Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:17, 13 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

Continued baiting and harassment by User:GoRight

Backstory: Over the past few days, User:GoRight and myself have found ourselves on the opposite sides of a scuffle over on The Great Global Warming Swindle. GoRight is part of a small but ferocious contingent of somewhat-tendentious editors who came to the article after some conservative commentators wrote bitchy Op-Eds about how unfair the article was to noble global warming "skeptics" who falsify data. For backstory, check the history of that article.

To get to the point of this post: Yesterday, I received the following post on my talk page: . While under most circumstances this would be a friendly reminder (and a great alternative to a uw-template!), under these particular circumstances I take it as nothing more than baiting from Stock Character #593: "The Civil POV-Pusher". He and his cohorts have behaved the exact same way on the talk page of TGGWS, demanding sources that say the sky is blue, opening a RfC using perhaps the most inflammatory "civil" language possible, and so on.

I responded , asking him to kindly refrain from posting on my talk page. There are other editors and admins on the Global Warming Swindle page whose judgement I actually trust who would no doubt be happy to warn anyone who was crossing the line in this regard.

This morning, I received this message: .

I would appreciate the voice of a third party, since he was clearly unable to comprehend my request, and seemingly unable to stop himself. I am not adverse to a "mutual agreement" that would keep both of us off the other's talk page, if that's the only "comfortable" solution. Thanks in advance, and sorry for the tl;dr --Badger Drink (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, I would appreciate a third-party being the one to inform him of this thread - I know it's customary for the complaint-issuer to do the informing, but in this case I believe that a warning from myself would be taken poorly. --Badger Drink (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As clearly documented in my second reply, I am merely following the recommended dispute resolution processes. Where they direct me to leave a message on the user's talk page I don't know that I have any choice. Under these circumstances should I instead move directly to WP:ANI as Badger Drink has done here? It seems that there are a number of dispute resolution steps to be applied before this, but I will defer to the judgment of the administrators here on this point.

Regarding the notices I have placed on Badger Drink's user page I have no specific quarrel with him other than he treat me in a WP:CIV manner and refrain from making personal attacks in violation of WP:NPA. I am not contacting Badger Drink for any purpose other than to stop his aggressive behavior against me. I think that the record will show that I have been nothing but civil in this discourse. --GoRight (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll note that any user has the right to provide such a warning; however, I have come to consider it improper (not by guidelines, but personally) to be the one to warn someone with whom I'm involved in a comment. The reason is that being in a conflict can defeat the purpose of warning, because the one warned may take it as simply an extension of the conflict. While I can understand GoRight's desire to stop what he sees as Badger Drink's aggressive behavior, there are better options, generally, starting with ignoring it. Deal with the articles, not the users. If "aggressive behavior," for example, leads to improper reverts of your edits, that are not being dealt with by other editors, use WP:DR. That includes discussing issues of substance with other editors, and a warning is not really a discussion, it is more like a threat. (Folks, if I seriously warn you on your Talk page, it means that I have concluded that I've decided you should be blocked, and I'm giving you a warning as a prerequisite. If I warn you somewhere else, such as in article Talk, it means that I'm hoping to be able to resolve the issue in a relatively friendly manner, because I have not set up the block prerequisite. And, in fact, you could be utterly and totally uncivil to me, and I doubt I'd warn you. But someone else might. Be that uncivil to someone else, though, I might act. I consider all editors to be quasi-administrators, we really should conduct ourselves in more or less the same way.)

In spite of this, warning, unless there is so little basis for it that it is mere harassment (which would require substantial repetition of improper warnings), should never be a cause to bring a matter to AN/I. If done civilly, it is not an offense. Even if wrong, it's not an offense. I've been warned, sometimes properly, but more often otherwise, in my opinion, many times. I wouldn't even think of complaining about it. If you are going to get involved with contentious issues on Misplaced Pages, it's best to cultivate a thick skin. Listen to complaints, by all means, but then take from them what you can, and let the rest go. A user blows off some steam by dropping a warning. If there is some specific behavior that one is being warned not to repeat, it's highly advisable to consider whether the behavior is important enough to stand before the community, holding to it and trying to justify it. Part of the question would be political: "Can I find support for this now? Is it worth being blocked over?" --Abd (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

GoRight has a substantial history of disrupting these pages. Looking at his RFC, a plurality of editors endorsed Stephan Schulz's comment that everything I said in my initial discussion (summarizing GoRight's misbehavior, including his BLP violations) there was accurate, and further that he contribute virtually nothing to the encyclopedia and has a history of disruption to make a point and inserting "laughably wrong" material into the encyclopedia. Furthermore, the second most supported comment said (essentially) that GoRight has misbehaved, but so have other people. I think administrative action is necessary. Raul654 (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have an analysis of the comments and endorsements at User:Abd/GoRight#Users commenting in RfC. It's true that more editors endorsed Stephan Schulz's comment, but Stephan and most of the endorsers, including Raul654, were editors who had been involved in edit warring with GoRight and others. There were 13 endorsements. Of these, 8 had been involved in edit warring or other conflict with GoRight, leaving 5 for which I have identified no prior involvement. In contrast, the comment by JeremyMcCracken was endorsed by 10 editors, of which 3 have shown prior support for GoRight's edits, leaving 7 apparently neutral. That summary is at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/GoRight#Outside_view_by_JeremyMcCracken. The neutral plurality is with McCracken's comment, at this point. We can expect that if there is a faction of editors cooperating to maintain a set of articles on a hot-button political issue, they would come to comment preferentially in an RfC involving those issues, and we see many of the same editors active here in this AN/I report, which, considered together with the RfC, I consider harassment of GoRight. I became involved with the RfC because I saw wikilawyering -- on his part -- attempting to prevent its certification, and I cut through that and enabled it. And then I read it, and researched it, and was horrified at what I found. GoRight was greeted with entrenched incivility and edit warring by a number of editors, with the worst incivility being by Raul654, who also wrote the everything-and-the-kitchen-sink-but-few-diffs RfC, and there have been other admins who have been involved whose behavior was improper. See my comment in the RfC, my extended RfC page as referenced there, and my evidence page. This is not a report on Raul654, but I'm mentioning him because he's been part of the problem, and looking at his suggestions for a solution would be a serious mistake. Incivility breeds incivility, and incivility on the part of administrators is a very serious issue. GoRight made mistakes, but has largely amended his behavior. I haven't seen that from the others.--Abd (talk) 04:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I find your analysis deeply flawed and your statement not reflecting your analysis at User:Abd/GoRight#Users commenting in RfC. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I will point out the following in response:

1. As one of the certifiers in the above mentioned RfC, Raul is not a neutral party.
2. Raul's comment does not actually address the topic raised in this incident, but is instead an attempt on his part to WP:FORUMSHOP for action against me when he has failed in his last two such attempts.
3. I have taken the RfC process to heart and have been voluntarily adopting a WP:1RR policy (although there may be rare exceptions) and I have been consistently WP:CIV in my edit summaries and talk page comments.
4. I draw everyone's attention to the last two paragraphs of Misplaced Pages:NPA#Personal_attacks.
5. Accordingly, my past behavior is not at issue here. What is at issue, or should be at least, is the fact that I am receiving uncivil comments and personal attacks from Badger Drink and I merely want them to stop.

--GoRight (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone reading GoRight's claims that he's taken the RFC to heart should bear in mind R. Baley's observation that "GoRight can be exceptionally polite when at a noticeboard". R Baley had previously had no interaction with GoRight until he blocked GoRight for harassing WMC. GoRight feigned a change of heart and claimed to have self-reformed and convinced R. Baley to unblock him early. However, the fact that we are now here clearly unmasks this deception. And GoRight's absurd claims aside, both his past behavior and the fact that he has never stopped are very much at issue. Raul654 (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Given that just a few days ago GoRight was restoring a character-assassinating screed () to the BLP on William Connolley using an astonishly disingenuous two-wrongs-make-a-right policy-wonkery justification, I don't see that he has taken the RfC results 'to heart'. In that instance, he chose to justify his violation of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:WEIGHT purely on the basis of another editor's error in citing WP:VAND. From the ensuing discussion, he still doesn't seem to get why there was a problem with his actions there (GoRight's final comment) and I see no reason not to expect this type of problem to continue.

For the record, I had never interacted with GoRight before encountering him at William Connolley (which I think I got to from an AN/I discussion), and didn't know that he had been the subject of an RfC until after trying to reason with him on the William Connolley talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

And as I clearly stated on the talk page, once it became obvious that the consensus on that addition would be against me I accepted it, and I have not attempted to restore it ... even throughout the course of our discussion there. In our discussion I was merely defending my initial actions based on what I viewed as a violation of wikpedia policy. --GoRight (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Your initial actions were indefensible under Misplaced Pages policy. Re-adding text that talks about a biographical subject's "ruthless subversion of the rules" and includes a section header that says "Connolley's Censorship Over Global Warming Articles Brings Misplaced Pages into Disrepute" is far beyond what's acceptable under WP:BLP, and any experienced editor should be aware of that without requiring a discussion to establish a consensus on the point. You chose to disregard WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:WEIGHT because you thought (correctly) that Kim had erred in citing WP:VAND for the removal of the text (which happened to be sympathetic to your own point of view). You can't claim 'I was sticking up for policy' if you're going to enforce some policies while ignoring others—and thereby harm the encyclopedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As the record clearly demonstrates the material was properly sourced and attributed in accordance with WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:V and did not constitute WP:VANDAL as you admit above. Therefore it should not have been deleted as such. Regardless I have accepted the consensus of my fellow editors.

And yet again I will remind everyone, this is not the topic of this WP:ANI discussion. The topic of this discussion is my attempt to get User:Badger Drink to remain WP:CIV in his interactions with me and to refrain from making personal attacks against me in violation of WP:NPA. --GoRight (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, on the RFC I argued for a 0RR restriction on the Global Warming related pages fo GoRight precisely for this reason. Count Iblis (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

True, but others including WMC himself argued that WP:1RR was sufficient. In any event, my actions are purely voluntary. No official action resulted from the RfC itself. Have I not stopped the edit warring subsequent to the bulk of the discussion on the RfC as I claimed here? Can you point to areas of wide-spread edit warring on my part after I indicated I was intending to adopt the WP:1RR restriction?

But again, this is not even the topic of this WP:ANI discussion. The topic is my attempts to get User:Badger Drink to stop violating WP:CIV and WP:NPA in his comments to me by placing appropriate (per wikipedia dispute resolution process) notices on his talk page. --GoRight (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No, if we're going to be children about "topics", the topic is your continued baiting and, to bring said baiting in context, your tendentious editing pattern, which I now see seems to be a rather established part of your history. Frankly, though, I see no reason to refrain from letting conversation evolve naturally from the original topic as it seems to already have - but then again, considering the way you treat the current "RfC" (term used very loosely) on TGGWS (see here and, of course, the "vote section" (like I said, "RfC" only in the loosest sense) here), it would seem, in all good faith, that the concept of conversation eludes you at times - willfully or accidentally. --Badger Drink (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a third, fairly neutral, opinion. Based on the opening statement here, it looks like Badger is being more uncivil. When someone asks you to refrain from jabs, you shouldn't raise a fit. And certainly a brief notification that personal attacks are not appreciated is not harassment; I'm sorry, that just looks like immature drama-whoring, and it reflects very poorly. II | (t - c) 23:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

And when someone (who, for the sake of argument, is "raising a fit" in your own words) tells you to stop posting on his talk page, you tickle the dragon's tail (or talk page, in this case)? Please. --Badger Drink (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh. One thing I've noticed is that you don't deny making personal attacks on GoRight, and GoRight hasn't provided diffs on it. So -- would you say you've made jabs, or not? I noticed you describe GoRight as "somewhat tendentious" in your intro. Perhaps accurate, but at this point it would not be remiss to call you tendentious either, especially after your repeated ignoring/misreading of CAT. Is calling him tendentious necessary? Perhaps it is better to show, rather than tell. Rather than "GoRight is tendentious", you can more neutrally state "GoRight edits only global warming articles and only inserts the skeptical POV", or "Although I've explained , GoRight ignores the argument (IDIDNTHEARTHAT)". If you have personal attacks, by the way, then reacting to the request to stop with a "don't edit on my talk page" is probably irritating for GoRight, to say the least. If you haven't made personal attacks, maybe it's a different situation. I just don't understand why you would get so worked up over such a relatively small matter, except as a weapon to use against GoRight. II | (t - c) 09:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Diffs were provided in my entries on his talk page, here and here. --GoRight (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Jabs? Sure, I'll cop to that if it makes you happy. Personal attacks? Get real. If we're going to take it to that level, GoRight's sanctimonious behavior was just as bad, if not worse - just because he's masking his intent in goofy pompousese doesn't make it acceptable. While I'm uneasy to utilize South Park as an example, for the lack of anything more accessible immediately springing to mind, it'll have to do: One thing South Park does incredibly well is illustrate exactly what editors like this are doing, through the character of Eric Cartman - witness his "yes ma'am, no ma'am" approach to getting Family Guy taken off the air in Cartoon_Wars_Part_II. Surely there are other, more "high-brow" shows, movies, books and songs that illustrate this basic principle, but let's keep the example moderately accessible. As far as your reading of WP:CAT is concerned, it's completely incorrect. Straight from that page: Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option. Bolding mine. No reliable sources were shown that anyone, anywhere (outside of three or four tendentious POV-pushers on a Misplaced Pages talk page and the two or three editors they suckered in) took issue with this being a denialist work - for all the bitching on the talk page, the "anti-denialism category" contingent was pretty short on actual hard evidence to support their endless kvetching, and this is exactly why the "civil POV-pusher" sort is the most malignant presence on Misplaced Pages today. I already stated this several times on the talk page, and while I expect an editor of GoRight's type to pull an IDIDN'THEARTHAT, it's rather dismaying that other editors such as yourself seem to be taking a "hit and run" approach to talk page participation. --Badger Drink (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"If we're going to take it to that level, GoRight's sanctimonious behavior was just as bad, if not worse - just because he's masking his intent in goofy pompousese doesn't make it acceptable." - Ironically, this is likewise a personal attack, IMHO. I am not being pompous or sanctimonious, I am being WP:CIV. Even more ironically, my first complaint of a personal attack was for having been referred to as a pig, making the claim that I am the one being pompous even more laughable. --GoRight (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Figurative language, hth --Badger Drink (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent)

Is there a point to continuing this? This seems to be dissolving into a standard garden variety finger pointing exercise which seems like a major waste of WP:ANI space. As long as Badger Drink agrees to treat me in a WP:CIV manner and refrain from making personal attacks in violation of WP:NPA I will, as I have already indicated multiple times, be more than happy to agree not to post anything on his talk page.

If the administrators here tell me that I should bring any future complaints in this regard directly to WP:ANI rather than following the recommended dispute resolution process, then I will be happy to follow those instructions as well. --GoRight (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Considering where Mr. GoRight sets the bar for what defines a "personal attack" (apparently saying "I don't mud wrestle with pigs - I get all muddy and the pig just likes it" constitutes a personal attack in his book), I unfortunately cannot make such an agreement. --Badger Drink (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, what would you call it if not a personal attack? I assume you directed the comment at me and I am supposedly the pig, is this not correct? --GoRight (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

chuckle I guess you don't mind me calling you a dirty rat with the habits (and the unseemly girth) of a pig? :p I agree that it's a dumb insult, but it seems insulting nonetheless. You might be right on the category thing; it does look like it places the burden on them. I'll think about changing my vote again. I really just would prefer to end this discussion. It is just a cat. II | (t - c) 20:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but with all due respect, if you don't understand the difference between your hypothetical example and what I posted, I don't see anything positive coming from continuing this particular conversation. --Badger Drink (talk) 05:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Topic Ban Request

While I obviously preferred to follow the recommended dispute resolution process in this case:

• In consideration of the fact that I have provided examples of Badger Drink being uncivil (see the edit summaries at and ), and issuing personal attacks against me, see .
• In consideration of the fact that I attempted to follow the recommended dispute resolution process as described in WP:CIV and WP:NPA by first placing polite requests on his user talk page explaining my objections.
• In consideration of the fact that Badger Drink's response was to open this WP:ANI incident report against me.
• In consideration of the fact the he has continued to be uncivil towards me in this WP:ANI incident, see "the concept of conversation eludes you at times"
• In consideration of the fact the he has demonstrated a pattern of being uncivil in general in this WP:ANI incident and elsewhere, see the edit summary for "since everyone's a fucking literalist these days...", and the edit summary for "penis"
• In consideration of the fact the he has continued making personal attacks against me in this WP:ANI incident, see "... GoRight's sanctimonious behavior was just as bad, if not worse - just because he's masking his intent in goofy pompousese ...", and wherein I was characterized as the "type of editor is the single most malignant presence on the encyclopedia - more damaging to the encyclopedia as a whole than any other type of vandal or twit that comes to mind."
• In consideration of the fact that these personal attacks are already escalating in severity.
• In consideration of the fact that he has indicated his refusal to restrain himself in his interactions with me, see "I unfortunately cannot make such an agreement.", and wherein he demonstrates that he does not understand that his commentary is offensive.
• In consideration of the fact that as the target of these uncivil comments and personal attacks I should be the one to decide what is considered offensive, or not.
• In consideration of the fact that WP:NPA specifically states: "The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user."
• And finally, in consideration of the fact that the above documented pattern of behavior clearly lies outside both the letter and the spirit of both WP:CIV and WP:NPA, and as such fosters a corrosive environment which is detrimental to the goals of the Misplaced Pages project.

I must respectfully request that the administrative community enforce the policies stated above by instituting an indefinite topic ban on Badger Drink wherein he is required to refrain from making uncivil comments and personal attacks against me anywhere on the project, subject to appropriate administrative actions for violations thereof. Such a topic ban would not affect Badger Drink in any of his activities here on the project in any way, other than to require that he remain WP:CIV and adhere to WP:NPA in his interactions with me personally which, as I stated above, is all that I ask.

What say you? --GoRight (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• His behavior, while not great, has been *far* better than yours - certainly not warranting of a topic ban. If we are going to be issuing a topic ban, I see a far more worthy candidate. Raul654 (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The obvious difference, of course, is that I am voluntarily offering to restrain my behavior whereas he is explicitly stating that he will not. --GoRight (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
    • No, the obvious difference is that he hasn't disrupted the global warming articles nor violated the BLP policy, whereas you have. The worst that can be said about his behavior is that he's been moderately uncivil to you (and only you) in response to your baiting him. Raul654 (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I offer the following in response for the benefit of others who may be following along:
        1. On the issue of purported disruption, I have voluntarily adopted WP:1RR in response to the comments on my RfC and my record since making that pledge will demonstrate a good faith effort to adhere to it (although perhaps an imperfect attempt to do so).
        2. On the issue of purported BLP violations, I still maintain that my attempts to add reliably sourced and properly attributed criticism to the BLP page of WMC are within the bounds of WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:V as they stand today and as they stood at the time I made any edits thereto. I understand and accept that a consensus of my fellow editors disagree on this point, and I assert that honorable people should be able to agree to disagree on such matters without prejudice. As long as the consensus is maintained there is no harm done. In addition I am now pledging to not attempt to add criticism to WMCs BLP, the only area of contention in this regard, without first obtaining consensus on the talk page which is a substantive concession on my part given that obtaining any such consensus would amount to a nearly impossible task when considering the number of other editors who support him in this regard.
        3. On the issue of my supposedly having WP:BAITed Badger Drink, the actions on my part that have brought us here, namely my having placed two polite notices on his user page in accordance with applicable wikipedia dispute resolution recommendations, were in each case a response to actions initiated by Badger Drink, namely uncivil comments and personal attacks, not the cause of his actions. If anyone has been WP:BAITed here it is me.
        4. Finally, as with all of your posts in this WP:ANI incident thus far, this is merely a distraction from the point at hand and an attempt on your part to WP:FORUMSHOP for action against me. In accordance with what Ncmvocalist points out in the opening to his statement on my RfC, , any purported misbehavior on my part should not be construed as justification for misbehavior on Badger Drink's part. This is a concept that I had already embraced for myself as exhibited by my removal of counter-charges against you in my RfC, , even before Ncmvocalist had made his comment.

      --GoRight (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Raul, I have to disagree with you. GoRight may do things that are disruptive, but he has shown willingness to be reasonable and civil and listen to consensus. Badger's edits to The Great Global Warming Swindle have been tendentious and uncivil. It is difficult to tell whether his repeated misinterpretation of WP:CAT and asking the same question again and again was accidental or intentional, but he seemed unable to accept a consensus against him. Oren0 (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you please show me the diffs where this question of mine was actually answered? Can you please show me the diffs where someone showed where, exactly, my reading of WP:CAT is faulty? Surely this isn't more smoke-and-mirrors from the esteemed "Misplaced Pages Global Warming Skeptic" community? --Badger Drink (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Diffs really provide both, as they tend to answer your question and explain your misinterpretation of WP:CAT: . I'll stop there. Five different editors explaining (some directly to you, some in general) that categories need to be sourced in reliable sources and uncontroversial. This category was neither. Despite that, you reinstate the category and then you post this, indicating that you still want a source that it isn't controversial and admitting that there aren't sources that it is (apparently it's so obvious that sources wouldn't even need to comment on it), completely disregarding or misunderstanding WP:CAT and WP:V (though you still repeatedly removed the unsourced category template on the grounds of some mysterious "reference on the talk page": ). Are these enough diffs for you? Oren0 (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Not really enough, no, as my question remains unanswered. I'll try once more, though I already sense a brick wall banging against my head: Given that WP:CAT says, quite clearly, "Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article"; and given that the central argument (at the time of my originally raising this issue) was that the category was somehow controversial (in this case, due to being "POV" or something - keeping in mind that truly "objective" categories would be near-useless, as I touched upon somewhere on that god-forsaken talk page in a post about Reefer Madness), can you - or anybody, really - show me a source that establishes that labeling this silly flick as denialism is, in any way, truly controversial? Badger Drink (talk) 08:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what else there is to say, except perhaps that maybe you have a critical misunderstanding of the logical disjunction. The idea that something that can't be shown in any reliable sources would be self-evident is so absurd that I don't even know how to argue with it. Oren0 (talk) 07:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Community Ban proposal

Hi all, I didn't see the addition GoRight made to William Connolley's article pointed out by Raul earlier (diff). My bad, this is unacceptable and it has been pointed out to GoRight many times. . .going back to June 22 of this year (diff).
We either protect our good faith editors from slanderous accusations by fringe POV-pushing accounts, or we don't. But we need to decide that one way or the other. Allowing this to continue will mean that there is no good reason for anybody with any *actual* knowledge or contributions to any field -or with any demonstrable expertise- to contribute here. The end result is that we provide the platform for personal attacks that can sometimes make it into the mainstream (and not-so-mainstream) media. We are losing good editors who contribute to a variety of scientific (and general!) topics due to these fringe campaigns and single purpose accounts. I propose a community ban for GoRight, this user is actively working against the editors trying to produce a reliable and neutral encyclopedia. What say you? R. Baley (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

All of my personal edits and the restoration of another editor's work referred to above were properly sourced to reliable news media. Opinions were attributed to the authors in question. As such they met the standards set forth in WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:V. The criticism of WMC has now been published in not one, but three, reliable news sources: National Post, National Review, and CBS News. Censoring this criticism creates a WP:WEIGHT issue in the article. --GoRight (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I can't believe that I am going to voluntarily offer up a suggestion here as I still believe that I have not violated the wikipedia policies of WP:BLP, WP:RS, or WP:V (at least as they are currently written). As a sign of good faith and a thanks to all those independent editors who have commented both here and on my RfC in my defense (even though they may agree that the criticism I wish to include in WMC's BLP is "inappropriate") I would propose that in addition to my current voluntary adoption of WP:1RR as normal practice to also agree to voluntarily adhere to WP:0RR specifically for and limited to additions of criticism to WMC's BLP refrain from adding criticism to WMC's BLP without obtaining consensus on the talk page first. (Turns out I was confused about how WP:0RR actually operated, this is what I originally meant.) This would seem to address the specific area of most concern w.r.t. this call for a community ban, correct? Would this satisfactorily address the concerns of the uninvolved editors expressed below? --GoRight (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I want to make it perfectly clear that I admit to no wrongdoing nor to any violations of wikipedia policy in the making of this proposal. --GoRight (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's too to claim you haven't admitted wrongdoing when you did just that on your RFC - "editors on both sides have made accusations of bad faith, been uncivil, directed statements at editors in the summaries, etc." Raul654 (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Meh. I stand corrected. Allow me to clarify my statement above: I want to make it perfectly clear that I admit to no wrongdoing nor to any violations of wikipedia policy with respect to my addition of criticism on WMC's BLP in the making of this proposal. --GoRight (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If you still don't understand why this is a BLP violation, that's all the more reason for a community ban. Raul654 (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I think this is premature to the extreme - a gross overreaction. My view was made on 3 August in the RFC (1 day after that edit was made), and this proposal comes quite some time later. In response, as a first step, the user has said he's voluntarily taken on 1RR to help address edit-warring concerns (i.e. the so-called civil-pov pushing). He's aware of my concerns over BLP editing - if he edits inappropriately, then there are other remedies to deal with that. As I stated in Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive438#Disruption_by_GoRight, I'm pretty sure that a topic ban is where to start - and even that would need some more thought. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

His agenda is clear and unproductive and sends the message that if you are a recognized professional contributing here -you can be defamed, no problem. And if your stature is such that you get an article as well, even easier. Good message that. R. Baley (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

He's a self-admitted single purpose account. A topic ban is equivalent to a full ban. Raul654 (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Opposed to community ban. I haven't really gone through this case in full detail - having mostly read the above as well as looked over the RFC and a few diffs - and I'm not convinced a community ban is warranted at this point. I could get behind some form of restrictive measure - such as a topic ban, or, better still, some kind of 0RR prohibition in certain topics, would be more called for. A community ban would be more suitable following a failure to obey a less harsh editing restriction, imho. Shereth 16:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

He had already been informed that to add that defamatory info it would need to have -at the very least- a consensus behind it. That was not respected. R. Baley (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That may well be the case, and as such some administrative action does need to take place - I am just unconvinced that a community ban is required. User:S. Dean Jameson says it best below, in that community bans are a last resort after other methods of controlling the situation have failed. Shereth 16:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, though I agree in principle with everything R. Baley says. I just think, in this particular case, that we're getting ahead of ourselves just a little. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 16:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I strongly oppose this, as a community ban should be a last resort, when all other methods have been shown to have failed. While R. Baley is not wrong in his assessment of the underlying facts, a topic ban would accomplish all that needs be done here, without restricting GoRight's access to editing of other portions of the project. We need to go a bit easier here, in my view. _D.Jameson 16:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't edit on any other portion of the project. He's a self-admitted single purpose account. Raul654 (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

By "topic ban", I mean that he would be banned from mentioning WMC in any of his edits, anywhere on the project, not just on the page of the main article. If he wants to try to make certain the skeptical view of global warming is presented in other articles, he would be free to do so. _D.Jameson 18:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that this would be the case even on talk pages and such? That would not be practical, IMHO, on the GW pages. For example, how would I refer to an edit or comment made by WMC? Would, for example, "in reference to WMC's edit" be considered a violation? --GoRight (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that you've made a rather uncomfortable bed for yourself. It will most likely continue to get less comfortable if you continue to edit as you have in the past on GW and WMC-related articles. _D.Jameson 21:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That sort of depends on one's definition of "topic" here. If "Topic = WMC's BLP" then this assertion would be false. If "Topic = Global Warming Related Pages" then this assertion would be correct. Let us take note of the fact the WMCs BLP is not a Global Warming Topic page, per se. It is merely a BLP for William M. Connolley.

I freely admit that I am a WP:SPA but this in no way should prejudice people against me as there is no requirement for accounts to be broadly based. My purpose here is specifically to work towards WP:NPOV on the Global Warming pages. I admit to being an AGW skeptic and by WP:NPOV I specifically mean making sure that the skeptic's views are equitably represented here in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. Please take note of the fact that my being an AGW skeptic makes me unpopular with all of my detractors listed above who just so happen to be AGW proponents (uninvolved editors excepted, of course). --GoRight (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Support. I fully agree that "there is no good reason for anybody with any *actual* knowledge or contributions to any field -or with any demonstrable expertise- to contribute here." In fact, we make it policy. As such, I fully support a community ban on William M. COnnelly. Given that he's managed to star in multiple major MSM publications discrediting the project, it's time for him to go. ThuranX (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're misreading exactly what it was that R. Baley meant by that remark - it took me a couple tries as well. I believe what Mr. Baley is saying (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) is that by allowing such slander to continue, we make Misplaced Pages a very inhospitable enviornment for those editors whose knowledge in their field leads to notability - editor such as WMC and Elonka spring to mind. i.e., "we are giving them no reason to add their expertise to this project". --Badger Drink (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm sure of what I've said. POV warriors who bring the project into disrepute by censoring opposition viewpoints in all manner of behavior need to go. Throw WMC out. He doesn't help the project, and he's editign as an expert in his field, which is prohibited. ThuranX (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

'Support - well deserved. Raul654 (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Definitely Support topic ban - on the fence as to whether or not a community ban would really be valid at this point (no matter how tempting it may seem from a purely selfish and subjective perspective! =)). This thread is a bit convoluted to follow, and the diffs I provided hardly illustrate the whole spectrum of GoRight's behavior - it's too easy to see this as a single slapfight, as GoRight himself said above. The single "incident" which triggered this thread (posting on a talk page after being requested not to) should, itself, most likely be met with a warning, perhaps a warning and a trout. It's only once one factors in the other behavior, and GoRight's particular history, that a topic ban becomes truly, easily justified. As I said above, this particular type of editor is the single most malignant presence on the encyclopedia - more damaging to the encyclopedia as a whole than any other type of vandal or twit that comes to mind. --Badger Drink (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

And I suppose that I am not justified in considering you ascribing this characterization, "the single most malignant presence on the encyclopedia - more damaging to the encyclopedia as a whole than any other type of vandal or twit that comes to mind.", to me to be a WP:NPA violation either? --GoRight (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I see it that Badger Drink's comment above is isn't assuming good faith nor is it helping to solve the issue. Bidgee (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Get real. WP:AGF isn't a noose. Badger Drink (talk) 08:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I am real. Making comments like this ("the single most malignant presence on the encyclopedia - more damaging to the encyclopedia as a whole than any other type of vandal or twit that comes to mind.") does not help. Bidgee (talk) 06:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. But I do see the need for some action. We need to first officially impose a 0RR rule for RoRight. GoRight has said that he voluntarily sticks to 1RR. On the RFC, I argued that 0RR would be more appropriate. Under 0RR, if GoRight adds material that has been previously removed then that would be a violation and it can be reverted without discussion. If GoRight continues to violate the restriction he is under, then one can discuss banning him. Count Iblis (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Support a community ban (first choice), support a broad topic ban (second choice), or support a 0RR restriction on all article space (last choice). This is an editor who has failed to take on board any guidance he has received in how to work constructively on this project. The repeated, tired arguments above about his addition to William Connolley clearly illustrate the problem. Even if we take at face value his statement that he has "not violated...WP:BLP, WP:RS, or WP:V" – which is false, as WP:BLP includes WP:NPOV by reference – his edit was both disruptive and a clear violation of WP:NPOV's provisions about article structure and undue weight; it probably was also meant to be a violation of WP:POINT. Our core policies aren't a buffet where you pick just the ones that you want, and GoRight's stubborn insistence that his editing is responsible because it follows some of our core policies holds no water. Whether it's wilful blindness or just an incurable inability to understand, Misplaced Pages has no place for editors who persistently fail to follow WP:NPOV—particularly where those editors insist on editing BLPs. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Support a topic ban. This diff would be bad enough posted to a Talk page, but seeing it as an edit to an article, I have never been more tempted to reach for the trout. Reading through GoRight's posts to this thread leads me to believe that 0RR restrictions are simply not going to prevent the disruption GR is causing. Otherwise I agree with TenOfAllTrades' assessment. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a 0RR ban is better, because then GoRight would not be able to edit in this section ever after having it done earlier. If he does so, then no matter what his arguments are, it is an immediate violaton of 0RR and he can be banned for some time. Now GoRight does also edit some other articles (mainly on politics subjects), so he won't be able to edit those aticles if he is banned for a 0RR violation.

A topic ban would allow him to continue editing the politics articles while not being confronted with his bad editing habits. Note that on the politics articles this sort of bad behavior is tolerated. From time to time we see editors like GoRight who usually edit politcs article come over to the global warming page and bring their bad editing habits with them. Count Iblis (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The conditions which GoRight has already willingly taken up (1RR on GW articles, 0RR on Connelly's BLP?) seem fine. II | (t - c) 20:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, given that GoRight has offered concessions that have a good chance of solving any problem here, I don't think it would be wise to apply sanctions right now. Everyking (talk) 04:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/GoRight. --Abd (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Support community ban or topic ban. I agree with what TenOfAllTrades says above. I also see that an RFC has been tried. The POV pushing and BLP violations are detrimental to the project. --Aude (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per above. --DHeyward (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Reverting isn't the problem so 1RR or even 0RR solves nothing. The problems are tendentious editing and argumentative, unconstructive behavior on talk pages, especially wholesale disregard for WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:NOR (with a good dollop of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT for seasoning). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose community ban, support topic ban on any pages related to William Connolley (which I'd suggest GoRight does regardless, not to be confused with edits regarding User:William M. Connolley). This forum shopping to try to ban GoRight is getting old. Nothing short of an ArbCom case is going to generate enough agreement to ban him. The RfC was nearly an even split. GoRight is far from perfect but several regular global warming editors are regularly less civil and more tendentious than he is. Oren0 (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, "pages related to William Connolley" is a pretty narrow topic; as far as I know it would only include Connolley's page and RealClimate, though perhaps there are a few others. Oren0 (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I thought that WMC no longer had a relationship with RealClimate, see . Has this changed? Please note that I explicitly tried to maintain such an association, see and , but apparently a consensus of my fellow editors have decided that such a relationship no longer exists since my addition has been subsequently removed and the page no longer mentions him. I accept that consensus and have not tried to re-establish a linkage. So why would you ban me from commenting on RealClimate? --GoRight (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

While WMC no longer contributes to RC, it is still a topic that is related to him historically and I think it'd be best for you to stay away from it. Oren0 (talk) 06:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Support topic ban (on the wider topic of Global warming), at least for a while. From my experience with GoRight, he not only pushes a POV (which may be solved with good will), he also simply does not understand the topic very well. As a result, he cannot distinguish good from bad edits, and he apparently cannot distinguish good from bad sources. A temporary topic ban would allow him to get some or experience with Misplaced Pages in less contentious areas, and to demonstrate that he is interested in improving the encyclopedia an general, not just support his personal interpretation in a very limited field. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Support topic ban in terms set out by Oren0 two above me, no opinion on wider measures. Orderinchaos 15:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose a community ban but Support topic ban. Bidgee (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No consensus for a community ban - see next section. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

Clearly no consensus for a community ban. But possibly growing consensus for a topic ban - consensus (or lack thereof) cannot be called either way because there is an apparent confusion on the area of editing (the topic). I'm neutral on topic ban proposals for now, but I'm making 3 separate topic ban proposals to hopefully get a clearer view from the community. I ask the community vote on each of them (these proposals can run concurrently if the community chooses though - in which case, the community would indicate support for all 3 together, or 1&2 - not 3...etc.)

1) GoRight topic-banned from editing BLP articles.

2) GoRight topic banned from Global warming-related pages.

3) GoRight topic-banned from William Connolley-related pages - this is not to be confused with edits regarding User:William M. Connolley.

Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support all three per above discussion. Vsmith (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support all three per above discussion. Edits such as this belong on the New York Post, not an encyclopedia. Badger Drink (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean the CBS news website, since he seems to primarily quote them. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose 1 and 2. Support 3. He provides opposing viewpoints. No reason to topic ban over opposing viewpoints no matter how opposed the other editors are. --DHeyward (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support all three - well deserved. Raul654 (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose all three. Sick and tired of propping up the censorship of disagreement over major topics which gets us shit-tastic coverage in major presses. GoRight's one of the few forcing a balance into some of these articles, and while I'd support it if he was pushing articles into a right wing POV, I can't support blocking an editor who sees us get ripped to shreds and tries to fight it. ThuranX (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • When GoRight edits the global warming article to make laughably false statements (global warming causes earthquakes!) he is not improving them. When he gets reverted, he is not being censored. Your statement is an insult both to the people who want our articles to be scientifically accurate and to people who have to deal with real censorship. Raul654 (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    • (EC's)No it's not, quit getting hypersensitive. When he puts in crap, you take it out. But when you revert evertyhing he puts in, including the legitimate criticism under a 'cry wolf' sort of mentality, the entire project gets written up for censorship. It's THAT level of censorship I refer to. I've seen it before in articles, on AN/I, and off wikipedia. Consider similar reactions at Barack Obama, and I'm sure that there have been other recent MSM coverages. I don't care if you revert crap like 'earthquakes' without citation, and I'd help but there is a trend here to avoid countering viewpoints on major, mainstream topics. I'm all for FRINGE, go look, i'm a huge proponent of the guidelines, but when we can't include anything but the most fleeting criticisms, and get ripped apart by actual writers and journalists, then we do need to look at what we're doing, and how we're doing it. That's my point. I saw that some of GoRight's edits worked toward that goal, and for that reason we should NOT ban him from the topics. As for people who "who want our articles to be scientifically accurate", I'm one of those. There IS scientific criticism of global warming, and it should be included.ThuranX (talk) 01:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Scientific criticism of global warming is a small-minority position that already is included in the articles in much greater proportion than its prevalence in the scientific literature. Here are the mastheads for Journal of Climate, Geophysical Research Letters, and Journal of Geophysical Research, Where are all the articles showing the raging scientific controversy over the existence of global warming, show them to me please. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

AN/I is about user actions and not content disputes. We should be focusing on how to ensure that people treat each other with respect, follow the guidelines, and try to form a consensus, not who may be "right" or "wrong". The "right" or "wrong" belong on talk pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It is not his views but his utter disregard for WP:V, WP:WEIGHT and others of our core policies that are the main issue here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That's some lovely hyperbole and posturing, but you already know where the letters in question are, if you've been following this, and what i've been referring to. ThuranX (talk) 04:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Boris is exactly right and you are completely wrong. You claim our GW articles are biased against the alleged hordes of scientists who disagree with the consensus represented by the IPCC, and that this supposed bias somehow justifies GoRight's misbehavior. You are wrong on both counts.

First, "But almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the "big" debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific sceptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change." - Boris is *PERFECTLY* justified in asking you to cite some scientific articles that support your claims. And your hand-waving "you know where to find them" is not an answer, because I certainly have been following this discussion and I don't. So - put up or shut up. Point out some articles from the long lists he just provided that support this claim.

Second, even if what you said was true (and it's not) it does not justify, excuse, or in any way mitigate GoRight's behavior. Our articles are not made better by the misinformation he spews; they are not made better when good editors have to take the time to debunk the patently false claims he tries to put into them (over and over and over again) or to revert war with him over it; they are not made better by his BLP violations (and subsequent refusal to even acknowledge they were BLP violations); they are not made better when he cites new studies funded by ExxonMobile that show global warming is wrong. And the list goes on and on. Raul654 (talk) 04:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure it's true. Misplaced Pages gets shit on for the ease with which a given side hypes their issue. This is no different. WP:V not WP:TRUTH and all that applies to all our articles, right? All I've been saying all along is that by preventing every single editor who puts up work representing a balancing side, we play into the hands of those who claim we censor topics and actively push a left wing view. Are we here to promote ONE RIGHT VIEW, or are we here to write an encyclopedia? If the former, then soldier on. If the latter, then we need to be aware that that means finding ways to incorporate things we don't like. I can't believe I have to explain this to you, Raul; it's like you're being obtuse on purpose. If we can't work out a way to make sure our articles are genuinely balanced AND accurate, we're going to keep getting tarred and feathered. One way to prevent that is to allow editors whose views we aren't personally thrilled with to edit here nad be part of the process. It's really that simple. When usually well intentioned editors whose views we don't like keep getting tossed off the project, we stay 'biased' in the eyes of real journalists. This attitude that real journalists can't judge Misplaced Pages because that's like our 'no experts allowed' rule is absurd, yet I see it here over and over. GoRight's not perfect, never said he was, but this doesn't look like a Civil POV Push to me. There has to be a better solution. ThuranX (talk) 05:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

So then as long as he provides "balance" there's no need follow WP:V, WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, WP:SYN and the rest of our policies? That's an interesting perspective. 05:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk • contribs)

Still not what I've ever said, but good to hear that your'e more interested in pushing the truth than follow our policies. I never said break WEIGHT, I invoked RS and V FOR inclusion, and SYNTH? Really? Where did I say dick about SYNTH? I said we need to find ways to present both sides of these major issues, or Misplaced Pages will continue to only be the butt of jokes among academia and the press. I said that blocking off editors every time they work to give our articles the needed balance (and balance does not eliminate WEIGHT and you know it) only makes it tougher to get articles which can get journalistic respect. ThuranX (talk) 05:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought our goal was to create a credible, balanced reference work rather than to gain "journalistic respect" from partisan editorialists. But maybe that's just me. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Not all our critics are "partisan editorialists". and "create a credible, balanced reference work rather than to gain "journalistic respect"" are one and the same, really. If we write good, solid articles, we'll get the latter. If we think we're doing the former but failing the latter, we need to examine the former. ThuranX (talk) 05:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support all three --Aude (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support all three Opposing viewpoints are great. Opposing viewpoints tendentiously pressed with utter disregard for Misplaced Pages's standards of sourcing and appropriate emphasis, not so much. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support banning Raul from all global warming related pages. LFOD (talk) 22:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Above user has been blocked as a sockpuppet based on checkuser-l discussion. Raul654 (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Mind telling us who this user was a sock of? You didn't say on the user page and I was unable to find the RFCU. Not questioning, I just prefer transparency. Oren0 (talk) 05:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
      • As I said on my talk page when Ottava brought it up - we were unable to determine who the sockmaster is. Raul654 (talk) 05:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't understand; how can a user be determined to be a sockpuppet if you don't know who the sockmaster is? Doesn't knowing that someone is a sockpuppet require a shared IP and coordinated edits with another user? Oren0 (talk) 06:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - I could only support a ban on him editing directly on the article page, but not a ban on editing the talk page. We should encourage users to discuss with each other, work as a community, and build an article that meets consensus, which requires everyone, not a simple majority. The user's problems center on reverting and unwillingness to compromise. This can not be solved with a topic ban, but only solved by him being limited to the talk pages and forced into a position that he would have to discuss and work with others. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC) A cycle of sock puppetry support has appeared and I don't believe that there isn't enough encouragement at this time for this to work. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose all three; GoRight offered concessions above, and this extended discussion should give him good cause to avoid such problems in the future. Everyking (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose 1 and 2, support 3 per discussion above. Oren0 (talk) 05:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose all three per ThuranX. Does anyone stop to think that when we ban editors like GoRight, we prove the critics right? ATren (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support 3 but Oppose 1 and 2 for now. Bidgee (talk) 06:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support all three. This editor has a personal, small-minority POV – which is fine – and pushes it without regard for core content policies like WP:BLP, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:STRUCTURE — which is not. His response to criticism puts a civil gloss over a thick layer of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. At this point, it doesn't matter whether he is unwilling or simply unable to 'get it'; it's not worth the time of good editors to clean up after him any further. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 10:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

User:AlexLevyOne

I posted concerning this matter earlier today at WP:Wikiquette alerts (see here), but it’s become clear that that forum is not really a suitable place for addressing this particular problem and so I am re-posting a revised version here. I feel a bit of urgency because while this editor’s edits are not malicious or extraordinarily destructive, he is very prolific and threatens to degrade a lot of articles in a fairly short time.

User:AlexLevyOne created his account just a couple of weeks ago but has already made several hundred edits. They are of highly variable quality. His intentions appear by and large to be good, and many of his edits appear to be well-informed, but he frequently displays very bad judgment, to the detriment of the subject article – e.g., removing uncontroversial and, to all appearances true, factual material simply because it bears a {fact} tag – then, often not bothering to edit the text left behind, creating non sequiturs and awkward transitions. He collapses short paragraphs into unreadable blocks of text and removes uncontroversial material without explanation (or with a cryptic edit summary); and so forth. Despite the efforts of several concerned editors to engage him on his talk page, has responded simply by blanking their comments. Example here.

This post to the user’s Talk page by User:Deor (blanked shortly thereafter) illustrates several of his problem edits: diff.

To sum up, AlexLevyOne makes some good edits, but many (many) irresponsible ones as well. I’ve posted several template warnings to his Talk page today, along with narrative requests and suggestions that he reflect a bit more carefully on his edits, but he has neither acknowledged them nor slowed his pace. He needs to be reined in a bit; focused a bit better – but given his unwillingness even to acknowledge Talk page requests, I’m not sure how to go about it short of seeking administrative help, which I am now doing here.

Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 02:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess my contribution ws a bit compulsive and fasting as much as I could wich happens to be destructive more than prolific sometimes. I'll try to stop the non sense exercice trying to correct as much as I find informations inappropriate and focus on a few articles in a more accurate methodology. User: AlexLevyOne —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If your writing style in articles reads the same as it does here, you might want to consider taking up a different hobby. Baseball Bugs 04:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You know, folks around here spend an awful lot of time and energy dealing with civility and other behavioral issues, process issues, sock puppetry, meat puppetry, BLP problems, conflicts of interest, etc. etc. etc., but very little on competency as an issue, and I think perhaps that is a mistake. A well-meaning but incompetent editor can do as much damage to the project as a vandal can, and yet many times this activity flies below the radar, and even when it's spotted, there doesn't really seem to be a process in place to deal with it effectively. Perhaps this stems from the egalitarian "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" ethos, but isn't it about time to realize that although everyone can edit it, not everyone should edit it? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 05:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

hold on their chap. The original post ser of this thread acknowledges that MOST of Alexs edits are good and beenficial to the project, and the issue at hand is a very specific patern of mistakes that can easily be corrected. Smith Jones (talk) 05:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Ed. I wonder if we couldn't set up a 'How to edit constructively' page. One that reinforces that English grammatical rules count, and spelling matters, that added material should be cited, or citable, that we don't deal in rumors and nonsense, that it's not myspace or a public internet forum, that if you don't know, don't touch... all that stuff. ThuranX (talk) 05:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Smith Jones: I think perhaps that JohninDC might have been being polite, because I've just sampled ALO's edits, and the majority of those I looked at were not "good and beneficial". Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 06:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

maybeso. I dont disagre eiwth you on the larger issue, althought there are a few processes like WP:MENTOR stil extant to help editors become better with their contributions. I took JohninDC at his word when he said that ALO's edits were mostly good. Personally, my comp is way too bad to open all those links to pore through someone elses edits, so I think Ill take you at your word. There are lots of page sup on how to edit constructively, but they assume good fiath, so if a user is just here to prove a WP:POINT it wont be of much happenstance. one example is the welcome template which has a lot of info that I pesonally made use of when I first got here, and it helped get more on the right track afte ra rocky start with my first few edits. Smith Jones (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I said that "many" of his edits were good, certainly not most; but yeah, I still might have been too charitable. "Not obviously problematic" might've been better. Certainly in the course of reviewing most of them for a day I found some that made me think, well, he seems to know something about *that*. I agree that WP might do a better job of helping neophyte editors edit well - but that still wouldn't fix a case such as this one, in which the new and misguided editor simply ignores all entreaties and continues to edit haphazardly and destructively -- yet at the same time not quite running afoul of the various editing guidelines and prohibitions. Perhaps this one will sort out okay - AlexLevyOne has finally commented - but if he hadn't, it seems that the only recourse would have been an edit restriction of some kind. JohnInDC (talk) 11:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I remain concerned about this one. It took bringing the case here to finally get the editor in question to "engage", and I feel that "engage" is overstating the response. Bringing the issue here got no more than a single sentence acknowledgement from the user. The user really needs to understand that when a message is placed on his page, it means that there is an issue that needs to be resolved, and that he must resolve that issue. Mayalld (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. And further, while indifference or inattentiveness can be cured by a sincere promise, bad judgment cannot. I suppose the thing to do is to await some new edits and see if they're sound. JohnInDC (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Would someone with a better understanding of the biological process like to evaluate this morning's edits to Orgasm? Diff here. They are one of many new edits today and these in particular seem rather haphazard to me. JohnInDC (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted some fact tagged stuff, which was potentially OK to do, particularly for the stuff that was long term tagged since last year, but also deleted a whole load of well referenced stuff without explanation. Reverted and {{uw-delete3}} Mayalld (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that matters have not improved much. In addition to the foregoing, here he removes properly sourced material in favor of what appears to be his (unsourced) personal point of view - diff. JohnInDC (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and his edit summaries are becoming less descriptive and more potentially deceptive. Whether that's deliberate or not is hard to say. This editor rather personifies the kind of editing that's so borderline, it's difficult to tell whether it stems from rank incompetence or a brilliant campaign of vandalism. In this case, I lean towards the former, but still, the damage is the same whichever is the cause. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 16:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"Deceptive"? to my part, I couldnt understand what that edit sumary was talking about. It didnt seem to have anything do to re: the actual edit that was made. Is there a page here that contains an edit smamary tutorial of some sort? I think that a few people dont understand that edit sumaries are supposed to describe the edit . Smith Jones (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in looking over the edits I think "deceptive" was not correct - I don't know why I came away with that perception. Some of them do border on incomprehensibility, though. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 19:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: I suspect that this is the same person as Elsass3 (talk · contribs), an account whose editing patterns (removal of sourced information, distinctive spelling errors, repeated blanking of his talk page, etc.) were very similar to AlexLevyOne's, who showed an interest in (and in some cases created) a number of the articles that ALO has edited, and who hasn't edited since two days after the ALO account was created. I haven't seen any evidence of disruptive socking, but I thought I'd point this out to carry ALO's history on Misplaced Pages a bit farther back in time. Deor (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, goodness. Fascinating. And I certainly share your suspicion. Indeed I'd up the ante and say that it is extremely likely they are one and the same -- the two accounts simply exhibit too many peculiar idiosyncracies in common. And, of course, both also reflect the same stout unwillingness to entertain any change in behavior. I think the next question is, then, what's to be done? I don't think it's in the interest of the encyclopedia to let it go on, and I also don't think we're going to see any meaningful voluntary correction here either. JohnInDC (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Just as there is no easy way to deal with sub-optimal editing that hovers just below the level of vandalism, there's no easy way to deal with serial sub-optimal editing, which this instance seems to be a case of. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 19:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

howevere, they're is a methods to take care of sub-optimal editing that also uses sockpuppetry, and meatpupptry to avoid scrutiny. Smith Jones (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, this whole debate is properly amazing ! I didn't expect something that serious and professionnal on my case. It's true i have no real competence in the wiki program set and my english can be a bit weak being french.It makes the whole inention look weird and sometimes look like vandalism. I think when the quotations are missing the text needs to be banned. I fell like rubbing the red key words to black or putting in blue the information i feel appropriate. As a matter a fact Elsaas3 is of course the avatar i used till last time when i lost it for acting to compulsively on the wiki scene.You can block me and i would find it quite normal not being irreplacable but keep inmind I really respect your work and your constant effort. It's an honor to have shared this time on this work since that time it started. Respectfully User: AlexLevyOne —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If your command of English is not that good, then perhaps you should refrain from editing English Misplaced Pages. I, in turn, will refrain from editing French Misplaced Pages, German Misplaced Pages, Spanish Misplaced Pages etc. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 21:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

ALO is now occupying himself by larding Marc Gilbert‎ (a cornucopia of fractured English about a person of dubious notability, which he created in his Elsass3 persona) with irrelevant images. I tried removing them but was reverted, and I have no desire to get into an edit war with him. The only thing I can think to do is to put an ownership warning on his talk page and walk away. I've wasted too much time on this guy already, and there's apparently nothing that can be done about his disruptions. Deor (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty much a full time job to follow him around, check his edits for facial reasonableness, and then revert when necessary. Probably one in three, one in two, are plainly mistaken and need to be undone. I am sure that User:Deor and I would appeciate action by, or at least helpful advice from, an administrator about how to bring ALO to heel. JohnInDC (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess what happens on other Wikipedias isn't really relevant here, but it's worth noting that on the French Misplaced Pages a user who is clearly the same person as Elsass3/AlexLevyOne was indef blocked as a disruptive sockpuppet. (I think the French term, faux-nez, is cute.) Deor (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Gee, "sock puppet" is pretty cute too. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 06:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Since there are at least 3 4 editors (myself, Deor, and JohnInDC and Mayalld) following this guy around, reverting his unexplained deletion of material and his inserttion of dubious unsourced material and so on, and since he's been singularly unresponsive to commentary, and since (I believe) he's already had a final warning, isn't about time to block this person, in both personas? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 20:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

He's added several spurious images to his Marc Gilbert article and has restored them half a dozen times after reversions by the various editors keeping tabs on him. See the history here. Can someone please block him for a couple of days so we can get a bit of rest? Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 01:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

He's been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring; thanks to those responsible. It remains to be seen whether upon his return he will have reformed any. JohnInDC (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, add me to the list of people wasting their time following this guy round fixing the devestation that he causes. The 24 hour block for edit warring is a welcome relief, but I seriously doubt that it will have the slightest effect, and he can look forward to more and longer blocks if he fails to take heed. Mayalld (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd say there's a good chance he will simply reincarnate in some new guise; let's hope someone notices him sooner rather than later. JohnInDC (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

He's back, and adding the same tangential, decorative images to the same article. Marc Gilbert. In a couple of hours we will probably have another 3RR violation. JohnInDC (talk) 11:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

He also blanked his talk page again -- he probably got tired of reading advice about his editing.

I see some small improvement in his edits overall, they're not so egregiously sub-optimal as they were before, perhaps he's really trying to straighten up. Still, many of his edits are unnecessary or show poor judgment. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 23:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

BOT violating WP:N

{{resolved|The bot is not violating ] nor ]. The notability of geographic places is highly disputed, this is not a clear cut case of policy. A block isn't needed at this time, I will leave the operator a note requesting they not run the bot while discussion is ongoingBJ 08:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)}}
Kotbot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is creating an enormous pile of stubs by copying stubs from Polish Misplaced Pages to the English Misplaced Pages based on a census database. It is doing so without any regard to WP:N, and is making absolutely no effort to comply with WP:N. Misplaced Pages:Bot policy requires all bots to " carefully adhere to relevant policies and guidelines", which this one blatantly is not. The owner has refused to shut it down. Will someone please block this thing until it is either fixed or there is a consensus that letting it run rampant over the notability guidelines is acceptable? There is a discussion over at the village pump, but it seems full of people willing to debate policy and none willing to put the brakes on until this is decided. The closest recent parallel was Geobot, and that one was specifically required to adhere to notability guidelines before it was permitted to run.
Kww (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

How was this thing ever approved? I doubt the BAG would allow a bot such as this to run the way it is now. —Mizu onna sango15 03:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It's been several hours since the bot started any new stubs. The worries here, I think, would be WP:RS along with WP:N. However, since I tend to think all automated article creation is (as yet) deeply flawed by technical limitations and my first thought was to block straight off, I'm afraid this means I've too many eggs in this basket to block the bot myself. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy enough for the moment if someone could get the guy running the bot to simply agree not to run it anymore until the dust settles and there's a consensus about what to do. Eventually, I'd like to roll back all the changes the bot has made, but I can't force that decision.
Kww (talk) 03:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It would appear this task was approved by BAG in 2007 at Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/Kotbot 3. MBisanz 03:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The sources need to exist, but there's no requirement that they actually be cited when the article is created. I agree it works much better if they are, though. --Rividian (talk) 05:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

One immediate problem I can see is that there is a references section being added which cites the polish wikipedia. That is a clear violation of WP:V and I would recommend stopping the bot until concerns regarding polices and guidelines can be addressed.--Crossmr (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't resolved until the operator agrees to cease operating the bot, not when he's asked to. If the notability of these places is controversial, then a bot that assumes notability cannot be said to carefully adhere to relevant policies and guidelines, which means it violates WP:BOT.
Kww (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

As many other people at the village pump I continue to feel that officially designated Polish villages are intrinsically notable and that what this bot is accomplishing is good for Misplaced Pages. Personally, I'm not sure why you feel it necessary to stand in the way of expanding Misplaced Pages's coverage of Poland to match the coverage of the United States, where a bot long ago created articles for all census designated places. This a reasonable task, and as far as I am concerned your demands to predocument everything by locating individual secondary sources is unreasonable. Dragons flight (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Is there any way they can be prevailed on to at least have the bot cite the sources they are using? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Rambot stubs had no sources when they started. They were added later on. --I'm an Editorofthewiki 16:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I just think it would be nice. Is it difficult to do? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
        • I am currently looking for secondary sources the bot can use. --I'm an Editorofthewiki 16:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
          • The latest creations did have a (non wikipedia) source when created as stated on the village pump discussion. Davewild (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
            • It is the earlier creations that are source free. Also, the little note about the info being on the Polish Misplaced Pages is pointless, since the info is the same, and there is the pl interwiki link. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
              • • Can we have the bot add the sources to the earlier creations? --I'm an Editorofthewiki 16:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Given that there is very little chance of articles of this type being deleted, the only question is whether the uploads are being done by hand or by a bot. Personally I don't see a reason why anyone should be asked to do it manually when it could be done automatically, as this would seem fairly regressive (we were doing this by bot three years ago), but presumably the project can continue under either method. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that an editor doing this by hand can't do as much damage as quickly as this bot does. Since it is creating articles that shouldn't be created but are very difficult to delete, it's a very bad thing to have them created so quickly ... it's a fait accompli, which is always very hard to undo.
Kww (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ouay, les jeux sont faits. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's make sure everyone understands the factual basis of the Kotbot's work:

I am one of the maintainers of Kotbot (the owner is on vacation this week).

1. The villages being created are Sołectwo - an OFFICIAL designation for administrative purposes in Poland. They have a elected head, called the sołtys. They are valid census units. Sołectwo are subdivisions of Gmina which are subdivisions of Powiat that are subdivisions of Voivodeship.
2. Data is being pulled from a number of sources from the Polish & US Government (including GUS and NGA's GEOnet) and verified against additional sources, PPWK S.A.'s POLSKA Atlas Samochodowy, ISBN 83-7329-526-7 and the online atlas (which WP itself uses). All sources are commonly available. So we have FOUR, which more than satisfies WP:V and WP:N. Governmental database are secondary sources, they have interpreted primary sources (photos, radar data, etc.). Atlases could be considered Tertiary sources since they use Secondary source data as input.
3. Kotbot is not an unattended Bot. It is manually watched as it executes by one of two operators (Kotniski and myself - we happen to be on opposite sides of the planet, so we can have a larger operational window). Kotbot only processes what we tell it to process. We have control files that tell the Bot EXACTLY what to process.
4. Kotbot operations are multi-pass. When Kotbot sees an error in any data it recovers it logs it to a file and does not include the erroneous data (it logs it to a file where one of the operators MANUALLY processes it). Kotbot is being prepped for an additional future passes through the village files to do some format updates and increase historical (notations on prior political structures, etc.) and geographic features (mezoregions, rivers/major lakes, etc.) content. All in the name of increasing accurate data.

Ajh1492 (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not a single one of your sources provides a detailed and direct examination of the topic in question, so they do not establish notability for the topic in question. All of them have the goal of being an exhaustive listing, that includes the notable and non-notable alike. Your information is indeed verifiable, but you are making no analysis at all of the notability of your topics. This was a major concern during Geobot's approval, and it was not permitted to run until it inserted a manual step:Individual articles cannot be created without some evidence of notability, so this is where the most evidence gathering will take place by volunteers through searches of the internet, paper sources, etc. Discussion should take place on whether sources are suitable, and also how to integrate the data. This can either be by editing the lists created in Phase 2 so that the bot creates the articles, or a commitment to add the information manually, in which case a simple mark can be made within the lists so that the bot knows that the article can be created in isolation. You have no such step, so you are operating in violation of WP:N. You need to stop operating this bot until you have a step which guarantees notability of the articles that you create. Your bot should not have been approved in the first place, since your stated methodology violates WP:N, and BAG is not permitted to grant an exception to this guideline.
Kww (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:OUTCOMES clearly shows that real places are inherently notable, therefore your claim that the bot is violating WP:N by creating articles about real places doesn't fly. Now, if it's creating stubs without any sources, that's a different matter. Corvus cornix_talk 00:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:OUTCOMES is neither policy nor guideline.
Kww (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

But it is current WP:CONSENSUS, which is policy. Corvus cornix_talk 01:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

In the approval of bot, it was stated "Function Details: Based on a database, compiled from Polish Misplaced Pages articles and official population data, the bot creates short articles on municipalities and villages which are so far not present in English Misplaced Pages. Articles contain standard information such as coordinates, population, area, alternative names, higher-level entities, seat, constituent villages, neighbouring municipalities, categories, stub template, and interwiki links." The specified population data and area data are absent from the village articles. Until the bot can comply with its authorization, it should stop creating unreferenced articles which wind up saying basically "there is a dot called so and so on the map at these grid coordinates, and it is in such and such administrative district." Edison (talk) 04:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It also needs to stop self-referencing. This is a clear violation of WP:V.--Crossmr (talk) 10:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Some Editors are proclaiming that this is a crisis. I strongly suggest that those Editors step away from their computers and take a break. Nothing on WP is ever a crisis. The Earth will not stop spinning on it's axis, flooding will not occur, dogs & cats will not start living together just because some new content is being added to WP. Some people really need to regain their sense of perspective. Ajh1492 (talk) 13:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The only crisis is that you pay no attention to people asking you to stop. If you would agree to do that, all sense of urgency would go away.
Kww (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I still see no reason why Ajh1492 should stop. Corvus cornix_talk 19:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It's very simple, and I don't see why you can't see it: so long as the bot isn't following the words written in WP:N, the bot cannot be said to carefully adhere to relevant policies and guidelines. Even if you are right, and the consensus is that every inhabited place in the world is notable, the bot is in violation of WP:BOT by not carefully adhering to guidelines and policies. Stopping the bot, trying to get consensus to modify WP:N to allow it, and then restarting the bot is an option, but just letting it run really isn't one.
Kww (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

also read what edison wrote above, the bot does not appear to be following its mandate. As long as it is not following its mandate it should not be running.--Crossmr (talk) 00:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I may be in the minority but I have to agree with Kww here more or less. If it's true that there is consensus that all villages are inherently noteable I'm not seeing it. There are various places where this has been suggested, but none of them appear to be policy and I'm not seeing strong evidence such a consensus exists indeed there are several cases where the outcome seemed to disagree that villages are inherently noteable. From my personal view, there are many villages in Malaysia where I lived for a big chunk of my life so far, which I wouldn't consider noteable for a wikipedia article. However if consensus is in the opposite direction, I'm willing to accept that but I'd like to see much better evidence then I've seen so far. I agree with Kww, the bot should be stopped for now (I don't think the existing articles should be deleted yet) and discussion iniatiated to reach consensus on whether villages are inherently noteable. Nil Einne (talk) 10:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the bot owner believes that no rules apply to his bot, and standard policies don't apply to him. Will someone please block this bot? How big a violation of WP:BOT does it take to get someone to block a bot?
Kww (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"Unfortunately, the bot owner believes that no rules apply to his bot, and standard policies don't apply to him." Calm down, assume good faith, and argue policy, not people. --Raijinili (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite calm. When asked how he can use Polish Misplaced Pages as a source when that violates WP:RS, his answer was Fortunately our rules are quite flexible, and building the encyclopedia takes precedence over their letter.. Combined with his refusal to comply with WP:N, I would say it is fairly clear the bot's operator does not believe that Misplaced Pages rules apply to his bot.
Kww (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Following all the arguments here and on the pump, I must say that Kww's characterisation seems correct. This bot was meant to help editors by creating short stubs on geographic locations with at least primary sources. Sure, its not exactly WP:N at that stage, but because the additions would be checked manually by the bot operators, there would (one would assume) be ample time to peruse the bot-suggested articles and find at least one secondary source mentioning the place before committing it to the 'pedia. The fact that it has gone one step further in the wrong direction (adding articles with incorrect or without any sources in some cases) is of even bigger concern. It's surprising to me to see that only Kww is arguing from the point of view of policy/guideline, while everyone else seems to be turning a blind eye to this. The bot should be stopped while discussion is ongoing. Then if/when some consensus emerges the bot can be allowed to operate again, presumably with some restrictions as to the articles it creates. Zunaid©® 19:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the bot should be stopped pending discussion. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be off Misplaced Pages much of today (going to a neighboring island, where they actually have things like movie theaters and traffic lights, instead of spending my day in the non-notable hamlet I live in). Sure would be nice if I found that some admin had blocked this bot while I was away.
Kww (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible solution?

Given the similarity of the work, use the consensus of the GEOBOT discussion as the existing consensus for article places, and send these uys over to WP:GEOBOT to lend a hand uploading data in the formats we've been discussing over there? Just a thought to stop us having a lovely, lengthy discussion again! Fritzpoll (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That's acceptable to me ... I've been pointing at GEOBOT's step of doing a manual notability analysis throughout this discussion. Whether it's a parallel bot or whether it just feeds data to the GEOBOT project doesn't matter much to me, so long as a search for reliable secondary sources with a detailed examination of the city/village/hamlet is done before article creation.
Kww (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK hook

About 15 minutes ago I replaced a DYK hook because it was a bit of a BLP nightmare. The hook was as follows;

• ... that after being assessed as mentally retarded due to a childhood speech impediment, Joe Dudley grew up to found a multi-million-dollar hair care company?

I actually presumed Joe Dudley must have died long ago for this hook to get through, but he's still alive. I'm not sure it's a good idea we stress that notable people were labelled mentally retarded as youngsters on the main page. I replaced the hook with;

• ... that entrepreneur Joe Dudley′s multi-million dollar hair and skin care business began with a mere US$10 investment in a sales kit in 1957?

Agne27 has disagreed with this, so I'd appreciate a review after recent problems we've had with admins changing current hooks on DYK. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I've got to endorse Ryan's move, the fact he didn't even have a disability, makes the original hook seem rather poor indeed. MBisanz 20:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Big improvement. RxS (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Agnes27 has got a point. Why not just add "incorrectly" before the word "assessed" in the original hook? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• As I noted on Talk:Main Page, while I'm sure the intentions are sincere and good, they are none the less misplaced and shortsighted in the message they are conveying. My niece is currently dealing with very similar circumstances and while my sister and I are not completely convinced that she does have a mental disability, she is still being treated that way by the school system. I can tell you that this is a very emotional and draining issue when it affects your family. When I saw the Joe Dudley hook, it hit home and after reading the article I emailed my sister about it because it was such a wonderful and moving real life example that my niece can also overcome her obstacles. It's a testament to the human spirit. But the actions being taken to censor this "blight" send a very wrong-headed message that people like Joe Dudley and my niece should be ashamed and should be hidden away. I can't emphasize enough how hurtful that message is. Agne/ 20:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The time to discuss DYK hooks is before they are placed on the front page, not afterward. Now, from the gangrape that occurred two weeks ago, we've learned that WP is censored. Still, I must side with Agne due to it being inspirational, and because the time to choose its appropriateness was on the Template Talk page.--King Bedford I 21:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"gangrape"? "King Bedford I"? I'm not sure that you're going to find your words hold much credence when modulated on that frequency... ++Lar: t/c 03:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The concern was brought up before it made the main page, and was quite ably answered by the nominator. -- Vary | Talk 21:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If editors want to become involved in DYK, they should be there commenting before the hooks are put up and following typical DYK procedure. Not waiting until afterwards to make adjustments. DYKs are not put up to begin with if there is no agreement that they are suitable among the DYK regulars. It is improper to remove to or change them afterwards without consulting the DYK regulars. User:Charles Edward 21:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

They can be discussed anytime really. To Agne27, Misplaced Pages isn't here for social transformation and because it is such a emotional issue, care should be taken in it's use. I don't see it as central to the article....Ryan's is a good replacement. RxS (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right. So why are we taking actions to send the "social" message that being diagnosed as mentally retarded is shameful and a BLP issue? Why are we being ashamed of this aspect in Joe Dudley's biography when even Dudley is not? Agne/ 21:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

No, Agne, you're looking at it the wrong way. Being mentally retarded is not shameful, but being incorrectly diagnosed (with any condition) is a travesty that we should not help perpetuate. — CharlotteWebb 16:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Charlotte - we shouldn't impose our ethical standards on him. If he talks about it, and talks about it, and talks about it, he seems to feel its okay to talk about. Why can't we just respect his values? WilyD 16:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I know it's awkward to speak of doctors and ethics in the same breath ("do no harm"—I made a funny!), but the only "standard" I would impose is that if incorrect diagnoses are to be mentioned at all, they should at least be explicitly noted as "incorrect". This should apply universally, whether the subject is alive or dead, a human being or somebody's pet poodle. — CharlotteWebb 17:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Agne, I don't see this as imposing our ethical standards. It's more a case of being factually wrong. The fact presented was that Dudley was correctly diagnosed as mentally retarded. That's incorrect. Dudley talks about being misdiagnosed. There's no shame in being mentaly retarded, always assuming one actually is. padillaH _{(help me)} 17:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The Misplaced Pages article cites a light-as-a-feather (even fulsome) feature story in Nation's Business magazine. Here's what that story said:

One of 11 children, Joe Dudley was mistakenly labeled mentally retarded in the first grade because of a speech impediment. Growing up in North Carolina, he says, he struggled through school and had been held back twice by the time he reached the 11th grade. But with the support of his mother, who told him that 'When slow people get it, they've got it," Dudley made it through high school and, later, college. In the process he discovered the value of self-motivated learning.

The magazine story doesn't directly say where the author got the information from, but it seems clear that the author didn't go beyond Joe Dudley and his wife, Eunice (the only sources cited in the article). When people become big successes, they like telling others what obstacles they overcame, and it looks like the writer was working that angle to create a more interesting puff piece. I think Ryan Postlethwaite's good-faith move to protect Joe Dudley was a bit overprotective, but I can't find any fault with RP for making the change -- DYK features only last for hours and we always have the opportunity to add it back later. It seems to me that the deleted one should be added back, especially if any other articles on Dudley have that anecdote (it would indicate he likes telling it). Well, lo and behold -- look at what a simple Google search brings up. Ryan, would you please do this really quick research before you remove a DYK item? My research took minutes. Previously, I've criticized you for not asking enough questions before templating my talk page with an unnecessary BLP warning. Noroton (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

And here's the clincher. -- Noroton (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This kind of stuff wouldn't keep popping up if we had more people checking the DYK hooks beforehand. Right now it's just Daniel Case and maybe 2 others. I can understand the change on this one, though as a DYK person I'm never a fan of changes after the fact. Wizardman 21:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Based on the facts presented it is hard to describe this as a "BLP nightmare"; I think before removing it would have been worthwhile to respond to the points that were raised when this was discussed before the hook went up. Though it's easy to see why this is a sensitive issue, that just means it is all the more important not to act rashly. Still given the prominence of the page the action was understandable. I would not be opposed to changing it back. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the action was understandable too. It's better to err on the side of caution with something like this. If a concern like this comes up it's okay to remove or change the hook and discuss. Sometimes the concerns will be reasonable, and in this case we will have removed a bad hook from the main page. Sometimes the concerns will end up unfounded. In this case, we can simply restore the hook after a brief period of discussion and again no harm will be done. What would be harmful would be to leave a bad hook up on the Main Page. Very much okay for RP to have erred on the side of caution. In general, if someone raises a concern about a hook, I don't see why we can't remove it, discuss it, and if everything is okay, simply add it to the next update. There really shouldn't be any stigma whatsoever attached to that sort of action. --JayHenry (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point but I wonder if the "shoot first, ask questions later" approach still encourages more drama than necessary. Hooks do go through a community process and vetting at Template talk:Did you know and are ultimately "approved" by an admin adding it to the template. A lot of major BLP and policy issues are caught on the suggestion page. While I certainly would encourage more admins and editors to take an active interest in the DYK process with vetting hooks, I can't help put wonder if the rash actions of another admin swooping in and changing the template without discussing it with the original admin is actually wheel-warlike? I think it would be more beneficial to encourage discussion with the promoting admin or at least open up a thread with concerns on Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know, WP:ERRORS or here to get more consensus. It seems like the root of any "DYK-related" drama the past few weeks have been due to rash and arbitrary actions (heat) versus communication (light). Agne/ 22:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Concur. There is a certain level of consensus among DYK regulars before an article is ever put on the front page. A single editor, or a group of editors, removing a hook without first consulting that community seems to be bad faith. Charles Edward 22:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, right or wrong it's not bad faith. RxS (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Agne, I respectfully disagree and here's why: it's not shoot first and ask questions later. The whole point of that expression is that you can't undo shooting someone. With DYK, it's easy to add the hook to a Next Update. We all know DYK is understaffed and sometimes we miss stuff. Thus, if an admin has a good faith concern about a hook, especially for something like BLP, I think they should not be discouraged from removing the hook and initiating a discussion at WT:DYK (though initiating the discussion ought to be standard and done immediately). This should be no big deal at all. Editors will discuss the hook, and if there are no concerns, we can add it back to a future update. If we agree there are some concerns, we can use a different hook. In one case a main page appearance is slightly postponed to allow for discussion, in the other case we stopped a bad hook. If we, the DYK regulars, simply agree not to get up in arms when this happens, there needn't be any drama at all. Just as in this situation: one editor explained the concern, other editors politely explained the circumstances, and we'll be able to re-add the hook, and no harm will have occurred. --JayHenry (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually removed the hook because I felt there was quite a serious problem with it. I did look at some quotes from dudley before removing it, but I still thought it was bad to push this. I felt that the hook I replaced it with was just as interesting, and less problematic than the original, but still allowing a Dudley hook to stay on the main page. If there are concerns about a hook after they have been put onto T:DYK, but there is an interesting hook from the same article available, I don't think it's a big deal to replace it. At the end of the day, it still advertises the article to a wider audience (a major goal of DYK) and it's still most likely that improvements will be made to the page. If I'd have replaced the hook with a hook from a different article, I could understand the concern - I just don't see it in this case when the same article stayed up there. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with JayHenry. There's really no harm in removing a hook, discussing it, and putting it up again a few hours 'late' for the next batch. Wheel-warring is a subclass of edit-warring, whereas removing a concerning hook to discuss it is part of the bold, revert, discuss cycle, which is definitely not edit-warring. What do we lose by playing it safe?

I also want to take issue with Wizardman's statement above that "right now it's just Daniel Case and maybe 2 others ". A quick check down the current batch of suggestions shows more than twenty people commenting on hooks: if something like this gets as far as the main page you can guarantee that a lot of people have seen it and had chance to comment. That's why this kind of thing happens so rarely compared to the 25-30 hooks a day that we process. Olaf Davis | Talk 22:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess things have improved in the past couple weeks then, since i have seen it in that state before. Wizardman 22:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Question - Was the DYK of the article removed or was the language that teased the new article merely replaced? Did the article stay on the main page, or was it removed? I think this would be the key importance to focus on. If the person who made the DYK gets credit, and the page is displayed, was there lasting harm? And yes, I merely want to know the answer, and I don't intend to participate after. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The same article was kept on DYK, the wording was just changed so it stayed on the main page. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay, so, for future clarification - the only times the DYK message appears are on the main page and then in the archive, with the talk page and user talk page templates merely saying the exact date it was on the main page and not listing the hook? So, is the concern is limited to the fact that the DYK on the main page was different and that an alternate was put in its place? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, basically yes. But some users felt there was no need to replace the orignal wording. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Ryan, you seem to be saying that it's still your position that there is something wrong with the original hook. Why? After this has been pointed out, why would anybody have a problem with restoring the original hook later? I think Agnes has a good point that it's helpful to families in that situation. Noroton (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
          • I still don't believe that a living person being labelled mentally retarded is a good hook for the main page, and the newer hook does the same job, without any possible problems. Any other admin is free to readd it, I'm not at all comfortable with it myself, but I'm certainly not going to revert any readditon. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
            • Thanks. It sounds like this is resolved. Noroton (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that DYK, especially the nominations page, needs a lot more oversight than it has right now. This is the second incident in as many weeks where... rather inappropriate and possibly negative hooks have slipped through the net and appeared on DYK. We really need to stop this at the root of the problem, instead of complaining the apples are sour again and again. Sceptre 00:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe you've read the conversation spectre and are jumping in rather quickly. The hook was fine. The problem isn't DYK, it's those unfamiliar with it who want to jump in and change things, disregarding any attempt to get consensus. Charles Edward 00:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the hook wasn't fine. Calling someone "retarded", even when technically correct (in Dudley's case), is not really wise. See WP:WTA, a subguideline of NPOV. Sceptre 00:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

What aspect of WTA do you think is relevant here? Christopher Parham (talk) 00:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"Terms that are technically accurate but carry an implied point of view". The word "retarded" is normally used derisively to mock people. I know in the 1940s, some terms were used medically that are unspeakable even in normal conversation today, and were subsequently replaced with lighter terms (and as RxS has said, "retarded" is one of them). There are alternative terms that are medically accurate and reduce the stigma of the term. Sceptre 00:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages, The World Health Organization, Joe Dudley and a large number of the 2.1 million ghits for definition + "mentally retarded" disagree with you. Any term commonly used for people with low IQ levels is going to be used as a term of abuse in school playgrounds and some other places. I think "mentally retarded" is actually a replacement for other words that were commonly (or at least neutrally) used and are now considered derogatory, such as "moron". One day that may happen to "mentally retarded". Hasn't yet. Noroton (talk) 04:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

From AAIDD: Intellectual disability is the currently preferred term for the disability historically referred to as mental retardation. , also see the Alternative terms section in Mental retardation for more information about usage. Search results are pretty irrelevant for this purpose. RxS (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Search results are pretty relevant for this purpose because that's one gauge of acceptance in broader society. The "Alternative terms" section in that article says that among some young people the term can be pejorative. In the U.S., at least, it isn't pejorative in society at large. Just because people involved with mentally retarded people are pushing a new term doesn't mean that the current, still-most-used term is suddenly offensive. The euphemism treadmill doesn't work that fast, and AAIDD didn't change its name until 2006. "Mental Retardation" is still the name of our article and for some reason AAIDD hasn't burned all of its copies of its 2002 edition of ""Mental Retardation: Definition, Classification, and Systems of Supports". The next edition isn't due out till 2010 or 2011 . So if they aren't getting upset that the phrase is still around, maybe we can tolerate it, too. And by the way, prepare for "intellectual disability" to become a schoolyard taunt. I remember when I was in school we used to enjoy using the most compassionate-sounding or euphemistic phrases possible for emotional and intellectual disabilities -- as insults. Even glancing references like "short school bus" -- oh look, the insult is encyclopedic. It may be that words like "cretin" and "moron" only became pejorative after they were dropped by professionals. We'll see, but "mentally retarded" is still not considered pejorative by society at large (at least in the U.S.). Noroton (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If all that happened was the hook was tweaked, I don't really see a problem with the change. I would've liked to see it discussed, but in all reality is it as worthy of our time as it appears to be right now? I don't know the answer to that. Wizardman 00:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's general agreement that it was fine, at the very least use a term more in line with current thinking, even professionals in the field are moving away from that usage. RxS (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem with both incidents was that there were nothing wrongs about the hooks, but instead some admins have different sensibilities and believe theirs should be above all others, regardless of consensus, and woe to anyone who dares disagree with them.--King Bedford I 00:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Jesus, Bedford, stop it with the holier-than-thou attitude. I don't know of any saints who called their opponents very disparaging terms. Sceptre 00:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Bedford's statement is legitimate. What gives you any other editor the right override the consenus of the DYK community without first addressing them and attempting to change the standing consensus? No one has yet to address this issue, which was left hanging from the last incident - thank you ArbCom. Charles Edward 01:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Things that go onto the main page need to be very, very, adherent to our policies and guidelines and even common sense. If something on the main page is potentially embarrasing to us, like this hook, we change it, regardless of the agreement of two or three people. Sceptre 01:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Then why are you and the other that are having problems not joining DYK to ensure this? Instead of allowing it slip by? You are perfectly welcome there. And as noted above, there are more like 20 DYK regulars, not two or three. Charles Edward 01:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Only two or three people, at the most, will look at a hook before adding it. Most people simply copy hooks that have a nice green tick to the next update page, and admins will copy the next update page without thinking either. Sceptre 01:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

As Jimbo has pointed out on the Village Pump discussion about BLP (and verified by community consensus at a very high number) our concerns with BLP are legal and ethical, so the "consensus" of a few editors (which did not exist, as DYK are normally chosen by Admin and aren't based on the community agreeing on the DYK) can not override BLP ethical concerns. And Charles, I am a regular DYK editor, so I don't think you can criticize me in the way that you have Spectre. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Struck per user understanding where I am coming from or where others like myself may be coming from and this is no longer necessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, but the last time this happened, BPL was not the issue. I would just be happier if the editors who want to be involved and have final say over DYK material, would actually join DYK as a regular reviewer or contributor. That all i have to say. I'm off for now. Later Charles Edward 01:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

So are we now saying that those people who frequent the DYK board have ownwership rights over what goes on the front page in the DYK section, and no other editor has the right to object to the wording? Corvus cornix_talk 01:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Not all. But is it fair that an individual administrator should be able to trump the consensus of a group of editors? Charles Edward 01:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Common sense trumps a consensus any day. If you tried hard enough, you could get a grassroots campaign to get Abraham Lincoln deleted, but even if the AFD has 900 deletes and one keep, it'd be speedy kept per "are you having a laugh?". Especially in cases like this, where it's only two or three people who agree to something (which a consensus does not make). Sceptre 01:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing a hook or rewording it after it gets to the main page does go against the consensus of the group of editors that work the DYK pages. But that doesn't mean that it's wrong. If there is a compelling reason to do so, a single editor should be able to make the edit, and make the case. If the change sticks, then the group of editors overlooked something. That's not a slur against them, the DYK gang works hard and has a lot of articles to look over. No one is perfect and some things slip through. I think Ryan did the right thing. And yet I also think that discussing it afterwards, as has happened, to see if his edit was goodness was right too. ++Lar: t/c 03:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I am the user who promoted the hook more or less as it was originally proposed. Had I not gone offline shortly afterwards, I would have strongly objected to Ryan's replacement of the hook, which I think was totally wrongheaded. There are kids everywhere who are suffering torment because of speech defects and similar types of problems, the original hook could only have served as an inspiration to any such child or any young person who feels that he is different or not accepted for his differences. Score one for political correctness, and zero for compassion and common sense. I also think that, given it is Dudley himself who has widely touted this story, it is totally ridiculous to cite BLP as an argument against running this hook. So I think there is something very skewed about some people's notions in this thread. I would have commented earlier but I only just noticed from looking at the archive that the hook was changed after I posted it. Gatoclass (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you're not understanding what Misplaced Pages is not. It's not a tool for inspiring retarded people. It's not a tool for furthering Dudley's mission. It IS an encyclopedia, and it IS required, per internal policies and external legal considerations, to give a great deal of deference in BLP issues against things that could be negatively construed as defamation, especially when dealing with accusations of mental illness which can be defamatory per se. This was the right move to pull the hook, and the people who are hellbent on including that he was misdiagnosed as retarded ought to question their reasoning WHY they are so hellbent on inclusion -- all of the reasons for inclusion in the hook are based on things that Misplaced Pages is NOT.⇒SWATJester 18:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I mean FFS, the segment about his accusation of mental illness takes up ONE SENTENCE in the article. Why on earth do people think that this MUST be in the hook? ⇒SWATJester 18:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"one sentence" -- so what. I bet that's not uncommon, and an interesting fact is an interesting fact, no matter how small (didn't a Dr. Seuss character say that?). "accusations of mental illness" -- a diagnosis or misdiagnosis is not an accusation (I think you meant "allegation", and it isn't that, either). "hellbent on inclusion"? The BLP reason for removing (the only reason possibly justifiable) turns out not to be a concern that the subject himself has. Restoring the hook is justified primarily for the original intent: It's an interesting fact. It seems to me it would be a good for Misplaced Pages not to treat mental retardation with so much sensitivity that we can't mention a childhood misdiagnosis from half a century ago. Since we know the problem isn't that Dudley will feel hurt (quite the opposite), what's the point of keeping it off the main page? It seems like an over-elaborate concern about mental retardation, which gives the impression that condition is so awful that to mention it would shock the senses of our readers. No editor should get that impression. Nothing about the hook is offensive, and the idea that mental retardation may itself be offensive is the implicit message. And that kind of thing is harmful to people with mental retardation and even harmful to their close family members. I guess I need to state this: Mental retardation is a condition, worse than some conditions, not as bad as some others; people who have family members, friends, classmates, coworkers who are mentally retarded aren't faced with someone with a curse for everyone to be depressed about but with a condition which everyone can deal with. Restoring the hook sends a message to anyone reading this (or aware of what happened here) that it's perfectly OK to mention it, talk about it, deal with it -- because the alternative is to ignore it (which was one of the objections to removing "mental retardation" from the name of the department in the state of Connecticut -- the fear was that if you remove mention of it, you tend to ignore it). One of the things Misplaced Pages is not is a tool for averting our eyes from mentally retarded people. Therefore, once the BLP concern is resolved, we put things back where we found them because there really are no other concerns, and we should make that clear. We don't do that to inspire anybody but to avoid the opposite. Noroton (talk) 22:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. WP:NOTCENSORED. Charles Edward 01:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a soapbox either. This is not the place to fight a battle over rights for retarded people. Fact is, it is completely irrelevant whether the guy is proud of his history or not. You have no idea if he'll change his mind tomorrow. It is a BLP article, and there is a serious legal concern over this, and it's just not an important fact to include on the front page when compared to everything else in this guys life. You all really need to get over this "Fighting the battle for awareness that retarded people are just like everyone else" thing (I mean, Noroton, look at your post, that's your entire justification for inclusion). This is Misplaced Pages, we don't fight people's battles and do their advocacy here. That's a major principle of our project. Sounds like you ought to start a Wikia on retardation if it's such a big deal, but it is inappropriate here per our own policies. Fighting that for the purposes of your own advocacy is just disruptive. ⇒SWATJester 15:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Swat, your comments are directed more at criticizing other editors than criticizing the points made. You might want to think about your approach. This is not the place to fight a battle over the rights for retarded people. Whatever decision is made: whether to put the hook up or take it down, you send a message about what's appropriate. My comments were consistent with Misplaced Pages's best interests, which don't conflict with putting the DYK hook back up but may conflict with keeping it off the main page. This is Misplaced Pages, we don't fight people's battles and do their advocacy here. You assume that people who disagree with you are the only ones with a POV on this question. Look to your own. it is completely irrelevant whether the guy is proud of his history or not. You have no idea if he'll change his mind tomorrow. He puts it on his company's website, mentions it -- repeatedly -- to reporters writing about him and his company, seems to pass it on to people publicizing his upcoming speeches, and we just have no idea whether he'll change his mind tomorrow? Your scenario sounds just a tad unlikely. This is Misplaced Pages, we don't fight people's battles and do their advocacy here. That's a major principle of our project. What part of "Restoring the hook is justified primarily for the original intent: It's an interesting fact", do you find difficult to understand? In fact, what is it about WP:AGF that makes it so difficult for you to understand? Sounds like you ought to start a Wikia on retardation if it's such a big deal, but it is inappropriate here per our own policies. Fighting that for the purposes of your own advocacy is just disruptive. I think personal attacks are more disruptive. Noroton (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Lar has summed it up well here. It's wise for editors to get more involved in DYK, just as with other parts of wikipedia. An editor's lack of involvement means that the editor generally has little right to complain about the fact a decision was reached. But the lack of involvement does not mean an editor has no right to try and change a decision that was reached. Normally this would involve an editor iniating a discussion and seeking wider input. For items on the main page, these often only appear for a short time, especially for DYK. If there is a substanial/significant concern this has to be fixed fast. If this concern is expressed by several editors then it is is even more imperative. Particularly the case when there is no real harm done by erring on the side of caution, then it is indeed wise to err on the side of caution. This generally shouldn't be taken as a negative on the people who made the earlier decision but simply reflective of the fact that wikipedia is a work in progress. As for how to handle such problems, it's probably generally best to just remove the hook completely. That way the matter can be discussed without any party feeling aggrieved (and the hook either added in the future or re-worded or simply never added as a result of the discussion). However while I understand why some editors feel annoyed when their proposed wording of a hook is not used, even if the hook is simply re-worded (which means the earlier proposed wording is not likely to ever make it back to the main page) editors need to remember that they don't WP:own anything on wikipedia. Editors should still feel free to participate in a discussion of the hook wording even if the issue seems 'dead'. BTW, as others have pointed out, wikipedia is not about inspiring people or about showing people it's okay to discuss something so that point is moot and is implicitly NOT a demonstration of harm by the re-wording of the hook. (This doesn't mean we should ignore mental retardation or refuse to discuss it in articles.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that is very reasonable. I believe DYK could benefit from some sort a "formal" method for removing hooks after they have been promoted, by designating a fairly general definition of what is appropriate, and in what situations hooks can be removed prior to discussion, and in what situations hooks should be left until after discussion, and the forum in which the discussion should take place. Charles Edward 13:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope not to come across as dismissive here, but isn't this whole sordid affair something of a tempest in a teacup? It's more of a content dispute than anything else - why is this taking up so much discussion at AN/I? Shereth 17:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Theresa Knott's solution is a great one; I can only hopp that's what was put into place. On my first reading of this section, and that line, i read it as him being retarded, not erroneously diagnosed. Of course, I immediately knew what was coming next, but the writing did give the impression that he overcame a huge hurdle to succeed, not that he was misdiagnosed. Poor writing in cases where BLP applies should be fixed, regardless of whether they're up or not. This is the sort of unfortunate result of low DYK participation, and the wider community, esp. admins, shouldn't be punished for stepping in to make BLP compliant clarifications, or, really, ANY needed clarifications, though in any non-BLP, conversation/notification should go to the DYK project first. ThuranX (talk) 07:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to replace the hook on the next batch

Joe Dudley mentions himself the mental retardation diagnosis on an interview with CNN and with INCTV, on the Black Issues Forum and in his bio corporate page, where it says that this event caused him to be a role model . So, as it was already cleared for inclusion, and as it seems that the BLP concerns for the removal, altought well-intentioned, where not really serious after all, we should just place it on the next batch, if only to set a precedent that DYK hooks should be put back if they are removed from the main page for reasons that are later found not to be all that important. Otherwise, we risk DYKs being censored every time they pick on something controversial, causing a chilling effect similar to censorship.

(oh, and all the sources says "labelled", so please use that word instead of "assesed") --Enric Naval (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The article got to spend its 6 hours on the main page, even if not all of it was with the exact preferred hook. Right now we've got a bit of a backlog at DYK, and I'd much rather give the spot to an article that hasn't yet gotten it's moment in the sun. The original preferred hook doesn't get featured for plenty of articles and while I don't think what happened was ideal, refeaturing the hook seems worse to me. Vickser (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Strong Oppose You think the solution to a DYK with strong BLP issues is to put it up TWICE? That's ridiculous, and I'll tell you right now, I'll take it down if that happens. ⇒SWATJester 15:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I am still scratching my head trying to figure out how an anecdote can have "strong BLP issues" when the LP himself is the originator and prime disseminator of said anecdote. Care to explain? Gatoclass (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The issues persist regardless of how he feels at this time. Were he to change his mind, or have a pissy day, or his family got upset about it, we'd be in a tough situation. ⇒SWATJester 18:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I find that a pretty unpersuasive rationale, but thanks for the response. Gatoclass (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment - There doesn't seem to be a need for this. It's had its newborn "Moment in the Sun", pushing it across the Mainpage is likely to dredge dramas and not right some imagin'd wrong. WilyD 15:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, readding the hook is a violation of DYK rules, the article must be expanded five fold to be eligible to be placed back on the main page - it has already had a hook for it's previous eligible expansionCharles Edward 15:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, most of the original parties are moving on and there is no need to have something on the DYK mainpage space twice. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. The article got its time in the sun, even if there were a few clouds. While I disagree with the BLP argument at this point as the subject clearly uses it as a badge of honor, DYK rules are rules. However, I do support the original hook wording and do not consider it a WP:SOAP issue as it was; if the teaser said "wrongly labeled" or "falsely labeled", that'd be a different story. Besides, I think this nice long thread on AN/I plus the multiple mentions to come when it's referenced in future DYK discussions will give this article lots of notice. :-) —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 16:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose as well. Vickser pretty much nailed the reason and there is no need for it to be featured twice. Hopefully some good will come out the discussion in that editors may be more aware of the negative implications that well intentioned actions can have. While I share some "head scratching" with Gato since the "BLP nightmare" has been shown to be none existent, I nonetheless think it's best for everyone to move on. We've got an encyclopedia to write. :) Agne/ 16:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Lots of great DYKs that haven't seen the light of the MP. MBisanz 16:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per all the above. - House of Scandal (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Strongly support Concern about fairness between articles here is inconsistent. If this were put back up, one article would have to wait six more hours before it gets its DYK put on the main page. The unfairness of that should be accompanied by violin music from the world's smallest violin. Editors have pointed out that removing the hook prematurely was no big deal (and I agree with that), but the same logic applies to adding it back (and so what if some other hook for the same article took its place -- get out that violin again). Despite Swatjester's loud objections, whatever we do can easily send a message. Someone will say or think: You know, an admin removed that kind of thing as a DYK hook on the main page and AN/I (a) backed him up / (b) didn't back him up. I'd better (a) not mention / (b) not be concerned about mentioning mental retardation where I have the option. I don't think it's a loud message either way, so no great harm done. It's still wrong to not put it back up, though. And you may also encourage more admins to pull DYK hooks in the future. I notice in the comments above more concern about WP process than the people that our actions inevitably affect. That priority seems to be skewed -- does it have anything to do with editors implicitly agreeing that we should avoid mentions of mental retardation whenever we have the option? I'm not making an accusation, just asking a question worth thinking about. I'll post my own defense of my way of thinking about this above one or two of Swatjester's comments above. Noroton (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC) -- (((crossed out comments that, while not meant as any kind of attack, probably aren't helpful -- Noroton (talk) 00:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC))))

Oppose. It should've read 'incorrectly' to begin with, to comply with BLP, but ran anyway. Giving it double exposure because people had well intentioned, serious and legitimate concerns with it is as stupid a reason as it gets. ThuranX (talk) 07:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for DYK

After listening to a lot of concerns, the major issue is how to deal with BLP issues especially when they make it onto the main page. I believe (and I vouche for myself only) that when a line is on the main page, it can cause more damage than if it was among others. This is about WP:Weight, as we are trying to lure people to a page with that interesting fact. I'm sure there can be equal problems with weight resulting from a new page on any controversial subject. Now, when there is a complaint, the main page would require immediate clean up to keep it from spiraling out of control. We must all recognize this, and even in a mistake that is determined later, sometimes caution before is necessary. This is not to say one way is right or wrong, but to say that we shouldn't pass judgment since it is there to protect the encyclopedia.

Now, after I prefaced the situation with the above, here is just my thought: the concern seems to be that there are potential BLP issues that could result, and previous concerns addressed sexism or copyright violations. Now, the DYK page is long and a lot of people spend a lot of hours devoting to checking the various hooks. However, things are occasionally missed. Now, a DYK may be selected roughly 6-8 hours before it will be displayed, but that would include 1/3 of the day that I (and probably others) will not be able to see an upcoming hook. Perhaps we have our current "next update" section, but include a secondary section for review (possibly on the talk page of "next update". The process would be changed slightly to have admin moving hooks to the review page (6-8 of course) for the 6-8 hour period before it moves to the next update section. Each hook will be listed with the credits given. There will be a small section to respond only to issues of BLP, copyright, verfiability, civility, and other major Misplaced Pages concerns. This will not be used to discuss if you like the hook or not. This will not be used to to voice if you like the DYK or not. It will merely be there to address major concerns and give people additional time.

I feel that such a thing as the above should go onto Village Pump for decision. However, I hope it can satisfy everyone's concerns so that we can deal with these matters in an easy manner before they happen and can temporary pull out DYKs until the community can have true consensus behind them. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I have occassionally noticed problems with hooks that have made it to the "next update" section but unless I see blatant errors there, I raise no issues as the time for discussion has by then passed. A forum for last minute concerns might be useful as long as it doesn't bog down the process. - House of Scandal (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I could support this if the community would vest a certain level of final authority in the decision made at that step. There will still be some editors who find a hook from time to time to be offensive, inappropriate, or a violation of their interpretation of policy or guideline. If that is not done, there will be nothing to prevent situations like this from continuing - there will just be a six hour delay before they happen, and they would probably be reduced in number and frequency. If something is a blatant breech of policy, it should be removed - otherwise discussion should be made before action it undertaken, IMHO. Charles Edward 18:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment If anyone wants to put this up at Village Pump, feel free. Its just that there is a lot of talk about problems without any real fundamental solutions. I wanted to see if a giving a few more hours could satisfy the parties involved. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I've been thinking roughly along the same lines as Ottava Rima and Charles Edward. I was thinking that at a stage between the overall approval and appearance on the main page, the hooks could be reviewed by admins and should have, say, three admins willing to sign their tildes to a statement like We have reviewed this hook for possible BLP, copyright and other potential violations of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, and we approve it. When at least three admins sign (and none oppose), that constitutes a consensus that anyone would be in violation of if they removed the hook after it is posted to the main page. A 0RR rule should be in place for these hooks once up on the Main page (or maybe people who want to take them down should come to AN/I and ask for consensus support before removing them at that stage). If anyone objects to the hook before it goes on the main page, that would call for further review and an attempt at consensus-building. There should always be more DYK hooks on the final review page than are needed, and editors or admins should all be invited to look over the final review page. This way we don't have episodes like this coming back up at ANI with offense taken on many sides. I didn't suggest this before, though, because I'm not yet sure it's worth the extra bureaucracy -- as far as I know, admins taking DYK hooks off the main page has only happened twice. Maybe we should wait to do anything until we know we have a problem. Or from this incident and the last one, do we know we have a problem? I'm skeptical. Set this up and you may have future bottlenecks form at the final review page. Noroton (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Quick question: if we have admins signing, should we have the ability for admins to oppose? Now, what about the reverse - if two or more admins oppose, remove the tag, have a wider discussion, then place it back to be up for appearance if it passes? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

My thinking was that you should have a clear consensus with at least three admins signing off in approval. If just one admin or editor also opposes, I think we'd normally still consider that a consensus, but a delay for more discussion might be considered and if the opposing editor feels strongly enough, that editor might want to make a request for comment from others. I think if two or more editors or admins oppose, you'd have to get more support for a consensus. Maybe you send it back to the first discussion forum. I think the result would be that controversial DYK ideas would tend not to get on the main page, which would be a good thing, overall. Noroton (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind if I add the above as a secondary/sub proposal to the first? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Noroton (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - sorry, but these ideas are just not practical. The fundamental problem at DYK is lack of manpower/interest, and creating an extra page for an additional review step will do nothing to remedy that problem, while asking "three admins" to sign off on each and every hook will make for a very unwieldy system. I'm sure Ottava means well, but I feel this is a solution in search of a problem, since in the eight months I have been associated with DYK, we have had IIRC exactly two hooks which some people objected to, both of which just happened to occur in the last couple of weeks, and both of which were removed within a short time of being posted. Gatoclass (talk) 07:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Question - if there will not be any problems, why not have a secondary section so we know what articles will go up into the next update without some at the last moment? And also, you left out the copyright problem and the current discussion about John Edwards. By the way, this isn't a proposal. This is a proposal for a proposal, or just finding out if a proposal could work as a solution to satisfy the major AN/I concerns. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I posted this above, but why can't we just institute "Poor writing in cases where BLP applies should be fixed, regardless of whether they're up or not. This is the sort of unfortunate result of low DYK participation, and the wider community, esp. admins, shouldn't be punished for stepping in to make BLP compliant clarifications, or, really, ANY needed clarifications, though in any non-BLP, conversation/notification should go to the DYK project first." as a standard part of the DYK procedures and rules, so that we don't have to go througgh this stuff over and over? Changes could be discussed there instead of clogging up AN/I, because then they'd be DYK issues, not incidents. (I'm not implying that this or the previous issue clogged up AN/I, just that with policy change, there'd be a proper venue for such things) Having a place there to handle this would also mean regulars get better at writing and reviewing hooks. ThuranX (talk) 07:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but who exactly has been "punished" for "mak BLP compliant clarifications"? Neither I nor any of the other DYK admins have the authority to "punish" someone for disagreeing with us, least of all a senior admin like Ryan R.

In my opinion, this is nothing more than a common or garden content dispute, which occur all the time in every part of the project. The fact that such content disputes might crop up occasionally at DYK is therefore not at all suprising, but I feel that the fact they have occurred so rarely at DYK ought to indicate that the regulars there are actually doing a pretty darned good job. I might also point out that even in this particular case, there is no consensus that the hook was inappropriate, just that some people didn't like it. Gatoclass (talk) 09:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Mspraveen

Checkuser issues

This is in reference to the RRaunak checkuser case. Multiple accounts have been blocked based on it. One of the users blocked is User:Mspraveen who is an established user who has produced multiple GA and DYK contributions. My interactions with him have always been good. I am curious to know how conclusive is a check user evidence. What if all the users were from using the a shared external IP (proxy) in a university? Do we still block all the accounts? The user has not made his statement yet. The blocking admin has asked the user whether he would stop using socks. I wanted to bring this to the community's attention. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 04:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well seeing as the CheckUser marked the accounts {{confirmed}} that pretty much means all the accounts were/are editing from the same IP and as such that is as conclusive as it gets. As you stated above (and seeing as I am the blocking admin) I have noticed that the user in question has made some rather impressive contributions to the project and as such am willing to unblock the account if I feel that they will no longer sock. Tiptoety 04:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

We do not block some IPs since they are shared across the university (see SharedIPEDU). I am curious to know why there is a double standard when it comes to individual accounts. I feel checking IP addresses alone does not prove some is a sock, editing patterns and conversations must be matched before a checkuser becomes conclusive. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 04:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with GaneshK, this block doesn't seem right. Mspraveen has a very different style, personality, and contribution history compared to the others. I appreciate, as I think everyone else does, the blocking of the other users, but Mspraveen? ~ priyanath  04:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblock Needed

I urge an immediate unblock on behalf of WikiProject India. This user has an impeccable record and I'm sure that he has certainly not engaged in the disruption. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The user has posted unblock request. I urge admins with checkuser privilege to look into this urgently and get this user unblocked ASAP. We need this user's continued contributions here. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 04:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

How about a conditional unblock pending further checking? This really does seem to be a big mistake. Let's show some good faith toward a long-time contributor. (and also good faith that the RCU and block were done in good faith, just a mistake). ~ priyanath  04:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to say the same thing. I (like Priyanath) thought something might be fishy about the CU results myself and that’s why I originally offered to unblock the account after a discussion with the user, but to be sure I would like to hear a CU comment here. Tiptoety 05:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If there's no response in the next hour or 2 by some CU, the user should be unblocked as a measure of good faith. If, by then, you're still hesitating to unblock without the confirmation, I will ask another admin to unblock. Mistakes happen, and we make allowances for them, but there's 0 reason to prolong the unnecessary, that too, at the expense of putting off an extremely valuable contributor (who has had impeccable conduct at all times). The block log can be annotated even with something as simple as 'appears to be a mistake'. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've seen checkuser editors mark a case "confirmed" but later retract that conclusion, so even confirmed cases aren't necessarily completely conclusive. I came across the user's unblock request and after looking into it a bit, I support unblocking and agree with priyanath and Ganeshk above. The checkuser (Sam Korn) has been contacted, so this can wait a short time until he makes a comment here. If he feels the evidence is unquestionable (which I seriously doubt), I'd support Tiptoey's slap on the wrist unblock along with a promise of no further sockpuppeting. Otherwise, I'd lean toward giving this valuable editor the benefit of the doubt. Okiefromokla 05:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've looked over some of the contributions and patterns, and I find it very unlikely that User:Mspraveen is part of that particular sock flock, regardless of IP evidence. So I'm going to unblock. If Sam has strong evidence to the contrary, we can always reblock. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I did the CU again and I don't think it's him. Mspraveen is on a very noisy range and it the data appears to show that his exact IP number changes every day when he starts another editing session and the ISP always gave him a new number on a different day. There was a direct hit on an exact IP number between RRaunak's socks and Mspraveen but these were two months apart. RRaunak's socks all came within one day, which suggest the socks logged in and out in one internet session, but the fact that a new IP address is assigned every day seems to imply to me that it is a complete fluke. Also the edits aren't related anyway. The range is also very noisy - almost all the Wikipedians I know from a certain geographical region of over 100 million people (West Bengal) seem to be on this /16. At least four different guys each with FAs use this range and they total 15+ FA/GAs and 150+ DYKs. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with this Blnguyen, glad it turned out for the best. Cheers, Tiptoety 03:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough -- I trust Blnguyen's analysis, though I am slightly surprised. Frankly, though, it really, really annoys me that people bring this straight to ANI. I am a reasonable person, and I respond to these requests the moment I see them. It really isn't necessary to make an ANI song-and-dance about it. Sam Korn 14:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh? It wasn't brought here because people thought you were unreasonable because of a mistake. It was brought here because it needed to be resolved as quickly as possible, and getting more eyes on it (so the block could be lifted asap) was considered a matter of urgency - although you might disagree with that assessment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

With the greatest possible respect, it patently was not an emergency because the user had not logged on and requested unblocking. It is common courtesy, practice and good sense to talk to the person who took the action in the first place. You didn't even have the simple courtesy to inform me (thanks, Tiptoey) and I feel pretty hacked off about that. That is not reasonable behaviour. Sam Korn 00:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It took you 40 hours to comment on this (since Tiptoey's talk page request for your comments). The reason it is brought here is so that other admins can act on issues of urgency (this is a volunteer organization...noone is expected to turn up every single day to contribute). I was waiting to hear how you came up with your CU results. Instead you come here and hurl accusations on people who were trying to help. It is disappointing. Respectfully, Ganeshk (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've agreed with all this. I know it was a mistake. It was a reasonable mistake to make (more than one shared IP, other similar information), but I will readily agree I should not have made it. I am hugely disappointed, however, that this was handled in this way. Hurling accusations is hardly what I was doing, and if you think it was I suggest you read again. Sam Korn 10:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sam Korn,

1. you were informed by Tiptoey, 7 minutes after this thread was opened - I was going to notify you myself, but Tiptoey's notification eliminated the need for further notifications (and it is unreasonable to expect any more notifications after you were already notified - such an expectation, as you should know by now, will almost never be fulfilled by anyone).
2. for your convenience alone, I went to your talk page twice and modified the link in the notification so you could get here on 1 click (as the title of this thread changed a couple of times) - no one was obligated to do that, but I did it out of courtesy.
3. you took (as Ganeshk points out) a heck of a long time before you came back to look at your mistake and discuss it, let alone fix it. All of us have tried to be as understanding and reasonable as humanely possible, but if you honestly think responding to concerns after 40 hours is doing so in a timely manner, perhaps affirmation from a venue outside of ANI is needed.
4. you've come here hurling accusations and suggesting incidents like this should fester for as long as possible unless the unblock template is used - even though the block was based on very limited (and poor) analysis to begin with. A mistake like this can be very costly in driving away valuable contributors. But, due to how quickly and effectively it was resolved, it didn't come to that in this case - frankly, I'm shocked and disappointed by your failure to even recognize that fact. With the utmost respect, Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

1. The first port of call should be the talk page. First. Not afterthought-if-I'm-feeling-generous. That's common sense. 2. Well, thank you. Generous. 3. Yes, I know it was not prompt. You will, of course, find that I made no edits at all in that time, and did not even log on to Misplaced Pages. I agree that you needed to take it somewhere else after that time period. Coming straight here was unnecessary. You know it ends up with overly strong words, such as, well, yours. "Reasonable as humanely possible"? You make me sound like an animal waiting to be put down! 4. I suggest you read again. Mistake, certainly. Extremely bad mistake, possibly. Hurling accusations, where? There are more peaceable ways to deal with this than yours, and I take issue with it. Sam Korn , who is reminded of the Yes, Minister meaning of "with respect" 10:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Yes it should be - it need not be, nor has to be. This is particularly so when your response was predictably untimely, given your editing pattern of late (as specified in your reply to 3) - the issue of substance (quick review & unblock) far outweighed any such formality in this case - even if you're predictably the only user here to disagree with this assessment.
2. Your accusation that "You didn't even have the simple courtesy to inform me" is only in your head, for the reasons I stated in my previous reply. That, and the uncalled for bit about 'behavior not being reasonable', is where you're hurling accusations.
3. But for your unreasonable replies (the causal factor), no overly strong words have been, or would have been used in this discussion. See also my next point.
4. To date, except yourself, no user had expressed any concern with how this incident was handled (or that it was unpeaceful). What I suggest is that instead of championing and tendentiously arguing formality over substance, you need to focus on reviewing your own approach to avoid potentially tragic mistakes in the future (like your one that led to this thread) and how to handle yourself afterwards once you make a mistake. I thought it was a good faith mistake. Heck, if you actually assumed good faith and politely asked why it was brought here instead of assuming the worst, there would've been no overly strong words at all. So, I take issue with the mistake you made and the way you handled yourself after the mistake. Finally, note, I'm not the only one disappointed by your recent edits in relation to this incident. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I need to say something here. When I realized from Tiptoety that Sam Korn was primarily responsible for this action, I was totally put off. One can try putting themselves in my shoes and think of how a well-established user could be deemed to sock due to an analysis similar to Sam Korn's. That was my feeling at that time. I knew it was a huge mistake and I wondered why should I promise not to sock, when I never did! It was at this juncture, Ncmvocalist, Ganeshk and Priyanath came into the picture and voiced their concern here. Whether it should have been on Sam Korn's talk page or at ANI, I feel it is inconsequential now.

All I can say is that though I held grudge against Sam Korn for his wrong actions a few days ago, as much as I appreciated Ncmvocalist, GaneshK and Priyanath for their support, I have forgotten this as a case of a good faith mistake. Now when I thought this was all said and done, I really feel sorry to see what this issue has brought in here. I sincerely request all parties not to raise this into anything uglier. After all, aren't we trying to make this a better place? Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 11:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for seeing my mistake as what it was, an honest mistake. Your good grace is something to admire. Once again, I apologise to you personally. Sam Korn 12:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Dlabtot

dlabtot (talk · contribs) is following ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) around, reverting him, and issuing attacks on him on the talk pages, which ignore completely the content of any changes made.

ScienceApologist is a controversial editor, and I don't want to deny that. But something like this is highly disruptive, and ignores completely the content of SA's edit, in favour of launching another attack in the MartinPhi-ScienceApologist war, with Dlabtot (who had been one of MartinPhi's supporters for some time) taking on the MartinPhi role. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I am a 'supporter' of no one, certainly not Martinphi. I stand by my edits; examine the diffs and judge for yourself. I'd be happy to discuss any specific edit with any administrator reviewing this thread. Dlabtot (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I have asked Dlabtot to back away from conflict with SA. Concurrently I am arranging a mentor for SA. Hopefully that will improve the situation. Thank you all for your patience. Jehochman 01:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Did I actually do something wrong that I should be 'warned' against doing? Jehochman, are you saying I'm not allowed to interact with SA? Why not? Because he doesn't want me to? Here is what happened: ScienceApologist made an edit to Misplaced Pages's civility policy. An edit that to my mind, looks to vitiate the policy itself. That's just my opinion, but since this is one of the five pillars of Misplaced Pages, I don't think it is unreasonable to expect that there should at least be some talk page discussion of the issue. So I reverted and asked for talk page discussion. Looking at my edit summary, I could have had a more neutral tone, I admit. In response, SA simply reverted me, with the edit summary revert wikistalking edit. I'll admit I was tempted to edit war. I admit that I find the accusation of wikistalking (defined as following an editor to another article to continue disruption ), to be highly inflammatory because it is without merit. There's nothing disruptive about asking that changes to core wikipedia policies be discussed. WP:CIVIL is on my watchlist right now because I participated in an RfC there that is still open. I refrained from reverting, instead asking on the talk page if there was consensus for the change. Shoemaker's Holiday calls my post a personal attack. Well, I do think SA's continued problems with our civility policy are relevant in the context of judging his edits to that policy. If the consensus is that I'm wrong, I'd like to hear it. I certainly object to a sanction being imposed against me that I'm not allowed to interact with SA - which would essentially give him the power to topic ban me from any article, policy page or talk page simply by participating there. If such a sanction were to be imposed, I'd hope it would be the result of a more formal process in which I'd have the opportunity to respond, rather than simply a warning from one administrator. Dlabtot (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we get some other editors to review this situation, please, and leave comments? Thank you. Jehochman 06:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't delved into any past history between Mr. Glabot and Mr. SA, but regarding the situation which the former has outlined above, it seems that Mr. Dlabot is out to lunch on this one. I see an edit by Mr. SA that can basically be summarized as "use common sense", followed by a couple reverts, followed by pretty solid well-poisoning on the talk page by Mr. Dlabot, making conspicuously sure to call attention to Mr. SA's on-going AN/I threads and SA's previous comments (seven months old) about his then-ignorance of the WP:CIVIL policy. Seems odd that Mr. Dlabot, in his rush to defend the sancticity of WP:CIVIL, would so completely forget the spirit of WP:AGF - but maybe I'm just being snarky there. Anyway, that's my inflation-adjusted $0.02. Badger Drink (talk) 08:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, in that case I'll have to state a mea culpa that my comment was over-the-top - if the consensus is that persistent violators of a policy are good candidates for writing that policy than I am clearly in the wrong. Dlabtot (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That said, SA did simply revert me with a rude edit summary instead of going to the talk page to discuss the issue. When a talk page discussion about the edit did take place, SA chose not to participate. BoldRevertDiscuss is a good mechanism for building consensus. BoldRevertRevert is not. Dlabtot (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Pagemove is disabled project-wide

• https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15107

What is going on? -- Cat 00:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Cbrown1023 talk 00:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

So what was the problem? I cannot immediately see it. -- Cat 01:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It was a regex on the titleblacklist. -Jéské 02:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you translate the regex for me? -- Cat 14:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

They all look like different Unicode E characters (i.e. é, Ē, Ê, etc.), as far as I can read, but, no pun intended and no offense meant, it's a bit too Greek for my understanding. -Jéské 11:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring and inappropriate tool use by User:JzG

I just noticed this debate going on Talk: ABN_AMRO. Apparently there was move proposal which was determined successful, and "ABN AMRO" was moved to "ABN Amro". One of the participants, User:JzG then moved the article back, saying "Silly move. This company is a customer of mine, AMRO is how they style themselves, it's not for us to "correct" them." Then there was some edit warring by two of the participants in the move proposal, which led to another page move by JzG , who wrote, "Fuck the MOS, this is what the ocmpany is LEGALLY called." Then to enforce his move, he move-protected it . This seems a blatant misuse of the admin tools. JzG's talk page says he is "retired", but he doesn't seem to be. I request that some uninvolved admins take a look here, and keep an eye out for any further abusing of the tools by this editor. --C S (talk) 05:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the more recent Talk:ABN_AMRO#Straw_poll indicates that there was no consensus for the move from ABN AMRO to ABN Amro. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There was canvassing this second time around, if you investigate the recent contributions of User:Steelbeard1, the most vocal opponent to the move. --C S (talk) 05:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I can certainly sympathize with the thought "Fuck the MOS": I experience it at least once a day. That matter aside, I might point out that the capitalization of Amro/AMRO has recently been and still is under discussion (on occasion improbably heated) at MoS too. As I'm an opinionated (but I hope polite) participant there, I shan't say more here. -- Hoary (talk) 05:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I notified him but I'm concerned about the move protection to prevent others from changing it. While it obviously stops regular users, admins aren't going to want to wheel-war over something that disputed. I would hope for a removal of the protection and leaving it to be discussed yet again. -- 05:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment except to say that the media, including the financial media, is roughly split between "ABN AMRO" and "ABN Amro". --NE2 05:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Should JzG have protected the page himself? Probably not. But does the page need to be protected? Absolutely. There is clearly no consensus. In order to alleviate the concerns above, in my own small and humorous way, I have reversed JzG's action, and then re-protected the page myself. A few people, plus a manual of style policy, plus "prior consensus" used as a bludgeon, does not override current consensus, or lack thereof. -- SCZenz (talk) 05:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. Are you sure you have properly observed the timeline of events? Note that the initial move and determination of consensus, rightly or wrongly, was done by someone uninvolved in the discussion. Indeed, JzG is the one that started the move war. It seems to me you are saying that JzG's protecting the page after moving the page himself to "his" version is justified because you agree with him. --C S (talk) 06:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with him that the concept of "consensus" has been misused; it was determined with very few people, and then when more people arrived, they were told to stop objecting because the decision had already been made. (Although I don't fault the original decision; at the time this issue was probably thought to be uncontroversial.) So I protected the page in its current version, which also happens to be the original version. Regarding the capitalization issue, I couldn't care less. But both sides have used tactics I consider heavy handed, and I want you all to go back to talking and stop moving the page back and forth. -- SCZenz (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

To summarize: there's clearly no consensus for the initial move which is why it's been reversed. Remember, the cycle is Bold, Revert, Discuss - someone boldly moved it, but it's been reverted to the initial version while discussion is under way. Meanwhile, the page is protected in a way that prevents users from continuing to edit-war or move the page during this time. To resolve the content dispute, both sides should consider pursuing dispute resolution; particularly Article RFC or mediation, as the current approach in resolving it is clearly not working, or helpful to the pedia. (NB: I myself have no view on the merits of this content dispute, momentarily.) Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, precisely that. And please not that if the MoS fans had not immediately reverted my move back to the original title, I would obviously not have move protected it. Just one more minor fact they forgot to mention. Guy (Help!) 09:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If Guy knows something about the company through personal experience, then he is in a good position to contribute helpfully to the discussion and potentially sway the discussion in his favor. That's what he should be doing, anyway—ignoring or defying other contributors and imposing his own preference through admin tools isn't acceptable. Everyking (talk) 06:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

So am I as I am a former ABN AMRO customer until it sold the bank I do business with (LaSalle Bank Midwest) to Bank of America. When the articles for Bank of America and the former ABN AMRO American unit LaSalle Bank were changed to say "ABN Amro", that's when I become involved in the dispute. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

JzG, could you clarify the retired template on your talk page? It is a constant source of confusion to editors. A revert-protect sequence would be a poor example for other administrators, but it seems that the underlying dispute is quite trivial, and that instead of edit warring or protection, other measures could be more effective. In any case, I urge the disputants to drop this immediately. Name the article the same way the company styles itself on its own website. That can be determined without any sort of debate. (I've done business with them before, and yes, it is ABN AMRO, and that's what appears on their website.) Jehochman 07:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Everyone knows something about something... it still needs to be backed by reliable sourcing, and agreed through consensus however. Minkythecat (talk) 08:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

regardless of the merits, if the matter is a genuine dispute rather than vandalism, I can not see how it is even remotely acceptable for any administrator engaged in the dispute, to ever protect a page in his favored version, no matter how right he may be on the underlying issue. That the matter was trivial hardly makes it any the better. DGG (talk) 08:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't involved, I was attracted to the dispute by a AN thread, I have zero prior edits to the article and only one content edit which was to change the lead back to reflect the original title. If I didn't know for a fact that the company uniformly self-describes in all-caps I would not have bothered. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It was I who reported the renaming without consensus to the AN. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ever so slight over-reaction here, the page is not and never was edit protected, only move protected, and another admin has reinstated the move protection under their name not mine so the protection doesn't even have my name against it. I strongly dispute the "involved" claim, I have absolutely no edits whatsoever to the article before this dispute blew up, I went there to fix a problem where a "consensus" of two consenting and one dissenting was used to move an article into a title which, it is alleged, complies with MOS, but which I know, because ABN AMRO is a customer of my company, is wrong per the company's self-identification. The claim of edit warring is simply false - I have exactly one content edit to that article. One.

The "move proposal which was determined successful" was on the basis of MoS, two people agreed and one dissented. That's a grand total of three people, hardly consensus in any meaningful definition of the term. And right now the "consensus" is 7:0 for all-caps ABN AMRO, how does that affect the debate I wonder? Why did C S not mention this in the complaint? Why did C S not mention that I had zero edits to the article before it was brought to the noticeboards as a problem? Why did C S call me on edit warring when I have exactly one content edit to the article? Why did C S not mention that I only protected it after they reverted my move back to the original title in line with WP:BRD? Why did C S not reference the fact that I have already discussed this at length on the article's talk page? Why did C S not mention that this has already been discussed on the noticeboards? All questions which I think might usefully be considered here.

When it comes to how a company styles itself, the company itself is the most reliable source. Here we have a group of people looking for support for a move that was originally predicated on MOS grounds, but which conflicts with the company's self-identification. Check the website, see if you can find a single instance of the mixed capitalisation there. Same in email footer, contracts and other communications. Finally, this is blatant forum shopping. Not only has it been previously discussed, the discussion on Talk is now 7:0 in favour of ABN AMRO on precisely the grounds I note, that this is how the company self-identifies. Misplaced Pages is not here to tell companies that they should conform to our manual of style in describing themselves, that is hubris of the highest order. In as much as ABN AMRO exists any more (it's being split between the buyout partners Fortis, RBS and Santander), it identifies itself as ABN AMRO and our MoS is of no real importance by comparison. End of. Guy (Help!) 09:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• On reflection I replace the above comment with this: Evil Dutch Bankers in conspiracy to destroy WP:MOS, entire Misplaced Pages threatened! Admin with tengential connection to Evil Dutch Bankers involved! Pictures at eleven! I think that more accurately reflects the reality and invdeed the seriousness of this complaint. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that an admin should not use protection to enforce a personal opinion. It can be used to enforce consensus (if necessitated by edit or move warring), but at the time of protecting the article, as you explain, the (non-consensus) was 2-1 in favor of the move. You should have added to the discussion as an editor, not trumped it as an admin. It doesn't matter if you were "right" about the issue. It doesn't matter if there is now an emerging consensus in line with your views. An admin's responsibility, fundamentally, is to uphold consensus, whatever that may happen to be -- not to control the encyclopedia according to his sensibilities. Nothing justifies that behavior.--Father Goose (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, that isn't really what happened. A discussion with virtually no participants moved the article to a title whihc is simply wrong, according to the company's own self-identification. Per WP:BRD I moved it back. The MoS-warriors then reverted that move - they started the war. I am not vested in either side, I have no prior edits ot the article and no prior involvement in MoS disputes that I can recall either. This is a skirmish in MoS v. Real World, and it's not a very significant one either. Guy (Help!) 09:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Per BRD you were damn well entitled to move it back. But once they re-reverted you, you were involved. You had a view, they defied your view, and you enforced your view using the tools. You may even be right about the MoS being wrong, but you have to establish a consensus for that view before enforcing it, because you do not have the right of diktat. That is not the role of an admin. That is not a privilege of adminship. It does not matter one bit if your views about the MoS issue were sound; you do not have the right to enforce that view. You only have the right to enforce consensus, which at the time, did not exist.--Father Goose (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The point is that ABN AMRO is the legal name of a corporation where trademark claims clearly do not apply. Look at the Hoover's directory listing at where it clearly shows that the company name is "ABN AMRO Holding N.V." The ABN AMRO name is both an abbreviation and an acronym standing for Algemene Bank Nederland-Amsterdam Rotterdam Bank. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not Father Goose's point and not the subject of this discussion. user:Everyme 17:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi everyone, please do not use this page to discuss the merits of the capitalization issue. Do that on Talk:ABN AMRO. Thanks! -- SCZenz (talk) 11:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The original move from AMRO to Amro was improper, as there was no consensus among the few that even knew about the discussion, so moving it back to AMRO was appropriate until or if this incredibly tedious issue can be resolved. Meanwhile, it's spreading across multiple pages. This is just one of them. Baseball Bugs 12:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

JzG, you used your admin tools during a content dispute which you are intimately involved in. That is absolutely wrong and you know it. Further, you are using vulgarity as part of your reasoning. Lastly, you are referring to those of the other spelling opinion as "MoS-Warriors". That's absolutely unnecessary. You are wrong, JzG, and you owe Misplaced Pages an apology for the yet again misuse of your admin tools. It just so happens that I used to work for ABN-AMRO and I agree with the all capitalized spelling, but I won't be getting involved in this content dispute while you continue with your admin abuse. Bstone (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's the anal retentive MOS warriors who consider MOS a Holy Bible not to be questioned who owe Misplaced Pages an apology. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I have an update on the Talk:ABN AMRO straw poll which, as I type this, show the ABN AMRO group having a more than 3 to 1 margin over the anal retentive MOS warriors who back "ABN Amro". Because of this margin, as it currently shows, in an edit war the MOS warriors would certainly lose because of the iron clad 3RR rule because they would face at least a temporary block. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Intimately involved? Not even slightly accurate. I had zero edits to the article beforehand and only stepped in because I happen to know that the capitalised usage is always used by the company in communications. I have no prior involvement in MoS wars, this article or related articles. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Steelbeard, that is called gaming the system. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. But it was not my intention to game the system. It's not gaming the system when an overwhelming majority of those voting (such as myself) opposed the move to "ABN Amro" by a 10 to 3 margin. The administrator who closed the poll had ruled "no consensus" I believe just to be kind and polite to the losing side. I will leave it with that statement. Misplaced Pages is not the place to either celebrate the thrill of victory or sulk in the agony of defeat. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse page move by JzG. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

For our next policy-guideline-wonkery battle, I suggest we try "MoS v MOS". Any takers? SHEFFIELDSTEEL 17:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Steelbeard1, calling one editor anal-retentive would be a clear violation of WP:NPA. You are calling a whole group of editors anal-retentive. Logic dictates that you have just violated WP:NPA several times. What say you? Bstone (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I had wikied anal retentive to show that it perfectly describes the behaviour of the MOS warriors insisting on "ABN Amro" and it not intended to be an insult but to perfectly describe their behaviour. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"Anal retentive" is not a personal attack; it is an accurate behavioral description. I also support the page move. seicer | talk | contribs 20:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

While "anal retentive" may not be derogatory when used in a clinical setting by practitioners of certain disciplines, it is, in my experience, never used in anything other than a derogatory sense in any other setting. DuncanHill (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It may be rude but not really worth getting worked up over. Shereth 22:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Uncivil conduct degrades the encyclopedia and its community, and is not acceptable behavior here or elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. Saying that it's no big deal is neither accurate nor true under our standing policy. To those who have done so recently in this topic - cease and desist. Warnings are being issued on talk pages. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the messages to those criticizing my choice of words. They are so noted and I'll try to watch what I write. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The poll at Talk:ABN AMRO is now closed with the result of "no consensus" so the ABN AMRO article name stands. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Antonio "Tony" Montana "Scarface" and The Twenty Thousand Tonne Bomb

After myself and Asenine confronted The Twenty Thousand Tonne Bomb (talk · contribs) about a number of suspect images he uploaded, he at first just kept lying, claiming he was the author, or uploading other stolen images in their place and claiming he was the author of them. (Example.) As soon as it seemed that he was going to start co-operating, Antonio "Tony" Montana "Scarface" (talk · contribs) came out of nowhere (having not edited in a little while) and starting mindlessly supporting 20K in all of the deletion discussions, but denies being a sock. Both of these users have a history of ignoring copyright and not taking it well when their image uploading/use is challenged, as well as both sharing the 'Internet tough guy' persona. They also cross over a lot, both fussing over the images that form part of 20K's persona and the same articles. I'm unfamiliar with these sort of procedures- what should be done now? J Milburn (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I have strong feelings that Scarface is a sock - but the 'best friend' thing is believeable(ish). I think what is really needed now is a consensus for checkuser, but naturally there will probably need to be more evidence before such a thing can occur.  Asenine  21:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Please, it's as plain as the nose on the face of Cyrano's near-sighted, cross-eyed cousin. Checkuser  Confirmed, also YourGr8M8 (talk · contribs) and Prem01 (talk · contribs). There's more monkeyshines in the contribs of these two accounts so examine them before deciding on an appropriate remedy for 20K. Thatcher 22:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Socks have been blocked. —Travis 22:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This is undeniably the single best heading I've ever seen on this page. I don't even care what you guys are talking about. --Masamage ♫ 22:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a film waiting to be made out there..... --Rodhullandemu 23:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't someone block User:BombBot Commons (an account created today) as another sock and a user name improperly containing "Bot"? Deor (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

<sigh> Also blocked. I’m blocking the main account as well. —Travis 00:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help guys. Want me to slap a resolved on, or does someone else want to do that?  Asenine  08:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Wasn't sure how best to handle it, I'm really not a blocking admin... J Milburn (talk) 11:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I need help

I've tried everything I can to work with an editor, and they just continue to feet-drag, are disruptive, and talk right past me. The relevant conversation is here. You may note that this person seems to subsist only with reverts to Atropa belladonna. I'm at my wits end. This guy just cannot be worked with, he's outright rude to my research and does not respond directly to my queries. I need some administrator intervention. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any revert wars. Diffs?  Asenine  21:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a smoldering edit war that isn't partaking in outright reverts, but the effects of each of our actions is the same. I'm just having no luck getting through my points at all.... Even my attempt at compromise seems rudely rebuffed and almost ignored in a Civil POV-push tactic. Or am I wrong? I'm just so frustrated, I'm trying to get help. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's pro-homeopathy POV-pushing from the "water memory" school. Water memory is completely bogus, and is relevant only to the article on homeopathy, not to anything else. Unfortunately the homeopathy mob seem to want to insert "foo is used in homeopathy" into everything under the sun. Luckily I don't think that anyone's going to be poisoned even if they do accidentally get the one bottle in a undred that has a molecule of the active principle in it, but asking for scientific proof that something doesn't work when it is diluted to the extent of less than one molecule per bottle, average, is rather silly. SA is very isolated and needs support in the numerous places where he resists overt pseudoscientific POV-pushing, so more eyes will always be welcome. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It was my understanding that homeopathy as a whole was pretty much "foo". Baseball Bugs 22:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Simular problems have been encountered on various tlak pages relating to homeopathy and other alternative medicla proceudres. I concur with JzGuys statement and I second the cal for more experienced hands to bgo over there and help resolve the current dispute. ScienceApologist, have you ired a Request For Comment? That might help get through to an unusaly recalcitrant editor. Hope that helps. Smith Jones (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC): D

Maybe an RfC, but I really don't have time to go through and dig through all the muck right now. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Not quite, Bugs. It is instead, absurdly diluted "foo". Remarkably however, in this application, that small amount of foo is just as effective as a whole boatload of it. JohnInDC (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I’m mistaken, but I thought that it actually became more effective through dilution (or whatever they call it). —Travis 22:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. The most common remedies actually contain zero molecules of the thing the remedy is named for. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the physical chemistry it takes to understand how it is impossible to "imprint" things in water is a complex field. And it severely impairs the interested student's wonderful imaginativeness. user:Everyme 23:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This is just forum shopping. There are two threads on this at WP:FT/N. The latest one attracted outside comment from Moreschi, Jehochman, DGG, and others. They all say the same thing I said: it is one sentence, sourced reliably, stating that there are homeopathic preparations from belladonna. It's not a big deal. 2 mainstream clinical trials have been done, which unsurprisingly found it ineffective; personally, I think those trials should be included in the sentence, but they aren't currently. 23:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImperfectlyInformed (talk • contribs)

Agreed. This is forum shopping. Also, we are not dealing with any form of pro-homeopathy POV pushing - at least no where I am concerned. I am not pro-homeopathy. I agree that it should be regarded as pseudoscience. I don't believe in water-memory or any of that foo. However, painting me as pro-homeopathy has been a tactic throughout this whole debate. Quite simply, I support the inclusion of a sentence which says it is used in a homeopathic remedy but the efficacy of such a remedy isn't supported by science. If anything, this is an anti-homeopathy POV which I am pushing for (it's actually the mainstream POV). Please read my final entry at FTN to get a clearer sense of where I am coming from. Thanks. -- Levine2112 23:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see as forum shopping. It appears that he obtained a weak consensus at FTN, and is requesting help in enforcing it. Seems perfectly reasonable to me, although WP:AN seems more approriate than WP:ANI. I do see it as premature, as the current status of Ab seems adequate. (And I'm forced to admit that, if anyone had asked, I would have placed you in the pro-homeopathy camp.) Would the you consider me an "uninvolved admin" for the purpose of this discussion? I've been involved with disputes with SA, II, and Levine. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There certainly was more than a weak consensus at FTN, but it was one against SA's position. He's against inclusion of any text regarding homeopathy no matter how well-sourced it is. He had also posted previously here and at NPOV/N where once again the large majority of editors were against his position. So with a couple of forums not supporting his position, he now reports here saying that I'm dragging my feet and I am disruptive? I don't think so. ArthurRubin, I don't blame you for thinking that I am pro-homeopathy. The campaign to make it appear that way has been perpetrated by editors for such a long time and done so well, how could you believe otherwise? But make no mistake, I am scientific skeptic thru-and-thru. I don't believe in the efficacy of any treatment unless the science is there to back it. But I am also fair. Just because I may have a personal opinion that something is bunk, doesn't mean that I am going to suppress any mention of the subject anywhere on Misplaced Pages other than on its main article. Misplaced Pages is about knowledge. And in this case, the knowledge that "Atropa belladonna is used to prepare a certain popular homeopathic remedy with an efficacy unsupported by mainstream science" is well-sourced, relevant, and therefore can and should be included in the article. -- Levine2112 00:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

What makes it seem more like forumshopping to me is SA's lack of mention of the other discussions, where he didn't get the answer that he wanted. II | (t - c) 02:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. I also see signs of a admin dispute, as another admin, on User talk:Levine2112, seems to have come to the conclusion that SA is right and Levine is wrong, while my conclusion is that Levine is right, and I have no idea what SA wants. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist has agreed yesterday to work with a mentor user:AGK and refrain from disputes. Disputes involving ScienceApologist should be brought up with the mentor. MaxPont (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

ReputationDefender & Administrator Sanctioned Censorship

I'm writing about something which seems to be occuring more frequently. A company called Reputation Defender is using multiple novel approaches to vandalising wikipedia articles. ReputationDefender is a service hired by individuals who explicitly want information factual or otherwise removed from the internet. I'm writing about just one of those approaches. The seemingly justified merging of articles. Once the articles are merged, certain information is no longer relevant and removal becomes easier to justify. Below is a description of recent hijinks concerning Ronen 'Ronnie' Segev. Segev acquired Internet fame recently after a customer service alercation with priceline.com

Good or Bad, thr article, and Ronen "Ronnie" Segev, is now part of Internet History as it relates to Internet Censorship. Interestingly there is nothing defamatory in any of the articles. They are simply a statement of events which transpired. This is very basic factual information.It is ironic that the article itself is now the victim of such censorship by a company called Reputation Defender, employed by either priceline.com or Segev himself.

Is this editor Xoloz employed by ReputationDefender as well? This cannot be tolerated!

Why was this article merged? ...when there was no justification for such a merging?

Simple: it's very hard to argue against the relevance of the priceline.com controversy information in a 'Ronen Segev' article, but it is much MUCH easier to argue against such information as relevant in a newly merged 'Ten O'Clock Classics' article...this administrator and this article needs to be reviewed by multiple independent administrators.

--Vancedecker (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2008 (

See Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 28, and User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_27 for the full story on this. I have deleted and protected the latest incarnation. Kevin (talk) 03:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I will not attempt to argue this matter further. As the history of such incidents is against the casual poster. I may post something to Jimbo Wales as my last gasp jumping from the increasingly infiltrated and manipulated sinking shell which used to be wikipedia. On a positive note, I now know where to go if I ever have something I don't like appearing on the Internet, ReputationDefender obviously does a damn good job! --Vancedecker (talk) 03:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no cabal... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Could someone besides me keep an eye on Vancedecker's edits? Seems a bit worked up. (I'm one of the targets, and suspect things might get heated, so it's better another admin keep an eye on things.) Tony Fox (arf!) 17:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Use of the words "censorship" and/or "suppression" are very close to a 100% accurate diagnostic of an account that should be blocked. The probability that Vancedecker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was genuinely new to Misplaced Pages today is, I venture to suggest, zero. The only question is whether the sockpuppet is evading a block or simply evading scrutiny. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Need some help here

• Top Gun‎ (talk · contribs)
• Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk · contribs)
• Battle of Tskhinvali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Top Gun and Captain are both currently blocked for edit warring on the above named article. Captain was reported by an anon IP which I suspect might actually be Top Gun (CUs?). Regardless of that (there is definitely edit warring) Top Gun has been indeffed in the past, in part for copyright violations, and then unblocked with strict instructions to never do it again. Captain has now accused him of doing it again, with word for word ripoffs of major news websites and . Firstly Top Gun has a hell of a lot of edits in a short space of time to that article - many of which could be copyvios - some help finding them would be great. Secondly - I am inclined to indeff him again, partially for edit warring but mostly for copyvios again - ie breaking the unblock conditions. I know the unblock was a while ago but someone caught with copyright violations should only have to be told once. Feedback (and help!) please? Viridae 08:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The IP that reported Captain Obvious was me and I'm not Top Gun‎. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Captain_Obvious_and_his_crime-fighting_dog_reported_by_User:92.8.254.213_.28Result:_1_week.29 or this diff for more details. I would have reported Top Gun as well but filling out the report just for Captain Obvious took long enough. I also knew that if he got blocked he'd likely complain about Top Gun and get him blocked as well so I saved myself the extra effort and let him do it. 92.11.162.47 (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Captain's block (for a week) seems a little harsh, considering his edit-warring was reverting Top Gun's godawful edits (which included misrepresenting sources and POV-pushing). I have asked the blocking admin (Seicer) to consider reducing the block's duration. I would also be inclined to indef Top Gun if he returns to POV-pushing or making up death statistics again. Neıl ☄ 11:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• I've cut Captain's block down to two hours, considering the god-awful quality of the edits he was reverting and have also unblocked Top Gun and then reblocked him indefinitely. You can't lie about sources, and he was. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite seems a bit high. Can you provide some diffs of all the lying he's done? I can see where he changed a Georgian casualty figure from 200 to 180 for no apparent reason when the reference said 200. That doesn't seem to be a work of a master criminal though. The figures and references and their history are confusing on that page anyway. I think editors have changed some figures without changing the references that supported the old figures that they removed, so some figures aren't supported by their references even though they were if you go further back in the edit history. I can see where he's added correct figures and added accurate references for "citation needed" tags earlier on down the history, before he got into the argument with (a fairly belligerant) Captain Obvious. Not saying he isn't POV, just that an indefinite block seems high, as does a 2 hour block seem low for Captain Obvious 92.11.162.47 (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

As ever, indefinite does not mean forever - it means "for only as long as there are unresolved issues." Once issues are satisfactory resolved, then the block can be lifted or substituted for one of an appropriate length. Only when indefinite blocks are imposed as part of a community ban can it be considered infinite - which is likely the period most folk are mistaking indefinite for. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, many times an indefinite block will eventually be much shorter than a specific time block. Once issues are resolved with an indefinite block, the block is typically lifted. With a block of, say, a week, most editors/admins are more inclined to have the editor just "serve the block time" or something similar. I don't like how indefinite blocks have a stigma of "forever" around here. Tan ǀ 39 14:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought indefinite meant forever. How about blocking both parties from editing the Category:2008 South Ossetia war articles for a week? They could do with some less confrontational input from other people and there are lots of other articles to edit. 92.8.255.240 (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, all these activities by anonymous IPs should be investigated, possibly through checkuser. Please see discussion here. First, 92.9.72.131 reports the "Captain". Then, it turns out to be 92.11.162.47. Now 92.11.162.47 (see above) and 92.8.255.240 argue in favor of banned user Top Gun. Please note that User:Top Gun was previously engaged in sockpuppetry.Biophys (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to that at Requests for Checkuser. I haven't had time to sort out the article today :( seicer | talk | contribs 17:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

O'K. I did. Not sure though if I did this correctly. Thanks, Biophys (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added two more IP's of mine that you missed to your check user request 92.9.79.191 (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I would welcome any investigation in any form as I have nothing to hide. It appears to me that you're flinging veiled accusations here, in an attempt to obfuscate. Taking your points one by one:

• "Frankly speaking" - please do be frank. If you have an accusation, please make it in plain, simple language.
• "all these activities" makes it sound like some conspiracy is going on, which I'm guessing is your intention. Lets be clear here, you're talking about - 1. my attempt to add a "citation needed" tag to a caption on a map - 2. one request to Caption Obvious to use edit summaries (he removed my request for the citation needed tag without any edit summary, which made it difficult to know why he'd removed it) - 3. my request to have a discussion about figures on the talk page rather than an edit war in the article and - 4. a report on the noticeboard about an editor that was edit warring, being abusive and bullying. I've explained each one of those them in detail here
• "argue in favor of banned user Top Gun" - I feel a bit guilty and bad for the guy to be honest. Because of the wrong IP in my edit war report, you were able to use that to imply something underhand was going on which, in my opinion, contributed to a 1 week block against Captain Obvious being changed to a 2 hour block (!!!) and a 3 day block against Top Gun being changed to an indefinite block. I wouldn't characterize my suggestion that he be blocked from editing the Ossetia war articles as "in favour" either. I've done my bit to try and correct the mistake you were able to use against him though, in favour of your friend Captain Obvious, so I'm really not fussed if he's blocked or not. I am still concerned about Captain Obvious's aggressive and improper way of dealing with anyone that doesn't agree with him though.
• "Please note that User:Top Gun was previously engaged in sockpuppetry" - again, if you have an accusation to make, please make it in plain, simple language.

I really don't want to have be in conflict with you but if you continue to make veiled accusations against me I will have to continue to defend myself. It suggest you do the check user so you can get over whatever concerns you have. 92.9.79.191 (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

So, you are not Top Gun, but all three different IPs (see above) are you? It that what are you talking about?Biophys (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not Top Gun and all five IP's listed here are mine (that have been used on Misplaced Pages) 92.9.79.191 (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Fine. I am sorry. But it would be a good idea if you register as a regular user, instead of using multiple IPs. But perhaps you already did? I suspected you because you behave as a regular user, rather than a newcomer.Biophys (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no requirement whatsoever for me to use an account just so I can leave one little "citation needed" tag on a page or report a user that I notice is blatantly behaving improperly while I'm doing so. Your suspicion that I'm a sock puppet of Top Gun was found to be without foundation . If you've now moved on to trying to imply that because I've used Misplaced Pages previously I'm in some way doing something wrong by making an edit to an article as an IP or reporting a 3 revert violator that is blatantly abusing and bullying other editors then you're mistaken, unless Misplaced Pages policies have changed significantly in the last year. 92.13.2.162 (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive airport page-moves?

Special:Contributions/Jasepl. He's changing the names of foreign airports to their "translated" official name. Check his talk page, and you'll see it's been quite thoroughly explained to him that this is not how pages are named, and it's been made very clear to him that he is disagreed with. So a few dozen page moves strikes me as fairly uncooperative. Well, I'm going to bed, so I'm just posting this for someone less tired. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he eventually listened to and acquiesced to the warnings, marking as resolved. ~ mazca 21:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

User:SLJCOAAATR 1

I just came across User:SLJCOAAATR 1 in a ani case filed a few days ago, and, me being the curious person I am, I clicked onto his userpage, and found that he had a lot of personal information on it, His age, location and other things, usually this wouldn't be a problem but this user isn't even 15 yet, so I am requesting a second opinion on this. Another thing which came to my attention was the behemothic ammount of userboxes and quite a rude statement on the top of his userpage. Citedcover (talk) 09:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Notified him of this thread. I'll write him a message about the userpage a little later. Cheers. lifebaka++ 11:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the message at the top of his page is remarkably restrained considering how he was "welcomed" by certain "trusted and respected" editors. DuncanHill (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not about restraint, it is incivil, considering he got blocked indefinitley and then unblocked within hours, he has no reason to display such a message. Citedcover (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if anyone here is aware, but we just had an extended discussion of this user here regarding the indefinite WP:MYSPACE block. Many of the personal-information and MySpace-y userboxes were partially restored, on the condition they not be created again as usable templates. Hersfold 16:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh right, in that case, why does he still have a freinds list? Surely that must be a breach of his unblock? Citedcover (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, he should have remained blocked, and I'm not convinced the unblock did any good at all. He's been offered mentoring, and turned it down, and I'm not seeing too much improvement. I, and a couple other admins I believe, are keeping an eye on things. Hersfold 01:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Also in the news, that editor is currently blocked for WP:3RR, as per here. I've always felt that when someone is blocked and then unblocked with no repurcussions, they don't learn anything productive. Dayewalker (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I'll keep an eye on him as well, and I will report any continuation of bad behavior here. Citedcover (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of image from Karren Brady article

--Crossmr (talk)

Someone may want to look at this diff and its edit summary, where an IP registered to Birmingham City F.C. removed an image from their managing director Karren Brady's article, claiming it to be a doctored image, and mentioning "further action". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment (from a non-admin): I wonder if this is more a case of DOLT than NLT? The picture removed certainly appears heavily edited, when compared to other images of Karren Brady.

Not defending the anon's actions in any way, just musing.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  09:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It was partially discussed here: Talk:Karren_Brady#Photo. Cell phone pictures are often not clear, or perfect, and can sometimes look strange. I don't see any evidence that it has been doctored. Regardless, it sounds like if the image is restored (which I'm going to do as the reason given seems false) they're threatening legal action.--Crossmr (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

And this is now a moot discussion as an admin has up and deleted the image without any discussion, citing its clarity.--Crossmr (talk) 09:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh damn! I just reverted the anon. Oh well, time to self-revert.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  09:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I found the image in a google cache, , and compared to some other images , it may be off. I don't think its been doctored, I think the aspect ratio may just be off on the photo. as her whole face looks stretched.--Crossmr (talk) 09:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Uhm guys, this is how you deal with such cases. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, hope they do come through with a decent pic. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The IP left his email address in one of the edit summaries; might it be worth contacting him? Neıl ☄ 11:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If somebody wants to renew a polite request for a replacement image with them, sure, they might. Other than that, I personally consider the matter closed. The image was clearly unsuitable; and, just as clearly, we can't demand they collaborate with us and give us a better one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The IP is the same address as Bcfcmarketing (talk · contribs) who I am in contact with. They have been blocked as a corporate account and another admin might want to look at their unblock request. I have directed them towards Misplaced Pages:Contact us. Regards. Woody (talk) 12:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Template talk:Sexual orientation and identities template move/merge by Cooljuno411

I don't participate in the normal editing of this template, I am an outside observer. I have noticed how volatile the templates have been recently, and there seems to have recently been an edit war on the content. Template Talk:Sexual orientation and identities

After two days discussion (or less), one editor merged two templates, "Sexual orientation" and "Sexual identities". Perhaps it is a good idea, perhaps not, I don't have an opinion. I do know that the article moved from edit war to article merge within a few hours. Discussion on the talk page does not seem to indicate any consensus for a merge, but instead, action by one editor.

I am of the opinion that templates, more than articles, need to be changed very selectively and with sensitivity. I don't think great care has been taken in this case. Atom (talk) 13:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

As soon as I read this, I knew who it was. This is CoolJuno411 again. He's been up here a number of times inthe past weeks for the same damn agenda pushing. He needs a long block for his persistent disruption. ThuranX (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

And so reading a refernece litterly is "agenda pushing", i think by saying, for example, autosexual is not a sexual orientation when it clearly fit under the reference provided by American Psychological Association is "agenda pushing" . So i guess i am going to have to file a couple of these little complaints about other users who are "agenda pushing" by constantly reverting the template. And if one were to look at the template talk page, they could clearly see i am the only one trying to make an effort, because to my knowledge i having been the only one referencing thing or trying to do something other then claiming "original research" when i am clearly referencing things. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 07:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Again... can we get an admin to look into this? It's well into WP:TE over there. ThuranX (talk) 04:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall merging two templates.... --Cooljuno411 (talk) 07:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Tq6993

Several editors including myself have been very patient with this user, and tried assuming good faith. However, no matter how many editors warn him, or politely ask him to stop he continues to delete sourced content, based on his personal opinion. Here He even says every time he logs on to Misplaced Pages he is going to delete the sourced content he doesn't agree with. Here is some examples and many more. He has received several warnings including two level 4's. I don't know what else to do so I'm bringing it here. Landon1980 (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Dutch administrators, bureaucrats and editors handling of User:86.83.155.44

OK, this is a multi wiki case, and I am getting increasingly annoyed about it. The current part is here, I'll leave the other wikis to themselves (but mention them here to show similarities).

User:86.83.155.44 is an IP mainly/only used by (according to the signing etc.) D.A. Borgdorff. DAB came into problems on the Dutch wikipedia for some conflict of interest edits (don't know the case extensively, I am not a regular on nl.wikipedia, though I am Dutch), and apparently there have been some cases about that. I do see that the user indeed has that tendency of linking to own work/books, but if the reference is OK, and the editor is not only adding that, then it merits discussion, not plain blanking of such edits. I'd like to note at this point that conflict of interest edits here are discouraged, but not forbidden. Still, a couple of editors, as far as I can see all originating from the Dutch wikipedia (there are a few edits from 'locals', but not many), have followed this IP around many wikipedia, erasing his contributions (which are quite often indeed involving himself)

I have blocked and unblocked user:86.83.155.44 twice, in both cases assuming good faith on the user, hoping that he would improve his edits (and I think he is, he seems to stay away from the conflicts that resulted in the blocks). I did however quite strongly warn, also after the unblocks.

For as far as I can see, the involved Dutch editors are:

• User:MoiraMoira (admin, bureaucrat on nl)
• User:Erik Baas (editor on nl)
• User:Robotje (admin on nl)
• User:Wammes Waggel (editor on nl)

(there may be more)

I have now given user talk:MoiraMoira a {{uw-vandalism4im}} (yes, I know about not templating regulars), for twice reverting user:86.83.155.44 on user talk:86.83.155.44:

• diff - summary: "please do not remove text of some one else on this talk page" - note that all what was removed was in own comments, and the rest was moved.
• user:86.83.155.44 reverted the edit, and starts discussing on user talk:MoiraMoira.
• diff - redoing revert of the edits; summary: "please do respect other people's contributions on this talk page and be so polite to answer questions asked before deleting them which is rather unpolite" - similar as above, nothing was deleted from others, only moved, and deletions only in own comments.

Other interesting diffs:

• diff - Erik Baas removing a non existing redlink in comments made by user:86.83.155.44 (reverted by me, Erik Baas warned about this)
• diff (to Tram) and diff (to List of town tramway systems), both without explanation. The removed reference on Tram were there for over 10 months, and 400 edits, and does seem to assert the statement (I have now converted into a more conventional reference). 86.83.155.44 reverted the removal, and was then re-reverted by Erik Baas (both 2 times). Information does not have to stay because it is there for a long time, but this unexplained blanking of a probably good reference is strange.

On many other wikis the user is blocked for various times. I saw this yesterday on it.wikipedia, where this user is blocked for a year after a handful of edits to his talkpage (last revert, diff by MoiraMoira: "Linkspam removed again - user does not contribute to wikipedia, only misuses talkpages for nonsense everywhere" and only to his talkpage since the last block finished!). Note, the 'linkspam' are links to some images in the top of his user talk page. I don't know about the Italian rules, but this seems quite strange to me (example contribution, so the user does contribute). Also, linkspam for me is something that is mainly visible in mainspace, or linked to that, and may be a very promoting userpage, but a talkpage which has a sentence (which may be for own convenience or whatever reason) does not need, IMHO, such drastic action. And I can't see that the self-promotion is quite obvious, but I am not happy that Dutch editors, administrators and bureaucrats are doing this, in this way, here.

If looking around on other wikis, the same Dutch users are involved in many of 'discussion' and blocks. To me this seems harassing/stalking, but I'd like some other comments before I go on. Maybe I am missing something crucial here. --Dirk Beetstra 14:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed references he included to his book in five other articles 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 in July (together with Tram, this makes at least six articles where he included this reference, which seems a bit much for a local, self-published book (published by a club of tram enthusiasts that is). Afterwards, an edit war occurred between the IP doctor and a few Dutch editors (I was not involved in the edit war or the following blocking). I have today removed the reference to his own work again from Tram (while doing some other much needed cleanup on this poor article), together with the example that was referenced by this book. It added no value to the article at all.

As for the rest of this case: yes, Borgdorff is stalked by Dutch editors, which is bad. But on the other hand, Borgdorff has been IMO a nuisance on many Wikipedias, being mainly a dual purpose account, adding references to his own work and to a fringe scientist, while otherwise mainly being busy making tons of extremely small edits to his signature. It would be better for the English Misplaced Pages if both sides (Borgdorff and the listed Dutch editors) took there efforts elsewhere. Spamming Misplaced Pages articles with your own work is a bad idea, and following editors around to other Misplaced Pages versions isn't much better. Fram (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The behavior of the tram editor is so blatant, and the spam has continued for such a long time, that a 3-month block for 86.83.155.44 (talk · contribs) would be well-justified. (Beetstra's previous talk with this editor seems to have made no impression at all). If this were a registered account and not an IP I think an indef block would be correct. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I am (not hard) disputing that it does not add .. there now is not a reference for the '150 trams', which is in the book .. --Dirk Beetstra 15:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I have put back the reference that was removed again, by another Dutch user. The book nicely illustrates the fact that trams continue to thrive in the Netherlands, while diminishing elsewhere. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, does it? It is not only about the GTL8 vehicle, , but suddenly it is about trams in Belgium and the Netherlands in general? And Dirk, there was no longer a reference for the "150 trams" needed, since the whole sentence was removed as excessive detail (we are talking about the general article about trams in the world, with the history and so on: why was this example of one type in one city so important?). This reference was inserted as self promotion and reinserted as a friendly gesture, not because it is in anyway needed in the article. And Guido, I'm Belgian, not DutchFram (talk) 07:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

In so far that the remit of en-WP admins is only to the English language Misplaced Pages, what is it that you are requesting here? From what I can see, there needs only for some advice to those that are removing ip account talkpage comments by that editor from "their" talkpage that this is not permitted on en-WP unless the content violates en-WP policy. You can do this yourself (although you may wish to link to this discussion when you do). Only if this advice is ignored is there a need for admins to be involved. I would further comment that there is nothing that any editor can do here regarding actions on another Wiki, at least not as an en-WP account. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Since my name suddenly appears here and my actions are judged and condemned by one of you guys I hope you will take the time to read this conversation here on my talk page archive which might give you more insight in the matter. I wish you all good luck in dealing with this troublesome Dutch person. Be assured I'll leave it up to you all to act wisely especially after what happened today on my talk page. Kind regards and good luck with wikipedia-en since this contribution is my final one here. MoiraMoira (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

On my talk page Beetstra wrote about dAb's self references "so there is apparently not much personal gain in that than a 'whoohoo, my name is in Misplaced Pages'. " If that's true, to me that doesn't mean it is OK to make those edits wiki-wide on a massive scale. Most of the self references dAb makes in the Misplaced Pages's I can only logically explain with a 'whoohoo, my name is in Misplaced Pages' attitude of the person who puts the self reference there. Mentioning a French book by Vallée in combination with dAb's translation into the Dutch language in an article doesn't make sense to me in a non-Dutch Misplaced Pages. If the Dutch translation is also not available to the public like in any library (on the Dutch Misplaced Pages dAb confessed no library he knows of has his translation) or from a book shop because that translation was only printed in about 30 copies in a proof-run in 1973, then mentioning it in the Dutch Misplaced Pages wouldn't even make sense. Especially since the French book is not even on topic in the article where he mentioned the book. Frequently re-inserting those self references, often while engaging in editwars, spread over some 15 language versions of Misplaced Pages with also local wikipedians reverting his self references that usually only stops after either his account is blocked or the article is semi-protected proofs to me he is extremely eager to have that self reference in those articles. He doesn't do that to help the readers of say the Japanese or the Bulgarian article because the book cannot be accessed by those readers and those readers are extremely unlikely to be able to understand a text in Dutch about a difficult scientific subject. That free translation cannot serve as a reference in the articles because it is a translation so nothing new will be in the book that's not in the French original and by the way, he always 'forgot' to mention the translation was into Dutch and not in the local language of the Misplaced Pages he added the self reference. He cannot do it to be able to sell more of those books so what other explanation can be thought of then a 'whoohoo, my name is in Misplaced Pages' attitude? Fram wrote above that he made self references in 6 articles, well so far I have even found 8 articles on the English Misplaced Pages (and maybe there are even more) in which he added those self references. I don't see why Dutch users who notice dAb is active with massive self reference spamming on so many language versions of Misplaced Pages cannot revert that on other Misplaced Pages's than the Dutch Misplaced Pages. In the past when I found spamming links in the Dutch Misplaced Pages and noticed they also occurred in other Misplaced Pages's, I also often removed those links in other Misplaced Pages's. If dAb wants to abuse all those language versions of Misplaced Pages for self promotion, why should I refrain from reverting those edits elsewhere? Especially if he refuses to answer questions on the talk pages of those Misplaced Pages's why the references were relevant. After months I still wait for his answer on e.g. the Japanese and Spanish Misplaced Pages. So yes, I could have asked him similar questions on talk pages on the English Misplaced Pages before removing his self references, but I guess he wouldn't have answered here either. - Robotje (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Re EdJohnston, I think I did make an impression, he has not performed similar edits since my second unblock (he even undid some things on his talkpage after I mentioned something about it on my talkpage). And the self promotion is there, yes, but it was introduced with information, WP:COI does not forbid such edits! We can question if the reference does add or is correct, or if there are better ones, but it does not have to be just removed because he added it (we've been through enough of such cases on WT:WPSPAM, user adding their own external links which were deemed helpful, and hence should not be removed).

Therefor, I feel that I was doing quite well trying to get the edits in line, and he did not do it after the second block. But the edits on his talkpage by the Dutch editors (with twice, IMHO, a false edit summary) does CERTAINLY not help the situation, it only aggravates it further. Therefor, I feel that edits like performed by user:Robotje, user:Erik Baas, user:MoiraMoira (in that way) did not have to be performed, leave the user, and indeed react when the situation gets back to mainspace. There is now for as far as I can see no reason to block him here, he is not performing any questionable edits in a content namespace. --Dirk Beetstra 16:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I am entirely in agreement with Dirk Beetstra. This is a stalking mob, although I'm inclined to make an exception for Wammes Waggel whose edits seem sincere and not coordinated with those of the others. There are two things I believe should be taken into account here. First, 86.83.155.44 is someone fairly unfamiliar with internet customs who was unaware of relevant guidelines. He is a good-faith user, a gentleman, with some interesting information to share, but not sure of where to add it. All he needed was some friendly advice and guidance, of which these Dutch users offered none. He has shown willingness to learn and stayed remarkably polite during all the harassment. Second, users Robotje and MoiraMoira have a different opinion about self-references. They, and some other Dutch users with them, believe - as they have openly stated many times - that self-referencing is by definition self-promotion, that this is about the gravest possible offense on Misplaced Pages, and that anyone who stoops so low is giving a free pass to get hunted down and chased off the planet. Since earlier this year, they have expanded their terrain to harass such users not only on nl:Misplaced Pages, where they are part of the ruling incrowd and have absolute power, but also on other Misplaced Pages projects. Robotje has even gone so far as to falsely accuse 86.83.155.44 of copyright violation on es:Misplaced Pages, and repeatedly deleted 86.83.155.44's citation of the text on Dutch national monument, which belongs to the public domain. MoiraMoira repeatedly brings up her status as a nl:admin to give undue weight to her side of the argument. Together with Erik Baas, who is not part of the nl:incrowd but is played as a puppet, they have violated WP:3RR and similar rules many times, disregarding all warnings. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Guido, in the text above you make several statements about me that are nonsense and/or very incomplete statements as you did multiple times in the past. For example, can you provide me with links where I was violating WP:3RR and similar rules?

A few months age you wrote here my comment was false and for the same edit you gave me a warning on my talk page. I asked you there to specify what was false. You never even attempted to prove anything was false but about a week later you wrote on my talk page immediately under my question "Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted." Well, you did revert it a recent edit of mine, and you even reverted it 4 times within a few hours timespan since I was not the only wikipedian who removed your self reference in an article and as a result you were blocked (see ). An independent admin who looked at your unblock request wrote "The edits you were reverting were not vandalism. Period." So you had better given yourself a warning.

Guido himself explained to dAb about the self references on the Spanish Misplaced Pages:

"A translation of a reference can only be relevant if it helps the reader. So, a translation of a French text into Dutch would typically only be of interest on nl:Misplaced Pages, but not on es:Misplaced Pages, while a translation of a Chinese text into English could be worth mentioning here."

So, Guido agrees making a self reference about a translation in Dutch on the Spanish Misplaced Pages doesn't help the readers. Why then do you think did dAb re-inserted so many times that self reference on the Spanish and so many other non-Dutch Misplaced Pages's; some kind of self promotion seems to be the first answer that comes up. I never wrote a self reference is automatically self promotion; but in this case it is pretty obvious. You also wrote about me and others in the above edit ".. as they have openly stated many times - that self-referencing is by definition self-promotion ..". Please give me a few links or even one link where I openly stated what you claim I have stated.

Besides, once again I ask you, please specify what was false, and please don't forget to also provide me with links where I was violating WP:3RR and similar rules. - Robotje (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, a comment from the victim (dAb): that's me. Though very ample explanation in Dutch and English too, about contents etc. of said books, mr. Robotje, being no expert, is neither able to read nor understand the European and probably World première of this LRV series, researched from the late sixties as power electronics to the present state of the art. The same could be remarked of said reference to the works of the Hon. Prof. R.L. Vallée ing.ESE. I'm respecting the rather negative comments of Fram and EdJohnston either, though not being known as experts too, (unlike e.g. user:Slambo c.s.) from which I'm not being impressed at all, 'cause they are rather off the hooks with their more too personal views, and I don't like being talked over not scientifically enough. So: let it be ... remarkable too. Regards D.A. Borgdorff, retired Rail- and Tramway PE 86.83.155.44 (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC) → PS: for instance on mentioned Japanese and Spanish wikipedias, the answers were given some times ago ... FYI ... one could research it even out.

Well, let's start by looking at the Japanese Misplaced Pages. On March 4, 2008 I asked dAb 3 specific questions on this talk page about the relevance of that French book and his Dutch translation in relation to the Japanese article. The only reply I got from him on that Misplaced Pages was on March 10 when he wrote: "Dear Robotje, for the moment because of illness i'll have no problems with it anymore everymore nomore or more whatevermore. Though High Esteem Yours Faithfully &c. - D.A. borgdorff (with small B) by: 86.83.155.44 2008年3月10日 (月) 15:53 (UTC)" So dAb never gave the answers on the Japanese Misplaced Pages. On this Spanish talk page I asked him twice "Well, then first explain why you so often mentioned your translation into the Dutch language with your name as translator on the Spanish article if your translation itself is not even publicly accessible in The Netherlands." and the reply from dAb in connection with my questions was: ".. This discussion has no fundamental scientific interactions anymore, and lacks judgement on peer review. The discussion partners have no qualification in the Quantumfield Theories at all. Regards: COITI D.A. Borgdorff .." So also that question was never answered too. On the Spanish talk page dAb's attitude was a kind of out of all the people in this discussion I'm the expert so I don't need to explain why mentioning my translation in Dutch of a French book on non-Dutch Misplaced Pages's is relevant; not even if the book is not publicly accessible. That same attitude is also very noticeable in the reply above. You don't need to be a rocket scientist or an expert in the topic of an article to understand that mentioning a Dutch translation of a French book that cannot be seen in any library in the world is not relevant in any Misplaced Pages especially not the non-Dutch Misplaced Pages's. - Robotje (talk) 05:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, he did not add the translation after this was explained to him. Anyway, this is in no way an excuse for your behaviour, which is the topic of this discussion. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 06:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Robotje, please stop vandalizing articles about Dutch people that happen to be Wikipedians as you did on es:Misplaced Pages. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 07:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Guido. Regarding dAb stopping making references to his translation, as I explained above, on March 4 I already asked him on the Japanese Misplaced Pages several questions like why should the existence of a Dutch translation be relevant to the readers of a Japanese article. His reply didn't contain any any answer. I can easily find 50+ edits and maybe even 100+ edits where he wiki-wide re-inserted references to that translation in non-Dutch Misplaced Pages's after he refused to answer that question. Also on the Spanish Misplaced Pages he refused to answer similar questions about a self reference his was constantly re-inserting until the Spanish article was protected. On most of the Misplaced Pages's where he tried to get that self reference in an article that article is (semi-)protected and/or he is blocked. That effectively stopped him from trying again.

About the supposed vandalism. The article about Tjako was 'deleted' (only local admins could see it) on zea-wiki by a local admin on July 21 and restored yesterday as can be seen here in the logbook. So when I removed that interwiki on the es-wiki the article on the zea-wiki was not already removed. This is just another case where Guido blames others for vandalism although there is no vandalism at all. Oh, and by the way, I posted some requests for you earlier today on this page. For example you wrote " .. have openly stated many times - that self-referencing is by definition self-promotion ..". I'm still waiting for link because I'm sure I never stated something like that. - Robotje (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, your friend Troefkaart removed the article. He is another Dutch user belonging to the same group. A very suspicious one-two. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I was mentioned above, so I'll mention here that I've added a note with diffs to the article's talk page on my own minimal involvement in this dispute. I have not read the reference so I cannot make any statements as to its relevance to the article content. Slambo (Speak) 10:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought to stating it very clear: I don't like to be threatened anymore by anyone, not even by somebody like Fram, Robotje, Johnston or whoever may appear to further harassing me with ridicule questions inquisitioning me too. I already was complaining about this treatments to the board of WMF, and I will persist to formalize if hunting as haunting, or inquisitions persists as well. It's a shame to blame my name as e.g. in Italia, Japan, Germany, Russia, Turkey, Greece, Spain, Sweden ... and elsewhere on other Wikipedias to persecution and prosecution people like me. I'm only a innocent sheep, not like those hunters from the more lower-lands. - I'll mostly remain with utmost regards being faithfully yours: D.A. Borgdorff or dAb = 86.83.155.44 (talk) 10:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

@ the Dutch editors here (first part bit more specific in answer to some comments from User:Robotje). You state above that you clean cross-wiki when editors are spamming/pushing cross wiki. I know that, I see that around the wikis that I am active on (in my xwiki work and functions), I do encourage that, and I am happy that you help with that. I included your edits above because you did it here IMHO without too much research (though the case was obvious, but it was depriving a sentence from its reference (though unclear it was the reference for the sentence), you could have removed the whole sentence, and said in the edit summary that you did). And it was the first edit that started another edit war with the user. In this case I am inclined to be on the side of DAB, and I explained that (there were 400 edits to the page, and it stood over 10 months without discussion, at least discussion or explanation was at hand there).

The removal resulted in another edit war with DAB, who is there also to blame, and he was blocked for those actions, and I believe that I have given him some strong warnings about that (and seen his edits afterwards, I believe he understands). He should not revert that himself but he should bring it to appropriate venues to discuss (and it is for me not an argument that he does not do that on other wikis either, he should here, and if DAB here fails to do so, then that at least deserves a (final) warning, and maybe blocking, as DAB now should understand that he should stay away from any form of self promotional editing, if the data is appropriate, then others should decide, he can start those discussions). It is this edit warring that gets him blocked on other wikis as well (though lately ..).

But then these three edits:

• diff by Erik Baas
• diff - by MoiraMoira
• diff - by MoiraMoira

(and there are very similar things on other wikis, which tainted my feelings about this, but if I only look at these three edits:) These three edits are highly inappropriate, and are IMHO talk page vandalism (editing others peoples comments), and do not serve any function but to aggravate/harrass the user in question, the edits by DAB were reverted, but no message that the edit was reverted was left on the talkpage (e.g. that it is frowned upon that you delete comments from others; still it gives the orange banner), and as such resulted in an edit war on the talkpage. Especially from an admin/arbitrator on the Dutch wikipedia I expect a higher level of concerning the edits of other people (and looking at it more thoroughly what actually was reverted!), the two edit summaries there are untrue, and the user already asked not to do that after the first one. I am sorry, but I'm not willing to withdraw that {{uw-vandalism4im}} for that, and I find it also troubling that MoiraMoira, as an arbitrator, decides to leave in stead of discussing ... they thinks not too good about me (if they insist that I had to be friendlier to him/her, if I see the edits of DAB here, then here no good faith and friendlyness were applied to DAB either, what happens on other wikis does not concern us here), but this does not make me happy either.

You (the Dutch editors involved) did indeed not have to bring your cross-wiki cleaning to the higher boards here, though I would have appreciated that you did after the editor persisted, instead of edit warring, and starting more edit warring. That edit warring resulted in a block for DAB, because he was alone in doing so. But I hope that the group of Dutch editors realise that were removing were, as a group, also edit warring at that point, exceeding as a group 3RR. I do find that not acceptable here. --Dirk Beetstra 10:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Please use the "local" facilities to pursue problematic editing from "external" editors

It is also the case that each variant language wiki-encyclopedia generally has its own policies, practices, and standards, and that if editors who are fortunate enough to be able to contribute (or, in the unfortunate cases, vandalise) in more than one language in different wikis then they should adhere to the conditions prevailing there. If there is a editor who contributes (or vandalises, or did vandalise until stopped) on a wiki other that en-WP and who then edits to en-WP then any (perceived) problem with those edits should be brought to the attention of admins here. It is unseemly, discourteous, and even possibly inappropriate for contributors to carry out actions which are permissible on "their" "home" wiki on this variant, unless they are certain that they are acting according to the prevailing rules, policies and guidelines. If there is a question of whether local policies are being violated, there are enough established editors on the En-lang Misplaced Pages who are familiar with Dutch (or Afrikaans, or other similar European languages) to be able to comprehend the edits and apply the appropriate remedies. I would also suggest that, as the largest of the Misplaced Pages's, there is a great deal of expertise available in dealing with non-English language (possible) vandalism, and that "external" policing is not needed (although help and advice is always gratefully received).
This matter is a case in point; there may well be some problems with the subject editors contributions. The appropriate manner to deal with them would be to report the concerns to this board, where it is likely that someone with both the linguistic skills to comprehend the edits/sources/links etc. and familiarity with the policies to make a judgement. In this instance a user, who in good faith was attempting to limit what they consider disruption to the encyclopedia, violated one of the local policies - which is not to alter or amend an editors contributions on their talkpage (unless it violated a core policy or rule, which this seems not to). The point is, that they may even be ultimately proven correct - but they were appropriately warned about their actions, to which they have expressed some disappointment. All of this could have been resolved if the proper channels of communication had been used rather than unilateral actions.
Now, after all the above, are there any matters pertaining to the contributions of the concerned ip account that editors to the Dutch encyclopedia wish to raise so they may be reviewed by the en-WP community? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Problems with User:Shevashalosh

There is a content dispute between this editor and mainly me on several issues.

• He wants to rename Deir Yassin Massacre to Battle of Deir Yassin
• We don't agree on the choice between Siege of Jerusalem (1948) and Battle of Jerusalem (1948)
• There is also a dispute on Operation Nachshon
• He wrote this article Blood Libel at Deir Yassin which is considered at best badly written and NPoV, at worst Pov-fork by all editors on the talk page of the article... (here I am far less involved)

I tried to bring some issues on the project military history
But he prevented any discussion in attacking me.
I also brought the debate on the talk page of the article Siege of Jerusalem (1948) where he didn't answer. I brought the discussion on the talk page on the Project Israel and again he attacked me.
(fed up, I deleted one of his attacks there)
I have been adviced by Gatoclass to complain here.
I am aware of how to settle resolution dispute but I am sorry, there is no rationale with Shevashalosh and I don't see how to discuss with him.
I would highly appreciate some support because it is not possible to work in these conditions...
Thank you. Ceedjee (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC) NB: I would highly appreciate the intervention of a sysop who agrees to talk a little bit about the content too, because, it is a little bit "too much"... Ceedjee (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Ceedjee_deleting_History_again_now_on_Operation_Nachshon.

Ceedjee, this is a content dispute with which I'm very familiar. Sources have sway on these names. If the sources themselves disagree, then community consensus must find a way to handle them. Absent edit warring or true personal attacks (diffs please) I'd say the thing to do first is start an RFC for each article (not on the editor). Gwen Gale (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gwen. No, this is not a content dispute and you go too far. I gave the sources and they do not disagree between themselves. Please, go on the talk page and read before commenting. That is incredible! I have worked for 3 years on these topics and I have a crazy numbers of books. I have to discuss with a teen-ager who fights and reverts. He refuses to discuss. He writes racist allegations on Arabs. He writes I am a clown. And I should be patient... No, no... That is not possible. Just play with him. Ceedjee (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ceedjee is an experienced wikipedian with a fine record for both informed edits, quality article creation, and, that rarest of things, a collaborative manner with all responsible editors on I/P articles, whatever their ideological perspective. Though he and Gwen Gale both refer to a 'content' dispute, I don't quite see it as that. One can have content disputes, and yet get nowhere because, as in this instance, an editor shows a poor knowledge of English, which may explain the inadequacy of Shevashalosh's ability to engage rationally with other editors. He certainly needs to rein in a little, spent more time on polishing his posts, and perhaps should seek out an informal mentor on his side to tutor him in wiki procedures. I've provided no diffs, but a quick glance over his record as a newbie shows that many experienced editors on all sides have trouble with his 'creative' brashness. I should declare my own interest. I gave up editing articles (as opposed to occasional comments as an informal metapedian), because of his and another editor's ideological behaviour on the Lehi page, which I found impossible to handle. Nishidani (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, does not belong here. IronDuke 15:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thx. And where does it belong ? Ceedjee (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The editor was not notified of this; that has been corrected. It's clear that this is an Israeli editor with a POV problem; one he doesn't seem to recognize he has. Not sure what can be done, as it seems highly unlikely that he'll drop this issue soon. However, he is talking on the talk page, so patience may be needed to get it into his head that just because everyone he knows says something doesn't make it so.ThuranX (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes and moreover, although User:Shevashalosh must communicate through the filters of both his own grasp of English and strong PoV (which I often don't agree with), in my dealings with him Shevashalosh has tried hard to stay within policy and a consensus on sourcing is the only way this will ever be handled. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, someone should advise newbies to show a certain familiarity with talk pages and their archives, Many of the points Shevashalosh presses have long histories of prior debate, negotiation and consensus. He does not seem familiar with them, or the extensive literature on these respective pages. He favours one source for his edits everywhere, Uri Milstein and the Lehi/Stern hagiographical tradition. As I say, there are quite a few fine Israeli editors who have reverted him. Someone there should offer to coach him, since the inexperience is self-evident. This is in the interests of everybody. These articles are difficult enough without their being complicated by tiffs that drag out through sheer inexperience.Nishidani (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale, please : what I am assumed to add ? Discuss patiently ? But what have I done until now ?

All the others. I had to study more than 2 years for wikipedia principles and material to get the expertise I have on these issues. I am regularly discussing with Israeli Professors about this topic. It is true that I don't edit much wp:en but I do so anyway.

Will this become another user:Zeq versus Pitchford or user:Zero0000 ?

We will have to battle during 2 years to be quiet ?

It is not posted at the right place ? Please, have a little bit some respect for people and not for principles.

That's up to you. Nobody has time to lose.

Ceedjee (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok Ceedjee, I'll have a thorough look. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't had time to look in detail at his contributions, but I did notice that at Operation Nachshon, for example, he repeatedly removed multiple reliable sources and replaced them with a completely unreferenced section angled entirely from an Israeli POV. It seems to me that at the very least someone needs to take him aside and refer him to some of the basic policies like wp:v, wp:rs, wp:npov, wp:undue and so forth. He also probably needs to be informed of the general restrictions pertaining to Arab-Israeli articles and the extra responsibilities they confer on users editing in that area. I've toyed with the idea of proposing a temporary topic ban while he comes to grips with the basics of policy, but I just haven't had a chance to look into enough of his edits to determine whether or not that might be a bit excessive at this stage. Gatoclass (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Operation Nachshon

Much to the conteraray:

Adding: 2/3 of article space was added info by ceedjee on the arab-palestinian story - in the last few days (including the ref that Gatoclass is talking about, so those are no "Israeli ref"). I raised no objection to that, since I didnt find anything wrong with what he wrote - and I stiil aprovre of it this very minute.

Changing: The only single change I did on what he wrote was the date. he put (probebly mistaken - nothing wrong with it) that the begginig date was arpril 2. I restated this single sentance to "Oreders were given on April 2, and a telegarph rleased on April 5, confirming the begging of the operation". This was done after I placed the image of this telegraph - stating so. He didn't object to it as well.

Ceedjee deleting - from this point on he kept deleting info, rather the adding info - eliminating the links etc. this is un accepteble.

As to Deir yassin massacre battle article - i'd like to ad info, ---- not delete - the only response I get is a tin ear - on talk page. --Shevashalosh (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You get a 'Deaf ear' (one that does not hear you), not a tin ear (one which cannot appreciate music well). And you get that deaf ear because you're pushing a pro-israeli POV here, one that is NOT supported by sources. Israel isn't lily-white in conflict, and I say that as a Jew. To white-wash Israel on Misplaced Pages is to do a disservice and discredit to Israel. No one learns truthe from false histories. Read 1984 for more on your redactionist behaviors. ThuranX (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

These are racist remarks. --Shevashalosh (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No, they were not. Israel is a country, not a race or a culture. At no point did ThuranX say anything derogatory about Jews (who are also not a race, in the biological sense, but a culture) - nor even derogatory about Isreal (the defence being that of truth). It is apparent that an oversensitivity toward the differences of perception of that subject is one of the major factors behind both the above and the editing issues generally. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The hell they are. They're the truth, which you hate to hear. I specifically called them Pro-Israel, not Pro-Judaism. I happen to be pro-Judaism, but I'm not here on Misplaced Pages to support white-washing of history. And correcting your use of idiomatic english is a service, not insult. ThuranX (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate block of User:Ceedjee

I note that User:Number 57 has just blocked Ceedjee for reverting following a warning from 57 at Operation Nachshon. I believe that both Number57's block, and the warning that preceded it, were and are completely inappropriate. Ceedjee is a highly experienced editor who has been trying to clean up problematic edits left by Shevashalosh, who is obviously a noob with very little notion of policy. To treat these two users as if their contributions were equal in value is just plain wrongheaded. To make matters worse, Shevashalosh also reverted Ceedjee's revert almost immediately afterward, but Number57 has declined to similarly block him for ignoring his warning. The length of the block is also excessive - 48 hours.

This is precisely what we should not be doing at Misplaced Pages - penalizing editors in good standing while allowing ignorant POV warriors to run amuck. Please will somebody review this ill-considered block, and hopefully reverse it. Ceedjee has left the project in frustration before and in my opinion it was clearly worse off without his contributions. Gatoclass (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Moreover, both articles are now protected. I see no reason for this block at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Very, very poor block. Does Number57 wish to explain? --Relata refero (disp.) 17:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Just kicking in my 2 cents that this block was poorly considered. I'm not sure that an edit-summary "warning" on the article in question is sufficient, either - a user should be warned explicitly on their talk page rather than in a roundabout way. The length of the block is excessive, and the fact that a helpful, experienced editor is the one being punished here does come across as backwards. Shereth 17:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Just an FYI, but there's also a WP:AN thread. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Another FYI, Shevashalosh hasn't been blocked at all. User:Zscout370 17:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I explained my rationale on the WP:AN thread. It should also be noted that it was Ceedjee's fourth revert in less than 24 hours., so I still feel a block was warranted. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you be willing to reconsider the block, given there are a number of us who don't feel it was the right move? Shereth 18:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I won't personally, as I feel it was well deserved. However, I won't kick up a fuss if anyone else unblocks as I can understand the points made above. If he is unblocked, he certainly needs a good 3RR warning. Take it from me, edit warring on Israel-Palestinian article needs stamping out at the earliest possible moment. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Holy heck, a bad block if ever there was. Ceedjee is a POV warrior? Shevashalosh is NPOV? For that gross misinterpretation and over-simplification alone, Number57 should self-revert his blocks, and allow others to review it. Neither is an angel, but to block on and not the other for the edit warring, whne there's an open Shevashalosh thread on AN/I... bad all over it. ThuranX (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, but Number 57 said on the AN thread that he didn't block Shevashalosh as well because he restored "the NPOV version". By what authority? That doesn't sound like a very impartial judgement to me. Apart from which, he simply hasn't followed through on what was an ill-considered warning in the first place to block anyone who reverted, by blocking one reverter and not the other. It smacks of favouritism, or at best, inconsistency. The 3RR comment also looks like a rationale after the fact, since he failed to mention it in his block statement. Gatoclass (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be ample justification under the "electric fence" of 3rr. Am I misreading the diffs? IronDuke 18:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, Ceedjee was reverting unsourced PoV: The pages were later protected and a warning would have been more than enough. 48 hours is far too long either way. Please unblock. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Block looks just fine to me. IronDuke 18:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Shereth unblocked as I was typing the above. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I did decide to go ahead and unblock, as it seems apparent there's a majority opinion that it was not quite warranted, and User:Number 57 did agree to permit it. I did, however, leave a warning on User:Ceedjee's talk page to be more cautious in future situations so as not to run afoul of 3RR again. Shereth 18:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou Shereth, I think you made the right call. At worst, I think Ceedjee has been a little overanxious to try and rein in a new user who is clearly uninformed about policy. Gatoclass (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If anyone actually bothers to look at the diffs, the edit warring was over the See also section (very lame), with Ceedjee repeatedly inserting Battle of Jerusalem (1948). This was incredibly pointly , as it is the location which he seems to think Siege of Jerusalem (1948) should be at, but doesn't even exist as a redirect! If repeatedly adding a redlink to the see also section is not disruptive point making, I'm not sure what is. Anyway, this is my last comment as I'm off out. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You might have mentioned that Shevashalosh has been edit warring with Ceedjee over the name of that article as well. Gatoclass (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The block was totally appropriate, the unblock totally inappropriate. Well done, all. IronDuke 18:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You know ,we all got that with the first two whinings you made above. Not sure why you're so obvious in you POV allegiances here, but it's irrelevant, really. Consider this an unblock under IAR in favor of supporting actual NPOV, if it helps your policy wonkery nerves. ThuranX (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to stress that I believe User:Number 57 was absolutely justified in applying the block to begin with, as User:Ceedjee had violated WP:3RR. I don't think it was entirely appropriate but it was most certainly justified, and I don't want to create the impression that my opinion or actions should imply otherwise. Shereth 18:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the wonderful world of nationalistic ME topics, where even article names stir up a kerfuffle. I wouldn't have handled this with a block either but 3rr is wholly blockable. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict, reply to Shereth) As I recall, you are supposed to give a user a chance to self revert before blocking for 3RR. I certainly do. But No. 57 didn't even mention 3RR in his block statement. Also, if it was "absolutely justified" to block one user for ignoring a warning—which was the reason actually given for the block—then it would also have been "absolutely justified" to block the other for doing the same minutes afterwards. But thankyou for at least agreeing the block was "not entirely appropriate", and for the unblock. Gatoclass (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Back to the matter at hand

Shevashalosh, if you do not mind, I am going to try and explain a bit what is happening here on your talk page, and why your actions, while justified in your mind, are creating such a severe response. I would request that you hold off any Israeli-palestinian edits for a while. Also, while you may disagree with Thuran's comments, calling his remarks "racist" do nothing other than to further exacerbate an already uncomfortable situation. Technically, they are not racist, as we are not a race, but a unique melange of a religion and an ethnicity. Eevn conceptually, you may feel his remarks were overly ascerbic, but they were directed personally at you, so unless you are a race of one (), the worst that can be said was that were a personal attack, (which they were not either, albeit they were not composed in the most diplomatic of tones). So, I would request that you take a break for at least 15-20 minutes, and maybe my unasked for egoistical pedanticism will shed a little more light on this. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Avi about taking a break, though Thuran's bit about 1984 was well over the line. IronDuke 18:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Very well stated, Avi. Shereth 18:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Avi. As for Thuran's nod to Orwell I think it was spot on and I don't think it was racist. Oh and yes, Ceedjee was edit warring too. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for injecting some common sense into this discussion Avi, and for your offer to help Shevashalosh out a bit, which I think is the obvious next step :) Gatoclass (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

IronDuke, you seem itching for a fight here. Get it under control. ThuranX (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL Get that under control, and I'm happy to talk. IronDuke 00:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Funny, I wrote that before I noticed your impressive block log, featuring multiple instances of "gross incivility." Noticed some in this thread. Could you please refactor them? Thanks. IronDuke 00:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

For calling you out as an agitator and then for taking cheap shots at me? I don't think so. ThuranX (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Continuing problems with Libro0

I have had nothing but problems with Libro0. I try to get him and another user to stop their war, and he calls me a sockpuppet of the other user (among several others he suspects, most without cause) and has launched a series of passive aggressive attacks. The latest was a series ultimatums and threats, in his typical passive aggressive style which implies I am a sockpuppet. Take a look here and here . His "evidence" of sockpuppetry is laughable at best, delusional at worst - see Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Baseball Card Guy and this . Action is needed! Your Radio Enemy (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Range block on 190.51.0.0/16

I have put a range block on 190.51.0.0/16 for the duration of 31 hours. This is a returning vandal, who also was engaging in personal attacks on Talk:Main page today. I put a 3-hour range block on earlier, and he/she came back when it expired. There have been a number of other blocks to this range in the past month, suggesting an ongoing problem. I'm not normally involved in implementing range blocks, so please review. I also don't like to see collateral damage to good users that can come with range blocks of this duration, but not sure what other options there might be? --Aude (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Relatively small range; benefits of block outweigh cons. Tan ǀ 39 16:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

We have found that 190.51.128.0/18 is probably a better range to block. -- zzuuzz 16:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I have modified the block, per your suggestion. Thanks. --Aude (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It's probably a good idea not to mention the length of the block: if they know how long they're blocked for, they know when to come back. HalfShadow 16:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Modified the block. --Aude (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, on Aug 8 I blocked this same /16 range twice due to vandalism to WP:AIV and other pages, first for 15 min, then for 1 hour when the vandalism continued. So this is a persistent problem. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC) (Sorry, just noticed you linked the block log, so this is probably redundant.)

Oxymoron83 has helpfully prepared a list of edits from this range (admins only). It has been going on for a few months, and a longer block on 190.51.128.0/18 either now or in the future would not be unreasonable. Editors should be aware that some of the vandal's edits can be very large. -- zzuuzz 17:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper edit warring blocks

I blocked both edit warriors DreamGuy (talk · contribs) and Arcayne (talk · contribs) for edit warring at Jack the Ripper. Due to the fact that I've had recent run-ins with both editors, although not at that locus, I thought I'd request review. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Having seen them both up here recently for the same article and similar troubles, good block, double it for both on general principles, they had warnings nad time to work it out. ThuranX (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I was going to comment at Arcayne. I'm not going to unblock either of them, as an involved party at Jack the Ripper. I would note this discussion on the matter initiated by Arcayne. That's not the mark of an edit war - although it could be start of a humdinger argument between the two. I don't disagree with your blocking, but IMHO, I'd recommend an unblock, for both of them, on a 0RR parole on JtR for (say) seven days. This matter will only ever be solved by discussion, and blocking precludes them from discussion too. With User:TexasAndroid, we were trying to work up a set of rules to preclude these contretemps, but that doesn't seem to be going anywhere at the moment, this episode might concentrate minds on solutions.

Maybe we could block all the editors? . HTH Kbthompson (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't volunteer to monitor special editing restrictions, and I don't think JtR is in a "special enforcement" area, so I can't impose 0RR. I would have no objections to an unblock with those conditions, if I can receive admin assurances that a report of violating 0RR parole will be handled at WP:3RR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've commented on Arcayne and Arthur's talkpage that I think the 48 hour block of Arcayne is unnecessary and over-aggressive. Two reverts, with civil and expressive edit summaries asking for discussion, doesn't seem to warrant a 3RR-style block for double the initial length. Arthur notes that there is a 3RR block from a year ago against Arcayne, I also don't think that is cause for a block (or longer block) in this case. A warning, for both editors, to take their dispute to the talkpage should have been tried first. Avruch 17:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm away til Monday, otherwise, if they agreed I'd offer to pick it up - but I feel it could be a way forward. The editing restriction can be implemented if they both agree - hence parole. Perhaps you should have noted Arcayne's 3RR report. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne has commented at his talk page, but appears unable to contribute directly to this thread due to the block. I don't think it's an inaccurate summary to state that Arcayne disagrees with the block. Jclemens (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this one of those instances where the venue changes but the disputants are very familiar? Perhaps, if this is the case, we may have to consider some kind of way of limiting the amount and manner in which these two accounts interact? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• No, they've been here on this very topic, AND other topics. Which is why I supported doubling the block lengths, to be compliant with the constant bickering, tendentious editing, prior warnings, and the block logs of both participants, which show a 96 hour block to be fair. ThuranX (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Hmmm. They both think I'm biased against them. Since they have never been in agreement before on anything, perhaps we're getting somewhere.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Then you're doing something right. carry on, wayward son. ThuranX (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I should point out that the last episode here was between DG and another party at that fated page. Somehow I never thought I'd say this, but not all disputes at ANI involve Arcayne. In fact, DG was the victim on that occasion - so, eh, has the firmament cracked? Sometimes both parties make genuine efforts to engage, sometimes they end up in this position - usually on the same subject. There needs to be a long-term solution that allows contributions to that article without the petty confrontations. Kbthompson (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Arcayne unblocked, per promise not to edit JtR until the matter is resolved. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the opportunity to clear up the matter, at least as far as it concerns me. To begin with, I don't recall any problem I have had with Arthur recently, and a quick view of his history shows the last contact I had with him was in November of last year. If I am "biased" against him or have had some sort of "run-in", I don't remember it.

Secondly, I have not violated any rules or guidelines that warrant a block of any kind. As much as DG would love to make this about me and him, it isn't. It never has been. It's actually about DreamGuy and the rest of the world; or more to the point, that part of the world that disagrees with him. Leaving aside the fact that he is the one on behavioral parole, he doesn't discuss his edits. While being bold has its place, consensus usually follows the model of BRD - bold, revert, discuss. His edits are certainly bold, and are sometimes reverted (by others, not just me). At this point, discussion is derailed, because DreamGuy makes it about the editor and not the edits. Every time. I could literally count on the fingers of one hand the times in the past three years when DreamGuy has worked with other editors to find a consensus opinion. And that's just sad.

This most recent issue began as an argument over a term (Goulston Street Graffito vs. Writing on the Wall) used by some authors. In order to bolster his opinion that "many" or "most" authors refer to it by the 'Graffito' moniker, he added no less than five citations in an attempt to illustrate such (which constitutes a POINT issue), none of which actually said that most, many or even some authors call it that. A consensus was arrived at to include the term and to note that some call it such. As the citations were added to the article to argue a point, they were no longer necessary, and one citation was sufficient, and unnecessarily cluttered the article. This was explained at least thrice in discussion. DG simply disregarded it.

When DG reverted for the fourth time (again, after repeated requests to discuss the inclusion of more than one citation), I decided that if he was going to disregard the rest of us, further conversation wasn't going to help, and would only cause further incivility from DG. I reported him for the 3RR vio and opened a discussion in the article discussion page seeking to confirm what had already been reached by consensus. I am unsure how that was edit-warring, or baiting. - Arcayne () 01:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The only baiting argument I could see would be from the sardonic twist you've added to your discussion topic: The burning, itching need for multiple references. It still wouldn't have resulted in DG talking to us but I could see someone thinking that was baiting. And I suppose it was... which goes to show that you have now resorted to poking, prodding, and cajoling to get DG to even post on the discussion page. padillaH _{(help me)} 13:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Should User:Aldrich Hanssen's block be extended?

This user was blocked for 72 hours about 2 days ago for several personal attacks. . I had gone to his page to suggest he stay on topic in another discussion and I noticed he evidentally thought it a good idea to respond to being informed of the block with another personal attack (on one of the editors he was blocked for attacking, not the admin who blocked him) (3 edits basically just refining his comment). While no one has called him up on it, since it's been over 2 days and he has edited his talk page in the mean time, he has had an opportunity to withdraw his comment when he calmed down if it was just a 'heat of the moment' response. I know it's fairly normal for an editor to respond to a block with an attack on the admin and this is usually I believe ignored (heat of the moment and all that) but I feel given he was continuing his attack for which he was blocked for in the first place (which suggests he unfortunately didn't learn his lesson) and the attack was rather offensive, the block should be extended. Anyone else agree? P.S. I've informed him of this discussion and suggested he respond on his talk page if he has anything to say so any admin extending the block should check it out first. Nil Einne (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Block ineffective - I was disappointed to see him continue to edit and enhance his attacks against Sticky Parkin. He used his block time to continue his personal attacks and as he worked on them they became more personal and gender based. He has made a little story now to rationalize the attacks, as if Sticky had been making advances toward him that he rebuffed and so anything she does now is out of anger from rejection. It's a disturbing and sad turn of events that illustrates the block has not made an impression on him. Rob Banzai (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well of course I will agree with this, as it's me he's called a "sticky hobag", or perhaps saying women as a whole are such, as he says "wishes all the sticky hobags would leave him alone." amongst other things. He also accused other, male editors who warned him numerous times about his personal attacks of doing it just to try and 'pull' me,, though I've never edited alongside them before for them not to be objective, and makes comments that those men who dislike the seduction community obviously haven't tried it or they'd be 'out banging chicks' rather than disagreeing with it. His attitude is deeply misogynistic of a type I've never seen this explicitly on wiki, calling women 'hobag', and interestingly it's mainly a woman he targets, along with saying I am a low ranking on the scale of attractiveness, though he's never seen a pic of me to judge.:) If he was calling a black people racist names, along with the numerous other comments showing his atitude that he's made, he'd receive a long block. He should receive the same for hate speech against women. Sticky Parkin 18:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel it is unfair to specifically say that the sticky comment was a personal attack against yourself, you are not explicitly mentioned. Though I do see how it is perfectly understandable for you to assume he is meaning yourself. Mathmo 10:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This is just his exploits around the time of his previous block, I've not seen what he's been upto since his block expired as I was out, but I'm loathe to look as his comments are very unpleasant if they're along the lines of the 'hobag' one. Sticky Parkin 18:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to extend his block to "indef pending withdrawl of comments" in a couple of minutes unless I hear a good reason not to. MBisanz 18:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Two, two, two spies in one. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

What does that mean? Rob Banzai (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen. Acroterion _(talk) 19:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

D'oh! (slaps forehead) Rob Banzai (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've extended his block to indef, pending withdrawl of his offensive comments. MBisanz 19:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good block to me. I'd investigate further through the user's contribs, but I already feel like I need to wash my hands. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Per and his interest in the Timothy McVeigh article, I think this person has far deeper and more disturbing problems than just enjoying making comments against other editors. Sticky Parkin 21:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

He says "Ironically, the reason for the block extension was a supposed continuation of attack, yet it does not, of course, prevent further comments from being written to the talk page, which was the venue of the issue at hand." . Could someone please protect his talk page if he comes back and writes more on it? Sticky Parkin 22:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - fair 'nuff - Alison 22:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Requesting extended block on 20KBomb

Here are some reasons:

• Persistent lying about image source and license (see his talk pages, I PUI'd a lot)
• Posing as an admin (example)
• Refused to admit source of images even when I asked him (example)
• Attempting to vote more than once by abusing multiple accounts (example)

Also, can I request a check on User:92.18.180.152? He seems very interested in the case, voting keep with a forged signature and then forging a comment on J Milburn's talk about the same topic... it seems very obvious to me, and if it is a sock then I would ask that we get an indef. block in.  Asenine  18:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFCU is where you can request Check Users. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 19:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I know. I am merely noting it here since it is alongside. I am going to RFCU in a second. :)  Asenine  19:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahh kay, was a little confused. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 19:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The posing as an admin thing is kinda' silly; that's the talk page of one of his own socks. No comment on the rest of it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There is also 92.1.239.69, he was the one doing the egregious signature forging at WP:UCFD. - Icewedge (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

CU case here, adding that one too, thanks for that Icewedge.  Asenine  19:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

... and CU says  Confirmed re. the above - Alison 19:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

On the basis of that checkuser can I request an indefinite block, please?  Asenine  19:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Indef. block done. Adding resolved tag.  Asenine  19:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

J.J. Boone

Please check this user's logs, it seems like he is virtually a copyvio-uploading machine, uploading a few dozens of images about the "world's oldest people". Now, he was received numerous automated warnings and at least two user warnings to no avail, but what makes his behavior more disrupive is that he constantly pushes the images back to the mainspace if they are removed. I am quite tempted to issue a block for the huge mountain of copyvios that he has produced, but that may be because I'm becoming annoyed by having to remove his images from Emiliano Mercado del Toro time after time, thus a neutral opinion and/or suggestion on how to deal with this case is welcomed. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw this user when I was patrolling NewImages earlier today. On the presumption that he has been warned, I'd guess a 24 hour block would be a good idea - it might get his attention where boilerplate templates don't.  Asenine  20:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

After a look, I can see that he has a ton of copyvio tags on his page. I am issuing him an only warning now, if he doesn't stop after then it should be all fine and dandy to block him, right?  Asenine  20:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

He's been warned about uploading copyrighted info and the possibility of a block. This user does not seem to respond to messages on his talk page (s/he has never edited a talk/user talk page) and seems to largely be ignoring warnings - a block may be warranted without further warning, imho. Shereth 20:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

From my point of view, we should give him until he violates it again. Remember, blocks are a preventative measure, not a punishment.  Asenine  20:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violations, particularly repeated ones, are an area on which good faith may be assumed but less rope issued with which to hang onesself. We cannot allow people to upload content which they don't have the legal right to do so, and which is in violation of the author's or photographer's copyright. I have issued an indefinite block - I am happy with the account being unblocked in 15 minutes if he/she clarify what was going on adequately and this was a communications problem, or if it was copyvios but they acknowledge what it was, accept the policy, and agree not to do it again. But until they let us know what's going on, we can't let them continue to upload. We don't have a 'can't upload' button. We just have a block capability. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This user probably could have eaten a preventative block quite a bit earlier, he's uploaded a real torrent of copyvios and we can't afford to be too lenient once the user has been warned - persistent copyright problems are a threat to Misplaced Pages. That said, I have no problem with an unblock if he clarifies what he's up to and stops uploading copyrighted images - there's no particular evidence he's actually being malicious. ~ mazca 20:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think this is resolved for the time being, thanks for your time. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Dameware

• Dameware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dameware (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The Dameware article was tagged {{db-spam}} (which was valid, the article having been rewritten in vapid marketing speak by the user Dameware). I have reverted to the marginally less spammy version prior to this editor's involvement, and blocked the editor per WP:USERNAME and because this and the prior WP:SPA on that article (likely the same person) show no understanding of WP:NPOV. Others are free to undo any or all of these actions, but I don't think the article should be deleted as it is very widely used software. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the widely used software bit. Also popular with hackers because it can push a VNC server. Pretty neato. --mboverload@ 23:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Added references to reliable sources - two CERT/Homeland Security advisories concerning major security defects in the product, and a MITRE list of lesser vulnerabilities. Removed "advertising" and "verify" tags. --John Nagle (talk) 06:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Good job, all. Guy (Help!) 07:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Odd AfD behavior

I created an AfD and user Roadstaa then listed several other AfDs and pointed them at my AfD. Although a couple of them I was considering listing if the first passed, I didn't want to bundle them all together. He also added the line "The AFD also comprises of ..." and listed the other articles he listed under my original AfD reason statement. Is this okay? Shouldn't the other AfD's get their own discussions? I would think if he wants them bundled then he should bundle them in his own AfD. The odd thing is that Roadstaa was the creator of most those articles he listed, so I'm wondering if either he is trying to make it seem like the debate is including more borderline cases to try to push it towards a "keep all" conclusion. Anyway, here are the related links... Discussion: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sport utility coupe. Articles: Sport utility coupe, Sport utility convertible, Sport utility truck, Sport utility sedan, Sport utility wagon. Thanks. swaq 22:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I madea a move for a procedural close there, and was the second to do so. This needs to be clsoed down and then reopened as either a bundle or in separate AfDs. ThuranX (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm working on this now. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done Closed and relisted without the other articles, left a note for User:Roadstaa. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal information troll has returned...

Ok... it was quiet for a while (a couple weeks since he last pulled this shit), but my personal information troll has returned... Superbabyleer (talk · contribs) just created an account, and has made 2 posts using my name and business phone number... I've given up on trying to hide the information, I just want this crap to stop... I got 2 "private caller" phone calls back to back just now, then suddenly the new account was created and he started editing... no help in the past to make it stop, or find out who it is that is doing it, and now it starts again... this is getting very annoying... - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the edits in question and contacted a Oversight. Tiptoety 23:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, could you check if MitchellWinery (talk · contribs) is also blocked, that was his last incarnation... - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Not blocked, the single contrib for that account is in its user space. I want to help you but can you show us any diffs to go by here? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

He's been doing this for about a month now, it started with using my real name and phone number as usernames, then came MitchellWinery (talk · contribs), which is my company... and now the most recent Superbabyleer (talk · contribs), which actually added my name and phone number to the text of pages... this latest name makes me feel that this is all the work of Learjetsuperkingairmechanic (talk · contribs) (SSP report here)... the other three usernames with my personal information have already been blocked and oversighted... - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, since there was only one contrib from almost two weeks ago (and that was a user page message which does not grow lots of trust) I've blocked MitchellWinery (talk · contribs) and will watch the talk page to see if anything shows up there. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Per CU,  Confirmed that MitchellWinery is Superbabyleer.  Possible that these are Learjetsuperkingairmechanic, but Texhausballa certainly is, and is blocked. Sam Korn 00:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Just an office note, Learjetsuperkingairmechanic was a sock himself... of 137.240.136.80 (talk · contribs)... Lear was just the last confirmed incarnation... - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hagger

Note Thatrapid contributions: Hagger moves. I have no admin/vandalism tools to revert, but I'm sure someone here can. Gwinva (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, see someone already has. Thanks. Gwinva (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I got a few of them, too. HalfShadow 23:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

user:Mozart1783

This is URGENT. Puppet of banned user is trying to organize editors to start edit warring in Balkan related articles. For more information about user:PaxEquilibrium puppets see talk page of checkuser Thatcher section harass accounts. --Rjecina (talk) 23:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Note - User:Mozart1783 is blocked indef, along with another recent sleeper sock. Kevin (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Another sock of TyrusThomas4lyf

As posted yesterday , multiply blocked user TyrusThomas4lyf is IP socking again. He's at 99.145.217.208 (talk · contribs · logs) and making the exact same edits as his previous socks, no talk page edits, no justifications, just edit warring across multiple articles to put in his POV (and false allegations of sockpuppetry ). Admin attention would be appreciated. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This user is obviously a sock of User:TyrusThomas4lyf. Please see his editing pattern and Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse for more detail.—Chris! _ct 02:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This IP sock also removed the above message to try and evade detection . Dayewalker (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

To admins: this is resolved. account was blocked—Chris! _ct 03:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Edits by owner of indefinitely blocked User:Whitenoise123

This issue was archived by the bot before it was resolved. Can the discussion in the archive be pasted here or, if not, how are prematurely archived discussions handled here? Thanks. Tennis expert (talk) 05:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Cooljuno411 and User:StealthyVlad

can someone look at these two users and tell me if this constitutes sockpuppetry? StealthyVlad's only contributions to wikipedia ever was to show support for CoolJuno's problematic edits on template:Sexual_orientation, here, and CoolJuno immediately came back to correct a signature error for StealthyVlad, here. I thought s/he could be reasoned with, but if s/he's stooping to amateur sockpuppetry then I think it may need to be handled administratively... :-( --Ludwigs2 06:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That looks pretty obvious to me, and seeing as Cooljuno411 (talk · contribs) has already been pretty disruptive I would not oppose a block. Tiptoety 06:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see the relevant section above. ThuranX (talk) 06:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess I am blind, but what thread would that be? Tiptoety 06:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

this one. there ya go. ThuranX (talk) 06:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, also I have protected the template due to WP:TE along with edit warring. Tiptoety 06:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I note that CoolJuno, after not editing for 41 minutes, fixed StealthyVlad's sig 2 minutes after he places it as his first and only edit? ThuranX (talk) 06:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Admin buddies

found this on mfd. I think admins should check it out as it seems to be a good proposal.--Lenticel 07:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the MFD will answer that. Tiptoety 07:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

lol - wait until WR gets a hold of this. Er, there is no cabal. --mboverload@ 07:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Avineshjose and inappropriate editing behaviour

User:Avineshjose has two proven cases of sockpuppetry behind him1 and 2. He has some WP:OWN and WP:COI articles which he wants to be the way they prefer. He removes tags without discussion and editwars on them. Santhosh George Kulangara (and several other articles related to the subject's business ventures like Sancharam, Labour India, Labour India Gurukulam Public School, Bluefield International Academy, etc. are his chief area of interest. See his recent editwarring and . He has a history of recreating these advertorial articles He has also accused me of vandalism for putting maintenance tags on the article owing to its being replete with nonsensical sentences as I have shown on its talk page. . I am a banned user, but those who know me know that I have weeded out much crap from WP related to Kerala. You don't need to shoot the messenger.Uzhuthiran (talk) 07:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have created many articles as you can see in my contributions. I personally feel proud of creating Government of Kerala along with many others (check my user page, it is listed all). User:Uzhuthiran accusation seems that I'm primarily interested in Labour India's promotion. It was earlier deleted and DRV'd later. About my sock cases are already discussed and I provided my rationale at my talk page. Let me come to the point that, User:Uzhuthiran is engaged in vandalizing Santhosh George Kulangara and Labour India , that are created by me. I already posted my rationale of reverting User:Uzhuthiran’s edit at article’s talk page. Additionally, please see these edits also by User:Uzhuthiran i.e 1, 2, 3, 4, 4. You could see that his edits were reverted by many users. Whenever his edits are being reverted by somebody he calls it as my sock puppets and engaged in an edit war. Santhosh George Kulangara was edited by many editors as can be seen at articles history. And he is primarily interested in targeting my edits and creating nn article's by using this sock id, as can be seen from his contributions. --Avinesh Jose  T  08:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Too many lies and too much ignorance. Nobody other than some IPs has reverted me on the page in question. The guy doesn't (or pretends not to) know that what vandalism. If anybody vandalises on that page it is User:Avineshjose. See the diff. . I would call it vandalism not because it is stupid, but since the stupid additions came due to his deliberate attempt to preserve his own preferred version. Se this nonsense his reversion has brought back. " He is also writing a book on the space voyage hoping space closer to people." With this understanding of English language coupled with unabashed eagerness to revert, it would be hardly of any use to talk sense to this user. If some admin would step in this problem user could be curbed from denigrating Misplaced Pages. With such stupid sentences in the article, should tis article shed cleanup, grammar tags to please this guy? I wouldn't care further because I know that there is a retard's part for Misplaced Pages. Uzhuthiran (talk) 13:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/75.47.143.206

Not sure if this requires any action or not but the edits of this user seem, well, confusing at best. I'm not sure if this is just a minor ripple not worthy of attention or part of some crafty way of disguising inappropriate behavior. Could an admin take a look and see if any action is required? Some of the edits are just filling in details on the templates of long banned users and others seem to be removing sock templates previously added by IPs from the same range. -- SiobhanHansa 10:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Strange edits by this guy are long-term (but probably not anything "crafty", just him having fun/being useful); Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/75.47.x.x. See also the section below. --NE2 12:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Very concerning behavior by Elkman

I am very concerned regarding Elkman (talk · contribs)'s behavior to this IP. It seems to be a clear violation of WP:NPA. Also, policy clearly allows for someone to blank their userpage. Might someone be able to intervene? Bstone (talk) 10:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The administrator in question is currently off-line, but I notice Daniel has left a note, at this stage, any further action is both un-necessary and considering the admin in question appears to be off-line, frankly impossible. If the issue remains unresolved, then reporting back here would be fine, but at the moment, reporting this administrator to ANI when they've not had the chance to respond to a couple of messages left on their talk page is rather premature. An amicable resolution might well be reached on the administrators talk page. I'm marking this resolved for the time being. Nick (talk) 11:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The IP's talk page should be unprotected. Any objections? –xeno (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur, and have just requested unprotection at WP:RPP Mayalld (talk) 12:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I undid the report because it's redundant to this thread, anyhow,  Done. No prejudice to reprotection if he begins abusing unblock templates, etc. –xeno (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Overreaction to the user described in Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/75.47.x.x. This guy is a problem but Elkman lost it. --NE2 12:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

User with a WP:OWN issue.

Ahunt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps reverting an image which I uploaded from Flickr on Commons since it's a better photo (I don't own the photo I've just been using Flickr to find better images for articles) then the one used within the article however the user keeps reverting, back to an image that they took which is a lower res and not on commons. Bidgee (talk) 12:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Bringing it here seems a tad premature, after only one comment each regarding the photograph on the article's talkpage, and no violation of WP:3RR. See how the editor responds to your reply at Talk:Embraer E-Jets first, see if you two can't work it out. Failing that, a request for comment or a request for an independent opinion from Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Aircraft might be the better bet. Hope this helps, Steve 12:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I took it here as I thought it would have turned to an edit war. Bidgee (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It takes two to have an edit war; as long as you don't participate, one shouldn't occur. It doesn't matter which image remains in the article in the meantime; no-one will come to harm should the "wrong" image be left in until this is resolved. I urge both of you to refrain from replacing the image until you can thrash this out on the talk page, or with help from independent editors from WP:AIRCRAFT. Steve 12:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

He's probably being protective because it's his own photo. How about including both of them in the article? Baseball Bugs 13:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"Disruptive" article creation?

Could someone take a look at the large number of articles created by JoeMcKim (talk · contribs) - see and click on any of the "N" articles. At last count, there are now ~75 articles consisting of nothing more than a {{MMAstatsbox}} and sometimes an infobox.

These athletes may be notable - I don't understand wrestling, so I don't know what's a professional league, etc. But mass-creating articles with only their competition stats and no further information seems to violate some combination of WP:CSD#A1 or WP:CSD#A7. Furthermore, requesting info from the user was ineffective - articles are still being created.

Should all those articles be deleted? Should the user be blocked for being disruptive? Or should the situation be left alone, with nearly a hundred vaguely useless articles sitting around? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 12:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Pro wrestling is a humbug, so whether it's "notable" or not might be debated. But I don't see how creating these articles would be disruptive. It's just information, not an attack of some kind. And you should see the zillions of articles that have started in the major league baseball realm, for example, making this pale by comparison. Meanwhile, have you asked the editor about it? Baseball Bugs 12:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

All contributions to JoeMcKim's talkpage are inbound - no responses. I think SatryTN alluded to same in the above report. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he did; I missed that part somehow. Well, nominating them for deletion might get his attention, provided that notice is also posted on his page. Baseball Bugs 13:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts is PROD the lot of them. Writing a lede sentence would be simple enough, if anyone could be bothered to do it, but a statsbox and/or infobox doesn't at all show notability. If necessary a mass AfD nom. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There was another editor creating a lot of very similar articles not so long ago, same format table, and same linking to a dab page Georgia instead of the Georgia (U.S. state). Can't remember his name offhand, will have a look at my watchlist to see if I can work out who it was. DuncanHill (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It might be best to equire to WP:MMA about this. D.M.N. (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards