Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:52, 14 October 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

TTN mass nominating articles for deletion with the exact same wording

I don’t know what this guy has against fictional characters and television episodes, but every day he makes a spurt of deletion nominations with literally the same wording (see here). Surely the exact same wording cannot apply to every single article on a fictional character or television episode? I find this style insulting to those who wrote the articles as it says, “Sorry, but I don’t have to consider the individual merits of the articles you worked on or help look for sources as every character or episode article I see is the same and must be redirected or deleted.” And to top things off the only edits to actual articles I see (see here) are slapping on deletion boxes, merge boxes, or just going ahead and redirecting them. WTH? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.1.130 (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Because it has been 6 months since TTN has been placed on editing restrictions by ArbCom, and because he obviously feels that he now has the right to go back to the exact same behavior that led to the arbcom sanctions listed here: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2#Remedies Based on the return of the exact behavior that led to these sanctions I propose, formally, that the community decides to return the same sanctions that recently expired, and to extend those sanctions indefinately. What does everyone else think? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Doug Weller (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Block him immediately. Baseball Bugs 17:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that most of those articles have no merits on their own and should be merged or deleted, I think his nominations are excessively pointy; there's got to be a more constructive way to try and establish notability guidelines for works of fiction. Considering that this is only the repetition of behavior that caused a restriction in the past, I would consider it appropriate to return those restrictions (per WP:GAMING). —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 17:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't do so because he is not currently under restrictions. They technically expired 6 months after the ArbCom ruling, which was March 10, 2008, so he has been "free" from sanctions since September 10, 2008. Therefore, I wanted to get a clear go ahead from the community before blocking, so that we have covered all of the bases, and we are sure that we are ready to take the next step. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC) :::::Just to clarify, the reason for the restriction was edit warring over redirects, not the actual actions of merging, redirecting, or nominating AfDs. TTN (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There is already a request for extension here. TTN (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Block and extend sanctions immediately. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 17:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone has already requested an extension of TTN's prohibitions, but its been pointed out that what TTN is doing is not the same as his actions before: he has followed WP:BRD appropriately for all of these and is neither edit warring nor using fait accompli tactics that he was admonished for. This is not the same behavior, and even a prelim review of the extension suggests that its the fact that this is not TTN's fault, but instead those that cannot compromise in defining better standards for fictional elements (My attempt to get a compromise WP:FICT in place failed because 25% thought it too harse, the other 25% too loose). TTN is being used as a scapegoat and easy target in light of the case, which also noted a general community sanction to get people to work towards compromise and that has not happened. --MASEM 17:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Going right back to the same behavior you just got out of proverbial "jail" for when your sanctions expire isn't a sign of being here to benefit Misplaced Pages, if the old behavior was judged to be harmful to the encyclopedia (hence the sanctions). If TTN is here for Misplaced Pages he should immediately stop doing these until the current RFAR request is closed one way or the other. If not, an enforced community break from deletion and redirection is probably a good idea. The stupid massive ongoing drama he triggers is too destructive. rootology (C)(T) 17:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, happen to agree with TNN's philosophy on these sort of crufty, fictional articles. TNN isn't breaking policy and his restriction was over redirects, as stated above. Unless someone can show how this is against current policy, no action should be taken. Tan | 39 17:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Are we serious? There is an ongoing request for extension where at least one arb has said he isn't doing the same behavior that lead to sanctions. the previous request for clarification was archived with the same outcome. Don't block him. Protonk (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Regardless of the specific tools being used, TTN is attempting to use the availible tools to force his own, personal view of what Misplaced Pages policy should be towards articles such as these. The volume and number of the nominations and the obvious fact that each nomination is not carefully considered shows that TTN is simply looking to eliminate an entire class of articles. Now, it is true that the community has not made any consensus one way or the other on how to deal with these articles, and there may be good reasons for most of these to be deleted, however the act of making policy through massive AFDs, which is what this ammounts to, is exactly the same as making policies through massive redirects. The redirect tactic didn't work for TTN last time, so he is trying a new route. However, the actual behavior, which is attempting to personally create Misplaced Pages policy where the community has not done so, is the main problem. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
    • There is no mandate that we are forced to consider and contemplate one bit of trivia and plot summary differently from another bit of trivia and plot summary. What do you suggest he do? Write an individual summary noting the nuances separating Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Maya_Gallo from Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Nina_Van_Horn? Honestly, if people don't like this behavior of nomination they can file an RfC to see the community input, not ask for a bad from An/I because articles that are outside our inclusion criteria are being considered for deletion. Protonk (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I find it very difficult to accept the use of BRD and AFD as means to "force" one's views. These are all means to discussion. Now, I will admit that a step that usually is considered (but by no means required) is to discuss a redirect or a possibility of deletion on the article talk page. The problem is that when you deal with fiction you will encounter mini-cabals of editors that will defend such articles, making it impossible to get consensus even if the article fails policies. Bringing such articles to AFD as a first step may seem aggressive, but it also gets the participation of a much larger group of editors involved thus getting better consensus of the issues. Unfortunately, we lack any other type of process that is meant to gain larger input than just those that watch an article's page regularly (which is why AFD is sometimes called Articles for Discussion). There's no required process that TTN is violating here, it just may speak badly of the lack of process that we have for better discussion of such articles. Should TTN be blocked for that? Not unless everyone else that uses them is too. --MASEM 18:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It's sad to see this kind of thing coming to ANI, especially being supported an admin that I generally respect. It is not TTN's fault that there are tens of thousands of bad articles on Misplaced Pages. His AFD nominations are generally on target, and the results of his AFDs are generally to merge, redirect, or delete. If the only way that policy can be formed in this area is by running enought stuff through AFD to generate changes to WP:OUTCOMES, that's sad, but nothing to block an editor for. TTN is not violating any policies or guidelines, and is not deserving of even a short block, much less a ban.—Kww(talk) 17:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me, or has this board (perhaps others) become tattle boards to try to get TTN in trouble? I've seen many of his video game nominations: and the articles are indeed cruft, clutter, game guide content, etc...in many cases. He can't redirect: because people will just undo it, and then tattle on him. But he can't put them in AFD either apparently, because people have had issues with him in the past. Frankly, I think people need to settle down. Other people nominate numerous articles for deletion, but they don't get tattled on. I believe this is a matter of "TTN has past issues, so let's just report it everytime he nominates things", which is a bit wrong. Also to comment about what Jayron said: I highly doubt TTN is trying to make up policies. There is already policies that back up what he nominates. He states what policies the article violates, and in most cases he is right. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not just you at all. I really think that we need to consider establishing some kind of sanction for filing ANI or Arbcom reports on this topic. The block and sanction requests cause more trouble than the AFDs.—Kww(talk) 18:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• In my humble opinion, the suggested sanctions in this thread are slightly excessive. If TTN is going to be restricted, it should be to limit the number of AfDs he is allowed to file in any 24 hour period to a reasonable number, perhaps 5 or 6. Similarly, the number of redirects could also be limited, if deemed necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
• It's worth noting that, aside from these AfDs, TTN continues to continue his pattern of willy-nilly, discussion-free merging. (an article he had previously made into a redirect and was specifically named in the last arbcom decision against him) &c. &c. &c. Ford MF (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to waste my time counting any more, but it looks like in the last 24 hours alone, he's redirected over two dozen articles without a word of discussion on any. Ford MF (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
    • A good chuck of which, now that I'm checking, recently went through AfD as kept from lack of consensus. Ford MF (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm having trouble finding the policy that says redirection is a crime. Can you point it out for me? Protonk (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
        • TTN has been blocked in the past for disruptive patterns of behavior, which continue unabated. Ford MF (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It's apparently a crime to redirect, because TTN has had issues in the past. If it was any other editor: it would probably go unnoticed. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, nearly all of my hundreds (over a thousand?) of bold-mergers and bold-redirects went unnoticed, so it really must be TTN's name that makes bold-mergers and bold-redirects a crime. – sgeureka 19:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirects aren't a crime, obviously, but the mass removal of content that targets a very narrow range of communities is disruptive--particularly when it is an editor's entire raison d'être. I might feel differently if I had ever seen TTN do the work to provide references for any article or series of articles, anywhere, but he takes advantage of the fact that improving articles is quite a bit harder than blanking it with a redirect template, and keeping up with his redirects and AfDs would be a full time Wiki-job, leaving little left to actually do the work. Ford MF (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Especially if the redirected articles already had a consensus to keep at AfD discussion at AfD with no consensus to delete.Rlendog (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

So one editor imposes his will, and everyone cries, "What shall we do? What shall we do?" This is an all-too familiar theme in wikipedia. Bullies get their way. Baseball Bugs 19:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Bugs, you and I agree on a lot, but you're WAY off base here. I suggest everybody read Thebainer's suggestion of where the fault lies at WP:RfArb, where this issue is currently. This smacks of forum shopping and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I suggest the editors on the eternal crusade stop asking Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest? and start working WITH TTN, not against him. 19:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That's great, except TTN's pattern of behavior is essentially one of directing the work of other editors, not even remotely in any way "working with them". As I said, if TTN ever worked to improve an article in a way that wasn't deleting something, or nominating it for deletion, or pointing out that someone (someone else, naturally) needs to come in and provide references, not in time, but NOW, then yeah, there would be grounds for that, but there isn't. Working "with" TTN is essentially agreeing to work "for" him. Ford MF (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Basically the Betacommand approach: "I'm following policy, therefore no discussion is needed - nor wanted, as that will slow me down from my appointed deletionist mission." Baseball Bugs 19:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The AfDs I spot checked looked ok, didn't see a snowy keep (or more than one or two keep comments throughout), lots of delete comments, sometimes merge comments instead. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• I honestly feel that we would benefit from a RFC/U on TTN. Enough people feel that his behavior (rather than the underlying content dispute) is unacceptable that we should provide a venue for them to give feedback. I'm wholeheartedly against (and so, evidently, are the arbs who commented on the requests for clarification/extension) just using AN/I to thwack TTN for what some editors feel is bad behavior, but that doesn't mean I'm blind to the underlying problems with his methods. the place to sort out a thorny content/conduct dispute is RFC, not Arbcom and not here. I don't want this to turn into an inclusionist/deletionist back and forth, because that benefits NO ONE. But I don't want to dismiss the concerns here as "content dispute". the right answer is an RFC. Protonk (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that we'll get any new insight into TTN/deletionist/inclusionist conflict, but we can certainly try. – sgeureka 19:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be better than coming here and riling up people with the Scarlet "D" on his chest from that arbcom case. Protonk (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• There is finally an effective means to rid wikipedia of bad fiction articles with community consensus (AfD), and people are still badmouthing TTN to arbcom and AN/I in the hope to get him sanctioned again (even the first sanction was not as widely supported as some editors wish to believe). Is there also the possibility that not TTN is the problem, but the unwillingness of editors to collaborate outside of AfD (accept mergers and redirects or improve the articles to justify as a WP:SPINOUT) to prevent TTN's need to take those bad articles to AfD to get them merged/redirected/deleted just the same? Oh, by the way, wikipedia is a voluntary projects, and just like everyone has the right to add content only, all editors have the right to concentrate on removing content that is not inline with policies and guidelines. – sgeureka 19:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If TTN has an issue with "bad" articles, he should note his legitimate concerns on the articles' talk pages. If the editors who created the content (or otherwise wish to retain it) don't respond to those legitimate concerns, TTN should be free to nominate for AfD without being sanctioned. On the other hand, if TNN is not attempting to engage the editors of the content he obhects to before mass nominating for AfD, that is a different story...Rlendog (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

A modest proposal: if TTN is mass-nominating articles for deletion, and most of these are ending up being kept, then he's being disruptive, wasting a lot of editor time, and he should be asked to stop. (I find it a little strange that the community doesn't seem to agree that what he's doing is a problem, yet the proposed solution is to block him. If we aren't agreed, his behavior is marginal, not clearly offensive, and so response should be measured, not abrupt.) On the other hand, if most of these AfDs result in delete, he's serving the project, as long as the AfDs themselves don't show disruptive behavior. I find it a bit refreshing if the nominator sits back and doesn't comment any more, beyond his original reason, letting the community decide. It's tendentious argument at AfD that can be so poisonous. I'll note that if the nominator can mass-nominate with identical reason given, surely !voters can comment with the same comment. Lots of complaints were registered about User:Kmweber for that, but it was always found to be acceptable.

As to redirects, they are less disruptive than AfDs. It's an ordinary editorial decision. Again, his behavior in that process would be the issue: does he edit war (and BRD isn't edit warring)? Is he uncivil? Being "unresponsive," as some charged, is not offensive in itself. He puts his time where he thinks it's important. No response is not an uncivil response. If he reverts repeated without discussion, that's not lack of responsiveness, it's edit warring. --Abd (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Being unresponsive is uncivil. It's the same as saying "F.U." to the questioner. The non-response says the questioner is inferior and thus unworthy of spending time responding to. "He puts his time where he thinks it's important." Responding to a question thus is "not important" - because the questioner is "not important" - because only TTN's view matters. How is that kind of behavior "civil"? Baseball Bugs 20:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've noted that topics concerning TTN tend to get somewhat lengthy, if not heated. Perhaps a page concerning this should be created and a redirect placed here if only to give everyone more elbow room? HalfShadow 20:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This is nowhere near the size of the CENSEI megillah that developed here and stayed on this page.

• I opened some of these AfDs at random. Many are unanimous "delete"s so far (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sir Roysten Merchant, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jill Tyrell, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nancy Beebe). Based on these and on what I have read here, I see no problems with TTN's nominations. If people disagree with them they can say so in the AfDs. I don't understand what all the fuss is about and I am, frankly, most astonished about Baseball Bugs' "Block him immediately" comment.  Sandstein  20:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • It was stated that he was doing something he had been warned not to do. If that is true, then he should be blocked immediately for misbehavior. If not, then that's another story. The opinion on whether he's behaving properly seems to be mixed. However, if he won't answer fair questions, then he's being uncivil, and a block might effect an attitude adjustment - or at least get him to answer. Baseball Bugs 20:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
    • That's got a pretty big chain of unrevealed assumptions there. We have to assume that he was actually doing what he was warned not to do. We have to assume the warning came in good faith and from a neutral party. We have to assume that the matter at hand is something worth blocking. And, frankly, I don't agree with the "block because I think he has a 'tude" viewpoint. He isn't 13. We aren't effecting discipline here. I don't think a bold "block him immediately" was the right response to the stated complaint. Protonk (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
      • On the contrary, he should be nominated for adminship, since he apparently knows what's best. Baseball Bugs 21:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Don't make this worse. He doesn't need a nobel prize. I'm just suggesting that coming to AN/I and treating his malfeasance as a certainty isn't the way to go. Protonk (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd also note that TTN is not only nominating for deletion and redirecting, he's also placing merge tags (example from today) which is hardly unilateral. As Sandstein says above, most of the AfDs seem to be reasonable, and as for the redirects - well, when I see TTN redirecting well-sourced articles with good third-party references and real-world notability, then I'll agree with the editors who repeatedly bring this to the drama boards. Black Kite 21:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The thing is his exactly samely worded noms suggest that he is just indiscriminately nominating articles on fictional characters and television episodes which clearly he and a few others just do not like and that can/should be merged redirected instead. He is also nominating so many articles that it is overwhelming the deletion debate area. And he is showing no signs of actually checking for sources first. It actually takes some time to search for sources and incorporate them into articles. When he has done that? When he found sources and added them to articles? If people revert his redirects, gee, than maybe it’s because the consensus is that the articles are worthy and hey it seems only a portion of us even know about and find the deletion debates that only seem to last for a few days anyway. How does his cookie cutter nominations followed bye the same handful of others that flock to his discussions who slap down similarly repetitive “delete per TTN” or “delete as fancruft” nonsense rapidly across whatever debates this guy starts actually reflect what the community wants? At least the Protonk has the occasional keep worked in or when he argues to delete shows evidence of having looked for sources, but few of those who agree with him seem to make that effort to be objective and treat these discussions as individuals. What “contribution” do we get from , , , and so on? The same rapid fire posts that show no evidence of actually trying to find sources or offering anything new to the conversation. It’s like that from most of TTN’s defenders. He makes the same copy and paste nomination; a few of his allies show up and make the same copy and paste agreements with him (and what‘s classic is I get warned by someone who himself made a handful of copy and paste deletes not to make copy and paste keeps--what a farce!), maybe someone offers a counterpoint and actually provides sources or makes an effort to improve the article, but otherwise the same big brothers deciding for us is simply not right. Are we here to build an encyclopedia or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.1.2 (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• I think you forgot that you should be on 63.3.1.130, right? Because there isn't a connection between those two IP's, right?  :) Protonk (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this "vanishing" business is trickier than one would think. Deor (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

If anyone can prove this particular shitstorm was caused by our vanished friend, I think it's a good argument for a nice long rangeblock.—Kww(talk) 22:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh I don't know. Someone was going to raise the issue eventually. Like I said above, if people are pissed about TTN's conduct, then we should have a RFC/U, not a backdoor attempt at a topic ban because he used to edit war over redirects and mergers. Protonk (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Do we have any numbers about how his AFDs shake out? if they are 90% KEEP then he needs to reconsider what he's doing but if they are 90% delete, well.... --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I looked over the articles he put up for AfD, and they seem to deem that treatment. Most of the articles IMHO fail WP:Notability. What TTN does is another segment of keep WP clean. I, for example hit new articles with speedy delete tags, TTN just catches the articles further along the process, and puts them up for AfD. So, TTN is a cleanup warrior, not a vandal. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Redact my original proposal for sanctions After spending lots of time reviewing the entire situation, and reading people's comments, I no longer believe that TTN is commiting any real disruption worth sanctions at this time. I find his single-minded obsession with deleting the episode and character articles perplexing, but all of his nominations I agree should probably be deleted or merged into their parent articles. In the end, even though he is on this extensive mission, he has not as yet really done anything that I don't end up agreeing with. I think its easy to, given the history of this conflict, misinterpret the situation, but none of the individual actions he has taken has crossed the line. I apologize for perhaps starting the controversy this time, but I have carefully reconsidered my position. I don't really support his mission, but I also don't see any harm in it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • If you're OK with it, then that's the end of it. Leave him unblocked. Baseball Bugs 23:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
• No reason to block him. I've taken part in a few AfDs he has nominated. I found the nominations appropriate, and common closure is usually merge/redirect, sometimes delete. Examples:Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Baby_Doll_(Batman:_The_Animated_Series), Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Cad_Lackey, Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Dana_Tan, Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Defensor_(Transformers), Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Doz, Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Hexadecimal_(character), Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/LarryBoy, Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Marty_Funkhouser, Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Ro_Rowen, Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Tasp. The inclusionists that disagree with him are tying to subvert the AfD process by blocking or banning him, a typical kill the messenger reaction. VG ☎ 01:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• I might not see eye to eye with User:TTN, but I feel someone should offer a little balance. Disagree with his content decisions, but he isn't doing anything wrong. It would be different if he were breaking policy, ignoring warnings, and playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT... or abusing the WP:3RR. But he isn't. Moreover, he's using the WP:BRD process as designed. First he boldly merges or boldly redirects. If someone reverts, he starts a merge or deletion discussion. Even if I don't agree with him all of the time, there's usually a consensus for deleting, redirecting, or merging... suggesting that he's not being reckless, let alone malicious. I think we should assume good faith. And there is no damage. People are entirely free to contest his edits, or his suggestions at discussion pages, and they often do. If he's acting in good faith and doing no damage, then what's the problem? Randomran (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• To be honest, this was one of the reasons that I started the original Request for Clarification shortly after his restriction ended. I was concerned that TTN was ramping up activity in the arena of content removal again, and was hoping to get a clear indication from Arbcom on this, as they put the original restriction in place. First let me be clear that each action that TTN does, in isolation, I don't have a problem with. The mechanisms of raising AfDs, suggesting redirects and tagging potential mergis is part of the article peer review that makes WP work as a content development mechanism. Most of his statements are sensible, and most of his AfD suggestions are sound. So where does the trouble lie? Well, as I've always said, it's in the throughput. TTN does a lot of work in the content cleanup space, raising a large number of AfDs (I think it's been 30 in 24 hours, but I could be wrong) doing a lot of tagging and creating large numbers of redirects. It's this large volume of work that causes concern with other editors, and which I'd really encourage him to ease up on. To be clear, I don't see blocking as a solution here, because I don't think it's the appropriate tool. Instead, I'd ask TTN to slow down, to feed his work into the system at a slower rate and to be willing to liase with other editors to ensure that he works at a pace everyone feels comfortable with. Many thanks, Gazimoff 15:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

lolwut? Telling him to slow down the article cleaning process is akin to asking a vandal-guardian to slow down the reverts he/she does, or a new-page patroller to slow down on the db-taging of articles. I know on an average day I tag 20 articles for speedy delete, and revert another 40 changes. Should I slow down? Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not a like-for-like comparison. Recent changes/New pages patrol is one area, with a high level of continuous edits happening. Merges, reverts and AfDs have a much lower volume. In a WP workday, I can easily raise 30 or 40 CSDs on NPP. I'd be alarmed if I was raising the same volume of AfDs, and I'd be concerned that I was flooding the process if I did. Hope this makes sense. Gazimoff 17:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Two users insisting on including false & somewhat contradictory information on a page.

In reference to this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/MIM-72_Chaparral

The claim that the Chaparral can only engage in the daytime is false. The system uses (actually USED, since it's out of service for many years) a variety of methods for all-weather/day-time/night-time operation, including, but not limited to, night vision goggles, low-light binoculars, FLIR, & the trained ears of the operators.

This has been Army doctrine on the system for many years & is specified in numerous FM's, TM's, & other military publications. The fact is also known to the several tens of thousands of people who have either worked on, assembled, or operated the system in the past. As far as linking to the source documents, these are official military manuals that MAY include some still sensitive information. The Sidewinder used on the system is still in use & still being upgraded. Trying to include any type of sensitive information on an unofficial site like Wiki may not even be a good idea.

Further, the very statement of "day-time operation only" is contradictory to other parts of the article. Immediately below where the false statement once was, it mentions the FLIR & all weather operation. The reason that FLIR can allow the system to engage in the dark is the same principle that allows it to engage in ground-fog, heavy clouds, & rain....it can "see" the target by it's heat signature.

Two users, Inclusionist & 81.132.105.115, have reverted my corrections multiple times. They have been informed of all information above & even more, yet they still persist in including the inaccuracies. I feel that the IP user is also Inclusionist, since he appeared immediately after I asked the former to please stop with the reverting or I wuld report it as vandalism.

However, I can't prove that, so have to assume they are different people, even though they are doing the same identical thing, with the same article, within hours of each other. Inclusionist HASN'T did a revert back to the false information after I asked him not to & explained why. However, the IP user HAS....after he was presented with the same information.

Therefore, I am asking for a ban or block on him to prevent him simply adding back the wrong information each time that I attempt to correct it.

Also, there are even more inaccuracies within the page, once again disagreeing with Army doctrine, but I haven't changed them yet to the accurate version. I know, due to their past actions, one of the above two individuals will simply put it back the way it is, effectively making the Wiki-Article useless for any real reference.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.14.215.240 (talk • contribs)

Could you paraphrase all of this?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

There is an edit war at MIM-72 Chaparral between User:81.132.104.115 and User:67.14.215.240. 81.XXX is intentionally including text with a dubious tag so he knows it's not proper to be included. User:Inclusionist also reverted and even listed 67.XXX at WP:AIV but it was considered stale there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

In retrospect, 67.XXX was the first to remove content with the others warring to include it. Remains unsourced. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hard telling who's got the right info, and since this machine is no longer in operation, it seems like a serious tempest in a teapot. However, 67.XXX's megillah is filled with personal opinions about "Army doctrine", whatever that means, yet not one actual citation. It sounds like original research on his part, so he's on just as shaky ground as anyone in this edit skirmish. Baseball Bugs 10:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

My take on this (I'm also 81.132.104.115): the information had been there for a while, unquestioned by multiple editors, so I assumed (not having read all of the references) sufficient consensus for its correctness. 67.14.215.240 (talk · contribs) has disputed it, so the correct response is to put a {{dubious}} tag on it and remove it soon if no verification is forthcoming.

67.14.215.240, however, simply removed the text on grounds of unsupported original research, and can't/won't provide sources for his claims to the contrary. His other edits have involved similar unexplained removal of text (,,,). Particularly, blanking all the external links to Black site can hardly be viewed as anything but vandalism. 86.160.183.164 (talk) 13:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to show the accuracy of how I was TRYING to make the article read, the part in question can be referenced in FM44-16, 44-18-1, 44-4, & 44-3....along with several others. However, access to some of this, but not all, is password protected on official military sites. I TRY to make Wiki as accurate as possible, within the limits of my knowledge, and then only on articles which I am sure of & know that my statements can be documented.

Others, like the ones who repeatably vandalise my contributions, are more interested in policing OTHER people than actually working to help increase the quality of Wiki. This incident is a perfect example....there have been others.

The reason for the deletion of the external links is that ANOTHER Wiki-Policeman was intent on reverting some of my past edits with the reason being,"External links are not content" & "Wiki is not a repository of links".....so I'm simply following his instructions.....and I believe he was an admin.

But really, I don't care. I'm not like many "editors" who are only interested in adding 1 more notch to their edit-count, which they proudly display on their Talk-Page. I'm interested in ONLY 1 thing with Wiki....to help make it as accurate as possible. I found an inaccuracy in an article which I KNEW didn't belong, so I corrected it by deleting the inappropriate part. The article, as it stands at this minute, agrees with the official sources which I have already provided.

If these other guys would rather Wiki show FALSE information, by all means, let them. I tried my best to make it correct & won't fight them anymore, since they obviously have much more "correct" information on the article in question than I do. So go change it back to the inaccurate version if that's what makes you happy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.14.215.240 (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You "knowing" something is right or wrong doesn't past muster. You must find a citation for it. Baseball Bugs 00:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams and threat of libel lawsuit

We have an anonymous IP address, User:71.167.232.90, threatening a libel lawsuit against Misplaced Pages and/or User:Sean D Martin. I thought it best to contact the administrators since threatening a libel lawsuit seems rather disruptive to the editing process. I'd appreciate if someone would take a look at it as soon as possible. Regards, J Readings (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked for one month by User:EdJohnston. AdjustShift (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the difference between this editor and User:Gingerhillinc? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 18:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't forget the WP:DOLT principle. Just a reminder. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The level of disruption, mostly. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not following. User:Gingerhillinc issued a legal threat and vandalised an AfD. How is that less disruptive than 'only' issuing a legal threat? Edward321 (talk) 01:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

There's something screwy on the software infoboxes

Or more specifically the dates parts of it. For example Windows 98;

Current version: 4.10.1998 ("Gold"), 4.10.2222A ("SE"), 1998-Template:MÁNUÐUR-18; 3862 days ago ("Gold"), 1999-Template:MÁNUÐUR-05; 3449 days ago ("SE") info

As you can see there appears to be some attempt to add a template that doesn't actually exist. If you look at .NET Reflector

Latest release 5.1.3 / 2008-Template:MÁNUÐUR-18; 25 days ago

So that's two different info boxes, but both software related both of which have date weirdness. There appears to be a bunch of transclusions to this non-existent template, but I cannot for the life of me workout where it's being included from. --Blowdart | 16:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It was all caused by an edit to {{Release date and age}} where the word "month" was replaced with "MÁNUÐUR", which is Icelandic for the word "month". Anyway, that template was fixed, and it the problem has been corrected - you might have to purge your cache to get it to display correctly again. Shereth 17:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ta muchly. --Blowdart | 18:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Seattle needs to be moved back to Seattle, Washington

Correct. For those curious to follow it through, discussion has moved to here. rootology (C)(T) 16:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A rogue admin moved the article, despite a clear lack of consensus on the talk page, and a clear violation of Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (settlements). The naming convention for US city articles is 'city, state', not 'city', and the only exceptions granted are for large cities, like New York City and Chicago. The only discussion that took place on the Seattle article was posted at Talk:Seattle, Washington, and there was ZERO effort made to seek the opinion of anyone else involved in the community, outside of a small group of Seattle-focused editors. Therefore, I think this decision needs to be reversed immediately, and more effort needs to be made to seek the opinions of a wider sampling of the wikipedia community before making broad-based changes to the well-established naming conventions of wikipedia articles. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Even if you are right here, it really doesn't help by starting off with "a rouge admin..." I expect many people will stop reading at that point. -- how do you turn this on 19:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with above. In any event, according to Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs), "result of survey is move". Was there actually a survey? –Juliancolton 19:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there was. Doesn't seem to come up with much consensus, to be honest. Garden. 19:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there's hardly a consensus for a move there, quite the opposite. Has someone told Deacon about this thread? -- how do you turn this on 19:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, maybe the "rogue admin" bit was a little harsh, after all. Not sure what a "rouge admin" is, though? Dr. Cash (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

A typo. -- how do you turn this on 19:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I, sir, am a rouge admin! Hiberniantears (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

A typo?! Surely you meant a Misplaced Pages:Rouge admin! Looie496 (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The article in question was moved Sept 18th after a discussion at Talk:Seattle#Requested_move, which was closed by an uninvolved administrator. Per Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions#Closing_of_a_consensus_process, I do not see where there was a failure to follow procedure in the move request. Why wait until now to challenge it? and why at ANI instead of WP:RM? MBisanz 19:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at the naming conventions page. I see nothing that prohibits the move; it's one of about 25-30 cities in the U.S. that, according to the AP Stylebook, don't require the state modifier, and thus the article title doesn't have to use the modifier. Now, only four of those, including Seattle, don't use the modifier. But that doesn't mean that the modifier is necessary. You mention "large cities", which isn't a requirement listed anywhere as a naming convention. Even if it is, Chicago is the largest metropolitan area in the Midwest, and Seattle is the largest metropolitan area in the Northwest. I don't see any reason why it couldn't, or shouldn't, be located at Seattle. Ral315 (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It's pointless busy work. Whoever made that change needs to find something more productive to do. Baseball Bugs 19:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The reference on the naming conventions page to the AP stylebook is vague, at best. I do not have access to the AP stylebook to verify if what is written on that page is actually accurate to begin with. But since when did we follow the AP stylebook to begin with. The longstanding policy for US city articles has been 'city, state' and not 'city'. If exceptions to this are proposed, there needs to be more broad consensus than a small discussion on one single city article talk page -- that's not achieving true consensus. It's more like, ... dictatorship. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Cash, following up on HDYTTO's advice above, saying someone bringing something similar up on Talk:Boston, Massachusetts is promoting "fascism and dictatorship" makes you look... well... I can't think of a way to describe it that isn't a personal attack. Maybe "unwise". Please stop saying things like that, lest I be tempted to template a regular.

I did not mean that as a "personal attack". What I meant to say is that it appears that the democratic process of achieving proper consensus is breaking down. The problem I currently see with this situation is that the Seattle renaming discussion slipped through the cracks by being done completely on its talk page, and there are currently discussions at Talk:New Orleans, Louisiana and Talk:Boston, Massachusetts to do the same. None of this discussions were posted at WP:CITIES (the wikiproject that oversees this), nor were the discussions advertised at WP:RFC. So the proponents of renaming appear to be trying to slip this through past established consensus. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have been expressing a concern about WP:RM for a while now. The problem is that the notices are only placed on the page of the affected article. So the notice is in effect only given to those with a vested interest in the article. While in most cases this does not create a problem, it does produce a bias in the discussion. The feeling and the opinions of the editors involved get a much strong representation. So while there may be consensus, it is only a consensus in name only. If that consensus was opened to a wide community the results might not be the same. With the limited participation, the broader view for overriding conventions is often not respected, especially for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Not sure where this discussion belongs. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't be the only person who takes a look at WP:RM every so often to see whether there are any discussions in which I might want to participate. To the best of my recollection, all of my comments in move discussions (except for one or two that I've initiated myself) have related to articles in which I have no vested interest whatsoever. Deor (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Everyone else, please don't tell me we're about to have a content discussion at WP:ANI for the 10 billionth time. Pick a forum (WP:RM seems reasonable), and discuss it there. --barneca (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Dictatorship? Paging Mr. Godwin. Paging Mr. Godwin. --Smashville 19:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It was actually initially proposed some time ago to do a mass move of the cities that are both considered as primary topics and listed in the AP style book to the stand alone name. The result of that survey was essentially 50-50. The final result of that debate was to not do mass moves but have the discussion of whether to move or not on an individual city basis. If there is no longer any opposition to a mass move of the AP cities that are inarguably the primary topics for their name, then it should be done, which should finally make this never ending source of contention go away. --Polaron | Talk 00:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I would be far more in favor of a mass move of all the cities on the AP Stylebook rather than the status quo of selectively moving this cities over at the whim of the prevailing "groupthink" mentality of wikipedia. If we're going to follow the AP Stylebook, let's f**king follow it, not pick and choose which cities are going to follow it and which cities are not going to follow it. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I would just point out that the vast majority of the people who voted oppose did so saying it was against the naming guideline. In fact, Seattle is listed as a possible exception so moving the article would not be against the guideline. Only one person who opposed argued with about whether the city of Seattle is the primary topic for "Seattle" or not. Many of the Seattle article editors, however, have argued that the city is indeed the primary meaning of "Seattle". The move was therefore closed properly. --Polaron | Talk 01:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

That's bullcrap and you know it! Seattle was only added to the list of exceptions (third paragraph) after it was moved. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

...and it's been in the AP stylebook since at least 2004 as seen here. We just never updated the Naming Convention page. Please do not try to swing that as manipulation that an oversight here has been fixed. rootology (C)(T) 15:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandal-Sockpuppets on my IP

User:BOX in snakeö, User: Pitbullfrogman. Both had vandalised on Vladimir Zografski and i have been autoblocked by both. AlwaysOnion (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You aren't autoblocked if you can post here. Best wishes, -- how do you turn this on 19:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No, but have been before AlwaysOnion (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You won't be affected in future then. If you are, simply post {{unblock}} on your talk page and an admin will lift it. Best wishes, -- how do you turn this on 19:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

And? I cant write on my talk page. AlwaysOnion (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You may have been affected by a recent bug; normally, blocked users retain the ability to edit their talk page. That bug should have been fixed now. -- how do you turn this on 19:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Thank You! But can you please lock Vladimir Zografski? It is so boring to remove vandalism from it. AlwaysOnion (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You can try requesting at WP:RPP; or another admin watching this thread may well do it. Best wishes, -- how do you turn this on 19:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, what is going on here? You created Vladimir Zografski, it was vandalized by people with your same IP. When you complained here, the article was speedy deleted, and then you re-created it anyway, and it's been re-vandalized several times since. Are these friends of yours? Or pranksters in your office or dorm or something? Then why did you re-create the article? I was going to suggest WP:IPEXEMPT, but something seems amiss here. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing the article is about AlwaysOnion (or someone he knows). I expect it's either friends/relations/schoolmates vandalizing as a joke. IPexempt may well be the way to go here. -- how do you turn this on 19:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Disruption by 82.13.248.29

82.13.248.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) keeps introducing "new" scores into Strictly Come Dancing pages without any kind of explanation or edit summary. They were blocked only a few weeks ago for disruption, but continued to introduce these errors after their block. Their contributions to other articles don't appear to be any better IMHO. ~~ 19:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours this time. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. ~~ 06:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What should one make of this?

User:Lansing3456 has taken a particular interest in me. Here are some of his recent posts:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/search/?title=User_talk:John_Bahrain&diff=prev&oldid=245092081

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/search/?title=Talk:Clarion_Fund&diff=prev&oldid=245090210

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/search/?title=Clarion_Fund&diff=prev&oldid=245089926

Any thoughts on how I should respond? --John Bahrain (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Not much to do. I wouldn't dignify him by acknowledging his actions. He's been warned on his talk page and he should be blocked if he continues to do this. Oren0 (talk) 02:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

New editor laying down nothing but sockpuppet tags

Weird one here, and I'm not at all familiar with who he's talking about, but Andrew Sterns (talk · contribs) is a new user who is doing nothing but posting sockpuppet tags on other editors' userpages. He tagged Bongwarrior as one, which is obviously wrong. Anyone familiar with this editor, or I need a name (talk · contribs), which is the editor he's claiming is mega-socking? Dayewalker (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like bull- looking at Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of I need a name, there's something odd going on here. User:Darth Mike, User:Ed seem like a couple of obviously wrong ones. Also see Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/You need a name; there was suspicion of something for User:I need a name, but there was nothing wrong there. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 23:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed the tag he placed on the (apparently wikibreaking) admin Black Falcon's user page. Frankly, I think all of this user's edits need to be rolled back. The one-word message on Sterns's own user page ("Quack") seems to indicate that the sock may be on another hand. Deor (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll start rolling them back if there's consensus to do so. His answer on my page seems to indicate he doesn't have proof . Dayewalker (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do; a random sample shows completely harmless editors, and he should put up or shut up. I'd suggest inviting him to file WP:SSP reports but somehow I doubt that would produce anything. Meanwhile, an SPA account with no mainspace edits smells of duck, complete with orange sauce, saute potatoes and lightly steamed asparagus. --Rodhullandemu 23:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yum. Perhaps we should give him the bill? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait. This blatant troll only gets a 24 hour block??? --barneca (talk) 00:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say. There is a deletion notice on his page for a userpage for a renamed user; that's pointless. Indef, I would say, as no apparent intention to improve the project. --Rodhullandemu 00:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

While processing speedy deletion requests, I ran into several of the user pages that this editor had created with his suspect tagging. I went ahead and deleted around 30 of the pages, and also left a note for the blocking admin. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

<outdent. I've indeffed this account and notified the blocking admin. something is rotten in the state of Denmark and I suggest a full explanation and justification is required. --Rodhullandemu 00:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle lists nominations for speedy deletion as minor edits

See, for example, this nomination. I am not discussing the merits of the nomination, just that the placing of the speedy deletion tag is being listed as a minor edit. It seems to me that all nominations for deletion should be open to public view, not hidden as minor edits. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Minor edits are still visible to anybody. –Juliancolton 23:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Not if one has set up their watchlist to hide minor edits. All nominations for deletion should be considered major edits and this should be fixed. MarnetteD | Talk 00:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree this setting should be changed. As per Help:Minor edit and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV#Minor edits, edits that might reasonably call for scrutiny by other editors watching an article should not be classified as minor. It is pretty obvious that a proposal to delete an article would be of interest to other editors watching that article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, edits tagging an article for deletion should not be marked as minor. Is Misplaced Pages:Huggle/Feedback the best place to request a change to huggle in this respect? WJBscribe (talk) 02:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This would be a change to Twinkle, though, not huggle. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Twinkle/Bugs? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I've filed a report there. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

FireandFlames17

FireandFlames17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Legal threat:

Edit warring:

• Warned: 20:18, 9 October 2008

• 19:16, 1 October 2008 reverting Itsmejudith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 13:35, 1 October 2008 reverting 71.213.13.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 01:24, 2 October 2008 reverting Scott MacDonald (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 21:26, 3 October 2008 reverting Scott MacDonald again
• 23:21, 8 October 2008
• 19:52, 9 October 2008
• 13:53, 10 October 2008 reverting 76.217.93.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 19:39, 12 October 2008
• 22:43, 12 October 2008
• 22:43, 12 October 2008
• 01:21, 14 October 2008 reverting C.Fred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 01:23, 14 October 2008
• 02:44, 14 October 2008
• 02:49, 14 October 2008

The ones not identified are his reverts of my edits. He especially dislikes tags and merge notices.

--Ronz (talk) 03:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

In my defense Most edits were VERY MINOR edits. This user (Ronz) has been warned SEVERAL times by MANY editors to not continually replace tags that most all believe to be unwaranted, and yet he continues to make edits himself that violate the same rule he cites:

And that's just TODAY!!!! If there's anyone in violation of ANYTHING....it would be this user!--FireandFlames17 (talk) 03:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

(numerous ecs) You still made legal threats and edit warred, just because he did too, you are not excused yourself. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note that he's edit-warring with numerous editors. --Ronz (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats are against the rules. Retract or you will be blocked. Baseball Bugs 03:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:No legal threats. Legal threats are never acceptable, and you would do well to retract it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Geez. This is one of the only times that I can say, "thanks" to the OP for making it easy. seicer | talk | contribs 03:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

How do I retract???--FireandFlames17 (talk) 03:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Just <strike></strike> (ie. text); it and add a note after it explaining that you retract it? Anything of that nature. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I've already deleted the post off the talkpage, so there's nothing left to strike out. --Elonka 03:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see he re-added it, just so that he could strike it out... He's doing what we're asking of him here, but I think it would be better to just let the whole thing be deleted. What do others think? --Elonka 03:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If he wants to repost it for the express purpose of withdrawing it himself rather than having another user do that for him, I don't see anything wrong. Even if it's deleted from the page it exists in the history. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for getting hotheaded and threatening legal actions against the site or its editors. I admit that I was in the wrong. I said it in a fit of rage, having felt extremely harassed and was not fully aware of alternate dispute resolutions that could be pursued other than those I was already aware of. It is not my intention to create a war on here or disrupt the neutral stance and/or normal operations of the site. Again, I was in the wrong, and retract any perceived threats that may have indicated possible legal action. Respectfully - --FireandFlames17 (talk) 03:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

When tags are placed on an article, it is normal to have a discussion before they are removed. Some editors on the Chris Heimerdinger article show enough enthusiasm for the article subject that they should probably look at the Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest policy. If you have a connection to the subject of an article, or a particular enthusiasm, you should wait to be sure that your edits have consensus. It is not good to see so many reverts, including reverts of some people who we usually think of as very balanced editors. Consider opening a discussion at the WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, which could bring in a wider set of editors to see whether issues are truly present that require tags. You might also get some advice at that noticeboard on how to fix any remaining neutrality problems with the article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked into the COI issues a bit and commented in Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_27#Chris_Heimerdinger. We may need another to properly address the strong feelings of the many WP:SPA editors involved in the three articles. --Ronz (talk) 04:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

user:Fhawd

Fhawd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Vandalism edit account. Every contrib is plain vandalism to the same article.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV is the right place for obvious vandalism reports, not here. This is for things of a more complex nature. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

A more vandalism-specific area might have been more appropriate, but while you are here, a block is probably warranted. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV works when the edits have occured after a final warning. If not they refer you to WP:ANI--Cube lurker (talk) 03:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Right, that's the process. You template them up to level 4, then report if they pass it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Harrassment by Baseball Bugs

Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) has a disagreement with me about whether something requires a source in the article E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial‎. It's not the disagreement that concerns me. Based on past experience with him, he tends to want to continue messaging a person long after the issues have been discussed to an extreme. And he's following the same pattern here. I told him I did not care to repeatedly have his messages sent to my talk page, and that he should take up his concerns on Talk:E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial‎. I even copied a few exchanges about our differences to that talk page and advised him to discuss the issue there instead of repeatedly making comments on my talk page. He refuses, and since my request has sent me these messages: , , , , and . I believe he is about to step over the line on policies on WP:HARASS if he has not already done so. Everything will be fine if he will simply confine his comments about the issues of E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial‎ to the article's talk page instead of my talk page. But I don't think he is willing to do that unless an admin discusses this with him. Thanks for any help. Ward3001 (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The above user has already spent far more time and energy copping an attitude than would have been required to simply answer my questions. He has now deleted three fair questions and comments from his talk page, so I'm done talking to him... hopefully permanently. Baseball Bugs 04:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

And the "past experience", to which he refers, goes all the way back to yesterday. Baseball Bugs 04:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I am now asking the same reasonable question of other users who I suspect have equal knowledge but a less obstinate attitude. The complaining editor clearly has no idea of what real harassment consists of. Baseball Bugs 04:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

IF he is sincere about that, that would solve the problem. We'll see. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 04:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he'll stop. That's that then. Grsz 04:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any harassment - rather I see attempts at discussion and an attempt by Ward3001 to avoid discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Shh, you don't tell reporting editors that they were wrong. Grsz 04:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I've seen many cases where the complaining editors are the ones that ended up with indef-blocks. I don't think that's called for here, though. What I'm seeing is a guardianship of the E.T. page that borders on ownership. That's understandable, as I am pretty protective of certain pages also. The difference is that I'm always willing to talk to anyone who raises a question, and I don't try to dictate to them where they can ask those questions, as my talk page does not belong to me any more than an article's talk page does. And when I do ask them to refocus on an article's talk page, I actually continue the discussion there, instead of pushing it there so that I can ignore it and not have to see orange "new message" banners. Baseball Bugs 04:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The point is, I have simply asked for the discussion to occur on the article's talk page so that the entire Misplaced Pages community can be aware rather than Baseball Bugs repeatedly sending messages to me. I have expressed opinions on the article's talk page, let's see what others have to say. I just want the discussion confined to that talk page, not mine. I'm not avoiding discussion, I just want it in the right place. Ward3001 (talk) 04:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages exist so users can send messages to each other. It's not outside his rights to want to contact you directly. ~ L'Aquatique 04:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Precisely, and he didn't ask, he ordered. I am not in the habit of following orders that aren't rule-based. Baseball Bugs 04:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, a kinder soul both answered my question and found a citation: Baseball Bugs 04:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not outside anyone rights to send a message. But when the debate pertains to an article, and the recipient of the messages (again and again and again) requests that the discussion should be moved to the article's talk page, then it becomes harrassment. Note as evidence of the proper venue for discussion that once the issue was moved to the article's talk page, the issue was almost immediately resolved. Baseball Bugs wasn't satisfied with addressing the issue pertaining to the artice (on the article's talk page). He had to repeatedly add comments to a user's talk page, long after the user requested that discussion occur on the article's talk page. His purpose wasn't to discuss the issue; that could have been done very easily on the article's talk page. His purpose was to harrass a user with whom he had a disagreement. Ward3001 (talk) 12:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You didn't "ask", you ordered, despite the lack of any rule or authority to issue such an order. You are the one at fault here. Baseball Bugs 17:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Not for nothing, but once it was resolved Ward3001 could have just Cc'd the discussion over to the Talk page. I've done similar things in the past when I felt like a particular conversation needed to be visible in another place. No need to make a federal case out of it...

It's funny, when I saw the section header, I was all set to say, "Baseball Bugs can be kind of a dick sometimes, but when he is, he's almost always in the right." hahaha, no offense Bugs. But you weren't even being a dick this time! How disappointing. heh... --Jaysweet (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

When I'm accused of something, such as harassment or wikistalking or disruption or edit-warring or of being a general pest or a jerk, I would at least like for the accusation to have some merit to it. I strongly object to lame accusations. Or at least I lamely object. Baseball Bugs 18:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

More on Oxford Round Table

Referring back to the latest recent discusson about Oxford Round Table, I have created Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Astutescholar. Toddst1 (talk) 04:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting report. It seems to be a complex case. An experienced admin should investigate this case. AdjustShift (talk) 07:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Undo non-consensus move

• diff]

User:KMusgrave moved Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines to Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines or How I Flew from London to Paris in 25 hours 11 minutes with no discussion whatsoever, so (obviously) with no consensus. Can someone undo this, please? Ed Fitzgerald 04:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Added diff of move above for those interested. - jc37 05:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

User seems to have self-reverted. --Ckatz_spy 05:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I am struck by the similarity of this incident to the recent one where the article for Dr. Strangelove was moved without consensus to the film's full title. That editor, User:Jabunga, was blocked shortly thereafter for move vandalism on Gwen Gale's talk page. Should I AGF or should I give in to the coincidence? Ed Fitzgerald 05:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What he said. You go with the most commonly known name. For comparison, there is H.M.S. Pinafore, whose full title is H.M.S. Pinafore, or The Lass That Loved a Sailor. No one would call it by the longer name, hence it's merely mentioned in the first line of the article. Baseball Bugs 05:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

User:202.51.72.254 & 5 attempts to insert blatant copyvio at Tamang

Tamang has been subject to the mass duplication of copyrighted material five times over the last 48-72 hours by User:205.51.72.254. User has completely ignored posts to their talk page. Reported to Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/2008 October 13 after the first two or three blatant copyvios, but no action yet taken. User should be blocked or page semiprotected to stop this before it becomes a legal issue. If I had ever bothered to get the tools I probably wouldn't use an autoblock - Share IPs are the rule, not the exception, in Nepal. Don't care too much what happens here, but some quick action seems warranted. MrZaius 07:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean User:202.51.72.254. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yup - You beat me to the correction. Corrected in section header above. MrZaius 07:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, this nonsense was clearly wrong so he's been final warned. It may be too late to block now as the IP may have rotated. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The edits to Tamang were fairly consistent - Each of the five edits over the past several days originated from the same IP address. MrZaius 09:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Corrupt template causing h-card info to be displayed on articles

A change to the template: Template:Infobox SSSI is causing information about the h-card syntax to be displayed on hundreds of articles where the template is used. Examples at Aust Cliff, Banwell Caves, Goblin Combe etc. Note left on Template talk:Infobox SSSI I don't know enough about template syntax to solve this problem. Any help appreciated.— Rod 10:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, I think. --ROGER DAVIES  10:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for rapid response - I don't know why the move you did worked, but it seems to have fixed it.— Rod 10:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

When the text was moved outside the <noinclude> and </noinclude> tags it was included in the article :) Moving it back within the tags stopped it. It's explained here. --ROGER DAVIES  10:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

HAGGER?

While checking my watchlist, I observed that Creston Township, Platte County, Nebraska had been vandalised by IP 83.91.152.209 in this edit, who replaced two sections with "HAGGER???". Should the IP be blocked as a Grawp sock? Nyttend (talk) 10:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

More like a briefly-bored Grawp wannabe given that Grawp's standard operating procedure is page-move vandalism. Warn the IP and block as simple vandalism if it continues, I'd say. WP:RBI. ~ mazca 11:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Rollosmokes and "The CW" again

He's back from an indef-block for only a week, and he's starting in with the same thing that got him blocked the last time - this nonsense over the "ungrammatical" use of "The CW". He has thus shown that being blocked for nearly 4 months was not enough to get the message across. He also stomps on the good faith shown by User:Firsfron who unblocked him based on an e-mail promise that he would not start this nonsense again. Here along with verbal shots against anyone disagreed with him (i.e. "persecuted" him) he promises that he will do just that - i.e, that he will resume the behavior that got him blocked. Baseball Bugs 11:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

hum - that's quite an odd one, he thinks that his preference for things to be "correct" overwrites what the entity is actually called. If he's been blocked for this before and his behaviour hasn't changed, then he should just be blocked again (maybe 24 hrs) and told that every time he persists, he will be blocked and the block will double (so the next time it would be 48 hrs). --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who originally reverted the "CW" not "The CW" changes made in this edit. I warned Rollo to not make such edits and recieved this response which said in part that he hadn't changed his stance on what he "believed to be a blatant error in proper capitalization" and he would may "revisit this issue at some point, in another manner."

After several posts, back and forth with my side being "it's the company's right to call themselves whatever they want" and his being "it isn't proper grammar", I guess he signed off for the night. I did email (via Wiki) Firsfron who was the one who asked for Rollo's unblock.

According to my knowledge, one of the conditions of Rollo's return was to knock off this "CW" not "The CW" thing. Rollo claimed his only condition was no "controversial editing, no insults, and no wars". I believe the "CW not "The CW" thing would fall under "controversial editing". - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 14, 2008 @ 11:41

Block and throw away the key. Rollosmokes doesn't get it on so many levels that this will be a recurring problem while he continues to edit.

Has he and Firsfron been advised of this thread? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I was about to go notify him, and an admin beat me to it: Baseball Bugs 12:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

...and I emailed Firsfron as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 14, 2008 @ 12:24

• Sigh* This again? Indef block, Rollo has proven that he does not need any more "last chances". Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think he needs to rethink his position on this. Perhaps he could check The New York Times, The Washington Post, or The Wall Street Journal to see how they, and pretty much everyone else, handle names starting with 'The'. Failing that, or a willingness to finally walk away from a fight he can obviously never win, there seems little choice but to block. --CBD 12:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Funny you should mention that. As I recall, last spring when this tempest was first brewing, he was making the same argument against the "ungrammatical" use of The Chicago Tribune. He just never got rung up for that since the number of pages was small. And there's no "rethinking" about it. He remains unrepentent despite a 4-month block. The only "rethinking" he might possibly do is the answer to the question, "How badly do you want to edit wikipedia?" So far his behavior shows that his answer is, "Not badly enough to stop fomenting this conflict." Baseball Bugs 12:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this comment from his talk page sums this issue up: As for the "issue" that got me banned, I'll be quite honest -- I HAVE NOT GIVEN UP ON IT.". Even after repeated requests to do so, and being blocked for it? Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should warn that he's looking at an indef block, then indefblock him, perhaps? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

He was already indef-blocked for precisely this behavior, after repeated warnings as well as short-term blocks. A generous admin unblocked him a week ago, and he picked up right where he left off - as he had done in the past when his short-term blocks expired. It's clear that NO warning to this guy is going to make any difference in his approach to things. Baseball Bugs 13:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it was 3 months, not 4. But in reviewing his block log again I was reminded that he has twice had indefinite block lifted due to sending an e-mail in which he promised to behave - and he has betrayed the unblocking admins both times. Baseball Bugs 14:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

He was indef-blocked twice? I was going to wait til Firsfron weighed in before weighing in with my opinion, but I think after hearing that...Rollo needs to be given the ol' heave-ho. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 14, 2008 @ 14:22

He has been now. Firsfron just indef-blocked him again. Baseball Bugs 14:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

That didn't last long. I'm sad to see Rollo didn't use this opportunity very well. Apologies, all. Back to indefinite block. :/ Firsfron of Ronchester 14:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries Dude. We all deserve a second chance, some use theirs better than others. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 14, 2008 @ 14:37

Firsfron's generosity shines here. There needs to be a barnstar with a bootprint on it - denoting good faith that was trampled upon. Baseball Bugs 14:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Kuban kazak's User page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I would like to ask admins to do something about User:Kuban kazak's page. Currently, in addition to superfluous personal information it makes references to Georgians as fascists. This is not only offensive and uncivil, but these inflammatory polemic statements are also contrary to Misplaced Pages:User page#What may I not have on my user page?. There is enough content dispute going around for user pages to be used for soapboxing too. I asked him politely at the talk to remove inflammatory statements, but apparently this cannot be resolved without admins' intervention. Thank you. --Hillock65 (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

All I could say is that the reporting party has herself previously indulged in WP:SOAPboxing no less , , , , . However I usually don't care what people write on their userpages, I have long asked for wikipedia to delete this, for reasons that like Hillock said there is enough content disputes to allow nationalist-derivative media to be uploaded to wikipedia since the image is not used in any article space and uploaded to be exclusively used in soapboxing elements. Delete the image, i'll blank my userpage.

PS. I never intended on calling all Georgians fascists, after all how could Joseph Stalin, an ethnic Georgian, could have made such a contribution in destroying fascism during World War II? However the cowardly attack on South Osetia was done with clear intention in genocide and ethnic cleansing. The fact that the Georgian leadership, who masterminded this atrocity belong on the gallows is a matter of justice, just like those of Nuremberg. The key words are the fascist-georgian attack, the "georgian" is an adjective in the passage, not a noun. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 12:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I should have expected that a pretty reasonable request to remove insidious content will turn into mud-slinging. I hope people won't engage in polemic with someone, who until recently proudly displayed a picture of Stalin. This is the question of WP rules and respect for other users, not about what this user thinks of Georgia and Georgians.--Hillock65 (talk) 12:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the offending term from the userpage, and have warned the user against returning it or similar terminology. Directly to Kuban kazak I would say; You seem to be under the mistaken belief that this is an area for the discussion of post Soviet Easter Europe politics - it is not, it is an encyclopedia. We welcome all contributions that help build the project, and we insist that all editors should treat each other will appropriate respect and civility. We recognise that there will be problems, but insist that all parties are required to act in good faith in constructing the encyclopedia; those who cannot or will not will be required to leave. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Kuban kazak restored it, worded slightly differently, so I have re-removed it (diff) and blocked him for 24 hours. fish&karate 12:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I've just declined his unblock request. The page is borderline offensive as it is, and I'm not even Georgian *or* Russian. 24 hours will give him time to re-plan his userpage, and help him to understand that userpages are not somewhere to push a PoV anymore than articles are. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Correction: I got edit conflicted in declining. Consider the above message an endorsement of the block. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Great, another attack on an opponent. Kuban_kazak is simply using terminology that is widely used in Russia to describe Saakashvili's regime. It is not an attack on the Georgian people as a whole, but the leadership of that country. And frankly, as Kuban_kazak has experienced the war firsthand, and from what I have seen of devastation in South Ossetia (look at video on Youtube of Georgian military yahoo'ing thru Tskhinvali), I can see why he may hold that opinion; an opinion that it is. Also, Misplaced Pages:User page#What may I not have on my user page? is but a guideline, can someone explain what WP:POLICY is broken by placing this on the user page; knowing Kuban_kazak's edits, it's been kept on the userpage and not within his actual edits -- quite unusual, compared to those who let their editing show their POVs. --Russavia 12:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

See this policy. For the record, I also endorse this block. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. And it's interesting to read verbiage that looks like it was written by someone who beamed down from the Tsar's army defending against Napoleon. Meanwhile, the only fascist Georgian I can think of offhand is Lester Maddox. Baseball Bugs 13:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I endorse the block, since this is an encyclopedia, not a set of soapboxes from which pots and kettles propagandistically call each other black. Edison (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I like better what another user once said, "This is a community, not a crazy den of pigs!" Baseball Bugs 15:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

In any case, no attack pages, right? I also endorse the block. Doug Weller (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Except that it's probably not long enough. But he can always be re-blocked. Baseball Bugs 16:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

98.192.11.182

98.192.11.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) making WP:POINT (and 3RR) edits to Pink Floyd (, ), despite more than one final warning being issued for this behaviour. POINT evidence includes , . Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV is that way. fish&karate 12:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

So it is; and were I reporting vandalism, that's what I would have used. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The edits are bad, but I would be amazed if an admin working on AIV would handle this.—Kww(talk) 13:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Done! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Pigs-on-the-wing that this is/was disruption rather than vandalism. If the British approach is to treat it like a plural, then so be it. And I'm pretty sure it is, an other example (from Monty Python) being that such-and-such a city "have never won the English football cup" (not "has" never won, as we would say in America). Also note that it's the "The Beatles were", not "The Beatles was", no matter which side of the Atlantic you're on. What's with all these bogus "grammar" arguments today? Baseball Bugs 13:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Grammar-negative bacteria in the water? Ed Fitzgerald 13:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You've got the germ of an idea there. Baseball Bugs 13:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Spend some time watchlisting any British band that are popular in the US, hehe - certainly at least one well-intentioned person a week "corrects" the perceived grammar mistakes in the lead of Iron Maiden. ~ mazca 14:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Even though it's not standard American English usage, I could easily argue that it should be, for consistency. "The Beatles" and "Iron Maiden" and "Pink Floyd" are all bands, with multiple members. The British are pluralizing based on that fact rather than on the words used to make up the groups' names. But in sports we take the British approach to some extent: "The New York Yankees are..." and "The Minnesota Wild are..." show consistent usage. But with bands, for some unknown reason, it's not done that way. Baseball Bugs 14:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to take this to Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style to get a consensus. While 98.192.11.182's edit pattern is definitely disruptive, Andy's assertion that British English should always pluralise collectives ...

Note: This article is written in British English, which treats collective nouns like bands as plurals (that is: Pink Floyd ARE a band). Don't change this

...is plain wrong.

UK English swings both ways according to context (i.e. whether the focus is on the collective as a single entity or as its members). See, for instance, Huddlestone and Pullum - Geoff Pullum is one of the current authorities on English descriptive linguistics). "Pink Floyd are a band" looks pretty weird to me. The statement is about the band as a single collective entity - the thing called "Pink Floyd" - so "Pink Floyd is a band" is preferable. Whatever, putting stealth editorial inside articles as comments is not the way to handle it, nor, I guess, discussing a content issue here. Take it to Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Aha. So there's still a question of whether Pigs-on-the-wing are right or wrong about this. Baseball Bugs 17:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No, but is ANI the place for such discussion? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Where did I assert that "British English should always pluralise collectives"? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry! As you were defending it against 98.192.11.182's changes, I assumed you were the one who added the "Note: This article is written in British English ... etc" to the article. Whoever added it, though, it's bollocks. (I see there's a discussion at Talk:Pink Floyd#Subject/Verb Agreement, but nobody actually seems to be basing their arguments on anything tangible like corpus data or current usage guides - which don't support the "are" version).

As you say, here isn't the place to discuss it - except that it makes a difference if you're reverting on grounds of undoubted correctness or on grounds of disputed opinion. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

On the Pink Floyd website, it says "Pink Floyd have received the such-and-such award for their contribution..." Presumably, the writer of that page knows how to refer to his own group. Baseball Bugs 22:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems commonsense to me. Pink Floyd are a group, groups are made up of more than one person, just as football teams are, so we talk of them in the plural. Here in the UK we would say the group are going on tour, or ,the football team are playing tonight. Jack forbes (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

user:Xx236

Xx236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) most of his time spends on articles' talk pages disusing editors. Some old past characteristic edits (some of them are in general amnesty time frame):

• 2007-06-26T11:45:07 NKVD rulez
• 2007-02-19T14:45:22 Lokyz, don't address your texts to me, even your thank you is offensive for me.
• 2007-12-28T15:24:28 Hi Mr censor
• 2007-12-28T15:24:28 Thank you for you open bias. TV series Smersh is a must for you etc.

In the past I tend to ignore this Polish contributor, but recently he crossed the limit:

• 2008-06-19T11:08:37 don't do your propaganda here
• 2008-10-03T09:29:33 Adolf Hitler would be proud of you.
• 2008-10-06T06:55:13 racist texts, apparently addressing to his comment
• 2008-10-08T09:34:31 Have someone nominated you to prosecute the Poles, or are you a self made D.A.?
• 2008-10-08T15:38:24 Your activities in Dariusz Ratajczak are close to vandalism. referring to my edits .
• 2008-10-14T10:32:36 You are vandalising this article. referring to my edits (+ I am the principal contributor on this article)

This contributor is long enough on Misplaced Pages to familiarize himself not only with ethical way of conduct, but also that such behavior is straightforward battleground creation. Despite my pleas to modify his behavior, he didn't. Therefore I ask, that uninvolved editors to take apropriate steps. M.K. (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The article Dariusz Ratajczak should be removed, because the person isn't notable. If preserved - the article shouldn't be used instrumentally by M.K. as one of his several anti-Polish battlegrounds. Dariusz Ratajczak is a living person, the article is biographical. Xx236 (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Just because you don't think he's notable, doesn't give you the right to breach the civility policy. Cut it out. Discuss the article, not the people editing it. -- how do you turn this on 16:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Even here I am accused of being "anti-Polish". Straightforward another personal attack. M.K. (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Folks, don't turn this into an arguing den. It's not a den of any sort, it's AN/I. M.K, no personal attacks have been made on this page yet. If we see one being made here, we'll take action. Equally, if anyone starts using this page to argue, we'll take action. A complaint has been made, let's see if people chip in with solutions, and keep the mudslinging off here.. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I am pleased to hear this, now lets see if it actually works. Cheers, M.K. (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I am a "Move Nazi", and canvassing

Closing this, the good Doctor and I have sorted out our differences directly between our talk pages and will be dropping a proposal on the NC pages later together. :) rootology (C)(T) 16:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• For those curious to follow it through, discussion has moved to here. rootology (C)(T) 16:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can someone please leave a note with Derek.cashman (talk · contribs)? He's canvassing for a requested move he very much wants to go through at Talk:Seattle#Requested move (October 2008), and called people "article move nazis". rootology (C)(T) 14:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that worse than being a "soup Nazi"? Baseball Bugs 14:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's not said in jest, then yes. I don't think it was said in jest. rootology (C)(T) 15:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, dear Christ! Stop taking things so literally! "No Move For You!" Dr. Cash (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll be happy to, once I'm assured canvassing stops. :) rootology (C)(T) 15:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no canvassing, dude. Except maybe in your imagination. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh, quit the name calling, please. Seriously, read Godwin's law; your arguments here are reflecting very dimly on you. -- how do you turn this on 15:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Notifying Wikiprojects like you did about a "bad move close" in non-neutral language is canvassing. Please stop. rootology (C)(T) 15:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention, opening multiple threads about the same thing in multiple forums is forum shopping. --Smashville 15:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think of that, but you're right. rootology (C)(T) 15:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What I was seeing about Seattle is that somebody switched it from Seattle, Washington, to just plain Seattle, and then someone had to go find every reference to the one and switch it to the other. This is "busy-work" with no value whatsoever. Baseball Bugs 15:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Your context is off a bit. It wasn't just "moved by someone". It was a long, long discussion that was an admin closure for a Requested Move. And no, that's not busy work--the AP style guide AND our naming conventions say that Seattle is the valid name. Its fixing bad and unneeded piped disamgbiguation pages which is a helpful edit. Super-critical? Hardly, but hardly without value. It's housekeeping. rootology (C)(T) 15:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Who's doing wrong here now? I see now that Shereth has prematurely closed the New Orleans discussion and moved the article to New Orleans, despite lack of consensus. So now I am being steam-rollered through. This is unacceptable behavior, people. I thought Misplaced Pages was a democracy. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where you got that idea, Misplaced Pages is very specifically not a democracy. --Smashville 15:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What does the naming convention say about New Orleans? rootology (C)(T) 15:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No, Misplaced Pages isn't a democracy. -- how do you turn this on 15:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to say this. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I forgot. It's run by the Cabal. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's run by precedent and guidelines and policies. The naming conventions say that Seattle and New Orleans are right. I see you decided to unilaterally supercede an admin close and consensus close here too. :( rootology (C)(T) 15:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Just because the consensus didn't go your way doesn't mean it does not exist - unless your definition of "consensus" is "unanimity". Shereth 15:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus never has to please everyone, that would be backwards. rootology (C)(T) 15:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

"Consensus" should be a majority vote; for particularly heated discussions like this one, of which the city article naming thing has been going on for like, forever, I would expect a supermajority (instead of 50% + 1, more like 75%). And I didn't see a supermajority. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The more important question is since the naming convention says Seattle and New Orleans are the valid and acceptable names, why is it even being debated? They should be where they are and change the naming convention if we don't want it based on the AP style guides and want a special internal structure we made up one day. rootology (C)(T) 15:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

12 supports, and 4 opposes. But then again, we aren't doing it by a vote count. -- how do you turn this on 15:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It's busy-work. No matter how much time and energy you all put into it, it's still just busy-work, fighting over pedantry with no discernible gain. It's useless. Baseball Bugs 15:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

User:24.213.23.194

This IP is doing nothing but vandalism. The IP has a long history of it and in the last few days have recieved many warnings (including today) but contiues to vandalize (their current main target is WWE Friday Night SmackDown, but he/she has hit other pages too). TJ Spyke 16:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandals are reported to WP:AIV. Surely you knew that? -- how do you turn this on 16:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Besides, it's been blocked for 6 months. This is now resolved. -- how do you turn this on 16:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Xasha

Not long ago, I complained here that User:Xasha is causing serious disruption and harm to the project, and that I believe meaningful action should be taken against him. Following my report, Xasha was blocked - his eighth block in the last four months. Unfortunately, he is right back to violating his topic ban regarding "all edits touching on the historical and ethnic relation between Moldova and Romania".

Right after returning from his block, Xasha immediately made several edits violating his topic ban. User:Gutza, an administrator, warned him and Xasha acknowledged receiving the warning. (I should add that he had a "very serious warning" on September 15.) However, since Gutza's warning, Xasha has only increased his edit-warring, every time violating his topic ban: see here, here and here for clear examples.

The implication is clear. Xasha is indeed, as I noted two weeks ago to his displeasure, "the prototypical Eastern European nationalist POV-pusher...He's never written an article, and hardly contributed content", instead disrupting the project time and again. He has proven beyond any doubt (if such doubt ever existed) that he is not here to build an encyclopedia but to tear down others' work and use the project as a battleground. His repeated, brazen violation of his topic ban is galling. Will he be served up yet another "final warning" and continue to be allowed to thumb his nose at the community, or will the curtain finally come down on this charade? Biruitorul 20:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

So I see Biruitorul is trying to remove sources like The American Journal of International Law, The Hague Academy of International Law and Charles Upson Clark because they don't support his POV, and since he doesn't have any real argument to dismiss them, he has to secure a block for me to make sure nobody will contest his buddies removal of those sources. Two of the linked pages (Balti and MASSR) are clearly outside the scope of the topic ban, and the inclusion of the addition of the sources mentioned above in History of Moldavia is disputable.Xasha (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I was about to block you for a month when I was interrupted by your message on my talkpage - which has enabled me to consider this further. Biruitorul, I think you need to open a request at WP:RfAR regarding this matter and see if the Arbs are willing to consider expanding/broadening the topic ban. While I think that a short block per the existing topic ban is legitimate it does not seem to have the deterring effect, so perhaps it should go back to ArbCom to see if further sanctions are worthwhile. As Xasha would need participate in any discussion I shall not block in this instance - but if another admin feels differently then I have no objection. (Please note that Xasha will request block exemption for his ip - since it is used by other editors. I understand this has been granted before, Xasha can supply the details.)

ps. Xasha, it doesn't matter about the quality of your references - you are violating your topic ban. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, but I want to say this for the record.) In my opinion Xasha has proven time and again that he's a POV-pushing revert warrior who follows an agenda irrespective to Misplaced Pages etiquette, rules or policies, and that temporary measures fail to change anything. As such, I would even endorse a ban on this user, since it's obvious to me that nothing works as a deterrent. --Gutza 21:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Which may be the case, but there is an existing ArbCom decision on this matter and if there needs to be a different remedy then it needs to go through that procedure first. However, if there is no desire for this then it is a case of escalating blocks until the topic ban runs out... I have no position in this matter other than to advise the options. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Unaware of this case here, I broough it over here. Dc76\ 22:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Stripping pictures from FA

An IP editor is stripping all the pictures from a featured article. I have reason to believe this user is not making a good faith effort to improve the article. Could another administrator please look at this. I am not interested in edit warring. Jehochman 21:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to what you told the IP user, there is no requirement for featured articles to have pictures, and removing them is not vandalism plus I'm pretty sure Image:Serp.png and Image:Baidu-July-2008.png fail NFCC as used in this article. — CharlotteWebb 21:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like there's now a discussion starting at Talk:Search engine optimization#images --A. B. 21:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I have responded to concerns at the article talk page. I suggest continuing the discussion there. Jehochman 21:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

CW: Contrary to what you told the IP user, there is no requirement for featured articles to have pictures Should be. Ed Fitzgerald 21:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yar, find one that doesn't have pictures. Rules are one thing, customs are another. Jehochman 23:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find it in a quick search, but I remember seeing an FA nomination for some kind of rat which was rejected primarly because it didn't include a picture of the animal. Although the criteria state that an image isn't necessary, in practice, that doesn't seem to be the case. Cla68 (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil comments discourage participation

"Don't you see your damn book you are so fond of is already cited in "References"! Stop re-adding it in "Further Reading"! Some common sense at last!--Yannismarou (talk) 06:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)"

The message above was the very first message I received on “talk” after beginning to participate in Misplaced Pages about a month ago. I've made scholarly contributions to several topics, all with appropriate references. The comment above was apparently in response to my restating a single scholarly reference in the "Further Reading" part of the "Law" page after someone unknown deleted it.

This person has apparently adopted an overly proprietary attitude towards said page, and considers it his/her property. "Further Reading" on that page consists of three sources unrelated to the one I placed there, and apparently is considered the private bookshelf of this individual. "References" on this topic consists of over 100 sources, which anyone seeking additional reading is unlikely to page through.

If this verbal abuse is typical of the kind of behavior and comments one can expect from Wikipdeia, I can spend my time on something else. I've published numerous articles in other printed encyclopedias, and can do that instead. Even editors need to have some respect for fundamental human dignity of other persons--all persons.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 23:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards