Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:25, 9 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

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)

Why are you signing with a nonexistant User name? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I changed user names, but that is out of the scope of this discussion. Are you the same as This flag once was red? TharsHammar (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Aha, got it. Oops, apologies for the noise. Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 21:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Was this in relation to the article and employer, or are you Who then was a gentleman? TharsHammar (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The former, and no! They do, however, have the username I wish I'd thought of. Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 23:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I was confused for a minute because it was within a few minute of each other and Who then was a gentleman had popped up out of the blue. Cheers. TharsHammar (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

THF and Collect sockpuppetry

The evidence points to abusive sockpuppetry by THF (talk · contribs) and Collect (talk · contribs). See User:Tyrenius/THF and User:Tyrenius/THF 1. Other sockpuppets may have been generated, so checkuser would be advisable, though the edits are not necessarily generated from the same computer. Ty 07:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you run the chart for 7 February, and then come back and apologize? THF (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree that these guys are pretty abusive in how they work together and claim consensus where none exists. But I don't see how your stats show more than that they keep the same schedule. I'm pretty sure both are in Washington DC, and probably don't have any regular events on their social calendars except their morning alarm clocks and their Wednesday lunch together. Dicklyon (talk) 07:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

As you say "they work together and claim consensus". Rather a lot of unfortunate coincidences then. Have a more careful look. Ty 07:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

They work together and claim consensus? Sure, that's easy to do when going after cranks and POV pushers. It's very easy for two (or more) people to spot the obvious and appear to work together to undo the damage. Indeed, that sort of thing shouldn't be suspicious at all. It's when two or more accounts suddenly start editing together with the same freaky, deranged point of view that we should start getting suspicious of socks - after all, what are the odds? Rklawton (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That's nice rhetoric, but doesn't address the evidence. Are you saying that everyone who has disagreed with THF/Collect is a crank and a POV pusher damaging the project?Ty 08:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

When their edits appear to overlap, its against cranks. Cranks make it easy for them (and me) to agree and take very similar actions. I think you're on a witch hunt. Rklawton (talk) 08:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Since we have major disagreements with one another, our edit times intersect (um -- how do sockpuppets get edit conflicts?) and we are about a thousand miles apart, this accusation is a gross abuse of WP process. By the way, I am nowhere near Washington, DC at all. Thanks! Collect (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely no basis for this ludicrous, uncivil, and disruptive allegation (see, for example, Christine Gregoire and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Morton Brilliant (2nd nomination)--not to mention all of our edit conflicts), but feel free to go to WP:SPI and ask for a checkuser if you aren't immediately laughed out. (Our editing styles are also completely different.) If Collect and I end up on a number of the same articles, it's because we both read WP:NPOV/N. I wonder if Ty thinks that Will Beback, Rklawton, Paul.h, and Jaren466, all of whom have agreed with me and Collect in a variety of different disputes, are also socks. There hasn't been a single content dispute where I've agreed with Collect and we've been by ourselves on the issue. THF (talk) 12:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want, look at the "Evidence" which is primarily based on "dots matching in size," and the fact that we edited different articles at precisely the same time <g> which, last I checked, was not likely for sockpuppets. While at CompuServe, I found a lot of "alternate personas" and the way to show it (other than having the same IP addresses) is to show vocabulary usage, especially where 'misspelings" are used. As for agreements -- Ikip and I have a huge number of agreements on MfD -- yet I scarcely would expect you to accuse us two of being sockpuppets, eh? Collect (talk) 13:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Ikip

Ikip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has previously been blocked for WP:HOUNDing me. According to Tyrenius, this libelous claim of sockpuppetry was orchestrated by Ikip's "research," and Ikip's response confirms this. Ikip has previously threatened me, and this seems to be one of the manifestations of that threat. I'd like further sanctions against Ikip--perhaps a community ban to leave me alone, please. See also the diffs at the pending WP:WQA. THF (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ban works for me. Ooops, maybe I'm a sock, too? Rklawton (talk) 13:24, 9 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)

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)

Yeah, this guy has a history of adding unreliable sources to cite cranky information. For instance I remember he added this ref to Hungarian prehistory. It's to a self-published novel by a Christian fundamentalist (IIRC). Not the sort of thing most people would regard as encyclopaedic. --Folantin (talk) 20:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, I agree that a block would be warranted, but it would be for the lamest of avoidable reasons. seicer | talk | contribs 23:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't actually request a block at this point, just a clear notice that any further behavior of the same sort will lead to a block, and I think that message has come through unanimously. Looie496 (talk) 01:16, 9 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)

Thats your opinion and your entitled to it. §hawnpoo 22:23, 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)

"First of all, it's not a good sign when a new page patroller thinks A7 is about notability." This needs to be repeated as much as possible. --NE2 20:29, 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)

No. It was taken to AfD and deleted there within hours - which might have been the rigt thing. But it's not a very constructive way to delete articles that may lack some references via SD only three or five minutes after creation. At least for me a vio of AGF.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 20:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It may well be, but the responsibility on a speedy still falls (as has been pointed out) with the admin who deletes or does not delete. In this matter, the speedy was not granted by the reviewing admin. No harm, no foul.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

See the diff of the undeleted article here. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 21:11, 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)

Agree with Kww. As it stood, the article was clearly eligible for CSD. It was the article creator's job to put in the information to assert notability, and he did not do so then. He violated policy by twice removing the speedy tag. Perhaps if he had put the "under construction" tag rather than the "major edit" tag, he might have done better. And i must say, I'm not wild about the victim act he's putting up (the waves of scalding hot anger eminating from those who don't agree with him, and his comment that his supporters are "less insulting", which presumably means that those who do not agree with him are more insulting) to say nothing of the insinuations of meatpuppetry above. This is AN/I. Please watch your tone.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree; whether this article asserted notability or even can, the philosophy that "an article needs to rise above speedy-deletion criteria the moment it is created" seems contrary to the policy, which not only encourages waiting when an article is obviously incomplete but also says, "Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere or be handled with some other action short of deletion. If this is possible, speedy deletion is probably inappropriate." Our deletion policy also says that "improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page" and "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." When an article is improvable, it should still be improved rather than flatly deleted, even if it does not clear the CSD bar when first created. When every indication is that an editor intends to improve it, it's a good idea to let him try to do so. I do not believe there was any bad faith in the tag, but I think that it would have been better in this situation to watch and wait before presuming that the article was not improvable. --Moonriddengirl 20:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

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. Honestly, I would consider something like this to be a clear example where IAR applies. "Don't remove speedy tags from your own articles" is a general rule, but one that you should ignore freely in a case where the only reason the article was tagged was that someone tagged an article prematurely. Obviously, you should always assert notability in the first save. But tagging a brand new article, by an established used, with an inuse tag, is clearly inappropriate tagging. And if someone tags an article inappropriately, you shouldn't feel bound by bureaucratic rules.

The main problem here though seems to be the tagging. If people would apply a modicum of common sense when they tag articles, this problem would be avoided. Instead we bite newbies and burn people who know what they're doing. I'd say this is a real problem and it's clearly unacceptable...but people have been complaining about this sort of nonsense for years. Saying it one more time isn't going to suddenly infuse common sense into people... Guettarda (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is the article, not the tagging: I still don't see a clear assertion of importance, and it's been more than a few minutes.—Kww(talk) 20:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree again with Kww. In addition, Guettarda's proposal would hand carte blanche to the creating editor. "Premature" could run on for days. Better, if an article creator thinks he's been wronged, to ask a third party to look at the situation, hopefully someone with experience at CSD.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The beauty of CSD is that second-looks are builtin. The person that tags the article should never be the same person as the one that presses the "delete" button.—Kww(talk) 20:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is the tagging, not the article. It's laziness on the part of the taggers. Unless it's obvious junk, give it some time. "Premature could run on for days???" So what??? Where's the rule that says an article has to be "finished" before it's started? That's never been the premise here. This is just lazy deletionists wanting to impose their own ad hoc rules. Baseball Bugs 20:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"Premature could run on for days???" "Premature... (you know what I mean)" doesn't "run for days" and is nothing to be ashamed of. It happens...  ;) (couldn't hold myself back to post it.... you see???*lol*). Sorry.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh huh huh, she said penal. No doubt it is a moot point.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The beauty of CSD in this case is that it interrupts the editor and keeps Misplaced Pages from being improved. If this is the direction you want it to go, well, ok then... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 20:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, I think for purposes of AN/I, this matter is resolved. Suggest that any discussions that people wish to continue move to the appropriate talk page. No administrator intervention is called for in this matter. Policy discussion should take place where policy discussions take place. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Putting it to rest by taking the middle road doesn't seem to be an option for some. There are some clear rules about removing deletion-templates but there are also rules and guidelines that "promote" other like using common sense and (the best known) "forget all rules...". Now, if you guys and girls want to talk about rules and guidelines (and maybe change them) you might want to propose this at the appropriate talk page. The issue here is specific to one single template-dispute and closed so please (at least) just try to leave it alone. Talking about it here won't affect any policy/guideline and so does not blaming one or another. I rest my "case".

And to some comments above: Feel free to add an AFD-template to the article if you still feel that way. No one is holding you up from doing so. Not even the initial author.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

So this now makes at least Wikidemon, Jbmurray and Durova that I'e seen getting new articles tagged for CSD. Pretty impressive list of crap-spammers, that. Two pretty reasonable suggestions I saw above are to work from the back of the NP log, and to allow at least 15 minutes since the last edit before tagging. Either or both of those would likely have avoided the need for this whole thread. Franamax (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but talking about it here won't change anything. Please consider taking it up on the appropriate talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Done! Franamax (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if someone can answer me one question, which I've asked several times now: Where is the rule that requires that an article be "finished" the moment it's posted? Baseball Bugs 20:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm more than certain that there is no rule saying so. You can do some wiki-lawyering search and (always) find what suits you but that's it.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

...but I don't think I have to tell you that the latter is not the way to go ;) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Nay. No wiki-lawyering, no suits, nor any other legal threads. Baseball Bugs 21:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You lost me there. I meant "wiki-laws" like policies and guidelines by that.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It's not just Wikidemon, Jbmurray, and Durova who have been hit up by over-eager new page patrollers; Twistee Treat (created by WMF Employee User:Bastique) and Jim Naugle (created by User:Legionarius, who has 5 FL's and an FA) were tagged for deletion within a minute of their creation. Deleting non-notable junk is one thing, but tagging as speedy-worthy articles about an individual who has been elected six times as the mayor of a major city (which was noted in the very first revision of the article) indicates that there are some new page patrollers who are out of control. And I say this as someone who tends towards deletionism... Horologium (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

NNBot II has been approved for trials; it automatically warns creators of articles who remove speedy tags. The {{hasty}} tag, which says roughly "I agree with the tagger's rationale, but give the creator 1 hour" is one of the approved tags at WP:WARN. Moonriddengirl's and DGG's points are also persuasive to me. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 00:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination

Now, just as the mess is resolved Kww (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) nominates this article for deletion (here). The nomination is a stretch because the article passes multiple formal criteria for WP:N and WP:BAND - non-trivial mentions, placing in a major competition, rotation on a nationwide netowork, etc. Given that Kww is an article deletion hawk scolding me here for dealing swiftly with article patrolling mistakes (I have "no excuse" for my actions), then files an AFD eleven minutes later without addressing me directly on the article talk page or mine, this looks a lot like retaliatory process vexation. I'll ask Kww to withdraw the nomination. Failing that could someone please speedy close this as a bad nomination.Wikidemon (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least this gives you an appropriate forum to discuss it in. Make a left out of the door, go right at the first stoplight, and it will be waiting for you.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

In other words, you don't want your insatiable deletionism to be challenged. Well, here's an idea. Someone suggested posting "under construction" to fend off the deletionists for awhile. How about if new article creation, instead of simply posting a blank slate, would post that banner automatically. Then the user could have a little time to finish without the wolves immediately pouncing on it. If a reasonable time passes and the banner is still there, or if the article does not pass muster once the banner is removed, then the deletionists could have their way. Baseball Bugs 21:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Just for this record, my insatiable deletionism directed me to argue for the article to be kept, at the AfD. That wasn't me in a publicity stunt, that was an honest comment that the page now meets our standards. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 21:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh. My insatiable deletionism just wants Doritos. HalfShadow 21:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I delete a few expired prods now and then, but that's it. I don't think I've ever deleted a speedy. Check the deletion log.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been complained to on my talk page about being too vocal on this point. Where were you all, a year ago, when a spammer was promoting his own privately issued CD on Superman music, and when I voiced complaints about that blatant self-promotion, I was shouted down for it on the ANI page itself? Where are you deletionists when we need you? Baseball Bugs 21:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, here's the other case from yesterday, just got userfied: --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 21:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that one but I think it's unsaveable - that band does not appear notable. Although the creator should be dealt with courteously, the result is correct. Wikidemon (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Saveable or not is not the question in this case, though you're probably right. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 22:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

True, but IAR cuts both ways. One shouldn't force people to follow procedures to the letter if the result does not help the encyclopedia. Similarly, there's not much point complaining about someone's inflexible insistence on procedure, if that procedure generated the right result in the matter at hand.Wikidemon (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Tucson, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

At deletion parties. I can't tell you where, though: once they occur, they never happened. HalfShadow 21:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be Area 51, then. That explains a great deal. Baseball Bugs 21:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You heard nothing. Hermione1980 21:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Can we re-close this thread now or does anyone think there is more to say here? I will wait for Wikidemon's last word regarding this since s/he started this one.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• One last word - I've created a new template, {{increation}} to cover this circumstance. I have a good mind to create a new article about a mid-20th century ceramic artist who I believe to be notable. The lead sentence about artists tends not to assert notability because talk of how "influential", "great", "popular", "famous", "renowned", etc., they are tends to be peacockery. I won't intentionally provoke the issue, but if my first save happens not to claim importance, I trust nobody is going to be speedying again. Wikidemon (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Not for at least 4 minutes, anyway. Baseball Bugs 22:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Thread closed. End of story. At least until Wikidemon comes back with his brickmaker or whatever. Next?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:03, 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)

Can you detect a person impersonating a bot through some sort of reverse Turing Test?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 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)

What is the Pittsburgh Times? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I have asked him to clarify that, since Google can't. Mfield (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, he failed to clarify that (apparently it is a proper Pittsburgh newspaper that has no website), has made no effort to understand WP:RS and continues to mock Misplaced Pages and the community in general so I left him blocked. Mfield (talk) 03:41, 9 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)

Created new section, didn't realise this was marked as closed This Afd is bizarre. The first AfD was closed after a few hours by a non-admin, leading to this second AfD. This second AfD has now been closed early, by a non-admin. I have no idea why we couldn't let it run for the regulation five days, but let that pass. Could an admin (one used to closing awkward AfDs would be best, I think) look over the AfD and agree or disagree with the closing and the decision? TIA Mr Stephen (talk) 12:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved – Wrong venue, the place for this is DRV Chillum 22:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved – Ffiixxeedd.

Resolved – Article protected, move protected indefinite.— Dædαlus 06:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This question was recently posted to the help desk and I think this would be a better venue for it. Question is as follows.

Resolved – Exactly what I thought.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards