Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:40, 4 August 2008

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

User:Julie Dancer, repeated personal attack and harrassment

Please see Misplaced Pages:Village pump (assistance)#How strange? - personal attack after final warning given; repeated harassment emails to me and User:Kevin (see User talk:Kevin), as well as a professor at my school whom I have no relations with...--Jiuguang (talk) 14:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

...and if you had no relations with Dr. Christensen then why without his knowledge might you be editing the Misplaced Pages article about him? Besides, why would anyone have reason to personally attack Jiuguang? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.1.18 (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Julie Dancer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for one week, given that there was a previous final warning. I disabled e-mail, as well, given the concern above. It's clear that she is passionate about her chosen subject, which is good in itself - but this goes way, way too far. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 15:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I also received e-mails from Julie Dancer. Be advised that they have many sock puppets and are likely to continue harassment using these; I advise blocking all of them for a similar period. Dcoetzee 17:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thrilling. Is there an SSP or RFCU page I should see? UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 18:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes - Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Julie Dancer. Also, a new User:Kadiddlehopper have joined in on the discussion using similar tactics, and based on this removed talk page content here, the user has a history of sock-puppetry and antisemitic attacks. --Jiuguang (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked this account for a week for block evasion. I'm going to block for longer if any more socks appear. Kevin (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Given the threats by her and her sock on that VP thread, I am surprised at only one week. DGG (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I blocked before I saw this thread, and the previous sockpuppetry. I've reset to indef. Next stop is WP:RFCU Kevin (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• All of this blocking activity is clearly for the purpose of fulfilling the agenda of Communist dictatorship by the masses through the act of denying users the opportunity and benefit of reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.1.224 (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment, but if this diff is what is being referred to as "antisemitic", I'm not sure that is accurate. In a discussion that compared the Patriot Act to Nazi Germany, this user referred to another as a "lieutenant in the SS". While obviously inappropriate (and somewhat confusing), it was contextual to the conversation (i.e. a Nazi Germany comparison), and not necessarily a reflection of an antisemitic attitude. I am in now way defending the comment, but I also don't think an editor should be labeled "antisemitic" inappropriately, as this may severely influence actions taken against them. If I misread the situation, or if the accusation is based on other, more relevant comments, then feel free to ignore me. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

While I concur that the November 2007 comment was borderline anti-semetic at best, I don't think it has a bearing on this block. It's reasonably clear that this editor is working in tandem with Julie Dancer, to the point of echoing similar accusations (utilizing similar phrasing to do so), and is easily considered a meatpuppet. It's quite possible that they're socks, which checkuser would reveal. As for the one week block of Julie, I conceded that it might be a little light for the threats indicated. My thinking was that it was a little heavy for a first block, but that anything less than a full week had limited value. It was also unclear at the time whether it was someone whose article was deleted flipping out about it, or someone with genuine malice of intent (with threats and contacting an editor's college off-wiki, for example). No objection from me if other editors think a longer (or indefinite) block is warranted. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 12:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

In the first place it is Jiuguang who is attacking Julie Dancer on the grounds of his difference with the article she wrote in the Wikia which uses logic to define, support and defend the existence of God. I agree that some Jews may be offended by her personal conclusion that Jesus Christ is God but she is only claiming that as the personal basis of her religion and not implying that anyone else does not have the right to believe whatever they choose. In the case of Jiuguang he is not Jewish and was born in Beijing, raised as an atheist, indoctrinated as a Communist, trained from a very early age on computers and sent to Atlanta at age 12, where he eventually entered Georgia Tech where he is now a robotics student. His statement that he disagrees with Julie Dancer's article in the Wikia makes his subsequent nomination for deletion of her Optimal classification article in the Misplaced Pages a personal attack and his subsequent deletions of her links between her article in the Wikibooks and references in the Misplaced Pages an act of stalking and harassment against her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.1.18 (talk) 08:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

These IPs should be blocked. They are being used solely to attack several users. --C S (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, my patience has been exhausted. I'm reseting the block to indefinite because of these ridiculous block evading personal attacks. Kevin (talk) 08:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I've filed Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Julie Dancer - Kevin (talk) 09:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

 Completed - Alison 09:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Support. I was ready to do this but Kevin beat me to it. For the record, this sort of obvious sockpuppeting doesn't require an WP:RFCU: it passes the sniff test, and it's perfectly fine to treat obvious sockpuppets as such without the imprimatur of a checkuser. Nandesuka (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, these are all perfectly obvious. In this case I thought that there may have been more socks held in reserve, hence the checkuser. Kevin (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Admin help needed for category move?

I need help moving Category:Fictional transgendered people to Category:Fictional transgender people - changing transgendered to simply transgender. I don't think I've tried to move a category before so it may require an admin? Banjeboi 23:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, you can't actually move a category. You simply have to go to each page (manually or with the assistance of AWB/a bot) and swap Category:Fictional transgendered people and Category:Fictional transgender people. When the category is empty, tag it for deletion with {{Db-c2}}. - auburnpilot talk 00:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That explains it. Thank you! Banjeboi 00:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The easiest way I've found is to create the new cat, change the article links via AWB, and then delete the old cat. True, you can't actually move a cat. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

There should be a page in the MediaWiki namespace that puts a "speedy rename" tab at the top of Category: space articles. That would reduce a lot of confusion for newbies and editors not familiar with category renaming, wouldn't it? —Mizu onna sango15 02:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure where I would have looked for moving help besides an admin board. If the page had the "move" tab enabled but then took me to a special "how to move categories" page that may have helped. Banjeboi 07:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think having some kind of mediawiki enhancement that sends people to a page explaining that category moves need to occur at WP:CFD might be worthwhile. Why not bring it up at the Village pump: technical ? –xeno (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Lol! I'm not really sure what all that means? Banjeboi 08:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Calton

The other day, I responded to a helpme template issued by User:Turner&associates. Right off the bat, there's an obviously username issue there, and I mentioned that in my reply. What was refreshing to me was that this particular user had written an article in their userspace (restored for ease of reference), but was politely asking if it was worthy of inclusion before putting it into the mainspace. I also mentioned the COI issue that was quite obviously present and told them I wasn't sure if this individual met our notability guidelines for people. In the meantime, the user was blocked (appropriately, but I would've liked more time to discuss the issue since they weren't being disruptive) for their username. The blocking admin was kind enough not to template the user, as I had clearly already mentioned the username issue to them. This user quite politely accepted my determination that the article was likely not worthy, and made a further query about citations, to which I responded thusly, asking for some more reliable sources.

It is at this point that Calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) arrives, templating the user and blanking the potential article that was being discussed replacing it with {{indefblock}}. I undid the addition of both of these templates. He put them on again, saying don't be daft: this is SOP and not a special admin task. Again, I undid both, and he again blanked the userpage, which I again reverted. At this point, I began a discussion with Calton, the entirety of which can be viewed here.

Now, this act of users templating other users while admins are in discussion with them is perhaps my greatest annoyance. If an admin is in full control of the situation, there is no need for another user to be throwing templates around. This needs to be written into the guidelines. That being said, the major problem which brings me here today is Calton's attitude towards admins. He seems to feel that he knows best - whereas admins are the ones who have been entrusted by the community to uphold its standards as they see fit refusing to accept any one's judgment of the situation but his own. This user in particular did not deserve templating because they had the common courtesy to actually ASK if their article was worthwhile of inclusion. Whether or not it is - is completely peripheral to the matter. I felt it necessary to show the user the same level of respect that they had shown us.

Ironically, while I was writing to him tonight to tell him not to template users while admins are discussing issues with them, he was simultaneously involved in edit warring to reverse another administrator's actions at WP:UAA. I also see that there was another similar issue some months ago with respect to him adding a now deleted template to userpages as he tagged them that several administrators attempted to address him about. He seems to be unwilling or unable to accept the judgment of administrators.

I apologize for this long explanation, but feel that this type of behaviour needs to stop. –xeno (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a typical type of behaviour shown by Calton, he's extremely quick to tag/warn users with promotional usernames, regardless of what their intent is here. He isn't willing to discuss issues with users, he simply tags and reports, and when concerns arise, he gives flippant replies and carries on regardless. I personally think that his COI and promotional username work is detremental to the project, and I'd certainly support a topic ban the prohibits him from working in these areas. There's a serious case of WP:BITE here, and this has been brought up on AN/I before. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to let this drop (I usually don't let myself get too worked up about things) but since the AN/I is already here I'll come comment. As a fairly regular patroller of UAA, I can only agree that Calton has had something of a history of making borderline reports, and often in large quantities. This isn't too troublesome in and of itself, but going back and repeating declined reports is pretty unhelpful. As an "involved" administrator I will refrain from belaboring this topic further and leave it to 3rd parties to observe and decide what to do. Shereth 01:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The "borderline" judgment, to go by the talk page of WP:UAA, appears to be yours alone. Given that your judgment's been questioned -- by at least one other admin -- it's clear that a third opinion is needed. --Calton | Talk 01:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I've been privy to his behavior at WP:UAA where Calton shotgun reports usernames that match a person, band or company that has created an article, whether blatantly advertising or not. Regardless, it's the not the mass reporting that bothers me (although it does peeve abit), but it's the sheer unwillingness to listen when approached. I have major concerns with users who breach WP:BITE, and we all know that UAA is one of those hot zone areas that need special sensitivity. The above behavior described, coupled with the activity at UAA, lead, me to believe that he is being more detrimental to the project than anything else. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 01:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. I tag blatant advertising -- but even if you disagree about the "blatant", perhaps a read of this would be helpful, or perhaps you should take up your concern with the multiple admins who do the actual deleting and the actual blocking. --Calton | Talk 01:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This behavior is one of the worst case of biting I've seen in a while. It must stop. — Coren  01:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Really? "Worst"? And the ones being bitten are whom? --Calton | Talk 01:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd like to see Calton steer clear of UAA for a while, or at least approach it more gingerly. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 01:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This is absurd to the point of ridiculous. The most succinct replies I can give to Xenocidic's long-winded explanation are 1) to point out he seems to forget what admins actually are: they're editors with a few extra buttons. They're not gods, they're not supervisors or managers, and their edits and work have no more authority or judgment than any other user; in fact, given their extra buttons, they need to be more careful about their work. Yours was careless and had not the slightest grounding in policy, practice, or guideline -- or at least none you would reveal, since all you did -- and are doing now -- is throwing your weight around. 2) to point out that you put up not a single rebuttal to the numerous rules, guidelines, policies, and standard practices I pointed you to, relying instead on vague handwaving. 3) that your resorting to thinly veiled personal attacks ("If you had bothered to read", "use common sense") while complaining about civility is more than a touch hypocritical. 4) mistaken about WP:UAA, which a simple reading of the talk page would have shown, and would show that User:Shereth's judgment had already by been questioned, directly by, hey, an another admin 5) that employing obvious hyperbole such as "He seems to be unwilling or unable to accept the judgment of administrators" is not only damaging and false, but assumes facts not in evidence? Certainly the various Barnstars I've received point out how ridiculously inclusive that claim is. And for the record, I am unwilling to accept the judgment of editors who don't know what they're talking about; who provide no actual reasons for their judgments; who make false claims; who resort to insults throwing their weight around in lieu of actual arguments; or who violate actual policies, guidelines, rules, standard practices, or the actual goals of the Project: whether said editors are anon IPs, ordinary-level users, or administrators doesn't and shouldn't make the slightest bit of difference if they are, you know, wrong.

Speaking of absurd, could Ryan Postlethwaite explain exactly how removing blatantly obvious spam and COI --- 'exactly as is done at WP:UAA every single day by multiple users and -- mirabile dictu -- admins? "detremental to the project", and how, exactly, he divines the intent of said spammers outside of their actions ("regardless of what their intent is here", to quote you)? The rest of your comments, I'll simply say because I'm tired of typing, are outright false (deliberately or not, I don't care) and I'll leave it at that. --Calton | Talk 01:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the point I was trying to make is sometimes you need to forget about rules, guidelines, policies, and standard practices, and just talk to people like they are human beings. –xeno (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You really can't help yourself with the thinly veiled insults, can you? I guess I'll just have to ask you when you stopped beating your wife, then? --Calton | Talk 01:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of absurd, could Ryan Postlethwaite explain exactly how removing blatantly obvious spam and COI --- 'exactly as is done at WP:UAA every single day by multiple users and -- mirabile dictu -- admins? "detremental to the project", and how, exactly, he divines the intent of said spammers outside of their actions ("regardless of what their intent is here", to quote you)? The rest of your comments, I'll simply say because I'm tired of typing, are outright false (deliberately or not, I don't care) and I'll leave it at that. --Calton | Talk 01:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's cut through the noise: all I do is tag the spam pages and report said spammers. Multiple admins -- might as well do the appeal to authority bit, too -- are the ones who do the actual deleting and actual blocking, not me. If you have a problem, take it up with them, or work to get actual policies, guidelines, rules, and project goals changed to match whatever it is you have a problem with. --Calton | Talk 01:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

After removing some non-blockworthy listings from the odd "relisted" section, I poked around in the WP:UAA history to see what was up with that section, which led me here. Calton, knock it off. Your reports push the borderline. Multiple admins tell you this, and you ignore them. It's one thing if you continue to list new borderline cases, I would never have a big problem with that. But this relisting thing, which is a serious ongoing problem with you, has to stop. Although Calton is a great asset to the project, this admin shopping he does is really really inappropriate and I advocate blocking if it happens again. Enough is enough, I've been seeing this behavior from Calton for over a year. Mangojuice 01:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

What the hell ARE you talking about? What "ongoing problem"? What "admin shopping" What "multiple admins"? Your comments don't make the slightest bit of sense and don't seem to have the slightest relationship to what's going on. Did you read the talk page? --Calton | Talk 02:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

And let me repeat: "And for the record, I am unwilling to accept the judgment of editors who don't know what they're talking about; who provide no actual reasons for their judgments; who make false claims; who resort to insults throwing and their weight around in lieu of actual arguments; or who violate actual policies, guidelines, rules, standard practices, or the actual goals of the Project: whether said editors are anon IPs, ordinary-level users, or administrators doesn't and shouldn't make the slightest bit of difference if they are, you know, wrong." --Calton | Talk 02:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Calton, I understand you're indignant and maybe a little frustrated here, but your tone is starting to become incivil and even hostile. Just cool off a bit and discuss the situation. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 02:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You're damned right I'm upset: the charges of Xenocidic & Ryan Postlethwaite -- especially the latter -- boil down to nothing but indignant and fact-free cries of "Respect Mah Authoritah!" and the subsequent pile-on, from Mangojuice on down is similarly fact-free.

One more point - I can't speak for anybody else, but I assure you that I am not implying or asserting that administrators are above any other user. Goodness knows that's not true. However, this brings me to another one of your comments: Just because administrators block your username reports does not absolve the continued action that obviously multiple users have a problem with. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 02:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Catron is doing the work of God, keeping the spamming scum off WP user pages. This is Catron's "current project", secretly given unto to him by Jimbo himself in the sacred Temple of Wikia. How dare you question? FishNewbieWikiNoob (talk) 03:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Good Lord. Calton doesn't seem to understand the concept of discussion at all. This kind of behavior in response to reasonable requests from multiple concerned editors is like a cliche that people who hate wikipedia bring up in online discussions. Dayewalker (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

And you don't seem to understand what I wrote, so I'll repeat once again: "And for the record, I am unwilling to accept the judgment of editors who don't know what they're talking about; who provide no actual reasons for their judgments; who make false claims; who resort to insults throwing and their weight around in lieu of actual arguments; or who violate actual policies, guidelines, rules, standard practices, or the actual goals of the Project: whether said editors are anon IPs, ordinary-level users, or administrators doesn't and shouldn't make the slightest bit of difference if they are, you know, wrong." I'm still waiting for an actual explanation of what it is I'm doing that's violating any rules or guidelines or is somehow detrimental to Misplaced Pages -- especially from Ryan Postlethwaite, who had NEVER done anything close. --Calton | Talk 09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This admin shopping behavior is far from new for Calton; he's been doing it for years. My first (and maybe only) interaction with Calton was back in July '07 when he tagged User:Losplad as spam. He tagged it with {{spam}} once, and OwenX (talk · contribs) decline the request. He tagged it a second time, and VirtualSteve (talk · contribs) decline it. Calton tagged it a third time, and I declined it. After OwenX, VirtualSteve and I all explained the issue to him (and why were declining the request), the issue seemed resolved. Then, two weeks later, Calton tagged the page a fourth time and came up lucky; Kylu (talk · contribs) deleted it. His behavior is nothing new, and it's just as unacceptable now as it was then. - auburnpilot talk 04:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember that in detail, but I certainly don't remember any detailed explanations: I remember two admins mindlessly backing another -- and the fact that it was eventually deleted should have been a tiny clue that maybe, just maybe, you were, you know, wrong. --Calton | Talk 09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I see lots of users sitting around complaining about Calton, but not doing anything about it. Maybe it is time for some kind of topic ban? Tiptoety 05:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not a new pattern of behavior for Calton. He is incessesantly abusive towards all users who disagree with him and has been for years. No one has ever done anything about it, aside from the occasional RFC: Calton has shown a consitant and unchanging pattern of behavior that includes refusing to work with others or compromise his position on anything, admit fault in any situation, and is unyieldingly rude and dismissive of all other editors. Some established set of sanctions, such as civility parole, needs to be enforced with escalating blocks for this long pattern of behavior. It is only because he always gets away with it that he continues. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

While civility seems to be a concern, it's not the major one. WP:BITE whether intentional or not is the major problem. User should be temporarily banned from UAA and CSD spam. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 05:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I've worked with Calton before and he can be quite abrupt. Perhaps working with new users that may be influenced to become productive contributors, mindful of role account, SPA, and COI issues, if dealt with politely, but may also be influenced to give up, badmouth Misplaced Pages, sock, vandalise, etc if dealt with abruptly... perhaps this area may not be the best use of Calton's talents. So yes, perhaps Calton should be encouraged to contribute in other ways for a while. And if he is not willing to take that polite guidance from his peers, perhaps a topic ban would be the next thing to try. Because I think Calton misses the point... the point here is that situations like Xeno described in the opening of this section, if they are valid descriptions of actual events, ought not to happen, and input about that ought to be accepted. Coming in guns blazing with templates slapped down when another volunteer is already in polite and constructive discussion with a new user is almost certainly not the best approach. ++Lar: t/c 05:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

not willing to take that polite guidance from his peers - except, of course, no one has actually offered any. When that starts -- either the adjective or noun, separately or together -- you might have a point. And your mischaracterization as "guns blazing", while colorful, has the slight problem of not actually being true. --Calton | Talk 09:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone did offer some. Actually a lot of someones did. You just don't choose to acknowledge it, which a big part of the issue. To be crystal clear, I'll reiterate it for you... If another user is working with the newcomer, and a productive dialog is underway, don't slap templates down that interfere with that dialog, and especially, don't revert war to keep them in place... instead take the time to look at what is going on and if it's being handled, let it be.... clear enough guidance for you? I see multiple places in this very thread where you have been told not to do that. Politely. ++Lar: t/c 15:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Calton arbitrary break 1

• Yep, I must agree and after dealing with Calton myself in a previous case I see the likely hood of him taking on the advice given here relatively low. I support a topic ban from UAA along with spam related situations (CSD, userpages...ect). Tiptoety 05:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• If someone were actually offering actual advice instead of vague unsupported claims and abuse, you might have a point. As no one, including you, as actually done so, makes it hard to take the comment seriously. --Calton | Talk 09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support Tiptoety's suggested ban. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support- Agree, I would like to add to my previous suggestion above, COI concerns and CSD tagging in userspace, not just spam articles and UAA. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 05:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support a la Tiptoety. Civility towards established editors aside, this guy seems like a horrible welcoming committee for wikipedia. This topic ban would keep him as an editor, and also protect the newbies. Dayewalker (talk) 05:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, as it's very important to welcome as many spammers and site abusers as possible to Misplaced Pages, as it gives the page patrolers something to keep them busy. --Calton | Talk 09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support. I wish this wasn't necessary, because frankly Calton does a lot of good work, especially finding these spam pages and reporting them for CSD. But yes, this is a problem. I was going to suggest the ban be just for WP:UAA, but it's not the only area. But it's Calton's extreme frequency of incivility combined with his complete disrespect of anyone who disagrees with him or criticizes him, that makes him just really not the person we want dealing with new users. Mangojuice 05:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't deal with new users, I deal with spammers and other abusers of Misplaced Pages. This is not difficult distinction, no matter how you muddy it. --Calton | Talk 09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from UAA, CSD, and spam/COI-related with other users or with articles in general. I've had no prior interaction with Calton, but his tone in the discussion above confirms the concerns raised by Xenocidic and others.  Sandstein  07:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• My "tone" is the product of my complete disgust of the fact-free railroading, the hyperbolic claims, the thoughtless pile-ons, and the overall cumulative insults to my intelligence. --Calton | Talk 09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Absurd. Let Calton take a couple of weeks off, but a topic ban? Please. Everyone who deals with abuses of the project on a long-term basis gets a bit jaded over time and can become inclined to see abuse where none exists, and it is absolutely true that bands, companies and other entities arrive at Misplaced Pages in large numbers to promote themselves. Oh, and the "Turner&associates" page is a biography of the founder of Turner & Associates, a firm of no obvious notability. See WP:COI. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I dealt with Calton around the beginning of his editing career, and I can testify that his attitude has always been terrible and completely uncivil. To present it as though he gradually became jaded after dealing with problems for a long time is completely inaccurate. Everyking (talk) 05:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

...his complete disrespect of anyone who disagrees with him or criticizes him - perhaps if those anyones would include a few actual facts, actual references, or actual charges I can actually answer, they might get some "respect". --Calton | Talk 09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support the topic ban. This is hardly an isolated issue. Viridae 09:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - too broad (particularly, 'spam-related discussions') and somewhat premature to be that broad. On the other hand, I wouldn't oppose the topic ban on UAA and CSD, and a ban on him inserting, modifying or removing block-templates (or block-tags) in his edits, particularly on user talk pages. I think Calton just needs a break, and stepping back would be helpful as a first step to address other concerns. A proposal similar to mentorship would be the second option - ideally, it wouldn't go beyond that. (If it did, the wide topic-ban suggested would be the third, and finally...well everyone knows what that would be....) Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. A topic ban isn't the answer to this; perhaps a wikibreak may be what the doctor has ordered. I'm with JzG on this one, and I have seen some particularly good reports in my dealings with him (all of which have been civil if memory serves). Rudget 11:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. For several reasons. (1) It seems excessive to pull out a host of past grievances in an ANI report and use that to take broad action against a user. At best, Calton should be told to cease and desist in this specific case. If anyone feels that the case should be broadened, an Rfc that seeks community consensus would be more appropriate; (2) According to Xeno: If an admin is in full control of the situation, there is no need for another user to be throwing templates around. This needs to be written into the guidelines. That being said, the major problem which brings me here today is Calton's attitude towards admins. Consensus on actions are determined by the community, not by a cabal of admins. The complainant seems more upset with disrespect shown to admins rather than with the actions of Calton, which, with apologies, is not a constructive attitude since, technically, there is nothing special about an admin except for a few extra buttons. I don't disagree with the 'trust' and 'experience' part but expecting other editors to butt out when a couple of admins are involved is excessive. --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 12:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• How is it excessive, is this not what ANI is for? A user with a long history BITEy behavior and incivility should not be dealt with appropriately and past events should be excluded from the discussion? I mean how do you propose we deal with users with a long history of disruptive behavior? Sweeping it under the rug and telling him to take a break has proven not to work. Tiptoety 13:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

What we have here is an editor who believes that he/she is acting for the betterment of the encyclopedia by identifying COI and advertising accounts. This is not vandalism and the editor should be treated with appropriate respect (civility works both ways). If several editors believe he/she has a civility issue, then it is far better to address that issue directly in an RFC where he/she can respond to all the charges/issues at one time rather than having to deal with serial complaints. (I'm not saying don't address an issue if you think it important, but rather that this is not the right way.) --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 15:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Calton has this phrase on this talkpage - "Adherence to common sense and rational argument trumps ruleslawyering, as far as I'm concerned." - how about he actually adheres to his own advice? Exxolon (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• How about you show where I haven't? Let me make this simple for you: Spam is bad for Misplaced Pages. I find spam. I tag spam. Spam gets deleted. Spammers get blocked. Easy enough?

• Maybe I should have also put, "Don't make up shit. It insults my intelligence." --Calton | Talk 14:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok - you asked for it. The COMMON SENSE thing to do here would be to admit that certain editors have a problem with the way you're editing and to work with them and the rest of the community to resolve the situation amicably. Instead you seem to be under the impression that working to prevent spam gives you carte blanche to ignore other editors concerns, talk down to them and generally behave in an unpleasant and condescending manner. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative environment, not a battleground - if you can't work constructively with other editors then there's no place for you here. Exxolon (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not exactly sure what the best course of action here is. I don't think anyone should be templating a user while an administrator (or anyone, for that matter) is discussing the situation with them. Plain and simple, it's rude - to both parties. @JzG, as I said, it isn't about whether the T&A account or their proposed article was worthy of inclusion - it was about showing them the same respect that they showed us. This is what I was trying to convey to Calton, and instead he edit warred, dismissed my concerns, and made an appeal to the letter, but not the spirit of our rules. And in this entire thread, the behaviour is repeated - a downright refusal to admit any possibility that perhaps he has made a mistake. Users like this necessarily have problems working in a collaborative environment. I'll admit, my initial approach to him lacked tact, and I tried to de-escalate the situation and extend an olive branch - one that was refused. My request is simple and flows from not any rule, policy, or guideline, but from common sense: don't template a user while the situation is under discussion. –xeno (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• I'm troubled by this one. I think Calton does a great job finding the hidden spam. Most of the userpages I've found tagged by Calton, I've felt were straightforward, reasonable matters for deletion. I don't know that preventing Calton from doing what (a) Calton is very good at doing and (b) other people don't seem to be so keen on doing is all that good for the project. (Note that I don't mean by this to defend disruption in the doing.) OTOH, speedy deletions are meant to be uncontroversial. With the exception of copyright & attack pages, there should be no reason to repeatedly list an article or userpage for speedy deletion. Any editor who disagrees may remove the tag, following which other processes (like MFD) should be followed. With respect to CSD tagging, I wonder if it would suffice if Calton agreed to tag an article or userpage only once? --Moonriddengirl 14:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• First of all, bringing up a history of misconduct is not pulling out a host of past grievances. New users are the lifeblood of Misplaced Pages and his ongoing newcomer biting needs to cease. These issues have been coming for literally years. Support topic ban (even if temporary). If that doesn't stick, a block is a perfectly reasonable way to prevent his biting new users and ongoing bad judgment in a sensitive part of Misplaced Pages. Preventing spam is not more important than treating new users with respect. RxS (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose topic ban. I've clicked on xeno's links, and feel somewhat uncomfortable with Calton's salty edit summaries, but very uncomfortable with xeno's responses to them. Xeno being the admin, more is expected of him—that's an important principle here. I will offer a little advice to admins in their interchanges with experienced users. Don't try to squeeze deference out of people like Calton; it's inappropriate, and it's simply doomed. Look to your own demeanour, ignore his. YMMV, but, for example, I'd never go "NPA!" when somebody says "Don't be daft"; xeno, such a response is just going to make you look starchy and fussy, you know. (Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever invoked NPA because of something said to me.) It's much better to respond to the point being made. You're an admin, yes; but the only relevance of your adminship to this issue is that, being an admin, you'd do well to develop a thicker skin. For instance, I can't agree that Calton's responses are "approaching disruption", as you write in this edit summary. Not anywhere close. In the guideline dealing with disruption, that term is defined as "gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree." . The word "disruption" is woefully overused, by no means by xeno alone, whenever admins can't think of any more specific accusation. It should never be used to mean that an admin isn't getting as much deference as they'd like. It's an absurdity here. Is Calton approaching "gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies"..? Is he within shouting distance of such violations, in anything linked to above? Certainly not. Xeno, please try to get over your sense that "admins are the ones who have been entrusted by the community to uphold its standards as they see fit" . You've been entrusted with a mop and bucket and a little extra responsibility, that's all'; you haven't become Misplaced Pages nobility.
• (Full disclosure: Calton's no friend of mine. He's been startlingly rude to me, details on request. But we're not all cut with a cookie-cutter. I advise him to make a habit of assuming more good faith from newbies; but in the individual case, I can rarely fault his judgment on this or other issues.) Bishonen | talk 14:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC).

Edit warring is not disruption? As far as the comment about nobility - I'm not sure what that's all about. Yes, I have the tools. So, I was fully prepared to delete the page once my discussion with the user had come to a satisfactory close. Blanking it with "indefblocked" was unnecessary - it wasn't harming anyone. It's tough to discuss a page with someone when it's been covered by a template. And the user had already been blocked - had they attempted to edit outside their talk space, they would've been presented with the {{usernameblock}} notice. No need to pile it onto their talk page. In other words: it was under control. –xeno (talk) 14:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No, that's right; edit warring's not disruption. Not unless it's "gross, obvious and repeated". And, uh, was Calton edit warring with himself, or with whom..? With you, am I right? And before you tell me he had the effrontery to edit war with an admin; no, that's not worse than edit warring with somebody else. Not in a month of Sundays. As for your not being sure what the "nobility" crack was about, I'll have to work on expressing myself more clearly. I thought my quoting your assumptions about the powers and privileges of admins would do it. Here they are again: "admins are the ones who have been entrusted by the community to uphold its standards as they see fit" . No, they're not, you know. I really wish you'd take this to heart, because you're wrong. Admins are merely the ones entrusted with a few extra buttons, which they're absolutely not supposed to use "as they see fit". As Jimbo is fond of pointing out, we were all admins at one time:

In the very early days of Misplaced Pages, all users functioned as administrators, and in principle they still should. From early on, it has been pointed out that administrators should never develop into a special subgroup of the community but should be a part of the community like anyone else. Generally, the maintenance and administration of Misplaced Pages can be conducted by anyone, without the specific technical functions granted to administrators.

That's policy: Misplaced Pages:Administrators. Admins should never develop into a class of nobles. Calton is dead bang in policy when he conducts " the maintenance and administration of Misplaced Pages", and your quest for a guideline that says he's not supposed to is doomed to failure. Bishonen | talk 15:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC).

That's not really what I was trying to get at, so given this unfortunate interpretation, struck and annotated. It's the fact that he seems to believe he is always right - no matter what - no matter who (admin or otherwise) disagrees with him. –xeno (talk) 05:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying, but I'm not convinced in regards to this particular case. The block was placed at the discretion of the blocking admin, as was the choice not to template - according to the initial complaint at the top, there was none due to issues raised by xeno, who was in discussion with the blocked user too. For Calton to then blank the userpage and insist on placing the block tag (3 times without discussing it with either the blocking admin, or the user reverting him) seems to be gross, repeated and obvious. Thoughts anyone? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• not the spirit of our rules - Encouraging spam and spammers is "not the spirit of our rules". Editwarring to restore spam is "not the spirit of our rules". Editwarring yourself is "not the spirit of our rules". Throwing your weight around as an admin without justifying it is "not the spirit of our rules" -- and certainly bears no relation to your gas about "working in a collaborative environment". More to the point, other than vague handwaving, you haven't said word one about what actual damage this {{indefblocked}} is supposed to be doing, given that a) the editor was indefblocked, b) the editor is still indefblocked, c) whatever the result of your talks, that name will always be indefblocked, since it's a role account. --Calton | Talk 14:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily, the account may be temporarily unblocked so the user can request a change at WP:CHU. The intent of my talks were to show the user the same common courtesy and respect that they showed us by asking (politely, might I add) if their "spam" (so-called) could be included in the encyclopedia. –xeno (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban Calton is one of those guys where you occasionally want to ask for his badge number and file a report! Still, topic bans and administrative action are far too likely to drive a user away from the project permanently and bitterly. We shouldn't "criminalize" Calton's actions in the way we're saying he has done to others. I'm aware that his BITEy actions are themselves a threat to drive users from the project, but this has to be dealt with some other way. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 16:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Suggestions - Xeno, you could have just left everything Calton did in place, apologized to the user for the 'drive by', and continued your conversation. A history link could be provided to the blanked proto-article and things gone on with only minor disruption. Had Calton blanked or requested protection of the talk page that would have been a different matter, but short of something which actually prevents progress on more diplomatic lines it's almost always going to be more trouble than it is worth. Likewise with the statements above about reposting of items to UAA... I'd suggest just adding a note saying that they were previously rejected and possibly a link to such to inform the next admin who reviews them. Yes, it would be nice if people always considered all sides of an issue and preceded with due care... but they don't. Just accept it and be the better person.

Calton, nice to see you've mellowed. --CBD 16:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Calton does yeoman's work dealing with COI accounts. Raul654 (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bishonen's well reasoned argument, an admins opinion should carry no more weight than any other editors. RMHED (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support, Calton has been abusing people (myself included) for years, and it's high time something was done to limit his behavior. Everyking (talk) 05:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support until he realises why people are getting sick of it. Then we can lift the ban and see how it goes. —Giggy 05:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose He's doing routine spam fighting. It's much better than the admins that actually do the tagging AND the blocking. At least there is a review. Give him a barnstar and recruit more regular editors to do that kind of work. This isn't 'MyWikiBiz'. --DHeyward (talk) 07:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support, given that Calton's attitude throughout this entire discussion is that he can do no wrong, and refuses to "hear" the kind advice being given him. His past record of being blocked should be a strong indication that (once again) a "time out" is needed. P.S. What is "MyWikiBiz"? -- Shuckers Long Neck (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

— Shuckers Long Neck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. _Gb 20:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support. Calton is not just the guy whose badge number you want to see. He's the abusive cop you want fired from the force because his behavior is so frequently incivil and lacking any good faith, that he gives the department (Misplaced Pages) a bad name with the public. Just imagine this guy with a taser. How fast do you think he'd end up on the news? The very nature of HIS User & Talk pages are disturbing. By the third line he is already making open insults and even a personal attack on a person. "(The above obviously includes the various trolls, spammers, quacks, greedheads, and crackpots -- and their enablers -- who hang out at ED and WR. I also seem to have attracted the unwanted attention of a crackpot spamming "psychologist" calling himself "Wyatt Ehrenfels". If you're one of the those various trolls, spammers, quacks, greedheads, crackpots, and/or their enablers, welcome! Now get lost.) Is THIS really what Misplaced Pages considers being CIVIL or showing GOOD FAITH? Welcome, now get lost??? Calton is the ill-natured cop who joined the force because he was DYING to taser and billy club punk kids, but never had ANY intention of adding anything constructive like helping old ladies cross the street or getting a cat out of a tree. (or creating and editing articles) Bad attitude. Bad intentions. No matter how many smammers he blocks (skaters he tases), he is bad for Misplaced Pages. For a very clear example of how blatantly insulting and abusive he behaves have a glance at my User talk:BillyTFried#Your e-mail. BillyTFried (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - maybe a short break is required, but a permanent ban is excessive. PhilKnight (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Clearly a short break is not a way to resolve this issue, but instead just push it under the rug until another incident occurs seeing as this issue has been going on for quite some time now, there needs to be a resolution and everyones concerns need to stop being ignored. Also, no one said the ban would be permanent. Tiptoety 23:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Concerns over specific conduct issues need to be expressed in order for the break to have any chance of being effective of course (RFC on user conduct is a good way of doing so). That, accompanied with a break from the area, is something that can resolve the issue. I think people here would be more willing to support a ban proposal if there's still no change after taking those steps. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

What I do

Given the vague and entirely fact-free claims above -- especially by Ryan ("I am the law") Postlethwaite, who's never lowered himself to give the slightest explanation of whatever the hell I'm supposed to be doing wrong -- and the obvious kneejerk "support the admins" responses that followed, let me explain EXACTLY what I do. Feel free to tell me where the horrible crimes are.

1) I scan the "New Pages" page, under "Users" (after being busy until recently, I went backwards through the list) or use User:MER-C's "Vanispamcruftisement in the userspace" page.

2) When (not if) I find obvious candidates, like this...

05:46, August 2, 2008 ‎User:Uniproma (hist) ‎ ‎Uniproma (talk | contribs) (← Created page with 'Uniproma is a value-creating bridge between China and the rest of the world. Since its founding, Uniproma has been striving to add value to a global supply chain, ...')

a) User name is a company, organization, band, or product: check.

b) Text of created page is advert for said company, organization, band, or product: check.

3) I right-click it to open the page onto a new tab in Edit mode.

4) I continue until I have several tabs at once. This, sadly, almost always takes just a few minutes.

5) I add {{db-spam}} to each and save.

6) I go to each talk page. Some fraction of the time (10 or 15 percent) there's already CSD warnings regarding spam addede in article space. I add the {{Spam-warn-userpage}} template, which I wrote myself and which reads:

A tag has been placed on on your user page, Uniproma, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person, and which is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages: user pages are intended for active editors of Misplaced Pages to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for businesses.

If you can indicate why the page is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page in question and leave a note on this page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

7) I go to WP:UAA with the names I've gathered and list them there, where 99% of the time -- at least until User:Shereth's recent peculiar and essentially unilateral rewrite of actual policy and practice -- actual (and multiple) admins delete the pages and indef-block those I list.

Now, begging your pardon and in the interest of eliminating the vague handwaving, kneejerk agreements, and general chest-puffing -- will somebody tell me where the fracking hell in that process are my monstrous crimes against policy, practice, common sense, decorum, and/or Ryan Postlethwaite's delicate sensibilities? --Calton | Talk 14:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

My request is simple: don't template a user while the situation is under discussion. –xeno (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Calton, as I mentioned earlier, you have unfathomably excellent skills at rooting out the spam userpages, promotional usernames/edits/accounts etc., and any other accounts that are relevant and fall under the username policy and thus able to be reported to the UAA noticeboard. I've worked with you on occasions before (at least I think I have) and found your efforts to sift through the newuser log highly admirable, and I've consequently become more involved through the process due to the straight-forwardness of the reports absent few. However, commenting on Xenocidic or Ryan Postlethwaite in a less-than-constructive manner (whether they are right or wrong) is not conducive to finding a resolve to this. Rudget 14:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You just don't get it do you? The issue is not WHAT you are doing but HOW you do it. Enforcing our policies on spam is good. Behaving in an arrogant and condescending manner while doing it is NOT. Exxolon (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Calton, thanks for the link to the spam search list. I think that rather than arguing the toss here we might all be more productively employed clicking some of those links. "Our services" include nuking spam. Guy (Help!) 15:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to dismiss Calton's contributions to spam-fighting, and in the vast majority of cases, I'm sure a tag, block, tag combo is just what the doctor ordered for some spammers. This particular case was different (because the user was kind enough to ask, I felt I could take the time to explain it to him without templates), and all I really want to hear from him is, "OK, maybe I don't need to template a user while another user is discussing that same situation. I won't do it again." or something along those lines. No topic ban. No RFC. Just a simple head nod and a "I'll take this into consideration for the future". –xeno (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Calton, I don't think anybody here objects to your commendable efforts to fight spam and other disruption; quite on the contrary. What we object to is the way in which you go about it and the way you interact with other editors. This is, after all, a collaborative project; tact and civility are not optional for any of us. I've not examined your contributions in this matter thoroughly, but the uncollegial and heated statements that you have made in this discussion lead me to believe that Xenocidic was justified to bring the matter up here. Whether the appropriate outcome of this discussion is a topic ban, a different sanction or no sanction at all is certainly open to discussion, but that outcome depends on you above all.  Sandstein  15:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Xenocidic's statement is eminently reasonable and the perfect way to end this disagreement. Calton, the ball is in your court. --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 15:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

My fundamental concern is the same as User:Wisdom89. While it can be a little frustrating at times, there isn't really any issue with Calton's occasional reporting of large blocs of users. I also really don't care that he wants to butt heads with administrators, and he is absolutely correct when he says that admins are editors and should not be treated as being special. I do have some problem with what appears to be habitual opinion-shopping by re-adding reports until he gets the desired result. Calton needs to understand that his interpretation of what is and is not a blockable offense is just that - his interpretation. (This is where I expect him to call in to question my eccentric reading of WP:U, but I still challenge anyone to show me where the policy states that a user with a company name as a user name must be blocked on sight.) In any event, it's the WP:BITE issues that I have the biggest concern with. I am not really keen on the notion of imposing a topic ban on Calton, but it needs to be understood that blocking is an extremely sensitive issue and prone to evoking strong emotion and opinion. Making the reports to UAA is one thing, but continuing to push his cases until they get blocked isn't the solution. He accuses myself (and by extension other editors) of making unilateral decisions when removing a case sans discussion, but isn't that how 95% of the blocks proceed - unilaterally and without discussion? If a problem persists then I see no harm in re-adding a report, but doing it just so that a block can be issued comes across as malevolent. All I would really like is for Calton to see that his crusade against spam is not the most important thing possible, be willing to accept that his judgment of what should be blocked is not the end-all, and that sometimes blocking a potentially spammy username is not the most expedient solution to an issue. Shereth 16:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sandstein says it well. --John (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Above Calton asked "will somebody tell me where the fracking hell in are my monstrous crimes against policy, practice, common sense, decorum, and/or Ryan Postlethwaite's delicate sensibilities?". The answer is that they're not there - the 7-step process is beneficial work which (a) no-one else seems to engage in with anything remotely approaching to the dedication that he does, and (b) keeps this encyclopaedia clear of spam that shouldn't be here.

The problem is in step 8 - it's not included on the list above, but just as formulaic and predictable a part of his actions as the preceding seven steps. Step 8 is what happens as soon as anyone dares disagree with his actions, or question his judgment (or, as he terms it, "insults his intelligence") - whether that be in flagging the page for speedy, listing the name at WP:UAA or whatever - they open themselves up to his, erm, interesting and somewhat relentless style of discussion.

The DRV linked to above is a prime example - the declining admins get a dose of step 8 (here, here and here), and it doesn't take a lot of looking through his talk page and its archives to dig out similar episodes almost beyond number - I've been on the receiving end of it myself a couple of times, in both cases because I've declined or removed a speedy tag. Maybe it's not a "monstrous crime", but it's clear that his way of dealing with all other users, and not just spammers that he deals with, that is against policy, practice, common sense and very definitely against decorum. I can't speak for Ryan's sensibilities, delicate or otherwise.

I would oppose a ban from WP:CSD or WP:UAA - doing so would be to cut off our noses to spite our faces, because I do think that the work that he does is exceedingly valuable, and he rarely gets enough credit for it.

I would support some sort of check on his behaviour, however - even though it's fun to see how long he can resist before wheeling out one of his staple phrases (accusing the other person of "projecting", of making "vague, handwaving assertions" (which he's used three times in this thread alone), "reality check", "period / full stop", "Guy" and "Buckwheat" invariable make an appearance somewhere along the line), no matter how much he may feel his intelligence is being insulted there's not excuse for the manner in which he responds to it.

I'd also support a restriction on resubmitting the same pages repeatedly to CSD or the same username to UAA.

Numerous reports to WP:ANI, blocks and an RFC in the past haven't actually lead to any modification of his behaviour, though, so I wonder how much benefit all the above discussion will actually result in, if any. _Gb 21:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be losing momentum, but I must say that, IMO, Gb absolutely nails the situation on the head here.--Kubigula (talk) 04:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Related discussion at DRV

I've opened a deletion review for the page User:Losplad, mentioned as an example a few subsections above, as its deletion seem to have been at least somewhat controversial. I hope this somewhat nonstandard DRV nomination may help determine the actual consensus on whether pages like that one should be speedily deleted or not. Everyone involved in this discussion here is welcome to comment. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

kind of a moot point being a year later (though the precedent may be worthwhile), but it does demonstrate his tendency to edit-war/admin shop on these types of things. –xeno (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Open Source Intelligence

While some of you above want to debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, perhaps someone else can come over to Open Source Intelligence and have a word with RobertDavidSteeleVivas (talk · contribs) aka Robert Steele (talk · contribs), who seems to have returned to assume ownership over an article on his pet project. --Calton | Talk 01:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

{{Resolved}} Obviously disruptive user. User given single/final warning. Further disruption in the absence of any indication that (s)he intends to work productively on Misplaced Pages should be met with an indefinite block. Vassyana (talk) 04:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I have disabled (and moved down) the "resolved" tag above because of continued disruptive conduct, coupled with the addition of external links that fail WP:EL and/or WP:COI: , . I have previously removed these links and could be considered involved; could another administrator please take appropriate action against both accounts of Robert Steele?  Sandstein  15:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Not resolved. This edit summary should lead to an immediate block, especially after he was previously warned about civility. Corvus cornix_talk 18:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for continuing to disrupt and make uncivil edit summaries after warnings. --John (talk) 03:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Both accounts should really be blocked indefinitely unless the user indicates in some fashion that they will cease the incivility and disruption and work productively on-wiki. Vassyana (talk) 06:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The comments on his Talk page don't look as if he plans on changing his behavior. Corvus cornix_talk 19:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Selective and partisan policy enforcement by Will Beback

Will Beback (talk · contribs · logs) has a history of turning a blind eye to policy violations by editors who share his POV, while being quick to take action against editors who don't. I have seen this in connection with the LaRouche articles, where Will seems to have a strong personal interest. Recently he chided User:Polly Hedra() for this edit which he called a personal attack and deleted, while finding nothing untoward about this edit and this one by User:Cberlet, Polly's antagonist. Another admin stepped in and gave Cberlet a 24 hour block for incivility, which was the subject of a discussion on this board. Will lobbied for a similar block against Polly Hedra, but found little support. In fact, one other editor specifically commented at ANI on the partisan nature of Will's interventions.

Two days ago I removed a link that User:Dking posted to his personal, selfpublished website. Dking has a history of violations of WP:LINKSPAM (cleanup by COI noteboard team member ... Dking coming around again to re-add the spam: .) Dking responded by accusing me of "censorship" and branded me a "Follower of LaRouche." I replied by saying "I am no more a 'follower of LaRouche' than I am a 'follower of Robert Mugabe,' even though I have worked hard to keep POV-pushers from using both biographical articles as a soapbox against those subjects. Secondly, if I were a 'follower of LaRouche,' it would still be a violation of WP:NPA to use that as a debating tactic: Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." I am emphasizing this here, because I anticipate a similar argument from Will in his response to his notice. I also posted the examples above of Dking's Linkspam violations. In response, Dking deleted the examples and reiterated his personal attack. When I re-added the examples,, I received a warning on my talk page from Will, threatening me with sanctions for "taunting." I looked at Dking's talk page for similar warnings and found none. Will then "prematurely archived" the talk page, supposedly to "foster peace," but more likely to protect Dking's conduct from scrutiny, as was the case with Will's out-of-process closing of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct/Dking. --Marvin Diode (talk) 06:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Three things: first, can you tell us what the CoI noticeboard's consensus was on Dking's website? And second, could you back up the statement that Will has a "strong personal interest", or withdraw it? Third, where did Will use admin tools in this dispute? Thanks. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

1. See
2. Let's put it this way, I have never seen a LaRouche-related dispute where Will did not weigh in in support of Cberlet and Dking, going back to the LaRouche II ArbCom case where he was a party.
3. In this instance, Will threatened me with sanctions, while making no equivalent threat to Dking, who actually did make a personal attack, twice. I have seen Will ban editors in the past whom he deemed to be "LaRouche editors," on what I considered to be extremely flimsy evidence. While he has not formally designated me a "LaRouche editor," I take the threat of sanctions seriously; it's not a use of the tools per se, but it does represent an abuse of the office if it is used to intimidate, particularly to gain ground in a content dispute. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• The posting from Marvin Diode which I think was out of line was this, in which he said, referring to the prohibition on spam, "In some cases, it may be just to boost a faded reputation for egotistical purposes." That was a clear dig at Dennis King/Dking. I complained about it on the talk page but didn't get a satisfactory response. I warned Marvin Diode on his talk page that taunting is a form a personal attack and will not be tolerated. Meanwhile Dking and Marvin Diode were bickering and refactoring each others comments on the talk page. I decided the best thing would be to "prematurely" archive the discussion in order to end what apppeard to me to be a pointless and contentious debate. I didn't sanction anyone (though I warned that sanctions may happen if behavior doesn't change) nor did I use any admin tools. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You warned me, you didn't seem to think Dking required a warning. This is what I mean by "selective enforcement." If it weren't such a consistent pattern, I wouldn't bring it up. Note also that Dking made the claim that since he doesn't directly harvest income from his website, it couldn't possibly be a violation of WP:LINKSPAM to post links to it all over the project. This is a misreading of the LINKSPAM policy, which was the point of my comment. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Generic rouge admin abuse complaint, the complainant moves one step closer to a topic ban per the multiple arbitrations on LaRouche and the tendentious editors clustered around that topic. A bit more investigation shows a long-term pattern of activism against Dennis King by Marvin Diode, who has been trying for a long time to get all links to King's websites off the project. While agreeing that they are, on the surface, not reliable sources, he has shown considerable evidence of a deeply vested external agenda against King, and his determination to remove "unreliable" sources appears to apply only to those sources which are critical of LaRouche. Guy (Help!) 08:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

There is only one Dennis King website at issue here, and it is a personal website/blog. Removing links to it should be non-controversial, particularly when the owner of the personal site has very aggressively added and re-added it in defiance of policy. You make a dazzling leap of logic by insinuating that, by calling attention to the excesses of an unusually tendentious editor, I am pursuing a secret agenda of shielding LaRouche from criticism. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

There is only one Marvin Diode at issue here, and it appears to be a participant on one side in a long-standing dispute, bringing said dispute to Misplaced Pages. Guy (Help!) 17:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

...and only his side ought to be sanctioned for it, while participants on the other side of the dispute are fine and dandy? "Sauce for the goose; sauce for the gander" really needs to be applied; I guess I ought to write an essay at WP:SAUCE if none exists already. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Uneven sanctions are not by themselves evidence of bias. It is neither "selective" nor "partisan" for an administrator to sanction a single side in a dispute. Assuming the administrator is acting in good faith, it is a simple exercise of discretion. The administrator may simply have found that one person's behavior rises to the level where it needs administrative intervention while the other's does not. Moreover, even if both side's behavior is sanctionable there is no administrative abuse in sanctioning only one side - not unless the administrator truly does have a conflict of interest or is using sanctions to further a position on content. It could be a simple oversight. It could even be appropriate. It takes two to fight, usually, so removing one may well have the desired effect of ending the fight. Moreover, as controversial as LaRouche is, it's hard to equate the frustration of people trying to promote him on the encyclopedia with the frustration of people trying to avoid promoting his views. Reviewing the diffs, even though both sides became uncivil out of frustration, Poly Hedra's accusations were direct and personal, whereas Cberlet was expressing generalized disapproval of a group of editors for pushing content bias. It's not obvious who deserved sanctions and who didn't but that's a moot issue at this point, and there's certainly nothing that shows any abuse here. In short, Guy's right.Wikidemo (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

But Marvin Diode is not a Larouchian, but has been unfairly labeled as one, which is a dirty tactic used by some in this fight, which is not simply a case of "Larouchians vs. Mainstream" as it's sometimes portrayed. Anybody who objects to the actions of some of the "anti-Larouche" people seems to get automatically fastened with a political label that might not have any resemblance to their actual position. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Dtobias, have you reviewed Marvin Diode's contribution history? While we can't say if he is a "LaRouchian" or not, all of his edits are either to LaRouche-related articles or, if to other topics, they promote the LaRouche POV. His attacks against Cberlet and Dking are consistent with the decades-long conflict between them and the LaRouche movement. While Marvin Diode may claim to not be a follower of LaRouche, and may choose to be offended if called that, the reality is that he gives the appearance of being a LaRouche follower by his actions and words on Misplaced Pages. People can follow any religion or philosophy they like, but when they push a POV or use Misplaced Pages as a battleground then it's a problem. Misplaced Pages's problem with accounts that push the LaRouche POV goes back at least four years and includes three ArbCom cases and numerous sock puppets. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a standard tactic I've seen Will employ time and again. "Have you reviewed Joe Editor's contribution history? He edits articles on topics of interest to LaRouche." The trick here, as anyone with a slight familiarity with LaRouche knows, is that LaRouche has expressed an opinion on virtually every topic covered on Misplaced Pages, with the possible exception of the Pokemon characters. If you were to review Will Beback's contribution history, you will find -- shocking as it may seem -- that he edits articles on topics of interest to LaRouche. As far as my edits "promoting LaRouche POV," that's a con job. This goes back to the argument that I anticipated in my initial statement: since LaRouche is a uniquely evil person, anyone who interferes with the use of Misplaced Pages to denounce him may be treated in flagrant disregard for Misplaced Pages policy. Which I guess is what Dan T. already said. In response to Wikidemo, yes, I am alleging that Will is using sanctions to further a position on content. I disagree in the strongest terms with Wikidemo's characterization of these disputes as "people trying to promote him on the encyclopedia vs. people trying to avoid promoting his views." I got involved in the first place because I saw a small group of individuals trying to use the encyclopedia as an attack platform against LaRouche, in violation of WP:BLP, WP:SOAP and Lord knows how many other policies. And if someone steps in and says "but what about Misplaced Pages policy," they are immediately charged with "promoting LaRouche." Again, compare my edits at Robert Mugabe. Would you care to argue that I am "giving the appearance of being a Mugabe follower"? --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed your contribution history, and it is dominated by LaRouche articles, and your contributions to those articles and surrounding debates are dominated by an LaRouche apologetic stance. If you are genuinely trying to be neutral on this subject then you are doing a very poor job of it. You are giving a very strong appearance of a vendetta against King, in fact. Guy (Help!) 09:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

An impartial review of my contribution history will reveal that I have never taken a position either pro or con on LaRouche; my role has been simply to insist on the strict application of BLP and other policies, in any article where I have seen a problem. Your comments give a very strong appearance that as far as you are concerned, policy is nothing, POV is everything. You and Will seem to wish to grant a 007 "license to defame" to Dking and Cberlet. If Misplaced Pages policies such as BLP are not applied evenly across the board, even to the most controversial characters, the project loses credibility. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

@DanT: I did not say that, I said that partisans coming here to bitch because they are not getting their way in a long-term and largely external dispute is not helpful to the encyclopaedia. It's not clear to me why you decided to butt in in the first place, actually, since your input was 100% unhelpful and unproductive. Guy (Help!) 09:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm still not sure which sanctions I've applied that Marvin Diode is complaining about. I've never blocked him. All I did was issue some warnings not to post personal attacks. As for Mugabe, Lyndon LaRouche is a strong supporter. LaRouche is anti-British, anti-colonialism, and anti-George Soros, all of which are involved. Marvin Diode has been editing to provide the pro-Mugabe POV favored by LaRouche. However that doesn't mean he's a follower of Mugabe. All that matters to Misplaced Pages is that POVs, whatever they are, aren't pushed behind their proper weight, and that editors are civil towards each other. I think that this editor has problems with both, as have a string of similar accounts going back some years. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. So, let's suppose hypothetically that author Kitty Kelley were to start a Misplaced Pages account called Kkelley and post links all over Misplaced Pages to a site promoting her book, The Family, which is said to be "filled with lurid allegations." If one or more editors were to object, do you suppose that they would be labeled "followers of George W. Bush" and that the conversation would immediately turn to speculation about these supposed "George Bush supporters," ignoring the obvious inappropriate behavior by the hypothetical Ms. Kelley? --Terrawatt (talk) 23:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think there are some valid concerns here. It appears that Will has a long-standing habit of favoring one side in these disputes, and if he is going to take any kind of administrative role in the matter he needs to avoid that. I think it would be best if Will didn't involve himself in this any further, although of course it should still be monitored by someone who is accepted as impartial. Everyking (talk) 09:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

''Everyking (09:22): "monitored by someone who is accepted as impartial"

Will's impartial style is so economical that it's difficult to duplicate. Who else impartial but less economical, wants to waste so much monitoring time – day in, year out – while periodically defending themselves against meritless charges like this, all because of actually being fair?

"It appears ... favoring one side in these disputes"

However, it's not a fact. Based on my many samplings of his actions, Will Beback is among the most neutral editors and impartial admins on Misplaced Pages. He should be thanked, not criticized.

...um, ok, thanks Will. Milo 06:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• As for being partial to one side, I endorsed the recent block of Cberlet for incivility. Can you point to any action that I've taken which is incorrect? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:ArticleHistory

Can someone edit this to add 'withdrawn' as a possible AFD result? The template is protected for some reason so I can't do it myself. Thanks. Exxolon (talk) 13:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't an incident requiring urgent attention, please ask on the talk page using {{editprotected}}. Mr.Z-man 13:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is it full-protected, Z-man (by you, I see)? It's used only on talk pages, yes? Chick Bowen 02:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucracy alert! Don't ask me here, ask me there. In triplicate. --Rividian (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, the template has supported "withdrawn" for ages. It displays as "kept" in summary. Gimmetrow 17:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Since no one responded to my question I changed it back to semi-protection. Chick Bowen 23:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Long Term IP Vandalism

For over a month now, I've been dealing with this persistent vandal who keeps adding bogus info into certain film/TV related articles. He/she seems to use two IP ranges, 66.82.9.x and 69.19.14.x, which are both registered to HughesNet. See my last 100 contributions for evidence, which shows a bunch of reverts to this guy's edits.

This person seems to strike once a day, usually between 12pm - 5pm UK time. We have blocked some of the single IPs, but only when he was currently active, as it stopped him from editing that day, and he switches to a new IP the next day. Warnings don't seem to be effective on him either.

Anyway, as I've said above, I've been chasing this guy for more than a month now, and I'm getting tired of it. This has been going on for too long now, and we're also starting to miss a few edits of his. I would like to request action been taking against this guy, preferably a 1 week - 1 month+ range block on 66.82.9.x and 69.19.14.x, with both anonymous users only and account creation enabled, seeing he hasn't created any accounts, and it won't hurt the legitimate users that much. We could also send an abuse report about him to HughesNet, but I don't think that would be as effective as a range block. --AAA! (AAAA) 15:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that's MascotGuy, isn't it? –xeno (talk) 15:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It would appear so. In which case, a report to Misplaced Pages:Long_term_abuse/MascotGuy may prompt the type of rangeblock being requested. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is MascotGuy, especially since the edits don't seem related (unless you can show me a diff from a confirmed MG sock and compare it to one of the IPs' edits), and the IP vandal usually targets the same articles (such as Jake T. Austin Winx Club, and List of Power Rangers villains, to name a few). No recent MG socks I've seen targeted those articles, and the IP vandal hasn't targeted any articles that any of the recent MG socks have targeted. I always thought of him to be related to this old vandal. However, I could be wrong about this. --AAA! (AAAA) 16:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

MascotGuy is from San Diego, not the UK. Corvus cornix_talk 19:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I know that, but I live in the UK. That's why I based it on UK time. --AAA! (AAAA) 19:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't understand what you were saying.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 19:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It raises the point though, that if this is MG, he's editing between 4am and 9am his time. Is that likely? Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

AAA^ has joined #wikipedia-en on the freenode IRC network, and me and him chatted a bit about this. I'm afraid to block the affected ranges due to not knowing if I will cause collateral damage. No short term block (under 24 hours) will work as the vandalism appears to be once or twice a day. I suggested to him to put forth a checkuser request, and have a checkuser deal with if the ranges should or should not be blocked. —— nixeagle 20:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I've made a CheckUser request, which can be found here. --AAA! (AAAA) 21:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Sennen goroshi's stalking and disruption

Sennen goroshi (talk · contribs) and 203.165.124.61 (talk · contribs) resumes stalking me as one of his long-time disruptive habits. The user has a long history of harassment and stalking of me. At this time, Sennen goroshi is gaming the system with his ISP as if his account and ISP are unrelated. Besides, the user also deceives people as blanking properly cited information from academic sources as leaving nasty edit summaries like "uncited BS removal". "crappy unreliable POV sources removed. use a credible source next time" to Nanking Massacre and "rvv" to Category:Comfort women. Although these lies were discovered quickly, the user did not retract this behavior and continues today. I gave him formal warnings without not knowing the identity because his edits on Nanking Massacre looked like a typical vandalism, so reported to WP:AIV, and the user gave a contradictory lecture at my talk page. I recognized him per his usual pattern of gaming the WP:Civility policy and indeed the anon is Sennen goroshi. On the other hand, admin User:Tanner-Christopher spot his reverting campaign, so gave him a formal warning for his disruptive behaviors and blind reverts. However, he rather visited him as ridiculing 3RR policy like this

The user also wikistaling me today and reverts whatever I edit today which look like he wants to drag me into edit warring and block for 3RR. That scheme was successful once, so I would not deceive it any more. I have enough of this user's disruptive wiki-stalking, harassment, and incivility and so forth. I think this time he should get more that warning because whenever the user is summoned to here for his disruption, he pledges vain promises not to do such things in a disguised politeness in front of admins.--Caspian blue (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

What is LMAMF? It sounds like a slur or profanity as his usual habit. Sennen goroshi left this as reverting my waring to his talk page.--Caspian blue (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Stalking? I think not, we both have an interest in articles relating to Japan and Korea (although perhaps different viewpoints on the two nations) - I can edit any article relating to Japan in WW2, war-crimes, Takeshima, or Japanese/Korean food, and I will be more than likely to find you editing the same article. You might not agree with my edits, but they are certainly not intentionally disruptive - they are a mere content dispute. When I was accused of breaking the 3RR, I was rather amused that an admin would count my self reverts towards 3RR and my comments reflected that. Please stop dragging all your content disputes into ANI. By the way, don't make assumptions about my IP, this is my one and only IP. 203.165.124.61 (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

LMAMF? http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=LMAMF.X 203.165.124.61 (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

LMAMF = Leave me alone m*****f***er Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

LMAMF could also stand for Lick my Anus monkey fucker or Love means all my friends.. the possibilities are endless. 203.165.124.61 (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Caspian blue, do you really think you should be canvassing people regarding this ANI report? http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Caspian_blue 203.165.124.61 (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

What the clear persona attack and slur. Senne, according to urban dictionary, lmamf means Lick My Asshole Mother Fucker. This is not a VOTE, man, you must read WP:CANVASS. Are you not confident with your past conduct? --Caspian blue (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute, but your disruptive long-time wikistaling, harassment and so forth. Your wikistaling not only me but also several individual, so you have been summoned for that. This needs to be stopped by administrator's intervention.-Caspian blue (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I am shocked !!! according to yahoo finance LMAMF means something totally different http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=LMAMF.X - but then again who would use yahoo finance as a source when you have the ultra reliable urban dictionary at hand?

By the way, why did you get the IDs of people from my talk page, that I have had disputes with and ask them to input on this issue? That is clearly canvassing. 203.165.124.61 (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop with the sillyness right now or I will block you for baiting him. I am looking into the other matter. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, Sennen goroshi calls me "lonely mice" hmmm LMAMF.. Lonely mice all make friends. or something like that 203.165.124.61 (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Deliberately using the slur second time is totally not acceptable. The user should earn a block.--Caspian blue (talk)

Note that edit was before my warning above. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Caspian blue we really need to see some actual evidence of wrongdoing. Evidence of stalking would be him editing a page after you edit, preferably several pages. Evidence of revert warring would be diffs showing us the reverts. He states that some of them were self reverts and he is right in that if he reverts himself then obviously this isn't warring. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I would provide enough evidence of his wikistalking and harassement. This report was made in hurry. I previously filed reports on him for his behaviros and death threat, but mine were too lengthy for admins to look into them. You also seem to miss his tendency of lying and such disruptive comment. That slurs are, I think, enough for an immediate block per Wiki policy--Caspian blue (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I cannot see anything that warrants an immediate block. He has a tendency to troll, rise above that. It's not easy for an outsider to spot lying unless you give us evidence that contradicts what he is saying. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, one last message before I go to sleep. I did not make a death threat, I did not call anyone "lonely mice" (that is beyond absurd) and all of this stems from our different perspectives on shared interests and content disputes that we both seem to have. However I am sure that a part of the blame can lay at my feet, I am sure that I could be a little warmer in my attitude and that using a little more tact in my interactions with fellow editors would be welcomed. 203.165.124.61 (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I add diffs for his lying of his edit on Nanking Massacre. "uncited BS removal". "crappy unreliable POV sources removed. use a credible source next time" to Nanking Massacre I did not know that http://www.history.ucsb.edu and http://bootheprize.stanford.edu/0506/PWR-Yang.pdf are crappy unreliable POV sources as he alleged. I would be very disapponted at this time that he does not get a proper treatment from admins even though he obviously attacks with such dirty langauges. --Caspian blue (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the first one. He removed "Pregnant women were often the target of murder, as they would often be bayoneted in the belly, sometimes after rape." (emphasis mine). The source gives one example of this happening. So assuming good faith, I wouldn't call that one exactly a lie. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It is shocking that you defend such lie like uncited BS. --Caspian blue (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Look if our article states it happened often but the source states it happened at least once then the claim that it happened often is uncited. I don't agree with the wholesale removal of the section and would have edited it rather than remove it but that doesn't mean he was lying when he stated it was uncited. Now do you have any evidence of stalking or revert warring? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sennen gorosh had not edited Japan-Korea related articles since his attempt at Liancourt Rocks to block Korean editor with his deceptive edit summary. So this is clear sign of his resuming wikistalking again. --Caspian blue (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I shall look into those. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I find it hard to sleep knowing that these accusations are going on, so I might address a few of the points made - the two articles in question were edited by myself in the past. If they were article that have never been edited by myself, I might have to agree with the wikistalking claims however that is not the case http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=An_Jung-geun&diff=prev&oldid=155260717 and http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Korean_nationalism&diff=prev&oldid=198189725 . I have stayed away from the Japan/Korea related articles for a while, concentrating on other subjects, but just because I choose to edit them again, does not make me guilty of wikistalking. 203.165.124.61 (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It's fine go to sleep. Seriously log off. Never let wikipedia disturb your sleep. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Right I see two articles here. One he reverts you after you edit it, and one where you revert him after he edits it. There is nothing to see here. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for turning yourself in evidences of the wikistaling.

• Sennen goroshi (talk • contribs • logs)'s vandalism and slurs
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive333#Vandalism_and_incivility

These two past reports on him would be good answers for his long-time wikistaking and harassment to me. this insulting comment would be a definitive definiton telling his past conduct to me.

These diffs are his long-time wikistalking. -Caspian blue (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

See the trouble is I clicked on the last one on that list first. And what do i see? An edit war between the two of you in which you appeared to follow him to the article see the page history Did you really think I wouldn't check that? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No, you did not carefully check on the history of kimchi. You defend his lying and then falsely accuse me that I followed him? Nope. I'm very disappoint at your condoning his disruptive behaviors.--Caspian blue (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You are right I didn't go back far enough. I apologise for that. In future if you need to show someone is following you then show your edit followed by their first edit. Not the last one after a long edit war. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I usually represent all details and evidence, but doing such takes a lot of time and admins say like "Oh, it past 3 days, or weeks, so it is stale. We assume WP:AGF that he would not do that". Or they say like my writing is too lengthy to read, so I try to be as succinct as possible at this time.--Caspian blue (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm marking this a resolved. It's six of one and half a dozen of the other. I shall warn both users to stay clear of one another. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, and why would I be warned by his disruptions? I will wait further response from others. --Caspian blue (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Caspian Blue, you need to nail in the evidence as clearly as possible. Administrators are not willing to help, it is hard for me to follow too. I think sennen goroshi is wikistalking too, but you need to make it clear. If the administrator decide that he is not wikistalking, ask another administrator to warn him because it is obvious that he is not here to contribute in the best intentions. Good friend100 (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: There's a related thread on WP:AN Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 05:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC) I was unaware that the user was indefblocked. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 18:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That has been removed as it was posted by an indefblocked user. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm On closer inspection I see that it was Caspian blue who removed it. Although I agree that indefblocked users should not be allowed to edit it would have been much better had someone else done the removing. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I can only echo what everyone is saying about Sennon, leaving abusive messages on your talk page and generally trying to stir up trouble. (~~#~)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadiga09 (talk • contribs) 2008-08-03T17:05:44 (UTC)

How very very ironic - the above comment was made by user Fadiga 09 commenting on abusive messages - Fadiga 09 is the user who left the following message on my talk page "Haha, your such a laugh, you fucking tosspot, neither us or Arsenal have won it, so that's fine with me, us two are the two biggest clubs to not have won it, so that's fine with me you fucking imbecile, and on the Canizares thing, LISTEN CAREFULLY, HIS CONTRACT ENDED IN JUNE AND IT WAS NOT RENEWED. (Fadiga09 (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC))" http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Sennen_goroshi&diff=prev&oldid=225628614 - so excuse me if I don't take your comments about abusive messages too seriously. Sennen goroshi (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sennen goroshi, you might be very proud of yourself as evading the attention on your wrongdoings here by attacking other user?

User:AmeIiorate even offered me an evidence of your disruption like a 3RR violation on Gender neutrality in English with sockpuppeting. He said "I feel this user is socking for malicious purposes. 01:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)"1st revert 2nd revert 3rd revert while logged in 4th revert but subtly done 5th revert the user also defended themselves You're clearly gaming the system per your contradictory behavior like your filing someone to WP:AN3 who does not have any interaction with him before.. I have not seen any good contributions by Sennen goroshi here. Without him, Misplaced Pages would be much developed and people would not waste time informing him to be a better person. --Caspian blue (talk) 03:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

In this edit, Sennen goroshi just blindly revert as wikistalking me. He does not regard the naming convention or alphabet order in Japan-Korea related articles as he always proclaims to be kept. If he wants to follow the admins' advice, he should not edit articles that we disputed before. However, the user broke the promise and ignites again with his inconsistent editing. I have seen his "fake promise" more than enough. I want a justice.--Caspian blue (talk) 03:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There was no breach of 3RR, I have never tried to hide my IP address, and there were no instances of more than 3 reverts with a 24 hour period, even when you take into account edits made in and out of account. This is all getting rather tedious, this report has been marked as resolved twice. You are flogging a dead horse. Sennen goroshi (talk) 03:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The person does not think that you did not breach of 3RR. I see your all the same weird agenda on the articles as done to Korean related articles. Two admins already gave you warnings and you pretends to listen to but breaks the suggestion by yourself first. You owe me an apology at least your dirty languages at me two days ago. Well, is the dead horse YOU? As long as your disruption is active, the dead horse appears to gain a revolving life again.--Caspian blue (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I stated this on my talk page and I will state here too to ensure you both see it. No editing each other's talk pages whatsoever. No editing any article that has been edited by the other for a period of five days. Anyone who breaks this gets a block form me. Stay away from each other, or stay away from Misplaced Pages, the choice is yours. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Still problems with wiki-lawyering and a possible COI on Jetsunma

I've looked over the talkpage discussions and User:ZuluPapa5, who appears to be a follower of Jetsunma, has so far claimed:

• The article violates WP:NPOV
• Saying she "teaches compassion and bodhicitta" is fully in accordance with WP:MOSBIO.
• After being told she should not use Misplaced Pages to promote her particular cause, she invoked WP:GOODFAITH
• The article is WP:OR
• She can "threaten to use" the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:BATTLE policies against User:Longchenpa, for disagreeing with her
• The language in the article is defamatory and violates WP:HARM
• The claims in the article are not susbtantiated and violate WP:SUBSTANTIATE
• The article is false and misleading information about a living person, violating WP:BLP
• Published material (in defense and apologetic) of Jetsunma from an association she maintains control over is allowed in the article, because of WP:QS, WP:SPS, WP:SELFPUB and because it avoids WP:PEACOCK
• Even though Jetsunma is a public figure or at least there's no serious question about it (I emailed Mike Godwin to be sure and he said she obviously is), we should still be cautious and apply WP:NPF to the article, in order to avoid a libel case. Let me state that again: Even though Jetsunma is a public figure, we should still apply WP:NPF to the article.
• Also (this one is especially good!), Mike Godwin's opinion that Jetsunma is a public figure shouldn't apply, because he has a WP:COI!
• Jetsunma isn't found in the NNDB and therefore, Mike is wrong.

Twice now, she copied and pasted large sections of text from policy pages into the talkpage. The second time she did it, I removed it all and told her not to do it again, that it was disruptive and simply mentioning the dozens of policies she invokes is enough.

Now, do I really have to deal with this? This user has been working at this article for like over six months now, in every case scrambling for an argument to justify adding misleading content or removing information. Now, in the past there was a sockpuppet named User:Curious Blue who we should be weary of and Longchenpa is biased to be sure (and so am I, I suppose), but this kind of behavior seems pretty ridiculous, really way far beyond the scope of mere "unreasonable". When a user is actually suggesting that Mike Godwin has a COI in his legal opinion about something, are we expected to actually debate with such a person?! ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

What dispute resolution steps have been attempted aside from contacting the editor. Have you attempted third opinion, or user conduct/article requests for comment? NonvocalScream (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Mike has a COI? Now that's funny! I suggest we give them a barnstar of good humour and a topic ban. Guy (Help!) 19:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'll be monitoring this discussion, and will only participate further If invited. It's very humorous to see it arrive here without warning while we've been addressing these issues on Talk:Jetsunma_Ahkon_LhamoZulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• So far we've had a third opinion here by Athaenara, requested by Zulu Papa 5. We've had two editors Zenwhat and Ricky81682 join the fray. I am biased but I have journalism experience and know how to write a balanced piece. I started at the center on this article back in December. Since then I've found I've have to fight just to keep mainstream articles from Random House, Elle, and Mirabella magazines in the piece. Longchenpa (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

User Mosedschurte seems to be edit warring about People's Temple content on Harvey Milk

Mosedschurte (talk · contribs) has been continuously adding and reverting to re-add an entire section on the Jim Jones cult People's Temple and now has expanded to simply revert this material as well as the controversy section on "The outing of Sipple" (Oliver Sipple). An RfC was started to try to end the edit warring and consensus has been that the previous content about the People's Temple was appropriate whereas the entire section was undue. I also expressed that it was bordering on WP:FRINGE. The other issue that came up was that another section, "The outing of Sipple", although well-referenced, is also undue. Complicating things is the proliferation of SPAs. I moved both problematic sections to the talk page and now Mosedschurte is calling me a vandal and reverting. Am I misreading things here? There seems little evidence that the People's Temple incidents were anything more than Milk doing his political duties of getting elected and staying in office. Mosedschurte has also ensured this content is placed in other articles already so I see no reason to inflate in this one. Would appreciate fresh perspective on this. Banjeboi 22:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Benji, you might want to say that this is happening in Harvey Milk. A major problem here is that Milk's article is not at all comprehensive, unfortunately. I hope to fix part of this by expanding the article soon to give weight to the rest of Milk's political career. However, as the article stands now, information about the People's Temple is grossly WP:Undue in the overall political influence Milk had. Had all the time in the world to write all the information possible, it might clear up a lot of these issues... That's what I get for living in a linear dimension. --Moni3 (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Lol! added link to section title, sorry! Yes if this were expanded exponentially these sections, in a trimmed form, could serve to add to the article. Likely not as stand-alone sections though. And WP:UNDUE pretty much goes by what the article currently is although even and expanded article wouldn't include much more about the People's Temple which seems to be this user's specialty. It's already in other articles and i don't object to that. Banjeboi 22:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

There area a number of inaccuracies and omissions here, as anyone can see by viewing the editing history of the article Harvey Milk:

(1) Months ago, a tiny section was added to the Harvey Milk article that was entirely sourced and stated in NPOV terms. It merely shortly described Milk's well known support for Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple which was not mentioned in the article. More importantly, it very briefly described Milk's opposition to those calling for a federal investigation of Jonestown through a letter from Milk to President Carter calling those attempting to extricate their relatives "liars," which had received considerable media scrutiny.

(2) Milk's campaign is not only now well-known and public, but in the days after the tragedy killing nearly 1,000 mostly Bay Area citizens, it had already come under considerable press scrutiny just before his death.

(3) In response to concerns from Benjiboi, the section was pared down even further.

(4) The assertion by Benjiboi that "Milk doing his political duties of getting elected and staying in office" is entirely unsourced, somewhat odd, likely factually incorrect (not that that particularly matters) and irrelevant to the issue of presenting encyclopedic NPOV content.

(5) Benjiboi then started a Request for Comment on the section.

(6) In response to Benjiboi's Rfc, not surprisingly, no consensus developed to delete it. In fact, if anything, most weighed in to keep it. Which makes sense given the extreme gravity of the events and the tiny size of the section.

(7) Today, Bejiboi then began deleting every word of the entire Peoples Temple section in the Harvey Milk article.

(8) Note that the section as it stands mentioned only one of Milk's many letters supporting Jones against investigation and only briefly states that Milk made many supporting statements about the Temple and Jones without even elaborating, lest that be viewed as giving it "undue weight."

(9) In fact, much of the section as it now stands has either been added by Benjiboi or added to address concerns of Benjiboi. Mosedschurte (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I have not been contributing to that section and feel the material presented further up in the article is sufficient. SPA votes, as far as I'm aware, don't count. The section still violates WP:UNDUE, and IMHO, borders on WP:FRINGE. We haven't yet started discussing the sources but they too are borderline acceptable per reliable sourcing policies. Of course, the People's Temple people think his endorsement is notable, but did anyone else. And Milk was a city supervisor while the City's mayor George Moscone and more prominent politicians at the time did the very same things or more, so again, nothing too notable that isn't already covered in the article. Banjeboi 22:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding: "Of course, the People's Temple people think his endorsement is notable, but did anyone else. "

The San Francisco Chronicle, New York Times and San Francisco Examiner are three that come to mind.

Not only that, the section doesn't just describe Milk's endorsement. In the middle of the controvery, after Jones fled to Guyana with 1,000 followers, Milk actually opposed the investigation of Jones, writing none other than President Jimmy Carter that those wishing their relatives would be extricated were spouting "bold-faced lies."

Frankly, in order to address your concerns of "undue weight" -- odd considering the section about the 900+ deaths at Jonesotown literally follows text in the Milk article about a pooper scooper law -- I didn't even include the press accounts of Milk's letters to the government of Guyana directly on the issue, or gushing statements Milk made personally about Jim Jones. Mosedschurte (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I have again removed this section and the Sipple one as well as the RfC has not supported their inclusion. You mention "The San Francisco Chronicle, New York Times and San Francisco Examiner" but I notice none of those are used as citations. Perhaps those citations could be presented for other editors to also verify what they say about this and what weight they put on this in the context of Milk's life. Of all the biographies and overviews of Milk's life this information is rarely mentioned, if at all, and has usually been presented as San Francisco was still reeling from the Jonestown massacre when the Moscone/Milk assassinations occurred. Banjeboi 05:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You are now 1 revert away from violating the 3 Revert Rule by exceeding the 3 reverts on the Milk article in 24 hours.

This violation is particularly egregious here, where you specifically requested an Rfc for deletion or modification of a sourced NPOV section, no consensus was reached to delete the section and, rather, most appeared specifically NOT to want to delete the section.

That you are now oddly claiming this failure to reach consensus to delete (and, in fact, most said not to) as somehow justifying unilaterally deleting whole sections of the article is not only incorrect and contrary to Misplaced Pages editing rules, but frankly bizarre. Mosedschurte (talk) 05:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

An even further edited down section that before has now been placed in the article.

The fact remains that complaints about "undue weight" in this context have not only been addressed repeatedly, but at this point appear to be non-good faith justifications to repeatedly delete a sourced NPOV section of the article an editor does not like. City Supervisor Milk actively supported one of the most notorious figures in United States history, including making gushing statements about him. He then actually opposed investigations of Jonestown, writing none other than United States President Jimmy Carter that those attempting to extrictate their relatives were spouting "bold-faced lies."

No one is saying that this should dominate the article on City Supervisor Milk, though I'm sure some Jonestown victims relatives would disagree. Rather, it is a tiny section stashed away in the middle of the article.

Thus, there is really not even a good faith argument to be made that this tiny section carries "undue weight" in the article (rather, if anything, the argument might be that it does not elaborate enough). Much less a convincing argument in that regard.

This is why you received no consensus on your Rfc to delete the article.

Please stop unilaterally deleting this small sourced NPOV section in its entirety. At this point, especially after the Rfc, these edits are clearly not made in good faith and are contrary to the principles of Misplaced Pages article editing. Mosedschurte (talk) 06:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look and may weigh in but it sounds like a content dispute, i.e. nothing requiring administrative help. Is there edit warring or any kind of behavior issue? Failure to honor an RfC or consensus is still a content issue unless it gets to the point of active edit warring or incivility. Wikidemo (talk) 06:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate it. It does seem like an edit war and has been going on since early June. I started the RfC to stop the warring in the first place. There is also the matter of the SPAs voting, all seem suspect but I'm not sure if checkuser worthy or possibly canvassed offline. Most have made only edits to the RfC. I feel this user won't relent until they get this content inserted so this looks like it will continue until some fresh voices can help sort this out. Is this a good candidate for the WP:FRINGE board instead? Banjeboi 07:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

There has been an "edit war", but it has mostly taken the form of Benjiboi repeatedly deleting the entire section after every edit has been made to acommodate his concerns. Please examine the Edit Page of Harvey Milk for repeated examples.

Moreover, after his Rfc to delete the section, Benjiboi received several responses from those not wishing to delete this tiny section:

"I've reviewed the Milk page, the Moscone page, and have worked on the various Jones pages. I disagree that this is being given undue weight. His involvement with, and defense of, Peoples Temple, during and just after their time in California, is relevant." Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"I agree with this writer. Please do not delete. It is true there is no consensus to delete the section emerged." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caramia3403 (talk • contribs)

Given the context and timing, the Peoples Temple section is far too important in this article to delete or merge. Especially the letter cited in the article attacking people calling for an investigation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.23.197.82 (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"The Jones section has to stay in a page like this. It's way too big if its true. I don't know why it would be cut. The part about Harvey being scared of him should be added to it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.215.117.116 (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"Finally, the entire Peoples Temple involvement, even with Jonestown literally dominating the Bay Area and Milk's key support, is only a tiny (6%) portion of the article, thus there is no undue weight issue. As well, included is only a tiny portion of Milk's involvement with the Temple." - obviously me. Mosedschurte (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

In any event, tired of continued edit war wholesale deletions of every sourced NPOV contritubtion made, I have now slashed the section down to 3 short sentences.

If anyone else wishes to add interesting encyclopedic content to the article, I encourage your do so. Do not let the particular obstinancy here discourage such additions. I agree with others that the article leaves the reader wanting to know more about Milk, a thoroughly interesting figure, on a variety of policy issues that are largely glossed over as is. Mosedschurte (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Some mention of the incident should remain in the article, as well as some phrasing indicating that Milk was not a "co-conspirator" in the death of 1000 people, which is a bit how it reads at the moment. Haiduc (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well that's the funny or tragic part, really, after this idea was inserted I did look into reliable sources as after years about reading of Milk's life I've never even heard of it. In fact, Milk didn't seem to get any special treatment that all political folks got from Jones but I did research and added some NPOV' and reliably sourced information about this connection. But apparently this user demands an entire section, despite policies of WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Banjeboi 21:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Help please. This user keeps inserting this information despite concerns and with no consensus to do so, and despite it already being covered - neutrally and with RS's - in the article already. I've been doing slow reverts lately but would like this behavior to stop until they can find consensus. The material is already covered and the addition of this section, I think we're up to a dozen times over the past two months, is disruptive, IMHO. I've pretty much stopped doing any other work on the bio until this stops as it's quite distracting. Banjeboi 02:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I guess I should have looked earlier but a similar section has been added on George Moscone; Milk and Moscone were assassinated together but no linsk between their deaths and People's Temple have been shown. I'm not familiar with that bio but being given a whole section I would say the concerns are also of WP:UNDUE. Banjeboi 12:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Greenwich Village Edit War

There is an ongoing Edit War at Greenwich Village between these 2 users:User:Mynameisstanley and User:Mafia Expert over whether or not Vincent Gigante lived in the village. I've reverted the last edit here: and I left a notice on the talk page here:. Both editors have violated WP:3RR already and there is no end in sight. Administrative supervision is required. Modernist (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Please remove from Gigante from "Greenwich Village", sub-section "present day" First, it category is "Greenwich Village", sub-section "present day" Gigante went to prison in 1997 and died there. Second, Gigante did not live in Greenwich Village. His lawyers claimed he lived there and that he was insane. Gigante later admitted in court that the whole thing was a scam. Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

The article is about "Greenwich Village" not a criminal who use to walk around there for a scam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameisstanley (talk • contribs) 02:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Before changing the article again, wait for other comments that might reflect a differing point of view. For what it's worth IMHO I don't agree with you. However please let others voice their views...Modernist (talk) 02:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The notorious mobster Vincent Gigante grew up on the same streets in Greenwich Village where he would spend most of his adult life. Vincent Gigante, Mafia Leader Who Feigned Insanity, Dies at 77 He was born and raised there. Whether in later life he actually lived there or not, is not the point. He spent most of his days in Greenwich Village and was a characteristic figure wandering the streets in his bathrobe and slippers, mumbling incoherently to himself. That this was an elaborate act is also not the point: he acted it out in Greenwich Village. All in all, I think it deserves to be mentioned in an article on Greenwih Village. If you think it does not belong under 'Present day', put it under 'History' or – maybe – in 'In fiction and drama'. - Mafia Expert (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we have a consensus on the issue. - Mafia Expert (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, page unprotected (I am the protecting admin). Tan ǀ 39 19:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Wilhelmina Will and User:Abd's advice on how she can skirt her DYK topic ban

DYK topic banned User:Wilhelmina Will asked if she can have someone else nominate an article for her.. She was told, "Yes, you can, " by User:Abd who is also, apparently, advising her to do it via e-mail so she doesn't get caught. "Be careful." He is also, apparently, advising her that she can "create" sources for her articles. See User:Abd's talk page and talk page history and User:Wilhelmina Will's contribution history for the exchange.

A community topic ban was a small step, it seemed appropriate for the situation. However, the user is clear that she will not respect the ban, and is actively seeking and being advised on how to get around it.

The articles she has written, that she submitted to DYK with the full knowledge she did not understand the material she was using to write the articles, but simply hoped someone would correct the crap vandalism, still need corrected. There are some 30 of these articles, so she says, 3-4 of which have been partially corrected, all of which probably contain unusable crap vandalism.

Essentially, from the link above, this was her plan with the 30 articles:

"I am not afraid or humiliated to admit that I don't really understand the terms used in paleontological journals, which are the only sources I can find over the internet, most of the time, but I thought that the article could at least be left the way it was until it became a DYK article, and then the corrections could be made. I would even have helped, the best I could, to fix it up."

She used sources she admits she did not understand--it was clear she did not understand the sources or what she was writing from the articles she wrote and how she used the sources, as every line from a paleontological journal that she included, except for one, was wrong, when I checked a couple of her articles. This was about 20-30 lines of misinformation deliberately given to Misplaced Pages's readers. And another 30 articles at least sitting on Misplaced Pages just waiting for someone to correct them because Wilhelmina Will won't because she can't.

At this point, it is clear that this user, Wilhelmina Will, has no respect for Misplaced Pages policy or Misplaced Pages articles. She is here to submit content that will get her "Misplaced Pages awards," under any circumstances. I ask that she no longer be rewarded for crap vandalising Misplaced Pages. Also, if she cannot be trusted to even understand the conditions of her topic ban, there's no point in allowing her to continue to edit as badly as she has edited.

--Blechnic (talk) 06:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Can't the ban extend to her userpage; no barnstars or other brownie points for DYK allowed there at all? 66.57.189.230 (talk) 06:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Barnstars are given by users for any reason at all. She can even give herself barnstars. The problem is all the burden for this ban is on everyone but Wilhelmina Will, including if you add no brownie points for DYK. She is abusing the time of other editors. Her articles have to be cleaned up, she can't and won't do it. Her ban has to be monitored, she can't and won't understand and honor it. She's busy finding ways to get around it to create more crap vandalism. --Blechnic (talk) 06:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I would support an indef block of this user. There is no tangible benefit to allowing this editor to continue editing wikipedia, no matter how far you stretch your imagination. I would also recommend a lot of eyes on DYK for awhile as given the behaviour socking would probably be inevitable.--Crossmr (talk) 06:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I had suggested an alternative punishment, that she would have to have five successful nominations before she can self-nom, but if she doesn't understand a subject, she has no business making DYK articles period. I don't write articles on auto repair or trigonometry; she shouldn't do these. I'm afraid she needs to avoid DYK for a while.--King Bedford I 07:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• If she is having someone else review her request, then it is not a blind-proxy. This really shouldn't be an issue, since at that point the reviewing editor would make the call to nominate or not based on her recommendation. However, she should only be asking editors who are willing to help her, rather than bug people at random. -- Ned Scott 07:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is what happened. I had originally become involved when I wrote a message consoling User:Ottava Rima who took a great deal of flack for attempting to protect User:Wilhelmina Will from incivility. User:S. Dean Jameson promptly attacked User:Ottava Rima on my talk page, and warned me against getting involved. So, naturally, this huge fuss unfolding before my eyes, I started looking into it, and found what seemed to be to be excessive roughness, so to speak, dealing with User:Wilhelmina Will. So I wrote a consoling note on her Talk, suggesting that there might still be ways she could contribute. She came back to my Talk and asked about it. She didn't solicit anyone. She did nothing even remotely improper. So then Blechnic, who is obviously following her contributions, pops onto my Talk to threaten her that if someone posts a nomination on her behalf, he would have her blocked. It seems I suggested something that an ignorant editor, who apparently imagines himself to be a wikilawyer able to better understand guidelines and policies better than those with years of experience, called "proxying." But, as Ned, above, correctly notes, if the reviewing editor takes responsibility, and doesn't just automatically put it up, as a true proxy would do, it's not meat puppetry. It is, in fact, closer to mentoring, or simply to what happens when ArbComm topic-bans someone: they can still make suggestions. Now, the whole thing is pretty crazy. She's not blocked, she is not a "banned editor," and the topic ban, itself, is pretty shaky. For example, how long does it last? There was no consensus. She hadn't done anything that was a blockable offense, beyond the very vague "disruption," and from my point of view, she is by far not the most disruptive editor involved. She is being harassed, beyond all necessity, in a quite ugly way. Look at the following from Blechnic, which assumes that a motive to get DYK credits is a bad one, and that if someone else assisted her, this would be proxying. I'm beginning to suspect that DYK attracts some people with strange ideas about Misplaced Pages, DYK seems to have developed this whole complex set of rules, quite anomalous for the project. Trying to match rule requirements was one thing that tripped Wilhelmina Will up, she improperly reverted a change that would have lowered a word count to a level that didn't meet some rule by a few words. This kind of thing is seriously contrary to project policy, and it's possible the whole mess should be ripped out. (But compared to everyday, ordinary POV-pushing, this was trivial to address and fix.) --Abd (talk) 22:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• • What the ban policy says is, "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them." No one has an "independent reason" for earning DYK credits for Wilhelmina Will. This is her clearly stated purpose for creating the bad articles in the first place and for nominating them. If another editor nominated an article she created without her requesting they do so, your argument that this is not a blind-proxy might apply. At least I would consider it did. However, as the sole reason for the nomination would be to get Wilhelmina Will her DYK credits, if she were to ask someone, this is proxy editing. --Blechnic (talk) 07:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
    • From what I understand this hasn't actually happened yet (a requested nom)? -- Ned Scott 07:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
      • That's correct, she and User:Abd are still working out the details of how to do it on his talk page, and probably via e-mail. This probably means we get to move into a whole new level of behavior that will generate discussions and actions and not take care of correcting the bad articles she has already produced because she figured that after she got the DYK credit for it being on the main page, someone could get around to removing the gibberish. --Blechnic (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Why do I get the feeling that none of these articles would get deleted in an AfD discussion? I've spot checked a few, and they pass our basic inclusion guidelines. I would rather have someone start these articles in less-than-perfect form than not have them at all. -- Ned Scott 07:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
          • There's a distinct and important difference between "less than perfect" and "fundamentally incorrect." In the latter case, having no article is better. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 08:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
            • Do we have any examples of this? The ones I spot checked didn't seem to be fundamentally incorrect, but maybe I'm not looking at the right ones. -- Ned Scott 08:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
              • Here's just a quick link to one of her most basic mistakes that doesn't require any background in biology to understand. Read the reference, and read her interpretation. There are more attached to this article, where she included an edit that had been corrected for substance because that edit would have reduced the word count below what she needed for it to be a DYK. She admits this in the edit summary. Check out this articles history. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. --Blechnic (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
          • All of the information she put in might get deleted, but the article would stay. In fact, the articles of hers that have not been checked probably should be deleted. If they're wrong, they're of no value. --Blechnic (talk) 08:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• oppose a ban. I don't care what their motivation is, I'm seeing a ton of valid articles being started by this user. Unless this actually does turn into a situation of blind-proxing, there's not much else to discuss here. We can try to predict the future all we want, but this user hasn't actually done anything to violate their restrictions yet. -- Ned Scott 07:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "Ton of valid articles?" Is that after you remove all the ones where she just wrote anything so they'd get on DYK in the hopes of someone else correcting them, or is that including them? There's nothing valid about the articles she is writing. Even she admits she doesn't understand the sources she uses and is simply putting anything in the article to get a DYK credit. If she doesn't consider her articles valid, I don't see why you do, or why anyone would. --Blechnic (talk) 08:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Then the issue here really isn't the DYK ban. Consider myself to be neutral on this until we can get some links from past discussion in here to help sort some of this out. -- Ned Scott 08:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• If I remember correctly this editor also has a habit of including a lot of copyvios in her articles. If these articles do contain extensive copyvios, they should be deleted, and the user should be deterred from continuing to edit Misplaced Pages if she persists with such plagiarism.--Father Goose (talk) 08:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This is really getting ridiculous. Talk of indef banning an enthusiastic 16-year-old kid who writes very well for her age is just way over the top.

I think I should add that I'm pretty pissed off myself to read that this rather ill-considered ban has caused a good faith user to "cry for two hours". Surely this is not the sort of experience we want to be giving to our contributors? Blechnic is trying to impose professional standards, and while that may be a commendable goal in general, this is at the end of the day a strictly amateur project - the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" - and it simply isn't appropriate to be stomping all over people who make a few mistakes as if they were derelict employees.

Furthermore, as I understand it many people only supported a conditional ban, which could be lifted if she was willing to acknowledge her mistakes and work constructively with others to overcome her editing deficiencies. As long as she does that, I personally can't see why she could not be permitted to keep submitting articles to DYK, so long as she stays away from technical topics which by her own admission she is struggling to understand. Gatoclass (talk) 08:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of young editors on Misplaced Pages who write excellent and correct articles. Some are even administrators, so I understand. Are you saying that because she's young she can include wrong information in Misplaced Pages articles?

She's made more than a few mistakes in just that one paragraph of one article. Multiply that by the number of articles she's submitted while she was editing under the assumption of just including any information pasted from journals she found on the web, even when she admits she doesn't understand in, in the hopes that it will make it to the main page and give her credit for it then someone else can repair it, and we may be talking about hundreds of mistakes, not a few.

Do you understand this, Gatoclass? She admitted she used paleontological information to create some 30 articles for DYK, information she didn't understand, because she sould get credit, then someone else might correct it after it got on the front page?

She not only hasn't admitted anything other than the completely lousy nature of her articles, when she could no longer hem and haw about it, but she's working on ways to skirt the ban.

It is really hard to understand this support of a creator of wrong and bad articles. It's insulting to the young editors of Misplaced Pages who are capable of following rules and creating good articles, reading technical information and adding it correctly without plagiarizing, to say that being 16 is an excuse for writing crap vandalism.

What is it about Misplaced Pages that draws so many people who say, this isn't a real encyclopedia, just a playground, let the kids play.

Sorry, 16 isn't an excuse. She refused to respond to initial accusations, she refused to change her editing style, she refused to correct the crap vandalism she's already contributed and is just creating more, and now she's getting around the ban. Sixteen doesn't mean you're stupid. --Blechnic (talk) 09:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You are merely speculating when you say she may have made "hundreds of mistakes". But I dare say if you looked at half the work of our more prolific editors, you would probably find a considerable number of errors in their work too. In fact, my bookshelf is stacked with reference works that are themselves riddled with errors. Mistakes are a commonplace, even at the professional level. And everyone knows that Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source - even Jimbo acknowledges as much.

I am simply saying it is not appropriate to go making a song and dance over every editor one comes across who makes a few mistakes. The idea here is that when you find a mistake, you correct it. If someone is absolutely incompetent, then obviously one may need to take steps to protect the encyclopedia. But Wilhelmina does not strike me that way. It seems in this case all that has been established thus far is that this editor has in some cases been biting off more than she can chew. Fine - let's ban her from submitting technical articles to DYK, and see how she does for a while on more mundane subjects. Gatoclass (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

An editor who has been creating articles for the sole purpose of personal credit on a subject she knows nothing about and after the community finally bans her from doing it, tries to find a way to game the system and work around the ban isn't just making a little mistake. She's burned all good faith at that point.--Crossmr (talk) 09:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, as I'm neutral on this - she didn't try to find a way to game the system, but instead Abd stated that others could nominate her articles. She slightly misinterpreted this to mean that people can nominate for her, which Abd then clarifies (quite rightly) to say that the nominator has to take responsibility for the nomination. In short, she was given honest advice, misinterpreted, and was corrected. - Bilby (talk) 10:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

He just told her people would have to take responsibility for it, he didn't dissuade her from asking others to nominate her articles. He was just trying to impress upon her the investment that is required for someone to nominate an article. While he did recommend it, I'd be curious as to why Abd did so, and it seems like she took an interest in it. My call to make sure DYK is heavily watched for the next little while, stands. The conversation doesn't leave me feeling like she is going to edit articles for the sole reason of editing articles. It still looks to me like she's going to be driven to create content to try and get on DYK, even if she doesn't nominate it herself.--Crossmr (talk) 10:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully Abd will clarify what he meant, but I gathered his first suggestion was simply that other people could nominate her articles, not that they could nominate for her. When she interpreted as nominating for her (rightly or wrongly) the point he made was true: she can reasonably ask other people to look at an article and nominate it if they find it deserving, in which case they have to take responsibility for doing so. But t can be interpreted differently, as you say. - Bilby (talk) 10:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Blechnic. I'm all for second chances. However That comes with strings. The user has to appreciate what they've done and work towards changing their behaviour. In this case she isn't. Age is immaterial. She can come back when she is more mature if her age is a mitigating factor. Editors should be spending their time creating and expanding articles with solid content. Not chasing after users trying to game the system for some personal credit. She's been told, she isn't interested in stopping. Not only isn't she interested in stopping, she's interested in getting around the sanctions imposed. She doesn't want to work with the community, the community cuts her off. The endless coddling of problem users on wikipedia doesn't really help anyone. It expends a lot of time and resources, and contributes to editor burn out to hand-hold these editors for an extended period of time on a hope and a prayer that they'll finally get it.--Crossmr (talk) 09:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh, wait a minute, where is the evidence that she tried to "game the system and work around the ban"? As far as I could see from reading the exchange Blechnic posted, it was Abd who was proposing ways she might get around the ban, not Wilhelmina. Again she is being blamed for something she didn't actually do. Gatoclass (talk) 09:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Well, there is a problem, and it does need fixing. I start very few articles, because there are very few subjects for whihc I have robust sources and which don't already exist. WW is creating articles which are, in many cases, complete nonsense, because she does not understand the sources. She is doing this to get personal credit and kudos, but we are not here to generate personal credit and kudos, we are here to generate accurate content. WW has shown that getting credit is more important to her than creating accurate content, and yes I do think that is a problem. It can be fixed by one of several methods, including mentoring, but she really needs to lose her focus on personal recognition before any meaningful progress can be made. Guy (Help!) 09:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

WW has shown that getting credit is more important to her than creating accurate content

Well in fact I haven't seen much evidence of that. And I still have my doubts that the accuracy of her articles is substantially worse than that of many other contributors. It also seems to me that provided she sticks to online references that can be thoroughly checked, there is little harm in allowing her to continue submitting articles to DYK - indeed, it may be a useful way of monitoring her contributions. But a mentor would certainly not go astray at this point.

My primary concern here is that people are already starting to talk about an outright site ban when not much evidence has been presented that this person represents a threat to the project, and when we have yet to determine whether she is capable of reform. Gatoclass (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

There is every reason to believe that she is a good faith user who is trying and improving. Please help her to improve and don't discourage her. It isn't some outrageous offense to get some facts wrong—she just needs to be more careful and edit things she clearly understands. There are other avenues for the kind of rewards-based work she enjoys; I'm sure someone can direct her to a WikiProject that dispenses a lot of barnstars or something. This talk of "proxying" through DYK nominations is overblown; she probably doesn't (or didn't) realize that this was frowned upon, and a friendly note cautioning her about it would probably suffice. I completely oppose a ban. Everyking (talk) 10:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Everyking. I've run across WW a few times and have always found her to be overenthusiastic, but perfectly willing to listen to advice when you explain what she's doing wrong and why. Hammering someone who's trying to ratchet up a high score in the WP MMORPG by contributing content but doesn't understand all our policies, whilst turning a blind eye to the huggle-racers and barnstar-cabals who make virtually no significant mainspace edits seems totally unfair. – iridescent 10:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages is the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and this includes youngsters whose reach exceeds their grasp. If there's a problem here, it seems to be that DYK accepts articles that have not been thoroughly vetted. If the DYK process does not discriminate then it fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

If these articles are on notable topics as it seems they are, then it's good that they're being created. However, people are right that Will should concentrate on articles whose content she knows something about. Some of her ideas for articles seem sound based on the discussion above- but what a strange idea to land on. She could suggest stubs for these articles to someone on wiki who knows about palentology etc or create them as very basic stubs, as much of the articles about similar subjects such as plant species or whatever are. Where is she getting this info? She simply needs a mentor, I'd volunteer but I have about 7 adoptees. Maybe Abd? Sticky Parkin 10:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I can help her, if that's what she wants. But I think she simply needs some friends, some experienced editors whose advice she'd be inclined to hear. She's made mistakes, both in articles and in how she dealt with the situation. But I don't see anything in what I've seen so far that is worthy of a topic ban at DYK, much less a block or ban from editing Misplaced Pages. The project was built by people working to create large numbers of articles based on little more than a few trips to the library, as well as by countless others with varying levels of expertise, and the idea that articles should be fully "correct" from the beginning, lotus-born, is a very anti-Wikipedian one. I find the behavior of Blechnic to be utterly appalling, there was no excuse for this AN/I thread. If anyone did anything wrong, it was me, not WW. But what I suggested was simply pointing out that there would still be ways for her to do what was legitimate of what she wanted to do -- and there is nothing illegitimate about her goals, but only a few of the means she chose, not likely to repeat. I was telling her that a topic ban was probably temporary, very temporary, and that in the meantime, if she had nominations, someone, like myself, could review what she had done and make the nominations, so as to not disrespect the AN/I decision, as defective as it was. And apparently that enraged Blechnic, who saw this as her intending to evade a ban. But bans only exist to protect the project, and what was proposed covered the protection part, and this whole thing has taken on a punitive color, she must be punished, it would seem, for her ... what? Bad attitude? Wanting a medal?

• Along these lines, since this discussion began I've had a look at two of the articles she created: Jamie Howarth and David Nichtern (they're the two most recent creations). Both are the sort of BLP article that almost anyone can write, and both are ok - there were small problems, which I've noted to take care of, but they are the usual problems with slightly misreading references ("is going to be released" used to support "was released", and so on), a reliance on questionable sources (the personal pages of the subjects), and insufficient references, but nothing factually wrong and no blatant evidence of copyvio. Perhaps if she was mentored while staying on these, instead of the more technical articles, things would be smoother? Certainly these two are perfectly reasonable additions. - Bilby (talk) 10:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

What strikes me as remarkable about this conversation is the fact that although a number of editors have commented that WW is a sweet, well-intentioned child who has made a few mistakes and just needs to learn how to do things, WW herself has not seen fit to grace us with any explanation of, or apology for her actions. Since so many of the comments here seem uninformed by the original reason for the editing restriction, I'll lay it out again.

• • WW was creating articles, by her own omission, to realize her "dream of 10,000 DYK articles". (perhaps not an accurate quote. I didn't look it up again.)
  • She was plagiarizing online journals to create them.
  • She, by her own admission, didn't understand what she was editing when she created the articles.
  • Because she didn't understand them she was putting inaccurate information in the articles.
  • She was adding and edit-warring pointless verbiage into the articles, which, by her own admission, she wanted in just for the sake of increasing the word count to bring it up to DYK standards.
  • She was creating highly uncivil, crudely insulting edit summaries and talk page comments in response to requests that she stop what she was doing and explain herself. For someone who spent two hours crying about recent events, she doesn't seem to have much regard for the feelings of others.
  • Her only response to the inquiry into her actions was complete, unqualified recalcitrance and insistence that she was perfectly right and her critics wrong.

These are the reasons the community decided upon an editing restriction. An editing restriction is, in my view, an extremely mild sanction. It doesn't take money out of anyone's pocket. It doesn't take away their time. It doesn't deprive them of income, friends or personal liberty. It just says "stop what you're doing until you understand how to do it properly". I was among many editors at the original discussion who said that the restriction could be lifted after WW communicates to the community that she understands where she went wrong and won't do it any more.

Unfortunately, the problem with editing restrictions is that they're only effective to the extent that they're respected by the restricted editor. WW has, to this day, not accepted responsibility or made an open undertaking to improve her editing. Instead she's fishing around for a way to circumvent the restriction. An indefblock would, if nothing else, force her to engage with the community on the subject of her edits. Remember, a block is not a death sentence. Not editing Misplaced Pages is hardly a terrible burden to impose on someone. My mother doesn't edit Misplaced Pages every day and it hasn't done her any harm at all. Again, the block can, and should, be lifted just as soon as WW shows some sign of "getting it".

I've seen a lot of kids get their feelings hurt over being told that they're not doing things the right way when they edit here. I feel the same way about it that WW's supporters do. But Misplaced Pages is not therapy, and it's not daycare either. We're not here to make teenage editors feel good about themselves. We're here to provide a complete and reliable encyclopedia to our readers.

However, at this point I don't think a block on her account is necessary. I think a better alternative would be if one of her many defenders could (1) persuade her to forget about DYK for the time being, and (2) come here, to this ANI thread and explain to us that she understands what the problem was and doesn't intend to repeat it. I say this because her apparent efforts to circumvent the restriction are still only being discussed, not acted upon.

I realize I haven't provided diffs to support my account. For those who are interested, they're all available at the original AN/I thread in the archive.

Disclaimer:I am not an administrator. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 11:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I remember well the previous AN/I discussion, and this seems like a good summary. I don't dispute any of your points other than the claim that she's fishing around to circumvent the restriction - while I too am concerned that she doesn't really seem to understand why she was restricted, the conversation referenced doesn't seem to me to support arguing that she was looking for a way to step around the rules. That aside, this discussion was started with a request to increase the restriction to a block, based not on her breaking of the restriction, but on a discussion in which it was suggested that she might ask other people to nominate articles (which seems to be what you're saying). Looking over her edits since the restriction, there doesn't seem to be anything apparent that is particularly problematic. I'm just inclined to give the restriction time, and to otherwise do as you suggest - make sure that she understands what it was that led to the restriction, why she is being restricted, and possibly have a mentor to help her to learn about referencing and make sure she works in areas where she can help. - Bilby (talk) 11:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that it's a "good summary", I'd be more inclined to call it the worst possible construction of her behaviour.

WW was creating articles, by her own omission, to realize her "dream of 10,000 DYK articles". (perhaps not an accurate quote. I didn't look it up again.)

So? That's precisely what the DYK awards exist for - to encourage the creation of new content.

She was plagiarizing online journals to create them.

I looked into the only article I have seen where she has been accused of plagiarism and what I saw was a genuine attempt to put limited information into her own words. I've seen far worse, in fact in only the last couple of days I've seen much more blatant examples of plagiarism submitted to DYK. However, my response was not to start half a dozen AN/I threads attacking the author, I just made it clear to the users in question that such submissions would not be accepted.

She, by her own admission, didn't understand what she was editing when she created the articles. Because she didn't understand them she was putting inaccurate information in the articles.

True, but then as I said before, lots of people make errors when they write articles. She just needs to stick to subjects she can understand.

She was adding and edit-warring pointless verbiage into the articles, which, by her own admission, she wanted in just for the sake of increasing the word count to bring it up to DYK standards.

She was trying to bloviate a bit to get the character count up to 1500 - something that plenty of other editors are wont to do when they are a few characters short. The problem is that she didn't really have a grasp of the subject matter, so it was a silly thing to do but people will sometimes do silly things in the heat of the moment.

She was creating highly uncivil, crudely insulting edit summaries and talk page comments in response to requests that she stop what she was doing and explain herself.

Well I saw one uncivil comment where she called an editor "revolting" in a crude and easily interpreted code. Given the amount of time that particular editor has spent pursuing her, quite frankly I wasn't suprised that she eventually resorted to a little incivility. However, we don't or shouldn't sanction people for the occasional cranky comment, but for a pattern of incivility to others, and I've seen no such pattern.

Her only response to the inquiry into her actions was complete, unqualified recalcitrance and insistence that she was perfectly right and her critics wrong.

I must have missed that too. I just saw someone who was angry and not ready to respond rationally. Perhaps if she'd been given a little more time she would have been able to say something in her defence, which would have been the rational thing to do in the circumstances. Gatoclass (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I see Steven J. Anderson's point, though, as a summary of the arguments made against WW which led to the restriction. But I'm also happy to accept that there is still room to debate whether or not it is a fair and accurate depiction of her behaviour. - Bilby (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I can see why someone might be intimidated by AN/I so not feel comfortable responding here, and I can easily see why someone might be intimidated by all the threats of getting her banned etc. that she's received. Sticky Parkin 14:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Pot calling the milk carton black

What was the occasion for this AN/I thread? As far as I can see, nothing but the determination of an editor or two to pursue and harass User:Wilhelmina Will, beyond all reason, beyond all necessity. That editor is young and made some mistakes. She appears to be in the process of recognizing them, and she seems happy to have help in this. This whole affair has been riddled with AGF failure and incivility, and it's about time it stop. I gave a few words of encouragement to User:Ottava Rima, on his Talk, and one editor pursued this to my Talk, attacking OR, suggesting I should investigate. So I did, and found that OR had not as claimed, been making totally baseless charges, that Blechnic had, indeed, been arguably uncivil to Wilhelmina Will. The matter is complex and investigating it all would probably be a waste of time, so I'm not asserting that his comments were unjustified, I'll leave that for an RfC if it must come to that. Then I gave, also, some encouraging words to User:Wilhelmina Will, and began discussing with her what she could do, within policy and guidelines and community practice. And, immediately, there appeared on my Talk page a post from User:Blechnic threatening that if WW suggested any DYKs, "proxied" by someone else -- as Blechnic termed it -- he would ask for WW to be blocked, and would remove the nominations, simply on the basis that she had been involved, with no regard to content or appropriateness. This is harassment, and, I'd suggest, this does create a reason for admin attention here. I'd rather it not be me to formally warn Blechnic, he has already stated, in advance, that he would simply remove them. Which is his right. Preferably, he should be warned by someone who has worked cooperatively with him in the past, he's more likely to hear it. But anyone could do it. --Abd (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I also see that User:Blechnic ignored my request that Blechnic not post to my Talk page (due to the harassment), and the user ignored it, not only to post a notice about this AN/I thread (which is arguably excusable), but also, previously, to continue to harass. Because this does indicate that Blechnic did read my warning there about harassment, it may be no longer necessary to warn Blechnic on the user's Talk before blocking. Blocks should never be punitive, but continuing harassment after warning may necessitate a block. --Abd (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• This user appears to be fond of accusing others of "harrassment" when none exists. At his talk page, he had the gall to accuse me of "harrassing" Ottava Rima, when it was that user who drug me through WQA simply for defending Blechnic from the ludicrous "personal attacks" accusations that he (Ottava Rima) had leveled at him. The relevant quote from Abd is, "Thus, I must see Jameson's comment here as part of carrying on some kind of harassment of this user ..." Thus, I would take Abd's accusations that Blechnic has "harrassed" him/her with a rather large grain of salt. It's apparently difficult for Abd to distinguish between a user defending oneself from baseless accusations, and "harrassing" someone. S. Dean Jameson 16:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Don't have any such difficulty, in a situation like this. This user extrapolates from his defective understanding of a single comment into a whole pattern of behavior. Jameson is free to take as much salt as he likes, in fact, the whole container is fine with me, take it home. It's harassment when a user follows another user around, interfering with independent conversations. Given what else happened between these users, the single incident on my Talk page, where Ottava Rima was gratuitously attacked, by Jameson, without any provocation, merely on the possibility that I might be starting to see things from OR's point of view, I'll stick with my conclusion that it was harassment. Hence I intend to start preparing an RfC on this user, AN/I isn't the best place to deal with what came down yesterday, it's about what is happening now. And what is hapening now, my conclusion, is that Blechnic is continuing to harass Wilhelmina Will, by raising a totally moot AN/I report, alleging no violation of guidelines or policies, showing no emergency, no reasonable possibility of significant damage to the project. What's going to happen, at worst? I might make some allegedly improper nominations at DYK? Is that a blockable offense? Is that even worth talking about here at this point? Jameson's involvement with Wilhelmina Will is less clear to me; he made some gestures that could be considered conciliatory or helpful. Or which could also be considered as traps. It's a little odd, I'll say, to suggest working together on an article, and then take a lack of response as if it were hostile or a sign of some offense. But not all that abnormal, and, for now, my assumption is that the offer on Dean's part was sincere. Coffee, Jameson. Smell it. Maybe drink some. There is a lot going on here that you don't yet understand, you may be in over your head. Be careful. Isn't that what you advised me? --Abd (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

  I'd encourage you to note that accusing others of personal attacks when they haven't made one is a gross breach of WP:CIV, and completely unacceptable. I have at no point during this strange milieu of accusations and innuendo personally attacked or "harassed" anyone. I'll thank you to stop saying that I have. S. Dean Jameson 21:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Also, for the record, starting an RfC on me would be disruptive, as I've done nothing wrong, except dignify Rima's attacks (and now yours) with a response. As such, I'll not be responding to you further in this thread, or at any bogus RfC you choose to open regarding me. S. Dean Jameson 21:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I consider Blechnic's incessant description- about four times in only one paragraph in one of his comments below- of a good-faith editors contributor's edits as 'crap'{...}'crap'{...}'crap' {...} and so on to be uncivil and not to foster a good environment for collaboration on wiki. Sticky Parkin 23:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I apologize, and I've stricken out my instances of use of the word "crap," and will, for now on, call it what it is usually called on Misplaced Pages: vandalism. --Blechnic (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It would save us a great deal of trouble: Please block User:Blechnic, who shows every sign of continuing to harass and disrupt the project through various means, including the filing of this particular AN/I report. This user, who has been amply warned though previous blocks and various Talk page warnings, was blocked previously for one week, May 4, for harassment and other causes, and I just reviewed the AN/I report that caused his block log to be annotated and, frankly, it looks to me like a case of the community simply becoming exhausted and saying, well, if we give him a Newby Pass, it will shut him up. I.e., no conclusion was made that he hadn't harassed and been uncivil or the source of personal attacks, but that we could say that the blocks were a bit extreme since he was new. Given how energetic he's been at attempting to get User:Wilhelmina Will banned or blocked, given how he has refused to stop, has pursued Wilhelmina Will beyond all reason, given how clear all this is, do I need, at this point, to begin a Misplaced Pages:Request for comment on him? I think reading this report here, plus the prior report diff'd above, should be enough.

As to User:S. Dean Jameson, it remains possible for me to assume good faith on his part. I came to this topic, though, because he did post a personal attack on User:Ottava Rima, gratuitously, on my Talk page; I came to the conclusion that it was a personal attack and amounted to harassment after following up on his suggestion that I research the matter. He warned me not to take what I found to AN/I, and, one might note, I didn't. Rather it was Blechnic who opened up this can of worms and further disruption. Jameson's behavior is problematic, but does not show the vicious and tenacious pursuit that is displayed by Blechnic, and I hope that Jameson will be able to calm down and clam up.... My suggestion that Blechnic be blocked is the first time, ever, I've suggested such a remedy. (I never requested that User:Fredrick day or User:Allemandtando be blocked, for those with lack of detail in their memory, I simply exposed what had been happening and the community decided to block.)

Mentor

Before we get off on another tangent based upon incivility claims and counter-claims, can I bring up the issue of mentoring WW. It was mentioned as a condition for her getting off her DYK ban in the last AN/I thread and I think this needs to be seriously followed up. Mark t young (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• I strongly support this, as WW does seem to be a genuinely good-hearted person, who has simply gotten off-track a bit. The recent Abd advice regarding how to get DYKs even when she's been topic-banned from there further reemphasizes the immediate need to find a mentor that can advise her how best to proceed in correcting the flaws that have surfaced in her style to date, and help her in setting some realistic goals for herself on the project. Good suggestion, Mark. S. Dean Jameson 16:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

  I've just left a message on her talkpage regarding helping out with an article that the FACC is trying to work up to featured status. Perhaps this might be a good solution for a user like WW with legitimate writing ability during her DYK topic ban. S. Dean Jameson 16:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

  Note. She just removed mine and Tim Vicker's notes to her as "weird messages." Neither was such. Perhaps there are some deeper issues that need addressed here. S. Dean Jameson 19:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• I support a mentorship, or something along the lines of it. Possible writing articles and having them proofread by a mentor or two. I also request that when WW makes the slightest of mistake, that Blechnic does not make another huge AN/I thread like this. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 19:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "Slightest mistake?" What's a slight mistake, purposefully putting crap in articles because she doesn't understand the sources and thinks they can be corrected after they've been on the main page and she's received glory for them? WW is responsible for this discussion about her. She has chosen time and again to not put any input into these threads and to take no initiative for being mentored. "But Misplaced Pages is not therapy, and it's not daycare either. We're not here to make teenage editors feel good about themselves. We're here to provide a complete and reliable encyclopedia to our readers." I agree with the poster above. This is an encyclopedia, whatever the DYK award chasers want it to be something else. If DYK spent more time checking articles and less time glorifying themselves with awards this issue would never have arisen after WW's 30th piece of paleontological crap, but would have been stopped with the first. Let WW decide whether there's anything to make an issue of by deleting all the crap she's contributed to Misplaced Pages and not giving me anything to say. --Blechnic (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You started this thread about her just for her asking a question on another user's talk page. Sticky Parkin 23:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support only if Wilhelmina Will takes initiative for mentorship by coming here and assuring she understand all of the terms. If she's too young or too busy or too unwilling or not mature enough or doesn't have the capacity to come here, state her understanding of the terms and agree to them, then follow them, there's no way a third chance should be forced upon her. She ignored the first two AN/Is and continues to ignore them. That's enough. --Blechnic (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Age discrimination for general editing is a violation of Foundation level policy. -- Ned Scott 02:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I think you mean this for User:Gatoclass who suggests we allow her to edit any way she wants or something along those lines because of her youth. There are plenty of excellent, young, and capable editors all over Misplaced Pages. I have no qualms about holding them all to the same standards I hold older editors to: produce accurate articles that you've written yourself from information you understand. You can find Gatoclass's post excusing her for her age above. Don't worry about me, I don't see her age as an excuse for vandalizing articles by inserting information into them that she knows is wrong but figures someone else can correct after she is rewarded for putting up the vandalism. --Blechnic (talk) 05:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose mentorship - there seems to be a mentality brewing that "more editors = more better". This mentality is wrong. Spewing forth garbage articles damages the very notion of Misplaced Pages as an encyclopedia - to say nothing of the readibility/coherance problems that stem from an article being written by an author who knows very little - or even nothing at all - about the subject. The plagarism (nice-nice version: "dis-understanding of quotations") is merely the icing upon the cake. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. It is not a web forum for people who kinda sorta know things to congregate and make buddies. If it were, I'd be more sympathetic. Given that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, however, and encylopedias and their readers both deserve - even require - a notion of quality control - and given that WW's shotgun approach to edits places an unfair burden upon those dedicated to said quality control, it's more than fair to say that both the encyclopedia and WW would be better off with WW focusing her energies elsewhere, for the time being at least. --Badger Drink (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose any binding poll on this here AN/I is not designed for user RfC, that's WP:RFC/U. It's been claimed that Wilhelmina Will is under a topic ban at DYK, but the terms of the ban and its term are totally unclear, and that's because AN/I is a lousy place to come up with such sanctions, it's designed for emergencies, quick action, not careful consideration of options. The original DYK topic ban was the apparent outcome of a poll in which opinions expressed varied from "block" to "topic ban until she gets it," not to mention some opposing !votes. If there are questions about her ban and what the term is, or how a mentor would affect it, I'd suggest that the matter would be, pending some other outcome, in the hands of the administrator who effectively closed that discussion and who later took responsibility for communicating it,, User:Fritzpoll. And if WW wants to appeal her topic ban, she can do so at any time, either by raising the issue here or by discussing it with Fritzpoll (in addition to other possible paths she could take). None of this should be here at this time, it is pure harassment, demanding that she appear before what she may see as some kind of inquisition. Jameson has complained bitterly about being "dragged before WP:WQA," an informal, nonbinding forum, surely he could understand that a young, fairly inexperienced editor might not find the idea of defending her every action in AN/I, where some are calling for blocks and bans, to be ... fun? As to the comments from User:Badger Drink, the arguments would apply to a disruptive user, and whatever disruption WW has actually caused, it seems to be small compared to (1) what I see from many other users who aren't dragged before AN/I day after day, and (2) the disruption caused by those who seem to be determined to get her banned. The article that supposedly took such work to fix, mentioned prominently in the complaints against her, was probably a better article than the average on Misplaced Pages, quite a bit better, and not difficult to fix to make it even better. There is something very odd going on here.--Abd (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Stongly Support Mentorship - She clearly has writing ability and a desire to expand the encyclopedia. That desire just needs to be channeled more appropriately. I am not inclined to read any malice into her not responding on ANI - she is a teenage girl who is apparently very upset about the recent turn of events right now. She is probably right not to respond until she has had a chance to calm down, and hopefully her discussions with User:Abd will facilitate that. I would add that despite the recent drama around her she started a new article on Jillian Clare to the encyclopedia, presumably without expectation of DYK or other "awards", and while that article had some issues, they were minor issues, nothing like the issues with some of the technical topics she tried to tackle. Rlendog (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

  Whether they are good or bad articles, if she is creating them for awards she is creating them for the wrong reason. Mentorship or otherwise the topic ban for DYK should stay in place for a very long time to ensure there is no chance she is just trying to bide her time until she can start submitting to that again. As far as her being a teenager goes, I said above and I'll repeat here: If her maturity level is a problem she can come back when she is more mature. There are plenty of editors her age who handle themselves on wikipedia with a lot more maturity. There are also editors older than her who should leave for the same reason.--Crossmr (talk) 01:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• strongly support mentorship 100%. I'm concerned with how younger editors get treated on wiki in general, but that's beside the point. This user has potential and has created articles on legitimate topics. Without knowing how she will grow with adoption, we can't judge. It needs to be tried before we can assume any outcome. The only requirement, of course, is that she accepts this, or at least promises to change her ways; in some way shows willingness to change. Sticky Parkin 23:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• I'll encourage it, but I do not believe mentorship should be required. Like I said before, I don't care what the motivation is for an editor. If she wants to create articles for the sole purpose of getting praise, go for it. It's all fine and "noble" if you believe that's the wrong reason, but you can't actually stop it. Furthermore, this is the kind of thing that should self-regulate itself. If she creates bad articles, she'll get criticism. If she creates good articles, she'll get praise that's better than the generic kind she's been getting so far. With the more experience she gets here, with supportive and positive assistance from the community, things will only get better. We are far from seriously considering a community ban. -- Ned Scott 02:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: As WW has expressed her lack of understanding of palaeo-related literature (a trial for anyone, even some of us in the field), then mentoring could help her gain the confidence to tackle such challenges (e.g. assimilation of facts from technical papers). As other editors have commented, she has lots of potential; her writing style is good, and she has a genuine desire to create for the project. In addition, her palaeo references are valid, so she does have the ability to seek out good references. I believe if someone could mentor her she could become an asset for Misplaced Pages. I don't believe this is about "good" articles or "bad" articles, but empowering her to make the most accurate possible edits each time. Mark t young (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support - but only in the sense that it might be useful her, not because it has been shown that it is needed. As far as I can tell she has behaved reasonably since being informed of the restrictions, has moved to editing in her sandbox, and hasn't edited outside of her expertise. The worst accusation is that she was involved in a discussion which she interpreted to mean that others could nominate articles for her, and was (perhaps insufficiently) corrected at the time. Thus I'm not convinced that any further sanctions are required. However, friendly mentoring would help improve her editing, as per Mark's comment above, which can't be a bad thing. - Bilby (talk) 02:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't depend on reports from Blechnic as to what happened. Anyone can nominate a DYK, and there are no rules that say that someone can't nominate one after another user suggests it, say, requesting that it be reviewed before submission. She didn't do anything even remotely improper in the discussion in question, if anyone did something improper it would be me, for suggesting such a thing -- but I don't think it was improper. There was nothing that could justify the filing of this AN/I report, which is why I've concluded it was a continuation of prior harassment by an editor who has been warned and blocked for harassment previously, see , and, then, above, a continued and defiant incivility.. See, as well, the AN/I report that resulted in a block log annotation giving Blechnic a Newbie Pass for prior harassment and disruption. It's quite enough. --Abd (talk) 03:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree in regard to WW - my understanding of the discussion on your talk page was that she had done nothing wrong, and the worst accusation is that she interpreted your perfectly reasonable advice of "someone else can nominate your articles", which seems valid, as you say, to be "are you saying I can ask someone else to nominate an article for me" (emphasis mine), which you then clarified. Why this warrants a discussion of indef blocks is unclear to me. I'm also not convinced that it warrants mentoring, but if she is interested I figure it would be helpful, if only to end this discussion and to help her improve as an editor - she seems good, but could do with some friendly suggestions on how to better use references. This, of course, is a separate issue to the problems raised last time, but I assumed that the restriction meant that the previous issue was resolved unless the restriction failed to work. - Bilby (talk) 04:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sakes. Is there really a poll being taken, and on ANI of all places, as to whether an experienced contributor is to be permitted to mentor a new one? What is going to happen if the poll fails--we continue biting the newbie? How about if everyone who is tempted to vote here just does some improvement on an article instead, and we resolve this thread. Jonathunder (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• question Is Fritzpoll still willing to undertake it? From what I've seen its not a technical question of finding sources, but coming to a more reasonable way of writing articles in general, and its going to take empathy on one side and cooperation on the other. DGG (talk) 03:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

AN/I, quite simply, isn't the place to work it out. I think the editor will be responsive to support. This isn't a newbie, by the way, she's been extraordinarily active, but she's been editing since 16 June, 2007 when, I presume, she was 15 years old, and she has 8710 edits when I ran the toolserver. I don't think she needs a mentor, as such, but rather some friends, whom she trusts, who will advise her when things become doubtful. She ran into some editors who were, shall we say, less than supportive, and she made some mistakes. I don't see any sign that she will repeat those, but, if she's human like the rest of us, she'll probably make some more before she's done.

• I think we should wait and see if her accuracy improves before assigning her a mentor. As pointed out above, she's been around a while and has a bunch of edits, and there's no reason to think she won't be responsive to people's concerns about accuracy. Everyking (talk) 04:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • There is a reason to believe she won't be responsive to people's concerns about accuracy, namely she hasn't corrected any of her articles. She's already unresponsive to people's concerns about accuracy. Also, she didn't say anything about being willing to change the first time she was discussed, nor the second time she was discussed. The third time she just has a different excuse: she's too young for accuracy. --Blechnic (talk) 04:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • To DGG - yes, I am still willing to undertake this, but she hasn't responded to any message I've placed n her talkpage, and given her comments to S. Dean Jameson on her talkpage (rapidly arhcived) I don't think she sees the need for collaboration yet, and likely regards me as a user that she cannot trust given that I have commented here. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
    • • Fritzpoll, give it some time. She's been pretty badly burned, and this page is a terrible place to work out how to proceed, what with the continued harassment by Blechnic, who takes everything she has said, or has done or hasn't done, and twists it into some terrible indicator of bad faith and corrupt motive. This is a better-than-average editor, doing a great deal of work, without a lot of sophistication in Misplaced Pages politics, and such an editor is going to make mistakes. I hope nobody ever puts such effort into scouring my record for errors! (Actually, it's been tried, but, fortunately, Misplaced Pages is pretty tolerant, normally, of what one did eight months ago; some flak passed by over a COI edit I made three years ago, before I had a clue.) It's taking me days just to figure out what happened with WW, and I've only begun to address it. Along the way I see, yes, she made some mistakes, did things that, if she were to repeat them, would be, indeed, a problem, but, so far, I haven't seen that kind of repetition. I will be encouraging her to not attempt to work around you, in particular, nor the prior AN/I consensus for some kind of topic ban at DYK, but rather to satisfy all legitimate concerns. And I'll repeat it: this report is not a legitimate place to develop a consensus over how to proceed, because it attracts editors who make snap judgments based on incorrect and biased analysis being presented here. If someone wants additional sanctions or conditions to be applied, the place would be through normal WP:DR process, and AN/I is not part of that process. It's 911 for administrators. Is there any emergency here? I have not seen it alleged. --Abd (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
        • A fair point. I concur with giving her some breathing space, and ending this near-inquisition. I'm still very willing to help, as I'm convinced she can be guided into productive collaboration with enough help and an open mind. I'll remind her of that after an appropriate breathing space has opened up. Cheers, Abd. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree. She doesn't seem to see any problem with the issues at DYK, nor (as Fritzpoll said) does she seem to even want to work collaboratively. If you guys want, I can find the diff that says that very thing. I don't hold out much hope that she'll respond to Fritz in that regard. S. Dean Jameson 12:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Her existing copy vios and vandalisms that need edited

I'll just start going through her articles.

Here's the first one:

The Wildlife Experience

Here's a line from the article: "The large format screen, designed by iWERKS, is composed of a proprietary reflective material and measures 45-by-60 feet, covering a 2,700-square-foot (250 m²) area."

Here's her putting it in Misplaced Pages.

Here's the web page she took it from.

And the line on that web page: "The large format screen, designed by iWERKS, is composed of a proprietary reflective material and measures 45-by-60 feet, covering a 2,700 square-foot area."

How many more copy vios from this one article will I find? How many more from all of her articles?

Is this what she wants, needs, someone to go through and find all of the copy vios she inserted into Misplaced Pages, all of the vandalisms with misinformation?

No problem, someone has to clean up after vandals. I'll keep a page with a running total. Or maybe a few pages when these get over the easy load limit.

PS I'll also mark where she uses personal blogs as her "reliable sources."

--Blechnic (talk) 05:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thankyou. I fixed that one - it was clearly a copyvio. If you find any other problems it would be helpful to have them on hand for anyone (whether as a result of mentoring or just someone helping her develop as an editor) who talks to her about referencing. Given that the edit you found is over six months old, though, I'm not sure how it furthers the discussion here. - Bilby (talk) 08:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Excuse me, Mr. Blechnic, but did you just call WW a vandal? I do believe I am done listening to your unfounded attacks on WW. -- Ned Scott 08:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

New proposal

We still don't appear to have a consensus here about how exactly to proceed. Might I propose as a compromise between the various positions that WW be banned from submitting articles to DYK for a month, and that she may begin submitting articles to DYK again thereafter providing that she accepts a mentor in the meantime. Gatoclass (talk) 11:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus, and no basis, for a ban at all. There are grounds for caution, for the provision of guidance to this editor. Submission to DYK, however, is already subject to review by other editors, in any case, so if it happens that she submits inappropriate material, it's harmless, unless we have a much more serious problem at DYK than one editor allegedly submitting problematic articles. The damage done in this affair has been from massive and repeated incivility and tendentious argument, on the part of more than one editor, with her incivility being mostly avoidant, not aggressive. And to examine this and determine further sanctions involving her, if any, should not be done in AN/I, because it is far more appropriate for an RfC or other, calmer process, where evidence can be gathered and neutrally examined. AN/I is only appropriate for emergencies requiring administrative attention, and I only see one such here: the ongoing and persistent harassment of WW by Blechnic; sufficient evidence already exists in this incident report to justify a block of Blechnic, the report itself is quite a proof of harassment, and other factors have been described as well, including reference to Blechnic's history.--Abd (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we close this thread now- the whole thing seems cruel, and it is bullying. Nothing new's happened to justify a new thread discussing WW's future, this discussion has already been had in the past. This whole 'telling tales' and seeking to get her banned thread here was supposedly about the fact that she asked a question on someone's talk page. My personal 'consensus' is that someone appears to be a bully that has it in for someone else (that's not a personal attack, just my impression of what's happening). Sticky Parkin 13:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Close. I'll create a separate report on the harassment, which is the only proper issue for AN/I here. I'll also disclose that I've started to take a look at WW's contributions. She has 28 successful DYKs, according to her Creations page. I'll be reviewing the balance, i.e., even though 28 DYKs is impressive, it's theoretically possible that the editor caused so much disruption that it wasn't worth it, though I've seen no evidence of this beyond Blechnic's claims. I saw that her last nomination to DYK -- when she was apparently unaware of the topic ban, she'd never been notified of it -- was reverted by Blechnic. I looked at the nomination, it seemed proper to me (other than the issue of the ban), so I just restored it, and we'll see how the DYK crew treat it. Since Blechnic seems to be inclined to incorrectly wikilawyer against assisting banned or blocked editors (the excuse for this whole AN/I section), I'll note that content issues are separate from ban issues. An edit by a banned editor may be reverted on sight by any editor, and normally this may be done without regard to content, but any editor in good standing may restore it on their own responsibility, this is not proxying, and would only be improper if it, in itself, is disruptive.--Abd (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm not sure you guys understand what the situation is. There was a prior consensus reached that she be banned from DYK, but no time limit was agreed upon. If that ban is to be overturned, I think there will have to be a new consensus, we can hardly decide amongst ourselves that the ban is void. That is why I have come up with a specific proposal, so that everyone is on the same page on this issue. Gatoclass (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Tatkanic

I'm not sure what this editor is trying to contribute but they all look like they should be deleted. Can someone check his contrib history and nuke the whole lot that are not to his userspace? Exxolon (talk) 07:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

They were blocked for this once already and advised to read our guidelines for notability. I also emailed them specifically about this, responding to an unblock-en-l request. So, blocked for 1 week and left a note for them about not adding articles about their mates and youth football team. –xeno (talk) 07:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast response. Exxolon (talk) 07:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the report. –xeno (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and salted the article names; I don't foresee real articles being written at these titles. I have a sinking feeling they'll just re-appear with different capitalization, but I gave it a shot. --barneca (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the user understands English that well. He appears to have been creating vanity articles about his Bulgarian youth football team. Corvus cornix_talk 19:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Misofalalala

Looks like a copycat of the report I made above. Is there some minor league somewhere or something who's team managers have received instructions to put their teams on Misplaced Pages? Exxolon (talk) 08:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

After re-checking it appears they are creating articles on all the members of a football team in Hong Kong's top football league. I believe that means they meet our notability criteria but all the articles seem to consist of a variation on "Yau Kam Leung (Chinese: 游錦良, born 26 April 1985 in Hong Kong) is a Hong Kong professional football player playing for Hong Kong First Division League team Fourway (football). His position is Left-back." and an infobox. No independent sources are given. Might warrant a blanket redirect to the main team article? I'll leave a note on their talkpage and see what happens. Exxolon (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Update - their talk page is full of speedy deletion notices for these articles previously. Probably should've checked that first but I was a bit tired when I was editing earlier!Exxolon (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I speedied (A7) them all originally as they had no more than the basic infobox. After the editor added the single line which claimed enough significance to force me to remove the CSD. They are currently unrefed, but that is probably easy enough to find, so they almost certainly pass all the basic requirements. --triwbe (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Damiens.rf - stalking and harassing

This user has a history of stalking, harassing and disruptive editing. He has followed me around to several articles, reverting, deleting and leaving messages on my talk page. In particular, I point to the edit histories of Chris Barnes (actor) and the fact that the user then went on to nominate the article for deletion, presumably because I has worked on it extensively, and deleted the actor's name as a notable in the article about his hometown.

He received a warning about his abuse of Twinkle, which he used to revert edits I'd made as "vandalism."

He received a complaint on his talk page today from two other editors.

I admit I lost my cool after a while and left an uncomplimentary message on his talk page, for which I was unfairly banned for two weeks. I don't think it's right that someone like this is allowed to prowl around here the way he does without any kind of rebuke from the community and that an administrator would know what was going on and penalize one of his targets instead. Cbsite (talk) 12:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

One article does not a stalker make. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that the user has a strong sense about the use of non-free images - he doesn't think they should be used at all. He nominates for deletion at his own whim, reverts as "vandalism" edits that offer a rationale for the image's presence and harasses just about anyone who tries to go up against him. Here's a sample of his "submit or die" editing from July 15 and 16: ,,,,,..

And read his comments as he tries to get the article deleted: he's got an ax to grind, and he's not about making constructive contributions. Cbsite (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The misuse of Twinkle should result in him not being allowed to use it. Corvus cornix_talk 19:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats

Catherinefionarichardson (talk · contribs) has felt it necessary to make legal threats on my talkpage. If anyone could kindly have a look and take action if necessary. JFW | T@lk 12:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That is a legal threat. What's the background to the issue? Rudget 12:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The background is that a user called Alpinist (talk · contribs) was blocked for sockpuppetry. Edits along the same lines then started appearing from the 88.108 range. Assuming as one would that this was more of the same Alpinist, I am now being accused of "defamation" of Alpinist because I attribute the behaviour of the 88.108 socks to Alpinist.

Is the background particularly important for deciding on issues of legal threats? A legal threat is a legal threat, I thought. JFW | T@lk 13:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

There's legal threats, and then there's legal threats. This likely goes against policy, but I'd be inclined to just ignore it in this case; threatening to sue for defamation of someone else's username is just so stupid, it's hard to take seriously. I'll leave a message on her talk page, but won't go further myself. If someone wants to follow policy more stringently and block, I won't lose any sleep, but I think it's probably unnecessary. --barneca (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

All good and well, but this is sounding more serious now than it did before: diff. JFW | T@lk 13:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. --barneca (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Good block. Threatening legal action creates an environment of intimidation that is poisonous to neutrality. Chillum 14:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, IanR2008 (talk · contribs) has sprung up. Clearly whoever I have upset is not going to go away easily. Wish urgent input could be applied. JFW | T@lk 20:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him, and someone else has dealt with the summary. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Theresa. I've already semied my talkpage myself. With this kind of harrasment, I will WP:IAR. Suspect temporary semi of Talk:Simon Wessely may be prudent, but I will await your opinion on that one. JFW | T@lk 21:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm loathed to do that. The anon hasn't edited that page in a while. I think we should keep a close eye for a while and see what happens. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. But that talkpage and the related article is the nidus of our disagreement, and if the situation is going to spill over anywhere, it will be there. JFW | T@lk 21:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

True but the way I see it is this. He comes to you talk page and finds he can't edit, he either gives up and goes away or tries another page possibly Talk:Simon Wessely. Now if that page is also semprotected he can easily post somewhere else. We can't semi everywhere. Much better to keep a close watch and spot him quickly. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Weasel, fully protected.

A dispute dropped itself on my talk page today, somewhat out of the blue, but it drew my attention to the fact that Template:Weasel has been edited multiple times beginning since July 14th in what looks to be a slow edit war. (Nowhere near 3RR.) I have fully protected the template, but only for four days, and left a note at the template's talk page. This is not my usual arena (I was in the middle of working on a copyright problem when the talk bar lit up), so I'm bringing this here for review & additional action, if necessary. --Moonriddengirl 14:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It should be protected anyways because it is shown on so many pages it is a target for shock image vandals. People can come to a consensus on the talk page and use {{editprotected}}. Though in the case of an edit war I think admins should also seek consensus on the talk page before editing it. Chillum 14:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Please note that some of the edits in question consisted of another editor inserting an admitted "joke" that broke the template and me reverting this vandalism. —David Levy 14:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Not known for my levity, I'm inclined to think jokes have no place in templates. :) Chillum, are you of the opinion, then, that the template ought to be permanently fully protected? The template is not as widely transcluded as, say, {{fact}}, but it is still pretty significantly represented. It seems to me that full protection is consistent with WP:PROT. --Moonriddengirl 14:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that any template that is used throughout more than a few hundred articles should be fully protected to avoid a single act of vandalism effecting too many pages. This is my opinion and it also seems to be consistent with policy. I am sure other people will have an opinion about it too. Chillum 15:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears to transclude to a little over 1,100 pages. I think that is enough to warrant concern. Chillum 15:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's two of us, anyway. :) 1,100 pages counts more as "very" significant than "pretty," I'd think. I've indefinitely fully protected it and templated it, barring consensus that WP:PROT doesn't apply. --Moonriddengirl 16:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think protection was an extreme measure. There was no disagreement on what the template was intended to mean. The only disagreement was on how emphatic to make it, how to do that without raising technical issues, and what policies it is rooted in. I've never come close to 3RR, because I drop my internet connection to get real work done on my computer. My first reversion was probably on 2008-07-14.

This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed.

BrewJay (talk) 23:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The point of protection is to prevent wording issues being worked out in template space, since every time you alter that template you are also altering all the articles which incorporate it. Consensus should be reached at the talk page, with potentially additional input from responders at an appropriate policy or guideline talk page. --Moonriddengirl 23:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Moonriddengirl is absolutely right. Wording issues should be developed in talk space and could always be demonstrated using mocks up made in user-space pages. Also as I understand WP:PROT it should be fully protected permanently since it is so widely transcluded--Cailil 00:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The real reason the template needs to be protected is that if you vandalize it that vandalism ends up on 1,100 pages. People have taken advantage of that in the past to put up shock images. It is also a good idea for such widely used templates to have changes proposed on the talk page first. There is also the issue that 1,100 page's caches need to be purged for each change of the template, so it is helpful to figure out the final product before making a change. Chillum 00:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. The reason this discussion is here, is because I asked someone to weigh in on an argument about what was an improvement; IOW suggest a medium between what was becoming diametrically opposed. Now, we hav two people making suppositions about what wasn't done on the talk page or in the edit summary. Let's do this in pieces, like they would in a forum:

                     Levy   Chillum   Cailil  MoonRiddenGirl BrewJay
Concrete Terms:        N       U        U            U          Y
Notability             N       U        U            U          Y
Neutrality             Y       U        U            U          N
Audio                  N       U        U            U          Y
Suck or Draw           U       U        U            U          D
Terse                  N       U        U            U          Y

This is not the place for this discussion. :) This discussion was merely related to whether or not protecting the template was appropriate within WP:PROT. If you want to discuss specific changes to the template, please do so at the template talk page. --Moonriddengirl 01:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Dagoth Ur, Mad God/userpage.js

Can someone delete this page please, It it a page of a retired editor that is not even java script. It also contains an "adopt me" template and i can't remove it so he is stuck in the "Users waiting for adoption category" cheers   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

He's not a retired editor. He edited today. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ooops it was a tired template. Well can someone remove the Adopt me template from that JS page?   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Done Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Paul Barlow

This user User:Paul Barlow keeps inserting non-biblical content into the Mahound article. Mahound is based on the biblical literature that describes the Christian view and this user keeps inserting another text from another religon. This user was already informed and Paul Barlow keeps inserting non biblical text. --Alley30 (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes he does appear to be reverting without explaining his reverts. Have you tried talking to him about it? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, the version Paul Barlow last reverted to seems far more neutral in tone, and added some useful (and cited) information. I've restored that version for now, though his lack of explanation is somewhat troubling. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats not even biblical literature. Go create your own Mahamada article and personal views. The Mahound is based on terms found in the biblical literature. --Alley30 (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Alley30 is a single-purpose account which is pushing a (frankly rather odd) POV in relation to the article . Quite bizarre. DuncanHill (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

And I've been reverted by him with the rather bizarre edit comment "ip range socks will inform". Whatever that means. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I#m assuming that he was accusing you of being a sock? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats not even biblical literature. Go create your own Mahamada article and personal views. The Mahound is based on terms found in the biblical literature. --Alley30 (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope that is not your only response to removing sourced information. Misplaced Pages is not a place for you to publish your original research. seicer | talk | contribs 17:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec with above)Restricting the source of the article to "biblical literature" (OR?) seems to go against policy. The Paul Barlow version seemed to make good additions. Verbal chat 17:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Theres already a Mahamada article. See Mahamada, clearly should be insterted in to Mahamada article. Further that article Mahamada does not even state that. --Alley30 (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not an article, that's a redirect to Bhavishya Purana#Pratisargaparvan, which is a very small mention. It sounds like you're simply objecting to any source not explicitly Christian (in your view) being added to the article. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• This is truly strange. While no edit summary from Barlow is problematic, the behavior of Alley30 is far moreso. No article on this project (not even Bible itself) is limited to only being sourced to "the biblical literature." If Alley30 continues to revert everyone who tries to improve the article with sourced information, it will be Alley30 that finds trouble, not Barlow. S. Dean Jameson 17:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I have informed Paul Barlow of this thread. DuncanHill (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Theres already a Mahamada article. That belongs in the Mahamada article, not Mahound that defines a biblical term, further the Mahamada article does not even state that and the source the user provided for the text has no mention of Muhammad. --Alley30 (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

(Plays the audio recording...) Perhaps you should check up on what defines original research and a neutral point of view. You are removing well-sourced content a false rationale, and your cryptic edit summary is leaving us puzzled here. seicer | talk | contribs 17:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, if only there was a page dedicated to talking about what should be in the Mahound article. Maybe we should file a Bugzilla request for this feature. We could call it a "talk page" or something. --barneca (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Conservapedia is that way. seicer | talk | contribs 17:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The ref has no information about Muhammad. Already done search on data base. Further the Mahamada article does not even state that, its pure non sense. If it was true it should belong in the Mahamada article. --Alley30 (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the section and added a link to Mahamada in the see also section. Sorted! Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Just on a point of interest, "Mahound" does not appear in the Bible, so I am unsure what Alley30 is on about. DuncanHill (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Theres already a Mahamada article and it cleraly says European Literature. Further the text this user Paul Barlow inserts is not even true. It shold belong in the Mahamada article with more sources for claim. Even the book this user provided does not even state Muhammad in it. --Alley30 (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

As I stated above, there is no article at Mahamada, it's just a redirect to a small portion of another article. Further, you state that the source is false because of a "database search." What database are you searching to determine this? — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

(User talk:Alley30's behaviour strongly suggests that he is a sockpuppet of the multiply banned editor user:Rajivlal aka user user:DWhiskaZ. See Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/RajivLal (2nd) and Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/DWhiskaZ. The bullying, editwarring and nonsensical arguments are identical. This person has generate over 100 sockpuppets, and repeatedly attempts to wear down opposition to his fringe theory by gaming the system. Paul B (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That's more socks than the Prince Regent! Verbal chat 18:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

On a quick review of some of the contribs of those sock accounts, Paul's suspicion appears quite reasonable. However, I need to leave, and can't put more time into it, and am not 100% convinced yet. Just want to kind of bump this thread and encourage other admins to take a look, as it seems likely to me he is correct. --barneca (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Potential sockpuppetry by Alley30

Just wanted to create a section-break, so that the allegations of potential sockpuppetry with regards to Alley30 could be hashed out in one place, as the thread above is getting rather disjointed. S. Dean Jameson 18:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Paul B, since you know him could you perhaps post some more details about why you suspect him of being a sock? It's much easier to check if we have something to go on. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It's all them. The master account is Thileepanmathivanan (talk · contribs) as again. He would have made over 200 socks by now. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Mafia Expert is undoing all my posts out of spite

Mafia Expert is undoing all my posts out of spite. We had an exit war over 1 subject, now he is going to all my contributions and starting to undo all of them for spite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameisstanley (talk • contribs) 17:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not undo "all your contributions", only the ones that are disruptive. For example: you nominated the article on Sidney Korshak for deletion because - according to you - he is not notable. Someone who had an obituary written about him in the NYT, and a book by a notable investigative journalist, as well as indicated by the FBI as the "most powerful lawyer in the world". You consider that not notable. You must be kidding. I am not the only one who has serious problems with your editing, just read your talk and this. That should tell you something. As far as I am concerned I did not have an edit war with you, and the issue is resolved (see: here). I see you are quite new to WP, but that is no excuse to continuously ignore established WP policies. And, to start with, please have the courtesy to sign your messages with four tildes. - Mafia Expert (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sidenote: Mynameisstanley removed many of the critical post he received, but you still can see them here . - Mafia Expert (talk) 02:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I am on mafia expert's side here, start reading the rules, properly, and learn about the way things are done here. Chafford (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No vendetta? How disappointing. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for help

After a period of relative calm, recently Anna May Wong has received a series of vandal attacks, possibly from the same person under various guises. See: Anna May Wong History. FWiW, could there be a period of protection established for this article? Bzuk (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC).

Please post this request to Requests for page protection. Chafford (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The featured article generally doesn't get protected. Corvus cornix_talk 19:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This one may need it for a while as it was subjected to a succession of anon attacks; the page now has semi-protection until it clears the main page status. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC).

Bureaucracy alert! Use form 2390 not form 2389. --Rividian (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No, this is a Featured Article, you'll be wanting form 2390b. And give me back my stapler. --Badger Drink (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The never ending war of ideas at Talk:Centrifugal force

A debate over the science in the article has raged on and on. The talk page is a mile long, and there are 8 archives more of contentious arguing. It has also spilled over to Talk:Frame of reference. Edit history shows as many as 65 edits a day by just a few editors, quibbling back and forth at each other. I tried to get everyone to chill out and let it go for a minute, but was roundly ignored. I opened an RFC, but the tone and length of the debate seemed to have a "chilling affect" and other editors mostly did not get involved, meanwhile the core group refused to take a break to let other opinions and views into the conversation. I opened a case at the mediation cabal, and the mediator gave up because the participants in the debate wouldn't participate, so I skipped formal mediation as it's unlikely they are interested in that either. I'm turning here because somehow, this debate needs to be brought to a close and the scope of the article clearly defined. I do this without much actual hope it will help (you will know what I mean when you see the page) but I don't know where else to go with this and I am frankly fed up of trying. Good Luck. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what we can do. If mediation fails then Wp:RFAr is the next step. Let them deal with it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this a content dispute or a conduct dispute? —Kurykh 21:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Centrifugal force is the new 0.999.... Give it time, and it will resolve itself. The article's pretty OK in terms of physical accuracy: it's just far, far, too detailed at the moment, as part of the process of resolving a earlier, and far more intense, edit war. Most of the current fuss appears to be related to distinguishing frame transformations from coordinate transformations, a big improvement on the previous full-on furious disagreements about Newton's laws and the philosophy of physical law in general. -- The Anome (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest getting User:ScienceApologist involved, since he's not one to put up with the patent nonsense that is plaguing that article. As his work with paranormal would show, he can cut through the B.S. like a hot knife through butter. We seem to be under attack by pushers of fringe views, time to send in the heavy artillery. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I wish you luck. The dynamics of rotating frames is the Monty Hall problem of classical physics, and for the same reason: our natural "common sense" understanding of the problem gives results that are both intuitively obvious and completely wrong. Hence the need for science education... -- The Anome (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Ryan Von

Bizarre case here. This individual is using his user and talk pages "to practice editing," as he puts it. He has violated WP:CIVIL on several occasions, but worse still, has continued to post userboxes which state him to be an administrator. No edits to the article space or sandbox and IMO it's clear he knows what he's doing. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Jeez, in Ryan's own words, just leave him alone until he actually disrupts something that affects the project. Toddst1 already warned the user for civility, and you're just poking him with a stick now. Tan ǀ 39 22:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I've issued a 4im warning for the repeated personal attacks. I agree with Tan though. Toddst1 (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should try giving him a {{welcome}} to make him feel able to contribute to the project rather than warn him? He's only been editing for a day, and I honestly doubt he knows what he's doing. Juliancolton 22:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm about to cry! Just leave me along. So what If I put an admin userbox up for less than 6 seconds. I am taking them down cause I don't know how to use them yet! Just leave me alone! Stop watching what I'm doing and let me edit my pages and go back to fighting your vandalism! ;-( --Ryan Von (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, jeez, give me a break. He knows exactly what he's doing based on his use of wikis and of the signature button. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It's cause I have edited on wikipedia before, just with out an account!! Stop leaving me messages on my user page!! I did not come here to get harrased by you about the user boxes I put up!!! Please get this guy away from me!! You keep posting on my USER TALK PAGE AND WONT STOP BOTHERING ME!!! LEAVE ME BE!!

So we should block him because he knows how to edit? I mean, I don't exactly endorse his responses, but I see nothing wrong with his screwing around with user boxes. Why you care so much about this to file at AIV and ANI is strange. Tan ǀ 39 22:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

And PMDrive knows exactly what he is doing - deliberately goading an editor in order to drive him off Misplaced Pages, and not for the first time either. DuncanHill (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

My friend, that was uncalled for. You have a problem? E-mail me and let's discuss it like gentlemen. For your information, I've been trying to leave word with this user in an attempt to try and set things straight but all I get are edit conflicts since he's actively editing the page and a locked database notice. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Duncan (which is sort of a minor miracle). Try to be a little - just a little - more friendly to the newbies, especially if what they're doing isn't "POOOPSIIEEE" vandalism. Don't get me wrong; I see you at AIV all the time and I appreciate your vandal-fighting efforts. I'd just let this one go. Resolving issue - Tan ǀ 39 22:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It's becuase you wont leave me alone after I said I am trying to learn to use those boxes!! I NEED ADMIN HELP! PLSSS I BEGG OF YOU MAKE HIM GO AWAY!! HE LEAVES ME MESSAGES OVER AND OVER AGAIN I KEEP DELETING THEM PLSS!! Where do i go to block someone??!!!! I am scared he will harm me plss admin personnn!! --Ryan Von (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Your very first communication with this editor was very bitey and made no attempt to engage constructively with him. You do have a history of biteing and attacking new editors rather than attempting to guide and support them to contribute constructively. I do not discuss on-wikipedia matters off-wikipedia, so it's here or talk-pages if you want, not email. DuncanHill (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

My first contact was based on the fact that it appeared as if he was impersonating an administrator. I do not harm anyone. Under my previous username, I took two of extremely problematic users under my wing. One turned out to be a genuine troll and has since returned to wreak havoc via sockpuppets. I refer to User:Wiki brah. The less fortunate soul was User:Maoririder who claimed to be autistic. I was saddened when the community finally banned him. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I be seduced with a cookie? seicer | talk | contribs 22:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ha, ha. I just seduced you on your talk page. I need a cigarette...--PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Enough is enough. I reverted Ryan Von's last contribution to this section and blocked him. He's just trolling. If someone else wants to spend the rest of the night dealing with him, feel free to unblock. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• I support Nawlin's block. Toddst1 (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support block. I just denied the unblock request, and have protected the talk page. seicer | talk | contribs 23:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• In this situation, it looks as if a block was appropriate. For enforcement's sake, I also endorse the block here. -- Anonymous Dissident 09:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit war at Gender of God

Involved parties:

• Alastair Haines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Ilkali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• LisaLiel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Teclontz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Would somebody mind over-viewing this issue for me. I've just blocked User:LisaLiel for 24hrs for a blatant breach of 3RR at Gender of God. But I'm concerned that other users may also be edit-warring and possibly gaming 3RR.

Users Teclontz & Alastair Haines may have gamed 3RR. I have warned all parties at the page to seek dispute resolution and stop edit-warring. But I am also aware that Alastair has been that subject of a recent user conduct RFC and hs received 2 blocks for edit-warring within the since June 2008. However I'm also concerned that there may be an ongoing issue between Teclontz/Tim and LisaLiel - Teclontz has alleged harassment and I am awaiting diffs to demonstrate this. I would be grateful for more sets of eyes on this issue.

Also considering the possible gaming of 3RR should further preventative action be taken? I was considering protecting the page but I'm hoping the warning will make that unnecessary--Cailil 22:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Alastair Haines is also edit warring at Why Men Rule. I tagged the article and explained my concerns on the talk page. He repeatedly removed my tags without a valid explanation. I requested a third opinion, which User:Jclemens provided. He suggested using inline tags with a rationale for each at the talk page. I did that and User:Alastair Haines removed my tags without responding to my concerns on the talk page. JCDenton2052 (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that cuts both ways JC - you've both reverted each other twice on two separate issues on the same page - you both should stop and find consensus. Open an RFC for the page if after a WP:3O you are both still dead locked. Also please note that your warning is not helpful may escalate rather than a resolve this issue. I can see no evidence of Alastair vandalizing the page--Cailil 22:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

His definition of consensus is his and only his opinion or something about "silence is consent". If removing tags without responding to the corresponding comments on an article's talk page or achieving Misplaced Pages's definition of consensus isn't vandalism, then what is it? JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

In relation to the history between editors here please see Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-07-07_Shituf & Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Gender of God (deleted)--Cailil 23:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur with JCDenton2052's assessment that Alastair places his own opinion before consensus. There have been three primary content disputes in the past few days:

• Teclontz makes an edit. I revert it, giving my reason in the summary. Alastair reverts my reversion, telling me to "try using talk before reverting".
• Alastair reinserts text that was removed (per consensus) sometime before the RfC/U (saying that this is "per talk page" despite there having been no recent discussion of the material). I revert his edit. He reverts my reversion, telling me to "discuss on talk page".
• LisaLiel makes a change. Alastair reverts it without discussion on talk page. When LisaLiel does exactly what Alastair has done twice, as documented above, and reverts his reversion, Alastair reverts her again, saying "Undo edit warring without use of talk page".

There is a clear double standard here. When someone disagrees with a change Alastair agrees with, they must argue against it on the talk page before the change can be reverted. When Alastair disagrees with a change someone else is making, they must argue for it on the talk page before the change can be made. In effect, the protocol at work seems to be that Alastair's preferred version of the article must remain until he is convinced that it is inferior. His delusion that he owns the article is even clearer in some of his talk page comments, such as this one, where, when facing disagreement over whether a subheader he inserted should be there, he declares "subhead stays until it can be demonstrated that ". This is not the language of respectful, collaborative editing.

Additionally, he is incivil and aggressive. He is quick to make threats (, ) and personal attacks (), even going so far as to do so on pages he has never edited before. These incidents are all since the closing of the RfC/U and are in addition to the evidence presented there. Neither the RfC/U nor the counsel offered to Alastair by User:Wizardman appear to have had an effect, and he still staunchly denies having (ever) done anything wrong ().

I'm not sure how this can be taken forward. Of the two attempts at mediation made so far, one was terminated by the mediator due to what he perceived as hostility against him from Alastair, and the other was rejected by Alastair on the grounds that it focused too much on content and not enough on attacking me. I believe that Alastair has a great deal to contribute to the project, but he will inevitably cause more and more conflict if he does not learn to deal with disputes in a civil and cooperative manner. Ilkali (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for providing diffs Ilkali but I'm going to ask you to withdraw your remark about double standards. This thread was opened specifically to ask what else should be done in relation to all parties in this issue. I will remind you once that this thread is for dispute resolution not escalation.

Just a question weren't all many of the issues regarding the above raised at Alastair's RFC/U?--Cailil 00:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Also I've added you to the list of involved parties Ilkali--Cailil 00:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

LisaLiel's view of this issue can be seen here--Cailil 00:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that someone finally brought this to AN. I tried to mediate this case a while back with medcab, was unable to reach consensus. I attempted to get it moved over to the medcom, but Alastair made some comments that someone took as legal threads and immediately closed down the whole thing. When he redacted his comments, no one ever bothered to reinstate the case. I'm honestly not sure if it would have helped, but I didn't have the patience or strength of will to subject myself to more of the needless drama. Ilkali and Alastair seem to have some sort of vendetta against each other, and Lisa and Tim (Teclontz) will usually disagree on any given topic but I've found that they are slightly more willing to talk- in fact my interactions with Tim have been largely positive. Just my five or six cents... L'Aquatique 07:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I am glad that this has been brought up. Too many editors are following one another into unsubstantiated claims regarding my actions and character. There is in fact not even a single example of me having done anything out of line with either common politeness, let alone Wiki policy, not only at this article, but in two years of editing.

Unfortunately, first Ilkali, then others like L'Aquatique have made not only unsubstatiated, but demonstrably false allegations, in addition to defamatory speculation. This is inappropriate behaviour and needs to be identified and addressed as such.

The result of this inappropriate behaviour has been uninvolved editors reverting text I've contributed, refusing discussion on various presumptions of my bad faith, citing the opinion of anonymous editors like some listed above. That's objective defamation and clearly something the community must address.

As a simple form of evidence of the point I'm making, please note how blatant edit warring by Lisa, opposed by two independent editors is being construed as "possible gaming of the system". The contrary is, of course, the case. Edit warrers have smoke-screened their behaviour with personal attacks, and parties that have attempted to take responsibility to investigate have been deceived by the misrepresentations of character.

As I've mentioned before, this is genuine slander in the legal sense, and while holding the community (and ultimately the foundation) accountable for it, I have confidence that the processes, convoluted though volunteer structures are, will ultimately remedy this situation.

I look forward to this finally being resolved. I also thank, in advance, those who patiently wade through all the misrepresentations in order to fact-check them. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is an example for you. JCDenton2052 (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have asked Alastair to refactor some remarks made above in view of WP:NLT. I have also unblocked LisaLiel after she committed to not breaking WP:3RR again--Cailil 11:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Alastair has clarified the remarks above--Cailil 14:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Roramaster

Checkuser Thatcher has confirmed that this is puppet of banned user User:PaxEquilibrium --Rjecina (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

...and blocked. Tiptoety 23:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Dealing wiht disruptive editing - Ciudad Acuña article

This 189.175.241.138 (talk · contribs) IP address continues to delete useful information about the Ciudad Acuña article. There seems to be an ulterior motive. I left a message on the his/her talkpage mentioning external links are helpful for any individual interested in this particular subject: Ciudad Acuña. How to deal with this situation when we only have an IP address and not an actual registered user? --Gatox (talk) 00:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

User has 1 edit. No issue. Toddst1 (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Two things. 1) If you look at the article, it is clear that the same person is using multiple IPs. 2) Their edit is actually fine. The website doesn't appear to have any redeeming qualities; it is essentially a low-quality commercial website masquerading as something "official". I would tend to agree with the annonymous user that the website doesn't really belong in the article. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Concur. I've removed the link. While I've seen crappier city-sanctioned sites, this one is an anon-reg godaddy site with no apparent 'official' capacity and no real content. Kuru 01:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Legitimate sockpuppets

Could I get a pair of admin eyes over to User_talk:Mumblejohnson, please? While preparing a detailed RfC aimed at addressing the poisonous editing atmosphere at Australian political articles in general, and the disruptive actions of User:Matilda in particular, I chose to create an alternate account for the purpose of editing in private, without the usual stalkers looking over my shoulder. Matilda sussed out my sock, so I created another one at User:Secondfellow which would be a little harder to track down. These alternate accounts weren't intended for public view or to make any public edits and I really don't mind if they are deleted immediately. I won't be using them again.

Instead of leaving well enough alone, Matilda blocked my socks indefinitely, which has the effect of tying up one of my IP addresses. Perhaps some kind admin could unblock these accounts and then delete them? --Pete (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask why you are running 2 IP addresses to access Misplaced Pages? If 2 IP addresses are not both intended for future editing of Misplaced Pages, why would you be concerned if one of your two IP addresses can no longer edit Misplaced Pages? --Lester 00:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have various different ISP accounts, due to my globetrotting lifestyle. BION, Misplaced Pages isn't the totality of my weblife. I would imagine that access to multiple internet accounts is hardly uncommon in this day and age, where just about every mobile phone comes with a web browser. --Pete (talk) 00:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "running 2 IP addresses to access Misplaced Pages" and there is absolutely no problem with people using multiple IP addresses. That question is truly the most bizarre question I have seen for a very long time. Lots of people use numerous IP addresses - work, home, coffee shop, library, public access, uni... Many, many people use more than two IP addresses on a permanent basis and it isn't called "running IPs" as though there is malicious behaviour in accessing Misplaced Pages from multiple IPs. Sarah 11:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

without the usual stalkers looking over my shoulder. Irony?? Shot info (talk) 00:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Given you don't intend to use the accounts, unblocking would be pointless (though I don't see actual sockpuppet abuse with either account either). Administrators cannot "delete" accounts. As long as you don't log into those two accounts, any autoblocks should be clear in 24 hours.--chaser - t 00:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've notified Matilda of the thread. Why not just unblock and reblock without autoblock enabled? I believe Matilda has talked with Skyring after she blocked the accounts, so I doubt her intention was to block his IP address. --barneca (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

All sorts of questions are floating around in my head, like "why, exactly, did you not want Matilda to see your RFC while you were creating it?", and "wouldn't someone with your history want to be super double extra careful about creating alternate accounts, legitimate or not?" Or "Is it nice to call someone a drama queen?" Or even "why didn't you ask Matilda to undo the autoblock? Why bring it up here first?"

But I suppose those questions are for another day. For now, Matilda has told me that the autoblock was unintentional, so I'll unblock and reblock with autoblock disabled. If that doesn't work, you can either post an unblock request on your IP, or as Chaser says, wait 24 hours. --barneca (talk) 00:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I won't pretend that I know all the answers on Misplaced Pages's tricksy technical bits, and ANI looked like the best way to get admintervention to sort out a problem. --Pete (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Skyring and I have a difference of opinion as to whether his use of socks is legitimate. I did not wish to inflame the situation by either reporting them (and thus finding an uninvolved admin) or in fact acting on them while he was preparing the RfC. I did however let him know I knew of them - certainly the first and FWIW I knew of the second too.
  Skyring has a history of sockpuppetry. I have raised the issue of policy and his breach on his talk page but will repeat here:

  While you dismiss your actions as being justified with the comment: This account was created for the purpose of preparing an important submission in private, without the usual stalkers hovering over my contribution list diving in for half-baked comments. It also allows me to work within mediawiki rather than Word or something else that would reformat everything. Looking at WP:SOCK, I note that the list of legitimate exceptions is not exhaustive. You are well aware that sockpuppetry is against wikipedia guidelines and your protest that the legitimate use of sockpuppets is not exhaustive is not acceptable to me, but maybe to others. I am surprised at your indulgence in sockpuppets given you have been previously blocked and had your ban extended for sockpuppetry. Disposable socks are all very well but the policy is quite clear There are limited acceptable uses for alternative accounts, and a number of uses which are explicitly forbidden - in particular, using an alternative account to avoid scrutiny - this indicates two things - one the list of legitimate exceptions is seen as limited (contrary to your statement) and avoiding scrutiny which was your purpose is not a proper use. I have tagged the two socks you created thereby adding them to Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Skyring . I have also blocked them. I left them in place until you lodged your RfC to give you the benefit of the doubt and not to inflame the situation.

  The IP block was unintentional. I am not sure if the inconvenience suffered warrants unblocking and reblocking.
  I am offended that Skyring is implying I am stalking him - I had a legitimate interest in knowing whether or not he was preparing an RfC - he took his time about it. That I discovered the drafting was accidental in the first instance. --Matilda 01:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Matilda, can I suggest that perhaps it might be best to ask someone else to block the accounts in this sort of situation in future? You blocking an account being used to build an RFC against yourself could be seen to be a tremendous COI and thus a misuse of the tools. Sarah 11:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocking or warning?

I've been an admin for some months, but I don't generally deal with resolving/stopping contentious editing, so I'd like advice. On 31 July, 69.76.161.36 (talk) left a personal attack at Talk:Canton, Kansas (still there as I type this), just four days after being blocked for 24 hours for "...making a threat to another user...", according to the block log. What is in order here: should it be a longer block for incivility, or just a stern warning? Nyttend (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say a warning mentioning a block. There is not guarantee this is the same person that was blocked before. Chillum 00:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. If they do it a second time, then block away. There is no harm in issuing a warning. If the warning stops them, then the block is unneccesary... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec T-T) :Four days is too late for blocking an IP for vandalizing directly after release of a 24 hour block. I would give an escalated warning like a vandalism2 or 3. But blocking is not ok after 4 days. Especially when dealing with an IP. As you can not know if it is the same person. Rgoodermote  00:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, ten minutes and I get similar responses from three different people. Thanks for the quick help! Nyttend (talk) 00:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I took the liberty of removing the attack from the talk page. Marking resolved Rgoodermote  00:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Lysy making manual copy/edit moves

Lysy (talk · contribs) made manual copy/edit moves in order to revert the move to Kulmerland I had made before (sourced common name in English see talk):

1. 01:39, 4 August 2008 Kulmerland‎ (Manually undoing the frivolous rename. Please use WP:RM as advised before.)
2. 01:39, 4 August 2008 Talk:Kulmerland‎ (Manually undoing the frivolous rename. Please use WP:RM as advised before.)
3. 01:39, 4 August 2008 Talk:Chełmno Land‎ (Manually undoing the frivolous rename. Please use WP:RM as advised before.)
4. 01:39, 4 August 2008 Chełmno Land‎ (Manually undoing the frivolous rename. Please use WP:RM as advised before.)

As the historic Prussian Kulmerland (semi-Polish OR term "Chełmno Land‎") is part of Eastern Europe, and the copy/moves edits break the edit histories as Lysy as an experienced editor surely knows, he should be added to the Arbcom case Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren for this reckless POV pushing. -- Matthead  Discuß   00:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

So that is accepted, then? Should I have listed it at the Vandalism board? Arbitration Enforcement? -- Matthead  Discuß   10:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Matthead, I don't think that asking you to file a proper WP:RM request for a controversial rename is a "reckless POV pushing". Your suggestion to rename the article to the German name has been already contested by another editor before, and you've been advised to go for WP:RM instead. Why did not you do it but instead renamed the article yourself ? As to this edit of yours, I have no doubt that you did it on purpose to make a simple revert of your rename impossible. And now you are reporting me ???! :-) --Lysy 13:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As stated on Talk:Kulmerland#Name? and above, the old name "Chełmno Land" is unsourced and original research, it violated WP:V and WP:NOR in the first place, thus the move to the proper English name Kulmerland was and is uncontroversial, no matter how many editors lament it without being able to provide evidence. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, just showing up in larger numbers at a Move Request is not the way to do things. Your manual copy&paste moves were reckless and POV pushing, do you want to deny this? As for adding a category to redirects, which equals move protection for regular users, this was and is done many times by User:Piotrus, despite others and I have asked him to stop. Yet he recently did so (twice) in a dispute about the Battle of Annaberg in which he even abused his admin powers by deleting to make way. Basically, both of you violated Misplaced Pages principles to make something disappear which you seem to dislike: that English use reflects the fact that German place names were used for centuries in what is since 1945 a part of Poland. I am convinced that this falls in the scope of the Arbcom case Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, in which Piotrus had been edit restricted . -- Matthead  Discuß   14:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

main entry languages at www.wikipedia.org

The languages seem to have changed when they were listed by number of entries per language. But now Spanish has been elevated, German moved down, while Russian and Mandarin have overtaken Italian. Maybe there is some logic to it, if so this can be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.51.75 (talk) 01:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

See http://meta.wikimedia.org/Top_Ten_Wikipedias/poll. John Reaves 01:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, it just caught my eye! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.51.75 (talk) 01:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, but discussions like this are more appropriate at the Misplaced Pages:Village Pump. There's not really much for admins to do with this... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't really know; I'm a causal wikipedian and I saw Mandarin on the front page. I realized it was out of sync, but the solution makes sense! I'll go the other route next time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.211.166 (talk) 04:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

XxJoshuaxX - 3RR and harassment

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

Please review 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, as well as my responses A, and B.

This user has repeatedly visted my talk page and asked things that I do not feel are relevant to the project. That part of the situation does not bother me as much as the willfull, repeated, violation of 3RR - which this user has been cautioned about several times previously - (now twice in three days), as well as what I consider to be harassment and/or Wiki-stalking. --Winger84 (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow,this further proves how much you hate me. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 02:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have given a more formal warning to XxJoshuaxX here. I have told him to stop this kind of behavior, especially as it has no relation to Misplaced Pages and he had been requested by Winger84 not to post to his page. Hopefully this resolves it, Metros (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No,this doesn't resolve it. It won't be resolved until Winger84 answers my question as to why he hates me. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest both of you move onto other topics. Winger84 has no obligation to provide you an answer as to why he "hates" you, and you do not have an obligation to press for one, either. seicer | talk | contribs 02:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(EC)If he doesn't want to answer you, he doesn't have to. Stop asking questions and edit warring on someone else's talk page. Also, your statement above about the situation not being resolved until you get a response from Winger is not exactly civil, I'd advise you to redact it so it sounds less like a threat. Bottom line, if he doesn't want to answer, leave him alone and go about your own business. Dayewalker (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If he doesn't wanna answer me,then I'm not sure if I wanna be on Misplaced Pages any longer. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 02:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

What?!? Why do I all of a sudden feel like I'm back in junior high school? *sigh* I had come back here to make a note of this, where I have made an attempt to diffuse the situation, but it appears that may be pointless, judging by the above statement.

I need caffeine. Mountain Dew, here I come! --Winger84 (talk) 02:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You're going to leave Misplaced Pages because someone won't tell you why they "hate" you after you annoyed him by asking him (several times over) what the 84 in his user name means? I just want to make sure I understand this... Metros (talk) 02:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Complete uncivil of me here, but don't let the door hit you on the way out...Wildthing61476 (talk) 02:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

With someone who treats their userpage as a MySpace extension (dating status?)... seicer | talk | contribs 02:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have made my case. The user appears to be inclined to believe that I am mistreating him, for reasons unknown. I offered an explaination on an Administrator's talk page that should settle the situation. I am closing this now to avoid further confrontation that is very likely highly unnecessary. --Winger84 (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

HTTP 500 Internal Server Errors

Hi Guys, Over the last day or two i've been getting quite a few of the HTTP 500 Internal Server Errors, on different computers, conections and browsers. Im just wondering if its a known issue as of yet?   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:VPT might be the better place to ask, but please do because the 500s are driving me goddam crazy! I'm on IE 7 which doesn't cache what you tried to submit, i.e. when I hit the back button, everything I had typed is gone! It's happened 10 times in the last couple days including once a few minutes ago. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If you press f5 in IE while on an "internal server error" page, it will refresh the page and ask you if you want to resubmit the form. Answer yes and it will try to resubmit your edit again. Graham87 07:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You know, I've been getting a bunch of those lately too. I guess I figured because what with all my work clearing the speedy backlogs (holy cow, 125 deletes in 6 days!!) I was just making more edits and thus getting more error messages. Think we should submit a bug notice? L'Aquatique 07:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah might be worth it, it might just be one of the servers playing up   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 08:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Graham87, I know that's what usually happens - but it hasn't been lately. I hit F5 and it just brings me to the edit page without my edit. Then I hit back and I'm at the edit page for the section I edited, again without my edit. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Troubles with Teleocichla

Hi All -

I'm having problems with a user who refuses to discuss the changes he makes. He has been involved in several edit wars where he robotically makes the same change over and over again. His changes to Teleocichla for example are unverifiable and constitute his opinion (or original research). I've tried engaging this unregistered user in conversion and discussion but without success. This user is currently using User:71.136.15.211 but his IP address varies and he's also been active on Greg Bahnsen -- where he's been banned (numerous times) for much the same behaviour. I'd appreciate any assistance dealing with this user. MidgleyDJ (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

A) Which user? B) This is a content dispute, we cannot do anything about it until you have tried seeking mediation yourselves. Chafford (talk) 08:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Please look at this article, and list it for deletion

This article, Jackpack, is a blatant hoax. One of the references is even from a fictional character, "A Raines" refers to the character Audrey Raines. As an anonymous editor I cannot nominate this article for deletion myself. I do have an account myself but I avoid logging into it from my current location. I'd ask that an administrator nominate the article for deletion, and also look at these images, which are a blatant copyright violation. I'd like a link to the AFD as well. Thanks, 203.11.167.2 (talk) 05:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I've taken care of the second image (deleted as a blatant copyvio per WP:CSD#I9), and a procedural AfD can be handled by any user. Ideally, I'd prefer it if you logged in and set this up yourself--after all, your privacy is more compromised by you editing under an IP address than it is by editing under a username--but if you'd really rather avoid that then I'd be happy to set up an AfD for you later on today. --jonny-mt 06:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Or I could edit-conflict and this could be taken care of otherwise >.< --jonny-mt 06:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Please Help - Editor Benjiboi Edit-Warring: repeatedly Deleting Sourced NPOV sections of Harvey Milk article

A tiny section exists in the article Harvey Milk addressing Milk's support of Jim Jones during the investigation of the Peoples Temple just before the Jonestown tragedy. It includes, for example, a short 1 sentence mention of Milk's letter to President Jimmy Carter labeling those attempting to extricate relatives from Jonestown as making "bald-faced lies."

Editor Benjiboi has repeatedly deleted the entire section.

I have repeatedly attempted to work with him to craft this otherwise tiny section to meet his complaints. However, even after these several attempts to accomodate his complaints that can be seen in the history here at the Milk page history, he continued to delete the entire section wholesale. He continues to assert effectively that any mention, no matter how small, of Milk's support of the Peoples Temple or attacking of those attempting to extrictate relatives from Jonestown amounts to "undue weight."

Benjiboi then started an Rfc. In response to this Rfc, sevearl editors weighed in that the section should NOT be deleted, including:

After further discussion, the section has now been cut to only 3 sentences.

This editor still continues to delete the entire section wholesale, now 5 times in just a bit over the last 2 days:
1st wholesale deletion by Benjiboi of the entire section in the last day and a half'
2nd wholesale deletion by Benjiboi of the entire section in the last day and a half
3rd wholesale deletion by Benjiboi of the entire section in the last day and a half
4th wholesale deletion by Benjiboi of the entire section in the last day and a half
5th wholesale deletion by Benjiboi of the entire section in the last day and a half

The editor's responses have also repeatedly focused upon the character of the subject of the article (Milk) and not the presentation of encycolpedic content:
--"While this all may true it's hardly that interesting and seems to only be useful in characterizing Milk in some way as a bad judge of character." (Benjiboi)
--"this is an encyclopedia not a smear piece. Milk got support from them, so what? So did other politicians and Milk got support from lots of groups." (Benjiboi)
--"I've seen nothing to convince me that this was anything but a minor blip in Milk's life, and as such, deserves little coverage." (Benjiboi)
--"Milk was afraid of Jones and his people so we can't infer why he wrote it and what may have been said in private elsewhere, or that anything ever was." (Benjiboi)
--The material only "seem to suggest he was showing support for someone he thought was working on humanitarian efforts and who supported LGBT people."(Benjiboi)
--"I'm sorry but this feels like mudslinging to me." (Benjiboi)
--"you're making a big deal out of these rather non-notable incidents"(Benjiboi)

After finally frankly being worn down by these repeated deletions and cutting the section down to three short sentences (a tiny portion of the Milk article), I'm not sure what to do in response to repeated deletions of the entire Peoples Temple investigation section.

Please help with this. Mosedschurte (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You do realize this is already being discussed on this page here? Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attack by Kmweber

After being told by an Ip address that they thought his actions were disruptive, he called the person a troll. Unsure where to go here, what is appropriate? Don't flame me if I'm in the wrong place. Shapiros10 _{My work} 12:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't bother. Kurt doesn't have to follow rules. Sceptre 12:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Right. Let's just give him whatever he wants. Shapiros10 _{My work} 12:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing we can do, he has immunity. El_C 12:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I might actually nominate him for adminship. Shapiros10 _{My work} 12:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd let him self-nominate and see the reception he gets; but seriously, you should ask him first. --Rodhullandemu 12:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Kurt does not have any special immunity here. Why not talk to Kurt first and make sure there isn't actually a reason behind his description? If not, then bring it to an appropriate forum, but it is not fair to start accusing anybody of things without talking to them about it first Fritzpoll (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Which Misplaced Pages are you editing? I've seen him get away with multiple personal attacks, disruption, incivility, and even off-wiki harassment, and nothing happens. Sceptre 12:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Will Kurt respond?

Yes he has immunity, as Sceptre pointed out multiple times. He would've been blocked a long time ago if he didn't. And he called the person a troll because the person didn't like his opinion.

I didn't accuse him of it. The evidence is right in the link i provided. Shapiros10 _{My work} 12:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Come on. The IP's post that was in response to was equally dickish (calling him "too lazy"). If you're a dick to somebody, be a man and expect the same in return. - Merzbow (talk) 12:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a fact that he does cut-and-paste his reasons in this type of thing. And just because he thinks someone was a dick doesnt mean he can be a dick back. Misplaced Pages is about being civil, not "being a man". Shapiros10 _{My work} 12:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not about being civil, it's about creating an encyclopedia. Common sense toward that end trumps anything else, proof in point that super-contributors like Giano are allowed to be incivil as long as they continue to be super-productive, a practice which I didn't before but now agree with it. I don't know how productive kmweber is, but sanctioning an incivil response to an equally incivil bait is the kind of petty wikilawyering that aggravates to no end. - Merzbow (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh for Christ's sake. Someone called Kurt a troll, and you want Kurt's wrists slapped because he returned the favor? If you're lying in wait, ready to pounce when he makes a mistake, you should probably wait for something more serious than that. Frankly, some of the comments above have certain troll-like qualities themselves. The proper place to report Kurt, and me, for such shocking incivility is probably WP:WQA. --barneca (talk) 12:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No.

He thought his behavior was disruptive. He did not straight on call him a troll

Kurt did, though. Shapiros10 _{My work} 12:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Read the edit summary too, Shapiros10. --barneca (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I know, I read it. But I also went to Kurt's page and saw no mention of this there. As to your question of whether he'll respond, being a scientist, I prefer experimental verification: why not try and see? And where are these disruptions? I ask genuinely, because apart from his RfA participation, very little about him appears to be brought up at AN/ANI. Same for personal attacks and incivility. I see an accusation of off-wiki harrassment on his talkpage, but the actual text of what he writes names no specific editor. Help me out here - I know people don't like Kurt for a lot of things, but some pointers would be helpful Fritzpoll (talk) 12:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom are in posession of evidence of off-wiki harassment. As far as disruption and incivility go, open up any RFA or AFD he's been active on. Sceptre 12:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Kurt has been notified of this discussion. Check his talk. Shapiros10 _{My work} 12:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my point was, that he wasn't by you and not before I edit conflicted 4 times trying to post. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

After eight edit conflicts, I've informed Kurt of this thread. D.M.N. (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(multiple ec) Barneca has it about right about right. What's appropriate is not worrying about silly little things like this unless they're actually a problem. Really, it sounds like some of the editors have some kind of grudge with Kmweber. They should probably just leave him alone, in this case. If he does something actually bad, someone else will notice it and do whatever's appropriate. Friday (talk) 12:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I hold no such grudge.

The thing is, Kmweber gets away with more of this stuff than anyone else.

If that was me (or any other user), I'd be blocked. Shapiros10 _{My work} 12:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hang on. The diff in question was on July 31st. It's now August 4th. I question why this has only been brought to ANI now and not when the actual thing occured on July 31st. Also, he's been a little inactive the past few days, so I doubt there will be a reply from him. D.M.N. (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm closing. Nobody will ever take any action against Kurt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shapiros10 (talk • contribs)

We will, when there's something to take action about Fritzpoll (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There is. On more than one occasion, he's harassed people off-wiki in the past two weeks alone. The arbcom are in posession of that evidence. Furthermore, his actions on WP:RFA and WP:AFD clearly show disruption to make a point and refusal to get the point. Just because he hasn't contributed in two days doesn't mean that he gets away with all of it. Enough is enough. Sceptre 13:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

How is this relevant? If this is true, then it sounds like arbcom is already working on doing whatever needs done. AN/I is not the complaints department. Friday (talk) 13:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom won't do anything regarding Kurt because they aren't "legitimate" in his eyes. Seriously, if I had a dime for every time he said "Arbitrary Committee", I'd be a rich man. Sceptre 13:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Kurt's views on the Arbitration Committee do not reduce its legitimacy, so they can still act if they wish. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Remember what happened the last time ArbCom sanctioned an editor privately, without his defence? Sceptre 13:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Different situation. There, an editor was not notified of the existence of a case, so had no opportunity to defend themselves. If a defendent chooses not to offer evidence in their own defence, when they know a case exists, then that is their problem, not ArbCom's. 13:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

At the same time, ArbCom won't do anything. Their posession of the logs is more of a courtesy based on current practice. Sceptre 13:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum. Either he breaks a rule or he doesn't and no rules have broken. This is only becoming unnecessary drama. Rgoodermote  13:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(I had a huge speech but after the 10th EC I gave up) Rgoodermote  13:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Ban proposal

Kmweber doesn't serve any purpose on the encyclopedia but to be a gadfly. Given he routinely disrupts Misplaced Pages, personally attacks, and is incivil, and with the evidence of off-wiki harassment (q.v. ArbCom, ANI archive 451), there is no reason not to ban him. He doesn't even do anything constructive. Therefore, I propose a ban on him editing Misplaced Pages. Sceptre 13:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no. He's not that disruptive. He has written many articles. Shapiros10 _{My work} 13:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes he is that disruptive. Unlike Giano, the bad vastly outweighs the good. Sceptre 13:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Your grudge is showing. Just let it drop. If arbcom has secret evidence, they'll act on it if/when they think it's appropriate. Friday (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre, please stop. When i started this thread, i was just looking for a 12-hr block, not a ban. Shapiros10 _{My work} 13:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Even a 12 hour block would be inappropriate Sam. But I wouldn't deny that he does need a good long block. But a ban is too much. Rgoodermote  13:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Robert. Shapiros10 _{My work} 13:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Presence of a grudge does not absolve him. Sceptre 13:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. But holding a grudge is disruptive in it's own way. Rgoodermote  13:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't absolve him either. Sceptre 13:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't, but it makes it hard to make clear decisions. The outcome here is unneeded drama over a 4 day edit. No blocks can be made and no bans either. This is resolved. Rgoodermote  13:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

So, because he's not doing it at this exact second, he gets total absolution? No. This is a recurrent problem that is unlikely to stop. Sceptre 13:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

What behavior has changed since Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Kmweber_2 that would warrant a ban, that did not warrant a ban at that time? MBisanz 13:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Off-wiki harassment, and continuation of disruption to make a point, incivility, and personal attacks. Sceptre 14:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

So, why not file another RFC, no single thing Kurt's does appears bannable, and ANI is not a conducive forum to lengthy presentation of patterns of behavior. MBisanz 14:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm opposed to RFCs because they never resolve anything - the only use of RFC is as a stepping stone to ArbCom. As any arbcom remedy on Kurt will be ignored, the use of RFAR and RFC is counterintuitive. Sceptre 14:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Just file a report with Arbcom if you feel there is a serious need for a ban. But he has done nothing wrong to even warrant a block. Rgoodermote  14:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

corect me if Im wrong, but didnt YOU say that the ArbCom was already investigating this editor? If that is true, and what you are saying re: his editing habits and civility and stlaking are true, then his uppance will come soon enoguh. REgardless, it seems to me that WP:ANI is an inappropriate place to have this debate since it is apparently a longterm dispute that reuqires more extensive intervention that the immediate administrative repsonse that this forum is designed with the capability of having in mind. I think that you should either forward this latest atrocity on the part of this user to ArbCom or file for a WP:WQA or a WP:RFC. Smith Jones (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the memo that harassment, personal attacks, and incivility are fine. Sceptre 14:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

woah calm down there, mate. no one is saying that what he did id oksay. This is simply the wrong forum for this issue. warbcom or rfc or wqa would be much better. Smith Jones (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre, this: is an indication you need to take a break. This thread should be snow closed, archived, whatever. It is serving no useful purpose. Since we're proposing bans, I propose Sceptre be banned from this page for the rest of the day, or until he regains his composure, whichever comes first. --barneca (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Smith Jones, I was responding to Roger, actually. And WQA and RFC are useless. There's no point in using them. Sceptre 14:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Roger? Rgoodermote  14:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought that was your name. Your username sure looks like it :/ Sceptre 14:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

<--His name is Robert. Robert Goodermote. Shapiros10 _{My work} 14:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Elonka

A discussion is going on at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Elonka concerning the deletion of an already certified RFC. Outside views may help resolve the controversy over whether the RFC was properly certified or not. Please post thoughts there, not here. Thank you. Jehochman 13:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like Ryan Postlethwaite made the decision that the certification was valid, but thebainer overruled him without, seemingly, engaging him in any way. If that is the case, I'd like to make it clear to thebainer that serving on the Committee (despite whatever incidents we've seen recently) is not a special, executive immunity from the rules — on the contrary, serve by example. El_C 13:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

RFC rules are clear that it has to be the same dispute, not different disputes (if it was different disputes, half of the admins on Misplaced Pages would be at RFC). If Elonka is correct that Ned Scott did not resolve the same dispute as ChrisO, then the RFC would be uncertified and, as it's outside of the 48-hour grace period, deleted. Sceptre 13:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

One admin ruled it was the same, and another overruled him, seemingly, without a word, was what I, at least, was referring to. El_C 13:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If you'll forgive me for pointing out the obvious, Elonka is not exactly a neutral party on whether an RfC on her is properly certified. Ryan's take on this is here, and Risker's insightful comments on Bishonen's user talk page are worth a read too in relation to the wider context. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikilawyering to get an RFC deleted is lame, and only suggests scrutiny is being avoided. If the subject (Elonka) has acted appropriately, then the RFC will bear that out. If she has not, then the RFC will also bear that out. Either way, the RFC needs to exist in the first place. Arbcom members (in this case, Thebainer) have no special jurisdiction over RFCs. RFCs are a community process, wholly seperated from Arbcom actions by design. Was the RFC certified correctly? Whether the dispute was the same dispute or two seperate disputes is a wholly subjective matter. I would say it related to the same root cause, and was therefore appropriately certified, and the RFC should be undeleted and allowed to proceed - preferably, it should be undeleted by Thebainer, but if he is unwilling to do so, or unresponsive, then the place to discuss potentially out of process deletions is Deletion Review. Neıl ☄ 14:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Without checking the deleted revisions, striking a certification on your own RfC, unless clear vandalism, is grounds for blocking. I ask Elonka to immediately restore the RfC and (if the certifications are not on the same dispute) appeal the certification. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't want you to get the wrong idea. Elonka has not struck anything, nor deleted anything. Thebainer deleted the page, apparently at Elonka's request. Jehochman 14:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This deletion was inappropriate. If thebainer does not undo his deletion, then the page should be undeleted. I'm neutral on whether that should go through DRV, or just happen. Nandesuka (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Note Bishzilla re-create RFC talkpage (deleted at Elonka request by Aaron Brenneman—ROARR!) so discussion can take place there. 'shonen written notes to Thebainer and Aaron, no replies. (Aussies! Probably asleep.) bishzilla _ROARR!! 14:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC).

I leave RfC alone for 12 hours and look what happens... I wasn't too thrilled with the certification, but I didn't see anything wrong with it at the time. I'll take a closer look at everything. Wizardman 14:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Abusive language?

I don't want to jump to conclusions, but what 'd you think in this case?
Message by Kirker (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki):
"I have sent a note to this snide arehole Kubura on his own talk page."
"Snide" and "areole"? The latter word reminds me too much on the word "ar*ehole" (the letter "s" is in the place of asterisk). It's hard to assume good faith here.
Such kinds of edits are below the basic level of communication on internet, and especially on Misplaced Pages.
This users has been on Misplaced Pages since 26 May 2007, he was supposed to know that by now. He's not "innocent uninformed newbie". Kubura (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards