Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:10, 5 January 2009

• 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

Edit war at John McCain presidential campaign, 2008

There seems to be an edit war, that has lasted several days now and counting, going on between Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs) and Amwestover (talk · contribs) at the above article. Would someone who doesn't mind dealing with these things look to see if protection and or some user warnings are warranted? Kelly 19:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"Endemic" is the proper word. "Several days" understates how this article has been handled for several months now. Collect (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh my good lord. Is this still going on? I propose a topic ban on both editors. // roux   19:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with that, I just looked at the history. Yeesh. Enough. How about this:

Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs) and Amwestover (talk · contribs) are hereby topic-banned from the article John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 for a mininum of three months. They may use the talk page to discuss proposed changes. This topic-ban may be lifted, if in the consensus opinion of uninvolved administrators, the two users can edit collaboratively within Misplaced Pages policies. SirFozzie (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The debate is like the hot-stove league, debating how someone's favorite team could have won the pennant if only thus-and-so hadn't happened. Content disputes, like they can somehow change the election results if they just get the article "right". Baseball Bugs 19:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

SirFozzie, I'd expand that to each other's talkpages, Joe the Plumber, William Timmons, and List of John McCain presidential campaign endorsements, 2008, based on editing intersections for the past couple of months. Send them back to their separate corners. // roux   20:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If only McCovey had just hit that ball 3 feet higher! Baseball Bugs 20:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

BB, you just made me cry. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Roux, We can simply make and related pages part of any topic ban to cover that, I think, but I agree that we need to keep them from interacting with each other. (and Bugs, or a more recent version, why the )!@*@+$*@_$ did Grady leave Pedro in so long! :D) SirFozzie (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Unbelievable. Endorse community topic ban with respect to pages related to the 2008 U.S. presidential election for at least 3 months. This may give them something more productive to do. Will notify the two.  Sandstein  20:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I also endorse the expanded community topic ban. Suggest that 'related' include any person related to the 2008 campaign, to the extent of any congressional figure NOT representing the two editors' directly, Foreign personalities commenting on the matter, State races in which either candidate was endorsed by either presidential race, any article on any interaction between any candidates, and so on... Can we just ban one to articles on insects and the other to articles on french cars, ensuring ZERO communication? ThuranX (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hell yes. This has gone on way too long. McCain campaign and related articles, broadly construed, and if we have to bang heads together to make it stick then let's just do that. Guy (Help!) 20:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• YES! It's way over due. See my comments here and here. --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Expanded version based on comments:

Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs) and Amwestover (talk · contribs) are hereby topic-banned for a minimum of three months from:

• any articles related to the 2008 US Presidential election, broadly construed for a mininum of three months
• Each other's talkpages, with the sole exception of any procedurally-required postings, including but not limited to RFC/mediation/RFAR/XfD notices as well as AN/ANI threads. Users are required to keep such notices brief, formal, and polite.
• They may use the talk pages of articles to discuss proposed changes.
• This topic-ban may be lifted, if in the consensus opinion of uninvolved administrators, the two users can edit collaboratively within Misplaced Pages policies.

Seem about right? // roux   20:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the summary. That's about right.  Sandstein  20:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Why is Bob Hope coming to mind just now? :) Baseball Bugs 20:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support. A topic ban as worded above by Roux seems logical and fair. To be definite, I suggest that the topic ban expire on 30 March 2009. EdJohnston (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• uninvolved support - three months to do something else is a good starting point. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment from Amwestover. Whoa! I do not think this is a fair characterization of the dispute at all. I have made numerous attempts to reach compromise on the World opinion section of this article, and I have plenty of diffs to prove this effort. This is part of the editing process, and I don't think I should be punished for it even if it has taken what some would consider a long time. In the past few weeks, every time I'd address one of csloat's concerns, however, he'd raise a new one -- this is part of the reason that this has gone on for the length of time it has. So eventually on the suggestion of another editor after I'd lost all patience with csloat, I went with the simplest version of the section possible hoping that this would finally end it all. That was wishful thinking cuz it didn't. So now the dispute is over material that was removed which I think is non-notable and is being given undue weight. Instead of giving evidence of notability and relevance, he has refused to do so. Instead, he has decided to claim that his version of the edit is the "consensus" version (he has quite a history of this...), and that past consensus is immutable. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 22:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Is the debate over just that paragraph about the alleged al-Qaeda "endorsement" of McCain, or is that only one of many content disputes? Baseball Bugs 22:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I am satisfied with all of the content in the article, except for the al-Qaeda content which I believe has no place in the article. I can't speak for csloat, though. I honestly have no idea what he's come up with, but I do know that he'll claim whatever version he supports is the "consensus" version. You could count the number of times he's done that in his edit summaries with your fingers and toes and you'd still run out. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 00:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Seems appropriate. — neuro 01:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Proposed addition to topic ban - in addition, the two users should refrain from talking about each other anywhere on-wiki. Leave each other alone, period, is kinda the point here. // roux   00:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps inferences should be added to this too. — neuro 01:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse Anything that stops this sort of absolute buloney is a Good Thing! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Or... You could all try and put this into some sort of context instead of !voting. Maybe even contribute an opinion on the matter since uninvolved opinions have been needed for a while. I hope this isn't how all admin action discussed. There was an RFC like two weeks ago, and now we're blowing past all other forms of dispute resolution (if you can call this proposed action that) right to blocking? --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 02:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Seems pretty extreme to me for a content dispute. The only issue is with the McCain campaign article and it's the al-Qaeda paragraph; every other editor on the page has seemed ok with keeping some version of the paragraph in except Amwestover. I'm willing to compromise and I'm willing to go along with whatever version of that paragraph the consensus supports, and I'm certainly willing to not touch the page until a consensus emerges on that paragraph, whether the "wrong version" is in place or not. Hopefully some sort of voluntary solution such as that is preferable to a mutual topic ban? csloat (talk) 05:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Change bullet 2 to read any procedurally-required postings, including but not limited to RFC/mediation/RFAR/XfD notices as well as AN/ANI threads would be better. (Can't exactly run RFAR without RFC/Mediation these days.) - Penwhale | 09:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Amended & slightly expanded. Do we have consensus on this and is there an admin who would like to notify both users on their talk pages? // roux   09:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, I could notify them... - Penwhale | 10:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support just wanted to note that I also support this proposal. I've seen this user Commodore Sloat edit on other articles before resulting in similar issues with disruptive edit warring.--Jersey Devil (talk) 11:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Wow. Three months topic ban for having a strong opinion about including a single paragraph on a page. And with no due process whatsoever or even an attempt to look at non-punitive means of dispute resolution. Happy new year, Misplaced Pages. csloat (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh come off it. You two have been fighting for ages. This is the clearest way to make the disruption stop. // roux   18:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Penwhale left a notice of an alleged topic ban on my user page and I've discussed (and may be continuing to discuss) the notice. The topic of discussion has been mainly this: where anywhere in Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines does it state that an editing restriction can be imposed by anyone other than the Arbitration Committee? I've thoroughly searched the policies to the best of my ability and haven't been able to find anything that gives authority to administrators or the uninvolved community to spontaneously impose an editing restriction on any single user without due process. So this discussion of a topic ban whose terms were suggested by SirFozzie and which were blown way out of scope by roux are nonconstructive and not appreciated.
  Now, if anyone would like to offer an uninvolved third opinion on the matter, which some editors already have done and what has been needed for a long time, then you are more then welcome and encouraged to do so if you desire. Advice on further steps in resolution are appreciated too, however I'm not sure if they'll be necessary. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 23:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion You were both out of line and over the top. Let it go. Gerardw (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually got here via the appeal on WP:AN - reviewing the edits in question, all I can say is, wow. I think an enforced break from editing in these areas and squabbling with each other is entirely warranted. Orderinchaos 03:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

At WP:AN, both editors contend the edit war is continuing. An examination of the talk page and article history shows this is not the case; in fact, the talk page shows numerous voices opposed to inclusion, and no new voices for it. As such, I've again removed the section. ThuranX (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

In other words, you joined the edit war. csloat (talk) 06:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. I waited for two days, and when no less than three outside editors concurred that the material belonged out, I effected that. You got four WP:3O's for the price of one; or a new consensus of uninvolved editors examining the situation. Either way, I simply instituted a new, extant consensus regarding the material. I noted that of the four new editors I counted, one had questions, three opposed, and no one supported teh inclusion of the material. Including you and amwest, that would yield 4 for out, one for in, one questioner. If we did it by votes, you'd lose. We do it by consensus, with three new people agreeing with each other and with one side of the extant fight that the material should be out. That's it. ThuranX (talk) 08:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Your revert was less than 24 hours after two other reverts of the same material, neither one by myself or Amwestover. And you can claim consensus, but the RfC turned out a very different consensus based on the fact that the information was well sourced and directly relevant. But that's not the issue anyway, the issue is edit warring, which continued after the block, indicating the block was purely punitive and did nothing to protect the article from edit warring. Your deletion only confirms the point. csloat (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

two days after you and Amwest's last go-round. And you'll note that since pointing to the talk page, and removing, there's been no further edits. I guess it worked out after all. Enjoy the topic ban. And given your rabid insistence on including it even after a topic ban, I wonder if the duration shouldn't be doubled? ThuranX (talk) 07:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You want to double my ban because I suggested that relevant and well-sourced information shouldn't be censored? And you're pretending this ban isn't punitive? Unbelievable. Perhaps you should be banned for piling on an edit war. csloat (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

In lieu of any cited evidence at all presented in this case, otherwise tertiary and inconclusive evidence: The 2:54 edit prior to Csloat's first edit (for a long time, I didn't go all the way back in the History) of 17:11 25th Oct
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2008&oldid=247519680
18:30 edit prior to Amwestover's first edit, confirmed, on 22:56 20th Sept
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2008&oldid=239830363
John McCain presidential campaign, 2008
The article is improved since these editors began. This does not prove they contributed, but it does show that they haven't stopped the article from improving. Anarchangel (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This is actually the first evidence of any sort introduced into this case at all. csloat (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Manutdglory - another issue of bad editor behavior connected with the Rick Warren article

--VS 09:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Related to the User:Teledildonix314 incident above, another editor, Manutdglory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), in recent days has been falsely accusing others of vandalism and making other inflammatory comments about other editors, in particular Teledildonix314, in talk here and here, and in edit summaries here and here. He has returned from a bit of a hiatus with another edit with an edit summary claiming he's fixing vandalism by other editors when clearly that is not true. This will only serve to inflame the situation surrounding this article.

After a series of warnings (here and here), I've final warned Manutdglory regarding his abusive comments ; in response, I received this rather uncivil comment in my talk that among other things accuses me of making threats. His sole action thus far has been this message left for one administrator; he appears to be rather tone-deaf to Misplaced Pages culture and policy as well as the usual methods and procedures to deal with conflicts and vandalism, even after I've pointed them out to him. Given that we now have two editors on this article that seem to be feeding off this conflict, I would suggest that some admin action be taken. Perhaps both these editors, who have both continued abusive behavior after final warnings, should be blocked for some period of time. Mike Doughney (talk) 08:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Mike, even comparing an established, veteran editor like me to someone like User:Teledildonix314 is a complete joke, and you know it. "Falsely accusing others?" First of all, why are you asking for administrative action to be taken against User:Teledildonix314 if he is innocent? We all know he is guilty. Secondly, "others" - ah, the only person I accused of vandalism is User:Teledildonix314 and I only started criticizing you when you admitted your personal disdain for Rick Warren (he referred to him as a "thuggish slimy weasel" see here), yet still felt compelled to edit his article despite your bias, so where were you going with that comment? And your argument that you could still be an objective editor despite your personal bias was negated when you defended some of User:Teledildonix314's hateful diatribe. Also, I wasn't aware that removing unsourced personal editorials that the user repeatedly reposted (which you yourself did to User:Teledildonix314) from an article qualified as edit-warring - in fact, I believe that is what our goal as legitimate editors is. My objective input is clearly needed in the Warren article to offset your and Teledildonix314's obvious bias. Manutdglory (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Still at it, I see? Trying, and spectacularly failing, to enlist allies by spewing a great tale about dozens of rampaging pro-gay editors running rampant over an article because you haven't succeeded in sanitizing it of inconvenient facts? Still can't get it through your head that editors with plainly announced biases (and my paper trail across the net making my views quite clear is wide and more than a decade long), can, will and should edit Misplaced Pages articles within the boundaries of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines? Still not assuming good faith and spreading your bile everywhere? Why don't you hurry up and WP:PBAGDSWCBY. Mike Doughney (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I attempted to resolve the situation so that an administrator didn't have to waste his time on a completely pointless endeavor, yet Mike Doughney replied with the following insult - classy. You see what I'm dealing with?Manutdglory (talk) 08:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't write clearly, and you don't seem to be able to tell the two of us apart, when you're not busy trying to play us off each other. Get lost. Mike Doughney (talk) 07:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You say I'm "masquerading as a legitimate editor," implying my presence here is illegitimate. You imply that people who don't share the same religious beliefs as the subjects of articles aren't allowed to edit those articles by repeatedly making an issue of my atheism. You trot out your (alleged) master's degree to insult those who take your writings at face value. You call me insulting? Mike Doughney (talk) 09:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I do. And your atheism would have nothing to do with it if you weren't so blatantly proud of your hatred of Warren. As an atheist, your interest in Warren's article is certainly questionable. For instance, I don't go around editing Lennin, Stalin, Mao, Darwin and other noted atheists articles, so why do you feel so compelled to edit Warren's despite your obvious bias against the man? The reason the article was protected was to defend the article from anti-Warren editors. Manutdglory (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I have absolutely no problem with you personally editing those articles if you are willing to diligently follow Misplaced Pages policies while you do so. I find that editing articles about people with whom I strongly disagree is a means of actively working to understand my own biases, as well as reaching a better understanding of how I know what I know. I also by various means seem to have accumulated some specialized knowledge about such figures (Warren one of many) and Misplaced Pages is a place where I can put such knowledge to use. In light of that, I've added an evaluation of the article's exclusion of the recent controversial commentary on Warren to the article's talk page. Mike Doughney (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The User:Teledildonix314 vindicated me by posting a lengthy apology/admission of guilt on the Rick Warren discussion page (see for yourself), this after User:Mike Doughney and other editors reported him (see above). Since User:Mike Doughney's entire original reason for reporting me was because I (accurately) identified User:Teledildonix314 as someone who repeatedly vandalized the Rick Warren article (which he labelled "name-calling"), I really am curious as to what he hopes to accomplish by all of this, other than wasting administrators time. Manutdglory (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Here's my initial take on this (seeing you both also came to my talk page for assistance). Firstly, and most importantly any further incivility, name calling or personal attack by either party and you get a block; return with more of that type of edit anywhere and the block escalates. Having said that Mike your direct personal insults are more beyond the pale than I would normally accept without a block to protect wikipedia but at this time Manutdglory is not asking for a block and for now I will abide by that request. That said neither of you are bigger than the project so, as I say on the next occasion I will block and indeed should I miss any of these types of edits I invite either of you to come directly to my talk page to inform me. That said I will look a little more closely at the Rick Warren article, place and keep it on my watchlist and respond accordingly if it becomes necessary. In the meantime please both walk away from the article, have a cup of tea and work on something else - preferably of a wide enough parameter between the two of you to keep yourselves apart.--VS 21:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your objective and fair analysis of the situation. I will certainly abide by your requests. Manutdglory (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Your indication of a willingness to act, after about a day and a half of administrative silence on this noticeboard regarding this matter, is noted. However, I will point out, with respect to "protecting" the Misplaced Pages project, that anything I have said pales in comparison to Manutdglory's expressed insistence that certain editors are "illegitimate" based not on their editing behavior but solely on their personal beliefs, affiliations or attitudes towards the subjects of biographical articles. Mike Doughney (talk) 08:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Your opinion and need to get in the last word against your opponent is noted Mike. That said I am glad that you understand that a block is imminent if further incivility arises. Given you have decided to go straight back to the article in question I trust you will be able to stay within the general civility covenant between editors across this project, and assuming so then I send you my best wishes.--VS 08:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Manutdglory wrote above: "The User:Teledildonix314 vindicated me by posting a lengthy apology/admission of guilt...."

I did absolutely nothing of the sort, i did the exact opposite. I wrote, and i repeat: "You called me a 'vandal' repeatedly, you reverted my edits without asking anybody else for consensus, and you implied to other editors that it would be a joke to respect my literacy skills as you would have them respect yours." You have successfully poisoned the opinions of other editors when i'm barely out of the gate, and your decision to repeatedly Bite The Newbie has resulted in a situation where i no longer feel i can contribute without being treated with prejudice... despite the fact that i was beginning to show an aptitude for quickly learning about the regulations and standards around here. Now anything i do other than the most Minor of edits will automatically be received with possibly excessive skepticism and hostility which other new editors hopefully would not have to endure. And instead of apologizing for your own errors, you simply repeat your declarations about me to everybody here, reinforcing the prejudice by falsely claiming that i have apologized to you.

Hopefully people will notice if this is your usual pattern of dealing with newbies, to prevent them from going down the same path i did, responding to you with the same level of hostility which you showed me, and then being embarassed for following your lead and failing to realize that yours is a lower standard of behavior being exhibited and taught than is supposed to be expected. I made my mistakes, i admitted them, i listened to criticism, and i withdrew from any possible situation which could have the slightest bit of controversy. I've resigned myself to contributing in no way larger than a few simple Minor edits which hopefully will not provoke trouble.

At least if there's a next time during which some other editor comes around calling me a "vandal" and lying about my activities, i'll know theirs isn't the true standard of behavior, and i'll remember not to stoop to the same level. I had assumed that Misplaced Pages was edited by a bunch of jerks, given the way i was treated by the first few editors/administrators i met here, and let myself sink to that level. My mistake. After being given information instead of slaps, i smartened up in a hurry. You might have been able to help save me the trouble if you'd set a different example initially, but Oh Well-- that's my fault, for thinking yours was the standard of behavior to follow, instead of looking around here further to see that there really are editors and administrators who can be civil and give Good Faith instead of just mentioning the concepts while doing the opposite. Teledildonix314 22:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Unresolved

This user despite continued notifications continues to (sprinkled among some apparent good faith edits) continues to make major alterations to film article budgets and grosses without sourcing or edit summary. I can no longer keep up with the articles. The user hasn't used a summary once in their history or cited a source in their prolific editing. I'm concerned about the integrity of all these film article across the board as this user has changed a lot of information on Wp without any explanation. Thanks. Mjpresson (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Also this user had his user page deleted for continuing to post improper content after being notified twice. Mjpresson (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at a couple of examples, and have to say that the lack of communication is a problem - they do seem to place a couple of sources at the end of the "rewrite", but it is difficult to say that they cover all the changes. I am going to drop a couple of warning templates on their page and ask that they respond to the concerns raised. We will then take if from there if needs be. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Another issue you may not have seen is inserting text into already cited statements. Mjpresson (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the assessment. I've tried to communicate with the editor about removing {{defaultsort}} and non-breaking spaces from articles as well as re-sorting articles' categories in a non-alphabetical way. A lot of the edits are beneficial, but there are so many changes in an edit without a summary that it is difficult to review the changes (especially when sections are shuffled). It would be nice to actually initiate a conversation with the editor and communicate what changes work and what changes don't. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Twice I have asked this editor to refer to film project style guidelines, but he continues to change articles to suit his own preferences rather than the general consensus without ever acknowledging having received messages from myself or, it appears, from others. If he engaged in some sort of dialogue it would be easier to determine if his edits are sincere and simply misguided, but the fact he chooses to carry on without comment suggests he is determined to do things his way, which to date has included deleting complete plot summaries, rearranging articles into sequences that make no sense, and adding data without any references. LiteraryMaven (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly suspect this user to be a sockpuppet of User:AshTFrankFurter2 (see Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/AshTFrankFurter2). My suspicions are based on the similar user page (ObsessiveJoBroDisorder's now deleted - perhaps an admin could confirm), with a link to the identical myspace page used by the other sockpuppets, and similar patterns of editing. These sockpuppets have been blocked in the past for trolling (), vandalism () and using sockpuppets to evade indefinite blocks.() --BelovedFreak 12:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palin - article probation?

• Sarah Palin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is currently fully protected by Kylu (talk · contribs). The only admin, it seems, that is currently willing to deal with POV-pushing and other problems at the article is KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs). I like Puppy, but this is not an ideal situation because she had been involved with some of the more contentious content disputes at the article in the past. I'd like to propose article probation, similar to what we have at Barack Obama.

On a related note, there are several {{editprotected}} requests at that article that haven't been dealt with for a while. Kelly 19:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll try a hand at it. (And does anyone know a good .cs hack for monobook to get rid of the gray text on dirty-pink field when editing a protected page? Not nice to the eyes!) --SB_Johnny | 19:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion it would be an over-kill and too much of a bureaucracy placing her article(s) on probation since the election is over and she's not a main focus in the media (and of most editors) anymore. I'd rather would like to see tight (admin) hands dealing with disruptive and edit warring editors and have the article semi-protected till things calm down. So if let's say 2 uninvolved admins would be willing to deal with it for a certain time it would be a better handling and choice to ease the "problem(s)".--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Normally I would agree, but this article is controversial enough that it's been the subject of an ArbCom case. Kelly 22:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

That case was closed in October.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The Sarah Palin article has a higher admin burnout rate than most (myself included), so unless a decent amount admin support materializes, a general sanction may be needed. I haven't looked into the recent behavior myself recently, but the fact is there are still people arguing about it at all - and most of those people are by nature going to be partisans and/or very stubborn.--Tznkai (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

They're certainly feisty on the talk page... protection for a while is probably better IMO, so long as a couple admins keep an eye out for {{editprotected}} requests. Relatively low-stress for me after some adventures in outer wikimedia, so I'll keep an eye on the discussions for a stint. --SB_Johnny | 00:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Kudos for you. Let's see how long you can take it  ;) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favor of probation. Maybe one way to make the probation more palatable would be to say that the probation will only last six months at most unless there's an active decision to renew it. Andjam (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't want to "convert" you but I keep on speaking my mind.

Gosh, nothing against Palin but she had her "15 minutes of fame" and they where extended but how long will it last? So I stick to my opinion above unless she gets a live span of fame in politics. Remember, that most of us didn't know anything about her before here nomination as vice-President. I'm just sticking here to the "cruel" facts and give my opinion with those in mind.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palin probation proposal

Based on the decision at Barack Obama, I propose the following identical proposal:

Pages related to Sarah Palin (broadly construed) are subject to the following terms of article probation:

• Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith.
  • Sanctions imposed may include restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, bans from editing the Palin pages and/or closely related topics, blocks of up to 1 year in length, or any other measures the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
  • For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute).
• Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee.
• Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) community consensus or Committee approval to do so.
• All sanctions imposed are to be logged (propose creating Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation for this purpose).

Kelly 21:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Uncontroversial, I would say. Make it so. Guy (Help!) 20:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• As one of the (and recently, the primary) admin trying to maintain some kind of civility and reasonable working environment on that page, I would very much appreciate it being on "official" probation. I was actually chastised recently for removing some very clear attack comments, which were immediately replaced via reversion by another admin, and although he later removed one phrase, the entire para was re-posted by another editor. None of the crap in question was about the article, mind you. Some stronger support for keeping that page on subject and more mature would be a step in the right direction. I support the 6 month probation. Perhaps if it were "official" I myself, and other admins trying to keep things under control, would have to deal with less Micky Mouse stuff. KillerChihuahua 00:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I would, however, be happier if there were input from more than two admins. (Hint hint) KillerChihuahua 12:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to enter your view below. KillerChihuahua 20:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• This is a good idea. Disruption on the Palin pages has been out of control for some time now. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Agree. Baseball Bugs 20:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Agree, and also agree that it should be limited to six months. However I think the details of the proposal sound draconian. Topic bans would be more appropriate remedies rather than 1 year blocks. Also the definition of "uninvolved admin" should exclude those who've edited the article significantly.   Will Beback  talk  01:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Stereotypes of Jews

I need a sanity check here, and I'm clearly involved and biased. This article was recently nominated for deletion, though the nomination was just withdrawn. A list of mostly unfavorable and completely unsourced stereotypes was the main body of the article prior to some major trimming as seen here. The list was then moved to the article talk page, with the rationale that it might be useful. Do we keep random, unsourced, largely derogatory lists generated by one user on article talk pages just because they might have the potential to be useful? If I'm being reasonable by removing the list from the talk page, I'd really appreciate another administrator coming in to help. AniMate 02:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a terrible list. And I am not sexually frustrated. LOL. Seriously, it's not sourced, it's like a random list generated from the mind of DCvoice. It's not like it's very useful. Hell, I could create a much better list, without thinking. OrangeMarlin 02:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:3RR is where this should be as User:Deeceevoice has reverted the removal or attempt to collapse the list four times now. . He's also aware of this thread. AniMate 02:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What bothers me about the list is that appears to be something a 10 year old would create. For example, financial stereotypes aren't even addressed, which is one stereotype that probably has 2000 years of history and is quite notable. I find it offensive, but it is easily sourced. Nappy hair? Give me a break. Deeceevoice ought to be embarrassed. OrangeMarlin 02:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The only way I'd be embarrassed is if I believed all that crap. And, yeah. I said it: nappy hair. And financial stereotypes are addressed. But if you see something I left out, feel free to add it. As I said before, the list was stream-of-conscious and meant solely to start the ball rolling for an article. That's what it's there for. And while you're at it, go back to the article talk page and read my comments there as well. You might learn something. Oh, yeah. And while you're at it, if you're really interested in writing a decent article, you might also consult some of the sources I've posted. If you guys spent more time writing the article instead of worrying about someone improperly "editing" my talk page comments, it would be a hell of a lot further along right now.deeceevoice (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive the discussion and if people want to discuss each individual stereotype they can create new sections for each individual one. There's no point to a "here's twenty items, let's discuss them all at once" strategy. It's repetitive but it'll keep later conversations clear. Debate the sources at each one. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion has just begun and doesn't require/merit archiving. The list stands as a suggested list of what to include in the article -- as is commonly done with the framing of any article on any other subject. It's perfectly legitimate -- and useful. If I, as an African-American, can write articles on Blackface dealing with "coons," "darkies," etc., or contribute to articles treating subject matter like Nigger, Mammy, lynchings, etc., then other people ought to be able to stomach dispassionate discussion about the subject matter at hand. If not, then I suggest they simply move on to something less upsetting. deeceevoice (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I created a compromise with the nominator to close the AfD. Can I reopen the existing AfD, or create a new one, asking for this page to be deleted? This editors behavior has been so toxic, I regret ever helping her.travb (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"Toxic"? That's funny, travb. I've merely stood my ground and justifiably objected to your repeated and unwarranted editing/hiding of my talk page contributions. I haven't done anything like, say, oh, visit your talk page and threaten you (as you did mine) -- have I? And whatever you may think of me -- I simply couldn't care less. It's not important. The fact is the article has merit. Need I remind you? This is about the project. deeceevoice (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Deeceevoice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Wow, big surprise, your block log is even longer than my rich block history.

Again, can I reopen the AfD, or create a new one? travb (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Utterly irrelevant -- and ancient history. Again, this is about the project. Try to focus, Inclusionist. deeceevoice (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, reality check on aisle four, you guys. I read this, and the whole time was thinking, "seriously?" It's not just the insane amount of drama it has stirred up- which is usually wherein the problem lays (lies? I dunno no grammar, I'm just a JAP). Here, it's the "content". A list of Jewish stereotypes is utterly unencyclopedic. Ignoring for a second all the discussion on the talk page and looking solely at that list- what possible use could that be to anyone? I'm not saying this shouldn't be discussed- but it's covered fairly well... and properly cited! over at Antisemitism. While I wouldn't go so far as to claim that Deecee has anything but the best of intentions and sincerely wants to help the project, good faith is not a qualification for the inclusion of material. The list is bad, consensus appears to be that the list is bad, content guidelines even say the list is bad... and Deecee needs to let it go. l'aquatique |✡| talk 04:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

zomg but ur jewish ur not neutral. But seriously; the list is pretty bad. Hence why my justification for voting deletion was "duh". Sceptre 04:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As a young white southern Protestant American male, I find the list pretty bad. --Smashville 04:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• I find it interesting that people are talking about "original research" and "bad" lists. I've just glanced at the list, and I saw entries such as Jewish-American princess, Shylock, Nice Jewish boy, and Jewish mother. Perhaps the people who are talking about unsourced stereotypes should expend their efforts not on edit warring over a list on a talk page but on addressing the entire articles in article space that we have on these things, and their sources. Some perspective is obviously needed. Uncle G (talk) 04:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Textbook case of WP:OTHERCRAP. Badger Drink (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
    • This isn't a deletion discussion and the above is not an argument about deletion. It is, however, an suggestion to gain some perspective and focus on the articles, rather than on edit warring over a talk page. Have you not paid attention to why this section was started? This is the administrators noticeboard, and editors have come here to complain about an edit war on a talk page. Uncle G (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Would somebody like to convince me not to just speedy delete this crap G4? I have reviewed the deleted revisions at Special:Undelete/Stereotypes_of_Jews that were deleted with Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of Jews and I am not at all convinced that this page "address the reasons for which the material was deleted". --B (talk) 05:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

by only including links to actual articles about notable stereotypes it avoids the admitted "free association" that were the fault of the original article. As I !voted keep at the afd just now, I obviously think G4 inappropriate. DGG (talk) 05:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• (paraphrasing my AfD comments): I can envision an academic essay easily, and an encyclopedic article without too much trouble (Shylock, South Park's Kyle, Woody Allen, Max Davidson... that's just the pop-culture crap off the top of my head) - but this article is not academic, encyclopedic, or even a useful stub. Seems to be Ms. DCV's reaction to an article on African American stereotypes - check the first edit summary, which pretty much solidifies this speculation. It wouldn't be the first time DCV has been a bit... headstrong, to put it mildly. The whole sequence of events has shades of American politics in 1984. Badger Drink (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If it's not already in the article, don't forget about the horns and stripes stuff. Also, are there pages for other ethnic stereotypes? For example, the joke about Italy anytime a war breaks out: "As soon as Italy heard there was a war, they surrendered!" And then there's the one about the Arab tank and the Israeli tank colliding. Tell me if you've heard that one before. Baseball Bugs 05:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

So it was the 1967 war, and these two tanks collided, and the Arab jumped out and said, "I surrender!" and the Israeli stayed in his tank and cried, "Whiplash! Whiplash!" Baseball Bugs 06:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

A priest and a rabbi walk into a bar...the minister ducked. --Smashville 06:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"Jesus saves. Moses invests." Baseball Bugs 06:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

And these are all funny how? So, we can make Jewish jokes, because of what reason? Please explain. Replace the Jewish reference with "black" or "African American", everyone would have been blocked. This is insulting. OrangeMarlin 08:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I used to live in Alabama...my roommate introduced me to his girlfriend, his aunt and his sister...I only met one person...badumbum...I'm here all week...tip your waitresses, try the veal...--Smashville 05:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think that the pork chops might be a better choice for this particular evening... l'aquatique |✡| talk 05:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

In all seriousness...here's the thing about this article...it reeks of the sort of thing that would be on ED. --Smashville 05:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

So a standup comic starts a story: "Two Jews get off a bus..." A guy in the audience objects, "Hey! Why does it always have to be two Jews? Why couldn't it be two Chinese?" The standup says, "OK, two Chinese get off a bus. One turns to the other and says, 'So, tell me, Chan, how was your son's Bar Mitzvah?'" Baseball Bugs 06:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess I prematurely closed the 2nd AfD for this article. I reopened the 2nd AfD and merged the 3rd one into it, as someone suggested on my talk page, and on the 2nd AfD talk page.

I will be very happy when this incident is all behind me, and I can return to helping serious editors save articles. travb (talk) 08:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The rationale behind your closure was solid. The rationale behind turning this thread into another Baseball Bugs yukfest.... not so solid. AniMate 08:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I see there are many "Stereotypes of..." articles, and I suspect they all have sourcing problems. Good luck with all of them. Baseball Bugs 14:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The irony of all this was that both me and Animate voted originally to keep this article, and I fought very hard to keep it.travb (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Point of order: is Deeceevoice still on probation? The motion in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice was never rescinded. Sceptre 03:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that as well, but decided against bringing it up. These articles are all hogwash in my opinion, and getting them off Misplaced Pages is more important in my mind than any further sanctions against Dee. Besides, after her behavior on this and other "Stereotypes of..." articles, there will be alot more eyes on her. If issues come up again, we can worry about enforcing the ArbCom case then. AniMate 03:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Like this? Ethnic_slur This is like a directory to surf through a number of articles, and a "things to do" list for more, much of which is apparently frustrating DCVoice, and all of which should give anyone pause, regardless of the "too pointy" argument.Steveozone (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban - needs outside attention

• Deeceevoice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After reading the findings in the case Sceptre linked, this kind of disruption is exactly what the case was designed to prevent. I propose as a solution, in accordance with remedy #7 of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice, "Deeceevoice is indefinitely banned from creating or editing "Stereotypes of ..." articles, or any similarly themed article which may be created as a successor." Deeceevoice explicitly stated his/her intention to create disruption - see and the deleted revisions of Talk:Stereotypes of Whites. The latter is infuriating and shows in no uncertain terms that the purpose here was to disrupt. This ban is rather light, really. Thoughts? --B (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Given the comments in the diff cited by B, it's clear Deeceevoice knew what would happen. ++Lar: t/c 07:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• The irony of Deeceevoice's stated intention for the creation of this article is that it is based upon a false premise, namely that "Black folks the only ones on Misplaced Pages with a separate article on stereotypes". We actually have a number of such articles, several of which were the result of splitting Ethnic stereotypes in American media (AfD discussion) (the subsequent deletion of which has rendered all of these articles non-GFDL-compliant, note), namely:
  • Stereotypes of African Americans (AfD discussion)
  • Stereotypes of Near Easterners/Arabs (AfD discussion) which is now to be found at Stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims (AfD discussion)
  • Stereotypes of American Indians (AfD discussion) which is now to be found at Stereotypes of Native Americans (AfD discussion)
  • Stereotypes of Latinos (AfD discussion) which is now to be found at Stereotypes of Hispanic and Latino Americans (AfD discussion) (I've just re-connected the history to fix a bogus copy-and-paste "move". But it's still not properly GFDL-compliant.)
  • Stereotypes of Asians (AfD discussion) which is now to be found at Stereotypes of East and Southeast Asians in the United States (AfD discussion), alongside Stereotypes of South Asians (AfD discussion) which was later broken out of it and Western stereotypes of West and Central Asians (AfD discussion) which was started from scratch
  • Stereotypes of Europeans/Whites (AfD discussion) which eventually, after several page moves, ended up at Stereotypes of ethnic groups from the white race (AfD discussion), where it was deleted (the current redirect being created later).

    Stereotypes of white people (AfD discussion) was deleted for supposedly being a re-creation of it. It was created 1 day after the prior article was deleted, but the initial content was not at all the same as the prior deleted article.

• African Americans are actually far from being the only ones with these articles. Uncle G (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly support I don't think someone should be allowed to purposely upset a bunch of editors to make a WP:POINT like this. I think any and all of these types of stereotype articles should be speedily deleted if they haven't been already. Racism and bigotry should have no place here at this project. This editor seems to go out of the way to stir up drama as shown by the difs provided. I would go as far as to say an indefinite should be applied if there is any further disruption. If I remember correctly from the last ANI with this editor, s/he used their talk page for WP:Soap and ranting. I know I am very upset with all of this right now so please excuse me if I am over the top on this issue. I agree in total with the comments made by others about this and esp. with the comments made by User:Orangemarlin. He was very upset too. I was furious at the comments made when he stated he was shaking "in anger". I'm sorry but this project is more important overall then to allow this kind of hatred to be allowed anywhere. Sorry, --CrohnieGal 13:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Orangemarlin was making an ad hominem argument about another editor's user name, and is not without fault here, as evidenced by "What the fuck ever", "Fuck me", and "What the fuck ever", and edits such as "What a waste of fucking time" and "This is about as much bullshit as one can take" made in the same period. Yes, Baseball Bugs has been spectacularly unhelpful here in this discussion, and xyr contributions to a serious discussion have been most immature. But that wasn't a particularly mature response to them. And Die4Dixie was actually in the middle of a civil and relevant discussion with another editor before Orangemarlin stepped in and de-railed it with ad hominem arguments. Orangemarlin's responses to other editors in other (some completely unrelated) discussions have not been measured either. Uncle G (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly support - If this editor has been enjoined from creating disruption and has done so in the guise of this article, then the editor should clearly be at least banned from creating/working on articles regarding stereotypes. I find the current article to reflect strong anti-Semitism and feel the current the article on that topic sufficient. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• I support a total ban, given that Deeceevoice hasn't learnt from her history of disruption, but if that doesn't give, I'll be okay with a topic ban. Sceptre 18:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support In her quest for parity, dee has forgotten one of our core policies about original research. She wrote two offensive articles based on her perceptions, and edit warred to keep her observations in the encyclopedia. I actually agree with her feelings to a large degree, but the way she's handled herself isn't conducive to collegial editing. As an aside, I'm not sure this discussion is even necessary, as the remedy states that any administrator can ban dee from articles. AniMate 18:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree that it is not necessary, but I still think it is a good idea for it not to be a unilateral move. --B (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Seeing as I considered enacting the remedy and decided against it due to my involvement, starting this thread was probably a good idea. I'm fairly certain, however, that this is going to be seen as more systemic bias from the evil Misplaced Pages Jews. AniMate 19:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support (topic ban or long-term block / warning against disruption on such pages). The editor is deliberately provocative, and continues this behavior despite a block, ongoing dispute, arbitration case, etc. In other words, they are engaging in ongoing disruption and not being reached by normal warnings or blocks. Wikidemon (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• Given she was nearly fully banned a year ago, and her continued disruption here, I support a site ban. If there's not consensus for that, I certainly support a topic ban, which I think has enough consensus here for an uninvolved admin to enact. seresin ( ¡? )  07:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The list returns

After coming off of a 24 hour block for reinstating her list onto the talk page of Stereotypes of Jews, deeceevoice's first edit was to reinstate the list, albeit with references.. Some sort of action needs to be taken here. I'm quite tempted to enact the topic ban myself, but I think another longer timeout is needed as well. I'm too involved, but something needs to be done. AniMate 00:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday's block was for 3RR, not for maintaining a list of stereotypes. DCV is trying to use the article's Talk page as a workshop to improve the article, including collecting sources, and I don't see why there's anything wrong with that. — ] (] · ]) 01:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

When someone repeats the same revert immediately after returning from a 3RR block, there is something wrong with that. But regardless of that, and the deleted revisions of Talk:Stereotypes of Whites demonstrate in no uncertain terms that Deeceevoice's purpose is to troll. --B (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a deliberately provocative move. Not only is the list unnecessary, it's offensive. I can spout a bunch of racist bullshit and then go find sources to back it up, but that's not encyclopedic. It's offensively bad original research and she needs to cut it out. AniMate 01:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the list, with explanation. It's certainly provocative and only serves to continue any dispute / drama / disruption. I did not have an opinion until now, but at this point I think a loger-term block and/or topic ban is in order. Wikidemon (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• It's back. I think blocking for disruption is appropriate at this point, but I think an uninvolved admin doing so would be best. seresin ( ¡? )  07:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked for a week owing to disruption. I think a longer block should also be talked about now. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Indef block for disruptive editing

I count about 20 blocks on Deeceevoice that were not overturned. Per the section immediately above, I am blocking would have blocked them indefinitely for disruptive editing. Enough is enough. If they want to edit again, they need to show that they are going to change their ways. These revolving door blocks have not worked to control the extensive pattern of disruption. Jehochman 07:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Gwen Gale got there first with a one week block. I'd suggest upping it to indefinite. Jehochman 07:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd support an indefinite block. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I support the week long block, but the indef may be overkill. There's an arbitration remedy in effect that states dee can be topic banned by any administrator. Topic ban her, and let her get back to editing productively. If she chooses to break the topic ban, an indefinite block is always an option. AniMate 07:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That case is three years old. A lot has happened since then. Modern ArbCom rulings have sanctions that last a maximum of one year because the Committee recognizes that circumstances change. Jehochman 07:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If the remedy isn't enforceable, I'm still not sure I support an indefinite block, though I certainly won't oppose either. I just hate to lose a committed editor, and some of her work outside this area seems good. Still, she's clearly on a crusade and has been for some time, and crusaders make terrible editors. Meh - I'll let other editors figure this one out. AniMate 07:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Deeceevoice's lifetime contributions overview, Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice#Deeceevoice_placed_on_probation AC probation, and block log for those considering. No opinion from me on the pending action. rootology (C)(T) 07:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I support the indefinite. The editor comes back from a 3rr block for this same list and immediately goes to the talk page and put it back is looking for drama and disruption. An indefinite looks like the only way to make this stop already, enough is enough. --CrohnieGal 13:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

Sanctions levied under an Arbcom case should be discussed here. The relevant remedy is "Deeceevoice is placed on Misplaced Pages:Probation. She may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article or talk page which she disrupts. She may be banned from Misplaced Pages for up to one year by any three administrators for good cause. All bans and blocks together with the basis for them shall be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice#Documentation_of_bans_or_blocks" Those considering an indefinite ban may consider the middle ground of a year long block.--Tznkai (talk) 08:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have closed that thread because I think it is unfair to enforce a three year old decision. We can act as a community on the basis of the evidence before us. This matter does not seem excessively prone to disagreement. I'd support a one year block instead of indefinite, though I'd hope the editor would return sooner by undertaking not to use disruption as an editing tactic. Jehochman 13:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

User:CadenS

I don't recall having ever had any dealings with User:CadenS before, but I am shocked at his/her comments about me at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Robert Eric Wone and User talk:CadenS. Apparently my nomination of Robert Eric Wone for deletion, due to my concerns about BLP violations, is some sort of conspiracy to censor Misplaced Pages because I have an agenda to make sure that all rapes of straight men by gay men not be reported. I didn't even know, and do not know as of this minute, that Wone was straight and the people the article is trying so very hard to accuse of his murder without saying so, are gay. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 07:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• This is also enlightening. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 08:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I originally created a Wikiquette alert about CadenS but he removed my notification of the discussion from his Talk page without comment or going to the Wikiquette alerts page to discuss it: . Therefore I felt the only alternative I have is to come here. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 08:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I have had previous encounters with CadenS and unfortunately I can't say they have been a net positive experience. As a newby I thought it was due to not seeing this project as an encyclopedia but these escalating experiences show a pattern when bundled with numerous editors who have now been on the receiving end of bad faith accusations and hostility, often centered on articles with gay victims or in the case of Robert Eric Wone, the alleged perpetrators. On the second ANI report there effectively was no action although CadenS was being mentored at that time and suggestions were made to avoid LGBT articles. We work with each other so antagonism isn't helping create a constructive environment. -- Banjeboi 09:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • This speaks for itself. -- Banjeboi 09:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I had been under the impression that Caden was topicbanned from LGBT articles? Was I wrong? // roux   09:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that was the direction the last ANI report was going but it dragged on long enough I think a resolution never occurred before the thread was archived. I had sought help with similar issues on Jesse Dirkhising but have had to walk away from the article instead. -- Banjeboi 10:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah. He had voluntarily topicbanned himself to forestall a ban, looks like.. and then went right back to the same old thing. Passion is good, but his is spilling over into a bad place. Having nosed through contribs, I think one of the following is necessary, in order of preference:

1. De facto topicban from LGBT issues, broadly construed, with a mentor who will work with him on some subpage of his talkpage to work through article edits and article tpage comments before he makes them. Revisit in three months to see how much he's progressed.
2. Actual topicban from LGBT issues, broadly construed, indefinite.

Number 1 would require the most investment from someone else. I'd volunteer for the task but I'm not sure he'd take me, as I'm a bit light in the loafers. On the other hand, that might be good for him, help him come a bit more towards neutral in his approach. Unfortunately, number 2 is probably where we're going to end up, as my understanding from what other people have said as well as from his contribs is that his editing outside of LGBT issues is very good, and these issues are far from new. // roux   10:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been too involved to be terribly objective here but if edits are good outside LGBT subjects then better to keep a good editor and encourage more of the same. -- Banjeboi 11:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If there is no damage to an article I'd leave it at a warning.Mccready (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's been damage and disruption as well as warnings. -- Banjeboi 13:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a user RFC might be the way to go, rather than persistent ANI threads. I agree that the comments on his talkpage and the AfD are unacceptable. Black Kite 12:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced a drudging through and airing of past transgressions will effectively do anything but be a testament of shame. It's been stated edits outside of LGBT topics are fine. I suggest progressive topic bans if they can be logged similar to blocks for any future need. I would rather have a set-length ban knowing that future ones will be exponentially longer and also that the spirit of the ban is to encourage taking a breather rather than escalating. -- Banjeboi 13:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Please provide a diff of damage to an article. Otherwise I think this sort of escalation is a waste of time.Mccready (talk) 13:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd be unhappy about just ignoring his behaviour, some action appears necessary. dougweller (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting ignoring. It's important to have the evidence first. Can someone provide diff of article damage.Mccready (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The main issue here is not "article damage", it's editor conduct. Incivil comments to other editors are unacceptable (i.e ). Although if we're talking about articles, neither is edit-warring to impose your POV on an article () especially when it had been pointed out why your edits violate WP:UNDUE. The editor's previous edits (, , , and this userpage , show that CadenS has extreme difficulty preserving his good editing practices on certain subjects. He also offered to stay away from sexuality related articles previously (), but didn't, as we see now. As was pointed out in the previous ANI thread by numerous editors, it is probably best if CadenS does stay away from such topics, as he appears unable to stop his good editing practices being affected by his POV on this issue. Black Kite 14:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree there has been damage to mainspace. I suggest a topic ban for a limited period which can be extended if necessary.Mccready (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I support a topic ban as well. His behavior at E.O. Green School shooting more than demonstrated his inability to work productively and neutrally on articles related to LGBT topics. AniMate 14:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This is now at least the third ANI thread on CadenS, all of them started by different people (I started one of them ages ago). This is such a shame, CadenS has a lot of potential...if only he would stay away from sexuality articles (and stop the incivility). *Shrug* — Realist 17:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

User:CadenS is not an incurably problemtic editor in the usual sense he is a good and rational editor. i interacted with him sucessfuly in E.O. Green School Shootingaffair whih was succesfulin resolvin the disputes. i belive that these repeated WP:ANI cases, while made in good faith i bleieve, is serving as a chilling effect to editors with non-mainstream views inadevertently. I reoommend that we allow the WP:MENTORship program and perhaps a RfC / or even a talkpage discussion to go forward rather than coming on ehre and demanding sanctions from adminstirators without trying any main discussion bases at first Smith Jones (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that his views on sexuality might be "outside the mainstream" is irrelevant, we welcome diverse thought. However, CadenS has shown time and time again, that disputes on sexuality articles cause him stress, which results in him losing him temper quite dramatically and unexpectedly. — Realist 17:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"unexpledctedly"? really? i bleiev ethat all of ous have had enough experience with this fine editor to realize his buttons and where they are. the fact that we have repeatfully failed to accomodate him and prevent him from getting angr y reflects as much on us as it does on he. WP:ANI is for major incidents thar require swift amdinistrative actions (ie blocking, banning, warnings, etc). User:CadenS mitigating circumstances below for the fact that really, his problems if they exist are longterm editorial complications. as per precedent, we usualyl resolve these in WP:RfC or, drastically, WP:DR -- where you can work through the dispute resolution processes. going to WP:ANI demonstrates the potential for the minsiterpretation of the presence of WP:ABF & is an overreaction to CadenS's admittedly minor conflicts in the issue of homosexualism. If a topic ban IS required, it can e more effectively applied if there was the presence of other attempts at resolvng CadenS before that. Smith Jones (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

So it's everybody else's fault that CadenS can't remain civil? I never even worked with him before and have had no dealings with him, so I was shocked to see his accusations made against me concerning something that never even crossed my mind. How is it my fault that he is attacking me for having an agenda and trying to censor Misplaced Pages to cover up crimes by "gays against innocent heterosexuals"? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 18:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

it is NOT your fault that cadenS si considered incivil. however, the fcontineud failure by wikipedia in generla to use processes like WP:DR & wp:rfc is what causes these disputes to spiral out of contorl. There have been multipel WP:ANI threads about this eparticular editor to no avail whatevsoer. Clearly WP:ANI is the not the suitable forum for the resolution of CAdenS problem, yet for some reason we refuse to sto p to create thes things about him. . I think that your best best if this issue is really bothering you (and i understand that it is very rude thing to conjecture about a stranger) is to open up a WP:RFC/ that way everyone who is involved with CadenS can shar ether opinions and then the community can work together with CadenS to devise a solution that will benefit the encyclopedia and everyone who edits in it. The alternative is to have a WP:ANI thread every few weeks that resolves in nothing but hard feelings and rage Smith Jones (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

CadenS presents the issues of a trauma victim. It is not the business of Misplaced Pages to accomodate nor treat his issues. Before this latest ANI concerning CadenS' behaviour I had posted an opinion that adoption should in hindsight not have occurred and I predict that the Mentorship proposed by Smith Jones would be no remedy either. That is because Mentorship looks similar to Adoption, and Mentorship would explicitly give CadenS the expectation that his mentor should act as an advocate for the protégé. (link fixed) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

CadenS clearly has some personal issues that make editing in any area even tangentially related to sexuality problematic. Clearly until he can show some civility and restraint in those areas, he shouldn't be editing in them. However, his work on American soccer, celebrities, and music seem absolutely fine. I really think a topic ban is the way to go here, as an RfC or any other steps in dispute resolution might only serve to inflame a clearly combustible editor. AniMate 19:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Note that CadenS was notified about this ANI thread here. — Becksguy (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

comment ** it is feasible to prospect that CadenS has yet to log in. Smith Jones (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Adopter here. CadenS and I entered into an adoption arrangement about half a year ago in response to a similar dispute. As his adopter, I made it clear then that I would mentor him and, if necessary, occasionally act as his advocate, but not be a "get-out-of-jail-free" card or a shield. Since then, I think there has been some slight improvement in his interactions with others. Unfortunately, though, CadenS continues to see "political correctness" and POV in other editors' actions, and is very outspoken about it. Despite my repeated advice to assume good faith, he does not heed it, or will apologize but eventually go back to the same behavior. In light of this, I am forced to conclude that my adoption has been insufficient. While this particular recent incident doesn't seem worth a topic ban by itself, Caden's history leads me to conclude that if a topic ban on sexuality-related topics is not enforced, the same sort of incident will occur over and over, and will be a drain on the project. Don't get me wrong; Caden's work in other topics has been, on the whole, good, and we appreciate him for that. But his personal history has, not through any fault of his own, been problematic in the area of sexuality. Roux's option #2 seems like the only workable solution at this point, though a combination of #1 and #2 would probably be best: actual topic ban, with Caden being able to request a trusted editor to make an edit for him. Both Banjeboi and I appear to be open to that role, but both of us would probably have a problem with many edits he suggested. -kotra (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to ensure something is done this time, instead of it falling into the archive again. Is it just me or are most the people involved in this discussion not actually admins? Could more admins please read this thread. — Realist 03:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This ANI was not necessary. I would like to make clear that I never worked on homosexual articles as some editors above are accusing me of. I have zero interest in those topics. I did work on some sexuality type like articles and some of those did involve a crime committed by homosexuals. However, both rape and murder are not homosexual subjects and so I am surprised that several editors (Benji and Roux) could call it that. Crime has no sexual orientation and crime does not belong to just one WikiProject. Furthermore, I disagree with a topicban on sexuality related articles. My good work on the E.O. Green School page which I saved and helped become NPOV, and my edits on the Jesse Dirkhising article, which again I made NPOV show that I can work on these type of articles. I do however agree with Smith Jones and I'm open to his suggestion for a RFC. On a side-note, Kotra is a good adopter and he should not be blamed for my past uncivil behavior. Caden S (talk) 06:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the AfD changes, this edit from CadenS served to seriously inflame the dialogue. While he is right--it's a crime article, not a gay article--his behaviour in the AfD does not approach the issue as he characterized it. Jclemens (talk) 08:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Er, just to clarify.. I never said it was a homosexual article. (What would that be, anyway? Articles in the same cats getting it on? I digress...) However, you do seem to have some sort of, let's say sensitivity, when it comes to aspects of sexuality as they intersect with articles. :::::I'm not sure that an RfC is actually going to create any sort of resolution here. You have been told many, many times what the concerns with your editing are, and I haven't seen anyone in this discussion (or the one before that, or the one before that, or the one before that) who has, for lack of a better word, 'sided' with you when it comes to your behaviour whenever sexuality gets involved. Or to put it another way... an RfC will drag on for a month, and will without a doubt result in the same answer: you being topicbanned from any editing related to sexuality, broadly construed. 'Broadly construed' would, in my opinion, mean both obviously LGBT articles, as well as edits that involve discussing sexuality at all.

Actually, I'm quite sure that an RFC would do nothing that can't be done here in a fraction of the time. But if you're going to go forth with one, I'd like to suggest that you topicban yourself for the duration of the RFC, pending whatever the outcome is. // roux   09:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

One way to resolve this thread is if CadenS would voluntarily agree to a topic ban for 90 days from sexality-related articles. If he is willing to do that, he should put his agreement here on the noticeboard. If he won't go that route, then this thread might discuss imposing the same ban from sexuality-related articles as a community decision. EdJohnston (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well according to this post, Caden doesn't feel a topic ban is warranted. He also seems to have a different definition of "sexuality" articles. Would a topic ban be for any article involving homosexual people? Would we include sexual crimes in general? What about articles on heterosexuality? Could we have a clearer definition of where the problems are being caused? From what I have seen, the problems occur on articles that involve gay people and/or sexual crimes. It would be quite hard to make something voluntary when there is a conflicting definition of the scope. — Realist 18:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Topicban proposal/discussion

• Yes, but that posting by CadenS also includes the phrase "My good work on the E.O. Green School page which I saved and helped become NPOV". Given that CadenS' "work" on that article was pretty much limited to edit-warring to remove the category "Hate Crimes", despite the fact that the defendant was charged with such, and then edit warring to include this completely unsourced BLP violation, it's unsurprising that he doesn't recognise what he's doing wrongly. I completely endorse a topic ban on all articles with LGBT-related content, because CadenS' editing is clearly not a net positive on them. Black Kite 19:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Black Kite, dude please be fair here. That dif you provide is wrong. User:Mrmcuker wrote that edit at 19:40 on October 1, 2008 and not me. He was reverted by Moni and I reverted her because I thought Mrmcuker had it sourced but I was wrong. I did NOT write that man. He did. Please don't imply that I wrote that BLP violation. Furthermore, I have never edited any homosexual articles from the homosexual wikiproject. Please could you stop accusing me of this. Caden S (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Nevertheless, you did edit-war to try and keep that section in, even though it was clearly unsourced. We are not talking about purely LGBT articles here, we are talking about articles which have a relation to LGBT (see comments below). Black Kite 00:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse topic ban: - to clarify on LGBT or heterosexual victim of homosexual crime articles for the sake of semantics. Caden's reappearance at ANI is disheartening. Caden did not in fact "save" E.O. Green School shooting or help it to become NPOV, unless one qualifies the pretty outrageous commentary on the talk page as helping (including his ceaselessly entertaining statement "let's all hang Caden upside down by his balls" in this thread). I added a lot of information to that article, along with several other editors. Caden did not. He has admitted having problems with sexuality articles. Misplaced Pages is not therapy. --Moni3 (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Moni, you gave me credit on my talk page for initiating and helping the E.O. Green school article to achieve NPOV status. Now you're changing your tune? Regardless, I have no problems with sexuality articles. My only problem was and is the POV editors from the homosexual wikiproject who I felt were out of line and unfair with most edits. Furthermore, I never used Misplaced Pages as therapy. I resent you making such accusations. Please stop this.

Caden S (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Also endorse, per Moni3; Misplaced Pages is not a place to pursue personal issues, and CadenS seems to be able to edit constructively elsewhere, which is where he should go, in my view. --Rodhullandemu 19:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Rod, I never used Misplaced Pages as a place to pursue personal issues. Dude where are you getting that from? Please stop saying things that are untrue about me. Caden S (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse topic ban: - I don't think a "voluntary" topic ban, on Caden's terms, would/could work. I don't think the problems Caden has can be resolved by a mentor. This isn't an issue of age, immaturity or lack of Wiki experience. The restriction should be on topics relating to GLBT issues and all sexual crimes. He should still be allowed to edit articles on playboy and penthouse centerfolds. — Realist 19:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. Give him a ban,.let him refine his ability to work constructively with others, and once demonstrated with GAs, FAs, and the like, we can revisit the ban, in aperiod to be no less than 6 months from now. ThuranX (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Caden shouldn't be allowed to make any edits that are even tangentially related to sexuality. He's clearly unable to do so from a neutral point of view. His wikilawyering above about the articles being about crimes rather than sexuality is ridiculous. AniMate 20:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Ani, I was not wikilawyering above about those articles. I swear, I was only being honest in my above post. Caden S (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Question Is this the guy who, some months back, kept adding the point to various criminal articles about the perps being homosexual? Because that's what he appears to be doing at present. Baseball Bugs 20:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, and would also support some kind of civility parole. KillerChihuahua 20:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. KillerChihuahua, you support some kind of civility parole? Look man, I admit I've lost my temper a couple of times and sometimes I was incivil to my fellow editors, but civility parole? Come on. Please don't treat me like some teenager by "grounding" me with a civility parole request. Caden S (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse topic ban for sexualityLGBT-related articles, including crimes where the accused/perpetrator or the victim is gay. Robert Eric Wone is an example of the accused being gay, E.O. Green School shooting an example of the victim being gay. I recommend at least 3 months duration. I would encourage Caden to continue his great work in other areas of Misplaced Pages, and I think he will find it good to take a break from articles which surely cause him a lot of stress. Full disclosure: I am Caden's adopter. -kotra (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC) EDIT: changed "sexuality" to "LGBT" as per Guyonthesubway's comment below. -kotra (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• A topic ban might be a good idea, but we need ot set the parameters clearly defined and ensure that mentorship/adoption programs continue to funciton in the breach. For example, kotras point for a topic-ban for sexuality-related articles, including crimes is a solid idea as long as we make sure that CadenS is receiving the quality assuranace that he knows the parameters for which he will be expected to fall into compliance therein. Smith Jones (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• comment -- oh, and this bann MUST NOT be permanent. if kotra would be willing to monitor cadens progress there mighrt be a future point at which he might be ready for less supervisied communtiy restrictions therein. A permanentn topicban as oposed to one strucutred based on CadenS's behavior will not be of help and will serve to create a chilling effect and alienation. Smith Jones (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse complete topic ban on any article where LGBT issues are mentioned. Sexuality is a poor definition. A broader definition would remove him from articles he enjoys and where he is constructive (ie. playboy and penthouse centerfolds). Guyonthesubway (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • That's a good point. I've changed my comment above accordingly. -kotra (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse an indefinite topic ban covering all LGBT topics (defined broadly). I complained about an edit summary by this editor back in October that failed to assume good faith. Kotra provided good mentoring but CadenS did not learn from it. I don't think it needs to be permanent - nothing on Misplaced Pages is. "Indefinite" is sufficient since it can be appealed like anything else.   Will Beback  talk  02:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, with proposed wording below:

1. CadenS is indefinitely topicbanned from all editing relating to LGBT sexuality issues, broadly construed. This includes but is not limited to:

• Any and all articles related to LGBT people and issues;
• Any and all edits related to the sexuality of criminals, and alleged criminals;
• Any and all edits related to the sexuality of victims of crime;

1. CadenS may continue to use article talk pages to propose new edits to pages from which he is restricted, subject to the following conditions:

• 1. He is to comment solely on content, and not on contributors;
• He is restricted to a strict sitewide civility parole for three months, with escalating blocks for infractions resetting the three-month period.

• Topicban and civility parole to be enforced by escalating blocks according to the usual progression, which will also reset the three-month timer for each remedy, according to whichever one he is blocked for. (e.g., a breach of topic without any incivility doesn't reset his civility parole. That's just not fair.) In three months, CadenS may ask for the topicban to be reviewed at WP:AN.

Yes/no? // roux   02:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC) (edited per Kotra's comments below. // roux   09:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC))

• Question a point of bclearingation -- is the restriction on "commenting on content, not on others" restritced to article talk pages on LBGT people issues/sexuality of criminals or crime victims or from ALL article talk pages? it is important to notice this so that he can realize what exactly he can and cannot do Smith Jones (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • My understanding is that the grosser incivility issues are almost entirely restricted to LGBT-related editing. I would also move that the restrictions be permanently noted on his talkpage for the length of the topicban; it's kind of silly to believe that every admin is aware of every editor under restriction. Doesn't need to be huge and splashy, and I don't feel enormously strongly about it. // roux   03:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, but I think 6 months may be overkill. 3 or 4 months ought to be sufficient. Also, just to be clear, "sexuality of criminals" should be "sexuality of criminals and alleged criminals", since this most recent incident had to do with alleged criminals being gay. Also, a question: if the topic ban is broken, what happens? If the only result is a resetting of the clock, that's not really a restriction; the topic ban could then be broken repeatedly without any consequences. -kotra (talk) 05:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Excellent points. See above for new version. // roux   09:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse Baseball Bugs 06:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse, if non-admins are allowed to do so. -- Banjeboi 12:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ragusino & Luigi

Something simply must be done about the IP socks of User:Ragusino and User:Luigi 28 (i.e. User:PIO), which are stirring up trouble on dozens of articles for weeks now. User:Ragusino is indefinitely blocked for personal attacks, block evasion and violations of WP:HARASS . User:Luigi 28, aka User:PIO, is also indeffed for edit-warring and personal attacks . The IPs of User:Ragusino usually start with 191.**.**.**, pr 190.**.**.**, but also sometimes with 200.**.**.**, while those of User:Luigi 28 start with 151.**.**.**. Further information about their IP range should be readily available from their edits on the myriad articles and talkpages they've been trying to deface over the weeks. Around 15 or more articles and article talkpages have been semi-protected due to this problem, among others:

• Antonio Bajamonti
• Brno Kabudžić
• House of Pucić
• House of Bondić/Bonda
• House of Gundulić/Gondola
• House of Getaldić/Ghetaldi
• House of Sorkočević/Sorgo
• List of Ragusans
• Dalmatian Italians
• Zadar
• Bombing of Zadar in World War II
• Autonomist Party
• House of Božidarević/Bosdari
• House of Natali

(The protected talkpages are not included)
This method has been largely unsuccessful as the IPs simply move to other articles or wait until the protection expires and continue with their disruption. To top it all off, they've forced admins to semi-protect a number of article talkpages because of their new hobby: posting personal information and attacks about me all over Misplaced Pages (see User:Ragusino edits in article history: , etc.,etc...). This took place all the time on my talkpage until it was semi-protected , now the personal attacks appear everywhere. With many articles protected they've even resorted to personal attacks on any article or talkpage I happen to edit, no matter how unrelated (such as Talk:Croatian American ).
Even as we speak these users continue their disruption, and do not show signs of giving up. Apparently secure in the belief that they cannot be stopped, they've made it their daily routine to disrupt articles and harass users on Wiki. In my personal opinion, something must be done, and after weeks and months of this few options remain save a range-block. I'm sure any help would be appreciated both by me, and by the increasingly large number of editors forced to revert on a daily basis. --DIREKTOR 15:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Hmm, these ranges look to big to rangeblock to me - it'd be at least three /16 ranges for the main culprits even without looking at the others, and that's a lot of collateral damage. The 151.48.x.x range, for example, also has a lot of recent productive edits. I think semi-ing the articles until they get bored is the best idea for the time being, unfortunately. Black Kite 15:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Damage is exactly what I'm hoping we can prevent: constant day-to-day damage on dozens of articles. Based on my previous experiences over the last few months, I dare say that these IPs simply will not get bored of their disruption (at least not in the coming months). The reason is that they're active on itWiki and "plan their moves" there. They discuss these issues and whine about how they've been banned, then they simply move on to their daily routine of trying to revert so many articles until one of them is forgotten. This has been going on for weeks and months, and even today we have Ragusino disruptions to speak of . --DIREKTOR 15:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The amount of disruption is really getting out of proportion, these guys do not stop. Is a temporary range block available as a deterrent option in cases like this? --DIREKTOR 20:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I've issued four rangeblocks (three for Ragusino IPs and one for PIO) and blocked Ragusino's other socks. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks loads for your effort, a lot of users can now put this ugly matter to rest. --DIREKTOR 21:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a sudden urge to go to an Italian restaurant. Baseball Bugs 21:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

xD --DIREKTOR 08:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Temporary emergency desysop of User:Hemanshu

Hemanshu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been the subject of concern for a considerable time, including an RFC (October) and various final warnings on his talk page, including a desysop discussion on another wiki. An RFAR motion was filed on 31 December in light of these concerns, which had not been resolved.

A concern has now arisen regarding sock-puppetry (WP:SSP/Hemanshu), which confirmed that while at RFAR, the user had begun sockpuppet activity on "year" articles similar to those he had previously edit warred: Wikipedianforever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created Jan 2 2009. The sock use is  Confirmed by behavior and checkuser.

By itself, a single SPA sock would not warrant more than blocking and noting at RFAR. Further checkuser investigation to confirm there was no other abuse, however, shows serious concerns and irregularities on an involved IP range, that had not come to light, including suggestions of a possible nest of sleepers. Other evidence suggests a clear possibility that there is a pattern of ongoing misconduct although further analysis is needed. We also note that the user is at RFAR due to unresponsiveness in the first place, which suggests a request to stop a given problem behavior would not be sufficiently protective.

Accordingly an "emergency desysop" of the user has been requested for protective/preventative purposes, until other Arbitrators can review the evidence of the community and checkuser findings in full, and the RFAR case is concluded. An IP range that is of concern in the case was also hard-blocked short term pending the same review. Full details and checkuser data have been circulated within the Arbitration Committee.

FT2  20:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur with this assessment of the situation, and confirm its factual accuracy. — Coren  20:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks FT2 and to the rest of the committee for the quick action - You've made the right move here. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Have looked at the publicly known evidence and I think the right call has been made here. Orderinchaos 11:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Editor creates 100,000 or more non-notable articles!

This editor, user:Carlossuarez46, appears to be methodically creating many tens of thousands of articles that contain minimal or no content. They are simply stubs for place names.

Take here for example - it is one of the several hundred settlements in the Lachin region of Azerbaijan that he has recently created articles for. Click onto any of the other place names listed for Lachin to see that the vast majority are empty articles containing nothing more than a single sentence. It is the same for tens of thousands of similar articles on settlements in Azerbaijan and Armenia that he has recently created. He appears to be using country gazetteers containing lists of settlements to create articles for every place-name in existence, without any thought about whether a Misplaced Pages article is really required for those places - the vast majority of them are (and always will be) without any notability.

The editor mentioned is not alone in doing this, but he may be the most prolific and he appears to be going through every country in alphabetical order (he has already done all the "A"s and most of the "B"s). Is it correct that Misplaced Pages should become an A-Z gazetteer containing an entry for every single village or hamlet in the World? Meowy 21:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. spryde | talk 21:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If we can have entries for places like Holder, Illinois, and Bill, Wyoming, then pretty much anyplace having a structure with a roof on it is fair game. Baseball Bugs 21:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Basically, yes. While there is no accepted notability guideline for settlements, WP:AFDP#Places agrees with Bugs. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Bill, Wyoming: "The new development more than doubled the population to 11 people in two years". I know of single houses with more inhabitants than that, I can't get an article on 256b Acacia Avenue though. MickMacNee (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, does this mean my garden shed is noteable!? Jtrainor (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

My south terrace can be seen in the satellite view of GoogleMaps. Does that make it notable enough for a stub? Oh. Wait. I get it, there's already an article about the city in which that terrace can be found. Meanwhile, if that terrace was here and six people lived in two dwellings on either side of it, a stub about this wouldn't be so crazy at all. Whichever way the community goes on this is ok with me. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Try 2 million more like. Permastubs are the future. MickMacNee (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Another useful link is WP:OUTCOMES, which indicates that articles about villages tend to survive AfD. Otherwise, this situation doesn't require any immediate admin intervention. PhilKnight (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just too traditional, but for me an article should not be just a single sentence stating the blindingly obvious (settlement X is a village in country A). If that is all there is to say about a place, then there should not be an article on it! I think these hundreds of thousands (or millions) of near-empty articles makes Misplaced Pages a bit of a joke. Whatever, it's probably just a cunning plan by He Who Cannot Be Named to bump up the daily count of newly-created Misplaced Pages articles because their numbers have been going down compared to past years. And maybe also an even more cunning plan to eventually sell advertising on place-name pages. Meowy 22:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to be outdone, I plan to create articles on all the possible combinations of 3 letters and numbers, or 36 to the 3rd power, figuring that every one of them is likely to be an abbreviation for something. Baseball Bugs 22:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's obviously a conspiracy to bump up the figures for unpatrolled new articles, so that they can launch phase one of the masterplan. MickMacNee (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I really hope he discussed it on the country- or region-specific wikiprojects or on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Cities. If the editors of a country want the criteria to include 100,000 places in that country, that's fine with me, but they should have the say-so, not one editor. There's WP:BOLD but if he did this on his own, he's going overboard. Have you discussed this with him? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't know about that, but I don't think he did. Look at his talk page - he seems to be getting plenty of support, and other editors encouraging him to create even more articles. "Wow thats a highly impressive number of articles. Its almost like the bot is running as planned. How you generate them so quickly I have no idea but its faster than even I could do." comments one of them. About the Azerbaijan names, the same editor (User:Blofeld of SPECTRE) posted the disturbing "Well you know exactly how I feel about editors who try to get in your way. .... You can have my word that nobody is going to delete 4500 articles".

The problem with the Azerbaijan names is that a good few thousand of them are in Nagorno Karabakh or in areas controlled by Nagorno Karabakh and so the place-names and province names in current use are often different from those that Azerbaijan has officially given them. So I'm sure those single sentence articles will be a cause of endless and pointless arguments for months. Meowy 22:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The biggest bummer is that this is being done in a manual and more or less haphazard manner, with no community control over the information in the stubs. Had we allowed Fritpoll's bot to do its work, we would have much more useful examples of all of these same stubs. There is a lesson there, perhaps - when we as a community turn down a relatively reasonable request to simply allow good work to move forward, someone will later choose to do it anyway and without the same deference. Avruch 22:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You have recalled it wrongly. The bot was approved, on condition of the implementaiton of a whole supporting project framework, which would ensure that rich datasets were prepared to be processed by the bot, to then allow users to create 'rich stubs' full of content. You will have to dig out the deleted versions of the project pages to see why it failed. These one line articles on Azerbaijan I am pretty sure would not have passed the notability requirements of that project, although I do recall at one point that 'two references' was mooted as the bar of inclusion. MickMacNee (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The comment about permastubs being the future was aces! Anyway, I am thinking that a lot of new users might not really know how to use the tools (and increasing numbers of new users tend to be those folk somewhere on the bristly side of puberty). Working on the article for your hometown might be a pretty good way to get started. Of course, creating articles for those places without a lot of internet access kinda prevents them from developing into full-blown articles, but doesn't this partly address one of the flaws of Misplaced Pages - that areas non web-savvy get little coverage? - Arcayne () 23:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but since when does an editor need the permission of anybody, WikiProject or not, to create an article? Every inhabited place in the world needs an article, as has been clearly stated over and over again, for years now. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet again, Misplaced Pages's flaws spin up something helpful. Time and again, the consensus has been that human settlements are notable. This is not that same thing as consensus for article creation by bots sucking stuff out of databases. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The dichotomy here is between notability and usefulness. If the source database contained more than basic information, e.g. geographical coordinates, population, etc., etc., so as to give a reader something to work on, fine, but it doesn't seem to be so. And I have little hope that anyone is ever likely to flesh out this myriad bunch of articles with actual content, so in that regard we might just as well be a "list of places"; policy should militate against that, and perhaps it's about time we revisited notability of settlements. --Rodhullandemu 03:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I would also say that this crapflood of contentless microstubs is in violation of Misplaced Pages not being a directory. Consensus has ususally been that all places are inherently notable, but consensus can change- and if I were going to WP:POINT out how silly that opinion is I'd be perpetrating this exact same flood of terrible articles. Articles of the form "Blongoville is a village in Shpadoinkleland" are useless- anyone who knows the name of a tiny village likely already knows what country it's in and would learn nothing. They accomplish nothing except diluting our content, making maintenance a nightmare, and making the random article feature a cruel joke. Reyk _YO! 04:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

There would be nothing untowards about doing a mass AfD on them, to see what happens. However, I wouldn't think it would be untowards to let them be either, text stubs are cheap and thousands of them are likely to grow sooner or later (by which I mean, many years later). Gwen Gale (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could get rid of these somehow, but it's historically been rather difficult. I wonder, though, why we can't have a solution much as we did for schools or fictional elements which are not individually notable—a "list of places in" by administrative division. In many areas, this would be the county or its appropriate local equivalent. Seraphimblade 03:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Some of the stubs get minimal data from the World Gazetteer website, and another user linked the site on User_talk:Carlossuarez46 as a suggested place for that user to go. I decided to check a couple cities in China. Our Bengbu article lists a population of 3.5M, but Gazetteer gives about 600K. Our Changde lists 6M, but Gazetteer gives about 580K. Our Dongying article currently lists 1.7M, but Gazetteer gives about 310K. Our Foshan article lists 5.4M/1.1M, but Gazetteer gives about 770M. Why the consistent difference? Should we be using Gazetteer? Gimmetrow 04:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Off topic of this AN/I post, but in answer of above by Gimmetrow: This is probably like we're writing an article about New York City, but you're reading the population of Manhattan in the gazetteer. Many of the larger Chinese cities have a city center (Manhattan) and a number of counties (Queens). The population of the city (New York City) is huge, but the populatin of the core city (Manhattan, which many people consider to be New York City) is just a part. The populations of all of these cities is in the millions, but the core area has only a small part of that population, and may be called by the same name in English. --KP Botany (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not exactly off-topic. It's an example of why people shouldn't be creating these stubs without input from other people and multiple sets of data to draw from to create a page of useful info. Gimmetrow 04:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Putting the stubs in a project gets input from the other editors and multiple sets of datas. That's my suggestion for improving these articles and making them accurate. --KP Botany (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Me category listing

User:Me added an admin category listing to his page several months ago, which I questioned after the edit's odd edit summary and some research, and which User:Neurolysis recently removed. Me has since readded the category with another odd response on his talk page, and I'm not sure how to verify the information. Probably not a big deal, but I had some disagreements with this editor several months ago, and our exchanges and Me's editing history don't seem consistent with these latest edits. Flowanda | Talk 22:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's misleading, since they aren't an admin, so I have removed it and left them a message accordingly. _Gb 22:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, as this seems to come up quite frequently here: when wondering whether an account has admin rights, check Special:ListUsers. Admins have "(Administrator)" next to their username—it's that simple. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there a chance that this editor's account was somehow compromised? Not trying to cause trouble, but the latest editing behaviour is odd. Flowanda | Talk 22:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the cat but I have been reverted with a Get out of my life edit summary. BigDunc 23:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That's damned odd. Maybe the account has been compromised. Can it be indef blocked until the user pipes up with some reasoning? Blowing off admin suggestions and posts is pretty much a red flag the size of Portugal that something is amiss. - Arcayne () 23:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Very strange indeed. I just removed it again, and restored one thread on his talk page, including a link to this discussion. Antandrus (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No one has claimed to be an admin. There is no rule claiming I cannot be included in the particular group. If there is, and it is shown here, I shall forgo the restoration. Until then, it shall stay. Thank you for your concern. -- Me 23:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

By adding yourself to Category:Misplaced Pages administrators, you're claiming to be an admin. Common sense trumps a lack of policy. I've fully protected your userpage; if you're an admin, you'll have no problem unprotecting it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed the category again. I'm considering upping the ante next time. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I doubt it's a compromised account: he added the category and thought it was funny way back in July. Not that it's a huge deal, just misleading. Antandrus (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Making a funny edit was the odd part. But that was probably part of the BS -- see our exchange at Talk: Simon Property Group#Press releases as sources.Flowanda | Talk 23:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Moral of the story: Ol' Flo still has a grudge and is trying to get back at me months after the fact. Holding grudges ups your blood pressure. You should look into Yoga, or something similar. -- Me 23:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I updated Category:Administrators to make it slightly less useful to people who would abuse it. There are some categories that should be bot-patrolled for false entries, this is one of them. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Page has been protected (not by me). I agree with the protection. User has had enough warnings. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Gads. I feel a disturbance in the Force, as if a thousand vandals all cried out in glee with a single voice. I think this is an iceberg tip. - Arcayne () 00:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh? -- Me 00:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Note to David - I already do semi-automated category patrolling, that's how I picked it up. — neuro 00:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Noting new removals:

• Devin2462
• Dinesh reddy

User:J1nxwiki seems to be in the cat, but doesn't have it on his user page. Not sure what is going on there. User:Le Faux Nez de L'Aquatique is not an admin, but the operator is, so that seems just dandy to me. — neuro 00:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I just rollbacked this. Um, I don't think so. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• hugs* -- Me 00:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Do not put that template back again. I am fully willing to issue a block in this situation for disruption. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

LMFAO. The template has been gone for awhile now, and the page has been protected (apparently I'm a risk to myself). Let's try to keep up, ok pal? Oh, and don't delete my message to UV. I have a right to post on his talk page, and he has the right to read it. If he wants to delete my obviously joking, tongue-in-cheek statement is up to him, not you. Thank you. -- Me 00:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, edit warring on my talk page. I feel so loved. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice edit summaries. — neuro 00:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hr - I don't see leaving false talk page warnings as constructive to the encyclopedia. Considering that WP:TWINKLE was used to do so, this makes it even worse. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Gee, that was fun. - Arcayne () 01:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

User has requested unblock with the rationale that Rschen has his "gonads in a bunch". — neuro 04:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I declined as an uncivil (and other things) request without reviewing edit history. Daniel Case (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

And another unblock request: . Not that I think it will go anywhere. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters violation of WP:OUTING

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters is in violation of WP:OUTING. See ] This is an abuse that cannot be tolerated. I request he be permanently blocked. Syntacticus (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait, I'm confused - didn't you just deny being that person at the linked section, and essentially ask the user to Prove It? - Arcayne () 23:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What? I alleged Lulu violated WP:OUTING. That's it. I did not dare anyone to do anything. Syntacticus (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Claims of outing should be taken to WP:OVERSIGHT for privacy. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Whether the claims are true or not, it is still a violation of WP:OUTING. — neuro 00:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh and just noting - immediate thoughts are that an indef block is much too much. — neuro 00:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

We define outing as "posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information". I can't see anything of this at the link provided.  Sandstein  00:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I didn't see the outing (I don't really understand where is is, couldn't find it on page), I was just noting that factual accuracy is irrelevant in WP:OUTING cases. Could someone point me to this outing (or non-outing), please? — neuro 00:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak to remedy. I thought the only punishment was permanent blocking. Anyway, I just want this looked into, please. It is unacceptable conduct. Sandstein: I think the implication at ] is abundantly clear. Syntacticus (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, to me it is not. Please provide the specific WP:DIFF that you think is objectionable and explain how exactly it violates WP:OUTING.  Sandstein  00:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't look like outing to me. On a different subject, I was looking over Syntacticus' contributions, and I'm starting to wonder if there's a connection to User:WorkerBee74 and other sockpuppets of User:BryanFromPalatine. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein: Here is the passage. It reads like he is accusing me of being Vadum. I already pointed out to him that the name Syntacticus appears to be in use on the web by several different people. Is he allowed to do that?

>>>>>Despite your disingenuous ANI claims and all that, let's just stop the pretense that you are someone other than the very same "Syntacticus" who continually inserts references to articles by Matthew Vadum/CRC at Free Republic and Daily Kos... A belabored claim that you can shed your carapace and emerge as a whole different butterfly is not the meaning or WP:OUTING. Unlike you, I make not pretence of being "some other person" than the one I actually am (in particular, I give all my true biography right on my user page, and make no inventions about "gee, I must accidentally share an IP block with someone I have no connection with other than promoting his articles). LotLE×talk 23:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)<<<<<

Syntacticus (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Nope, not outing in my eyes. — neuro 00:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought Fridays were for WP:DRAMA... ♪BMWΔ 00:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I hate to point this out, but you're accusing another editor of OUTING. However, not only have you not asked for oversight, but you also just reprinted the offending area here at ANI (not providing a DIFF) where it would be seen by many many more editors. If this is actually OUTING, it doesn't seem like a very big deal to you at all, and it seems as if you're using it to have someone blocked who disagrees with you. Dayewalker (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the relevant article here is vexatious litigation. 02:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Let's get this straight. BTW I'm taking this from the diff you posted Syntacticus. First Syntacticus accuses LOTLE of having a conflict of interest and then reacts when their own potential COI is brought up. Syntacticus then comes here asking us to indef block LoTLE claiming that LoTLE "outed" him.
  Now on the substance of the wp:outing violation: there isn't any in that diff. Why is there no "outing" there? Because LoTLE linked User:Syntacticus to another "Syntacticus" screenname - not a real name. To out some one you must publish 'personal information' and that didn't happen here--Cailil 02:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein: Doesn't speculating about the identity of an anonymous editor contravene WP:OUTING? I thought it was a really big deal. Also, what is "oversight"? I went to the oversight page and I thought it told me not to leave messages there. Confusing. Syntacticus (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No, "speculating about the identity of an anonymous editor" does not violate WP:OUTING, which I think is written in rather plain English.  Sandstein  11:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection question

// roux   11:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Matt_Smith_(British_actor)#Abuse_of_semi-protect --87.113.0.21 (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Repeated violations of WP:BLP are grounds for protection. If you have something to add to the article, discuss it on the article's Talk page. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 03:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with NurseryRhyme. I'm changing the header on this one, since there's absolutely no reason to accuse anyone of abuse in semi-protecting an article for BLP violations. Dayewalker (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't edited the article before but I wanted to.... I won't now, since obviously you regard contributors who won't submit a registration as lowest of the low. Whatever. And I looked in the history and I didn't see any messages about vandalism... --87.113.0.21 (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Look deeper, it was there just before protection. I haven't the time to grab the DIFFs, but it was a good semi-pro. Feel free to register and join us! Dayewalker (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I explained the protection on the article's talk page. I think it was fully justified. VegaDark (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:POINT page moves

I have been working on plant articles on Misplaced Pages for a while. An small group of editors has issues with the plant article naming policy and has been edit-warring, gaming the system, and making pointed edits for a couple of months or so. One of these edit-warriors would like the article tumbleweed, which was a redirect to Salsola, a genus of plants that contain a number of plants commonly called tumbleweeds, made into the dab page, instead of the current Tumbleweed (disambiguation) page.

The editor made a number of edits today that included wikilinking common names of plants in the first sentence of the article to the article the common name was listed in. I undid these edits, because it is incredibly irritating to click on a link and have it take you nowhere and provide no information. It is also not the purpose of wikilinking. I repeatedly asked her to stop doing this.

When she refused to stop doing this, particlularly while she claimed an on-going discussion on the topic that she had initiated, I made an article on tumbleweed, even though it was currently a redirect to Salsola and there was currently a discussion about making the page titled "tumbleweed" the disambiguation page without the word "disambiguation" in its titles. As I state in my post, I was and remain tired of wasting time editing this editor's useless redirects.

Now, she has moved the article "tumbleweed" to "Tumbleweed (diaspora)" and announced, in seriousness, that since she created this article and all this extra work it was clear that it was necessary to have "tumbleweed (disambigutation)" at "tumbleweed."

However, it is clear that User:Una Smith is going to game the entire process for whatever article name she wants if she is allowed to do so. She can find the talk pages, and she claims to speak English at a professional level. There was no excuse to not discuss the issue, to keep making changes that were problematic, and to then cough up and say since she's made such a large amount of work for everyone with her game playing that she's proven the need for a neologism in an article issue.

And, yes, I shouldn't have made the initial move, but she was not discussing the issue, and I got tired of making all of the corrections. She's the one who directed the articles to tumbleweed, refused to stop doing it, and it is a title she was saying she didn't want. I couldn't understand why she would wikilink articles to a title she was disputing, until she posted her smug little comment that now that she has wasted so much of other editors' time, she has proved the need for the article titles the way she wanted in the first place.

I ask that her tenditiotious WP:POINT making be stopped in its tracks. Interested editors can decide what to call these articles at WP:Plant, or on the article talk page. --KP Botany (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

KP Botany is harassing me. --Una Smith (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(Una) Do you want to provide diffs or just throw out a major accusation with nothing to back it up? To me it looks like he is reverting and discussing...which is exactly what he's supposed to do. --Smashville 05:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The "discussing" is increasingly ad hominem and incivil:

• User talk:Una Smith#Corispermum
• Psoralea edit summary
• Talk:Tumbleweed (disambiguation)
• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Plants

Looking at KP Botany's contributions for today, I see this editor being hostile toward several other contributors, not just toward me. --Una Smith (talk) 07:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

These diffs do show that I have been trying to work with you no matter how outrageously you've ignored that. However, at that time I really thought this was about the tumbleweeds article, not about your attempt to change Misplaced Pages disambiguation of primary topic pages. Taking in that light, it will be useful for other editors here to see what you've been doing to editors who've been simply thinking they were working on articles, creating an encyclopedia, while you've been forum shopping to try to change a guideline you don't like, and now you're going after editors who stand in your way. A

Just like the claims of my "harassing" you above, no diffs, except the one of you posting to my talk page in what actually looks like an attempt to harass me after this AN/I started.

It doesn't matter, Una, none of this will mean that you can change editing guidelines without consulting the community. --KP Botany (talk) 08:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I responded to KP Botany's posts on my talk page; I did not see most of KP's posts on other pages until later. I do not watch every page I edit. --Una Smith (talk) 08:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Are these the diffs that show supposed harassment, ad hominem attacks and incivility? Because there is none of that in any of them. You seem to have disagreement confused with harassment. --Smashville 17:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I did not use the word "attack"; the diffs I provided above show KP Botany's extensive use of ad hominem remarks to me. I omitted the ones about me, but those are incivil too. This ANI too appears intended to harass. --Una Smith (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This happened to catch my eye as I was passing... If the name of that page was really supposed to be "Tumbleweed (diaspora)" (and "diaspore" isn't some botany term, since I'm completely unfamiliar with botany) then it seems to me that Una Smith has some explaining to do because that seems pretty clearly an act that would disrupt Misplaced Pages. Potentially an act backed by good faith, of course, but I do find it suspicious that Una Smith's immediate response was to accuse KP Botany of harassment without explaining what the idea was there.

Though perhaps it's all a moot point as KP Botany appears to have retired from WP. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 06:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Diaspore is a botanical term; a tumbleweed is a diaspore or a disseminule. --Una Smith (talk) 07:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

diaspore is a biological term. Although the slip to "diaspora" has some amusing connotations in a discussion about page moves. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

For reference, this is not the first time that Una Smith has been involved in movement that was not universally considered helpful. Reference Weymouth, and this discussion Talk:Weymouth,_Dorset#Notability_as_a_guide in which Una argues that London should be a disambiguation page. Suffice it to say, I am not sure I agree. This matter came up because Una had made a move apparently without discussion, changed a large number of articles referencing the moved page to the new name, and then was rather resistant to going back even when there wasn't a clear consensus for the move. I may be confused but it seems somewhat similar to this case. For moves, it seems a bit of discussion first might be an approach that avoids controversy. ++Lar: t/c 06:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Previous AN/I incidents involving Una Smith:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive495#Montanabw
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive268#User:Akradecki_reverts_and_threats
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive268#User:Akradecki_again

And an unfounded WQA, where Una Smith was also advised of her problematic editing:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive50#User:Montanabw

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the link to the Weymouth incident above. This is just User:Una Smith's attempt at an end run around the Misplaced Pages policy for primary topics being the name, and not the dab. But instead of debating the policy, Una Smith is individually going after articles, projects and editors all over Misplaced Pages. I believe this is called policy shopping. Unlike Una Smith, I have diffs:

• As I Lay Dying
• Joshua Tree
• Tree peony
• Breeching
• Weymouth

I request that all of User:Una Smith's changes of a primary topic to a disambiguation change be reverted, and that she be directed to the single proper page to attempt to gain a consensus for changing this policy.

--KP Botany (talk) 07:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm in concurrance that there is a need to get Una Smith to stop doing this. Reviewing recent contribs suggests that there may well be other articles she may be doing this to... policy can be changed by doing things a new way, and then after consensus is clear, editing policy to reflect the new practices. But I'm not seeing consensus here. This may seem like just a content dispute but there is a problematic behaviour pattern here that is of concern. ++Lar: t/c 08:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• As I Lay Dying: I moved nothing. The idea to move the page is not my own, I merely facilitated by making the formal request; see Talk:As I Lay Dying (disambiguation).
• Joshua Tree: I moved a page, someone else moved it right back again. Also not my idea to start with; see Talk:Yucca brevifolia. I got involved later, after disambiguating incoming links; see Talk:Joshua Tree (disambiguation).
• Tree peony: I moved nothing. It is a former redirect (one name) grown into a disambiguation page (several names) that developed from a requested move of another page by someone else; see Talk:Rock's Peony.
• Breeching I moved after soliciting discussion and waiting a while.
• Weymouth I moved first, without asking (my bad, in retrospect), but the move survived a request to move back and I disambiguated all the incoming links too.

--Una Smith (talk) 08:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You are proposing and moving to advocate your de facto change to Misplaced Pages guidelines in lieu of discussion. Thanks for making it clear you are doing both. I had not realized it wasn't.

• As I Lay Dying: Here you are proposing that As I Lay Dying (disambiguation) be the article on the primary topic page As I Lay Dying.
• Joshua tree: Here you are, in a discussion about moving Yucca brevifolia (the scientific name) to the common name Joshua Tree, advocating that the Joshua tree (disambiguation) be moved to Joshua tree.

  Here you are, after that discussion above was closed, requesting again that the move be made.

• Tree and other peonies: Here you are moving nothing.

  Here you are suggesting that the move she be made based upon "the vernacular name you know."

  And offering google hits for the common name of a different plant.

  Then suggesting that the primary title should be a disambiguation page rather than an article and stating you will create it according to your intention for primary topic disambiguation pages on Misplaced Pages.

  But before you could do this, you had to move the nothing that you did above. So, no, you aren't moving nothing, you're doing exactly what you want: creating de facto guidelines instead of discussing changes in the guidelines.

• Breeching:Here you are proposing the move that you eventually made. And preparing for it.

  Here you are giving your reasoning for this move. It's easier to change links or something. Something you can argue at the talk page for the guidelines, not here, there and everywhere else.

  And, after a little more than an hour of discussion, with a user who didn't seem to agree with you, you moved the page.

• Weymouth: see your admission above.

Okay, so you've now provided links and articles clarifying a few of the many places you are attempting to change the guidelines without introducing a discussion of these changes. Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 09:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Weymouth -> Weymouth, Dorset was a particularly terrible move, and should probably be moved back. Clearly primary target, and featured article? Awful idea. Black Kite 11:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The Weymouth move is but one illustration of a systemic problem with WP:RM: the page says that any potentially controversial moves should be discussed first, but the process rewards unilateral moves, as follows:

• If the move is presented for discussion, it will succeed only if there is consensus for the move.
• If the move is made unilaterally, and the redirect thus created is then edited, e.g. to turn it into a dab page or a redirect to another target (as with many of Una Smith's page moves), those who oppose the move have no recourse but to propose a move in the opposite direction. This will succeed only if there is consensus for the reverse move, not the original move.

Thus if there no consensus in either direction, acting unilaterally will effect the move, while discussing will not. This has been discussed at WT:RM#Comments, WT:RM#Unilateral/bold moves and WT:RM#Speedy bold move revert section/proposal. Kanguole (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That policy needs changing. The status quo ante should be the default outcome in case of no consensus, and first mover should not convey an advantage. Further, given the resistance to having the dab page be the primary, in case after case, perhaps some tightening of the appropriate guidelines is needed as well. ++Lar: t/c 17:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Lar, I have been tracking all requested moves involving disambiguation pages and the preference is the opposite of what you say. Disambiguation pages at ambiguous titles are preferred. See Misplaced Pages talk:Requested moves#Disambiguation pages. --Una Smith (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that assertion is two fold... first, apparently you're sometimes moving things before consensus is achieved (consider Tumbleweed, everyone except you opposed the moves, so why did the move happen) and second your definition of what is "ambiguous" differs from that of most other folk. I again offer London as an example of a page that you would prefer be moved to the dab page. That's just not the common thinking at all. I think you need to let others decide what is "ambiguous" as your judgement appears to be out of step. THAT is why this is at AN/I, because you seem to not be willing to accept consensus. ++Lar: t/c 19:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

KP Botany seems to be confusing primary topic and "base name"; the two are not the same. Furthermore, this ANI seems, to me, to be nothing more than a trivial content dispute blown into an attempted user conduct issue. I find it highly ironic that KP Botany posted this ANI, because KP Botany is at least equally "guilty" of moving pages. See a list of 24 of KP Botany's most recent page moves, compiled by someone else here. --Una Smith (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record, no one, not even Una has requested these page moves be reverted. The were moves to scientific names, which is according to current guidelines, and they're posted on the guidelines talk page as part of a discussion on the guidelines--posted by a user who suggested he post them for discussion, I concurred, he did. Thanks, again, for the link. These are, in fact, the exact opposite of what this thread is about. --KP Botany (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you bothered to read this thread? How about engaging in the discussion of your actions instead of brushing them off and accusing other editors of "harassment"? --Smashville 17:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Smashville is right. Una, you need to read, digest, and internalize the good advice you have been given by several editors above. --John (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This is silly. User:Una Smith has now just wikilinked the article Tumbleweed (diaspore) to Spore#Diaspores which gives an explanation of the necessity to use a microscope to see the spores, which, apparently Una Smith thinks are the same thing as diaspores. At this point, now that she has established she's not reading this, she's not reading her articles, she's not monitoring what she post (as she says above), she should not continue with her editing.

This article makes no sense. It's title is a neologism, and is purely based on User:Una Smith's desire to create guidelines without debating them. She's creating pages with names she doesn't understand and linking them to information that isn't related, simply because she doesn't understand or isn't reading or doesn't care in the face of getting her way.

Tumbleweeds are NOT microscopic spores!

And, even she admits that no one thinks a tumbleweed is anything other than a tumbleweed, because the tumbleweed page she created is just a silly and pointless redirect to this ridiculous article name. Why can't user just read the tumbleweed article on the tumbleweed page, rather than being redirected to this neologism?

As User:Una Smith is too busy doing whatever she wants to bother answering the issue here, I ask that she just be blocked until she addresses the issues, and I ask that her silly, totally pointless, without any support from anything, other editors, botany, horticulture, page be deleted from Misplaced Pages. Not even she has put up any support for it--there is none!

She doesn't care enough about this issue to address the issue, and she had to make a redirect to her silly name from the primary name, so the article is just a game--the primary topic should not be redirect to some unused name she made up just to play games. --KP Botany (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I moved it back. There's just no point in this article name. It's silly, not even its originator understands it. Misplaced Pages's readers don't deserve this. And it's a monumental waste of time. I assume, at this point, it's just a prank to make a WP:POINT. --KP Botany (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I also put a speedy on the diaspore whatever it was. Una Smith offered no sources for that and seems to think a diaspore is both the macroscopic propagule and the spore, even though the propagule disperses a seed for angiosperms. It's not the least bit comprehensible. --KP Botany (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The spore article is wrong. A diaspore is a dispersal structure of a plant, microscopic or macroscopic (see this), and is already used in foxtail (diaspore). Admittedly it is not a common word, but it serves its need quite nicely. I do agree that the article is best called Tumbleweed.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The heading for this is wrong, and the description is wrong. KP Botany talks about plant article naming "policy" like the idea that he/she and a couple of other people came up with to name articles based upon obscure scientific names instead of their real-world names, per standard Misplaced Pages naming conventions is somehow policy. Not only is it not policy, it directly violates the actual article naming policy. As far as I am am concerned anyone who actually enforces the actual policy instead of ignoring it cannot be accused of making WP:POINT violations. The article on tumbleweeds should be at Tumbleweed per common sense and our actual policies. And, having interaction with KP Botany before, he's pretty aggressive in pushing his particular view onto articles, and he gets very grumpy when he doesn't get his way. It's not just a problem of WP:OWN issue with a single article, but a whole string of articles he and a few others have held hostage from standard policy. If he wants to change the policy, he should work on doing that (and good luck), but directly violating it and then coming here to complain about people moving articles to their actual locations is pretty bizarre. IF there are a few articles being moved that end up in the wrong place, fine, someone will fix them, but where KP Botany wants them makes no sense. DreamGuy (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Umm, that is what I put the article at: Tumbleweed per common sense. In fact, I created the article "Tumbleweed" per common snese. Una Smith is the one who made up a name and made Tumbleweed a redirect to the made up name "Tumbleweed (diaspore)" in an attempt to change the policy about disambiguation pages for primary titles.

Thank you for supporting my creation of the article Tumbleweed, and for supporting the common sense name I chose for it. Feel free to edit any article I create. Not only that, I actively encourage all editors to monitor my articles on Misplaced Pages, and correct, edit, amend, add to, or question my articles, as you will see on my talk page, and by my contributions, and comments to other editors who are creating articles.

Again, thanks for the support. Tumbleweed is the only appropriate name for the article. --KP Botany (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of relevant argument from talk page

Resolved – Immediate issues resolved, AN/I is not the right venue for this discussion unless something crops up again. — neuro 14:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I posted a comment on , arguing that the out-of-place mention of the Catholic viewpoint would be akin to adding a section on laws to bacon. This has been censored twice. How am I supposed to discuss the content of this disputed article when there are people butting in by deleting my argument? Spotfixer (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Your 'comment' seems a little like an attack to me. — neuro 05:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked Spotfixer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for personal attacks/incivility. He re-inserted the attack after I had given him a final warning for making personal attacks. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Incivility and personal attacks have continued after block, suggest extension. — neuro 05:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

He's right, though. The Catholic thing is POV-pushing and is redundant. Baseball Bugs 06:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Is AN/I the right venue for that discussion? — neuro 06:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably not, or at least not yet. I'm also not sure what he got blocked for, i.e. his comments seem a bit peevish but don't seem like personal attacks, unless I missed something; but it's only 24 hours. Baseball Bugs 06:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I struck the "resolved" from this, because this block really, really looks questionable to me. I just don't see a "personal attack" worthy of a block (or even a warning) in this editor's contributions. Spotfixer seems to be of the quite reasonable point of view that the Catholic church's position on various topics is generally of no consequence, and is adamant about it, but I don't see anything crossing the NPA threshold.—Kww(talk) 15:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'd agree. He wasn't particularly civil when asked about his edits, but I really don't see much deserving a block here, to be honest. And he's right about the content dispute, as well. Black Kite 16:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, it seems it's now a bit more than that. Just view his talk page, after the block discussion, to see what I'm talking about.— Dædαlus 19:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
    • True. I usually give the receiver of bad blocks a little bit of license to vent, though.—Kww(talk) 21:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
      • It's not a bad block, so he doesn't have any license to vent. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Funny, it looks like a bad block to me and two other editors that have commented in this thread. Would you care to point out the "personal attack" that you thought was worthy of a block? I've searched his contributions, and can't even see anything particularly questionable before you blocked him.—Kww(talk) 02:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
          • See the user's interactions with others on User talk:Spotfixer, Talk:Preimplantation genetic diagnosis, User talk:Schrandit, User talk:Gentgeen. For example, Gentgeen (talk · contribs) warned both Spotfixer and Schrandit (talk · contribs) for edit-warring a couple of days ago. Take a look at Schrandit's response. Now take a look at Spotfixer's response.
          • Your first point of contention when discussing this block, although irrelevant, was to point out Spotfixer's correctness. I'm not questioning his correctness in the content dispute. In fact, he makes good points and his contributions to articlespace have been pretty solid thus far. I just want him/her to discuss these topics with some civility. I hope that he/she learns from the block and makes even more positive contributions to the project. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
            • I doubt has, if you read his talk page, you can see that he thinks he has done nothing wrong. That doesn't exactly sound promising to me.— Dædαlus 06:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
              • Well, he/she at least deserves another chance. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
                • Some of that I hadn't spotted, and I will grant that "bad block" is too strong. I'll still put it in the marginal category. I suspect that what's happened here is that a marginally bad editor with a point to prove has been transformed by blocking into an extremely bad editor with a crusade. Let's hope I'm wrong.—Kww(talk) 13:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Orangemarlin (resolved)

User:Orangemarlin made this personal attack here:] with the edit summary accusing me of being racist (another personal attack). I left him this civil warning, not wishing to template aregular, and stating as much here ] which he deleted and left the uncivil edit summary of "what the fuck ever" here ]. I resored the message with this due to the uncivil response ] and he propmpty templated me here for " vandalism"] and removed and identified my civil warning as vandalism here ] he then left the following uncivil edit comment here at a deletion conversation ]. Orangemarlin has a long and recent history of this type of behaviour. Perhaps someoen could talk to him or give him a short break.Die4Dixie (talk) 08:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but reading through the entire exchange, you really seem to be goading him on, and rather rudely. Absolutely, he could have made his point with a better choice of words than " you have the racial sensitivity of an amoeba" but honestly, I don't think anyone would call or comment to be racially sensitive. And the reply that caused him to say "what the fuck ever" was when you commented that his saying he was "shaking with anger" was an unfortunate choice of words given stereotypes about "spastic Jews." I wouldn't exactly call that civil discourse either. Sounds like you both just need to back off.--Loonymonkey (talk) 08:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think my original comments that you are labeling "racially insensative" were geramne to the discussion". In a discussion about Jewish stereotypes it is either insensitive or naive to refer to "shaking with anger". The insensitivity is his and he should know better than to use that streotypifying language in a discussion about Jews. I'm sure several readers were as offended as I was.Die4Dixie (talk) 08:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think most non-involved editors would agree that someone saying they are "shaking with anger" is slightly less than civil but not really offensive, whereas replying to them that the word "shaking" brings to mind "spastic Jews" is actually pretty offensive. --Loonymonkey (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry . He made a direct refernce to that stereotype which I'm sure the Jewish editors would have been able to pick up on immediately. I know I did. It was a direct reference to that and gratuitious on his part.Die4Dixie (talk) 09:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no. Nobody mentioned anything about "spastic Jews" in that discussion until you did. To say that the phrase "I'm shaking with anger" is an obvious reference to "spastic Jews" defies credulity. Also, I'm not sure why you are assuming that Orangemarlin isn't Jewish when you refer to "the Jewish editors." --Loonymonkey (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course it did. It defies credulity to believe that he had not read the article on which he was commenting. And I have no idea if he is Jewish or not. Why would a jewish person use that term given the subject?Die4Dixie (talk) 09:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I responded on your talkpage, where further discussion between us can take place so as not to impede this process here.Die4Dixie (talk) 09:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I see no need to move this discussion to my talk page. This is the subject of the an/i after all, isn't it?--Loonymonkey (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Orangemarlin doesn't always pick the kindest or fittest of wordings. I've even brought this up with him quite lately. However, he can remove what he likes from his own talk page and Die4Dixie, I think you're taunting him. Please stop that. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course he can, but after telling him with a civil note that I wouldn't template him, he abuses the template to be uncivil. Of course he can remove it. I only restored it because of the continued civility problems. bait him? I would have perfered never to have had him ever direct a comment at me. He personalized my comments. I was blissfully unaware of him until hes started attacking me.Die4Dixie (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you just drop it. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 09:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That was not particularly helpful. Between the WP:POINTy wikilinking my username by Gwen after I have several signed live posts on this discussion and not wikilinking Orangemarlin's and your laconic response, I'm wondering why my report has been met by bath faith assumptions.Die4Dixie (talk) 09:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You made what was, perhaps, a poor choice of words and Orangemarlin responded accordingly (although his reponse might have been a bit harsh). As of right now, no one is willing to take any action, so I can't see how continuing to engage on this issue is helpful. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 09:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I can live with that. In looking through his contributions, it appears that there is a strong likelyhood of his being Jewish ] ( I hadn't read that comment), so I should have assumed good faith about the shaking comment. I see Gwen has had discussions in the past about civility with him. Perhaps she would be willing to have another. Case closed as far as I'm concerned too.Die4Dixie (talk) 09:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Not so fast. I'd say this is a pretty clear case of you trying to game the system to cause someone you dislike to be blocked, via goading him. I propose an admin-administered reversal of fortune. Jtrainor (talk) 09:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Dislike? Where in the world do I know this user from? Where have I interacted with him to dislike him? You are welcomed to make the proposal.Die4Dixie (talk) 09:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Helpful hint, D4D: Drop it now. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, amoebas are distant cousins of white blood cells. Baseball Bugs 13:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit War at Apple rumor community

I have become engaged in an edit war with an external link promoter on Apple rumor community, and any further reverts by me would violate WP:3RR, so I am asking for assistance. The user making the edits has refused to engage in discussion over the issue, despite my having left an entry on the article's talk page and requesting discussion there in the edit summaries of my reverts. Interestingly, the user is unregistered and has used four different IP addresses in less than 48 hours, so leaving messages on user talk pages seems futile.

• Initial addition of promoting non-notable site: Diff #1
• My reversion of the addition: Diff #2
• Addition #2: Diff #3
• My talk page entry on the issue (Talk:Apple_rumor_community#Apple_Cafe ), immediately followed by reversion #2 with an edit summary pointing to the talk page: Diff #4
• Addition #3: Diff #5
• Reversion #3, again with an edit summary requesting discussion on the talk page: Diff #6
• Addition #4: Diff #7

Any help with this situation would be greatly appreciated...thanks. WildCowboy (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverted and put up a request for semi-protection at WP:RPP. --aktsu  11:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Great...thank you! WildCowboy (talk) 11:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I think an external link promoter would probably be a vandal, which invokes WP:IAR and makes WP:3RR irrelevant. DARTH PANDA 02:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that counts as vandalism per se, and would strongly suggest people not violate 3RR thinking they'd be able to get away with it. DreamGuy (talk) 03:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Blatant breach of WP:HARASS by User:Barba Nane

The IP of the indeffed User:Ragusino posted (alleged) personal information about my identity on Talk:House of Bondić/Bonda and on the talkpage of User:Barba Nane (who kept it there).
The personal information on Talk:House of Bondić/Bonda was removed and User:EdJohnston semi-protected the page . However, User:Barba Nane reverted the removal , placing personal information back on the talkpage. I removed the info again from both Talk:House of Bondić/Bonda and User:Barba Nane's talkpage, and left User:Barba Nane a standard WP:WARNING. Clearly warned, he promptly removed the warning and once more restored the personal information both on Talk:House of Bondić/Bonda and on his own talkpage .
Furthermore, there is a strong possibility he is a sockpuppet of the banned User:Ragusino or User:Luigi 28 (both of which are reported above ). It is likely the sock was created to avoid User:EdJohnston's semi-protection of articles such as Talk:House of Bondić/Bonda (and others, listed above ). --DIREKTOR 12:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Final, FINAL warning issued, if only because I'm a lenient person. Garden. 12:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Got off easy if you ask me... :) --DIREKTOR 12:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The 1st thing is I never posted personal info about you. About user Ragusino, I've previously written here . I do not know this user and I will no more revert him. --Barba Nane (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Now blocked. Black Kite 16:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Advice on userpage on child

• Silver Hawx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've just come across a userpage - perfectly OK, but the user says he was born in 1997 which makes him an 11 year old. There's also a picture of him on there. See here. I think it should be removed, but don't know what the correct action is to do in this situation. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Also - anyone smell a sock? D.M.N. (talk) 13:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

From WP:CHILD, which I'm aware is an essay, but it's a good one to follow:

Garden. 13:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Based on User:Silver Hawx (who declares himself as Matt Winter) and User:Self Preteder I think this is a sock. D.M.N. (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Likely. Garden. 13:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock of Matthew Winter. Garden. 13:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Jake Gyllenhaal forgeries back again

We've been through this before:.

Series of userpages dedicated to creating intricate forged articles about a mythical rock tour by Jake Gyllenhaal. This time, it's on OperatorMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and restricted to a single userpage.—Kww(talk) 14:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggest WP:DUCK block, also deletion of aforementioned page. — neuro 14:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef AO ACB. — neuro 14:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Blocked and deleted. If someone has the time and disposition, it might be a good idea to do a periodical userspace check of WhatLinksHere on valid links used in the hoax (e.g. ). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding 90.201.141.202; disruptive user.

I made another report a couple of days ago, that can be viewed here in the archive. He was given another final warning, but he's still going at it. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 14:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

In the words of LHVU, "long term sanctions" may well be appropriate here. Clearly disruptive anon. — neuro 14:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, had wrong window open. Could you link me to the disruption? Thanks. — neuro 14:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I had a look, and think that I have dealt with this editor before - changing or adding genres, adding names to info boxes, etc. I am uncertain if they are bad faith, but they are certainly disruptive and I have blocked for a month (a previous ip was blocked for 3 months). As ever, review welcome. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Harold Pinter and associated articles

Viewers of Talk:Harold Pinter will see that one particular editor User:NYScholar is seemingly impervious to useful suggestions from other editors about the style and content of the articles, see also Biography for Harold Pinter. The article is becoming increasingly bogged down with minutiae and a mishmash of impenetrable citation styles making it heavy and unreadable. That is a great pity in my opinion. The editor in question undoubtedly has a wealth of informtion and research on the subject but does not seem to grasp that an encyclopedia article is not a thesis or article in a learned journal. I ask here what can be done, or should I just let that editor get on with it. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for situations that require the intervention of administrators. If this is not such a situation, as appears to be the case, I recommend that you proceed per WP:DR.  Sandstein  16:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that, I will request editor assistance. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Aazzaa

I removed User:Aazzaa's curse words but I think some admin should block the account for that. The "comment" was not made in the heat of an argument but the so far only edit of the account for quite a while, it was also left unsigned and was signed later by a bot. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

User has been warned about the issue. Corruptcopper (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've left the user a warning for his/her edits. Please note that the user's earlier contributions are quite valid and a single comment can't be the reason for a block. Should the user continue such obvious vandalism, you should warn again and if the behavior continues past final warning, you can consider reporting him/her to WP:AIV, which is the board for obvious vandalism. Sleaves 17:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin

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

Archived due to collective failure of outside parties to actually help the situation.--Tznkai (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

His conduct on Talk:Stormfront (website) is becoming unacceptable, such as this, and this. I particularly take offense to being called a whitewasher and a bad-faith editor, especially seeing as I am currently trying to get articles to DYK, GA, and FA. OM has a history of assuming bad faith against editors (Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin, while vacated, had at least one arbitrator agree he has a not-too-sparkling history), something which he promised to cut out, but doesn't seem to have done (funnily enough, RFAR/OM FOF#2 notes he has a history of that as well). Can someone sort him out, please? Sceptre 17:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Everyone's a little heated, but IMO Sceptre, its Stormfront for crying out loud, they're Neo-Nazi asswipes. That's NPOV as it gets, 'cuase it is accurate. Now, that's not phrasing I'd put in an article, but pleeeze, if you cannot handle people worrying, somewhat bluntly, about whitewashing when phrasing is toned down, perhaps it isn't the article for you. KillerChihuahua 17:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Everyone else in that discussion is being perfectly civil, there's no reason why OM can't be. And it's not really the "whitewasher" label I'm worried about, it's the "bad faith editor" label. And yes, I know it's Stormfront. That makes NPOV even more important, because in cases like that, we have to find a neutral wording that also doesn't moralise. Hell, I'm all for saying it's Neo-Nazi, but not in the current "It is"+opinion (widely held, but it's rare that right-wing labels are facts). As Franamax said on the talk, we're trying to find a bulletproof way of saying they're Neo-Nazi. Sceptre 17:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Sceptre's behaviour on wikpedia has been quite disruptive recently. A series of editors, including User:Jayjg, have expressed dismay that Sceptre is questioning the fact that Stormfront has been labelled a "Neo-Nazi website". This is the second time that Sceptre has targeted Orangemarlin. He was blocked last time for 72 hours for making a personal attack on Orangemarlin. Mathsci (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to put this is size 72 letters so I can get the point across:

I am not trying to remove "Neo-Nazi" from the article.

Jesus Christ on a bike... Sceptre 17:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Per the deadly puppy, Sceptre, maybe calm down a bit? Given your history it might be a better idea for you to steer clear of articles that can get heated. And putting things in 72 point really doesn't make you sympathetic. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I reduced the size for the sake of decency, but did leave it in bold... please don't do that, Sceptre, you know better. Hersfold 17:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Why would Jesus Christ ride a bike? --B (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It's analogous to "Jesus H. Christ". Sceptre 17:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The middle initial "H." implies that "Christ" is a surname, which is a common misconception. Surnames did not come into wide use until many centuries later. If you want to make a construction like the modern given name-surname convention, my understanding is that something like Yeshua ben Yusef would be the most appropriate construction. Then it would be Yeshua H. ben Yusef. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Tangent not needed. ThuranX (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to keep calm. I'm just saying, OM's being uncivil, and "upholding NPOV" is no reason to be so. Sceptre 17:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, especially about the ad hominem nature of many of OrangeMarlin's remarks. --Una Smith (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Note. Una Smith is a disruptive editor on Medical articles, and has been put in her place by a number of admins and editors. Anything she says here is just a personal attack. OrangeMarlin 19:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Didn't Sceptre just come off an extended block for incivilty directed at OrangeMarlin? The problem here is more likely Sceptre's constant, long running harassment of OrangeMarlin at this page and elsewhere. Given that, this much is clear: It's time for Sceptre to steer clear of articles OM is editing and controversial topics. FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Refactor that statement. I am not being compared to people like Amorrow for something which is little more than a minor annoyance, if that. Sceptre 18:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any such comparison. Sceptre, please! Someone can express concern about your hostility towards OM, which is abundantly clear, without you taking it that they are putting you in the same league as AMorrow. KillerChihuahua 20:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

By being accused of harassment, I feel I am being compared to Amorrow. Wikipedians really need to stop throwing the term "harassment" around; it's highly defamatory and makes a mockery of the real types. That's why we renamed "wikistalking". Sceptre 20:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Harassment is (loosely) being rude, nasty and/or (especially) accusatory to someone wherever you encounter them, which may or may not be combined with stalking, which is following them around to pages you don't normally visit. They're not analogous. And AMorrow is a real life stalker of extraordinary nastiness, not a garden-variety online harasser or stalker. There are, quite simply, grades or levels. KillerChihuahua 20:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Bringing up SA here isn't exactly helpful. rootology (C)(T) 18:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought it might be, because SA is arguably trying to get neutrality, but in an incivil way. I'm giving SA as an example that OM's NPOV work does not excuse him from incivility. Sceptre 18:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This is just a revenge ANI for calling me a Twat. He should be blocked.OrangeMarlin 19:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, the RFAR should not have been vacated so rashly. Please stop with the calling for blocks and ad hominem attacks. Sceptre 19:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

OM, please do try to AGF, and cease calling for blocks. I assure you, enough admins read this page so that if a block is indeed indicated, someone will suggest it (if not simply do it outright.) A block is not indicated in this situation; blocks are preventative, and what you seemingly want to prevent is Sceptre complaining about you on ANI. KillerChihuahua 19:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

] Removing civil ANI notices with summaries like this is disruptive, antagonistic, uncivil and show an incredible lack of good faith. Perhaps a direct word with this user is inorder. Edit summaries are not to be used in this mannerDie4Dixie (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Riiiiighhhhhtttt. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who says 'we need less sources that say SF is NN' after years of requests for more cites, then says 'too many cites make it a lie', and just a couple cites will prove it's true, all in the name of making a 'bulletproof vest' style case for it, is being deceptive, disruptive, and is white-washing. In any situation where there's constant arguments about whether something is true or not, reducing citations is not the way to achieve it. And a site run by neo-Nazis, for Neo-Nazis, about Neo-nazis is a Neo Nazi website. People who self-identify as apologist,s as has happened on the SF talk page, need to be banned from editing such articles, because they are publicly disclosing a POV which prevents neutral editing. ThuranX (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

To echo comments by KillerChihuahua and ThuranX, I agree that any outlook which could be described as "neo-Nazi" is so overtly sociopathic that I'd think most of us can understand how a good faith, thoughtful editor could be set off by anyone having even the slightest go at tweaking the uncontroversial and widely supported assertion: "Stormfront is a neo-Nazi website." Even if this wording isn't wholly enyclopedic, it's spot on and the murderous pith of neo-Nazism seems to trump any worries about that for most editors. Likewise OrangeMarlin's over-the-top reaction: The topic at hand is Stormfront, not Le Manège Enchanté. I re-protected the page because two editors, one of them OrangeMarlin, fell back into a straightforward back-and-forth over wording in the lead. I must say however, I think OrangeMarlin was edit warring for the talk page consensus. I only wish he had waited for someone else to make the second revert, which was bound to come. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

'Ang on for a sec then...

Well how nice, I forgot to check ANI for a few hours and it looks like my name is prominently featured in a diff at the beginning of a thread. The more fool me for having taken notice of a previous thread, looked at an article, reviewed several dozen external sources and trying to provide clarity and an outside look.

As it seems that I am a newly-identified racist Nazi-apologist whitewashing POV-pusher (traits of which I confess I was previously unaware), could I ask for a little clarification?

• OrangeMarlin, when you made an apparent deliberate copy of my post in your followup, were you intending that as a good-faith response to a good-faith post? Does your edit summary "What a waste of fucking time" accurately describe your intent? Do you have a basis to determine that I "apologize for the Neo-Nazis" or that I introduce "weasel-wording"? How about telling me to go away? How do you define the "NPOV editors"? The ones who agree with you, the rest being candidates for bullying?
• ThuranX, who said 'too many cites make it a lie'? Do you have a diff? I'd already commented that the multiplicity of sources could be due to previous requests for clarity, Gwen apparently agreed, Sceptre didn't pursue the issue, presumably because it was now made clear.
• ThuranX, when you decide there is some pretext for a 'bulletproof vest', you are paraphrasing my GFDL-licensed addition. Do you have anything specific to say about my wording? Do you have a specific objection to wording an article so that it can not be dismissed as inaccurate or slanted by people residing on all points of the political spectrum, or do you think it's better to word it in such a way that it can be easily dismissed by some groups? The wording I tried to introduce was factually correct and not open to challenge from any side (should have used "widely" instead of "often"). It was directly aimed at achieving NPOV.
• ThuranX, when you declaim "a site run by neo-Nazis, for Neo-Nazis, about Neo-nazis", do you have a direct basis, or do you opine?
• ThuranX, where you say "People who self-identify as apologist,s as has happened on the SF talk page..." - this is important, please specify - which people? Do you include myself? Sceptre? Skomorokh? Can you name one or strike your comment?
• Gwen, first of all, I echo your and other people's distaste for the site and its denizens, I'd rather use words best not put onto a public website. I do disagree though with your assertion that it's OK to not be "wholly enyclopedic". I feel that this is a case where we do have to go the whole nine yards, painful though that may be. That's the only reason I got involved, the fuckers can burn in hell for all I care. I want an article worthy of the sum of all human knowledge, and I'd also like to target a few other wordings that look a little peacocky to me ("Black's clarity of vision..." is an especial WTF for me).
• And Gwen, my specific intent was to not edit war. I stick by my edit summaries and only wanted to direct OM to article talk rather than employing blind reverts. The talk page consequences of course ended up here, but I think that's more due to OM's approach to collaborative editing than any other factor cited above. I agree that it's an emotional issue.

So yeah, am I clean on this or what? Adding up my agreements with Sceptre gets me to about minus-seventy-six, but on this one I'm not seeing a whole lot of good faith from the "other side". If I've personally done something wrong, please someone say so. I've not seen any of the labelled racist-apologists do wrong either, other than strive for encyclopedicity. Clarification is welcomed. Franamax (talk) 05:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

go read the talk page. YOU self Identified as an apologist "you can so easily identify us apologists for what we are". Yep, I can, your attempt at irony aside. The Bulletproof vest -"As Franamax said, we're trying to make this bulletproof." , the too much proof is a lie thing - "There is a balance. Not enough citations, it looks like original research. Too many, and it looks like you're pushing a POV by oversourcing. Sceptre", it's all there. As for the Neo=Nazi thing, did you bother to read any of the citations? the website itself? the consensus on the talk page, here, and in the real world as evidenced by the numerous citations? They're neo-nazis. that some are also 'White Supremacists', or say they're WS but not NN, is the hairsplitting of people who just dont' want to admit it to themselves. WS is NN, and there's no difference. ThuranX (talk) 05:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Umm, "go read the talk page" I've read several times, the one I've extensively referenced? I'll type slower, maybe then I can be more clear.

• So indeed it seems you peg me as the "self-identifier" - you can spot irony and still tag the label on me, all in the same breath? I find that hard to credit. Recall that it was OM who launched the attacks.
• Bulletproof and Sceptre's comments - could you take the simple expedient of reading my comments before you hit the Edit button? The little bit about "Sceptre didn't pursue this issue..." and the specific questions I asked you about my wording? Any chance you could address those questions?
• Neo-Nazi, did I bother to read... - only a few dozen different sources, which is quite apparent from my contributions at the talk page. How else did I arrive at this post? Are you also saying that I'm a liar?
• "WS is NN, and there's no difference" well, sez you and maybe a lot of other people here (and my warring against consensus is conspicuously absent from this encyclopedia, whereas my willingness to engage in give-and-take discussion conspicuously is) - so granted, maybe so, sources? Even reading the footnotes at Neo-Nazi, I'm not getting it. Going back to the "bulletproof" thing, it seems to me that the way to make a sound article, beyond criticism, requires a little more than the bald assertion of "is too!". Taking potshots on AN/I doesn't necessarily advance content either (though I knew in advance what a fun-fest this page often is).

So no, sorry ThuranX, step off the box. I categorically reject your characterization of me as a self-identified neo-Nazi apologist as sadly mistaken. Your continuance of that assertion borders on a personal attack, and wther it's an attack or not, I take offence. I've tried very hard to outline above my rationales for pursuing a NPOV approach at the article. That you can't find the off switch for your attack machine is breathtaking. Study carefully my 8,000 prior edits and show us where I'm the monster you claim to see before you. Franamax (talk) 07:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

user:Astolfo Petrazzi -- Gwp sock

Astolfo Petrazzi (talk · contribs) is a grawp-sock doing the usual page-move vandalism. After he moved caffeine to *HEŖM E E?, Nawlinwiki moved it back and move-protected *HEŖM E E?, but nobody has yet blocked user:Astolfo Petrazzi. I mention this here instead of AIV because I'm puzzled by the admin actions. Looie496 (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The above user was indef blocked by Chris G (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). See the block log. --Kanonkas (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see -- I was expecting a template on the talk page. Looie496 (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Persistent Soapboxer

I'm dealing with a persistent soapboxer and need some help. Admin Gogo Dodo has had some experience with this user, but hasn't been active lately, so I'm brining this here. Oconner12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a small sockfarm to his name, and has been attempting to add a few unsourced opinion paragraphs to various articles about how Pashtuns are neglected in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and thus US efforts there are doomed to failure . The material is not salvageable, and no attempts to discuss with him have been fruitful. In addition to named accounts, he also edits from a few DSL IPs, as well as an IP that traces back to an Apple store and a Schiphol Airport wifi connection. He's also vandalized my userpage twice , accusing me of vandalism for removing his screed. His primary targets are War in North-West Pakistan and War in Afghanistan (2001-present), though he's hit a couple of others as well. I hate to request semi-protection, since both articles also get a number of good edits from IPs. But I've run out of ideas on how to deal with this guy. Help appreciated. // Chris 18:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Are the user's newest socks blocked/accounts you suspect templated and reported for CU? Otherwise, its time for banning and WP:RBI if you don't want to deal with semi-protection. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Socks are tagged and named accounts are blocked. I'm mostly concerned with IP edits. And to clarify, while I don't like the idea of semi-protecting, that might be the only thing to make him give up and go away. // Chris 12:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

User talk:154.20.40.205

The recently blocked IP of Simulation12 is requesting an unblock because she claims it was her "sister" who threanted me and that the IP belongs to her whole family. Will he/she give it a rest already, i'm starting think that he/she is more than a typical troll, instead a psychotic nut who thinks he/she is a kindergartner and is using a santiarium computer. Besides that, what do you suggest? Gladys is on wiki-break and we all know that Sim12 is just going to do the same thing if he/she is unblocked. Elbutler (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Evil roommate, evil brother, evil sister - typical sockpuppet/troll fairy tales. Baseball Bugs 20:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I AM SURE that we are daeling with a troll here but therei s no need to engage in blatant WP:CIVILinvility here.

Nice try, you can't fool us with your stupid excuses. We all know it's you. I don't who you are, but when you mess with ::::::::::::wikipedia, it's no joke. Elbutler (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

the relevent apolice here is to revert, lblock and ignore. Arguing with a user liek this only encourages them to find antoehr dynamic IP can come back harder and stronger than ever possible. simply reporting this troll here is the best policy in the future as it denies them the atetniton and horror that they crave as of blood. They should be blocked and ignored, nothing further. Smith Jones (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palin Dispute

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

Note: this section was originally titled "Please rescue me from IDCab bullcrap"

OK, a little background. Months ago, I voluntarily disengaged from complaining about IDCab behavior, and I recently sent an olive branch to one of the editors, KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I even disavowed this IDCab stuff when it came up in another context.

However, those editors seem unwilling to let it go. On a dispute of inclusion of rape kit billing at Sarah Palin, where most current editors had expressed a desire to remove mention of the issue, the admin SB Johnny (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) removed the text, at least temporarily. His call was overridden by KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). When I pointed out that she was previously involved as an editor in the content dispute, I immediately started to be attacked, including a statement by KillerChihuahua where my question was called "a line of bullshit"..

Then, in an astonishing coincidence, immediately afterwards I've got purported members of the disavowed "ID Cabal" Jim62sch (talk · contribs) and Orangemarlin (talk · contribs)) showing up on my talk page, in the midst of a civil conversation with my (admittedly ideologically opposed) friends Baseball Bugs and MastCell, making uncivil comments. Weren't those exact two individuals called out for bad behavior in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch?

I'd like to suggest a couple of things here. One, that when an olive branch is offered, the receiving party shouldn't burn it because of a civil difference of opinion. Two, that if people don't want to be called a cabal, they shouldn't act like one. I had no interaction with Jim62sch or Orangemarlin before they showed up on my talk page. Oh, and I'm hoping some truly uninvolved admins would examine the fact that KillerChihuahua overturned SB Johnny's action at Sarah Palin, and decide whether this was justified. Kelly 23:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no evidence that the policy was enforced while she was mayor, there's no evidence that she knew about the policy and there's certainly no evidence she supported this. Other than creating an attack piece (which, I suppose, would make this bio consistent with Misplaced Pages's other bios of conservatives), what possible reason could there be for including it? --B (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Whine away Kelly. I removed my comments 10 nanoseconds after I dropped them in there, once I realized it was your page (I clicked on a link to it). I would never come to your page EVER, and it was accidental. So, you can apologize whenever you want. OrangeMarlin 23:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm - how many threads about you are there on this page right now? On whose page would those comments have been acceptable? Especially the muliple unsolicited uses of the f-word? Kelly 23:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I was going to bring this up myself; this is the third thread concerning Orangemarlin today over seperate incidents. And you're continuing to be incivil—even more so—despite these threads. But no-one's going to pay any attention to be, I'm a bad-faith wikistalking POV pusher. Sceptre 23:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, Sceptre, you do seem to be popping up in a lot of threads – looks like you're WP:WIKIHOUNDing. . . dave souza, talk 01:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin and Jim62sch are both currently editing under ArbCom sanctions. Thus, any concerns about their behavior need to be taken to the ArbCom enforcement noticeboard, not here. Cla68 (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

And here comes the usual suspects. LOL. Cla68, please retract your LIE right now. Or I'll help you get blocked. OrangeMarlin 23:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Did something change in regards to OM's "arbitration case"? As far as I know the "ruling" was vacated and OM accepted a voluntary mentorship. Also, I'm not sure there's anything actionable here. AniMate 23:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Orange, if your period under mentorship is up, please point out where it was declared over, and I'll retract and apologize. Cla68 (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Mentorship is voluntary and is NOT a sanction. Orangemarlin is not and never was as a result of that so-called case under a sanction. --B (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note. --Smashville 00:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

And that's the game! OrangeMarlin 00:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Orange volunteered for mentorship as a corrective action for behavior that ArbCom had found was in violation of our policies. As far as I know, this corrective action for Orange is ongoing unless it says somewhere that he is no longer under mentorship. If he does anything that you feel is a violation of policy, either report it to the ArbCom enforcement board, or notify his mentor. Cla68 (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom didn't find anything. FT2 went out and did what he usually does — stir up drama. Arbcom vacated the case. Wikipedians overwhelmingly lack confidence in him. --B (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If you take OrangeMarlin to the Arbitration Enforcement board, nothing will happen. Why? Because he is not under any type of Arbitration sanction. The mentorship you seem to believe is a sanction is both informal and voluntary. Get it? AniMate 00:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"This rejection was primarily due to statements by Orangemarlin and arbitrator Jpgordon, in which it was announced that Orangemarlin (talk · contribs) had agreed to mentorship by Jpgordon (talk · contribs)." That's fairly clear that ArbCom declined to pursue the matter further after OM agreed to corrective action on his own. Now, if this corrective action isn't working, then inform his mentor or ArbCom. Cla68 (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Where's the link to that statement? Baseball Bugs 00:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

And again...there is nothing enforceable. What part of voluntary are you failing to grasp? --Smashville 00:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If true, it sounds like ArbCom dropped the case conditionally. If those conditions are not being met, then presumably it should go back to ArbCom. Baseball Bugs 00:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom presented no case to drop, and by announcing the outcome of a secret trial with no consultation put themselves in a position where they had no option but to drop it. OrangeMarlin's voluntary agreement let them off the hook. dave souza, talk 01:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Question. What administrative action are you asking for here? Because Dispute resolution and WP:RFC/U are just down the corridor (turn right by the water fountain) and arbitration enforcement is two floors down by the canteen. Black Kite 00:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• RFC/U and WQA are cesspits of bad faith, and we don't need more of that. RFAR is too lofty. I think we need to convince OM to calm down; he is becoming a loose cannon. Three ANI threads in a single day about you does not look good. Sceptre 00:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoa there ... WQA is a "cess pit of bad faith"?? WTF is that about?? ♪BMWΔ 12:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• To put it succinctly, that completely depends how valid the threads are. Black Kite 00:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the first may not have been valid, but these last two I think definitely are. Law of averages says that one of them will be valid anyhow. Validity aside, his temperament is becoming a bit of a concern. Sceptre 00:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have changed the thread title to be something more polite. I don't know that anything good is going to come from this thread. Orangemarlin retracted his comment. The diff linked from Jim62sch was not incivil and I thought the joke he laughed at was funny too. If admins are going to wheel war over a protected article, that's something to deal with, but there's no evidence that anyone intends to continue reverting over the protected article. But as of now, there is nothing good that is going to come here. --B (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

So, this is about whitewashers VS. Gotcha politics? What a joke. stick the damn material in, write it neutrally, let readers decide. Isn't that the point? Argue about how to present, not whether or not. ThuranX (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't even make sense. Attacks ("gotcha politics") don't belong in an article no matter how they are written. That's what WP:COATRACK is all about. --B (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that was a reference to what each side is saying about the other (and I notice you took NO offense to the white-washers part). If you don't get that, then you really are too close to this situation, and need to walk away now. The material presented was covered nationally and internationally, was responded to by numerous women's groups, and so on. Find a neutral presentation, and include it. There are too many politically motivated people on both sides of this, and a few who just want notable material included. ThuranX (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing to whitewash. Let's review here - there's no evidence that she knew of the policy. There's no evidence that while she was mayor the policy was implemented (meaning, a rape victim was actually charged for the kit). There's certainly no evidence she approved of the policy. All that's out there is she reviewed the budget, so SHAZAAM! she must have known about it. The media may not have standards, but we do. We don't include partisan attacks. There is no such thing as a neutral presentation. --B (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

White-wash? Nay. The gist of the material is that Palin appointrted a police chief who, after a law was passed concerning billing adult victims for sexual exams, said that he had billed insurance companies. Palin said she knew nothing of such a policy. No evidence has been found of anyone being billed, nor of Palin ever being involved in details of police department policies. This is basically a contentious issue as some editors want to imply that either she knew, and is lying, or did not know, and was incompetent. The NPOV view would be that actions of an appointee about which you know nothing should not be used as an issue against you (under the "contentious claim" rules and under the "coatrack" guidelines. This achieved a large conensus among edotors, and one admin heeded that consensus. Another admin reversed the first admin. That is, in as neutral a nutshell as possible, where things stand. Collect (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Not as I read the talk page, OR the evidence. We have journalistic sources stating she knew, we have sources stating that it was predicated in part on the inclusion of Plan B pills, and we have a sources defending Palin. The proper thing to do is present both sides neutrally, and let readers sort this out. Unfortunately, the number of editors on that talk page who've made statements that show a personal leaning to Palin means that it is unlikely that extant consensus will be overruled soon. Regrettably, this decision makes an article on Palin a lot less credible. It's like a term paper on Harding not mentioning Teapot Dome. You cover the good and the bad, and any article we have on a VP or VP candidate should be as strong as a collegiate research paper. Eliminating the scandals and bad points in an administration would fail a paper, and should fail an article. ThuranX (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This is absurd. Go look at the Barack Obama article. You won't find one word about his statement to "Joe the Plumber" that we need to redistribute the wealth, nor one word about his statement in San Farncisco about bitter small-town folk who cling to their guns and religion, nor one word about Bill Ayres or about Jeremiah Wright. Which is fine. But when a small minority of editors wants to jam something nasty into the Sarah Palin article, then all rules are off. The material now in the Palin article is what is at issue here; that material says that her town sometimes charged insurance companies for the cost of rape evidence-collection kits, and says that there's no indication she ever expressly endorsed or opposed that policy. That's what's at issue here, and the only question is whether it's adequate to cover it in a sub-article instead of the main article. Plan B pills aren't at issue, and Teapot Dome is not at issue. Tell me ThuranX, if a rape victim has an arm broken and subsequently put in a cast, would it be okay with you for Wasilla to bill the patient's insurance for that, or would doing so be another instance that Misplaced Pages would be obliged to describe with generous use of the words "Palin" and "rape" located as nearly to each other as possible? Maybe we could more thoroughly insinuate that Palin is somehow mean to rape victims, by putting all this in the lead, right ThuranX? In all sincerity, this matter was resolved at the Palin talk page on more than one occasion, and that consensus was overturned by a single involved admin while the article was protected.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

So far all that this thread has really brought to light is that previous personality/ideological clashes continue to exist. The rest is a content dispute. No administrative action is needed. AniMate 00:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There is the question of Kelly again labelling editors as a cabal, a practice which was previously agreed to be a personal attack. At best his rush to stir this up is disruptive. . dave souza, talk 01:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Should we close this as a dramafest? --Smashville 01:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we may need to look into OM's civility; three seperate complaints on seperate issues about civility concerns within 14 hours, regardless of validity, is indicative of a possible problem. Sceptre 01:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Drama. 2. Drama. 3. Drama. And with that, Elvis has left the building. OrangeMarlin 03:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• As someone who has dealt with the members of the "IDCabal" and their "opposition", I would like to ask if we can give it all a rest. The term is boring. The idea is rather no longer pertinent, and it just causes unnecessary problems. If you have a problem with a user, please directly mention the problem with the user. There is no need to decorate it or do whatever else. Furthermore, I have found many of those same "IDCabal" members willing to listen to my concerns and be willing to agree with various clean ups of issues. Some kindness and a neutral approach really goes a long way. I think the unfair characterizations on either side should really stop. There is too much tension, and tension causes unnecessary problems. I don't want to pass judgment on either side of the dispute, because I feel that it is better solved by getting rid of all of the judgment passing. Come on, we are editors and many of us are really good contributors. Why don't we try to get back to that instead of wasting time characterizing each other in a negative manner? Kelly, if you need someone to talk to, I am always available, and I would recommend you talking to people instead of possibly wording something in a manner that could provoke more problems simply because you wrote it while upset. And to get back to the issue - I supported Sarah Palin. I think the controversy about rape kits was silly and blown out of proportion. However, we don't need to blow it out of proportion too. So lets just work together, take straw polls, try to find neutral wording, and the rest. We don't need to gear up for a fight. Consensus involves everyone working together. Not one side trying to beat another. (Note to make it clear what my background is in this - I like KillerChihuahua. I have been on the opposite side of issues from OrangeMarlin in the past. I have worked with Dave before on a BLP issue and talked a few issues with him. I work closely with SB Johnny on another project. I have had many run ins with Kelly in a neutral manner. Hell, I know most of the people involved in this discussion). Ottava Rima (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought we worked on some article that nothing to do with politics recently. You actually cracked me up. I don't remember what. OrangeMarlin 03:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Who on earth of the "IDCabal"? Name some names please as it seems just like a label that an editor is applying to deny that consensus is occuring on an article. Shot info (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• Please read this for some info from the last time Kelly didn't get hsi way and decided to complain about the IDCab. KillerChihuahua 05:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

O, so it's an atypical cry of "tag-team" by a minority to paint the majority as irrelevant because they are members of a so-called tag-team (ie/ a "Cabal") in order to override consensus. Thought so. Shot info (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Kelly does have a habit of claiming "involvement" and/or "IDCabal" for administrators who oppose Kelly, either in reality or in Kelly's perception. Weirdly enough, there is no consensus, but the majority of editors are agreeing with Kelly. The page is fully protected, so edits must be done by an admin. Kelly requested an edit; SBJohnny made the edit, although as a newcomer to the article he was unaware of the history of disagreements about that section. In my opinion, the edit was premature as consensus was lacking, especially as a straw poll, started by Kelly, had a timeframe which had not yet expired. An editor protested strenuously on the talk page that discussion was ongoing and consensus had not been reached. I reverted to allow further discussion, noting so clearly in my edit summary. Ever since, Kelly has been smearing me all over Misplaced Pages. BLP noticeboard, SBJohnny's talk page, Sarah Palin talk page, and here. I think that's the tally so far. The really silly part is that had Kelly spent this amount of effort on the article talk page, he might have gotten somewhere. Instead, he's continuing his habit of attacking those with whom he disagrees - I think this is the third or fourth instance of Kelly campaigning some version of "KC is involved and oh yeah, is a member of the IDCab" since summer. KillerChihuahua 06:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what a party I missed yesterday :-). If it makes things any clearer, I asked KC to keep an eye on me, since she's got more experience with explosive BLPs, and she's given me solid advice in the past on another issue. I don't quite agree with her reading of the policies (namely, whether or not the bit of content in question is a "BLP" issue or whether that even matters), but the editors involved can try to reach consensus on it whether or not it's on the page. As far as I'm concerned, it all boils down to whether something controversial should be kept in the article until there's an agreement, or whether it should be kept out of the article until an agreement is reached. My impression (possibly mistaken) was that it should be kept out. --SB_Johnny | 12:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you're precisely correct. Its a protected article, though, so I am extremely conservative about making edits. They must be virtually unopposed for me to make them, or of course if they are violations of BLP I'll do it. That content has been in the article for months, however, its not a new addition - which I realize reads like I believe age confers validity, which I do not - but there have been many, many discussions on this subject with strong arguments for inclusion, as well as exclusion, and I was weighting the CON aspect, as this particular section has been the subject of some serious debates. Also, there is no RS issue, its been fully covered, and its not a BLP issue. There are other factors. But as a general rule you are completely correct. But the "party" aspect of all this is that kelly has derailed the entire discussion into an attack on me. Which is going to get the article, and the disputed section, precisely nowhere. KillerChihuahua 12:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the trick then is to ignore the "party" aspects. The BLP policy is pretty clear that if something's a matter of major dispute, it should be taken out until a consensus can be reached. I thought about it a bit yesterday on the tractor-seat, and I just don't agree with where you've drawn the line for what is or is not a "BLP issue". I didn't mean say it was an RS issue, but rather that it could be treated in a similar manner (with relevant/irrelevant an analog of verifiable/unverified). It looks like the sources read that she didn't know about it, so the controversy is about relevance to the BLP, and thus is a "BLP issue" :-). --SB_Johnny | 13:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Quality check

I'd like administrator intervention here to try and get Quality Check to move away from the area he currently edits in. My first interaction with him was after he tagged one of my pages as a 'stub', something I didn't have a problem with (it was a stub) but after looking through his talkpage and contributions I found a long history of drive-by tagging. While advising that he might be better off with referencing 2-line articles than tagging them for someone else to do I noticed a string of previous warnings, first from User:Beeswaxcandle and User:TerriersFan about improperly tagging articles with prod tags and then from User:Velela about giving people a chance to edit their articles before plastering tags on them. User:KP Botany then followed me with a warning, again about improperly tagging articles and allowing people a chance to edit their articles before going quote 'tag-crazy'.

In light of these repeated warnings and Quality Check's failure to do anything about them I gave him an all-encompassing warning and a pointer that, should he keep creating messes for other wikipedians to clear up and fail to correct himself in the future I would take it to AN/I. KP Botany followed up with a warning of their own, and followed up with a long discussion (and several reverts of Quality Check's wrong tagging) in which it became apparent he was not going to budge on the Matter. User:Nick gave him a warning in the spirit of my own (advising that he correct the problem instead of just leaving it for someone else) here but Quality Check still seems to be failing to understand the problem

Quality Check's response to these warnings has been a mixture of denying that there is a problem, claiming that he will be more careful in future and that he is correct the majority of the time and that that justifies his mistakes (despite the fact that he is only right around one in 20 times.

A discussion between me and KP Botany two days ago ended with us agreeing that we would assume more good faith despite the massive ladles of it already being used before taking it near AN/I; after all, the user is saying at least that he will correct himself in future. Two things changed this; User:Nick's warning and the rather blase response and this, which shows that even if Quality Check is improving with his tagging he is not doing so fast enough to stop creating masses of work for other people. I would like the administrators to step in and get him to stop with his tagging; while I have no problem with him learning how to do it properly and coming back to it in the future he is at the moment damaging more than he fixes, and I cannot see any evidence of this changing. Let him learn how to do it, fine; but let him learn the theory before he moves on to the practical. A phrase I often use comes to mind; one independent user complaining about your edits is a complaint. two independent users complaining about your edits is a dispute. three independent users complaining about your edits is time to question whether you might be in the wrong. When six independent, unrelated users, two of them administrators, complain about different edits and you still refuse to see that there is any kind of problem then it is time for further action to be taken. Ironholds (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think , and generally Ironholds has agreed, that this editor could be worked with, if he could see that he needs to change some of his editing styles. However, he's not really listening right now, and he is creating a lot of work for other editors to clean up after him.

It would be useful if an administrator who has some time could help this user out, as I think he's trying to do useful work,and, more important, would be quite capable of it, as a few of his edits show, but he won't address problems with his work. If there is still a mentor program on Misplaced Pages, that might be a great way to go. However, he also just needs to back down on some of his problematic tagging. --KP Botany (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I may be erred by adding some irrelevent tags,and that i already promised to be careful about. Please look at my contributions after some user complained about inappropriate tags, to check that my editing style gets corrected or not after that?
All tags are very much useful becuase they instantly alert other editors about deficiency in that page. Otherwise all editors (who check that page) have to scan full page to find shortcomings in that page. No backlog is created at all, otherwise if they are not pointed out by anybody, the article may remain without ref/cat. Also, adding a tag automatically put that page into specialized category of articles with same deficiency. And editors, which have special interest/liking in adding cat/ref can work on them in their free time, without first finding uncat/unref pages. Its not like creating backlog/work for others(as im poinintg out deficiency in that page only) and Im helping to built a good article in my own way. Adding a tag is just a first step in improving the page. Quality check 06:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It is creating a backlog and work for others; literally in fact, because we have massive backlogs in those areas. Tags have their place, but when an article is two lines long leaving a 'this page is unreferenced/uncategorised' message is useless, firstly because everyone can see that already and secondly because you normally do it incorrectly. Yesterday I had to remove a 'stub' template you'd added to an three paragraphs long. Ironholds (talk) 13:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Quality check, could you please request a different username at WP:RFCU? Your username is probably not allowable under Misplaced Pages:Username because it could give users an impression of undue authority. Jehochman 06:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean WP:CHU, Jehochman. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 06:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Iain Lee

I know you are all far to busy to bother with RFPP, but could someone please do something about Iain Lee? DuncanHill (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Patience, young Padawan. Someone protected it just before you posted here. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Yoda was meditating over yonder hill and forsaw he would be needed at some point in the future. So verily, he returned to his tools and he did smite the vandals with his mighty padlock. Or something. Ironholds (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Just out of morbid curiosity, what prompted all that nonsense? Kuru 00:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Possibly something on his radio show; it has happened before. Sceptre 00:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit war at Pacific Coastal Airlines

Is there any way to block user 70.71.243.53 from editing this page? He has made at least a half-dozen deletions of an item on the page, even though I keep reverting his edit. Thanks. Greg Salter (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Try WP:AIV if he is vandalizing. He seems to be removing information, so warn him a few times. If he goes over the limit, report him to WP:AIV. Just a note though; this diff just doesn't put you in a good light...DARTH PANDA 01:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. But he'd done the same thing at least 6 times before that, and I was getting frustrated. Point taken. Greg Salter (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that anyone's actually engaged the IP in any way. It would be a good idea to actually discuss the issue with the IP before we do anything to remove its opportunity to edit the article. Looks to be relatively static, so take your concerns to the IP's talk page, perhaps? Tony Fox (arf!) 01:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Since your message, I've done that, and he's now gone and done another removal (which I've undone just now). Looks like it's time for WP:AIV. Greg Salter (talk) 06:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• To assist I have semi-protected this article for 1 week. That should give you enough time (if possible) to discuss edits with the anon IP.--VS 12:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Issue re: legal threat

The following was originally posted to WT:WPSPAM#John Nance threatens lawsuit, over legitimate dicussion on his page. I'm moving it here, as this is a more appropriate venue for this discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

John Nance threatens to sue.

The Spam page is the article about John J. Nance, at this URL:

http://en.wikipedia.org/John_J._Nance

It appears that the article was started after a previous one was eliminated, because it amounted to plagiarism as it just copied John Nance's mini-bio from another website.

My suspicion is that the current article then was started to get around that previous violation of Wiki rules, by someone very friendly to Nance. At any rate, the current article progressed only by expanding positive information about Nance, his books, his movies, his media appearances, and such. Then links to his official website, and other websites, were attached.

When I first saw this article, I decided that it could become a legitimate Wiki article about this living person, only if there was some discussion about his controversial view----that Airline Safety had been affected adversely by the 1978 Airline Deregulation Act (ADA).

So, I added a section about that controversial thesis, in his book of Blind Trust.

Nance then responded vehemently, in a style of writing that violated several of the Wiki rules, for posting. I reverted that back, because of those violations of the 5 pillars of Wiki. In response, Nance has now removed all my comments on both the article page and on the talk page and says he will file a lawsuit if anyone dares to put it back.

Please look at these pages, which will show how this Nance article has progressed to a Spam page, and then to a legitimate discussion page and then back to a pure spam page, with nothing but accolades about John J. Nance.

This one above, was obviously written by John Nance himself, and it contains the kind of unacceptable style of writing that violates so many Wiki rules.

I then reverted it back at this link:

Then, Nance removed the section about his controversial theory:

Then, Nance removes all reference to that controversial thesis of his book, and continues to add accolades to himself.

Then, I added the Spam warning:

Then, the pertinent history of the Talk Page, for the Nance Article:

My reasons for reverting Nance's response to the Controversial Thesis section:

And then, Nance cleaned out the Talk Page and threatened a SLAPP suit, if anyone puts back the comments about his controversial thesis.

I am amazed at such arrogance. Mr. Nance is apparently insisting that the article about him, be allowed to contain only accolades about him, his books, TV and radio appearances and such. He will permit no comments that make reference to his controversial book and/or why the facts of history appear to prove that thesis incorrect.

Nance is apparently is willing to trample all over the First Amendment to the US Constitution, to enforce his demands, even to the extent that he is threatening a SLAPP lawsuit to silence Wiki. I hope Wiki Administrators will not cave to this kind of terrible intimidation. EditorASC (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Looks like a clear legal threat, and some rather nice WP:COI issues as well. Anyone else agree? Tony Fox (arf!) 01:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Blatant legal threat; he says that re-posting the info will result in legal action. If not retracted he should be blocked per WP:NLT. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 01:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Looks like it to me. Also reverting the talk page comments. It's the talk page, we discuss the changes to articles...there is absolutely no reason to remove them. He can pursue all he wants, but he has no right to remove legitimate talk page comments. --Smashville 01:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

First Amendment? There is no first Amendment issue here. – ukexpat (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

He just did it again, with another legal threat in the edit summary. Dayewalker (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering he's not retracting, but is still making blatant threats on the talk page and blanking it, it's time to enact an NLT block. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 02:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment: In addition to the threats at Talk:John J. Nance, see also WP:BLPN#Repeated posting of Defamatory Material. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Yes please. It's textbook WP:LEGAL. Will an admin step in, please? Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 02:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Note that he's extended his threat to all users reverting him. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 02:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears that he has now also acknowleged a WP:COI with this edit. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Endorse WP:NLT block. — neuro 02:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef for legal threats. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like contributions may be related to this. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 03:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ya think? Oh, and he posted his editorial again, 3 minutes after the "last warning". Baseball Bugs 04:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sock blocked, with the targeted talk page semi-protected for a week. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see how far this user would get if he did actually sue Misplaced Pages (assuming the user is so adamant on filing a lawsuit). But then again, there's Stella Liebeck, Mike Nifong, and Roy Pearson, so who knows? MuZemike (talk) 07:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

An unprotected image is displayed on the main page

File:Rev Dr Alexander Scott.jpg is currently displayed on the main page, and is not locally uploaded or protected at the Wikimedia Commons. Administrative assistance is requested in uploading the file locally (which cannot be effectuated by non-admins due to a conflict with the filename at the commons and cascading protection for the main page) or protecting the image at the commons. Thanks. John254 03:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded locally and protected. --B (talk) 04:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Navigation boxes

I noticed that a great huge quantity of articles on my watchlist recently received addition of navigation boxes which I started to remove, then felt a second opinion would be appropriate so I made a query at Canada notice board and CA education task force talk page. I think I am on the right train of thought that a navbox should rather reflect the content of articles within the nav box, and not be posted on any page sort of related to the nav box but don't know if there is a standard protocol in this regards. Instead of a reduction of clutter there is an increase in clutter, as some articles have their original two navboxes in which they were listed, and then sometimes up to 3 more navboxes have been added which are kind of sort of related to the article in question. Education in Saskatchewan belongs to the Education in Canada navbox. Perhaps readers may be interested that math is a subject, but I don't think the article about the evolution and development of education in a geographic area such as Saskatchewan needs a navbox about education subjects generally speaking, which don't come back around to SK. If I am on the right track, is there a robot that can do the reverts, as the original contributing editor of navboxes was very thorough and very extensive with additions. The contributing user has also blanked their talk page multitudinous times, so I haven't tried to diplomatically talk of my view point. Another editor has asked them to stop edits in a different regards but they blank the talk page several times and keep going. Can you read this query, and decide on the protocol in this case? Please contact me if you need specific diffs, as there are many many. SriMesh | talk 05:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

User:NurseryRhyme disruptive editing at T:TDYK

Despite the fact that WP:DYKs are not endorsed or opposed, just qualified or not qualified, User:NurseryRhyme has been editwarring to reinsert a criticism of a hook I submitted:

• Initial Hook, disclosing that the article is at AfD
• First T:TDYK oppose
• My explanation at his talk page
• My Strikethrough
• His reversion of my strikethrough
• My templating him
• My deleting it entirely
• His subsequent reversion

I would request that an uninvolved admin revert the WP:POINT change to T:TDYK, and counsel User:NurseryRhyme that the edits are inappropriate. (Full disclosure: User:NurseryRhyme nominated for deletion the article, Robert Eric Wone, to which the hook applies, and I am the major contributor to that article) Jclemens (talk) 06:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

1-I'm not allowed to comment at DYK? That seems pretty wrong. 2-Jclemens, as the person making the nomination, has a vested interest in the article and should not be the one removing my comments. 3-Whatever it is that I might be doing, it cannot be by any stretch of the imagination, vandalism, as he templated me with on my Talk page. If anybody other than Jclemens or other people with a vested interest in that mess of an article had removed or struck out my comments, I would not have liked it, but I wouldn't have reverted, but Jclemens has no business doing it. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 07:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: Whatever the resolution of this is, I will not revert again. I don't want to give anybody the satisfaction of getting blocked. But it takes two to edit war. Still and all, I originally came here to have fun, and it's lately becoming less and less fun. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 07:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Okay let me see if I can assist here. Firstly it is quite correct to say that DYK is not a vote situation. Secondly I am confident that the DYK admins will have noticed the to and fro on this possible inclusion and will consider those comments and the AfD before their final decision. Thirdly, NurseryRhyme is kind enough to give us a final solution here - which is for someone else to strikethrough the comment at DYK. I am about to do that now and I hope that will end this matter. Please add your thoughts below and I will close off as resolved if the two parties are in agreement.--VS 07:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• I am satisfied with the solution, however, User:NurseryRhyme continues to be disruptive and incivil on this topic, accusing other editors of accusing people of murder and then removing relevant warnings from his talk page with incivil edit summaries. I propose that User:NurseryRhyme agree to voluntary a one-week article ban, or be blocked for this consistent incivility. Jclemens (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• Not too put to fine a point on it - I can see the inappropriateness bordering on blockable incivility in the edits you refer to but that area of incivility appears to be outside of the heading of this thread. Can I suggest we close this thread in terms of the DYK situation and either a new thread for incivility is started on the available evidence or you await another case of incivility and come straight to my talk page - whereupon (as my admin history will clearly show) I will block if appropriate?--VS 07:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, in light of NurseryRhyme's announced retirement I believe this matter to be moot, and will follow up directly with you should future problems arise. Thank you for your time and offer of mediation services. Jclemens (talk) 07:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• My pleasure - and now my mountain bike and I are on a date for the next hour. (I love the way she makes me sweat) :) --VS 07:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Edward Owens

It's quite rare that a large organization decides that adding disinformation to Misplaced Pages is part of its mission. Perhaps a block of 129.174.0.0/16 would be in order? -- The Anome (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

What?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

this link may be relevant. Explains the hoax and backstory. Not sure what 129.x.x.x has to do with it. // roux   12:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd assume it's the George Mason University range.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of boldly renaming the article as Edward Owens (hoax) as suggested by User:DGG in the AfD. Ryan should note this media involvement in Signpost. BusterD (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That was helpful, BusterD. Meanwhile this brings to mind the course title How to vandalize Misplaced Pages for fun and publicity 101. Would they get extra credit for slipping disinfo into Joe the Plumber? Would it build up a CV for someone hoping for a job at MSNBC or BBC? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The possibility of prolonged, organized and supported hoaxing is one serious ongoing threat to the pedia. I have no difficulty with a teacher using this platform for instruction, and hoaxing is a way of experiencing in a somewhat safe environment the arguable joys of creating misinformation, a powerful tool in a media-driven society. I've taken a position on this in the new AfD, but The Anome raises an important issue: should a user or an institution face some penalty for flouting elements of wikipedia policies? The pedia is clearly NOT intended to be an extension of one user's classroom. BusterD (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion seems to have drawn out at least one sock pyrate. BusterD (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppet

I suspect that Theplaystation3dude is the same user as John-joe123. This user's only edits have been in the nomination and support of John-joe123 as an Administrator. At the time of writing, Theplaystation3dude's only contributions have been on Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/John-joe123 and User talk:John-joe123. I find the nomination highly unusual as the user being nominated (John-joe123) has made relatively few edits, has only been active for a short time and in that time has been involved in a number of disputes with established editors and Administrators. He also appears to have little knowledge of Misplaced Pages's policies. I also believe it's unlikely that a brand new user such as Theplaystation3dude would have any knowledge of adminship procedures and a new user's first and only action after registering would be to nominate someone. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 12:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Quack. // roux   12:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Quack? ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 13:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

See WP:DUCK. // roux   13:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) WP:Duck#The duck test. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see ;) And there was me trying to be all diplomatic! ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 13:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Roux Substituting his signature against advice

See User_talk:Roux#Your_signature_is_not_working_in_some_templates. Per WP:SIG#NT substituting a translcusion for you signature is specifically not permitted. The most recent discussion on the talk page seems to indicate no change in this. Roux is doing this, (see User:Roux/sig) despite my asking him not to citing WP:IAR . Okay so this isn't exactly a disaster but one assumes the reason Brion insisted that sigs were not transcluded are still the same, and I trust the dev's know what they're talking about. Or, we change the guideline at WP:SIG. Either way Roux is refusing to respond to my polite request and I'd appreciate other input. Pedro :  Chat  14:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Must be a slow day on Misplaced Pages... - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 14:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards