Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:58, 19 September 2008

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

User:Hrafn

Request that user be asked to stop tagging articles and that an admin try and enforce this. He/she says that this is an ownership issues that I may be blocked for (), but I believe his tags are quite impartial and done not so much as to aid wikipedia as to pester me, because of our ongoing dispute resolution () and other encounters such as Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/McDonald's Menu Song. --Firefly322 (talk) 08:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• tags
• reason for tags
• third party editor reinstating tag
• personal attack calling me a "troll"

Hrafn_Stalk 08:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Firefly, as your second link shows you've started mediation as a dispute resolution, and despite requests have failed to provide diffs clarifying what your dispute is. The fact that others have problems with your woolly writing is something to resolve by improving your writing, not by flying off into disputes whenever that's pointed out. Disclaimer: I'm named in Firefly's mediation case, but lacking diffs I'm not sure why. . . dave souza, talk 09:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree, basically, with Dave s. I don't see the "issue" here. Yeah, Hrafn and Firefly disagree on some stuff. That ain't newsworthy. Nobody is trolling anybody here, based on the links provided. This is a non-issue thread, and should be closed. If Firefly has a specific issue with an editor, F-fly should bring it to that editor's attention prior to bringing it to the drama-board. Keeper ǀ 76 01:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree, essentially. The majority of this dispute seems to arise from a misunderstanding of Verifiability policy, particularly WP:BURDEN. I don't think that uncited material should be restored pending verification, and I certainly don't think an editor should be reprimanded for removing uncited material. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 22:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Catherineyronwode

The following is taken from the current version of my own AN/I proposal against hrafn, located on my own user pages.

(removed to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Hrafn by Orderinchaos 07:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC))

catherine yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

tl;dr. Take it to dispute resolution. Corvus cornix_talk 22:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

o.O I think you've mistaken ANI for requests for comment, at the least, or arbitration. Kudos for the substantial amount of evidence gathering here, but ANI's not the place for such lengthy presentations. I suggest an RFC if there's a specific issue with hrafn that needs discussion. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please remove this? Verbal chat 22:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree; it's a nightmare of comprehension and deserves dedicated attention. No way is it an "incident". Suggest at best a subpage, otherwise moving to a Request for Comment. This page is for issues that can be dealt with expeditiously. --Rodhullandemu 23:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>Okay, must i make a Request for Comments first or can this go directly to Arbitration? Please post a yes or no reply. If i must make a Request for Comments first, please tell me how to do it. If i can take this directly to Arbitration, please tell me the relevant URL. Misplaced Pages is not my social outlet; i use it as a volunteeer area to write and edit. I am not interested in bureaucracy (e.g. how this MUD is run), and although i have edited here regularly since 2006 (and since 205 as an IP), i do not know how to make headway in this twisty turny maze of similar-sounding-but-entirely-different "We Can't Help You With That Problem" pages. I request the URL of the page where there will be people whose job it is to read this complaint and see that this problem be dealt with. Thanks. cat yronwode

I believe that that is common practice except in extraordinary cases, yes. Of course, nobody has the job of dealing with user complaints, but a number of friendly volunteers may be motivated to treat with you and discuss intereditor issues at a request for comment. Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment#Request comment on users has the instructions for posting an RfC/U. The request itself should be posted to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct. Please keep in mind that all normal user conduct policies and norms apply to requests for comment, including no personal attacks and no harassment. - Eldereft (cont.) 05:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I've copied it across to RFC - it can't go straight to ArbCom until efforts have been made to resolve the matter through some form of dispute resolution. If the RFC is sufficiently decisive and no change of behaviour is noticeable, then it could go to ArbCom if need be. Catherine's welcome to edit it to get it into the right form before it is listed and goes live (also needs a second observer of the situation to certify it in order for it to be a valid RfC). I have no opinion either way on the matter, but AN/I is definitely the wrong place for it - AN/I is a high traffic area where stuff moves through in the blink of an eye, this would have simply ended up in some forgotten archive within 2 days. Orderinchaos 07:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn (talk · contribs) has now retired, according to his user page, but if someone skilled with POV battles is looking for something to consider, I'd suggest going through this case - it looks like there's a problem here, but it's awfully detailed. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Not too sure this is resolved, despite Hrafn's retirement...Isn't there a saying about dancing on graves? --Smashville 18:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a sad case where three or four, dare I say "cabal"...no better not, unrelated editors...oh wait a minute, they're not. Let me start again, there are three or four editors who think that original research is sufficient for placing their POV on articles. Typical of Misplaced Pages's broken system, instead of understanding that their edits are POV, they game the system through MEDCOM, ARBCOM, RfC, whatever else they can use, which frustrates editors. Hrafn is a great editor. He dealt with arcane subjects on this encyclopedia that we have to clean up. There was a personality clash. There was mild uncivil comments from both sides. Then the three or four editors dancing on Hrafn's grave on this ANI started wikistalking and moved into civil pushing. This is ridiculous. OrangeMarlin 18:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It's also worth noting this exchange and the CVU barnstar above it...it's a sad state of affairs when users drive off other users and then pat each other on the back for doing it. And I think WP:AGF can be ignored once a user tells another user, "I shall remember your persona-names if and when our paths cross again.". Essentially, "Look out, you've made my list." --Smashville 19:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Firstly, please note that I came into this dispute because Hrafn asked for assistance, with particular reference to a page he'd been working on when Catherine and Madman had intervened, with an open statement from her indicating that she was wikistalking Hrafn. A "real legal threat" she had not yet withdrawn had to be cleared before discussions could start. By that time she had posted links to her page which forms the basis of her report here, and which appears to be a very badly researched attack page with ludicrously inaccurate assertions that have been drawn to her attention, but which she still has not fully corrected in her posting here. Other claims are equally invalid, though I've not checked every one of them. The underlying dispute is between "anti-deletionists" who think "You are not supposed to go around deleting things just because they are not sourced. You are only supposed to delete unsourced or poorly sourced claims that you suspect of being false." and editors like Hrafn who take WP:V as having priority. In discussions the "anti-deletionists" have pointed to WP:EP (WP:IMPERFECT as a policy which appears to sanction preserving information regardless of whether or not it has a reliable source – in my opinion that policy is outdated and needs early improvement to bring it into line with core content policies and current practice. If priority is given to preserving unreferenced information, articles would never be deleted, and the instructions in WP:V about removing such information would have to be changed. That's not my understanding of the priorities of Misplaced Pages, but Catherine makes it clear that she feels that we must keep articles about non-notable organisations or individuals with only self-published sources as references, on the basis that she finds them interesting, and keep in information even if a simple check shows that it's inaccurate or unsourced. There's quite a culture clash there. . . dave souza, talk 20:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC) tweaked dave souza, talk 20:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It amazes me that this is an issue about Hrafn -- the real issue is Cat and her belief that any crap, even if not meeting RS and V, is OK because she wants it to be. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me add my name as one of the editors who are unhappy with Catherine's approach to Misplaced Pages. And what did here comment to OrangeMarlin on her talk page mean -- "I shall remember your persona-names if and when our paths cross again." An accusation of sock-puppetry or? Doug Weller (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

In a workplace, Hrafn's behavior as shown in Catherine's report with diffs would surely be a lawsuit waiting to happen. He could easily get fired for targeting a specific religious group like he did. Hrafn retired because his or her bad behavior came to light. If a couple of editors could simply say something not in WP:AGF or unWP:CIVIL or merely cleverly hidden slander to get rid of someone, then Catherine and I would already have retired ourselves considering this apparent backlash against us. --Firefly322 (talk) 23:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a workplace, and doesn't fall under laws (which are, after all, specific to localities) applicable to workplaces. Misplaced Pages is a private organization working off of private rules and regulations. Now looking over Hrafn's actions, it certainly appears that he has a partisan axe to grind - citation tagging every phrase up to and including "He lectured extensively in the 1920s and 1930s is just plain obnoxious - but losing your cool in return is unhelpful.  RGTraynor  05:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

In a workplace, deluded assertions about Hrafn's work and character could result in a libel action. For example "Here is where hrafn made the deletion and also tried to assert that Affirmations are "supplicatory" prayer, demonstrating a basic ignorance of and unfamiliarity with the subject matter:". The example is illuminating, because Catherine does not seem to have realised that Hrafn made just one edit, removing the square brackets on each side of the word Affirmation with the accurate edit summary (rm self-link). This was undoing part of the previous edit by Vernon89 which linked the title in error. Cat's statement below that revision "" is simply irrelevant – it was a new self-link and nothing more. Her statements " " and "it became a "self-link" because hrafn had redirected the Affirmative prayer page out of existance]" are untrue – the "negative word" supplicatory was added by Vernon39, and there was no link to Affirmative prayer, contrary to Cat's erroneous assertion. Assuming good faith, it appears that Cat is simply incompetent and does not realise that she is libelling Hrafn. It certainly demonstrates basic ignorance of and unfamiliarity with analysing edit histories. The other examples I've looked at are just as incompetent, in different ways. Regarding RGTraynor's very sensible point, dealing with repeated refusals to provide adequate references is trying, and without checking, the circumstances of asking for a specific detail to be referenced may have been reasonable in context. . . dave souza, talk 13:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC) grammar and formatting correction dave souza, talk 15:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) It seems clear that either Catherine is incompetent, as Dave charitably suggests, or she has embraced "Misplaced Pages is a battleground" (currently the theme on her talk page) as her method of interaction here. I suggest either mindset would be improved by a mentor. KillerChihuahua 10:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A statement from retirement

Given that I have not been allowed to retire in peace, but rather have:

1. seen no let up to the amount of false information and false charges leveled against me;
2. that without informing me, User:Catherineyronwode tacked her trumped up 'ANI Proposal' onto User:Firefly322's unrelated DOA AN/I complaint shortly before my retirement; and
3. this complaint now seems to have turned into some sort of weird undead RFC/U (which has neither been properly certified with "Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute" and listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct, nor deleted),

I have decided to make this "statement from retirement" answering these false charges and setting the record straight.

I wish to make the following points:

1. On the "War against New Thought and Christian biographies and books" Catherineyronwode
   1. Repeated information knowing it to be false
   2. Simply made up a bad-faith explanation for actions that were demonstrably made in good faith
   3. Fails to demonstrate a breach of wikipedia policy
2. On the matter of "Incivility", both Catherineyronwode, and those who assisted her in compiling this list were themselves guilty of gross incivility against myself, compared to which my own borderline incivility pales by comparison.
3. Her evidence is defective, in that it frequently lacks supporting difs, and/or relies of hearsay evidence.

I will not bore you with the details here -- these details can be found at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Hrafn#Response: a statement from retirement & User:Hrafn#A statement from retirement. Hrafn_Stalk 05:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Delighted and surprised to see your statement, Hrafn, hope you're well. The dispute clearly remains unresolved, but at 08:29, 15 September 2008, Future Perfect at Sunrise rightly deleted "Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Hrafn" as‎ (not properly certified, no evidence of dispute resolution.), not long after I'd endorsed your statement. My muddle in that I should first have provided evidence of trying to resolve the dispute, and another user have done the same.

Confusingly, the page was headed "Not yet active - have created this to move an AN/I matter to its correct location. Catherine or any other user may remove this forenote once she is satisfied with its contents." but it's correct that the 48 hour window had long passed. The page was created at 09:23, 12 September 2008 , and Users certifying the basis for this dispute was signed by Catherineyronwode (talk · contribs) at 22:03, 11 September, WAS 4.250 (talk · contribs) at 09:13, 13 September, and by Firefly322 (talk · contribs) at 10:02, 14 September. Hrafn added and endorsed his summary at 05:25, 15 September, and I added my endorsement at 08:14, 15 September, while still eating my breakfast.

Still trying to wake up, but it's time for us to put this bad dream behind us. There are important principles of WP:V underlying this dispute, and it is essential that Catherineyronwode accepts that her statements and understanding of policy are incorrect, and completely withdraws the baseless accusations against Hrafn prepared at her ANI proposal, posted here and then moved to RfC/Hrafn. I've asked her at User talk:Catherineyronwode#Retraction requested to make a statement to that effect on this page. . . dave souza, talk 09:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"Renounce your faith or meet the consequences" - I thought this was an encyclopedic colaboration, I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. (Cue: Noone expects the Spanish Inquisition!). I put it that both Hrafn and Catherine have nonstandard positions on the issue of verifiability. While Catherine clearly doesn't understand that tagging is a necessary part of the process of improvement of the encyclopedias value, Hrafn acts like an extreme deletionist hounding down unsourced sentences (also clearly and easily verifiable ones), tagging them and subsequently removing them if noone adds citations within a short time. If Hrafn had the time and energy to apply this policy consistently in the entirity of wikipedia in stead of only in his pet peeve topics about non-scientific belief systems only FA's would be left and wikipedia would be a collection of a few disconnected but very well sourced articles. Neither approach is useful if we want to build a wikipedia with both a sensible scope of coverage and a sensible degree of verifiability. And please don't use Jimmy Wales' quote about "some wikipedians have a bias ..." at least not such a time as when Mr. Wales explicitly states that this is supposed to be interpreted as "no sentence no matter how uncontroversial, pedestrian and common knowledge information it provides shall be allowed to remain on the project without a citation", which will incidentally also be the time when I leave this project - that would simply be too much of a waste of the content-adding editors' time.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Your assertion that "Hrafn acts like an extreme deletionist hounding down unsourced sentences" is contrary to my experience, and I've not seen him deleting any "pedestrian and common knowledge information" – diffs please. . . dave souza, talk 12:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" If a statement is tagged for citation and nobody provides one in a reasonable time (remembering that articles drop off the bottom of your watchlist if unedited for a month, tops), it means one of two things: (i) this statement wasn't so "clearly and easily verifiable", or (ii) that nobody's maintaining the article by actively watchlisting it. In the latter case, the question becomes is the unsourced material obvious truth or obvious-sounding but false truthiness that has somehow found its way onto the article? And how can you tell (as a reader or as an editor attempting maintenance) tell unless somebody provides a source? As for the "only FA's would be left" claim, this is ridiculous -- there are large numbers of articles on wikipedia that are fully verifiable, but do not yet meet FA standards. Hrafn_Stalk 12:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is that you confuse "verifiable" with "verified" - verifiable is when anybody can verify a statement by using a minimal effort to hunt down a reliable source. Several times I have been able to reinclude material deleted by you with a new source after few minutes of googling - this about topics that I have no level of expertise in. In this edit you remove the information stating that "wallace wattles is best known for his book he science of getting rich" which hadn't even been tagged (the tag was about whether he was wealthy in his later years). You also remove an assertion that "Much that is known about Wattles' life comes from the text of a letter his daughter Florence wrote after his death to the New Thought author Elizabeth Towne." which I was able to verify within minutes on google, and which you also yourself later admitted. You also removed two sourced statements about his involvement in politics and his influence as a inspiration for rhonda byrne. And you also remove several paragraphs that are explicitly sourced to Florence Wattles' letter (grantedly without having this sourcing in the form of a footnote). In this edit you delete and redirect a stub article about the book "the science of getting rich" - later when Catherine put up a new and much better sourced version that makes several claims to notability reverts to the redirect with no explanation - you later proceeded to tag for merge and notability in spite of there clearly being reliable third party sources about the book. Namely the sources already presented by Catherine and the sources that I could track down within a few minutes on google. While Catherine misunderstands the usefulness of tagging this aggressive deletionist behaviour by Hrafn was clearly against the wikipedia spirit as I knew it and it caused me to step in and defend these articles that I had previously had no interest in. Secondly it should be noted that the sourcing of these articles could have been carried out in good spirit if Hrafn had posted his queries for sources using words on the talkpage instead of tagging and agressively deleting the content other editors had added OR if he had taken the few minutes and checked on google whether there were in fact reliable sources for the statements. In retrospect taking that little time would have avoided this entire dispute and saved Hrafn himself and numerous other editors hours of grief, and would have been well worth the trouble. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Here we part company: I do not think that an implicit claim that 'somewhere out there some source exists that contains this information' makes it "verifiable". This would likewise seem to to go against WP:V, which explicitly clarifies verifiability as: "...that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." This would appear to indicate that 'no citation of a reliable source' = 'no ability to check' = 'no verifiability'. Your definition of 'verifiability' implicitly places the burden of evidence on the removing/challenging editor (the opposite of what WP:V explicitly states) to prove that the information is false, as it is impossible to prove that such a source doesn't exist. As to your example, the article Wallace Wattles originally explicitly attributed to his daughter's letter information that was not contained in that letter. Further, the claim "Much that is known about Wattles' life comes from the text of a letter his daughter Florence wrote..." remains pure original research, on the basis of not being able to find much information outside the letter. Whether it is true or not, it is not verifiable to a RS, so is not fit for inclusion on wikipedia. Hrafn_Stalk 13:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

When you removed this information you hadn't even read the letter (which can be found in twenty copies in a single google search) so that is a very bad excuse. And the fact stands that you removed both sourced, easily verifiable and completely uncontroversial information in one fell swoop without having ever posted on the talk page mentioning that there was a pressing lack of sources or that some particular claims were dubious. This is agressive behaviour and I completely understand that the editors who had this article on their watchlist felt it to be unwarranted.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

When I removed the information, I was not even aware that the letter had been published, nor had any real expectation that it had. Now who was the person that added an explicit citation to the letter to the article (rendering it verifiable), and actually checked the article against its contents -- proving that some of this "completely uncontroversial information" was false? Was it yourself or the "editors who had this article on their watchlist" (but failed to notice the tags there for 2-3 months, until after the information was removed)? No. It was me. Hrafn_Stalk 15:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

After looking carefully through all of the evidence and responses, I endorse Hrafn's statement above. Orderinchaos 09:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I dispute the claim made against me just above. WP:V uses the word "unverifiable" "verifiability" for the very good reason that we do not want vandals to systematically delete any and all non-sourced but able to be sourced claims. It is a shame when people can not distinguish evidence of a difference of opinion from evidence of someone else being wrong. That you disagree with me only proves that I disagree with you and is not evidence for your claim against me. Thus the above is an unsourced attack against me. It appears to be part of the human condition for people to do what they protest others doing. WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

WAS, my search doesn't find the word "unverifiable" in WP:V, but do note that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Since Hrafn indicated he did not wish discussion here, I suggest that this discussion be moved to WP:ANI#A statement from retirement. Your assent to this would be welcome. . dave souza, talk 11:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a notice, I have deleted Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Hrafn, as it was not properly certified. I haven't looked too closely at the underlying dispute, but it also appeared to me that the RfC was quite poorly presented, extremely wordy and probably to a large extent vacuous. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Fut.Perf., as I indicated above you're absolutely correct in your actions. Much appreciated. . dave souza, talk 11:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As the person who moved it from AN/I to RfC, I endorse this action - it appears to have been a laundry list of grievances and the evidence falls apart when examined. Orderinchaos 12:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Even though I have previously taken a stance against Hrafn I agree that there is probably not enough basis for an rfc or ani in the material collected by catherine - in my view this dispute has been caused by two editors who have been equally stubborn in their viewpoints and equally reluctant to use basic social skills in their communication with the other, but who have in turn continued to escalate what was not even a content dispute into what at least one of them envisions as a "wiki-war" of epic dimensions. I propose that the only sensible outcome of this spectacle would be that everyone involved take this as a chance to remember that a proper and colegial tone of communication, the assumption of good faith and staying calm under pressure may help resolve editing disputes even before they occur. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if it is the case that Hrafn is a bit quick to the gun, so to speak, w.r.t. enforcing WP:V, which appears arguable, I see little or no cause for a generalized RFC on Hrafn. I've worked in the same territory as Hrafn on intelligent design and several related articles, and encountered him on a few unrelated articles, e.g. in category:philosophy, and in that context I've found him to be a fairly "strict interpretationist", so to speak, of WP:V-- a fairly vigorous advocate of that policy. Clearly to me, he tends to be fairly intolerant of article content that he considers questionable and which is unsourced or questionably sourced. Several of his statements presented by Catherineyronwode, picked out of many thousands of Hrafn's edits, could I think quite reasonably be characterized as being somewhat impatient, and in several cases angry, with the person to whom they're directed. But overall I've most definitely found his edits to be very productive and helpful on topics where we've met. Catherineyronwode appears to me, judging by the tone of comments on her talk page and elsewhere, unnecessarily turned it into a battleground. I should hope there's a more rational and less personalized way to analyze, and if possible to work through, such disagreements about Hrafn's editing approach. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

·Maunus·ƛ·, thank you for drawing back from the stance you have previously taken against Hrafn. As I've said before, assuming good faith is essential and it is regrettable that Catherineyronwode not only failed to assume good faith, but escalated the argument into the above ANI complaint on the basis of a wildly inaccurate proposal which looks very much like an attack page and was posted here before being transferred to a now deleted RfC. She has been requested to please accept that her statements and understanding of policy are incorrect, and completely withdraw her baseless accusations against Hrafn. Your attempts to pass the onus for finding citations onto the editor deleting unsourced content run completely against WP:V, and you, Cat and Madman should be working in a collegiate way to propose and discuss suitable sources instead of going into attack mode. I remain hopeful that all concerned can study WP:NAM and work to find unsourced material and either show a source or delete such unsuitable material. . dave souza, talk 16:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I am in no way drawing back from the stance that I have had throughout this episode. I maintain that Hrafn has had a key part in creating an intolerable edit environment in the new Thought articles he has been campaigning on. I also maintain as I have throughout that the other large part of the blame falls on Catherines failure to prevent the argument from escalating. Whether Madman has an important part of the blame I will refrain from judging since I consider myself his friend and am quite possible biased in his favour - however I certainly don't believe that Hrafns counteraccusations of "gross incivility" are justified. As for my own involvement I have, contrary to what you seem to suggest, worked only on finding sources for Hrafns removed material and I have chastised both sides for their lack of civlity. I do not believe myself to have been at any point onesided in this matter although it was the excessive agressiveness in Hrafns removement of information and his responses to fellow editors that made me step into the conflict. If contrary to my belief I have been a part of the escalation of the conflict rather than its resolvement I do apologise for that, but my own involvement has not previously been the object of such accusations. As for my "attempt to pass the onus to the removing editor" this is a question of twisting words. My understanding of WP:V is that material that is likely to be challenged should be supported by reliable sources - not statements that are uncontroversial or reasonably could be expected to be uncontroversial. Nowhere does the polcit say that every statement in an article must be sourced. Nor does the policy state anything about how removal of content added in good faith should be aggresively purged from the encyclopedia instead of being amiably sourced and improved. I have my self added several megabytes of unsourced (yet completely factual and verifiable) content to wikipedia over the years - and if Hrafns understanding of WP:V is in fact the gold standard on the issue then I invite him to go through my edits and tag them for citations and delete it when I fail to provide sources within his time frame. HOwever I don't think wikipedia will be none the richer for it.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I happen to have some extra time at the moment, and took the liberty of picking a representative article in which Hrafn has been involved. Hrafn appears to me to have made between about 50 edits to the article on New thought starting 24 February 2008 up until 30 August 2008. The total number of edits to the article in that period of time was approximately 275. Here is the state of the article on 24 February 2008, immediately prior to Hrafn's first edit. Here is the state of the article as of Hrafn's last edit on 30 August 2008. And here is the state of the article on 15 September 2008. Understanding that numerous editors have been involved in this article in the interim, here is the diff between prior to when Hrafn got involved and 15 September 2008. Here are forty-some examples of Hrafn's edits to the article between 24 February 2008 and 30 August 2008. I missed a few of them when collecting them, but these are representative of the sort of edits Hrafn has made. Many of them involve standard MOS and other such issues relating to article presentation, and many of them are WP:V issues.

123456789101112131415161718192021

222324252627282930313233343536373839404142

It appears Hrafn takes a bit of a tough approach w.r.t. WP:V and WP:RS, but I don't see any edits here that deviate from explicit WP policy. WP:V clearly states "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." The section on WP:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence elaborates: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books." When someone challenges or demands a citation for content I've added, I generally take it to mean that within a reasonable time after the citation is demanded, I or another user should provide some kind of sourcing for the statement or set of statements, unless it's common everyday knowledge. I could not find anything deleted by Hrafn that I thought could reasonably be considered to be common everyday knowledge. Please correct me if I'm in error about this.

... Kenosis (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me of that article, Kenosis. I would be curious as to how unsourced material that was being edit-warred over (as was happening not-uncommonly in that article) can be "common everyday knowledge". Hrafn_Stalk 18:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's obviously not common everyday knowledge, but appears instead to be knowledge held by a community of adherents and by others who know this fairly broad tradition and its history, which needs sourcing if there's any question about the accuracy of statements made in the article. In any event, this particular article has now drawn the attention of a few more users including myself. I trust that with some patient work it will come together fairly well in due course. I would also trust you and Catherineyronwode and others involved in this, shall we say, intense debate?, or scuffle?, can somehow see your way clear to letting bygones be bygones and try to move forward to build better cited and more informative content in the topics on which you hold differing POVs from one another. Take care, OK?. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I acknowledge that Hrafn has never acted in contradiction of WP:V. I maintain however that his actions have been detrimental to building a functional encyclopedia with other editors. If my articles were being held to the same standard Hrafn proposes in his "somewhat tough approach" I would have left the project long ago. The way in which he enforces policy is unreasonable in its tenacity and agresiveness in tagging and deleting and paired with his apparently poor social skills and confrontational communication strategies would have made editing intolerable. As an aside an example of what could be considered common everyday knowledge is that "Wallace Wattles is best known for his book the Science of Getting rich", at leasy it is so uncontroversial that anyone with the will to do so could have verified it in a matter of seconds, none the less it was deleted by Hrafn along with several passages of text some of which were untagged in the first diff I provided above - which was also the edit that prompted me to step in. I have said about all that I need to say - and I understand that many of you disagree with my assession that the spirit in which WP:V is enforced is just as important as its letter. I once again urge you to look through my edit history and tag all my unsourced statements and see if it makes you feel that it makes wikipedia a better place. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree he could be more patient in awaiting sourcing. Please make no mistake about it though, I've worked on a fair number of relatively obscure topics, and quite often we see folks' personal knowledge, or what they think is knowledge, being put up on the pages. Quite frequently such contributions turn out to have been inconsistent with what the reliable sources say about the relevant facts and issues. I've done it myself more than once, added some statement that's important to the topic, where, upon checking the sources, it turned out to be a poor or even false representation of what the RSs say about the particular issue(s). And that doesn't even address the additional issues relating to arriving at some kind of consensus about which sources are reliable and how to present a NPOV for the reader in cases where the sources differ in their assertions about a given topic. So I understand what you're saying, and I believe I've already told Hrafn I think he's a bit quick to the gun at times in yanking unsourced content ... IMHO. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Let me say this: when I read every single piece of documentation listed in the Wikiquette entry, I was not at all convinced that Hrafn was a) "uncivil" enough to deserve any specific "punishment", b) nothing but a rather hard-nosed, yet committed editor, and c) a victim of a rather unceremonious drumming out of Misplaced Pages. Nothing I see above has changed that. I mean, let's be serious: there's still an editor's Talk page calling me a racist, and you guys are focussing on a widespread editor that maybe needs a tiny reminder about patience? Let's put our efforts where they belong. BMW(drive) 23:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I only have time for topical issues, and no time at all for personal insults.

I see too little discussion here of the most important portions of my objections to hrafn's editing:

• Hrafn has been grossly uncivil to many editors; this is not an issue of a dispute between the two of us alone. Of the dozen or so episodes cited, only a couple involved me.

• Hrafn has selectively targeted his pet peeve topics, Christianity and New Thought, for deletion; he does not apply the same standards of verifiability to any other portion of Wikpipedia. As a side-note, i agree with Maunus: if hrafn's hyper-verifiability standards are to be applied to all of Misplaced Pages, let us see this made official Misplaced Pages policy now. We writers need a proper understanding of current and future verifiability standards, a timeline for the retrofitting of ALL of Misplaced Pages to these new standards, and we need to see the standrads and timeline given uniform application throughout Misplaced Pages -- not just in a small religious corner of the encyclopedia where hrafn has worked. I am calling for a clarification of verification standards and a statement regarding a strict, uniform timeline of implementation.

• Hrafn has devised a singular method of deletion-by-stubbing-and-redirect -- which, as noted above, he has only applies to pages that fall into his pet peeve categories, Christianity and New Thought. If this method of "editing" (deletion) is going to be endorsed by admins (several have already endorsed it) and is going to spread throughout Misplaced Pages, we writers need a clear adminstrative and bureaucratic statement that deletion-by-stubbing-and-redirect is an acceptable policy and that it will be applied uniformly across ALL Misplaced Pages categories on a specific timeline.

I believe that deleting text in targeted religion categories under false pretences is the mark of a fanatic more bent on deletion than on improving Misplaced Pages. In the case of hrafn's cuts to the Charles Haanel article, he claimed that a citation is anonymous although the author's name appears on the cited web page and he claimed that a citation is itself unsourced although a long list of printed-book sources is given by the author on the cited web page. These are indisputable examples of unreliable editoral deletions that were made in the name of "verifiability" but which were themselves in error. By granting a biased editor leave to use unsupported and false claims as a justification for topic-driven mass, rush, and undiscussed deletions, and to support his destruction of data by claims that he is merely "enforcing verifiability" is disingenuous. He was wrong. His justifications for the cuts were in error. He should have talked to the other editors.

Several opinions of me stated above were rude and offensive, obviously intentionally so. I will not reply to the rudest ones, as they are little more than generic insults. I will respond to one charge among them, since it is the only one that deals with the issues and is not an ad hominem attack:

I am indeed supportive of full inline verifiability. I believe that lack of verifiability has been Misplaced Pages's greatest weakness since day one, and continues to be its greatest weakness at the present time. I do not, however, believe that the oft-cited statement about ripping out unsourced material is meant to be used to target topics by category. Bringing ALL of Misplaced Pages up to well-sourced standards is a barn-raising goal. It should be done incrementally, and across all topics. I support it.

Are those who support hrafn's targeted deletions in his chosen religious categories open to discussing the future course of official Misplaced Pages policy with respect to discriminatory and topic-driven application of the new inline verifiability standards? Come on, you bold and hard-nosed administrators: Let's see a timeline. When will the popular unsourced celebrity pages start to crumble under verification-deletion hyper-tagging assaults? When will all of the unsourced animal species and plant species pages be hyper-tagged for deletion? If this is the new road we are following, why is it not being applied everywhere all at once -- why only in these small religion and self-help categories?

The creation and implementation of a clearly stated timeline for verifiability compliance across ALL of Misplaced Pages is a far more important topic for discussion than "was hrafn biased or topic-driven?" or "was hrafn uncivil?" If hrafn's retirement is more than a sham, let us move on by creating an apropriate place within Misplaced Pages to discuss the issues that his campaign of mass, speedy, unconsensed, and topic-driven deletions have brought up. Name a page within Misplaced Pages, and i will be there to discuss it with anyone, even the rudest among you. But until then, i have work to do, and this is not my work.

catherine yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 05:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think it is only being done in certain subjects (and why shouldn't an editor concentrate on subjects they are interested in?) I certainly do it in other subjects. Othercrapexists is a terrible argument. Why do you ask why it's not being applied everywhere all at once when you think it should be done incrementally? And if it needs to be done incrementally, shouldn't you start with areas you are interested in? So long as you are writing edits like "64.142.90.33 (Talk) (1,822 bytes) (it's easy to add sources. Why not do it, hrafn, instead of playing the lousy, stinking game of hostile cite-tagging? Huh? Cmon, it's fun to imrove Misplaced Pages.)", which I believe is you not logged in, right? please don't talk about other rude editors if you want to have any credibility. Doug Weller (talk) 07:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS appears apposite. . dave souza, talk 08:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"When will the popular unsourced celebrity pages start to crumble under verification-deletion hyper-tagging assaults?" With an infrequent eye to the AfD queue, I'd say celebrity/pop culture actually fits the bill of almost half of the stuff which goes there and gets deleted. Orderinchaos 08:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Catherineyronwode, you are being grossly uncivil to Hrafn, repeatedly failing to assume good faith and instead laying out your fantasy about his motivation and alleged methods, once again failing to provide any diffs to support your argument. Any editor can choose which articles they want to work on, and people inevitably work on related articles. That's normal. Regarding the Charles Haanel article, you're still trying to give credibility to the cited web page even though it's been pointed out to you that it's a commercial advertising page, and hence not a reliable source. "Stubbing and redirect" is not deletion – it leaves the article history available for the original author to find good sources and reinstate the article, as the original editor understood in one of the cases you raised. As you will note, another editor has done just that. That's part of the normal Misplaced Pages process which you don't seem to understand. I am glad that you support verification, but your proposals to introduce new timelines for compliance go directly against WP:V policy and attacking Hrafn is not the way to make such proposals. You concluded "until then, i have work to do, and this is not my work", so why not withdraw your accusations unreservedly and put this argument to rest? . dave souza, talk 08:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking this probably needs to be moved to an RfC as Cat and Firefly seem to have no desire to drop the matter. --Smashville 14:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

A properly presented RfC would have to be prepared, and if it's about user conduct, "Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours." I've made considerable efforts to resolve the dispute and wish to see it ended with no slur on Hrafn's character and acceptance that his actions were correct, but so far have failed to achieve such resolution. Hrafn has retired and does not have email enabled, though he has made some statements from retirement. . dave souza, talk 15:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I attempted to discuss with Firefly, but he merely called me immature and refused to discuss the matter, responding to my request to provide diffs by telling me to provide diffs. Apparently because I was the only one engaging him on his talk page, he found it immature...If anyone else wants to try to give it a go and maybe this won't have to reach an RfC point...--Smashville 16:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Hrafn has enabled his email, so I've sent a request for him to discuss this situation with me. Both Firefly322 and Catherineyronwode have clearly been disruptive in their refusal to accept and work within policy regarding removal of inadequately sourced material, and in Catherine's case by failing to assume good faith, instead Wikistalking Hrafn to press her tendentious ideas about preserving material contrary to WP:V, and making personal attacks on his motives and integrity. Her response above at least shows acceptance of the need for verification, but her ideas of new requirements for a timeline for verifiability look a complete non-starter to me. She is of course welcome to raise her ideas on the policy talk page or at the village pump. Firefly seems to me to be a minor nuisance, and less of an issue. It could help to resolve this dispute if other admins could contact Catherine to advise her that her allegations have no credence, and that she must comply with policies when editing here. Of course if anyone wants to discuss interpretation of policies with me I'll be glad to assist, and none of the above reduces the need for everyone to behave in a civil and collegiate way. If these principles are made clear I'm sure that this dispute would be resolved. . dave souza, talk 21:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we just drop this matter?

Let's all agree to disagree and go about building a better encyclopedia. There's really nothing to be gained by re-hashing the matter. When Hrafn returns and if he resumes his former editing style and targets, then we all can re-open this, but to my mind the matter is moot. Move along folks, there's nothing to see here.  : ) Thanks in advance, Madman (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

See, that's why it can't be dropped. You try to say "let's move along", but then you throw in a little uncivil comment about his editing style. So far, about 3 people agree with you. Nearly everyone else, thinks this is just an attack. So, it continues. But thanks for the diff for future purposes. OrangeMarlin 21:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with OrangeMarlin (I rarely do). After reading the diffs and threads presented, I feel that Hrafn has been blasted with attacks from many fronts in order to "get rid of him". Shameful really. After a close look at the the contributions of Hrafn, I would be very hard pressed to offer or endorse any "sanctions" against him/her, and moreso, I would be supportive of sanctions against those that feel that chasing another collaborative editor away is a "good thing to do". Hrafn has done nothing, in my evaluation, other than promote an NPOV, encyclopedic, wikipedia. He is being attacked by POV pushers, and it would be an utter shame if they "win" and he retires. Keeper ǀ 76 23:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No one engaged in this dispute has stated that chasing another editor away is a good thing to do. Hrafn decided himself to "retire" in the middle of a dispute, regarding his behaviour. I find it highly improper to try to use his supposed retirement as an argument since everyone can pull such a stunt to gain immediate sympathy.·Maunus·ƛ· 05:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Catherine proposed reprimands and draconian restrictions on Hrafn's editing, with a conclusion that if he persisted in editing in accordance with policy, she "would like to see him blocked" from the areas that interest her. Looks like chasing another editor away, as far as I'm concerned. Too many valued editors have given up due to the stress created by civil POV pushing, and it's all too likely that Hrafn is suffering from that stress. Your cynical failure to assume good faith is very disappointing. Whether Hrafn has been driven away or not, both Catherine and myself consider that there is an important underlying principle that must be resolved. . . dave souza, talk 17:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not say that I believed Hrafn to have retired in order to gain sympathy - but that retirement shouldn't be used as an argument because it can be used by anyone to gain sympathy. Using the fact that he has retired or threatened with retiring as an argument to show how evil his accusers are only promotes melodrama, but says nothing about the important underlying principles. I can't say your failure to assume good faith before you accuse me of not assuming good faith shocks me, but really you should try to read the words I write instead of those you believe I write, that eases communication.·Maunus·ƛ· 05:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, how about a cooling off period of, say, 1 week? Certainly we could all agree on that. Madman (talk) 02:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Or, how about "... cooling off -- period."

AFAICT, no rules have been unambiguously broken by anyone here. If anything is plain to me personally here, it's that WP imitates life in some visible ways (maybe life in a high-school cafeteria at times, but life nonetheless-- if y'all will pardon my brief little outburst here). For those of us who care more about the broader objective of continuing to write and edit interactively and encyclopedically about topics of their respective interest than we do about interpersonal disagreement, I humbly suggest that we'all continue to try to follow the rules and try to continue to write and edit, both encyclopedically and interactively, applying to the best possible extent WP's content policies. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with OrangeMarlin on this occasion, something I almost never do. My own investigation of the situation seems to bear out very much what Keeper is saying above. Orderinchaos 05:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

<proposal> Firstly, my belief is that Catherineyronwode's been acting in good faith, and her reluctance to completely back down is understandable, but she brought this dispute to ANI and several experienced editors including admins, having looked at her case in detail, have dismissed it. Keeper76 sums up the situation very well in the post at 23:03, 16 September, and note particularly that while Catherine has no good case to take to RfC, sanctions could be pursued against her and her allies. Her "Desired outcome", which appears to be designed to drive Hrafn away, proposed severe restrictions on Hrafn's editing, and a conclusion that if Hrafn persisted in his entirely proper work of removing inadequately sourced information, she "would like to see him blocked from editing any pages that fall in the New Thought or Religion categories, and possibly other religion-versus-science categories as well." These draconian proposals are completely unacceptable, as is her failure to assume good faith, leading to Wikistalking, personal attacks on his motives and integrity, and poisoning the well demonstrated on article talk pages such asthis example. Such harassment has to stop. However, I've no wish to inhibit her constructive editing, and will welcome her continued involvement in these areas on the basis that in practice she has to accept policies as they are, and if Hrafn or any other editor properly deletes unsupported information or tags inadequately referenced articles for deletion, she is welcome to discuss it courteously, and do her best to find reliable third-party sources which can be agreed as supporting the section or article. I've suggested to Hrafn that on this basis I'd be content to see the case closed, subject to sanctions being pursued if this was treated as a "truce" and hostilities revived as Madman's comments seem to threaten. Hrafn has not yet responded to my email showing him a draft of this proposal, but in my opinion it should be satisfactory if this is taken as resolving the dispute unless Catherine objects. . . dave souza, talk 17:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I really must object to the characterisation of my posting as a "threat" (you) or as "uncivil" (OrangeMarlin). I simply suggested that this matter -- the matter regarding Hrafn's editing style -- should be dropped because it's a moot point. And then I said that we can all discuss it again if it ever becomes unmoot -- "When Hrafn returns and if he resumes his former editing style and targets, then we all can re-open this".

Jeez, guys, ease up here. Madman (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we please all AGF and consider this resolved? Unless, as dave says, CY objects. But other than that hopefully unlikely possibility, I'm sure we all have better things to do and I suspect the heat that has been generated has been accompanied by some misunderstandings. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

We've well established that if Hrafn returns and resumes his former editing style in the same subject areas, he will be working in proper accordance with policy. Discussing that again seems completely unnecessary to me, though I'm willing to accept that it wasn't intended as a threat. Of course incivility on the part of any of those involved in this case can be taken up on talk pages and, if unresolved, dealt with through normal dispute resolution processes. Hope that clarifies things. . dave souza, talk 19:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Are y'all still accepting endorsements? Hrafn scares me. He's smart, knows wikipedia and it's policies, his grasp of the creation-evolution controversy sources is impressive. And he's abrupt, abrasive, borderline rude in many cases, but in the many occasions I have had to work with and disagree with him, I've never seen anything that mentally flagged him as one of those editors to end up blocked. For wikipedia to lose him as an editor because of another editor who apparently can't be bothered to familiarize themselves with the basic policies and instructions is pretty shitty in my mind. I'm going to go beg Hrafn to come back now. Good editors who source, make MOS changes, and are willing to work long and hard in difficult areas should be supported. Bad editors should learn the policies, or leave. Why is it the reverse? WLU (t) (c) 13:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sad outcome

This statement indicates clearly that Hrafn has retired, and gives very good reasons for doing so. Sadly, civil POV pushing is very effective at driving away good editors working in difficult areas. Hrafn gives some suggestions for ways to improve dealing with the huge amount of articles and material lacking reliable sources or confirmation of notability. This place is addictive enough that he may return a bit eventually, but recent trends towards valuing perceived civility over good quality article content and power struggles coordinated on other sites make it more likely that there will be more instances of good editors leaving, in my opinion. A sad day. . . dave souza, talk 15:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been following this, but I think that the civility policies on this site should be more or less viewed as fouls are in basketball. I mean yeah, people here obviously employ the civility policies tactically, like a coach will ask a less capable but still effective defensive guard to try to draw personal fouls from better players on the opposing team in order to gradually shut down their offensive weapons, but the response when fouls are called should not be to complain to the refs about it, which in basketball would immediately lead to more penalties being called on the offending player, but to step your game up... and also employ civility rules tactically. The civility rules are part of the editing environment here, and can be applied by any side in a conflict. If someone leaves on account of civility violations, yeah you can say whoever took their fouls advanced their POV position, but that's a part of the game. Don't hate the player. Amerique 16:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion the problem isn't the pov pushers, who will always be with us, but arbcom decisions that appear to put civility to pov pushers at a higher premium than improving article content. It's a complex problem, and undoubtedly there is a wide spectrum of views on this difficult issue. . dave souza, talk 17:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

That statement says that he thinks Misplaced Pages would be improved by creating a bot that automatically tags and deletes articles just because the bot does not see sources and no one has it on a list that they monitor. People like that need to create another site and import the best 10% of Misplaced Pages. This is an encyclopedia in the process of being built. How can you build this encyclopedia if you do such things? Stuff is added by unpaid volunteers. It is so much easier to destroy than to build. Adding sources was not even done at all in the early years. How about a bot that searches for a lack of cites and searches the web and automatically adds sites that are highly probable to be good sources for claims in the article? It would be better to mindlessly add than to mindlessly delete. But how about if we act thoughtful, caring, and careful instead? WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm imagining it, there used to be a tool that listed non-stub articles with no references and less than two external links. It was really useful, because practically every article it picked up you could do something with - either improve it, or delete it :) Though it'll probably need tweaking now, because a lot of the automatically generated articles on localities and various scientific areas have only one reference. Black Kite 16:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Such a bot would have to be subject to significant human intervention to avoid problems, but the quality of the encyclopedia could be improved by a way of flagging up articles for attention then, after a suitable interval, deleting articles if no-one could be bothered with finding references. Similarly, if there's one source it could be listed for improvement, but would be a lesser priority for deletion. . . dave souza, talk 17:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts, one option might be a bot that tagged articles as being in line for deletion, then after a few weeks automatically prodded the article for deletion if no references had been added. That way the decision on deletion would remain under control of an admin with a responsibility to be reasonable. . dave souza, talk 17:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC) – checks source, indeed that's what Hrafn has proposed. Not so daft. . dave souza, talk 19:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I could buy into a project that called for all articles to have at least one source within say three years. Anything that sets too ambitious a goal will be responded to with people adding poor sources that are easy to find rather than well thought out sources. For example, all the unsourced math articles could be sourced with university text book cites that do not include a page number. The key is that deleting claims needs to be a thoughtful process and not a mechanical one. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The deletionists would think they had died and gone to wikipedia heaven. Baseball Bugs 18:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

As rather a keepist, I still fully respect WP:V and regard a request for citations or a deletion discussion as a wake-up call to hunt for sources, even if it's an article I've only just come across. The greater problem is articles for which reliable sources can't be found, which exist purely as a way of giving publicity to the self-publications of people or organisations that no-one else finds notable. If those few editors dedicated enough to tackle this problem keep being driven off, as happened to Hrafn, this project will increasingly boast an unrivalled collection of cruft in complete defiance of policies. Our choice, I guess. . dave souza, talk 19:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• I read as much of Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Cultural Struggle, the Weapon of Effacement, and a Theory of Hierarchic Wikis as I could (in about three bites, since it violates WP:TLDR). It seems to me that there are two supposed problems in evidence. Problem A is proponents of fringe subjects complaining that their subjects are always measured against mainstream rationalist objectivist criteria. Problem B is that they keep arguing this endlessly however often they are told that what they want violates core policy (WP:NPOV); in some cases they try to change core policy to allow what they want, but usually they simply keep on and on and on and on and on and on and on about it until somebody snaps. So, when are we going to do something about the real problem here which is civil POV-pushing and the practical impossibility of getting obsessives to STFU? Guy (Help!) 19:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Guy, we've gone in the opposite direction. The exemplary lesson has been set that admins can be desysopped for blocking voluble pov-pushers if the admin has edited in the same area, as the pov pusher might conceivably turn into a good editor. Increasingly, we just have to be patient with these pov pushers and it's a question of who's more persistent. . . dave souza, talk 20:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm guardedly hopeful that the Misplaced Pages:General sanctions remedies will help. Tom Harrison 21:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

When dealing with POV pushers, I would counter with short but aggressive editing moves, coupled with voluminous but civil talk page arguments of my own, and basically, if I wanted to, try to draw them into committing civility violations in counteracting me, but i haven't had time for this recently. Amerique 21:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

That could be a fair description of what happened here over quite a long period. Cat then made a legal threat and quickly followed that by announcing a subpage with an ANI proposal she'd been preparing. An experienced mediator disagreed with my proposal that it should be deleted as an attack page and agreed with Cat that it was a suitable issue for ANI. In my opinion the statement she posted here is indeed a civility violation, but for whatever reason Hrafn announced his retirement about the time that it was posted. Could be the build up of stress, but I'm not in a position to know. Not everyone can cope with the method you suggest. . dave souza, talk 21:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

On review, it's worth clarifying that the process occurred, but in my opinion Hrafn wasn't trying to draw them into civility violations, and indeed was having difficulty in remaining polite himself. There was also incivility from Cat, and instances of pots calling kettles black. And indeed doing that deliberately would amount to baiting, and in my opinion would be rather incivil. If anything, it would seem that Hrafn was rising to the bait of continued pestering. . dave souza, talk 23:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

From someone who was indef blocked (then unblocked) for using language that would make your hair curl, I don't agree that drawing someone into committing civility violations is the right way to go about it. Are there not rules against that? Anyway, after reading this thread, I don't envy any of you in trying to sort this out. Who would want to be an admin! not me, I'll just dawdle along as I am. Jack forbes (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I can sympathize. I can't edit Misplaced Pages and have time to engage civil POV pushers myself, so for me it's a trade off. Do I want to get into a low intensity but protracted, long-term conflict with some nut in project-space areas or do i just want to edit the encyclopedia in relative peace? It is a question of who is more persistent, and more able to use rhetoric for their own purposes or against another person, a la Mark Antony in Julius Caesar, but still, if you have to, voluntarily or involuntarily, step aside from a conflict as a result of having shown anger or incivility, the tactics have worked. this is a consequence of how any rules-bound group activity is. Amerique 23:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• "... were themselves guilty of gross incivility against myself, compared to which my own borderline incivility pales by comparison." the comparison of incivility is a fruitless task--every one thinks what they did was justified by what came before, and the cycle of retaliation continues. Among the wisest Misplaced Pages rules is the one in NPA that previous incivility is no excuse. If anything, the longer one is here and the better editor one is, the less one should need to resort to abuse in order to make a proper point. As for requiring sources, this can be done disruptively or non-disruptively. Targeting bad articles is one thing, targeting articles on a subject is another, and can look very much like trying to destroy the articles about things and groups one does not like. Extensive negative work, though justifiable in each individual instance, can still be disruptive. DGG (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Appearances can be deceptive. Everyone works in subject areas, and links mean that one article leads to another. An interlinked tangle of articles with no reliable sources and no evidence of notability of the fringe subjects is a proper subject for clean-up by a conscientious editor. As for targeting, it should be noted that Cat openly Wikistalked Hrafn to an article which he had previously worked on, made allegations about him, added unsourced material and edit warred about it. Pretty disruptive. . . dave souza, talk 23:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried to word it so I would not specifically be defending her. I am aware of the stuff above. But even someone who acts like that at times can get something right. DGG (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it time, Dave, to just quiet down about Cat? It's not becoming to an admin to be beating the drum against her on a daily basis. Madman (talk) 04:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• A further selection of Dave souza's negative comments on Catherineyronwode can be found further down this page . Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything further to be said, Malcolm, so let's just let this and the other thread go. Madman (talk)

User:Pigsonthewing blocked for edit-warring personal attacks.

Those of you with long memories will remember this user, who has twice been banned by the Arbitration Committee for a year at a time. This user has just come off his second year long ban, and has gotten back into one of his old, bad, habits, which is edit-warring a section on his user page accusing another user of being a stalker. He refused to stop edit-warring that section in, despite a consensus on ANI at the time (see User_talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive_13#Your_.22stalker.22_paragraph_on_your_userpage and sections below that for his intransigence on the issue). He's now returned from his second ArbCom ban, and is edit-warring again. I have blocked him 24 hours for it. I am bringing up this fairly uncontroversial issue because another administrator, User:Neil, who probably wasn't aware of the previous discussion (I'm trying to find the diff of the ANI discussion for it), and wasn't sure that it was controversial. SirFozzie (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive263#User:Pigsonthewing Is the previous discussion on this. SirFozzie (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, so soon? That's too bad. You made the right call here. Shereth 23:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This is in my view a deplorable block and a deplorable block report, a completely wretched administrative action.

Sir Fozzle has provoked an edit war with a user with whom per Archive263#User:Pigsonthewing he has been in dispute with in the past; he hasn't just stumbled upon it, he has been the knowing precipitator of it.

Sir Fozzle knew at the time of his intervention that Neal had already started to talk to Andy in a respectful rather than an imperative tone about the notice but appears to think his own warn, war & ban approach superior.

The notice itself is entirely composed of Leonig's words. It is entirely possible to read it as a statement of facts and not as an attack. If we assume good faith, we must accept that it is not a categorical conclusion that it is an attack, and we should therefore tread with a care entirely lacking in the implementation of this block. We may nevertheless deplore the notice. But we have not been stalked by Leonig and we are in a different headspace entirely.

The block is entirely partisan, precipitate, arrogant, ill-considered and petty. It is absolutely the single least likely means of effecting change in the situation. It is the single most likely means of ensuring this whole notice thing will continue to rumble on with the same pattern of escalation. A completely counterproductive move which once more is most likely to lose us once more the services of an very good & productive editor.

I'm sorry. My view is that this block is both dim witted and abusive, and the block report entirely disingenuous. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You can lay off the personal slander for starters, Tagishsimon. It doesn't further your case or cause. After reviewing the block and the prior actions of Pigsonthewing, I am endorsing the block. seicer | talk | contribs 01:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

As you well know, Tagishsimon, there was a consensus already that the section was a personal attack. You yourself participated in that discussion (linked above). You may not agree with it, I understand, but consensus backs me in this issue. SirFozzie (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

To clear one thing up, I have "known" Andy since prior to his first block, and was fully aware of the circumstances surrounding the issues he has/had with Leonig Mig. I don't think this block was particularly appropriate, as I had already begun to engage with Andy over his voluntarily removing it. SirFozzie was aware of this, and perhaps talking to me first rather than edit warring over the section and blocking Andy might have been a better route to go down. Andy is a difficult character at times, prone to "I know best" - a trait he shares with many admins! - but responds far better to polite requests as opposed to orders. If this ends up with Andy/Pigsonthewing being indef blocked after he responds badly to this baiting, I will be very disappointed but not suprised. Neıl ☄ 06:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, wouldn't it have been better to protect his userpage rather than block him? Most of his editing is fine, and protecting the userpage would have allowed that to continue. Seriously, if a year's block didn't dissuade him from adding the section, what difference is 24 hours more going to make? Neıl ☄ 06:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That was actually tried last time. He started adding it to his user talk page instead. SirFozzie (talk) 07:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• This is a clear case of a vendetta being carried on beyond all sense, since Mig has not edited more than very occasionally all year. Pigs knows this is a problem, and his edit summary accusing others of vandalism for reverting it is unacceptable. If this ends up with him being blocked, then I won't be especially disappointed; if I can learn to walk away from those who bait me then so can he, especially when they do not seem to be active. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support block (of any length) - the stalking note is a reference to events in July 2005 which have been hashed and rehashed dozens of times. 3 years have passed - let us move on. Occuli (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In a clear case of Back to the Future, he is now again adding it to his user talk page (because that is the only page he is able to edit while blocked). The next time he adds the section, to ANY page, I will block him indefinitely, until such time as he agrees to not add that section anywhere. SirFozzie (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The guy twice gets blocked for a full year, waits for his sentence to expire, and starts in again, and gets blocked again? Is there an anti-barnstar for ultra-patient vandals? Baseball Bugs 12:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support blocking at admin discretion. I remember all the previous history of this debate, and in my opinion (as admin and bureaucrat of another wiki with over 3 years' experience) this kind of thing is ultimately detrimental to the project. As the history shows, Pigsonthewing has continued to disregard the Misplaced Pages way of doing things, and has no problem using inflammatory language and personal attacks when it suits him despite his vociferous protestations about others doing the same. Codeine (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In short, he did it twice more, and in response I have blocked him indefinitely, and protected his user talk page for 48 hours due to disruption. When it expires, if he wants to be unblocked, all he has to do is state that he will cease and desist from adding attacks on another user, and drop the grudges. SirFozzie (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but you need to step back and let another admin handle this. You are very clearly involved in this based on the previous discussions, and it seems like you're just looking for an ax to grind with him. I'm by no means Andy's biggest fan (and in the past I've railed against him for his attitude and the actions he takes), but it would be more appropriate to let someone fresh deal with it (such as Neil). —Locke Cole • t • c 01:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Community ban time?

The block log is deplorable, has waited a year to continue the same grudge, has twice been banned by arbcom for a year in seperate cases. Do we need him here anymore? Viridae 13:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• No, we don't, as I learnt from Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2. The problem isn't Andy's encyclopedia-editing skills, it's the fact that he cannot cope with people disagreeing with him. When they do, he flames them, which he's been doing both here and, I believe, on Usenet, for a very long time. Two arbcom bans? And still more drama? Forget it, we don't need this guy. Moreschi (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Agreed, he's here to war with the community, not to write an encyclopedia. It amazes me that he comes of a ban and continues his ways. –Juliancolton 13:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• As Moreschi says, his encyclopaedia-writing skills are actually quite good. There are not many editors who have gone through two year-long bans and returned, still committed to writing an encyclopaedia. For that reason I think it is worth trying to talk to him; if talking him round proves impossible, it may still be possible to work something out. Therefore oppose for the time being. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • People have been trying to talk to Andy for years. They've failed. He cannot get along with people who even mildly disagree with him, and we will not change him. He's too stubborn, as the fact that's returned after two AC bans shows. Moreschi (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• This sort of attitude is not appropriate, no matter how otherwise excellent the other contributions might be. Not getting the hint after two year-long bans pretty much garantees that the point won't be gotten, ever. — Coren  14:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Normally I would say this is being too quick to jump the gun, but given the unrepentant interest in continuing to hold a grudge long after the fact, I am forced to come to a different conclusion. The fact that after a year's ban he wastes no time in continuing with the vendetta, edit-warring over it, and going so far as to perpetuate the problem on his talk page after he was issued a block indicates that Andy has no interest in standing down, and that no amount of blocking or admonishing will get him to stop. Unfortunately I have to agree that a community ban may indeed be in order. Shereth 15:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• I think this is probably a case of Misplaced Pages is not therapy. Everything that can be tried, has been - he and Misplaced Pages just aren't a good fit. Shell 16:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Concur. I wish Potw well in his endeavors - elsewhere. KillerChihuahua 16:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• As noted, he's been through two year long bans, if Neil wants to try and work with him, I believe he should be allowed to do so. But not with SirFozzie edit warring and blocking him... —Locke Cole • t • c 01:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, if he hasn't given in cross two year long bans, he's not going to, period. The consensus here shows that I was right to act as I have. Also, before you posted, I unprotected his page and offered to unblock him if he will agree not to post that section anymore. I have the feeling, he will just seize the chance to insert the section once more. It's worth a shot at extending the olive branch at least once more.. SirFozzie (talk) 03:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
    • You should unblock entirely and defer to an uninvolved admin. Looking at the edit history of his userpage makes it clear that this is something you're too close to be objective with. I won't touch the comment about consensus, since there's really only a handful of people involved in this discussion (certainly not a quorum for an indef ban). —Locke Cole • t • c 03:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Nonsense. PigsAndy's got so many admins on the 'prior conflicts' list that your suggestion is not that feasible. Either we get a new, uninvolved admin to review PigsAndy's history every time, costing any admin sucker enough to try it so much of their volunteer time that PigsAndy can claim stale report by the time adjudication arrives, or we rely on the numerous editors and admins who've been through all this and know the situation to deal with it. And PigsAndy will use up all the uninvolved admins fast if you insist on that approach, leaving us with no one to adjudicate, because everyone will be 'contaiminated'. I hate that idiotic meme that everyone here deserves a totally neutral viewpoint which can only be found in those who don't know the situation, it's naive in the extreme. Ban PigsAndy now. ThuranX (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Sicne he objects to being called by the name he set himself up with, I've struck the nickname, but that all the more shows what kind of editor and person he is. He sets up an obvious, non-insulting shortening of his own username, then objects, claiming it's so insulting. He surely knew it to begin with, so he shouldn't complain, but has. so whatever. ThuranX (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Fantastic, could you please make your comments without resorting to personal attacks ("Pigs") next time? It'll make it easier to take you seriously. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
          • That's part of the name he chose. Baseball Bugs 06:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
            • And anyone looking at anything he's written in talk space sees he signs his name as "Andy", not "Pigs". —Locke Cole • t • c 07:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
              • If he has an issue with his user ID being shortened to "Pigs", then he can bring it to someone's attention. Calling someone by a short version of their chosen user ID is not a personal attack, nor does he need someone playing "nanny" for him. If he has an issue with it, he can post it on his talk page, and I don't see anything there about that. Baseball Bugs 08:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
              • Locke it is part of his username, and therefore not a personal attack. If he wishes to be called something else, I'm sure he can let it be known. Ignore that - he does object to the use of that shortening (though why I'm not sure) See the first arb case. Viridae 11:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
                • Yes, he logged an objection. But by choosing such a name, he sets himself up for it. Baseball Bugs 13:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
                  • I struck it out. Locke cole should be checkusered as a sock. Such a bizarrely trivial point becomes the means to dismiss my entire comment in the same trolling style ANDY, aka Pigsonthewing, is known for. It is clear to me that he couldn't debate my point on the facts, so sought to discredit via trvial distractions. ThuranX (talk) 04:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
                    • WP:RFCU is that way ←. And I'm sorry, but I take personal attacks seriously, as does the rest of the wiki last time I checked. Don't do that again. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• If Andy is to stay around, something's got to change, and given that two ArbCom bans don't seem to have changed anything, I've no idea what would cause the needed change. I don't like getting rid of productive editors, mind you, so if we can think of another solution, we should, but I have no good ideas. Mentorship is the closest I can come up with, but I struggle to believe Andy would accept the idea in the first place and, even if he did, heed his mentor's warnings. So basically you've got me. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Mentorship seems reasonable, but indef blocking and edit warring with him (by someone who was previously involved prior to his last ban) is hardly the way to start. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• My first thought was that maybe he was some high school kid. But he claims to be a professional writer. How about blocking him for another year and see if he improves a year from now. If not, block him again for another year. Even the most stubborn mule (or pig) has a chance of getting the hint eventually. Baseball Bugs 06:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• OK, I should start here by declaring that I have "known" Andy for rather more years than most people here. It must be about 10 years ago that we were both usenet regulars. As such, I suppose that I have had longer than most to understand how Andy ticks! I've also had the experience of meeting him once in person (in a pub in Birmingham). I've had just about no contact with him since we both drifted away from usenet, and by the time I started editing Misplaced Pages in earnest, Andy was already in the throes of Arbcom troubles. So, whilst we are by no means hand-in-glove, I believe that I can understand better than most where the issues are, and I'm happy to volunteer to mentor Andy (if he'll have me). I would oppose a community ban at the present time. Mayalld (talk) 07:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • What is your honest opinion on the likelyhood of him serious changing his ways? Viridae 07:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
    • My honest opinion is that it is very easy to not see the wood for the trees, and to get into a bunker mentality (I've done so on usenet in the past), and to get into a self-destructive loop over it. It is bloody hard to break that loop, but it invariably involves somebody that isn't part of "the opposition" saying something. I can't guarantee to work miracles, but if I'm prepared to put the effort in, I hope the community will support me by backing my efforts to get Andy back where he should be, adding content. Mayalld (talk) 08:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Well my suggestion is that you start talking to him before he digs the hole any deeper. Getting to honestly admit he has done the wrong thing and to give an assurance that he will drop the grudge would be a start. Viridae 11:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
        • I fired off an e-mail to hikm at the same time as I made my original offer. Let us see what transpires Mayalld (talk) 12:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• I would oppose a community ban on the basis that he is a good faith user, and the broad majority of his editing improves the encyclopaedia. This was not the case at the time of his last ArbCom one-year ban, but is now. The latest matter relates to a three-year-old dispute with a single user, and very little seems to be being done in furtherance of it outside the user's own userspace. I think someone like Mayalld may be able to help here. Orderinchaos 07:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• I oppose a ban at this time. It seems to me that anyone in his position would look at this discussion and be nervous enough to cease the problematic editing. Granted, he might be exceptionally stubborn, but I'd rather treat this as a warning. He's a productive, good faith editor, and coming back to us after two year-long bans demonstrates remarkable dedication. I don't think what we've seen so far is severe enough to outweigh all that. Everyking (talk) 07:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • What it demonstrates is stubbornness to an obsessive degree. But if it's just one particular user he has a problem with, maybe a compromise could be worked out to somehow keep them away from each other - to not edit the same articles, for example. That's called a "topic ban", and he could edit other topics freely. Baseball Bugs 08:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I am trying to engage with Andy (see his User talk:Pigsonthewing on the matter) - he has shown a willingness to listen to me in the past (nb - just changed my username from Neil!). I would like to try and see if I can bring about a change in his unfortunate proclivity for picking at old, old feuds through discussion, as he is an excellent contributor for the most part (including being the founder of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Microformats). I would prefer not to see any community block enacted until I have had a chance to try and bring about an amicable solution. Thanks. fish&karate 11:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  Also, please do not refer to him as "Pigs". He - understandably - doesn't like it, and some of you may not be aware this was actually a point of contention in his original Arbcom case (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing#Use of the epithet "Pigs".) fish&karate 11:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  OK, slightly off-topic, but... why does he keep using the name "Pigsonthewing" if he always just signs as "Andy Mabbett" and hates the fact that people abbreviate his username to "Pigs"? Surely a name change would fix that problem and alleviate the frequent confusion about his name. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  Perhaps it would, and I will suggest that to Andy, but we cannot force a user to change their name if it meets our current guidelines. fish&karate 12:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  If he continues to use that name, he has little room for complaint if someone abbreviates it. Baseball Bugs 13:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  No, but now you at least, Baseball Bugs, are clearly aware it's upsetting; if you use it again, I'll consider it deliberate baiting. fish&karate 13:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  If you look closely, you'll see that I haven't called him anything yet. If I were to call him anything, it would probably be "Mabbett", since I don't know him well enough to call him by his first name. And here's a guy who's had a lengthy history of being belligerent, with incredibly long blocks, and you're worried about upsetting him? Why? Are you afraid he's going to get madder? Why are you still messing with this character? Ban him and be done with it. Baseball Bugs 13:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  Besides, its only polite... SirFozzie (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  Me, I am a Pink Floyd fan. Pigs (Three Different Ones) is a track on Animals (album), and they include references to "Pigs on the Wing" elsewhere I think. The lyrics to "Pigs on the wing" start Big man, pig man, ha ha, charade you are. Anyone who doesn't want to get caught up in that baggage has chosen the wrong username! Guy (Help!) 13:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

  Love Animals! Though The Wall and Wish you were here bump it out of booth first and second place. Viridae 13:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support ban – there is User_talk:Pigsonthewing#Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration.2FPigsonthewing_2 on his talk page which encapsulates his views, and repeats the references to Mig from 2005; and there are his continuing reactions today on his talk page remorselessly repeating the same refrain. The guy is incorrigible. Occuli (talk) 11:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• (ec) Neil Fish and karate (err...interesting name choice :) should be allowed to try and bring about a change. Making Fish and karate his mentor for a few months might also work. Should either measure fail, then I think the community ban should be enacted (but not without trying either of those measures first). Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "Fish and chops"? :) Baseball Bugs 13:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Or "Fish and punch"? :D Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Progress

See User_talk:Pigsonthewing#Another_opinion - I believe progress is being made, and Andy is about to agree not to restore the material again. Again, I don't want to see the editor who made things like this possible being indef-blocked over a silly grudge. fish&karate 12:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Please explain to me what Andy's role was in what I believe is a project by User:Para. --Dschwen 00:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm basing this on what is at WP:UF. fish&karate 10:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Closed discussion aside, I cannot leave this utter misconception about Andy's work uncommented. WP:UF has nothing to do with the Google Maps thing that you linked to. Andy did some good work, but he is by no means the super-prolific über-user you seem to think him to be. --Dschwen 13:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you are mistaken. The system for reading location data in an article and showing these multiple points on a Google map was first introduced on Misplaced Pages by Andy Mabbett. Para became involved and changed things around later because he objected to the way Andy was embedding microformats into the data. --CBD 11:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Reading location data has nothing to do with Microformats per se. The coordinate readout was pioneered by de:User:Stefan Kuehn and de:User:Kolossos. --Dschwen 14:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Fish&Karate (re:Neil) is working on a solution, that if Andy refrains from adding the information again, unless Leonig returns and harasses HIM first, he will be unblocked. I have given Neil my full support on this. Basically, as was stated above.. if he adds it or anything similar to it again, he will be re-blocked. (bah! He beat me to it ;) ) SirFozzie (talk) 12:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

HaHA! :) fish&karate 12:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I see no reason to keep the community ban proposal open - seems to be a moot point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

well, don't do it yet. POTW's response is less promising then I would like. ] SirFozzie (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't plan on doing it, for this one anyway. :) But I do think that given he's blocked, and Neil is trying to discuss it with him, it's a bit of a moot point - expecting the desired outcome to result from those discussions within a few hours is like a complete miracle for a user who was banned for 2 years. It probably needs a few days. If there is no change in 2 weeks (maximum), then I think reopening the community ban discussion would be more productive. My thoughts anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

As he's already indefinitely blocked, unless an administrator is willing to unblock him, he is de facto community blocked. At the moment the only administrator even considerig unblocking him seems to be me, and his response (as Fozzie mentions) wasn't promising. Andy's forthcoming answer to the short question I just posted on his talk page may decide whether I feel up to continuing to engage with him. fish&karate 13:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been staying out of this for reasons similar to those expressed by Locke Cole above... better to let people who haven't been as contentiously involved in the past take the lead here. Fish and karate is doing a very good job in that regard.

Andy's like alot of old Usenet regulars I've known... for him this is a matter of principles. Ordering and/or blocking him will never ever get him to do things your way. It'd be 'wrong' to sacrifice principle and 'bow to authority' that way. You need to convince him of the benefits of your position. If you don't have the patience for that... let someone else do it. Would it be nice if everyone just did what they were told? Maybe, for the people giving the orders, but that just isn't the way the world works. So we can have patience with the occasional non-conformist... or stomp them into paste. In my experience stomping is the usual solution, but patience generally yields the better results. --CBD 13:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"Would it be nice if everyone just did what they were told? Maybe, for the people giving the orders, but that just isn't the way the world works." Good quote to use about people refusing to obey his order not to shorten his chosen user ID. Baseball Bugs 13:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Andy is someone that has been "problematic" for a long time - see, for example, User_talk:CBDunkerson/Archive4#Andy_Mabbet - and I am still trying. Being an old Usenet regular does not mean my patience is infinite, nor is the community's (obviously). What he wants (to be allowed to continue to rake up a three-year old feud) is not going to happen, and if he won't back down on that, he will remain unable to edit outside his talk page. fish&karate 13:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Andy is now attempting to endrun around building a compromise with fish&karate with an unblock request. He's now claiming that since he's offered a "compromise" (which is nothing of the sort), that he should be unblocked. Discouraging... SirFozzie (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I do have to say that I'm losing confidence too. To be frank, I doubt this is something that can change overnight and will need long term mentoring (in terms of weeks/months rather than hours). If no one is willing to mentor him, I think the next few days might turn out in a way that won't be too pleasant. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It's amusing to see a user, coming off a year-long block, dictating terms under which wikipedia will allowed to be graced by his presence. Baseball Bugs 09:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Mm, having looked things over myself, I have a couple thoughts, however non-warm and cuddly they be. First off, someone who's had two year-long Arbcom bans has to know he's going to be under the microscope forever, and really has to keep his nose clean forever. Someone who loses no time to fly off the handle yet again has demonstrated that he has learned nothing and that no sanction possible is likely get his attention. Secondly, I don't give a rat's patootie what kind of editing or article-building skills he might have. Misplaced Pages doesn't need him. Misplaced Pages doesn't need anybody. The project does not stand and fall on his putative skills, and what benefit is there to coddle pervasive and unrepentent offenders except to demonstrate that we coddle pervasive and unrepentant offenders? Seriously, think about it: what is the upside to removing the block?  RGTraynor  22:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  • What a depressing view. We get a contributor back, who is 99% a benefit to the encyclopedia. It's the 1% that's the problem, and unless he is willing to accede to the community's norms, he isn't going to be unblocked. fish&karate 10:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
    • (tapping feet impatiently...) He's banned till he accedes to the community norms - so when he does, someone can inform the community again. So why is this discussion still open? Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
      •  Done fish&karate 12:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What you might not realise...

Is that Andy Mabbett has been trolling Usenet for ages. He's not an old usenet regular, he's an old usenet troll with the stubbornness levels of a moody ox. Google Andy+Mabbett+troll, or just "Andy Mabbett". It's usually microformats and technological stuff, occasionally birdwatching. His negative reputation is clearly quite something. We're not going to change this guy, we really aren't...Moreschi (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. But if this effort fails, and convinces those who are not supporting the ban then it will be eaiser next time it gets brought up. Viridae 22:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Viridae. I tend to be a sucker for giving people too many chances, but Pigsonthewing has a good chain of contributions, broken as it is by ArbCom bans. I think another one wouldn't go astray.

Some of the discussion on this thread is regrettable and people should remember that even though Pigsonthewing may have broken WP:NPA and WP:CIV, that doesn't give others carte blanche to do the same. Stifle (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

While I'm in this train of thought, don't forget that a user is only considered community banned if no admin is willing to unblock him. Stifle (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"Another one" in my above message means "another chance", in case it wasn't obvious. Stifle (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If he's willing to drop the three year old feud, completely and totally? yes, another chance. Till then? No. SirFozzie (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) Sorry, but the troll accusation isn't something that I can leave unchallenged. Trolls set out with the sole purpose of damaging things, and no matter what you think of Andy's conduct, I don't believe that you can fairly characterise him in this way. Andy is tenacious, and single minded. He can probably be fairly accused of not always seeing the bigger picture, in which you sometimes have to accept less than you want out of a situation, for the greater good. However, I am entirely satisfied that Andy is not here with any ulterior motive of damaging Misplaced Pages.

Andy is talking to people, and is currently blocked, so there is no emergency that requires a rushed decision. Mayalld (talk) 06:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Update, POTW Unblocked without consensus or discussion

Sorry, to unarchive this, but I just wanted to call the community's attention to the fact that User:Adambro, either unaware of this discussion, or completely ignoring the consensus in this discussion, has decided to unblock POTW, and has decided to castigate me on the block. I explicity will not wheel war this block, but this action needs to be scrutinized. SirFozzie (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"Terrible unblock. What makes an admin thinkt hey can ignore the consensus from the numerous people who weighed into the debate and u8nblock because they think it is better is beyond me Viridae Talk 22:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)" (adding statement for Viridae per his request on my talk page SirFozzie (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

• Ugh, horrible idea. Poor unblock against consensus. POTW needs to be banned, banned, banned. Moreschi (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Whilst it's preferable to see a user put previous negative incidents behind them and continue to contribute positively to the encyclopedia rather than being blocked, one has to question whether actively encouraging visitors to his user page to research the history of this conflict, and strongly iterating that he is only complying with the requests to cease adding the information under duress indicates that Pigsonthewing has really moved past the issues that led to this block in the first place. -- Codeine (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, no offense intended, but your block was bad. You were previously involved in the dispute over his edits to his user page over a year ago, and it seems like you're just recycling that problem now that his year long block has expired. As I said before, and as I'll say again now, better to have someone previously uninvolved look at this rather than someone who may be (possibly) injecting a little bias in to their decisions.

I'll also note that what you call consensus I call "a small collection of editors, some with prior history with Andy". As you can see on his talk page, Andy has said he wouldn't continue the behavior that caused you to (erroneously) block him. And as a final note for anyone considering reblocking him: blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. As he's indicated he wouldn't engage in the behavior that was allegedly wrong, there's no need for him to be blocked (there's no gain for the encyclopedia if he's blocked again). —Locke Cole • t • c 23:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The block was explicitly endorsed by the consensus here. You may think its bad.. doesn't mean it was, mind you. SirFozzie (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thumping your chest and screaming "I had consensus, I had consensus!" doesn't mean you actually did. You didn't. You were previously involved in the year old issue, it was a bad block from start to finish. I'll also note that you ignored everything else I said, specifically the bits about punitive vs. preventative blocks. Your block prevented nothing and did nothing for the encyclopedia and was a gross lapse of judgment (given your prior involvement). —Locke Cole • t • c 02:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Without the dramatic phrasing of "gross lapse of judgement", which I disagree with, I see you and I had independently come to the same assessment. Andy and I once had a massive altercation on a template talk page, although strangely, after that was over, while he was difficult/uncompromising to deal with, he was never incivil to me again and we cooperated on a few minor tasks. I see users who push POV or bodge references as being far more dangerous to the encyclopaedia than he will ever be. Orderinchaos 08:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That was a year old issue that went to arbcom and landed him with his second year long ban - and you are having a go at Foz because he blocked him for continuing a grudge that is years old straight after coming off a ban that he got as a result of that dispute? Sorry but admins dealign wih user's bad behaviour does not make them "involved in a dispute". Further more the consensus there was pretty clear. Viridae 11:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Adambro (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) had no authority to override the consensus building that occurred here and exercised poor judgement. This discussion was closed under the terms that Pigsonthewing would remain indefinitely blocked until he agreed to stop pursuing old feuds - Adambro neither discussed the prospect of whether the community is satisfied with unblocking the user, nor did he even inform the community of his action. If there are other occasions where this administrator has exercised this sort of poor judgement, then this would need to be taken further and desysopping would certainly need to be considered. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• A terrible unblock, and one that deserves further review. seicer | talk | contribs 01:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• He had as much authority as SirFozzie did in blocking Andy in the first place (and at least Adambro doesn't seem to have any prior involvement, as SirFozzie does). —Locke Cole • t • c 02:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Also it's a bedrock principle that blocks are intended to be preventative and not punitive, I'm honestly failing to see the preventative value. If he started behaving the way he did before his last ArbCom block, I'd support an indefinite ban. But he actually hasn't, he's been somewhat easier to deal with this time around and I think one *can* overlook minor issues so long as they stay behind the containment lines. Orderinchaos 08:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

So the consensus is to keep the guy blocked - then one ignorant admin comes along and unblocks him - a "tyranny of the minority", as the others wring their hands and cry, "Oh, what shall we do? What shall we do?" Baseball Bugs 02:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm at the limit of what *I* can do.. the only next step I can see is ArbCom (where IF I took it there, which I won't.. and IF it got accepted), would be 30 days of drama and hassle, before probably yet another year long ban.. or to RfC, where I would get the 30 days of drama and hassle, and absolutely nothing binding would come out of it, to boot.

And I'm really less then impressed by Adambro logging in, unblocking/unprotecting Andy, and then logging out without discussing it anywhere, or even sticking around to help with the autoblock.

I do note that Andy has at least partially pleged to not add the section any more.. so I would have been pleased if he just said "Ok, I disagree with you, but I will not bring up Leonig any further".. I'm just afraid that it's left things open for interpertation, which means.. you guessed it.. MORE drama! SirFozzie (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Drama you need not concern yourself with in your capacity as administrator/sysop. If you have a potential problem with Andy you should report it here on AN/I and let another uninvolved admin/sysop deal with it, not yourself. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but have been following the discussion here and on Andy's talk page, and have to say that I'm rather depressed by the entire business. I should declare that my editing interests have on occasions overlapped with Andy's, primarily on UK railways and West Midlands-related articles; I've never personally had any difficulty in dealing with him, but of course I'm aware that others have had (one would have to be in cloud-cuckoo land to be unaware of it).

Now, I don't particularly care if Andy has a grudge against another editor or not, and don't particularly care about the notice on his user page that seems to have precipitated all of this. I personally wouldn't put such a notice on my own user page, but that's a personal decision. Also, (IMHO anyway) the offending notice doesn't seem especially, well, offensive (at least on the surface); let's face it: it could be a hell of a lot worse.

It seems that this whole sorry incident was precipitated by SirFozzie taking it upon himself to remove it from Andy's user page , without even remarking on it on the talk page (see the talk page history: SirFozzie made no edits to it when he edited the user page). As far as I was aware, it is an unwritten rule on Misplaced Pages that editors don't unilaterally edit others' user pages; instead you make polite requests on their user talk page and ask them to remove it themselves. (The request made by Neil/Fish&Karate would have been a much better place to start.) With this in mind, it seems hard to disagree with Andy's claim that his user page "is censored by other editors". I'm afraid that it appears to me that SirFozzie has displayed incredibly poor judgement by re-igniting this issue.

It's also just plain common sense not to antagonise someone who you know for a fact will rise to the bait; given the "history" between Andy and various others editors, it's like a red rag to a bull. Similarly, when you know that a user objects to something (e.g. Andy's dislike of being referred to as "Pigs"), it's common sense not to keep doing it!

I should also point out that since the unblock Andy has removed the offending notice from his user page, and has also been editing productively as well as interacting with the community in an acceptable manner (see Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing). So at present there seems no reason to re-block. Let's just leave the matter closed. --RFBailey (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm also not an admin - but I've seen a lot of Andy Mabbett's activity on WP and I wouldn't characterize him as a productive editor. Most of his energy has gone into warring. This is what turns him on. That is why he is here. Previous bans have only reinforced his behaviour by making him more bitter. IMO, he has once again been given licence to game ANI and pit his wits against those involved. The activity on his user page was a classical example of brinkmanship, with Andy walking a narrow line between cooperating and defying those involved, exploiting the scruples of his opponents and trying (in this case successfully) to divide them. The result of all this is a complete waste of everybody's time. We'll have another incident in a week, or a month's time, and the whole thing will be repeated until, and unless, common sense prevails and we see a complete and final ban on this man. --Kleinzach 05:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, I'm seeing positive contributions, such as this, and this and this. It is possible that this is only temporary, but it seems part of the message is getting across. In general, I agree with RFBailey's assessment of the situation above. I also think that a reblock or ArbCom case would be excessive drama. Maybe discuss Adambro's action separately from the discussion on Andy/POTW? Carcharoth (talk) 05:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Not only would I support reverting the unblock, thus reinstating the community endorsed user ban, but I'd further support a de-buttoning of Adambro for his obviously bad faith unblock. His actions are like coming into a mexican standoff, firing one round into the air, and running from the firefight, only with bullets as a metaphor for drama. Unless he rapidly provides some incredible reasoning, he should surrender his toolkit. ThuranX (talk) 05:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Were this up to me and nobody else, I would leave Andy/POTW unblocked, until and unless he posts any further rubbish about his old feuds. I would have done this in the first place, but unlike Adambro, didn't feel comfortable ignoring the rest of the community's less progressive views. Andy is now contributing well. He is very, very aware he is on thin ice. If he does post any further rubbish, then he will be indefinitely blocked, and I would imagine it would stick. I would be inclined to (why do I keep saying this and why does nobody do so) let the matter drop. fish&karate 09:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: I left the unblocking admin a note suggesting he leave an explanation here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Adambro does have 'previous' with Mabbett - see eg Talk:Tinsley Viaduct and Talk:Tinsley Viaduct/coordinates, both illustrative of the pre-reformed-Mabbett technique in 2007 – so is not 'uninvolved'. I too think that Adambro should return the tools. Moreover Mig requested, politely, the removal of the stalker para on 30 Jan 07 and 11 March 07. Occuli (talk) 09:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Yes I have dealt with Andy a good while ago but don't consider this to have any impact on my basis for unblocking. Good morning all. Well there's a lot to comment on there but I'm afraid I'm not prepared to spend any more time than is absolutely necessary dealing with this issue. The core reasoning for this and my unblock is that this nonsense dispute is causing a lot more disruption than the text on Andy's userpage ever had the potential to do. I see a few calls for my admin rights to be removed and this doesn't surprise me. It has been said that I shouldn't simply appear and unblock Andy having not been involved in all the discussions, however, I would suggest this puts me in a good position to take a broader view of this situation. I am under no doubts that Andy's poor behaviour over the years has caused him to have a good number of enemies and as such I have to treat a lot of the comments with a great deal of caution. I don't know who where has developed a dislike to Andy which may influence their thinking. It has been suggested that there is consensus for him to be blocked but I don't think it is really clear and anyhow, I'll happily ignore all rules if I think it benefits the project. By unblocking Andy what I am trying to achieve is for him to be able to return to the positive work he's being trying to do and for the many others who have been involved to get back to doing something constructive themselves. Far too much time has been wasted with this debate and I don't think it is really Andy to blame for this. Whilst is has been said that Andy has returned from his ban to continue a vendetta against Leonig, I think the truth here is probably more than Andy has returned and there are others waiting for him whole hold their own grudges against him. Ultimately, whilst I don't consider this text about Leonig to have ever been appropriate, it is very questionable as to whether it actually violates any policy. I would urge all that have been involved in this issue to take a step back and consider the value of continuing these discussions. There are much more useful things that people, including Andy and myself, can be getting on with and so don't expect me to be commenting on this much. Adambro (talk) 09:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  • The rationale/merits for wanting to or actually unblocking does not override the need to comply with norms. Indeed, it appears that certain admins haven't learnt from the Sarah Palin ArbCom case that is running currently. If Adambro is incapable of acknowledging the issue with the series of actions he took on this matter, then one does have to wonder why an RFC has not been opened? Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  Where complying with the norms would cause more disruption than not doing then I'll happily ignore the norms as I've said. You say in your edit summary that "he doesn't get it", presumably "he" is me. In fact I think I get this perfectly well, there are a lot of editors it would seem who are wanting to get Andy off Misplaced Pages by any means and attempting to blow this issue out of all reasonable proportions seems to demonstrate this. I have no intention of allowing Andy to be forced out of the project due to grudges that a number have against him but would have no problem with him being further banned or blocked if he further causes problems to the project. However, in this situation I am quite clear that it isn't him that is causing the problem, it is others who are looking for any opportunity to get rid of him, what it is that Andy is being accused of here is actually extremely minor and does not merit all the debate that has gone on. The only reason why editors are prepared to spend so much time on this is to try and make it bigger than it actually is. There is nothing more that needs to be discussed now, Andy can continue to edit and if there are any further problems then these can be discussed. Whilst I would prefer to use my time on Misplaced Pages to edit articles, I will however vigorously defend Andy's editing privileges from those who simply don't like him and attempt to generate further controversy around him. I would strongly warn any user from taking part in such a campaign. I would encourage all to take time to cool off and go and do some proper constructive work on the project as I intend to do. Adambro (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  You are in no position to "warn" us that our "campaign" is nothing more than a "grudge." You blindly reverted a disruptive editor that you have prior history with. That's a huge no-no. I wouldn't be surprised if his block was reinstated, and this case taken further to evaluate your administrative tools -- and your abuse (of). seicer | talk | contribs 11:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  It would not surprise me if I become a target of this campaign to rid Misplaced Pages of Andy but I am big and ugly enough to stand up for myself. I have acted in good faith in unblocking Andy in my attempts to minimise the ongoing disruption and have taken the time to carefully explain why I took my decision to do so. I would be very surprised if any attempt to remove my admin rights would be successful therefore. I can warn people about their behaviour as I see fit and my previous dealings with Andy have been negligible but enough for me to know and understand what is going on here. If you choose to dismiss my actions as inappropriate due to these previous dealings then could I perhaps ask you to explain what your status regarding Andy is? Adambro (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  Completely uninvolved outside of the comments posed here. seicer | talk | contribs 12:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• (In reply to Adambro's comment at 11:38) - Although I hope you did get it, to put it bluntly, it's very clear that you don't (particularly from that comment). I consider the controversy is around you and caused by you (rather than by POTV), at least in this section. First, you inappropriately invoke WP:IAR as a justification for your series of actions, then you come here casting aspersions that the editors here are trying rid Andy off the project to justify your involvement, and then indicate that you will use Misplaced Pages as a battleground against editors who are in a 'campaign' (while refusing to listen to the criticism you receive from your peers)? This level of rhetoric, judgement and conduct is incompatible with the status of an administrator, and indeed, needs to be addressed promptly. It is clear an RFC is going to do nothing as he still won't 'get it', nor will he listen to the community - this needs to go to ArbCom. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Without wanting to get drawn into all the rhetoric that is being banded about here, it's hard to see how statements such as "POTW needs to be banned, banned, banned" (Moreschi, ) and "Ban PigsAndy now" (ThuranX, ) are not part of some campaign to see Andy permanently banned. --RFBailey (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Gives appearances of a campaign? Possibly, and no problem with saying that if you're being specific about who or which comments seem to be doing so. Claiming as a matter of fact that there is a campaign or grudge by editors (in general)? It's not borne out of facts, and creates more heat than light. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• If this needs to go to ArbCom then you can go ahead and raise it there but I stand by my actions and my comments above, especially considering you've not really explained why my comments are wrong just stated that they are. Please keep me informed if you decide to raise this for discussion anywhere but beyond that I have no desire to continue taking part in this. Adambro (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  As I've noted below, I do hope you have a good think about the criticisms I and a couple of others left here, sometimes repeatedly in different ways so you understand - you should've given it more thought and gone about it differently. I don't intend on taking it to ArbCom personally at this point, but note: should I find a problem with your judgement again, then I will. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of Andy, but I have to say that I'm not seeing the consensus to ban that many are either saying or implying exists here. A majority, sure, but we need a lot more than a majority for someone to truly be banned. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Admins acting in bad faith

SirFozzie, you explicitly said that if Pigsonthewing agreed not to repost about the dispute with Leonig Mig he should be unblocked. He did so. He was unblocked. Now you are screaming that this is against consensus. It was your own condition. The same condition was stated by Neil/Fish/Karate... and you supported his position. The stated condition for unblocking was met. What exactly then is the problem?

Ncmvocalist, you ALSO claimed to support efforts to get Andy to change his position. He did. He agreed not to repost the material. How is unblocking under the conditions YOU supported 'against consensus'?

ThuranX, you called for a RFCU to determine whether Locke Cole was Pigsonthewing. That's just too ridiculous to deserve any further comment.

Et cetera. The discussion above is littered with personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, threats, intimidation, calls for desysoping for doing the very thing that the people making the calls had previously claimed THEY would do if the user would just concede to their demands, and other unpleasantness.

What we seem to have is a bunch of people who SAID they were willing to try to settle this through normal dispute resolution processes. Discuss... try to get the user to change their position... agree to make no reference to the past dispute. Very reasonable. Helping to dispel any concerns about possible bias in the earlier handling of discussion with the user and the block. But now... when the user has actually agreed to do what was demanded of them. Now suddenly we are seeing a different story. It doesn't look good. Not even a little. --CBD 11:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What we have is another Betacommand situation - that if a user is perceived as being "beneficial", he will be cut a lot of slack by selected admins, especially the ones who call him by his first name, as if he were their pal or something. Baseball Bugs 12:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

'Andy' happens to be shorter than 'Pigsonthewing'. Go figure. As to cutting people slack... I'd settle for a remote adherence to community standards. Things like civility, blocks not being punitive, assumption of good faith. No slacks required. --CBD 13:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"Pigs" is just as short as "Andy" and is actually part of his user ID, despite his silly NPA complaint about it. And calling him by his first name (which is NOT part of his user ID), suggests a less-than-neutral stance on the matter. Baseball Bugs 13:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm... calling him 'Andy', as he requests, rather than 'Pigs', which he objects to, "suggests a less-than-neutral stance". To be 'neutral' we should all use the nickname which annoys him. Got it. --CBD 14:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

A guy with 2 year-long blocks is in no position to be giving orders to other users. "Pigsonthewing" is his user ID, and that's what he should be called. If he really wants to be called "Andy", he's free to change his user ID. Baseball Bugs 14:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

While it is normal custom and practice to address people by their usernames, if they use a different name in their signatures then the waters are muddied a bit. However, if the user in question is clear about what name they prefer to be addressed by, then deliberately going against that is likely to antagonise that person, whoever it is, be it me, Andy, or somebody else. Continually doing so could be seen to be disruptive. (For the record, I personally object to being called Bailey, even though it is "actually part of my user ID".) --RFBailey (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

We could go with 'Bail', 'Bug', and 'son'. That'd be friendly, right? Add in 'vocal' and 'icer' and you've got a party. :] --CBD 20:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

CBDunkerson, please refrain from misstating my position and read the discussion more carefully. I never once said that there was a consensus to unblock - I noted that the moment he accedes to community norms, someone should inform the community, or the moment there was a change, that's when the discussion is worth reopening. Your statement "It doesn't look good. Not even a little." is a perfect characterization of your poor judgement in creating this section in the manner in which you have, as well as what you're creating for yourself - a massive drama invitation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Mmm... yes, because there was absolutely no 'drama invitation' involved in the cries for desysoping above. Pigsonthewing was blocked for trying to keep his comments about Leonig Mig. He subsequently agreed to stop. Ergo... he should be unblocked. The reason for blocking is gone. Blocks are preventive and this one was then irrelevant. SirFozzie should have removed the block himself. He had stated that he would. What we have here instead? Not remotely acceptable. If you are saying that you didn't mean for Pigsonthewing to be unblocked if/when he capitulated (though it still looks that way to me)... well, then you are merely arguing against policy. We should keep people indefinitely blocked even after they agree not to do the thing they were blocked for. Not a position I'd support. --CBD 13:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're unfamiliar with why certain administrators are desysopped, then indeed, it'd merely look like a drama invitation. Ordinarily, my position is that users should not be blocked any longer than necessary as it is the most restrictive remedy - this was not an ordinary case. It is not ordinary for a user to be fully banned, let alone twice, but then to come back and do the same thing again was precisely what had the community very concerned, and in the absence of the user stating that he won't do it again, an unblock wasn't even up for consideration. That is why the discussion became moot, and that is why Adambro felt the need to unblock without informing the community, and invoked WP:IAR (or norms) to justify his intentionally controversial action - he was fully aware that the community would only have an interest in discussing this after Andy took the first step. He could not put his own personal feelings, passions, agendas, assumptions of bad faith etc. aside in taking that action which indicates a major problem in his judgement. He should've (as a first resort) informed the community of his view that Andy seemed to be ready for an unblock. Adambro's prior involvement with the user was also another factor, and perhaps your own involvement is a factor worth considering, given what you're trying to do here. In any case, the manner in which you have responded is once again unhelpful and unbecoming of your status, and repeatedly misstating my position is something I don't respond to well at all, so I won't respond to you from this point on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Conrad, I should point out that Andy never actually agreed to never posting the content again, so it's a little unfair to castigate people over that. I'm happy to assume he won't, and I hope that assumption proves correct. I am done commenting on this issue unless someone does something stupid (this could be either an admin blocking Andy again for no good reason, or Andy posting more ranty stuff about old feuds) - unless someone is going to file an RFC over Adambro for daring to apply common sense and judgement, this really should be done and dusted with. fish&karate 13:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I consider his statement just prior to the unblock, "Accordingly, solely in order to be able to continue that work, and very much under duress, I hereby give an undertaking that I will not return the disputed material to my user page, nor any other; save for reporting further instances of the harassment and abuse to which it was my response.", to be such an agreement. Do you see it differently? --CBD 13:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "nor any other", one could argue that this undertaking has already been violated. Hesperian 01:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I missed that statement entirely - thanks for the heads up. In that case, never mind what I said - Adambro's unblock was completely appropriate, and all this complaining is ridiculous, frankly. Andy has agreed not to restore the material, that's what was required of him, he is accordingly unblocked. fish&karate 14:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

In retrospect, I'm going to guess that some of the complainants missed it also. In which case this has been more of a 'rush to judgment' / 'assumption of bad faith' issue. Normally I'd expect people to have done their homework before calling for de-sysoping, but oversights happen. If they thought there had been no agreement to cease I can see where some of this hostility was coming from. I still wouldn't agree with it, but it wouldn't seem as completely unjustified as I found the complaints in light of that agreement. --CBD 14:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• In light of the link posted above, I apologize for my comments in relation to Adambro. While I supported the block in its original intent, I no longer do in part to the latest comments. seicer | talk | contribs 16:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, I personally no longer supported a block since he agreed and took that first step. My criticisms still stand, and I hope both admins have a good think about it, because should (I become aware that) something like this occurred again, then I know that I wouldn't leave it at this. There's also a relevant note above made at 1:21 (UTC). Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The note in question is an observation that the offending piece of text has been placed in a talk page archive . Given that such an archive is meant as a record of all past posts on a user's talk page, and that this is actually a record of some posts that were made on his talk page on 19 August 2007 (and which were not present in any other archive), then they should presumably be in an archive. Whether the remarks were appropriate when they were originally posted is an entirely different question (the answer to which is probably that they were, at best, very ill-advised remarks). However, given that they were made, leaving them out could even be seen as trying to deny the fact that they were ever there (as one would have to search through page histories in order to find them). So this is where they belong, and I don't see why any sort of sanction needs to be made (before anyone suggests it).

Of course, having a notice on one's user page for all to see is a different matter entirely, but that hasn't happened. --RFBailey (talk) 05:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that the text in question was in place on his talk page for over a year and nobody objected or removed it then. He archived his talk page... get over it. As to 'not leaving it at this' if something like this occurs again... that's just what we needed. More threats. Way to go. How dare anyone disagree with you. You make sure to take care of that if they ever do it again. Yeeesh. --CBD 06:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Could have been averted

Y'know, in retrospect, a lot of this hubbub about "wheel-warring" might have been averted if someone had simply come here to the AN/I thread and stated "Hey, Andy agreed to the terms presented to him - how about we unblock?"

This whole thread from the start is depressing. It's depressing that Andy/POTW felt the need to resurrect an old feud for no reason after a long block. It's depressing that people started a heated debate over the matter. It's depressing that so much confusion arose out of a missed comment and an unexplained unblock. It's even more depressing that some people are quick to call for Adambro's head and raise the spectre of Arbcom here. The most depressing part of it all is that just a smidge more effort in communicating our intentions could have prevented a lot of this ... Shereth 20:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Some good faith by those carrying the torches and pitchforks would have also gone a long ways in keeping this from exploding out of proportion. I'll concede that there could have been better communication, but the unnecessarily inflammatory comments after the unblock did nothing to improve the situation. As noted elsewhere, it's time to let this go and move on. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Y'know, in retrospect, a lot of this hubbub about "wheel-warring" might have been averted if someone had simply come here to the AN/I thread and stated "Hey, Andy agreed to the terms presented to him - how about we unblock?"

Yes, but that route often fails to gain the result one wishes. The IAR unblocker will never get reverted and the unblock rarely if ever leads to any removal of tools. It's not nice, but unfortunately it works. Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Aunt Entropy here. I have not looked into the Pigsonthewing issue in particular, but I know that these "lone wolf" unblocks are becoming increasingly common and never seem to help anything. They just turn conflicts into bigger conflicts. They also appear to ensure that anyone who has befriended even a single admin can be assured that they will never be blocked for a meaningful length of time, no matter what they do. We need to recognize undoing a block without discussion as the wheel-warring it is. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems kind of silly to make a broad generalized comment on unblocking over something this specific. The unblock in this particular instance was entirely warranted by the situation. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't that mean it could have been discussed first? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Discuss what? He met the requirements set by many in this very discussion (that he would not reinsert the offending passage into his userpage) and an admin unblocked him. What's to discuss in that scenario? And how would further discussion mesh with the fact that blocks should always to be preventative, not punitive. Once he indicated he would obey the demands placed upon him, the need for a block disappeared. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent incidents

All this talk about incidents from last year may be interesting, but his recent "contributions", e.g. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates#Coord_needs_repair_(on_1844_pages) is just as much of concern. -- User:Docu

I see nothing of concern there other than a disagreement. A disagreement is not a cause for "concern" unless it escalates in to something more. BTW, you should link to your user page or user talk page in your signature. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing of concern. There is a disagreement of opinion between two people, that doesn't automatically mean one of them is wrong. Orderinchaos 10:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It is of concern. It means that a pair of year-long blocks have done nothing to instill any humility or civility in that guy. In short, he is unreformable, which was the argument presented earlier. It's not blockworthy, but it bears watching. Baseball Bugs 11:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of people who believe they are always right; this is a necessary survival trait in many admins. Docu, please stop trying to get Andy blocked because he doesn't agree with you on a content issue. And please start signing your comments properly - particularly as an administrator, you should be making it easy for others to find your user page and talk page. fish&karate 15:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I see from WP:SIG that a link to your user or user talk page is required. If Docu refuses to comply, perhaps a block may be in order? —Locke Cole • t • c 01:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be seriously jumping the gun. WP:SIG is not policy. L'Aquatique 02:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Arbiteroftruth (AoT)

AoT has made various personal attacks since I nominated the article Xidan for AfD and has resisted it very aggressively, warning me twicethrice not to do it on my talk page, accusing me of bad faith, calling me malicious on my talk page and User talk:Equendil, a "liar" (twice), "defamatory" and "libel" and he has accused me of a "campaign of deception" and has called for "sanctions", he also removed the AfD in bad faith until it was restored by Equendil, the only thing that I did was refer to his or her behavior as belligerent, something i apologized for, s/he simply accused me of personally attacking him/her numerous times.

• User talk:Arbiteroftruth
• User talk:Chuletadechancho
• User talk:Equendil
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Xidan
• Revision history of Xidan

These are the relevant pages, I will provide diffs in a moment.Chuletadechancho (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The user in question has requested a deletion of a perfectly notable page, and hid information that would go against the AfD in order to get his agenda passed through. He said he did a search for Xidan, and found nothing. He managed to miss articles from Chinese encyclopedia sources, as well as a page by the Beijing Olympic officials that describes the place in detail. Is that lying? I would think so! Would that make his AfD a "bad-faith nom"? Yes!

Deletions are supposed to be made with full information. Deletions that are made without full information, or (at worst) untruths, would effectively make the nomination process a Kangaroo court proceeding. It is a travesty against the principles of Misplaced Pages, and it defeats our purpose of existence. I cannot stand by while Chuletadechancho is deceiving other Wikipedians, and using technicalities to get his agendas across. Sorry, but I cannot.

Chuletadechancho also said he apologized to me for labeling me as "belligerent". That is a lie in and of itself, as there were no apologies coming from this person. If anything, this user's action reached a new low on the hour, by the hour.

Therefore, I have no choice but to request that this complaint be dismissed with extreme prejudice, and that Chuletadechancho be warned for improper conduct during deletion process and filing false reports. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Didn't anybody bother to do a simple Google-web search here? "Xidan" get 195,000 hits, and at least the first few pages of them seem to be mainly about the district in Beijing (the topic of the article). Looie496 (talk) 01:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! Thank you, Looie, for pointing that out! I did the same thing, and I presented my findings, and Chuletadechancho chose to ignore it. This would mean that Chuletadechancho has, in fact, lied to get his flawed points across. That means my charges of him deceiving other Wikipedians would not, in fact, be a violation of NPA, but cold, concrete fact.

Oh I did, but those didn't come off as reliable sources, that is what I mean when I say I found nothing.Chuletadechancho (talk) 02:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

1. No, you did not do a search. You missed everything that was there. 2. The Beijing Olympics Website is not reliable enough for you? This is truly sickening.Arbiteroftruth (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Really? Let me get you a vomit bag. No one is doubting the district exists, but whether or not it is notable. It was an incorrect AfD in my opinion, but Ch... acted according to policy and in good faith, whereas AoT has been acting and bad faith, being disruptive, and downright uncivil to multiple users. AoT has no diffs to back up his claims and seems to be stretching the truth. I support a 24 hour block for AoT for disruption and incivility. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Support. What's sickening is AoT's assumption of bad faith. Corvus cornix_talk 02:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Arbiteroftruth, that's enough. I just deleted your WP:AIV report. Make your case at the AFD, stop the name calling, stop over-reacting. May or may not be a good AFD, but definitely no reason to think it was in bad faith. --barneca (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Barneca, please allow me to state my principle. When I submit an AfD, and when someone eventually proves to me that I made a wrong move, I accept that. However, despite all the evidence I have thrown at Chuletadechancho, he has used technicalities and triviality arguments to refute the point, when the basic fact exists that these sources are reliable. THAT is bad-faith. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that is disagreeing with you. He is not the only one in the AFD to suggest deletion; is everyone that says "delete" acting in bad faith? Relax (the discussion lasts 5 days, this is not a crisis), cosider taking the day off until you are't pissed off, stop the over-the-top questioning of his motives, and if it means so much to you, save the article. --barneca (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying that everyone who says "delete" is acting in bad faith, but when someone provides facts, and someone dismisses it as "it's not fact because someone made grammatical errors on that article", that is questionable. I have provided a lot of facts already, and I would really hate to see someone just dismiss reliable facts as unreliable because of grammatical errors caused by cultural barriers. That is a farce. To be really honest, I have nothing to gain from saving Xidan. I just don't want to see a perfectly notably and fit article being thrown away in a flawed AfD process, where people act on partial information or (at worst) untruths. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 02:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What facts did you provide? Questioning a sources reliability is not questionable.CdC—Chuleta de Chancho (talk) 03:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I have provided, since that, an article by the District Government that Xidan belongs in about the area. It is in Chinese (this is a Chinese district, what do you expect?), but anyone can verify the content in question. The page is reliable, for it is pretty hard to impersonate a government website (especially in China) without serious consequences. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Support a block of AoT for such bad faith acts as multiple accusations and the ridiculous non-admin closure when demonstrating a clear CoI/ POV problem. ThuranX (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Since I am mentioned here, I may as well chime in: I was quickly browsing today's AfDs and noticed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Xidan at the top already closed with just one "keep" vote, thought it was odd, noticed it was a non admin closure by Arbiteroftruth who also petitioned the "keep". That constituted multiple violations of WP:NAC so I reverted Arbiteroftruth's edits. Not involved beyond that though there was some chatter on my talk page. Equendil Talk 03:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I support a temporary ban and think it will help alleviate the problem.CdC—Chuleta de Chancho (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

AoT is now begining an edit war, insisting on using laughable sources such as an empty webseach page(my mistake i failed to see there was a map, however it is in chinese and i cannot corroborate what it states.) and another wikipedia article.CdC—Chuleta de Chancho (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? We accidentally reverted each other's edits, that does not mean I am engaging in an edit war. THAT is a lie. Also, I found other sources to back up what I said. What more do you want? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 03:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Was not an accident, I did it on purpose. Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source and {{cn}}'s should not be removed, so I reverted your edits. As for me being a liar, why don't you learn a new word, something different than liar or malicious... something like respect!CdC—Chuleta de Chancho (talk) 04:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

When you reverted my edits, I then went to find another source to back things up. What more do you want? Are you going to say that the Beijing Subway site (the ref for the transportation sentence) is not good enough now? I have done everything that you requested, and still, you have sat here, telling everyone that I am the one who is being unreasonable. I have cooperated. What else do you want? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 04:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Polite cough - 10 Ghits on Gnews with results stripped of shopping/tourism spam. With wikipedia mirrors, tourism sites, shopping sites, and Olympics spam, we have about 120 books discussing the region that are not travel guides (archeology, etc). Xidan is also a very common Chinese name, so filtering on that gives me about 43,000 solid google hits. I'd say it's very notable. On the other hand, I'm sorry, but when I see people like AoT editing, it makes me not want to participate in much of anything. You are not cooperating, you have not apologized, and you have continued to hurl bad faith attribution. Let me enlighten you: when you take an article to AfD you list your policy reasons why it should be kept. That's *ALL*. If you have a concern and a quick check does not fix those concerns, it is not the AfD nominators job to spend hours trying to research the issue before taking it to AfD. The community will review. If you don't like the fact that the process operated the way it should, then you take it to DRV, where you bring up the sourcing. What you don't do is accuse someone of trying to hide things, calling them a liar, and then acting like a small child throwing a tantrum when multiple editors and admins try to tell you why you are wrong. If you wish to have an article on this district, I strongly suggest you do some actual work in sourcing and copying the article to userspace to improve it than hurling imprecations like spittle. -- Logical Premise 05:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I find your accusations to be absolutely sickening. I have added MANY new sources to the article, as well as improving its quality. Instead of seeing that, and (if it does not kill you to do so) show some appreciation, you have accused me of being unrepentent, and uncooperative. I have cooperated! What else do I need to do? Do I need to leave Misplaced Pages altogether to make this work? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a note. At least one of those english links is about the train station, not the shopping district...as well others appear to be about the cultural district and the business district. The articles themselves would have to be read to find out whether the mentions of xidan are significant or trivial, a simple name drop or 1 or 2 sentences doesn't confer notability.--Crossmr (talk) 06:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the initiator of this complaint has now decided to violate WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I would also like to add that I am divesting myself of this entire affair. I will not be involved in any insidious agenda that Chuletadechancho is harbouring, and his actions, over time, have proven my initial suspicions against this person. The time for AGF is rapidly ticking away on my part. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 04:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 12 hours for incivility and disruptive editing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Apology

I have seen that my overzealous defence of the page has created problems, and for that, I would like to apologize. However, I still hold ,y opinion that there has been some very questionable actions with the Xidan AfD, which has the effect of making it a kangaroo court proceeding. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Unfortunately, I have to agree with AoT. While I've said it's not on the AfD creator to have to do exhaustive research, the more I look the more ... upset I get with the idea that someone would reasonably assume the article was deletion worthy. A request for more sourcing, tagging it for expansion, expert attention, anything. I understand the AfD nom is trying to do the right thing, but may I gently suggest that perhaps alternative methods could have been explored first? -- Logical Premise 16:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I still haven't seen any evidence of notability provided that satisfy WP:NOTE frankly if he's been working this hard to find it and still hasn't, then there is no reason it shouldn't have been nominated.--Crossmr (talk) 06:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

My Response to the Charges

Now the the steam has blown off, I believe I can respond to the charges at hand with clarity and calmness. I would admit that I was a little too hasty (and perhaps acted improperly) closing the debate, but my rationale for that was that the area clearly exists, and web searches clearly indicates the area exists, as well as being a relatively important commercial area within Beijing (Chuletadechancho argued that the area did not exist, and that web searches turned up nothing at all), in addition, it is notable because it is a geographical/topographical entity within the capital city of a nation. The decision was later reverted by a third party, and I did not object to that. There was no CoI in this, for I have never lived in Beijing (I am not even from Northern China). I simply believed that Chuletadechancho was misguided in his decision to propose for the article's deletion. However, Chuletadechancho later accused me of acting belligerently, and given Chuletadechancho had made some clearly baseless accusations about the area (does not exist, no web search results) when evidence overwhelmingly says so otherwise, I have made the accusation that Chuletadechancho lied about his findings in order to achieve some hidden agenda (since Chuletadechancho was not Chinese, and has never edited a single Chinese-related article until now).

Later, Chuletadechancho accused me of starting a revert war, when what really happened was that it was a simple edit conflict, and I had no intentions to begin an edit war against any users here. I stated that it was an accident, but he did not accept that. Not only that, Chuletadechancho also went around and defamed me in front of many other editors, in addition of telling everyone that I called Equandil a liar here. I never did anything of that sort. He later also said he intentionally escalated the conflict.

I accept the finding that some of the rhetoric went too far, but I would like to raise the following questions:

1. Why does it appear that Chuletadechancho has an obsession to see this page being deleted?
2. Why did Chuletadechancho fail (or outright refuse) to accept the findings that the area in question is at least notionally notable, or on a basic level, that the place exists?
3. Why did Chuletadechancho desire to escalate the conflict?
4. Why does Chuletadechancho want to turn the AfD into a Kangaroo Court proceeding?
5. Why did Chuletadechancho turned to canvassing to defame an editor of Misplaced Pages?

To express my indignation and disgust at Chuletadechancho at this point would require socially unacceptable terms. I believe the damage Chuletadechancho had made to my reputation is unwarranted. Therefore, I believe he needs to apologize for his decision to escalate the conflict AND defamation of a good editor. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

didn't you just apologize above? Only to follow it up with a slew of accusations. Frankly at this point I'd support a block for uncivil behaviour until you can get your head wrapped around how we're supposed to interact with other editors on the project. Existence != notability. How many times do editors here have to repeat that? You've provided nothing outside trivial mentions and self-serving tourism info to try and establish notability of the district. Fact is you tried to subvert process and hurled insults at someone opposing you. You did act belligerently and your tone and questions is more of the same. You're taking the AfD far too personal and I'd recommend that you take a step back and a break. If you continue on this path someone is going to end up forcing you to. And if you continue to throw around words like defame, you're going to end up blocked anyway. Many editors don't take kindly to any legal speak here.--Crossmr (talk) 06:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

And I just noticed someone got around to that about an hour ago.--Crossmr (talk) 06:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment removal

Is this okay?CdC—Chuleta de Chancho (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, per Misplaced Pages:Userpage#Removal of comments, warnings. --barneca (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Internet Defense Force -- more drama

Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) is back from his block, and petty edit-warring in Jewish Internet Defense Force has resumed, mostly involving that user and Puttyschool (talk · contribs). The editing issues involved are minor, but there's ongoing drama from those two. They may both have violated 3RR, although that needs to be checked. This looks more like trolling for attention than a substantive difference over content.

I'd like to ask that both be banned from editing that particular article for a few weeks under Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions. They're both too focused on that one article. --John Nagle (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

While I would say that both editors need a block, Puttyschool (talk · contribs) is the only one that has technically violated 3RR. Seeing as previous blocks failed to work, I think we need to look at alternatives such as banning the user per the arbitration case listed above. Tiptoety 04:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hardly broke any 3RR rules here, nor do I understand why trying to protect the article from various attempts to destroy it should call for me to be blocked from it. If people actually take the time to study my edits they can see my work is is neither "drama inducing" nor "petty." Furthermore, I am not interested in "edit warring." There have been multiple attempts to remove cited material, despite the fact that Putty had been warned by Malik Shabbaz that if he continued trying to edit out a particular piece of important cited material, that it would be "vandalism." There have also been great attempts by others to insert an off-topic narrative and change the language significantly. I believe calling for my "block" from the article is not necessary and I would invite any interested yet un-involved parties to look at it objectively and tell me any good reasons why that would make any sense. However, I'm happy to stay away from the article if other editors can be more "on top" of the aforementioned problems. I think at this moment, everything is fine. I'm not trying to get in there to make grandiose changes. I'm just trying to prevent them from happening, especially without any consensus or discussion first. --Einsteindonut (talk) 04:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I don't think this characterization is fair toward Einsteindonut. While some of his/her comments on the article's talk page have been a little sharp, he/she has not engaged in any edit-warring since the block expired. Please review the article's history.

John, Einsteindonut's edits to the article since the block have chiefly been to revert to the stable September 6 version that you suggested here. — ] (] · ]) 04:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This tempest in a teapot has been going on for a month. Some action to quiet it down seems to be indicated. Diverting the two editors most narrowly focused on this article to other topics might be helpful. The two of them in opposition are just churning the article, not improving it. --John Nagle (talk) 05:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Malik that action against ED at this stage would be distinctly premature. --Peter cohen (talk) 08:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC) We also sould give a chance for the mentorship to work. I see that Michael is still active on ED's talk page.--Peter cohen (talk) 08:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Tiptoety (talk · contribs), Do you believe that this edit by Est was a neutral edit, stating "According to the JIDF" as if they are a WP:RS that the group "actively promoted hatred, violence, murder and genocide." as if it is a fact, which means a final judgment on the group from the JIDF POV and the user MUST believe in this statement.
Please spend more time revising the article history, and tell me how do I violated 3RR according to your POV as stated above, specially that I requested external judgment by adding COI tag when I disagreed with Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) about this sentence, after only TWO reverts by him on my NEUTRAL edits; as I believed that this sentence "According to the JIDF" can’t be added except when the JIDF is writing this article not Wikipedian editors.
Also I’m requesting from admin Luna Santin (talk · contribs) to comment on this as she followed the article history from the day of creation.
Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) about my comment on the first AFD, which was "SPEEDY DELETE, ASAP" I think this was on this old edit of the article, till now I don’t know how this edit received votes on keeping it.
Regards« PuTTY 19:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Puttyschool, the use of "According to ...." does not imply any degree of authority on the part of whomever is cited. Furthermore, "According to ..." is the proper grammatical construct for giving explicit attribution, it is neutral, and it is preferable over the use of "claim" which is a word to avoid. If I may, both your statement about the phrase "according to ..." and Einsteindonut's statement about your endorsement of the article's speedy deletion are not legitimate grievances against one another nor are they proof of malicious or improper editing. I cannot speak to all of Einsteindonut's contributions to the article, however this particular edit is consistent with Misplaced Pages style and policy. Similarly, it is perfectly legitimate for you to support the page's deletion; we wouldn't vote on such issues if there were only one way to legitimately vote. ← Michael Safyan 23:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

As I explained in my "talk" area, it's not how he voted, it was his explanation as it showed a clear problem with the JIDF itself. You're right in that it is legitimate to vote however he wishes to vote. I just think that it is telling when one looks at his explanation there and then looks at his edits to the JIDF article. It is obvious he has been trying to take out key information and well-cited facts from the beginning. He has also made plenty of grammatical errors and added some questionable things as well. It's obviously a controversial organization and I feel that other Misplaced Pages editors should try to prevent this type of unproductive "work" which is all I have been trying to do. All of my edits lately were discussed in the talk section before I made them and most of them are merely trying to keep important, well-cited material in the thing. One minute putty had an issue with the word "claims" the next minute he is putting it back in. It's all just a game to him since he does not like the JIDF in general and does not feel that the article should even be here. If other editors don't try to defend it from this type of hostile editing, then maybe it shouldn't be here. I certainly can't watch it every minute, but if one looks at what happened while I was blocked, it's very clear someone has to, and I appreciate the efforts of those who did what they could do to help. --Einsteindonut (talk) 01:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) a)Can you explain why you reverted the article and undid all editors changes that were made while you were blocked what was wrong with this edit? Especially the new editors gave us some fresh air b) “According to the JIDF” and “According to the JIDF Calims”, the deference is very clear to all readers and they can decide which one is a NPOV c) Anyone who have time to follow the article history can determine the editors of conflict of interest. d) Who gave you the right to remove my {{COI}} tag that I added to request external judgment e) Can you please put aside your original researches and give us examples to show your point of view. f) Misplaced Pages is concerned only with WP:RS and WP:NPOV and this page is not a mirrored site. g) remember the value of time differs from one editor to another, so please summarize. « PuTTY 18:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Puttyschool, (b) "According to the JIDF claims" makes no sense in English unless the JIDF has made a legal claim. This was already explained to you. (d) When you add a "COI" tag you're supposed to explain why on the article's Talk page, something you still haven't done (at least not in plain English). Insinuations and smilies aren't sufficient reasons to keep a "COI" tag on an article. If Einsteindonut hadn't removed the tag, I would have. — ] (] · ]) 21:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment - this article is nothing but trouble. The JIDF or some of its members will find themselves in the headlines one day (probably after the group itself has imploded), but they're laughably non-notable at the moment. In the meantime, much, much more significant groups (such as JewsAgainstZionism) have their non-bothersome articles systematically AfD'd. That's what needs to happen here. PR 19:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Mosedschurte still edit-warring on Harvey Milk and disrupting talkpage

Mosedschurte (talk · contribs) is an {{SPA}} who only edits articles on Jim Jones and Jones' Peoples Temple, they have single-handedly disrupted the Harvey Milk article for over three months going on four with the only purpose of edit-warring to re-insert scandalous, POV and what a growing consensus experienced editors view as sythesized and OR content inflating a connection of Milk to Jones.
An earlier RfC to resolve this was corrupted by {{SPA}} !votes and the current article talkpage and archives (2, 3, 4) show their propensity of verbosity to overwhelm those who disagree with them. I sought other eyes on this board (seen here) which sadly resulted in a rather forkish article, Political alliances of Peoples Temple, being created to appease them. They have also inserted similar content on other biographies (some BLP) to inflate this contents importance to those people as well.
Moni3, arguably one of our better content contributors, rewrote Harvey Milk, likely in hopes of getting it to FA status and after attempts to reason with Mosedschurte had to file a report at The Fringe noticeboard. Consensus there has been to remove the Mosedschurte-introduced content as synthesis and undue. Mosedschurte continued to edit war and is generally disrupting progress by content specialists who are trying to improve the article without all this persistent disruption, soapboxing and seemingly bad faith accusations. Other eyes on this would be welcome as this has been going on for 3-4 months. -- Banjeboi 22:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Mosedschurte (talk · contribs) also lodged a personal attack on Moni3, a top FA writer, which provoked me to get involved. A most exasperating situation involving SPAs, NPAs, OR, synthesis, and undue where the aim seems to be to overwhelm via verbosity. Just watch :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

First, there is no "Edit War". This is simply false, as anyone can see looking the article Harvey Milk. SandyGeorge deleted the material today and I did not add it back. Rather, we're discussing it on the Harvey Milk Talk Page.Second, there was no consensus to delete mention of the article before in the Rfc you mentioned. In fact, several people wished to include it, including:

Mosedschurte (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, several IPs and SPAs. Once again, Mosedschurte, pls read WP:TALK and WP:TP; I've rethreaded to respect the chonological order of posts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the claim that I "personally attacked" moni3, I certainly did not. Several days ago, when a falsehood was stated about me, I stated that moni3 was lying about me, and I should not have gotten drawn down into that sort of cross-sniping, but I have never stated anything personal about moni3, whom I don't know.

Quite honestly, starting this "incident" seems to be descending further into that sniping campaign because I did not edit war the latest delete of the text, which has been gone. Moreover, one need only examine the Harvey Milk talk page to examine what has truly been going on.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks do not bother me nearly as much as I am deeply offended that inaccurate information is continually inserted into the article, that Mosedschurte is able to hijack the article from its ideal path to GA and FA despite all evidence and logic and civil attempts to educate him otherwise, and that it has lasted for months. Content is the reason this website exists. I have enjoyed more than 2 years of collaborative article writing on Misplaced Pages with great success, and no interaction I have ever experienced has been so unpleasant as battling with this editor. Perhaps that colors me sheltered. However, the integrity of content should be the most important issue on this website. --Moni3 (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

First, re "I am deeply offended that inaccurate information is continually inserted into the article"? There is absolutely ZERO inaccurate information in the article. Every single source says precisely what is in the article. This charge is simply false. Second, in the entirely incorrect case that "inaccurate information" was inserted in an article, how could that possibly even "deeply offend" you?

I don't know the long history behind the Harvey Milk article, but the seeming gang warfare that occurs with regard to even the smallest attempted addition seems rather bizarre to me.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Anyone who takes a peek at the talk page will see how much of a gang this is not.

Mosedschurte, I'm a rare editor who cares more about accuracy and content than self-image. You have pushed this POV of yours for months. It is a house of cards. It does not belong in the article because the best sources on Milk say it is not significant. I would have been mortified to make such accusations as you had, and I would have run off immediately to read the necessary related sources. But, again, all you care about is information about Jim Jones. Your position is clear: you are promoting an agenda, and you are not interested in the best article quality. You are interested in vague disconnected material that suggests significant links between Milk and Jim Jones despite solid first-person accounts to the contrary. --Moni3 (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Your position is clear: you are promoting an agenda, and you are not interested in the best article quality."

This is simply false and is precisely the sort of sniping I wish to avoid.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. With the exception of MCB and Wildhartlivie, 5 of the 7 comments Mosedschurte quotes (from June) above are {{SPA}}s. -- Banjeboi 23:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's a better list, and you've still false claimed I'm "Edit Warring" when it is the 3 other editors that have simply deleted the text in its entirety and it has not been re-added as of now (or when you started this thread):

Mosedschurte (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. With the exception of MCB, CENSEI and Wildhartlivie - 5 of the 8 comments Mosedschurte quotes (from June) above are {{SPA}}s. -- Banjeboi 00:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support block or Very Last Chance From looking over her contribution history, User:Mosedschurte appears to be a single-purpose account whose only interest is the People's Temple. He appears to be pushing his specific point of view onto the article to me. His lengthy edits on the talk page make the discussion difficult to read, but consensus on that page appears to agree with User:Moni3 that the section he wants to add would not make the best encyclopedia article. I've added the article to my talk page, and I'd feel okay about a block if this user continues pushing his point of view on this article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Notice given to user - I agree with FisherQueen (talk · contribs) that it is quite confusing to try to make sense of all of the talk page discussion. I have placed a note on the user's talk page recommending that Mosedschurte (talk · contribs) take a break from editing the article and come back and reevaluate. If after a break there is still disagreement about a particular portion of text we can start a fresh content-RfC. Consensus here appears to be that further disruption and/or inappropriate talk page demeanor would likely result in a block. Cirt (talk) 01:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I have an issue with the running tally User:Benjiboi is inserting in this thread. It is inappropriate and I take major offense at being pulled into this ongoing dispute three months after I left my comments on a RfC and then being lumped into a group as potentially a single purpose account tallied by Benjiboi or anyone else. Whether I am considered one of the two or three who left comments who isn't an SPA, that is not being made clear. I'm afraid I must insist that this particular lumping be stopped or that qualifications be made. I've been on Misplaced Pages for over two years, I've made over 14,000 edits on 6592 articles. I'm far from being an SPA and it is contentious to even remotely imply that I am.

I have refrained from commenting on this dispute in the more recent past because I recognize it as a losing battle, not because I agree with the direction it is going. The movement to separate Harvey Milk from Peoples Temple is troublesome to me. It began at the Milk article, with suggestions to move it out with only a minor sentence included. That was essentially done, to an article about Peoples Temple alliances. Now this has spread to that article, and over more than one noticeboard. Milk, and other politicians, were involved to one extent or another, with Peoples Temple. It is bad faith to try and prevent that from even being mentioned, which seems to be the direction this is taking. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "I have refrained from commenting on this dispute in the more recent past because I recognize it as a losing battle, not because I agree with the direction it is going. The movement to separate Harvey Milk from Peoples Temple is troublesome to me. It began at the Milk article, with suggestions to move it out with only a minor sentence included" -> I completely agree, and I'm moving to the point where I think any mention of these rather undisputed points in the Milk article just isn't going to happen. As you stated, it's probably just a "losing battle" given the seemingly odd press to delete all mentions of its existence, regardless of the large number of sources on the undisputed facts. Mosedschurte (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've added to those comments to clarify you are not considered one of the majority of SPA's quoted. However you are with "movement to separate Harvey Milk from Peoples Temple" again mischaracterizing these issues as Mosedschurte has always done that the goal is to remove any mention when the opposite is true. In fact the only NPOV and RS content concerning Jones/Peoples Temple first was introduced by me then, again, when Moni3 rewrote it. Despite there being NPOV and RS content in the article already, in every instance Mosedschurte insisted in having an entire section re-added ominously titled "Peoples Temple investigation" although Milk apparently never conducted one nor was Milk ever investigated. After Moni3's rewrite Mosedschurte simply reinserted the problematic sentences despite clear objections. They have inserted similar sections on at least four other biographies that I'm aware. -- Banjeboi 02:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Recommend mediation - On second thought, if there are multiple editors involved here and this is primarily a content dispute perhaps WP:MEDCAB would be an appropriate next step. Would the parties be agreeable to that? Cirt (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure. That sounds fine, and I had already this morning basically given up trying to improve the Milk article. I think one issue is that is that the article covers a rather niche local historical figure about which not a huge number of people are aware, so there aren't a lot of eyes on the article now. It's basically been just me and three other editors that, pretty objectively speaking here, deleted every attempt at compromise language about Milk's support of the Temple, and I should be clear that I don't think they are doing so maliciously. But they haven't seemed particularly amenable to compromise language at all (every line deleted), so I 'm not sure a lot of headway can be made. Mosedschurte (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Are the other parties/significant contributors to the Harvey Milk article agreeable to mediation through WP:MEDCAB? Cirt (talk) 01:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm more than prepared to take this issue to mediation. I'm confident experienced editors will recognize Milk's involvement in the Temple in 1977 and 1978 was neither notable to Milk or to Jones, and that no authority is able to connect a significant and notable relationship between the two. I'll be happy to scan my sources and send them to curious editors so they can see for themselves. After that, however, will the article continue to endure the endless cyclical arguments of Mosedschurte, or will it be free to go on to GA and FA? --Moni3 (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hard to predict what could happen after mediation, but hopefully WP:MEDCAB will be able to bring about some sort of resolution that is agreeable to all parties involved. Cirt (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Moni3, I've basically given up trying to improve the article, so I wouldn't worry about my edits interfering with GA or FA. I don't plan on making any, at least in the near future. There appears to be a formatting error in footnote 3 you might want to address.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I see this as an exercise in futility. Yet another opportunity for Mosedschurte's soapboxing and asserting some connection when they have failed on the Fringe board and just recently on the talkpage to convince anyone that this content needs any further weight in the article or that any reliable source anyway asserts some great connection not already in the article. That they are persistent and verbose, wearing down the patience and interest of other editors, should not be chalked up as a victory that they are correct or that the content beyond that already in the article is needed. I have every confidence that what has been summarized here, on the article talk page and the fringe noticeboard will be found more accurate to that of Mosedschurte's take on things. I hate to give them yet another opportunity to again argue and reiterate all the previously disputed synthesis but agree that if it results in them desisting from disrupting the article and talkpage and the processes to improve the article then it might help. Dealing with them has been one of the more unfortunate editing experiences I've encountered here. -- Banjeboi 02:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see the suggestion of WP:MEDCAB, as I know Moni3's intent is FA, and of all the possible vehicles of dispute resolution, IMO MedCab is the least likely to help achieve that aim and will come at the highest cost to Moni3 in the time when she could churn out a few more FAs. MedCab is a volunteer effort, and it is non-binding. I have seen cases where the mediator who took the case had literally been on Wiki a month or so, and certainly didn't have the level of knowledge that Moni3 has about highest quality sourcing and Wiki policies. I've also seen cases where the newbie mediators significantly worsened the situation. Unfortunately, with MedCab, it's the luck of the draw; you might get an excellent mediator (and there are some), or you might get someone whose knowledge of good article writing and Wiki policies is so far below yours that you'll be frustrated, and tied up in the same verbosity that now dominates the talk page when you could be writing an FA. And since it's not binding, you could find yourself right back in the same situation after the MedCab closes. Strange place to be in when there has already been an RfC that Moni3 complied with, and a post to WP:FTN where conclusions have been entirely one direction. I do recommend that every Wiki editor go through at least one MedCab so that can develop an appreciation for how Wiki dispute resolution processes advantage the tendentious, POV-pushing editors at the expense of a hard-working productive editor while also seeing the luck of the draw factor (I had a very good mediator once, but have seen about a dozen bad cases). I've unwatched because the article talk page was a timesink, with repetitive discussions going in circles. Good luck! Perhaps you'll get one of the top-notch MedCab people; my fingers are crossed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say more formal WP:RFM would also be a fine way to go from here but they generally suggest informal mediation has been attempted - though seeing the lengthy prior discussions and RfC history this may apply. Cirt (talk) 02:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Editing restriction or block I've been looking at this dispute very casually for some time now without saying much, so here goes. I think Mosedschurte should just stay away from this subject. If you want to know why, there are three things I will point to as the best examples.

First, take a look at the edit history of "Political alliances of Peoples Temple. Then take a look at the article. This thing is pretty much a one-man show, and NPOV it ain't. It's practically a clinic in original research. Every newspaper clipping Mosedschurte could get his hands on showing any kind of possible relationship between Jones and whatever Democrat he'd ever crossed paths with is pulled together to support Mosedschurte's personal interpretation.

Second, with this edit Mosedschurte tells us that he has "over 500 newspaper articles, 70,000 documents, hundreds of audiotapes and several videotapes of events in San Francisco at this time". Oh really? Obsess much? And where are you storing the furniture? I don't think I've encountered anyone out of the moon hoax movement who's accumulated that much paper to try to prove a nutty idea. And like a moon-hoaxer, he can generate more verbiage that doesn't amount to anything than any ten rational people.

Third, take a look at this edit to Template:Peoples Temple. He actually thinks Rosalynn Carter and Walter Mondale belong in that template. No, really, look at it. I am not making this up. Does anyone here really expect him to ever contribute anything here that's not completely crackpot? What will it take for someone to finally do something about this? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, Cirt thought so, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Notice I removed the comments that Mosedschurte posted above because he interleaved them with my comments, thereby disrupting them. This is not acceptable editing of a talk page and Mosedschurte knows it. It's also typical of the way he tries to disrupt, delay and frustrate every discussion he participates in. He is welcome to post his comments in the appropriate way. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Would people be agreeable that WP:RFM might be a more feasible way to go? Cirt (talk) 03:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I had to check the timestamps to see if you asked that question before or after the alarming and surprising information posted by Steven J. Anderson. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think mediation would be a good idea because there appear to be multiple other parties involved other than Mosedschurte (talk · contribs), and this could help work out some of these issues and move the discussion to a more centralized location. WP:ANI is probably not the best place for a drawn-out content dispute. Cirt (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

My finger's on the save page button for the mediation. Cirt, I'll do it if you think it will achieve something. If it will end this. --Moni3 (talk) 03:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, try the more formal route, WP:RFM, and see what happens, good luck. Cirt (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

In my view, mediation is the worst possible alternative in a situation like this. If there's one thing Mosedschurte has shown he has a talent for it's disrupting, frustrating and delaying every good-faith collaborative editing process available on Misplaced Pages. RFM would be just the kind of playground he thrives on. If no admin is willing to step in based on what has been posted here, I think it's a case for arbcom. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Stepehen J. Anderson just removed instead of moving my comments. Here's to what they responded:

Re: "Third, take a look at this edit to Template:Peoples Temple. He actually thinks Rosalynn Carter and Walter Mondale belong in that template." (Stephen J. Anderson)

This statement by Stephen J. Anderson is utterly false. I did not create that Template. Nor did I add it to any article. The user simply made this up, and I wish it would stop.Mosedschurte (talk) 05:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "First, take a look at the edit history of "Political alliances of Peoples Temple. Then take a look at the article. This thing is pretty much a one-man show and NPOV it ain't. It's practically a clinic in original research." (Stephen J. Anderson)

First, I did not create the article. Wikidemo did. He moved text to the article, and I added to it. Second, there is not one single thing in the article that is "original research". It is almost all the New York Times, San Francisco Chronice, Reiterman, etc. You simply made this up. Again. Third, I've actually been the one to add several quotes putting the alliance facts in context and attempting to add to the possible motivations of those involved. Again, please stop fabricating charges about me and please stop the personal sniping. Mosedschurte (talk) 05:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I had every right to remove those comments because of the disruptive way they were interleaved. If Mosedschurte wants to reply to my post, he knows how to do it appropriately.

Mosedschurte writes: This statement by Stephen J. Anderson is utterly false. I did not create that Template. The statement I made is utterly true. I didn't say Mosedschurte created the template. I said he added Mondale's and Mrs. Carter's names to them. This is obvious POV editing. I didn't make anything up. Mosedschurte did when he accused me. Stop lying.

Mosedschurte writes: First, I did not create the article. Wikidemo did. He moved text to the article, and I added to it. Second, there is not one single thing in the article that is "original research". I didn't say Mosedschurte created the article. I said he has taken near-complete control of it and is using it for his purposes. If you don't understand what original research is, take a look at WP:SYN. Never mind. I'm sure you're quite aware of what it is and are dissembling. In short when you pull together a series of facts from a variety of sources to support your own personal thesis (That Jones had a particular political relationship with Milk, Moscone and Willie Brown), when that thesis is supported by no outside reliable sources, you are synthesizing information in a way that violates WP:OR --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Moni3 (talk · contribs) has started a case page at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-18 Harvey Milk. I suggest further discussion go there and at that associated talk page for now. Everyone please try to focus on content issues and not contributors. Cirt (talk) 05:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Mosedschurte is a disruptive single purpose account who is sapping the energy of numerous other editors in futile attempts to advance a POV. An editing restriction probably won't work as he appears to have no other interest in other topics, and is very single-minded. I propose that we him until such time as he gives an undertaking to cease circular arguments and accept consensus even when he disagrees with it, or agrees to abide by a mediation. This has gone on for months and the above discussion shows that it is very unlikely to stop without decisive action. Guy (Help!) 08:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not opposed to a block but I don't think one is in order just yet. The user seems willing to go along with mediation and has been receptive to my attempts to tone it down a bit and take a break from editing that article. Cirt (talk) 09:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Cirt, I very much appreciate efforts to find positive resolution to this however, I don't see any other editors really campaigning to change what is currently on the Milk article. I'm not convinced that the non-SPA editors quoted above have seen the present article or aware it's been completely rewritten nor that they have reviewed the discussion at the Fringe board which went through each source Mosedschurte was attempting to use with the content they kept inserting. My suggestion, before again making myself and all these same editors go through everything - yet again - is have a look through the fringe board notice here and then see what, if anything, Mosedschurte would like to add, vet the sources and see if the content represents what those sources do state. I also would caution about a formal RfC as that's been gamed on the Milk article about this content before. -- Banjeboi 10:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Similar "Peoples Temple investigation" sections were added by them on these biographies: George Moscone, Donald Freed, Willie Brown (politician) and Angela Davis. -- Banjeboi 10:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment After reviewing Steven J. Anderson's posts above and Mosedschurte's newest article Raven (book) - I think they may be aligned with the Peoples Temple survivors and/or Alternative considerations of Jonestown and Peoples Temple. -- Banjeboi 11:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I have no idea as to the user's leaning in real life and do not care to presume who is is or is not "aligned with", which is starting to stray way afield from a discussion of how to improve this project. I am trying to get Mosedschurte (talk · contribs) to take a break, if not from wiki than certainly from the article Harvey Milk, and then come back and engage in the mediation process. I hope this will produce a positive outcome. Cirt (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Very much appreciate that however this passionate Jim Jones/Peoples Temple SPA shows a near inability or refusal to comprehend reliable sourcing and neutral point of view policies and has persisted to argue and bully by verbosity other editors across at least four public forums. Multiple editors consistently pointed out these concerns and the very same circular discussions took place. See how things are going at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-18 Harvey Milk - they've now accused me of wikistalking. -- Banjeboi 02:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

user:RepublicanJacobite

This user has repeatedly inserted a contencious rumor into the Alaskan Independence Party article regarding Sarah Palin being a previous member. here here and here including links to The Daily Kos, which is is clearly not a reliable source. This rumor has already been proven to be false. I notified through my summary's and a note to his page to go to talk and here and he responding by saying this and then removing my notice on his page. Arzel (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The neutralized version of the article being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pulsifer maybe needs to be brought into the AIP article also, to pre-empt POV stuff. Baseball Bugs 11:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Kmweber on WP:AN

On a recent AN thread I removed an uncivil comment directed at a new user from User:Kmweber. This comment was replaced by Kurt afterwards. I won't remove it again, but I stand by my original decision to do so. I'm asking for some more eyes to look at the comment itself, the context it was made in and the decision to remove it as well as to replace it. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 00:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the comment was inappropriate; it was not relevant to the question asked and it was a violation of WP:BITE. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone help me understand how or why this is offensive to people. To me, it looks no more or less offensive than if an editor were to express their opinion that public schools should not waste taxpayer money or support Red Cross blood drives. His comment certainly does not look any more bizarre than Kurt's "prima facia" RfA opposes. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This sort of editing away other people's comments, though, always causes more harm than it cures, and never achieves the desired result. --jpgordon 01:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It's rude. It's rude to someone who is new to Misplaced Pages and asked an honest question without expecting to be insulted. WP:AN is a place to discuss administrative actions that make the encyclopedia better; if Kurt wants to discuss his general feelings about educational philosophy, he should find a web forum somewhere. Personally, I think the community has put up with Kurt's bad manners and bizarre edits for far too long already, but that's not specifically relevant to this question. In my opinion, editing out this comment is necessary- this is a new user who will not understand that Kurt does not speak for the administrators when he's speaking on the administrators' noticeboard. I feel strongly about this. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It was perfectly appropriate and perfectly relevant. The following comment I wrote on my talk page is germane:

He should feel unwelcome. He's attempting to use Misplaced Pages for a totally improper purpose. I fail to see how this is any different from attempting to use Misplaced Pages to advertise one's company or product. Keep in mind that, according to his own remarks, he's not using it for a class research project or anything like that. He's trying to use Misplaced Pages to promote a certain ideological viewpoint to his students. Misplaced Pages should not be accomodating the misuse of taxpayer funds to proselytize for a particular ideology.

I get the impression that you didn't bother reading what the guy said. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't get why this is seen as offensive. Why do the students need usernames, anyways? A blocked user can still view Misplaced Pages. I think we just need to drop this issue. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so they can edit articles and improve the encyclopedia? Why should we care. We aren't that school. It isn't our job to tell the guy "What you are doing sucks, we won't be a part of it". He asked for help for a legitimate purpose and the first response he got was some unrelated ideological screed. Protonk (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The whole point is that he wasn't trying to use Misplaced Pages for a legitimate purpose! He was trying to use Misplaced Pages for a totally illegitimate purpose, and we shouldn't be accomodating that. This isn't about what schools should or should not do; it's about what Misplaced Pages should and should not accomodate. What's so difficult to understand about that? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not difficult to understand that you feel that way at all. It is phenominally hard to believe that your response was civil or within the realm of WP:BITE. If you don't think teaching kids about free software is correct, then don't do it. Don't let it in your classroom. Make sure your school board doesn't talk about it. Whatever. Don't come on wikipedia and treat new users like scum. That's the problem. I don't care about the propriety or impropriety of free software or free software evangelism in the classroom. That wasn't the issue. The issue was you inserted your opinion into his business in a manner that didn't actually solve anything and didn't relate to the question at hand. He didn't come to wikipedia to hear your opinion about free software. And he doesn't need it. New users deserve to have their questions answered honestly and helpfully. If you can't do that then the least you can do is not answer them at all. Protonk (talk) 03:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously still not paying attention? This has nothing to do with what the school in question should be doing and everything to do with what Misplaced Pages should be accomodating. I made my remark because I did not believe Misplaced Pages should be accomodating someone with a stated intent to abuse Misplaced Pages. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course I'm paying attention. Sorry. Let me be more clear. It is unfathomable that this new user's request could be construed as an intent to abuse wikipedia in the sense that wikipedia would suffer. Unfathomable. You may imply that OSS evangelism shouldn't be in the schools but that is a curriculum and instruction decision. The use of wikipedia as a tool for that instruction, unless they plan to disrupt wikipedia, cannot possibly be twisted to represent a damage to the encyclopedia. Full Stop. Your opinion of their motives for editing the encyclopedia is totally irrelevant. Protonk (talk) 03:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

They are totally relevant. If I see someone whose motives, as evidenced through his statements and actions, I believe to be abusive and malicious and not in the best interests of Misplaced Pages, then I most certainly will speak up and try to do something about it. If you want to discuss my assessment of his motives, that's one thing. But don't tell me my assessment is irrelevant, and certainly don't try to stifle a discussion of it. I had a problem with what he was doing, and believed it to be inappropriate for Misplaced Pages and not something we should be endorsing. Instead of discussing my reservations, you removed my statement. That is absolutely not acceptable. You are the one who acted inappropriately, not I. To say I shouldn't speak up when I believe someone's actions are harmful to Misplaced Pages is absurd. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

To clarify just a bit more: I had a concern that what the individual was trying to do was not in the best interests of Misplaced Pages. I'm a reasonable guy; present a superior argument and I can be convinced. But instead of addressing my concerns, you instead chose to suppress them. And that is a major, major, major problem. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Why am I unreasonable (see below) for supposedly assuming that your comment was uncivil but you are reasonable in assuming that a school sysadmin is "abusive and malicious"? Don't bring this back to censorship. You get a lot of leeway around here because you conflate your actions with your positions on subjects. Your comments were rude and unjustified. Any context you felt was implied was totally missing from the words you left there. This was a new user. I felt that a new user's impression of wikipedia immediately before they decide to use it as a teaching tool was more important than your sense of righteousness, so I stepped in. If you want to express your feelings about how this user might intend to disrupt wikipedia, then you are of course free to do so in a manner that isn't insulting or condescending. Protonk (talk) 03:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No, he shouldn't feel unwelcome. Your opinion of what schools should and should not be doing is completely 100% irrelevant. Nobody cares, and I'm sure he didn't either. If a school wishes to teach its students about open source projects, they can. As part of his demonstration/lesson plan, he was hoping to register students and introduce them to the project. Kmweber's comments were off topic and irrelevant. - auburnpilot talk 01:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess this is more clear. They shouldn't feel unwelcome. Your opinion is your own. Not everyone wants to hear it or needs to hear it, especially new users. I used to support your being granted the ACC flag, but after this, there is no way I would. Protonk (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

While I disagree entirely with Kurt's thinking and approach, I also don't believe it's necessarily in the best interests of the project--OR of the students--to have 60+ middle-schoolers placed into the highly-confusing, politically-charged environment of en:WP without assurance that they will be suitably monitored, supervised, and guided. Unfortunately, my concerns regarding these issues were removed by WilyD and dismissed as "trash", which was far more unCIVIL than ANYthing I'd written. This is the same conversation we've had about classes of college students sent to "learn about WP"; how it's less-relevant to middle-school students, or more-BITEy, I fail to see. I agree that they should not feel unwelcome, but neither do I think we should accept their project plan with no reservations or questions at all.Gladys J Cortez 01:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Gladys, that she has a right to voice her concern. Since it was civil it should not have been removed and certainly not with "trash". — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious to know what Kim was referring to when he accused them of "proselytizing" (i.e. religious recruiting). I didn't see any hint of that, so I'd like for him to explain precisely what he was getting at, instead of talking as if everyone already knows what his point was. Baseball Bugs 01:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming he meant it in the colloquial sense--i.e. "proselytizing" of the open-source "religion". Doesn't matter; it was meant as a cutting statement, regardless. (Oh--and thanks, Rlevse. You're one of my more-respected Wikipedians, so your reinforcement means a lot.)Gladys J Cortez 02:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I think what he means is that the school is touting the inherent goodness of Open Source. Whereas someone (like China?) might disagree. Of course, socialization and indoctrination is actually one of the main purposes of public education, which is why governments pay for it. Pledge allegiance, respect the police, all that sort of thing. So I don't see why Kurt feels it's not within their purview to advance other agendas. OSS isn't a religion as far as I know.

I do think it would be smart to make it clear to the school that they need to watch the students carefully because one bad apple will spoil the bunch. An autoblock of one user will encompass all the rest of them. Kafziel 02:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I dig. And you're right, that school officer should be advised to keep an eye on them... as with the other OSS. Baseball Bugs 02:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Protonk did the right thing in removing the whole messy chunk, and that was quick thinking. As far as everything else? Well, I don't expect very much out of WR contributors, so I'd say that everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion, but the way it was put out there would probably have been fairly off-putting to the guy who made the request -- but was it bitey, eh, not really. -- Logical Premise 02:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there may be concerns about letting sixty-plus middle school students loose on Misplaced Pages without a measure of guidance and supervision, but I'm not comfortable jumping to the conclusion that their teachers and sysadmins are totally naive about the environment here, either. We should offer our support and guidance, not the cold shoulder.

If an educator wants to introduce the kids to Misplaced Pages as part of Software Freedom Day, it's no more harmful than cleaning up the schoolyard and encouraging recycling on Earth Day, discussing HIV and safe sex on World AIDS Day, or even teaching a lesson about the history of piracy on International Talk Like A Pirate Day. Kids desperately need teachers and mentors who are willing to acknowledge, and encourage interaction with, the world outside the classroom. Exposing kids to Misplaced Pages under controlled, supervised conditions is the online equivalent of a field trip to the zoo. Sure, some of the kids might screw around, but we hope that most will gain an appreciation for our environment and the unique ecosystem we've built. A few might even grow up to be veterinarians admins. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

That public education is currently used towards those ends does not mean that it necessarily should be used towards those ends. But it's not about whether or not this is a proper use of public education, really; it's about what is and is not an acceptable use of Misplaced Pages--it's about what Misplaced Pages should and should not be accomodating. I saw someone expressing an intent to abuse Misplaced Pages, and I called him out on it. I don't see the problem here. If you contend that this is not an abusive use of Misplaced Pages, that's one thing. But I saw what I consider to be an abusive use of Misplaced Pages, and I tried to put a stop to it. What else am I supposed to do when I see someone who I believe is out to abuse Misplaced Pages? Please, stop being absurd. Stop building strawmen, and pretending I said something I didn't. Pay attention to what I'm actually saying, rather pretending I said something that would give you a convenient excuse to attack me and silence me for daring to help Misplaced Pages. Are you here to make the encyclopedia better, or to cause problems? I know why I'm here. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Abuse wikipedia in what way - and compared to what? Baseball Bugs 02:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Nobody put words into your mouth, Kurt. You said, "Public schools should not be in the business of proselytizing." And that's all you said. Nothing more, nothing less. No mention of abusing Misplaced Pages, or of Misplaced Pages at all for that matter. You didn't call him on his intent to abuse Misplaced Pages, you called him on his intent to abuse the public school system. Too late to change the subject now. FWIW, I don't think your statement was BITE-y or inappropriate, just misplaced. Kafziel 02:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

A reasonable person's thought process, upon seeing my comment, would not have been "Hmm, let's see how I can twist this and make assumptions to make him look like a bad guy." Rather, a reasonable person would have thought, "Hmm, there was obviously a reason for him posting this...Kurt's a good guy, who always does his best to help Misplaced Pages, so obviously he wouldn't have posted this unless he had a problem with Misplaced Pages being involved in this," and would have gone from there. I do not need to state every last detail when a reasonable person can easily infer them on his own; it's absurdly inefficient. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say having to go through all this at ANI is a helluva lot less efficient. Kafziel 03:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

We wouldn't if people had chosen to behave reasonably from the outset. I am not responsible for others choosing to behave in an unreasonable manner. Yes, people generally do behave unreasonably, but experience has shown that my batting average, while still pathetically low, is nonetheless higher if I assume people behave reasonably than if I assume they behave unreasonably--because, after all, there are usually only a small number (if even more than one at all) of reasonable ways to act, while there are so many unreasonable ways to act that the reasonable way is chosen more often than any particular unreasonable way. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok.. I've already made the request privately of one person in this little kerfluffle, but I see it's continuing. Can we have a bit more light, and a lot less heat in everyone's comments, especially when aimed at another person? The topic should be discussed, but without all the personal attacks. (not saying any particular comments crossed the line, but it got close) SirFozzie (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

In the spring of 2007, a number of students from a composition class at the University of Minnesota, taught by 1013-josh (talk · contribs), had a group project to write and edit articles on Misplaced Pages. (I think he was doing so in conjunction with Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Classroom coordination.) A list of their contributions can be found at User talk:1013-josh. Just looking at their contributions to Itasca State Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which went from this stub to this much more complete version, I think they did a heck of a job. They also learned something about working with other Misplaced Pages editors in the process. I wouldn't call that abuse, or proselytizing -- they did some good, constructive article development. I can't guarantee that a bunch of middle school students, with characteristic middle school attitudes, would be able to produce anything similar. However, knowing that a teacher is going to be taking a look at their edits, and grading them on how well they perform, they'll be less likely to abuse Misplaced Pages than most anonymous school students.

If you want to talk about what schools should or should not be teaching their students, that's a decision that the school administrators and parents should be having. Given how many school districts have arguments about intelligent design, creationism, abstinence-only sex education, and other hot-button issues, promotion of open-source software is unlikely to raise any eyebrows. --Elkman 02:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Kurt's comments were most likely a little soap-y and bite-y, and entirely failed to answer the question of the newcomer completely unversed in the culture of the place. But the situation is now entirely resolved without harm. There's no particular need to argue over it. WilyD 02:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You're all being trolled by the way. John Reaves 04:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

By whom? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 05:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Kurt, perhaps you can explain to us exactly what you mean when you say that you feel this person wanted to abuse Misplaced Pages? I'm not exactly clear on that since it seems like a good faith request, at the very least, and "abuse" is a pretty charged word. As for your original statement, it doesn't feel bite-y to me (although some of the things said afterwards have been colorful) just... misplaced maybe. Unless you're willing to elaborate on why you feel the way you do in some way that could convince the rest of us, it would probably be advisable to remove it. L'Aquatique 07:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

He's either talking in riddles or he's trying to be funny in some obscure way. Baseball Bugs 11:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Would we go out of our way to accomodate someone who wishes to use Misplaced Pages to promote his own company? What about his preferred political candidate? His church? Of course we wouldn't. This is someone who wishes to use Misplaced Pages to promote his own ideology (that it's one I happen to agree with is beside the point). We shouldn't be accomodating that. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Having read the thread in question, I would like to observe that one of WP:AN's functions is to help people better edit. If the question is not on the right board, we can point them to the right board. A new user came there looking for help. One response was particularly helpful. One response was beyond the Pale in terms of not being helpful. Moving on and leaving that behind, I have just deleted a page that looked like it was created by a middle school student that was totally lost as to how to edit constructively. My question is this-- do we have a guideline or essay to help orient teachers and their students so they can contribute constructively? If so, would someone please point me that way? This is a recurring problem that I could deal with better. Cheers, and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 14:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Such a page exists at Misplaced Pages:School and university projects, which advises people who want to set up school projects and tracks what schools have such projects in progress. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your logic, Kurt. From what I know of the situation, he wasn't planning on using Misplaced Pages to promote open-source software, per se, but to teach about it which is a completely different thing and altogether more admirable (though promoting open source is hardly a crime, knock on wood). Knowing what I know- that many of our vandals are young'uns- I would much prefer that a kid's first experience with Misplaced Pages be under the guidance of a teacher or responsible adult. Some of them may stick around and become valuable contributers. That doesn't sound like something we should be passing up because someone doesn't agree with the ideology of the teacher's lesson plans. L'Aquatique 16:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well said, L'Aquatique. thanks, Fisher. Dlohcierekim 16:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

on AN? I don't get it

The comment on AN is perhaps debatable but I don't see why it's all of your priority instead of something like "Deletionists especially are a fucking retarded subclass of the rest, whose sole contribution to society is deleting something someone else did. Misplaced Pages rocks. It's too bad so many people are dedicated to pissing all over it." And I say this as someone tending toward the radical inclusionist end of the spectrum. I don't think the well, I'm quoting someone else so I can quote whatever I want defense holds up here. If this were a reasonable excuse for flagrant attacks, well... fill in your own reductio ad absurdum: _____. I just don't see how this sort of behavior is compatible with building an encyclopedia, nor do I see any other contributions indicating a willingness or, more to the point, a capability to work in a fundamentally collaborative project. As far as I can tell, there's nothing here besides playing provocateur, and seeing how far the limits can be pushed. That's traditionally defined in stark terms, but it seems that if one pushes the envelope slowly, the editors who defended in early stages, rather than admit they were wrong or that circumstances have changed, will end up defending things like "deletionists especially are a fucking retarded subclass". --JayHenry (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• (shrug) Doesn't really matter. After all, as soon as you use the word "deletionist" as a pejorative you instantly lose the argument anyway. It's like a Misplaced Pages version of Godwin's Law. Black Kite 00:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm officially lost. What do deletionists have to do with this!? Are you sure you're not posting to the wrong thread? L'Aquatique 00:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This is from his user page. I added a link. Most editors are requested to attempt to work collaboratively, refrain from attacks, to work on the encyclopedia, etc. For reasons I don't really understand this user has been granted an exemption from the general expectation. --JayHenry (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoo, that's so far past uncivil it's potentially in a different area code... L'Aquatique 01:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Having just encountered this user on an AfD, I'd have to agree he's rather abrasive and doesn't really seem to want to work with the community. His position seems to be if it exists its good enough for wikipedia which flies well in the face of long established consensus here as there are numerous guidelines for inclusion on various subjects etc, and doesn't seem willing to acknowledge that.--Crossmr (talk) 01:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I can think of several colorful metaphors that he left out, hence showing some restraint. Baseball Bugs 02:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh you're right..why have policies and guidelines... someone should give him a barnstar and a pat on the head right?--Crossmr (talk) 04:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a really firm pat. Three Stooges style. Baseball Bugs 05:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, that sort of commentary is unacceptable. I've posted a message on Kurt's talk page asking him to be more tactful. Hopefully he chooses to do so. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's probably a bit excessive...when I get around to it I'll remove it. But remember that deletionism is incompatible with building an encyclopedia, and that therefore upsetting them so they leave is a must if Misplaced Pages is to survive. And frankly, anyone who has bothered to understand deletionism realizes that that is a pretty accurate description of the mindset of the typical deletionist.

Also, I should add that people need to vent. So-called "civility" is taken way too seriously, to the point where it actually gets in the way of constructive interaction. The fact is, intelligent people are passionate people, and passionate people can get upset. Shoving it under the rug, like we have done in the past, does nothing to solve the problem--it only creates deeper resentment that eventually blows up in one big conflagration. It's much better to let people vent on their userpages; it gives them an outlet without letting it get in the way of person-to-person interaction. This insistence that "Everyone put on a pretty face and pretend that we love each other all the time" is not conducive to building an encyclopedia. We need to let intelligent, passionate people be intelligent, passionate people. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 13:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

And failing that, don't rule out the nuclear option. Baseball Bugs 14:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

passion here, as in the outside world, can be a wonderful thing--but it depends both on the nature of the passion and -- in some cases -- how it's expressed. DGG (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

oh I see, very clear. If you want to vent do it off wikipedia. Misplaced Pages is under no obligation to provide you with an avenue to express your anger/frustration. Your threshold for inclusion at that which the community has decided is appropriate are not in sync. Deletion is a big part of wikipedia and frankly the project is far to big for you to change with a little hostility.--Crossmr (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

In short, "naughty" or "nice" makes no difference, as the deletionists will win either way. Baseball Bugs 16:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"So-called 'civility' is taken way too seriously, to the point where it actually gets in the way of constructive interaction." I absolutely cannot disagree more strongly with that statement by Kurt. The idea that a contributor cannot be both passionate and civil at the same time, or that being polite and respectful is somehow counterproductive, is utterly and completely untrue. I appreciate Kurt’s passion as much as anyone, but I urge him to reconsider that attitude. — Satori Son 16:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Rjecina - repeated acts of incivilty, harassment, and vandalism

This user is engaged into repeated acts of incivilty, harassment of other users, and vandalism for along while. The evidence is given below.

Jasenovac i Gradiska Stara Repaeted vandalization of article under pretext that this song is copyrighted. The song is not copyrigted. ,

Ante Starcevic Reverted article twice refusing to enter into discussion in order to elaborate where and when this article is POV; tagged quoted text (taken from reputable references) by twice ,

Petar Brzica Removed citations several times throwing false accusations in the subject line (Banned user revert) , , . Reverted claiming deleting 1 source original research (never published on english), deleting second source they heard. This is not verifiable (Note - the books are scholar works, available in many libraries)

Ljubo Miloš False accusations, or no reason for revert and vandalism , , ,

Magnum Crimen Vandalized several times this article , , ,

Uncivil and baseless warnings on users talk pages , , . For incivilties and repeated harassment of other users - already warned by administrators ,

I'd like to ask administration to stop this person in his/her unethical activities against articles and editors.--Don Luca Brazzi (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't even know what the locus of dispute is here, but I would implore whomever is able to control this sort of thing to do so; I've seen "Rjecina" mentioned in AN and AN/I approximately eleventy-three times over the past 72 hours, and it seems as though whatever the issues are here, they're not going away without some serious admin intervention. Just trying to Keep Our AN/I Clean....Gladys J Cortez 02:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I am really tired of puppet theatre:

Jasenovac i Gradiška Stara :Don Luca Brazzi (he is 71.252.106.166) is reverting administrator User:Ricky81682 which I am supporting. Song is from 1942 so we are having copyright problem (US copyright laws). It is possible to see that all which has "added" lyrics in last few months (article history)are blocked puppets of banned users: Great Duck, Mylan, Mozart1783, Za dom...

About article Ante Starčević and puppets like argument I will only use unprotect comment of administrator Tiptoety and again in that article we are having revert of User:ArielGold which is "only" member of Counter-Vandalism unit (he is not administrator) by Don Luca Brazzi (again I am not alone).

Petar Brzica. Story is similar. First protection because of banned user vandalism and then this after protection end. All in all history of article is showing multiple puppets of banned user which are blocked only in last 45 days (User:Poklop, User:Retrovizor, User:Pupusinka, User:AristoDoga, User:147.91.1.41, User:147.91.1.45)

Ljubo Miloš. Story is similar:First protection because of banned user vandalism and then this. It is possible to see that only thing in question are tags and that I am reverting in support of administrator . Only during September 2008 we are having multiple editors of this article which are banned like puppets of banned user

Magnum Crimen: Attack about this article I can't understand because Don Luca Brazzi aka User:71.252.106.166 is edit warring against all other users revert of AlasdairGreen27, revert of DIREKTOR, http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Magnum_Crimen&diff=237163686&oldid=236981702 revert of Kirker, Rjecina,AlasdairGreen27] and for the end we are having edit warring with administrator . My edits in this article have ended on 8 September so I really do not understand this attack, but history of this article is similar with other examples: Protection template and after that edit warring.

For the end we are having checkuser case with statement that IP 71.252.106.166 is located in the same large metropolitan area as Velebit and it is at least  Likely based on behavior to be banned user Velebit. IP 71.252.106.166 is Don Luca Brazzi and because of that I am asking banning of both accounts --Rjecina (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

In 1 thing Gladys J Cortez is right. Noticeboard is tired of me and I am tired of this. Because of that my I am on wiki vaccation until tuesday--Rjecina (talk) 03:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, how I hate this stuff. Basically User:Rjecina has a habit of name-calling everyone whenever there is a disagreement. There is some legitimacy there but it got so aggravating that User:Mangojuice and myself had to warn her to stop. At the same time, there is a LOT of true sockpuppetry going on and the only person who knows the history (and is a checkuser) is User:Thatcher who gets a lot of suggested socks from Rjecina. My biggest issue is there is a whole series of article on Serbians/Croatians and there are numerous puppets shifting from article to article, all just reverting back to misspelled horribly formatted prior versions without any attempt at dialogue at all. The few legitimate editors have started that attitude too and instead of actually revisions we get reverts like this, with a little WP:BLP violation. I am almost at a "protect everything, wipe them all out, and only allowed sourced remarks in" stage. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

To summarize: we have a lot of socks, we have a lot of comments by User:Rjecina about the socks, we need a few checkusers (other than User:Thatcher going crazy) to try to piece together the whole mess and stop all the socking. We have legitimate editors for whom WP:RS is a completely foreign concept, so we need someone who is willing to bring down the hammer on a bunch of articles that are just wars for nothing other than the sake of warring. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

For now, I've fully-protected Jasenovac i Gradiska Stara, Ante Starcevic, Petar Brzica, Ljubo Miloš and Magnum Crimen for one month, all on the wrong version. I'm sorry I can't help with checkuser, but hopefully it'll give us all a break. It seems that there's always some childish POV edit-war going on around these subjects, and I have a huge sympathy and respect for those neutral, uninvolved editors who work in these areas. Regards, EyeSerene 11:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the wonderful world of SE European wiki editing. The only solution in my experience is to use WP:ARBMAC to its utmost force: hand out topic bans liberally left and right. Hand them out for the basic disruptive act of being tendentious. Don't wait until they edit-war or attack each other, ban them for not striving for neutrality, which is in and by itself blockable disruption. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a shame when zero-tolerance is the only realistic option. I wish I could be more help, but I don't have the time (or if I'm completely honest, the desire) to plough through the diffs and page histories above in minute detail. I've watchlisted the articles above though, and I'll try to help out where I can in future. Further checkuser attention would be useful here, I think ;) EyeSerene 15:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Can I start reverting things and not discussing things by falsely claiming to have been personally attacked?

Someone (Mr. T.X. or ThuranX) has begun to revert changes and refuses to discuss the matter. The excuse is because he received a personal attack.

There was no personal attack, merely a comment that I thought Mr. T.X. was trying to say fuck you to ME. What does FU stand for? I did not say FU to him!

Mr. T.X. is trying to put a non-free use image in an article. This image is unnecessary and does not meet all 10 criteria for non-free use. Another editor noted that the image does not make Henry Ford notable and is not necessary.

Mr. T.X. saying FUr to me not me saying Fuck you to him. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AThuranX&diff=238949892&oldid=238266222

edit in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Henry_Ford&diff=239181691&oldid=238953366

Mr. T.X. wants to use a non-free use Time Magazine photo. It is not necessary. It is out of place (1935) while the article is talking about 20 years earlier. The image fails to meet ALL 10 necessary criteria. Violating non-free use rules makes Misplaced Pages either look sloppy or look like thieves. I do not want to steal.

current consensus of not free use: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3A903M&diff=239018559&oldid=238370043

Questions to administrators:

1. What is a personal attack?
2. Can you ignore a talk page discussion by just claiming "personal attack"?
3. Isn't free use much preferred over nonfree use. Nonfree use used sparingly and only when absolutely necessary? 903M (talk) 03:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC) 2.

I would have to look over it all, but by 'FU' in the diff you quoted I think ThuranX meant fair use.:) You know I agree with you that this image is not necessary, and probably not fair use (the image in question is a copy of a magazine cover but the article is not one for the magazine.) However, AN/I is not for content disputes, and it should be used sparingly when 'disputing' with other editors. Follow WP:DR and use AN/I as a last resort. Sticky Parkin 04:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh look, an AN/I report about me about which I was not notified. LOVELY! between being told Fuck You, watching him game 3RR, and having Sticky Parkin play snarky snide on 903M's talk page, I'm about sick of this entire thing. 903M refused to use talk, couldn't defend his edit when asked, attacked me personally, and even after that, I continued to ask him to discuss, then had to open the talk section, where after all I got was vague allegations of a problem, despite his persistent editing to remove the image, using obviously patronizing replacements, including vapid out of place sentences that would be rapidly removed, substitution of wiki.png for the image, and flat out blanking of it. It took forever to get any reasons out of him, and when they were finally given, he was dismissive instead of discussing. He hit 3rr and hasn't self-reverted. ThuranX (talk) 04:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you saw any comments of mine as snarky, they weren't meant as such, it is you that has clearly breached WP:NPA by accusing 903M of being unable to stop constantly lying (something which to me is obviously not the case. Anyway this is all not very serious and we should go to sleep.:) (To clarify, I am 903M's adopter and she asked me about image use policy, which is why I responded to her. Sticky Parkin 04:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX told me about 3RR so he knows the rule. He violated it himself. I have asked him to jointly stop editing the non-free use image for 1-2 days and then discuss it. If there is 3RR enforcement, ThuranX must be blocked. I think nobody should be blocked.

Furthermore, this thread is not "ThuranX is bad". This thread is about the 3 questions, i.e. what is a personal attack and what is non-free use. For that, ThuranX doesn't need to be notified but next time I will notify him. 903M (talk) 04:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't read either of the comments involving the capitalized letters FU to be personal attacks. So I'm pretty sure that they aren't, and people just like to have drahmahz. But I may just have a think skin. As for the dispute itself, try WP:IfD, it'll go places faster. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(EC)Acutally, I realized I was probably close, and checked the history. I am at 3, and he at four. rather than violate, or run to tattle, I told him his status, and asked him to self-revert and continue discussion, as I have been asking all along. Instead of replying, he apparently ran here, with the intent of precluding a report against him with a report against me, not unlike a child going 'I'll tattle first so I can't get in trouble'. Check, and you'll find I'm at 3, any more would be a 3RR break. I'm not trying to game it, in fact, by offering him the chance to self- revert, I keep him from risking any such trouble himself, and at the same time, I hoped that seeing his predicament would force him to engage in some meaningful discussion. It didn't. I'm going to sign off, as it's late where I live, and tomorrow is quite busy for me , so I won't be editing that article for about 24 hours anyways. Plenty of time for 903M to engage in some actual, meaningful discussion there. ThuranX (talk) 04:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have written a bit about it on Thuranx's talk page I think it was a misunderstanding on both sides, rather that a personal attack. However, Thuranx did accuse 903M of 'constant lying' on 903M's talk page, which I would see as a straightforward personal attack and also not the case. Anyway, this is not a matter for AN/I IMHO and I hope the users can shake hands and move on, and we can all leave this in the past. Sticky Parkin 04:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Bullshit. 903M wanted AN/I, do it. 903M's got a civility violation, saying fuck you to me. She's got a 3RR violation on Henry Ford. She's got total disregard for requeests to talk, as outlines in the WP:BRD guideline/essay. I've got 'lying' after repeated attempts to get a conversation going were rebuffed with excuses and equivocations, and lies. bring it on. ThuranX (talk) 04:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The most productive things administrators could do is to explain non-free use and if Misplaced Pages should try to use free use images to the maximum extent possible over non-free use (or something like that). ThuranX says it is late for him and he is going to sleep. In the interim, I will let him sleep in peace and not edit the article or talk page or any more noticeboard messages.903M (talk) 05:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

User:ThuranX is also swearing and shouting at another user in an unrelated debate and . Still, we will wish him a good night's sleep and a better tomorrow.:) Sticky Parkin 05:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you really think the snark will help matters any? Badger Drink (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thuranx seemed to interpret my good manners as 'snark' (whatever that is- I've never heard it used in real life in the UK.) I assure you they are not. Sticky Parkin 10:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

American "snark" = (roughly) UK "taking the piss". Rough translation, at best, but...yeah.Gladys J Cortez 01:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

They are arguing over a picture that was apparently published prior to 1923, and hence is public domain, and is fair game for use in wikipedia, right? Baseball Bugs 11:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

FU. seicer | talk | contribs 12:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. "Under United States copyright law, creative works published in the United States prior to 1923 are in the public domain." The picture is alleged to have been published in 1919. So what's the issue here? Baseball Bugs 12:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You must be mistaken. I was telling you to Fuck Off :)

I'm not for sure what the issue is, or what administrator action is needed. seicer | talk | contribs 12:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I always enjoy being told "FU". Depending on who says it, my usually response is, "Is that a threat or a promise?" >:) Actually, I was looking at the wrong photo. It's from 1935, but it's not necessarily replaceable, unless someone has a Wayback machine. So it's essentially a content dispute, along with edit warring between an inclusionist (yay) and a deletionist (boo). The edit-warring part is where an admin might step in. Baseball Bugs 12:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, the deletionist's user page says he is a member of "The Council seeks to try to resolve editorial problems and conflict." Yet he doesn't know what FU means in the wikipedia context. Maybe he needs a little mentoring, or training, or to work on something else besides looking for stuff to delete. Baseball Bugs 12:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This is about Image:Timehenryford.jpg, Ford on the cover of Time. I don't see why it's necessary. As for the "FU" argument, ThuranX seems to be badly overreacting. --NE2 12:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

903M is the one who fomented the edit war and asked what FU means. 903M is the source of the problem, and needs to go work on something else. Baseball Bugs 13:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not necessary as we have plenty of images of Ford that we can use and there are already others on the article I think, and we don't need the 'time' cover to prove that he's notable, which is what the 'FU' rationale for the image claims. Thuranx has been swearing and shouting at an editor in an unrelated dispute. I can say that as 903Ms adopter she has various issues as an editor but civility in language is not particularly one of them IMHO. 903M is allowed to edit what articles she wishes, and she has raised an arguably valid question about this image. She simply asked Thuranx to clarify what she meant, then he said if she didnt know she was lacking, then she clarified why she needed clarification. It is not her that has been swearing in various places in the project, at different editors, and shouting. Sticky Parkin 13:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Had your commentary been raised on the talk page before the deletionist tried to zap it, and hence fomented the edit war, maybe things would have gone better. Too many deletionists take the approach of deciding something isn't needed and just clobbering it without talking about it first. It is that kind of impolite, arrogant behavior that triggers these edit wars. Baseball Bugs 13:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a TIME cover? I remember hearing at one point that a number of old TIME magazines from before 1936 never had their copyright renewed - see Image:Time-magazine-cover-william-mitchell.jpg#Licensing --Random832 (contribs) 13:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

So much for the non-free-content complaint. Now the deletionist is stuck with arguing whether it's "needed" or not, which is strictly a matter of personal opinion. And if the deletionist had raised the question on the talk page first, much of this verbiage could have been avoided. But deletionists don't like to ask first, because it gets in the way of their mission. Baseball Bugs 13:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be right (though someone should check the Catalog of Copyright Entries to be sure about this). Baseball Bugs, you're not helping. --NE2 13:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Bugs - please see your talk page. fish&karate 15:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Your complaints have been noted and logged. Baseball Bugs 15:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, if you want to do something helpful, you could address the issue I've raised -that deletionista (i.e. Betacommand disciples) adopt a confrontational tone and invite these kinds of edit wars. Baseball Bugs 15:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Tone it down, Baseball Bugs, you are not helping. Corvus cornix_talk 17:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Try answering my question, and I'll tone it down. Baseball Bugs 18:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support here. Since copyright is clear, given that time pre-1936 thing, and there's support here for seeing that the image is not easily, if at all replaceable, and since there's no further discussion on the talk page, I think it's clear to restore the image. Glad to see the process work. ThuranX (talk) 02:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see the process work? That process included some negative comments about ThuranX by uninvolved administrators as well as reasons not to use this image. 903M (talk) 06:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The process does not include renewing an edit war, which is exactly what the above user is now engaged in, despite the lack of consensus for deleting, and also the presence on the article's talk page, of a compelling argument for retaining, posted by another user earlier today. See why I love deletionists so much? They're fun to watch, especially when they don't get to delete something they're salivating over. Baseball Bugs 14:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit war on user page User:Sathya9181

User:Sathya9181's career so far involves vandalising Sutherland until being hit with a last warning, and then creating a user page. This is now the subject of an absurd edit war with Prasad kalam111, whose sole contribution to Misplaced Pages to date is edits to User:Sathya9181. It is no doubt amusing for them both, but hardly constructive. Probably harmless, but if there is a protocol about this sort of thing I haven't found it yet. Ben MacDui 08:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see no reason why WP:3RR should not be used here, at least for Prasad kalam111. And Sathya9181 can't edit war with himself ;-) SoWhy 08:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sathya9181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 24 hours for this vandalism, and Prasad kalam111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 8 hours for edit warring on the other guy's user page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Shockingly, silly socks spiked sine die. Thatcher 17:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks folks - most instructive. Ben MacDui 18:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Ariobarza

Ariobarza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been causing a few problems on Battle of Opis this morning - deleting sourced material without any explanation , adding his own unsourced personal commentary and altering direct quotes from sources to make them say things that they don't actually say . I've left a couple of notes on his talk page pointing out that this isn't the way that we do things per WP:V and WP:NOR, but I think it would be useful if an uninvolved third party could advise him, given that (as I'm the author of the article) he probably wouldn't see me as neutral. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note that User:Ariobarza has now provided a detailed rational for his edits at User_talk:ChrisO#Hi. This is also part of a larger content dispute being discussed at Talk:Cyrus_cylinder#Tags where User:ChrisO's highly selective use of sources to advance a thesis, has been criticized and disputed by half a dozen editors, including two administrators. --CreazySuit (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

And meanwhile another user, User:Larno Man, deleted all the sourced material in the article, leaving it as a stub written in almost unreadable English. That certainly didn't help. I've restored it. I don't know who the 2nd administrator is at Talk:Cyrus_cylinder#Tags, but the one I do know is not disputing ChrisO. I also have had a lot of problems with User:Ariobarza and his use of OR in the past. Doug Weller (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Following up from the above, the extensive disruption to this and other articles needs to be dealt with firmly. I've started Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Ariobarza, CreazySuit, Larno Man‎ on the three editors mentioned above. Comments are welcomed from other parties. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal information revealed

This may seem overly cautious, but redact should, I think, be removed from the history by an admin. Based on the user's history (creating nonsense pages), he appears to be a kid, and probably shouldn't have his real name (+teacher's name, +easily deduced location) available online. Prince of Canada 09:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you should request this at WP:RFO. Regards SoWhy 09:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ta. Redacted prev comment, will also ask for that to be oversighted. Prince of Canada 09:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done - Alison 16:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:POTD/2008-09-18

Excessive Dimentions. Fix It Prom3th3an (talk) 10:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Right Now (Van Halen song)

Hi all, I'm afraid that we have a revert warrior on our hands at — of all the articles on Misplaced Pages — Right Now (Van Halen song). They have reverted the changes I made to cleanup the article (even the ones they asked for!) Now I should note that I'm not particularly beholden to this article and in fact the only reason I edited it was to clean it up and note that a particular section really wasn't actually "trivia" (I've been going through our trivia backlog). After many discussions I conceded that the anonymous reverter was correct and there was material that wasn't actually sourced or verifiable, so I removed it and then cleaned up problems like the many unnecessary sections in the article. Thinking that the editor would be happy in that I removed all the material he/she was unhappy about I left it alone and checked it later. I was someone surprised when I saw that the anon had reverted the article with the comment "Repair of damage caused by busy body".

The anon has so far reverted three editors (myself, Rtphokie and the administrator Xavexgoem). They have been politely asked to read the guidelines and policies WP:NPA, WP:OWN, WP:AGF and WP:3RR. They have been politely asked to modify their editing practices by Xavexgoem, and were later blocked for 48 hours after they were reported to WP:AN/3RR. However, it looks like they are up to their old tricks, and in the following edit they have stated that:

Your attempts to sound intelligent or experienced come off pretentious and silly. Whatever amount of skills that you think you have in this matter clearly do not manifest in your decision making processes. I suggest that a trained monkey could make better edits than you could. So yes, butt out. And you cannot whine and cry everytime you don't get your own way. There is NO way to block every IP address on the internet when you it suits you. You cannot take your ball and go home. It's time for you to grow up and move on to some other article where no one cares if you screw it up.

Personally, I found this somewhat amusing as it's such a ridiculous tirade, however less amusing is their stated aim to bypass their block.

May I respectfully suggest that the article be semi-protected for the next 48 hours (the duration of their block). It seems to be the only way to get through to the editor that Misplaced Pages is for all to edit constructively. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 10:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You should request semi-protection of an article at requests for page protection. Regards SoWhy 11:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

...in future. For now, I've semi-protected it for 48 hours as requested in the hope that the IP will be able to purchase some clue in the meantime. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 11:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know of this page - hey, I did used to be an admin, and I actually started WP:AN... :-) Thanks to all for looking into this, the only reason I took this here was because I thought it better to note it as an incident as other action might have been thought more reasonable. Perhaps I should have noted that! - Tbsdy lives (talk) 11:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Nah, you've handled it 100%, as have the others trying to tap the IP with the cluestick, so there was nothing more to do. Shout if the IP comes back and needs a cluestick with nails in it :o) ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 11:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers folks. I'm fairly certain they've not gotten the message, unfortunately, but now that semi-protection has been enforced on the article (more's the pity it needed it) they have packed their bags and gone home. Either way, problem is solved. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 10:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hartlepool

The account Hartlepool College (talk · contribs) and the IP 212.219.143.131 (talk · contribs) continue to advertise for Hartlepool College in the article Hartlepool. Countless warnings and blocks haven't helped and semiprotecting the article won't work. Please block the account and IP and help monitor the article. Aecis·(away) 12:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I've now {{schoolblock}}ed the IP for an extended period. I think the user account needs one more attempt at communication before we consider blocking: I've created Hartlepool College of Further Education as a better conduit for editing about this subject, and reiterated the need to be aware of the WP:COI and WP:OWN policies. -- The Anome (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Massive POV push?

I'd like some help on understanding what the heck is going on regarding User talk:Self-ref and User talk:Catherineyronwode. It could be significant, but I do not have the energy to go through all the page histories. It could be the majority of their contribs. You may be familiar with Hrafn's ANI. I'll point you to the Village pump (misc) and Pseudoscience.

I am not fully sure with Cath, but my current understanding is that it appears to be a crusade about deletionism and POVs with hard-to-find citations. Very specifically, Pseudoscience, or rather, the opposition of it. The two users are spouses. They have written several, long essays all over the place, disruptively edited, and have generally had a disregard for policies. They do not supply diffs or citations or anything, and seem to ignore attempts at other editor's explanations. Cath seems to have conflict of interest issues regarding WP:AUTO. The events regarding Hrafn may have been an intelligent attack on him. Hrafn appears to have done edits regarding Pseudoscience.

I'm quite afraid that I could be making an extremely bad misjudgement on this, but I don't think I can dig deeper for an understanding. I have an interest in these types of problems, but even before I discovered Hrafn, and the WP:AUTO problems, I realised that this is out of my league, and I can't figure it out alone in my current state. - Zero1328 _Talk? 14:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Zero1328, at the top of this page it says: "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Misplaced Pages that require the intervention of administrators", but I don't see what intervention you want. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, the issue is currently under discussion at #User:Hrafn above, with the latest subsection being #Sad outcome. A huge mass of verbiage with the aim of changing Misplaced Pages, it would seem. . . dave souza, talk 18:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is in an ongoing process of change, which is what characterizes life. But your implication is that there is something evil about Catherine wanting to move Misplaced Pages toward certain changes. It hardly seems a danger to Misplaced Pages; and, in any case, no editor has the clout to force unwanted change here. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing evil about such desires, the question is whether the method of hounding an editor working in full accordance with policies will benefit the encyclopedia, and whether changes should be implemented in contradiction of present policies without community sanction. . dave souza, talk 20:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, please do not make bad faith accusations towards other editors. No user is accusing any other user of "evil". Quite honestly, if any user views any portion of wikiprocess as "evil", then they need to step outside for some fresh air. --Smashville 20:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Smashville, what "bad faith"? My saying something you do not like is not automatically bad faith.

Dave souza, when does an ANI complaint become "hounding"? I had an ANI also; but, although I thought the complaint was misdirected, I would not have resorted to whining complaints, like accusations of hounding. I have the impression that Hrafn was a pretty tough editor, and probably understands that such things happen when fighting for principle. It is also necessary to understand that, when two editors think principle is involved, and have differing ideas of what is good, there will be dissonance. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You do realise that according to your gifted colleague, describing another editor as "whining" is gross incivility? Dissonance should be resolved by dispute resolution and policy, not by wikistalking and attacks on editor's motives. While I'm sure Cat's motives are of the finest, her methods were unacceptable and my hopes for her reform are dim. Still, live in hope. . dave souza, talk 21:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I had some hope that someone would give a hand in understanding, as it's alot of information and it's a bit confusing to me. This seemed to be an issue greater than just Hrafn, so I guess it was partially an attempt at separating the discussion. Like I said, I wasn't fully sure about Cath; most of what I've seen so far was User:Self-ref initially editing in what appeared to be a tendentious and disruptive fashion, and now more of a civil POV push, but still ignoring some rules. I'm not really sure on how one would handle this. I do not know much about Cath's editing but there's a fair possibility that their editing styles are connected. They seem to have assisted each other in one of their long essays. - Zero1328 _Talk? 22:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You are presenting your thoughts on Catherineyronwode with an implication that these accusations are proven. They are not.

I see Catherineyronwode (who I have met only on WP) rather differently than you do. She is one of the very few Wikipedie editors I know of who has her own article, and she is considered notable. She is a professional writer, and the most talented WP writer I know of. She works on a large number, and variety, of articles because she has an idealistic belief in the good WP does. Truthfully, I would not recognize her from your very negative descriptions of her. I have edited with her, and even when we were in disagreement I never had any difficulty with her, and I always found her open to reason. I think that despite the effort she puts into Wikipedi, she often gets rather shabby treatment here....such as the disrespectful statement you just made about her. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC) ‎

It was not my intention to imply that it's been fully proven and whatnot. I haven't even given diffs. I've stated twice that I am not fully sure on Cath and I was seeking clarification. It's more about Self-ref. The two users are related, which is why I thought it was common sense to mention Cath as well. I did not mean disrespect, but I'm also not very concerned about who she is or whatever. I'm just looking at the editing methods, and I think I'm seeing something wierd in the recent area. - Zero1328 _Talk? 22:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

In essense, WP:V puts the onus on anyone adding or re-adding information to provide verification from a reliable source, while Catherine and associates think assert that some little known subjects should be exempt from that policy, and articles about them should not be deleted just because there is no evidence to show that they are at all notable. She thinks it unfair asserts that it is unfair that articles that have been tagged as lacking third party reliable sources for about nine months should be put up for deletion, and wants demands much more time to be given to those who haven't previously been bothering to find sources. She also takes describes removal of any information as bad deletion, apparently failing to realise that the information is readily accessible from the article history even when the page has been made into a redirect. These views are, in my understanding, simply against policy. I have no knowledge about her contributions to writing articles, but expect that these contributions are excellent and are to be praised. I've consistenely encouraged her to work cooperatively and to continue with her valuable contributions. . . dave souza, talk 23:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-clairvoyant corrections as requested . . dave souza, talk 00:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Dave souza wrote: "She thinks it unfair..." You know what she thinks? This seems to imply you have a good level of mind reading ability. Or, could it be that you are making use of what George Lakoff calls "framing" ?, with the goal of presenting Catherineyronwode in the worst way. I really would hate to think you are doing that intentionally, although you are certainly doing that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I regret that my brief summary style led to this misunderstanding, and assure you that I have no supernatural powers. My goal was to summarise the situation concisely as repeatedly requested by Zero1328, and you are of course welcome to comment on any aspects you perceive differently. . . dave souza, talk 00:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• It's really not difficult to be cynical about her editing patterns, I assure you. This is after all a collaborative encyclopedia, and editors who have their own concepts of long standing Misplaced Pages policies such as notability and sourcing tend to run into problems eventually. Black Kite 00:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly.:) Someone who considers themselves to 'know better' than most others, doesn't tend to do so well in a collaborative enterprise. Most of us I imagine can think of examples on wiki. Sticky Parkin 02:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I am at a loss to understand why someone would claim that Cat is engaged in POV pushing as the title suggests. I quote from WP:NPOV: "POV pushing is a term used on Misplaced Pages to describe the aggressive promotion of a particular point of view, particularly when used to denote the undue promotion of minor or fringe views." I have not run across any article edits by Cat fitting this description.
As I do, Cat feels that some patterns by particular editors, while not outside policy, are nonetheless determinental to Misplaced Pages as a whole. This is not unusual. Dave Souza, for example, frets (and with good reason) about "Civil POV pushing" also a pattern used by some editors that is by-and-large within policy, but is nonetheless unhelpful.
We can discuss, yet again, the patterns that she finds detrimental, although it has been hashed out in several forums including this one (see section above). I do not want to summarise them, lest it re-open what has been a rancorous discussion, and so I would urge you to read them Zero1328, in a better attempt to understand the issues involved. Certainly posting vague concerns is not helpful. Thanks, Madman (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• "As I do, Cat feels that some patterns by particular editors, while not outside policy, are nonetheless determinental to Misplaced Pages as a whole." To me, that sounds like "we don't like some Misplaced Pages policies, and will ignore them wherever we can get away with it." We have seen this a few times before, you know? Still, at least this thread will ensure a lot of eyes on the edits of certain users, which can only be a good thing. Black Kite 06:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

No where on wikipedia is it stated that editors must refrain from critisting or proposing changes to existing policies. What Catherine and her husband is doing is stating their opinion that certain policies should be changed and they are completely within their right to do so. Just like the community is in its good right to dismiss those proposals when they don't agree with them. This is called forming consensus.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Dave souza wrote to me (above): "My goal was to summarise the situation concisely as repeatedly requested by Zero1328, and you are of course welcome to comment on any aspects you perceive differently..." This seems a complete misrepresentation of Zero1328 'question', which in my view is not a question but, rather, a series of accusations against Catherineyronwode disguised as a question. By calling it a POV push in the heading, Zero1328 set the tone right at the beginning. Then, to continue with this 'question', Zero1328 wrote that Catherineyronwode and her husband (user Self-ref who also edits Misplaced Pages) have: "written several, long essays all over the place, disruptively edited, and have generally had a disregard for policies." That does not sound like a question, does it? Then user Dave Souza wrote a series of answers to this question, the answers amounting to little more than slinging mud in the direction of Catherineyronwode. For instance, Dave Souza's first answer to Zero1328 said "A huge mass of verbiage with the aim of changing Misplaced Pages, it would seem." No content, just accusation, which is what I would call mud slinging. With this analysis, I have am trying to wipe off the mud. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is interesting that today's featured article, Anekantavada, does apply in interesting ways to this discussion. Anekāntavāda (Devanagari: अनेकान्तवाद) is one of the most important and basic doctrines of Jainism. It refers to the principles of pluralism and multiplicity of viewpoints, the notion that truth and reality are perceived differently from diverse points of view, and that no single point of view is the complete truth. Certainly, an important point. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Docu's signature

Administrator User:Docu seems to be currently signing all his comments simply with the text "User:Docu". The lack of a timestamp or links to his userpage/talkpage make it more difficult for other users and I, and others, have asked him why he doesn't include these.

Looking through his talk page:

In March 2008, User:Rarelibra raised a concern about Docu's signing of comments.

In July 2008, Gary King asked Docu to "add a link to your user talk page at the very least in your signature". Docu doesn't do so, nor does he explain why not.

On September 6, 2008, User:Quiddity suggests Docu adds a link to his signature who doesn't do so and lightly rebuffs the suggestion saying that "User page can be accessed quite easily anyways".

On September 16, 2008, I ask Docu to explain why he doesn't include a link to his pages and a timestamp to which Docu replied that the issue was being discussed elsewhere, Misplaced Pages talk:Signatures. This discussion is quickly removed from his talk page in line which his practice which appears to be removal, rather than archiving, of old comments.

Failing to find an answer to my original question at Misplaced Pages talk:Signatures, I then asked again on his talk page and User:RFBailey raised the same issue. Docu has yet to really answer our questions.

There could be other instance where this issue has been raised which I am not aware.

The ongoing discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Signatures about the guideline now appears to becoming distracted by Docu's signature, or lack of it, and as such I am looking to see how this can be resolved. If this isn't the appropriate venue then I would welcome and advise as to where may be more suited. Adambro (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Um no offense, but seriously, is this issue really that important in the scheme of things? His sig isn't misleading, and it isn't disruptive. Let's just leave it at that and go work on the encyclopedia... « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 21:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You must not be familiar with Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/-Ril-, different circumstances, but apparently sigs are a BID DEAL, why I have no idea. MBisanz 21:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Heh, definitely not familiar with that case because I make it a point to stay away from Arb stuff. It's so much easier to just use common sense and do what you think is right. But looking at that case, the party had a deliberately confusing sig. Simply not having a link is not disruptive in the least bit, nor does it really relate back to that Arb case in terms of what the ArbCom stated in its decision. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 21:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this requires administrative attention. –Juliancolton 21:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Docu's still around? Do you realize he's been using that sig since, hell, at least 2003? I remember people grumbling about that before. It's not that big a deal. Try spending more time on the writing and less on pointing out issues like signatures. -- Logical Premise 21:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, it's a minor issue when compared to say, world hunger, but basic etiquette would be nice. I'd rather not delve through the history of talk pages to work out when someone has signed their comment. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because something has been done for five years doesn't make it right. And while I agree it's a minor issue, community norms (as defined at WP:SIG) requires a link to either his user talk or user page in his signature. As he's an admin, it seems even more important that he follow community standards (which also includes adding a date/time to all talk page comments). —Locke Cole • t • c 02:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that the Arbitrary Committee is not a legitimate authority anyway, and so what it says is irrelevant... Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

And heeeeeereee we go with the random drop in of "Arbitrary Committee" attacks. Don't you have another windmill to tilt against, Kurt? SirFozzie (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Go on Kurt, stand for ArbCom this year. I'd vote for you. Black Kite 00:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I voted for Kurt for the board, if he stands for Arbcom I will vote for him for sure. Sticky Parkin 01:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not see this become a teapot tempest. I would hope, now that the matter has been brought to Docu's attention a couple of times, that he would just add a link to his user or talk page to his sig, and sign with a datestamp (just like everyone else does). While we allow all our editors a fair bit of leeway with their sigs, having a link and a datestamp is simple courtesy to other editors. (Links make communication easier, while datestamps are helpful in long, threaded discussions on busy noticeboards.)

As admins, we're supposed to at least try to stick to best practices on Misplaced Pages and set a good example; those include signing with four tildes and not doing things that inconvenience others. Please, Docu? While I doubt you'll face any sanctions over this, is there any reason why you'd want to make work for other contributors, or why you wouldn't want a link in your sig? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Meh. I agree with the above. I've been watching this unfold on WT:SIG and haven't jumped in because I've hoped that Docu would simply consent to using a more standard signature that at least provides users with a link to the user page or talk page, and please try signing talk pages with the datestamp. The signature confuses bots, makes it difficult to tell when a comment was made (in some cases making it difficult to realise that Docu commented at all), and adds an unnecessary step for users who are trying to access the user/talk/contributions/etc. I really can't see any good reason not to link, and I do believe it's a wholly reasonable request that people are making here. Shereth 21:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Meh, he's been using it since 2003. I honestly cannot believe it's been dragged to AIV. It's not the first time it's happened. If he was acting in a disruptive matter, I could see it. He's not, he never has, and I'm not particularly happy with the constant instruction creep flowing into WP:SIG being hauled up as if it were policy. -- Logical Premise 00:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that this was something that should have been brought to AN/I OR AIV, but since it's here. I don't think it's inappropriate to ask for him at least to have a timestamp. We have quite a bit of leeway with signatures (which might be hypocritical coming from someone who essentially opposed an rfa because of a signature, but oh wellsies) but the whole point of a signature is to know who said something and when. We have the who, now we just need the when. L'Aquatique 00:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's disruptive, albeit minor. As for leeway, please see WP:SIG, specifically the section which mandates a user or user talk link in signatures. There doesn't seem to be much leeway there, IMO. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a question...why is a timestamp on the page necessary, when all of our posts are timestamped regardless if we add one or not. It is on the diffs and our contrib pages, I am just curious as to why that it is necessary for it to beside our sigs as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk 02:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC) (the previous statement was made by a non-admin)

Two reasons, one so that people reading a discussion can see the order in which it was made, particularly on deletion discussion, RFAs, etc. Second, it lets the bot know how old a thread is and when to archive it. MBisanz 02:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's many reasons. Mainly, if you're looking at a heavily edited talk page or archives, the edit in question may be buried hundreds of diffs ago. This can be especially difficult for users utilizing assistive technology, text browsers, or just plain old hardware. The point of having a timestamp attached is that you know immediately who said what when without having to dig through the page history. This is random, but you do not have to mark your comments as being made by a non-admin. Many of the contributors here are not admins, it's not a requirement for posting on this board.
Locke: at risk of sounding like a broken record, WP:SIG is a guideline and by it's very definition has leeway. Please see WP:IAR. L'Aquatique 03:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

IAR is typically only invoked when trying to improve the encyclopedia. I fail to see how ignoring community norms (and a guideline; which I believe is more like a policy given how widely respected it is) and making it more difficult to interact with you helps the encyclopedia. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Reread IAR- it can be applied wherever it needs to be. I'm not suggesting that we do nothing, but going straight to "let's block" is not helpful either. L'Aquatique 04:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You need to reread it yourself (on a side note, telling someone who's been here longer than you to read something they've edited repeatedly themselves is borderline silly)— "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore it." Exactly as I said, "improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages", neither of which ignoring WP:SIG does. So I again ask you, how is Docu in the right to ignore community norms? BTW, nobody is going straight to "let's block". As I understand it, he's been talked to about this for years. At some point you need to escalate things if you expect conformance. Otherwise, all the rules/guidelines/policies in the world won't mean a thing if you refuse to enforce them. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

and IAR does not mean you can go on blindly ignoring something if people call you on it. If people call you on it you have to discuss it and get consensus for the change which doesn't seem to have happened here.--Crossmr (talk) 09:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Good, now I know who I can ignore if I run into a conflict or discussion with. People who make their pages inaccessible or difficult to reach get no dealings from me. seicer | talk | contribs 12:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's hardly making it difficult to reach, User:Docu in the address bar and off you go. It's just not as easy as if there was a sig there. --Ged UK (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone is as competent enough about URLs and using computers that such a thing is obvious. Including (mandating) a user or user talk link makes the site more accessible to new editors/computer users. Using plaintext signatures does the opposite.. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. While I could do that, I'm not because it involves modifying my URL bar, doing a query in the search bar, or doing an action that only impedes communication. That's not difficult for me, but it can be for many new users or users who just don't want to communicate with a user who is choosing to be ignored. seicer | talk | contribs 13:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You can just put it in the "search" and wait for it to pop up. User:Docu is being kind of a jerk on this, but it's a crime akin to tearing a tag off a mattress. I'd like to see this trivial matter go to ArbCom and see how long it takes for the laughter to die down. Baseball Bugs 14:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal information posted to User:SteveNimmons by anonymous user

Someone has anonymously posted a full birthdate to this userpage. Wronkiew (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the page and restored the sole revision that didn't contain personal information. Blocking the IP might be in order as well. Blueboy96 22:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone with access to the logs should at least let them know what happened to their edits. Wronkiew (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Suntag moving AfD pages to VfD pages then asking for deletions of redirects

At the time that Votes for Deletion was changed to Articles for Deletion, all old VfD pages were moved to AfD. Suntag (talk · contribs) is moving the AfDs for old discussions back to VfD, and putting a db-redir tag on the AfD page. This seems to be occurring without any discussion. I have asked Suntag to stop and would request that their moves be undone. Corvus cornix_talk 01:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Suntag has indicated that he will stop. Could somebody undo the moves? Thanks. Corvus cornix_talk 01:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• How many admins does it take to screw in a light bulb? Just kidding. I think I only moved about three AfDs back to VfD and if need be, I think my move button works in the opposite direction. Also, I would be happy to move the VfDs listed at Misplaced Pages:Archived delete discussions/2004 and the other Archived delete debates to AfD prefixes if that is the present consensus on the matter. -- Suntag ☼ 01:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-admins can't move to pages which have edits. You put db-redir on them, so only admins can do the move. Corvus cornix_talk 01:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• OK, this is getting odd. I properly archived article deletion discussion and that got reverted. Is there a reason to hid certain deletion debates from being archived? -- Suntag ☼ 01:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I've brought that up at PhilKnight's Talk page. Corvus cornix_talk 01:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Hi, sorry I reverted the wrong edit. PhilKnight (talk) 11:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Baseless COI Charge

Would you kindly check the Walnut Street Theatre discussion page for possible intentional misinformation and baseless COI charge. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Walnut_Street_Theatre Thanks Breschard (talk) 02:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please step back and read WP:NLT. If you feel you have to proceed with legal proceedings, then you may not edit on Misplaced Pages. Corvus cornix_talk 02:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I am attempting to avoid just such action. I seek the removal of unsupported allegations. Thanks. Breschard (talk) 02:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about which parts are potentially libelous? L'Aquatique 02:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a baseless statement made that my family or I have an ownership interest in WST and such interest influences my editing. Breschard (talk) 02:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not libel. Have you tried talking it out with the editor who said it? L'Aquatique 03:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You certainly are entitled to your opinion, with which I disagree. It is at best dissemination of false information. The editor who said it is beyond my feeble attempts at communication. Breschard (talk) 03:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

He needs to provide evidence to support his claims, or he stands to be blocked for disruption. Meanwhile, you need to withdraw your legal threat ASAP, or you almost certainly will be blocked. Baseball Bugs 03:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I only edit myself.Breschard (talk) 03:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the legal threat. Now the ball is in his court (pardon the ironic metaphor). I recommend you go to his talk page and ask. If he ignores you, and continues to edit elsewhere, I would say you've got a fair complaint, and an admin should step in and warn him, for starters; and take further action as needed. False accusations, such as COI, sockpuppetry, and other such, are not tolerated here, as they are very disruptive. Baseball Bugs 03:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

As I stated previously, this editor is beyond my feeble attempts at communication. I would appreciate it if an admin would step in and rectify the false statements.Breschard (talk) 03:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Another editor is starting to do some work on it and I asked him to come here for further discussion. Baseball Bugs 03:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Set of eyes needed on User:Arbiteroftruth

This crafty fellow has protected his user talk page for some reason, so i couldn't leave him a polite message about his antics. He has engaged in repeated hostile and trollish behavior on Misplaced Pages for months now, and has willfully harrassed Muslim editors like myself. Something needs to be done. Algarve Fan Person (talk) 03:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

diffs please? L'Aquatique 03:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's in his talk page history... in August, he requested and got apparently permanent semi-prot of his talk page. ThuranX (talk) 03:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"Algarve Fan Person" was just an old friend. Antandrus (talk) 04:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I remember that name. My interaction with him was after he bothered User:سمرقندی, claiming falsely that he was not allowed to have an Arabic-alphabet name on the English Misplaced Pages, and simultaneously reporting him to UAA. (سمرقندی is, incidentally, the unified username of a longtime Wikipedian, also known as Samarqandi, who is perhaps the most prolific editor on the Urdu Misplaced Pages.)

He responded by templating me, accusing me of slandering him, and forbidding me to reply on his talk page (which I disregarded): .

He did later change his tone to me, but I would have preferred if he had instead changed his approach. The later posts on his talk page show he's still trying to be The Enforcer, but he's got a pretty muddled idea of the rules he's trying to enforce, and he misses the big ones like AGF and common sense. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. So Algavre Fan Person was a returning troll? The things he said about Arbiter seem to be fairly correct, regardless. I would consider it beneficial if someone could adopt Arbiter or do something else where they get to guide him in how Misplaced Pages works and get the idea of AGF across to him. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm more confused now. Algavre Fan Person seems to have made only constructive edits. Why did you block him, Antandrus? I don't understand your "old friend" comment, nor the reason you gave in the block log. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

He's a returning troll. See User:JeanLatore. No genuinely new user immediately picks up on an edit war after his previous sockpuppet (Pierre DuPaix III (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked, nor immediately comes to a noticeboard to complain about someone's behavior. The style is absolutely Wiki brah/Jean Latore/Courtney Akins/Rainbowwarrior1977/Adam Nicholson/ etc.etc. He used to troll Essjay and Lucky 6.9 constantly; he has dozens of sockpuppets, and he's been doing this for more than three years. He's getting more sophisticated -- he chooses an editor to complain about that will generate some drama, as he did here. During his long career he has done some good edits -- there's a few to law articles, for example. Antandrus (talk) 04:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Also see Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/JeanLatore if you're unfamiliar with this one. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 04:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Even a broken clock can be right twice a day...--Crossmr (talk) 04:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a broken clock has to be right twice a day. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Depends on how it's broken: it could be slow, fast, erratic, or run backwards. Now, a stopped clock, it's always right twice a day, but the trick is to figure out when. Ed Fitzgerald 07:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel like its at least in the ballpark right now..--Crossmr (talk) 09:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• The username "arbiteroftruth" raises some red flags, and there appear to be some behavioural issues. What next? Guy (Help!) 10:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

history of problems... recent block for major disruption on an AfD (in multiple forms) it deserves much closer scrutiny.--Crossmr (talk) 12:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism - Sudharsansn

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Sudharsansn&diff=239487636&oldid=239145717

"== you ==

are a fucking moron!"

An anon IP apparently popped out of nowhere and me a 'nice' message.

I request the admins to take notice of this. Thanks. ] (] · ]) 07:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverted and warned. If the anon persists, then report him/her to WP:AIV. Aside from that, there's nothing else to do here. sephiroth bcr 07:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt action :-) ] (] · ]) 07:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Self promotion/Vandalism

Would an admin please check this we have an editor who is constantly inserting text about themselves, has ignored warnings on their talk page and is now over 3RR. Thanks --Snowded TALK 08:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I see a final warning was given so I'd wait to see if disruption continues after that. Cirt (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks --Snowded TALK 08:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for community ban

• Boondocks37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user, after asserting a removal of an autoblock (apparently blocked for POV pushing), disappears for a over a year, then returns for more of the same.

The posting to User talk:Raul654 (diff), really would seem to make it clear that this user does not have Misplaced Pages's best interests at heart.

I am looking for a community ban rather than just a block (indefinite or otherwise) due to the long time "missing", combined with the concern about the autoblock. I think that this user may have been (and be) using IPs and possibly other socks to continue more of the same.

As an aside, when looking over their contributions, I noted that their other edit seems odd based on the reference provided (and because it replaced other text), and have reverted. I did this both because I disagree with how the article is being construed in the article, but also because (in this case, anyway), I won't be the one to block the individual. (I wish to be "just-another-editor" in this.)

Anyway, I welcome others' thoughts/opinion on all of this (including if you think I'm "way off base" on this). - jc37 08:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, at what point should we consider that there is consensus concerning this? And once that's determined, someone else will please need to enact the block/ban, since I have intentionally recused myself from that. - jc37 22:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• A years absence shows that time isn't going to fix this. That doesn't exactly leave us with many choices.--Crossmr (talk) 09:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

  Agreed. - jc37 08:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• I concur with a community ban. Raul654 (talk) 02:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• I support a community ban on Boondocks37. If there is serious concern about socking, it would be good to have a WP:SSP case to refer to in this discussion. Even if no additional action is required, it helps to gather the evidence in one place. EdJohnston (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Looks like a good way to solve this issue. Tiptoety 02:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• Question – If this dispute is about a single word in a single article I think this is being blown way out of proportion. Are there other instances of unconstructive editing? Has this user engaged in abusive socking? Also I am wondering if the administrator who originally unblocked this user has any opinion on whether there should be a ban or not. If that administrator supports a ban, or if there is abusive socking as confirmed by checkuser, I would have no objection. Bwrs (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Confused. We have a user who was once blocked inappropriately (no warnings, no prior blocks, no attempts to explain why his edits were a problem) well over a year ago, who reappears and makes a few edits to a different article. Again, he has received no warnings and nobody has attempted to explain what problem apparently exists with his edits, but now we're not just trying to block him, but to all out ban him. If there's evidence of abusive sockpuppetry, it would need to be presented before I could support a block (we've seen how well blocks based on speculation of sockpuppetry work). The reason a years absence didn't "fix this" is because nobody has attempted to "fix this". Based on what's been presented, I just don't get why exactly we are banning him. - auburnpilot talk 01:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

  I had thought it was self-evident by by post at the top.

  But before trying to further to clarify, may I ask if you looked at the diffs (both, before and now), and to share your opinion of them. - jc37 08:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've looked at the diffs, and I must say I'm afraid I can't see what this thread is about. Unless there are deleted contribs that only admins can see, other than this uncivil post, this editor's contributions don't even seem particularly problematic to me. If there are allegations of socking, where are the diffs please, where is the related SSP or checkuser case? Oppose ban. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 09:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Question i ran trough the history of his talk page, and i noticed the absence of both warning templates or even an explanation before he was blocked the first time. Unless discussion took place somewhere else or there has been some form of grave misconduct i am unaware of, it is customary to warn a user before blocking him or her. Besides, i ran trough his recent edits and i fail to see any PoV pushing that bad it warrants an instant block. At the same time the diff above is unfriendly, but if it is the only misconduct i would say like to note that if that offense was a reason for an instant ban, we would have to do so for quite some people. Pure vandals must receive four warnings before being eligible for a block, so i fail to see why this case should warrant one without warning? So for now Oppose Ban. Excirial 09:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Arrr, he can walk the plank. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, all that is visible to me is small amounts of POV-pushing followed by an excessive block, and no attempts to discuss the issue with the user. There is nothing here yet that supports a formal ban. If there is more, please show it. Kusma (talk) 09:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Agree with Kusma and auburnpilot. No to a ban on the basis of the "evidence" presented here. I don't see what the diff jc37 posted is supposed to prove. And where's the checkuser case? Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban The diff posted is only one example of the trolling and POV pushing exhibited by this user. The fact that he came back right after an extended block to wave an edit in Raul's face is simply childish. We don't need editors like this here, who are not only unwilling to learn from their mistakes, but persist in acts of seeming "revenge" against those who opposed them. Hersfold 15:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I would not characterize a 1 week block (and unblocked the next day) as an "extended block", and have difficulty understanding how anyone else could. DuncanHill (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, I misread the block log for some reason. Either way, he hasn't improved any, and we don't need this level of immaturity here. Hersfold 16:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Further comment - a "long time missing" is surely not grounds for any administrative action at all, let alone a ban. I'll just add that I have informed the editor in question of this thread, as no-one else appears to have bothered. DuncanHill (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban. An editor who has made but 45 edits, very few of which highlight behaviour arising from anything other than a poor understanding of how the encyclopedia works and how editors are expected to conduct themselves, does not deserve a formal slamming-of-the-door. I would suggest instead an experienced and uninvolved administrator sit down with this editor and give some serious tuition about how we behave on a collaborative encyclopedia, and make clear the consequences if s/he does not conform to the communal standards of conduct we hold here. (My message at User talk:Dpmuk#Skin Hunters may be a useful example.) However, on the proposal to ban this user, I do not believe this to be a move that facilitates the improvement of the encyclopedia; and, if the worst comes to the worst and Boondocks37 disrupts in the future, an administrator can simply issue a preventive block. Now, let's get back to some article writing. Anthøny ✉ 16:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Nah ah, definetly premature for a community ban, a good way to the solve the issue is not always the right way. Also theres something wrong with the diff you provided and that is he said it against Raul.......seriously its Raul so im not to fussed about him trolling a troll.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Pot, meet kettle. Black Raul654 (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Excirial

Please ask Excirial to leave me alone!! He has been asked not to engage with me but he keeps posting things about me which mischaracterise my actions (see Chunky Rice's page). Now he has posted a patronising "apology" on my page which again distorts what happened when I started editing here. He is aware that I feel like I am being bullied and this doesn't help!! miniluv (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess this is WP:DR material by now? For those that do not know this relates to this previous ANI along with a long discussion on several talk pages including mine, his, rice's and hut 8.5's. I told Rice i would abstain from further discussion with Ministry of Love and any involvement with the articles in question since the discussion was heading nowhere.

This morning i noticed that miniluv added good quality sources to the AFD in question which clearly indicated that he was right in his claim that the article in question is notable. As of such i concluded that he had no intention of disruption and that the entire situation quite likely escalated by a lack of assumption of good faith from my side. As of such i hoped that an (rather long) explanation about what happened along with an apology would clear or at least improve the somewhat hostile atmosphere between us. Guess this is not the case... and i am thoroughly confused by this. I fail to understand how trying to explain what happened along with offering my (honest) apologies could miss its intended goal by so much its effect seems to be the opposite of my own intention... :( Excirial 12:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again you bring up disruption as though it is somehow relevant to my actions. You said you wouldn't have any more involvement with the articles. But you did!! You agreed not to engage with me. But you did!! I don't need you to "explain" what happened or to imply that what happened was my fault because I'm just a confused girl who misunderstood something in the overwhelming world of wiki! I just need you to leave me alone!!! miniluv (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"He" is simply trying to explain his thought processes and the actions he took and offering you an apology for his part in it. Maybe you should take the advice of the many editors that aren't Excirial and have a look at some of the relevant policies. No doubt that he and the others may have been able to make their points a little better but, that doesn't excuse the errant actions that you seem to have took during the encounters either. The adult thing to do would seem to be apologising to each other for the misunderstandings and moving on with improving the encyclopedia. Additionally, I don't see how this requires any administrator action. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Jasynnash, what are my "errant actions" that you refer to??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministry of Love (talk • contribs) 12:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed this question at my talkpage as Ministry of Love asked it there before I saw it here. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

To any reviewing admin: Should i start a WP:DR procedure for this, or just forget about this entire situation and move on, closing this ani? I really don't like having someone angry or annoyed with me over a misunderstanding, but by now it feels that any attempt from me to solve this is actually counterproductive. I tried to explain to miniluv why i am not out to bully her several times now, but to no avail. At the same time miniluv seems to wish that any attempt from me to fix this issue stops, no matter if i am trying to explain the situation or simply want to say good job since she managed to add quality sources to the article we were discussing about. For me this is getting close to the "Unfix able issue" corner. Excirial 12:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless you have reason to communicate further with this editor, who doesn't seem open to your olive branch, I'd drop it in the "unfixable issue" corner and move on. You don't have a dispute with her. If she thinks she has a dispute with you, she can read WP:DR and follow the procedure herself, though I'm at a loss as to how that apology could be construed as bullying. It seems nicely done to me. --Moonriddengirl 12:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved – User referred to WP:AIAV Excirial 14:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards