Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:27, 20 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

Stevertigo/Obama topic ban

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Taken to RfAr. No need for ANI thread. Sceptre 13:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Requesting a topic ban on Stevertigo on Barack Obama, sub-articles, and discussion pages, broadly construed, for disruption and failing to assume good faith. After warning him several hours ago, he has continued to be disruptive on DRV regarding an Obama article, even to the point of admission:

This one also pissed me off: I was in the middle of writing a detailed point by point refutation of the deletion arguments. I understand how my opponents seriously hate my point-by-points though. I make them look stupid, and sometimes take some enjoyment in it.

— 01:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This is blockable behaviour, but I think he'll continue to act up if he isn't put on probation. Thanks, Sceptre 03:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

And yes, I do realise the irony of me requesting an Obama topic ban when one has recently been requested on myself. Sceptre 03:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

And you did that with a template. That's like a slap in the face. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh my god, I templated someone! That makes their disruption forgiveable! Not. Sceptre 10:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre, whilst I do have limited sympathy, this report is at best a COI, and at worst pure trolling on your part. C.U.T.K.D 10:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Try to sanction someone for maybe trying to fix BLP problems, while allowing someone who is trying to violate BLP a carte blanche. Makes sense. Wait, it doesn't. Sceptre 11:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre, you're being much more disruptive on that DRV. Why make fourteen comments, many of which are repetitive? Your claim is that all criticism articles should be deleted, and the place to promote that claim is not on a DRV about a speedy deletion that should have been userfied. Stevertigo is arguably being a bit inappropriately sarcastic in the DRV, but that's a minor violation of WP:CIVIL that can be handled with a gentle reminder on the talk page. THF (talk) 12:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not my fault that people just don't get NPOV. And I'm not having trouble talking to JoshuaZ; he's actually being reasonable. Sceptre 12:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The place to raise NPOV policy is WT:NPOV, not a DRV; if you want to have a conversation with JoshuaZ, use e-mail or his talk-page, not the DRV. Your complaint is with the general understanding of NPOV (and you may well be right), not with the individual article. Make a proposal to rename all Criticism articles at WT:NPOV, point to it at VPP, and get consensus there. THF (talk) 12:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV violation+BLP=speedy deletion, and I'm trying to argue that the speedy deletion was correct because it violated NPOV (the BLP point is uncontestable). Sceptre 12:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

But put a CSD on Criticism of George W. Bush and see what happens. Again, your problem is with the policy, not with the individual article. CUTKD has good advice below. WP:COOL. THF (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Spending so long at AFD and DRV, you'd think most people around there know about WP:OSE. Guess not. Sceptre 13:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue isn't WP:OSE. The issue is that you are discussing an encyclopedia-wide problem that affects hundreds of articles, and it won't be solved on a case-by-case basis, and it's disruptive to make fifteen comments pushing your policy interpretation on a single article instead of asking for a policy change. THF (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre, please calm down. Why don't you back off for a bit then return once you've cooled down. With any luck, others will listen to you then :) C.U.T.K.D 12:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

For the record, there's a discussion on the "crit of GW" page to merge it to a different title. Anyway, the editors on the Obama articles can't even choose a picture without an edit war, so there's a fair amount of need for a nice cup of tea. Or some valium. SDY (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Or thorazine, the babysitter's little helper. arimareiji (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Endorse for the collective social good of the project in these corners of it; certain individuals have been disruptively vocal and partisan of late. It's disruptive; it's unhelpful; it's inappropriate; it's importation in some cases of real-life politics by people with noted COI; it's time to shove it out the door with a foot up the proverbial arse; it's time for us to stop playing games and acting like it's not happening. rootology (C)(T) 13:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. I see no diffs suggesting that Stevertigo has been acting in a manner befitting a topic ban; the NPOV problems Misplaced Pages has will become far worse when these sanctions are being unevenly handed out simply because pro-Obama editors outnumber neutral editors. THF (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The population of users by volume of perceived affiliation is irrevelant in anything we do, and is a reflection of where the bar for NPOV on any topic is at most. Republicans by literal volume are the population minority in the United States, so it's unsurprising that Misplaced Pages mirrors this. Christians outnumber Satanists, too. In the end it has nothing to do with whether one person should be banned or not from a topic and is an appeal to the minority. rootology (C)(T) 14:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The reality is that liberal editors who POV-push are treated better than conservative editors that edit neutrally. That's why we have Barack Obama articles that have completely different BLP standards than the George W. Bush articles. The proposed topic ban here--made without a single diff--is pure harassment. THF (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you've forgotten the liberals and rumor-mongers who besieged the Sarah Palin article back in September, and were fairly successfully held back. Bush was in office for 8 years, so criticisms of his policies are abundant. As Obama's length of time in office grows, so will the criticisms. Keep in mind he's been there less than 2 months so far. What was the size of the Bush criticism page in March of 2001, or what would it have been if[REDACTED] existed? Not very large, I bet. The biggest problem then would have been to try to fend off the complaints that he "stole the election". Baseball Bugs carrots 14:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you've both forgotten that the point of Misplaced Pages is to shove our own POVs up our own behinds when we work here. Did you forget I was one of the major defenders of BLP on Sarah Palin? I can hardly be called a fan of the lady in ANY sense. rootology (C)(T) 15:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I was a little busy to pay any attention to Misplaced Pages then, but for what it's worth, the Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal article remains wildly unbalanced; you wouldn't know that Palin had been cleared of wrongdoing from reading the lead, and it violates BLP by falsely stating that Todd Palin did not honor a subpoena. The Sarah Palin article incorrectly implies that Sarah Palin was subpoenaed, and violates BLP by falsely stating that the subpoenaed witnesses did not honor their subpoenas. That's just from a quick eyeballing, but it's a consistent Misplaced Pages problem that if there's a mistake in shading on a well-trafficked article, it goes to the left. There's always going to be a blind spot when dealing with NPOV; that's why we need editors from both the left and right to look at articles, because they're going to notice things that their political opposites will not. THF (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, THF is getting a little off topic here, but I appreciate his ability to deal with the problem logically. Scpetre filed this ANI because I was sarcastic, not because I violated CIVIL - a policy I'm intimately familiar with btw. Sceptre likewise likes to cite NPOV as the binding policy with regard to criticism sections and articles altogether, and at the same time says that this is a holistic wiki-wide policy issue that he will deal with only on the Obama article and on no other. He's just a kid, and only one particular partisan in the dispute, so it would be unfair to single him out too much, but he was in the fourth grade when I first started editing here, and I'm fairly certain he doesn't quite have a grasp of our basic concept yet, let alone our policies. That said. He may find certain support in trying to deal with crit pages, though, and I encourage him to explore that. One, it will get him involved in meta/policy/process issues, and two, it will get him more familiar with our concepts. If anyone were to simply say that our policy pages need some work, I would not hesitate to agree with them. Its unfortuntate that his misusage of policy concepts is somewhat of an emulation of other such misusage. It's all too common, even among advanced editors, to claim certain issues are under the domain of certain policies and not others. This issue probably deserves an RFAR, as its highly controversial, deals with policy conflicts, POV issues, has been disruptive, has elements of cabal, and a few others probably. -Stevertigo 18:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

PS: Sceptre says:

1. "NPOV violation+BLP=speedy deletion, and I'm trying to argue that the speedy deletion was correct because it violated NPOV (the BLP point is uncontestable)."
2. "It's not my fault that people just don't get NPOV."

The first point is his strongest argument, and needs to be dealt with. But the problems with citing an "uncontestable" policy are numerous; 1) the article's designation as being in violation is in fact a judgment call, influenced by POV 2) the empowerment of POV editors with tools like speedy only serves to circumvent actual discussion and maybe the consensus that might follow. That's what happened here. The second point, that "its not fault people just don't get NPOV," coming from someone who just discovered Misplaced Pages a couple weeks ago, is not his strongest argument. -Stevertigo 18:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Requesting more admin eyes at Barack Obama

Without comment on the dispute above, it would be a very good idea to have more neutral admin attention at Barack Obama. Yesterday I went there for the first time to perform what would normally be a thoroughly uncontroversial edit: adding an existing featured picture to the page. Started with a suggestion at the talk page, just to be on the safe side. Surprisingly, that sparked a long debate and a small edit war. The atmosphere at that page is unusually tense. I'll be heading off to start an FPC for John McCain now; suggesting more administrative attention (preferably by people who don't care a whit about politics) would help to normalize the Obama article. Durova 21:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

What are people's thoughts towards creating a Barack Obama noticeboard? It's up on here a lot, despite the FAQ... Sceptre 21:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Might not be a bad idea. More helpful might be the usage of WP:OBT on the Obama talk page. -Stevertigo 23:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

There's already an article probation page at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation - maybe some kind of community probation notice page somewhere around there? Wikidemon (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's easier for the community to at least be made aware of any issues here at ANI, so I'm not sure what a noticeboard would attempt to accomplish. In any event, I echo Durova's request - there's a remarkable number of threads here today which relate in some way to the Obama pages. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ

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

The issue of "criticism of" sections and articles is an ongoing site-wide debate on Misplaced Pages. The editors of the Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ (history) presented the issue as one sided, claiming that consensus was against such a section there on that particular article, and against consensus on Misplaced Pages altogether. The basic fact is that "criticism of" articles are conventionally used - not outright deleted - on Misplaced Pages. The previous and current version reads:

I changed the text to reflect the fact that there is in fact an actual debate:

1. User:Bobblehead reverted the change claiming "FAQ is intended to be a reflection of the opinions of the editors of this article, not the campaign of a single editor."
2. I reverted, stating: "There is a debate going on, if you hadn't noticed: The FAQ your proposing is only a POV-pushing concept for your side of the issue. The one I wrote is more in accord with NPOV, and the actual facts, because it actually represents both sides."
3. User:PhGustaf reverted, saying: "The FAQ is not a soapbox. It's a product of consensus. Please discuss any changes in talk."

I believe my edit was explanatory, in keeping with the FAQ concept, accurate, fair, and succinct, and I believe both the other editors to be reverting based on a lack of AGF, NPOV, CIVIL, and a false concept that a FAQ can be POV and one-sided, rather than accurate and helpful. The debate is not just "the campaign of a single editor", nor did my edit constitute turning the FAQ into a soapbox, nor is "consensus" the relevant and overriding concept when in fact the FAQ was entirely one-sided. -Stevertigo 00:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not discuss it there, rather than forum-shopping with every issue that comes up? It looks like you made zero attempt to discuss it before running here. The topic-ban looks better as the time passes. Grsz 00:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(Cutting in): *sigh* Because it seemed like a reasonable edit. When reasonable edits are reverted, that indicates that the reverter is less than reasonable for one reason or another. They stated their reasons clearly in the comment line, and characterized my edit as being something other than reasonable. I took that as indication that they intended to stand by their decision regardless of what I said. By your reference to other topical related issues, to a topic-ban (on me, personally) that has zero consensus, and by characterizing my reasonable and plainly laid out issue of an edit war as "forum-shopping" I take it that reason, NPOV, AGF, and writing an encyclopedia are not your operating concerns at the moment. Not to personalize this; that was just an observation, based on your undue and innaccurate characterizations. -Stevertigo 00:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* The point of an FAQ is to hopefully answer people's questions prior to them getting the same answer on the talk page. As such it will necessarily reflect the opinions of the editors on that talk page and not those of drive-by editors that really, really want a Criticism of Barack Obama article created because it is so totally unfair for there to be a Criticism of George W. Bush (or Criticism of John McCain when the campaign was happening and prior to that article being dismantled or Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) because Misplaced Pages has a liberal bias) and not one for Obama. The opinion expressed in the FAQ has been the opinion of the "majority" of editors on Talk:Barack Obama since the FAQ was created and has been relatively stable in the current version since then. It is certainly not expressing anything about Misplaced Pages wide consensus, just the existing consensus of editors of that article. If that consensus should happen to change, then the FAQ can be updated to reflect that new consensus. --Bobblehead 00:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You might also be missing the concept that a FAQ might "hopefully" be somewhat accurate, NPOV, and truthful. Thanks, though, Bobble.

PS: Bobble wrote: "It is certainly not expressing anything about Misplaced Pages wide consensus, just the existing consensus of editors of that article." Now read the FAQ answer text he defends: "Because a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praises and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article, per WP:CRIT" Seems like their concept is not-local to the Obama article, and referencing of a rather ambiguous policy in a somewhat misleading way. The issue is "criticisms" the issue is "a criticism of section andor article" -Stevertigo 00:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Why did you not bother to discuss any of this at Talk:Barack Obama, the location of this FAQ? Also, you forgot to notice the folks you've mentioned in this report. --guyzero | talk 00:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion that it is not "accurate, NPOV, and truthful" is decidedly in the minority though. That is the point that you do not appear to be getting. Fringe POVs do not get equal footing with reliable POVs. That's the way it goes. Tarc (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the venue for this. You should have brought it up at the talk page in the first place. I recommend this be closed before Stevertigo can cause even more disruption. Grsz 00:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Before anyone regards this particularly suspect idea by Grsz, please read the ANI on his unilateral mis-relocation of this thread: #Moving WP:AN/I section #Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ by User:Grsz11. -Stevertigo 01:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I find this very curious. Steve, you're making and reverting to substantial POV out-of-consensus edits on a semi-protected subpage of an article on probation, and posting to AN/I about it. Exactly what sort of administrative response do you expect? PhGustaf (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I find it curious that you are commenting here, calling my simple explanatory edit as "substantial POV" as if you weren't an involved POV partisan who themselves reverting my good-faith edit. Exactly what sort of response do you expect from the person whom you decided to override; failing both there and here to even attempt to make any substantive argument for your reversal. I gave several logical and accurate reasons for making the change. I have yet to see you or anyone else try to debate this on the merits. -13:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) :Yes, shut it down. Stevertigo is on thin ice as it is. In the few short days he has shined his editing attention on the Obama article he been responsible for multiple AN/I reports, edit wars, a speedy delete and DrV mess, and now a topic ban proposal. We need people to help improve articles, not start trouble. I would support giving this editor every chance to stop disrupting the Obama pages, and if he sincerely means to contibute he should. He hasn't even been blocked once over this, so a topic ban is premature. But if he doesn't at least try to work with other editors and stop causing trouble, he needs to take a break either from the project or from the Obama topics. Wikidemon (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"Template:Cut Wikidemon wrote: "Yes, shut it down." This is highly improper. Are you under the impression that you can just "shut down" discussion threads on particular items, expressing only your POV that the person you disagree with "is on thin ice as it is."

Demon wrote: "In the few short days he has shined his editing attention on the Obama article he been responsible for multiple AN/I reports, edit wars, a speedy delete and DrV mess, and now a topic ban proposal." I'm not particularly interested in editing the Obama article; merely the editorial and policy issues that deal with a bunch of people who 1) mischaracterise the debate as being decided 2) claim that "criticism of" articles are against BLP, NPOV, NOT, UNDUE, etc., when in fact there are 157 of them; a WP:SHOULDNOTEXIST argument 3) employ sabotage, speedy deletes, admin abuse, policy misuse, and general talk page disorganization to nullify any discussion of the matter. In short I don't really care about the Obama article, aside from the nominal fact that such articles generally require controversy/criticism sections. Their absence is telling of either POV whitewashing, or else a FUD characterization of all such criticism. Even if 90% of such energy was POV vandalism, and I agree that that number is perhaps correct, the usage of such sections and articles is arguable a benefit, not a hindrance.

Demon wrote: "We need people to help improve articles, not start trouble." If it were not for me personally starting trouble, WP:CIVIL and WP:RFA/WP:DR, would not have come about. I invented those WP:shortcuts you use all the time, for Pete's sake. I not only understand both policy and process, but some of if was in fact my formulation. Can't take any credit for NPOV, though.

Demon wrote: "I would support giving this editor every chance to stop disrupting the Obama pages, and if he sincerely means to contibute he should." This appears to be based on your assumption that "this editor" needs you to give him "every chance" in anything, that these discussions are only "disruptions" and not actually discussions, and wherin "contributions" is a loaded term used to indicate only those edits which you deem to be valid. Thanks for your opinion.

Demon wrote: "He hasn't even been blocked once over this, so a topic ban is premature." Your support is most encouraging.

Demon wrote: "But if he doesn't at least try to work with other editors and stop causing trouble, he needs to take a break either from the project or from the Obama topics." Ive been responsive at a point-by-point, argument-by-argument level, using reason, clear explanations, citations of policy, and general regard for the intelligence of my opponents, if not their arguments. Does that count?

Hey, next time you use a WP:shortcut, think of the "disrupting" editor who invented them. :) -Stevertigo 13:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is not overriding? Consensus is always overriding, for anything and everything we do under our present "rules", which are that consensus rules. This is a distracting red herring on this page from the key discussion. And don't edit war. rootology (C)(T) 05:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe needs attention

In light of Steve's recent behavior, perhaps this idea needs another look. Grsz 01:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Duh. He's been disruptive enough to warrant a block without the probation. Sceptre 09:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. His point is valid, though as you've said he should have broached this topic on the talk page. I think you've already made your point clear though. This whole thing seems to be getting out of hand, though perhaps this is to be expected for what is arguably the most important article on Misplaced Pages currently. JustGettingItRight (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh, it was roundly rejected on the talk page. And we delete BLP violations first and talk later. Otherwise we'd never deal with libel. Sceptre 12:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It very well may have been (though there does not appear to be any consensus in your linked discussion), but the way you worded the answer for Q6 implies there is a general Misplaced Pages discouragement of criticism sections, when in fact the consensus against a criticism section was specific to the Barack Obama article currently and not some sort of global consensus. We can continue this discussion on the talk page, but verbiage matters for a FAQ. JustGettingItRight (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV discourages sections devoted to one viewpoint. Criticism articles and sections are devoted to one viewpoint. Therefore NPOV, in a roundabout way, discourages criticism sections and articles. Sceptre 13:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you please discuss this on the talk page instead of ANI? I have created a section for discussion. JustGettingItRight (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Can we please do something about this editor? I thought the original AN/I report was premature and we should at least give him some time and an opportunity to shape up. He's had that opportunity now, and seems to be having a melt-down. Even after this AN/I report began he has been an utter nuisance on quite a few important pages. The amount of disruption is pretty staggering and would take an hour or two to catalog, but in rough summary I believe he's been getting into edit wars on article pages, talk pages (regarding trolling and POINT-y comments of his that were removed or closed), policy / guideline / essay pages, and also engaged in strong incivility and accusations against people who tried to deal with him. We don't need this nonsense, and in the case of the Obama articles in particular, we need to stand behind our article probation terms or else they're meaningless. At this point the majority of the editor's most recent edits are suspect and most should be and have been reverted. Wikidemon (talk) 03:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• This one edit deserves a block - in the middle of an edit war to try to change the consensus version of the Obama talk page so that the FAQ would not seem to discourage his "criticisms" proposal (he's been warned about article probation and told to stop edit warring) he reverts Scepter and calls Scepter a "crazy POV teenage lunatic wikistalker".Wikidemon (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

But I guess calling someone a POV-pushing troll is OK. Talk about hypocrisy ... JustGettingItRight (talk) 06:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Not hypocrisy - significant prologned disruption across many important articles, some on community probation, accompanied by strong incivility, needs to be dealt with. Wikidemon (talk) 07:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

2 points: abusive edit summaries need to stop and I think an Article RfC is warranted

The only way I don't see this escalating further is through an article RfC. Misplaced Pages is getting hammered in the mainstream press over allegations of bias surrounding this article and the credibility of the project is on the line with such a high profile article. Also, abusive edit summaries have got to stop. JustGettingItRight (talk) 06:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

What mainstream press? WorldNetDaily is not the MSM. rootology (C)(T) 06:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Guardian (UK) and Fox News is directly focusing on this "edit conflict". JustGettingItRight (talk) 06:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Serious proposal

Limit Stevevirtigo in some way here. He's literally all over the Obama pages, DRV, this ANI, everywhere ranting about these articles now and every editor that politically disagrees with him. rootology (C)(T) 14:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That's what I've been saying. The ban I asked for was:

• Ban from editing Barack Obama and subpages.
• Ban from discussion pages of those articles.
• Ban from any Misplaced Pages-space discussion about the articles.

Which doesn't seem to harsh now... Sceptre 15:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This is now the third thread you've started on this page trying to block Stevertigo. To neutral eyes, it's hard to see why he's being more disruptive than you. I suggest you both disengage for a bit. THF (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Except it's not. I've only started one thread, this thread, to ask for probation on him, and reminded people of this thread in the thread below. And you're hardly neutral in this dispute. Sceptre 16:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Reading the discussion above and getting a general feel for things: I would recommend that Stevevirtigo and Sceptre be topic-banned. It's generally not healthy for two users to become this involved in a dispute. Six of one, half a dozen of the other? Scarian 22:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm only trying to enforce BLP. We tend to give editors some leeway for that. I wouldn't be so involved in this dispute if Steve wasn't so disruptive and ANI so unresponsive. Sceptre 22:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I get your point. And this is a little extreme. Scarian 23:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Scarian, we tried to topic ban Sceptre, but it didn't work. We can try again, but I doubt it'll work now either. It'll take a full shitfest first, then lots of recriminations about not doing it sooner. ThuranX (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What's it going to take for you to realise I'm not the Antichrist? I try to give tinfoil hats a bit of decency against consensus, I'm "disruptive". Then I try to enforce consensus and NPOV, and I'm "disruptive" again. Why don't you just come out and say that you don't like me? Sceptre 00:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This is unacceptable. I take offense the term "teenage". But seriously, why is this guy not blocked? Sceptre 00:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

and YOUR edit summary prompting that was acceptable? Pot. kettle. black. Topic ban both. Sceptre just made the prosecution, inadevertently, both cases for a topic ban. ThuranX (talk) 04:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I am not terribly familiar with Sceptre's edits, Sceptre seems to be opposing disruption, not acting to disrupt. Stevevertigo's edits are clearly POV, against consensus, edit warring on article probation pages, gross incivility, and what looks like tit-for-tat retribution, breaching behavior, WP:POINT violations, and just plain trouble. It's pretty clear that Stevertigo has been deliberately misbehaving in a way that could reasonably be called trolling. Two feuding editors do not cancel out each other's misbehavior. Whatever may or may not be wrong with Scepter's reaction to the disruption, can we please separate the two issues? Stevevertigo is causting widespread disruption, whatever Scepter's alleged faults.Wikidemon (talk) 04:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Calling a spade a spade isn't uncivil. I called him a disruptive POV-pushing troll because he was disruptive, he was pushing a POV, and he was trolling. Obversely, I have the Obama FAQ on my watchlist, and I should point out that I am medically fine. The only thing he got right is that I'm a teenager. Sceptre 09:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Which you are, and admit to being on your userpage; you can't really call it "unacceptable". He wasn't using teenage as an offensive word. POV pusher, maybe :P. Seriously, though, every time I see something on ANI involving Obama you are in it throwing topic ban suggestions. You are obviously far too involved in this area. Would you agree to a system in which both you and Steve were banned? I can't see how hanging around such an area all the time can be beneficial; you end up turning into an angry, grouchy wreck who accuses all and sundry of being POV-pushers/socks/SPAs. Take some time out, work on a Doctor Who article or something and calm down. Ironholds (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If I end up an angry grouchy wreck, I end up being an angry grouchy wreck. And I should point out that the probation was created to deal with disruption. Which I'm ostensibly not doing on the Obama articles. Sceptre 20:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, IH, for copying my proposal. ;-) Scarian 21:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Now at Arbitration

Noting that Steve brought this to RFAR here, as any attempt by anyone to archive this now pointless and incendiary series of threads is undone. rootology (C)(T) 13:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Close this already

It's at Arbcom now, let them sort it out. Might as well close this so it stops clogging the page up. Jtrainor (talk) 06:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It will be archived automatically in approximately 44 hours...20 hours if you delete the timestamp from your message there. Hope this helps.  :) Wikidemon (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Shatt al-Arab again

I'm currently edit-warring at Shatt al-Arab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The issue is our usual brand of toponymical irredentism (in this particular case, Iranian).

I'm edit-warring instead of limiting myself to discussing calmly in the article's talk page because in this particular article the latter option has proven time and again to be utterly pointless (see the archives): these people simply refuse to follow our naming conventions, instead using Misplaced Pages as a venue to promote their preferred terminology.

My talk page attempts to explain our naming conventions are characterized as "unfounded, and contrived, arguments", and not even read anyway.

The relevant sections of the article's talk page are:

• Algiers Accord of 6 March 1975.
• It is Arvand Rood/Rud.

And I'm edit-warring at 1975 Algiers Agreement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) too.
The relevant talk page section is: Arvand.

Anyone bored enough to take a look at this depressing issue ? Best, Ev (talk) 16:38, 16 March – 17:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm looking at it now. Do not continue edit warring. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Aknowledged. And thank you for taking a little time for this. :-) Best, Ev (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. This issue looks to be a bit of a doozy. I have protected the page for the time being on the most recent version. This is in no way an endorsement of the current version. It looks like this has been going on for several years, and at least one effort at mediation was closed before running its course. Given that there appear to be legitimate gripes AND nationalism driving this, I would strongly encourage opening a case at RfAr and trying to get some kind of closure on the matter. There is certainly a fair amount of room to address the actions of many editors involved, but I think this will just keep going around in circles without some definitive statement to fall back on. I'm open to other ideas, but given the number of years this has gone on, it looks like RfAr is overdue. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure of how much an arbitration could help here, at least at present. Although the issue itself won't go away anytime soon, the Iranian editors demanding the use of the Farsi name instead of -or at least alongside- the standard English usage are always new people. Neither BF (he asked to be addressed so) nor User:Nepaheshgar became involved until 13 March 2009 (four days ago). So, I'm afraid the issue could be easily dismissed as premature, or even considered a content dispute.

Probably the best option involving the Arbitration Committee would be to make them aware of the situation and then wait for the current West Bank - Judea and Samaria case to run its course and see if the issue is handled there (if, because the cases are not exactly equivalent: for the averange anglophone Arvand Rud doesn't have the subjective connotations that Judea and Samaria do; it's just that it's not the common, standard name of the waterway).

But in essence it's a really simple issue: whether the article should be written using the most easily recognized name, the one the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize (along the spirit of our naming conventions policy), or whether it should take into account the grievances of Iranian nationalists who dislike/dismiss our current naming conventions (and common English usage itself).

I think we can handle this without arbitration, by simply blocking the editors for disruption (i.e. persistently violating our policies and guidelines; in this case, our naming conventions policy and its indications for geographic names). Previous warning, of course. We shouldn't allow so much liberty of action for the introduction of nationalist grievances in our articles. - Best, Ev (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree blocks would be appropriate here. BF's brazen-faced display of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT , from the cover of his friends' tag-team revert warring, is far beyond the line of any legitimate content dispute. This is willful ignoring of policy, it is a behaviour issue, it is disruptive, and as such blockable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've given BF a short warning block (24h), since he inexplicably resumed revert-warring on the 1975 Algiers Agreement article, after failing for several days to address the challenge (which was pointed out to him even by other editors who were generally on his side) that the text verbatim quoted on that very page doesn't support the claim he is making. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. I've changed the protection level to semi from full. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, Fut.Perf. & Hiberniantears; I hope that this will put and end to the disruption. I could have issue the warnings & possible blocks myself, without posting here & taking time from other administrators; but I feared that ensuing complaints of "conflict of interest" & "involved administrator threatening/issuing blocks" would drain even more contributors' time than what your actions have required.

Just so that you know, having now taken the time to check the treaty's text (United Nations Treaty Collection: Treaty Series, Vol. 1017, No. 14903, pages 54 to 213 – see details) I found the following:

• The treaty concerning the State frontier and neighbourly relation (signed at Baghdad on 13 June 1975) uses the name Shatt al-Arab (or equivalents), as do various of the accompanying documents.
• The accompanying joint Iranian-Iraqi communiqué (dated 6 March 1975, Algiers), whose text is reproduced in the Misplaced Pages article, mentions "river frontiers or boundaries", without actually naming the waterway.
• The name Arvand is absent from all documents.

These edits verge on outright vandalism. Details at Talk:1975 Algiers Agreement#Arvand. - Best, Ev (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, an RfA is going to have no more effect than any other previous effort since we cannot here cure the hostility between Persian and Arab cultures. To see the Farsi name Arvand Rud not equally or preferentially displayed with respect to Shatt al-Arab is an insult to Persian nationalistic pride – notwithstanding the clear fact that, through accident of history, the latter has become the name universally used in the English-speaking world, and the former all but unknown. The naming issue has been shown multiple times to be moot with respect to WP policies and guidelines (for example, see Talk:Shatt al-Arab#Policies vs. polls), but since these don’t provide the “proper” result, I’m afraid there’s not going to be an end to this. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, there can be an end to it if we finally resolve to enforce our policies. Block them. Anybody who lets their "nationalistic pride" influence their editing shouldn't be here in the first place. Don't wait till they break 3RR. Don't wait till they make personal attacks. Block them for deliberate editing against policy and failure to work towards NPOV, which constitutes ipso facto blockable disruption. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, wholeheartedly. To simplify future incidents, I will draft a FAQ for that article. - Ev (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I get the feeling that no matter how rigorously the policies are enforced, this particular area of irritation won't go away, or even subside. The hatreds are too ingrained, and Wiki too accessable. I'm all for moving every article remotely associated with the topic to a seperate Wiki, and leaving them to their own devices. Not really feasible, but a guy can dream. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Viktor van Niekerk

I'm involved in a long-running dispute with User:Viktor van Niekerk regarding his ownership of the ten-string guitar article.

This was previously a soapbox of Viktor's, which he defended by personal attacks on anyone who tried to fix it. This went on for more than a year in fact, during which time a number of other editors just gave up. If newbies, typically they just left.

I have managed to make some progress, largely owing to a block another admin put on Viktor for incivility. However he is now back and has commenced a program of harassment in order to get his soapbox back. He is particularly aware of its high Google rating when compared to his own personal websites on the subject.

See my talk page, particularly User talk:Andrewa#General reply and User talk:Andrewa#Personal attacks, and some recent diffs from Viktor: .

I fear that this will just escallate until Viktor is eventually banned. Any help greatly appreciated. Andrewa (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you haven't even used your admin powers since February, let alone "abused" them. (This information you dug up should be useful in solving the content dispute.) I see no personal attacks, personal vendettas, or whatever else Viktor alleges, as in this thread title: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music#Objective_Expert_musician_needed_to_resolve:_Editor_abusing_his_admin_status_in_personal_vendetta.2C_supporting_misinformation. Viktor, if you are reading this, and I presume you are: please back off on the accusations, assume good faith, have a look at our conflict of interest and no original research policies. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Just seconding what Antandrus says. Eusebeus (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't abused them, and Viktor knows I haven't. See Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 43#Administrator has been misusing his status to launch a personal vendetta for his first attempt, and note that it was resolved to this effect on 4 March 2009. The other diffs I give above include several subsequent repeats of the same allegations, and surely this counts as both harassment and disruption. He has also posted similar material elsewhere on the web, naming both me and Misplaced Pages, see for example this post to the 10 String Guitar Yahoo! group.

Viktor has been active on Misplaced Pages since 31 January 2007. He is intelligent and determined, and able to quote policy when it suits him, but shows no willingness to acknowledge it at any other time.

I think we need to resolve the behaviour issue before it will be possible to properly address the content issues. Viktor is bold now in his harassment because sadly, similar tactics have always worked for him in the past.

The diff you quote of my research into Viktor's credentials actually worries me a little. Viktor has now posted a 3rd level NPA warning on my user talk page, possibly in retaliation for my posting one on his, and referring to the talk page in question. I posted this material there because Viktor was quoting himself as an authority, and there seems doubt as to his actual credentials. I think it's legitimate rather than attack as he himself raised the topic of his credentials, but it's the only even borderline thing there as far as I can see.

And it is borderline, in that it's really no solution. The solution is for Viktor to stop quoting himself as an authority. But how? Andrewa (talk) 02:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment - From what's visible at Talk:Ten-string extended-range classical guitar Viktor is consistent in using "status as admin" and is not claiming Andrewa used or abused his "admin powers." A few colorful firefights notwithstanding, the admins tend to support one another and it's hard for the lay editor to tell if an admin is "abusing" his or her status when a couple of unrelated admins drop in supporting the admin's POV on an issue. --Marc Kupper|talk 10:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Please be very careful about giving any credence to Viktor's accusations. Viktor has been active on Misplaced Pages for over two years, and has in that time happily quoted policy when it suited him.

The charge that I have abused my status as an admin is simply false, I have done no such thing and there is no evidence offered that I have. Yes, it's a harder one to decide either way than the more specific charge of abusing my sysop powers, and yes, that is probably the very reason that this phrasing has been used.

Similarly, the charge that I have a vendetta is simply false. My motives are twofold: To improve the articles concerned (see Viktor's version if you haven't already done so), and more important, to make Misplaced Pages a safer place for other editors to do so too (difs available on request for the many, many stale personal attacks that went unchallenged and often the victims just left Misplaced Pages, apparently unnoticed). Yes, these both do involve standing up to Viktor, and no, he does not like it. That is not my fault.

Be aware that my contact with Viktor has been purely as a result of Misplaced Pages, but that Viktor's consequent attacks on me have also been made in several other forums, and may continue there, see and many more postings to that group. Another place he has been particularly venomous is Myspace, but at least some of those pages have thankfully been deleted. More recently he has linked to diffs and previous versions from Misplaced Pages page histories, and may be expected to do so again.

IMO Misplaced Pages is not the place to address what he has said in these other forums, I must decide whether to do so myself or whether to just hope that others will form the opinion that Viktor's credibility is not sufficient to undermine my own. But I do ask you to be very careful about making statements that he may be able to quote, possibly out of context. I realise this is not always possible! Andrewa (talk) 02:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

My dispute is about contents. If you want to take this further, please at least take note of the contents problems.Andrewa is making this personal. My disagreement with his edits are purely based on factual information. I seek to maintain academic standards (such as not linking to or including proven misinformation) while Andrewa (be it in his capacity as admin or editor?) has repeatedly included misinformation as well as defending it by making very dishonest claims (such as that "four" equals "eight" and that there is no difference between saying one or the other) . I need hardly point out that this conduct is unscholarly and unethical. Here is the evidence and there is more, if you ask me for it:

According to WP:LINKSTOAVOID article 2: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" cannot be included in wikipedia. Andrewa has purposefully breached this policy in his continuing personal vendetta against me. Here is the proof:

After repeatedly being warned by myself against the misleading and factually inaccurate material presented on an external webpage Janet Marlow's site admin/editor Andrewa still intentionally linked to this misinformative page in the following edit:

Andrewa has since made the statement: "there is no misinformation on the particular page to which I linked. Both sides are describing the same eight notes being provided by the same four resonant strings. Whether that is four "resonances" or eight is a non-issue."

Not only is Andrewa mistaken in claiming that there is no misinformation on the page, or that the two sides in the argument are describing the same thing, he has clearly been abusing his status as an administrator/editor, deliberately posting false information (after being warned it is false). Let us first consider the contents of this argument:

The page to which Andrewa linked makes the following claims:

"Therefore, there are four missing sympathetic resonances on the six string guitar. If you play a C, Bb, Ab, and Gb on the first string E, there will be less sustain from these notes than the others because there are no sympathetic resonant strings. This was Maestro Yepes’ primary reason for conceiving the ten-string guitar. By adding these pitches in four extra bass strings, now provides each half step with the sympathetic resonance making a more physically completed instrument." (Janet Marlow Janet Marlow's site)

Now, in western classical music there are 12 notes in the octave: C, C#, D, D#, E, F, F#, G, G#, A, A#, B. If it is claimed (as above) that four of these 12 notes lack resonances, then logically/mathematically, this means that the other eight out of the twelve do not lack resonances. Marlow lists the four missing resonances as C, Bb (=A#), Ab (=G#), and Gb (=F#) and states that "there will be less sustain from these notes than the others". Any person who is a competent speaker of the English language will understand this as meaning that these four listed notes have more sustain (more resonance) than the other notes, the "other notes" being C#, D, D#, E, F, G, A, B. In other words, Marlow is claiming four notes don't have resonance and eight do.

However, Narciso Yepes (who invented the modern 10-string guitar) always, ubiquitously and verifiably talked about eight missing sympathetic resonances on the guitar, not four as claimed by Marlow. Yepes lists the eight missing resonances as C, C# (=Db), D# (=Eb), F, F# (=Gb), G, G# (=Ab), A# (=Bb). He lists the other four notes that do have resonance as D, A, E, and B. Yepes's quotes from numerous articles/interviews can be read here with references to follow them up. There is also further information on my site www.tenstringguitar.INFO about the acoustics, the science behind Yepes's statements.

Janet Marlow (and Andrewa) are clearly, in fact, not saying the same thing as Narciso Yepes (and Viktor van Niekerk). Both sides are certainly not "describing the same eight notes being provided by the same four resonant strings". So why is Andrewa falsely claiming that they are saying the same thing and linking to misinformation after repeated detailed explanations to him (off wikipedia) about this content? If they were describing the same thing, Marlow would have to speak of eight missing resonances (C, Db, Eb, F, Gb, G, Ab, Bb) not only four (C, Bb, Ab, Gb).

Andrewa only goes on to claim that "Whether that is four "resonances" or eight is a non-issue" because to admit the truth - that it is very much an issue and a source of misinformation - would reveal his involvement in not only deliberately promoting misinformation on[REDACTED] (going against WP:LINKSTOAVOID article 2), but also misusing his powers as admin/editor to abuse me in his ongoing personal vendetta over an edit disagreement. This defamatory conduct includes, but is hardly limited to his claim (here under "Sources" and elsewhere) that Janet Marlow "is a more authoritative figure than Viktor", despite the fact that Marlow has been proven to publish misinformation while my website www.tenstringguitar.INFO is presently the only online resource that faithfully represents Narciso Yepes's statements about his invention as well as a scholarly explanation of the science informing those statements. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

NO, Viktor. I see bullying and abuse here, but it's not Andrewa who is doing it. Please read the behavioral guidelines I linked above. Read them. Don't wait; don't post another WP:TLDR; don't deflect from the actual issue, the issue that brought you to this board, which is the way you are behaving: you need to assume good faith of other editors, be calm and polite and engage with them civilly: go read the guidelines I linked, and then, even more important, abide by them.

Regarding your claim, "Marlow has been proven to publish misinformation while my website www.tenstringguitar.INFO is presently the only online resource that faithfully represents Narciso Yepes's statements" -- you need to read WP:COI. You may not publish your own research here. Your website, as it is self-published, is not a reliable source; it is not independent, and it is not peer-reviewed. Please go read our policies and guidelines. Antandrus (talk) 05:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it time for a topic ban? Frankly the idea that the biggest paragraph (the historical dispute) has three things cited with one simply saying "a lot comes from here" is the biggest problem. I'm going to watch the article and if nobody can find sources for all the flowery language ("luthier noted for his innovations", "inspired by", "As was his practice, he sought advice", "concerned with the problem"), I'm dumping it. The tone is wholly appropriate and the entire Repertoire section feels like original research. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And yes I took a hatchet to the article when a scalpel was probably needed. Most of it was unsourced and the language was a mess. Find some source, even one that's not reliable as a starting point, and discuss things on the talk page before putting it in. Games of "I know the truth" from anyone isn't productive, but feel free to revert and just ignore me if you guys wish. Sometimes, getting everybody mad at an outsider works wonders for corroborative effort. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Your edits are certainly food for thought! They raise real issues and I think they're progress. Discussion on the talk page is also appreciated. Thanks! Andrewa (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

A topic ban on Viktor, if it applied to Narciso Yepes and the ten-string guitar and related articles, would effectively ban him completely. He has indicated no interest in any other topics. Andrewa (talk) 00:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I've warned Viktor and have also brought up the big worries about OR and sourcing. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Please supply proof of whatever I am being accused of in relation to Andrewa. I have not seen any. On the contrary, I have ample proof of my discussions with Andrewa off wikipedia. We have been through the contents issues I've raised. Andrewa has persisted in linking to unreliable sources and defending his actions by claiming there is nothing inaccurate in his sources. I cannot assume good faith any longer. How can one assume good faith when an editor has been pointed to reliable resources (published texts by Narciso Yepes in musical journals) yet still supports online sources that are not scholarly or peer-reviewed? How can I honestly assume good faith when an editor says there is no difference between saying "four" and saying" eight"? How can I assume good faith after I've explained to this editor in quite some detail, repeatedly both on and off wikipedia, the difference between Marlow's claims of "four" resonances and Yepes's statements of "eight" resonances? How can I assume good faith when this editor on 8 March (knowing better) still claimed that there is no difference between saying four and saying eight resonances and that the sources he supports contain no misinformation? This is a very simple matter: saying four resonances (C, Bb, Ab, Gb) is most certainly not the same as saying eight resonances (C, C#, D#, F, F#, G, G#, A#). Seriously, how can anyone assume good faith when an editor claims 4=8? And that after I've gone out of my way to explain the contents to him. We have even met in person and he had the opportunity to ask me about the contents of this matter. But still Andrewa has persisted in defending factually inaccurate information and making accusations against me that are unfounded. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

For the last time

Viktor, this is not about content, this is about your behavior as an editor. It's about you personally attacking others, and not following our no original research policy. The issue isn't about whether you're right or wrong, but whether you are following policy, or not, and you are clearly not. Stop posting your content dispute here, it is pointless and drags away from the issue at hand.

There so far seems to be a rough consensus by uninvolved parties to topic ban you. Does anyone else support or oppose this?— Dædαlus 04:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Please supply proof of your allegations that I am attacking/harrassing Andrewa. This is not the first time Andrewa has made false allegations against me:

Here here, under Sources, Andrewa makes a false accusation against me that: "Viktors' site fails criteria 4 and 11" of the WP:LINKSTOAVOID policy. Note, site (singular) and with reference to my site www.tenstringguitar.info. In other words, Andrewa has falsely accused me of breach of article 4 "Links mainly intended to promote a website" and 11 "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites".

Firstly, my website is a non-commercial scholarly resource about the instrument invented in 1963 by Narciso Yepes. Everything there can be verified from published interviews/articles in music journals, textbooks on acoustics, and published sheet music. Calling this website a promotion of itself rather than of factual information about Yepes's invention is unfounded.

Secondly, the site (singular) is not a blog, personal webpage, or fansite, nor is it a discussion group. So there also Andrewa has made a false accusation.

So have I "harrassed" him? Or is this another cry of wolf by an editor who has been failing a contents dispute and resorts to getting me banned from[REDACTED] so he can express his POV?

Please supply proof of harrassment. I can also supply proof of Andrewa's attacks against me.

Please also supply proof of breach of policy. I too can supply proof of Andrewa's breach of policy, for example WP:LINKSTOAVOID, by linking to to pages with known misinformation, myspace, and yahoo groups.

Please supply proof of the alleged "original research". Everything I have posted in the ten-string guitar articles on[REDACTED] (prior to Andrewa's considerable rewrites) could be verified by referring to Narciso Yepes's published articles and interviews in musicological journals, by referring to proven facts of physics in acoustics textbooks, and by referrign to published sheet music for the 10-string guitar.

It takes more than empty allegations (from however many editors) to ethically ban someone who is simply trying to uphold standards of scholarship and factually correct information on wikipedia. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Viktor, you can either listen to what people are telling you or keep on repeating your claims until you find yourself topic banned from the subjects. Those are your options at this point and it seems that you would rather win a few points today by repeating your same arguments than be allowed to edit on those articles. Nobody cares about the content dispute since it seems quite clear that neither side can clearly produce reliable sources justifying their beliefs; you conduct on the other hand is maddening. I would heavily support a topicban and we'll see if Viktor really cares more about neutrality and getting a good article or just getting to say what he wants. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support topicban, extremely broadly construed. Misplaced Pages has absolutely no place for people pushing a POV or using themselves as sources, and the sooner we come down on it, the better. //roux   05:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support temporary topic ban. While I want to believe this editor can calm down and make an honest attempt to present his case in a rational and concise manner, his behavior in his multiple postings to various noticeboards of the same or similar TL;DR complaints makes it extremely difficult to believe that he isn't pushing OR or a POV and isn't otherwise engaged in tendentious editing. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 07:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
• oppose of a user ban, support edit protection on the articles which amounts to a topic ban for all of the involved parties, and suggest WP:MENTOR, involuntary if needed. From what he has written on the talk pages Viktor seems cogent enough. His technical explanations of resonance, and other reasoning on the subject clear and easily understood by this layperson. The goal is channeling that talent and energy into useful WP article content. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  Revision, I looked over the recent edits to Ten-string extended-range classical guitar. They seem fine to me and so I've struck out the edit protection part of this note. I'm concerned about the tone of recent messages such as on 11:28, 18 March 2009 and 11:34, 18 March 2009 and still suggest mentoring. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

False claims of "bullying" Andrewa: New Proof

Plase note that the allegations made by Andrewa are false and it is not the first time he has made false allegations against me. (See this false allegation made against www.tenstringguitar.info here . (The link is relevant, does not simply promote a site, and does not link to a discussion group, myspace or facebook - even though that is what it is accused of.)

The fact is, I repeatedly made Andrewa aware of misinformation he was linking to (for example, here on a yahoo forum on 25 February and here we have Andrewa responding ). Proof that he was aware of the misinformation. So there is no reason to justify good faith or entertain the notion that he is simply unaware of the factually inaccurate link he posted here (in the References, at the bottom), then never removed, and then defended as containing no inaccuracies on 2 March, here .

Since we have proven that there was no reason for good faith, no reason to assume the defence of misinformation was unintentional, there is also no justification in calling it an "attack", "harrassment" or "bullying" that I have called for other editors to oversee his conduct and note the multiple breaches of policy. (I'm not au fait enough with[REDACTED] to be able to list them like Andrewa does, but I'm sure the claims of harrassment and breach of policy can be equally reversed in the other direction.)

Now I intend to edit the articles with references to reliable, verifiable sources. I will NOT waste any further time in this pointless argument as I am innocent of harrassment against Andrewa, who merely wants me gone so he can have his POV. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 11:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The latest round

Please see this dif and this dif for Viktor's current stand. I think we are making progress, but there's a way to go. Andrewa (talk) 11:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Note also the timestamps on my post and Viktor's post above. I've spoken to him about sequencing of threads, as he has often posted new ones to the tops of talk pages. Perhaps someone else would like to support me on this? It's a minor point perhaps, but annoying, and IMO indicative of exactly the attitude that needs to change. Andrewa (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Block of Viktor

Seriously, does anyone think the discussion at the article talk page is getting better? More walls of text from Viktor including more assumptions of bad faith. I've had enough of these games. I've blocked him for a week. Between the COI, the harassment, the sarcastic insults, the sockpuppetry, he's had more than enough time to play here. Years of this is more than enough. Asking for review because honestly if he comes back and doesn't change, I want to make it permanent and move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You know what, I was wrong on the sockpuppetry. That was an misreading of the facts. I've notified him of that. However the rest is there still. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'm sure y'all have viewed this archived WQA regarding similar issues. As much as I would hate to think we needed to topic ban Viktor, the incessant belief that its "my way or the highway I'm going to insult you until the ends of the Earth" are not productive, not does it fit the collaborative model. I believe Viktor has much to add ... but cooperation, and a few doses of common sense seem not be part of his arsenal. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I support the block. After many warnings and even bits of begging, he began again with the PAs. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is this block not indef and/or coupled with a permanent topicban? //roux   18:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Partially because I have been involved with the article and don't think it would be prudent for an involved admin to do it. I've been chewed out enough for heavy banning on the Macedonian articles already. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think indefinite would've been quite accepted, but given that he was recently blocked for 1 week, blocking for 1 week again is awfully unusual. I would support extending the block to either a fortnight, or a month - after this extension, I can support a community measure specifying that future instances will be handled via an indefinite block. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Viktor's past behavior

In hindsight, it actually should have been indef, as, if anyone bothered to read the WQE BMW provided, we'd see that he was previously blocked for 1 week for the same thing. The -exact- same thing. As far as I've learned, when users are blocked for things they've been blocked before for, the blocks are usually lengthened.

After reading this WQE, and looking at this user's behavior now, I do not see that he has changed in the least, and I do not think he will change his behavior at the end of this block, as he has already proven that he only thinks his blocks as a minor setback, and will return to what he has been doing when he was blocked in the first place.

If this does indeed happen at the end of this block, I would support an indefinite block, however, I don't see why we should let him continue to do what he was originally blocked for, after he's shown so clearly he doesn't intend to change.— Dædαlus 20:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal A (no chance)

Those in favor of an indefinite block now, as this user has shown they can't change, and they have no desire to change their behavior they were blocked for.— Dædαlus 20:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

COmment The editor is consistently uncivil and has made no effort to work collaboratively or by consensus. the ownership issues he demonstrates are among the most extreme I have encountered, and there is no basis for believing that he will relinquish his soapbox nor change his style in favour of a more reasonable or accommodating approach. A permanent ban is appropriate. Eusebeus (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

As I note here, one of Viktor's acts was to eliminate all mentions of Ramirez's view (his book versus Yepes' speeches), which makes more sense when you consider the language on his talk page that "the heirs of Narciso Yepes have invited Van Niekerk to continue his research interests". I think the COI interests are much more serious than it looked like before. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Having looked into this even more, I agree with Ricky. I think the articles may have been targeted for "clean up" before some kind of commercial project is launched. It's worth noting that the source Viktor has disputed is someone whose name is used in the marketing of an "entry-level" 10-string guitar and his edits have been strongly written to discredit this person (mostly on a single published observation about the resonance brought on by sympathetic vibration of strings, which is one of the piths of a 10-string guitar). Aside from these worries, I think both sources have been cited to support more assertions than either reliably can do. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no commercial project involving me, and prior to this ANI, I was the only one trying to clean up the articles. No, what brought this to a head was simply that someone finally persisted.

I suppose the use of a photo of the Michael McBroom Janet Marlow entry-level ten-string guitar may look suspicious. It would be far better to have a picture of a Ramirez or a Bernabe instead, Viktor's personal instrument would be ideal. (A photo I took of my main personal instrument currently leads the twelve-string guitar article, and by coincidence my Maton is even about the same age as Viktor's Ramirez.) I have emailed several owners, including Viktor, asking for release of suitable photos. McBroom's is simply the only suitable photo yet offered. Andrewa (talk) 08:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Andrewa I didn't say you had a conflict of interest. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal B (chance)

Those in favor of an indefinite block should he continue said behavior after his most recent block expires.— Dædαlus 20:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support Well, this was my thought, but I wouldn't mind if someone else wants to, considering his refactoring of his talk page to eliminate all other views and just post his screeds. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• I'm happy to give a final chance here. TO be honest, the topic is one that makes me go "huhwha?" - if he's an expert and willing to work within our guidelnies to help with it, that's great. If not, then he can take a walk. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Me too, but I wonder if the walls of text were just smokescreens so he can keep everyone else out. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support a long term to indefinite block. I approached Victor off lines about ways to work within Misplaced Pages. To sum up the reply, he's upset and has left the house. While that makes the block redundant it lines up with what I was trying to achieve which were ways to demonstrate willingness to work with fellow editors. That can be done as part of a petition for readmittance. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne

There is an on-going debate relating to the infobox within fictional characters. This debating is raging in the disucssion page of the James Kirk biography. For the past few days, the page has been fully protected while the debate continued. Today, moments after the protection expired (but clearly far from a resolution) user:Arcayne changed the infobox to fit the format that he's been promoting. Several admins have voiced their opposition to this format. WP:Film & WP:Television have both come to the consensus that this is an invalid position and yet Arcayne (an admin) moved forward without a consensus and did it anyway. The wiki remains semi-protected. Erikeltic (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Just to point out that User:Arcayne is not an admin, not that this makes any difference on a content issue. Black Kite 20:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
• Notified Arcayne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). –xeno (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Erikeltic has been confusing me with an admin since he was blocked for edit-warring in the article 3 days ago, and apparently began socking shortly thereafter. Since pointing this out at least twice seems to have had no effect, I've simply tuned him out. Additionally, the point of seeking consensus is to affect change in an article without excessive edit-warring. The article was reinstated to its pre-editwar state. As I understand it (and maybe I am wrong here) but consensus needs to be found before the change is made, as per BRD. Lastly, I am not sure where the "several admins have voiced their opposition" bit is coming from, since I am only aware of one admin who has been actively contributing to the article (not as an admin capacity but as an editor). The Film and TV wikiproject consensus' do not say what Erikeltic seem to think they do. I think I am on pretty solid ground as far as inclusion goes, and have repeatedly suggested that mediation might be a route to pursue, as Erikeltic seems rather unfamiliar with policies and guidelines, having only made about 200 edits thus far. He's been counseled about his often attack-y and uncivil behavior by at least two other editors. This is forum-shopping, and having to duck-duck-goose where Erikeltic is going to ask yet another parent is somewhat tedious. This belongs in mediation, not ANI. - Arcayne () 22:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Rather than even dispute or "reason" these statements and accusations, I would simply implore you admins to take a look at the discussion, take a look at the behavior, take a look at the history, etc. and you will see what's going on for yourselves. Thanks. Erikeltic (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Erkikektic and Marfoir

As a neutral party to this debate, I believe there may be some merit to Arcayne's sockpuppet allegations concerning Erikeltic. Marfoir was created only one day after Erikeltic returned to his account, and Marfoir's first edits were to a related AfD, and to date, have only been about this issue. Also, yesterday Marfoir deleted comments I made to Erikeltic's talk page, whereupon both editors, within minutes of each other, blanked large sections of warnings and discussions related to this issue from their talk pages . I think Checkuser might be prudent to clear this up. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, doing a little searching through the edit history of the James Cawley AFD on my own, I may have a possible smoking gun. Based on their own corrections to edits made while not logged in, Marfoir edited from 24.115.224.131, while Erikeltic edited from 24.229.98.148. Both IPs come from PenTeleData Cable in Palmerton, PA. Coincidental? I'm doubting it. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Marfoir and I know one another and it was I who involved him in this debate. Our IPs are similar (not identical) because we live in the same area, so there aren't any surprises there. Why exactly have you made it your mission to come after me, FennShysa? You have left several warnings for me and correct a couple of my posts and yet you don't do the same thing to Arcayne when it's necessary. Why is that? Erikeltic (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

QUACK QUACK! please... --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Lol. So, let me see if I understand this, Erikeltic/anon24 (et al)/Marfoir/whatever - you are stating that even though you were socking before, you are instead guilty of meat-puppetry and canvassing? Sorry, that is almost as bad. Especially when both of you voted in an AfD related to this subject. Pursuant to a checkuser or SPP (I can never remember the difference), I'd like this user, in all of his/her many, many (at least 5 now) colorful disguises by blockety-block-blocked indefinitely. - Arcayne () 17:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

By your own admission, then Erikeltic, you've violated Misplaced Pages policies. Please read this section about Meatpuppets and Sockpuppets - the relevant line is Do not recruit meatpuppets. It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Misplaced Pages articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Misplaced Pages and support your side of a debate. So to answer your question (and poor attempt to deflect blame/attention from yourself), Arcayne has followed procedure - you, sir, have not. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

So the bottom line is: rather than lose the debate about the infobox, you'll just come after me personally to silence the opposition? And I didn't recruit anyone. I don't know when Marfoir got an account and I don't really care. The only thing I did was mention the wiki to him. What he did with that is on him, not me. What, you want our real names and phone numbers? I'll share that offline with THF or any neutral admin if that's what it takes to prove there is no puppetry here. Go for it. This is just an end-run to get around losing the debate. How sad. Erikeltic (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not involved in any userbox debate. I saw you behaving inappropriately, and called you on it. I saw another editor behaving inappropriately, covering you, and noticed a pattern, and followed up on it. Simple as that. And you can't have it both ways - you can't claim "I didn't recruit anyone" immediately after posting "Marfoir and I know one another and it was I who involved him in this debate." You just admitted to recruiting him. Case closed, IMHO. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You're making it sound much more sinister than it actually was. You want to punish me for telling somebody I know about the edit war, then by all means: go for it. It is not fair, however, to dismiss my arguments or punish someone else because I'm a wiki-noob that is operating in good faith. Nor does anything I have done relieve Arcayne of his own actions. Erikeltic (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a normal content dispute and doesn't belong at ANI. Erikeltic has been more even-tempered of late, but this harkens back to his earlier forum shopping. --EEMIV (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

If someone suspects a sockpuppetry, report it. Meanwhile, the underlying content dispute is being proposed for mediation. --EEMIV (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has a problem with doing that, EEMIV (outside of the work involved in filing). That said, the Erikeltic has already admitted to abusive meatpuppetry, and has attempted to influence both consensus in article discussion and the results of an AfD. Hasn't ArbCom determined that "Misplaced Pages does not distinguish between meatpuppets and sockpuppets."? Again, I don't mind filing the report myself, but I am also thinking of the collateral damage to articles and their attendant discussions as well as those pages wherein they are voting in concert. In my experience, Checkuser can be somewhat glacial in its progress. - Arcayne () 19:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation reopened, FWIW. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of notifying both Erikeltic and Marfoir or the renewed SPI. - Arcayne () 19:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I will voluntarily remove myself from the mediation process entirely and leave it between you, EEMIV, Marfoir, THF, Cool Hand Luke, Bignole, GlobalCluster, and everyone else involved with the content issues if it makes you feel better. Let the investigation against me proceed, but don't use me as your excuse against resoloving the dispute. Erikeltic (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm amazed. What a mess one simple discussion has turned into. Oy. Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Marfoir (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree; a content dispute turns into a discovery of possible meat (or sock)-puppetry. Quick, someone get the movie rights to this. :) - Arcayne () 22:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems as though every person who posts about 'Admin Abuse', 'Bullying' etc. doesn't realise that they will be subjected to a thorough examination as well. It's funny watching them try to redirect everyone to their original complaint, once people have got wind of their meat or sockpuppeting, violation of the policies they link to etc. Great way to kill an evening. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

And now, Erikeltic (not Marfoir,which has been oddly silent while E remains somewhat active), has updated his user page three different times. Initially with a non-free image and the caption "victory is mine" (this after a consensus was reached in an article that he was a part of). When he was advised he could use such in his user page, he replaced it with an anatomical drawing of an anus with the caption: "Indeed, they are everywhere". Lastly, he updated it with a childish ditty about his interests: a pun on articles to tell his detractors to 'bend over and kiss my ass, you people'. Now, I get that folk are allowed to clever up their page, but I am fairly sure that this user - who is still awaiting the outcome of an SPI - uses the wiki as a battleground; the comments about winning and calling the folk on the losing side of an argument assholes.

This user has spent a majority of their time either making uncivil comment in article discussion, creating pointy subarticles, wikihounding others, meat-puppeting (or socking) and turning their userpage into an insult. I am wondering why this person is still here. I am quite certain that they see the inaction here and at SPI as apathetic of their behavior; indeed, I think he sees it as approval for their behavior. I don't see it as improving until someone steps in.- Arcayne () 20:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

AFD for Islamic Extremism among British Pakistanis

• Seems to be getting out of control. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Argh, the topic on this was archived by bot without any resolution. Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive522#Edit_warring.2C_plus_suspected_sockpuppetry_on_both_sides. for the background to all of this over the past few days. I am far too real world busy today to keep up with this but it defintiely needs more eyes, I have been whack-a-moling sock IPs canvassing for AfD votes and removing disruptive comments for the past few days. Mfield (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I added a {{cool talk}} template to the discussion if it helps. TheGoldenSubpageTester (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• TheGoldenSubpageTester, given the rampant sockpuppetry that has surrounded this article, I am concerned that your edit history begins today and you're obviously an experienced user (see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Islamic Extremism among British Pakistanis). Did you have a legitimate reason for creating a new account? --Boston (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Most admins are clever enough to sort out the socks and SPAs when evaluating a close to the AFD. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

it never stops Special:Contributions/86.163.154.2 Mfield (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC) off wiki canvassing too Mfield (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Motley Moose AfD

An ongoing AfD for this blog has been rather hotly contested. Ok, whatever, it happens. However, SPA's have begun to proliferate (and one just reverted his SPA tag) -- four tagged as such so far, 2 in the last 15 minutes. Just asking for eyes, really. I guess it's inevitable when fans of a subject are by definition on the web a lot. The direct link to the AfD is this one .Bali ultimate (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

and the latest is now edit warring over his tag .Bali ultimate (talk) 02:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest you not worry about the tags? From what I see, they're spouting "per nom" and arguments not tied to any mentions of policy or guideline. Since this isn't a vote, any respectable closer will disregard those and concentrate on the relevant arguments (which appears to be over trivial sources, but there's such bad faith attacks and such that it's a bit hard to read through). --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs 03:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

While i appreciate your comment, far too many AfD's that i've been involved in are swayed by "voting" (for instance, a number of failed AfD's on articles that clearly violate policy magically succeed, for instance, when a socking user is uncovered). While I agree they shouldn't be, in a consensus oriented culture, when closers are supposed to be uninvolved, and reading through the AfD makes the head of someone who hasn't been following closely's head spin (sub threads, claims, counterclaims, socks, SPAs, etc...) it is very easy to take a count, see it's not obviously one thing or the other, not obviously a nasty BLP, and say "no consenus". And I don't blame admins or other editors for this. We're all volunteers, life is short, real life is there, time is limited, blah blah blah. But it is in fact a real problem, however much we might wish it isn't. It shouldn't be a vote. But sometimes it is (unfortunately). Bali ultimate (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the sad thing is that it's just a repost, created out of process by Ks64q2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The original AFD closed as delete, the DRV was withdrawn, and the issues which caused it to be deleted were never resolved. The creator of the article removed the db-repost tag himself again and again and again. This is the second controversy in recent memory that has involved an article creator removing CSD tags from his own article, which I still believe should be treated as a bright-line offense: inexcusable under any circumstances. There's no reason to even have an AFD on this thing: delete it as a repost, and make sure that Ks64q2 understands that the next time he removes a speedy tag from an article he has created, he will be immediately blocked.—Kww(talk) 03:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather let it run its course, lest that cause a early closure DRV. Then I'm advocating closing the AfD for a nice long time period so that preferably multiple admins can talk about it and then deliver a decision, the better to not have this happen again. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs 03:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Fun fact! I was reported twice at 3rr for restoring the db-repost tag after Ks64q2's deletions. I'm wondering now if removing db tags is in fact vandalism and restoring them is exempt from 3rr? Or is a creator allowed to delete these tags after all? Or was no consensus over the process ever established?--Sloane (talk) 03:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Post for clarity on above events As reported to KWW; The "speedy deletion" was sources two days into the AfD discussion, and the user who posted it on top of the AfD notice was rebuked by an administrator. Furthermore, again, please assume good faith; you're not the only one who has suggested I acted in bad faith in restoring this article, but a simple review of the logs will show this not to be the case. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 03:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I posted the tag and I was not rebuked by an admin. You are (once again) making things up.--Sloane (talk) 03:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, you're right; he wasn't an admin, my mistake. Ks64q2 (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Important Comment We have people making both affirmative and negative votes on the article now after it was dramatically changed from it's original version of http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Motley_Moose&oldid=277928852. The two users here, "Ultimate Bali" and "Sloane" were responsible for the edits. I find it confusing why they would drastically edit an article they had already voted to delete in the form you see there, especially as many of the predications in the AfD Discussion both ways were on the original version. This could lead to a flawed AfD on DRV, which I would like to avoid at all costs. Could I have an admin make a judgment call on this? I'd like the version there restored, and let people take a look at the article the way it was for most of the AfD discussion. Any problems could be brought to the talk page to be edited by the community after the AfD process is complete. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Ks64q2 is once again making things up. I have made only two minor edits to the article. I fixed some refs and deleted a space here: and I changed the title of a section and deleted an unsourced statement here: . Other edits were not only made by User:Bali ultimate but also by User:TheRedPenOfDoom and User:SarekOfVulcan as well. Also, I'd like to see some examples of the claimed "affirmative and negative votes on the article". Not that it matters much, because there is nothing wrong with editing articles when they're up for deletion. In fact, it is a good thing, as it can lead to the article's rescue.--Sloane (talk) 04:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Except that again, sir, those edits dramatically changed the tone, format, and meaning of most of the article- hands down. If you would like to suggest the edits were made in good faith, I would again question why you adamantly vyed for the article's deletion... and then, and only then, chose to edit the article. The same with user "Bali Ultimate". Again, it strikes as odd behavior. Ks64q2 (talk) 04:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop with the passive aggressive use of "sir." It's annoying when followed by pointy discussion of other's "odd behavior". This is not the place to discuss content, but since you continue to make uncivil accusations about other editors... the article, in my (and i suspect sloane's) opinion is that it had uncited extraordinary claims and weak (at best) citations for the rest. Often, people who argue for deletion, also try to apply policy to the article itself. That's it. Agree or not with my opinion about the article. But I will ask you for the 7th time (at least) today to stop attacking the motives of other editors, or provide iron clad diffs backing your attacks up when you do. If you chose to address my conduct again, without solid diffs or policy based arguments, i will go beyond the witiquette request filed about you today and seek remedial action (who knows if anyone will listen to me?)Bali ultimate (talk) 05:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. I apologize if pointing out concerns has become unsolicited attacks on you; you've yet to acknowledge that the situation I described could certainly be taken negatively, whether or not it represents what happened. This sort of ad hominem attacks on my character are only distracting, sir, and instill great worry in me that it will taint this whole process irrevocably. However, if you feel that my behavior has been inappropriate, I invite you to indeed bring it to an Administrator's attention. I must say, very honestly, the way you have doggedly pursued this article, as well as the other articles, userpages, etc that other users involved with this discussion have created/are involved with is absolutely terrifying- I feel like it borders on outright harassment. Actually, please; would you inform an administrator for review on this for me? I don't feel as if things can continue this manner. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 05:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing edit warring over the SPA tag for Louisprandtl (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). He has 19 total edits at Misplaced Pages, 12 to this AFD, the rest to his userspace. He has removed the SPA tag 3x. I'm also at that limit. Now, Ks64q2, who continues to make uncivil attacks on other users (as per this witiquette review here ), has removed it again. How will a closing admin know that this definitional SPA is in fact such, when the tag is not there? As for his demands - has he provided a diff once or cited policy?Bali ultimate (talk) 04:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. As I suggested in this edit summary, WP:AGF, a guideline, should be able to trump WP:SPA, an essay, in the highly unusual event that a user actually contests the SPA tag. Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason not to assume that some SPA's have good faith. They're still SPA's, and labeling them as such has nothing to do with how good their faith may be. So I don't see any conflict between WP:AGF and WP:SPA that would allow one of them to trump the other. And while I can imagine good-faith reasons for thinking that it might calm things down to avoid pointing out someone's SPA status, I think that trying to hide relevant information from the closing admin is generally a bad idea, and remains a bad idea in this instance. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Bali Ultimate had been tagging me unfairly as SPA even after being pointed out that my account has been since 2006 (granted I don't edit much) and then leaving rude comments on my talk page ]. There is a point when this constitutes a personal attack.]. I've left his personal attack up on my talk page. --Louisprandtl (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You may be a borderline SPA or not, but you are at least the second editor of the blog who is voting on the AfD. You pointed your connection out yourself, which is good, but the AfD is now badly skewed by the keep opinions from people with a strong COI (editors of the blog), people who have been canvassed (a "neutral" message sent by the article creator, but only to selected members of the Article Rescue Squadron), IPs, and single purpose accounts (not LouisPrandtl, others). There are also some truly independent keep opinions, but it is hard to judge the AfD through all the smoke and noise. Good luck to the admin closing it :-) Fram (talk) 08:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note, I'm a reader of the blog and posted there but not an editor of the blog. There are substantial differences between the two. Secondly this SPA is being used as a harassment tool now by Bali Ultimate and he is being abusive about it and personally attacking me as reflected by the statement he left on my talk page.--Louisprandtl (talk) 08:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"Editor" as in one who edits there. You have account number 14, even below the account number for account Motley Moose (18), and registered one day after the first registrations started and in the month before (according to our MM article) the site was actually established. You are clearly one of the 25 people who created the site. Fram (talk) 10:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

An Editor of a blog is normally who retain editorial control, post frontpage diaries et al. I don't have any such role in MotleyMoose. I normally post comments and diaries there just like I do at MyDD (where I post mainly) or at DailyKos as a regular user. However you're right in pointing out that I do have one of the first user numbers at MM but I do not have any editorial powers nor am I the creator of the blog. I've been upfront about my participation at MM, however cannot take the credit at the level that you're suggesting. If you Google my username, you'll get over 17000 hits, mostly with postings or links to MyDD (Jerome Armstrong's blog).--Louisprandtl (talk) 10:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Lemme point out, disregarding the whole SPA thing, making edits to an article is perfectly fine during AfD. Perhaps not if they were deliberately trying to sabotage it so it would fail, but that's a rather serious fail as the sources are being hashed out and whether or not they are in the article or not isn't much the point. Editors are encouraged to improve articles during AfD so that they unambiguously meet the GNG or a SNG and are verified. Does this make it harder for the closer to determine which comments were made where? Yes, but let the closers worry about it. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs 09:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. As I pointed out in the AfD, It's hard to judge this content reasonably with edit warring and acrimony galore. Unfortunately this has only worsened and is certainly not helping the article improve with content being added then quickly deleted. If an admin would be willing to step in this might make sense. I'm disappointed at the personalizing of this and what seems like piles pf bad faith. If there are actual socks then address that appropriately. -- Banjeboi 09:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment User:Ks64q2‎ has now been blocked for 12 hours. Hopefully that will put a stop to his edit warring.--Sloane (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Other editors, including yourself, have part of the problem rather than the solution. If this were only about Ks64q2's actions this would have been resolved long ago. -- Banjeboi 13:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• I am of opinion that the four editors have done the same things not only here but also on the AfD; bickering, edit warring, attacking, soapboxing.--Caspian blue 18:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
• Not to be a prude and all, but is it really necessary to swear in edit summaries? Best, --A Nobody 19:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Is it really necessary to bring completely irrelevant stuff to this ANI discussion? A user fucked up, and notes this when he self-reverts. So? Fram (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, because it is totally relevant. Sincerely, --A Nobody 17:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
      • "Teacher! Teacher! I wouldn't dream of getting one of my fellow pupils in trouble... but do you know what Billy said at recess?" Badger Drink (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

More Motley Moose

User:Ks64q2 continues to have some rather extreme ownership issues with this page. I've been in a heated dispute with him over this article he wrote (no sources is the problem) and so won't edit again til we get more eyes to avoid veering towards an edit war. I have made changes to the article in the past day or so, as have 3 other editors. . I and the other 3 have all been reducing length by removing uncited claims. I and two of these editors are largely in agreement on the talk page about what's being done. The latest series of edits were by User:Ricky81682 largely citing BLP concerns involving uncited claims i.e. . However, Ks6 has just mass-reverted all these changes for the third or so time since yesterday evening with the deceptive edit summary "editing page with suggestions kept from intermediate editors" when in fact he reverted every last edit . He's now making some minor tweaks to the article that are neither here nor there, but using false edit summaries (perhaps to convince editors problems have been addressed?) For instance "Editing for BLP conflict for Jerome Armstrong, per his page and MyDD" is the edit summary; actual edit? Changing "left to form Puma" to "left to form the organization Puma." Obviously, things are already heated, there have been reports here, there, everywhere. But how can we work in good faith to remove unsourced claims and PUFF from the article when this is what's happening after all this scrutiny?Bali ultimate (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• This will glady stand up to a detailed editor review, and I would be happy to have anyone compare versions. This was not a revert; this was a complete revision with all editors input taken into account, and an extreme polishing of the current account. I'm sorry, but I can no longer say that user "Bali ultimate" is editing this article in good faith. It was not until he loudly advocated for the site's deletion that he took an interest in editing it, and he made drastic changes that completely changed the article, adding comments like "the democrat party" and "the motley whatever it is", changing passages from "... in the Web 3.0 style pioneered by Drew Curtis" to "... will be moderated by Drew Curtis," etc. I'm sorry, but this is incredibly inappropriate behavior. If this stands, and the AfD passes, it will be a flawed judgment no matter the outcome. Ks64q2 (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"This was a complete revision with all editors input taken into account and an extreme polishing?" Here is the diff . Others can judge for themselves. But your statement looks to me to be an.... untruth (unless in some wikilawyer way you're arguing you considered all our edits, but came to the conclusion that they were all worse than your prefered version).Bali ultimate (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's not mince words. "This was a complete revision with all editors input taken into account and an extreme polishing?" is a lie. There is no room on Misplaced Pages for editors who lie about what they're doing, period. //roux   13:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

See also: WP:AN#Possible harassment. seicer | talk | contribs 13:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear... Also see, unfortunately: WP:WQA#User:Ks64q2. Any chance of drawing the madness to a close? onebravemonkey 13:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally I vote for an indef block due to the dishonesty. //roux   13:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

And also also: here. I'm assuming that the point is to scatter this liberally across WP? For the record, my view is at the aforementioned WP:WQA thread, so I won't repeat myself here, only say that possibly adoption and everybody taking a deep breath and counting to ten is in order. onebravemonkey 13:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ah, it appears he has been blocked for 12 hours for violating 3RR. onebravemonkey 15:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Not sure much will come of it but for the record, Ks64q2 does not account for all the edit-warring and other problems here. I think our policies on civility were breached early on by a few editors, many who likely are experienced enough to know better, and tap-dancing on the edge of policy doesn't help articles either. Consensus, in part, means working with not opposed to one another. -- Banjeboi 13:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

User creating MANY one line pages

I have come across this user who has been creating a ton of pages like Ancorichnus. The entire content of the page is "Ancorichnus is an ichnogenus." I then tagged one such article for CSD here and the author removed the tag without providing an explanation here . I don't see how that 4 word article meets the qualifications for the wiki, but other editors and administrators are encouraged to comment on the situation. Do we normally accept such articles for the site? DougsTech (talk) 05:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

These articles — stubs — are acceptable. I've reverted your invalid use of rollback in which you removed content that was added by the author of the article. Cunard (talk) 06:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I notified the user of this thread. We need all of the taxonomy articles we can get (IMO). These articles are marked as stubs and the creator has a history of working in that area, so it is reasonable to believe the articles would be expanded. Granted, the stubs are cryptic and I would suggest the creator should provide a tad more content before moving forward, but otherwise they are not detrimental. Seems like there is an essay or something about giving a stub time to expand before tagging for CSD. --64.85.220.189 (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Users who feel those stubs are too short may assist in expanding them. The edit tab is your friend. =D Thanks to IP Address Man for the warning about this thread. I do love it ever so much when users who have a problem with my editing run off to tattle to the admins instead of discussing it sensibly. As for now I have to go. I've run out of time I meant to use editing because I had to come over here. Abyssal (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Abyssal's idol during his youth was the actor, Stubby Kaye. Baseball Bugs carrots 17:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempts to lighten things up, but the non-sequiturs do not always help as much as one would have hoped. --64.85.220.189 (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, how about this approach then: "LEAVE THEM BE. There's no rule that says an article has to be fully developed upon creation." Do you like that better? :) Baseball Bugs carrots 17:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. But, ideally, the best way in this particular case would be to develop a better "template" for the stubs based on other genus articles. That would have probably avoided any type of CSD tags in the first place. Also, the OP could have AGF a bit more and tried to discuss on the creator's talk page instead of templating a regular. But that may just be a deletionist/inclusionist difference of opinion. --64.85.220.189 (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, yes, a four word taxo stub with one wikilink and no references is not CSDable, and can easily be fleshed out later. However, the onus really should be on the page creator to give it at least the bare details that give it actual information value; if nothing else its lazy editing. Abyssal is a good and prolific stub creator, and he does return to flesh out his stubs, so I am not really concerned, but I still think we should take pains not to dilute our standards for stubs too far. It really, really doesn't take much to make even a brand new stub not look like crap, and {{sofixit}} is not an excuse for creating and then abandoning a barely tolerable article (regardless of the size). Bullzeye 23:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

And, once again, an article creator removed a CSD tag with no one blinking an eye. This is getting ridiculous. Under no circumstances should the creator of an article remove a CSD tag from that article. Ever. —Kww(talk) 04:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

False! Abyssal removed the speedy, then was templated with {{uw-speedy1}}, and then a different user (User talk:Cunard) removed the speedy. That is absolutely the right thing that happened. Therefore, Abyssal did not get away with the error "with no one blinking an eye". He broke the rules, DougsTech called him on it (by templating him), and then a third party removed the speedy. That is how it should be. First, Abyssal should not have removed the speedy, but second, it should have been declined anyway. I'll drop Abyssal a note requesting a) better stubs, and b) no more de-tagging. And to DougsTech, please slow down a bit and check things out more carefully before tagging, but otherwise keep up the hard work! --64.85.216.254 (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Creating the articles is not a problem. Than none of them are sourced, despite his being warning that unsourced articles are a bad idea is the crux of the problem. Why are no sources being added. The articles are little more than "XXX used to be." Without any sources, we cannot evaluate whether these are legitimate or just made up. We can assume good faith for now that they are legit, but why should we put up with mass quantities of sourceless stubs. If they were sourced, I'd commend this user, but as it is now, we cannot tell the difference between good stubs and out-and-out hoaxes. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

User:EugeneKaspersky

New user who is impersonating an administrator (, , ), faking barnstars by other users on his talk page, faking talk page comments by other users , perpetrating a hoax and impersonating a prominent real life person by his user name (violating WP:REALNAME) and self-description.

For context, see the vandalism and hoax edits that have been going on in the article Kaspersky Lab since January by numerous IPs and one-purpose-accounts, e.g. KasperskyHimself, Kasperski69 (blocked), DmitriMedvedev (likewise impersonating Dmitri Medvedev), Hwahwahwah (blocked), TheHelperBot (likewise impersonating a bot), 66.104.111.66, 173.15.141.106 and others. I would also appreciate it if someone would have a look at the request for protection for that article.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible that it could be a misspelling of Karpersky Antivirus (I cannot find the link), which is a commercial antivirus software? MuZemike 06:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Kaspersky Anti-Virus is a product of Kaspersky Lab (the vandalized article). Eugene Kaspersky is the person impersonated by this user. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Note that the user is still claiming to be an admin, is still making changes to other people's comments on his Talk page, and is still claiming to be Eugene Kaspersky. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the claim to be an administrator. Mostly so that when I claim to be one no one will see through my evil scheme. Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 17:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

User blocked by seicer for username, maybe the userpage should be blanked/deleted/redirected. --64.85.220.189 (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there any possibility that Mykleis21 (talk · contribs) is the same person? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• See also 67.128.73.38 (talk · contribs). Arakunem 20:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Only one way to find out. Call Shari Lewis! MuZemike 22:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, Shari went to the Great Puppet Show in the Sky, some years back. :( Baseball Bugs carrots 13:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

... and everyone has been very worried about Lambchop, as she hasn't said a single word since Shari passed away. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw that movie: The Silence of the Lambchop. Baseball Bugs carrots 22:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The sequel--Silence II: Return of the Mint--was awful, though. //roux   23:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

72.183.76.76

WP:AIV declined action on this because the editor hasn't edited in over 4 hours:

• 72.183.76.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The sole contributions from this ip to Misplaced Pages are to add fanstory.com links to multiple articles, edit-war over the links, edit war over tags in Mike Martin (politician), and to add a promotional link (mothercopper.com). This editor has ignored multiple warnings by multiple editors. --Ronz (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to see any circumstance under which a link to fanstory.com would be appropriate for wikipedia; it seems to be an online "writing community" with no more rigor than any old wiki. Even in the rare event that a given "story" is claimed to be written by a given Misplaced Pages article subject (as appears to be the claim in the case of Mike Martin), fanstory.com isn't a reliable source that the named person really wrote that story. I'd suggest we add fanstory.com/* to the link blacklist, and zap the places it's already mentioned. 87.114.148.185 (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point on fanstory.com, though I some of the current links might be acceptable per WP:SELFPUB even though they were added against a COI. --Ronz (talk) 03:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The header of WP:WPSPAM says that persistent spammers may be reported at AIV. I just looked in WP:VANDAL and it *does* mention spam. It's possible the admin didn't think a spam block was justified unless the last edit was within four hours. (The admin who declined the block has been notified in case he cares to comment). EdJohnston (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd argue that fanstory.com fails WP:SELFPUB's "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" clause, as there seems to be no effort made there to verify that a story that claims to be written by Joe Bloggs really is, and not by Joe Bloggs' arch enemy trying to make him look like a jerk. (I was 87.114.148.185 yesterday, apparently) 87.112.92.44 (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I confess I did a simple two stage check here. The report was made to AIV at 22:38 and I declined two minutes later . The IP's last edit was at 14:41 . That gives an elapsed time of almost exactly 7 hours. Secondly a quick WHOIS indicated the IP was from an ISP selling to the general public, and likely to be dynamic. AIV expressly states that a vandal must be active now and 7 hours cannot even be vaguely considered "now". I think the issue here is contradictory information at AIV, SPAM and VANDAL which helps no-one. Ronz's report was accurate, but in my personal opinion the wrong venue. I would have thought WP:ANI would be better for these types of situations, with more eyes and editors with greater proficency at checking just how dynamic the IP may be able to weigh in. However without better clarification of when AIV should be used, and with the long standing consensus that it is only for active editors, it is likely these kinds of issues will continue to occur. Certainly I did not mean to imply that Ronz's report was a mistake as it was not. Pedro :  Chat  07:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• fanstory.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Mainly here, a lot of IPs. I am feeding this to XLinkBot. --Dirk Beetstra 11:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I've hardblocked the IP for a week, for spamming, as he came back and reverted all the removals from earlier. If anyone wants to adjust the duration or type of block, feel free --Versageek 17:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Influencing a change in a source

User:Ratel states here that he contacted the Encyclopedia Britanica to have one of their articles changed. The article in question is being used as a source for disputed content. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not true, and this is a frivolous misuse of the noticeboard. The Britannica article was used as a source for Drudge Report, then one of the editors, (Collect), managed to insert an ill-advised change to the Britannica source, I contacted Britannica and directed them to the Talk page concerned at Talk:Drudge Report and they obvious had a rethink on the change they had allowed, and reversed it. User ChildofMidnight should be cautioned for mischievously misusing this Noticeboard. ► RATEL ◄ 01:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The personal attacks from Ratel do not belong here. The exchange where I indicated thet the EB accepted input from people (allowing proposed changes in an edit box) was clear, and I indicated that to show this I proposed a change which was accepted much as a "flagged revision" would be -- and the full interaction was made clear and transparent. Ratel, however, sent a post to the EB wherein he apparently made personal accusations about me which I regard as beyond the pale. My contact with EB was clear, and consisted solely of a minor wording change (from stating the "fact" that Drudge Report was conservative to saying it was "widely viewed as conservative." That Ratel immediately wrote to EB specifically accuses me of using an alias (Ja,es Canterbury works for EB), and accuses me of being unethical, where he actually does the unethical -- this is AN/I after all ... "1 take into account that I have been maintaining this page for years ...I try to listen diligently to criticism of content when it makes sense, but just remember, I'll be here editing this page for many more years. If unsupportable edits are forced onto the page because of sheer numbers (thanks probably to some behind-the-scenes canvassing), they'll eventually be removed. 2) I have written to Encyclopedia Britannica about the subversion of their content and pointed their editorial staff to this Talk page. They'll soon see why that change was suggested by one of our members here, and I hope they will revert it, and lock it. Indeed, I have requested same. User:Ratel" Which not pnly accuses me of improper activity, it is an admission of grossly improper activity by Ratel, and an attempted "outing" by Ratel claiming I am "James Canterbury" which I am not -- Outing is bad enough, but a false outing is what? What we have is false OUTING, false accusations of subversion, false accusations of CANVASS, and a distinct claim that he will remove any edits he does not approve of. Recall, it is not as though "conservative" does not appear in the article - it is there mre than any other adjective by a large margin. Collect (talk) 10:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Didn't you read where they say above that this page is NOT for editing and content disputes? ► RATEL ◄ 13:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be about parties accusing each other of behavior that violates[REDACTED] rules, so this would seem to be a good place for it. P.S. Ever hear the expression "non-denial denial"? Baseball Bugs carrots 13:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh good, then by all means look into it. Collect caused a source document in Britannica to be changed during a dispute. The change was enacted by an editor at Britannica called Canterbury, and I mentioned that on the Talk page while complaining about the lack of ethics involved in changing source documents. I also wrote to Britannica (Canterbury) urging them not to accept Collect's edit and directing them to the relevant talk page. They then wisely reverted. That sums it up. I have not outed Collect, I have not broken any rules, but I'll wager he has! ► RATEL ◄ 14:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You're alleging unethical behavior. That certainly seems like a matter for the ANI page. Unless you think no disciplinary action is needed for any of the participants in this discussion. Baseball Bugs carrots 22:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong in "influencing a source". Two days ago I noticed an error in a source - a disagreement between what they said and what their source said. So I contacted the editor. They got back to me, said they had made an error, and a few hours later the error had been corrected. That's part of what makes a reliable source reliable - they cite their sources so that you can double-check them, and they correct errors as promptly as they can. On the other hand, if a source can be influenced one way and the next by what's said on Misplaced Pages...they probably aren't the most reliable source... Guettarda (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Didn't Stephen Colbert postulate exactly this scenario? Baseball Bugs carrots 22:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposing an indef ban for User:RMHED

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

Already indef'd, with 17 socks confirmed by checkuser to date Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of RMHED. Recently one of them has been edit warring and disrupting WP:DRV. It's time that the community say "adios" to him/her. So I propose an indef ban on him/her. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support as nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• Jeez, I always found him annoying and pointy, but didn't know anything about socks. Can you point us uninitiated to some linkies? --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs 02:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/RMHED/Archive. Horologium (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

And the proliferation of socks to attack Jimbo was about what? --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs

Probably best if you started reading here. –xeno (talk) 02:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, now I remember... well, if he's continued with the attempts to sock, I see nothing wrong with an indef. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs 02:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Short list of RMHED socks not in the category:

Accounts:

• Forward_planning_failure (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fruitynut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Golf is poetry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gyroreadylp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vestedsteak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Keenspeak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hoursdaily908 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• IncIncLtd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GGH 56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sandy462 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Untilgunter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mythatom5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

IP addresses:

• 88.108.147.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 88.108.189.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 88.108.157.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 88.108.202.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 88.108.156.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 88.108.252.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 88.108.192.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 88.108.159.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Many others from 88.108.128.0/17 and possibly 88.108.0.0/16.
  • see http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special%3ALog&page=User%3A88.108.128.0%2F17
  • and http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special%3ALog&page=User%3A88.108.0.0%2F16

There are many more accounts and heaps of IP addresses. The above is just what I could find by browsing the histories of Jimbo's userpage and talk page. I have written Tiscali, his ISP, about the libelous edits he made to Jimbo's userspace, but I don't know if they will do anything. In any case, at least for the past few days, RMHED has gotten smart enough not to try that any more (random disruption doesn't violate the terms of service of any ISP I know of, but blatant libel does). At least not while logged out.

Aside from that, this comment from his latest sock indicates that he has no intention of stopping his disruption. Fortunately, as far as I can tell, his access node is a /15, so even if has access to the entire node, rangeblocking is not too too disruptive.

Oh yeah, I strongly support the ban, (probably obvious) although for the most part, he has been blocked on sight anyways, so I guess this would just turn de facto into de jure. J.delanoy_adds 02:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

J.delanoy, when you speak of "libelous edits" and "blatant libel" are you speaking of oversighted edits, because I haven't seen anything that appears libellous, merely insulting. Can you clarify? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Don't know, I can't remember. In my email I said that there was libel, but I don't remember exactly what (or if) it was. J.delanoy_adds 04:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• There is the additional weapon of WP:CSD#G5 so that the drama that is started before the sock is caught can be speedied, the Afd's and Drv's s/he starts...etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Support ban. Way too much disruption, and I know from experience of User:WJH1992 that Tiscali will do nothing about him. --Rodhullandemu 03:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Support the ban, since it may help those who are trying to deal with all the sock edits. A ban does not have to be forever, but for now, it is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - per J.delanoy and because that is alot of socks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 19, 2009 @ 03:24

Support - no-brainer. //roux   03:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support - agreed with Homer. Too many socks and way too disruptive. —Ed 17 04:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Is there a diff to the said libelous comment for review? seicer | talk | contribs 03:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • This is fairly representative, though it got much worse at time. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 05:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Under what definition can that be considered even remotely libellous? (Although I support a ban, cross-wiki ban at that) GTD 10:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
    • That's not even libelous. seicer | talk | contribs 11:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support ban. Ironholds (talk) 07:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support --Chris 09:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support Willking1979 (talk) 10:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• I support such a ban. FWIW, a bunch of sockpuppets that I found last year were certainly related to RHMED and quite probably were his. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kitia. ] 11:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support. It's a pity - RMHED has in the past appeared to be a potentially constructive editor, just one with some seriously misguided ideas. Unfortunately, he seems to be going out of his way to play the crazy nut at the moment, so I think a ban is the only reasonable option at this time, without prejudice to reviewing it in the future if he calms down. ~ mazca 11:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• Suppport and, while it's not for here, may be worth exploring a cross-wiki ban as he has been disruptive on other projects GTD 11:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support - per J.delanoy  rdunnPLIB  13:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support Lets keep Misplaced Pages clean! Chillum 13:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse per Mazca. –Juliancolton 13:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Redsred has retired. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC) I'm striking this because of the message below.— Dædαlus 08:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved – Indeffed by LessHeard vanU //roux   18:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved – Blocked. — neuro 18:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved – Kbthompson (talk) 09:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved – Blocked. — neuro 18:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved – The issue has received sufficient coverage and the parties have reflected on the utility of the actions taken. –xeno (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Resolved – Salted. — neuro 19:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

thanks for the quick work.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved – sock blocked Toddst1 (talk) 05:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved – Wrong venue. — neuro 03:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved – Blocked 72 hours by Yannismaroufor vandalism. Tonywalton  11:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards