Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:13, 21 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
• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

User:Abtract is stalking again

Once again, Abtract (talk · contribs · logs · block log) is stalking and harassing Sesshomaru (talk · contribs) and myself. See the RfC/U for the full history (which expired with no action).

For the highlights, Abtract began his stalking campaign in mid-late May. In an AN/I on June 2nd he was warned to leave us alone, he ignored it. On June 2nd, another AN/I resulted in a 48 hour block. He came back and continued his stalking and harassment, stalking which he full admits to doing. June 5th, another AN/I, he was blocked for a week. After that block, he took a two week wikibreak. He returned on the 12th, self closed his RFC/U on the 13th (though it had already been archived anyway), and began his stalking again, reverting various random edits we've done to "disagree" with u. as well as continuing his insults of other editors. He's also continued to retain an attack piece against Sesshomaru in his userspace since May.

He obviously is learning nothing from the blocks and intends to continue this inappropriate and disturbing behavior anytime he returns, thumbing his nose at the administrators who have blocked him, and the numerous editors who have attempted to talk to him (to which he always replies as if he is listening, then does what he wants anyway). -- ] (] · ]) 14:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocked

Please review. I would comment that I am imposing the block until such time as Abtract promises to moderate his interactions with (the edits of) certain accounts, and anyone who thinks sufficient clue has been applied may lift the block without reference to me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...would it also be possible, at this point, to delete the attack page? It was made May 4th giving the appearance it was prep for an RfC/U, but Abtract never touched it again and has just left it there for more than two months. -- ] (] · ]) 15:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Following a discussion on a similar subject, I would be against unilaterally removing the content; Abtract needs warning from another (uninvolved) editor that it should be removed, giving the various WP policies. If they do not remove it after an appropriate period it can then be deleted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The now-archived request for comment may be of interest - Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Abtract. There are enough unaddressed points on both sides of the dispute to cause concern. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 15:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with a long block, but I'm certainly not comfortable with an indefinite block. Blocks escalate in duration, 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month etc. We don't keep them blocked and make it a mandatory requirement for them to apologize or to accept responsibility or to make assurances. That's only needed for an unblock request. We still give them the opportunity to fix their conduct by themselves, without the wurble. I therefore think the appropriate definite period needs to be given prior to any formal unblock request being made by him. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen the block log? My experience of this editor is that they will say all the right things, agree to all the conditions, patiently wait out the blocks, and then continue doing whatever they please. However, if you think the block is inappropriate then by all means vary it - it is up for review after all. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think he's on his way to a community ban if he keeps it up, though given he's had 4 short blocks, doing an indefinite block already isn't going to necessarily help. I think giving him 1 long block of a month as a last chance might be better prior to going to indefinite stage. But as my suggestion is a month, when it's reset isn't urgent I suppose. I want to see some more views on it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this would have been better if it had been an uninvolved admin doing the blocking. As Ncmvocalist has pointed out, normal procedure is a sequence of blocks leading to an indef when the community runs out of patience. If it wasn't this way, half the IP editors would be indef banned by now. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say the previous 5 blocks including the last one for a week was a sequence of blocks leading to an indef when the community ran out of patience. Also, we try not to block IP editors indef at all. Chillum 17:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Unwilling to learn from past experience; unable to take advice; deliberately wasting the time and disrupting the work of good editors; more than adequately warned... no argument with indefblock here. EyeSerene 17:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that "indefinite" does not mean "permanent". Corvus cornix_talk 22:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Presumably nobody here is reading the RFC, which was as critical of Collectionion and Sessh as it was of Abtract, and clearly shows that it was Abtract who had done most to resolve these issues amicably. Likewise the diffs Collectionion presents above, which seem to be good edits by Abtract. Note in passing that redirecting a page on the day of its creation with an {{underconstruction}} tag placed on it by its creator is rather gauche,and the revision history of Dragon Ball Z shows that Sessh and Collectionion seem to be "stalking" and "harassing" each other... When can an editor not review contribs and make edits they deem good ones? When can Sessh do that? When can Collectionion do that? When can Abtract do that?

Agree that Abtract could simply make this go away by not interacting with these users, but he has repeatedly offered to do so if they do the same. Please read the RFC and see Collectonion's and Sessh's rejections of the mediations offered there by various users. The pig-headedness is decidedly not all on one side here. I am disappointed that an editor can simply forum-shop until they get the result they want. 86.44.20.40 (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to immediately remove the block on Abtract, for the reasons noted by 86.44.20.40. Abtract expressed agreement to several solutions proposed that would also apply similar strictures to Sesshomaru and Collectonian (who have also stalked and edit warred along with Abtract), but with no buy in. The histories of the articles linked in the complaint show that this is not a case of one editor harassing innocent victims. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to make such an accusation, then please provide clear, valid evidence for the claim that I have stalked Abtract or anyone else. -- ] (] · ]) 02:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The edit histories of the pages whose diffs you linked here and in the RFC will show the edit warring. I apologize for saying that you stalked Abtract. I have only seen Sesshomaru trailing his edits, and formed my statement too hastily. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring is relative when he deliberately stalked my edits and reverted just to disagree with me (and the stalking is a fact, admitted to by Abstract himself). It directly violates the warnings given him in his last block. There is a difference and, note he also violated his own "I'll only revert them once" resulting in what should have been a very standard, commonplace unnotable album redirect into an AfD. -- ] (] · ]) 02:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring is rationalizable, but not relative. I can rationalize it when I do it, you can rationalize it when you do it, Abtract when he does it, and Sesshomaru when he does it. Because all four of us have done it. That's why I made the proposals I made in the RFC, and I think it's unfortunate that you and Sesshomaru wouldn't agree to them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There was no need for me, you and Col to adhere to that. It should only apply for Abtract, who seemingly enjoys edit warring. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There are many reasons for all of us to adhere to that. Seeking to address the multi-sided problem with a single-sided solution was not as good as addressing it with a multi-sided solution. From your perspective, Abtract seems to enjoy edit warring, since he does it when clearly you are in the right. From his perspective, I hazard that you seem to enjoy edit warring, since you do it when clearly he is in the right. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

J I suggest you compare mine and Abtract's talk page histories and notice who has the most warnings. That's all I'm saying. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes J, if you are going to make such allegations I would like to see evidence. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian, you keep saying "self-admitted" and such, when Abtract is clearly saying he is taking his lead from Sessh, as in Sessh here You know this of course. It's all in the RFC. Remember the RFC? And how dispute resolution is supposed to work? I don't like how you keep going to venues, carefully revising your framing of your case each time, so that more accumulates, and less people click through. 86.44.20.40 (talk) 04:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

And you do realize that we all know that you are Abtract, evading his block, right? -- ] (] · ]) 05:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The other, less absurd option is that I am the same IP that stumbled upon the RFC and gave a reasonable and uninvolved view there. Please don't do that "we" business, speak for yourself. 86.44.20.40 (talk) 05:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

(OD)I thought this was wrapped up, but if there's any doubt, I support the block. Abtract has promised on several occasions to stop crossing paths with these two editors, and appears incapable of living up to his promises. He appears now to be IP socking to protest the latest block. Support. Dayewalker (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Abtract is still arguing that the block is biased - in that Sesshomaru and Collectonian remain unsanctioned - and too severe. I should be extremely grateful if another admin review the matter and address Abtracts concerns. I have responded on Abtracts talkpage regarding having the block reviewed, so commenting there - where Abtract can respond - would be appreciated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Looking at it as a third party now.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I’m not quite convinced by the complaint by the filing party here to begin with. did not warrant edit-warring, and did not constitute harassment. Differences should have been settled on the article talk pages with discussion rather than repeated edit-warring by both parties. If the first revert seemed unreasonable, it should've been discussed per Bold, Revert, Discuss. Was there consensus for the re-revert by the filing parties? If there was, it certainly was not cited. Being "stalked" is insufficient reasoning for re-reverting here - they were not unreasonable reverts. I think if a block was to be imposed, it would need to be on both parties for edit-warring, potentially a bit longer on Abtract because he did make a personal attack/assumption of bad faith here against an anon, but that’s a separate matter and would probably not warrant a block of this length. I'm beginning to think JHunterJ's view as a sysop to lift the block needs to be considered. If I've missed something (diffs of any other incidents or where he voluntarily proclaimed he will not touch edits by the filing party or where arbcom made it binding on him), please let me know. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
      • There is a history between the parties, which I am aware of and referred to at the top of this section - there is no good faith between users Abtract, and Sesshomaru and Collectionan following claim and counter claim of stalking, revert warring, and unfriendly talkpage interaction. Previously, prior to the RfC, I took the part of trying to argue Abtract's case as he was in dispute with quite a few other editors but my view is that Abtract inserts himself into disputes between S (whose style of editing results in a fair few disputes), C and other partiess. In this matter of the Alexis Korner record article, the dispute was between a third party and C which Abtract quickly involved himself - thus the claim of stalking. To me, there was clear evidence of a bad faith action on the part of Abtract - even though the action itself appeared legitimate. I see much the same interactions in Abtract's relationships with Sesshomaru and Collectionan for some time, many instances of legitimate disputes but with an unusual degree of overlap. I do not feel that this is simply coincidence.
      • Nevertheless, there is sufficient doubt over the validity of the indef block that I feel it cannot stand. I am going to substitute it for a fortnight block. This should allow any persons with a concern that Abtract is involved in a campaign of harassment to develop a case, and to indicate to Abtract the communities determination that these concerns be addressed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Okay. I think that's best. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Block overturned

Abtract's block, which was earlier reduced to two weeks, has been overturned by User Talk:JHunterJ , under an agreement to stop stalking placed there by Ncmvocalist . Dayewalker (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering JHunterJ's involvement, I strongly disagree with his overturning the block (which also goes against the wording of the very agreement Abtract says he will follow, making it null and void). -- ] (] · ]) 19:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be based on Abtract agreeing to the same kind of editing restrictions he's agreed to before and ignored. I've been trying to talk to him on his talk page, and all he ever seems interested in is getting restrictions on Collectonian and Sesshomaru, while completely ignoring his own behavior that's led to him being blocked six times. Dayewalker (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocks are preventive, not punitive. While neither Sesshomaru and Collectonian are obligated to agree to the agreement, they are obligated not to edit-war - it's much-more blatantly unacceptable and disruptive conduct. If they're edit-warring in the manner in which they did during this incident, blocks will not be out of the question, like so far. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what blocks are there for, but when an editor is blocked for the same thing for a sixth time and this block isn't even as long as the previous ones, I don't see it as being preventive. I hope this agreement changes things, but warnings haven't meant much in the past. Dayewalker (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well there's at least an admin, as well as myself who'll be taking a look often enough; or we're certainly open to being contacted in the event of problems. Any necessary measures will be imposed. The issue has our attention now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"The proposal is for your own good if you do not want to be blocked"? "The issue has attention now"? No offense Ncm, but you seem to be having delusions of adminhood here. You're threatening the victim, and offering her the same reassurance that didn't work the last few times, and didn't even result in much of a block. Dayewalker (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, where are the diffs of every promise he's made? Was he unblocked for any of these promises? No. He's been unblocked conditionally; if he breaks the conditions, he's blocked. Blocks are not punitive. I'm not at all surprised if yourself, C or S are still unhappy, when you have that attitude in approaching a dispute. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist has basically decided that because I refuse to accept the agreement as written, I shouldn't bother asking for help dealing with Abtract. To quote "there's no point complaining in the future - there'll be little to no help" and he has advocated that I be blocked for edit warring in the future if I basically don't agree to allow Abtract free reign to be disruptive on articles I edit and to not revert any vandalistic and harassing action he takes.. As he is not an administrator, I'm curious as to whether his seeming threats of "you will agree to what I say or you'll be punished for being stalked" will actually be enforced by an administrator. Has Misplaced Pages really become a place where the people who are stalked get blocked, while the one harassing them is alloewd to do whatever he wants? -- ] (] · ]) 07:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring is unacceptable (with the exception of BLP concerns), and continuing to do so will lead to blocks, period. You refuse to take responsibility for your actions, or assume good faith. In fact, you've stated that you're intent on assuming bad faith - if you expect the system to work in your favour with a tendentious argument like that, then yes, if you make a complaint like above, there will be little to no help. There is inconclusive evidence to support your claims. If he's vandalizing or edit-warring an article, he'll be blocked likewise. You or any other user has no authority to impose an agreement that resembles a restraining order - that's not the way we work here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, you're lecturing the person who was edit warred against and stalked on the evils of edit warring. Collectonian, as well as anyone else who's followed Abtract's history of stalking or read his talk page, has no reason to treat this situation with good faith. We're bending over backwards to let someone who's been blocked six different times by six different admins come back without even serving a reasonable sixth block, and not even bothering to ask the people most familiar with his conduct if they think he has the slightest chance of keeping his word this time.

Honestly, I'm afraid at some point, this will result in Abtract reverting to form and taking someone else down with him by pure frustration. Dayewalker (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally, rather than through disruptive editing - revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic. An editor's misconduct does not legitimize another's, when it is disruptive to the entire encyclopedia. We have a rule; Bold, Revert, Discuss. If all users cannot follow this rule and choose to go with Bold, Revert, Revert, etc. then they're all under scrutiny.

Btw, where are the diffs of every promise he's made? Was he unblocked for any of these promises? No. He's been unblocked conditionally; if he breaks the conditions, he's blocked. Blocks are not punitive. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(OD)You've made the same statement at User talk:Collectonian, and I responded there . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dayewalker (talk • contribs) 09:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sidaway civility sanction: actionrequired

is a new edit. Maybe move back to unresolved? ++Lar: t/c 15:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Tony_Sidaway.

User:JimBobUSA

This user has been warned before about deleting a credible/reliable reference (a long article from the London Review of Books) from Yamashita's gold. He has given up on that, but is now attempting to delete the same reference from Japanese war crimes, while misrepresenting it as a "novel". I think a stern warning from someone other than me may help. Thanks. Grant | Talk 00:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do it if you could get me the diffs of the previous warnings, and the diff for removing the ref from the Japanese War Crimes article. Beam 00:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it has to do with the following DIFFs:

• Yamashita's gold:
• Japanese war crimes:

I see a lot of reverts, but this is something that doesn't require administrator attention at the moment. Have you tried dispute resolution? seicer | talk | contribs 03:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, WP:RFC or simple talking on the articles in question/user talk might be more apt at this time. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 06:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I support User:Grant65 on this. For many, many months, User:JimBobUSA is trying to eradicate all references to this topic on Misplaced Pages and discussions have provided nothing... as you will see here ] ] ] Yamashita's gold has even been protected without any success : ]. --Flying tiger (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There does seem to be something of a campaign being waged. I was saying to someone the other day that POV warriors have the more obscure areas to themselves because they can turn anything into a content dispute which outside admins cannot comprehend due to the specificity of the subject and the nature of the points being argued, and are allowed to drive away valuable contributors with knowledge in the area (such as Grant65 in this case) for years until they finally meet their match, get shoved into a corner, sockpuppet or stalk to get out of it and get blocked for that. It's a phenomenon which occurs time and time and time again - effectively a way of gaming our entire policy structure by testing the limits' of our volunteer admins' knowledge. The last one in my general area of interest to get blocked has now shown his true colours now that he is banned, by vandalising and stalking from an entire stack of IPs and usernames, and another one in my project, who had free rein in the place for 14 months despite *numerous* reports here, which all went nowhere or met with blithe calls for good faith, went the same way when blocked about a year ago.

I wish I had the time and capacity to intervene here, but I'm neck deep in content research at present and only have about 3 weeks before real life becomes busy again. Can someone look into this in more depth? Note: Be careful not to become an "involved editor" if you do, as that will then get used against your capacity to act in the matter. Orderinchaos 01:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This thread seems to sum up the problem with JimBobUSA rather nicely. If JimBobUSA disagrees with a statement, it cannot on any account be included. Even a straightforward statement like "Several historians have stated that Yamashita's gold existed", cited to no less than six sources, is rejected as a "novel narrative".Hesperian 01:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above. Part of the problem is that any rapport that existed, between me and JimBobUSA, has long since disappeared. I believe that he has breached Wikiquette in many ways, including a general lack of cooperation and repeated wikilawyering. For instance, he did not respond to my suggestion of mediation on January 14. I do not believe it is in anyone's best interests that I deal with him directly and this is why I ask that other admins get involved. Grant | Talk 03:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've now read the edit histories of the article and talk pages and agree with your stance. JimBobUSA seems to miss the point that Yamashita's gold is about a theory of missing gold — the 1st line says "... alleged loot stolen ..."; the lead also says "The theory has been particularly popularised ...". No-one (as far as I can tell) is saying that the gold exists, just that there are theories that it does. And to say that, one needs to cite these same sources. I see that User:JimBobUSA engages in regular edit warring on a number of articles and despite numerous warnings given, then treats them with contempt (see User talk:JimBobUSA). Moondyne 06:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. IMO the article is worded somewhat too cautiously, since there is ample evidence that a substantial treasure did exist at one time and was hidden under Yamashita's supervision. This is supported by a good quality, critical source not yet quoted in the article, Thom Burnett, in the Conspiracy Encyclopedia (London: Collins & Brown, 2005), who states: "The Golden Lily hoard in the Philippines is also confirmed..." (p. 219). Golden Lily (Kin no yuri) was the secret Japanese unit that controlled the loot during WW2. It is interesting that Burnett, who is critical of many, if not most conspiracy theories, goes on to question the purported involvement of "famous Americans" in appropriation of the hoard. Grant | Talk 10:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This is redundant. It was been hashed out here once before: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive360#Yamashita.27s_gold Jim (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Which is why its being discussed here again. Moondyne 07:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Rastronomer (subtle vandalism, racist slogan in mainspace)

Since yesterday, User:Rastronomer edits the page Roma minority in Romania, adding "references" to the text (see his contributions). Have a look at the diff (his version, which he already pushed twice into the article): one of his "references" ("Romanian press about Roma people's ID.") is his google search; the second "reference" does not verify the text (as any Romanian speaker will be able to tell you). For the latter, see the text before Rastronomer's intervention: "It is a common Romanian perception that Roma have disproportionately high crime rates . However, there is a lack of official statistics on ethnic criteria to support such stereotypes." Here is his contribution: "It is a common Romanian perception that Roma have disproportionately high crime rates <ref></ref>" . This is obviously a racist message, which, in addition to his "subtle" vandalism, should warrant a block.

Also, given the surprisingly short time Rastronomer took to familiarize himself with wikipedia, the history of such incidents among my fellow Romanian editors, and the need for "adoption" he states on his front page, it would not surprise me if this guy were a sockpuppet of a known Romanian vandal/troll. Dahn (talk) 09:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You're not an romanian. If would live in Romania, you would say that i'm right. How can I prove that romanian people think that Roma people are bad, ugly, stincky, they don't learn, they steal (even Romania's identity)? You're a gypsy that knows english...One at a milion...About sockpuppetry, I don't know who really is an...you or me?--Rastronomer (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

All I will say is that I would also like admins to take into consideration the above comment when assessing the measures needed. Dahn (talk) 12:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Indef blocked for racism. --Golbez (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Slander of me on the talk page of hAl

User HAl hs engaged in slander of my good name on his talk page. It is my belief that he has used a ip to start the slander and then reply to himself. I have requested that he remove the slander and he has not. He replied to the request. User hAl regularly removes things from his talk page, leaving this slander in place is clearly a personal attack. I request it be removed and that hAl be warned about replacing the slander. AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"Slander" is a bit over the top for him simply agreeing with someone else that you may be a sock. And then you turned around here and accuse him of socking. That said, calling you a "git" is way out of line. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not the only person who pointed out that leaving the slander in place was not a good idea. I have requested it be removed. User hAl regularly deletes the contents of his talk page. The fact that he is leaving the section in place speaks for itself. Is it sop to allow people to discuss other people and bring unfounded accusations against them? AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Nitpick: slander is verbal, libel is written. Neither of which really apply here.

Second, considering someone a potential sock puppet is not assuming good faith, but it's not strictly against the rules either. — The Hand That Feeds You: 00:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that interpitation of the events is the fact that the account that started the section in question is a single edit account. This is not 2 editors discussing the possibility of someone being a sockpuppet. This is a case of someone posting lies about another editor. It is not a discussion of why they think I am someone else.

Are you saying that any editor can state unfounded accusations about another editor? That they can write whatever they want to, and there is nothing that can be done? AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You're doing the exact same thing you accuse HAl of doing, by assuming the IP is him. — The Hand That Feeds You: 11:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

In my first post that may the the case, but I posted it on the administrators notice board. This is the correct place to discuss if someone is doing something against the rules. Even if the ip is not him, the section in question is not a discussion of the possibility of another editor being a sockpuppet. That would require proof of some sort. Like pointing out single edit accounts quoting rules. If you think that one instance excuses another , then please remove both. I would like for another admin to post on this subject please. AlbinoFerret (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I have taken this to Wikiquette alerts for help in dealing with this situation. One important fact that has come to light there is that the person who I am listed as being a sockpuppet of has not edited Misplaced Pages in 2 months. As I said above, the libel is not a discussion of a sockpuppet case. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ban proposal of Tasc0

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Tasc0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I would like to propose a community ban of Tasc0 (talk · contribs). He repeatedly makes flagrant personal attacks. He was indefinitely blocked in February for this horrific threat. Fred Bauder, after talking with him, was willing to give him a second chance. Anetode (talk · contribs) blocked him for incivility on June 10, but after Tasc0 promised to stop making derogatory comments, Anetode unblocked him. Following this edit summary, Anetode reinstated the block and Tasc0 replied with yet another personal attack. His threat to Ronnotel is about the most horrific I had ever seen on Misplaced Pages and he probably should have been banned indefinitely after that. I think he has sufficiently demonstrated no willingness to change and it is now time to reinstate the indefinite block and consider him to be community banned. --B (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse community ban - It was very generous of Anetode to allow this person a second chance after the horrific derogatory marks he made initially, and it appears he has not learned. JBsupreme (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Why was this person ever, ever unblocked after that first comment? Wow. Endorse ban Tony Fox (arf!) 20:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Actually I would like to know what he said to Fred Bauder. And what he has said to get himself unblocked other times. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Here's my recollection of events. Initially, Ronnotel had protected Tasc0's talk page. I unprotected it to facilitate communication. At the time, I knew Tasc0 to be a good faith user and thought (although I now believe I was in error) that this comment was way out of character for him. I encouraged him to apologize for his threat and said that if he would do so, it would open the door to reconsidering the indefinite block at some point in the very distant future (something well over a month). Tasc0 was only interested in lawyering over the block (saying that Ronnotel shouldn't have blocked him) and not at all interested in apologizing. He demonstrated to me no recognition that he alone was responsible for his conduct and the consequences. You can see his talk page at that point in time here. I had decided that there wasn't anything to pursue since he was more interested in going after Ronnotel than he was in apologizing. Where I left it off was informing him that he obviously wasn't getting it - neither I nor anyone else was interested in arguing over who should block him. He made a horrible threat and that was the only issue. I left off by informing him of his avenue for appeal to the arbitration committee. A few days later, Fred Bauder reduced the block to a month, so I assume he contacted the arbs directly. --B (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse ban. I see he's now blocked for 3 months -- that should be extended to indefinite. --A. B. 20:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - Misplaced Pages does not need users with that bad of an attitude. —Travis 20:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse indefinite ban. Looking at his talk page history and block log, he's been given too many chances to improve his behavior, none of which he's taken us up on. His conduct before, during, and after each block is atrocious, and whatever he said to get his indefinite block reduced, I highly doubt it's going to work again. We don't need editors who can't work with others politely. Hersfold non-admin 21:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I think that there are other ways we can deal with these kinds of personal attacks. Instead of banning, you first give a warning and then when the personal attacks continue you simply tag the user page and the talk page of the user with a text that says that this user cannot control himself and may engage in personal attacks and give the links to all the personal attacks. The user page must then be protected, of course.

What matters is that editors on wikipedia know what to expect. Just like in real life, a child needs to learn that not all creatures are the same: people are different from dogs and cats and they in turn are different from lions, crockodiles and snakes. That doesn't mean that we cannot engage with these animals or that we have to kill them all. It just means that you need to be prepared.

For the tagged users, it means that they will have to live with the nameing and shaming. The only way for them to get rehabilitated is by showing that they can abstain from personal attacks for a long period. Count Iblis (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Count Iblis, you reminded me of this template, which was created for another user. I agree that that is sometimes the best course of action, but in the case of personal attacks, no, the user has to be stopped - especially with severe threats that not only cross the line, but blow it to smithereens like the diff you cited. Personal attacks aren't limited only to the user namespace, and this user has had more than enough chances to stop. Hersfold non-admin 23:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse ban. Ronnotel (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

3 Months is more than enough for saying "stalking ass." Yes that analrape retarded kids bit was very incivil and jerkish, but if he wasn't indef banned for that, you can't go back and punish him for it now. 3 months is ok, 6 months is good, any more than that is punitive imho. Beam 21:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a ban for saying "stalking ass". It's a ban for the cumulative conduct of this user. Think about Marcus Vick. Prior to his dismissal from Tech, he stomped on the leg of an opposing player. The school had decided to suspend him for two games and Frank Beamer was on his way to deliver that message. Then, it came out, because some people on a UVA message board with nothing better to do were searching police reports, that he had gotten a speeding ticket while driving with a license that had been suspended on a technicality. The school decided instead to simply dismiss him from the football team. So was Marcus Vick dismissed from Virginia Tech for a speeding ticket? No. He was dismissed for the his cumulative conduct over his time there - the speeding ticket was merely the straw that broke the camel's back. Similarly, this is the straw that broke the camel's back. We have given this user repeated "second chances" and with this comment, he continues to demonstrate a lack of awareness that the consequences of his actions are HIS OWN FAULT, not the fault of the admin that blocks him. There just isn't much to work with here. --B (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• It seems this user is already blocked, has there been any attempt to stop his bad behavior before or after the block? –BuickCenturyDriver 22:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Please read my summary above. He was blocked in February for a terrible threat to Ronnotel's family - something worse than I have ever seen on Misplaced Pages. He was unblocked to give him a second chance after that. Last month, he was blocked for 2 months by Anetode following additional incivility, but Anetode unblocked him after Tasc0 agreed to reform. Once Tasc0 continued making rude comments, Anetode blocked him again for three months and Tasc0 responded with name calling. There have been a gracious plenty attempts to reform his bad behavior and there are more than enough straws to break this poor camel's back. --B (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban That first comment should have ensured a permanent, irrevocable ban. It's unspeakable. Horologium (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Hindsight is always 20/20. I had had a brief exchange with him a few weeks beforehand when I protected an article following a request on AN3 . His conduct was fine, even though my own left something to be desired. (I had handled a bunch of AN3 requests that day and had him confused with someone else, leading to a misunderstanding that was entirely my fault.) I still had his talk page on my watchlist when he was blocked a few weeks later and was stunned by his comment - the incivility was out of whack with my previous interaction with him. At the time, we didn't have six months of additional evidence to go on. --B (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse community ban. Editors should not have to tolerate that type of crap here. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 22:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Judging from what actual productive editors get blocked for, why bother bending over backwards again for this editor? Seal the vault. Dayewalker (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Tasc0 seems to have a mindset which will mean that there is the likelihood that they will again make highly inappropriate comments, which means another block and consequent discussion. On the basis that there seems no other way to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia, banning is appropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse otherwise it'll only get worse. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban We cannot tolerate personal attacks and harassment. The block should be extended to indefinite. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - I see some ethos reactions to a very uncivil comment above; but what does it for me is the wikilawyering to refuse to even apologize, and continuing to do so. I have been at this website for a while, and I guarantee this user will not ever abide by community policies. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban Oh lord! Enough is enough. For God's sake why do we even wait this long??? This person never should have been unblocked after hoping that "retarded kids get anally raped". Whoever unblocked after that has to do some more thinking before unblocking. Chillum 06:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban My least favorite administrative responsibility on Misplaced Pages is having to block established contributors. I respect that people have different tolerances for conduct and politesse and I hate resorting to blocks for behavioral modification. It never works. Tasc0's attitude is clearly summarized on his userpage: "I'm like a Christmas tree, I just stand there and let my balls hang." I don't think he cares and I don't see the point in putting any further effort in policing an editor who has shown no sense of personal responsibility or maturity. ˉˉ╦╩ 08:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

By my reading of the discussion, Tasc0 is subject to a community ban. I have changed the block to indefinite and advised the editor of this, and also that appeals should be made only to the arbitration committee. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: The Committee will generally not overturn community bans - an appeal may be made to the community at any time, however. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Unusual action by admin FCYTravis

Admin FCYTravis has just deleted the article Historical pederastic couples, in spite of the fact that it just survived an AFd. I find this action unusual, to say the least, ands would like input from other admins and the community as a whole. One person's distaste for an article must not take precedent over a sourced article and lack of consensus, which was divided 60/40. Jeffpw (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The AFD was closed with the specific admonition from the closer that Any inadequately sourced entries (especially those pertaining to the 20th century) should be summarily removed per WP:V and, as the case may be, per WP:BLP.

I made an attempt to comply with that admonition by stripping out those entries which were, in my opinion, inadequately sourced and speculative.

User:Jeffpw blindly reverted me.

I made a second attempt.

User:Jeffpw blindly reverted me, again.

It is obvious, by his own actions, that Jeffpw is not interested in complying with the terms of the AfD closure, either. So why should I agree to be bound by it?

The article in question was full of unsourced, poorly sourced and speculative arguments about purported sexual relationships between people. It does not belong on the encyclopedia in its current form. The above user has thwarted two attempts at ensuring that it complies with our content policies. If he does not want the article in a form which complies with policy, then we cannot have an article at all. FCYTravis (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You didn't just remove (sourced) info) that might have conflicted with WP:BLP. You gutted the article, even though there were good faith efforts being made to source it all. This was out of process, and, in my mind, malicious and vindictive. Unfortunately, as you have deleted it, I can show no diffs to back up my assertions. So goes the power imbalance on Misplaced Pages. Jeffpw (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You made no attempt to discuss, with me or on the article talk page, the sections which were being removed. You simply blindly reverted me twice. You could have copied the removed sections to the article talk page and questioned why I removed them - and I would be happy to explain. FCYTravis (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

And you could have questioned on the talk page the issues which concerned you. The article had a "rescue' tag on it, and was being worked on by multiple editors. your offer of restoring it (on my talk page) if I agree to your reversions is nothing less than extoption. Jeffpw (talk)

Excuse me. Did you not read the AfD closure? It says quite clearly, Any inadequately sourced entries (especially those pertaining to the 20th century) should be summarily removed per WP:V and, as the case may be, per WP:BLP. I made an attempt at doing that. You blindly reverted, in violation of the AfD closer's admonition. FCYTravis (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I support the actions by FCYTravis, we should not have unsourced or poorly sourced articles which deal with such sensitive and delicate information, regardless of whether the subjects are living or deceased. It shocks and amazes me how frequently people fail to grasp this concept. Its a matter of common decency. JBsupreme (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• How can we provide proper sources for material that's been deleted? I see a lot wasn't sourced as we would normally expect to see it, but giving no chance to fix the sources seems a touch WP:POINTy to me. I see no need to delete the article in toto until a reasonable chance has been given to address those issues. --Rodhullandemu 20:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • As the AfD closer said, Any inadequately sourced entries (especially those pertaining to the 20th century) should be summarily removed per WP:V and, as the case may be, per WP:BLP. I made an attempt to do that. I was blindly reverted, twice. I have made an offer to the user to undelete should he agree to not blindly revert. He has, as yet, not answered. FCYTravis (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

and where is the policy that states that a closing admin can bind the hands of editors in this fashion? --Rodhullandemu 20:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is the policy that says unsourced/poorly sourced/flat-out speculative material about people's sexual activities belongs on the encyclopedia? FCYTravis (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

First impression is that deleting the article flat within a couple of hours after this AFD closed as a no-consensus is a pretty bad idea. We don't delete articles for maintenance now, do we? Because that's essentially what is being stated here. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm especially concerned, as a second thought, that FCYTravis appears to have used his admin tools when involved in a dispute over the article, as he notes himself above. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The AfD was closed under the clear condition that speculative and poorly sourced material be summarily removed. I attempted to do so. I was blindly reverted, twice. If the above user is actively thwarting my efforts to make the article content comply with the AfD closure, then the AfD closure is invalid. FCYTravis (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have had my own share of disputes with Travis, he tends to be particularly arbitrary and inflexible (in my opinion) over BLP issues. (And I though I was hardcore in that area.) But he will often relent if you produce evidence to back up your position. I recommend talking to him. Kelly 20:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This is outrageous behaviour. Imagine if any admin who believed an article was not compliant with policy deleted it until all those who disagreed with him agreed to give way. This a recipe for chaos on the wiki - administrators do not have any special editorial authority. This is clearly not a WP:BLP. I have no opinion on the merits of the article, but if FCYTravis believes the AfD was wrongly closed, WP:DRV is the place to go. Deleting an articles hours after it survived a deletion discussion where he argued for it's deletion is a completely inappropriate use of admin tools. It would be poor conduct were he completely uninvolved - given his involvement in the deletion discussion, it is unacceptable. I realise he strongly believes this article to be problematic and respect that, but this is exactly why he should not be making admin decisions involving it. WJBscribe (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me. The AfD closure was made with the specific admonition that unsourced/poorly sourced and speculative material be summarily removed. I made two attempts at doing so, and was blindly reverted each time. What tool should I use to enforce the idea that unsourced/poorly sourced and speculative material about people's sexual activities does not belong on the encyclopedia? FCYTravis (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This admonition is no more than that. There is no policy to enforce its application or not. It's no higher than guidance, if I understand deletion policy correctly, and it's probably ultra vires the closing admin anyway. --Rodhullandemu 20:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion, consensus? I believe that is how things are done. If you thought Jeff's conduct was disruptive you could have asked an uninvolved admin to look into the matter and take appropriate action. But deleting the article was not a legitimate response to the problem. WJBscribe (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't wait for "uninvolved" people when we're talking about an article that called Bernard Montgomery a pederast, for God's sake. FCYTravis (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

He has been dead for 30 years so this is hardly a WP:BLP situation. The fact that this distresses you is all the more reason why you should not be taking admin actions in relation to this matter. You really need to restore the article and engage in dialogue with other editors to work towards a version that everyone agrees complies Misplaced Pages policies. WJBscribe (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The offer has been made and stands - I will agree to undelete if editors will agree not to blindly revert to a version full of unsourced and speculative material. FCYTravis (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Your offer to undelete to a version which satisfies you is nothing less than extortion and an abuse of your admin privileges. I find your behavior appalling, considering your responsibilities here. Jeffpw (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are unable to use your admin tools in an appropriate manner, you need to reconsider continuing to have them. Nothing justifies deleting an article because others object to your preferred version. WJBscribe (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't get to impose conditions, just undelete and admit you were wrong. RMHED (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think I'm going to undelete an article which contains unsourced/poorly sourced/speculative material as historical fact. FCYTravis (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not a deal. You can't seek sources for absent material. No. --Rodhullandemu 21:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure you can - it's called the article talk page. The material can be discussed on the article talk page. I have no objection to that. FCYTravis (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This is quite disconcerting. I participated in this AfD discussion, as did FCYTravis. Another admin closed it, and it appears FCYTravis did not like the decision. Why participate in the discussion in the first place, or hold a discussion at all if this is the outcome? I freely admit the article has issues, but so does every article that is less than FA (and even some of those). In fact, I gave suggestions on the talk page of the article to assist the main editor who has added the majority of information to the article, Haiduc, about how to avoid these issues in the future. I offered to assist him in improving the article clarity and structure. I wish I could show them to you, but you know...the page was deleted. --Moni3 (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I supported deletion in the recently-closed discussion (I think that categorizing someone as a "pederast" is inescapably POV), but I agree this unapproved deletion was out of line. If an admin is simply frustrated by the obstructionist behavior of a particular editor, he has many tools for dealing with that editor -- summary deletion of the article they are both trying to edit is a clear abuse of privilege.

Dybryd (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The offer was made on the user's talk page quite awhile ago: if he agrees not to blindly revert to a version that includes a multitude of unsourced, poorly sourced and speculative alleged "relationships," I will undelete it. I have had no response. I will not undelete an article that purports to include as historical fact that a number of people were "pederasts" when there is no such historical and biographical consensus. FCYTravis (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You are required to abide by editorial consensus on an article just like anybody else. I think you need to agree to restore the article unconditionally and to taking part in civil discourse with other contributors to it. WJBscribe (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"Quite a while ago"? I posted it at 2.47 and it's 5.04 right now. In the interim I was writing about geologic formations in southern Florida. Now those were formed "quite a while ago". Think you can give a guy a chance to read it on a Saturday? He could be in a different time zone. Gracious. --Moni3 (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I am genuinely shocked that an admin would use deletion/undeletion as a bargaining chip in a content dispute. Dybryd (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I urge FCYTravis to undelete the article. Whether intended as such or not, overriding what was a carefully thought through closure of an AfD is not acceptable. The right response to inappropriate reverts does not include unilateral deletion of the article; instead the matter should be taken up with the user who reverted you, and if necessary, wider within the community. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. Support undeletion and listing at WP:DRV. On closer examination, Travis' action was wrong. Kelly 21:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The talk page is still there. Unclear why the article as it was when the AfD was closed wouldn't be restored. If there are particular items someone thinks needs to be more fully sourced then there are numerous and less pointy ways to make ones concerns known. Using <!--- these handy mark-ups to temporarily hide content until sourced ---> adding {{fact}} tags and (shock!) actually discussing the issue would all seem to be more considerate and cooperative behavior befit of this project. If any other (non-admin) user was to delete the content as such they would more than likely be on vacation at this point. Banjeboi 21:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I am beyond words that people are defending an article which contains random speculation and innuendo in the guise of historical fact. Do what the hell you want. FCYTravis (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Travis, as others have said, you were out of order. What you are taling about is an opinion of what is sourceable and correct, and what is not, and edit/revert thereof. In any terms, that is called an editing dispute, and you abused your admin priveleges to "win" on the issue by deleting the article, because you felt you were right, thus someone (all) else must be wrong. You now quote a selective part of the article... part that was at issue... in defence of your action, but of course, as the article is deleted and nobody can see what was said, nor the nature of other edits, nor indeed information that wasn't removed (which by nature of your not removing it was thus OK to remain... the AfD admonishment wasn't a binding order anyway). As a result, nobody can speak up in favour of the articles content or the ability to put the article straight (over time... a matter of hours is not reasonable), and yet you use article content in your defence. That's highly objectionable. I personally would go as far as to say a disgraceful action... there was no support in policy for the way in which you deleted that article, or indeed, for it to be summarily deleted like that at all.

The article isn't being defended... the article is deleted so how can it possibly be defended. What's being defended is due process and policy on wikipedia, which you have rather inappropriately thrown completely out of the window because of your own personal edit conflict and opinion. What is being said is not that the article was fantastic, but that it had survived a considered discussion, thus was OK by the community (with an admonishment indicating the need for work), and thus your subsequent actions were innapropriate on a number of levels, especially given your involvement in editing the article prior to deletion.Crimsone (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There was a simple and obvious solution to this; Travis could have protected the article in the version he considered to be BLP-compliant and then made a note here at ANI. Deleting wholesale was at best overkill. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add the note that we are talking as if consensus had been to keep the article -- in fact, the admin found that there was no consensus and preserved the article by default as a matter of policy. Travis has acted inappropriately, that's clear. But he hasn't acted in opposition to editorial consensus, because there wasn't one.

Dybryd (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

How does one get sysoped with such blatant disregard for, or ignorance of, our most basic standards of administrator conduct? You just edit warred with an editor and then used your admin tools to delete the article you were warring over in gross violation of the trust that we place in administrators. It's outrageous. Just because you happen to have admin tools, you do not get to take your ball and go home. Please undo your obvious mistake as many others here have already asked you to. HiDrNick! 21:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. From looking at the diffs for the deleted article, I see that much of the material FCYTravis deleted was referenced. I see a discussion on the article's talk page about some references but not all of these. I also see discussion started on the talk page about what to do following the AfD discussion to fix the article. Finally, FCYTravis, I see no edits by you to that talk page. Did someone evaluate the references for the disputed entries? What about the material that wasn't deleted by FCYTravis -- why wasn't that retained? Why wasn't this article first discussed at DRV if it should have been deleted?

I have left a courtesy note for the closing admin, Sandstein, informing him of this discussion. --A. B. 21:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. This is just to clarify that I don't understand my "admonition" to observe WP:V and WP:BLP by deleting noncompliant material (as cited variously above) to have any particular binding force above and beyond that of the policies themselves. The wholesale deletion of the article by FCYTravis and then its protection in his preferred version cannot be supported by these policies, in my opinion, and amounts to a serious misuse of the administrator tools. Protection may be used to enforce WP:BLP compliance in certain circumstances, but even if this were such a case, it should certainly not be done by an administrator involved in the content dispute at issue.  Sandstein  22:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Coming to this late, but having being invloved early.... Travis unilaterally deleted an article and then advised he would restore should Jeffpw refrain from editing. There is no policy or guideline at all for this. Travis should ask for his bit to be removed on meta. Rarely do I get this angry, but this a shameful abuse of the admin buttons, and would be best dealt with simply and effectively. Resign your bit off your own back Travis, and run RFA if you want it back. Pedro :  Chat  21:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Travis took this action due to the fact that the article violated at least three important policies: WP:BLP, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Misplaced Pages appears to be blazing the trail in a new field of documenting "pederastic couples" (a term which inherently OR, as I think it was Geogre pointed out very well in one of the numerous related AfDs). It is almost as if someone were trying to portray pederasty as somehow mainstream, or desirable, but that would be inappropriate pro-paedophile activism,. so I'm sure nobody would dream of that. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No need to drag in irrelevant considerations, even by the side door. Pederasty and pedophilia are quite different and conflating the two is unhelpful. Can we stick to the point please. --Rodhullandemu 21:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Travis has now gone on wikibreak "until the community wises up." And Guy, I and many of the other editors here don't have any dog in the pro-pedophile activism fight, so let's not lump all of the editors commenting here about Travis' inappropriate actions into the same pile, okay? Tony Fox (arf!) 21:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted his talk and can't be bothered to communicate. I'm sure he's watching this however. Fall on your sword Travis. Go to meta and ask for removal of your bit. You're not fit to be an administrator here I'm afraid. Pedro :  Chat  21:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Pedro, that is a distinctly unhelpful contribution. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Sam, but I'd argue that Travis removing the bit "sans-drama" would be a positive for the whole community, given the actions tonight, and therefore my urge for him to do it is very helpful actually. Pedro :  Chat  21:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly valid. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater in such a way is conduct unbecoming of one trusted with "the tools". The comment on his userpage is his business and perfectly reasonable. Deleting his talk page too however looks to me like more of a tantrum than anything though. Crimsone (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Admins make mistakes. Admins are human. A single bad deletion is not a reason to desysop. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

They do, and they are, and it's not. However, A bad deletion such as this, with the conduct of the admin in question that followed, especially in light of being given the reasons why it was a bad deletion clearly and numerous times, as well as restoring the article to his prefered version, and edit protecting it, is at least significant cause for concern. Crimsone (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

FCYTravis has acted and is acting like a sulky child who couldn't get their own way. RMHED (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Bullhonkus. Wherever there's one admin action in someone's log that stinks, there's always more sure to follow. Just yesterday FCYTravis got into an edit war on Ashley Alexandra Dupré with some IPs over Ms. Dupré's occupation, and semiprotected the page. I'm sure there's plenty more where that came from. HiDrNick! 21:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

And what is to be done with Travis when he returns from his "wikibreak"? Is he to be admonished for his rash actions? Will his admin actions be monitored? Or will he be alllowed to continue this admin style unchecked? These questions concern me, and I would hope somebody can come up with an answer. Jeffpw (talk) 08:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Now protected by FCYTravis in his preferred version

I see that Travis has restored the article to a gutted version that ::I see that Travis has restored the article to a gutted version that deleted much sourced material regarding pre-modern Asia and the 15\th and 16th centuries. And then protected it. This is clearly another abuse of his admin tools. This is not resolved by a longshot. Jeffpw (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Request immediate unprotection from any sane admin. HiDrNick! 21:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Now you discuss things on the talk page and see what other editors thing and what is or is not a BLP problem. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That's disingenuous and absurd, Joshua. Pre-modern Asia and 15th and 16th century individuals clearly do not fall under BLP. Stop wiki-lawyering. Jeffpw (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

So if that's the case, put the material explicitly on the talk page that you want on and we'll confirm that it is only about those time periods. Once there is a serious BLP issue it is best to procede slowly. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The closing statement referred both to WP:BLP and WP:V; verifiability applies across the ages. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ands that's exactly the point: Travis removed SOURCED material from pre-Asia and the 15th and 16th centuries (see my diff above). If the BLP violations were so serious, they should have been taken up at theBPL discussion page, or addressed immediately in the AFD. Jeffpw (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with protected, discuss it on the talk page. If you have consensus and policy backed edits to make use the editprotect tag for now. Beam 21:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Jeffpw, but agree this needs to stay protected just for a while (multi multi ec). Pedro :  Chat  21:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I disagree quite strongly. WP:BLP does not apply to the information in the article about ancient Asia and the Middle East because quite simply, those people are not living. To be fair, all articles that have no sources then should be protected and any improvements should be approved by an admin. It was my point in the RfD that the "ick" factor of this article compels editors to fail spectacularly at being creative in finding solutions to the article's problems. Treating the uncited claims in this article by locking it is as absurd as my suggestion to lock all articles that lack sufficient citations. --Moni3 (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that BLP doesn't directly require this, but discussing the individual sections and readding them after discussion will minimize drama. This is a very controversial topic and it is best to proceed slowly. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. As a result of this thread the article is likely to become more high profile. A short protection should help to work out editing issues (one hopes!) and minimise any more drama. Pedro :  Chat  21:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that it would. Indeed, this very discussion demonstrates that it isn't minimising drama. In fact, it's causing it. What drama was there prior to the restoration? I mean beside's Travis's poor actions? Prior to this lot, it was just a case of improving an article, as with any other article fresh out of AfD Crimsone (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The article was being worked on by many editors to improve it, and the sections Travis gutted wholely had sources. For an admin to lock his preferred version without any arguments to back up the removal of sourced material is egregious behavior, to sayu the least. I ask that an impartial admin take a look at the diffs, remove any blatant BLP violations, and restore the rest of the article. To do anything less amounts to gross abuse of admin privilege and censorship based on personal considerations. I am shocked that this has occurred at all, and also shocked at the waffling I see on the part of many admins in this discussion. All I see is appeasement of FCY's ego, and trying to let him save face when he fell so badly on it.Jeffpw (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is the content that FCYTravis objected to. I know we're big believers in protecting the wrong version and all but as an involved admin FCYTravis should hopefully see that allowing another admin to do the protecting and doing so on the version that have survived AfD would at least seem a bit less problematic. As I, and Haiduc, stated in the AfD, sources were on the article but because the items weren't individually sourced, as is common in older articles, those who wished to delete assumed no sourcing existed. Although undeleting the article was the right first step, let's now complete the restoration so those interested in getting the sourcing documented on each item can do so. Banjeboi 22:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, i count about 16 sources deleted with that content. Banjeboi 22:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe this article should be unprotected. Let's pretend Travis didn't delete the article out of process, then undelete and protect to his version (three actions, by the way, of which two are clearly bad ideas). Had he gone to WP:RFPP and requested protection, it would have been outright declined. Clearly, no protection is warranted in this case. Sure, the dispute should be discussed on the talk page, but there are many disputes that should be discussed on the talk page that don't get the added push of protection (especially from someone involved in the dispute itself). FCY's action shouldn't get preferential treatment simply because it has been done already (especially since it was done improperly). -- tariqabjotu 22:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Who is to determine what consists of a sufficient citation and reliable sourcing if it not its editors? I must suggest then, since I am clearly unable to participate in the editing of the article, it should be an admin with more content experience than I have. Please find an admin with more than 9 FAs to do the job. I do not trust an admin with primarily non-content related experience to be able to ascertain what should be done any more than the admins who are protecting this article trust me to determine what content should be in the article. --Moni3 (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is a really odd definition of "sourced". Try goodling on "pederastic couple" - I get a whopping 57 unique hits. Misplaced Pages is not supposed ot blaze a trail, and that is very much what seem to be happening here. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

  You know as well as anyone that the number of google hits for a given phrase is not the measure of the legitimacy of an article, nor is it the measure of the verifiability or suitability of given sources within it. A google search for "pederastic relationship" has a hit count of 3,270 if we really must have numbers exchanged though... and no, as with another that felt the need to say so, I don't support abusive and dangerous philias, especially involving children, and it would be useful not to bring in issues not significantly related to the issue being spoken of. Crimsone (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• (copied from article Historical pederastic couples talk page):I wrote an article titled Indigenous people of the Everglades region. That has a single entry on Google that matches the words in the title, here on Misplaced Pages. Is our creativity and capacity for language that limited? If the major objection is the title, then let's come up with a different title. --Moni3 (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor of protection for a while, especially if it brings more eyes on this terribly troublesome article (which, in my opinion, should have been deleted at AFD, but that's a separate issue.) My claim all along has been not that this article contains problematic material, but that since collecting the list under this named topic itself is original research and synthesis, it must contain problematic material. The defense against this was "Oh, well, we can just remove the offending material." The blind reverting that Travis' attempts to fix the article met with, I think, give the lie to this claim. I myself wouldn't have protected the article given that I was involved in the deletion discussion, but the outcome is, in my opinion, better for the encyclopedia. Nandesuka (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)Well so much for "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". As soon as I joined this outfit, I realised that that would cause problems, and it sure does. However, in the current context, the Afd had no consensus for deletion, and per deletion policy, the default is not to delete. It's complicated by the closing admin giving advice as to the future conduct of the article which strictly I don't think is enforceable. That's not what an Afd is meant to do. However, that advice seems to have been taken literally and as carte blanche. The deletion guidelines should make it quite clear that closing admins should not engage in content-based analysis. It's regrettable that Travis took this as licence to gut the article, even to the extent of removing sourced, if not beautifully-sourced, material; it's difficult not to see an agenda here, because I've never seen this kind of behaviour before. Even WP:TRIVIA suggests moving material to the talk page of an article for discussion; I see nothing in any policy to suggest unilateral deletion of an article merely because parts of it may be unsourced. WP:BLP is largely a smokescreen here, since very much of the deleted material, even before the total deletion, was not relevant. WP:V is much more to the point. Some material was unsourced directly. Some was poorly sourced. But it could have been fixed or deleted as appropriate. There is no need to continue protection of the article, because while it's fully protected, you rely on {{editprotected}} and thus on an admin agreeing that your edit satisfies policy. Having seen this evening's shenanigans, I'm no long sure that I even trust myself to make on objective decision on that. However, I may have a different view tomorrow. --Rodhullandemu 00:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of User talk:FCYTravis

I see Travis has deleted his user talk page - under what circumstances are admins allowed to do this? Kelly 00:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Allowed? When they feel like it. Just like any other user. --CBD 00:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Blanking is different from deleting. I'm not aware of deleting being accepted outside of right to vanish cases. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a consensus to undelete, and then courtesy blank? The people who might need to see some old posts can get around it easily enough, but this is (another) out of process action by this account. I would hate there to be a wheelwar and a desysop RfAR, so I should think we need to do this mindful of the consequences. For what its worth, I think that there are no special circumstances and the content should be undeleted and then blanked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. As far as I can tell, the deletion of the user talk page was done completely outside the deletion policy. There was no AfD, no speedy tag (and no CSD criterion would apply here anyway), so the page needs to be undeleted and the content restored. Courtesy blanking it afterwards is fine, but people should be able to look at the history log. Nsk92 (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess I should say, short of WP:RTV this shouldn't have happened. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to propose that everyone have a nice cup of WP:TEA and re-cage the hounds. Yes, using the delete button to delete one's own talk page generally isn't "allowed by the deletion policy", but in the present case I don't see any pressing harm being done, and it seems to me that building a federal case over this is going to escalate tempers rather than calm things down. In the absence of some urgent need to see his talk page, this doesn't have to get resolved today. Nandesuka (talk) 01:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It's been done recently by another admin, who also deleted his user page. I'm only one editor, but I don't know that it's a big deal. (I see there's more above about unusual activity by the editor in question; I am not making any comment on that as I haven't read through it. I am commenting only on the page deletion.)  Frank  |  talk  01:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I have just had a cup of tea, but it did not change my opinion in the matter. In fact, in view of Frank's comment, I see a very good reason to undelete the talk page now. Allowing such an obvious violation of the process to stand would set a really bad precedent and send the wrong message to others who might be enclined to do something similar in the future. This is especially the case since, as you say, there was another recent example of a similar action. We do not want to set a trend of admins deleting their talk pages when they feel like it. Nsk92 (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

When there's no good reason to do something other than "to set an example" is the best possible time to take a deep breath and not take any hasty action. There is absolutely no emergency here, and it would behoove us to take steps to avoid drama, rather than to create it. Nandesuka (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not a matter of emergency but of setting and reinforcing a really bad precedent. When there is a clear violation of deletion policy, such as this one was, it should not be allowed to stand, not because there is an emergency but as a matter of principle, in order not to encourage others to do the same. Nsk92 (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh? What drama? Kelly 02:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree - this especially should not be done by admins with problematic conduct. I'm not upset about it or anything, but we don't delete these pages unless users want to vanish. If Travis would like to vanish, he should probably turn in his tools on the way out - he can get them back if/when he returns. Kelly 02:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Travis has been an admin in good standing for at least 3 years, has never been blocked for anything, and to the best of my knowledge is a valued and respected contributor. I don't see any reason here to do anything other than sleep on the issue for a while. Nandesuka (talk) 02:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is not by any means the first time FCYTravis has used the admin tools questionably. For a long time, FCYTravis kept his talk page permanently semi-protected, and kept hundreds of edits in its history deleted. Following a couple of discussions on this noticeboard, FCYTravis was required to restore the history and remove protection. Just days later, FCYTravis again indefinitely semiprotected his talk page against policy and consensus (and it has remained semi-protected since February). It may be time for FCYTravis to step down. - auburnpilot talk 02:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with CBD. It's not against any policy or rule to delete your own talk page. To revert his deletion seems like a personal move instead of a move to benefit the project or a move to fix a "wrong" against policy. Just let it be, imho. Beam 02:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Er, excuse me? Whatever do you mean, "It's not against any policy or rule to delete your own talk page"? The deletion policy is very specific on how a deletion process can occur: either through a prod, a CSD tag or through an AfD debate. None of these happened here, and the only one which might allow for a quick deletion, namely CSD, is not applicable here. Nsk92 (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You're excused. The talkpage is not a normal article. Beam 02:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually, given some problems I've seen in the past, I'm thinking that a Request for Comment might be a good idea, so when Travis returns he can see how the community feels. However, that's pretty hard to judge, or to present any evidence of trying to resolve the problems, when the user talk page has been deleted. Regards - Kelly 02:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Reading the above I wondered to myself, 'when was WP:CSD#U1 repealed?'. So I checked... and it hasn't been. So I wondered, 'when did the user talk page stop being a user page?'. So I checked... and it hasn't either. So... any user can request deletion of their user talk page at any time and it is customarily granted as a U1 speedy deletion except for "rare cases" where it is necessary to maintain the page, usually for evidentiary purposes. Or at least that's what the policies actually say... and a practice I've seen carried out in the past. An admin deleting a CSD page without first inserting the tag isn't at all unusual either. --CBD 04:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not an accurate summary of our policy regarding user pages. See Misplaced Pages:User page, which states "As a matter of practice user talk pages are generally not deleted, barring legal threats or other grievous violations that have to be removed for legal reasons; however, exceptions to this can be and are made on occasion for good reason (see right to vanish)". In other words, it says the opposite of what you claim. Taking a Wikibreak is not a "good reason". - auburnpilot talk 14:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should post a proposed change to that at WP:USER, as there seems to be consensus here that people may delete their talk pages. Another recent example I can think of is Spartaz (talk · contribs), who also deleted his user talk page but is still editing. Kelly 01:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Calm

(ec)I have only just stepped into this mess. Noone is blocked - so can we slow down, get a hold of our tempers and sort this out in a rational manner. I understand people are upset by these actions, but nothing is gained by screaming at each other. Viridae 02:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Granted I've only been reading this discussion for the last 10-15 mintues, I must say it seems like a fairly calm discussion at this point. I think everyone has already moved beyond the initial shock/bewilderment of FCYTravis's action, and are now discussing how to move forward. - auburnpilot talk 02:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't see anyone screaming at each other. Just trying to figure out the best way to resolve this. Kelly 02:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I have not seen anyone screaming at each other here (and hopefully we can avoid it). Nsk92 (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you reading Viridae? This conversation is actually very civil and especially when one looks at the recent convos at this page. Shoot, this is like a party compared to other "discussions" of late. I'm pretty happy with the civility and levelheadedness displayed towards each other here~ Beam 02:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I haven't seen anyone screaming either. Anyway here's the policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly wht I'm talking about (screaming wasn't the best choice of words) there is no paticular hurry to get his talk page back, against policy or not FYC is obviously stressed at this point - so slapping him with a "you shouldn't have deleted your talk page because of XYZ is not helping things resolve" Viridae 02:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it should be undeleted, I said, "Here's the policy." Gwen Gale (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I said above, I think an RfC would be a good idea, but that is pretty much impossible with the talk page deleted. (I'm uninvolved in whatever disputes are going on here, by the way - I've had differences with Travis before, but we have always been able to work it out amicably.) Kelly 02:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd wait to hear what his reason was. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not find Viridae's arguments persuasive. Yes, FYC is upset (and for the record, I had absolutely no prior interactions with him). But, in my opinion, trying to soothe him is too high a price to pay for allowing such an obvious violation of the deletion policy to stand and to possibly encourage others to folllow his example (especially in view of Frank's comment above). Nsk92 (talk) 02:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Who is being hurt by having it remain deleted for a little wile while he gets his breath back? Viridae 06:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't see your reasoning, or any valid reason to revert his delete. Unless you have a personal gripe with FYC there is no reason. I don't buy the "encourage others" idea, and I definitely think you're wrong about it being "such an obvious violation." As I describe below it's not an obvious violation at all. Beam 03:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we know this isn't a first step towards RTV? Gwen Gale (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, his userpage just says he's on wikibreak. Kelly 02:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The policy does NOT say you can't delete your talk page. It says it's rare, and gives some valid reasons (right to vanish etc) but it does not say you can't delete your talk page. This isn't an article, this wasn't someone elses talk page, this wasn't the main page, this was his own talk page. Let him delete it. It can only hurt him to take such an action. It is NOT a good idea to revert his deletion. There is no "right now" reason to do so, and it can only make the guy feel even worse about this whole situation. Anyone who does revert it, would seem to be acting against FYC, and not for anything. Beam 03:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• I heard from Travis - he plans to undelete his talk page if he returns. Speaking for myself, I'm satisfied with that. Kelly 03:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • You speak for me as well. :) Beam 04:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Yep :) Gwen Gale (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Same. This appears to be a mountain out of a molehill situation. Orderinchaos 13:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Quick Summary

Side A: If I have a problem with one single individual regarding an article, making it unavailable to everybody is an acceptable response.

Side B: You have got to be shitting me.

Tell me, which side sounds saner here? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

False characterisation. In this case side A is saying that an article violates three important policies and the editors of the article obdurately refuse to conform to said policies. I have checked the entries which are backed by online sources, not one of them use the term "pederastic couple" and several did not use any version of pederasty at all. An agenda is being promoted, as it has been promoted numerous times before, and that stinks. The article is a festering pile of crap at the moment and deletion improves the encyclopaedia, but an acceptable resolution would be ro testrict all past editors to the talk page and have people check every source, remove those not supported by cast-iron references and rewrite so we are nto blazing the trail. It is no secret that Misplaced Pages is regarded as the number one most important place to get your agenda promoted, and that is what I think is happening here. It needs to stop. Guy (Help!) 07:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it not possible that the refs are there, but simply in book form? Haiduc has added several book refs to the article, but did not supply the page numbers or ISBNs. Perhaps we should AGF of him here? Jeffpw (talk) 08:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm speaking of "false characterisation" you have now accused "editors of the article" of "obdurately refuse to conform to said policies" and pushing agendas. This is patently false. There has been nothing but a willingness of editors to address concerns raised at the AfD, which just closed when this incident occurred, to ensure policies are upheld. Your continuing to insinuate otherwise, here and elsewhere, and leaping of bad faith that all those editors are promoting an agenda as well is quite alarming. Further throwing around how the editors should now be restricted to talk page use only as well? Misplaced Pages isn't served by punishing the very people who are working to correct problems. Just because the exact phrases pederastic couple or a version of pederasty isn't splashed around doesn't mean the more clinical or scientific terminology is false. It's simply referred to in different ways by different cultures throughout history. The footnotes should expand to include this so these sweeping accusations can be more readily dismissed. Banjeboi 14:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope. It's the actions of only one particular individual that are mentioned as being the problem. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just noticed this and I agree that it was a serious abuse of the tools. The deletion itself was bad enough, and it was followed by an attempt to use the deletion to impose conditions on editors with whom Travis was in dispute, along with the inappropriate deletion of his user talk page in the midst of a controversy. This kind of behavior gives me serious doubts about whether Travis should remain an admin. Everyking (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

As somebody directly involved in this dispute with Travis, I will not make a comment as to what should happen to his admin status. But as I stated above, I would like a clear explanation from Admins or Bureaucrats about how they plan to proceed if and when Travis returns. Jeffpw (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"FCYTravis is taking a wikibreak and will be back on Misplaced Pages when the community wises up." At least that is what it says on his user page template. Is this the kind of attitude that the community wants to endorse ? I sincerely hope not. Albion moonlight (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hell yes, I endorse it. One, the article's a mess. Two, When things got to the point where Travis might flip his shit, he took a break. That's EXACTLY what we want when we talk about people needing to take Wiki-Breaks. Good on him! He needs to KEEP his mop and bucket bits, and talk of him surrendering them is absurd. ThuranX (talk) 06:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Update - relisted at DRV

I have relisted it at DRV here - 24 editors out of 000s is not enough. I can't see how this article is compatible with WP sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs)

WorkerBee74 on Obama page again

WorkerBee74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has returned from a one-week block for incivility and wikigaming on Barack Obama-related articles to wikigame again and provoke yet more dissent and rancor. I hope not to have to rehash the disruptive history that got us here, or to respond to personal attacks made against me for trying to deal with this disruption.Wikidemo (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I support Wikidemo's post here. Tvoz/talk 20:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors and admins are encouraged to carefully review the diffs Wikidemo has posted. WorkerBee74 returns to the page, olive branch in hand, and requests mediation. He's told in semi-polite terms to f--k off, and generally treated with barely concealed contempt, and he gets a little annoyed. The memorable phrases "disagree/ provoke/ report" and "whining exaggerated report" were coined in this content dispute with good reason. 74.94.99.17 (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The foregoing message is by one of WorkerBee74's likely IP WP:SOCKs. See Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74. "Whining exaggerated report" and "disagree / provoke / report" are phrases this and and some other disruptive editors coined to attack me for dealing with their misbehavior. This report is not about me. Wikidemo (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

What does the "demo" in "Wikidemo" stand for, by the way? Are you a Democratic Party operative? Now regarding this "likely socks" nonsense, a Checkuser has been performed and has proven that we are unrelated. Otherwise, I'm sure you would have seen to it that WorkerBee74 was indefinitely blocked, Wikidemo. So please stop making these false accusations. 74.94.99.17 (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If you read the sockpuppet report, the conclusion was that WorkerBee74 socks at 74.94.99.17 - he's certainly acting like WorkerBee74 again here. Socking on his own AN/I report to taunt and make accusations... Wikidemo (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

As a user who has edited this page, and has actually supported workerbee's POV: he indeed appears to have many socks. Now, if only an administrator would close out the one month old case on him at WP:SSP (and if Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth had been taken seriously, for that matter), then we might be able to move forward. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Continued wikigaming (attacks me a second time for rejecting mediation - which seems to be the ploy). - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs)

As the last blocking admin, and being someone with absolutely no affiliation with the Barack Obama article or US political topics, I also support Wikidemo's post here. It seems there's a lot of end-run gaming going on. Orderinchaos 13:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the suspected sock reports and other links, I have to say that a block should be immediate. To me it looks like Gaming the system and socking. I think it time to stop this esp. because of the showing of so many socks being utilized. I endorse a block at this time which includes any socks that are active.--CrohnieGal 16:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we please do something about him, now? By taunting me again (about the ninth or tenth time) for discussing his conduct here he's throwing down a gauntlet. Since my last report above he's insulted me again while accusing other editors on the Obama article of "ownership", "flippancy", and plotting, misconduct and bad faith over the events that got him blocked before, and accusing a nominator of an improper AfD nomination. He's basically taken over the discussion again on the Obama article with a point that isn't going to go anywhere. Wikidemo (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It's really time to put this to rest for good. Gaming the system should be more than enough to draw the line; proven use of sock-puppets tops it of. Maybe I'm the stupid one not to use such disgraceful "tools" to get my way? I might consider it in the future if it works that well and screw my principles of honesty. Best regards from a somehow mad user, --Floridianed (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

User Zero g keeps reverting a merge that had consensus and with which he disagrees

User:Zero g keeps undoing a merge with which he disagrees: As per talk page at Richard Lynn (where the article was merged), a straw poll was taken to get the opinions of editors. Zero g is the only one who actually disagreed. When the straw poll had become inactive for over a week, it was closed with a 5-1-1 verdict in favor of the merge. Zero g so strongly disagrees with the merge that he keeps up a slow edit war by reverting Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations to the pre-merge version, even if the other editors continue to object to it. Can an admin take a look at the situation and take whatever actions may be necessary? I will candidly admit that I am the one who keeps reverting Zero g's reverts, based on the belief that one cannot single-handedly undo a consensus decision relatively as important as a merge, so I am not by any means an uninvolved party, but I would like someone with more experience to advise on what to do in such a situation.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Because you've been around since 2005, I'm probably less experienced than you, but have you requested page protection? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

As has already been advised, since there is significant opposition to the merge, I recommend that the book article be sent to AfD to get more opinions, and that will put the matter to rest. If there is genuine consensus for the merge, it will show up at the AfD. Either way, please stop edit-warring about it. --Elonka 03:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if Elonka could provide diffs to support her case, particularly for the first sentence. "As has already been advised, there is significant opposition to the merge". There were 5 for, 1 against (Zero g) and 1 abstention (Richard001). This has not changed. As can be seen from User:Zero g's talk page, Elonka is now following his edits and providing him with tips on editing, for reasons best known to herself. Possibly she still regards some of those voting for a merge as a "lynch mob", the words she used when opposing Cailil's recent successful RfA. Her own intervention on the talk page of Richard Lynn came shortly after Zero g's . Without apparently looking at any background, she made an odd suggestion as an ordinary editor and failed to engage in subsequent discussion, thus causing a certain amount of disruption. Could Elonka please be more careful to distinguish between her roles as editor and administrator? Elonka seems also to be misrepresenting User:Wsiegmund, who was responsible for the merge. It would have been appropriate for her to have made her remarks one or two weeks earlier when the merge of this article was suggested and discussed in detail, but certainly not when she actually intervened with such disdain for other "junior editors" by refusing to enter into discussion. (The article on Lynn actually contains far more material on the book than the subsequent fork, which apart from a list of contents, contained a synopsis of the book which as WP:OR would not have survived.) If at the appropriate time, Elonka had herself proposed an AfD for the article on the book, to debate a merge/deletion, that would have been fine; but not how and when she did it. That seems to be the problem/wikidrama she has helped create here. Mathsci (talk) 06:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a democracy and the consensus has little value in this case. The way the merge is carried out is mutual to an article deletion, hece the AfD route should be taken. It also appears that Ramdrake's goal isn't as much to improve Misplaced Pages, but to delete and erase anything he does not like (from what appears to be an extreme liberal pov), whether it is properly sourced or not. Just a brief glance at Ramdrake's contributions shows his main activities on Misplaced Pages appear to be reverting, minor edits (often mentioning a certain somebody has been called "racist" by some liberal source), endless talk page discussions with the opposition, and wiki-stalking. --Zero g (talk) 04:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, Misplaced Pages is based on consensus editing. There is nothing in Misplaced Pages policy which requires an AfD to be produced every time a merge is proposed; that would be pure and simple red tape. Please don't confuse your non-acceptance of a consensus with the absence of consensus. Unfortunately, the world doesn't revolve around you.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

On WP:RPP, Zero g has written

Ramdrake and four other editors (who appear to form a pov cabal coordinating their efforts on hereditary articles displaying an extreme liberal bias) refuse to put the article up for deletion, and instead try to silently burry it by merging it into the Richard Lynn article

Could Zero g please explain how this "pov cabal" functions and how it applies to both reviews of the book presented in Richard Lynn? Could it in fact be the case that these are simply editors who independently happen to disagree with Zero g? As I've said before, I would actually not be against having the very recently created article put on WP:AfD to discuss a merge/delete. So far its notability has not been established by normal academic criteria, although all of the 7 or 8 academic reviewers agree that it is a valuable source of data. Mathsci (talk) 08:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The cabal functions by canvassing, another editor of the group will soon show up whenever there is something going on.

They generally don't try to have the same opinion, but share the same deletionist attitude. For example User1 wants an article or chapter gone for reason A, User2 wants it gone for reason B, and user3 wants it gone for reason A and B; though amazingly, favoring alternative C slightly more.

It should go without saying that the stuff they want gone is properly sourced. When there is opposition to the removal of sourced content, they'll make sure they have a reasonable amount of support and have a 'consensus vote'. They always vote in favor of their group, and if they manage to get enough votes in, have one of them start edit warring claiming to have 'majority consensus'.

When this doesn't work, Misplaced Pages after all is not a democracy, they become rude and start wiki-lawyering (you're not AGF! etc), taunting, and having long tedious (soapy) talk page discussions that go in circles and never go anywhere because they don't desire a consensus (they have 'majority consensus' after all). Not before long they'll report the offensive user to Ani, or some 'neutral admin' - who is in fact part of the clique and sympathetic to their viewpoints - though not editing the article in question (but often editing one or more related articles). --Zero g (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I second Mathsci's request that Elonka's statement of a "significant opposition" is pointless, unless she herself now objects, intervening as an editor rather than an uninvolved admin. Otherwise, the "significant" opposition is limited to a single editor who cannot accept a 5-1-1 merge verdict, and if we let this go by, we indeed demonstrate that a single person can significantly derail Misplaced Pages's processes and indeed act as it they owned an article without opposition, and indeed be supported in this disruption. Indeed, I wouldn't have objected to an AfD at all back when the merge was being proposed. However, seven editors expressed an opinion, 5 of those being in favor of the merge, and when no opinion had been registered for a week, the straw poll was closed. Then, after one week without anyone objecting, Zero g (the lone original dissenter) comes back, and starts reverting the merged article (which had been stable as a redirect for a week), even though most other editors have voiced their objections again to undoing the merge. Also, although I won't delve in them, Zero g's contributions also show a pattern of editing which demonstrates a kind of slant not normally accepted at Misplaced Pages. Just the fact that he calls such articles as Dysgenics and Race and Intelligence "hereditary articles" should give people a hint as to his leanings.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea for you to review your understanding of WP:CONSENSUS. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. The fact that more people oppose the merge than agree with it does not mean a consensus is reached. If there are valid points being made for both solutions then these need to be addressed. I highly recommend an afd or rfc as suggested above. I also remind you to assume good faith objecting to a merge is not disruptive, but claiming a false consensus and trying to 'railroad' a decision is. --neon white talk 13:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

As per the link I provided above, the decision was 5-1-1 in favor of a merge, with no overpowering argument against the merge, except one which amounted to WP:ILIKEIT. I'm not saying that objecting to a merge is disruptive, but single-handedly, repeatedly undoing a merge which has been in effect for a week because one disagrees with it certainly is disruptive. Also, if you are thinking that more people oppose the merge than agree with it describes the situation either you are mistaken about the situation, or you are privy to information which nobody else has. If the latter is the case, please share with us.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I am part of the "cabal" Zero G refers to ... I can only appeal to my fellow editors to judge what follows based on the contents and not my identity. The question is, why do we have an article on a book about population genetics, when the author has no expertise in population genetics and the book is not taken seriously by population genetics? Does the book really need its own article, or can't it be discussed in the article on the author of the book (the author is clearly better-known than the book in question)? Above, Elonka states that there is significant opposition to the merge. She elides two different meanings of "significant." It is true that Zero G is really opposed to the merge. However, it is not true that many editors are opposed to the merge. In fact, this proposal has been discussed extensively and as Ramdrake observes Zero G is the only person who objects. In the context of this discussion - of a discussion of how to resolve conflicts on the article talk page, and how to improve the article, one objection is hardly "significant." Zero G is coming very close to the kind of POV warrioring that Misplaced Pages must strongly and decisively reject.

For those who are not clear on the nature of the dispute, it is this: there is a body of evidence that Blacks on average score lower than Whites on IQ tests, at least in the US. There is considerable debate as to why, and researchers have put forward a range of explanations. Richard Lynn, a psychologist, claims that Blacks are inherently inferior to Whites i.e. their inferiority is genetic. Richard Lynn is not a geneticists and has done no genetics research, and his view is considered fringe by all trained professional geneticists. This is not an "extreme liberal POV," it is a "scientific" POV meaning the view of geneticists about genetics. Most of the editors who have argued against Zero G - I will name Ramdrake and Alun - have never argued on political grounds and have only argued on the grounds of identifying notable versus fringe views amond different kinds of scientists.

There is at Misplaced Pages an article on Richard Lynn, and his views are aired here at Misplaced Pages. No one has argued that his views be deleted from Misplaced Pages (so much for some liberal POV!) However, Zero G is systematiclly inserting Lynn's views everywhere he can, including creating new articles to repeat the same views. I view this as straightforward POV-warrioring. Does this make me a liberal? Well, skip what I just said and do what we Wikipedians are supposed to be good at: scholarly research. Look at the literature by trained professional geneticists on this topic, and see how many geneticists support Lynn's views. When it comes to complying with our NPOV and FRINGE policies, this is what matters, and not the enthusiasm with which Zero G pushes his own POV.

This is a set of conflicts that has plagued this article for a long time. you would have thought that a couple of RfCs would have been sufficient to resolve the issue, especially since they all overwhelmingly went in the same direction (the direction Ramdrake, mathsci and others are following). But Elonka and Zero G apparently are not satisfied with the RfC process, so I urge other editors to give this matter serious consideration. Let me close by observing that the race and intelligence topic is highly controversial in the US and I would think the articles on this topic are among the ones many people judge us by. Screw politics: let's focus on NPOV, FRINGE, V and other policies, as well as our responsibility first and foremost to write a high quality encyclopedia that provides readers with an accurate and proportionate account of current leading research on scientific topics. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please. Not Race and intelligence again. Can't we just ban Zero g and any other SPAs in the closet from this set of articles/topic? They're doing no good here, unless you count persistent WP:FRINGE violation as "good". Zero g has been doing this since 2006, so he really should have learnt the rules by now. Looking at this, incidentally, he looks to be of the far-right Dutch type that crop up again now and again. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not worth a lengthy ANI thread. Just file an AfD. If no one is sure how to file one, see WP:AFD, or ask for assistance. If there's a genuine consensus, it'll show up at the AfD, there's no need to insist that a limited conversation on one talkpage "proves" consensus. --Elonka 16:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. Talkpage discussion is how we do merges. AfD is for deletion debates, not merge debates. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

(resetting indent) I think we may be losing sight of the real issue here: a merge was proposed by the book (i.e., following Misplaced Pages processes). The merge proposal remained open for 2 weeks, during which time it received input from 7 different users. The proposal was closed after 11 days without any activity. The proposal was closed by the book, returning a verdict of 5-1-1 in favor of merging. This is no different than several merge proposals and XfDs which I've seen, which are rarely if ever unanimous. Now, the lone dissenting editor keeps reverting the merge, arguing that Misplaced Pages is not a democracy (nobody says it is) and that either there was no consensus because he didn't agree to it, or that consensus doesn't mean anything (it is a major editing policy of Misplaced Pages, on the contrary). The remainder of this situation is basically wikidrama, and hides a simple, plain fact: one editor is consistently acting disruptively by refusing to accept consensus (or even denying it exists), and reverting a merge that was done in full compliance of Misplaced Pages policy.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Any editor can file an AfD, they don't need to have "consensus" to do so. It appears that Zero g wants an AfD, but he's unsure how to file one. So I recommend that someone who does know how to file one, please do so. An AfD will put this matter to rest, once and for all. --Elonka 16:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Except that merge discussions are not supposed to be decided at AfD. That's what the talk page is for. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

A merge discussion is also sometimes a deletion discussion, as it involves the deletion of one sub-article that is then merged into the larger article. There is disagreement about whether or not the sub-article should be deleted, so an AfD is appropriate. I think Zero g would have filed the AfD himself, but he's just not sure how.

My own participation in this situation is as an uninvolved admin. I personally don't care if the merge is accomplished or not, but I do care that it's handled properly. From what I see, the merge discussion that is being referred to at the talkpage, was not handled "by the book". It was started by Wsiegmund on June 2, and then closed by the same editor on July 13. It is extremely bad form for a nominator to close their own discussion. Further, there was no "announcement" of this discussion. No RfC, just a small discussion on one talkpage, with primarily the same editors participating, just as they have in multiple other articles in that topic area. Then once they'd "closed" their own merge discussion, they declared consensus, and proceeded to edit-war to enforce their view, and even went as far as opening this ANI thread to deal with their "opponent", Zero g.

I strongly disagree with this approach. To make it truly fair, there should be an open RfC, or an AfD. An AfD is probably easier, but either method would be acceptable. The point is, that this kind of a decision should not be railroaded by a small group of editors that are already working together in other areas of conflict. The current merge discussion at the talkpage, even though it looks like a formal RfC, is not. So, I still recommend a wider community discussion, or at least the opportunity for one. If there is a genuine consensus, it will show up that way. So, in terms of disruption, we could continue wrangling about this on ANI, or we could just file an AfD, and then there's an organized mechanism to put this issue to rest. So revert this edit, file an AfD, and then we can close this ANI thread and let the normal community discussion process handle the rest. --Elonka 17:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, there are several inaccuracies in your assessment of the situation:

• A merge proposal does not require anything else than the proper template being placed on the merge-from and merge-to articles' talk pages, with a link to a single discussion space on either talk page (so as to avoid duplication of the discussion). It does not require special listing as for XfDs and RfCs.
• As per WP:MERGE, there is nothing preventing a nominator from closing their own merge discussions, after a reasonable amount of time has passed (I would say several weeks qualifies as a reasonable amount of time). In fact, the very wording of WP:MERGE seems to imply that it is indeed normal for a merge nominator to close and archive their own discussions.
• By allowing the strong objections of a single editor to override a closed merge discussion process, you are in fact allowing him to railroad the intended process. This is not even the case of be(ing) railroaded by a small group of editors, this is the case of a single editor being allowed to railroad the process.
• Your analysis seems to confuse a merge discussion with an RfC discussion. Please be aware that these are not the same process, as per WP:RfC and WP:MERGE.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ramdrake, I do not believe that is an accurate assessment of WP:MERGE. The nominator is only supposed to close their own merge discussion if there is a "clear consensus" or silence. However, if "the merger may be controversial, you might want to add a listing to Misplaced Pages:Proposed mergers." So, was this particular controversial merge listed? Because I did not see it. Was there an RfC? I didn't see that either. If there was some discussion or notification of this merge, outside of the specific article talkpages, I would be happy to review the links, thanks. --Elonka 20:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's see: 5 people were in favor of the merge, 1 against and 1 neutral. At the time of closing, the merge discussion had been inactive for 11 days. I do not see any signs of controversy here; there is just one editor opposing the merge, and then letting go of the situation for 11 days. This was not a controversial debate until Zero g started making a fuss about it and reverting the merge repeatedly several days after it had been done. Please note that posting to Misplaced Pages:Proposed mergers is not a requirement, just a suggestion. There wasn't either a requirement for an RfC. As per WP:MERGE, the specific requirements for a merge discussion were met, and the merge wasn't a controversial one until Zero g made it so, several days after it was done.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Because I am wary of misusing AfD. Each time we do that we send out the wrong message about what AfD is for. At bottom AfD is for telling admins when the community thinks they should use their "delete" button. Right? But a merge does not involve deletion. It involves redirection, which is not a matter for administrators to resolve. That's a matter for the community to sort out, on talk pages. I get really cheesed off when someone comes to AfD saying "I want this merged", because a merge is something anyone can do, anyone at all. It does not require admin buttons, and hence AfD is not the right process. Talkpage discussion is. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Besides - Elonka? All this dysgenics/race-and-intelligence-connection material Zero g is pushing is really fringy. And he's been doing it since 2006. Without doing anything else, hardly. I think he's the underlying problem here, not his opponents. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi, thanks, and I understand your concerns. And I agree that talkpage discussion is fine, as long as there is adequate participation. It's just that in this case, I am not sure that there was sufficient participation. To fix that, I still think an AfD is easier, but an RfC would be fine too. As for Zero g (talk · contribs), he's been an editor for two years, but also note that he's got fewer than a thousand edits. But even with limited participation, he has still managed to work on a variety of articles, and he has made many valid edits. So I don't think we should just label him as "Fringe" and ignore what he has to say. I'd be more inclined to abide by WP:BITE, meaning that if he wants to challenge the merge, instead of us labeling him a troublemaker, we should patiently explain the Misplaced Pages dispute resolution mechanisms, and show him how he can best participate on Misplaced Pages. Remember, just because someone is proposing a non-mainstream view, doesn't mean we should kick them off of Misplaced Pages. Instead, we should welcome them, if they can participate in a civil and constructive fashion, since their participation helps us to create neutral and well-rounded articles. So I recommend that we work on this from an angle of teaching, not punishing. --Elonka 18:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I was involved in a lengthy merge dispute that was quickly resolved by taking one of the articles to AfD, described in more detail at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Mergers at AfD. The situations may or may not be comparable. Flatscan (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:TIGERS, Elonka. Unfortunately, no matter how civil they are, there's a limit to the compromises we can have with someone who holds a viewpoint this far out, and who pushes it on Misplaced Pages, which aims to reflect academic consensus. If Zero g refuses to understand that then there will be consequences. There have to be. And his viewpoint is fringe. WP:SPADE. The same holds true for our Hindutva pals or Neo-Nazis or hardcore Afrocentrists or whatever. See also the the quotebox here. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

An indef block/ban of Zero g in this case is excessive. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

yes, I wasn't proposing that. Please check again as to what I did propose :) Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, I think Elonka's defense of Zero g is a bit disingenuous. Two years, 1000 edits, and maybe 97 percent of those edits look in some way to be related to Eugenics, even the ones to not-obviously-related articles like social justice. Again, WP:SPADE - that's a single-purpose account, I'm afraid. WP:TIGERS points out very nicely that eugenics articles do not have to be written via endless controversy between editors representing mainstream science - Ramdrake, Slrubenstein - and the hardcore right-wing element of Dutch politics, where I strongly suspect Zero g fits in. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) For the record, I don't oppose moving this to AfD, even though I think it should have been done weeks ago, as it now looks like a violation of WP:PARENT (having been overruled in the merge discussion, Zero g seems to want a change of venue to get a second chance). I do, however, object to Zero g's repeated reversal of the merge, followed by telling the other editors to "start an AfD". If he wants an AfD, he should start one.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I have looked through Zero g's contribs, and to my knowledge he has never filed an AfD. It can be a daunting prospect for someone who has never done one, so I'd recommend that one of the more experienced editors do it. Or, if there are no objections, I'll go ahead and file it, just for procedure's sake. I truly do not care if the book article exists or not, I just want to make sure that dispute resolution procedures are followed. --Elonka 21:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Great, Elonka, you have proven that ZeroG has not petitioned an AfD, as perhaps was his prerogative. Swell. But ou have also said that an alternative would be an RfC - and it has been pointed out to you several times that there was at least one RfC on the matter. Elonka, it is time for you to come clean. The integrity of Misplaced Pages depends on this: What is your motivation in derailing the prope following of the merge-article process? Everyone save Zero G, a single-purpose editor, supports it, and other editors have been following Misplaced Pages policies. Why do you want to derail wikipedia policies? What is your interest in subverting the process here? I honestly do not understand it. AGF insists I take your comments as constructive but please, can you explain to me what constructive suggestion you have forwarded here? All I see is an attempt to derail a pretty standard Misplaced Pages process. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I wonder whether Elonka might please stop acting as Zero g's alter ego? Her experiment in mentoring his companion editor Jagz was a signal failure. Now she seems determined to continue it with Zero g. If Elonka wants to file an AfD, please could she do it herself? It seems quite improper for Elonka to act as a behind-the-scenes advisor for other editors, suggesting the actions she would take if she were in their shoes. She says there is a dispute to be resolved. However it is in fact a careless disruptive edit of Elonka herself that has created this whole wikidrama. Could she please carefully reconsider her behaviour on WP in the future and when intervening on a page take some time to review what has been going on. That way she will not waste the time of good faith editors as she now is doing. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 23:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is this RFC? This issue of whether to merge a book/author has probably been discussed hundreds of times before, so there should be plenty of good yardsticks lying around, and maybe even guidelines. John Vandenberg 00:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

As per this diff, Zero g is still unmerging the article and asking me to put it up for deletion. Can someone make him understand that if he wants to unmerge the article, this would be solely for AfD purposes, and that the onus is then upon him to put it up for Afd? Otherwise, that becomes just plain and simple POV-warring for the sake of POV-warring, and that's a blockable offense.--Ramdrake (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That diff is not what I asked for. John Vandenberg 02:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, indenting error, that never was meant to be the diff in question.--Ramdrake (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Randrake, Slrubenstein, Mathsci - can I ask why it is we keep seeing the three of you show up in places together and the threads quickly degenerate into snippy comments and personal attacks? "derail wikipedia policies" "integrity of Misplaced Pages depends on this" "wasting the time of good faith editors" -- c'mon, are we really supposed to take you seriously when you throw out comments like that? You guys need to take a breather and try to come at your editing on race related articles in a much more calm and civil fashion. If there's crap going on, document it, present it factually and deal with the comments you get - this persistent drama when you're not getting the outcome you want is really unnecessary. Several people suggested actions here, such as requesting protection and community discussion forums - is there any reason not to try that? Why do all of the threads started by this group end up looking like they're out to get another editor? If an editor is that much trouble, there's pretty standard methods of dealing with it through user RfCs and ArbCom; roasting them over ANI isn't really a preferred method (though sometimes tasty). Shell 01:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding why I haven't gone the AfD route myself, primarily because I believe the article is notable so putting it up for deletion would be WP:POINT.

Regarding talk accusations, I guess he isn't well read on the subject matter, Ramdrake and Co have failed to provide notable sources that state that Dysgenics is considered a fringe science. And given there haven't been any public polls that I know of, the 'assumed' public opinion, unfortunately, cannot be added to these articles. The edit conflict actually began when Ramdrake started to remove properly sourced content from the Dysgenics article. I've never tried to push a pov on wikipedia, as an editor I've grown and learned to properly source my edits, and to respect sourced edits of other editors. Ramdrake on the other hand more than once removed sourced content, and has tried to add content that wasn't backed up by the sources he provides. This wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the fact that he doesn't seem motivated to improve his editing behavior.

I'm also not particularly fond of the 'hey you're a nazi! - lets ban the nazi!' thing. I'm a libertarian and I'm quite aware that many people would vehemently disagree with many of my viewpoints or motivations for my viewpoints, but I wasn't aware that people can get banned on Misplaced Pages for a suspected political belief. --Zero g (talk) 01:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Per Zero g's request, I have started an AfD, which is available at: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations. I have also added it to two delsort categories, for "science" and "social science". I now recommen d closing this ANI thread, since the AfD should now be the primary point of discussion. --ElonSpecial:Contributions/Elonka 04:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

In response to Shell (I am on European time). I did not choose to bring this to WP:AN/I. Since my carefully sourced addition of the book reviews precipitated the forked article, it was quite normal that I should participate here. I don't quite understand why you have adopted the tone above. Certainly what you write does not seem particularly accurate (my recent participation here was concerned with now banned users User:Muntuwandi and User:log in, log out). This thread would not have come about if yet another of your friend Elonka's "experiments" hadn't gone wrong. Mathsci (talk) 06:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of who brought things here, the three of you seem to have developed a nasty habit of drama building that includes feeling personal attacks are appropriate. I believe you also seem to have a particular penchant for taking swipes at Elonka, which you've been warned for multiple times and you're here doing it yet again. Zero g has made mature and thoughtful posts to this thread, while you, Ramdrake and Slrubenstein aren't holding yourselves to quite the same standard. Zero g took it upon himself to try one of the methods suggested to resolve the issue; you, Ramdrake and Slrubenstein did not. I know its tough to really take a step back and look at your own actions, but when people keep saying the same things to you in multiple places, please consider that they might really have some merit - and if nothing else, please don't try to deflect concerns about your behavior with attacks on other editors. Shell 08:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Shell, please step back a moment. I have not been uncivil. I have merely criticized Elonka's tardiness. Moreschi is one of the few people to have recognized the problems with editor Zero g. His contributions have not been "mature" - his reference here to a "pov cabal" was unhelpful. The tone you are adopting is equally unhelpful and your observations, particularly about the belated AfD, do not seem accurate. Elonka suggested and initiated the AfD, not Zero g. Why not, like me, do something constructive and go to the AfD page where I have already expressed my thanks to Elonka for its creation? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Honestly Mathsci, I really didn't comment just to get into another long debate with you where you feign ignorance of any of your (and your cohort's) behavior and pretend I'm being somehow rude. Your comments here have clearly not remained civil; you've managed to call Elonka an alter ego to a "bad" contributor, characterize her edits as careless, disruptive and a waste of everyone's time and even accused her of being the one to create drama . You have been asked very politely before to stop commenting on Elonka since you've said that you're unaware that you're making personal attacks in reference to her.

Aside from the "pov cabal" comment you mention by Zero g, I don't see anything of concern during this discussion. I think, give the behavior I've seen during this thread, that Zero g may have a point, even though it could have been more civilly phrased. Perhaps Zero g behaves differently elsewhere, but again there's a proper avenue to handle things if that's a concern. As far as the AfD goes, I'm going to guess that you just overlooked the "Per Zero g's request" part. Thanks for the invite, but I'm not sure I'm quite ready to dive into the issues surrounding the race related articles at this time. Since you appear to be content with handling things there, that should clear up the concerns for this thread then, no? Shell 10:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Shell, I am the one who started this thread at ANI, based on a simple, objective set of facts: Zero g kept reverting (and edit-warring to keep the reversion) a merge which was done fully according to the rules (at WP:MERGE) several days ago. He was also the only one to object to the merge when the merge proposal was active. On top of this, after reverting, (and mostly denying the existence of a consensus even though it did exist) he kept insisting that other editors should file an AfD if they disagreed with his reversion. To me, that's not really acceptable behaviour. This situation got further inflated when Zero g started throwing around accusations of a POV cabal (or whatever) and gradually escalated from there. From what I see, your comment only further inflames the situation, even though I'm pretty sure that's really not what you intended. I would really appreciate if you would let this situation de-escalate. Thanks.--Ramdrake (talk) 10:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Shell, you write, "c'mon, are we really supposed to take you seriously when you throw out comments like that?" Before you accuse me of either being defensive or offensive let me explain because I am not trying to throw out some casual insult. But you have questioned my good faith and you seem to base it on a comment I made here. Do you know that there has been a series of ongoing disputes centered on Race and intelligence and adjunct articles over the past two or three years? If you want to know what kinds of comments I or others "throw out," you need to look at them in the context of the whole conversation. If you look at the talk pages ofr R&I and other articles you will see a great deal of reasonable, constructive discussion by myself, and others you have maligned. In fact, Alun in particular has added hundreds of kilobytes or more to talk pages on these subjects in which he has gone into painful detail about the current state of scientific research, detailing various sources, discussing their notability, and how they could be used in articles. Yes, you should take us very seriously, because of the valuable content we have brought into the articles and into discussions. And you should take us seriously because of our commitment to Misplaced Pages policies. The question you should be asking is, why do several editors who are clearly not single-purpose accounts, who have contributed to a variety of articles, who have clearly done considerable research relating to articles, disagree with an editor who apparently has no expertise in science and whose edits all have in common the pushing of a single point of view? The only way a responsible editor can answer this question is by looking at the contents and the research behind it. Zero G is promoting as mainstram science a scholar who argues that people are poor because they are less intelligent than people who are not poor, and that "What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the populations of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of "phasing out" of such peoples. If the world is to evolve more better humans, then obviously someone has to make way for them. ... To think otherwise is mere sentimentality." Do you really believe these views are mainstream science? I have read through a good deal of the mainstream science on intelligence, genetics, and poverty, and I know that Ramdrake and Alun have as well; Matchsci has also demonstrated that he has very well-grounded knowledge of the sciences. This is why you should take us seriously. Now, you want us to take you seriously, I suppose. How much time have you spent researching the mainstream science concerning these topics? Have you done any research at all? Or are you just taking Zero G's side against several editors because ... well, why? Is it just that you agree with the views he is promoting? Or are you opposed to Misplaced Pages's FRINGE policy? Or are you opposed to mainstream science? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Fclass wants to be unblocked

Indefinitely blocked User:Fclass is asking to be unblocked. Since he had earlier broken his promise to me, that he would not make personal attacks and I can see no hint of a shift in his thinking, I'm asking for a review here. Perhaps another editor would like to speak with him about this and see where he's at. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

His attitude of "What do you want from me?" as opposed to "I'm willing to do anything asked of me, willing to follow any restriction imposed on me. I want to contribute to this project, and think I can in a civil and calm manner" leads me to lean towards another 30 days, at least. 30 days can't hurt him, and definitely doesn't hurt the project. You were right Gwen to not unblock him. Beam 00:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

He was community banned so any unblock would need to be discussed here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with an unblock at the moment, given this comment and this. Fclass should know what is expected and what is wanted, and we shouldn't have to feed the user policies and guidelines whenever a situation arises. 30 days for another review, per Beam, is what I am suggesting. seicer | talk | contribs 00:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock. His language in the request shows that he'll likely just continue where he left off if unblocked. Wizardman 00:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. --A. B. 02:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• Eh. not sure. On the one hand there doesn't seem to be much promise of reform here. On the other hand, Fclass did seem to be a somewhat productive editor and how contrite he is might not be so relevant as long as he does actually not include any further personal attacks. JoshuaZ (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• 30 days seems a reasonable time frame. Oppose unblock for now, and review later as per above. Rudget (logs) 11:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Please block a Davkal sock

The IP belongs to a hosting company, so it is almost assuredly being used as an anonymizing proxy. IP contributions give the impression that the only intent is to harass a user and disrupt the wiki. Fairly open and shut: IP is anon-blocked for three months. Vassyana (talk) 04:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC) Could someone please block User talk:64.86.17.112 - a Davkal sock who keeps wikistalking me? I filed a WP:SSP notice, but the usual people who handle Davkal problems are not around to do this. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You should probably post this at WP:SSP or request a checkuser first. Thanks, —Mizu onna sango15/ 00:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC).

I did. I need some immediate intervention. SSP takes too long and the harassment is happening right now. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I know, and I apologise. I've been having a great deal of trouble viewing Misplaced Pages recently (still trying to figure out why), and I thought we were at the help desk, and didn't see the first half of your comments until after I submitted my response. Cheers, and thanks for understanding! —Mizu onna sango15/ 00:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

See also subsection below, which I'm moving here since it's the same topic. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

possible wikistalking by User talk:64.86.17.112

I was asked to intervene on behalf of User:ScienceApologist. An anon editor using IP User talk:64.86.17.112 has been giving him difficulty. He has been warned before to stop harassing SA. Today, this editor appears to have left more snide comments in response to discussion that SA is involved in.

I am fully aware that SA is to many a controversial editor, and I will not be an apologist for anything that he has done wrong. However, I think an admin should look into this. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I am glad to see that this troublemaker has been duly banished. After all, pointing out that new amendments to the core policies that govern the edits of every single wiki user are meaningless is not the kind of behavior that should be tolerated. Far better to block such users so that the meaningless amendments are allowed to stand unchecked. By doing this the following excellent precedent can also be set: users who have shown themselves quite unable to abide by core policies should feel free to treat those core policies as their plaything and doctor them in any way they see fit if they think it might help them win an argument or two on articles they are struggling with.

Just to let any administrator who is interested know: the policy in question is the "tone" section of NPOV. The main changes involve removing all uses of the word "fair", and turning the majority of the section into a brief restatement of the UNDUE WEIGHT section which precedes it. So, again for anyone who is interested, you now have a section of core policy that consists of a non sequitur, followed by a jumbled mess of a sentence, followed by a paragraph that has nothing to do with the section it forms the majority of. And all of this written for the sole purpose (see talk) of strengthening the hand of an editor who contributes nothing but mayhem to the wiki. Hey ho. 207.210.78.194 (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

So now Davkal has jumped to this new account. Please block that open proxy too. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, there is now a new account User:Codstreuth that is up to similar behavior. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

•  Done: Indef'ed. seicer | talk | contribs 15:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Carol Spears IP edits

Carol Spears requested, on her user talk page, that an edit be made to the article Senecio vulgaris to undo an edit she had made earlier (before being banned/blocked). A single purpose single edit took care of this for Carol. I suspect this is Carol editing with an IP account and would like this checked, if appropriate.

It also revealed even more problems with Carol's edits. She apparently used herself as a source to insert nonsense into articles, this one back in February:

and one mention that perhaps it is distilled water which is harmful to laboratory animals and to human beings since every thing that drinks it inevitably dies.

1. Carol Spears. "Distilled Water, Just Say No!" (HTML). Retrieved 2008-02-05. All laboratory animals drink distilled water and they all die.

This nonsense edit was recently reverted by User:Cacycle as vandalism, although it had stood for a long time.

I request that arrangements be made for all of her major edits to be gutted, rather than allowing them to stand any longer on Misplaced Pages or requiring editors to spend hours checking this crap. Her crap should not be returned by search engines as sources on any subject. Preferably this could be done by a bot as I first suggested.

I won't be arguing this point or participating in this discussion if one occurs. There are too many supporters of Carol Spears' contributions willing to attack anyone who finds problems with her making stuff up to write articles on Misplaced Pages.

But it should not go down when her edits come back to mock Misplaced Pages in the press that no one knew what was going on. This is a notice about the potential for Misplaced Pages to look really bad for supporting Carol Spears as an editor and allowing her edits to stand without large scale reversion.

--Blechnic (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that IP is her, it's on a different ISP and in a different country to the last IP she used. I just removed two more links to Carol's webpage. One was a link to her chili recipe that that she added as an external link in the Sherzer Observatory‎ article and had been there for over a month. The other one was to a page that doesn't exist (404 error) on her site that she was using as a citation in the Annona cherimola. There's another ten or so links that show up on the Special: EL tool but they all seem to be on discussion pages. Sarah 06:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

More than likely it's (the single-edit IP) just someone who's seen the drama and forgotten to log in before fixing it. Orderinchaos 13:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You are most probably right. I also saw her request and I made another change to that photo on that article right after that IP. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree also. I doubt the IP is a proxy so I also doubt she is in the UK ATM since she lives in another Country. Also that cite above was added by Carol on the (8th Australian Time) Feb 2008. Bidgee (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

As an editor who was blocked and caused a lot of work for other editors to repair the damage I was amazed to see she is still editing. I agree with Blechnic and others, all of her edits should be removed immediately. A bot would be the easiest way I assume, that is if there is a bot programmed for this kind of work. She was given plenty of opportunity to help fix the massive amount of edits she did, and then did nothing to help with the clean up. Thus I feel the block should be enforced in full and any socks she is using should also be blocked. If necessary, her talk pages should also be blocked to stop her from interfering or trying to stay involved. If a bot cannot undo what she has already done, then can an administrator do a rollback on her account to remove her edits? I'm sure there are probably edits that she made that are acceptable but given there is so much that is not, I think removing her contributions completely would be the best. There are other knowledgeable editors that can add to the articles she has edited to get the information needed added. I endorse her block and feel block should continue and maybe even a community ban be considered from Misplaced Pages since her behavior has shown she sees nothing wrong with what she has done or is doing. --CrohnieGal 16:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

As the account is indef blocked and the user talkpage is not being used to request unblock or otherwise for appropriate purposes I feel it should be protected. I was also against the community ban, but given the subsequent actions by the editor I am no longer in a position to advise that I would unblock the editor should consensus allow me to. I think that there was one other sysop who was not willing to sign up for the community ban, and if that individual were to clarify their position we might open a brief discussion to formalise a ban. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I did express a willingness to undo my block, but sadly I've seen no sign on the talk page that she's prepared to play nicely. I think Misplaced Pages needs protecting from this editor - endorse ban proposal. EyeSerene 09:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikimancer (talk · contribs)

Wikimancer and I are in a dispute about possible violation of WP:BLP on Samantha Ronson, so I posted an RfC: Talk:Samantha Ronson#Are statements about Lindsay Lohan a violation of WP:BLP?. Rather than confining his comments to the WP:BLP issue, Wikimancer has decided to use the RfC as a vehicle to make false accusations about me in his edit here. I have tried to explain to him on his talk page that comments on the RfC should be restricted to the issues rather than making personal attacks on the editor who posted the RfC, but his only response has been to argue with me. I don't think I should revert his irrelevant (and personalized) comments about me on the RfC, but I hope someone will discuss with him what is and is not appropriate content for an RfC. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 01:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm really not seeing anything there that is a personal attack, he's rather dryly reporting the differences that you've both had over the content and sharing his concerns that you may be misinterpreting the policies. While it would have been nice if he could have made his points without mentioning another contributor, there's no requirement that he do so, as long as he remains civil. Instead of worrying about his comments, try responding to his points by detailing your concerns about the sources, for example, he says that the blog in question is written by LA Times writers and has editorial oversight - that's something you may want to respond to, if you feel the blog does not meet the standards of reliable sources. In the meantime, let the RfC do its work - having some fresh viewpoints on the issue from uninvolved editors may help you sort out your concerns about the content. Shell 06:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the suggestions. Ward3001 (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

DavidYork71 (talk · contribs) is at it again

He's editing as Bestrace (talk · contribs)...just see the edit histories. --Ave Caesar (talk) 01:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like a sock of banned user DavidYork71. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The account has been blocked by Mattinbgn. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

And User:Coontrack, already blocked by me but someone else has tagged it as a davidYork71 sock. 09:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Might need to run another checkuser, we flushed three out in addition to these ones in the past two days. Orderinchaos 10:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

He's now editing again as

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of DavidYork71 (talk · contribs · logs). Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

--Ave Caesar (talk) 13:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - added. Orderinchaos 13:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Vexorg in continual removal of sourced data

I absolutely hate bringing up what may be a content dispute to the administrators' attention, so this is probably the 2nd or 3rd time I've ever done it (in multiple thousands of edits). But here I must. User:Vexorg, despite an RFC where he was universally told he was wrong (see Talk:Christianity_by_country/Archive_1#Eurobarometer_RfC and the rest of the talk page), continues to assert that CIA Factbook is not a reliable source for data, and to insert his own data into Christianity by country from a source which doesn't even mention Christianity. I don't know where else to go at this point; I'm not sure anyone else would sign an RFC/U anyway, so I'm bringing this to administrator attention. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a great thing about having consensus. He makes an edit against it, you revert him. He reverts you, another editor who agrees with consensus reverts him. He reverts that editor, a 3rd editor reverts him following consensus. He reverts that 3rd editor... you goto the 3RR noticeboard and the editor is blocked. See how easy that is? That's what is so great about consensus, it's not solely one person's problem. Beam 03:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted the WP:3RR and edit warring rules can apply to editors that are collaborating as well. --neon white talk 17:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Collaborating with consensus? Beam 17:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Beam this is a serious issue that we've been dealing with for months. It is not resolved; I wish nonadmins would quit marking my posts resolved when thye're not. The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note on Vexorg's talk suggesting some ideas on how to resolve the issue, but unless he's edit warring or being disruptive, there's not really anything administrator intervention will do. You might want to consider trying some informal mediation or something else in the dispute resolution process if you're still not able to work things out. Shell 06:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you seem to think I'm joking. I'm not. This is a content dispute. When I got my first 3rr break (and only i believe) that's what was told to me by an admin or two that I respect. I pass that advice to you. Beam 17:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Vexorg here. I would like it to be officially noted of the offensive remarks made by The Evil Spartan where he accuses me .... "despite how much you've decided you hate America" in Talk:Christianity_by_country. This not only contravening Assume good faith., is very offensive and I don't expect this from supposedly mature Misplaced Pages editors.

Now the figures in question from the CIA factbook have no source. For example it says for Norway that 90% of the population are Christians. this is clearly way of mark and there is no source for the figure. No link to or reference to a census or poll. Nothing.

I am certainly NOT being disruptive, I am trying to improve the article.Vexorg (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a further note, that The Evil Spartan seems to be starting an edit war. He has now reverted my edits twice. Could an administrator intervene here please. thanks Vexorg (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems The Evil Spartan is continuing the personal attacks towards me at Talk:Christianity_by_country#CIA_is_NOT_a_reliable_source In response to my noting of his previous comments being a personal attack against me , he remarks Coming from a stated atheist who dislikes organized religion, I believe this would be a textbook case of the pot calling the kettle black --- In view of these continued attacks I am not going to communicate with this editor anymore. I am not here to be the subject of personal attacks. I am here to improve wikipedia articles. Vexorg (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

It's me again bringing up User:RRaunak again! This user User:ElementR did the EXACT same things as RRaunak again. Look at the contribs, the signatures. They both match... I am feeling that a checkuser might be needed. I should bring up the WP:SOCKrule as a meatpuppet. Is there any possible administrative action? --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ! 06:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Any editor can submit an WP:RFCU. I recommend starting there; if a match is made, the researching admin can, and probably will, block as needed. ThuranX (talk) 06:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Good you traced my signature.but i did not steal it.I took it by asking.see User_talk:tinucherian.User_talk:rraunakI also grabbed it by asking about the church in medak.But how am i related..
►▪ Σ╙ΣMEΩ╦ Я ▪ (♪ ╥a|k ¿ ) ▪ 06:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I.E Same edits, same mistakes, lots of edits and copyedits on userpage/talk page design mostly copied from others users. --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ! 06:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that their the same users. What cream brought up, same userspages, signatures, ect. -- RyRy (talk) 06:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, close usernames also. RRaunak has "R" on the front, and ElementR has an "R" at the end. -- RyRy (talk) 06:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

My name is Rahul.and not rraunak understand ? I copied bits (not all) from his userpage.but see cream.he has also taken the border from rraunak
►▪ Σ╙ΣMEΩ╦ Я ▪ (♪ ╥a|k ¿ ) ▪ 06:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

How do you explain the same edits to your user pages? Both of you edit your user page quite often, not to mention the same related topics. -- RyRy (talk) 06:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I did it myself for a better design but u RyRy is a designer i see !
►▪ Σ╙ΣMEΩ╦ Я ▪ (♪ ╥a|k ¿ ) ▪ 06:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion about the sock allegations but there's nothing wrong with stealing code for userpage design or signatures. Lots of people do it. In fact, I was just looking at another admin's userpage and it had a note saying he had stolen the code from someone else who stole it from someone else again. This is Misplaced Pages, you don't own anything. Sarah 11:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• If you think that you have a sock here, open a suspected sock case or as ThuranX said, file a request for checkuser. There's really nothing admin's can do here. Shell 07:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok now tell me can i keep up my present userpage and signature or modify it ?
►▪ Σ╙ΣMEΩ╦ Я ▪ (♪ ╥a|k ¿ ) ▪ 07:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course you can keep it if you want to. Sarah 11:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• It would be better off filing an RFCU, but, ahem, I'v never done one before... I suppose this is a good day to start. Thanks, RyRy (talk) 07:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hell! I came here to check on the RRaunak thread and also to report on ElementR. Well its seems I dont have to. Isnt it so obvious that ElementR is a sock of RaunakRoy. Enven Infraud was probably a sock of Raunakroy. ElementR clearly fails the ducktest. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you all are doing here. So what if it is an alternate account? Let's assume that the two accounts belong to one person, what's he doing wrong? Someone might want to post diffs showing what the problem is because so far the only complaint I'm seeing is that they copied some code for their userpage and signature and that they make lots of edits. Neither account is blocked or banned and I'm just not seeing the problem or the reason for an ANI report. If you want to post some diffs showing that they've violated WP:SOCK by using an alternate account then I am willing to look into it but at this stage this looks like another waste of time. Sarah 08:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Suspected bot

Wikisebseb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created massive amounts of articles in a very very short period of time. Thought I should bring it up. Dengero (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I shouldn't think its on a script. The articles are very short and you or I could post many of them in a short space of time. Rudget (logs) 11:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Worse than that, they're basically just copy/paste of each other. All unsourced. We have zillions of these unsourced sub-stub non-content town articles - esp. from France. But no one is willing to delete them (except me) so you're going to see bot-like creations like this. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Has there been any incidences where some of these towns don't exist? Rudget (logs) 11:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It's...quite hard to tell. The symbols don't even come up when i copy+paste them onto google. And may I ask what EXACTLY ar the chances a user will search that name with all those symbols?Dengero (talk) 11:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The few I have checked with Google (no problems copy-pasting for me) all look legitimate. DuncanHill (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello ! Hum, i'm new on wikipédia, and french so i apologie for all the faults i'll do (and i did) :) Indeed i don't use a bot (really dont know how to make a bot...) but I have developed a technique to quickly create articles that are similar, with a copy / paste and some tabs on firefox. But even like that it's boring to do so if somebody knows how to make a bot for this job I'm completely in ! Bye

wikisebseb (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The user is actually performing a useful function by starting articles on the communes of Romania. Communes are notable; villages usually not. As long as he sticks to communes (and isn't a bot, which doesn't seem to be the case), let's not interfere. Biruitorul 18:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The general consensus seems to be that all real official locations are notable, so villages would be kept if sent to AfD- something I personally support. However, in response to Rudget, off hand, I can think of two AfDs I was involved in discussing villages that turned out not to exist- one in Romania, one in the Netherlands. J Milburn (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Sheepnacidadegrande - request for uninvolved admin block

Resolved – indef blocked. There's clueless, and there's this guy --Rodhullandemu 14:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Sheepnacidadegrande (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) appears destined for an indefinite block but I wanted to bring here because I've already blocked him (her?) twice and thought someone might want to work with him. He has racked up fair use image violations since March 2008, for which I blocked him twice in June. He at least slowed down uploading images but also makes all sorts of unhelpful edits like:

1. Removing AFD tag.
2. Removing CSD tag.
3. Removing a lot of content.
4. Blanking a redirect.
5. Blanking a prodded page.
6. Blanking an established page
7. Re-creating an AFD'ed article.
8. Removing Persondata for no apparent reason.
9. Removing Persondata again for no apparent reason.

User needs an education, sure. Only he is 100% uncommunicative with zero edits to Talk, User talk, or Misplaced Pages namespaces and zero edit summaries that I can find. Good editors are getting quite tired of this and there is little change in disruptive behavior. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. 108 talk page comments, and 95% are article or image issues. seicer | talk | contribs 14:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This block is a wikidream coming true. Thanks! Do U(knome)? |_{or no} 04:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Cayman Islands

Continuing deliberate efforts to misrepresent legal status of homosexuals in the Cayman Islands , , , , in conflict with information provided by cited sources , . No attempts made by other parties to engage in discussion or provide refs for point of view. Administrative aid is requested, so as to avoid edit war. 99.11.4.201 (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Minor edit warring there resulted in unclosed REF tags. I fixed the REF tags, but many of the references are to bare URLs, so they need proper citations. Added cleanup tag. The content dispute I leave to others. --John Nagle (talk) 05:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Might be a need for a sock check there too, looks like JSjnDenver and 24.9.40.52 are the same, the two defend their preferred version in fairly close concert. ThuranX (talk) 05:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Request AfD closure

Can someone please close Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/David Davis for Freedom campaign? I can't myself as I've expressed an opinion in the debate. It's quite long, so be warned, it takes some reading. Blood Red Sandman 13:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done NonvocalScream (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Something is seriously wrong with Mobile, Alabama

I go to the page and I see an evil zodiac box blur it. I have no idea what is going on -- it wasn't there before I edited the page, and it was there after, but I didn't add it. Someone the Person (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Template vandalism, already fixed. Algebraist 14:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

How come I couldn't see the edits? Someone the Person (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Because the vandalism was to a transcluded template. I don't know which one. Algebraist 14:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Because the article didn't get edited. One of the templates used on the article was edited; those edits don't show up on the articles in which they are used. Horologium (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, {{web cite}} was vandalized by user:24.120.228.12. Protection and block please. Algebraist 14:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That was sneaky; he vandalized a redirect. I have fully protected the redirect, and blocked the IP for a month. There is no contribution history from that IP prior to today, so it's not like we're losing a valuable editor as collateral damage. Horologium (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine

This article is currently fully protected and, according to its talk page header, subject to ArbCom's probation. There has been an ongoing dispute regarding adding some information to the article related to its IMED listing. An RfC was started on July 17 and, as I understand it, is still open. However, about 11 hours ago, an admin who had no previous participation in the talk page discussion, User:DragonflySixtyseven, made a sequence of 4 edits to the article.The substance of these edits was to add the disputed info and exactly in a way against which most of the talk page discussion participants had objected (except for User:Bstone). The edits were explained by DS in the edit summary for the first of the 4 edits thus:"okay, I've had some extensive conversations over IRC with BStone and JzG, and I *think* this is satisfactory to both parties". Very quickly several editors objected to these changes and the fact that they were made based on off-wiki discussions with only some of the participants. DS explained that he was trying to help and to be expedicious; it also became clear that DS apparently had not been aware that considerably more than 2 editors had been involved in the dispute. To his credit, DS also then posted a portion of the IRC exchange (the one with Bstone, but not with JzG), at User talk:Shell Kinney#Mar Diop. However, even when it was made clear to him that several users had objections to his changes and that these changes did not reflect have consensus of the dispute participants, DS refused to revert the changes he made. At User talk:Shell Kinney he stated that: "I decline to be the one to revert. However, I would have no problem with someone else doing". And then later, at the same talk page:"D) I'm not touching this mess again, not even to revert." . Now, I appreciate the fact that DS was trying to help, but he went about doing it the wrong way and the current end result is unacceptable. The current version manifestly does not reflect (in fact, in my opinion goes against) the consensus at the talk page of the article. Since the article is fully protected, I cannot revert DS's edits myself and some of the other previously involved admins, such as Shell Kinney, do not want to be the ones to revert either. I therefore request that a previously uninvolved admin take a look at the matter and revert DS's edits, until some real and demonstrable consensus on the changes is achieved at the article's talk page. Thank you, Nsk92 (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not unhappy about this, apart from one sentence which is still hotly disputed so (mea culpa) I removed it for continued discussion on Talk - the fact that it is licensed in Senegal is a preferred edit of the banned users and sockpuppets who inhabit the article, but is of extremely dubious relevance to a school which is located in England and is explicitly not licensed in England, to the point that the GMC changed its policy and expelled one doctor. I know stone is really keen to be fair to the place, which is fine, but until we have a reliable independent source which makes the claim the St. Chris puppeteers make then we really ought not to be making it ourselves. IMED is a perfectly acceptable reference for the locatioon of its licensing but as far as I can see "the IMED also confirms that the Senegalese Ministry of Health has given the school a legal charter to operate" is WP:OR since the IMED listing does not actually say that, I have checked most carefully and the words legal and charter are simply not in that reference. WP:NPOV and fairness is good, the article looks a bit nicer now D67 has tweaked it, and there is debate on Talk. Thanks to Nsk92 for the concern, I greatly appreciate more eyes on this long-standing troublespot. Guy (Help!) 15:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The legal charter thing was exactly what I found objectionable. I am perfectly happy with your last edit and I think the current immediate situation should be considered resolved, where the discussion can now resume at the article's talk page. Nsk92 (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Yasis is (still) using IPs to evade his block.

User:Yasis is using yet another IP, this time Special:Contributions/218.186.67.37, to evade a block and stalk, revert or gainsay my recent edits. Previous examples of his behavior are to be found here:

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Yasis

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:218.186.65.34 reported by User:L0b0t (Result: 72 hours)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive76#User:Yasis reported by User:NJGW (Result: Reported and reporting users blocked for 24 hours)

This all seems to have started when his addition of sources and external links was called into question. Tiring of inserting propaganda, conspiracy theory, and links to people's homepages (coupled with a block for 3rr). He is now just following me around the encyclopedia, randomly reverting my edits and chiming in to gainsay my talk page and AfD comments. I have no desire to tangle with this user and would really appreciate his input if he is willing to contribute constructively but he has to do so. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 July 20

Could an admin take a look, thanks. Chafford (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Those are ones that have been nominated today and haven't went through the 5 day period to discuss them. There's no backlog there. (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 July 14 and others, however...) Wizardman 16:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The events surrounding my block discussed above

With regard to this, my own opinion is that the discussion centred a little more than I would have liked on the justification or otherwise of my block, even though that was a question I asked. That said, there seemed to be a reasonable level of agreement with some of my more general concerns. My own thoughts on the discussion:

1. Dunc is concerned that I was "synthesising at least two points from the show together to present a point not really present in the narrative". Would I have to stick to the original narrative in the source? Why is creating a new narrative from a source while sticking to the original context and intent wrong? If it is then wikipeida can create no unique narrative and is simply intended to be a quote farm. That is news to me.
2. ThuranX appears to me to be saying that I haven't done much wrong in this case, but that I should get probation for it. I don't quite understand this.
3. I agree with much of what Angus said, subject to 2.
4. I am yet to see an adequate explanation from Dunc or anyone esle for the contention that I was guilty of synthesis.
5. Dunc @ 21:58. I reverted because I was sure about what the source said (I added them to the article while watching the documentary in May), but needed to wait for the time reference. And I was right. The cites were valid, and their attempts to say they weren't were clearly disingenuous, perhaps malicious.
6. The dispute on Young Unionists Dunc has unearthed. Yes I probably didn't handle that properly. But one must consider that that dispute was with an editor who has subsequently been indef blocked for sockpuppetry. revealing my identity and harassing me.

It seems to me that the best way forward from this situation is that BigDunc and Domer be treated as one user for the purposes of 3RR, either that or they be limited to 1R each, but the former seems to me to treat the specific problem highlighted. Many thanks.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Not going to happen William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Chillum 00:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

How are you confused? I said you'd done wrong, but were provoked, and while you shouldn't be blocked, you should be warned and put on notice. That's confusing? Really? ThuranX (talk) 05:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood you. What do you think of the rest?Traditional unionist (talk) 09:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring at Portal:Current events/2008 July 18

I've gotten into an edit war on this page with an anonymous user who has continuously removed a story I added about human rights abuses taking place at the largest county jail in the United States, the Cook County Jail. The anonymous user argues that the story is not internationally noteworthy. I disagree but I've run up against the three revert rule. A third opinion would help.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't especially an admin matter. If you want a third opinion use the Misplaced Pages:Third opinion process. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

What the fuck am I supposed to do?

I have an editor clearly edit warring against consensus and in violation of WP policies (i.e., removing sourced data and inserting original research). If I try to bring it up on the ANI boards, I'm told it's an edit war, and an RFC/U would be useless, ArbCom would ignore. So what the fuck am I supposed to do? Or is this website completely useless; is it pointless to even try? The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Who, what, and where? I'll see if I can help you. Prodego 19:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Rividian states it below. Unfortunately, I have now reacted badly enough that I've lost any sort of high ground on the issue. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution is not instantaneous. Relax. Beam 19:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Not instantaneous? This has been going on for an entire year! The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

And you haven't started mediation or a formal dispute resolution process in all of that time? Beam 20:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

No, as I said above, there was an RFC on the page. I was too frustrated to participate, but there was consensus that what I am saying is correct. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently this refers to Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Vexorg_in_continual_removal_of_sourced_data. --Rividian (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Play party

I removed unreferenced, challenged content from the article Play party. I have been asking for references for months and and prior to that an unreferenced tag had been up for years. Within minutes the unreferenced content was re-added with the explanation "References could be months, years, like all other articles". Well it already has been years... so he's basically arguing that content can never be removed due to lack of accuracy/references. This runs flatly against WP:V which puts the burden on people restoring content to find sources. I don't want to edit war over this... but surely after years and no references, we can't sanely keep in this content which I have looked for sources for repeatedly and found none. --Rividian (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• About time. Well done that Rividian. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats on BLP Fr. John Corapi‎

Can an admin please look into the legal threats made against Wiki by Josepheaglefeather (talk · contribs)? The article is Fr. John Corapi, and sample posts are: Misplaced Pages should be held accountable for assisting this group in attempting to destroy a good man's reputation with lies and deceit and This will also be reported to the Missouri Attorney General's office. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Account indef blocked. I interpret those as legal threats, and therefore invoked the blocking provision of WP:NLT. —Kurykh 20:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Block or no block, you should really take a look at the "controversy" section of that article, and the sources used therein. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Evolution

Evolution was hit by a repeat of vandalism substituting Genesis for the article. On the basis that this appeared to be another sock, I blocked the vandal, and finding the action repeated made the error of blocking an editor who had repeated the vandalism, evidently while meaning to undo it. I've undone the block, but it still seems to be causing problems; please assist. . . dave souza, talk 22:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems to have been sorted. The vandal U mene is apparently a sock puppet of Tile join. . . dave souza, talk 22:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Black Waves as suspected sockpuppet of indef-blocked User:Rollosmokes

Resolved – Indefblocked as admitted sock/meatpuppet. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit pattern is the same as recently indef-blocked user; entire history under this new ID consists of reinstating edits related to US TV stations WVUE and WNAC which were made before Rollosmokes was indef-blocked for ongoing revert wars on US digital TV broadcasters such as The CW. Here we go again, I think this is the seventh WP:ANI incident for this user, although I've lost count ages ago. Block log is:

• 03:31, 18 July 2008 Ohnoitsjamie (Talk | contribs) blocked "Rollosmokes (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Disruptive editing: "The CW" --> "CW" again after a block)
• 08:01, 15 July 2008 LessHeard vanU (Talk | contribs) unblocked "Rollosmokes (Talk | contribs)" ‎ (Per email discussion and third party representations)
• 12:53, 10 July 2008 LessHeard vanU (Talk | contribs) blocked "Rollosmokes (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Disruptive editing: Editor appears unconcerned with the collaborative & consensual aspect of contributing)
• 22:18, 28 December 2007 Sandstein (Talk | contribs) blocked "Rollosmokes (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Edit warring: and violation of WP:3RR on Queens)
• 21:28, 9 March 2007 Sandstein (Talk | contribs) blocked "Rollosmokes (Talk | contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (editwarring on Metromedia again)
• 15:32, 27 February 2007 Firsfron (Talk | contribs) blocked "Rollosmokes (Talk | contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (edit warring, see http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Metromedia&action=history) --66.102.80.212 (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Black Waves (talk · contribs) has made only three edits so far, and none of them has been reverted. Not clear yet if there are any bad edits. I have posted at User talk:66.102.80.212 asking the submitter of this report for more data. So far I don't see enough information for a sockpuppet case. EdJohnston (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

But I'd watch this closely. Black Waves found the {{fact}} tag awfully quickly. It's Rollosmokes. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm continually amazed by the number of Wiki0editors who find it so fun, or so terribly important, that they must keep editing against allt he rules after a banning. The psychological implications of such deep rooted need to be right... amazing. Rollo's not the only one, there are a couple other such reports up here now, and there are a few every day, it seems.ThuranX (talk) 05:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"I'm not Rollosmokes -- I'm his cousin! Which of course explains why our interests and agenda are identical, and why we are using the same IP address." Oh dear, oh dear. You're right, ThuranX, disturbing to the extreme. --Jaysweet (talk) 06:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"Cousins! Identical cousins! They walk alike, they talk alike..." ThuranX (talk) 06:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh. I indefblocked the admitted meatpuppet and will revert all edits. Keep eyes open for more. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent vandalization.

I was looking through some of the sports cars on wiki and came across vandalization on the Koenigsegg CCR page and the SSC Aero page that I reverted. It was a template breaking vandalization that did not appear on edit, but was able to be removed on undo. Overlaid text sported a swastika and claimed "Page vandalized by Hitler." However, despite being fixed by undos, it seems that the previous entries were valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phirephly (talk • contribs) 22:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism was to Template:Convert/N.m, which has since been protected. I don't think the undos had any effect (except maybe to clear the page cache), they just happened to coincide with the vandalized template itself being reverted. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI does not show on mly watchlist anymore

Since the flurry of protections, WP:ANI does not show on my watchlist anymore? Is it just me, or are others having the same problem? If it,s just me, what can be done?--Ramdrake (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, the problem spontaneously went away the moment I posted something on the page. Blame it on gremlins. :) --Ramdrake (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It's probably related to the recent protection. For some reason, when a page is protected, it vanishes from a watchlist until the next time an actual edit is made. --Elonka 00:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It is. I reported this as a bug; it was closed as "not a bug". --Carnildo (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, now someone tell me why I nearly checked to see if I was suffering the same problem, even though I was alterted to this thread by my watchlist...Someguy1221 (talk) 02:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I would think that the system counts protection changes as an edit, and since watchlists only count the most recent edit to page, you are only seeing the many protection changes? At least that's what's happening to me. L'Aquatique 02:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I observed the same phenomenon as originally reported. It's a quirk in the system. Similar to, though not maybe the same cause, as when you upload a photo and it doesn't show in your watch list until you edit it once. Baseball Bugs 02:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Another copyvio editor: wrong information, copyvios, broken links, spam links, bad geography, bad interpretions

I've been looking at some articles by User:Wilhelmina Will who is running a race for DYK and other awards on her vanity page. Her articles have tremendous problems, they're largely copied from single sources, generally blogs, they're factually incorrect, she mixes up geography (though on a lesser scale than a recently indeffed editor, New Mexico for California), the links are broken, they include spam links, she's copied wholesale from copyrighted internet sites. Check my edit history for some of the articles of hers I've had to edit and tag. I bring up the other example in this because, like CS, it appears that most of this editor's contribution should be removed from Misplaced Pages.

I assume, as usual, I will be attacked for this. But, it is nice to see that some editors care about quality on Misplaced Pages, though, and thank you to all those editors who did not feel it necessary in my case to shoot the messenger.

However, again, this is fair warning for when this comes back to haunt Misplaced Pages: this editor is copying material that already has copyrights, and having Misplaced Pages copyright it as Misplaced Pages material; she is creating articles that are wrong (like one article uses a source that is all about a turtle not being a crown group sea turtle, and she calls it a crown group sea turtle in the article, obviously not understanding the technical article at all); she is copying from blogs to build articles and sourcing them to the blogs, she is copying huge amounts of text from IMDb, etc., etc.

She appears, like CS, to have created hundreds, if not thousands of problem articles. I've only looked at ones that appeared on the main page in DYK. They are all bad in unacceptable ways. I have alerted the folks at DYK who will be watching her contributions more carefully to address this one issue. The other issue remains, what is to be done with her existing articles, potentially all of which are seriously problematic from the sampling I've taken?

--Blechnic (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It's human to make mistakes. Fix them if you see them. Sceptre 00:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not a helpful comment coming from you Will after you didthis - by fix do you mean removal? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Every article she has created that I have looked at has mistakes in it. When I confronted her the first time she got belligerent. Should I review her hundreds and hundreds of articles and correct all of the errors, like the sea turtle article based on a misreading of the primary source she created? I've looked at half a dozen articles, all are almost completely useless for some reason. How about somebody find one article of hers that isn't completely useless, rather than have her continue to contribute wrong, copied, and bad articles? --Blechnic (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Blechnic - are all of her articles copyvio issues, or are a lot of them just cleanup problems? Fritzpoll (talk) 00:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Her list of created articles is here. I note quite a few BLP articles in this mix, and there are several hundred of them. I only looked at a couple, and though they were not horrible, they weren't well sourced and there were at least minor errors in them. Both that I looked at quickly were borderline as to copyvio, so I can't answer that conclusively. I'm going to start working from the bottom up if someone else would like to start on some of the others. Risker (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll start at the bottom of the list. Fritzpoll (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict.) They all appear to be largely copied from various sources, although cleverly so, and some will debate me on this issue. Still there is enough copied to find which page she copies from with a simple and quick search. She does copy lists in their entirety, such as a huge list from IMDb. However, the bigger problem, as with CS, is that her use of technical literature is wrong. For example on the sea turtle article, Ctenochelys, she reads the abstract and says it "is considered to be a crown-group sea turtle," but the source she used is an article about it no longer being considered to be a crown group sea turtle, and in fact, it's not considered in the extant sea turtles where she plops it in her first sentence. She includes spam links. Nothing about the one reference in this article says anything about him being the director of all the soap operas. And her single sources are usually personal blogs of the person the article is about. It appears every article of hers that I have looked at has deep problems. I am tired of looking. Maybe she can clean them up herself.

Good start, Fritzpoll and Risker. She might be willing to learn how to do it properly, also. --Blechnic (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The science articles are going to be the problem, if you don't know phylogeny something like someone saying it's a crown group when the article is about it no longer being considered one might not jump out at you. This whole article is so off, but so convoluted, I don't know what to do about it. I personally think Ctenochelys should just be deleted. --Blechnic (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll let other admins respond to this one as well, but it depends on the scale of the problem - I'll see how many science articles there are. But I'm not sure what CSD criteria could apply Fritzpoll (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, I got up as far as Morawanocetus from the bottom, and have made a note of the scientific articles on the way. I need to go to bed. Mostly so far, I have no direct copyvios, but some very poorly sourced articles. I suggest someone contact the author and offer to mentor her through the next month or so and to point out the lack of importance of DYK. She seems motivated, but in just the wrong direction at the moment. I hope she will reply here soon Fritzpoll (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone remember the User:Orbicle case? This is how we handled it, with User:Gmaxwell's help. He queried the database for all new pages by the user, listed them in alphabetical order, and we had a team of about 10 (look at the page history) go through the list to check sources, and then we crossed them off when they were done. Some were copyvios which we re-wrote, others were fine as is. When there's a long list, this can be an efficient way to approach the problem.

Wilhelmina gets her articles from Articles for Creation. I haven't checked to see if she copies directly from there, but it is possible she does, assuming good faith on the part of the people who post there. I feel a certain responsibility here because I've been supportive of her efforts, have encouraged her, and she has often come to me for opinions about notability and sources -- but I haven't checked her work for copyright violations. Seeing as copyvios are a serious issue, I think we need to go through these, and of course if Wilhelmina herself would help that would be best of all. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I agree, for what it's worth. Many seem to come from Articles for Creation, but created without actually reality-checking the proposal (for instance, Oaaa, where the source was one unverified answer at a Q&A site). The cryptozoology articles are pretty bad too - articles like Issie, Cressie and Batsquatch sourced from various personal and non-scholarly websites that well fail WP:V standards. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, she is a AFC regular. A bit of good faith is required here - she AGFed on the IPs being able to not copyvio or use unreliable sources. When I accept articles at AFC, I rarely deviate from the IP's submission. Sceptre 01:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a good faith issue. I helped there for a while, and even assuming good faith all round, the practicality is that many (most, even) AFC proposals are by newcomers who've not gone through the small print of Unregistered users: Submitting an article, so it's wise to check the sources for copyright/reliability issues. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You really can't afford to blindly accept AFC submissions. When I was helping out there I found that the largest majority of articles posted there were copyvios. I always double checked every article before I posted it and I would encourage others to do likewise - it only takes a couple of minutes to Google a couple of choice sentences. Sarah 07:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Has she been notified of these proceedings? Beam 01:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, by a couple of editors on her talk page.

• Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

--Blechnic (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone alerted her to the exact problem with copyvio as well as the issue of writing poor articles? Beam 03:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Having worked with/pseudo-mentored User:Wilhelmina Will on the Iggy Arbuckle pages, I'm inclined to think it was an honest mistake from not checking the AFCs before doing them. She does go overboard on the non-free images, but I think its just from a lack of full understanding of the policy, which some long term editors no longer always have a good grasp on due to the changes earlier this year. I think a more formal mentoring relationship would be very beneficial in helping correct these problems and help her become an even stronger as I've found her to be fairly open to corrections, willing to learn, and to have a desire to be a good editor. -- ] (] · ]) 07:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's be more circumspect with real people's names

I've done something blockable: I've altered Blechnic's thread title and opening post above. I'm also invoking IAR; made the changes to partially redact a real person's name who is not involved in this thread and is referred to as a negative example. Let's remember that sort of thing can have a real world impact via Google hits, etc. If a username is Fuzzyduckling22 and has no real world connection to anybody, then turn it into a meme if you like. Please be more circumspect with real human names. Durova 10:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ronald McDonald

Hello,

I am having an issue with the Ronald McDonald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. There has been an ongoing editing cold war with this article over who created the stupid clown. I have been keeping it neutral but my current problem is on the talk page. There has been POV pushing using sock puppets to establish a consensus for one side or creating general disruption of the page. These socks have editing histories that only deal with this page and only last a couple of days. I do not know how to go about resolving this and require assistance.

The users that I have questions about are:

• Mcdonaldsfreak82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mcmasterofwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Max33well44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Randyga7755 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rm1963 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NM76UU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ihjmwt2petwbgwh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ufoundme2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 67.49.8.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These are regular users that have been involved in the waring that I suspect could be involved in the sock puppeting:

• hankzimer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• knimper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• plyjacks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

How can I go about investigating this and stopping the warring once and for all? --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 00:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, request a check user, would be my advice. Beam 00:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

How do you do that? --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 01:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Requests for checkuser. Let me look at the page... seicer | talk | contribs 01:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I did initiate a check user request here. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 01:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Derby Leagues : POV Revisions and Vandalism

Situation: There are two users in particular who are attempting to make edits of a POV-nature.

• Gcrg2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Elektraviolette (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They are moving the entry for "Green Country Roller Girls" FROM Broken Arrow TO Tulsa. The leagues own website states that their home rink is in Broken Arrow. I have spoken with the ONLY rink in Tulsa and they do not have a sponsored Derby League of any sort, but for $150 per practice, they would be willing. Besides editing their own entry, they are removing and vandalising the entry for T-Town Derby Girls. A former rival league. I have notified each user to avoid POV entries and stick to the facts, I copied some posts left me by a mod on my first few entries (which just so happened to be HIGHLY POV, my bad, I learned and don't do that anymore) and there were additional changes made to the page anyways afterwards.

Randomblink (talk) 02:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Fredrick day vandalism/harassment active again

Now that User:Allemandtando has been identified and blocked as a sock of User:Fredrick day, IP harassment or vandalism from characteristic Fredrick day IP has started up again. I just noticed that edits of mine to three different, totally unrelated articles were just reverted by Special:Contributions/88.105.58.91. Not sure anything can be done about it, he'll just pick up another router, but thought I'd report it anyway. No problem, I reverted one of these and other editors caught the others, quickly. --Abd (talk) 03:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought that, as Allemandtando, he did very positive work and found him easy to deal with. Why does he feel the need to be a socking dick the rest of the time? I just don't get it... :( --Jaysweet (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't he killerofcruft? If so, then good riddance. The last thing we need is more WP:POINTy deletionists. --Dragon695 (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Previously sanctioned revert-warrior going at it again

Sanction applied: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram

Revert-warring: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Taiwan&action=history

Have fun. --slashem (talk) 03:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Please also note this. Daniel (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. --slashem (talk) 04:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Unable to edit and difficulty in resolving the problem

I've been asked to help someone who suspects that his home computer's IP was blocked, not for any editing or dispute he was involved in, but perhaps by accident, or through the blocking of a range of IP addresses.

He no longer remembers his password and has been unable to get to his home page to request an unblock.

I told him I'd see if I could find an admin that would provide some guidance. What should he do first and is there any information that you, as an admin, need from him to help? Please contact me on my user page. Thanks --Steve (talk) 04:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If you know his username, you may be able to do a send new password request on his behalf by going to the login page while not logged in. -- ] (] · ]) 07:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Block review invited: mrg3105

Review invited of my four-day block of User:mrg3105. This editor is already subject to the Digwuren restriction and has already been blocked twice under it. The grounds for the current block are serial incivility and personal attacks which include but are not limited to the following diffs: The question is whether four days is an appropriate tariff.

On a further note, this user has a long history of disruption as he is unable to recognise consensus and has little notion of when enough is enough. As part of a spin-off campaign arising out of the article renaming he has sought sanctions against Raul654 (, ) and tried to unseat Nick Dowling as a Milhist coordinator (). Perhaps the time has now come to consider either a lengthy block, or mentoring, or a community ban.

As mrg3105 is currently blocked, he is unable to respond to this, though he has been notified. (I don't know the usual procedure for transcluding this so he can respond and can't find an example to follow.) --ROGER DAVIES  05:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse the block, the editor has some serious behavioural issues and hasn't been able to be resolved prior to this, and they seem to be causing quite a bit of disruption, hopefully this block will give them some time to reflect. On the topic of straw polls, I see their objection, though Misplaced Pages doesn't explicitly prohibit them, it does caution their use, but I've used them before, and I think it's use is more than likely appropriate on the article talk page that you linked to. Steve Crossin (contact) 05:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• I am actually pretty concerned that you are citing complaints about individuals acting in "official roles" as a reason to block anyone within the project. mrg3105 is making his complaints based on Raul's and Nick's actions within their "official" roles within Misplaced Pages; in each complaint, he has been soundly rebuffed by other Wikipedians, and that should be the end of the story. Would we block every editor who complained about a person in such a role? I think those points are outside of the scope of the Digwuren decision. Of the remainder, I see borderline comments that are pretty mild compared to a lot of typical discourse on EE article talk pages. I also see no discussion on the talk page of the editor, no attempt to de-escalate the situation on the talk page of the article, and the fact that you, Roger, are the lead co-ordinator in the WP:MILHIST wikiproject, and the dispute centers on a disagreement about how that wikiproject is addressing naming conventions (more generally) for large scale battles. Instead of blocking yourself, perhaps it would have been better to bring this to WP:AE for discussion amongst uninvolved admins and others. Risker (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Despite my huge respect for Roger, I think if a block is to be imposed, it should be no longer in duration than that already imposed, and Certainly not up to a ban yet but mentoring isn't out of the question, but I do share some of Risker's concerns here. I think the block might have a chilling effect due to this user's history of having perceived problems with users in certain positions, such as the one Roger is in. This does not mean Roger is involved directly; just that more care can be taken in who imposes the block (if necessary) here. Straw polls are acceptable, but are never to be used or cited as 'consensus' for any edit as it would be incorrect, and invalid. Per what I'd suggested on the RfArbitration talk page, I think the blocked user thinks that straw poll is going to be used in that manner. I also think that this is outside of the scope of the Diguwaren decision to quite an extent, leaving question marks over the duration of the block. But I wouldn't encourage the block to be modified in any way. It enables discussion with the user itself, if anyone is willing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for any confusion. I thought I had put enough clear blue water between the two issues, but apparently I didn't. The block specifically deals with incivility (calling User:Buckshot06 the "epitome of a yes man"; accusing Biruitorul of "extreme bias" etc; and is covered in the first paragraph.

The stuff regarding Raul and Nick is part of a bigger pattern, for which I invited comments and possible remedies, in the second paragraph, as I am well aware of the ambivalence of my position there. --ROGER DAVIES  06:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. The only thing that might be suitable to address the problem is probation (supervised editing) or a civility restriction for this user. Mentorship is the alternative. It's still too early to consider a ban. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've had a long chat with mrg3105 tonight and don't think a ban is needed. I'm not mentoring him and not officially speaking on his behalf, but I'd like to relay the general impression that he's reacting in ways that are usually consistent with ban not needed. Durova 10:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• I also endorse this block, but would certainly oppose a ban. This is a user who, in my experience, generally contributes very good content to military-history related topics, but can easily get upset and extremely stubborn when he doesn't get his way, often with respect to some minor editorial issues such as naming practices. He then has an unfortunate tendency of climbing glass domes dressed in not-so-flattering skintight unitards. The solution in such cases is just to make him let go of that particular conflict ? that can be done with short blocks if absolutely necessary, but longterm bans would be counterproductive. Fut.Perf. ? 10:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• As Roger notes, this has been a long-ongoing problem. Mrg's attack on Raul654, Buckshot and myself and his other disruptive edits over this particular article is but the latest incident in a very long pattern of disruptive behaviour. For the last few months Mrg has been blatantly ignoring consensus and any guidelines he disagrees in repeated attempts impose his views on article names and content. In particular, he has been seeking to impose Soviet military names on battles involving the USSR in World War II and Soviet military concepts in these and other battles. This has lead to dozens of arguments over article names between Mrg on one side and literally dozens of editors on the other. When challenged he routinely resorts to abusive comments. The following some examples of the kind of disruptive behaviour Mrg frequently engages in. It is important to stress that these four examples are by no means isolated, but are simply some incidents I'm familar with. Several other examples and the the way Mrg typically responds to warnings are available from reviewing User talk:Mrg3105.

• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history/World War_II task force/Category restructuring - Mrg arbitarily, and radically, changed the category structure for World War II articles against numerous editors' opposition (which he dismissed as not being significant: )
• - Mrg re-wrote the introduction to the Battle of Kursk article so that it declared the near-universal English-language name for this battle incorrect as it isn't the name used by Russians.
• Talk:Battle of the Atlantic (1939–1945)#Another attempt at a new introduction - another example of an attempt to dispute a well known name of an article. This sparked a complaint by the editor who's user space Mrg was using and was rejected, but Mrg dropped the most contentious point into the article anyway several weeks later
• On the most recent dispute over the name of the 'Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation' article Mrg, instead of trying to engage in the discussion on the talk page, removed the straw poll , lodged a complaint here at WP:AN/I after I reverted this was told that dispute resolution is needed but declared this to be unessessary as he is correct about the article's name and everyone else is wrong . Following this rebuff Mrg posted the complaints against Raul654 and I which Rodger linked to above. Despite the clear opposition to the use of the term 'strategic offensive operation' on the Manchurian article's talk page, Mrg went ahead and renamed the Vistula-Oder Offensive the 'Vistula-Oder Strategic Offensive Operation' a couple of days ago .

• In light of this consistant pattern of disruptive behaviour and rejection of consensus decisions, I believe that a editing restriction is now necessary. Mrg has been warned about his behaviour multiple times, and been blocked twice, but has not ceased his disruptive behaviour or moderated his approach in any noticeable way - I would argue that it is actually getting worse. Mrg is a long-established editor who has made thousands of edits and is aware of guidelines and policies, so there is simply no excuse for his behaviour. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's just four days and he doesn't request unblock there is no need for him to do anything, but if his poor editing continues then the case needs to be taken to Arbcom. –BuickCenturyDriver 11:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No, ArbCom is not going to accept it so prematurely. Let's try something as a community. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Editing Restriction

I propose he be subject to probation (supervised editing) for 6 months. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages for up to 1 month. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on their talk page by the administrator. After 2 bans on the same page or set of pages, the duration of the ban on that page or set of pages may be increased to 1 year. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

User:XxJoshuaxX page moves

Would someone care to check out what appears to be disruptive editing from this user in moving pages based on faulty premises? Check the talk page for examples, specifically moving articles on books, films and songs with "Over" in the title to pages with a small "o" in the word "over", contravening the actual titles. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 06:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but this editor operates more like a vandal, wikilawyering, quoting MoS to suit purposes, and working entirely against consensus. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 06:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC).

Isn't this the same guy as Big T.V. Fan? If so he just changed his username last week after way overstepping the bounds of . I had to file a CheckUser even. JBsupreme (talk) 06:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Same guy. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 07:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

An indefinite block is in order in that case. Chafford (talk) 07:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

So, is someone going to implement it? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, this was a legitimate renaming of an account, not sockpuppetry. Still the page moves he's doing are absurd. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Can some admin be bold and undo the editor's page moves? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 13:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog

1. After all what we have been through here here.
2. Papa November (talk · contribs) and admin states on the disputed article's talk page: Major changes (addition/removal of sections) must be proposed here first as a courtesy to other editors. My enquiry into the changes leads to this suggestion: highlight which specific statements you consider to be POV by adding {{POV-statement}} tags. Which I do.
3. The Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk · contribs) comes along with one go REVERTS Papa November's insistance on keeping the article on the stable version without an entry into the talk page.
4. After I re-install the tags, and point him to the to PN's comments, the user again removes the tags. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 09:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Mcanmoocanu

Mcanmoocanu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Yesterday, we decided to ban Tasc0 (talk · contribs). Late last night, Mcanmoocanu left this incivil message on Tasc0's talk page, which he (Mcanmoocanu) immediately reverted. He also left this message on his own talk page. Believing that this account had possibly been compromised by Tasc0 (the comment on his own talk page seemed to be talking to himself) I indefinitely blocked the account pending a checkuser. The checkuser has come back unrelated so I want to bring it here for a determination from the community about what to do. Looking at his user talk contributions, he and Tasc0 seemed to trade incivil barbs on a pretty regular basis. I have no particular opinion about whether to leave this user indefinitely blocked, unblock immediately with a stern warning, or reduce the block to a finite time. Obviously, he did immediately revert his own comment to Tasc0, but it is so extreme that it's hard to uncork the bottle. So I'm open to suggestions here. Thanks. --B (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

User:CrashTestSmartie's recent categorization efforts

I find User:CrashTestSmartie's recent categorization efforts somewhat disturbing, and cannot see how they advance Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic goals. I'm pretty sure Misplaced Pages was WP:NOT meant to be a vehicle for this sort of activity. Please can other admins take a look at this? -- The Anome (talk) 11:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just been WP:BOLD and reverted / deleted the lot. This looks suspiciously like trolling to me. -- The Anome (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I support your action, Anome. the category was not an appropriate use of Misplaced Pages. I've left a note on the user's talk page. Best, Gwernol 12:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm no expert...but something seems seriously wrong with today's AFD page

Would somebody take a look? I can't see anything in the last few edits so I'm assuming the problem is on one of the transcluded pages. Thanks = ) --Cameron* 12:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed by . Somebody accidentally transcluded the wrong page by writing | instead of / PrimeHunter (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Aviation/Contest

I was cleaning up after a spam-vandal, Cheapb2b (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and came to this page that he created which I'm assuming is a copy of WP:CBB. So far his is the only edit to the page yet when I look at the associated "what links here" page, I see a gazillion links. I'm reluctant to delete this page since I don't understand the possible implications.

Can someone explain this? Thanks, --A. B. 12:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Those links seem to all come from {{WPAVIATION Navigation}}, which includes redlinks to talkpages. Nothing to worry about that I can see. Algebraist 12:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it was a redlink on that template and he decided to try and create it. Presumably the WikiProject hasn't gotten around to making the contest page yet. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 13:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The project page has been created but the talk page had not been prior to this. I'll go ahead and delete -- thanks for the help. --A. B. 13:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of DavidYork71