Misplaced Pages

Nick Dowling -- I've crossed out "with all due respect" above. I avoid personal attack by focusing on your words. You repeat a disingenuous question and your words have garnered my full attention. --Tenmei (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF offered scant guidance, but I had studied its exposition language carefully, and I was quite proper in being guided accordingly.
:Accusing others of bad faith. Making accusations of bad faith ... can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence .... Although in was ineffective, I did attempt to present the evidence which informed my changed strategy: Please, I encourage you to review the timeline which informed my modest decision to cross out "with all do respect". What you construed as unsupportable allegations were simply a matter of record. Some questions are disingenuous -- regrettable sure, but there you have it. This gambit affected my assessment of Nick Dowling's credibility, which becomes relevant in this context. In the face of a difficult reality, my words have been seemly, appropriate, correct. --Tenmei (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If this were not a pointless kangaroo court, how can I become better informed about what WP:AN/I is intended to be? --Tenmei (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I please submit the above claims that I have been commiting "lying, fraud, dishonesty" as being clear-cut personal abuse? Again, please note the repeated warnings Tenmei has recieved for the rude comments he's posted on the talk page of the article in question (reposted from above, these warnings include: , , and ]). Nick Dowling (talk) 10:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Along with Trout Ice Cream, I left a note for Tenmai on his talk page regarding this thread. Looking at the various diffs and talk pages, I hoped that a polite warning would suffice to alert Tenmai to the disruptive effect his editing was having, and the possible consequences of refusing to let up. This was interpreted as a threat () - if I've stepped out of line, I'd welcome any clue adjustment ;)</small However, as this seems to be partly a content dispute and partly a civility issue, perhaps if Tenmai could just apologise for those comments Nick found offensive we could all move on? The article is protected, and with consensus apparently established on the talk page, further argument doesn't require a response. EyeSerene 10:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Per Eyeserene. Tenmai's edits are indeed having a disruptive effect, and letting him know of that (and what will be done to prevent it if it doesn't cease) requires no clue adjustment. If the disruptive edits continue, I fully support the use of tools. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

In the context created by the purple prose above, EyeSerene makes four constructive, on-point observations which I would rearrange in what I consider to be an interwoven, ascending order of importance:

• 4. "The article is protected ..." -- No, not really, no. Except for the word "political" in the first sentence, the current state of Hyūga class helicopter destroyer needs no protection from me. At the first opportunity, I would substitute the more precise NPOV term, "constitutional," in place of a non-NPOV term which has been shown to have unduly trivializing, dismissive connotations; but otherwise, I would do nothing pending further published developments. However, the moment any change is made to the final sentence in the second paragraph, the WP:NPOV problem re-surfaces anew.
• 3. "... consensus apparently established on the talk page ...." -- No, not really, no. The tag-team ownership charade which played itself out at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer has certainly not escaped my notice -- but it remains naught but a re-telling of the old story of the Blind Men and an Elephant, naught but the sound of one hand clapping.
• 2. "... if Tenmai could just apologise for those comments Nick found offensive we could all move on ..." -- No, not really, no. Empty words would serve no purpose here because, in addition to the fact that I'm not sorry, the fact-of-the-matter is that this tedious whatever-it-is has produced practical, measurable results which were plainly unachievable by any other means -- see third paragraph of Nick Dowling's most recent edit at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer#Complaint lodged at WP:AN/I
• 1. "... as this seems to be partly a content dispute and partly a civility issue ...." No, not really no. YES. In this unique context, it is conceptually awkward to conflate "content dispute" and "civility issue" but this Gordian knot formulation is somewhat congruent with Misplaced Pages Talk:Civility#Should established users be treated different?, e.g.,

'Balancing civility with the needs of the encyclopedia

• ... civility is a tool, but a tool to be used towards what? - obviously, the goal of building a neutrally worded, reliably sourced encyclopedia. To break it down further, the specific purpose of civility is to enable the smooth functioning of the community that works to build that encyclopedia. It's a means to an end, not an end in itself - an element in the scaffolding that supports the structure, not part of the structure itself. Fundamentally, we are not here to build a community; we're here to build an encyclopedia, and civility is merely one of the tools we use to do that. When we deal with civility issues, therefore, we have to focus on what's best for the encyclopedia, not simply on what's best for the community.

It's thus essential that we strike a proper balance between the community goal of civility and the fundamental encyclopedic goals of NPOV, reliable sourcing etc. Focusing on civility to the exclusion of the encyclopedic goals actively harms the encyclopedia ....

• Civility problems shouldn't be dealt with in isolation while other problems aren't tackled, as that will only send the message to editors that tendentious conduct is fine as long as it doesn't involve civility violations - seek to tackle the causes as well as the symptoms,
• Civility is a means to an end, not an end in itself - don't prioritise it above the encyclopedia's goals. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I like where you're going with this. What I think I'm seeing is that we are in a position to develop a strategy for how the community deals with incivility. There's material on the page about how an individual can respond to incivility, but in the type of situations you're talking about, a more holistic approach is indeed required. The approach of enforcing civility as a rule — like a law, with clearly defined "violations" and consequences — isn't the best. It leads to the perception that civility is being prioritized above encyclopedic considerations. That perception is a problem, regardless of how accurate it may be .... Perhaps identifying a problem as an "incivility problem" is not helpful. Perhaps we should embrace the idea that each act of incivility takes place in the context of a larger conflict; perhaps our approach should reflect that idea. The goal would be to identify a conflict, describe its features, and choose appropriate strategies accordingly, right? How can we get better at doing that, instead of enforcing isolated "violations" of some real or imagined rule? -GTBacchus 19:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think you've put it well. We need to look at an approach that deals with the causes of conflict, not just the symptoms. Incivility can be both a cause and a symptom - if an editor is constantly incivil that will obviously lead to other problems .... On other occasions, it can be a symptom of frustration or aggravation at tendentious tactics being used by others. In both cases, it seems to me, the root issue is the problematic conduct on someone's part that invariably accompanies incivility. In effect, incivility is a warning flag that normal editing or talk page participation has broken down for some reason. The tactical challenge is therefore to diagnose what has gone wrong and fix it - not just by giving civility warnings (which may be totally appropriate) but also by dealing with the larger conflict. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be largely on the same page. I'm not too sure about civility warnings; I don't know if they're ever appropriate. They are often not. I'm also leery of strategies that involve identifying and neutralizing "bad guys". I tend to think that the best solutions will be article-based, or conflict-based, rather than editor-based. That said, I'd certainly support trying out just about any strategy, as long as it's done in a mindful and deliberate way. Doing that will at least generate data, and then we can re-assess strategies as to how well they worked. Simply making a conscious effort to identify and apply specific strategies is already a huge step, which should teach us a lot. -GTBacchus 22:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Re-framing record of "Disruptive Behaviour"?

The meritless claim of "disruptive behaviour" can only be evaluated in the context created by the incontrovertible record. Included in that evaluation are two relevant facts which are external to this record:

• 1. Nick Dowling is an administrator; and
• 2. Nick Dowling is Assistant Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject, February 2008 — August 2008.

The only thing "disruptive" is the fact that I persisted in the only way possible -- no other option being available as a practical matter. In the face of an unseemly tag-team ownership game, I attacked the logical fallacy implicit in the way this game was framed.

Yes, of course, I did disrupt "a" game, I suppose... yes. The tag-team ownership "game" was parsed under closer scrutiny than was within the regular players' comfort zone ... yes. But this quickly seems to beg the question - two related questions really:

• Was that irrelevant consensus-building exercise based on the wrong "game"? By this, I mean to say in part, "Was the state of play adequately informed when Jane's Fighting Ships and Global Security.org comprise the only "gold standard" against which all else is measured?"
• When did the task of creating a Misplaced Pages article become a matter of mere gamesmanship? --Tenmei (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to post more, since I think we're going beyond the scope of this forum. Your views on civility might be best taken up somewhere else (the Village Pump perhaps?), as they relate to a general issue rather than this specific one... other than the fact that it doesn't appear you intend do a fellow editor the courtesy of assuming his good faith and retracting your personal comments. We should also not be attempting to resolve a content dispute here. The disruption, however, is pertinent, so (leaving the aspersions aside) as I understand the situation:

• You contest the vessel's current designation as a "helicopter destroyer", preferring the term "aircraft carrier". "Helicopter destroyer" apparently comes from a number of highly respected sources (including Jane's, widely regarded as one of the top sources in the field). "Aircraft carrier" is based on a TV documentary and some newspaper reports, and is argued by other editors to be a loose description for mass-market consumption to enable viewers/readers to picture the ship.
• You failed to gain support for your alteration on the article talk page, but repeatedly inserted it into the article anyway. Your edits have been consistently reverted by the article's other editors.
• A discussion was opened to gauge consensus on the talk page, and recognising that there was some weight to your assertion (but taking WP:UNDUE into account), a brief sourced explanation was added to the article detailing the apparent naming confusion for the vessel class. However, you decided not to participate in the discussion because you didn't recognise this as a legitimate way of settling the issue.
• Consensus having been established against your edit, you then resumed agitating for it (in your words, performed a "reset"), seemingly under the impression that, because of Nick's position as both an admin and a MilHist coordinator, the article's other editors had blindly followed where he led.

Spin it how you like, this is a textbook example of disruptive editing. There's absolutely zero evidence that Nick has behaved with anything less than complete propriety throughout, and your refusal to accept the verdict of your peers is digging you into an ever-deeper hole. Perhaps you're the innocent victim of a Nick Dowling-led MilHist conspiracy... or perhaps your proposal is wrong. I've no real desire to keep this unproductive thread alive by posting here again, but please take some advice: don't be a fanatic, stop disrupting this article, and find something else to work on. EyeSerene 08:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, guys? I'm looking at the Jane's article linked in the article itself now, and it refers to the ship as a "CVHG," which translates as "Aircraft Carrier, Helicopter, Guided Missile." What's more, it then lists the section as being "Helicopter Carriers." Given that JFS says they're carriers, and a certain line from the GlobalSecurity.org article points out that "Having a displacement of about 20,000 tons... they essentially can be classified as light aircraft carriers. It is temporizing to refer to this type of vessel as a DD (destroyer). There has never been a destroyer that exceeded 10,000 tons," I think we can safely say that the "helicopter destroyer" term does NOT come from either of these two sources.

No, this fight doesn't belong on here, but it certainly doesn't appear to be as cut-and-dried as EyeSerene is showing it to be. (Full disclosure: While I was completely unaware of these ships until this thread hit, I do personally lean towards the "helicopter/STOVL carrier" designation based on application of Justice Potter Stewart's definition of pornography to the pictures of the ships. It's as silly as if there was a slapfight on Invincible-class aircraft carrier over whether to call them CVHs or "through-deck cruisers," the original politically-motivated designation...) Rdfox 76 (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Rdfox 76 -- You make two very, very helpful points. Thank you.

1. Justice Potter Stewart's definition of pornography is a pirori more elegant than The Emperor's New Clothes, which served as the core of an alternate approach I've been trying to bring out of the sandbox. Your implied simile seems more likely to inspire a willingness to re-visit some of the otherwise unexamined assumptions which are so strongly held that they block access to the threshold I can't quite reach yet.

2. Your language is superb -- better than I could have imagined. It captures the ridiculous with humour and sly derision - yes, good:

It's as silly as if there was a slapfight on Invincible-class aircraft carrier over whether to call them CVHs or "through-deck cruisers," the original politically-motivated designation...)

3. You're on the right wave-length. This is helpful.

I will have to think about this some more. --Tenmei (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I do apologise if it seems like I'm endorsing or promoting one interpretation of the sources over another in my post above. That certainly wasn't my intent; I was trying to set out the course of events rather than comment on the actual content. Whatever content issue Tenmei has (and I'm not saying he has no case) is between him and the other editors. However, a clear effort has been made to compromise, and I think the article currently does a pretty good job of explaining the whys and wherefores of this peculiar designation. There appears to be no corresponding movement on his position though, and editing disruptively and insulting other editors is absolutely not the way to get a consensus overturned - especially when one's stated intent was to disregard the discussion process and any decision reached. That's the cut-and-dried part in my view ;) EyeSerene 14:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

EyeSerene -- 1. Thank you for re-framing the "disruptive" issue in a way that allows me to see how it could appear that my conduct was improper. This was helpful. I need to think about it before I respond further, but this appears to be a template which will help me figure out (1) what I could have done differently AND, (2) what I need to figure out so that I don't make a similar avoidable error in future. For the moment, please consider the hypothesis that you have not made a mistake in investing the time and thought which can help me become a more effective and valued contributor to this Misplaced Pages project.

2. Please believe me when I assure you that it wouldn't matter whether you endorsed or promoted one interpretation or another because we haven't even arrived at the threshold of the argument yet. Also, believe me when I assure you that I'm not trying to be perverse ... nor do I think that entirely plausible "fanatic" label is something we have to worry about.

I will have to think about this some more. --Tenmei (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for review: Consistant misattribution of cited sources

Pointers here left at Pederasty#Australasia and User_talk:Haiduc#Problems_with_a_recent_citation

I'll attempt to present only the facts here.

• 02:38, 23 July 2008 Aaron Brenneman (Talk | contribs | block) (77,173 bytes) (→Post-classical and modern forms: removed sections without references: Australasia, Central America, Europe) (undo)
• 03:50, 23 July 2008 Haiduc (Talk | contribs | block) (81,803 bytes) (restored removed sections and added refs) (rollback | undo)
• Upon reviewing the cited source here I am unable to find support for the majority of the material.

I'd ask for a review of the source, of the material added, and of the comments that I've left in both places. brenneman 05:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that editing disputes did not belong on ANI. Am I missing something, here, or are you just trying to keep Haiduc so tied up he cannot edit properly? Jeffpw (talk) 05:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute. When an editor consistantly has problems with interpretation of sources (see Jules Verne talk as well) then this is an appropiate place to raise the concern. - brenneman 05:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've also just issued a warning to Jeffpw. In my opinion he's been ratcheting up the heat across several venues, and is bordering on disruption. I'd welcome a opinions on this as well. - brenneman 05:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is difficult. Editors who give even the appearance of advancing a pro-paedophilia POV have, historically, been given very little slack, for good reason. There has in the past been determined and wholly unacceptable abuse of Misplaced Pages for advocacy, and ArbCom has historically fast-tracked consideration of any such issues, and debated cases in private. I don't think Jeffpw is here predominantly to advocate paedophilia, but some of what he is doing has the strong appearance of militant activism, and he should be aware that this is one area where militant activism is particularly problematic, due to the potential impact on the reputation of the project. I think Jeffpw and Haiduc need to turn the heat down at least two notches and respect the fact that the default for disputed content is to keep it out of mainspace until there is agreement from all sides as to whether, and how, it should be included. The onus is always on the editor seeking to include disputed content, to achieve consensus for its inclusion - anythign else would be a POV-pusher's charter. In this case it is especially important to remember that consensus IS NOT agreement of a small group of like-minded users, it requires broad agreement from all sides, and additional input must be solicited if there are not enough eyes on the dispute. Guy (Help!) 09:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Brenneman, you could not have found a more unsuitable instance to support your contention. The citation was applicable to the text, it was from an article that discussed the extinction of the very practices discussed in the paragraph (which, as you might notice, I modified to reflect this more recent report). It is an initial citation for a totally non-controversial section. Australasian pederasty is well known and documented, there is nothing to argue about there.
  • Guy, if I was a litigious fellow I would have you strung up by the authorities here for your slur of "pro-paedophilia POV." How do you permit yourself to cast ugly innuendoes on my work on homosexual history? Is this what administrators are supposed to spend their time doing??? Haiduc (talk) 11:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Read it again with more care. I said even the appearance. Guy (Help!) 12:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Jeffpw is here predominantly to advocate paedophilia, but some of what he is doing has the strong appearance of militant activism. Excuse me? I am not here to advocate for pedophilia at all, and I strongly resent the insuination that I am in any way doing so. If you look at my approx 10,000 edits, including one FA and 2 GAs, you'll see a minuscule percentage relating in any to pedophilism. I am anti-pedophilia, though I should not have to be forced to state this for the record.I have monitored the NAMBLA article against both pro and anti-pedo edits, to revert vandalism, and have dome the same on the Pederasty related articles. Brenneman has now threatened to block me for disruption if I continue to participate in what I see has been a civil manner. I feel threatened and intimidated by this post. And I feel besmirched by Guys quote above about my participation here. The atmosphere regarding this area of articles has become poisonous, indeed, and I do not think it is my doing at all. Is this what Misplaced Pages has come to? Jeffpw (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I said militant activism, I meant militant LGBT activism, not pro-paedophilia activism. There is a small overlap at the margins, and this is a key part of the problem. Guy (Help!) 12:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's what was meant by turning down the heat ;) Haiduc, I see nothing in the above post that accuses you of a pro-pedophilia bias. Guy was making a general observation about the need to be extra careful not to even give that impression when editing such controversial subjects. EyeSerene 12:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

To be sure, I think worrying about appearences rather than content isn't a great way to edit. If Jeff gets militant sometimes, well, maybe sometimes we need that. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Appearances are very sensitive on this subject. Very sensitive. Guy (Help!) 12:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What 'we', Dev920? Misplaced Pages is not the place for advocacy. The notion that anyone is here to push an agenda makes me extremely uncomfortable (and, while I'm sure you weren't serious, your post does illustrate Guy's point about giving the impression of soapboxing, even unintentionally). EyeSerene 12:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Why have you linked to my name? (genuine question) And I get that people do get all icky over pederasty, but it's not pedophilia. And neither Haiduc or Jeff is a pedophile, they are long, long established editors with an interest in editing pederasty. They really shouldn't have to worry about being accused of a pro-pedo slant, their cumulative efforts here surely show that this isn't the case. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I just copy/pasted it from your post in edit view (now you've pointed it out though, I've realised I do that pretty much at random - I didn't, for example, with Guy. No idea why!). However, I think the point being made was not relating to pedophilia so much as militancy in other areas, to the point where it becomes difficult to accept edits in good faith because they give the impression of being decided by a personal agenda. This can be true of any group: LGBT, animal rights, nationalist, religious... the list is endless. I think appearances do matter because of this, and it's difficult to claim neutrality if we aren't seen to be behaving that way. EyeSerene 13:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Because emotions run high in editing the Historical pederastic couples article, it's difficult to pinpoint the fault of a single editor. One the one hand, I agree that the citations need to be immaculate and notes should be extensive. However, editors who are either unhappy with the outcome of the AfD or eager to see the article make vast improvements in a small amount of time, are removing content and claiming the sources do not back up the claims when I doubt they have read the sources. Then it rather dissolves into arguing over actions rather than content. I know I have not read the sources, so I am unable to make commentary on them. I have been questioned about content in other articles I have written, though, and when that happens I find my source and copy the passage I used verbatim on the talk page and discuss it there. What might help is if Haiduc posts a timeline or an estimate of how far he thinks he will get in improving the article in a reasonable amount of time. --Moni3 (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• I just want to state clearly here that, due to the level of intimidation I am feeling (On Haiduc's talk page, Brenneman actually implies that I will be banned if I continue participating), and the threat of blockage for supporting another Misplaced Pages under attack from all sides, I am now withdrawing myself entirely from any of these debates. Call me a coward, but I am under enough stress without adding to is by trying to help a disputed article. I shall now confine my edits to Mary Poppins or The Sound Of Music....oh wait, they involve children too. Damn. OK, I'll just try to tidy Angie Dickinson's bio. That shouldn't provoke any storms of controversy. If it does, I'll just give wiki smiles to all and sundry. Wiki cheer promotes a collegial environment, no? Jeffpw (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think we all need to take a deep breath and step back for a while. Take the disputed content out of the article, leave it on the talk page, and all just do something else for 48 hours. There's an essay jsut created at WP:TABOO which makes a lot of sense in this context. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• • There is no reason to stop now, and I think the solution is to focus our attention more closely on what is really going on. It is not pedophilia that neeeds to be exposed here, but intimidation. I feel bullied by Brenneman's behaviour, and while my feelings are between me and my analyst, unfortunately there are objective reasons for my reaction. His gutting of the Hpc article and his belligerent response to my restoration of the Tilden entry are ample evidence, as is his even more troubling equivocation and sparring over my exposure of his behavior. The "appearance of pedophilia" accusation above was more fuel on that particular fire. It is a particularly insidious attack in that there is no defense against it, like Bush's assuring the American public that there is nothing to worry about at Guantanamo because they are all bad guys. Truthiness, welcome to Misplaced Pages. I am not good at chapter-and-verse polemics, so I will leave it at that. I do want to add that it seems that the suite of pederasty articles is like some sort of glue trap for sub-standard administrators (FCYTravis and Brenneman are just some of the more egregious examples) who come in and act abusively. I can only ask you people to monitor yourselves, and each other. Haiduc (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

PedCpl cite prob arb break 0

Apropos of this conversation, please note Talk:Historical_pederastic_couples#Details_of_Haiduc.27s_mischaracterization_of_DeFord, discussing Haiduc's mischaracterization of Frank DeFord's book "The Triumphs and the Tragedy", and this talk page, where Haiduc triumphantly cites Cocteau being "devastated" at the death of his friend as strong evidence that he must have been having a sexual relationship with him. This editor has a problem accurately summarizing sources, and it is negatively affecting many, many articles. Nandesuka (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Jeez, that smells of WP:OR for sure. But I return to my point above: disputed text out of mainspace and onto talk, and everybody step back for 48 hours. If necessary we should lock down talk for a while, just to make it happen, I believe. There are too many trees for the wood to be evident, and I think some space is required. Guy (Help!) 14:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Don't put words in my mouth, Nandesuka. You have a problem with objectivity and the mischaracterization ofmy edits. Haiduc (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• You say? I don't see any evidence of Nandesuka having an agenda here. You've been open about yours, which is much appreciated, but your expressed agenda means that you need to be especially sensitive to the concerns of other editors who do not share your minority perspective, per WP:NPOV. Valid concerns have been politely expressed by editors in good standing, regarding your interpretation of sources. In this case I strongly recommend that you present your sources on talk, and wait to see whether there is consensus to support your interpretation. Agitating for what looks to a number of people like a novel synthesis is likely to cause you trouble. Guy (Help!) 16:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Y'know, I think that Guy has got it exactly right? What we are seeing here, once the clouds of suspicion, accusation and counter accusation regarding pederasty/homophobia is lifted, is a classic case of WP:BRD. We are at the stage where discussion, and therefore consensus, is required before the bold (which is another persons "controversial") content can be included. While we are taking the simple route to dispute resolution, can I just remind participants of the nutshell of WP:NPA; "Comment on content, and not contibutors."? It may be wise, as suggested earlier, to commence the discussion after a suitable period to allow all parties to engage civilly. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm mostly surprised that so much on the topic is on here at all. Most of the 'sources' attribute a modern label to ancient social behaviors, allowing both sides to push and pull on the articles to validate either 124th trimester abortions for all offenders, or to validate their molestations. Few editors seem able to keep the articles balanced, but it's fairly uniform that a modern perspective on this mess is the perspective. We would have a lot less hassle of the articles were restricted to using only sources contemporary to any part which use the term pederasty, thus placing emphasis on the modern issue, not on allegations that it's all normal because it's been going on for years (despite ancient cultures being very different than ours), or that it's all deviant because some tragedy befell the culture as divine punishment.(and good luck sourcing that shit.) Tighten up what's permitted on those articles, and you'd have a lot less trouble. I'm not sure the Egyptians had a hieroglyph for pederast, much less a body of scholarship on the matter. ThuranX (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You keep assuming that pederasty = molestation though, and that it follows that an article detailing specific pederastic relationships thus justfies molestation - and it doesn't... it merely offers instances of pederastic relationships...

As to terminology, the Anglo-saxons didn't have words for cornea, the appendix, or nephrons, but if there were an ardicle listing the timeline of appendectomy including instances from before it was commonly called the appendix, we'd still be saying that it was the appendix and the operation an appendectomy. Crimsone (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

So there are Greek and Egyptian writings on the molestation and predatory behaviors of pederasty in those cultures? Great. Please cite those sources. And no, have you read the list? It's all about the glorious and eternal love blah blah blah between a molester and his victim in some cases, and turning some other "normal" relationships INTO pederasties to augment the size and scope of the perversion. ThuranX (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No... I've not read the list... however, pedastry is niether molestation or predatory by definition. Pedastry, by definition, refers to romantic/erotic involvement regardless of whether it involves sexual contact or not. It also primarily refers to and is defined by the emotional context of a relationship, not the physical context. It's a perfectly valid term, and a perfectly encyclopedic subject. How about you "getting real" per your edit summary comment (not the most civil of comments)... suggesting some manner of delusion or fantasy land on the part of another editor is hardly becoming of you (or so I would hope). As to ancient writings, I don't know about the Egyptians, but I do know that it's a historical fact that man/boy relationships were commonplace in ancient Greece, and prior to that, the neighboring Spartans legally sanctioned and required them as part of a boy's development. They weren't always sexual (some were), though many involved a romantic bond. You're welcome to dismiss that, but to tell the truth, I can't be bothered to go looking for sources for a commonly known historical fact in order to satisfy someone who's already demonstrated and inclination to dismiss quite civil and reasoned articles based on actual definition and complete neutrality with such offensive remarks as "get real". Chances are, given your current style of communication, whatever the source it won't be good enough for you. Especially if it doesn't use the term pederasty precisely, in spite of my prior logical argument of analogy. I don't need to read the article to see it being attacked in its entireity from a POV that ignores the definition of the articles subject in favour of calling the subject something it isn't. Crimsone (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks for not reading my comment clearly. If you have copies of the Spartan decrees requiring such, then you could use that in the Pederasty article, perhaps. However, if it was required, that sounds like an apprenticeship than a true romantic connection. You keep missing my point. Pederasty is a modern label for a behavior which in some cultures is not pederasty, but the normal course of behavior. Pederasty is specifically NOT normal behavior. If it was, we wouldn't need a list of such relationships. IF you can find ancient greek writings about the cultural behavior, you could cite those. You could cite the Spartan law. But you should NOT be using modern assignments of value, 'pederasty', to describe ancient cutlures' takes on relationships. ThuranX (talk) 02:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I missed no point, nor do I do so regularly, Pederasty is not a value term... it's a word with a definition... ie, it gives a name to a very specific object/subject. To quote myself, having said it once already... "As to terminology, the Anglo-saxons didn't have words for cornea, the appendix, or nephrons, but if there were an ardicle listing the timeline of appendectomy including instances from before it was commonly called the appendix, we'd still be saying that it was the appendix and the operation an appendectomy" Crimsone (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No, there's a difference. And you keep missing it. However, I get tired of arguing with POV pushers, especiallty those who push the worst behaviors as normal. So I'm done debating with you, you keep arguing that child molestation is normal, and good luck with that. ThuranX (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No, there's not a difference. The difference in it's discussion is merely that you are ascribing a negative value to a defined term that the term in itself does not carry. Actually, I'm not the one throwing around offensive and charged terms and accusations, and so before you continue do do so, I rather think it might be wise to look at the typical symptoms of POV pushing. Civility isn't one of them. Incivility most certainly is. I have said or done nothing to suggest that I either believe that child molestation is normal, or that I advocate in favour of that view. Put simply, I don't. Crimsone (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

First, read up on the 'Civil POV Push'. the essay link's around somewhere. Second, assigning a modern value to ancient cultures to validate touching kids isn't how things should be done here. Unfortunately, Civil POV pushers have pushed too many of our articles into validations of child rape and other criminal acts. ThuranX (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) *Sigh* perhaps it is... it doesn't alter the fact that my approach is from an entirely NPOV standpoint though. Pederasty isn't a value... like Appendix, it's a term with a definition. Events and occurances of the ancient world fit that definition, thus are namd by that term... a tree is a tree in whaetever century. Aditionally, it validates nothing. It merely says that it happened, which it did. Once again, Pederaty does not equate to, nor is it defined by molestation. No physical contact has to occur in a relationship, and it can still be legitimately defined as pederastic. The only way to NOT push a POV on this subject, is to view the term for what it is and how it's actually defined. Nor can it be equated to pedophilia by it's definition. If I saw a man of 30 touching up a boy of 12, whther pederastic or not, I'd call the police because it's not acceptable in today's society, and I'd find it disgusting... However, I wouldn't protest a university for holding an academic seminar on "perderasty through time - from ancient greece to the modern western world". To describe a man-boy relationship as perderastic, regardless of whether sex (consentual or otherwise) or not, in any century or culture, is correct per the definition of the word. The POV here is not on my part, but on your assignment of a negative value judgement to a defined and legitimate term, which by nature of being nothing other than a term is inherently neutral apart from the value assignments people such as you seem to believe the term automatically holds. It's a noun, and not even a pejorative at that - as such, it cannot hold or relate to such values.

I've answered every point you have served and refuted it with clear logic and neutrality. The point you seem to think I've missed is related to the value judgement that you are making on the basis of the term pederasty itself. I've addressed that here, though no doubt you'll once again say "but it's about molesting kids!" or some such thing, which you've done fairly consistently so far. In terms of incivility, you could only really go one step further which would mean a personal attack, such is your level of misconduct. The fact is, language changes, and academia claimes and defines new terms all the time - and being as they are, just words of language - descriptors of type, they apply centuries ago just as they do in the modern day - they are how we now name things, and it's really that simple. Crimsone (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it's a simple as what I said. Using modern lenses to examine and judge ancient things to promote a modern agenda. It's a lame way to write an encyclopedia, and using simple object nouns to refute the use of a word which has an inherent value judgment to it, one diffused by your own 'Sparta' example, in which it's an obligation not a romantic behavior, is disingenuous. This article's got massive problems, and assigning a modern value judgment, like Pederasty, to ancient cultural norms, is manipulative agenda pushing. ThuranX (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

As I'm not familiar with the subject, I have no idea what's a reliable source, but there seem to be enough books that apply the word to ancient Greece, and the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language shows that the etymology of the word is Greek: Whether or not the ancient Greeks used the word "paiderastes", it seems verifiable enough that it can be applied to their behavior. --NE2 00:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, NE2, I thank you for being clear and direct. That accounts for one situation, now on to all the other value judgments assigning a modern concept to ancient behaviors. One down, dozens to go. ThuranX (talk) 03:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for it being a modern concept? --NE2 03:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is clearly a modern word, circa 1736, merriam-webster. While this is hardly a definative source, this example appears to indicate the level of scholarship taking place here: We shouldn't be trying to score points with cheap shots that take less than five minutes research to disprove. No amount of retconning will change the fact that the term is a new one, even if it encompases behaviours that have been going on since day dot. more to the point, it's a word that comes with an incredible amount of baggage, in the vein of terrorist/rebel/freedom fighter. - brenneman 03:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • So the English word is from 1736, but that says nothing about the concept or the Greek word "paiderastes". Again, I have no idea if this is a reliable source, but there's a translation of a writing by Philo in , in which the word "pederasty" is used. --NE2 04:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • This appears to be the original text by Philo, with παιδεραστής (paiderastes) highlighted. (But, since I don't know Greek, I can't confirm that it's not a modern recipe for calamari.) --NE2 04:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to and in this case, do AGF and all that, but language changes over time, and as a book travels through history, it's likely, in most cases, to be... adapted? mutated? changed? however you like it, but I can only think of one documented case where a modern copy exhibited almost zero change when compared to the most ancient copies. ThuranX (talk) 06:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what your argument here is. You stated that people are "assigning a modern value to ancient cultures", but here it's clearly (assuming the sources are reliable) an ancient concept. --NE2 15:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Brenneman gets it, and so do you, but you won't admit it. A word invented less that 300 years ago to discuss 3000 year old behaviors isn't appropriate. Unfortunately, Brenneman's source trumps yours, because yours could have been adulterated inthe last 2000+ years. This isn't like 'apple' for a fruit the greeks ate, but we use 'apple' cause it's the english language equivalent. There's a fat stack of SYNTh and OR to assume that a social obligation in Sparta is the same as a 'voluntary romantic relationship', and you've yet to demonstrate that the social obligation of the Spartans was called Pederasty by the Spartans. EVEN if you could, you'd still ahve to demonstrate that the Spartans were able to 'romance on command', and that pederasty in the modern sense, and the spartan pederasty, IF that's what it was equal to, really were the same thing; a duty to train young men and a desire to bone them are different. ThuranX (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the sources I gave? Philo, writing at the time of the birth of Christ, talks about the "evil has crept into society, namely, pederasty". He uses the Greek word παιδεραστής (paiderastes). I don't know how you can look at that and say that the concept of "pederasty" is a new one. --NE2 19:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No Thuran... my Sparta example diffuses nothing... The history shows it to have been an obligation, and it also shows the relationships to have more often than not to have been or have become romantic in nature. Pederasty is not a value jusdgement. Pederast is a noun, and pederasty is applied form of the noun. Niether are value jusdgements, and that's just the way the English language works. It's a legitimate term in academic study with a specific meaning. NE2 above has gone to the level which I had not the time for, and has actually even gone so far as to offer the ancient greek etymology of the term, describing the relationships at the time in the language of the ancient greeks themselves. Crimsone (talk) 00:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem with sources re pedarasty, break 1

I'd like to refocus discussion by re-iterating the claims made in the section and comparing them to what is found in the source cited.

• Melanesian cultures employed insemination rites source covers Gebusi of Papua New Guinea, but on this point as it is non-contentious there is some leeway
  • Sperm essence of strength surprisingly this seemingly straight-forward claim is not supported by the citation.
  • Not spontaneous but must be introduced unsupported by reference
• 20% Papua-New Guinean of cultures had these rites unsupported by reference
• Mentoring
  • Father, mother's young adult brother choose unsupported by reference
  • Educating, guiding into manhood unsupported by reference
• Fatherhood
  • First two kids ok to "mentor" unsupported by reference
  • After that had to quit it unsupported by reference
• Casual relationships existed this is supported by the reference, however
  • Boy had to be recipient (?) I don't even know what this means. Is this a euphemism?
  • Growth could be damaged specifically refuted by reference
• Homo/Bi/Hetero cycle unsupported by reference

I've seen H's referencing described as “careless and garbled.” I'd say that is as generous an interpretation as it is possible to make. In the example given, even the least contentious claim is mostly unsupported by the citation, and at least one claim is directly refuted by it.

H's creative use of sourcing, combined with abject unwillingness to accept any other interpretation of sources, is damaging the encyclopaedia. Frankly, had I come across this situation "fresh" I'd have blocked him outright to prevent any further damage. I'd support a topical ban (at the very least) until H can be made to understand why his novel sourcing is a problem and some way can be found to allow him to contribute positively.

brenneman 02:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Brenneman, you are doing far more damage to this encyclopedia than I ever could. The density of citations that you are suggesting is found in what percentage of the articles??? And why are you so focused on the bizarre practices of an extinct society of what have been described as "homicidal banana farmers?" The material is there to illustrate the gamut of homosexual/pederastic constructions, not to recommend the practice to present-day do-it-yourselfers.
To my eye your contrived "denunciation" coupled with your previous belligerent behavior are indicative of one thing and one thing only: you do not like pederasty and are out to make it as hard as possible to cover the topic. I think you should be subjected to a topical ban, you have given ample proof of an inability to be impartial. Haiduc (talk) 03:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you understand the problems that Aaron has highlighted with your sourcing with respect to this particular example? Do you have any explanation for those discrepencies? Nandesuka (talk) 03:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The "problems" are blown out of all proportion, this is a case of lese majeste made out of whole cloth. The paragraph in question was written by me in May 2005, when we did not yet focus as strongly on citations as we do now, or at least I was not aware of it. If this was the only uncited paragraph in all Misplaced Pages I would feel a lot more contrite about it. As it is not, I simply have to lump it with the other several million uncited paragraphs, and certainly it needs references. It would be a lot more useful to the readers if it did. At some point it will. This very instant in time I seem to be spending more time talking to other editors then doing useful work, not a good situation.
However, the material as presented is essentially correct and legitimate. It is based mainly on the work of Gilbert Herdt, of whom you have certainly heard, seeing your familiarity with the topic. The material is utterly uncontroversial in the academic sense. So why is everybody getting so agitated? Do you think I made it up? Do you think I prettied it up? Do you think I added it with prescriptive intentions?
I'll offer you a challenge, both of you: If the material does not prove to be largely as I have written, I leave Misplaced Pages for a year. If, on the other hand, it is largely as I have said, you both leave Misplaced Pages for a year. Deal? Haiduc (talk) 04:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The density of citation is what is required of Featured Articles. Furthermore, just about all of the sentences are highly controversial statements and need to be verified. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc, it seems to me that the mature solution would be to remove the material yourself, stick it on a userspace sub-page for now, then add it back in when you've tracked down the references. Does it really matter if a few days or weeks pass by without it in the article? And of course, if you don't manage to reference it, it should never have been there in the first place. EyeSerene 07:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

While I've been attempting to be a politic as possible here, the direct question has been been asked: "Do you think I prettied it up?" Well, in a word, yes. I've been unable to locate a copy of the particular Herdt work I beleive that you're caliming this material is based upon. I have however found a large number of other papers that cite that paper, and they consistanly quote Herdt as saying that "from 10 to 20 percent" of cultures practiced RH. "Ten to twenty percent of all tribes in Melanesia -- an Oceania region stretching 3,000 miles from Irian Jaya to Fiji -- have mandatory "boy-inseminating" practices, claims Herdt." That it was chosen instead to be a bald 20% in the article is, if we may be frank, "pretty-ing up." I have been methodically examining the citations added by this user and in almost every case they are selective, misrepresentative, or simply wrong. (As in the case above where the source directly contradicted the claim in the article.) All material that's all material, added by this user should be removed from articles until such citations as there are can be confirmed. - brenneman 07:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Located a direct source "Sambia Sexual Culture: Essays from the Field By Gilbert H. Herdt" where as predicted it says "...age-structured homoeroticism occurs in approximately 10 to 20 percent of Melanesian societies." - brenneman 07:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Aaron, I looked through that reference and I don't see any sort of deception here. I see a reference which supports a good portion of the text it was added to. Do you disagree that there were statements in the removed text, not included in your list above, which clearly WERE supported by the reference? Do you disagree that the reference clearly does describe youths having homosexual relationships and then transitioning to purely heterosexual relationships... essentially the 'Homo/Bi/Hetero cycle' which you call unsupported?

It seems like you are saying Haiduc needs to immediately bring everything he has ever written on Misplaced Pages, going back to 2004, up to the level of citations required for featured articles... or it should all be removed. Because he wrote 20% and you found other sources which had '10 to 20 percent'? It isn't possible that he originally (when he wrote it a couple of years ago) got that from some source which DID say 20%?

As I understand it, most of the statements in that passage aren't even controversial. Nobody is denying that it is largely correct... it just needs more references and a few wording adjustments to note estimates and differences of opinion in the field (e.g. growth stunting or not). Right? --CBD 08:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe that it is a good idea to indulge improper behavior. It does not go away on its own, but if unchecked it becomes more widespread and serious as time goes on. It also corrupts the environment in which we work here. For my part I certainly do not want to function as an enabler. Brenneman's statement that "the citations added by this user and in almost every case they are selective, misrepresentative, or simply wrong" , taken in the context of his previous behavior and statements to date, amounts to defamation and harassment. I request that the matter be investigated (take my last 100 citations, for example) and if they are largely not as described by this gentlemen, that he be formally disciplined. Haiduc (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

CBD, the problem is that this is an ongoing and continuing behavior. It's aggravated by Haiduc often preferring fringe over mainstream sources. See the discussion on Talk:Jean Cocteau for one good example of this, where he completely ignores the authoritative biographies on Cocteau. But even when he cites a mainstream source, he tends to mischaracterize -- as in his selective quoting of Frank DeFord's book Big Bill Tilden, where through cut-and-paste he manages to construct a paragraph suggesting an ongoing relationship and a sympathetic defendant by selecting disparate sentences from a chapter where DeFord unambiguously paints a picture of a squalid assignationm and a legal case that can only be described as a horrific train-wreck. When discussing this on article talk pages, instead of coming clean, Haiduc tends to double his bets down. In the DeFord case, for example, he suggests that he and I "just have different readings" of DeFord. In fact, absolutely no one who comprehends English could possibly read DeFord and then claim that DeFord suggests that Tilden had "long term loving relationships"; the author devotes an entire chapter to demonstrating the exact opposite. If we were only talking about a few old citations that would be one thing. But this is a continuing pattern of behavior, and I see no signs of improvement over time. Nandesuka (talk) 12:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

A sterling example of straw man argumentation. My reply must await the end of the business day. Haiduc (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

CBD, it seems to me that Brenneman makes clear that he checked the source Haiduc DID use, and the source Haiduc used said something other than what Haiduc represented it to say. Given that, and given the highly controversial topic here, any statement not supported completely transparently by a source should be immediately removed. Any statement for which the source is questioned should be removed to the talk page until it can be sorted out, and in any case where a problem continues, it should be held off the article page until settled. ThuranX (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, you seem not to understand that I also checked the source Haiduc used and disagree with the claim that it was deceptive. Indeed, my first concern on comparing the source to the article text was that it might stray close to plagiarism, given the presence of some exactly matched phrasing. That source DOES support the text it was added to. More sources are needed, but sourcing being incomplete is completely different than sourcing being 'deceptive'. Removing contested statements without sufficient sources to the talk page IS, as you say, the proper course. But then... most of these statements AREN'T contested (just '20%' instead of '10 to 20 percent' so far as I know)and they weren't moved to the talk page for discussion. Just removed. (confused this with one of the other complaints) --CBD 00:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I did understand. Haiduc is playing games with the statistics. Would you rather pay 10% or 20% of your earnings in taxes? When the source says 10-20%, and Haiduc selectively reports the higher end only, it's damn close to a POV push, and a certain misrepresentation of the source material. It's the sort of statistical pick-and-choosing one sees in polemics, editorials, and other persuasive essays and opinion pieces. Haiduc should either report what he finds only, without editing to his agenda or POV, and nothing else. ThuranX (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I haven't investigated the incidents that Aaron Brenneman and Nandesuka are talking about, but I've seen Haiduc's contributions in many articles dealing with classical antiquity, and his work there is fine--both the quality of sources and the representations of them. So statements such as "the citations added by this user and in almost every case they are selective, misrepresentative, or simply wrong" are overblown, and calls to remove all of Haiduc's contributions a bit on the hysterical side. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem with sources re pedarasty, break 2

I cannot believe that this is an any way difficult: We have a serious problem with a prolific editor who is chronically unable to attribute material correctly. And this is not someone making up things for articles on profesional wrestling or sea turtles: This is a highly contentious, hot button issue. While I am unaffected, there is signifigant reputational risk here if we do not correct the problem now that it has been identified.

1) My original statement was "I have been methodically examining the citations added by this user and in almost every case they are selective, misrepresentative, or simply wrong." That statement is correct: In every case where I have been able to actually locate the source, the information bears little or no resemblance. I'm happy for a workshop page to be created somewhere and a working party go through them with me.

2) The "FAC" line of reasoning was created from whole cloth, and was never in any suggestion that I made. I'm not a member of the "every phrase cited" brigade. I'm happy with a single citation per paragraph (or even less) as long as there is accurate representation.

I'm dumbfounded by CBDunkerson's claim that the citation supports "mostly" the claims. I made some effort to show that it did not, and in places that it directly refuted what was claimed. I'd ask CBD to re-read my comments above: I did not find "another source," I found the source that H claims supports the statement. It, like literally every other time I have attempted to verify his claims, was a misrepresentation. If, as Akhilleus suggests, this author has done acceptable work elsewhere let him return to that, per the topical ban I initially suggested.
brenneman 00:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear! I'm a bit more strict about it than Aaron, apparently, because I'm advocating that ANY contentious statment be pulled till separately sourced, but Aaron has provided examples of the disingenuous sourcing occurring, and there should be a topic ban for that editor, and any like him (her/it). ThuranX (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Aaron, when putting something in quotation marks (e.g. "mostly") and attributing it to someone... it is generally good for that to be something the person has actually said. Which... I didn't. What I said was that the source supports a 'good portion' of the text in question. I didn't do a mathematical analysis of the paragraphs preceding and following the reference to determine the percentage supported (presumably would need over 50% for 'mostly'). Should I accuse you of 'deceptive sourcing'? Seems more like minor sloppiness not worth making much of a fuss over... which is also how I see the examples of Haiduc's 'crimes'. He said 20% instead of 10 to 20? You say he cited the source you found... but I didn't see that source attached to the text in the article. Are you sure that was his source? The source I DID see him citing actually matched part of the article text word for word... which isn't good either, but certainly doesn't jive with it NOT supporting the text. In another 'case' he said that two people had a sexual relationship because they went to dinner, played tennis together, met at one's school, and oh yeah fondled each other's privates a few times... 'sexual relationship'? Completely insupportable on that evidence. It was just a relationship, which happened to include sex (unless we're going to get Clintonesque on the definition). Or the other one where it was completely unjustified to cite a source as claiming a relationship JUST because that source said one person was devastated over the death of the other... except that the source didn't say JUST that... it also said that they had a "romantic relationship". My take on the 'case' as I've seen it is that Haiduc's citations are not perfect in covering every clause of every sentence with no possibility of dispute or alternate interpretation... but they also don't seem like the nefarious deceits which seem to be being claimed. --CBD 01:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Quotation_marks#Irony. Barring that tangent, I'm confused by your claims. While this is a trivial example, chosen from an extensive list of incorrect citations:

• The text said "about 20%" with no citation
• I removed it
• H added it back, with a citation
• I looked at that citation, it said nothing of the sort
• H claimed here that that figure was from another source
• I found that source, and it says "from 10% to 20%"

Fine, let us characterise this as simple "sloppiness." (Your choice of polarising language like 'crimes' is unhelpful as well, but I digress.) It's not a single instance of "sloppiness" it's a continuing series of misattributions or misreadings. Let's move on to your "relationship" example, Tilden and Bobby.

• Per the source:
  • One dinner together,
  • Played tennis together once,
  • One hand-job in the car that got them arrested.
• Per H: He was clearly Tilden's boyfriend, even if of recent vintage. Tilden had a number of long term loving relationships with boys and there is no reason to suspect that, had these two not been busted, this might not have evolved in a similar direction.

I've been very careful to provide evidence for every statement I've made, and attempted to break down the problem here very carefully. Please be specific when making counter claims. And moving on to one of your claims, that it "matched part of the article text word for word."

• From the text H added: "...some native tribes (about 20% at the end of the twentieth century, a proportion that has since been reduced to vestigial and moribund remnants as contacts with foreigners caused western morals to become prevalent)..."
• From the actual source: "A case study of striking change among the Gebusi of Papua New Guinea suggests that ritualized homosexuality and insemination of boys have become behaviorally vestigial or moribund and that characterizing sexual practices in these terms has been difficult to begin with (as the original proponent of these terms has himself suggested)."

It's clear that, as Nandesuke makes refernce to, a cut-and-pastiche approach has been taken, using the highest figure from one source combined with a snippet of text from another, and leaving out utterly the caveat that I've emboldened. I'd encourage anyone wishing to weigh in to this debate to actually take the time to look over the talk pages of these various articles to familiarise themselves with the issues at greater depth.
brenneman 02:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem with sources re pedarasty, break 7246

Sigh, what happened to the usual procedures like editing the article, discussing things on the talk page, RFC in case of problems and using this page only for vandalism, using AFDs only for AFD discusions and DRV only for DRV discussions? Currently we have discussions at a DRV and here that belong in the talk page. :( Count Iblis (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No, this is about preventing deceptive sourcing, which is an AN/I issue. On contentious articles, it needs to be stopped fast. ThuranX (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Count Iblis, I'd welcome additional editors on the talk pages of these articles. - brenneman 00:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not open an RFC on either the article or on the involved editor(s)? Compare e.g. Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/GoRight Count Iblis (talk) 00:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It is apparent to me that the admins pursuing this attack have repeatedly compromised themselves and should be disciplined for taking advantage of their position in order to pursue a personal agenda. It is not the sourcing of my writing here that is deceptive, but rather the tissue of fabrications which these people are weaving. As I have said, take my last hundred citations and prove your claim. I will not be reading this page any further, please find me at my talk page. Haiduc (talk) 01:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. We'll develop a consensus here about what constitutes some responsible sourcing, and let you know the new rules when we're done. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. ThuranX (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This issue with Haiduc has also surfaced at Jules Verne... see here for details. --Ckatz_spy 09:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I've found the whole level of discourse on this subject, from admins, sadly enough, who would presumably know better, alarming. I'm sure I too can expect to be labeled a "pro-pedophilia activist" or similar nonsense and painted as advocating agendas. Throughout the AfD, the DRV and now spreading to related articles and admin boards is a level of unpleasantness that has made editing there and constructive discourse more than a bit toxic. That admins have concerns is fine, that they creep onto and even cross civility lines is not. I know that this is a sensitive area for many dealing with multiple cultural and social taboos but we can certainly deal with the subject without demonizing editors. Personally, I've had to walk away from the article as I didn't appreciate the treatment Haiduc was getting there and on these admin boards. Essentially disparaging their work, all of it. Those of us who have a depth of understanding in taboo arenas of the human experience don't need special treatment but neither do we deserve pillorying at multiple public forums in addition to the more juicy talkpage and offline arenas. Editors face enough challenges without having their reputations smeared. Banjeboi 19:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of cited material on advice of attorney?

Just came across this edit which removed cited material, supposedly on advice of attorney. It doesn't seem defamatory in any way. Thoughts? Toddst1 (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'd say "stick it back and tell the editor to contact OTRS". There's nothing defamatory there -- just reportage. Further, the editor has an obvious COI. --jpgordon 17:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It's a "legal bluff" by a red-link. I reverted it. If he has an issue, he can contact wikipedia's legal eagles. Baseball Bugs 17:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
    • For what it's worth, the phone number they asked us to call (yeh, we'll get right on that, sure) is a Canadian law firm. Baseball Bugs 17:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There's also this one. Toddst1 (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That one at least has a real WP:BLP concern. I readded the info about him having daughters, but the other paragraph should probably stay out (or someone could find a source?). Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

i readded in neutral language, plenty of citation int he relevant article about anne of green gables. ThuranX (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

And I copied the refs from Anne of Green Gables (1985 film). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

We should politely ask what the actual issue is (other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT), and offer the email address for OTRS. He may have a valid concern which does not quite justify total removal of the content but would nonetheless colour its presentation. Guy (Help!) 17:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• (ec, agree with what JzG says) Blindly reverting this is a really bad idea. It could probably stand to be better sourced and verified. It does make two potentially defamatory claims - that Sullivan lied about the movie making money and that he refused to allow his books to be examined according to contract. Unless someone can back up everything in that paragraph, this is a BLP problem and rather than screaming COI, we should be thanking this individual for their good faith effort to point out a problem with one of our articles. If we are able to get everything in there well-sourced (and claims in the lawsuit itself don't count), and he just doesn't like having unfavorable facts there, that's a him problem, but as of right now, there are unsourced claims there. --B (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's unsourced, it could go. When a user posts some nonsense about calling an attorney, that just invites blind reversion on principle. Baseball Bugs 18:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

But we should be careful. The removed text doesn't actually say the movie made money; it suggests it. The parenthesis " (even though, as noted above, they were among the highest-rated television programs in Canadian history)" is probably synthesis - and it is indeed possible for a crefully structured and extremely popular show to show no profit (this is why percentages of gross profit are customary); the other points should be dealt with by saying "the heirs assert" he refused to let them examine the books, and noting (as the removed text does) that a judge did not believe the movie made no money. (I presume both of these are in the trial record, as cited.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a user involking lawyers invites blind reversion, but we should be circumspect in doing so. Experience on OTRS has shown that while in many cases reversion is the right thing, in others (and it's not always easy on the face of it to tell which) it is a spectacularly bad idea. Guy (Help!) 18:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Both quotes from the trial have now been removed (not by me). The Globe and Mail story (here, may require registration) attributes "evasive witness" to the judge, "bad joke" to the heirs' lawyer. Both are just aw well away. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the present version is a good compromise. The quotes from the judge and attorney, while factual and verifiable, are superfluous to an article about the film itself. caknuck _° is back from his wikisiesta 19:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

When some red-link makes some pompous statement in an edit summary, to a presumably consensus version of an article, then immediate reversion is reasonable. Baseball Bugs 14:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This comment is so wrong-headed it is hard to decide where to start. "Red-link" is irrelevant. "Pompous" is highly subjective and also irrelevant. "Presumably consensus" is no excuse for assuming good faith and giving due respect to any edit, and, as to immediate reversion based on (1) red link, (2) pompous, (3) the status quo is presumed to reflect consensus, only the third argument has any weight at all, and when a BLP issue is raised, it's utterly insane. What's the rush? --Abd (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Heads up: Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction)

I've fully protected Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction) following edit warring over what to tag the page as. I suggest uninvolved admins look over the talk page. -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 19:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hm. From 2005 to late 2007, it was a "guideline". After some disputes, it was marked as a "proposed guideline". Currently it's marked as an "essay". So what's current policy in this area? RC patrollers await an answer. We need to know what fancruft to mark for deletion. --John Nagle (talk) 05:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

FICT is mostly a summary of WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:IINFO. Though, really, it should have the "historical" tag. Sceptre 21:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Why aren't major changes like that brought to the community's attention? FICT ought to be a guideline or flat out 'crap isn't notable' policy. ThuranX (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol that would make a good policy. In the end, we really don't need so many policies though, notability is about whether something's been mentioned in reliable sources, so there don't need to be different policies for different subjects- why should some be treated differently to others? Sticky Parkin 01:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Because the quality of 'reliable sources' seems to change by subject area, and according to the various projects, and according to the standards of Inclusionists or Deletionists, or those just plain sensible and serious. Asserting it's 'so easy' is oversimplifying. Get an inclusionist Pokemon fan and we wind up with 2500 articles detailing each pokemon because 'not only does it appear on the card but in all the 'how to play pokemon' books. thus it's notable'. and so on. That sort of incestuous sourcing needs to be stopped in all subject areas. ThuranX (talk) 02:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Why does it need to be stopped? m:Misplaced Pages is not paper. To quote: "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia. Each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules, history, and strategy. Jimbo Wales has agreed: Hard disks are cheap."

What exactly do we gain by REMOVING verifiable information on notable topics? The satisfaction of having declared that sub-portion of the topic 'not notable'? I'd rather Misplaced Pages be the comprehensive encyclopedia it was intended to be. --CBD 11:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

To ThuranX's question: the proposed version was brought to a large-scale RFC back during June to get input on it (after the 2006-ish version was contested in part to TTN's actions and the ArbCom cases) - the RFC failed to show consensus, 50% for, 25% against it due to being too harsh on fiction, 25% against it due to being too lax on fiction. Analyzing the results, its been determined that FICT can't really be resolved until we answer questions (via another large scale RFC) on notability in general. --MASEM 11:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

We gain the priceless guarantee that Misplaced Pages treats all subjects equally and from the same real-world perspective. We ensure that the article on Homer Simpson devotes more time to examining how the cartoon character has influenced the rest of the world than to the cartoon character's daily routine and favourite pastimes. Have a look at how Memory Alpha treats Star Trek articles compared to here. If you were a disinterested third party who happened to want to know something about a Star Trek episode, which wiki is more useful to you? "Comprehensive encyclopedia" does not mean "limitless database of everything ever". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

So, we want to concentrate on being useful only to people who AREN'T interested in the topic they are reading about? :]

You state that we have to choose between two types of information... but we don't. There is no reason not to have BOTH the 'real world analysis' and the detailed documentation. Seriously, what does it hurt? Why is it better to limit our coverage of notable topics to the lowest common denominator? We can't cover things which a disproportionate number of people obsess about in any greater detail than things which only a few people obsess about because... that would go too far towards giving readers what they want? --CBD 11:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Rapid archiving?

Why are three hour old threads being archived? ThuranX (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe some answers may be found at User talk:Ncmvocalist#ANI archiving. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hm. I can't say I agree with the argument that posts should be archived quickly if they seem resolved (ones with an actual {{resolved}} template are ok). It's not over, until it's over. People may wish to respond to those discussions. --.:Alex:. 20:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ncmv's idea of manual archiving before the bot's 24 period to get the page size down, but think archiving 2 hour old threads might be over-reaching. People don't check ANI every 2 hours; they should be able to see how long, complicated threads have turned out without wading thru the archives, or (more important) they may disagree with the fact that it's resolved. Surely there's a compromise lurking in there somewhere; say if it's had a {{resolved}} tag or an {{archive}} tag of some kind on it for (say) 8-12 hours, maybe? Some number greater than 4 and less than 24. --barneca (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As the planet spins at very slightly over 24hours per day, I feel (and have suggested) that the minimum needs to be 12 hours to give every chance of a section being seen by most of the English speaking inhabitants. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes that's a valid point. I could go to sleep and find several threads created and archived during the night when I awaken. Maybe a little longer than 12 hours though. --.:Alex:. 20:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been manually archiving threads that have been sputtering (a couple folks leaving sporadic light-hearted throwaway comments can cause a huge thread to sit essentially stale for days and days) but I'll admit I don't do it unless the latest date is yesterday - preferably early yesterday. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's a much better idea; I have no problem at all with manual archiving after even two hours, if the last remotely serious comment was 18-24 hours previous. Most of those undead, zombie threads that stagger on for days could then be put out of their misery. Of course, ANI will get slightly longer with all the "Wknight94 didn't take my comment seriously! Desysop him now!" threads. --barneca (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(Yes, I've already had a nicer version of that on my talk page...) —Wknight94 (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick comment here.. ANI is not the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, so we really don't need to hear from 100% of the voices 100% of the time. In my mind, if a thread appears, is resolved, and archived all while I sleep, that's probably a good thing most of the time ;) I understand the concern that something might got resolved incorrectly, but for me it's about priorities. Right now, I think the "OMFG moar drahmaz!" problem on ANI is much more crushing than the occasional minor injustice. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Nod. But so far I've not ever heard anyone complaining about Ncmvocalist archiving things too late. Always it seems to be more about "too soon" or "too vigorously". ++Lar: t/c 23:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

'is resolved' is the key element there. The world won't end if a thread isn't archived and there is even the remotest hint that its not satisfactorily resolved.--Crossmr (talk) 08:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with archiving some threads that are obviously finished, but I'd rather they at least be given 12 hours since last activity. A few of the threads were archived too quickly, IMO. I was away from the computer due to personal obligations, and by the time I come back (8 hours later or so), a bunch of replies are in the thread but it's archived so I can't respond. Enigma 23:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any real problem with sections being archived a few hours after the last comment when the discussion is clearly resolved, but I do have a problem with edits like this one, where sections are wrapped in those pretty little archival templates 2 minutes after the last comment. That...I hate. - auburnpilot talk 23:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Phew, wasn't me :D Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think filing parties are capable of looking at their thread in an archive - a lot of them end up having to do so because they might not login for several days. Between the time I logged off and now, there's been an increase of 16 threads (within 12 hours) if that's anything to go by. If people prioritized on responding to unresolved threads (like the one above this one that has 0 replies, or the thread right at the top of the page that has been open for days), there'd be less of a problem. Instead, with the rate of ANIs being opened, and how big this page becomes, I really don't see the issue with going to the archive to read how it was considered resolved. From time to time, of course mistakes can happen (just like the bot) and things might get prematurely archived, just as things might be left lying around, but bear in mind I have read or skim-read through the thread (unlike a bot) to know if it's resolved - if the bare essential admin action has been taken or admin attention been given, there's no reason to prolong it anymore. If I think there is a chance that more attention is needed on an action, I won't archive it straight way. Certainly some people are going to think it hasn't been resolved - it was very recently I had to deal with 1 individual who proclaimed the dispute is unresolved unless their 'restraining order' is imposed. I don't think we need a full thread to repeatedly tell them, this is not possible as it's punitive or inappropriate or...etc. etc. If there's an issue, contacting the person who dealt with the complaint is probably going to be much more effective. But, if there's major opposition to my archiving with a basis we can agree to, I'll gladly stop or modify my approach. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer you not archive so vigorously. You seem to be saying your judgement of whether something is resolved is adequate and that the archive should be referred to. I'm not sure I agree. We have a bot, let the bot do the work. ++Lar: t/c 20:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. The bot is on a timer for a reason. Unless everyone involved in the thread has whole-heartedly agreed that the thread is resolved there is zero reason to archive it early.--Crossmr (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Anvil Media Inc

According to the deleted article Anvil Media Inc which this user wrote about itself, its business is writing Misplaced Pages articles for profit. I blocked the account as advertising-only after it created the piece about itself, and after it started tagging articles with "Created by Anvil Media Inc." All of those articles were created by User:Mrtriviamaniacman. The Anvil Media username is now asking for an unblock. Questions: (1) Anyone have any problem with the block of User:Anvil Media Inc? (2) Should we do something about User:Mrtriviamaniacman, who pretty clearly is the same user? (3) Should we do anything about the articles that were created by this PR firm? Most of them do have sources, although I deleted a few where the cited external source didn't work and they appeared to be just advertising for one company's products. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Block of Anvil is good, Mrtriviamaniacman can go too (writing for profit is not on), I would nuke any articles with no significant edits other than by this user and review the rest for bias. For example, Attensa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted three times previously by other people as blatant spam. Guy (Help!) 21:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Which policy prohibits writing for profit (not saying I like the idea of people writing for profit on Misplaced Pages, just got a nagging feeling this may have come up before)? DuncanHill (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV would be the obvious one. A company being paid to write an article for another company is not likely to write in an unbiassed fashion. Not to mention the obvious WP:COI. Resolute 21:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What about WP:REWARD, which pays users for improvements to articles etc? Sticky Parkin 21:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That was what I was trying to remember. DuncanHill (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Mrtriviamaniacman for spam/advertising, which writing for profit is. Blood Red Sandman 21:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• FWIW, the only article that I can still find Attensa in is FreeRange WebReader, sole edit of a relatively new user. --Amalthea (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • See also Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 23#Springfield, Oregon for more potential user connections. KimKnees (talk · contribs), at the very least, has edited Planar Systems after the COI discussion, a company listed on http://www.anvilmediainc.com/full-client-list.htm . --Amalthea (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Should we get a CU to look out the whole lot? It seems there are many... Blood Red Sandman 23:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I'd absolutely say so, there seems to be no end to it. Johnanvil (talk · contribs) created Attensa, Triviamaniacman23 (talk · contribs) seems an obvious sock of Mrtriviamaniacman (talk · contribs), Pthomas03 (talk · contribs) could be part of it since he created ReliableRemodeler.com a long time ago — really wherever I click I seem to find new suspects. It'd need an admin first to walz through all of those deleted pages, if possible check all pages in the above client list for deleted contributions. This article suggests that some of those accounts were active before that whole thing started, but 70.89.191.245 (talk · contribs) seems to be a very good candidate for a common IP. --Amalthea (talk) 01:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• I suggest this thread continue over at WP:COIN. This issue came up once before on that noticeboard; I see that I've already left {{uw-coi}} for 70.89.191.245 (talk · contribs). Though we disapprove of outsiders writing articles for money, since it is hard to maintain NPOV in such cases, COI-affected editors can sometimes make a contribution. (The ColumbiaSoft article is not too bad). Keep in mind these are fairly low-volume editors, so they are unlikely to swamp the enforcement system. If someone writes a new COIN report please focus on what is the worst abuse so far and maybe we can fix that. If none of these editors will respond on Talk more blocks may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this like the "MyWikiBiz" user? I remember that from ages ago. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 10:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have filed Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Anvil Media Inc. Please add any and all related accounts to the list for examination there. Blood Red Sandman 11:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Please also feel free to help at User:Gb/Anvil - there, we are checking over Anvil's client list. Blood Red Sandman 12:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Link removed, as we've now gone through all the relevant names. _GB 07:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Some blogosphere exposure

Just for the record, a quick blog browse turned up at least some response to this situation that might be of interest. We're referred to as a secret sect in the Art of Marketing blog, while the folks at Attensa are cranky, as per this blog. The Anvil Media dude opines here (I see some of our editors and others who have been bagged for paid editing in the past are already commenting). Fun stuff! Might be worth monitoring this discussion. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Gross incivility on Cold fusion

Page gets heated anyway, but it is getting OTT. Most recent comments by User:ScienceApologist are beyond the pale in my view. A good look by an uninvolved admin would be much appreciated. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As a non-admin, the first step I'd take is to warn them with a personal message about focusing on content and contributions, and not the editors per WP:NPA. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 22:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. However, I'm always talking to this editor about one thing or another. It is too easy to get into a situation where we wind each other up. A completely external person would do better. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It was requested by an IP that SA refactor his comments, and he did do. Hopefully that should be the end of it. If there are any more concerns, it might be an idea to ask SA to refactor another comments because he's normally very open to doing so. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ryan. Itsmejudith (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, glad to hear/see a resolution, but I'm slightly confused. Refactoring comments, even one's own, is generally frowned upon (even if the intentions are ultimately good, as in this case) because it can lead to confusion down the road with regards to diffs - if it were ever to come up again or be relevant. A retraction/apology would have been more appropriate in my opinion. Just musing here. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 05:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it's fine. That article is the subject of long-term civil POV-pushing by a fringe minority, and such cases tend to cause frustration in those who support the majority view. People are human, refactoring tetchy comments is a good result. Goading the supporters of policy into exploding and then driving them off to leave the field clear for those who would skew content to give undue weight to a minority POV is much more of a problem. Guy (Help!) 06:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think, with some comments, striking it out is worse than leaving it be. Not only is the insult/attack still there, but now the attacker can say "I struck it out, what do you want from me?" Beam 10:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to chime in here: For whoever reviews this, I think they should take a look at Talk:Cold_fusion#Analysis_and_rejection_of_observational_error and the most recent comments in Talk:Cold_fusion#Differing_isotopic_ratios. Thanks. Kevin Baas 00:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

advice needed

Not sure where to post this, so I thought I would try here, where I know there's a number of experienced people hanging around. Please advise me if this should go somewhere else.

I went to the template page Template:Sexual orientation on an RfC. there is a user there - Cooljuno411 - who is essentially doing extensive original research on the template itself (recategorizing the definition of sexual orientation to his own particular tastes...). he's very adamant about his position, to the extent that he comes close to edit-warring, though most editors have been gracious enough not to allow an edit war to start. normally I would solve this by attaching an OR template and flagging it for all concerned, but attaching templates to templates is ugly and confusing to readers. I'll put in some inline templates for the time being, but can anyone suggest a more graceful and effective approach? --Ludwigs2 22:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep trying to reach out to Cooljuno. And don't try to talk to him by yourself. There has to be others who are concerned and use the Sexual Orientation template. I don't want to use the term "gang up" on him, but you should "gang up on him" in a calm and nice way. If that doesn't work, than try some sort of dispute resolution and if that doesn't succeed, than offer all the money you can muster! Beam 23:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Figure out what is the basis for the pre-existing categorization system, and then argue from there. If it is commonly known, or famous, or standard in off-wiki professional discussion of the topic, then that should help a lot. Titoxd 23:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a bigger problem, seen here. Cooljuno's edits are in pursuit of his POV that sexuality is a choice and thus should all be equally lumped together. The talk page seems to have a lot of interestin forming a good order and consensus ,but against a POV pusher, what hope is there? ThuranX (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be one thing to have this kind of debate on an article page, where sources could be brought to bear, and things could be weighed in and balanced. it's just odd on a template page, because there's no real room for discussion. is there any policy I can point to that says that templates must be restricted to commonly held and uncontested perspectives? I actually have no idea what policies and guidelines cover templates specifically (aside from the normal policies that are designed for articles). --Ludwigs2 20:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Kober

I would like to ask the community to review the block of this user on the basis of the accusations made here: Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Kober. In my opinion, the grounds for this block are very questionable. 2 checkuser requests showed that Kober is not related to Papa Carlo: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Kober#Kober, Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Papa_Carlo; yet for some reason it was decided that Papa Carlo was Kober's sock or meatpuppet. I know Kober for years as a very prolific and knowledgeable contributor, who is a real asset to Misplaced Pages. His contribution to the articles about the region of Caucasus are invaluable. I'm having a hard time to believe that such a person may have had anything to do with the things he's being accused of. The claim that 2 users must be related because they make reverts on the same articles cannot be used as grounds for establishing that users are socks. I must note that it is not something extraordinary for the region related articles, where ethnic groups formed to support certain national POVs, and moreover, people who make accusations against Kober are themselves involved in edit warring in region related articles and are even restricted by the arbitration imposed paroles. Many people have the same articles on their watch lists, and you can see how many users are involved in the same sort of actions on both sides of the dispute. It does not mean that they are all socks or meatpuppets, just that there are conflicting views supported by different groups of users. In my opinion, the block of this user is a serious mistake. I don't think that there was any bad intent or prejudice in the actions of the blocking admin, it is just a case of a good faith mistake, which I think needs to be corrected. Grandmaster (talk) 07:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've contacted the blocking admin. Since CheckUser has proven that they are unrelated, this makes it certain that they are not sockpuppets of one another. I have interacted with both users and their styles are very different. Kober is a prolific editor while Papa Carlo appears to mostly be involved in edit wars. I am not at all convinced by the meatpuppetry accusations as well. Simply because Papa Carlo has reverted to Kober does not equal proxy editing IMO. It is likely that PaC probably followed around Pocopocopocopoco or Kober's edits, and inactivity does necessarily mean that a user is a sock or meatpuppet. Kober has told me that he has never contacted Papa Carlo outside of Misplaced Pages. There was a similar situation here when one user (Karcha) was reverting to another (E104421), and was thus blocked as a sockpuppet. It was proven that they were different individuals, and E104421 was unblocked. Karcha remained blocked as most of his edits were disrutpive. I think that can take precedent here. Knowing Kober, I highly doubt that he was in contact with Papa Carlo outside of Misplaced Pages and that he requested for him to engage in edit warring. I believe that Kober should be unblocked. However, Papa Carlo should probably remain blocked as most of his edits consist of reverts and disrutpive editing. Khoikhoi 08:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Khoikhoi's assessment and recommendation. Also, if Papa Carlo requests an reasonable unblock with a commitment to only revert/undo vandalism for a few months, I think the user should be unblocked. The user has been editing regularly since early 2006. I can mentor if required. John Vandenberg 09:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, as I've stated on Papa Carlo's page, he may most certainly appeal and, given assurances that he will desist from the edit warring, may well be unblocked. Indefinite is not infinite. See below about the general presumption and Kober. — Coren  12:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Simply put, I found no convincing evidence that they are the same person, but that the behavior of Papa Carlo make it reasonable to deem them to be colluding, especially since Papa Carlo has done basically nothing but edit war in the disputes Kober has been involved with.

I would not be opposed if someone took it upon themselves to unblock Kober. His constantly edit warring is troublesome, and I'm not certain that he is here to write an encyclopedia — as opposed to defend a nationalistic POV, but he did contribute for a long time on more than one topic. Hence my short block. — Coren  12:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

These guys always edit war, and keep an existing dispute rolling. Off site discussion between Wikipedians with a similar POV does occur quite often among communities in this region, and makes it it look like collusion and meat puppeting, but correlation is not causation. This type of discussion occurs often in the English-speaking community as well, but there is more variation in opinions because we are a much larger cohort, and we have not recently had bitter wars. Also, these groups pick up wikifights started by another without even needing offwiki discussion - they do it out of respect for their fellow countrymen, etc. Futhermore it is has been shown that those making the accusations, according to arbcom, (paraphrasing slightly) make good faith accusations of sock puppetry that have turned out to be insufficient justification for a block. Caution is required - they look too hard for correlation, and dream up exotic explanations that make sense. They also lay traps and honeypots for each other, but I am not saying that these specific accusers are guilty of it in this case.

I could accept edit warring as justification for the short block in place, but that is not what the block log and block message currently say. John Vandenberg 13:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I dont understand a simple thing in this case, under what evidence was Kober blocked for sock poppetry? If the result was negative and the evidence did not yield any similar patterns of editing between Kober and Papa Carlo (I also reviewed the evidence but I dont see any credible assumption that they are socks), why did this administrator blocked Kober? On what grounds was this user blocked for sock puppetry? He did not behave in sock puppetry and was blocked for it? I wan to remind you that Kober was already blocked for 3RR and why punish again a person who already was blocked for the same fault? Is this a case of unprofessional handling of sock poppet claims? Also, please pay close attention to Kobers rv's. They are mostly directed at countering vandalism by anon users. Why these rvs were not being reviewed or mentioned here? In my op pinion this block is completely unjustified, no strong evidence exists of even a hint of sockpuppetry between these two users, the notification was posted by a user who engaged in harassment of Kober over the articles which did not fit his POV and overall the evidence looked fishy. Before blocking this user, did you review so called rv wars? How many did you see countering vandalism (such as blanking, inserting dubious claims, etc)? Did you see possitive IP match between these two users? Did you ever consider or give it into consideration that this user created more than 700 articles and is unmatched in the Georgia and Caucasus related articles? What nationalistic POV are you talking about, wher eis the evidence for it? So Proco (who posted notification against Kober) has no nationalistic POV but Kober has it? On what grounds are you making this assessment? Kober is purely encyclopedic user and his valuable articles dont even hint any "nationalistic POVs" as you have claimed. Again, this user was blocked already for 3RR and blocking him again for the same faults does not make a real sense. In my opinion, this block was groundless, uncounted for, unjustified, and definately a mistake by administrator who should have been more responsible of his/her duties. Iberieli (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, the absence of CU evidence is not a factor. When two accounts behave as if they are colluding, especially if one of those accounts only behaves as a proxy, they they are deemed to be a proxy regardless. — Coren  14:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I will add, as I have on Kober's talk page, that no account can be believed to exist only to support Kober's edit warring if Kober didn't edit war in the first place. — Coren  14:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for wikipedia for doing this. I active mostly in the Hebrew wikipedia and writing about Georgia and well known in the Hebrwe wikipedia for doing it. Big part of my work based on Kober's work because he is the most productive user about Georgia and the history of Georgia. I ask hi a lot of quetions about the articles of Georgia and he always answering me and showing proficiency abour thes issues, he is a real helpful. He made 3 or 4 articles according to my request search books and made nice articles. He is doing grear job on wikipedia and blocking him for no ground as I understand is realy bad for wikipedia. I hope you will correct the mistake. Geagea (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well Mr Coren, where did you see Kober engaged in edit war after his block was over? Where are you getting this idea? Did you see his contributions list? I know Kober for a long time now, and I highly doubt that he is capable or willing to use multiple accounts or engage in edit wars. Also, did you consult other admins on this issue? You just went ahead and blocked the user without any inquiry. Im sorry but none of Kobers edits match Papa Carlo and you have overlooked many flaws with that evidence presented by "Procococo." Fact remains, you have blocked Kober without any solid evidence of meat or sock poppetry, you have blocked a very productive and long time contributor of Misplaced Pages, and moreover you have accused him of "Nationalistic POVs" (from where did you get that idea?) on what grounds? I think your action went too far, out of the way and should be reviewed by other admins. I think blocking someone just because of assumption or presumption is unacceptable. Not only this action was unfair and still unjustified but also hearts the reputation of Misplaced Pages administrators overall. This is a clear case of mis-conduct and poor judgment on the side of administrator. Iberieli (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Dont you think Coren that you have went out of your way, first blocked a user without any reason (there was no evidence of sock puppetry) than made a personal attack on this user claiming the following: His constantly edit warring is troublesome, and I'm not certain that he is here to write an encyclopedia — as opposed to defend a nationalistic POV, but he did contribute for a long time on more than one topic.? You have failed to present evidence on "edit wars" which in fact were countering vandalism on various articles. What can we call such a treatment of this particular Misplaced Pages user? I think we will launch a formal complaint against this administrator for abusing his privileges and blocking people without a cause, not to mention personal attacks such as calling people nationalists without a cause. Iberieli (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to register deep concern about this block. Coren has as much as admitted that the one is not a sock-puppet of the other. The real accusation is tag-teaming and if this is indeed a serious problem we should address it, but not in this manner. Even if there were collusion, which is very hard to prove (whereas apparent collusion happens all the time here), I think it is a mistake to deal with this problem by invoking sock-puppetry. I consider sock-puppetry to be so grave an offence we should indict people for it with extreme caution. Let's be clear about what is going on: there are many conflicts at Misplaced Pages where the 3RR itself is inadequate to control conflict. The problem is that we do not have very good mechanisms for deeling with conflicts that are not precisely 3RR and not precisely sock-puppetry. What we should be doing is looking for more appropriate mechanisms rather than turn to the latter because the former does not work. As to the specifics, it seems likely to me that Papa Carlo is an SPA. One question I would ask more involved admins is whether any of his edits are clearly disruptive? If so, he can be blocked for that. But from what I have seen, there is another problem: these editors are drawn, like several other editors, to articles that invite nationalist conflict (dab has written an essay on how profound a problem this is at Misplaced Pages). If this is the case, what we really need at these articles - where several editors, none of whom may be violating 3RR, are nevertheless involved in a revet war - is mediation. If the real problem is a revert war rather than sock-puppetry, the purpose of a block is not punitive but to allow for cooling down, but in this kind of conflict short blocks seldom work. What is needed is page protection and mediation. Is one, or are two, parties more to blame than others? I do not know. I think it is possible that both Papa Carlo and Kober may have at times violated NOR, especially through SYNTH. I raise this because a more accurate diagnosis of the problem may help resolve a deeper conflict. But I do not know enough about the substance of the case to judge all the editors. Nevertheless, it seems to me that this block is being used punitively and with an inappropriate justification. I agree there is a problem, but let's try to find the right tools to fix it. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If you have a viable alternative, I'm most certainly all ears. As things currently stand, however, the only recourse to prevent such tag-teaming is the presumption that single purpose accounts that behave as though they are a proxy for each other to be deemed a proxy and handled accordingly. I agree that, in principle, a legal fiction such as this is deeply unsatisfying— but that's all we've got. At this time, and despite the fact that it is not unanimously supported, I believe those blocks to be good and I will not unblock. I will also not oppose another admin who feels things can remain under control and feels he can unblock either or both.

I must, however, point out again that had Kober avoided edit warring in the first place and repeatedly skirting 3RR, then there is no point where support from a single purpose account would have appeared to be in furtherance of edit warring and this whole mess would have been avoided in the first place. Caveat bellator. — Coren  19:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've had a look at this. Since checkuser says "no" to sockpuppetry, and since Kober has enough good-faith capital left in his Misplaced Pages account for the relevant guideline to apply, I've unblocked him, seeing as disruptive meatpuppetry may be unlikely.

I've unblocked Papa Carlo and then reblocked him indefinitely, tweaking the block reason. I agree this block is warranted. Since last year it seems that nearly all his edits have been reverts of non-vandalism. This isn't really acceptable, and does merit an indefinite block. Possibly a topic ban would be an alternative. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I endorse Moreschi's actions. If Papa Carlo is to be unblocked I believe he should be banned from editing Georgia-related articles. But for now he should remain indef. blocked based on the reasons I've stated above. Khoikhoi 20:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I have explicitly no opposition to Moreschi's tweaking. I also agree that a topic ban would be a reasonable alternative to Papa Carlo's indef. Shall we now consider this mess over with? All of us have better things to do. — Coren  21:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and consideration. Papa Carlo seems to agree with putting himself under some restrictions. Please see his comments here.--Kober 17:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Coren

Personal attack on the talk page of hAl

This is an ongoing problem that has gone on far to long. I would like an admin to remove a section on HAl's talk page and inform him not to recreate it or spread its content to other pages. It seems HAl and an anonymous editor are engaged in idel speculation that has the effect of lumping me together with known rule breakers, or that I am a rule breaker. The problem was first reported here it was then taken to Wikuette and I was finaly refered back here . There has been some confusion. It seems some have thought this a discussion of possible infractions on Misplaced Pages by me. It is not. This is an attempt to link people HAl has had problems with in the past to me, and thereby discredit me. This is IMHO a personal attack on my good name. I have never, ever, broken a rule on Misplaced Pages. The linking is a strange multi step link that has so many hole in it and untruths that it is amazing a sane person could believe it. You can find it in this section , along to my rebuking it. Hal has been warned multiple times that if there is an infraction of Misplaced Pages rules, to take it to the approprate notice board.

The thing is, HAl is not interested in reporting anything. The section is soly a personal attack and he has no intention of filing any reports. because in his own words in that diff "We can´t report that one WP:SSP because you need evidence of sockpuppetingthen. We do not have that." HAl has also started posting this on other users talk pages. so he is not just dragging my name in the mud on his own page. As I said above, this has gone on long enough. It was reported 5 days ago, removed and recreated. more than once and still exists . AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If he's not willing to actually file anything, ignore him. He's trying to get a rise out of you. Don't feed the trolls. Chances are he'll get bored and so something else. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 13:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, and from this point on I will take it and not contribute to this insanity by responding to it. But the insanity IMHO needs to be removed and HAl warned not to spread it. To me this is a clear violation of several Misplaced Pages guidelines WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVILITY. Leaving this in place is unfair to me and my reputation and rewards a hostel editor who will in all likelihood repeat the same thing over and over as he has demonstrated by replacing the section that was removed once already. All I am asking is that it be removed and a warning not to replace it on user pages. If he has a real issue, he should file a report on the appropriate notice board. AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Reported at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Kilz (3rd). WalterGR (talk | contributions) 08:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

OfficeMax editing on behalf of Jon Porter

OfficeMax (talk · contribs) and his/her sockpuppets OfficeMax12345 (talk · contribs) are repeatedly adding POV comments about US Congressman Jon Porter and his opponent Dina Titus. Ordinarily, I wouldn't say this was too big a deal, but this editor appears to have used an IPsock, 143.231.249.141 (talk · contribs) from the US House of Representatives. Given that OfficeMax has already been blocked once, (and I unblocked based on a promise to abide by Misplaced Pages policy) and the POV edits persist, I feel something should be done. Perhaps a ban from political articles? 18:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Both blocked already. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Are things like this supposed to be reported to the Foundation? —Wknight94 (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

NB: this user used the IPsock after being blocked by me on 8 July. Toddst1 (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, first he was making all of his edits from the I.P. Then, because we were only softblocking the I.P. (since it's used by thousands of people) he created OfficeMax. Then he was blocked. Then he agreed to behave himself if he was unblocked. Then he failed to behave himself, so he was re-blocked. And now he's created a new sock, which is also blocked. Nothing exceptional going on here, I don't think. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

And the fact that it's the government doesn't mean it should be reported somewhere? Should we call Tom Brokaw? Is he still working? —Wknight94 (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This editor(s) have done this before. The congressman's office said when called that it wasn't true; and when told that it was the washington office said that's politics, so... it's not going to stop. I'd recommend a hardblock on the IP from which it originated for a long time, regardless of the fact that it's a government IP. ThuranX (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

We can't hardblock it - it's used by thousands of people. This guy's a nuisance, but he's eminently manageable. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, Dina Titus' campaign is now well aware of the issue, has the names of who to contact and what accounts and IPs are being used, so that might help as well. They also know that playing tit for tat won't work on WIkipedia, so I think we're safe from reprisals. ThuranX (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Further, if it's a gov't IP, noone of hem should be spending american tax dollars at work to edit WP, so block it. ThuranX (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Sarcasticidealist, but I'm not for beans up the nose on that one. Removed part of your comment. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 19:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the consensus here is that the POV pushing and vandalism by the unblockable IP will continue, I have semi-protected the 2 pages. Toddst1 (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

that's hold it for a while. I'll watchlist both pages, and would appreciate some others doing the same. ThuranX (talk) 02:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Marvin Diode

As per this diff. User:Marvin Diode deleted my thread here for no apparent reason. I'm going to repost, but that is highly inappropriate behavior. MSJapan (talk) 23:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It was almost certainly accidental. Depending on which link one clicks to edit, it's possible for other editors to make intervening changes that are lost when ones own edits are saved. Sloppy, perhaps, but not malicious or intentional. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It was indeed unintentional, and I left an apology on MSJapan's talk page. --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Katie Reider article IP Sockpuppetry

User:Brhannan has been obfuscating his sig on the Katie Reider AfD (which I started) by posting and then changing the sig link to "Nomad 2" (this followed by this is an indication, as he couldn't even sign posts when he voted). The level of uncited personal information added led me to report him on COIN. There is also an IP heavily involved in the article and AfD User:38.112.25.6, and by this diff blatantly proves they are one and the same person, which Brhannan has tried to hide up until the point where he edited a Brhannan comment as the IP here. The sheer number of edits made, and the fact that they are made only to this article makes "I forgot to log in" extremely unlikely, and I'd like to see some admin intervention here. MSJapan (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Hiram111

I've been having issues with User:Hiram111 in Druze, where he kept removing references by John Esposito, Mordechai Nisan and other scholars, calling them unreliable and unscholarly. He recently monitored my edits and followed me to Twelver Shi'ism, where he added POV statements from unreliable sources about concepts already explained further in the article. I repeatedly reverted his edits until he reverted mine from a newly created sockpuppet account, User:Macabricvoid, adding other dubious statements with sources that have absolutely nothing to do with the content he added. He then proceeded to request protection for the article using, unsurprisingly, another sockpuppet account, User:Vitriulum. I'm requesting that User:Hiram111 and his accounts be blocked for violation of WP:SOCK, and revert Twelver Shi'ism back to the consensus version. GreenEcho (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

GreenEcho rather than such behavior, I think it would be better for you to work for consensus concerning the disputed articles since you had been gaming the system for more than a month and your distributive editing history is still here, anyway If we are going to continue with this dispute i think the issue will never end since it seems that we both have alot of free time...please recheck your references and our references so we can get over with it and get to consensus since it had been going for over a month .(and I don't think its worth it, to lose such time to say that the Druze belief that caliph Alhakim is God!)

And why would a Sock Puppet use an account that redirects to his other user page ????.Im not actually that new to wikipedia, I hope you will review your actions and decide if its leading you anywhere. « Hiram111 00:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Too many sockpuppets used by both sides

• Macabricvoid (talk · contribs), Vitriulum (talk · contribs) are sockpuppets of Hiram111 (talk · contribs). Blocked indefinitely. The master account Hiram111 got a week block. Feel free to review this if you feel the duration is short.

• GreenEcho (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked as a sock of the abandoned (for a reason) NAccount (talk · contribs). Please refer to the 7 weeks old archived Klaksonn sockpuppetry case. Another sock Enforcing Neutrality (talk · contribs) has been also indef blocked. NAccount for 2 weeks since this is not the first time and this user has been heavily abusing multiple accounts. Next time it will be indefinite. Do not create new accounts because you are not happy with the one you are left with. Request changing your username instead. -- FayssalF - 08:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Nefbmn - Serial Abuse and Sockpuppetry

This user has continued engaging in serial abuse and has been caught utilising sockpuppetry even after being blocked. In particular, there has been a lot of insulting and racist commentary from this user. This user has already been reported here for the same matter before Nefbmn was blocked for one week.

In the latest incident, 162.84.137.211 vandalised Vietnamese people as shown here. This user is clearly a sockpuppet of Nefbmn, who in turn has also been suspected of meatpuppetry. See Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/218.188.90.194 for more information. David873 (talk) 00:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't edited in a while, user has most likely switched IPs by now (claims to have a dynamic IP, evidence so far suggests so). So, a block would just be kinda' annoying for whoever gets the address next. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 03:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Webster121 - Continual POV pushing and Sockpuppetry

This user appears to have engaged in sockpuppetry in order to continue his POV pushing at Vietnam related articles while he is still barred from editing. See Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Webster121 and Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Webster121_(2nd) for more information.
Webster121's block is due to expire in early August. David873 (talk) 02:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Lil hyphy12 (talk · contribs) AKA 71.31.93.166 (talk · contribs)

This user is being disruptive on the articles souljaboytellem.com and Unsigned & Still Major: Da Album Before da Album. S/he keeps changing the names of the tracks to go against the manual of style. Something must be done about this vandal. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 02:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

What you mean is that you keep trying to change the names of the songs to keep in line with Misplaced Pages capitalization policy, when the other editor is trying to keep them as they are listed on the CD. You've been told before, in this previous ANI thread and elsewhere, that the name of a song or book or film or other media item as named by the artist involved trumps Misplaced Pages policy and controls. What you need to do is stop what you're doing and let the track names be listed here as they are listed on the CD. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 04:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

And you shouldn't come running to ANI every time you have a content dispute. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 04:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Moldopodo

Moldopodo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been mentioning the words "defamation" and "slander" a lot in the last few while since the end of his one month AE block. He has been also accusing editors of defaming and slandering him. IMO, this is in someway an attempt at legal posturing and as such a violation of WP:LEGAL. As a result of this, I call for a indefinite block and ban of Moldopodo due to (1) his past and current disruptive attitude to the project, and (2) his consistent use of the words "defamation" and "slander" as an attempt to get his way (WP:LEGAL violation). These sysop actions, if approved through consensus, will be preventive as it will prevent Moldopodo from creating further disruption. nat.utoronto 02:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This is borderline....I'm leaning towards a warning, an explaining of WP:LEGAL and why comments like those aren't acceptable. But... I don't know, I'm going to think a bit more about it, this is just my initial reaction. Beam 02:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Saying someone is slandering you is not a legal threat. Saying you're going to sue someone for slandering you is a legal threat. I'm making no other comment on Moldopodo's behavior, as I haven't looked into it and you haven't provided diffs. If he's being incivil, or disruptive, or something, make your case based on that. But a block (or even a warning) per WP:LEGAL won't fly, IMHO. --barneca (talk) 03:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion of a warning would be discussing civillity and how accusing other editors repeatedly of attacking his character does him no favors. And the explaining of WP:Legal just so he knows it, and he knows that "slander" and "defamation" are used in legal ways some times, and although accusations of defamation and slander, although not a violation of WP:Legal, aren't good anyway. Beam 03:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, FFS. "No legal threats" != "no legal terms", period. This histronic hyper-sensitivity really doesn't help matters any. And your proposed explanation just comes off as condescending, even in theory, and won't defuse the matter in the least. --Badger Drink (talk) 03:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah you're right, any time we try to educate newer users and give them knowledge of policy is a fucking retarded waste of time. Beam 03:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Beam, that was inappropriate. Please calm down and try to remain civil yourself. A comment about civility may be in order, considering the user's past history. However, a block for legal threats would be excessive and probably overturned. Hersfold non-admin 03:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Sarcasm and the phrase fucking retarded aren't uncivil. And I suggested a personal warning, no template as well as an informational explanation about what WP:Legal is just to inform. And I definitely did not suggest a block, far from it. I agree with you on that point. :) Beam 04:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Please understand that when you use the term "fucking retarded", it may be misconstrued as an incivil personal attack. Even if it's not actually in violation of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA, it's still not good anyway. We also have a policy against adding unsourced material, which you may wish to read. See what I mean? I agree that this editor could use some sort of talking-to, but I doubt dragging random bits of policy into said talking-to is going to win the talker-to'er any respect - and with an editor of this sort, it basically boils down to whether or not they respect the community and the project, or not. If you win their respect, things clear up. Make a fool of yourself in their eyes, and it just means further headaches and (likely) an eventual block. --Badger Drink (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Meh, I was trying to give a way for Nat to feel that he got his point across while being helpful and nice to the user in question. And you're right, my sarcasm wasn't in violation of anything. Beam 04:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Haha, the edit conflict with Hersfold kinda killed the heavy-handed irony I was going for, but anyway! --Badger Drink (talk) 05:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Tossing around legal terms, while not the best way to get around here, aren't violations of WP:NLT. There's a reason why it's called "no legal threats" (emphasis mine). By the way, you can't slander anyone on Misplaced Pages. —Kurykh 03:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You could with an .ogg file... --barneca (talk) 03:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, licensing that file is going to be hard. Oh wait, no...you can release it in the public domain. :) —Kurykh 03:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

An .ogg file uploaded here would be regarded as in permanent form and therefore constitute a libel rather than a slander, and thus harder to defend. --Rodhullandemu 10:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, after I wrote that last night, I actually read the defamation article, and realized I misunderstood the difference (it's not spoken vs. written, it appears to be permanent vs. transient). I was kind of hoping no one would notice, but of course there are too many eyeballs here. Why, oh why, couldn't NCMV have speedily archived this sooner, before Rod could see it? --barneca (talk) 12:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there's never one around when you need one is there, then three turn up at once? Not intending to be critical, just getting things right. --Rodhullandemu 12:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Hillock65 and User:Kuban kazak

Would some uninvolved administrator please review the 3rr edit warring situation regarding User:Hillock65 and User:Kuban kazak? It was reported here and ended up with only one block despite the fact that they were both edit warring. Note that the other party is just coming off a block for edit warring three weeks ago. This really appears unfair, and it would make sense that either they should both get blocked or both only get warned. The discussion can be found here at Hillock65 talk page. Ostap 03:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You neglected to mention that User:Hillock65 violated the 3RR rule, User:Kuban kazak did not, ("The rule is breached when an editor makes more than three reverts.") so don't try to present it as the same thing. While there is a provision that says, "Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive.", this is up to an administrator's discretion, and I see no problem with the blocking admin treating them differently because their actions were indeed different, User:Hillock65 was the only one who crossed the 3RR line. Also, check their contributions, User:Hillock65 is primarily a revert warrior while User:Kuban kazak is primarily a content writer. And why are you asking for an "uninvolved administrator", the blocking admin was an uninvolved administrator.
Furthermore, an uninvolved administrator has already reviewed this decision. User:Hillock65 has already asked for an administrator to review this decision, and another uninvolved admin (User:Mangojuice) declined his demand to unblock him/block the other user, saying, "You made your point about the other editor's behavior on WP:AN3. While there is a compelling reason to review decisions to block users, the same does not hold for decisions not to block users. If you don't like the way it was handled, you can take it up with Scarian afterwards, but neither I nor any other admin is likely to reverse Scarian's decision to issue a warning"--Miyokan (talk) 05:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewd this and the complainer's complaint seems valid on the surface: The other person (Kk) did three reverts *bangbangbang* and rewarding them for that is inappropiate. Kk has recently been blocked for blind reverting, and the message that "three a day" is not an entitlement clearly needs to be driven home. Heck, the person who was blocked said "please use the talk page" in every edit summary, which Kk chose not to do. No one is lily-white here. - brenneman 07:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Lets see then:

1. 15:55, 23 July 2008 I change a blatant mistake
2. 16:39, 23 July 2008 Hillock reverts without any talk page comment (1st revert for Hillock)
3. 13:18, 24 July 2008 I revert the disruption, citing wiki policies under which I did that per WP:1RR (1st revert for me)
4. 14:02, 24 July 2008 Hillock reverts my statement and offers me, with WP:CIVIL to "discuss my grievences on the talk" (2 reverts for Hillock)
5. 14:06, 24 July 2008 I revert and point out the extensive discussion on the talk page (2 reverts for me)
6. 14:09, 24 July 2008 Hillock remembering WP:OWN tells me to literally bugger off (again WP:CIVIL) (3 reverts for Hillock)
7. 14:35, 24 July 2008 I do a complete copyedit of the article, correct many grammatical mistakes BUT DO NOT TOUCH THAT PARTICULAR SECTION THAT HAS BEEN THE SOURCE OF DEBATE (so still 2 reverts for me)
8. 14:43, 24 July 2008 Hillock however does not bother to check the diff, and reverts w/o any though still with the same WP:unCIVIL comment (4th revert for which he was blocked!)

• I recommend to Ostap, who has been Hillock's WP:MEATpuppet since he arrived on wikipedia (check the edit pattern for this and many other articles) to leave it per WP:STICK, otherwise feel free to voice your complaints on my RfC which was started a year ago, but got nowhere then, since I don't even watch that page. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 08:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You respond in your usual fashion, throwing around baseless accusations. If you continue to do this, I will report it here also. Ostap 16:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Theserialcomma and Tucker Max, part 2

Previous AN/I thread

User:Theserialcomma's tenditious editing continues unabated since the last AN/I I filed a little under two weeks ago. He continues to wikilawyer points into the ground. Occasionally he is right, generally he is not - see Talk:Tucker Max and note that most discussions have been instigated by Theserialcomma.

User also demonstrates ownership issues - his talk page edits and edit summaries frequently contain things such as "will be removed" .

However, the real problem with this user is his unwillingness to refrain from personal attacks against me. Even if the personal attacks are not strictly "flames", they definitely violate the policy of discuss the argument, not the person.

These difs are not in chronological order, sorry. .

When I requested that the user refrain from personal attacks , he ignored , prompting me to perhaps inappropriately lash out at him , however, I stand by every last word of the "lash out". Speaking frankly, what I've tolerated from this user would test the patience of anyone.

User also failed to follow the RfC directions and write a neutral statement in the RfC, instead stating his PoV on the disagreement as the RfC summary. I don't have a dif for this as the RfC has ended.

As a concluding note, although there is no policy called WP:DONTBEAHYPOCRITE, Theserialcomma has engaged in hypocritical behavior. Here is a (correct) statement that discussion of individual users does not belong on article talk pages , yet, even in the diffs which while antagonistic, I didn't think warrented inclusion in an AN/I writeup, are alway addressed directly to, and about, individual users.

McJeff (talk) 06:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

New dif, posted while I was writing this - manages to hit both incivil and OWN at the same time. McJeff (talk) 07:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if people are allowed to agree on here, but I figured I would give it a shot. It's almost farcical difficult he has been and it's a shame that he's using Misplaced Pages's own rules against itself. McJeff has been more than patient on this and the article is suffering. He's fighting to have decent sources removed simply out of malice and attempting to drive people away from creating a quality article by making it a frustrating experience - so he can use it to say as he pleases. If something can't be done about him, I think it needs to be locked down. TheRegicider (talk) 07:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Lucyintheskywithdada : racist and personal attacks

• Lucyintheskywithdada (talk · contribs), 118.18.193.25 (talk · contribs)
• Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Lwachowski
• Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-07-25 Comfort women
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Documentingabuse (maybe related to the matter)

I believe this user in question needs to get an immediate and proper treatment by administrative actions for his behaviors more than disruption: threats, false accusation, harassment, racist attacks, personal attacks, extreme incivility. There has been disputes at Comfort women since Ex-oneatf (talk · contribs) added massively plagiarized, sythesis-like and strong POV contents to it after Korean war crimes written by him was deleted twice for the plagiarism. Amble and Admin Fut.Perf spot it, but Ex-oneatf had tried to put some of contents from the deleted article as accusing the former of deleting the content with Korean nationalists' excuse. Due to his continued disruption, he was blocked for 31 hours.

Irrelevant of the content dispute, Lucyintheskywithdada suddenly appeared to revert the article several times without revising it by himself. So the disturbance around the plagiarism continued . until another editors who wants to keep the content revised it. So the problem is seemingly confined to content disputes now. However, in the meantime, Lucyintheskywithdada has kept insulting and harassing people who objects to his strong and aggressive attitudes without any good reason why the content has been kept such as myself, Good friend100, Amble, Fur.Perf.

The user's disruptive behaviors does not seem to stoppable. He basically calls me "history revisionist" "anti-Japanese race", "Japanese hater", anti-social person, habitual reverter. I counted the number of how many times I reverted the article in question. I reverted 7 and Lucy reverted 5, so his accusation of "persistent reverter" is unwarranted and Good friend100 who initially pointed on the problem was inactive, so my 2 times more than Rucy is enough to be accused of being as such? Given that Lucy's ISP, his strong anti-Korean sentiment does not justify the insulting accusation. He calls Koreans "Anti-Korean race". I believe this is a racist attack as well.

Per Lucy's Japanese Plala ISP, 118.18.193.25 (talk · contribs), and his long history of trolling and massive sockpuppetry, I believe he is either sock or one of systematic meat/sockpuppeters from 2channel, Japanese off-wiki forum.

After Lucy trolling to Fut and me at the talk page of Comfort women and user pages, Fut gave him a final warning, however his threat is still going on as accusing him of abusing admin tool

He said he filed a meditation, however he was busy accusing me with personal attacking language

Also his filing meditation Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-07-25 Comfort women is filled with false accusations and personl attacks against me and Fut.Perf. I'm seriously concering about the user's behaviors. He even recreated Korean war crimes with plagiarism. Since Fut.Perf is getting involved in the matter, other admin's opinion on this would be appreciated.--Caspian blue (talk) 08:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Caspian blue's complaint is, as usual, rather long-winded and adds a few irrelevant details. But I too, find Lucyintheskywithdada's behaviour to be seriously objectionable. After I did some work trying to clean up Comfort women from plagiarism and tendentious editing, she accused me : claiming that I have "an axe to grind", making dark insinuations that I have "personal involvement that this topic raises in a difficult manner", of a kind that I might "prefer not to put it in public" (this essentially means she is suspecting me of having some sort of involvement with forced prostitution or war crimes.)

Earlier she repeatedly accused me of "censorship", and also asked me : "Why keep up the pretense Future Perfect? Why not just join the honest revisionists" (so I am a dishonest revisionist then?). She closed with the rhetorical question of whether my involvement was due to "the topic about the women or Japanese race hate?")

These are very grave insinuations against my honor and integrity as a person and an editor. She was making similar dark insinuations about Caspian blue. If "no personal attacks" means anything on this project, this is the kind of fundamental attack on a user's personality that is completely unacceptable.

Now this person wants "mediation" with me and Caspian blue. I refuse to have anything to do with this as long as those accusations are on the table. I want an unreserved apology, or I want her blocked / topic-banned. I made the "mistake" earlier of getting into a content discussion on the article, so I'm no longer "uninvolved", or I would have blocked her for her repeated plagiarism alone by now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I shorten my original draft, but it still seems to be lengthy.

I also begin to doubt that the user would be User:Documentingabuse. The two uses same ISP and have same agenda, deep grudge against me.--Caspian blue (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with FutPerf. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, an earlier discussion of this editor, where she narrowly escaped an indef block for tendentious editing plus sockpuppetry, is at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive362#Lucyintheskywithdada (talk · contribs). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking this over and I have to say, going on his/her comments in relation to you FutPerf, I don't really see very much in the way of grave insinuations against my honor and integrity as a person and an editor. To me it looks more like a general conversation about content, and one in which they themselves appears to have an axe to grind as well as a personal issue with. I'm still reviewing the other diffs before yours, but I felt compelled to point this out now. Synergy 10:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate this Korean-Japanese issue being brought to a wider and more qualified audience. I initially chose the "non-combative" mediation route as that was what policy decreed.

If other admins are willing to accept the bigger issue here, or accept that it goes straight to some other avenue of resolution, then I am glad to take the mediation there. Please advise.

I also wholly expected such a response and documented the nature of the Caspian blue's MO in my mediation request ... revert, provoke, complain, report.

I also flag up the bogus Open Proxy report Caspian blue filed at;

• 07:33, 25 July 2008

in order to find more information about me as a distraction from the main issue ... and the mediation.

• No, I am not Japanese nor do I speak or read it but, yes, I am editing from Japan's largest internet provider (NTT).
• No, I have not said what they say off me.
• What I have learnt of 2ch and any previous disputes comes from following the user who seemingly edits as Caspian blue (talk · contribs), Appletrees (talk · contribs) and who knows what else.

• I sincerely believe I am touching on issue that needs to be addressed at a higher level. The precision of my analysis of Caspian blue's MO is the cause of such a strong reaction.

I do not know the history is but there are a group of editors of whom Caspian blue (talk · contribs) is the most dedicated, with good cultural grounds to have a grudge against WWII Japan, who are repeatedly provoking other contributors, blocking ANY changes or improvement to related Korean-Japanese topics, distracting and wasting the time of both other contributors and admins.

My feeling is that they are mainly young Korean-Americans as my experience with education Koreans is that they are more balanced and sensitive about the issues. It appears Caspian blue is also supported by others with similar interests, e.g Blueshirts (talk · contribs) and Amble (talk · contribs) whom he can depend on to make identical revisions. Most or all of the recent Korean academics in this field drawn attention to cultural gender issues in their analysis and I think this is what we are also facing here.

I am not a denier, imperialist and have nothing personal going on with Caspian blue except that I think their MO is unethical and bad for the wikipedia. He, and the others, are deliberately ensuring that both new and informed professional contributors the wikipedia are discouraged from attempting to develop "their" propagandistic topics because of the futility of attempting to do so.

If I have a fault, it is that I am attempting to do something too sophisticated here ... and I do not bow to such tactics. Of course, this causes its own problems. My previous editing history has been on cultic religions, e.g. BKWSU where I experience almost an identical MO until the organization in question withdrew and the article settled down to a normal level of minor changes. I find that often admins are too willing to react to the given stimulus (e.g. stop the noise) rather than looking deeper at what is really going on.

• I would like to flag up an additional bad faith deletion of the page on Korean war crimes by Future Perfect at Sunrise at ] at 07:44, 25 July 2008 following my request to involve them in the mediation.

"Plagiarism" is a new word that Future Perfect has taught the boys but I do think other uninvolved admins would find the same fault nor enact the same censorship. I consider this quite a deliberate provocation. If someone would take a look at it and make a decision, I would appreciate it. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You accused first that I'm of Anti-Japanese hate race so that I automatically become Korean or Korean-American per your theory. I have never said that you're a Japanese, never. That's why I filed WP:OP to see if you're using it to look like a Japanese. Given your time arrange, I guessed you're Australian. It is true that you use a Japanese ISP (Not NTT, but NTT Plala) and your false accusations and attempts remind me of Documentingabuse. Nobody said that you're denier or imperialist, however your racist attacks are harming Misplaced Pages. Also the description on yourself is the blocked sockpuppeter. You were saved by the last incident on Feb, and your disruption keeps going on. --15:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Note:For the record, she has apologized as Future wished, but was removed. Synergy 15:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That's barely an apology at all. It's self-contradictory: she says "sorry", and then continues the attacks in the very next phrase. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats not even directed at anyone. If you feel a block is merited for this specifically Moreschi, then I don't see what anyone is waiting for. Don't let me stop you. Synergy 15:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

My involvement has been only to document and remove plagiarised material. Lucy has repeatedly personalized this issue, accusing anyone who believes there's a problem with the text in question of censorship, nationalist agendas, indifference to the suffering of abused women, personal/psychological problems that need to be worked out, and so on. I do find this abusive. --Amble (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well put. And yes, saying "I apologize for the amateur psychology" is not an apology for having suggested that several fellow editors are secretly sexual perverts with an obsession about forced prostitution. Doesn't even come close. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Amble: Agreed. Although I'd like to point out the my initial and only objection is to blocking over FuturesPerfect's honor and integrity as a person and an editor. Other than that, she has clearly been disruptive. Synergy 17:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fine, blocked her indefinitely. CU came back confirmed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Documentingabuse, so that's in addition to all the other disruption documented in this thread she's also been a naughty girl with alternate accounts recently. That's a no-no, so good-bye Lucy. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I need help.

I don't know how to report user User_talk:SesquipedalianVerbiage for vandalism. He is deleting sourced statements at Solar Cycle without explanation, and is deleting warnings from his talk page. Lakinekaki (talk) 10:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

First, editors are welcome to remove warnings from their talk pages. Doing so is an indication that they have been read. Second, you are engaged in a content dispute, not a case of vandalism. Third, in his edit summaries, SV has repeatedly directed you to Talk:Solar cycle where another editor has tried to open a discussion there regarding the disputed text. Please go there and discuss it to resolve this content dispute. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I added different text, and much better sourced. Lakinekaki (talk) 10:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The point is that if the editors who disagree with you are attempting to engage you in discussion on the talk page and you're not responding, you're in the wrong until you go there and make an effort. If that fails, your next step is dispute resolution, not this noticeboard. (Full disclosure: I am not an administrator.)--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

So, you're admitting that rather than talk, you'd prefer to keep trying to shove in an edit other editors have asked for discussion on? That's an admission of edit warring.

I request a block for Lakinekaki, who admits above to edit warring. ThuranX (talk) 14:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's warranted... yet. Contribs are concerning but not indicative of an all-out edit war yet; the article's talk page is being used and dicussion may go forward. Tan ǀ 39 15:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Eplgleplcl and User:Vria reported by Ohconfucius (talk)

Moved from WP:AIV. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS has wasted eight of nine lives 11:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Single purpose accounts Eplgleplcl and Vria have been persisting in disrupting the article and associated talk page in concert, with flagrant attacks against people living or dead, and in violation of WP:A, WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:Coatrack.

Time reported: 11:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• 1st incident: 00:36, 2 July 2008
• 2nd incident: 12:02, 19 July 2008
• 3rd incident: 01:57, 20 July 2008

Related talk page vandalism

• 1st incident: 01:58, 20 July 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 12:17, 19 July 2008

Related vandalism by suspected sockpuppet User:Vria

• 1st incident: 7 June 2008
• 2nd incident: 00:13, 8 June 2008
• 3rd incident: 12:11, 14 June 2008
• 4th incident:12:54, 18 June 2008
• 5th incident:07:44, 7 July 2008
• 6th incident: 11:28, 15 July 2008

Related talk page vandalism

• 1st incident: 12:12, 14 June 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 12:49, 15 July 2008

Related vandalism by suspected sockpuppet User:Iuqdropgl

• 1st incident: 00:50, 25 July 2008

Related talk page vandalism

• 1st incident: 00:49, 25 July 2008

• Diff of vandalism warning: 18:55, 25 July 2008

Ohconfucius (talk) 11:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Eplgleplcl and User:Vria indefblocked as blatant SPAs, for persistently adding unsourced defamatory material despite being warned. User:Iuqdropgl looks suspiciously like a sock, but I've just left a warning for now. EyeSerene 13:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Al-Anbari and Ramadi article

This user is a confirmed sockpuppet of Hisham 5ZX, a previously banned user with a number of IP and username sockpuppets (See Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lawrencoma and here ). He is trying to push a POV favourable to his tribe at the expense of academic integrity and community consensus as well as posting videos of gruesome beheadings (i.e. insurgent propaganda).

In the most recent case, he has saved a U.S. government site, modified it to suit himself and then used his version as a citation in the Ramadi article. See here for Al-Anbari's version and here for the official version. (Note that this official link is in the header of the source of Al-Anbari's forged HTML page. Note also that he saved the entire site and re-uploaded it). I have repeatedly told him that falsifying sources is a serious academic breach, but he continues to use his version as a citation. He has also posted links to Ansar al Sunna propaganda (See here for an example) and links to the beheading of captured Iraqi national guardsmen (I won't post that link, but it's in the diffs below).

• Ramadi history
• Ramadi diff 1
• Ramadi diff 2
• Ramadi diff 3

This user also makes disruptive edits to Al Qaim and Al Anbar Governorate.

• Al Qaim history
• Al Qaim diff 1
• Al Qaim diff 2
• Al Qaim diff 3

• Al Anbar Governorate history
• Al Anbar Governorate diff 1

He has also created a user-name nearly identical to mine (Lawrencoma) and copied my user page and talk page. This has since been handled following an incident report here, but he continues his disruptive edits. The disruptive edits go back months, if not years, and this individual should be blocked permanently. Lawrencema (talk) 11:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Prodego's use of his ACC tool administrator rights

Per my notes here I am requesting the intervention of an administrator per Prodego's demoting me on the ACC tool for reasons pertaining to unblock-en-l when the tool is for accounts-en-l. Mww113 (Talk) (Review me!) (Sign!) 13:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

What admin action could be taken onwiki? Also, IMHO the ACC tool should be forked if unblock-en-l wants to use it. FunPika 13:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Enemies of me have been having a gay-old-time attacking me at WT:FRINGE. Of course, this is not the place to do it. So I removed the discussion of me (which was extremely personal and offensive) with this diff. Just giving you all a heads-up for the eventual brouhaha. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The material wasn't that bad, and looked to me to be well on track towards being a great linkable archived discussion of 'why is this fringe thing so mean to me and my wacky ideas?' each time a new editor asks. I agree that it opened with some shots at you, but the more you obscure things like that, the more Ludwigs2 and others will attack you for it. I'm going to publicly ask you to restore that section. You're welcome to ignore it now, the focus has shifted to why those two are in the wrong, so hiding it now, after hours of discussion, isn't a sensible way to handle it. had you blanked it after the first four or five comments, I'd support you 100%, but the conversation's grown and changed course. ThuranX (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The trickeries of Troy 07

It seems that the administrators have closed their eyes to the abuses of Troy 07. This user, by all sort of trickeries, has been systematically undoing or vandalizing all my edits. In the most absurd cases, he uses his "sock puppets" 66.183.101.6, 66.183.98.107 and 66.183.111.222 (and maybe others). Although some of the articles have been temporarily protected, I will not desist from restoring my edits. I hope that some administrator will prevent him from insisting on his edit war. Ausonia (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

These two editors;

Troy 07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and

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

have recently shown up at WP:AN3 (three cases will be found by searching for 'Ausonia'). There was also a sockpuppet report WP:Suspected sock puppets/200.215.40.3 claiming that Ausonia is a sock. No RFCU has been yet run, though a request could be filed. Ausonia's most recent activity has been insisting on changing technical descriptions of various Roman Catholic cardinals and sees to other titles that he prefers. Troy07 argues that the original titles are correct, and in many cases are required by WP:MOS. Pontiff and pope were semi-protected to stop editing by what seemed to be IP socks of Ausonia.

Re-opening Ausonia's closed sockpuppet report to impose more sanctions is one option. Ausonia's behavior does seem sockish; this is an account newly-created on July 2nd as a single-purpose account that edit-wars on one issue acoss a range of articles. I haven't looked into whether Troy07 could be running any socks. Troy07 is also very interested in naming issues, but his account is open for a year longer, and he seems to listen to feedback. EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not edited various, but only two pages about Cardinals: Dean of the College of Cardinals and Odoardo Farnese (cardinal). My edits on the Suburbicarian Sees are perfectly correct. The prior version, however, was not correct. Troy 07 has never argued anything. How and where WP:MOS requires the "original" titles? If you look into them, you will see that those IP are sock puppets of Troy 07. There is no doubt. Ausonia (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note Also see Enigma 20:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

These two have been at each others' throats for the last several weeks. Neither seems to wants to give any ground. I think this should go to an RFC, with a temporary moratorium prohibiting either of them editing articles dealing with the Catholic Church until they can come to some common ground. caknuck _° is back from his wikisiesta 20:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• I should like to comment, as an administrator, that the sure fire guaranteed way of getting sysop help for whatever problems you are having is not commencing your comment as did User:Ausonia. I read that sentence, wrote this and am now moving onto the next section to see if anyone needs any help... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not insist on continuing the edit war. It's hard for me to imagine you making claims like that as you have evidently done so today. Please discuss the issue with me instead of ignoring the issue.

I deeply, deeply regret my part in this and feel terribly sorry for wasting the time of several administrators over such an issue, however, I kindly ask you to discontinue negative comments. I really could do without the insults, and would suggest that you use constructive criticism instead. For the most part, though, I will leave these articles for the administrators to deal with.

I have neither the time nor the desire to keep up with what has been going on surrounding the issue. Please don't assume that I enjoy such ridiculous revert-warring. ~ Troy (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Next banning request

During this month I am victim of harass accounts so I will ask for new banning. First of this accounts has been PravdaRuss , then Fiumena and then Fiumina . Now we are having 2 new accounts. First is User:Koljicic. He is having only 5 edits and all are revert of my edits. Second is User:MaximilianusMaximus. His only 2 edits are revert of my edits. --Rjecina (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism at Abdul Ahad (disambiguation)

The vanity biography of a non-notable astronomer was deleted via an AFD, and later attempts were made to recreate it 4 times. However, Uranometria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who I suspect to be a sock of Kingkong77 (talk · contribs) keeps restoring a link to the talk page, without any clear logical reason to do so.

The user has repeatedly restored link to the talk page in the disambiguation page, despite being told not to do so. I have reverted his edits 3 times, and would be happy if someone else can take a look and possibly undo this.

Diffs: this, this and this. --Ragib (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, but I have some interest and training in astronomy, so let me chip in. I hadn't heard of this guy before, but he seems notable enough for a biography, so I support recreation; he's been in a few newspapers, including the Guardian, apparently, and on TV and BBC radio. Being given an Honorary Membership in the Bangladesh Astronomical Society is an achievement too. I'm not saying he's the next Hubble, but he's at least worth a short article.

However, I strongly disagree with User:Uranometria's reversions given above; a link from article space into Talk space is never appropriate, and he needs to settle disputes instead of just uselessly thrashing the page ("BRD)". --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 16:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

For exactly that reason (no links to talk from mainspace) I've reverted again. Unless further reverts happen it should be fine. I'm watchlisting the page, just in case. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Me too. There is now a talkpage discussion about if it's appropriate to recreate or not; please use it, guys! --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 17:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again: topic ban of user:Kossack4Truth from Obama pages for review

OK. Briefly, Kossack4Truth (talk · contribs) is an agenda-driven single-purpose account on Barack Obama. He has been blocked 3 times in just over a month for edit-warring and disruption on those pages. After his most recent block, there was AN/I discussion which, I believe, supported a 4-6 month topic ban. Kossack4Truth promptly "retired", so I dropped the issue as moot.

As in the past when he's briefly laid low, his "retirement" was brief and he reactivated the account today by filing an iffy 3RR report, shopping the same complaint at AN/I. Not to mention rather odd comments: and claiming to other admins that he was never officially topic-banned (, ).

I believe there was and is ample justification and support for a 4-6 month topic ban, and was prepared to implement one after the prior discussion. Kossack4Truth evaded this by retiring. Since he is now active again, I've imposed the topic ban. I'm bringing it here for review and to see if there are substantial objections to the topic ban. Given that these threads uniformly deteriorate into a steel cage match between involved editors, I'd ask that editors actively editing the Obama page refrain from comment here to allow for potentially more objective input. MastCell  17:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk about arrogance. Unbelievable. First you try to get me banned. Then, rather than address the real source of the problem, you topic ban K4T and Then come here soliciting support, rather than even looking like you might consider taking action against the real source of the problem: the editors who keep baiting and provoking us. K4T did what he was supposed to do when he saw a problem. He gave an abusive editor awarning and was blocked three days for it. Now he comes to ANI and he gets a topic ban for it? Unbelievable. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll allow my recent posts at Talk:Barack Obama to speak for themselves without MastCell's spin. I've been completely cordial at Talk:Barack Obama, I've discussed the edits rather than the editors, and I haven't edit warred. I wasn't topic banned in the previous attempt. It's not just a claim. It's a fact. I notice your campaign to get community support for an indef block of WorkerBee74 was a miserable failure, and now you've turned your attention to me. MastCell, stop throwing your weight around in this direction and start paying attention to the ceaseless baiting and badgering coming from certain other editors. Show everyone the edit I've made on Barack Obama or Talk:Barack Obama since reactivating my account that justifies this unilateral action or revoke your topic ban. Go ahead, pick the one edit at Barack Obama or Talk:Barack Obama since reactivating my account that you find most offensive, post the whole edit here, and let uninvolved and truly neutral admins judge for themselves without your spin. Furthermore, I'm not a single purpose account. That accusation used to have some legs, but not any more. I've edited dozens of articles and welcomed dozens of new users.

Other admins are encouraged to take a very close look at my recent behavior and try to figure out how MastCell could possibly be justified in doing this. Kossack4Truth (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban of at least three months based upon the disruptive editing practices exhibited by K4T. "Retirement" is no excuse to dismiss earlier conversations and a consensus for such a sanction. Coming out of "retirement" to file a frivolous AN3 report, which was dismissed by four administrators (sorry to bust your bubble ThuranX), and then shop it around at ANI on an old thread indicates that you haven't given up your old habits a bit.

As evidenced in a prior ANI case, I voiced my support then for a topic ban as an uninvolved administrator, and I am voicing my support for it now. seicer | talk | contribs 17:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Fully support a topic ban; "retiring" to avoid sanctions does not magically undo the behavior that lead to the sanctions. A topic ban was appropriate then, it is still appropriate now. — Coren  17:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No objections. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

IF K4T will sign on to the attempt to give clean slates, forget old feuds, and work as an honest broker for consensus that we spoke of above,, then I vote for a clean slate and let bygones be bygones. If he can't do that, then let the community impose whatever sanctions consensus seems fit to met out. Others who have engaged in misbehavior. Lots of editors could use a fresher start there, and he deserves no less. The atmosphere seems to be changing, and if he wants to be a part of that process, now that he is aware of it, great. If he does not, then I imagine your eagle eyes will be on him and he will quickly hang himself.Die4Dixie (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse the topic ban. As far as I was concerned the result of the last K4T topic-ban discussion was that he was placed under restriction. K4T's apparent attempt at evading sanctions by "retiring" makes matters worse in my view. I'd also like to remind involved users that MastCell asked for "editors actively editing the Obama page refrain from comment here." If you want wider input please allow those for us who are uninvolved to review this--Cailil 18:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• This is a continuing battleground, and it needs to be cooled off. From what I've seen, K4T is a prime instigator in the battles; I'd support a topic ban through the elections. K4T notes above that he has been working on other articles and broadening his spectrum - this is a good opportunity to keep up that effort. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support until after the election. Good editors are spending too much time fighting over the same issue rather than being able to work on the rest of the article. At least one other WP:SPA needs to step back and take on other topics as well to broaden his Wiki horizons. Another editor has taken a recent interest. Please people, do not get hung up in one place only. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

:: I resent your characterization as unhealthy. Which part of civil is the inference. I request that you retract that statement, and I will assume that some momentary lapse has provoked it and charitably forget that it was made. Senseless provocation like that is gratuitous and can't possibly be a part of building an encyclopedia.Die4Dixie (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

For reference, Die4Dixie (talk · contribs) has just edited my comment up above. The context of the statement has been changed because of this. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

And they've just warned via a template for it--Cailil 19:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

And I responded to you there. As a new adminstrator, you should know better than to cleverly template an editor with my longevity .19:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

His reply is pretty poor and assumes bad faith. seicer | talk | contribs 19:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that my good faith efforts to work towards a consensus and peace making efforts on the page have been reduced to an "unhealthy interest". Pages that one chooses to edit are chosen by a principle of free association. I have no obligation to edit anything other than what I choose. there appears to be a bandwagon here. I removed an attack here, was templated, and the band wagon was cranked up. This behavior by three administrators, one recent, can only serve to elevate the level of wiki-drama that I and other editors have tried to dissipate on matters related to Obama.Die4Dixie (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Bedford and misogyny

• Bedford (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

A bit of backstory: Bedford suggested a rather... titillating... hook at DYK which got accepted. An edit war erupted at Template:Did you know (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) with several female admins - who themselves consulted male users - removing it because of its content. However, his objections to the removal are not that pleasant: "feminist objectons is not good enough of a reason to remove this.", "I feel so sorry for you for being so pathetic", accusations of vandalism and censorship to someone who didn't even remove it, and "Besides, mantis was a dupe due to feminazis". Can we have a male admin warn him against such behaviour? I'm very concerned about his temprament, and I think that, sadly, if a female admin warned him, he'd accuse her of feminism too. Sceptre 17:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

So the argument is that DYK can't contain a hook about scantilly clad women? I'm not seeing how that's misogyny. Nothing on the main page should ever be edit warred over, even if one is being censored by evil femenists. Just drop the edit war and discuss it somewhere. --Rividian (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Not the edit war, his attitude. Sceptre 17:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The only problem I see here is that he edit warred, especially on this template. That's something that deserves some sort of rebuke. Just having unpopular opinions about feminism really shouldn't be an offense; disrupting Misplaced Pages over those opinions is a big deal though. --Rividian (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"It was censorship by a bunch of extremists." How is that acceptable? Sceptre 17:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The quote is okay, the actions he's talking about aren't. I don't really think censorship is a good word for it, but Bedford was just making an argument. There's nothing disruptive about that... I don't consider "extremists" to be a personal attack in this context. --Rividian (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Extremists blow up office blocks and abortion clinics. I don't any of that happening in the DYK template history, especially from the women. Sceptre 17:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't censorship and calling an editor an extremist could be taken as a PA (mind, though I think the DYK was dumb I didn't think it was misogynistic). Gwen Gale (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) An extremist is merely someone with an extreme point of view. I don't think the terrorist context was meant, if it was then yes it would be a personal attack. But "extremist" alone doesn't have to be meant that way. Just for good measure I looked up the word in Webster's and it doesn't mention terrorism. This could be clarified by asking if he actually meant to accuse them of being terrorists. --Rividian (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, these individuals don't both discussing things on DYK, and just arbitrarily remove anything they don't personally like from DYK. There were no Misplaced Pages rules against the hook. There have been things I objected to being on DYK, but I did not remove them. I can diagnose the sentiment against the hook, and call it what it is.--Bedford 17:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on DYK is a big no-no (the last time it happened, an admin was blocked IIRC). Instead of reinserting the same ole hook into DYK, Bedford should have just written a brand new non-controversial hook. He could have then started discussion regarding the problem with the original hook. That's the sensible way to handle such matters... Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:COMMONSENSE. If at least five users disagree with you, I think you should realise you're on the wrong side. Sceptre 17:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Why is a DYK hook such a big deal? A bunch of people disagreed with a hook, a new one could've inserted and no harm would be done. Why wheel-war over it? Maxim_(talk) 17:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Point of order: this is about Bedford's attitude, not the DYK hook. Sceptre 18:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

What, that he likes bra and panties matches? It's normal for those of a certain age. Life goes on regardless. All that's demonstrated is that he needs to watch more real porn and has bad taste, because the wrestling in such matches invariably sucks. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Bedford indeed engaged in some edit warring, and calling someone another editor a feminazi could probably be considered uncivil in most any context (no matter what you think about feminism, "anything-nazi" is pretty much name-calling). I don't see a problem with anyone, male or female, admin or non-admin, issuing him a warning and then (assuming the behavior is not ongoing) moving on with our lives. It's not like there is such a thing as an "official" warning... (except I suppose ArbCom restrictions, heh) --Jaysweet (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

His latest outburst I know of was five minutes after I posted this thread. Sceptre 18:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

First off, can I note the sheer insane hilarity of an admin with an attitude that I consider pre-dates the internet lumbering about Main Page-related pages grumbling about uppity women? That said, I think he's demonstrated a total lack of understanding of WHEEL by noting that he stopped short of 3RR in defending his own hook on DYK, stepped well over the line by repeatedly accusing fellow admins who disagree with him of forming a ideological cabal ("bunch of feminists") in gender discriminatory language ("feminazis"), and continues to show a general lack of understanding that he's acting like a total dick. (I'm willing to put that wording to a vote to demonstrate that most users would find it accurate.) I especially love his accusation on his talk page that it's a conflict of interest for women to attempt to remove DYK hooks they find bring disrepute to the wiki, which also includes the brilliantly phrased and punctuated, "I feel sorry for you, to be so pathetic". I figure the only reason there doesn't seem to be a movement to desysop Bedford is because he appears so utterly hapless. It's like one of those fish out of water movies when the Australian woodsman goes to the big city or the big city lawyer's car breaks down in the countryside. I just keep waiting for Bedford to discover the bidet or try to milk a cow, or whatever the equivalent is here. - BanyanTree 22:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've left him a civility warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I was recently reading talk page highlights then clicked over here and forgot which page I was reading. Someone should copy this over. --Moni3 (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This happens :) Gwen Gale (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit that this situation really pissed me off and I should have handled this better. I reacted to being called sad, pathetic, feminist etc. What did Bedford think he would achieve by using emotive language like "extremists" and "feminazis" or comments like this, this, and this? That's definitely not how to "win" an argument.

This was way out of line and I'm glad people called him on it. Seraphim♥Whipp 23:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I see a bunch of purposeful misunderstandings and self-righteousness. The fact is that a few women decided they should rule what is covered in DYK, even through they do not contribute anything. It has been proven that hooks regarding attractive women are popular, which is why it was used. I can't help but wonder if there was some jealously is some contributors hearts. I stand by my actions.--Bedford 23:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Howard Gotlieb Archival Research Center, yet again

That IP address User:128.197.130.249 who just kept mass-adding a sentence to a lot of biographies claiming that that person's papers were at the Howard Gotlieb Archival Research Center was blocked after attempts to get him/her to stop and discuss it has gone back to just readding them all again after the block expired. Still no response on the talk page. I don't know if this is just a bot or a stubborn person ignoring us or a person who somehow doesn't see the notice that there's a message waiting for them. They may need stronger blocking, and a roll back of edits or something. Most of all some sort of two way communication to get them to understand why this isn't appropriate would be nice. DreamGuy (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the current edits -- I believe the old ones have already been reverted by various editors.

I've had some luck in the past, when some BU IPs were vandalizing my user page, in contacting the SysOp at BU. They never responded, but the vandalism stopped. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 19:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I am an administrator in the office in question, and this controversy has just been brought to my attention. Would someone please direct me on how to initiate the process for opening a dialogue on these problems and concerns? Thank you. Sdnoel (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You should probably look at this for beginners. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 20:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

And this Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 20:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

A public apology for my stupidity 3 years ago...

I would like to make a public apology for my stupidity 3 years ago, when I was logged in as User:The Bad Tax Man. I did sock a bit, with some sockpuppets tagged by Golbez, but now I've grown up and realized my stupidity. I was only 19 back then and in uni, but now I've grown up. I'm posting this from a public PC right now because I'm on the move. Sorry if I'm evading my indefinite block, but I want to apologise if I upset everyone. I was stupid, but now I've moved on. --217.36.218.31 (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's going to string you up for evading a block if you're making a legitimate attempt to reconcile things. If you want to (positively) contribute, you can post an {{unblock}} template at User talk:The Bad Tax Man, with a link here. Cheers, caknuck _° is back from his wikisiesta 20:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Sehend1

Sehend1 (talk · contribs)

I recently blocked Sehend1 for a week for his endless battleground-style edit warring without discussion. You will notice from looking at his contributions that 90% of his edits are reverts, while he has only made a total of three comments to a talk page (ever). I initially warned him but he responded by continuing his reverting campaign and making personal attacks on his talk page in which he said "Some user worried why i monitor Azerbaijani-related articles and revert destructive changes specially two enemies of Azeris: Kurds whom without knowing anything about history of Azerbaijan and Atropatane tries to force people that everywhere is Kurdistan." I explained to him here that he should read up on several of Misplaced Pages's policies most notably WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. Instead, he left a message on my talk page with an IP titlted "KhoiKhoi is a Kurd", in which he said:

I don't say this story to you as i am sure you are brain washed kurd and will not affect you. i am saying this to open mind users.

you can call me whatever you like, editing war, POV etc.

simply i don't care. if you have power to block one IP i will come with another one. I am very very serious to defend Azerbaijan in virtual war started by Kurds and Persians againt Azeris and some Europeans or Americans are interested to slightly help them, but who cares from Azeris, we are very strong people with very high self confidence.

In his message to me, he essentially promised to continue his reverting campaign at all costs. Should we tolerate this type of behavior at Misplaced Pages? I'm wondering if this warrants and indefinite block, as he clearly isn't here to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. What do others think? Khoikhoi 20:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall some sort of arbitration-committee restriction on articles in this area? That might be a first step. If it continues, I'd absolutely Concur with a block. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 20:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement. However, I don't know whether the remedies apply only to the Armenia-Azerbaijan articles or if they apply to all articles in the general area (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iraq (Kurdistan), Iran, Georgia, southern Caucasus). —Kurykh 21:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it initially included a much broader range of topics, but this was later amended. I could be wrong however. See this for example. The user in question (Sehend1) has been mainly edit warring in Iran-related articles, so I don't think it is covered in this case AFAIK. Khoikhoi 21:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the comment, it looks like I'm going to have to reset Sehend's block as he's currently evading it. Sigh. Khoikhoi 22:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/FalconPunch2

I wonder if anyone would care to step in and examine Special:Contributions/FalconPunch2? The user has been involved in edit wars in the fairly recent past, but no warnings or actions were taken. At this point, all of his additions have been reverted as simply WP:OR or not WP:V. I've placed a note on the users talk page, and need to step back, and unfortunately there's no other place for me to bring this up. The 3RR notice board won't work, since I'm not risking an edit war myself, so we won't even get to that point. Advice? Intervention? Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Large number of PRODs & AfDs in a short period of time

Rtphokie (talk · contribs) has AfD'd or PROD'd over 100 articles in a short span of time. On the 24th, they made 122 edits -- including 93 AfDs or PRODs -- in 138 minutes, and there has been a similar effort made today. One edit every 68 seconds & one deletion every 89 seconds yesterday seems excessive and it's hard to see how the editor had sufficient time to consider each article on its merits. Some examples:

• A national radio program on CBC Radio with clear notability, The R3-30, has been proposed for deletion, an edit summarized as "clean up using AWB."
• Canadian Voices, a public affairs progeram broadcast on a network of 36 Canadian and American radio stations, has been PROD'd with the edit summary "clean up, Replaced: ==External links → ==References==."

There have been multiple (100?) similar PRODs (and a few AfDs), many with inaccurate edit summaries. Other editors have approached the nominator on their user talk page, without much success. I think these proposals are being made with good intentions, but the speed with chich they're done makes the process prone to error and difficult to counteract. What steps can be taken to address this? --SSBohio 20:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you expand what you mean by " without much success". I agreed to ammend the affected edit comments and have spent much of today doing exactly that. I think that I'm entitled to discuss the request before agreeing to it. Some editors on my talk page seem to think it was something that would happen instantly when in fact it took much longer to do properly and in such a way that would not create more problems than it solved.--Rtphokie (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Remove the prods. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I notified Rtphokie of this thread. Cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 20:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Keeper. You're faster on it than I am. --SSBohio 20:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, while that works for the ones I can get to, it seems that this editor is much faster at tagging articles than I would be at untagging them, partuicularly since I wouldn't want to do it wholesale. Some of these should probably be PROD'd or AfD'd. I'm mainly concerned about the rapid and seemingly unreflective way that so many deletions are being proposed in such a short time. --SSBohio 20:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I think this is perfectly fine - Rtp has a good rationale on his/her talk page, and I happen to agree that these categories get filled with crufty stuff. The process should work - any editor can remove the prod tag (and with five days to do so). AfD works itself out, also. Tan ǀ 39 20:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Many of the prods -- particularly those dealing with podcast articles appear legit. I'd recommend against a wholescale reversion of the prod tags. I agree with SSB that the user was probably a bit too fervent with the mass nominations. caknuck _° is back from his wikisiesta 20:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

While much of the tagging is legit, the way in which this user is approaching deletion is, in my view, very dismissive of our guidelines such as Misplaced Pages:Guide to deletion#Nomination: first do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the {{notability}} template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth. The speed suggests that the user is not making the slightest attempt to search for sources for any of these nominations and prods. Paul Erik 20:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Note about Paul Erik's comment - these guidelines you cited are specifically for AfDs, not for PRODs. Not that it doesn't apply to the AfD tagging, I'm just pointing it out. Tan ǀ 39 21:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Tan - I'm not convinced removing the prods en masse would be a good idea. PhilKnight (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If an editor disagrees in good faith with a prod, the editor can remove it. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course. Also, DGG has removed some, but not all the prods. I'm just saying that removing all of them without looking at the articles would be a mistake. PhilKnight (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I seem to have ruffled some feathers, particularly with the podcasting articles, nearly all of which were tagged with reference concerns months or years ago. Tanthalas39 is correct that the goal here is cruft removal. There is plenty of cruft there, editors seem to think every podcast needs a wikipage and don't seem to understand the concept of verifiable 3rd party sources. My apologies for the edit comments, I had WP:AWB set to properly comment these with "proposing deletion" but it switched to "cleanup" mid stream, not sure why but it's something I'll keep an eye on in the future. I've gone back through with AWB and added a trivial edit with a comment of "proposing deletion" to everything that still had a prod tag for completeness sake. For the record this is not the first mass prod'ing I've done. American radio personalities was similarly crufty and nearly all the feedback I got on those prod's was positive. This category had a similar problem that the podcast one does. Everyone seems to think their favorite program needs a wikipage but doesn't bother to properly source it or make sure it meets or WP:BIO before creating it. This process either resulted in deletion of non-notable articles or improvement to the point that they were notable and properly sourced. The prod process is a good one which works very efficently and effectively. Contesting is simple enough that any editor seasoned veteran or anon-IP newbie should be save their favorite article from deletion it without flying off the handle.--Rtphokie (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Satisfies me. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Me too (e/c). This seems a rationale explanation, and an assertion that Rtphokie will improve the edit summaries. There are no administrative actions needed here, and I'm "resolving" this thread. Rtphokie, please continue to be sure your edit summaries match your edits, and SSbohio, please attempt to talk to the editor that you are concerned about before you post here (you may have attempted this for this particular set of prod/afds, I'm not sure), I'm only saying that for next time. Cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 21:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you consider slowing down the pace a bit? I don't think it's reasonble to expect your fellow editors to be able to research and clean up hundreds of articles every day. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's completely reasonable. There's 5 days in which to address the PROD tag. Misplaced Pages has tens of thousands of active editors, with millions of edits being made a day. I don't think we need to slow down any cleanup efforts. Tan ǀ 39 21:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've got news for you, 99.99999% of those editors won't be working on this cleanup project. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Your snarkiness aside, what does that have to do with this? When I nominate an article for deletion, I don't take into account any cleanup projects, or the possibility of another editor finding my tag. I just nominate it. This is a completely scalable task; again, I see no reason to restrict it based on the intent and discussion detailed above. Tan ǀ 39 21:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

<-- I marked this resolved several posts ago. No administrative action is needed. Talk everything else to you respective talkpages, eh? Keeper ǀ 76 21:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Plaintiff in lawsuit against Disney

New user Disneysuit appears to be Royce Mathew, the plaintiff in a lawsuit against Disney over the origins of the Pirates of the Caribbean films. All of Disneysuit's first-day edits appear designed to blanket Misplaced Pages articles with information about the suit and its targets. While the suit has attracted some media attention, Mathew's tactics and Misplaced Pages edits suggest he's a gadfly who wants to try the case in the media and is unwilling to follow the encyclopedia's guidelines and policies. Disneysuit also created an autobiography of (surprise!) Royce Mathew that was speedily deleted, then created it again with similar content at Royce mathew. There's no evidence that this user understands concerns raised about WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIO, among others. He's now posting rants that include "I DEMAND THAT YOU PROVIDE A SUPERVISOR" when his edits and behavior are challenged. &#151;Whoville (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If all his edits so far have been disruptive, give him a stern final warning saying "Look, we're not here to promote any side or lawsuit. Stop it or else you WILL be blocked." Seriously, that talk page just reads like a three-year-old throwing a temper tantrum because his daddy took away his I.G. Joe. I also deleted another page he created (User talk:BlackPearl14/Desk) as an attack page. -Jéské 23:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)