content violates WP:BLP, and why.  Sandstein  17:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Clubjuggle/User:Shem incident

consolidate relevant threads

When WP:COI and WP:PRIVACY collide

I have stumbled across an editor with a potentially substantial conflict of interest, but I cannot publicly reveal the details without violating WP:PRIVACY. Is there a procedure for handling this type of situation? Thanks, --Clubjuggle /C 21:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't suppose the editor is likely to bow out of problematic discussions if you express a concern about the WP:COI? If so, you could always contact the editor via e-mail and say, "Hey, I have a feeling you're so-and-so, do you really think you should be editing Controversies regarding So-and-so?" But I suppose that's likely to accomplish nothing, eh? --Jaysweet (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

My concern, in addition to the fact that I agree the email is not likely to help, is that doing so would constitute off-wiki harassment. I do not necessarily wish the person to stop editing the article in question, but do believe they should disclose their conflict of interest as suggested at WP:COI. If I can be assured that it is not, I will engage the editor directly. I do not wish to end up on the wrong side of a block. Thanks, --Clubjuggle /C 21:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless you have some kind of history with this person, I'd suggest that an e-mail expressing your concern, combined with an assurance that you have no intention of revealing his identity to others, is probably fine. I don't see any way that it could be construed as harassment, in any event. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure such an email would not be well-received by the person in question. Other options? I'll probably ask this at WP:COIN too. --Clubjuggle /C 21:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, WP:PRIVACY is a policy, and specifically prohibits outing real life identities. WP:COI is a guideline, and it doesn't prohibit pseudonymous editing by people with an undeclared conflict of interest in any event. I think all you can do is monitor the individual's editing for compliance with content policies and use those, rather than WP:COI, to prevent abuse. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

COI is really only advice to people who are editing with a conflict of interest -- it shouldn't really be something we take into consideration when dealing with someone's edits. Rather, we should employ NPOV -- COI is advice on how to edit according to NPOV and on when to avoid editing. If the edits conform to NPOV, all fine and dandy; if they do not, hit him with NPOV, not with COI. Sam Korn 22:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sam has it exactly right. COI is a guideline intended to help editors avoid situations where they would find it difficult to edit in accord with policy. It is not a stick with which to beat other editors, or attempt to force them from article pages. Edits are governed by WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V, and WP:COI is irrelevant to that. Jayjg 04:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) We should be very careful in any situation where we're tempted to say that foo is a 'policy', and it must therefore always trump bar, which is a mere 'guideline'. As Sarcasticidealist touches on, a number of pages related to these sorts of issues actually are policies—WP:NPOV is likely to be on point here, and WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR often arise in COI situations as well. The question is whether or not the editor with a (possible) COI is editing in such a way as to bias the articles on which he is working. Issues with undue weight or improper synthesis can often creep in undetected where an editor is intimately familiar with a subject (and thus may provide superficially suitable and plausible references) but is writing from a strongly biased perspective.

On the other hand, the privacy policy is not to be taken lightly. Off the top of my head, I have great difficulty thinking of any circumstance where revealing an editor's real-life – or putative real-life – identity on-wiki would be an acceptable course of action. I'm very nearly certain that there's no situation where it would be the best course of action. If the editor in question has enabled email, then a polite request that they identify any conflicts of interest is reasonable. If you are aware of a likely conflict of interest and are prepared to keep at least a passing eye on the work of that editor, it may be best to leave well enough alone if his contributions are reasonable and in line with our content policies and guidelines.

If an editor with a (likely) clear conflict of interest persists in editing in a way that is contrary to the goals and policies of this project, you're in a bit of a pickle. If that editor does not respond to polite requests or (failing that) warnings, more drastic steps may be required. Obviously you can't bring the details of the matter to this noticeboard, though admins here will sometimes step in when POV-pushing is clear enough even in the absence of a known COI. Perhaps an email to an active Arbitrator – with a request that your message be forwarded to the ArbCom mailing list – would also work. Individuals with access to that list are experienced members of the community, and are entrusted to handle confidential information. Seeking their advice before doing anything drastic can't hurt, and would help you to stay on firm ethical and policy ground. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

just my two secents here. It seems to be that if a user is actively vioatling the rules and procedures of wikipedia and will not stop as a reuslt of a COI, it is not necessary to reveal their identity and vioalte wp:privacy. If they are causing trouble they can be treated just like any other editor and made usbject to preventative sanctions such as warnings of blocks without their identitys being outed. We deal with users with a conflict of interest all the times and I think thaw we have done so in the past without actually revealing thier real-life names and occupaitons without their permission. If that does not owrk, then I would reocmmend following Tenof All Tradess idea of emailing an Arbirator. Smith Jones (talk) 02:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've emailed the editor in question. We'll see how it goes. Thanks, --Clubjuggle /C 06:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:OUTING email

I've received an email (sent via Misplaced Pages's "email this user" function) from another editor (one with whom I'm currently in a content dispute) which informs me that they are "quite good at this kind of research" and that after some "research" they've connected some real-life personal information to my Misplaced Pages account. They state that they've contacted me so that they don't "escalate beyond what is necessary."

I'm immediately retiring this account in response, but who handles potential WP:OUTING-related emails sent via Misplaced Pages's email interface nowadays, and how can they be contacted? Shem 06:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

With the absence of on-wiki evidence, there is not much us admins can do. I suggest you contact the Arbitration Committee immediately; their email address is arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. east.718 at 06:30, July 10, 2008

There's no record of emails sent via Misplaced Pages's interface? In that case, thanks for the email address, East718. Shem 06:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

There is, but it can only be accessed by developers, who won't do so without very good cause. Historically, to my knowledge, they have only ever accepted requests which come from the Arbitration Committee, and limit disclosure to the material they access to that Committee only. Daniel (talk) 07:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It would appear that the editor e-mailed him as a result of advice on ANI (above) from several editors. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) It appears Clubjuggle (talk · contribs) sent an e-mail at 06:20, prompting this thread four minutes later. D.M.N. (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Based on the thread above, it appears that Clubjuggle’s announced intent was to send an email that asked Shem either to disclose their conflict of interest or stop editing the articles in question. If that is really all that happened, I do not see an “outing” issue that ArbCom would take action on.
Also, I have notified Clubjuggle of this discussion. — Satori Son 13:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Clubjuggle was actually quite concerned about not outing the account in question. He seemed to agonize over what was the best thing to do. Heh, so now we know the account is Shem (thanks to Shem), but we still do not know Shem's real-life identity so IMO this is still not WP:OUTING. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. It wasn't even a "disclose or stop editing." I simply laid out my concern that his conflict of interest may skew his opinion of the subject, and asked him to "carefully consider that (COI redacted) probably creates a conflict of interest as defined at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest." I then suggested that "In light of this, a disclosure of your interest, as suggested at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest#Declaring an interest is probably prudent, and would lead, ultimately, to a more honest debate. In other words, all I asked him to do was to take a step back and consider whether his edits came from a truly neutral perspective.

All of this was prefaced by a statement that "o matter what your response is, you have my absolute pledge that I will not, at any time, make any post that would violate either the letter or the spirit of WP:PRIVACY," and closed with a statement that "I wish to again emphasize that no matter what your answer, I have absolutely no intentions of making my concerns public on Misplaced Pages," so how that constitutes a "veiled threat" escapes me.

I suspect that my email has been shared with ArbCom already and I am willing to answer any questions that ArbCom may have privately (off-wiki) via email, including but not limited to providing full copies of email correspondence. --Clubjuggle /C 16:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I doubt you will even hear from ArbCom on this. Assuming the contents of that private email are as you summarized, I see no policy violation whatsoever. — Satori Son 16:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I've contacted ArbCom, so these'll be my final words on the matter: Clubjuggle's COI allegation is false (some here seem to've taken its accuracy as a given), and I find his use of "research methods" against me (while in the midst of a good-faith content dispute) chilling to say the least. Jayjg and Sam Korn both have it right: this isn't how COI should be used. The Arbitration Committee'll probably shake their heads in disbelief once they see Clubjuggle's "research" and compare it with his claim of "serious substantial conflict of interest," but the chilling effect has already occurred and I don't wish Clubjuggle to (in his own words) "escalate beyond what is necessary."

Seeing some here cheer his "research" while not knowing a thing of its validity has been discouraging. Farewell. Shem 16:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Who's "cheering" his research? A number of us have said that hypothetically if he had concerns about someone's potential COI, there would not be a big problem in contacting them via e-mail and asking them about it.

All you really needed to do was say, "Um, that's bullshit" and ignore his e-mail. If he then tried to "out" you -- which I tend to doubt, given his hesitancy to even e-mail you about it -- well, since you said he had the wrong personal info, it wouldn't matter anyway, would it? In that hypothetical, your identity would still be protected and CJ would be in big trouble.

I'm just having trouble understanding what the problem is if somebody contacted you privately with an incorrect guess about your identity. If there were an accompanying threat, sure, that would be a problem -- but since all he said (as far as we know) is that he was concerned about COI, what's the problem? --Jaysweet (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the “research” wasn’t really all that difficult. You disclosed your real name on your userpage early on, and at one point stated “I don't really care who knows my name, given the information's so easy to find regardless.” If you want to exercise your right to vanish, then please do, but spare us the lectures. (And, yes, you did have a significant conflict of interest.) — Satori Son 17:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Reading back, this does not seem to be the first time this user has found themselves the target of something offline. (Admins who can read deleted revisions, look back around 2006 at his userpage.) We should not be encouraging harassment of any form, even if it's apparently justified by some alleged (never stated) conflict of interest. If Clubjuggle had have had real concerns the option was always to email the Arbitration Committee with relevant information if the alleged CoI was major and resulting in major promotion or obstruction by the user. In short, this was handled badly. Orderinchaos 17:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but I just don’t see any harassment. Politely emailing someone and privately asking that they consider disclosing a significant conflict of interest is not harassment; it’s discreet communication. Clubjuggle never gave us any information at all, so the only reason that we are even here again is because the vanished user disclosed the situation.

And what exactly is the complaint: that the alleged identity and clearly stated COI were incorrect, or that Clubjuggle was threatening to “out” them? If it’s the first, Jaysweet is right: just respond to the private email and tell them they are flat wrong. If it’s the second, then for there to be a problem we must assume Clubjuggle is lying when they say the email clearly stated “I wish to again emphasize that no matter what your answer, I have absolutely no intentions of making my concerns public on Misplaced Pages.”

I’m just having a real problem seeing what Clubjuggle did wrong here. They came to this noticeboard first and expressed their concerns (without disclosing even the username, much less private info), then took the advice of several admins. Are we not even allowed to talk about a COI with the person who has it? Even if it’s privately via email? That just doesn’t make sense to me. I'm trying to keep an open mind, so if there’s more to this story I’m missing, please let me know. — Satori Son 19:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we do not know what was in the email, or whether it was as it was purported to be. We're working a lot on trust here, and for a user to take a step such as Shem has suggests something rather more extreme in nature. Orderinchaos 19:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Then one could expect arbcom to weigh in. If good faith is to be extended here, Clubjuggle should have it. Arkon (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, Arkon. I have difficulty believing that Clubjuggle is blatantly lying, especially since they know full well that their email has been forwarded to ArbCom. — Satori Son 20:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

As someone involved in the Obama discussion (sometimes tangling with Shem), I know Shem was quite obstructive and POV-driven, as was obvious from his Talk:Barack Obama statements in the past week or so. One way of distinguishing POV-driven editors from editors trying to produce a neutral article is to see what happens when you present them with evidence against their position: the conscientious ones either change their minds or provide understandable reasons why they shouldn't. Clubjuggle (I'll call him "CJ" here; I should add that we're not friends and I only know him from what I've observed) had taken pains to respond to one of Shem's concerns about use of the word "criticism" in a passage about Tony Rezko, and after CJ presented a large amount of evidence to Shem and the rest of us, Shem refused to respond to it, even when repeatedly asked to respond to it. Then he began throwing around comments ranging from impolite to extremely uncivil, and repeating them when asked to stop. (Would anybody still want diffs for this, now that it's resolved?) It seems to me this worked out well. If Shem didn't have a conflict, he would have had no problem in brushing off Clubjuggle's communication, and if CJ had done anything close to harassment, the evidence against CJ would have been in the email and easily handled. Shem's actions speak a lot louder than his words. So do CJ's in asking for advice and limiting his actions. So phrases like "we should not be encouraging harassment" have an odd ring to them, Orderinchaos, especially when CJ went to you just days ago bringing to your attention Shem's repeated abusive comments to Clubjuggle and others, which can be just as distressing as harassment. I didn't see you responding to that. When you say the "alleged (never stated) conflict of interest", you seem to use CJ's discretion against him, and your phrase "If Clubjuggle had any real concerns" is a strange way of phrasing the situation when Shem has quickly left the scene, strongly indicating there was something real here. Satori Son apparently independently verified a COI, going by that editor's comment above. Anyone can look at Talk:Barack Obama to get a crystal clear picture of CJ's constant restraint and even temper in the face of obstruction and nasty behavior. That's a tough job he's been doing, and I haven't seen any other admin doing more for that page. He's been showing me, mostly by example, how best to respond to abuse. I suggest others watch and learn from his example. And that talk page and related pages could still use more eyes of administrators who should leave warnings on the pages of continually uncivil editors. Noroton (talk) 19:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to chime in here, Clubjuggle has done nothing wrong that I can see in this instance. The COI seems to be pretty clear to, and not exactly the result of some extreme background digging, its pretty easy to find out what it is actually. Arkon (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with Arkon. There was some serious COI involved here and Clubjuggle handled it exactly the way it should have been. He went out of his way to keep things quiet and it was only the user themselves who made a big deal of the situation. CJ has done nothing wrong and has done his best to try to mediate a peaceful solution in a debate that is anything but peaceful! Brothejr (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing useful to contribute to this discussion, except to say I applaud ClubJuggle's effort to respect Shem's privacy and I am saddened that Shem will no longer be contributing (despite what Noroton said above, Shem was a solid Misplaced Pages contributor). Also, I cannot resist pointing out the irony of this. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Shem took quite a turn recently toward strong POV pushing. You could also find complimentary comments from me on his talk page (if it were still available to see) and possibly vice versa. Until recently, I was pretty impressed with him. But a little sleuthing shows he had a definite COI. Note that Arkon, Brothejr, Shem and I are all participants on the Talk:Barack Obama page and even though we disagree on much else, we all agree on Clubjuggle's conduct. At this rate, the only marching of Clubjuggle over to Arbcom that's going to occur is to march him over there and install him as a committee member. Noroton (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Juggle, will you post the email sans personal information, so I/we can read the exact words you said in the context you said them? I'm interested to see if this user is being dramatic of if your wording was bad. From what I know of you from your recent posts I'd say it's fine, but still if you remove the info and post it, it can only clarify this situation. Beam 20:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I'll be happy to provide full, unredacted copies of all emails I sent and replies I received to Arbcom if they request them. Since I would have to redact enough of the emails to create context questions for readers, I believe nothing is gained by posting here, and would prefer to leave judgment of my actions and motives to those in a position to review all the facts. I invite anyone else to review my overall conduct on the site and draw your own conclusions from that.

As to not immediately taking the matter to ArbCom, my understanding of ArbCom as a "last resort" led me to first attempt to resolve the issue directly led me to first attempt to answer my concerns by approaching the editor directly and give him a chance to respond to the concerns as well as any possible misunderstanings I may have had. I suspect that had I gone directly to ArbCom, the editor would have complained that I did not first work with him to address the concerns. --Clubjuggle /C 21:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have seen this email and Clubjuggle has given me permission to comment on what he said. I strongly feel that his representation of the email is accurate. He was indeed cautious about appearing to threaten Shem. A slightly infelicitous choice of wording, however, may well have given Shem the impression that Clubjuggle was attempting intimidation. In the section above, he is advised to either email Shem directly or to email an arbitrator -- he mentions this in his email and says "Since we are both adults, I wanted to first approach you directly rather than escalate beyond what is necessary." Reading this, it is clear to me that Clubjuggle was attempting to keep things informal. I can sort of understand why Shem found it intimidating, but the overall thrust of the email was very clearly not intended to be such and I really feel that he should not have done so. Barring that unfortunate piece of wording, Clubjuggle did, I feel, handle this situation impressively. He was right to bring up the concern and he did so in a sensitive fashion. Sam Korn 22:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's one way to get rid of an outspoken adversary, isn't it - or am I wrong that it had to do with Shem's positions on this article? I'm left with a very sour taste over this, and sad for the project. Shem had his contentious moments, for sure, and I do not at all endorse every edit he made or comment he left but those sorts of things should be dealt with in the proper way if they are policy violations. Digging into someone's account history and researching them on the net is I suppose common enough around here, since we're all curious about who people are. But taking it to the next step is another matter, in my book, and I am disappointed and disturbed that this has happened. Not because a voice that agreed with me on some issues is gone, but because the project needs the energy and talents of a wide range of opinion, and I do not think Shem violated any trust here or was any more partisan than lots of other editors are, on both sides, especially in the range of articles we're talking about. Conflict of interest? See Sam Korn's point above. Is Shem actually David Plouffe or Axelrad or Obama himself? Did he not in fact agree to add critical material to this article, but not in what he thought was a biased way? Are there not editors who have pushed hard to have as much negative material in the article as possible - have they been researched too to find out who they actually are or was this retaliation from a personal dispute? I'm hopeful that we can reach a reasonable solution to the problems this article has faced lately, and I'll continue to do what I can to make that happen, but I think tactics like this, no matter how subtly done, are despicable and have no place here. To be clear: if an editor claims, for example, to be a "member of Daily Kos", they are certainly giving the impression that they are on the liberal, left-wing side of the spectrum. If in fact they are not, and are using that as a cover to hide behind as they edit with a deliberate conservative, right-wing agenda, one might say that they are being deceptive, and uncovering that deception would be beneficial because pretending to be someone who you are actually the opposite of to gain advantage is wrong. (Of course the opposite is also true if they say they are members of Town Hall or something like that.) But there's been no suggestion of that here, and the only reason I can think of for looking into his background or supposed COI is to try to eliminate a vocal participant in discussion - and I object to that, and ask if that's been done about contentious editors with the opposite position here. Sorry, but this feels like McCarthyism to me. (Clubjuggle has announced that he's no longer mediating there, and is now participating only as an editor - which of course is his right and I for one thanked him for trying to negotiate on that talk page - but that doesn't change anything, and in fact he has a point of view on the matter at hand since he proposed one of the options under discussion there, so removing himself as informal mediator is a good idea.) Tvoz/talk 21:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh come now...Has this happened to someone else on the other side? Specifically? No. But if you think rummaging through peoples IPs, browser information etc., as a checkuser request will and has done, is somehow less offensive than a polite email, asking an editor to expose a potential (and I use that word lightly, as it seems to be an -actual- one) COI, I am not sure what to say. Shem has retired, evidently he didn't wish to make his COI known, both are his choice. Arkon (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I think Checkuser is done when sockpuppetry is suspected - someone gaming the system to influence the outcome of a discussion by votestacking, etc - not to uncover COIs - and us regular folk can't and shouldn't be able to do it, nor can even admins. Was Shem gaming the system? Other than his personality which you can feel free not to like, I ask again, did he not agree to include negative material but just object to how it was being characterized? Does that reflect some kind of pro-Obama COI at worke? There are editors who proclaim their political points of view on their user pages - are they to be banned from editing articles if they do so in a fair way? Digging into history and googling, as I said, is something that's done a lot, but I think taking it on oneself to then use it, even privately, especially when in the midst of a contentious situation, is not right, and COI is not such a clear-cut matter. In fact I think Clubjuggle knew that, which is why he posted here first, and maybe took the wrong advice - mine would have been to leave it alone if no evidence appeared that the user was lying about himself. As for why Shem chose to leave, I can't say, but I do think that especially in these political articles we have to tread more lightly regarding personal positions and interests unless we decide that no one with any interest in an election's outcome can edit a candidate's bio. And that, of course, is absurd. Tvoz/talk 23:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Sigh. Checking myself, it looks like Shem probably had a fairly minor conflict of interest that necessitated no more than a user page disclosure. Not that an astute editor wouldn't likely have figured it out simply from his existing userpage and Shem's edits... but more disclosure is better than less when it comes to editing with a COI. If I've read the evidence correctly, the COI probably isn't even enough to confine Shem to the talk page, simply to make sure other editors know who they are working with so that his bias is clear. Realistically, a large fraction of edits to the relevant articles will be by those with a similar degree of conflict of interest from both sides - just the IP users and new users we'll already know to be suspicious of. GRBerry 22:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was unclear about Shem's point of view, any more than we are unclear about some other editors on the page - and his edits did not prevent negative material from coming into the article, he just had an opinion about how it should be stated. But this appears to be a one-sided investigation, and I object to it going on at all. Tvoz/talk 23:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) "But there's been no suggestion of that here, and the only reason I can think of for looking into his background or supposed COI is to try to eliminate a vocal participant in discussion - and I object to that, and ask if that's been done about contentious editors with the opposite position here." Remember I'm also the one who brought the suspected sockpuppet report against User:WorkerBee74, who is pretty much at the extreme opposite position from User:Shem. --Clubjuggle /C 22:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, CJ, you did, and it was good work on your part - I apologize, I should have acknowledged that. But WorkerBee was so over the top, so ideological, so disruptive and refusing to compromise that his actions and edits deserved that attention. And it was, after all, a sockpuppet situation that you uncovered where WorkerBee was votestacking in addition to his unacceptable attitude and editing style and content. You were right there, but COI is not that, and Shem's COI if you'd even call it that is not at all in that class. Plus, I don't see any evidence of trying to find out who Worker Bee really is, just exposing him on Misplaced Pages, in Misplaced Pages terms, for WIkipedia offenses. Googling and COI accusations, even privately, is not the same. Tvoz/talk 23:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

to be hoenst, i cant imagine why Clubjuggle is being hjumped on here. He or she has behaved with more kindness and circumstepect behavior than most other people on Misplaced Pages in a similar situation to htis. He has been walking practically on weggshells trying to avoid even the sligthtest appearance of impropriety, getting multiple advice from admins and phrasing everything he says or do to go as far from violating any of the numerous policies of Misplaced Pages as much as he could. To say that despite all this he should be treated with suspicios or accused of being part of some conspiracy to bully away political opportunities is beyond WP:ABF. Smith Jones (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Move protection doesn't work?

I'm probably missing something, but the page CP-violation was moved despite it being protected (sysop-only move). Any idea what's happening here? Fram (talk) 08:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It is probably a coincidence, but all these pages (there are quite a few with the same problem) were move-protected by User:NawlinWiki (despite some ofthem being move protected already at the time he protected them again). I'll drop a note to get his/her comments. Fram (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Very clever. He actually didn't move the page. He just performed a null edit and created an edit summary that made it look as if he had. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Does Grawp have anything else to be doing? :( Stifle (talk) 10:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Template Vandalism

• e.g. at Jars of Clay, Screaming Trees

but I couldn't figure out which Template has been corrupted. --Fischbuerger (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Clear your cache. ;) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

recurring conduct problem

I am assuming this guy is also this guy, whose IP range was supposedly blocked. Has the block expired, or has he got round it?

Dybryd (talk) 12:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I found the context in the archives, and apparently continuing problems were to be posted at AIV instead of here, so I'll go do that. Dybryd (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Block requested

Please refer to this diff and the history of the article. Despite polite requests and a final warning, the article contunies to be attacked. The person responsible is operating under two usernames and an IP address. I strongly recommend that a block is imposed. BlackJack | 13:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. I've blocked only one, Khurram85, as I can't see any other usernames - but the block should pick them up anyway. Orderinchaos 13:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that indefinite was really necessary. "Polite requests" = a single generic huggle1 template that didn't explain what was wrong with their edits. A new user was writing about cricket in Korea on the South Korea national cricket team article. Sure the edits weren't appropriate, but describing what they were doing as attacking the article is a stretch. --Onorem♠Dil 13:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The person has persistently used the article as a sounding board for his own views about cricket in Korea. His content is entirely inappropriate and he will obviously continue unless blocked. He might not be abusive but he is still a nuisance who has to be reverted on a daily basis. BlackJack | 15:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Banning requested

I am requesting banning of user:PravdaRuss which is SPA account and puppet of unknown user. It is possible to see that he has made 12 edits . 10 of this edits are revert of myself and last 2 are vandalism in "my" articles (articles created by user Rjecina)--Rjecina (talk) 14:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I can add that during time of his edits 17:05-17:15 and latter in 17:27 I have recieved death threat on Croatian wikipedia on 17:19 --Rjecina (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I blocked the account indefinitely. The account was obviously only created to harass Rjecina (talk · contribs). CIreland (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Related issue

Yesterday I started this thread about a user who is similarily reverting all of Rjecina's edits all the while labelling his good faith edits as vandalism in the edit summary of his reverts. Two warnings I left for the editor were deleted and marked as offensive by the editor. Would someone please be willing to take a look at his (72.75.24.245 (talk · contribs)) contributions and determine whether a sterner warning by an administrator is due?

Thanks! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for one month - it doesn't take much to see:

1. nearly all the edits have incredibly loaded contents or edit summaries
2. most of them seem to be targetting the one editor
3. the IP is exclusive enough that what we would consider an unusually lengthy block for an IP would not rope in unrelated good faith editors. Those with already-created usernames can still edit anyway. Orderinchaos 18:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Another related user?

See J. A. Comment (talk · contribs) Corvus cornix_talk 23:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocking candidate User:Pararubbas

Dear Administrators,

My name is VASCO from PORTUGAL, i am an unregistered but willing contributor to WP, and i have, upon redirection from friendly user BanRay, come across this section, and will proceed to explain my "case":

I tend to work more on sports (football, basketball) articles, and have come across an user which can be described as anything but useful: PARARUBBAS is his accountname, and his "contributions" consist in: Gluing all the article's sentences/paragraphs into one really big, incomprehensible sentence, removing brackets that are needed for display, but, much much worse, removing just because, ALL EXT.LINKS and REFERENCES!

I have warned him twice (once in portuguese, mine and i reckon his too language, although i doubt he does not speak english, since he writes in this WIKI-version), i have talked with other users (BanRay has also warned him), and he continues to disrupt/remove at will, after being threatened with blocking (either he does not read his talkpage/edit summaries or he does and doesn't care).

Lend me your insights on this issue please, from PORTUGAL, a nice weekend, VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

User in question is Pararubbas (talk · contribs). Notified them but haven't had time to dig into this yet. — Satori Son 15:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have reluctantly blocked Pararubbas for 24 hours for continued disruptive editing. My initial hesitation with blocking was that this may be a language issue, since the user has made zero talk edits of any kind. But they've received numerous warnings and requests to discuss (even one in their likely native Portuguese), so not sure what else to do.

I would more than appreciate a second or third set of eyes on this (and if there's a consensus to unblock, just go ahead - no need to wait for me to come back online). Thanks. — Satori Son 21:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

AVRIL LAVIGNE ROKZ MY SOCKZ!

Need help fixing vandalism to Henri Matisse by "The Avril Troll", etc. Viriditas (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Firefox running on FreeBSD is hard to squash :) Gwen Gale (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I see it on Tom Cruise. indopug (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

A number of editors (MastCell, ScienceApologist, Shoenmaker's Holiday, and etc.) are trying to impose a policy change on NPOV (Fairness of tone) without waiting for the result of the current discussion on the issue. while I have no objection to this change being made if it is in fact consensus, I dislike seeing it edit-warred into place. I've left a request for page protection, but it would be nice if we could revert the page to its pre-conflict version - here and get some outside commentary as well. --Ludwigs2 15:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, check the page history at WP:NPOV, where Ludwigs2 has single-handedly reverted 4 or 5 different editors, 5 times in the last 36 hours or so, barely skirting 3RR. Or this request for page protection. Look, I've made, I think, one edit to the page, and I'm not a fan of rapid changes to major policies. That said, Ludwigs2 is edit-warring, gaming 3RR, and forum-shopping. MastCell  15:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I note the request for page protection specifies a version the page should be protected at. That's not how page protection works. This is forum-shopping; the change should be discussed on the talk page rather than reverting. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, since this forum has already been shopped, outside input is welcome on the talk page to help move things forward. MastCell  16:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Ludwig 24 hours for edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Good. I think all this is retributive for this edit, which Ludwigs2 was unable to keep in the article. All the other material I see being edited by those listed above is simple tweaking of grammar and phrasing, while Ludwigs2 seems intent on removing all reference to WP:WEIGHT in the article. he's upset that he's not getting his way against multiple editors who continue to hold to the long-standing consensus, and now he's throwing a tantrum. Given how often Ludwigs2 has been involved in disputes here on AN/I, multiple times against those listed above, I'm surprised he's not blocked for longer, esp. in the light this shines on those situations.ThuranX (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a reasonable administrative response. At the same time, I don't want to see this proposed change (which I support) entered into a bedrock policy like NPOV without wider input, so again, comments welcome at WT:NPOV. MastCell  16:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The changes, from what I can see (correct me if I am wrong) deal with wording but don't actually change the policy. As you can see from this Shoemaker's edits tend to remove the "if" and format the sentences in a more standard way. There is no reason for Ludwig or Naerii to edit war back to that other version. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

...and protected for four days or until such time that a compromise or discussion can conclude. Good grief people. seicer | talk | contribs 17:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ludwig has asked to be unblocked, saying he won't edit war and I've been asked on my talk page to review Ludwig's unblock request myself. I'd like some input here first. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I was the admin who reviewed the unblock request and left you a note. Given his promise not to edit-war any more (and that the policy page is now apparently protected), I think the block has served its preventative purpose and can be lifted.  Sandstein  17:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I oppose. Ludwigs2 has made clear on the relevant policy talk page that HE knows the 'RIGHT (tm)' way for the page to be. His editwarring has been constant and consistent on this point, and the fact that he's immediately pledging to behave suggests he just wants to run right back to it, and will spew platitudes instead of really go figure out a better way to act and approach this. There's an increasing amount of consensus on the page, against his versions, and it would be better for that as well to allow that to coalesce into some singular idea he can try to rebutt; most of his point by point rebuttals have been deflated already anyways. Further, he's the ONLY voice for the other side, not the 'primary'. ThuranX (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Support unblock. Nothing wrong with the block originally, but it appears to have served it's purpose. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I cautiously endorse an unblock. I am worried, but not because of ThuranX's scenario: If Ludwigs runs right back to it and starts edit-warring again, he gets a much larger block and we all move on with our lives. I am more worried about long-term concerns I have with Ludwigs powerful biases and how they affect his editing. Ludwigs is almost always civil, and I've seen him do some good work... but my concerns remain.

However, my long-term concerns are not affected if he is unblocked now or unblocked tomorrow. Let him come back and we'll see what happens. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

On general principle, if an editor is blocked for edit warring, and commits to desisting from doing so, then the block should be immediately lifted, as it is no longer needed to protect the encyclopedia. Of course, should the editor return to their warlike ways, they'll just get blocked again, and for longer, and with much less chance of being unblocked. --jpgordon 17:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly - blocking is protective, not punitive. If the editor isn't being a problem there should be no need to block him again. Of course, the onus is now on him to prove that... -- ChrisO (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I was going to comment that the ol' Bold-revert-discuss process got a bit stuck between "revert" and "discuss", with editors doing both at the same time (which is never pleasant, in my experience). Page protection and an unblock for Ludwigs2 seem like the ideal combination to ensure that discussion occurs without the edit warring and the associated "Stop edit warring" - "no you stop" - that is shown in the page history. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 17:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll be good, no worries. I may lose my composure on occasion, but it is never my intention to become a problem.

Jaysweet, ThuranX - I'd happily discuss what you see as my biases (because obviously I don't see them that way; who does?) - my talk page is available to deal with any concerns you have. I'd just ask you to approach the matter with an open mind. --Ludwigs2 18:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No thanks, I don't make extra work for myself, i hate spackling, and i don't like repainting. ThuranX (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Owing to the background on this I wanted more input here, thanks all for giving it and thanks Jpgordon for handling the unblock while I was out. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD participant redacting statement by nominator

An AfD discussion is currently ongoing concerning Allegations of apartheid, an article that was the subject of an arbitration case last year. Unfortunately one of the participants, Leifern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has repeatedly deleted part of the nominator's introductory statement on the grounds that it is "irrelevant" and "blatant attempt at well-poisoning" . I have asked Leifern to desist from redacting the nominator's opening statement and take it up with the nominator instead if he feels there is a problem . The nominator has also objected. Leifern has a history of doing this sort of thing; he deleted an admin's closing comments during a related AfD last year on the bogus grounds that they were "unauthorized" . This seems to be more of the same.

This clearly isn't appropriate behavior - I don't think I've ever come across an AfD participant attempting to censor a nominator's opening statement before. I would take action myself but as a participant in the AfD I think I would be seen as "involved". It would be helpful if someone could have a word with Liefern about the matter. Given that the AfD itself is getting fairly heated, I think it would also be helpful if someone could keep an eye on it to deal with any further problems that crop up. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The content he is removing is links to previous related AFD's and other discussions. I dont see how this is poisoning the well, however providing additional relevant information in an attempt to reach a consensus (based on current and past discussion). I agree it is wrong to remove this section. Chrislk02 17:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That was my take on it, too. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination) is (hopefully!) the last in a long series of AfDs on "allegations of apartheid" articles. The issues that have been raised in all of them (basically WP:SYNTH) are pretty much identical so it's quite useful to look back at the arguments that were made in those discussions. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think editing someone else's nom is probably not a good approach, if the nom is good faith and the material doesn't constitute an attack or some other egregiously bad material. ++Lar: t/c 18:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that comments should not be removed from an AfD without a compelling reason, in analogy to WP:TPG, and that such a reason is not apparent here. This should be sanctioned as disruption if it continues.  Sandstein  18:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

We've already had one ArbComm case related to these articles, AFDs, and DRVs. Hopefully an uninvolved administrator can proactively manage this without letting it become another major mess. GRBerry 18:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

1. 1. It would, of course, be helpful if you all, before making a stink about this, had checked back at the page and noticed I had, instead of deleting the section, commented on the section after it was restored. So all this is totally unnecessary.
   2. ChrisO is a heavily involved in this issue and has no claim to any semblance of impartiality, nor has he any standing in commenting on what is appropriate behavior or not.
   3. The history that ChrisO talked about was when another editor (I can't remember if it was an admin or not; it should be irrelevant) took it upon himself/herself to write on a page that was expressly closed for further editing. I reverted that in keeping with the text, on the principle that rules apply equally to everyone. Since then, the relevant editors and I have talked and are on amicable terms with each other.
   4. It's my considered opinion that a decision to delete or keep any article should be based on the merits of the article itself. There is no limit to the number of references, articles, etc., one could bring in to "inform" voting editors, and in this case the additional comment was made after the initial nomination. In this particular case, ironically, both CJCurrie and ChrisO have been complaining about an imagined cabal of pro-Israeli advocates that they think have been relating the existence of one article with the existence of others. Yet, they find it appropriate and convenient to make such comparisons themselves when it suits them. So it's my opinion that the AFD is not made in good faith, but it's not my habit to take every and any personal grievance I have to noticeboards and what-not. --Leifern (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The keywords in #4 above is, "It's my considered opinion." We all have our opinions on how things should be done and many of us disagree. That is what the process is about. Just removing stuff you disagree with is how edit wars start. I am glad you stopped removing it, that is comendable, please try not to take the AFD to personally, it is about the article, not about you. Chrislk02 18:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I've had no involvement whatever in these deletions, or in any apartheid articles whatever, for that matter. In my considered opinion, Leifern, your considered opinion is quite wrong. The pattern here relating to the articles is useful to see. Further, if the material is irrelevant, trust the other editors and the closing admin to realise that for themselves after you comment to that effect. Further, I don't think there is any arguing with the point that you should not change the words of others except in very limited, very circumscribed, very well understood circumstances. If it comes to my notice that you are doing so in future, you may find yourself warned again, and if that is not sufficient, blocked. Hope that helps clarify matters. ++Lar: t/c 18:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It sure does. I better not disagree with ChrisO again. --Leifern (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Oh, you are Liefern, by all means nobody should ever disagree with you</sarcasm>. Disagreements are going to happen, even between the most experience editors. What sets them apart is how they handle it. It appears to me that you are handling this pretty poorly. Chrislk02 18:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I could have dealt with it better. But it would be my sincere recommendation that before you make such a judgment, give me admonitions, etc., that you take the time to understand what's going on - especially when the notice comes from an admin who is deeply involved in the issue. ChrisO took this immediately to the AN/I board without raising it with me first, ignored my request to discuss it on the Talk page, and then made additional accusations against me. To boot: all this after it was apparent that the behavior you think was so awful was discontinued. So maybe I screwed up, but I wasn't the only one - and I came to my senses on my own. --Leifern (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

First off, I am not involved with this at all which allows me to view this in from a neutral point of view. I reviewed the situation independantly and reached the conclusion I reached on my own (as I am assuimg those who also independantly reviews this did). I take Chris )'s words with a grain of salt as I take yours. both are involved parties and therefore it required independant research. Also to note, I actually complement you above for stopping and engaging in discussion. The best thing to do now is just move forward! Chrislk02 18:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It's really not that complicated - as I said on your talk page, there are certain circumstances where you're allowed to edit others' comments, but this isn't one of them. I'm glad you've now chosen to discuss things with the nominator. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

OK... next time, Liefern, if you turn up here, start by acknowledging the truth of certain things instead of insisting about matters. Or at least start by asking instead of asserting. That will help things go more smoothly next time. As for talk page stuff, yes I agree with that. And Chrislk02, sarcasm probably doesn't help. ++Lar: t/c 19:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Eiland pov pushing, gaming the system,

Editor is gaming the system and attempting to dictate the content of Core damage frequency. Has made absolute demands about content on talk page and made no attempt at discussion before last revert. Eiland only discusses when warned directly by mods and otherwise Eiland reverts when other editors challenge him/her claiming lack of discussion. If editor should start discussion, Eiland avoids discussing. It's a strategy to ensure that his/her changes to an article are maintained without consensus. Nailedtooth (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The content being added appears to be uncited anyways. Based ont he information on the citations lsited (on the talk page). Making the leap from the source to the assertion is somewhat of a case of orignial research. I have removed the addition and am looking into this a bit more. Chrislk02 17:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to note that Eiland has only made 3 edits in the past sevearl weeks with the edits before that on june 20th. This is just a content dispute effictivley and this is not the place to report this. Chrislk02 18:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured sound candidates/When Johnny Comes Marching Home

Can someone close this? Per the instructions on WP:FSC, it's clearly passed (and clearly has run well over the timescale), but Durova was concerned that, since I know her, it might give an impression of impropriety if I did it.

Because, you know, checking there's three supports, that it's run 14 days, and that there's a majority of support cannot be done objectively. Sad thing is, she's probably right that there's people stupid enough to object.

I'll handle the other ones I haven't voted on, but as WP:FSC is so badly managed at the moment, I think I'll be a bit cautious. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I voted on Misplaced Pages:Featured sound candidates/Etherea, so someone else will need to close that. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The recording is so overly data-compressed it's no fun to listen to. Hence, given my selfish take on it, I must recuse. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all; Tawker has closed the nomination. Durova 00:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Using own blog as a source: Russ Nelson making a point in article about his friend

I don't know if this is the right place to ask for help on this, but... Russ Nelson is disrupting the article about his job friend Eric Raymond to make a point.

Among a series of minor corrective edits I've made to the article, I have changed a passage about Mr. Raymond being an "initiated witch and coven leader", because its only source was a blog post by Eric himself, where he claims to be an "initiated witch and coven leader".

After that, instead of saying "Eric is a witch leader", the article said "Eric claims to be a witch leader", because this is the best we can have from a self-published source (his blog).

During the discussion (and revert war) that started about the many minnor edits I have made, Russ Nelson vandalized the article text to say "Eric claims to" in almost every passage, even for totally verifiable facts. When asked to stop, Russ Nelson confirmed he was just making a point.

I have tried to explain him the differences, but he keeps reverting to the blog-based version.

I don't think I can explain him things more clearly, and I'm also not sure if he's really interested. Help is welcome. --Damiens.rf 20:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

claims is a word to avoid usually. You could say 'says that he is' or something? You could ask this editor nicely on their page to stop disrupting wikipedia to prove a WP:POINT(which is a low-grade, first warning), and if they've breached 3RR report them on the appropriate noticeboard, but other than that, which you really would be best to share on the editor concerned's talk page. Also, refering to another's edits as 'don't be so childish' and 'vandalism' won't help the situation, even if it were the case. Sticky Parkin 22:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Yamna_culture

I want to bring attention to the discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Yamna_culture that degenerated from subject article into editor bashing. The editor/admin dab, who was already warned against pushing his POV, assails this editor for using term "Türkic", adopted in the UN publications, instead of his preference for semantically dissimilar "Turkic", falsely accuses this editor in sockpuppeteering, and threatens with banishment for my contributions. The editor/admin dab consistently avoids subject discussions, and instead uses forceful enforcement of his opinions without a need to back them up with any references. Instead of heeding the POV warning, and obstain from the field where he holds strong views, dab is systematically engaging in removing referenced materials, pertinent illustrations, and whole articles, impoverishing WP in Türkic-related class of subjects, and aggressively discouraging contributing editors like me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barefact (talk • contribs)

Dr. Ward

Some time ago Dr. Ward, myself, was instrumental in airing an expose on cults. No names were mentioned but the cult and its behavior itself was questioned. Inquiry emails to this group led to attacks from them upon my character. They called my family and terrorized us with threats. They have taken personal information, such as my name, credentials, address, IP address, and added it to a resume I had posted online. They then changed all of the information to say things that would defame my character. They also linked my name to a questionable character that frequents different web blogs, of which I have no associations with whatsoever. It has upset not only myself, but the Church I Pastor, and the organization I belong to. In an email to me he boasts there is nothing I can do about it "because I deleted it but anyone can still retrieve it from the edit history." Going by the name of BlazinPaddles he opened a Wiki account earlier this month and his history shows he has ONLY edited or written about Dr. Ward. He may have found good reason to edit anything anyone had quoted from my books (I did not submit these quotes) that wasn't properly referenced, however, his reason for doing so is revealed in the ridiculing character assassination he has launched. He has written horrible, demeaning things about my person and my biography and linked my name with a quarreling character I do not even know. It is important that all of the history of these demeaning statements be erased. Please help me. Here are pages containing the urls with the statements he posted. You will find they were posted by himself and then deleted by himself in order to create a retrievable edit history:

(every url on this page contains character defamation)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Blazinpaddles&action=history

(His addition in green)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Oneness_Pentecostalism&diff=prev&oldid=223823639

( In this one he deletes Dr. Wards name for no apparent reason)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:Apostolic_Church&diff=prev&oldid=224001794

How can I permanently erase this libelous information from the edit history? MrCreveal (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of the deleted text on User:Blazinpaddles made legal threats, so I have blocked this editor. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that as well ,the entirety of that user page needs to be fully oversighted nad/or deleted. It's a lunatic rant against the man. I'd further state that it appears to be some sort of doctrinal conflict, with Ward supporting a Oneness_Pentecostalism movement in a branch of christianity, and BP opposing it, and the peopel promoting it, on theological (certainly not logical) grounds. That OP page needs a serious clean-up, most of the sources are from writings by the promoters of the movement, not outside coverage, and it reads in sections like a pamphlet. That, however, is not ever enough reason to attack the man, instead of his edits. I might be tempted later tonight to headover and stub back anything not supported by neutral reliable sources, but I also agree with Dr. Ward above. BP needs a block, and a lot of oversighting may be needed as well, per WP:LIBEL and WP:BLP. ThuranX (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Requesting IP block.

On List of Backyardigans episodes, we're geting a fairly long term vandalism from IP 69.72.70.* (69.72.70.171, 69.72.70.110, 69.72.70.146, etcetera). How much 'damage' would doing a prefix block cause? HalfShadow 21:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You can check yourself, I guess . Although it doens't look so awful to me to warrant a range-block. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm getting mildly tired of having to clean up after it, so if someone could shove a sock in its mouth, we certainly wouldn't complain... HalfShadow 22:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Mugs2109

I am having some problems with edit conflicts involving user:Mugs2109. I have done the usual thing of placing messages on his/her talk page, , , , but instead of responding in the traditional way, this user has either not responded or posted my text from their page back to mine. With the first posting of my text back to my talk page Mugs2109 include a section heading:

== Talk that this User put at another user's page instead of at the discussion(s) for the specific pages Mugs2109 (talk) ==

So I thought maybe there was a misunderstanding but instead of replying to my next posting which was by way of an explanation my reply was simply copied back onto my talk page by user:Mugs2109.

This lack of traditional bilateral communication is a problem because Mugs2109 and I are editing several pages in common and we are starting to edit war. (See Area bombing directive‎, Dehousing‎, Shuttle bombing, Butt Report, Singleton Report (a redirect)). I would like the situation defused, but to date Mugs2109 has been very sparing on the talk that (s)he is willing to engage both on user talk pages and on the article talk pages. Please could an uninvolved admin have a look and make some suggestions (to both of us if necessary) on how best to defuse the situation. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested fix

Someone who knows how please remove "big boobs" from the Mandy Moore article.24.10.111.154 (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This has already been seen to by someone on RC Patrol. Lradrama 22:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours to due to vandalism after a final warning. Lradrama 22:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards