Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:38, 23 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

Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts

Elonka (talk · contribs) has made an arbitrary and antagonistic decision to place an attack list here. It was done by Elonka, a wholly involved editor in various pseudoscientific topics, to poison the well of editing. She is singlehandedly interpreting Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist as her basis for doing this, and I do not see where she has the right to do so. I have tagged the thread and asked a really uninvolved admin to delete it. I'd ask that it be oversighted too, but I don't want to case another kerfuffle. OrangeMarlin 19:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

While it might be removed - why would it be oversighted? That's a step too far for me - it doesn't reveal any Personal history, fail foul of WP:BLP etc. Removed - yes, erase - no. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm reaching on that one, of course. It's just that the attack list remains in the history of the discussion. Deletion by an admin is sufficient, just not perfect. OrangeMarlin 19:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and if you note my verbiage, I said "I'd ask" not that I was actually requesting it. OrangeMarlin 19:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You've been warned that your behaviour is on course for being sanctionable and you... keep on with the exact same behaviour? Well done. Sometimes I think the ArbCom vacated the OM case too rashly. Sceptre 19:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre: focus on the issue not on the person, and beware WP:NPA. Now then, can we all discuss the issue of the list with animosity toward none? The list has proven to be disruptive, divise and has had a chilling effect on a conversation that was proceeding apace toward a resolution. I have my doubts that that was Elonka's intent (although measuring intent is at best difficult) but it has been the effect. Let's focus on that, shall we? •Jim62sch• 19:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre, vacated what case? I didn't know they vacated a case about Elonka? Or Pseudoscience? I'm confused. OrangeMarlin 19:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

RFAR/Orangemarlin was vacated after you promised to stop being disruptive (and that's not a personal attack; the ArbCom did find you had engaged in personal attacks and the like). To be honest, I don't see what can be done here. The exacta of it being another Elonka thread and another of your ANI threads makes it kind of hard to take this seriously. In any case, I really don't want this to be dragged into evidence of my super-duper-ID-cabal-stalkathon™, so I'll just post this and be on my way. Sceptre 19:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Whatever its intention, that thread has had no apparent effect other than to spew an additional 23 kB onto an already noisy page. I am not certain that administrator attention is required, but I suspect that the original poster desires that removal be performed by an outside party. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

To repeat: let us focus on the issue. Sceptre, that you and OM do not play well together in the schoolyard is well known, but let's assume that recess is over and class is back in session. Focus on the issue.

Another Elonka thread? What are you saying: that she's here so much in some capacity that wee should just ignore the issue? Or is it that as OM raised the issue it should be ignored? In either case, you would be wrong: this issue needs to be looked at seriously and without prejudice. •Jim62sch• 19:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Elonka is one of our more controversial admins, I'll admit. People complained about her a lot about her capacity overseeing the Israel-Palestine articles (which were, more often than not, instigated by POV-pushers who didn't like her attempting to keep the peace). Such threads tend to get boring after a while. That, and OM appears to have really thin skin. Quite a few things he complains about, most people take in their stride. Sceptre 20:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Again with the personal comments. STOP! Basta! Ist genug! Alto! Capisce? •Jim62sch• 22:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

My actions at List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts are as an uninvolved administrator, trying to stabilize an article that has been in such severe disputes that it is currently under indefinite full protection (not by me). Several editors have been using the page as a battleground in the pseudoscience wars. I have been attempting to help stabilize the article, by invoking the discretionary sanctions at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. That some of the battling editors don't like this, is par for the course in arbitration enforcement matters. A few of the editors (such as Orangemarlin, Verbal, and Jim62sch) are accusing me of being "involved" and therefore forbidden from using admin tools, but their claims are incorrect. I am neutral in the dispute, and have no preference on the article content, as long as it abides by policies. I've never been involved in editing this or any other articles in the topic area, and I have been doing my best to issue warnings evenly to both "sides" in the dispute. Additional administrator attention on the article would be appreciated, though be warned that the flame wars are intense, so put on your asbestos booties before entering.  :) --Elonka 20:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• As a completely uninvolved administrator, my inclination would be to remove it. It doesn't serve any majorly useful purpose, and, as can be seen from the discussion page and this thread, serves only to increase the amount of drama, of which there's enough already. Black Kite 20:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • As I suggested at Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts#Discussion, we can probably just move it to a subpage, as was done at Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log. This kind of list technique has been very helpful in managing a variety of complex and chaotic disputes. It helps administrators identify which editors are on the page, who's under sanctions, for how long, when they were notified, which editors are SPAs, etc. It's also very useful for the "after the fact" discussions, to track exactly what administrator actions were taken, and on whom. For example, months later, an administrator might be routinely accused of "blocking people left and right", but when there's a recorded admin log of exactly what took place at a given article, it's easy to see exactly what actions were taken, rather than relying on biased exaggerations. --Elonka 20:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Elonka's intervention on this article does not seem to have been particularly helpful. A number of administrators and one arbitrator have advised her against some of her pointed talk page warnings. Her idiosyncratic strategy for managing fringe science/pseudoscience articles could possibly be profitably discussed in the current fringe science ArbCom case, which until now has not examined the actions of specific administrators. I don't think most editors will agree that there is a parallel between opposing groups in nationalist-related articles and those editing articles on fringe science or pseudoscience, as Elonka has suggested. It would certainly be going out out on a limb to suggest that those representing the academic community of scientists form an "opposition group". After all articles on science on wikipedia must concentrate on mainstream science, just as the Encyclopedia Britannica does. The article chiropractic is much better managed now by editors like User:Eubulides who have some experience editing this kind of article and are medical experts. Mathsci (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Elonka's intervention has been and continues to be disruptive, and has increased the tension on the article. It has caused multiple problems and solved none. It should not be moved to a subpage, it should simply be removed. Although Elonka may be uninvolved in any content editing on the page (I haven't checked), she is deeply involved with many of the editors concerned (having repeatedly asked for several to be banned, for which she has been sanctioned by outside editors, while defending editors which were later banned). Her input to the debates is welcome, but her self-appointed role as a small-minded county sheriff is unwelcome and unwise. She is very involved and not at all neutral. She hasn't helped solve the problems (that was happening anyway), instead she has added new problems. Removing her from her role here would be removing a problem. I see above she is trying to scare off other admins by saying the flame wars are intense - this is not true, not that I've seen. The only person to have been "flamed" is Elonka herself (justly) for her disruptive actions. At the very least the list should be removed. Verbal chat 21:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have contributed to this talk page discussion and I am an admin. I do not think I have edited the list itself, so I am uninvolved. I do however have a POV. I believe this list would be best deleted, but two AfDs have said otherwise. I am far too busy at present to keep up with this vast discussion. Trying to read and keep up with that discussion over the last few week, does lead me to the view that Elonka's intervention has not been particularly helpful. It has just increased the volume and the noise, when it was possible that issues would get resolved. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Bduke, I think you are confusing the list article with the list of editors on the talk page of the list article. It is the list of editors which is causing the issues, not the article List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts which has indeed been to Afd. KillerChihuahua 22:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not confusing that. I was just giving some background before both explaining to anyone who knew I was an admin why I was not being an admin on the list as Elonka is trying to do, and why I think her intervention on the talk page of the list is unhelpful. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Thank you for the clarification, much appreciated. KillerChihuahua 10:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What a colossally bad idea. Elonka's NOT neutral in re: Pseudosci, and this essentially becomes a 'naughty list' with the undertone of 'all you, I'm watching you, waiting to pounce and punish.' This is a chilling effect for BOTH sides of this already contentious issue. No one is served well by this, and given that Elonka's published a list of who she's thinking about with regards to this title, I say that it represents a permanent conflict of interest for her to use her admin status in resolving anything with regard to any editor listed, ESPECIALLY as connects to Science and PsuedoScience related articles. ThuranX (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ThuranX, I agree with you. I cannot understand why Elonka thinks she is neutral. Elonka, please listen to those that do not see you as neutral -- if you were neutral, why all these comments?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 22:06, 18 January 2009

I've already tried, several times, to explain the concept of perception to Elonka. Either I'm explaining the concept poorly, or she's just not getting it (unwillingly or otherwise). •Jim62sch• 22:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

As a member of the list in question, I must say that I take no issue with the presence of said list nor with the involvement of an uninvolved administrator such as Elonka. I truly feel that any disruption that has come to the page following Elonka's arrival is not a fault of Elonka but rather the enormous amount of venom that follows her in the form of "anti-Elonka" editors. Several of the complaining parties have previous grievances with Elonka yet had little to no recent meaningful activity at the List of Pseudosciences and Pseuodoscientific Concepts article and talk page. Since her arrival, these editors have popped up out of the woodwork mainly to complain about Elonka's presence (most of them in an uncivil manner). Elonka has the best intentions to bring peace to an article which was in the middle of edit war turmoil just before she arrived; and though I am not thrilled to be on the list of "Editors notified of restrictions", I do recognize that I that I was fairly warned and that my presence on said list does not imply that I have been disruptive. Could the discussions move forward amicably without Elonka's or another uninvolved admin's presense? Quite possibly. Other than those complaining about Elonka, the majority of the editors have been quite civil and open to listen to each other's thoughts and suggestions. However, with Elonka (and SoWhy) present to monitor the discussions, I for one feel much more comfortable. Perhaps if those who have a personal grievance with Elonka would just chill-out and focus on the content discussion at hand on the page, there wouldn't be a need for all of these pointless histrionics. -- Levine2112 23:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed you take no exception. •Jim62sch• 23:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The administrative list on the list talk page is fine. It sticks to factual assessments of editors involvement in the page. If you have a problem with an item on the list, focus on that. If you dont like Elonka administrating this page, find another uninvolved admin and ask them to add their name to Talk:List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts#Administrators_monitoring_this_page. If other admins are doing the work, Elonka will be left with nothing to do. John Vandenberg 23:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You do realise that your last sentence, assuming it was not sarcastic in a way that paints Elonka in a bad light, is simply silly, yes?

The list is not fine only, and this is tenuous, in theory. In reality (as our presence here shows, it has been unhelpful at best. It's effect has been to disrupt, divide and derail helpfull conversation. •Jim62sch• 23:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The list is fine? By what standard? Its not helping the encyclopedia. It is harming it. That is the only standard. KillerChihuahua 10:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Or use admin recall, since Elonka promised to be open to that. Oh, wait, no, she reneged last time there was a COI problem, didn't she? I would not try to administer that page and Elonka should not either due to many past disputes. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, no one wants to be impeached, do they? •Jim62sch• 23:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thirty-seven good faith editors recalled her. She didn't like the result. OrangeMarlin 23:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think that's more indication of a flaw in the recall process (and really, any other straight voting process) than any fault of her own; that recall proposal was seen as a disruptive ethnic-fuelled vendetta. And you know how powerful voting blocks get; Jimbo almost had to step in during the last Arbcom elections because of vote rigging. (and OM: 50 editors opposed that same recall. Nice try.) Sceptre 23:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

  Ooops. You missed her pledge. OrangeMarlin 00:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

  Ooops. You missed yours. Sceptre 00:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Which part of "this is not about OM, it is about Elonka's actions" is causing comprehension difficulty? Is there some way we could better explain this so that the comprehension difficulties can be attenuated? •Jim62sch• 18:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please exemplify by way of diff how Elonka is not uninvolved at this article? -- Levine2112 23:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Elonka continues to add names to her attack list here. This is out of hand. OrangeMarlin 23:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I note that, in demonstration of evidence that Elonka has a conflict of interest, and further, the appearance of Vendetta behaviors, at least two of those who supported her Recall are now on that list, Verbal and MathSci. As such, she's making them into bullseye'd targets. Since she has no interest in removing such an attack, nor seems interested in stopping until this is settled, I'm heading over there to remove that attacking hitlist immediately, per BOLD. ThuranX (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Elonka's intervention at the Muhammad al-Durrah article succeeded in remarkably calming down a very troubled article. Jayjg 00:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • So? OrangeMarlin 00:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    • The point I think Jay is trying to make is that Elonka is *gasp* trying to work for the good of the encyclopedia! Sceptre 00:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

But so what? We aren't talking about "intent" we are talking about outcome - Methods that might work at one article might be completely useless at another. --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

We need to see this as a good-faith attempt by Elonka to resolve part of this thorny dispute, instead of an attempt of undermining NPOV; don't let history repeat itself. At the moment, this is becoming a cesspool of bad faith (which, admittedly, wasn't really helped by some of my comments). Can we all try to steer towards being like Richard Dawkins, not Madalyn Murray O'Hair? Sceptre 00:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is (and this isn't directed only at Sceptre, but also to Levine2112 and anyone else with similar sentiments) Elonka has been playing "uninvolved admin" for four months. There comes a point where you aren't "uninvolved" any more and you are heavily involved. She isn't a neutral party trying to resolve a dispute, but, rather, a heavily involved party and a party to the dispute. --B (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Removed by ThuranX, re-instated by Jayvdb. I have to say, I don't see what the list is achieving (well, I do - a large amount of pointless drama) by existing here. I don't know of any precedent for this, and without taking sides whatsoever, the fact that Elonka is adding people to the list who she has previously been in dispute with is unhelpful even if the list makes it clear that no aspersions are cast on those in the third section. Black Kite 00:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre, out of this thread, please. You commenting in a thread started by OM is going to do nothing but stir the pot. No comment on other matters. Moreschi (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• To review a previous such "list of editors" in a different topic area (Israel/Palestine), and see what it looks like after the dispute is finally resolved, see Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah/Archive 9#Conditions for editing. Before my arrival on that particular page, the article had been in a state of more or less constant edit-warring and disruption for a long time. However, once the list was provided to give more structure to the dispute management, administrators were more effective at reducing the chaos, and the article has been stable for months now. This technique is not called for on every article in dispute, but for very complex situations, it really can be quite effective. For an example that's more directly related to this particular ANI thread, anyone reading here can simply scan the list of editors on the pseudosciences article, to get a quick-reference on which voices here at ANI are participating as "involved" or "uninvolved" voices in the dispute. It's a definite time-saver. --Elonka 00:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

  Re "involved"/"uninvolved": Thanks for the explanation, Elonka! That makes sense! Now I see why the last part of the list can be useful. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• I can't see how this list is a good idea. It should have seemed obvious from the beginning that it would probably spark an edit war. I also have a difficult time seeing Elonka as a neutral problem-solver in this particular dispute. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the list non-neutral in the sense that Elonka is only adding certain names to it? No, she is clearly adding the name of anyone who is active on the article. Has any evidence been presented which shows or suggests that the list is an "attack" list or a "hit" list? No, none, although this has been asserted/assumed many times. Is the level of outrage about the list of names demonstrated both here and on the list talk page justified? No, not even close.

A most illuminating spectacle. Landed little marsdon (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Elonka has spent the last four months as an "involved" person and was using this list to attempt to establish by fiat that she is uninvolved. In other words, she alone is a "neutral" admin and will use the admin tools as she pleases. Heck, she even keeps a list of her involvement at User:Elonka/ArbCom log. Even if her initial involvement was as an "uninvolved admin", that ship has sailed long ago. --B (talk) 02:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to react in the strongest possible way to the actions of Elonka in this diff . She added my name to her "list", after I posted twice on the talk page, criticizing her policing of pseudoscience/fringe science articles. This is a terrible abuse of her administrative position. It shows that she does not listen to criticism and bears grudges. Might she possibly be ill at present? That is the only explanation I can find for her actions, which seem to be uncalled for and highly irrational. I wonder whether she might stop this disruptive behaviour? Mathsci (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not you agree or disagree with the appropriateness of Elonka's actions, this kind of personal speculation about her health or mental state is completely inappropriate. I suggest you redact your comment to reflect that. Jayjg 02:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have scored through my speculation. If I post two short messages to a talk page (now in a removed section), I do not expect my name to appear on a list of frequent editors of that page. Adding my name was a completely misjudged action on the part of Elonka. Mathsci (talk) 02:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that, let's try to keep the discussion here cool and impersonal. Regarding your statement that the addition of your name was "irrational", a more appropriate term to describe your view would probably have been "erroneous". "Erroneous" is a comment about the action, "irrational" is a comment about the mental state of the person taking the action. Jayjg 03:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It did not refer to Elonka's mental state, just the nature of her action; "completely misjudged" seems an appropriate alternative. Has anybody thought of having a quiet word with Elonka - even by email or a text message - to sort these things out? There is a newly created article Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory, formerly a redirect to a BLP that I successfully nominated for deletion, that should be restored to the main article. Mathsci (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

See my talk page at ]. I'm not certain that "a quiet word" is possible. •Jim62sch• 18:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

In the spirit of Sceptre's request, I have considered how I would act if this were a Good Faith effort by Elonka. I would act exactly the same, because the outcome of her actions is still the same, and I would say 'we recognize that you tried, but it is failing, and needs to be removed, and I would remove it, as I did. (Only to have it immediately restored, then re-removed by another, then re-restored by yet another editor, then re-re-removed by a third (fifth?) editor.) And I'd still support the removal of the list. ThuranX (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have called it an attack list. Such an assertion in itself implies bad faith. I think it could've easily been solved with a {{discussion top}} tag and a note on Elonka's talk that said "the list really isn't helping", in a more civil way than what was done. Then again, there is a trend in the psuedoscience area to have really awkward wording when pen is put to paper (for example, if the ID article went to FAC now, instead of two years ago, I'd reckon most if not all of the objections to promoting it would be the quality of prose). It's a trait often seen in controversial areas, but the most obvious problem (to an outsider) would be the language, not any sort of bias. Excuse me for rambling on here, but I think a major part of the problem in this instance is the way of communication is all wrong. Sceptre 03:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware you wouldn't call it bad faith. I'm not you. Consider MathSci's case. He posts twice ABOUT the list, and thus makes the list. that's Gotcha Behavior, and screams vendetta. it's unprofessional, unethical, and questionable judgment. ThuranX (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. The only good faith reason I can think of is Elonka thinking "oh, I forgot about Mathsci when I put the list together". I would expect him to be on a (impeccable) list of psuedoscience-area editors. Sceptre 03:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No this is not an explanation, because the list was compiled long before I made any contributions. I was aware of the main page because I knew it linked to Einstein-Cartan-Evans theory, a deleted redirect to a deleted BLP. I don't know what you mean by your last comment - perhaps you should remove it. Mathsci (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that Elonka (per her revised recall conditions, written post her first set of conditions by which she was actually recalled under) uses these "lists" to then paint the picture that people on these lists are being monitored by her and hence are ineligible to even participate in her recalling. It also needs to be noted that the Community has given admins considerable "powers" (aka the "tools") to do the job that Elonka discusses below. Why on earth does she need more powers - especially those not granted by the Community - is largely beyond me and many other editors. Of course Elonka fails to answer the actual issues but continues to point the finger at all those other people out there. Shot info (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts about the above thread thus far: A few things are visible. First, many of the objections here are coming from editors who are already using the "List of pseudosciences" article as a battleground. A few are tossing around inflammatory terms such as "attack list", or claiming that administrative experience in this topic area equates to "involvement". But let's be clear here: The reason we're even looking at the article to begin with, is because the editors on that article have not managed to solve their own disputes. They (collectively) have been incapable of seeking consensus; they have engaged in incivility and personal attacks, rather than collegial dialog; some have been edit warring and editing tendentiously; some have been gaming the system; and things have gotten so bad at the article that it is currently in a state of indefinite full protection, such that no one can edit it.

We are here to write an encyclopedia. In order to do this, ArbCom has ruled that discretionary sanctions are available to the admin community, provided that a warning is given first. This topic area currently needs those sanctions, and the "list of editors" that is being used on the article's page, is an effective starting point to help the article re-achieve stability.

Administrators who are acting in ArbCom enforcement matters, are understood to be working in highly unsettled areas. (see the SV case). Discretionary sanctions are a major step, yes, but no better means has been suggested to deal with this dispute. If enough other uninvolved administrators were actively managing the page and helping the editors reach a collegial resolution, I (Elonka) would have no objection to standing aside. But as it is, few have volunteered more than momentary assistance. I tried ignoring the dispute at this page for a long time too, but things just kept getting steadily worse. So, I'm willing to roll up my sleeves and try to help this article. I am completely neutral in this dispute, and uninvolved as an editor in this topic area. The goals here are a stable editing environment, and stable and high quality articles. Given this article's history, arbitration sanctions appear to be the most effective tool towards stability. --Elonka 03:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that this post focuses on the big picture: the goal of administrative intervention is to improve and stabilize the editing environment. The "list" is demonstrably worsening the editing environment, and so it seems a no-brainer to remove it. All the more so since its upside is theoretical at best - any admin newly entering this dispute will of course need to reach their own conclusions about who is "involved", and to what extent, rather than simply relying on a list compiled by Elonka. I don't understand the insistence on keeping the list in the face of evidence that it's actively worsening the editing environment on the article. MastCell  04:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm in total agreement with MastCell. BTW I do not regard this as a very important article on wikipedia - it's just a kind of curiosity. Mathsci (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason she is insisting on it is obvious - she is not an uninvolved admin, but, rather, a heavily involved user. But the list would codify her status as "uninvolved". On my talk page and on Killer Chihuahua's talk page, she has attempted to use this arbcom finding to say that she should be considered unrevertable. It's a ludicrous proposition, but adopting that list would legitimize it. --B (talk) 04:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

On January 16th Elonka started a second private list on User:Elonka/ArbCom log. It seems to imply special powers as an ArbCom enforcer even when asking questions on talk pages. The last entry in the second list is concerned solely with somebody removing their name from her first list. Elonka seems to have stopped adding entries to the second list after her first list was shut down. Mathsci (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok here is my feelings about this, I do not like having lists like this. As I said on the talk page, the list in design makes it look like the editors are disruptive. I mean putting in the list that certain editors have been warned already sounds to someone just looking in that these editors have had discipline of some sort or under arb restrictions. Then the comments that editors are SPA accounts and/or listing their account sign up date. To me this is at least close to don't bite the newbies. Lists like this have caused heated debates all over the place. Comments to User:Elonka have been extensive and by many. , , Some of the comments lead to questions of whether accusations of WP:Cabal was being charged. During the start up to the RFC for the Guido case, Jimbo himself said that lists like this that marks editors in such a way should not be left up for long, just long enough to get the case together. The set up for the talk page was considered an attack page by some but Jimbo said it wasn't but that it had to be moved to an RFC ASAP. My point is, this list looks like an attack list considering the comments made to some of the users and the comments made directly to Elonka. The difs are conviently located on User:Elonka/ArbCom log. I'm sorry but I feel list like this discourage editors to participate that maybe more neutral than the regular editors at the article. I would also love to know this, when is an administrator considered involved when that administrator has been active in many articles involving a lot of the same editors that she has cautioned, warned, banned etc.? I think Elonka has been involved via her comments to editors and sanctions she has given to be considered no longer uninvolved. Some of these editors that is listed as warned she commented on also at arb page, RFC and of course her recall. I see the list is now deleted with a comment to check the history with a link to it. For consideration of my comments I disclose the following, I did vote at the recall, I have commented on this talk page about this list and voted a couple times on suggestions for a new name for the article. I have not been censored in anyway by Elonka, or anyone else. I just feel very strongly about these kinds of lists anywhere other then lists made by the arbs on their pages, and I still have a little problem with lists being there as I think they mark an editor with a big scarlet red A as a trouble maker, which may not be the case or the reason for these types of lists. Thank you for listening to me, --CrohnieGal 12:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't mind having my name listed on such a list. Jayjg's observation that the measures applied led to calming of disputes at an article is consistent with my experience at several articles. Signed, an editor such that one could list at least two such lists on which this editor appears, including the list pertaining to the List page about which the present list of comments is listed. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 13:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour by Elonka

Elonka has given me a fake last warning. This is disruptive. Her behaviour needs to change. QuackGuru (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, no matter what you think of Elonka, YOU are the one who used VERY WP:POINTY edits to bait and provoke her. They were totally unnecessary and showed an absolute lack of Wikipedian spirit. You should be banned for your actions of late. These last two (as well as deleting or striking out other editor's comments!) are ban worthy. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Starting this section was unhelpful. Mathsci (talk) 04:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Diffs: unnecessary provocation, also unnecessary. Her warnings were not only perfectly proper, I simply don't understand why she didn't block you. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

A similar list of editors was deleted from a talk page. It is appropriate to remove lists of editors from other talk pages too. See Talk:Quackwatch/Archive 16#Other frequent editors on this page and here. QuackGuru (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• I would not call it disruptive per se, but it is clear to me that Elonka is not accepted as an honest broker by a lot of the involved parties, so should not be taking administrative actions here and should not be trying to police the articles in the way she is. Incidentally, Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Elonka/ArbCom log. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Not being accepted as an "honest broker" by a lot of the involved parties probably has less to do with any negative trait's on Elonka's behalf, and more to do with the well-documented faction-based POV wars in this particular corner of Misplaced Pages. But, yes, I want to reiterate what Mathsci said: This section was ridiculous. ⇒SWATJester 12:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I tend to agree with Swatjester on this. Also, this is a sad issue and the rhetoric is getting far too lofty. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Article Probation

Looking at the various editors arguing here on AN/I and the conflict on List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, I would like to suggest something better. While the list Elonka created did not work as intended, might an Article Probation along the lines as this: Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. The probation did help in reducing some of the conflicts, it gave admin's the tool to stop most problems before they got too aggressive, and it served the community at large as a way to keep track of those who were there mainly to disrupt. Brothejr (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It might, if Elonka were to recuse herself from acting as an "uninvolved admin". KillerChihuahua 11:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't the Arbcom ruling on discretionary sanctions for articles related to pseudoscience serve essentially the same purpose? In any case, I have added a notice of this ruling at the top of the article's talk page.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 12:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

When is an administrator considered involved in a disputed area? If the administrator hasn't edited the actual article that is controversial but has been involved in many notices to many editors about multiple articles in multiple areas? In other words, would an administrator be considered involved if they have been sanctioning and responding to editors for a long period of time, three or four months. This seems to be a question others are also asking. --CrohnieGal 15:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This question needs to be answered! WP:UNINVOLVED says nothing of the sort and using just that as a reference, Elonka IS uninvolved at "List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts". Unless there is some other standard which people are looking at, right now it is incorrect per Misplaced Pages policy to say that Elonka is involved at this article. -- Levine2112 17:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNINVOLVED states: "An administrator is considered 'uninvolved' if it is clear that they are able to exercise their tools from a position of neutrality." MastCell  21:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Definition of "uninvolved administrators" from Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience: "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. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions." I think "on the topic" means actual article content disputes, which Elonka doesn't seem to be engaged in on these articles. On some of those lists, ☺Coppertwig(talk) 03:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The Arbcom ruling says, "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. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions." She has been in a current, direct, and personal conflict with me for a few months. During that time she sent a threatening and defamatory email to me, which I published on my user talk page. Certain individuals who are protecting her deleted it. I've forwarded that email to Arbcom, which is proof that she is an involved participant in these matters. I think she should be immediately desysopped.OrangeMarlin 07:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think calls for desysopping are really helpful here, following from the principle that any kind of call for someone's head based on participation in a hotbed subject is generally unhelpful in solving the problem. Also, OM, deletion of published emails on your talk page is less related to anyone trying to "protect" Elonka, but more that a) we don't publish private correspondence on Misplaced Pages for several reasons (copyright being not the least of them) and b) It falls pretty squarely under the purview of what Misplaced Pages is not.) This is not to say Elonka is blameless or anything -- I really don't know because the whole series of events is so mindnumbingly complex it makes my brain hurt. That being said, I think we could do to lower the anger level from everyone here. ⇒SWATJester 19:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Not the first time Elonka has done this sort of thing

Apologies if someone else mentioned this and I missed it, but a similar list a few months back here . Elonka included me listed as a frequent editor even though I hadn't edited the article in months but had made some comments critical of her on the article talk page. When I tried to get my name removed from the list, she threatened to ban/block me. I also note that she made a few minor edits to the article that were comparable in scope to mine (formatting and tags) yet she had a clear double standard by insisting that I should be on a Warned/Involved Editors List but that she shouldn't.

I hate to say it, but it sure looks like Elonka has a tendency to use her admin powers to try and crack down on people who disagree with her instead of trying to actually get difficult situations settled down. Since Elonka seems to have changed her mind on admin recall, maybe it's necessary for Elonka to back off from topics and users that she can't seem to handle in an impartial way and find other topics on which she truly can be neutral. --Minderbinder (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Some comments

Since my name's being invoked here and there, a word of explanation. While I've been rather busy lately and haven't been involved much, my watchlist which is far too large attracted my attention to this edits by Elonka. While it makes a reasonable point about participating more on the talk page, it comments on using twinkle to revert and then adding a request to the talk page for protection, and says "what you did could be considered disruptive." Since the request for protection explicitly pointed that out,, the suggestion that it was disruptive appeared a stretch. On the article talk page replies to Elonka's suggestion of sanctions proposed that retitling be sorted first and that an "uninvolved administrator took interest, rather than one who has personal disputes with several involved editors and refers to them as a 'tag team'", so I made suggestions for possible retitling to discuss while the page was protected. When Orangemarlin added a comment, Elonka responded that she was not involved and had no personal conflict with any of the editors. When Orangemarlin responded to what looks rather like baiting from Levine2112, Elonka posted a message to Levine2112: "Hi, I appreciate the support at the talkpage, but don't worry, I can handle Orangemarlin on my own. :) What would be more helpful, would be if you would keep comments focused strictly on the article, and what type of discretionary sanctions (if any) might be helpful towards stabilizing things. Any creative suggestions?", and two minutes later cautioned Orangemarlin that his comment "was uncivil and unhelpful". In the past I've noticed a tendency for Elonka to emphasise civility over article content policies, doubtless with the highest motives but inadvertently favouring Misplaced Pages:Civil POV pushing.

I commented later "At present there seems to be room to find a constructive way forward, and I've not noticed any warnings being handed out. If warnings are posted to any editors, it would be helpful if the admin doing so pointed that out on this page. Both Elonka and, given my comments below, myself are rather too involved in the area to be making any blocks, if conditions do deteriorate to the point of warnings being issued and ignored, a report to ANI for an outside admin to take action would be appropriate." One hour after that, Elonka added the list which has been the subject of so much discussion, and replied to my comment "Ah, your name is currently on the list of uninvolved admins below, but if you would like to remove it, that's fine. For myself, I still have uninvolved status....". My reply was that "as stated above I've no intention of using the tools, and given past disputes it's my opinion that you'd be well advised to ask an admin without your degree of personal involvement to carry out any actions if it reaches that stage. This procedure that you've initiated seems like overkill at this point and if anything is distracting attention from finding agreement on a way forward...". That remains my view. While a mention on the talk page of any formal warnings would help to identify the alleged misconduct and facilitate any necessary discussion of the warning, I share the view that the whole list is more nuisance than help. . dave souza, talk 14:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Does she get credit that she doesn't mention blocking, giving any real warning, and seems to be prodding him towards changing his behavior instead of being an over aggressive rabid admin like many, many have done before? I can provide you names if you need. :) I would be extremely grateful if -Elonka's- response was the response I received from many admin in the past. I'm sure that Orangemarlin would not wish to trade his position for one of mine. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

As I indicated at the outset, my attention was drawn by Elonka making an apparently reasonable request to discuss matters on the talk page. It's certainly polite, but focusses on "trying to act as an administrator on that page to reduce disruption, and what you did could be considered disruptive", with the clear implication of further sanctions which she has since applied. The actions by Orangemarlin were explicit and in my view reasonable: he requested article protection with the statement "Temporary full protection' dispute, User:Levine2112 and User:QuackGuru are battling over verbiage. I think that QG's version is the best, and I've reverted, but I don't think this is going to end. Maybe a page protection for a cool out period to discuss would be best." In the context of article content covered by WP:NPOV/FAQ he reverted to what he saw as the mainstream position, drew attention to the edit war and requested admin intervention to allow discussion of the issues. Elonka did not caution the edit warriors, but failed to WP:AGF and accused Orangemarlin of WP:DE in the nicest possible way. Her proposal to introduce sanctions diverted attention from the much needed talk page discussion, as the responses indicated. When I proposed an alternative article title to get discussion going, Elonka was increasingly involved in arguments over her proposal, blatantly taking sides against Orangemarlin and with Levine2112. In my view both had made remarks breaching WP:EQ but short of incivility, and both could reasonably have been given a caution to that effect, but Elonka escalated her argument against one while siding with the other. Note that this was entirely a dispute over etiquette and proposals for sanctions, not over article content. There's nothing wrong with giving people reminders of ideal behaviour, and I did that myself, but while it pays to be polite, it's also important that admins taking on the mantle of Arbitration Enforcement should be seen to be fair and reasonable. . dave souza, talk 11:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC) diffs rectified dave souza, talk 22:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, the implications via presence. I have had much experience with people trying to do that. As of now, I feel that if someone wants to block me, just do it. Don't say "this is almost blank, or that is almost blank". If I cross the line, warn me. So, in such a light, Elonka's concerns would be problematic. However, that is mostly for annoyance. I would suggest that the spirit of "don't template the regulars" would extend to don't bother the regulars about such things when you are a potentially blocking admin because it could be seen as rudeness before the fact.

But to get back to the point - perhaps ArbCom enforcement should be done in pairs or triples. We do have many people working it. I even think KC is working on it a bit, along with SB Johnny, in addition to the old cast and crew, including those like Tznkai. I would like to see KC and Elonka try to work together on the issue.

But to be blunt, does this date back to Elonka's involvement with Science Apologist? It -feels- like it might. I honestly have no sympathy for the guy, and I feel that -those- feelings are why I don't see Elonka in any kind of dark light. There could be some other thing that I am missing. I don't think it is just long experience in the matter. It feels like the bad blood was caused by a particular censure. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Dave souza, parts of your statement are very much in error, and I'm not sure how you drew your conclusions. For example, when you said "Elonka escalated her argument against one while siding with the other", could you please provide some diffs? Because I'm unaware of what you're talking about. Or when you say, "Elonka did not caution the edit warriors," have you taken the time to actually look at the history of their talkpages? I very much did issue cautions, to both "sides" in the dispute. For example, here I told Levine2112 to stop repeatedly deleting the chiropractic entry, and here I cautioned QuackGuru. For another list of the warnings I have issued (the list is still in process, but shows that I've been handing out warnings to both sides of the dispute for awhile now), see User:Elonka/ArbCom log#Pseudoscience log. I would appreciate if you would refactor your statement to be more accurate, thanks. --Elonka 19:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Elonka, I do appreciate that you've been giving out warnings every now and then to what you call "sides" in the dispute. Since some of the diffs given in the first paragraph seem to have been a bit muddled, I've struck out and corrected them where appropriate. This comment tells Orangemarlin that you were "trying to act as an administrator on that page to reduce disruption, and what you did could be considered disruptive", but for some reason there seem to be no diffs in the talk page histories of User:Levine2112 and User:QuackGuru of you issuing cautions to them regarding that particular incident. You maybe felt that having left them messages a week earlier, that was sufficient, but frankly it didn't seem to be working very well. If I've missed something, I'll be grateful if you can correct me. Regarding "Elonka escalated her argument against one while siding with the other", that was the impression I gained from and . Since Orangemarlin was commenting on your behaviour, and Levine was attacking him, your partiality is doubtless understandable but a more even handed approach would seem to me appropriate when you're wielding the AE powers. As I wrote above, both could reasonably have been cautioned about making remarks breaching WP:EQ but short of incivility. My concern remains that by diverting attention away from reaching agreement on a way forward to discussing your sanctions, and apparently being unwilling to accept advice about considering a retitle to aim to resolve problems rather than discussing Potential ArbCom sanctions, your approach in this particular case caused more heat than light. Perhaps the approach is more productive where WP:NPOV/FAQ isn't involved. . dave souza, talk 22:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom clarification

Since I don't agree that Elonka has the right or the "uninvolved status" to be the policeman for these activities, I have started this request for clarification. OrangeMarlin 07:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• There is no such thing as an uninvolved administrator ... by this reasoning, there would be no such thing as an uninvolved administrator, because by taking any administrative action, one becomes involved. This is pure sophistry. A judge doesn't become an involved party in a lawsuit by making rulings in the case, and admins don't become involved in an editing dispute by acting as admins. Dlabtot (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

They do however, when they continually disparage one side of the conflict as a "tag team" which is a slur created to marginalise what is otherwise known as editorial consensus.

Elonka has overt hostility to one side of this debate, and I honestly can't fathom those who to refuse to acknowledge that and just wikilawyer with the "well she didn't technically edit this page, so she doesn't have a dispute with the editors here" talking point. It's flat-out insulting to my intelligence. Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no preference on the article content: My goal is to stabilize the article so that it can be brought out of its current state of indefinite protection. To say that I've been favoring one side of the debate over the other is not correct, and I'm happy to provide diffs to prove that I've been handing out warnings evenly. Ultimately though I see this as a variation of "the wrong version". No matter how hard that an administrator tries to be neutral, someone's going to complain. --Elonka 19:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, Elonka, you seemed to take it amiss that the article was protected in the "wrong version", as is of course standard practice. Given the immunity from normal standards of uninvolvement that you seem to take from your interpretation of AE Sanctions, that additional power carries with it an additional need for you to display fairness and impartiality. Unfortunately not all of your actions give that impression, as discussed above. . dave souza, talk 22:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sanity check

Am I getting too big for my britches, unilaterally banning people from talk pages for a day, at User talk:Andrew Parodi#Please knock it off and User talk:Pigsonthewing#Please knock it off? Seemed like a rational thing to do, but also felt I was pushing the envelope a little, so bringing it here for review and modification if necessary. --barneca (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

← (e/c)

Barneca writes on my talk page:

posted to User talk:Pigsonthewing and User talk:Andrew Parodi

I don’t suppose there’s any way to get you two to stop disrupting Talk:Eva Perón with whining, baiting, snide comments, overreactions, and the like? Having watched this mutual sniping for several days now, all I can think of is this, so consider this "official", whatever that means:

Andy Mabbett and Andrew Parodi are both banned from editing Talk:Eva Perón, Eva Perón, and each other’s talk pages, for a period of 24 hours. That should be enough to regain perspective. If this ban is violated, I’ll block for 24 hours. If disruption resumes after 24 hours, I’ll also block with no further warnings. When the ban expires, both of you need to make a very careful effort to avoid attributing motives to the other user, or calling anyone names, or indeed any immature behavior. Believe it or not, the best course forward will be to assume that you’re both trying to improve the article, and that some kind of compromise is going to be necessary.

Further, when the ban expires, Andy Mabbett will stop indenting Andrew's comments (it's hurting more than it's helping, and appears designed to cause offense), and will respect Andrew's request to keep all further comments on the article talk page, rather than Andrew's user talk. If Andy truly believes "warnings" to Andrew are necessary, he will do so thru an admin or WP:ANI.

Both of you are being disruptive, both are unacceptably abusing the other, both are acting like .

If you disagree with this ban, I suggest you take it up at WP:ANI before making another edit to the above pages; it will be easier to lobby for overruling me at WP:ANI, than from inside an unblock template.

I can't "stop disrupting Talk:Eva Perón with whining, baiting, snide comments, overreactions, and the like" because I've not started so doing. You will find only one editor attributing motives to the other user, or calling anyone names; also repeatedly making false accusations of nationalist bias, exhibiting clear-cut ownership, making personal attacks and falsely claiming to have been the target of personal attacks; and already reprimanded at ANI for improper behaviour in this matter; "reverting without discussion", or "edit warring with a variable IP address to avoid scrutiny" (Barneca's description). That editor is not me. (I can supply diffs as evidence for each the aforesaid, but it will be tiresome to have to do so). Andrew Parodi's improper indentation makes others replies to earlier comments appear to be replies to him. The last time I corrected this, I did so at the explicit invitation of Andrew Parodi. How else does Barneca propose that be remedied? I note that despite having "watched this … for several days now" Barneca has not posted there, nor to either talk page, before the above.

Talk:Evita is also pertinent. Somebody should put a link to this discussion on Talk:Eva Perón, since I'll apparenlty be blocked if I do so, or refute the latest false allegations made against me there (example: "the fact that your nationality influences your view of Eva Peron's greatest significance as derived from the fact that two English men wrote a musical about her"). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it was a WP:BOLD and fundamentally correct action by Barneca, there was no progress being made by the adversarial editing of the article talkpage and quite possibly the tone that had developed was impinging on the likelihood of other parties attempting to resolve the matter by reasoned discussion - the few that joined in had appeared to simply aligned themselves with one or the other faction. To respond to Andy Mabbett, this is no longer a matter of who is right and who is wrong but a case of allowing the article to be improved by editors without such an investment of emotional baggage. I think the two parties should honourably withdraw and allow others to discuss what is best. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) "this is no longer a matter of who is right and who is wrong" In the oft-surreal world of Misplaced Pages administration, you may be right. After all, I've been scrupulous in using edit sumamries and talk pages, involving WP:THIRD and even, when appropriate WP:ANI, in the face of increasingly hysterical accusations such as those listed above; so why shouldn't I be tarred with the same brush as the person making them? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• This is not the first time that Andy Mabbet has been brought here for modifying the style of other people's comments. The simple solution is to stop doing it, which would then make threads like this unnecessary. We are, however, completely wasting our time if we try to get Andy to admit fault. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support (EC) Barneca's actions, and Guy's assessment of the reactions (as evidenced above). ThuranX (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c with 3 or 4 people) Andrew Parodi's latest rant is, indeed, worse than Andy Mabbett's behavior, and I'll go take a closer look at it now. possibly deleting any attacks. Over the top behavior is not excused by less eggregious behavior from one's "opponent", but neither should it be viewed in a vacuum.

The reason I included Pigsonthewing in the ban is twofold:

1. My take is that Andy, while often right about something, often makes a concerted effort to condescend and belittle those who disagree. This is not good in a collaborative editing environment. I really want other editors to look thru the talk page, and see if you agree. If I’m imagining things, I’d be happy to retract this, but it’s definitely my feeling.
2. I recall (will have to sort thru history if this is disputed) Andy’s fascination with adding a user page link to User:Docu’s signatures, claiming it was for other editors’ benefit. Same thing here with the indents; while there might possibly be a benefit to readability, it is outweighed by its annoyance to the person being “corrected”. I have a feeling this is intentional, although I could probably be chided for a lack of good faith in this regard.

Thanks in advance for any outside views. --barneca (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

All I can say is thank you very much for intervening. I will not edit the article or the talk page for the next 24 hours. Thank you. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You appear to have overlooked my comment above: "The last time I corrected , I did so at the explicit invitation of Andrew Parodi" and "How else does Barneca propose that be remedied?" . Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: that was not a serious invitation. I was dramatizing the fact that I found your indentations of my comments to be offensive and patronizing. At any rate, this isssue is immaterial because you had already indented my comments without any invitation to do so. You need to learn to keep your hands off of the comments of other people. Thank you. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

it's almost always best in situations like this when dealing with a particular article or group of articles to give a short block or topic ban both parties--its exactly like protection to stop a revert war, or 3RR. It shouldn't be seen as judgment on the merits. DGG (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Barneca still sane: check. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Odd coincidence, though, that Andrew Parodi apparently invited Andy Mabbett to edit his comments, but still had a problem when it was done, and Docu apparently thanked Andy Mabbett for editing his comments, but it turns out that he didn't appreciate it after all. Looks to me like Andy Mabbett is not terribly good at interpreting how others want him to edit their comments, so should probably stop doing it. Guy (Help!) 20:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: he had already edited my comments without my permission. THEN he "schooled" me on it, talking down to me as though I'm a child: "again correctly indented your comments." In "gratitude" I "thanked" him for doing what I never asked him to do in the first place and then asked him to do it again. His indentation of my comments were not meant to be helpful but to be insulting, to suggest that I am an inexperienced editor who doesn't know what he is doing -- and he is an experienced editor who is better than me and is going to tell me how to do it all correctly. My sarcastic comment was not an endorsement of his insulting treatment of me, but a statement that he is not better than me and I do not take seriously his suggestions that he is. Thank you. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no "apparently" required; both examples were unequivocal and diffs exist to prove so. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears that Barneca has forgotten saying that he would "go take a closer look at now. possibly deleting any attacks.". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I did look, but decided that you two were both sniping, and that selective deletion would be time-consuming, unproductive, and silly. Here's hoping that things will go better from here on out. --barneca (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I see: you decided that his false accusations of nationalist bias and other ad hominem attacks were on a par with me doing dreadful things like, er, asking him not to make personal attacks and to abide by other Misplaced Pages, policies? As to "hoping that things will go better from here on out", I've just refuted another of his blatantly distorted misrepresentations of my actions, made since your intervention, on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, putting information in the wrong section (your original edit made it appear that Evita the musical is an Argentine production ), referring to another's arguments as "straw man" arguments , being condescending and patronizing from the start (despite my initial attempts at diplomacy ), and editing another's comments without permission, are acceptable. I'm not the only one to notice that you have a better-than-thou attitude with others and have a tendency to edit others' comments. And, again, I was joking when I asked you to indent my comments. But it should probably come as no surprise that you didn't see that as a joke, because it has become apparent that you have no sense of humor. Thanks. (Please note, this editor had already indenting my comments anyway.) --- Andrew Parodi (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

About the "nationalist bias," I simply pointed out earlier that it was a consensus reached between myself (a former exchange student to Argentina) and an Argentine that the musical should not be mentioned in the intro paragraphs . I then pointed out that the Spanish language version of the article does not mention the musical in the intro paragraphs . I suggested that it is in the English speaking world that the musical is seen as of great importance in Eva Peron's legacy, but in Argentina the real woman is far more important and famous -- and this generalizes to the rest of the Spanish speaking world. I then pointed out that the musical is written by two English men, the musical based on a book written by an English woman, and the editor who suggests that the musical be mentioned in the intro paragraphs is himself English. Is it really such an outrageous suggestion that an English person may see things from an English perspective? (And, yes, if you want to go deeper, you can easily see that the anti-Evita tone of the musical is ultimately founded in the anti-Peronism perspective of England, and the musical itself even dramatizes this. The artistocracy that rejects Evita sings in a British accent, and the musical contains lines like, "(She) gave us back our businesses/ Got the English out" ... "I don't think she'll make it to England now....") -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well at least they've both made my point for me. --barneca (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Doctor of Chiropractic

This article needs work, yes. However, there has been no AfD approved and yet editor QuackGuru (talk · contribs) keeps deleting/redirecting the article despite ongoing conversations on how to improve the article. I have already reverted twice, and in the interest of not fostering an edit war, I am here requesting that the article be restored by an admin so that discussions on article improvement can continue. Thanks. -- Levine2112 20:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Undid the redirect, and gave notice to QuackGuru of this discussion. Quite frankly, I see no reason for the redirect. IF he doesn't like the article, either improve upon it (i.e. do not redirect), or nominate it for deletion if it is that bad. I'm not judging on the article itself, but you don't redirect, then state there is a consensus elsewhere when there is none. seicer | talk | contribs 20:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, Seicer. -- Levine2112 20:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Why was this reported to ANI when this is a content dispute? This seems like forum shopping by Levine2112 which is a violation of WP:GAME. QuackGuru (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not forum shopping unless he asked for relief elsewhere, was denied and sought it here afterwards. Forum shopping is "if mom says no, ask dad" in a nutshell. Protonk (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(update) Ioeth has blocked QuackGuru for 2 weeks. I recommend that this thread be closed as resolved. --Elonka 23:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

While I agree QuackGuru was disruptive, 2 weeks may be a bit much, unless there's a history I'm unaware of. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I was just about to say the same thing myself. As to this article, there are two sides to a content dispute, and the other reasons given for the block appear to be "making up the numbers", to be honest. Black Kite 22:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Why was QuackGuru blocked for 2 weeks? Is that not excessive? It's a content dispute, where both sides were pushing the limits of the law. I think Seicer, whom most science editors respect, giving a warning to QG should be allowed to "set in" for a bit of time. If QuackGuru still pushes the limits, then maybe a long block is justified. This is unfair. OrangeMarlin 23:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, Elonka's activities in this whole issue is now under discussion at ArbCom. Since her one-person enforcement of restrictions against QuackGuru is one of the reasons given for the block, I think the block should be overturned. OrangeMarlin 23:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have never blocked QuackGuru. I do support Ioeth's block though. --Elonka 23:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

QuackGuru was disruptive, and a block was reasonable. However, blocks are preventative, not punitive, amd 2, 3 days would have been ample. Two weeks seems a bit much, unless there's history I don't know, which probably should be mentioned. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Small correction: Most blocks are preventative. ArbCom enforcement blocks, however, are a different beast, as they are intended to be coercive, not preventative. They're also blocks that can't be overturned unless either by written authorization of the Arbitration Committee, or by massive community consensus. --Elonka 23:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Where the hell did I say you made the block? This diff will be useful in the future in your constant harassment of me and others. OrangeMarlin 02:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've been emailed to look at this. QuackGuru was being disruptive. They were previously blocked for one week and have a lengthy block log. However, I recommend that the block be shortened if QuackGuru promises to behave. Blocks are loathsome and should be removed as soon as they are no longer necessary to keep the peace. Jehochman 23:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Surely Elonka meant a better word than coercive. I hope. •Jim62sch• 23:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• QuackGuru has had a long history of disruption and questionable editing behavior on this article; he's been cautioned and warned several times by a variety of admins. Heck, Tim Vickers read him the riot act pretty specifically a few months ago (), though that did get him to shape up temporarily (). In that context, and in the context of his previous blocks, this seems like a reasonable enforcement of the ArbCom discretionary sanctions. MastCell  00:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe. But maybe someone should read WP:BAIT with regards to how he responds to things. I think there are two sides to this story, similar to the old SA/Martin battles. QG and Levine bait each other all day long, and it has to stop on both sides. OrangeMarlin 02:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• QG's edits involved User:Landed little marsdon. Elonka suspected that LLM was a sockpuppet, but has said that so far checkuser has proved inconclusive. Mathsci (talk)

• I agree with MastCell, this was WP:BOLD and good editing, but this was unwise but borderline, and this was unacceptable. QuackGuru is too experienced an editor not to be aware of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. Edit warring for your preferred version whilst instructing other people to discuss the change isn't co-operative editing. As to the length of the block, I think that reflects his previous warnings on this general topic, not this specific article. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with MastCell and Tim Vickers. The cumulative effects of an editing career involving much disruption, edit warring, and constant obtuseness gets to a point where the cup flows over and a longer block is warranted. Good call, Ioeth. QG is experienced enough to know that the BRD cycle becomes active and deliberate edit warring when the one making the Bold edit restores their version after the next editor has reverted them. That's an aggressive act of edit warring and deserves an immediate block. BRD should only go through one cycle, if at all, and on controversial articles it's often (with a few exceptions) a bad idea to use BRD at all.-- Fyslee (talk) 02:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• While it would not have been a pleasant decision, combined with the numerous prior blocks, the numerous warnings and notices regarding the RFAR/Pseudoscience case, and the general disruption by move-warring, I endorse the block. seicer | talk | contribs 14:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have posted a notice on WP:AE regarding the block and this thread, just to make sure all of the bases are covered. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 14:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

In an "interesting" and unwelcome development, User:Levine2112 has continued to unilaterally oppose the merge of this article, despite what I see as a clear consensus fr the idea at Talk:Doctor_of_Chiropractic#Background_to_chiropractic_section. I've left him a note requesting that he reconsider his action , but if this does not occur, I'd consider his actions rather disruptive. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I note that this user has previously been warned about ignoring consensus on chiropractic diff and threatened with a topic ban if he continued to do this. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't aware of this thread at the time, I've just left a note for Levine asking him to reconsider based on discussion at the talk and especially in light of QuackGuru's very recent block for the same behavior. Since Chiropractic and related articles seem to be the only area where Levine has difficulty, I would support a topic ban if the situation isn't rectified. Shell 17:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Given that he's already been banned once from Talk:Chiropractic, this seems the next logical step. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Levine2112's action was clearly in opposition to consensus. I too would support a topic ban. How about, "Levine2112 is banned from editing any articles that are related to Chiropractic (broadly defined), for six months. He is still allowed to participate at talkpages, as long as he does so in a civil manner. He is strongly encouraged to be sensitive to a forming consensus, and to try and adapt to it, rather than fighting against it." --Elonka 18:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Given that much of the problems he has caused have been on talkpages (the reason he was banned from Talk:Chiropractic), I wouldn't make that exception. Why not give him the opportunity to develop a wider set of interests in areas where his strong opinions don't hinder his editing so much? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It's usually best with arbitration enforcement discretionary sanctions to start with lesser sanctions (ban on editing) and then only increase to more severe sanctions (ban on editing and talkpages) if the earlier ones don't work. The hope is that Levine2112 will realize that he's on a short leash, and that the ban could be expanded unless he adapts his style. That said, I would not be opposed to an "all topic" ban if other uninvolved administrators feel that this is the best course of action at this time. Tim Vickers correctly points out that Levine2112 was indeed warned about a topic ban in early November, in relation to the Chiropractic article. --Elonka 19:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've been asked to comment here, so I'll try to. My first interaction with Levine2112 was actually one of my first interactions with collaborative editing on wikipedia, at Sports Chiropractic. On that article he seemed to be (relatively) receptive to compromise and relented in the presence of clear evidence for a contrary position. I would probably support a weak topic ban along the lines that Elonka is proposing, with the provision that if it appears that Levine2112 is deliberately obstructing discussion, the ban be expanded. Protonk (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

First, much apologies to anyone who felt that my action of reverting the merger was disruptive. I took the day off yesterday and logged on this morning to find that the article was merged. Discussions for said merger only lasted one day and I did not feel that enough time had passed to say that there was a consensus. I was actually in the midst of proposing a compromise - one which I feel all parties would be okay with. I really don't see how this revert is a banable or blockable offense when in my heart of hearts I felt and still feel that the bold merger happened way too quickly without enough input from the community. I was under the impression that the best way to handle this was by AfD - where many times in the past I have seen votes to "Merge" - and based on this belief, I felt that the AfD process was the best course for us to take next. I read here now that AfD is not a way to get opinions on whether or not an article should be merged. I honestly didn't know that (and I question why there isn't some "Article for Merger" process which opens the discussion to the whole community). Anyhow, if everyone here agrees that there isa consensus which has formed in the one day this topic has been discussed, then by all means, please merge (and I will gladly be the one to make the merger happen). However, I would like to continue the discussion about reversing the merger so that the "Chiropractic education" article gets merged into "Doctor of Chiropractic" rather than the other way around. Again, I apologize if my action seemed at all disruptive, but I hope you all can see that I wasn't edit warring to defend my position but rather I reverted because I didn't think the proposal to merge had been opened long enough for discussion. Thanks for the consideration. -- Levine2112 21:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, in light of your revert, I think a weak topic ban is probably all we need do at present. I'm unconvinced by your argument that you didn't realize a consensus had formed, since you were the only person in this entire saga who has disagreed with this merge. Saying at this point that there was not "enough community input" seems to me to be hoping that if you ask enough people that some of them might agree with you. This is exactly the kind of behaviour that Shell Kinney warned you about previously, and since it is still occurring it appears that this warning, and your previous shorter topic bans were ineffective. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Tim, I got the ball rolling with the merger and ported in a lot from the prior "Doctor of Chiropractic" article. I am hopeful that this a good start to successfully merge the two articles. That said, I am still in support of the merger having gone the other way. I guess we can always discuss an article renaming in the future. As for the immediate future, I am voluntarily taking a topic-break from chiropractic related articles for the next two weeks. I hope this demonstrates my commitment to the Misplaced Pages project and respect for the Misplaced Pages community. In the meantime, you will see me actively writing and improving other articles in other areas as usual. I have particuar interest in getting Rat fancy elevated to Good Article standing and will be putting more efforts into that goal, among others. Thanks again for the consideration and understanding. -- Levine2112 22:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Hhhhhahaha

Hhhhhahaha (talk · contribs) is loading loads of copyrighted images without appropriate copyright, they're getting lots of bot warnings, but a person hasn't warned them about copyright. Would it be appropriate for an admin to do it? AnyPerson (talk) 03:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that user is a piece of shit. I am woriking my ass all day reverting crap from WIkipedia. Im so tired of Vandals who just come around and trying to ruin everything up for the fun's sake Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 04:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't go turning his userpage into cusses then. --( fi ) 04:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The next time you make a personal attack, such as the one I deleted at User:Hhhhhahaha, you will be blocked. Kevin (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyperson, I stumbled onto these uploads via a search for new-account contributions. I have warned about uploading copyright images and deleted all the images today, as they were found to have been copied from various other sites. —C.Fred (talk) 04:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. AnyPerson (talk) 05:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Try doing something rewarding in the Real World. Then you may not feel so compelled to make possibly accurate but obscene and impermissable observations on the userpages of vandals. Edison (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

LGBT rights source alerts

{{LGBT rights source alerts}} has been placed on a large number of talk pages of articles relating to LGBT issues. I consider this inappropriate, since the template is not relevant to the articles concerned but is an attempt to mobilise people who might be interested in related topics. Is it appropriate for me to roll back the addition of the template?-gadfium 04:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

good grief. cross-posting this here (posted to user's talk page before received message he/she posted this here):

following message posted to User:gadfium's talk: "not sure which talk page you are objecting to its placement on, but other than Socialism and LGBT rights, it only is on LGBT rights in (country) article talk pages (mainly to discourage the use of sodomylaws, which had been heavily used - and provide a way for editors to warn about outdated sources (if source #1 is out of date for countries A, B, and C, then it might be outdated for countries G, Q, and Z. This way alerts can be easily and briefly placed on all LGBT in (country) talk pages A-Z. If you think it is disruptive on a certain talk, feel free to remove or cmt it out"

This source template was posted to Asia and Africa articles earlier this month without incident, in light of another editor proposing deletion of LGBT rights in Benin, finished rolling out the template to Europe, Americas (to facilitate updating/fixing of LGBT rights in (country) articles. The only article talks this has been placed on are: LGBT rights table (continent), LGBT rights in (Continent), LGBT rights in (country), and Socialism and LGBT rights.

"I consider this inappropriate, since the template is not relevant to the articles concerned but is an attempt to mobilise people who might be interested in related topics. "

attempt to mobilise people who might be interested in related topics?????? it is on the talk page (not the article page), and is a warning not to use a certain source which previously was used. presumably if someone goes to the talk page of an LGBT rights article, this template is relevent.

Thanks, Outsider80 (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Which of the pages on which you have placed the template contain references from the source that you are warning about, and in which of those cases is this source considered unreliable? Those are the pages for which this template might be relevant. That might be talk:LGBT rights in Nepal and Talk:LGBT rights in the Marshall Islands (which is a redlink, perhaps the article doesn't fit the naming scheme). If you want to broadcast a message to all editors interested in LGBT issues/sources, please use the relevant wikiproject.-gadfium 05:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• If a certain source is wrong for 2-3 countries, then it shouldn't be used on any countries without additional sourcing. This is about human rights law, not whether buffy the vampire slayer says x or y in episode ##.
• Any thread not replied to within 7 days on WT:LGBT is automatically archived by the bot. Additionally, not all editors of LGBT rights articles are members of WP:LGBT, and even most members of WP:LGBT do not monitor all of the project's pages. If consensus is against using this good-faith method to efficiently (and un-obtrusively, since it is on a talk page, not the article page) warn against certain sources, then the tribe has spoken. but accusations of evangelistic spamming are a) incorrect and b) not in keeping with WP:AGF. Outsider80 (talk) 05:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What the $%^$%^$ is this template suppose to do that actually requires it existing? Don't we already have enough warnings and templates to do almost ... anything! This one just wants us to not use one website or what is this about? aaaaahhhhhhh! attack of the templates!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.13.230 (talk) 10:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Add the source to WP:RSN and the project and delete the darn template. I cannot imagine what you are thinking, spamming talk pages with a template which discusses individual sources. KillerChihuahua 11:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• good f**king grief people, can't you disagree without being WP:DICKs. i really DGAF if the template is deleted, but doesn't anyone understand WP:AGF? (and how many of you are admins?) peace. Outsider80 (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Watch your langage, this template is obviously some sort of spam website link, i agree that the template should be deleted. Elbutler (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• • methinks dickish behavior is more offensive than "offensive" language, but i've censored my f-words above. (besides, as the Penis picture contributors would remind us, WP is not censored lol) I created the template in question (though I do not object to its deletion), and i can tell you it is not intended to spam some website. if you disagree with its application, fine, but all of you people (especially admins) should read WP:AGF before you run off more people from WP. AGF AGF AGF. Outsider80 (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• I have blanked the template and replaced the TFD with author-requested speedy in the no-include space. For now have just blanked it (since it is transcluded on multiple talk pages). This template was created in good-faith, and was rolled out to Africa and Asia (where most anti-homosexuality laws exist) without incident. After rolling it out to Europe and Americas though, (and specifcally to New Zealand) it became controversial. This was a good faith attempt to improve the efficiency and reliability of LGBT rights in (country) articles, not to spam. per WP:DGAF, i dgaf, and have rendered the issue moot by blanking the template & putting it up for speedy. Will remove the transclusions over next 24 hrs. This was a good-faith effort and alot of you (not naming any names, as it doesn't apply to everyone) should read WP:AGF before you start going around being WP:DICKs. Thanks. Outsider80 (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Rich Farmbrough

A few days ago Rich started using his bot, User:SmackBot, to add {{Ibid|date=January 2009}} to articles. As you make mass automated edits which are bad, in lieu of a bot reverting them, no human can be expected to use anything but rollback nor can see from his smackbot's talk page, thanks to me as he blanks it before discussions end , at least 6 users came to complain about it. I used rollback to revert this, much to my own displeasure (as I had intended to use my wiki time yesterday to write articles) and I thought it would end there. Today however Rich, as User:Rich Farmbrough, is rollbacking all the reverts of this tag made yesterday by me. By the looks of my talk page, he is using the fact that I got a few non {{Ibid|date=January 2009}}s as an excuse to do this (such as changing ref code to {{Reflist}}; the alternative was me previewing each revert, which would be ridiculous given the numbers), when he knows fine well he can have his bot do this. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It should also be noted that SmackBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) doesn't appear to have the mandate to unilaterally add this tag, only to date it if it were added by a human. Correct me if I'm wrong. Furthermore that Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) seemed to use some kind of mass-rollback script to complete this at an alarming epm rate for someone without a bot flag. –xeno (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note that Deacon rollbacked these edits without discussing with me. It is not an issue that he has reverted several hundred recent edits that are not those he is targeting (although they have a different edit summary) - recent stuff can by and large be redone - the problem with rollback is it undoes all the consecutive edits by that user to the article. So for example, edits the bot made in 2006, using code which will no longer run could be reverted. Adn there is no way to know which articles this applies to. Had deacon come to my talk page as clearly requested on the bot's talk page and discussed the matter there, we could have avoided a lot of work for both of us. I have rollbacked as much of Deacons rollbacks as I can, and am re-applying the removal of the template he finds so disquieting. I will be left with probably several hundred articles to go and check the history of manually. Deacon, you really needed to talk to me about this, rather than just apply rollback which is for anti-vandalism purposes only. Rich Farmbrough, 17:43 22 January 2009 (UTC).

Sorry but I find it highly unlikely that an edit the bot made in 2006 has not been followed up by another editor in the meantime. –xeno (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Xeno, he was using automated tools to add a controversial tags to thousands of articles, and now, after spending most of his day rolling back the edits of another user, he's trying to complain that another user used rollback to attempt to undo his efforts. Please, Rich, just remove this tag from all these article and use your bot more wisely in future. I don't want to have to spend another evening trying to fix your bot's mess. Incidentally, I did put a notice on the bot's talk, and all I got was you blanking my comment along with 5 others who agreed with me. Thanks, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I was just pointing out that his objection to the use of rollback ("...you may have rolled back more than the ibid edit, like an edit from 2006") didn't really hold much water. I agree that the bot ought stick to tasks it has been approved for and are inline with current consensus. –xeno (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What tags does that concern? I've seen the bot add recently the "ibid., op.cit. and so an are bad" tags with which I agree... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, the bot has not been approved for adding tags, merely dating them. –xeno (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Xeno is correct. It's not a question of whether it's correct or not to add those tags but whether the bot is allowed to run a task that it was not approved for. I, too, think it is not and Deacon is correct to complain about it. Rich should have gotten approval first... SoWhy 18:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I was one of the people who contacted Rich about the tags. He responded extremely promptly and constructively and I considered the matter resolved. His changes for future runs are listed in this version of the talk page. . It's hardly his fault that WP:FN says not to use ibid. in footnotes... — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Lucky you. I and other just got blanked (contrary to Misplaced Pages:BOT#Good_communication). Whatever WP:FN says this day of the week, and read its talk page too, this has nothing to do with the issues here. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

YOU did not get blanked, don't be disengenous. I left a mesasge on your talk page. The bot's talk page is for stopping the bot. It is very clearly stated there that that is how it works. There was also a clear message specifically relating to this issue asking for messages to go to my talk page. The bot's talk page is archived as soon as I find messages on it - again clearly stated on the talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 19:37 22 January 2009 (UTC).

The bottom line is that he should file another BRFA if he feels there is consensus for this task. –xeno (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess I could hunt this information down myself, but I'm sure others in this thread already know the answers, I'll just ask.

1. Rich: was this task approved by BAG?

   I did this as part of general tag/fixup work. Rich Farmbrough, 19:37 22 January 2009 (UTC).

   So this template is getting automatically put in due to "general fix options" in AWB? If so that should probably be disabled while the template's usage is in contention. If its something you programmed in yourself, it is stretching the boundaries of what the bot was approved for. –xeno (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

2. Deacon: how long did you wait for a reply to your question before you started rolling back?
3. Deacon: is there a deadline I don't know about? Rather than waste hours of your time rolling back edits, why not discuss with Rich, and see if he could undo things with his Bot instead? In particular, did your rollbakcs come before or after the talk page blanking that distressed you so much?
4. Rich: Do I understand correctly that you have either completed, or are in the process of, going back to the status quo before the Ibid run? That this consists of rolling back Deacon, then undoing the addition of the tag?

   Yes perfectly correct. Rich Farmbrough, 19:37 22 January 2009 (UTC).

5. Deacon: Assuming I'm correct, did you understand that this is what Rich is doing right now?
6. Rich: did you explain to Deacon what you were doing, so he wouldn't misinterpret your rollbacks?

   I left him a message, explaining that is was going to be hard to fix up his rollbacks, and expressing a desire that he would have talked to me about it. Rich Farmbrough, 19:37 22 January 2009 (UTC).

7. Both: Is it really true you each think that the blame for this solely rests with the other?
8. All: Am I the only one who detects a surprising lack of assumption of good faith from both users, people that have each been here long enough to know better?

   I hope I AGF, but the rollback tool is dangerous, and a blunt instrument. Talking is far more useful, because it is (was) easy for me to revert those pages accurately, now will take me some considerable time. Also all the edits had distinct edit summaries, so the mass rollback including edits which has quite different summaries seems to be taking the blunt instrument and using it with a blindfold. Rich Farmbrough, 19:37 22 January 2009 (UTC).

thanks. --barneca (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

All I can say is that it is making my watchlists almost useless right now and I'm fed up with it. dougweller (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

@ Barneca, thanks for your mediation attempt, but this isn't a personal conflict; it will be resolved if and only if Rich/SmackBot reverts these edits (looks like this might happen) and uses his bot properly in future. There should never be a question of a bot adding controversial tags. These edits were started at least 4 days ago (that's how far back I saw him doing this), the reversions started earlier today/yesterday (though a bunch of ad hoc reversions were occurring before this). Rich was not responding, and only eventual response was to blank the page . Smackbot doesn't keep talk archives so that's another cause for concern. Who knows how many problems like this have occurred. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It does keep talk archives. There is a pointer on the talk page. There was a message on your talk page and I replied to others too. Furthermore as you know full well having done the mass rollback, there was only one run, so again saying "started 4 days ago" smacks of disingenuity. Rich Farmbrough, 19:37 22 January 2009 (UTC).

I keep both SmackBot and Rich's pages watchlisted. Rich responds promptly and politely and is very easy to work with. I believe every concern I have brought to his attention (4 or 5 at least), have been handled this way, even though all (or at least most) of my concerns were completely unfounded. SmackBot's talk page is very easy to use: leave a message on the page itself to halt the bot, leave a message for its operator on the operator's page. SmackBot often is the only editor on pages for years at a time in my experience. A lot of cruft was created a long time ago and marked for cleanup, and SmackBot adjusts the cleanup messages every few years as the standards change. I only see such changes because I have entire categories watch-listed. I don't think SmackBot should add the {{ibid}} tag, the conensus seems to be that he should not add the tag, and SmackBot is now fixing that mistake. JackSchmidt (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Summary, from my point of view. This is a supposed to be a collaboration, while this may not have met with universal approval :), it would have been better to discuss and find a solution rather than engage on such a massive revert, Deacon's time and mine would both have been saved. Futhermore bringing the matter here just wasted more time and energy. Lets get on with the project and leave this behind. Rich Farmbrough, 19:37 22 January 2009 (UTC).

This thread appears to hinge on barneca's #6 above. Now that we know that Rich is removing the tags and the rollback was a precursor to that, I gather we can mark this as resolved. –xeno (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Rich, sorry I didn't see that bot kept an archive. My mistake. Though you shouldn't be removing posts so quickly. They aren't just messages to your bot, but also in this case public discussions. That I decided to take reverting your disruptive automated edits out of your hands was down to the ill-considered nature of the edits and your unresponsiveness, ignoring the complaints being a reasonable sign of uncooperativeness. That you subsequently decided to roll them all back with your own account was bad , but then to proceed to complain about rollback afterwards was really unconvincing and incidentally, since everyone here is an intelligent adult, counter-productive as it is obviously hypocritical. If you were planning before this ANI thread to remove all these tags, I'd be delighted to know the "technical" reason why rollback with a non-bot admin account was good first stage ... not communicating your intention being just the cherry on top. In any case, if you make mass automated edits which are bad, in lieu of a bot reverting them, no human charged with reversing their impact can be expected to use anything but rollback nor to care if he removes a few minor decent fixes in the process. Anyways, it's nothing personal and I don't mind you wanting to put a good face on it as long as you carry out your self-reversions and don't do it again. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

And just out of curiosity, Rich, why did you continue using automated tool to place the tag when User:Dbachmann had already complained about it at Template_talk:Ibid, a discussion you saw? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• There are still a fair number of articles that smackbot applied this tag to that have not been removed: . –xeno (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• When they showed up on my watchlist (mostly opera and classical music), I sometimes moved them to the References section, if there were several ibids/op cits to fix. Otherwise I just fixed them before removing the tag. Just as a demonstration of how completely unsuitable this tag is for a bot to apply, it was plastered at the top of (and thereby defaced in my view) a featured article Dmitri Shostakovich when there was a only one instance of an op cit. out of 48 footnotes. Voceditenore (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

KoshVorlon

Could somebody do me a favor and explain to KoshVorlon that it is unacceptable to have a userbox that reads "STOP MURDERING INNOCENT CIVILIANS, ISRAEL!! " alongside an image depicting Israel's flag dripping with blood? Having this user's talk page on my watchlist has caused me to lose my patience with him/her long ago, and I know only bad things will come from further discussion if I'm involved. I've already explained, in a less than friendly way, that replacing the userbox will be met with a block. S/he still doesn't get it. Much appreciated, - auburnpilot talk 21:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Moreschi (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Notified the user of this thread. SQL 04:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

What about the "Terry Schaivo was murdered" userbox?--Atlan (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm a he, and I haven't replaced the userbox since you removed it. I have also voluntarily removed the "Terry Schaivo was murdered " userbox as well.

— Kosh 14:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Thulasi12345

User:Thulasi12345 insists on recreating an article called "Vettaikaran" which has been deleted twice at AfD and prodded/speedied several times more - see logs for Vettaikaran, Vettaikaran (2009 film) and now Vettaikaaran which I have just tagged with {{db-xfd}}. I'm not sure what the procedure is here, but could someone please take a look because it looks like this will only continue. PC78 (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I've redeleted the page and again warned the individual. If it happens again a block is most certainly in order. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Amid.Abdullah

Amid.Abdullah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user, per this edit, and the fact that most of their contributions tend to center around the Anonymous group, and things 4chan-anonymous-related such as Imageboards and Computer Security, not to mention this oppose to the trial runs of flagged revisions, because, as we all know, 4chan loves to attack this, any anything like FR would make it virtually impossible.

Anyway, to the point, I believe this user is one of those of the 4chan group, who loves to coordinate attacks on wikipedia, or such, and per the other edits the account has made, such as reducing the importance of various articles under the scope of various projects, even though the editor is not in those projects, I find worrisome. Does anyone share my feelings here? Please weigh in.— Dædαlus 23:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The Troubles issues

Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/The Troubles Jan23. I have subpaged 2 threads dealing with The Troubles-related issues to the above subpage to save it clogging up ANI. I haven't had a chance to look at this yet (and it's 1am here) though I will try to look tomorrow. I suspect that all 3 threads would be better dealt with at WP:AE, although a more in-depth look may be necessary. Black Kite 00:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Further: I have returned the below thread to ANI after a reasonable request. Black Kite 20:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive conduct

I like to bring this incident to the attention of Admins. The reason I’ve brought it here is, first it is conduct related and second the actions of an experienced editor who is familiar enough with the Troubles to know better. As has been pointed out by User:Barneca the new editor came out swinging, and User:Barneca has dealt with it. My concern is the actions of User:Mooretwin. Rather than offer some constructive and positive advice to this new editor, they feed into the editors disruptive conduct. Having being warned a number of times about their own conduct, and being given a final warning already they offer this advice which could only inflame an already tense atmosphere. It is for this reason, I consider it to be disruptive, and a slight on both Editors and Admins alike. Both Admins and Editors who have had reason to deal with User:Mooretwin’s previous disruption will consider this to be a personal attack on them. Such assumptions of bad faith in the form of advice needs to be challenged and discouraged in my opinion. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Talk about Police state! Can a man not express his opinions. He's not wrong from what I can see. What your doing right now completely vindicates what he's saying. NewIreland2009 (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

See WP:FREE Simon 00:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that applies here. He said certain users spend a lot of time here and guard their articles vigilantly. Are you disputing that? Is he wrong? The endless politics and drama of this place really would make a man very very cynical indeed. NewIreland2009 (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Black Kite, I can understand why you brought the section below here as for the other two sections however this one included I'm not so sure. On the section above, barneca has sorted this out with a final warning. Because of the tone and manner of the edits I agree with barneca's actions. I simply regret it went that far and could have been avoided had the editor accepted the advice that was offered. On the section below no one will accuse Tznkai of being one of the sympathetic administrators contained in this accusation. While Tznkai continues to delve into the issue I’m happy enough to let them get on with it, and agree with your actions in moving it here. On this section however, I disagree with the move. While I can understand you’re rational, and the obvious connection with the Troubles ArbCom, this issue is one primarily of conduct. It is my opinion that Mooretwin offered provocative advice to a new user who was already in a heightened state of excitement. That it would inflame a clearly tense situation was obvious. In addition, Mooretwin makes a number of accusations about editors and admins and the clear assumption of bad faith. Now I could have posted to AE, were Mooretwin was warned about personal attacks, followed up with a warning on their talk page but decided not to. AE are not going to mess about on the Troubles, it will be a swift sharp block. I opted for ANI, on the issue of conduct which I stressed in my opening remarks, and suggested it be challenged and discouraged. No mention or suggestion of a block. By bring it here, you could precipitate the very thing I wished to avoid. I would therefore ask that you return it to ANI, and treat it as a matter of conduct. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Black Kite, hopefully it can now be addressed without much fuss. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Tabletop unnecessary white-space changes

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

This user has been contacted eight times in the last year about making unnecessary white-space changes (wikisource changes that have no effect on the final page rendering):

1. 2008-02-03: User talk:Tabletop#Compagnie Internationale des Wagons-Lits by User:Sladen
2. 2008-03-06: User talk:Tabletop#White-space changes on Iobox by User:Sladen
3. 2008-03-15: User talk:Tabletop#White-space changes on St Pancras railway station by User:Sladen
4. 2008-03-28: User talk:Tabletop#Biography by User:Necrothesp
5. 2008-08-16: User talk:Tabletop#Mack Trucks by User:207.69.137.25
6. 2008-09-18: User talk:Tabletop#Curious by User:Good Olfactory
7. 2008-10-09: User talk:Tabletop#spelling and whitespaces by User:Sebastian scha.
8. 2009-01-20: User talk:Tabletop#Spaces in section headers by User:Fram

on each of these occasions, Tabletop has ignored the request, by either:

1. ignoring it flat-out; making no reply, and taking no action
2. replying and talking about something else (eg. "problem of lack of space after full stops (periods) is most noticable in contributions by sub-continentals (IN,PK,BG,SL), who Are also Poorish At capitalisation!") but not actually responding

Thereby carefully not addressing the issue of unnecessary white-space alterations. The editors's other contributions (such as spelling corrections) are very useful and have been commended. —Sladen (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Call me a fool if you like, but I don't see how this is a problem, or requires Admin intervention. The technology can handle such minor changes. If you can point out a policy or guideline that is being breached, fine. --Rodhullandemu 02:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• I was going to ask—is this somehow disruptive? I asked the user about it in Sep 2008 simply because I was curious if I was unaware of some formatting guideline or if it made a difference somehow, but not because I felt the user was being disruptive in doing that. The user justified it by stating that they thought it made headers easier for editors to read and edit. Given that reasonsing, the user's actions are not entirely superfluous, I suppose, especially if they are just doing it as they correct other errors that need fixing. Good Ol’factory 02:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • While I was going to seek some dispute resolution if the user continued to do this, I would not have taken it to ANI. The problems are minor but manifold: first, the user does not reply to talk page requests unless there is some indication that things will go beyond the talk page, apparently. Second, he then promises to stop, but continues anyway. I would rather have an editor who states upfront that he believes he is doing the correct thing than such a dubious way of handling things. Finally, the edits in themselves are minor annoyances, but there are a lot of those. From WP:MOSHEAD: "Spaces between the == and the heading text are optional". Combined with the two general principles of the WP:MOS: 1) internal consistency: he changes some headers, but not all, thereby breaking the internal consistency, and 2) stability of articles, "editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason": that it is his opinion that spaces between the == and the section name are easier is not a "substantial reason". Similarly, he is changing the accepted "references" to the equally accepted "reflist" without good reason.
  • These things are, again, minor, but there is no reason at all why he can not perform his good edits (mainly correcting spelling errors) without also imposing his preferred styles in a haphazard way in those articles. Having said all that, his latest batch of edits seem to contain less of these problems, there are some minor problems in but if this is all that happens, I don't think I have any further complaints at the moment, and certainly nothing yet that warrants administrative intervention. If further problems follow, I would suggest informal or formal mediation. Fram (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by Jackal4

• Jackal4 (talk)

This user refuses to listen to Epeefleche's warnings. I started handing the user warnings as well now. Will you please keep an eye on this user and block the user if needed? The user is creating a huge mess in lots of pages. Thanks! - Eugene Krabs (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Just curious, but why did you go from a level-2 warning (00:58 23 Jan) to a level-4 (final) warning (1:38 23 Jan) on the user's talk page when the user had made zero edits after the level-2 warning was given but before the level-4 warning was given? Good Ol’factory 03:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, I don't know how to tell which warning is what level ({{<test>}}, {{< test2a>}}, ETC). I just go by what I see fits the user's edits. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Eugene Krabs, Epeefleche, and Ethelh are all the same person who is mad at me because he tried to take over the Ryan Braun article (see WP:OWN) and I wouldn't let him. He has since tried to take over every other Jewish baseball player article, added loads of crap about them winning various obscure Jewish baseball awards (not a big deal when there are barely a dozen Jewish players), and reverted countless edits I make because he didn't get his way. This guy is just trying to manipulate several accounts into getting his way; surely there is some rule against that.

Ex. Scott Williamson - I do nothing but link his position in the infobox, and Epeefleche claims I added the image placeholder that has been there for years. At Paul Wilson (baseball), some IP messes up the infobox attempting to retire him (he isn't retired, he played in the Golden Baseball League this year and it is sourced), I fix it and he reverts it. This has went on for the past few months and won't stop until one of us is banned. Clearly he is violating Misplaced Pages policies and rules and what not and should be banned. Jackal4 (talk) 03:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

First, I am not him... and second, I agree with Epeefleche. Quit making it like we're the ones in the wrong when we're not. You're the one vandalizing. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 03:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly what Epeefleche is doing, vandalizing articles and making me out to be the vandal.
If you knew anything about baseball articles and infoboxes on wikipedia, you wouldn't have reverted Paul Wilson (baseball)'s infobox back to what it was before I corrected it.Jackal4 (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice try... but no! It's exactly what you're doing. You're making us look like the vandals when we're not. Now stop this childish behavior or you will be banned from WikiPedia. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

What is your excuse for reverting Paul Wilson and Ryan Braun? Jackal4 (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are four examples of the many instances of innapropriate behavior by Jackal4:

1. Profanity -- Jackal4's use of profanity when dealing with those who criticize the innapropriateness of his edits; see, for example, his accusations of those who criticize him: "You wouldn't have triggered an edit war if you didn't ... fuck up articles": http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ANurseryRhyme&diff=265356414&oldid=265208286 . (emphasis added)

2. Adding innappropriate placeholder material, and refusing to go back and delete it. See his violation of the image placeholders directive, http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Image_placeholders, which mandates that one not put up the ugly blank placeholder in lieu of a picture.

One (of many) examples can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jim_Weaver_(outfielder)&diff=prev&oldid=263128740. The examples are many in his revisions over the past months.

I've cleaned up many, but many remain.

I asked him to clean up his dozens of innappropriate placeholder additions. His refusal can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AJackal4&diff=252921153&oldid=252920855, where he said, in part, "You'll be fine doing it yourself." (emphasis added)

3. Deletions -- A third example is his penchant for deleting perfectly good quote boxes that I have inserted in articles, and then continuing to do delete them when I reinsert them.

An example of this activity on his part can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sam_Fuld&diff=259569942&oldid=259501632.

4. Deleting others' communications on others' talk pages. When another writer complained about Jackal4's innappropriate behavior on a third party's talk page (where the third party had warned Jackal4 in the past for similar behavior, Jackal4 deleted that complaint from the third party's talk page. See http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ANurseryRhyme&diff=265356414&oldid=265208286. --Epeefleche (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

5. There are many users who have complained about this behavior on his part, including his flirting with the 3-revert rule, and edit warring. You will not find this on his talk page, as he deleted the warnings, but if you go to the history page of his talk page you can find half a dozen users who have warned him similarly over the past few months.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Boxxy

I would appreciate more administrator eyes on this article, specifically the claims by Otterathome about its being a BLP violation and subsequent repeated blanking. He continues to blank the article as a BLP violation, and I would appreciate if an uninvolved administrator would sort out whether it is, and take appropriate action. seresin ( ¡? )  02:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I am a new user and I have been trying to create a good quality article about this internet viral phenomenon. I have read some of the policies and looked at other articles to model this on, and have tried to create a good version. The article is under discussion at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2009 January 21 but User:Otterathome is repeatedly blanking the article even when I add what are reliable sources (I read the reliable sources page by the way and I'm complying with it). This user has already been warned about his actions at User_talk:Otterathome#Boxxy_restored. I would like help here, thanks.--Hospitality Flawless (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm highly annoyed because I deleted the blanked article tagged as WP:CSD#G10 and did not see it was inappropriately tagged for G10 till I saw in the edit history that it had been restored for DRV. I would appreciate it if ottersathome would not blank articles and tag them for deletion when the article has been restored while being reviewed at WP:DRV. Dlohcierekim 02:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

G10 still does apply as the article describes the person as crazy, nonsensical and hyperactive all sourced from blogs.--Otterathome (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Only where the entire article serves that purpose, which this does not. Deletion is not necessary here to address your concern. Do feel free to remove the objectionable sentence (and there is only one), then discuss on the talk page, or nominate the entire article for AfD. lifebaka++ 05:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Then why did the DRV'ers agree to restore the thing? Clearly, if it met G10m they'd have upheld the speedy deletion. No. G10 says, "no purpose but to disparage or threaten their subject or some other entity." That is not the case here. You would delete the entire article for 1 and 1/2 sentences that could be removed without the article suffering. Dlohcierekim 02:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that Otterathome may be in violation of WP:3RR which I was just looking at - see .--Hospitality Flawless (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

probably not. the article is still under discussion at DRV. It is accessible through the history. Dlohcierekim 02:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The page says "Reverting the addition of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." so it's really open to interpretation whether User:Otterathome has actually violated Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule.--Hospitality Flawless (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally prefer the WP:BRD policy over WP:BLP on "libelous" BLP violation content disputes as it allows a civil way to discuss the notability, and "libel" nature of the material, or lack thereof, instead of resulting in a edit war. After all, everyone has different views on what is libel. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, but there are currently 26 deleted revisions. Few of them are actually relevant to the current article, so I'm going to go ahead and restore all the deleted versions relating to Hospitality Flawless's version (which, unless I'm mistaken, was written from scratch) for GFDL compliance. This would be the versions from 23:00, January 21, 2009 to present; earlier versions should remain deleted. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 05:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Issues at All-Joe Team

I just blocked an IP for blanking and legal threats per a report at AIV, but I'd rather not completely ignore the substance of the threat. The article in question is 2008 USA Today All-Joe Team; I seem to recall similar claims that were made about an article with the substance of the Fortune 500 list. Second opinions on the copyright of the article's content would be appreciated. Kuru 02:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I would atleast expect someone pretending to be a USAToday reporter to be able to spell "plagiarism". As for the article, if it's simply from a single, primary source, is it even notable? Grsz 03:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Edits bodering on advertisement, by IP on Sathya Sai Baba

Kindly look into recent disruptive editing by IP ( 189.15.70.90 / 189.15.71.80 / etc. ) on Sathya Sai Baba. Self promoting consent is being added to a newly created section - it was attempted to cover the same in an academically sensible manner in the teachings section of the article - but attempts to the end is being continually disrupted by the IP - who apparently sees wikipedia as a place to project/advertize his merchandise. The IP user refuses, despite repeated requests to discuss his changes on talk and further covers up the nature of his edit with misleading edit summaries. Kindly look into the issue. Recent incidents: [

White adept (talk) 05:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies if I'm missing something, but his edit looks to simply be moving text that already exists in the article. How is this not a simple old content dispute? You're both also a good deal past WP:3RR -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason for projecting it on top of the page with links to the cult's page is, as far as I can tell, to promote/advertise themselves. The user also completely refuses to address or give any rationale for his changes on talk - while all the time giving misleading edit summaries. The stuff is clearly part of the teachings section while the user adamantly insists on projecting the same - as if advertising - on top of the page. Also the content itself is disputed and puffed with praise drawn from self-published sources ( one written by a close "devotee" of this godman). Kindly look deeper into the issue. Sincerely..

White adept (talk)

Please, see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#Article_uses_mostly_not_reliable_sources

Be aware that the agressive style from my response at http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#Is_wikipedia_a_place_to_sell_sai_merchandize.3F was an imitation of White adept's own style, as you can see at the ending of: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#Removal_of_Advaita_Vedanta_introduces_serious_omission

189.15.70.90 (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I started a notice in Biographies_of_living_persons Noticeboard: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Sathya_Sai_Baba

This was my very first post: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#What_if_Sai_Baba_is_really_an_Avatar.3F

And, be aware that White adept is a belong to a kind of "spin doctors" group that currently dominates Sai Baba's article and do not allow this very little improvement I am doing. They simply do not tolerate it. If you don't know what spin doctor is, kindly read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Spin_(public_relations) (I can't tell if they are paid or not.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.15.70.90 (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Another editor,on talk page of the article, very recently, accused pro-baba editors like the above IP for "spinning". The editor also pointed out several instances where the cult's propaganda has been used as a "source." Now this user, in all his cheap deceit, intents to turn the blame on me and other editors. At least kindly urge him to create an account - so that his edits can be kept track of.

White adept (talk) 05:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"Consumed Crustacean" (funny username, indeed), I am sorry to put you in contact with such a misleading user as "White adept" and such a polemic article... I want to say thanks for your attention. I am tired - he really has done it to me. I am exhausted... and one of his preferred techniques is to WRITE A LOT.

His answer to the first attempt to include the Writing section is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#WP:UNDUE

He claims WP:UNDUE - I sincerely do not know what it means... but I do know that now he changed completely his reasons - he is finding a way - some way, any way - to get rid of my contribution.

I throw you a challenge: try to do a minimal change for making ANY edit that turns the article less biased and more NPOV. Just try. And see what happens.... This is what is happening to this carefully done TRY (that follows all Misplaced Pages policies!)

Thanks.

189.15.70.90 (talk) 05:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

For your information: the following link takes to the diff history from the first time that the "Writings" section was introduced, as a humble effort to improve the article (make a little step towards Misplaced Pages's policies): http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=prev&oldid=265642703

You see how much noise White Adept has done in a single day against a so small contribution (the whole article is a horrible biased panflet against Baba - he does not mova a finger; someone adds a fair and simple carefully done positive contribution: he does not stop efforts for wiping it... what else can I say? Can you open a Request for Arbitration?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.15.70.90 (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah! I have even called attention of the Mediation Comitee Chair, Ryan Postlethwaite:

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Ryan_Postlethwaite#Sathya_Sai_Baba_article 189.15.70.90 (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

White adept wants everybody to read The Findings (a collection of lies about Sai Baba), and is trying to prevent every "Sathya Sai Baba"'s article visitor to read Sathya Sai Baba's own writings! (I had to link to talk page because I don't know if the content is currently in the main article or not!) 189.15.70.90 (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

LOLWUT??? WikiWar, anyone? MuZemike 08:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit war between Theology10101 (talk · contribs) and Snowded (talk · contribs)

User:Theology10101 disruption of several articles

The above editor is taking a particular religious perspective and inserting it in several articles without citation (or with citations that are inappropriate. S/he is persistently refusing to discuss any change on the talk page. I have placed a welcome note on the talk page and several notes and one vandalism warning. On on article its now up to three reverts and while I think I am entitled to revert again on the grounds of vandalism I thought it better to bring it here so someone can talk with the editor concerned. Looking at their edit history this appears to have been a consistent pattern. Examples:

• Justification (theology) insertion of rambling unsupported text and comments (on the latest reversion to the effect that "There's nothing contraversial.The only thing you object is me.This change is because there's a need for transformation of the sinner in every way.FromThe acts of God to the sincere change of theSinner"
• Naturalism (philosophy) The insertion of religious statements about mans perfection and references to a religious web site which have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of the page
• Liberalism Insertion of uncited text. Another editor did put a citation in place but it did not support Theology's text
• Rationalism Insertion of similar text to that on Naturalism (philosophy)
• Diet of Worms and Old Catholic Church also seem to have some dubious edits.

--Snowded TALK 05:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not true. Snowded is being nonproductive and reverting every edit I've ever done without giving adiquate explanations. He doesn't look at the material and refuses any and all explanations and has been harassing me. Theology10101 (talk) 06:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll let the edits speak for themselves. Theology10101 appears well intentioned but does not understand the nature of citations, or the need to gain consensus on the talk page when a particular edit is challenged. --Snowded TALK 06:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I fully understand the nature of citations and Snowded rejects them without explaining his reason why -the content- is not true. Which it's fully true and cited from multiple source. Please take a look at my work, including the talk pages, and how Snowded's has been treating the editors on Misplaced Pages...Thank you Theology10101 (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No, snowded has repeatedly told you about why the references are inappropriate, particularly on the Naturalism talkpage. You refusing to listen is not the same as him refusing to say. Ironholds (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Snowded harassing and being non-productive

This was a seperate thread, two sections down. Have merged. Viridae 06:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This user is refusing to be productive on these any article I've ever edited. He doesn't give any reasons why he rejects any content that I've ever given...in addition to giving out rederic on religion that is not productive. I stand behind all my edits and if you look into Snowded, I have no doubts you'll see my concerns. Thank you Theology10101 (talk) 06:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record the Naturalising Philosophy article is on my watch list. Having found the uncited and inappropriate edit there I checked back on other contributions and found three other articles with similar unsupported or inappropriate edits. I corrected those and placed a welcome notice on Theology's site as it was fairly evident we had an inexperienced editor. --Snowded TALK 06:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a pretty wide edit war across several articles. Warned both editors about 3RR. Block either editor upon next rerversion of the other editor's edits. Toddst1 (talk) 06:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

OK Toddst1 so give some advice, If an editor inserts text on pages which is uncited and it is reverted my understanding is that they should attempt to build consensus on the talk page before reinserting the text. Did I get something wrong here? --Snowded TALK 07:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Third party opinion or more generally WP:DR. Toddst1 (talk) 07:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Assistance requested

Could I get some help killing these obvious sockpuppets/attack accounts? Thanks. -Jéské Couriano 05:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• unlinked –xeno (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I notice that all 51 of these attack account names were created in the same minute, at 08:54 UTC this morning. I thought there was a rate throttle on how many accounts could be created by any particular account or IP at any one time. Am I wrong about this, or has it failed to work in this case? -- The Anome (talk) 09:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Per IP, I think it's 3 per 24 hours (I think those were the figures noted during the IWF situation). I wouldn't know how it cocked up in this case. -Jéské Couriano 09:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. If they can get around this throttle, they might be able to get around others. Same account logged in from multiple IPs, possibly? What's the best venue for requesting that this be investigated and fixed? -- The Anome (talk) 09:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPI. Request a checkuser there; see if there's been any skulduggery there. -Jéské Couriano 09:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It's 6 Users per IP per 24 hrs (hence the ususual 6 socks serial sockers create). -- lucasbfr 11:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

More attack username creation, same MO as above

There's more of the same at 10:15 UTC, this time with 18 accounts created almost simultaneously, with the same MO as above. -- The Anome (talk) 09:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you killed them, or do you need help? If you do, contact me on my talk page and I'll go in guns blazing. -Jéské Couriano 09:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like other people have blocked them; but my main concern is that this is clearly a vandal on a roll, with the username throttling mechanism clearly incapable of slowing it down. -- The Anome (talk) 09:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

According to Chris, it's the old non-hunter hunter, which I was unaware of when I first caught this. Hence, he's blocking ACB NEM NTE. -Jéské Couriano 10:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Does it make any difference that the accounts are not being created from scratch, but are all being created by sleeper accounts? The last batch was created by an account that was registered 9 months ago, has no edits (deleted or otherwise) and is now (clearly) indef blocked. _Gb 09:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It might. The question is, could a CU detect the IP behind the creation of these attack accounts, especially given they're flatly outing attempts or defamatory? -Jéské Couriano 09:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been able to test this yet but I'm pretty sure there's a bug in mediawiki that allows him to bypass the 6 accounts per ip limit (not going to give the full details per beans but I'll file a bugzillia once I'm sure this is a bug) --Chris 10:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I'm off to bed; I think it may be wise to keep an eye on RC for a while in case he starts up with a new account, and I need to get some rest since he's either pulling most of this stuff off of on-wiki communications or out of his ass (He's currently 3 for 10 on everything he's used to try and scare me away, which tends to have an opposite effect). -Jéské Couriano 10:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy your sleep, I'll keep an eye on rc for the moment --Chris 10:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. The user knows my age, name and birthdate, and both present and prior cities of residence. Not that I've ever made attempts to hide them, but it might be helpful to know that the user is getting the information from Hivemind; the edits match up precisely with the information Daniel Brandt is making available there. ⇒SWATJester 10:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely; I'm not on there. The only info he's used on me is stuff he's either made up or gotten from what I've said or done on-Wiki (hence the 3 for 10 comment). -Jéské Couriano 20:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Multiple users possibly sharing an account, using account talk page for messaging each other

Beautiful&Educated (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The only contributions are too a now indefinitely blocked vandalism bot(re: Assman2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)), and their user talk page, apparently talking to them self, or, as I noted above, possibly others who are sharing the account. From the contributions, I see a user, or group of users, who are abusing wikipedia's interface for their own needs, and hence, I do not see any reason why they should remain unblocked, or with the ability to edit their own talk page. Does anyone agree or disagree? Please weigh in.— Dædαlus 09:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely. I shall block and protect. waggers (talk) 09:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Can't unblock Gsgfdsgfdgfdsgsdddffffffffffffffffffffffff

I have granted the unblock request of Gsgfdsgfdgfdsgsdddffffffffffffffffffffffff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to allow a username change, but my unblock does not appear in the block log, and I can't seem to effect another unblock. Does anybody know what the problem might be?  Sandstein  11:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It's showing in your log, and I can't unblock them as the "block cannot be found", even though your unblock is not showing in their log..._Gb 11:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

But isn't there something slightly strange about a user who made one edit before having their username blocked suddenly popping up and requesting an unblock (rather than just creating a new account) nearly three years after their original block? _Gb 11:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Looking at his contributions log (one edit from May 2006, and the unblock request today), and noting that he was blocked for a username violation in June 2006, my question is why is there a need to do a username change? Just have him register a new account. Horologium (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps he wants the seniority of the account? –xeno (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'd recommend if the unblock doesn't work for one technical reason or another.  Sandstein  12:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked. — Aitias // discussion 12:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do I have a feeling this is a sleeper account? D.M.N. (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I was considering suggesting someone keeping an eye on it myself. Generally, when they create a name like that, they aren't here for the best interests of the site. HalfShadow 19:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

And re-blocked, it's only the approx. 573. of his socks trying this trick. There are 3 more points of evidence not already mentioned here that this is a gwp sock. I'm reluctant to specify them here, don't want to give tips since he steadily adapts to sock detection mechanisms, but I'm happy to email these to anyone interested. --Oxymoron 19:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Theology10101

Not sure where this falls, but is singling out certain users and threatening to leave them warnings if they so much as comment allowed? I got added to the list for asking him to comment on edits rather than the editor, and er, warning that that section might be a bit inappropriate. Ironholds (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you could politely ask him how that attitude squares with his Christian charity? Baseball Bugs 16:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering how he has replied to polite requests I cannot see that working. Further development: an uninvolved editor removed that section of the talkpage, informing him it was inappropriate, and he replaced it. Ironholds (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

and perhaps the previous closing admin can see that this was a case of dealing with vandalism not an edit war --Snowded TALK 16:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor I have asked for the removal of the content in question. BigDunc 16:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed it and left a note. Black Kite 18:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Insults by 59.101.23.24

On discussion has gone off topic, and some users including 59.101.23.24 is calling other users (in which I'm included) blood thirsty maniacs, loosers and fascists. I warned him yesterday (23. of January) to stop, but he continued with his behavior. --Čeha (razgovor) 14:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected Talk:Serbo-Croatian language for 48 hours due to hate speech. We can ask regular editors to ignore Talk page outbursts by POV-warriors up to a point but I think this needs some admin action. Other suggestions for how to handle the unusual comments on this Talk page are welcome. This 59.101.23.24 seems to be a throwaway IP so blocking for WP:NPA may not be useful. EdJohnston (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Squeezety

Squeezety (talk · contribs) - This user's sole purpose has been to delete a sentence from the lead of Garth Turner, citing "redundancy": Of course, the nature of leads is that the information they contain is *supposed* to be redundant with the rest of the article, as I explained in my edit summary here and, in great detail, on the user's talk page here. The user has taken no notice of my explanation, and has continued deleting the sentence. Absent a willingness to discuss this, I think a block is called for; of course, I'm an Involved Administrator. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Final warned, let someone know if he keeps at it. MBisanz 15:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Appropriateness_of_sectioning

...and someone please undelete Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction). --EEMIV (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• I propose an immediate 24-hour block for Phil Sandifer who deleted WP:FICT on the grounds that his unnecessary action has set an unfortunate precedent. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Restored. Tempers have been running high at FICT for over a year, but deletion was unnecessary and was likely just the result of a moment's overreaction on Phil's part. – sgeureka 16:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• • I apologize for the deletion. It was an overreaction to an excessively long and particularly vicious (and largely uncommented on) rash of outright personal attacks and thinly veiled ones on the part of several users. This does not justify the deletion, which was hot-headed, ill-considered, and stupid. A block, I would argue, would be punitive. If that is desirable, go ahead - it certainly was a dumb move made during a flare of temper. However, I would personally think it is unlikely to improve the situation particularly. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• • • It was stupid, yes, but no block is needed. Phil saw his mistake himself. Let's just get back to editing, shall we? SoWhy 16:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I think SoWhy sums it up. Blocks are meant to fix a problem, not punish somebody. Phil has given a full-throated and unequivocal apology. Unless someone honestly believes he's going to go around deleting more guidelines, a stern warning is probably going to be enough. Randomran (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I am wondering if most of those who have been participating in that discussion should sit things out for a bit and let some new blood in? I have seen in the past few days a number of blatant and implied personal attacks and incivility on that talk page and think things are getting too heated at this point to allow for really colloborative discussion. Sincerely, --A Nobody 17:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

While I was, and still am, pretty torqued at Phil, I resent any implication that I have either been trolling or acting in bad faith. My summary sums it up:

Let's just take this thing to some forum where broad comment can be received. I don't think it pays enough attention to independent sources, but it pays enough attention that people can't claim that the guideline obviates the need for them. So long as no one attempts to add language that implies that material provided by people involved with the creation of the work can be classed as independent, I won't push for stronger mention. Phil, I recognize that I brushed up pretty damn near NPA there, but please take to heart that if frequently when you get involved in these debates your opponents wind up angry and foaming at the mouth, that's a problem, and not one that belongs solely with your opponents. I find discussion with you exhausting because of the constant restarts, and I'm not the only one that has commented on it.

.—Kww(talk) 17:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, now we have the unfortunate outcome that an accusation of bad-faith actions toward Kww and Thuran is permentantly enshrined in the deletion log. :( Protonk (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Straw Poll

As a note, there is now a poll on the guideline (NOT for adoption, just a simple up/down as to whether or not it is in the right ballpark) available at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Starting_Fresh. We would appreciate some uninvolved interest there, even if it is brief. Protonk (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter page

Could someone go over to the Jimmy Carter page and figure out how to fix it please. I'm afraid to touch it.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I fixed it.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Block evading IP needs blocking

I gave up reporting the block evasion a long time ago, but I'm at the end of my rope, guess I'll have to start up again. User:86.25.55.75 is evading block. The IP is highly disruptive, adding her original research or opinion about music genres. Needs blocking for the evasion alone. I got tired of reporting it, since she just changes ip or set's up another account and I know range blocks are out of the question. — Realist 18:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. — Realist 18:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

My block of User:DegenFarang

I would appreciate if someone would review my block of User:DegenFarang, as he has requested. bd2412 T 21:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Not commenting on your block specifically, but this user is extremely frustrating to try and deal with. They've been blocked four time now recently, and respond to every single attempt to contact them on their talk page by blanking with a juvenile insult . I tried again to contact them in good faith after the most recent block, and they reverted me multiple times by deleting my comment with a small change , then finally blanked it . Regardless of whether this block is correct, I would request an uninvolved admin have a word with DF about civility and working with other editors. As you can tell from all of the deleted messages on his talk page, several editors have had a problem working with him. Dayewalker (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The block is probably justified, given the personal attack. As I said on your talk page, protecting his talk page was a mistake, which is why he is correct to point that out but the way he did and the other incivility warrant a block (although I think a shorter duration would be enough, maybe 12-24 hours again). Regards SoWhy 21:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, as I said in that discussion, I protected his talk page because he deleted warnings, and I didn't want editors on other pages to be lulled into the belief that this is a user with a clean slate making innocent mistakes. The fact that he disguised his addition of the reference to John G. Roberts as an "asshat" by using rvv as his edit summary indicates that he knows how to game the system. bd2412 T 22:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparent disruptive editor User:Praiseandworship

This editor seems to be shaping up as a classic disruptive editor. S/he replaced an image of Jesus on the Jesus article page with another image without any discussion (use your imagination to consider how long it took to reach consensus on the images used!!) and was reverted with a request to discuss; reverted the revert, was reverted again; reverted the revert, was reverted again. I and another editor placed 3RR/edit-warring warnings on the user's talk page. S/he then went to the Christ article and did the same (and was reverted).

• Jesus reverts of user's edits: , ,
• Christ revert:

The problem of course with disruptive editors is that they move from one article to another, and the pattern is evident only to people who have the same articles on their watchlist or make an effort to check the users other editors, as I just did. I'd appreciate it if others would check this user's edits over the next few days. If there is a continued pattern of contentious edits across different articles, I think it would be appropriate to consider another warning and if necessary a block. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• They continued to revert and eventually passed 3RR. Since they have a history of edit-warring and have been blocked before, I have blocked for 48h. Black Kite 22:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Insulted by a user

I have been insulted repeatedly by User:Jimmi_Hugh on the talk page of Proprietary software. He used terms like: "you really are just talking gibberish now" "Your accusations of original research are pathetic" "I cannot believe I wasted my time on these arguments believing you to at least be rational", etc... You can judge by yourself how / if I triggered this behavior or not, as:

• I made only one edit to the article, and felt that I had to explain in the talk page why I did this.
• He replaced it by his own (previous) formulation
• When I tried to explain why I felt that keeping the old formulation was WP:POV IMHO (I did NOT revert his change), he seemed to became "heated", and he finished by insulting me.

It is NOT an edit war, since I did not change anything in the article after that: my first edit was also the last one. He seems to have a story of edit wars in this article.

Please note that I'm not requesting assistance for anything about the discussion / argument between me and this user (though I honestly think it was an argument only from his behalf, but I let you judge by yourself), but only because of how he called me. I don't feel I did anything which could triggered that. He wrote in one of his answers: "I wanted to ignore your comments on China, but that's just silly". I replied "And why needing to tag part of my comment as "silly" ? Try to moderate your language next time ;-) ". Then he kind of insulted me. Then he continued by sentences like "I call your claims absurd, your conclusions gibberish, and the very idea that me, without swear words, is not "cool", silly". Then "I will happily address these off topic comments with nothing but contempt for you" "I am sorry that you're a complete hypocrite".

I ask him to be blocked for a moment necessary for him to cool down, because I think that this kind of behavior must not be tolerated here. I see his behavior toward me as a personal aggression.

You may find in the thread that the last post in by another user who tried to help. I asked him on his talk page to resolve this problem because I thought he was an administrator (my mistake). He really tried to help on this matter, but he thought that I wanted to resolve the discussion, whereas I had a problem with the repeated insults. Hervegirod (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards