Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:48, 8 March 2009

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

User:ParaGreen13

This user has been making bad faith edits based on the race or ethnicity of the article's subject. Please see the following edits:

Also, please see the edit summary left by the user for to John Ireland (actor):

This user has been warned in the past for similar edits, on October 10, 2008 and October 17, 2008. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, the John Ireland edit is probably fine; I don't see any sources in the article supporting the assertion. That being said, the edit summary is problematic, and the diffs you linked to above are likewise so. That being said, one of the edits is three days old, one is four days old, and the other is almost a month old. Is there a current problem? //roux   19:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The edit itself to John Ireland is not the issue–the user's use of "queer" in the edit summary is the problem. Terms such as "queer" and "negro" are highly offensive. Edits made within three-four days is current. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

By 'current' I meant 'is still going on'. Nobody's going to do anything about edits a few days old that haven't been repeated since being warned. //roux   20:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This editor seems to have gone steeply downhill over the past month. He has been replacing "African-American" with "black" or "negro" in articles for over a year now, but in the past month about half of his contribs are problematic, including things like this as well as numerous offensive edits and edit summaries. Looie496 (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

i dont see anything in the myocardial one except a weak argument, however it looks like he has been warned repeatedly about the 'negro' thing and should be blocked, at least for a short time, to impress upon him the seriousness of his actions. untwirl(talk) 21:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Please also see the user's to his own talk page. Sottolacqua (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Weak argument? He inserted a bunch of talk page material (i.e., personal opinion) into the article about heart attacks. Looie496 (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

oh, sorry, my bad, i thought that was a talk page. double underline my opinion to block, then! untwirl(talk) 22:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't you people have anything better to do with your time? I see no problem here except a witch hunt in the making. Caden S (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh? How is asking for something to be done about someone posting offensive terms on the Misplaced Pages a waste of time? Try replacing the discussion from the word 'negro' to 'nigger' and you'll get the idea, except the former potentially has a lot more room for offense. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, as stated on your user page that you are a strong supporter of free speech and anti-political correctness, do you not think you may be a little biased? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

←I'll also link you to this from 2008 where I warned the same user for the same abuse. It is clear that this user is here to cause offense to people of African-American decent, or at least has a lack of common sense (not a personal attack, just true) regarding the offensive this term can cause. I'd support action being taken. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you familiar with something called a dictionary? I suggest you take a look at one. Furthermore, do you have proof the editor is here to cause offence? I believe your biased take is the real problem here. Censorship is very evil. Caden S (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

How about let's stop sniping at each other and discuss the issue here. //roux   22:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You're not an editor who I respect. I know how you work around here pushing your politically motivated agenda. You are wasting your time. I see right through you. Caden S (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Please cease the antagonising. I don't want to take sides but that is out of order, Caden.  GARDEN  22:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

CadenS, I'll give you the chance to remove those comments. You may wish to re-read point #3 here for why. As for 'politically-motivated', you'd be hard pressed to find a single edit out of ~15K that is even remotely politically motivated. So now we have that out of the way, why not get back to the actual discussion?

viz. User:ParaGreen13 seems to have two editing issues:

1. Removing 'African-American' in favour of 'Negro' and/or inserting 'Negro' when ethnicity is not actually being discussed or indeed relevant;
2. An inappropriate edit summary.

In terms of #1, the accepted and preferred nomenclature among people of African descent (at least in the USA) is 'African-American'. There is simply no good reason why a word which is widely perceived to be offensive should be used. In terms of #2, it was offensive on its face. //roux   22:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? I am not being uncivil and I am not attacking you so please spare me the threats. I'm being honest with you but you can't handle that. I will remove no such comments. Caden S (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought that "I know how you work around here pushing your politically motivated agenda" is self evidently uncivil and an attack. And "I am a victim of the monster known as, 'Political Correctness'. I believe in the Freedom of thoughts" is political motivation. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Please calm down CadenS else I will block you for incivility off this thread alone.--VS 23:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

CadenS, I'm very much familiar with a dictionary. Let's have a look at the definiton of 'negro' (link). Do you see the bit which says 'sometimes offensive'? Please make yourself familiar with a dictionary before accusing me of being unfamiliar of one.—Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Cyclone, not helping. Please strike the non-content parts of your comment.//roux   23:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I apologise, but I do feel that this user should learn the importance of not accusing until ensuring they are correct. Struck, per request, anyway. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool beans, and thanks. This sort of subject is always a minefield, so best to stay as on topic as possible, I think. //roux   23:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It's common courtesy to inform a fellow editor that an ANI report has been made against them. The editor who filed this ANI failed to inform User:ParaGreen13. I have just notified him of this report. Caden S (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Caden. Glad someone around here makes some sense. As for the use of "queer", granted that might be a little offensive. Not really the intention though. However, even here they refer to themselves as that quite often, so how much of a problem is it really, unless there's a political correctness convention in force? It's actually not as bad as some things you could say about homosexuals. And I refrained from saying them. I think the point was made about the actor, John Ireland. I thought it seemed like one of those "outing" type lies, considering his record. Like with Tom Selleck a few years back. That's bad form. As for the negro issue, I've already explained that before; Not offensive and not meant to be. It's a foolish assumtion to assume the reverse. 13:55 PT, 3-5-09, ParaGreen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ParaGreen13 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Do not take this as a personal attack, it isn't, but I need to clarify my opinion here. Firstly, pardon me for refactoring your comment but I think you should say "not offensive in my opinion". You cannot say that it is not offensive, because it clearly is to many people. If you just took a few moments to search the internet and read some dictionaries, you'd note that consensus says it is offensive. If you took a few moments to research into African-American history, you'd also note the widespread offense it has and does cause. You have to appreciate other people's opinions because not every removal of an offensive word is due to censorship, it's down to common sense and decency. If you further more change articles unnecessarily from 'African-American' to 'Negro', I will have no problem with reporting you straight to ANI again because in my honest opinion, it's downright unacceptable and verging on racism. The same applies to your remarks on homosexuals. Feel free to disagree, but this is my position on the matter, any issues feel free to bring them up here or on my talk page. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not 1950 ... the word "negro" is always considered offensive. In fact, it was likely offensive in 1950, but it was legally "accepted". In 2009, "negro" is not accepted by anyone, anywhere (unless you're a skinhead or wear white sheets to meetings). It is, and has been, a racist and degrading term. If you want some references, I'll find you references quite quickly. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Cyclonenim is saying on user pages that the use of 'Negro' is somehow 'against the law' and 'could get Misplaced Pages sued'. That is patently false and misleading. Misplaced Pages is not censored for content, there is nothing "illegal" about the term "Negro", and no such suit would stand up in court. I need go no further than to mention the existence of articles like "Negro league baseball", which is what it was called and there's no getting around it. Having said that, the casual use of "Negro" is now considered offensive, and should be avoided in wikipedia except in context (as with Negro League baseball). Baseball Bugs 13:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I am clearly wrong about that, and withdraw that statement, but it was a minor point in my argument. Somehow CadenS seems to think I'm personally attacking him, calling him racist, which simply isn't true. What I have said is that ParaGreen13's actions of removing, as you put it Baseball Bugs "out of context", the word 'African-American' and substituting it with 'Negro', could be considered racist. I have no issue with pages in context, try and quote me saying I'm against that, but when random pages about African-Americans are essentially being damaged with an out of context offensive term, that needs to be dealt with. See User talk:CadenS and User talk:Cyclonenim for more background. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Replacing "African American" as a descriptive with "Negro" is Stephen Colbert style vandalism and should be reverted on sight. Baseball Bugs 20:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I should now point out he is insulting those who warn him, such as his severe lack of civility here in his response to Sottolacqua (talk · contribs). I'm starting to feel a block may be necessary. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 10:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, he's trying to get you riled, and it's working. Try ignoring his stupid insults, and just focus on article content. Baseball Bugs 20:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

And I see he is now on a 72-hour block for incivility. Baseball Bugs 00:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I've put a resolved tag on this, because I guess that is that. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 00:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandal-fest at User:Jimbo Wales

I came here becuase of a problem at Jimmy's user page. Someone with a ton of socks hs been vandalizing Jimbo's user page for 13 hours. I think this might require admin attention. The Cool Kat (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I've protected it for a period of 1 day. Scarian 20:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• It's User:RMHED, who has moved on to doing this (he was previously creating malicious pages with this same theme). Anyone think maybe that 30 day block ought to be extended? Whoops, it's already been done. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Any CUs around to clear out the drawer? KnightLago (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Now he's vandalizing Jimbo's talk page. The Cool Kat (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Should RMHED's Right to Vanish be revoked, and his Talk page be restored? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It was restored a few days ago after the latest spat of edits, and is blanked only as a courtesy. Everything else is viewable. seicer | talk | contribs 23:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

RTV is only for people who have left in good standing. It's a privilege, not a right, to vanish. bibliomaniac15 19:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Should this username be allowed to continue?

An editor using the name User:Jim@findagrave.com made a change to an article and his username immediately caught my attention. When I looked at his talk page, I saw that he had been blocked at one point for spam in December 2005. The account posted a request to be unblocked in October 2007 in order to change his username to one that doesn't include a website email address. The unblock was granted here. However, the editor did not appear to file a request for username change . While he did not make other edits after that until today, the point seems to be that the reason he was gave to be unblocked was not honored plus the edit made today was to a Find-a-Grave template. I don't know if the account should be blocked based on this or not, but at the least I'm not certain the username itself is allowable, since it does use the website name within it. I'll leave that to adminstrators to determine. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have reblocked the user. They were clearly told that the last unblock was for the express purpose of changing name. Mfield (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Dig this! He wants to change his name to "GraveGuy". Baseball Bugs 23:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he needs something more light hearted and a little less grave? (groan). Seriously though, is GraveGuy too close for comfort? Mfield (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

He's really in deep on this one. P.S. His request was decline. Baseball Bugs 00:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S. Looks like he might get resurrected. Baseball Bugs 00:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I've unblocked him on the proviso that he get a username change pronto and someone to mentor him. If he doesn't get the username change request posted within 24 hours, feel free to reblock him. -Jeremy 00:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, with a new user ID of "GraveGuy", he wouldn't be hard to keep track of. Baseball Bugs 02:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

User:CadenS and incivility concerns

Recently, after disputes about ParaGreen13's conduct earlier on in this board, CadenS (talk · contribs) has become increasing involved in discussion and appears to be almost soapboxing, encouraging the placement of the term 'negro' into articles as a replacement for 'African-American'. I can only assume this is due to his hatred of political correctness and censorship, as stated on his user page. I brought this issue here as he is topic banned, and one of the terms of that ban is to be civil.

Admittedly, I could have acted less harshly in my words towards him on his talk page, but I really felt that I needed to get a message through. He has acted incivil in both the ParaGreen thread (already dealt with, I believe) but now also insults me by calling me a bad Christian etc. on his talk page. Furthermore, any attempt to discuss has resulted in me being accused of personal attacks back, despite them not actually being attacks but rather misinterpretations of communication or downright twisting of words. I have since stepped away from the discussion as I feel it will only get more heated, but I am looking for opinions from other users and administrators on this matter. My apologies if I should have posted this as WQA. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 01:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Substituting "Negro" for "African American" is clearly a violation of various rules and should be reverted on sight, and if it continues, a block for disruption should be requested. However, just so we won't have to go on a fishing expedition, could you cite 3 recent diff's for each of these guys, showing that change and/or advocacy of it? Baseball Bugs 01:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Not all of these are simple advocation, they are diffs which I find issues with civility-wise: (interesting, although removal of comments is permitted, I find it severely immature to remove evidence) (this I find as advocation, feel free to look into his claims of me throwing personal attacks because I really do not think I've thrown one at him once) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 01:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

For more background, check his and my talk pages. There's significant conversation going on and I feel there's either a massive misunderstanding on my choice of words, or he's falsely accusing me of personal attacks which are actually just comments based on actions. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 01:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for all the posts, but I think I should clarify that his advocation appears to only be implied, not explicit. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 01:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

If using "Negro" instead of "African American" is forbidden as Bugs claims, what should we do about the United Negro College Fund, let alone the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People? Should we ban everyone who has edited these articles without removing the forbidden words? Edison (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I think he meant replacement when 'African-American' would do fine anyway. — neuro 01:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"Forbidden terms" or "clearly a violation" when they have long been in the titles of article, and are the self-selected descriptors? How patronizing, to determine what terms certain groups are allowed to use to describe themselves. Edison (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Those are legacy items that are not going to change. The example I had used before was Negro League baseball. It is what it is. And "Negro" is not "forbidden", it's merely not appropriate. It's an archaic and mostly-offensive term, only acceptable in historical context. Just like we don't refer to American Indians as "Redskins" in the articles. "Redskins" is strictly the name of an NFL football team. And we don't say "Obama is the first American Negro President." Let's try not to make wikipedia look stupid and ignorant, eh? Baseball Bugs 02:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, we do have nigger. seicer | talk | contribs 02:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It appears that I am sadly archaic. I was raised in an era where the term was considered preferable to many of the other terms of the day. I realize that the "politically correct" landscape changes rapidly - and I'm glad I've seen this thread now (it could possibly help me avoid a poor choice of words in the future.) It just goes to show that education comes not only through the articles, but through the conversations that editors have about them. — Ched ~ 03:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"Negro" has been considered offensive since about 1960-65, and the names that use it date from before that time. The choice between "black" and "African American" is a lot trickier -- the preference nowadays is for the latter, but it still isn't absolute. Looie496 (talk) 05:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

←I guess through the years, as I quit paying attention to any particular characteristics of people (well, ok - you'll have to allow me the female parts of gender - age ain't gonna change my paying attention to that!), I kinda quit paying attention to various terminology used to describe someone. Hopefully, if I do "screw up" (always a possibility with me), that person would be kind enough to point out their preferred terminology - and - Hopefully someday it won't be an issue to anyone ;) — Ched ~ 05:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't help but feel this is going a bit off track, because when I posted this my concern wasn't for his advocation (since he hasn't actually changed any article and different beliefs are fine) but rather his increasing lack of civility in the diffs above. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 10:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

CadenS has a long history of being about as cuddly as a porcupine, and is already being closely watched due to being on probation. Don't worry about his remarks, just focus on article content and POV-pushing by him and his new buddy Paragrine or whatever it is. Baseball Bugs 10:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

What is this, a chapter of the Aryan Brotherhood? CadenS isn't being incivil, he's just being a flat out racist. Clearly the preferred and appropriate term is African-American, except in a few specified cases. Terms like Negro, Colored and Nigger have loaded meanings and should be eschewed, the NAACP notwithstanding. Seicer might think he's being a witty advocate for the Horned One but he's no better than the Grand Exalted Caden. Get it together people. X MarX the Spot (talk) 12:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no rule in wikipedia against being a racist, a misogynist, a Yankees fan, or whatever. Content is what matters, and collaboration. So there are no rules against being a racist pig, only against being a disruptive pig. Baseball Bugs 12:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Aye Bugsy, that's true enuff. My experience is that racism is inherently disruptive. May fuss ensue! X MarX the Spot (talk) 12:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

An editor with a truly racist, sexist, agist, Yankeeist, or just plain stupidist agenda will typically become disruptive and either get topic-banned or total-banned. But it's behavior that has to be dealt with, not mind-set as such. We can only treat the symptom, not effect the cure. Baseball Bugs 16:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Let us watch his space. Whatever he does, it'll be entertaining. X MarX the Spot (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "enuff rope and all that"... yes, their kind usually plays out enough rope to, ironically enough, lynch themselves. Baseball Bugs 16:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

What the hell? Now I'm fucking pissed! You folks call me incivil? What about X MarX and Bugs? Huh? Those dudes are calling me a racist? I AM NOT A RACIST! I have black teammates who are buddies! And X MarX calls me an advocate for Satan? What the hell? Is he fucking crazy? Why are admins allowing these guys to make personal attacks against me that are not true? Why is there a double standard here? Huh? Why are these guys not being blocked for incivility? When I defend myself against this type of garbage, I always get accused of being incivil, accused of making personal attacks or threatened by admins to be blocked. I'm sick of this double standard bullshit. I never once advocated for the word negro to be used on wiki! All I said was that the word was in the dictionary and that I support free speech but now that's being twisted and blown out of proportion. I'm NOT RACIST! I'm sick of being treated as the bad guy when I haven't done anything wrong. I'm sick of being attacked and lied about. I never said I was an angel and sure I have a temper and sometimes I've been rude, but that's because some editors love to piss me off. Still, I don't deserve to be called a racist, an advocate for Satan or "a chapter of the Aryan Brotherhood" as X Mar X points out through his attacks (with Bugs supporting). Screw them, it's all bullshit! The hell with this double standard bullshit on here! I'm so fucking pissed off. Screw this ANI report! I'm done. Caden S (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You realize, of course, that you tied yourself a nice knot. PhGustaf (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not call CadenS a racist. And the citations posted by Cyclone have strictly to do with CadenS taking verbal shots at other editors, although one of the cites includes him deleting my comments on his talk page after I reminded him that there was no rule against it, i.e. I invited him to. CadenS' specific mistake here was probably in sort-of egging Peregine on, while Peregrine sits back and watches CadenS blow his stack here. Or maybe is on break. Baseball Bugs 18:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

See, CadenS, that no one has actually called you a racist directly, see below. What you have done is advocated the use of the term negro, because by supporting ParaGreen13 in his free speech using that term, you are implying you see nothing wrong with it and wish for it to be used. Blowing a fuse like you have just done has the opposite effect to being a good defense. You say we twist words when we actually haven't, then you do it yourself. Then we point this out and you say we've been twisting words again. Do you see where this is going? Calm down, because getting worked up will only end up fueling your anger and getting you blocked. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 19:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't think anyone called CadenS a "racist" directly. The use of the word "Negro" to refer to someone with black heritage is considered inappropriate in 2009 - this isn't simple "Political correctness", it's plain ol' wrong. Historcially, there are organizations with the name "Negro" in it - such as the Negro Baseball League - the use in this term is significantly different. In "everyday" use, the only people who tend to use the word "Negro" tend to be racists/Aryans/Skinheads/KKK members, etc. Pretending otherwise is just naive.

So, CadenS was not called "racist" directly, the concept was that the use of the term is generally the act of a racist, in order to point out how wrong it was. CadenS tirade about how "pissed" he is actually has the opposite effect - makes him actually look like a racist, which I'm sure is not the intent.

However, anyone who uses, or advocates the use of "Negro" would be advocating the use of a racist term, and should be dealt with accordingly. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

While I'm not taking any side, XmarX was the one who called Caden racist: "CadenS isn't being incivil, he's just being a flat out racist." That seems pretty direct. Kcowolf (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC) (Forgot to sign, sorry)

and this was pretty direct as well, " he's no better than the Grand Exalted Caden." that seems a little extreme untwirl(talk) 19:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Tough and subtle difference "So and so is a racist" and "So and so is acting like a racist" are slightly different. Indeed, my own comments concluded that the were effectively an act of racism, but never said CadenS was a racist. However, if you read it that XmarX was in fact calling CadenS racist, then that might just violate WP:NPA in its own right. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 19:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

while i don't agree with labeling people 'negro', xmarx was certainly out of line, with a little encouragement from others that wasn't helpful either. they should probably strike their remarks, not to imply that they don't believe him to be a racist, but in the spirit of wiki's policy against personal attacks. untwirl(talk) 19:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Xmarx's comments were over the line - jumping to conclusions that the evidence does not necessarily support. And as I said to him, if someone is pushing an agenda for racist terms, or is otherwise being disruptive, that's what needs to be dealt with - not trying to ban somebody just because somebody thinks they're racist. Baseball Bugs 20:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

And as I just told Cyclone in a different section, these guys are trying to get him riled, and it's working. He should try ignoring their stupid insults, and just focus on article content. Baseball Bugs 20:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

←CadenS has apologised to me personally on my talk page, and I am willing to accept that apology for his incivility. It is upto the rest of you to decide whether or not it deserves any action, but I'm willing to let this go. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned. I can't help but feel that I've been judged by too many to the point that my voice doesn't matter here. Regardless of what I say in my defense, it's always taken the wrong way and used against me it seems. I end up being accused of being incivil, accused of personal attacks and threatened with blocks. The message I get is that I have no rights on wiki to defend myself. Here I'm being personally attacked on ANI and it's perfectly fine with all admins. Why? XmarX called me a racist: "CadenS isn't being incivil, he's just being a flat out racist." Why is this okay for admins or the community? XmarX said:"What is this, a chapter of the Aryan Brotherhood?" Why is that okay? XmarX further said:"he's no better than the Grand Exalted Caden." Why is this okay? Please tell me. I don't understand why he's allowed to attack me but I'm not allowed to defend myself. How can only two editors (Kcowolf and untwirl) see the damage he has caused on this ANI report? And why, despite what Bugs claims, why is Bugs allowed to egg XmarX on? I find it disturbing that the rest of you appear blind to the fact that XmarX directly called me a racist. I'm sorry if this offends people but how else do you expect me to feel? Caden S (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't okay for people to flat out you were racist, and it isn't just Kcowolf and untwirl who have shown disapproval. I show disapproval of that, seeing as there is no evidence of anything more than you supporting freedom of speech. Bugs hasn't been egging him on as such, just supporting what he's said. Bwilkins, although agreeing, believes it may have been a breach of WP:NPA against you too. However, XmarX has little history of making attacks, and we don't try to punish on every first account. It tends to take repeated attacks before action is taken, which is why you eventually ended up here. I don't like the system much, but that's how it is. Hope this clarifies things a bit. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• All of this appears to be over Caden's "advocating" the term "Negro". The only diffs provided show him saying that other editors should AGF about someone who used the term. There's a wide gulf between the accusation and what he actually did.
• Openly calling him a racist, inferring that he's a member of the KKK ("Grand Exalted Caden"), making "lynching" jokes, etc was completely uncalled-for, and arguably a lot more uncivil. The atmosphere quickly turned into a pile-on, including from editors I normally hold in high esteem.
• Suggestion, moving on: Misplaced Pages isn't a court, thank goodness. But we could do with more "innocent until proven guilty". If someone gets accused of something indefensible, that doesn't automatically mean they are indefensible. (Whether they're likable or not.) arimareiji (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how we got onto the topic of racism for CadenS anyway, I reinforced many terms earlier that that is not the reason I brought him here. I brought him here for incivility, for which he has apologized, and I see that as the end of the matter. I'll add a resolved tag to this. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 00:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The disruptive editing career of User:Abbarocks

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

Abbarocks's very first edit was in August 2008 to AN () and then the account was dormant until January 2009. Perhaps this is a newbie who magically already knows about AN and how to leave savvily misleading edit summaries to confuse third parties and knows how to walk right up to the 3RR line without crossing it rather than an experienced editor pretending to be a novice; but the disruptive effect on the project is the same if Abbarocks somehow still doesn't understand the OR and EW rules as he claims.

Every single edit of this editor has been either (1) edit-warring against consensus to include OR or other text not supported by the claimed cited sources, often with fake edit summaries; (2) edit-warring to delete well-sourced information with edit-summaries falsely calling it OR; (3) tendentious argument on the talk-page to include conspiracy theories of John Buchanan (American politician) about Prescott Bush in articles, or (4) edit-warring to sanitize Buchanan's biography.

The absolute last straw is that he has followed me to Richard Rossi to start an edit-war there on behalf of a banned editor, complete with a fake edit summary "well sourced" (compare ). This is the sure sign of someone trolling and not here to productively contribute to Misplaced Pages. Far too much productive editor time is being wasted arguing with this user, who has made the grand total of half of a constructive edit in his Misplaced Pages career, and lots of time is being wasted trying to explain OR and EW rules to him.

At some point it needs to be said that it's not worth the candle. I'd like a community ban or, at a minimum, very strict probation. THF (talk) 08:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC), diff added 08:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The user is obviously not a newbie, and that should be looked into. Meanwhile, I'm reminded of something - my mother has an excellent-tasting fruitcake recipe. Maybe I should post that on my user page. Baseball Bugs 08:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Newbie": I have been reading Misplaced Pages as a resource for years and have observed the various notice boards and editing process in the context of how articles are developed. I am newbie in terms of making edits myself cause now I have more free time than I used to, but I am really slow in typing and still not "up" on the policies, which means it takes me forever to respond to criticisms. I readily admit to having read a lot of books about Skull and Bones but that's about the only so-called conspiracy theory stuff I have much knowledge about.

• THF's complaint about me (directly above in this ANI ) making 1 edit at Richard Rossi is beyond hypocritial and hostile.

• Re: Hostile:His reference to me directly above: "he has followed me to Richard Rossi to start an edit-war there on behalf of a banned editor" is a perfect example of the hostility and false accusations coming from him toward me; e.g., I don't even know who the "banned editor" is that he accuses me of working for.

• Re: Hypocritical: Here is where THF threw himself wholeheartedly into an article( this is just the first of many edits he made on that article related exclusively to content I was working on) I had put a lot of work into and which he had never edited before..

Here are some diffs which might be useful to look at. . Here THF referred to me as a "meatpuppet" . I'd like to improve the editing atmosphere between THF,Collect and myself. That's my hope and objective. Abbarocks (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not just with me: THF has a generally AGF-NOT approach throughout his editing.Here it can be seen that his edits show clearly his habitual use of personal accusations and assumptions about someone's NEGATIVE intent: "He gave you a forthright answer to your original question, and you asked a question in response that most people would view as disingenuous,.....As wikiquette goes, I'm much more concerned about your misrepresentation..." It's amazing to me that such behavior is tolerated here, because, most importantly, it slants the content of lesser edited articles in the direction the attacking editor wants them to go. Nobody like me is going to want to edit very much when I have to put up with being called derogatory and totally false names and have to defend myself against those slurs. Abbarocks (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I should advise everyone of this WQA filing that is wholeheartedly related (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Update

Abbarocks's latest edit is to claim Prescott Bush stole Pancho Villa's skull for his Yale secret society--even though his cited source is a conspiracy theory from the antisemitic fringe source Voz de Aztlan and Pancho Villa was alive when Bush was at Yale. He has been repeatedly warned about the OR policy. How much more of this trolling and disruption are we going to take? THF (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

And now edit-warring to include it in two different articles after he was told both by myself and by User:Will Beback that Voz de Aztlan is a fringe source. Admin intervention needed. THF (talk) 01:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

THF is making a mistake by not clicking on the reference . The RS is NOT the one THF seems to think it is.The RS is the Yale Herald which is quoting this person (who happens to work for a newspaper that THF is slandering above: which,btw, I have no opinion on and have never heard of at all) and THF has already accepted the Yale Herald as a RS. This is just another example of his shoot from the hip aggressiveness. Abbarocks (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the Yale Herald quoted the ramblings of a clearly unreliable source, does not suddenly make it a reliable one. If that was the case, every time a newspaper regarded as a reliable source printed yet another "Elvis alive - seen working in Starbucks by Elmer O'Reilly (aged 85)", we'd have to add it to Elvis Presley ... Black Kite 01:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The Yale Herald is quoting the person,not the newspaper. Abbarocks (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly; just as in my example above, newspaper X is quotihg a guy who thinks Elvis works in Starbucks. Neither is worth inserting in a serious article. Black Kite 02:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, but has this person being quoted been determined to be an unreliable source and if so, by whom? Abbarocks (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether Abbarocks is trolling poor Black Kite or whether he is as oblivious as he claims to be, but I suggest that the ultimate disruptive effect on the encyclopedia is indistinguishable. THF (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

A ten minute review of Abbarocks' history indicates a single-minded effort to add urban legend, OR, and Synth to Bush & S&B related articles in an effort to push his own POV. Efforts to explain RS, OR, V, Synth, NPOV, and so on have produced no effective result. That he pushes his edits in spite of the fact that he's the only one who supports his POV has now crossed the line into the area of disruption. I recommend a topic ban for Abbarocks if not an outright community ban. This sounds extreme, so I urge those interested to review Abbarocks' edits and come to their own conclusion. He really is that obvious. Rklawton (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I also would urge those interested to review all of my edits and lmk what you think. If I'm not welcome here I'll certainly leave voluntarily. As of now I'd say there are 2 frequent Editors (3 counting Collect) who want me gone. Abbarocks (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you like us to take a vote? If so, under what terms would you leave? Rklawton (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Belief in a flat earth is still a fringe viewpoint even if the New York Times interviews a flat earther. We don't need to include finge viewpoints in every article on which there is a view.   Will Beback  talk  02:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Further Update

Here are 2 recent edits between THF and me: I really can't figure out why I am the one being put on the defensive here.

Note that Villa died in 1923 while Prescott died in 1972 yet THF accused n=me of inserting false information because he thought Prescott Bush was not in Skull and Bones when Villa died. THF was very much wrong in his facts and yet no apology at all. Abbarocks (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I would urge all interested parties to also look at these edits from THF for balance. notice the weasel words he uses and how he disparages those with opposing viewpoints, calling them fringe, conspiracy theorists, urban legends, etc. I think worst of all is this attack on a valiant public servant. Others have brought up issues of incivility with THF before and THF has pointed out that he works for a think tank. The question is does wikipedia want a person working for a POV pushing think-tank pushing POV on wikipedia, or should wikipedia strive for neutrality and stop all these nasty personal attacks THF is using? If people think that type of editing is okay behavior to tolerate on wikepdia, is it really okay to edit your employers entry with some dubious category tags? MehTsag (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Query: Which of the fringe conspiracy theorists that I called a fringe conspiracy theorist do you believe it is beyond the WP:CIVIL pale to call a fringe conspiracy theorist? Because I'll be happy to show you admins (or, at a minimum, reliable sources) who agree with me for any of them. You realize that we have a whole WP:FRINGE policy that necessarily requires us to discuss whether anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists like Voz de Aztlan are mainstream or not, right? The fact that you have to reach back to August and point out a defensible neutral edit that no one in a highly-trafficked article has objected to in six months to make a COI claim against me speaks for itself. And NB that the "before" in the "Others have brought up issues of incivility before" is 2007. THF (talk) 05:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I provided on a brief highlight of the vile material you posted. But if you want me to trim it down even more, then I will point to a former Major General and a former Attorney General. With respect to editing your employers entry people probably assumed good faith since you did not point out that you worked for the organization in the edit summary. For clarification did THF start this Incident report before the Wikiquette alert or is it vice-versa? Whoever started the second should apologize for splitting up the discussion. MehTsag (talk) 05:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

WQA is not the place to ask for a community ban of a disruptive editor; the fact that Abbarocks preemptively opened a WQA report complaining that I threatened to ask for a community ban is just further evidence of his disruption rather than something that prevents me from asking for a community ban. Each of the two edits you complain about are accurate and well-sourced--indeed, one of them is undoing one of the disruptive edits of Abbarocks that every other editor who has looked at has recognized was problematic under our policies. You still haven't identified anything wrong with the noncontroversial housekeeping AEI edit, which was completely within the province of WP:COI, which permits noncontroversial housekeeping edits. THF (talk) 05:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't understand I am pointing to or you are trying to dodge the facts. I provided the links now I will provide the quotes. You added in the vile claim " The lurid allegations were scoffed at and dismissed and hurt his post-military standing." to an article that has a referenced statement "... the McCormack-Dickstein Committee (precursor to the House Un-American Activities Committee) corroborated most of the specifics of his testimony, no further action was taken." Those two ideas don't jive with each other. Corroborated does not imply scoffed at and does not imply lurid. And yet you have added those non-sourced weasel word statement. In the other link you say "NB Ramsey Clark hasn't been an attorney general in over forty years, or credible in over thirty. The fact that he has taken the case is almost prima facie evidence of its meritlessness." (emphasis mine). The things you have added are neither well sourced nor accurate. MehTsag (talk) 06:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The uncontroversial cumulative edits I have made to Smedley Butler have improved both the citing and accuracy of that article. You still haven't explained how one is supposed to address the credibility of a source under WP:WEIGHT without discussing the credibility of the source. I stand by my comments on Clark, and they're supported by the D.C. Circuit, among others. You can have the WP:LASTWORD. THF (talk) 06:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) It seems excessive to ban Abbarocks at this stage. He's asking questions and has shown he can accept consensus. THF pushes a viewpoint, so his conduct needs looking at. His attitude is summed up by this comment he made: "My material wasn't unsourced: it was sourced to me." It's in the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Skull_and_Bones. Ty 06:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

That's now the third time you've taken that quote out of context to misrepresent my argument after you've been corrected. Not clear that you have a good-faith reason for continuing to make that misrepresentation to make it falsely seem like I was trying to violate WP:NOR, when in fact I was talking about your frivolous claim that WP:BLP required you to delete talk-page commentary about whether a source was fringe. THF (talk) 07:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If abbarocks could accept consensus, then I wouldn't have suggested a ban. If you would review the S&B article's edit history, for example, you would see repeated attempts to add material against consensus. Rklawton (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I will quit immediately if the post on Wikiquette says what I think it does

Am I reading this correctly? Does THF work for the American Enterprise Institute? If so I'm going to quit Misplaced Pages right now. I do not want to be on the wrong side of those people, no way, and he's already told me "there will be heck to pay" if I don't revert an edit. I am dead serious and I think someone who knew,if its true, should have warned me sooner, especially since it appears the info may have been on and deleted from his User page. I will immediately resign permanently from Misplaced Pages and revert every edit THF told me to and never be heard from again. Is it true? Abbarocks (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

THF has pointed out that he works for that think tank, I think you are over-reacting Abba. For Sam It is important to understand WP:OUTING where it says, "regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily posts this information, or links to this information, on Misplaced Pages themselves. MehTsag (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I resign. No hard feelings with anyone, from my end. Misplaced Pages is just not for me. I don't fit in. Sorry to waste people's time. Abbarocks (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the way I read that diff was even more benign: "was able to sell it as a free-lance piece to The American (magazine)" seems to suggest to me that he does not work for them, but submitted a piece as a free-lancer. He was correct to worry about a COI, but to describe him as an employee seems to be a stretch based on the diffs above. Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 16:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Read the article, and scroll to the bottom. Anyways Abba is gone now. MehTsag (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Spongebob Squarepants related articles.

Moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

86.135.1.202

Another case that doesn't quite qualify for AIV: 86.135.1.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who I noticed adding unsourced information to Sneakernight today. Reviewing his talkpage and contributions, this editor has made no useful contributions to Misplaced Pages (everything is unsourced and speculative at best, and it has all been reverted), and has been previously blocked for sockpuppetry. Given the nature of the edits, it's apparent that this is at least a semi-static IP, belong to the same editor since February 9th. Perhaps a nice month-long block will help. Given the history of sockpuppeting, a hardblock seems in order.—Kww(talk) 16:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• Who's the sockmaster? Protonk (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
• Nvm. read the talk page. Checking the contributions again. Protonk (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You've thrown a TLA at me that I don't understand. "NVM"?—Kww(talk) 20:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd guess it's "nevermind", based on the strike-thru' Might have been better as an XTLA e.g. "nvrm". On the other hand, maybe not ;-) Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 20:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. :) It's 'nevermind', and the second sentence should have read "I read the talk page." Protonk (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure what a "semi-static" IP is. The block this IP is in is a dynamic block of some 52,500 addresses provided by BT. If this is an IP that hasn't changed for a while that's just because the current user hasn't asked for a new one. All the blocked IP needs to do to avoid a month-long block is reboot their router; half a minute later they have a new address. Tonywalton  21:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

A lot of networks will reassign the same IP to the same MAC over and over if it's available, so that rebooting doesn't tend to reassign. That means an address relationship tends to persist, even though it isn't guaranteed to. That's what I call at "semi-static" IP. Looking at the contributions, it's apparent that this relationship is pretty long lived in this case, although it does bounce occasionally, from the appearance of the sock-puppet report. I'm open to hearing a suggestion as to what to do with this editor if you don't believe a block would be effective.—Kww(talk) 22:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

BT doesn't appear to cache IPs, in my experience (I was in that netblock for quite a while and used to curse the fact that a reboot of my router would need a DDNS update just because I'd changed a LAN setting, meaning a router reboot would change my WAN IP). Leaving aside considerations like this, how about a staged {{uw-error1}} through {{uw-error4}} followed by a block if they continue; there seems little else to do without rangeblocking 52-thousand-odd IPs. Tonywalton  00:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

They are already at final vandalism warning level.—Kww(talk) 01:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Stale maybe? Hasn't editing since the last warning. If this comes up again, leave me a note on my talk page. I agree that this IP address appears to be mainly connected to this user (or the other leases don't edit wikipedia anonymously). So if it continues we can be pretty sure that it is the same human who received the warnings. Protonk (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

IP 24.87.45.232

The Ip 24.87.45.232 has been doing edits mostly on Chinese related military articles for the past few months. I'm sure that his edits are done in good faith, but the problem is that they are badly or poorly sourced and sometimes wildly inaccurate. Most of the edits have been reverted across many articles and numerous messages have been left on his talk page and edit summary explaining why the edits are wrong. Now the main issue is that the Ip is not talking. He's not answering on his talk page or any of the articles' talk pages. He's not providing any edit summary (ever). He's just re-adding the same things over and over again. This has been going for months now and it's starting to get pretty annoying. Is it possible to block the user for at least a few days so hopefully he will get the message that he's wasting everybody's time. Thanks. --McSly (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I had a look and have to say that I don't believe it is being done in bad faith - and thus a block for "disruption" needs to be just enough to get their attention. I might suggest a 15 minute tariff, with block notice and such, might suffice to get them talking, and if that doesn't then we may have to consider longer periods. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, yes, I'm sure it's all done in good faith although since some of his edits have been reverted like a dozen times, he's certainly on the stubborn side. I'm completely Ok with a short block or anything else that might get his attention and realize that he's wasting everyone's time (including his). The reason I mentioned that the block should be for a few days is because he's not editing every day and I didn't him to "miss" the block. --McSly (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Continous re-insertation of non-reliably sourced material Airi & Meiri by User:Dekkappai

Recently an article was started on the non-notable "Japanese gravure idols and AV idols" called "Airi & Meiri". I tried speedy, as it was completely unsourced. It was removed. Then PROD, but also removed. No changes in the article where done. So I started an AfD. Then a major series of edits where performed, all of them including unreliable sources such as blogs, catalogs, and self-published marketing materials. I proceed to remove all of this materials, with explanation on the edit summaries. This is blatant WP:LARDing, and the reverts are bad faith, with misleading edit summaries , on the part of User:Dekkappai and bad faith accusations of "conspiracy" by another editor in the user's talk page, which sounds much more like meatpuppetry to disrupt the AfD.

In order to not get into 3RR over this, I am raising this thread.--Cerejota (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an AfD in progress. The nominator (above) has been blanking the article while I and others have been working on it. His/her assertion that the content added is not up to Misplaced Pages standards should be settled by the AfD. Instead, the nominator refuses to allow editing to continue. This is against policy, as I understand it. Dekkappai (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not refuse to allow editing, I refuse to allow bad editing. The difference is clear.--Cerejota (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out also, the nominator's bizarre assertion of "meatpuppetry" when neither of us has yet !voted at the AfD. I notified the other user for help improving the article, and ths nominator's actions appear to have the purpose of preventing that. Dekkappai (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

IP user:213.22.185.170

213.22.185.170 has been engaged in an edit war on Atlas Shrugged for three days now, despite multiple notices posted on his/her Talk page which the user has blanked on one occasion. The user claims every edit to be a revert of vandalism, has made no attempt at consensus discussion, and has consistently changed the lead's description of the story from "a general strike by leading industrialists and businessmen, led by the protagonist John Galt" to "a general strike by elements of the robber baron class, led by the protagonist John Galt." Looking through my history I realize I've hit four reverts combating this, so I don't want to take further action, but this vandalism has to stop. »S0CO 23:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

IP 199.17.55.131

Hey, I need help. On the Potential superpower, this IP keeps on this posting this report . However, this doesn't mention anything of how India economic growth works helps it's superpower status, or how India can be considered a potential superpower. When me and another user told him that the information he was adding is OR, he responded with "Just because I have cited an external link does not mean that I have not done research on this topic. This is what I have been doing for 10 years", and "You have to draw an inference through research. This report mentions that India's GDP will exceed that of the United States' GDP in 2043; this automatically means India will be a superpower." However, the report doesn't say anything about how if India's GDP will exceed the US's GDP, that means India is a superpower. Another user and I have told him this, and if he continues doing this tommorow, what should I do? Deavenger (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Legal Threats at User talk:Shayan.mashatian

Very strange indeed. Please see this permalink since the user blanks their talk page regularly. Sock puppet report also being made. Very similar edit pattern to similarly named user Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the message you left on the talk page, the user may make a legal threat if they so wish. However, if they do so, they will be blocked until the matter is resolved. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 00:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Disagreement is valid. Feel at liberty to modify it. However it may also be read as a prediction. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as they removed the threat, I don't think that will be necessary. I'm more concerned with the sockpuppet report. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 00:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a huge difference on their talk page. But such things are for uninvolved parties to judge. The sock puppet report seems to stand and be at least quasi-confirmed by the user. Again for others to judge. I can report it, but by doing so I do not judge it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Account deactivation

I wanted to know how I can deactivate my account. What do I do?Cobenobo (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Accounts cannot be deactivated, as such, as all edits need to have a name associated with them. The best option is to simply leave your account and not come back onto it, leaving a message on you talk and user page saying that you have left. This should suffice for most purposes, but an administrator may be able to help you further if the reason is more specific. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 00:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The answer is the same as yesterday: Don't log in no more. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 00:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

ps: see WP:AN#Comments to be erased and account deleted --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 00:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Unresolving. This editor, via an ip, is removing swathes of content from various pages - this is making the talkpages incoherent. They have been advised that they should not delete past contributions, that the record of the comments remains in the page edit history, yet continue regardless (much like trying again to get a response that is different from the last). I will have a quick look at the ip I just reverted... LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh bloody hell. :/ //roux   01:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• This is the edit that caught my attention - note who was previously reverted (and who made the same edit/deletion). I made a mistake in saying it is current, as the ip is removing stuff from the archives, but it still indicates that someone is not listening to the answers to questions they posed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Armenian nationalist flare-up at Mitanni

This article has just been semi-protected as a result of an IP editor warring to insert a claim that the Mitanni were ancestors of the Armenians, based on what other editors see as inadequate sources. Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs) has now taken up the cudgels, reverting back to the IP's preferred version with an uncivil edit summary, and making hand-waving claims that many academic sources support the relationship but failing to specify any in spite of repeated requests. In the disputed material, the only "source" that directly supports a Mitanni-Armenian relationship comes from a blog site. I have reviewed the issues to give context here, but this is not a content dispute, it is a question of disruptive, uncivil, and tendentious editing that calls for admin intervention. Looie496 (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs) has been notified of this thread. Looie496 (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't take anyone long to verify that many reliable sources mention that the Armenians are descendants of Mitanni. Yet I have seen anyone who tries to mention these sources on the Mitanni article, get called a troll and threatened with blocking. Are all the cited authors who wrote about this, trolls as well? Or is there some foul play here that is trying to exclude relevant information exactly as described at WP:BIAS? Readers researching Mitanni can easily find out elsewhere that modern-day groups claim descent from them, and probably wouldn;t want this view suppressed by editors who think they "know better" than these sources and therefore they must not even be mentioned. I have already stated twice, and am now stating again, that the correct place to bring this up would have been WP:RS/N where regular editors are quite familiar with our standards of verifiability for reliable sources if there is any question. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If anybody finds this response cogent, please say so and I'll answer it. Looie496 (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly how we get vast discrepancies between what wikipedia says, and what other sources say. It only takes about one second to find copious scholarly books (NOT blogs) that mention the Armenian-Mitanni connection. If you think there are no "reliable sources" saying this, the reliable sources noticeboard will clear up your confusion. And the discussion was fairly civil until today when a certain admin suddenly shows up namecalling editors "trolls" just for citing these sources (are the sources written by "trolls" too?) That admin is known for regularly using his admin tools, or threatening their use, as personal tools to make sure his own POV take on a subject prevails over what the sources say, but I'm not afraid. This type of behaviour is a serious black mark on wikipedia, and it needs to be exposed. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this requires an answer either. Looie496 (talk) 05:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you are unable to come up with any. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Just stumbled on this when taking my daily dosage of AN/I. After having read the discussion at Talk:Mitanni#Removed Armenians, it does certainly looks strange that Til Eulenspiegel repeatedly claims that sources are easy to find, and even continues those claims in this discussion by stating that it would only take "about a second to find a source", yet still has to actually come up with any, even if this whole discussion could easily be closed by the provision of such adequate sources. Though that is still just a content dispute, and not exactly AN/I matter (unless 3RR have been transgressed). --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really a content dispute, but more of the beginnings of an edit war and a gross misinterpretation of reliable sources. By repeatedly attempting to insert original research and uncited materials and then claim that "sources are easy to find," then you are edit warring. The burden to find the sources falls not on other editors but on the individual who makes the claim -- in this case, Til Eulenspiegel. I take it that this issue will not reoccur again, because a block over something this pathetic really does no one good. seicer | talk | contribs 13:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The dispute is over the reliability of the sources, and thus the correct place to settle it is WP:RS/N as I have said all along, so I have now begun a discussion there. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I can see that Til Eulenspiegel have just continued the same line of reasoning by stating that sources are easy to find and then fail to provide any examples of such easy to find sources at WP:RS/N (what is the point of discussing it at that forum then when there are no sources to discuss). I can only concur with seicers view on this matter. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, but there are sources to discuss, and that is exactly where we should be discussing them, and where I will be discussing them. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

So..."discussion" is going on over at Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Systematic_Bias_over_RSS_at_Talk:Mitanni, and I have to say that if this is typical of User:Til Eulenspiegel's contributions to Misplaced Pages I'm not impressed. I think I might disagree with seicer's comment above just a little bit...a block over something this pathetic might well do some good. If Til Eulenspiegel usually acts like this, we have a good example of tendentious editing on our hands. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Unilateral category move

George Al-Shami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is replacing every example of Category:Syrian Arab nationalists with Syrian nationalists. Perhaps this is correct, but it would seem to me that if one wants to rename a category, one does so through normal procedures: in this case, the two categories would describe entirely different categories, so the unilateral move appears inappropriate. I am reverting all of these changes; let me know if there is disagreement. THF (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is definitely some disagreement THF, reverting my edits is a unilateral move itself, isn't it? The former category was contradictory; as Syrian natioalists and Arab nationalists are two different things.George Al-Shami (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, please bring it up on the category talk page. As far as I can see it, George Al-Shami was being WP:BOLD, THF reverted, and now discussion can occur. No incident requiring admin attention. Protonk (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Kevin7557 continuing warring

Firstly see Kevin7557 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kevin7557/Archive

Then today a large number of IPs performing identical edit warring on these articles

Characters in Resident Evil 4

Conflict: Desert Storm II

My Name Is Bruce

Syphon Filter: Logan's Shadow

Syphon Filter: Dark Mirror the first three of which are now semi protected

I have blocked the following IPs so far today

86.145.113.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

86.143.126.252‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

81.157.83.84‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

86.132.133.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Advice on the best way to proceed with this? Mfield (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. But knowing something about the situation, I think the best thing to do would be to semi-protect Characters in Resident Evil 4 for several months and hope this person gives up. This person will just keep using new IPs and his/her/its main focus is on that article, adding the info about the Merchant. Also note that this article is not one which requires a lot of new edits, is not controversial. It would hardly be missed by those IPs who wish to edit constructively. Belasted (talk) 06:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I might be over-zealous but I think semi-protection on all five articles will be necessary. The user does not give up easily (see this IP's history of edits), is not dissuaded by communication, warnings or blocks, and merely resumes editing after semi-protection has expired. Geoff B (talk) 10:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

User:98.180.196.203 reverting redirects and ignoring consensus.

According to his alk page, he apparently has a history of this and, when asked to stop, claimed he would " revert them back. Then you'll end up looking like a prick engaging in edit waring(sic)."

Could someone have a talk with him, please? HalfShadow 04:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

He now appears to be removing templates more or less at random, as well as reverting redirects. HalfShadow 04:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This edit among their many others is very disruptive. In my opinion, a block should be made to prevent any more of this. -- Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 04:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I just blocked this IP on the back of an AIV report. Reporting user gave this page of theirs as a list of previous activity by this problem editor. Mfield (talk) 05:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, much better. While I can keep that up indefinitely, I'd rather not... HalfShadow 05:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

He is at it again, using EEMlV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) which is an attempt to appear to be EEMIV (talk · contribs) (upper case l instead of lower case L). Mfield (talk) 05:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

And as 98.180.208.214 (talk · contribs). I've reported this address to A:IV, but since his last edits at this address were last night, it may get deleted as stale. HalfShadow 17:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

User apparently changed name, but I can't find a log entry

User talk:James Janderson recently came up for speedy deletion on the grounds that there was no such user. Although I can't find such a user, the large number of posts to the page indicates that other editors were trying to communicate with someone there. Further research suggests that User:James Janderson is the former username of the user now known as User:Dr. Blofeld. There is no problem if the user properly changed his name, but shouldn't there be a log entry reflecting that, and shouldn't his user talk page have been moved to his new name? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes that was the reason. Dr. Blofeld 10:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you that maybe he didn't want his real name to be associated with his current account? EconomicsGuy (talk) 05:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case, I'm sorry, but in fairness it didn't take a lot of research to figure out the connection between the two accounts, nor did it require the use of any admin tools. Furthermore, I don't think we allow the right to vanish to users who just want to change their names rather than leaving entirely. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

(After EC): ::I've created the account and undeleted the user page, which was deleted by an automated script (see this archived AN thread). If Dr. Blofeld wants the user page re-deleted, then he is of course free to do that himself. We're generally more strict about deleting talk pages though. I don't know how to get to the username change logs without knowing the name of the bureaucrat, but the change is logged at this CHU archive and these logs for Nicholp. Back in 2006, when a user was renamed, their user and user talk pages were not automatically moved. Also, deleted contributions were not moved, so any edit that was deleted at the time of the username change then later undeleted would be attributed to the old username. This is why there is one undeleted edit now. I was in a similar situation with my old username, Pianoman87. Graham87 06:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and notified Dr,. Blofeld about this thread. Graham87 06:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes that was an old account when I first arrived. Please delete it thanks. Dr. Blofeld 10:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. I thought you were an admin so you could do it yourself. I obviously didn't read your userpage well enough. :-) Graham87 10:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

User:WLaccount

• WLaccount (talk · contribs)

Originally posted this at WQA here, but this is starting to spiral quickly out of control. Incivility issues are noted at the WQA, and I don't know what the hell is going on at Talk:Kriss Perras Running Waters. Other relevant pages include Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Henry Mortensen (actor), User talk:WLaccount, User talk:Shawnpoo, and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kriss Perras Running Waters. MuZemike 08:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with MuZemike, he is taking things very seriously and being offensive. He's ranting about articles of his that have been proposed to AfD, and attacking other articles. Something needs to be done. All of the controversy has been linked above by MuZemike. §hawnpoo 08:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, first, keep Henry out there. The article is there since 2007 and mostly built by other people. It gets a lot of bad faith only for being somewhat related to the other three). The Kriss Perras article also is quite old but has some IPs ranting at the talkpage. Our friend is either Kriss or a close friend or simply a fan. Funny enough Kriss is accused to be nothing more than a fan of Viggo Mortensen herself. Also note, that another account with the name of the production company has been blocked yesterday (if I remember right).--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 09:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I also report these two people who deleted my request for deletion at the top of the talk kriss perras Running Waters page - Administrators said you are not supposed to do that and yet you did delete the request for deletion which is against Misplaced Pages rules for reqeust for deletion. The things listed on that page are grossly inaccurate and do not belong on a Misplaced Pages page. And that is why I am writing. I am neither a friend nor affiliated with Kriss Perras Running Waters. I came upon the vandalism on the page yesterday and decide to rewrite the page according to accurate information. My my this gets very petty on Misplaced Pages. This is really bad and I think I might report this page to the PR firm that represented the magazine the poster said was only a Vanity magazine. The irm was listed as Dick Guttman Asscs. and he represents Barbara Streisand among some other notable people. That was who was listed on the masthead of that magazine that this person says is vanity: Dick Gutman. Chek here for the facts on where it is listed this director lives: It is People Search http://www.peoplesearchnow.com/summary.asp?fn=Kriss&mn=&ln=Perras&state=CA&x=18&y=7&vw=people&Input=name It states on there the director lives in Topanga

the reason I am mad is the whole thing onmy edited pages was about no citations other than IMDb but when I say that someone is posting bad information without even one single citation other than OpEd News, which I guess is considered credible by Misplaced Pages, then yeah I get upset. If this is suppose to be about factual findings then why is it when I call the Administrators to the carpet for facts on someone else they do nothing but when I post edits with citations from known sources then all of a sudden it is request for deletion - that makes no sense. And the article on that talk page said more than just a fan the person states "However, I am more concerned about her unusual interest in a public figure and the extensive creation of vocational persona and vanity e-publications aimed at eliciting the attentions of actor Mortensen." That is not just stating she is a fan - if that was all then so what but god what the Hell? That is all I am saying is if this is suppose otbe about facts then why not make this person who wrote this without even posting a signature delete the posting? WLaccount (talk) 09:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the template off the talk page as it was being used in the wrong namespace. Please handle all article debates ont heir appropriate talk page or AfD page. §hawnpoo 09:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I put the request for delete on that page because it was specifically that page I was requesting be deleted - where are you suggesting I put the request? please post a link here and I will put the request for deletion there as you say - it just is not right there are no citations on that page and it is not neutral so that is my reason for request for deletion. Your rules state there must be citations and the article must be neutral. WLaccount (talk)

It's irrelevant there. Period. It doesn't belong there and nobody is going to be looking for that talk page at random. You have an option right now. You can either (1) continue to whatever you want to do, attacking every single person who disagrees with you, ignoring all advice, putting warnings and statements everywhere you want until you find yourself blocked and the fate of those articles decided without further discussion by you or (2) grow up and actually attempt to help get them saved by listening to people and doing the things asked of you. Go to the deletion discussion pages and try to convince people why they should be here. Read the policies they cite and be polite. Really, what is more important to you at this point? Getting a few minutes of insults and screaming out of your system or keeping that stuff there? Because, to be honest, blocking you to stop the disruption and moving on is a million times easier than actual conversation and dealing with you. And believe me, this pattern comes again and again. Some grow up, stay, become productive and things work out. Others have their ten minutes of fun and then are locked out forever. It's totally on you. Sleep on it overnight (nothing is going to get deleted in 24 hours and if it does, then go to my talk page and I'll personally put up a stink about serious violations of process here), and come back with a cool head. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't pan on posting anything else on this site and whatever happens to my two hours of research on what I posted and the article that cites not sources is whatever happens. I no longer consider Misplaced Pages credible about anything now that I see what happens here. WLaccount (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Need help with article patrollers

Hi - I'm in process of creating an article about an independent rock band, Them Terribles. I've attached an {{inuse}} tag to signal that I am actively working on the article. Because I'm working remotely with a weak connection I prefer to save regularly rather than saving all at once. I've done this before many times, and it seems that the "inuse" tag normally keeps things stable until I've had a chance to finish a proper stub or start class article with references. This time though a couple editors on new article patrol are tag teaming me by repeatedly nominating the page for speedy deletion. I've removed the tag under WP:IAR because following the policy makes no sense at all - it's just pointless procedure. I've assured them I am an experienced editor not writing a speediable article, and asked them to not keep adding the tag. They don't seem to be interested in honoring my request - one just WP:DTTR-ed me with a supposed "last warning" threatening a block if I remove the tag again, and went ahead and nominated it yet again. Could I please have an administrator take a look, and if warranted ask these people to back off? Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 08:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This user created the article, and has twice removed the speedy-tag. As it happens, another user (not me) replaced it both times. But Wikidemon's arguments that I am being disruptive by re-adding the tag is inappropriate. The tag clearly states that it is not to be removed by the article's creator, and he deliberately ignored the process.

Since he indignantly expostulated that he was "not a novice", I simply gave him a final warning without going through the intermediate stages, since he claims to understand the deletion process and to know better. I think I've acted appropriately!

Note that the appropriateness of the tagging is by-the-by, and certainly the article seems to have a greater claim to notability now than when originally tagged, but the creator removing it is still disallowed. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 09:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If you include information on the band's notability from the get-go it shouldn't be tagged for deletion. You can also create it in your userspace and move it into the mainspace when there's enough information about it to ensure that it passes speedy deletion. Themfromspace (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I tagged it at this revision, when it was very much at the bare-bones. Also, Dmol and I are not tag-teaming, we have never (still never!) communicated before. I only tagged once, my only further involvement was the warning. Please check these facts out, Wd. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 09:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes but you tagged it within 5 minutes of the article being created. New page patrollers are generally advised to start patrolling from the back of the log. §hawnpoo 09:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

A page is expected to meet notability guidelines, and that didn't. Five minutes is neither here nor there - userspace can be used to get it ready, show-preview can be used to get it ready. If my actions were judged to be overly hasty by an admin removing the tag, that's fine. I object to Wikidemon removing the tag and then getting snotty about it. Right or wrong, the tag must not be removed by Wikidemon, as I understand it. That said, the article is now closer to being notable than it was, so I would just encourage Wd to calm down a little in his accusations of tendentious editing, and to create articles in his userspace. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 09:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing new: Only three minutes, everything there. This has to stop. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 09:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

< Hexa, everything is not there. That article does not assert the band's notability, as is required. There are no reliable, third-party sources. Only the band's own pages - which are explicitly not enough. "This has to stop" - then propose a policy of no-tagging for 2 hours after article creation except in cases of obvious vandalism (my dog is called paul and hes gay)... I'd be happy to consider any such ideas.

But your article you just linked didn't meet the current policy, I'm afraid. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 09:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is why it is recommended that NewPage Patrollers (like myself) patrol from the back of the log as opposed to the front of the log. MuZemike 09:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

But it's no CSD-A7! And not after three minutes. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 09:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd have said it was. It doesn't assert its notability, and that's precisely what the tag is for. You can continue talking about "three minutes" all you like, but the article is expected to list third-party sources. You could always take up my constructive suggestion of a policy proposal if you feel strongly about the timing issue, though. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 09:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't need no policy for everything, sometimes we could just use our brain. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 09:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Umm, a failure to list third-party sources toward notability does not entail A7; an assertion of notability, even unsourced, is sufficient to overcome speedy deletion (I take no position on whether A7 was otherwise applicable here; I mean only to note that if you've been tagging for speedy articles that assert notability but fail to provide sources for that assertion, you've been acting contrary to established policy , one, notably, expressed in bold at WP:CSD). 69.212.64.246 (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

(ecX7, unindent) I've got reliable sources in my other browser windwos, and if we weren't in a pointless wiki-battle with a "last warning" on my page I would have put them in by now. Now TreasuryTag is accusing me of stuff. You bet I'm annoyed. TreasuryTag, please take some responsibility for your edits where they involve other editors. Sloppy wikignoming is one thing, harassing experienced editors over it to the point of wasting everyon's time on AN/I is disruptive. I did not accuse you of WP:MEAT, and please stop trying to turn this into a debate on who is following wiki rules. You two have alternated these warnings, nominations, templating, etc. It's nice that you're helping out by protecting the encyclopedia against non-notable articles but please recognize when you've made a mistake, and move on. Dealing with this is extra work on a slow connection at this point. Themfromspace, are you saying that articles should be first created in user space then moved to article space when done, rather than created via a series of initial edits? I've never done that before but if it's a policy I wasn't aware of, sorry. As far as what is allowed or not, Misplaced Pages isn't supposed to involve procedure just for the sake of procedure. Why are we wasting everyone's time on this? May I please go back to editing the article? The tag is inconvenient, and it's not going to be speediable when done. If, when I'm done, someone thinks it is not suitably sourced, they can go ahead and file an AfD nomination or, better yet, discuss politely on the talk page and if there are better sources take some time to help fix it.Wikidemon (talk) 09:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Wikidemon, but I would like to be clear on some points:

1. I am not "accusing" you of anything except deleting a speedy tag from the article you created, which is disallowed, as I'm sure you know. I have provided two diffs to prove this.
2. I never suggested you accused me of WP:MEAT, I said you accused me of tag-teaming. You used the word "tag-teaming".
3. I alternated nothing. I added the CSD, and didn't re-add it once you removed it, because I could see the article coming along. Dmol re-added it. While I could see the article coming along (for which you deserve credit), however, your deletion of the tag was still not allowed, so I warned you for this.
4. I don't really think that the tag is inconvenient (it's just {{db-g7}}, doesn't take up much space), but if anyone wants to remove it, I won't contest that, just like I didn't plan to re-add it when you deleted it originally.

Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 09:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe we are now getting off topic. An admin declined the speedy so let the article be for a few days and if you decide to take it to Afd after then so be it. §hawnpoo 09:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I am the other person adding the tag. I am not tag-teaming with the other user who i have never communicated with before. The original article was only a basic line for a band with absolutly no evidence of notability and was tagged by TreasuryTag user. Despite claiming to be an experience user, the original contributor took out the delete tag, and when i replaced it my edit explained this clearly. Despite this, it was removed again. I do not consider the inuse tag should allow the article to procede, any more than flippant "please don't delete" pleas that are sometimes added by authors. I expect this article to show notability within the next 24 hours, or it goes to AFD. The number of bands that appear here without evidence of notability is annoying, time consumming, and counter productive.--Dmol (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

There was no original article to judge. There was a multi-step edit in process with an inuse tag. I took the speedy tag off knowing full well there is a rule against it, because the tag is just wrong. I often revert clumsy edits rather than following pointless procedures - IAR is one of the five pillars. Now two editors are harranguing me with rather rude comments like "flippant", "despite claiming", "snotty", "tendentious", "indignantly", "check the facts out", etc. The behavior fits the category I consider tag-teaming. Nothing especially wrong with that, and again I do not accuse them of meatpuppeting. It's just particularly vexing to be harassed officiously by two misguided editors at the same time. Experienced, productive editors do get annoyed when people waste their time and accuse them of incompetence or bad faith. They're wrong and they deserve some reproach for wasting time like this. Wikidemon (talk) 09:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, I am reluctantly forced to say, "Check your facts." I never called you tendentious, and as far as I know, neither did Dmol. You (indirectly?) called me tendentious , I merely suggested that you should calm down and not toss around the word . ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 09:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, according to the rules, Wikidemon should not have removed the tag. Also according to the rules, the speedy deletion tag was legitimately placed. However, when an article has been tagged with {{inuse}}, and has just been created, it's common sense (and just courteous) that we should wait just a little longer than 5 minutes before tagging it for speedy deletion. It would have hurt absolutely nothing if a possibly non-notable band article were allowed to exist for half an hour or so before tagging for deletion. -kotra (talk) 09:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

One user above says, "If you include information on the band's notability from the get-go it shouldn't be tagged for deletion. You can also create it in your userspace and move it into the mainspace when there's enough information about it to ensure that it passes speedy deletion." That's a reasonable argument. I would now like to see what rule requires that that suggested approach be followed, so that everything already will be in place when the article has begun. NO, what you have here is the typical behavior of the ravenous wolves called "deletionists", whose mission in life here is to destroy rather than to create. Baseball Bugs 14:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're an experienced editor and will be creating a notable article, always use WP:IAR and remove the speedy tag. It's common sense. We don't need to follow process when following process would hurt the encyclopedia. The person who tagged it? Assume good faith of the editor and expect that the article will be notable. Seraphim♥ 14:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, perhaps taggers might keep in mind the lead of WP:CSD, which says, "Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete." If an article is tagged "inuse", you can assume that the article is being created over several edits. Tagging it for speedy deletion in that case is a waste of time for everyone—particularly the creator, who has to stop building the article to write a "hangon" rationale (unless IARing), and the admin who will find it in the queue. If you're concerned that the contributor will not meet notability, perhaps consider dropping a note at his or her talk page saying, "Hi, saw the new article you're actively building. Just wanted to remind you to verify notability. Thanks." Only takes a minute, and it's much more collegial. :) --Moonriddengirl 14:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent points. Baseball Bugs 14:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, it's not a good sign when a new page patroller thinks A7 is about notability. A7 was carefully worded to avoid that mistake. Second, if new page patrollers would take the time to do this the old school way by doing a Google search first and look at who created the article (unless it's blatant bollocks) then these things wouldn't happen. Why do we need rules to explain common sense? EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Because the deletionists' insatiable desire to delete things overrides everything else. Baseball Bugs 15:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I have created a few new articles that are still stubs, and have never had any tagged or deleted. If there is something in the article to establish notability, why should there be a problem? I think Themfromspace's suggestion to work the article up enough before creating it on WP, is a good approach. Otherwise, how are patrollers to know that this particular article is not just spam promoting some highschool kid's own band? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the short answer to that is to take the time to look at the initial author's user and talk pages, look at the author's contribs. It doesn't take that long to look at someone who has created a new article. What is the difference between five minutes of existence, versus an hour of research? Even more so if the author feels it necessary to include the {{inuse}} tag, which usually indicates a level of clue. Personally, I see this as a failing of the spirit of wikipedia and a rather strict adherence to the rules. And secondary to that, anyone running new page patrol should be able to quickly determine "spam" or "junk" based on the initial state of the article; any doubts should lead to pause. Yngvarr (t) (c) 15:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Misplaced Pages:Deletion of pages under construction is a good guide for when to tag/delete pages with an {{underconstruction}} template, or with an {{inuse}} template. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to go with the tagging editor. Having a Misplaced Pages article is starting to be a big deal for a band, and bands on the edge of notability (as well as those beyond the pale) are having articles written. The burden is really on the article writer to establish notability. I see no reason why the first edit cannot contain the info needed to satisfy WP:MUSIC, or why once the creating editor became aware there was concern, he did not remedy the situation then and there. It takes a minimal number of facts to satisfy WP:MUSIC, and if they were placed on the article page, no admin will delete. While there's every sympathy for the article writer, this is an area of WP where adherence to the rules is needed, and he didn't do so. There is no way he should have taken that speedy tag down, let alone twice. It may be worth putting in the rules for Speedy that if the tag is taken down by the article creator, it may be replaced by anyone, and that does not count towards 3RR or as edit warring.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You want to encourage edit warring? Yes way, I can and do and will remove inappropriate tags if they are a waste of time and removing them improves the encyclopedia. I could easily have said "xxx is an American rock band that has charted songs and won major awards" or gone through some other perfunctory recitation of notability criteria, and it would be unspeediable. Or I could have added the "hangon" tag and wasted more of people's time. But why stand on strict adherence to the rules? I actually did follow the rules. The reason I started the article the way I did is that it's often best to write the lead first, and the lead for a rock band article generally does not assert notability. I left notes, used the talk page, etc., and the body of pages about speedy deletion seems to contemplate and allow for constructing articles in multiple steps. Rules are supposed to serve the interests of the encyclopedia, not the other way around. If I want to signal that the article will be fine I can add the "inuse" tag rather than have to wikigame. Wikidemon (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring an "in use" tag and slapping with speedy because of what all the other newb fanboys do is nothing other than bad faith. It's not right to do so to an established wiki writer/creator like Wikidemon. Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Just throwing this in for anyone reading who doesn't know or has forgotten this. A good alternative to applying an inuse or underconstruction tag and hoping the article doesn't get deleted is to start working on the article as a subpage of your user page, and only move it into article space when you think it will pass muster. This will give you much more time to iron the kinks out.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is that the article creator is not in the best position to know if the removal of the speedy tag is appropriate thus the rule. I think that is the point at which you should have sought intervention if discussion say on the tagger's talk page failed. No admin would have deleted with a hangon tag saying "We're talking about it! See discussion here." Instead the matter deterioriated in a less than productive manner.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, policy already suggests waiting if the article "appears incomplete", and there's no reason to increase the burden of C:CSD by tagging articles that are likely to be expanded such that the tag is no longer applicable, unless there are core issues like BLP or copyvio. I think a personal note such as I mentioned above would have served just as well, as would have a {{Notability|Music}}, without causing tension. Again, it's a more collegial approach. (But, Wikidemon, the lead section of every article should establish notability, per Misplaced Pages:Lead section.) --Moonriddengirl 17:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• To wrap it up: Instead of removing the tag Wikidemon could have placed the "hang on" template and asked the (two) editors to remove the tag by themselves and give him/her a little bit more than five minutes to show notability of the subject and the "tagging" editors could've give him/her a slack and the courtesy not to "draw" the "taging-gun" that fast. Both parties where right and wrong at the same time in my point of view and if some slight (in part understandable) "temper" would've kept out of it, it wouldn't have been such a waste of time. I'd say, let's call it resolved. Best regards to all good faith parties, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The CSD / tagging regimen is clearly not intended for good faith editors who know what they are doing. If we want to make it a requirement to create new articles in user space before moving them over to article space, fine. But that is less efficient than creating them in the right place for a number of reasons including now having surplus redirects that need to be deleted, and in many cases getting the wikilinks set up. In process of creating articles one often finds and adds wikilinks back from farflung articles to the new article. These will all be redlinks (and thus deleted by watchful editors) if the article is in user space. This particular case is resolved, but the matter of assuming that new article creators are nincompoops or spammers continues. Perhaps we do want to bite newbies and chase them away until they are experienced enough to pass through the gauntlet. But I'll bet for every editor like me who knows where the ropes are, there are others who get discouraged and don't stick around to figure it out. People who tag articles for deletion really ought to make sure the article really is speediable, and assume the article creator is acting in good faith if they assure them it is not. Wikidemon (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"The CSD / tagging regimen is clearly not intended for good faith editors who know what they are doing." They probably just didn't know you.

"If we want to make it a requirement to create new articles in user space...". No, we shouldn't because besides that the edit history from the start would be missing (and I prefer to "see the birth" of a new article) it takes away the chance for other editors to kick in and help.

"that is less efficient than creating them in the right place...". I agree and is part of my point just made.

About new editors (creating articles): We ought to help them as far as their articles creations have good potential.

"People who tag articles for deletion really ought to take some responsibility to make sure the article really is speediable, and assume the article creator is acting in good faith if they assure them it is not." Indeed and I guess it's usually done this way but nobody is perfect so what happened today will happen occasionally. If more new editors would bother to read their welcome message (if they receive one) and bother to read the links explaining how WP works there would be a big difference already. But hey, at the end we only can interfere in a one by one basis.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Suggest someone mark this "resolved" and let's move on to the next one. Bailiff, bring in the next group.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I just want to point out as someone who deletes quite a lot of speedies, that articles about hopelessly non-notable bands are so common, and spurious protest against their deletion also so common, that this above other areas is a field where we may tend to do things quickly--not that this excuses deleting too fast, but it does provide an explanation of why it happens. DGG (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I know this is marked as "resolved", but I would assert that removing speedy tag from articles you have created should be treated as a bright-line rule: strictly forbidden under all circumstances, good faith or no. The only exception I can think of is changing your mind about a "db-author" tag.—Kww(talk) 18:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with the point above. And... having skimmed through the huge wave of repetitive and scalding-hot anger that has been thrust at me (and thanks for those of you who were less insulting and even suggested that I might not be being intentionally disruptive, and that I may actually be a good-faith user!), can I then suggest that a new {{inuse}}-type template is created, or a new parameter added, which will say something like, "Please give this article at least 40 minutes before tagging for deletion. 40 minutes from the time of this template will be: 6.30pm March 9th"... this would mean that only clued-up users would know how to use the syntax, and it would be a helpful aid to those patrolling. How about it? ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 19:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

No, quite the opposite: The deletion-happy patrollers should be strictly forbidden from zapping an article five minutes after it appears, unless it is obviously spam or other junk, which does not appear to be the case here. Baseball Bugs 19:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Unwritten law on German WP is 15 minutes after the last change. That seems reasonable. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 19:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"deletion-happy patrollers"? This is what got tagged . Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

There was another incident yesterday with a complete article tagged after only three minutes, since the article is no more, I can't show you the diff. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 19:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Then, prsumably, the tagger acted reasonably because the tag was upheld?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

An article needs to rise above speedy-deletion criteria the moment it is created. A7 is particularly easy: you don't even need to have a source, you don't have to satisfy any notability rules, just include some statement that can be treated as an indication of importance. Wikidemon has been around long enough to understand what a statement of importance looks like, and, if a patroller is misapplying the tag, the admin processing the speedy serves as a double-check. If you believe that articles that actually contain a statement indicating the importance of the topic are getting deleted under A7, the responsibility for that belongs with the deleting admin. This was eligible under A7, and there is no excuse for creating an article like that in the first place. Sandboxes work, and, if you are on a slow connection that makes you want to add things slowly, you need to start with an assertion of importance. As the article stands at this moment, I still don't see a clear assertion of importance. It's not at all clear that this articles passes WP:BAND, but that's an AFD issue, not a CSD issue. —Kww(talk) 19:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Karl "gary" 19

I just reverted obvious trolling on User talk:Luna Santin. Got a button? Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are you bringing it here? Give him a warning and wait for his next move. §hawnpoo 09:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, warned. Keep an eye on this and see the harassing diff. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Forget that - that sort of editing is not on. They were the only contribs anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Terima kasih. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat alert

We have blanking and now a legal threat: . Enjoy!  Doulos Christos ♥ talk  16:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Tendentious editing and POV pushing. Treat as common vandal. Nothing here.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef for legal threats. Chillum 16:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible fake or unapproved bot

Folks might want to have a look at Special:Contributions/Joeyaa. I don't know if this is an unauthorized bot or a person impersonating a bot, but either way he/she/it has been tagging legitimate articles for deletion and strikes me as suspicious. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not a flagged bot. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Left a message on the user's talk page and referred him to this discussion. Edit summaries look similar to those left by pywikipedia framework. —Nn123645 (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Revenge tagging and edit warring by user:Alex Rio Brazil

Alex Rio Brazil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been edit warring through socks and by himself over the past few days over my tagging of the Aristotle Onassis article. Now he is mass tagging articles on my user page as revenge. Initially he posted his threat here: Please help. Thank you. Dr.K. logos 16:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Now he started reverting and tagging the same articles though a sock 201.19.133.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Dr.K. logos 17:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Two more socks: 201.19.242.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and ‎ 201.29.135.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Dr.K. logos 17:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

ARB blocked for 24h for gross edit warring (e.g ). On the face of it, Dr. K. deserves the same - still looking William M. Connolley (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

William hi. Please check my reverts. Alex Rio Brazil put notability tags on Georgakis, Moustaklis and in the film article L'Insoumis he tagged it as a school. Clearly bad faith drive-by tagging vandalism. He also used sockpuppets to pursue this agenda. My work improving the Aristotle Onassis article was seriously disrupted by the mass tagging counter-attack. Putting me in the same category as a sockpuppeteer who attacks editors trying to improve his bad editing on Aristotle Onassis sends exactly the wrong message to bona-fide users who try to improve the project. Dr.K. logos 19:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ohmigod. Well, Tasos, you were certainly in the right in principle here, but it wasn't a very good decision to let yourself be drawn into that reverting contest. Once the disruptive intent of the other guy had become clear, it would have been better to just alert the admins and wait till he got blocked. Come to think of it, there's little actual damage in having an unjustified tag sit on a little-watched page for a few hours more. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that you were, in this case, essentially reverting vandalism. But the absurd levels of reversion at e.e. are very close to getting you a block. Don't do this again; report, then await some admin intervention William M. Connolley (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemen: Future, William, I accept your verdict. William: Thank you very much again for your consummate wisdom and understanding. I apologise for any disruption I may unwittingly have caused the project during this very unfortunate incident. I find edit warring distasteful and this was right out of a Wikipedian nightmare. I still intend to improve the Aristotle Onassis article and I will try to avert any counter-attacks of this kind in the future, without, I promise, any hint of disruption on my part. Take care gentlemen and thank you again. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 19:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC))

User:Josh Dean Roy

Editor Josh Dean Roy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) had been involved in an edit war at Creativity Movement, specifically on a section about a trial involving one Mr Lloyd. Editor had claimed to have court documents to back his claims, but would not provide sources, instead had become very argumentative and abusive to other editors. I had fully protected the page until the dispute was resolved and was watching. Yesterday editor started making legal threats seemingly on behalf of Mr Lloyd. So I blocked him and an IP he had also been using indefinitely. He continues today on his talk page so I reblocked with talk page disabled. Is it appropriate to blank his talk page and threats from article talk so as to avoid exacerbation of the situation? Mfield (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe start by explaining that his threat to report the "blackmail" to "the authorities" was the legal threat, as he doesn't seem to understand that. You might want to unblock his talk page so he can respond. If he responds abusively, well, then, I guess you reblock. How do you think the situation might escalate?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually his first threat was on article talk, the blackmail one on his talk is what prompted me to protect that as well. Mfield (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Still suggest the above course of action with your post covering both threats.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I have unblocked his talk editing and asked him to clarify his involvement, intentions and what exactly he meant by the accusations, and why he would be repeating them apparently on behalf of a third party. Mfield (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Good. If he responds abusively, throw away the key. If he engages, play it as it goes. That's my opinion, for what it is worth (market: Buy $.019944 Sell $.020556 symb:WEHOP)--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD descending into mud throwing contest.

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Nadya_Suleman_(2nd_nomination)

This AfD was started three days after the first AfD (which resulted in WP:SNOW keep). It's currently grown into a monster of an AfD and the same arguments and reasons keep being reiterated to no effect. I don't believe anymore discussion is going to contribute to it. The nominator is now descending into personal attacks against the editors of that page. I request an admin to review it as soon as possible so we can put this past us. It's occupying to much time on both sides, and we would like to get back to editing pages. Please consider my request, thank you. — raeky  17:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't say I read every word, but I at least skimmed the discussion. I don't see obvious personal attacks or other mud throwing, can you point me at some? While the first AFD did close as snow keep, it looks like this is much more divided. How is administrator intervention called for?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This would be the most recent one, and this is an older insult. I'm requesting an admin to close it with a decision as soon as possible because I think this discussion has run it's course, nothing new is being contributed that isn't a reiteration of something that's already been said. — raeky  17:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I saw at least four deletes and a small fistful of merges. Why can't the discussion run its course? I will leave a note on Psychlim's talk page about the second one. The first is unfortunately par for the course around here, saying that someone doesn't grasp a policy is in my view impolite but not abusive.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, it can run longer, I'd just rather it not degrade any further into personal attacks. — raeky  18:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to report any personal attacks. Also, it is polite to notify anyone about whom you have concerns that a discussion is taking place here about their actions. I have done so in this case. I did cautioun Psychlim62 about his comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Greenburg, Zach O. (January 23, 2004). "Bones may have Pancho Villa skull". Yale Daily Herald. Retrieved 2009-03-01.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards