Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:14, 12 April 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 admins 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
• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

ChildofMidnight on Barney Frank BLP

Initial ANI post with timeline of edits on article

ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) has shown a disruptive, tenditious POV pattern on Barney Frank article. Frank heads the US Senate Finance Committee and is very prominent in mainstream media. He is also one of the most visible LGBT politicians, possibly in the world. He is also a continual source of derision from right-leaning commentators and our article is regularly vandalized. ChildofMidnight has made a few constructive edits but has been edit-warring to remove positive content overviewing Frank's career from the lede while inserting badly or unsourced negative-ish content. For instance we have that he's a defender of civil rights but ChildofMidnight insists we need to wedge in gay rights as well. The lede is rather short and the only other civil rights anyone wants to mention is also from ChildofMidnight as they want to insert marijuana reform, which does not seem to be a prominent issue. They may be doing other good work but I think their contributions to the Frank article have been a net loss and major time-and-energy-suck for the community.

Timeline of ChildofMidnight's edits over the past 2.5 weeks on the Barney Frank article.

17 March

Here they remove a positive, sourced and attributed statement and replace it with a "criticized by conservatives" one that is sourced to an editorial and a second source which doesn't support the statement at all. I reverted edits pointing out the sourcing problems. They repeated the edit almost exactly (slightly different placing in lede) with the same bad sources. These are again removed with explanation why the positive content is valid and the negative content is poorly sourced.

They insert "Frank supports gay rights and medical marijuana." Even though a statement regarding Frank's civil rights support is already there and little evidence supports adding medical marijuana to the lede, both are covered in the article. It's removed with explanation.

18 March

They remove the positive (attributed and sourced) quotes again stating "per NPOV. We can have balance. but not just one side". I reverted and encouraged them to find reliable sources for any criticism. They then simply move the lede content overviewing the subject's career to the "Early life" section which is illogical at best. I reverted stating rv, please stop edit warring over this. Per wp:lede and WP:Notability we should spell out why this person is notable; no one is stopping you from adding notable criticism if it is sourced well

19 March

User is asked directly on thier talpage why removing sourced content.

They again delete from lede stating - "does not belong in the lead unless balanced". Reverted with explanation - wp:NPOV does not state we have to tack on negative content to BLP ledes if there is positive content.

20 March

Repeats removal and reintroduced badly sourced negative content; it's reverted (again with explantion) and note concerning the sourcing problems.

Again moves the content (overviewing subjects career) to "Early life" section with edit summary "reorganize". This was reverted and they move it again. It's reverted along with clean-up of poor sourcing regarding Frank and the Fanny/Freddie regulating content which seem to be pointing that Frank should be held responsible for the sub-prime mortgage crisis, and by extension, the financial ecomonic slowdowns.

21 March

Removes sourced content written by the BLP as not reliable and POV; although one source is the subject's own website and the other http://www.house.gov. Deletes sourced and NPOV content unfavorable to Republicans citing "reliable sources needed". Inserts "Frank opposed increased oversight and reforms of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while in the minority." and "Frank is an advocate for gay right and legalized marijuana." prominently into lede. Reverted with explanation "the press release here is actually reliable as people are considered experts about themselves".

24 March

again deletes positive and sourced content from lede with edit summary "Put in body (as I did in the past) or leave out." Inserts somewhat negative and vague "His role on the Senate banking committee and overseeing the financial sector and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has been scrutinized." It too was reverted.

25 March

Removes the same (sourced) content with edit summary - "not discussed in article so doesn't belong in lead. the Fannie Mae subject matter is discussed extensively and should be noted along with gay rights advocacy." This is untrue. Franks civil rights work is discussed in the article and the Fanny/Freddie material doesn't suggest a big Frank controversy or that the current info about him being in charge of the Senate Finance committee needs to be expanded on in this way. Reverted with explanation "a "defender of civil rights issues" of which LGBT issues are a part; Fannie/Freddie bits are a current event that Frank is being blamed for by some"

Reverts it again stating "irrelevancy" and advocating for Fanny/Freddie content to be added to lede. Reverted as "notable biographical description".

27 March

Nicholas.tan now enters the picture and reverts after siding with ChildofMidnight in the thread on ChildofMidnight's talkpage. Nicholas.tan edit summary is "WIKIPUFF" which per wp:Wikipuff is innacurate as ... the sourced content is true. I revert with "sourced and speaks to this career politicians notability" explanation. ChildofMidnight reverts falsely claiming "not appropriate for lead. not discussed in article".

Nicholas.tan reverts more sourced positive ifo from the lede again citing "puff". They are both reverted with explanation. ChildofMidnight again deletes the same content stating - "against policy. this is promotional POV. totally inappropriate for introduction".

(article fully protected)

After talkpage consensus, content is restored. ChildofMidnight edit wars against several editors here and here and here where he also reinserts "Frank is an advocate for gay rights and the legalization of medical marijuana". It's reverted with explanation these other issues are not considered mjor issues for lede (beyond what we have). So naturally they revert again, which was reverted. They then added "and conservative critics note that he contributed to the housing crisis by opposing Bush administration proposals to increase oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." to the lede with no sources, and against the talkpage consensus that this was appropriate. It's reverted so they again revert and stopped after it was again removed, likely because of a 3rr warning on their talkpage.

They were subsequently warned about personal attacks on three talkpages.

They then started a rather pointy "Notable content replaced with cheerleading" talkthread with the intro - Some of Misplaced Pages's most notorious POV pushers have been removing Frank's most notable work. It has been refactored after several requests.

They also brought the excitement to My talkpage accusing me of deleting "notable and well sourced content" and insinuating my homophobia, which is pretty far-fetched even with a quick glance at any of my work here.

Based on this I wonder if the article could use a break from this help? They may have issues on other articles but my interaction has been limited, as far as I know, to the Frank one. Would a pageban make sense? -- Banjeboi 01:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I would endorse a topic ban for ChildofMidnight on any article to do with politics. He created his account on election day in 2008 and then began a systematic campaign to attack anything vaguely liberal, particularly President Obama and anything associated with him or his administration. Frankly, it is astounding that he has managed to avoid bans and blocks all this time. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The trouble has at times extended to Israel/Palestine articles as well. I have been reluctant to broach the subject here because this has been going on so persistently for so long, but there is a large swath of incivility, accusations, edit wars, administrative notices, and protected pages. BTW, has anybody notified the editor yet? No doubt they will arrive and promptly accuse me, ScJessey, Benjiboi, and others of bad faith, POV pushing, and all the usual. Those accusations have been a big part of the overall problem. Wikidemon (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Other editors

I'm moving this header here because we really do need to separate the original issue from the ensuing mud slinging - Wikidemon (talk) 04:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If it is usual for you to be accused of bad faith editing and POV pushing, then perhaps it is you and not the "accusation" that is the problem. Rklawton (talk) 03:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a pretty shocking comment from an administrator - all the more so because you just said it on this noticeboard. On what basis do you justify this off-the-cuff comment? Have you studied Wikidemon's edit history and found it to be problematic, or are you just making an unwarranted assumption? -- Scjessey (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As a clue to the uninitiated, the accounts responsible for the majority of such complaints are now indefinitely blocked and/or banned from Misplaced Pages, in large part for being sockpuppets of the same editor. No, I am one of the harder working non-administrative article patrollers, as well as a frequent commentator on meta and process issues, not to mention a longstanding, very productive article editor. Wikidemon (talk) 04:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon is rehashing an old issue where I responded to a third opinion request and found Wikidemon blocing compromise over a well sourced content addition for months. He refused mediation (the only editor to do so as I recall). He's a very problematic editor whose edit history shows he only works on political articles and only makes political edits. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. The price of editing here should not be responding to month after month of fabricated nonsense accusations from this editor, so I won't. My editing is simply not the issue here. ChildofMidnight was a terribly disruptive presence at the BLP to which COM is referring, Rashid Khalidi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). COM repeatedly made overt accusations of bad faith there too, and by revert warring BLP-violations into the article again and again while alternately ignoring the talk page discussions or hurling insults in them, helped get that article edit protected three times, the most recent one indefinitely. COM also helped get Barack Obama protected during the most recent flare-up, and has lately been coaching and inciting other disruptive users, edit warring in talk pages, on and on. It's quite extensive. I would not have chosen this occasion to finally deal with the editor but now that the subject has come up, we need to put an end to it sooner or later. Wikidemon (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a continuation of the personal attacks and harassment against me. I've tried to be as patient as possible and I welcome anyone who wants to weigh in on the actual content that is at the core of this dispute and have suggested an RfC as a way to get more involvement.

The content has already been discussed in some detail on the article talk page, and numerous editors have stated the obvious. I know this noticeboard doesn't deal with content disputes, but let's be very clear about the content in dispute and the nature of my "tendentious" editing.

I've tried to add:

• A statement that Barney Frank is an advocate for gay rights to the last paragraph of the introduction. This is, of course, very well sourced and covered substantially in the article. It's unclear what the objection to this NPOV statement is, and I find it disturbing and possibly homophobic.
• A statement that Frank is an advocate for medical marijuana. Also discussed at length in the article with ample sourcing.
• Something about his role as the leading Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee (in the minority and now in the majority) and his role and positions overseeing the banking sector. (I'm refactoring to add this point. I forgot it initially)

They've been adding to the introduction:

• The opinion of Bill Clinton's speechwriter saying how wonderful Frank is. This obviously doesn't belong on the lead and has been noted repeatedly by various editors in discussion on the talk page. If it is included it should be balanced with other notable opinions of Frank's work. And of course this trivial opinion isn't discussed anywhere else in the article.
• A New York Times quote taken out of context saying Frank is a bipartisan bridge builder (seriously!) doesn't belong in the introduction and is misleading. I've provided reliable sources that contradict this statement on the talk page. It's not discussed anywhere else in the article.

I'm happy to compromise and have made that clear all along. I've tried to use the talk page, but discussion gets hijacked with soapboxing and personal attacks from Wikidemon and Scjessey (whose been warned repeatedly by various editors and administrators). The opinions of good faith editors are disregarded and the pattern of reversions against consensus and guidelines and without explanation continues.

I know ANI doesn't deal with content disputes, but that's what this is about. Even the thread title seems inappropriate. Where are the supposed BLP violations?

These are some of the same editors who have been attacking anyone who makes suggestions on the Obama article talk page. Their editing is very limited to certain politicized articles. I welcome any and all help and suggestions for how to proceed to achieve an NPOV article that is consistent with guidelines. I am happy to compromise and happy to consider any and all suggestions. I don't hold grudges and if Wikidemon and Scjessey can cease their personal attacks, soap boxing, and other inappropriate actions I will certainly do my best to work with them. I'm not big on ANI reports and diff digging, but their inappropriate actions are there for all to see. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If he is, as you say, the most prominent LGBT politician in the world would it not make sense to include his efforts on behalf of gay rights? Is it just CoM on the one side and everyone else on another, or would mediation or an RfC perhaps make headway on this situation? Unless there is a history of formal dispute resolution or user conduct issues with CoM that haven't been outlined, it seems like some intermediary step might be useful. Also, sidenote, the Senate has a banking committee and Frank is in the House on the financial services committee. Pedantic, of course, but I just can't help myself! Avruch 02:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

CoM's reasoning above sounds, well, reasonable to me. Rklawton (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As usual, CoM has completely misrepresented the details here. The introduction of the article already notes Barney Frank's work with civil rights (which encompass gay rights, of course), and the introduction already notes Frank "has become one of the most prominent openly gay politicians in the United States." CoM inserted an additional line about gay rights in order to act a substitute for the far more expansive line about Frank's civil rights activity. Upon reversion, he promptly accused editors of being homophobic - a disgusting tactic. I said at the time that I didn't think anyone would fall for this ploy, but it appears as if that may not be the case. Please review his activities carefully and do not take any comments he makes at face value. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not the first article where I've had to re-add gay and gender related content after it was repeatedly removed. I'm not sure what motivates the removal of this content against guidelines. Anotehr editor made a wikialert report on Scjessey's recent over-the-top personal attack against me and he or she has been warned numerous times about their personal attacks and other inappropriate behavior. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

In addition to Scjessey's edit war warning to ChildofMidnight, I also warned ChildofMidnight about edit warring not knowing he'd already been warned by Scjessey since ChildofMidnight immediately removed the first warning from his talk page. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 02:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Franks career is quite extensive and a well written article may do more than it currently states - in the lede, that is - but no, it is indeed CoM's POV being injected here against concensus. Their edit-warring has been extremely antagonistic and now they claim censorship and persecution which is rubbish. No one counters that well sourced criticism can't be in the lede. It simply needs to be reliably-sourced and demonstratable that it's notable. Injecting vague and disparaging statements badly sourced or tied to opinion peices is against policy. Yet they tried it many times. No one disputes medical marijuana is an issue - among hundreds - that Frank has worked on but it is being used in a disingenuous way that is not supportable that this is a major issue to Frank. In a prior discussion we decided to weight the policy issues of Frank by the volume of content. None of them are featured in the lede. This has been pointed out to CoM many times yet they choose to edit-war again and again. So the two items stated above they wish to add ... are already covered in the lede under the quote regarding Frank being a leader on civil rights. It would be silly for us to spell out a laundry list and no one has done a good overview of his career to see what issues are most important to him. He's been a politician for decades so this is not surprising - it's a lot of work. The two items CoM is again railing against were agreed by concensus to re-add after CoM's ongoing edit-warring. The New York Times is generally considered reliable on these things. I've listed fuller quotes in part to build consensus in the talkthread so others are welcome to look if our collective sourcing of these quotes is indeed accurate to the sources and presented NPOV; despite CoM's claims they aren't. And CoM's compromise tactic's? I think again deletes positive and sourced content from lede with edit summary "Put in body (as I did in the past) or leave out." and the concept that we can't say positive things unless we also say negative ones. I missed the section in BLP where mudslinging a BLP should balance out their accomplishments. -- Banjeboi 02:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, the content here is not the point nor is the dispute significant content-wise. Who cares whether the Barney Frank article mentions his civil rights position in general or detailed terms in the lead, or whether his anti-regulation record is in the lead or just the body? Reasonable editors can work together on over time on this without revert warring calling each other names. The problem is yet another article fully protected due to edit warring (I'll have to look around to see which), and bald accusations by COM across multiple articles and talk pages that others are problem editors, acting in bad faith, homophobic, trolls, POV warriors, and who knows what else? It's gotten so so bad I don't really bother reading what particular insult COM is making at the moment. Wikidemon (talk) 02:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Process suggestion

Can we simply stop answering or responding to COM's mud-slinging at other editors? Every time COM's behavior has been questioned the editor makes up a lot of stuff and accuses everyone in sight of all kinds of nonsense, and it devolves into a horrible mess. I suggest we thread COM's complaints into a special place, and keep the focus on COM. If we need an RfC to do that, fine, but it would be a lot simpler if some admins can simply make the effort to look at COM's behavior over time and decide whether a block, topic ban, or no-nonsense editing oversight would best deal with this. Wikidemon (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is another attempt to hijack the discussion. Wikidemon recently made another report against me (I think it was recently archived) and he was advised that treating editors with respect is important. I would like to return to good faith editing which is what I enjoy rather than these endless dramas. But I do feel it's important that this type of inappropriate behavior stop. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidemon here. Once given a 3rr warning COM switched tactics to, IMHO, talkpage baiting and claiming censorship while accusing teh rest of us as homophobes. -- Banjeboi 02:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• comment : the content issues are not the point, as a variety of editors were not having a problem discussing and reaching consensus, except when ChildOfMidnight was being unCivil, edit-warring, and not waiting for consensus when multiple editors had already politely informed him of those particular places where they felt his bold work was not representative of a neutral construction. The behavior is the point; as far as the content, we were a diverse group of editors with different political, sexual, and economic POV but we were working along rather well until COM was disruptive, which then opened the door to some poor imitative monkey-see monkey-do attempts by other authors to slip a little bit of non-neutral and non-consensus material into the recipe while it was skewed so severely by ChildOfMidnight's actions. ~_{Teledildonix314}~~_4-1-1~ 02:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think any editor reading the lead's second paragraph will have a hard time siding against CoM. That 2nd paragraph is the worst bit of rubbish I've read in a long time. I doubt even Franks would write that sort of crap about himself. We're not here to write glowing articles about politicians. There is ZERO content about Franks being a bridge builder in the article - and yet there it is in the lead like he's some kind of bi-partisan saint - just as CoM indicated above. Rklawton (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec - responding to Teledildonix314) Agreed, so let's not worry so much about the content details. The point is simply that COM has systematically, across many politics-related articles, edit warred against consensus to force a highly partisan conservative POV, sometimes alongside other editors but much of the time as an army of one. The status quo consensus he fights is not obviously wrong and any arguments pro or con are simply content questions. By the same token, the objections to COM's edits were principled, and in many cases spurred by good faith concerns about BLP, POV, WEIGHT, RS, COATRACK, etc. Whether those concerns were ultimately correct or not is also besides the point because we are supposed to operate on consensus, not confrontation. Wikidemon (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

And the line about Franks supporting civil rights is supported by a source which ONLY mentions gay rights. Content is the issue because CoM is correct in his assertions and his approach, and the editors opposing him are being quite unreasonable as evidenced by the content. Rklawton (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I can see reasonable arguments to be made on both sides of this specific content issue. If you feel the article needs improvement, why not go there to participate in a consensus discussion? Article talk pages are not the place to accuse other editors of things like homophobia and bad faith, and AN/I is not the place to decide what an article should say. It will help keep both venues on track if you keep that separation in mind. Wikidemon (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I second that: please join the article talkpage, your improvements are welcome, we were working by consensus, we will certainly continue to do so. We are here at ANI about the disruptive behavior of COM, not about the content which deserves to be discussed at the article talkpage. And if you look at the talkpages of the people COM edit-warred against, you'll find weeks of unCivil confrontational POV with strangely yo-yo-ing tactics, mostly in a badgering pattern. Think for a second, if you will, at the absurdity that COM repeatedly insisted there must be a homophobic agenda at work when COM didn't get their way; does anybody think the eight or ten editors doing most of the work on that page were "homophobic"? Hello, i'm amazed there wasn't an explosion of Flames much sooner, usually in real life we don't find that many happy gay editors holding back their retorts with such patience and civility for so many weeks. "Homophobic"? I almost fell off my dildonix. ~_{Teledildonix314}~~_4-1-1~ 03:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No one is opposed to civil discussion but that has been completely absent from CoM. The methodoly has been edit-warring reverts, and now, accusations galore. And Rklawton, there is content about Frank working with Republicans and building bridges. We don't bludeon anyone with it but neither are we at even a GA article, it's been a slow vandalistic process to improve the article. And that civil rights quote? It's verbatim, - Frank has since proved to be one of the brightest and most energetic defenders of civil rights issues. If the source had stated something else we likely would have worked with it but there it is, civil rights. -- Banjeboi 03:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

See: Barney Frank#Intro Paragraph for what happens on the article talk page. A small pack of editors who work almost exclusively on partisan content engage in personal attacks and soap boxing, thereby hijacking a reasonable discussion of content. You'll see also that the discussion was archived. Wikidemon likes to archive and/ or remove discussion he doesn't like or disagrees with. I think a topic ban from partisan editing would be a good outcome given his behavior. Even in this discussion we see Wikidemon engaging in refactoring and thread titling to obfuscate and prevent a reasonable discussion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually you have that exactly backwards as you were injecting the partisan content, engaging in personal attacks and soap boxing, thereby hijacking an article. And I archived that discussion as you have been injecting your comments in the middle of previous conversations. This is about your behaviour on that article, and when you didn't get your way with consensus against you, your behaviour towards other editors. -- Banjeboi 03:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As a favorite target of COM and presumably one of the "small pack of editors" he's decided to antagonize I'm not even going to respond to the heaping on of pointless untruths. This would be at least the 50th time that COM has made up something out of thin air to say I did, and I'm not going to waste my time anymore or let COM change the subject with each one.Wikidemon (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

How is providing a link to a discussion hijacked by personal attacks and soapboxing an example of a "pointless untruth"? All you have to do is quick the link and you can see who launches the personal attacks and who hijacks the discussion. Same old story. You've shown the same behavior here. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I was referring to your previous comment which is, like the one immediately above, both pointless and false. It would be very nice if you could confine yourself to the truth and not make stuff up. Not being the subject of this incident, I'm not going to bother defending myself for the 50th odd time against nonsense you care to throw my way.Wikidemon (talk) 05:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I have fully protected the page for one week and encourage the involved editors to work it out on the talk page. LadyofShalott 04:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That's all very good and everything, but it does nothing about the disgraceful behavior of ChildofMidnight documented above. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Diffs please. Here's one of Scjessey's talk page comments . Speaks for itself. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for linking to it. It saves me having to repeat it here. I stand by the comment. At least I didn't accuse you of being a homophobic POV warrior. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The comment by Scjessey to which ChildofMidnight objects is correct in substance if not tone and placement. ChildofMidnight had launched a campaign of harassment against other editors, and out of nowhere came up with a nonsequitur, ad hominem falsehood about what was supposedly going on in an Arbcom case. He was grandstanding about that, egging on a newbie editor who had made a bad edit, and then lashed out at other editors. All on the Obama talk page, which COM knows to be on probation. That's before COM began to actually edit war on that page, reverting at least three other editors to try to delete a long string of comments from the talk page. Here are the diffs from that revert war, which has already been discussed here at AN/I. . I have no opinion on socking, but the manipulative gaming, fabrications, and toxic attitude are a playbook out of last year's now-blocked sockpuppet accounts. The number of diffs it would take to account for COM's bad behavior would fill an entire Arbcom case. The case, if it is ever presented, would be pretty staggering. I'm hoping we can dispense with this more simply. The editor should have been blocked or banned for any of these incidents - edit warring on the Obama talk page alone could have used administrative intervention. It is very sad, and a complete waste of our time, goodwill, and hard work on the project that we have to deal with this awful vituperative nonsense. I really hope an admin can see fit to deal with this. Dozens, probably hundreds of editor hours now, have now gone down the hole for this one editor's needless trouble. Wikidemon (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

LadyofShalott, I appreciate the full protect, this is the second time in a month the article has needed this and only because of CoM. The rest of the editors have been able to work fine with each other - even when we disagree - and have kept pace with CoM's reverting and POV action. CoM has proven themselves unwilling or unable, despite their claims, of even working towards collaborative editing. When they didn't get their way it jumped into a new gear of accusing others of the same behaviours they have employed. Wikidemon's take on this seems most accurate and based on my limited but unfortunate interactions with CoM - an experienced editor with 16,000+ edits on 5,000+ pages - they seem to be gaming to play us for fools here. Looking through CoM's previous visits to Admin pages shows a very experienced editor so this is smelling more like a sock than I had first thought. I haven't a clue who but experienced ANI editors might be able to sniff them out. I suggest looking into the Barack Obama-related articles although there may be smarter ways of sussing it out. -- Banjeboi 13:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to topic ban ChildofMidnight

From their very first edit to their many drive-by comments on admin boards this is a very experienced editor. Whatever their intent, I have little doubt they will find other ways to contribute to Misplaced Pages and hope those contributions will be collegial and collaborative. Despite red herrings and CENSEI's entanglements it seems apparent that ChildofMidnight is more interested in engaging other editors than in improving the Barney Frank article. Every opportunity to explain policies on reliable sourcing, due weight on BLPs and neutral POV on content has been met with silence and quick reverts from this user until a fullpage protect resulted in a consensus also against their edits. They continued to edit-war despite the concensus and page-protect until served with a 3RR warning. At that point they proceeded to personally attack other editors and post a contentious pointy thread to the article talkpage with more personal attacks and red herrings. When confronted on this ANI board we've had a parade of red herrings including the CENSEI drama and an almost mythical misrepresentation of events by ChildofMidnight as the victim of censorship which is in complete opposition to the diffs and edit summaries laid out above. That one editor can disrupt a single article in less than three weeks leads me to believe they have also participated in dramatic activities on other political articles as suggested by other editors here. The case here, however concerns mainly the Barney Frank article. It is absurd to pretend the editors on the Frank article are in any way trying to surpress any information, in fact, great effort has been taken to present all uncomfomfortable content in a RS and NPOV manner. No credible evidence suggests otherwise. I have little doubt that ChildofMidnight has caused problems on other articles but the evidence here doesn't support a community ban, IMHO, as of yet. Socking concerns are also alarming but also need their own evidence. For now I think a topic ban from Barney Frank, and articles/content regarding Frank be enacted. A sourcing ban - if we have such a thing - prohibiting the use of opinion peices may also make sense. Any thoughts? -- Banjeboi 22:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I would endorse a topic ban, but extended to cover articles related to Barack Obama (broadly construed). At the very least, ChildofMidnight should come under close scrutiny in the Obama-related ArbCom case. Running around calling everyone homophobic should've landed him a block. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'm unfamiliar with their contributions to Barack Obama, do we have a record of their efforts there? -- Banjeboi 09:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that CoM deserves a topic ban. I can understand and sympathize with his outburst if he has had to deal with the same sort of stonewalling and bad faith I've had to deal with. Soxwon (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

A topic ban may be in order for all politics-related topics. The problem is the editor has somehow managed to avoid being blocked, and hardly even warned by anyone in a capacity to back up those warnings. If not a ban, is any admin willing to step up to the plate to block COM next time they begin lobbing accusations against other editors, or edit warring articles to the point of blocking? And if we're instead going to send the signal that behavior and policy procedures mean nothing what are we responsible editors supposed to do? Edit war and flame in kind? Ignore it and let important articles degrade? Wikidemon (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It was ChildofMidnight who took us to task for defending the Obama article against the WorldNewsDaily siege 30 days ago. That did not leave a positive impression of that user's credibility. Baseball Bugs carrots 17:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

More importantly, not finding his/her satisfaction at AN/I COM began edit warring the Obama article page eight hours after starting that thread and was the editor most directly responsible for getting it edit protected. I've seen COM's edit wars result in five or six edit protects, and I'm vaguely aware of a number of other instances. All done with impunity. More than impunity, really, a sense of entitlement. Wikidemon (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't that aware of his work in the Obama article, largely b/c we had Freeps and the like. However, in the Barney Frank article, I have met with a lot of assumptions of bad faith and stonewalling in any attempts to change it. I can understand frustration boiling over in that article. As for Obama, I'm wondering if perhaps the editors in question are blowing his roles out of proportion due to the frustration and annoyance caused by the Freep incident? I remember being accused of being a Freep and/or being an extreme POV pusher for suggesting anything contradictory to what Tarc and the like proposed. While I do not blame them (extraordinary circumstances) I do wonder if the harsh editing environment might have led all to edit in ways they are not accustomed to and if this ill will has carried over. Just a thought. Soxwon (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually you have been met with the same standard for content regarding BLPs. In response you, despite all the previous dialog on the exact same issue, presented opion editorials to introduce negative content to replace the positive content. Stunning. No one is opposed to improving the article with sourced content and that article is a hit list of against Frank already. The only thing we don't talk about is his speech impediment and being obese, I have little doubt as to those being injected as well. It's already been suggested. This is a BLP and these standards apply to all BLPs. The same standard is applied to all editors as well. -- Banjeboi 01:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

NO NO NO, from the first I said to remove the cheerleading. Soxwon (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

And then presented opinion peices supporting negative content as the way to go. Neither is supported by policy or consensus. This thread, by the way, is regarding conduct, not content. -- Banjeboi 03:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No, those were arguments against inclusion and not seriously meant for inclusion, as for the subject with the assumptions of bad faith and other comments I have received in the past 24 hours, I can understand his reaction of an outburst. Soxwon (talk) 03:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

CoM's tenditiousness, edit-warring and bad-faith accusations against other editors was not an outburst. It has been an ongoing campaign to remove content they think casts the subject of the article positively and replace it with coatrack-ish POV content - marijuana reform, gay rights, controversies, etc. You seem to be doing the same now filling the talkpage with arguments and, IMHO, disingenuous suggestions which parrallel the same problems CoM had. We don't want opinion peices and mud-slinging on BLPs. "Controversies" need to be well-sourced, presented neutrally and with due weight. -- Banjeboi 10:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Despite my far-left credentials and disdain for CoM's political beliefs, I tentatively agree with him on the Barney Frank article that the quotes in the lead are cheerleading, unnecessary, unduly opinionated, and possibly misleading. I think people can fairly disagree as to whether Frank is really a "bridge" between right and left. I disagree with CoM that the propaganda about Frank's influence Fannie/Freddie needs to be emphasized in the lead. His bad-faith, civility problems, and edit-warring are only marginally greater than the average Wikipedian. There has been a refusal to compromise and present a neutral lead from both sides here. II | (t - c) 18:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying it is okay for someone to edit war an article to the point of edit protection so long as you agree with their content position? I hear you but disagree on the civility - COM overtly accused a number of editors of bad faith in so many words, and then started accusing them of homophobia. Wikidemon (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, CoM is an experienced editor with plenty to say on admin boards, they know better than to editor war and disrupt, make bad-faith accusations and misrepresent their actions when called to task. That they completely fail to acknowledge thrie behaviours as disruptive and tenditious and continue to disparage other editors and mythologize their actions also fortells of even more problems to come. -- Banjeboi 01:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• The lead on Barney Frank may need to re-worked, but CoM's behavior, and advocacy, on both it and about Barack Obama is not good. --David Shankbone
• Oppose For reassons stated. Soxwon (talk) 03:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as premature and unfair given that there is no block history or authoritative administrative warning that this behavior could lead to a ban. But can we please do something about this editor? It's gone from merely annoying to intolerable. Disrupting Obama articles on probation, filing false administrative claims, making stuff up to harass people with with. How long do we have to suffer this? I'll file an RfC if I have to, but if a topic ban is too drastic for now it would be a lot simpler if someone can just watch over COM and step in next time he/she crosses the line.Wikidemon (talk) 05:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban WQA or DR are better first stops; this really didn't need to wind up here. Jclemens (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, take it to DR - while initially strongly supportive to the issues with CoM's obvious POV, the sentiments expressed in this thread by Benjiboi/Wikidemon/Scijessey have become increasingly shrill and demanding and, frankly, indicate quite clearly a much more two-sided POV struggle to me than is being advertised. Two-sided disputes require even-handed intervention, such as you would have found in the dispute resolution process, had you gone there first instead of hopping on AN/I and begging, pleading, and shouting for an admin sympathetic to your POV to simply summarily declare your ideological opponent to be the loser. That's not how we work here. Bullzeye 19:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have basis for making that accusation, or are you assuming that because there is a dispute there must be two sides and both sides must be POV? Opposing disruption does not make one POV, nor does asking the body of administrators for help make one "shrill" I happen to share the concern that a topic ban is premature, and on some of these issues I agree with COM's content position. But we have to do something in the meanwhile short of giving COM a free ticket to continue the trouble. Dispute resolution is for content issues and this is not a content issue. The problem is battlefield behavior, incivility, and edit warring that happens to have a consistent POV. Edit warring articles on probation, and directly and repeatedly accusing editors of bad faith, is not something you can resolve as a content dispute. We're supposed to resolve whether I'm a bad faith editor who is "one of the worst", a liability to the project, and whatever other insults we constantly get? Or that Allstarecho is a homophobe? Administrators have the tools to stop disruption; dispute resolution forums do not. That's the very reason we have article probation in the case of Obama articles, and AN/I in the case of flare-ups that should be addressed sooner than later. I'll add that while COM seems to have a special disdain for me personally, and more recently a few other editors, allowing him/her to make it personal in that way just plays into it. COM has probably insulted, offended, and gotten into edit wars with a dozen editors in the last week.Wikidemon (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I guess I must apologize for not writing up a better report, or something. ChildofMidnight turned the Barney Frank article into a battleground and still claims to have no idea why the edit-warring, personal attacks and using op-ed peices as sources for negative content in the lede of a BLP is problematic. Sadly I see this revisionist take on events as part of the problem, ergo they have the last, and seemingly reasonable, word. My note here is a bit of an "I told you so" post as having spent an unfortunate amount of time looking through thier edits on admin boards and elsewhere I am convinced they are simply playing us for fools with red herrings and other diversionary tactics so no real consensus ensues. Sadly, it would be better if I were wrong on this and they turned around to treating articles and editors, the entire project that is, with respect. Unfortunately my time spent on this report looks to be wasted for now but at least will serve as a more accurate picture of their disruptive editing. Hopefully this will balance out the disingenous bewilderment ChildofMidnight presents as to why they are repeatedly reverted and called to task for problematic content and behaviours. That myself and other editor's motives and actions were questioned, and mischaracterized is unsurprising but that this turns out to simply be the latest round of problems on political events articles foretells this will hardly be the last problem. That they potentially do good work elsewhere seems promising but likely they need to be restricted off areas where they are causing disruption. My, somewhat limited, experience is that this level of disruption combined with such pronounced denial and unaccountability is a recipe for future problems. I don't watch ANI per se so feel free to ping me next time CoM is called to task and I can offer whatever insights might shed light. p.s. Also I have just little more than the sniff test here but isn't a user name of Soxwon (socks won) and their appearance here and a near seemless hand-off at the Barney Frank article all just a bit ... dodgy? -- Banjeboi 13:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. (not the location: on SA's user page) seems hard to explain other than with trolling or roleplaying. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The same can be said of this bizarre contribution , quite out of the blue, after the brief unblock of Alastair Haines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He had never before that interacted with this user. He just seems disruptive, with more than a small hint of exhibitionism. As Hans says, he is dissimulating and, so it seems, seeking out danger spots on WP in the public gaze. Mathsci (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, for heaven's sake, ban him! Do we have to go through an RfA? We already had one painful with, this would be even worse.

I resent that accusation thank you very much. I'm not aware of where CoM is from, but my name references the Red Sox winning the world series, and I'm from Virginia. I've nothing to hide nor am I anybody's sockpuppet. Soxwon (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, based on your assurance you are not a sockpuppet, I apologize and thank you for setting the record. Hopefully your working in concert with them on both the Frank and the Obama articles will evolve into strictly constructive and policy-compliant content and behaviours. -- Banjeboi 22:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If no ban, then what?

If we're not going fashion an administrative remedy based on this report it would be useful to know what the next step is. Anyone want to propose where to go from here? Wikidemon (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Do nothing?
• Behavioral RfC?
• Warn ChildofMidnight?
• Warn other editors?
• Editor probation for ChildofMidnight?
• Other?

As it seems admins either don't notice that an actual request to deal with CoM's behavior has been made, or are just ignoring it, I think the next step would be WP:RFC. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 03:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

POV

I'm not sure why I keep getting accused of POV editing. If someone wants to explain how it's unreasonable to suggest noting Barney Frank is a prominent advocate for gay rights in his article's introduction, or that he's the leading Democrat on the Financial Services committee, or that Obama is a Democrat (which, if you can believe it, keeps getting removed from the Political positions of Barack Obama article) I'm all ears (and eyes too). And as far as the controversies and criticisms, yes I think that notable ones belong in the encyclopedia with appropriate weight and according to guidelines. Hasn't that been our policy all along? But this stuff isn't even controversial. Does anyone approaching these articles fairly really think that Obama's political party affiliation shouldn't be included in an article about his political positions? I feel like I'm dealing with craziness, and I know if I dare call the actions of Wikidemon et al. for what they are I'm going to get in trouble. But seriously, this is what it's come to??? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

"If someone wants to explain how it's unreasonable to suggest noting <insert any descriptor that, when shortened and not explained in full, lengthy detail, can be interpreted in many controversial ways, here> in his article's introduction..."

I'm not going to explain it to you, because I think you already know the answer. Would it jog your memory if you thought back to this discussion, where you fought to keep similar descriptions (even though you agreed they were accurate) out of the article lead? Wasn't it you that said,

Let's include the characterization along with others that are notable in appropriate context and with appropriate explanation. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Just an observation. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

These relate to content disputes. You know why - repeated explanations on talk pages have not stopped your from ignoring consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The talk pages show that consensus isn't against these reasonable edits, how could it be? You can't even argue the content issue here because your position is so obviously preposterous. The comments here and on the talk pages clearly show that you and Wikidemon are being unreasonable and behaving inappropriately. By all means lets do RfCs, as I've offered repeatedly, if that's really necessary. But this pattern of obstruction has been the case again and again and includes refactoring, soap boxing and personal attacks. So the real question is how to deal with you and Wikidemon when you refuse to act appropriately? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't know, personally, because I have not acted inappropriately. I agree with you half the time on the content. But the fact that I agree or not, or that you have a POV, is not the issue here. People can have POVs. It's the resulting article that should not. You could mend a lot fences by cutting out the constant accusations of bad faith, edit warring, and declarations of consensus that don't jibe with other editors. An RfC may be a last resort but it would be a lot of time and drama, and we still need to stop the edit warring and all this other stuff while the RfC is in process... plus an administrator to interpret and enforce the results. But if things can be calm for 30 days why not make that permanant? And if the outcome is simply going to be that an administrator says "no more", why do we need an RfC to establish that? It would be vastly simpler if everyone can simply agree to follow the letter and spirit of our various policies, and in the case of the Obama articles, especially so given article probation and the circumstances that make it necessary. Wikidemon (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If you check his edit history, you'll find that Wikidemon has been active in a long string of attempts to ban editors (such as this one). In fact, the cases are remarkably consistent. They involve disputes like (as ChildofMidnight points out here), whether certain facts should be in an article because Wikidemon feels discussing facts conflicts with his idea of what NPOV is. Not only does Wikidemon aggressively push his version of npov (even to the point of removing factual content). He even removes dissenting opinions from view on article talk pages and, as I said, he's got a long history of removing editors (through banning attempts such as this one). Before anyone pursues action regarding this, people really need to examine Wikidemon's edit history pretty closely.-32.166.117.139 (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I must agree with a lot of what User:32.166.117.139 has just asserted, after looking at Wikidemon's history. Wikidemon has attempted to ban editors. (He has not succeeded often enough.) He is remarkably consistent. Wikidemon aggressively pushes for his version of NPOV (which, by the way, is everyone's version, by its very nature). More people should aggressively push for NPOV. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon's version of NPOV involves the persistent, deliberate removal of factual content, the removal from view of dissenting opinions regarding the article's content in the talk page, and an ongoing campaign to ban editors whose views are counter to his own. If this is what NPOV means to you, then we have widely divergent ideas regarding NPOV.-166.197.92.181 (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The above (the IP editor) is almost certainly a block-evading IP sock that has been trolling Illegal immigration to the United States long term. We might have to start doing checkusers soon. For now please ignore.Wikidemon (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, unless the topic refers to an IP address specifically, I consider all IP edits to be suspect. HalfShadow 03:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Considering that the overwhelming majority of sock puppets are -named- accounts, I feel the same way about named account.-32.166.47.15 (talk) 03:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(OD)For both (and any future) IP editors, if you have a problem with an editor, don't waste our time here. Open a thread elsewhere on the page and bring the correct DIFFs to back up your accusations. You're not winning anyone over with drive-by allegations. Dayewalker (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

3 IP editors, two of which have almost identical IPs, suddenly decide to make their first ever Misplaced Pages posts here? Methinks roolz be brokd! -- Scjessey (talk) 04:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA?

Is this - Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/ChildofMidnight - serious? Things are taking a curious turn here. Wikidemon (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, this should be fun. Bring it on! Baseball Bugs carrots 05:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, we all need some Schadenfreude now and again. PhGustaf (talk) 08:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion indicates that it is indeed a serious nomination. I'm at a loss to see why he specifically picked this time and nominator, though. Chamal 09:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

As much as I despise the mindless bleating of AGF that goes on around here, we probably should. I think the simplest explanation for the timing is that COM simply doesn't get why people are concerned about his/her editing patterns and is disregarding them--as any of us would do if we were convinced of our rightness. //roux   09:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It's all an accident - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 09:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I just saw that, and your response. Two things:

1. Please, please back off from COM. It can only end badly.
2. That sort of canvassing, especially the meatpuppet comment, is deeply concerning. //roux   09:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've got already about half a dozen reasons to list in opposing CoM. The list keeps getting longer. Baseball Bugs carrots 09:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Assuming he will see this new sub-thread, I hope he will go on and accept his "nomination" so it can be transcluded and the voting can begin. Or go on and withdraw the "nomination" before it gets ugly. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 09:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

He's already been commenting on his page about the "jokers", i.e. those who would vote against this joke of a nomination. My guess is that come morning he'll see which way the wind is blowing, and if he has a lick o' sense, he'll abort the mission. Baseball Bugs carrots 09:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I see a poor dead equine and people hitting it. Hint. //roux   09:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You're just being a neigh-sayer. :) Baseball Bugs carrots 09:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, this might me a good time to rein in your wit for a while. As Bali suggests below, it's probably best to let the matter pass pleasantly, like a good bowel movement, whilst even a whit of wit might make it pass like a kidney stone. PhGustaf (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The whole RFA thing is just pointy/a joke. If it does go live, i suggest those who would oppose this candidate would simply type "oppose - not good admin material" and move on. If you don't handle it that way, you'll be feeding the three-ring circus this fellow is currently assembling. Like a lot of POV pushers, he enjoyes feeling "marginalized" and a "pariah," convinces him he's fighting the good fight. Why waste any of our time feeding his ego?Bali ultimate (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hi. Sorry, I wasn't aware of this discussion until just now. I had approached an editor about a possible nom. I was curious what he would say. I know there was a big brouhaha about his consistent opposes at RfAs. As far as the timing, I had not really planned on going ahead immediately, truth be told, and it certainly seemed unlikely that he would say yes.
• I would like to respond to some of the comments here. This discussion is a classic example of trolling. It has absolutely nothing to do with article content. It's a series of snide comments bantering back and forth and it fosters a hostile atmosphere. I am not upset by any of the comments, and some parts are amusing, but there is no question that it is inappropriate and inconsistent with the purpose of this board. Let's be clear, it has also involved some inappropriate canvassing (I will let PhGustaf explain) and personal attacks that if they were going on in reverse would most certainly result in my being blocked. And before anyone rehashes the jokes I posted on an editor friend's page and misrepresents them as being serious, if you care to look through the history, you'll see that we have had a collegial banter back and forth for a long time. If attempting to make someone laugh is a crime I am certainly guilty. I do think Misplaced Pages should be fun. I also think the snide comments and attacks carried out by the self-righteous editors above put Misplaced Pages in a very negative light. The civility policies and guidelines are all about treating other editors with respect. So if it's a friend and you want to make a joke that's fine, but to come here and make jokes about banning people and attempting to bait and provoke editors is inappropriate and shows poor judgement. I'm not perfect, and I'm not a saint, but I edit in good faith and I try to treat my fellow editors with respect even when I disagree with them. Sometimes my sense of humor is misunderstood and conveyed poorly in text, and for that I apologize. But I will not apologize for being willing to sometimes take unpopular stands where clear violations of our policies are hurting the encyclopedia and our community. Wikidemon's divisive and disruptive behavior is totally unacceptable. His willingness to behave like an animal in a pack and to muscle other editors with whom he disagree is shameful. I may in fact be banned some day, but I will never attempt to coordinate attacks and to carry out obstructions in such a disgraceful way.
• If he chooses to turn a new page and to edit in a way that abides by our guidelines and treats other editors appropriately I will be happy to let bygones be bygones at any time. We all make mistakes and I hope he will stop to correct his. I don't hold grudges and I believe people can change. I don't spend a lot of time here, so I may not have time to respond to any comments that follow this one. I hope everyone has a great weekend. Thank you. That is all. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• What a noxious personal attack. You have not let bygones be bygones. The personal attacks have gone on, mostly in reverse. You have waged an ill-tempered campaign of harassment against me and a few other editors for months, ever since you joined the project, making up one bogus accusation after another. If your RfA is real it is a problem because the prospect of you having the power to actually block the people you have said you want to block in service of your conservative and sometime fringe agenda is spooky. The thought of you backing up with wheel wars and obstruction on this board the insults you regularly hurl at administrators when they handle disruptive editors you have been championing is also alarming. Sometimes it is hard to tell if you are sincere and simply have terrible judgment, or all this is some kind of a ploy. Whatever it is you need to stop. ANI is the most efficient place to address that but if necessary we can do it in Arbcom or via an RfC. Getting the Obama page edit protected, then edit warring its talk page, then getting Barney Frank edit protected, all the while accusing your fellow editors of homophobia and trolling, is not a good move. You have called me an animal, shameful, disgraceful, a harm to the encyclopedia, worthy of a topic ban. Under those circumstances I cannot reasonably deal with you as an editor, but neither can I allow you to mangle Misplaced Pages's most important articles and forums. Much of the rest of the community is fed up with you as well. I did not choose for you to have a vendetta against me, and I did not choose the timing of this report. But we are here now, and it is time to do something about it. Wikidemon (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

As usual, I see you, ChildofMidnight, have resorted to your tried and true method of the "they are picking on me!" defense. You says above, I had approached an editor about a possible nom. I was curious what he would say. I know there was a big brouhaha about his consistent opposes at RfAs. As far as the timing, I had not really planned on going ahead immediately, truth be told, and it certainly seemed unlikely that he would say yes. If it seemed unlikely User:DougsTech would say yes to you asking him to nom you for RfA, why'd you even ask him to do it? I think it's because you're using him as a pawn in another one of your "bait & hook" games on Misplaced Pages. As I told you at User_talk:ScienceApologist#RfA?, it's hard to walk into doors when you ask others to hold them open for you. But after asking DougsTech to nom you, you then belittle his own RfA battles? Uhg. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 01:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't drag in other editors who have nothing to do with this. If and when I decide to run for RfA you are certainly welcome to weigh in with your opinion. If there is no further request here, these abusive threads should be closed. This is a board to report incidents requiring Admin attention, not a playpen to launch malicious attacks. I'm sorry Wikidemon dragged you into his disruptive activities. Have a good weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You are not allowed to come here, post attacking diatribes, and then decide this thread is to be closed. Thanks. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 02:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• If CoM has the time to reply at length here, then he certainly has time to accept the nomination, and I encourage him to do so rather than continue to try the community's patience. Grsz 02:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • He's unlikely to actually accept. He's already framing his exit strategy: Baseball Bugs carrots 02:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• Thanks for your suggestion Grsz. Are you volunteering to be my scheduler? I wasn't aware that I was under any time constraints. Is that a policy? As to the abusive reports have been responded to repeatedly already with a clear indication that Wikidemon should cease disrupting, I once again suggest these numerous threads be closed. Further attempts at disruption and smearing are highly inappropriate, particularly on noticeboard. Cheerios. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • It would certainly be awkward to be running for admin at the same time there's a still-open thread advocating a topic ban. That might cast some doubt on your fitness to be an admin. Of course, personally calling for it to be closed doesn't help your credibility either. Baseball Bugs carrots 02:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• There's a good chance I would support per User:A_Nobody#Favorite_userpages and as I have found him open-minded in AfDs when he initially argued to delete, but the article was improved, and as such was willing to reconsider. Best, --A Nobody 02:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing?

I have noticed that Scjessey has been posting links to CoM's RfA on talk pages of people who have had disputes with CoM with the subject line of "Joke?" This smacks of canvassing to me. Anyone else see it that way? LadyofShalott 04:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I've decided to semi-protect this article for 2 weeks. If anyone feels that I'm out of line, please discuss it here and then change it. Bearian (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, the article is fully protected and was done so on April 6. It appears all you did was add the PP template to the article. Did you mean to change the protection from full to semi? - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 01:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It's still fully protected, as of 30 seconds ago. Baseball Bugs carrots 05:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Review of block; invitation to deliberative participants, please

Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is under 24 hour sanction for violation of WP:NPA. I have opined at Giano's talkpage that he has not violated the policy, and have some support, while the blocking admin remains content in their interpretation, and also has some support. As Giano + sanctions related issues have some history in growing into major drama, can I ask some of our more even tempered and less politicized contributors glance over and give a calm consideration of the case. My hope is that when we do block Giano it has to be seen that the community is largely content that violations have indeed taken place, and a dignified discussion there may achieve that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A claim was made on his talk page that there was an off-wiki aspect to this, but it's not evident to me on first review. Can someone clarify that please? Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The off-wiki context was here (scroll down to the replies, or search for "Giano"). Quite frankly, if someone were posting the kind of abuse about me that Neurolysis was posting about Giano on a national newspaper's website, I'd be more than a little snarky as well. – iridescent 00:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been reviewing the situation on his talk page, and I'd rather see a wider discussion on this situation. I believe its getting heated, and conversation needs be moved here if we're going to poll for his unblock. Synergy 23:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Preemptive oppose unblock. Giano knows precisely what he is saying and when, and he is under zero misapprehension about what the rules call for here. He knew what he was doing, the block is entirely justified. We have to stop coddling him because he lashes out--he needs to stop lashing out on a depressingly regular basis. If it were once a year? Fine! It's not. //roux   00:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(reply to Synergy)I feel the discussion there is more civil than has previously been the case when on the 'Boards - which allow passing comments to be made that doesn't help with considered debate. Hi, Roux! LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Part of the argument on the talk page seems to be about whether terms effective through February are still effective. Avruch says they are not. If there are no specific statements to the effect that the term was prolonged, and it doesn't seem that there were, I have every reason to believe the block is probably perfectly acceptable. I can't see any immediate need to lift the block, particularly when it is as short as it is. John Carter (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

@LessHeard vanU: Civil is subjective, which is why I chose to say plainly, that it was getting heated. Regardless. A poll should be done here, not on a blocked users talk page. My primary reason for posting here. Synergy 00:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

@John Carter: the summary for the block was NPA violation - my and others comments can be found below. Synergy: Well, it has been done. I felt the less visited area of Giano's talkpage was easier to moderate, but transparency is also a creed to me so I am content for it to be here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Moved from talk page. Seddσn 00:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• (sigh)Is there a link to the Giano ArbCom where blocks, particularly under civility/attack criteria, are only to be made after consultation... Do I have to don my fucking "Protector of Poor Giano" every fucking time someone blocks Giano without reviewing the history (and if said admin isn't aware, on what basis are they blocking without warning or discussion). LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on the substance of the block... You are referring to the enforcement motion from the SlimVirgin case, which applied specifically to Giano's civility parole. That parole expired in February, presumably rendering the enforcement restriction moot. Avruch 20:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Do you refer to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Motion: re SlimVirgin#Restriction on further enforcement? I was vaguely aware that there was something like that, so I looked it up before issuing this block. The motion prohibits "enforcement action relating to Giano's civility parole". I did not block this user to enforce any civility parole, just to prevent ongoing ordinary policy violations that I came across when viewing an ongoing RfA. Moreover, the parole that must not be enforced according to this motion appears to have expired anyway. But if you feel that the motion must be construed so as to prohibit any block of this user for civility reasons ever (which would surprise me very much, since it would in effect exempt him from the policy), we can make a request for clarification to that effect.  Sandstein  20:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein did provide diffs, so perhaps perusing them before passing judgement might be a good way to go. I think it's fair to say Giano did not take the "high road", and a 24 hour block seems like a pretty appropriate action in this instance. Giano's opinions have certainly been noted, but I think it's reasonable to expect conduct that is slighlty less confrontational. Sorry Giano! I can certainly understand where he's coming from. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Although upon reflection there is a question about whether a warning was given? Rules is rules... ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)*That is the one; fair enough it has expired, so there is no need for it to be examined. As for the purported violations of NPA, I would quote Misplaced Pages:NPA#What is considered to be a personal attack?, bullet point (4) "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki...". Giano has made it quite clear, since it has lead further editors to oppose or strike their supports, that this is in regard to off-Wiki comments made by the candidate in respect of Giano and the Hattersley claims debacle. Unless you are arguing that Giano's perception of events are wrong (which would make your block problematic under COI) I suggest that Giano has provided reason for his claims of the candidate being capable of pronouncing falsehoods; I am uninterested in the veracity of Giano's claims, other than he has provided sufficient evidence to make it fair comment rather than an attack on the individual. Lastly, I have seen worse in the bearpit that is WP:RfA - it isn't right but I have not seen editors blocked without warning before. I feel you should reconsider your action. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

To CoM, of course I reviewed the diffs - which is why I am making the point that Giano is referring specifically to events/comments made by the candidate (in an off-Wiki but public page) which he considers varies considerably from the truth to which the comments cited by Sandstein refer. I do not don my mask and cape without making sure that the stitching is still in place... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Lets take as granted that any one of Giano's comments were correct and not personal attacks. In fact, lets take them all as true and not uncivil, not personal attacks. Does the collective effect of Giano repeating himself stridently and in multiple forums create a significant problem? Perhaps a more useful and functional test: "Did Giano's comment disrupt the normalized editing environment?" I have no answer yet. Also stopping in to confirm that Giano's probation has expired, and thus the related ruling has no effect as well. Its a wash: Giano is, procedurally, like any other long term contributor.--Tznkai (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• (ec)My apologies LessH. I misread your "Do I have to don my fucking "Protector of Poor Giano" every fucking time someone blocks Giano without reviewing the history" comment. Clearly you were referring to the Arbcom issue and not the history of today's edits. And I see you had in fact noted that a warning wasn't granted, and that would most certainly have been best protocol. My apologies to you and to Giano for cluttering up his page. I suggest an unblock would be appropriate, as only now with the block has warning been clearly served. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

My exasperated comment did, in fact, refer to the deprecated civility parole - so my bad there, and therefore nothing for you to apologise for. However, when I reviewed the basis of the block as logged I found another problematic area. My luck not to appear a complete bozo (the mask and cape helps a lot, too). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Concur with CholdofMidnight; unblock is indicated. Also, I have to wonder, did Neuro lie? Its not a personal attack if its a just charge, as there is no nicer way to phrase it. KillerChihuahua 21:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

As I just said on my talk page, in view of the block log of Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I believe he did not need a warning to know that we have a policy prohibiting personal attacks, and that it may be enforced with blocks. A warning would accordingly have been superfluous. I'll be offline for about 24h soon, and assume that any administrator considering an unblock will be so collegial as to seek consensus for it in an open forum such as WP:ANI. I'd like to note that, if the diffs cited above are not incivil and disruptive, I do not know what is, and accordingly would not support an unblock absent a convincing apology.  Sandstein  21:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

On the merits, even if one were to consider "liar" not (as I do) to be a personal attack, "deluded" and "half baked candidact" (sic) certainly are personal attacks.  Sandstein  21:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have invited (dignified) discussion to take place here, where it might not descend into the two usual warring camps, over at ANI. I have made my position clear, so I shall act further only as a moderator to hopefully stop excessive and off-topic postings. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec):::You could have asked him to stop first, before blocking. If what he claims neuro did is the truth I would be upset too, especially if he never apologized until his request for adminship. Giano's comments were certainly uncivil, but blocking was getting pretty carried away IMO. Landon1980 (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

E/cIn an attempt to head any possible drama off at the pass (and in the spirit of the season for certain folks), would you consider an unblock as clemency? That is, Giano requests an unblock, neither denigrating you, nor Neurolysis, nor apologizing either, and that it be granted time served. The implicit understanding of course, is that Giano leave the issue alone, which is biw moot now I believe as Neurolysis has withdrawn.--Tznkai (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Doubly moot as Giano has surely gone to bed. Talk amongst yourselves. Bishonen | talk 22:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC).

• He is not enjoying an evening that may end with a Midnight Mass? I am disappointed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A quick word on the matter: there is no possible situation under which calling another editor a liar is remotely acceptable. Accuracy of statements can be disputed, certainly, but "liar" means someone who makes intentionally false statements or willfully deceives. Given that it posits malice (which is the opposite of assuming good faith), it cannot be anything but a personal attack.

I make no comment on whether a block was an appropriate response, or whether its duration is adequate, but arguing that it was not a violation of NPA is ridiculous on its face. I'll grant that no warning was given, but I am under no delusion that Giano is not aware of the meaning of the terms he uses, or that he has somehow forgotten our policies. — Coren  23:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That is clearly untrue. If an editor has admitted to being a liar, or has been demonstrated to be a liar, then the statement is simply one of fact. Is it your intention to suppress all statements of fact, or just those that you find inconvenient? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I, of course, disagree. A statement made without regard to the facts, and not corrected in the face of such evidence, which impunes the integrity and contributions of another person, may be termed a lie - and the utterer of such statements is thus a liar. I am using the term "mistruths" because it sounds less offensive, but the fact remains that the candidate was caught in a lie, Giano provides the evidence of it, and therefore NPA is satisfied. NPA defends editors against unfounded claims, not protects practitioners of poor behaviour, conduct, morals whatever from being castigated for their actions. Finally, Giano's obvious contempt for abiding by certain policies does not constrict our absolute adherence to the word as well as the spirit in sanctioning violations of them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

But how do we know that Thingy deliberately lied? He might have been mistaken, or just giving his opinion. To WP:AGF or be collegial, we should say he was mistaken, rather than lied. Sticky Parkin 23:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The same AGF that Giano is justified in terming it a lie. I may have given the impression that I am sold on Giano's interpretation - I am answering for him in reply to Corens points (I am sure I am going to be royally thanked and praise by G for doing so...) without taking a view upon it. Neurolysis may have been in error for all sorts of reasons, but in only admitting the error when deeming it expedient for the purposes of applying for adminship but being content to allow the mistaken comments to remain unaltered for that until that time is extremely insulting, I suggest. You might not wish to take such liberties with the many calm editors of this project; doing so with Giano invites responses that we are very familiar with. Again, we appear to be punishing the bear for responding to the poking. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's be clear, there was incivility here. Giano went too far and should have received a warning to cease and desist. He's now been blocked. We've had the ensuing drama. I don't think asking Giano to apologize is a good idea in this instance. I suggest he be unblocked in good faith and asked to refrain from engaging further with Neuro. He is of course reminded that no matter the provocation, editors are expected to abide by the civility guidelines.

• Support Unblocking. No need for futher drama. Message has been communicated. Giano knows what is expected of him. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• Coren, whilst your statements are correct, we also know that Giano flies off the handle the odd time or two. In statistical terms, we ignore the outlier data and we also correct for systemic bias (read here, poke Giano - Giano snarls - whack Giano - Giano roars - block Giano - hilarity ensues) The present case is an obvious injustice done off-wiki, which should be considered as a provoking factor. It's pretty well-established that if you hit Giano with a stick, he doesn't react well. Neuro hit Giano with an off-wiki stick. Support unblocking. Franamax (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

What was done offsite in this? Please provide context... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry GWH for not providing a link, for some reason I thought everyone else clicked the same things I do. :) Anyway, what LHvU says just below. Franamax (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This 09:48 post]. He misrepresented Giano (I suggest - you may disagree) in making points which, later, transpired to be not altogether accurate either. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Misplaced Pages is NOT a battleground, remember? Don't hit people with sticks, and if someone hits you with an "off wiki stick", don't bring your anger and aggression on wiki. Flame away, but go elsewhere. Further, wikipedia isn't therapy. If you've got a bad temper and fly off the handle, don't expect us to make allowances for you. Keep you temper off the wiki. But really? This is the same old script, with just a few actors changing. Can't we get a new script? These repeats are boring me. And, for me, boring is worse than incivility. (Oh, and I don't care whether you unblock or not. Frankly it will not make any difference to the boring script.)--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    • DocG, you're right - but whoah, statements on the website of a national newspaper? Where is the "go elsewhere"? You really can't get any more uncivil or NPA or whatever you want to term it - calling out another editor in front of the world and basically saying "he's not one of us". Hell no, Giano bloody well is one of us, dysfunctional family that we are. I'd support your imprecation to keep our temper off of the wiki (in fact I do, wholeheartedly) - but what about the sarcasm; talking-down, references to inferior knowledge, experience and/or scholarship; use of wikinyms (TLAs) to cow new editors; or any of the myriad ways that editors are mean to other editors? It certainly is easy to pick out a well-definable instance from a known editor and say "this one thing is wrong". I'm not sure exactly how that solves the overall problem. Franamax (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• I think I support Giano's underlying point - Neurolysis' behavior on the blog post wasn't remotely good form. I can understand why Giano would still be angry about it a couple of months later.

But I think two months is long enough that the initial poke should have faded, and Giano should have expressed himself in a civil way regarding this. Especially to the RFA supporters he went after .

Even if we absolve him of guilt in the direct attacks on Neurolysis, the attacks on others were temper getting the better of him... fahadsadah and FlyingToaster are certainly innocent victims in this.

I propose that for the purposes of this unblock discussion, administrators ignore the attacks on Neurolysis and consider whether the behavior against the other two was sufficient to justify retaining the 24 hr block, or not. Whatever the anger at Neurolysis justifies or doesn't, it clearly should not extend as far as allowing anyone to go off attacking random third parties. If those two attacks are sufficient for a block then he should remain blocked. If not, then not. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Question: does the allowance for the statements apply to only those on the RfA? .. or do they also extend to the attacks made on Neuro's talk page? Note: Giano did request that Neuro not post to his talk page, and Neuro did offer an apology. I would think it could be expected that the claims could stop after the apology. — Ched :  ?  00:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there's some disagreement in the discussion over whether the Giano / Neuro back and forth justifies the block. I think it's less ambiguous, considering the unblock now, to consider the other two victims separately from the Neuro stuff.

I have an opinion on the Neuro stuff but I also have a history of controversy with Giano blocks, so I think it's easier to not push my opinion on that out into the debate here and possibly go sideways over that history. The issue with the two innocent bystanders is easier to define and review without having to delve into the things we're likely to not get consensus on. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock - Reading over that blog, Neuro's behavior was slightly troubling, but I honestly couldn't agree more with Roux. With how UNBELIEVABLY MONUMENTALLY GINORMOUS Giano's block log is, I think that Giano's lucky that his block isn't a good 5 or 10 times longer than it is. --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 00:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• Coren: "there is no possible situation under which calling another editor a liar is remotely acceptable.". I'm sorry, but if I have diff evidence that an editor has been lying about an issue, I'll call them a liar. To do otherwise would be lying myself. Withdraw that one, please. Black Kite 00:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  You could have evidence that a statement is false; not that the one who made the statement knew it was false when he made it— for all you know, they might have been mistaken, deluded or just confused. Arguably, even an admission of lying is no proof given that the admission itself might be mistaken and such.

  That's entirely besides the point anyways, even if the accusation is absolutely true, it would still be an attack and not acceptable as such. There are many ways of calling attention to a statement that is false that are not attacks; calling someone a liar isn't one of them. — Coren  01:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  I agree with your exceptions, but you're skirting round the issue there really; accusing someone of being a liar when they have clearly and deliberately lied about an issue is not a personal attack. it's merely a factual statement. Black Kite 01:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  Nice of people to tell me about this thread. Is the suggestion that I have blatantly lied, and if so, where? — neuro 01:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  I wasn't actually making a comment about yourself; I was merely replying to Coren's comment. Apologies for going off-topic. Black Kite 01:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• (e/c) Yes, heh, don't worry too much Neuro. This discussion has gone far beyond what you may or may not have intended to say at the newsblog and is soaring to the meta-sphere of the wiki. :) Do you think Giano should be unblocked? Franamax (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

He may have made the wrong decision in making such comments as he did, but I also made the wrong decision posting those comments on the blog. I see no reason to keep him blocked, no, it takes two to tango. — neuro 01:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Look, I'm not condoning anyone's actions, and I can even understand Giano being upset, even if I do question the timing of it all. But, I really think that this is over the top. Neuro apologized, and the badgering continues. I understand emotions, but refusing to not only accept an apology, but continually berating another editor simply isn't right either. — Ched :  ?  01:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Giano has a point about both the location and timing of the apology in my opinion. Assuming that neuro never made an apology before the RFA (I never saw a link to an apology aside from the one he made on the RFA, if one exists sorry for not seeing it), and assuming that he never apologized on the forum where the post was originally made, his apology is indeed both rather belated and in the wrong forum. The damage the post made was done there, and if no apology is made there than the damage will continue to be done every time someone reads it. Furthermore, (and I know this isn't even remotely assuming good faith) the fact that he only apologized for something like that when called on it during an RFA would give the appearance that the point of the apology was to mitigate damage to his RFA. If Giano honestly believes those things to be true, his reaction is rather understandable. Even given that though, I'm not sure I would support an unblock because of his treatment of the other participants in the RFA, which I do not believe was justified under any circumstances.--Dycedarg ж 01:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC) (Note that the preceding statements were trying to see this from Giano's points of view. I'm not really sure of what comments Neuro made where aside from the initial posts on the blog and the ones he made on the RFA and I don't know enough about Neuro to be able to judge whether or not he was lying/mistaken/what have you.)--Dycedarg ж 01:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If I apologised, it looked like I was simply trying to sway voters. If I didn't apologise, it would be the incorrect thing to do. What would you have suggested? — neuro 01:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

What I would have suggested? Apologize. It was the only thing you could have done under the circumstances. It just would have been a good idea to have apologized sooner, preferably within a week or so of the incident. Belated apologies coming months after the initial incident just don't have the same impact.--Dycedarg ж 01:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) You are right Neuro - a very tricky (read no-win) situation - would have been prudent to apologise at some stage before RfA. However, the nature of the comments was such that you should have made a considerably more concerted effort to really put them in the past and make up for it. The airing of dirty laundry like that is hard to get over. I do feel for you man, but it makes pretty poor reading. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

As I have said, I had believed I did, until Giano told me otherwise. — neuro 10:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support unblock of Giano. As someone who's recently went through Misplaced Pages drama related to off-wiki communication, and after reading what Neuro posted at telegraph.co.uk, I'd say Giano's human reaction is appropriate. Would we even be having this discussion if Giano had called Neuro out at telegraph.co.uk instead of here on-wiki? I doubt it. Nevertheless, it has been done. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 01:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support unblock of Giano. I feel his reaction was understandable given what was written in the blog of a national newspaper. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock A 24 hour block on someone with a history of incivility for bringing off-wiki anger on-wiki and lashing out in an RfA seems lenient and just. Serve the block and learn from it. --John (talk) 02:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Giano can't have it both ways, he can either consider neuro "unworthy of my time and attention" and leave it at that, or he can turn up at the time of the comments and call him a "disgrace to the project" and a monumental liar and everything else he wants to, at a time when it was actually relevant. I don't think for one minute he would have accepted any earlier apologies had they come, but turning up 60 days later to grandstand over the guy's RfA that he didn't even put himself up for, crowing that it's too late/the wrong venue for sincere or even insincere apologies, is just a bit lame really, and should not detract in any way from the fact the language used by Giano in the prolonged exchanges constitues a nailed on npa block, from someone who should know better. MickMacNee (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock, The reasons for blocking are consistent with the evidence and the relevant policies. Come on community, how many times are we going to do this? Chillum 04:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support unblock of Giano per Casliber. - Josette (talk) 05:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Casliber's rationale might be true, except, I don't think that it can be considered so mitigating when commentary that can legitimately be perceived as personal attacks, extended to users other than just Neuro - see here. The meaning of 'deluded' can vary in harshness depending on how it was perceived, but I know my own interpretation would not be on the softer side. I don't see how I could've support an unblock in light of this; FlyingToaster's concern should have been handled with more care. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• in the meantime I have a block log (thoughtfully linked to from a newspaper website by Neurolysis) claiming I have personally attacked and harassed someone, with no mention as to exactly what happened or who that "someone" was or what terrible form this personal attack or harassment took, for all the readers of that newspaper know, I may be in the habit of mugging and attacking old ladies for their pension, but of course that would not be a wiki-crime. Not one Admin has the bolox, gumption or integrity to sort that misunderstanding on the block log out, and yes, I have emailed some Arbs about it, and to date nothing! So much for Misplaced Pages and its sense of honour and justice - quite frankly , it stinks. Those who supported such a state of affairs are, in my view, a bunch if shits, or in Misplaced Pages language, if you prefer "a collection of editors who seem intentionally unable to see the reality of a situation, brought about my me being hostilely referred to on the website of national newspaper by a Misplaced Pages editor who was confused as to the truth and failed to do his research." Giano (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

PS:I don't mug old ladies, as much as some of you would like to beleive I do! Giano (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

User:QuackGuru

Something needs to be done. -download | sign! 21:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I've already warned him. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

He's been warned numerous times. -download | sign! 21:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Difs, anyone? "something needs to be done" is rather vague. (grumpy puppy) KillerChihuahua 21:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh bother. Tilting at windmills again I see. KillerChihuahua 21:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The concern here is QuackGuru editing Jimbo's userpage to state that he was co-founder, not founder of Misplaced Pages. See the history for more details. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the worry is also Jimmy Wales. By the way Download, Quack can blank warnings from his talk page as he pleases, let him. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this the longest running edit war in history?!? He's been doing this semi-regularly for YEARS now. Can we just establish a consensus for a community ban on editing related to this issue? He's just doing it to make a WP:POINT, and its getting quite old now... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

We as a community should think really fucking hard about two things:

1. Jimbo is making quite provably false statements about his role in Misplaced Pages. Is this acceptable? Non-admins are not allowed to claim they are admins. Why should Jimbo be allowed to claim he is the sole founder when in his own words he was not?
2. More prosaically, is topic- or community-banning Sanger an intelligent response to this situation, whatever your feelings about his veracity, given the potential for truly awful PR?

Point #1, feel free to dismiss if you like. Clearly there are some people on both sides who are immovable. Point #2, however, is something the entire community needs to consider very, very carefully. //roux   02:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, this isn't a discussion for banning Sanger. The discussion is about QG. Now in that regard, Jimbo can say whatever he wants on his userpage clearly. Editing the page in that way is more or less vandalism. The next issue is whether he should be banned from Jimbo Wales. I'm inclined to say no given that QG has a plausibly valid point. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

People are generally allowed wide leeway with regards to their userpages. It is important (relatively) that Jimmy Wales comply with NPOV and OR, that User:Jimbo do so is not. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue, as with ALL edit wars, is not the veracity of the information being warred over. It's over the behavior. If it is verifiable and relevent, let someone else add it. Follow dispute resolution and establish consensus. The issue is not the inclusion or not of some nugget of information, its the constant refusal to use proper means to resolve disputes, and the insistance on simple edit warring as the means by which to force through ones edits, whether or not the substance of those edits is "true". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite topic ban on the Jimbo-related articles. UPDATE: My original reasoning for this was based on a glance through his actions at the userspace in conjunction with Jayron32's comment that a slow edit-war had been going on for years, which I took as credible given the actions at the userspace. I don't think there was much of an excuse for adding the co-founder bit into Jimbo's userpage; a comment below said it shouldn't be done, and Jimbo can keep his page the way he wants. QG further readded Larry Sanger's letter after it has been deleted by Jimbo . There's no excuse for this type of harassment. Deletion of messages by the talk page owner should be respected. There are a lot of people on Misplaced Pages, and losing one who seems driven to push the limits far past where they should be pushed, and does not seem to be an impartial voice on the subject, is not the end of the world. Jimbo may have his faults, but he was generous enough to donate this project to "the community", and there's no reason to harass him. He considers QG's actions to be harassment . Incidentally, I just got an email from QG for my support saying that my "personal attack has been noted". II | (t - c) 16:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

We have evidence of him causing trouble on User:Jimbo Wales. Please provide evidence of bad faith editing on anything Article-space related to Misplaced Pages. rootology (C)(T) 17:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support banning him from touching User:Jimbo Wales (users can say whatever they want, true or not, subject to normal rules that apply equally to all of us, including Jimmy), Oppose banning him from touching Jimmy Wales. The funny thing is, it turns out QG was right and has been defending NPOV as seen here. If we're going to ban him from the Article itself, then it's preposterous to not do so for the other chief edit warrior on the other side, User:SqueakBox. They've both been going at it in spades, and it's not just QG. The entire co-founder issue is moot now anyway, with the sourcing from the Wikimedia Foundation itself having been added as the definitive source, so there's nothing else to edit war over there. Add in that a ban on QG would not give any protection to the encyclopedia--whats the point? See also here, currently on AN, where SqueakBox is also edit warring with my sole edit removal of an NPOV tag. This is not just a QG issue by any means. rootology (C)(T) 16:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support a ban from User:Jimbo Wales, but nothing else. He's only causing disruption there. Timmeh! 17:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose QG will very likely stop if he sees a consensus his edits are being taken as disruptive. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Surely a topic-ban would have the same effect (he'd stop such edits) without any unwanted side-effects? ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's needed. Yet. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• We don't ban people that are innocent. If we do, we need to string up those that did the banning. rootology (C)(T) 17:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support a ban from Jimbo-related pages, and history-of-Misplaced Pages-related pages. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  We have evidence of him causing trouble on User:Jimbo Wales. Please provide evidence of bad faith editing on anything Article-space related to Misplaced Pages. rootology (C)(T) 17:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  I am unaware of any specific instances, but I am doubtful of his ability to edit neutrally and in line with policy in relation to Jimbo Wales. (not sure if this next bit makes any sense :-P but it does to me!) He either thinks that he's the co-founder, or he doesn't; he thinks what the sources say to be incorrect, and his belief won't change between namespaces. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  Er... that's why I'm board with you in the bit of keeping QG off of the Jimmy userpage, but not the article. QG's article work there is fine and 100% backed up by the sources, such as here. Jimmy can say he's the founder or co-founder of Misplaced Pages on his user page, or he can see he's the living reincarnation of Abraham Lincoln. I can also say I'm the founder or co-founder of Misplaced Pages, or the reincarnation of Abraham Lincoln on my user page. If it's not a policy violation, I can WP:OR to my heart's content with any wild nonsense, or my interpretation of the truth. Jimmy's page has other advertising type issues that are a separate problem (his booking agent or whatever that is?) but he can say whatever he wants for his role. That's the only QG issue here. rootology (C)(T) 18:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, I understand what you're saying, but edits such as this indicate not only a complete disregard for basic civility (editing another's words in a basically false way) but also suggest that he is unable to edit appropriately with regard to this issue. I accept that others' views may differ, but personally, I don't believe that one person can make such edits on one page and not on another covering the same topic. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  First: how is it false? Yes, Jimmy believes one thing, Larry another, the sources overwhelmingly from before 2004 say co-founder, and from about 2004-onwards say sole founder. That's not false, that's dug-up evidence of revisionist history which I demonstrated on the sourcing I added to the Jimmy Wales article. And, that edit is not uncivil in any way. The subject says, "He did write that he is the co-founder of Misplaced Pages. See Talk:Jimmy Wales#August 2002. (Jimmy Wales identified himself in August 2002 as "co-founder" of Misplaced Pages." and QG added the "co-" prefix to founder as the actual edit. Where is that lacking in civility? The problem is that QG is trying to treat Jimmy's user page as if it was Article space, holding it to WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and the rest. He doesn't seem to be grasping it's not, so that's why we're supporting a ban on USER:Jimbo Wales, but not "Jimmy Wales". His article work is usually from what I've seen mercilessly accurate and even-handed. rootology (C)(T) 18:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  As you wish.

  I do understand what you're saying, and I stand by my opinions, and by what I wrote, but I see I'm fighting a losing battle in an issue that actually doesn't bother me that much! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose ban from article pages. No strong opinion on the user page.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• He was doing the right thing for the article. Keep him from messing with the user page, fine. But don't try to keep him out of articles without some evidence he's been damaging articles. Friday (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose any ban from the article pages. His edits on Wales's user page are already against policy, so I see no need to take action on the matter here. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - The "co-founder" issue, IMO, has now been factually and concretely settled by reliable sources, as seen in the lead of the article. This also supports the addition of the "co-" prefix where appropriate, e.g. Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. Removal of verified, sourced material can be considered vandalism, and what this user is doing is fighting that. No topic ban is warranted. As for the Jimbo Wales page, if Wales says "stay away", then QuackGuru has to respect that. As far as I know, we don't allow users to misrepresent their Misplaced Pages role (i.e. "I'm an admin" when they really aren't), but I don't think we police real-life misrepresentations. If someone wants to proclaim "I'm the President of Mars" on their page, hey, its all good. Tarc (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• I invite anyone to review your history of tendentious editing, almost entirely single-purpose most of the time, that single purpose being to push a particular agenda against me, including harassment on my user page and user talk page. To be clear, I ask you - as one user to another, not in any official role - to please leave me alone and not edit my user page. And I ask you, as a human being, to reconsider your behavior and perhaps find something more useful to do with your life than attacking me. I leave the disposition of your case to others, but to my mind, you're exactly the kind of person who should have been banned from the project a long time ago as a persistent BLP troublemaker. If it were anybody but me (because I am tolerant and kind), I imagine the victim would have complained to OTRS a long time ago. I have a clear and obvious conflict of interest in this case, but I think anyone reviewing your history will be inclined to agree that your behavior has been unacceptable, and that you are clearly here for motives that are not consistent with our values of neutrality and goodwill.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  The above was originally written on User talk:Jimbo Wales, copied here by David Shankbone.

• Oppose ban on article space. I've been involved fairly heavily at times on Jimmy Wales and I think he does well to work within our community standards there. He utilizes the talk page and works for consensus without edit-warring. Use regular warn/block methods for edits in user space, I think. Although, I don't believe it is appropriate for Jimbo's user page to contradict the rest of the project which is accurate and verified. لennavecia 20:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

One agenda-driven Anti-Wales editor shows up to support another. --David Shankbone 20:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support article- and user-space topic ban, per Wales and Jayron32. User, who was previously indefinitely banned, does not appear to be here for WP:ENC, but here for an anti-Wales agenda, per his contributions, block log and behavior. --David Shankbone 20:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not denying that this user has pushed relentlessly to get the "co-founder" atttribute added to Jimmy's articles on here, but to see he's an SPA is simply an out and out falsehood. See here. He's one of the main editors that built up the Larry Sanger article, Chiropractic, and several others. He seems to split his time evenly between articles on science and articles about Misplaced Pages itself. This is the essence of one of those "classic" BLP situations, where the BLP subject doesn't care for what is written about them, but it remains 100% BLP-compliant, sourced, and due to the way both individuals on both sides in various ways created a Barbara Streisand Effect, it's now a notable thing to discuss in the article at length. QuackGuru is anything but a perfect editor, but his biggest fault in this was not leaving Jimmy's user page alone. If we can see evidence of his misbehavior on the Jimmy Wales article, I'll happily endorse a topic ban there too.

Do we have such evidence? So far all I've seen him is his relentlessly trying to get the co-founder in, and it turned out based on actual historical documents from WP and WMF's early days that QuackGuru was right on the sourcing, leaving it all BLP-compliant. Give evidence of article space wrongdoing, and he'll get a topic ban. But this must be treated like any other BLP, with not a centimeter more or less deference because of who it is. Shitty, but that's the price to be paid to keep policy fair for all parties, no matter who they are. rootology (C)(T) 20:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose ban on article space. It's almost Orwellian to let Wales rewrite history regarding his own credentials. ("He who controls the present controls the past. He who controls the past controls the future".) Embarrassing for Misplaced Pages, too. See Essjay controversy. --John Nagle (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support ban on topic "Wales" for this user User talk:QuackGuru he is not going to / never going to stop this aggresive single purpose POV pushing behavior , which is destructive to Misplaced Pages...(Off2riorob (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

• It's already been demonstrated here that calling QG a SPA is an outright falsehood. How is getting the "co-founder" added to Jimmy Wales destructive or harmful in any way to Misplaced Pages? The co-founder description is also totally BLP-compliant, as well as it's been demonstrated effectively with historical sources now. Keep in mind, the sources uncovered now demonstrate that his efforts were accurate. rootology (C)(T) 22:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

well your idea and my idea of absolute falsehood must be different ..I just had a look at his edits and it's shouting at me ..j wales and sanger ..and I disagree with you when you say he is not harmful to wikipedia ..he is very harmful ..I personally couldn't care less who is correct here between wales and sanger ..what I disagree with is the aggresive way that QuackGuru is going about his business.(Off2riorob (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

• Recuse Given QG's treatment of me at Larry Sanger when I was a new user, I wouldn't be able to provide an objective opinion. I'll have to abstain in this particular case. — Ched :  ?  22:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support This isn't about who is right or wrong (Sanger or Wales; co-founder or founder). This is about editor behavior. It seems some people here are "voting" based on their stance on the Sanger/Wales content issue, rather than QuackGuru's reprehensible behavior. I think that "WP:SPA" is a good characterization of QuackGuru. As an editor who has experienced QuackGuru in the non-Wales related articles (Chiropractic, Stephen Barrett, et cetera), I can safely say that QuackGuru contributes very little other than rudeness, edit warring and total disruption. I may seem biased because QuackGuru and I are at odds all of the time in terms of content, but with that said, I have heard from other editors on QuackGuru's "side" of content disputes that they would prefer that he doesn't contribute to the discussion because his incivility and childish antics only weakens their arguments. IMHO, QuackGuru needs to be shown that his brand of petulant POV pushing is not welcome at Misplaced Pages. I think a topic ban is just what the doctor ordered (even though I fear that a topic ban from Wales will mean that he will then have much more time to devote to disrupting the articles which I enjoying working on). -- Levine2112 23:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Ban from user page and article space concerning said user. Even if he is -right-, he is still an SPA, and from the looks of things, a disruptive one at that. He needs to learn to cease this behavior, and this just might be the way to do it.— Dædαlus 00:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

SPA? QG mainly edits altmed related articles, not BLPs (with one notable exception). Mathsci (talk) 09:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose ban from article or main space and should be blocked if continues editing Jimbo's user page. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose any ban whatsoever, he has absolutely correct identifing Wales as the co-founder, and the sources he provides back him up. Jumping to a ban from editing a userpage without going through blocks is ridiculous. Viridae 09:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. What I see in the edits here is that the information added is correctly referrenced with excellent sources. I don't understand why this is even posted and a discussion of banning is being talked about other than some editors don't seem to like QG. This is not a reason to take a ban on the editor. He is not a WP:SPA as people are consistently saying. He might be guilty of WP:POV issues but if he is giving WP:RS then I don't see a problem. Since he has been asked to stay away from User:Jimbo Wales page, then that should be honored as long as he doesn't need to post to the user page about something serious. QG does work a lot of different articles which his contributions show. He is WP:TE at times which can be quite frustrating for some so I would recommend to QG to calm down in this respect. But I find that some of the comments above are editors own POV's vs QG's which isn't good either. The editor who started this thread Edit warred on QG's talk page which went way over the 3 RR rules. QG reverted that editor, and some other editors, but kept reverting QG's removal at his talk page. Really this is starting to look really silly to outsiders, which I consider myself. No banning period, but a notice to leave Jimbo alone at his talk page should be enough. Thanks for listening to me, --CrohnieGal 13:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• strong oppose as he shouldn't be banned or topic banned for adding reality and WP:NPOV to articles, banned for not backing up a lie. Especially as his edits are backed up by WP:RS. Sticky Parkin 17:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose banning from article space. Ridiculous idea, and I note that a number of editors above are supporting on the basis of their own issues with QuackGuru that are nothing to do with the issue in hand. I don't have a strong view on the Wales' userpage issue though. Black Kite 17:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support ban on editing Jimbo's userpage, meh on articlespace. Userpages frequently contain information – 'true' or not – not supported by reliable sources. We don't demand footnotes or NPOV in userspace pages. If this were any other user's page, would we need to even have this discussion? There's no need to poke at another user over and over and over and over again by making 'corrections' to perceived errors on their user page, and this has risen to the level of pointless (or perhaps POINTy) disruption. Enough. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose main space ban. Above reads like something out of the cultural revolution or Macarthyism where people try and settle their own scores by implicating their enemies. Sorry but i don't buy that he has been disruptive. Persistent possibly, and good for him, in general apathy drives off good users who have to battle advocates. David D. (Talk) 20:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

"X-Y" relations stubs

Hilary T (talk · contribs) has created 16 stubs of the type Greece-Nepal relations since April 1, when the account went live. These stubs are controversial; many editors (like me) consider them in most cases content forks from, say Foreign relations of Nepal. The editor has been made aware of this, yet continues to create such stubs (it appears at an accelerating rate -- Mongolia-Vietnam relations Australia–Vietnam relations and Egypt-India relations all created today, while the editor also removed a prod from France–Nauru relations). The intervention i'm seeking is an admonishment to stop creating such stubs, until we got some kind of RFC/consensus building mechanism in place to determine the conditions under which bilateral relationships are considered encyclopedically notable and useful (i must admit some editors think all of this stuff is worth having, it is a matter of dispute). But for now the serial stub creation (most without inline citations or reliable sources) is becoming disruptive. Here's a discussion of this sort of issue from earlier this year involving Groubani (talk · contribs) which seemed to yield a very clear consensus that such serial stub creation was disruptive and should stop .Bali ultimate (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I am creating stubs on notable topics. They all have reliable sources, and the new ones even have inline citations. They also seem to have a reasonable survival rate at AFD. I'm fully aware that people like Bali ultimate don't like them, too bad. Hilary T (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

And can someone please tell Bali ultimate that my articles do have sources, since he won't listen to me. Hilary T (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

My two cents: ignoring the prior precedent, Hilary T, keep on creating them if you wish and people like Bali will keep on listing them for deletion. The smarter strategy for both of you (especially Hilary) is to wait on a few of the AFD nominations and see what sort of precedent we have (not all get deleted but clearly most aren't staying). I don't care either way but Hilary T is the one who is going to be wasting the most time at this. Spend more than a few minutes at each one and you may have a few saved. I say take the same attitude here we do with our most famous serial stub creator. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The only constructive solution here is for Bali (being the only one really concerned as I see it) to draft up WP:Notability (bi-lateral relations), defining what a bi-lateral article should contain to satisfy WP:NOTE, and then take it into the field and start quoting it at Afd, to force people to read it, and edit it if they disagree with it, or say in afd why they disagree with it. It's obvious this editor is not going to give up while consensus is in limbo, and he's not going to get banned simply because it is in limbo (although obviously, there is a line between working in a vacuum of consensus, and editting tendentiously). A good start to get underway would be to simply start the page, cut and paste all prior discussions onto the proposal's talk page, and then start to distill the arguments into proposal content for the main page. What I do know is arguing the toss every time at Afd or at AN/I is a pure waste of time. At the very least, a proposed guideline that becomes a train wreck is still a usefull archive record. At the very least Bali, it will save you repeating yourself at Afd. MickMacNee (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Ricky gives sage advice. Just keep creating and nominate as necessary. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Mick, I don't think anyone is going to create a specific notability argument for bi-lateral relations, as it's just too specific. Let a few of the AFDs settle into place, and consensus will form (wasn't that how fiction, porn bios and other specific ones came about?). If anyone is really interested, I'd suggest a couple of user-space tables of all the various incarnation of bi-lateral relations, so that both sides can see what's red and what's done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The advice above to continue this conflict does not make much sense to me if meant seriously. Hilary, though deletion processes can be unpredictable, there is no chance whatever that these articles will stand unless there is more material than just their mutual ambassadors--even when they have ambassadors, which is not the case for all of them. If you want to establish an actual precedent for articles like this, then work on strong ones and strong ones only. Once you have established these, then try some somewhat lesser ones and see the reaction. When creating, it pays to start at the top (and when deleting, at the bottom, which by and large Bali is in fact doing, appropriately. I saw a number of prods, & as I don't think the articles have a chance, I'm not going to deprod them.) DGG (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't do "mutual ambassadors" articles, that was someone else. Hilary T (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You have been doing ones with similarly sparse material, such as a single visit of foreign ministers and nothing else--and where there are not even mutual embassies. DGG (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think what is more important that the presence or absence of embassies, especially when one of the countries is extremely poor, is the question of whether or not their relationship "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I think you are confirming my suspicion that these articles are being deleted just because they short, and/or to punish that guy (and now me) for creating them. But because there is no policy that says you can delete articles for being short or in order to punish someone, I see all kinds of ridiculous distortions of your actual policies, like "sourced to newspaper articles = fails WP:News". Hilary T (talk) 07:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that regardless of how you view notability, DGG's views (and the views of others) are more in line with general consensus and as such will probably survive over time? Unless your plan is to just create articles and argue the same points in AFD after AFD until you find yourself blocked or topic banned, I'd say try another tact. Some articles are surviving, others aren't. Again, try to figure out what is acceptable and work on those, leaving the more fringe ones for later. You should add in reference tags, and other minor details but generally I have no problem. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

If the general consensus is completely different from your written policies perhaps you should think about updating them. Hilary T (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

(od) Misplaced Pages:Starting an article specifies that articles should only be created if the notability of the topic can be verified through reliable sources. User:Hilary T is participating in the current AfD discussions of obscure bilateral relations stubs and is aware that the notability of these relationships needs to be demonstrated. As such, it seems to be disruptive for her to create further stubs with no real attempt to demonstrate WP:N is met at the time of their creation, even allowing for her newness. The most charitable interpretation of this behavior is that she's relying on other people to bring her articles up to the required minimum standard, which is fairly unhelpful behavior. Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. It's clear that some of his article are worth keeping (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Brazil–Vietnam relations is going his way), so I'm not sure a blanket ban on creation is appropriate nor really is warning. He has a reasonable interpretation of notability that possibly could survive here and in my opinion, I don't see it as vandalism or even WP:POINTy-ness. I'm not saying he's new or not. I'm saying I think it's reasonable interpretation. Again, if we allow a certain user to create dozens of unsourced articles like Carl Eugen Keel and Albert von Keller, what's wrong with relations between nations? Both of which are on a case-by-case basis debatable. Look, if he was just creating completely moronic things like relationships between micronations or dead civilizations with literally nothing there, I'd have a different tune, but some of these are actually useful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. While a lot of these articles simply have no way to expand, a blanket ban would harm some notable subjects. However, it would be better for everyone to devise a notability guideline, since WP:N tends to be too generic to allow for easy immediate evaluation of the new article. —Admiral Norton 15:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This comment from Hilary T is rather unsettling: "I'm going create as many articles he doesn't like as possible for as long as possible". Promising to go on a spree of creating non-notable articles just to spite another editor is not very constructive. - Biruitorul 18:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

They aren't non-notable. Hilary T (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not the point. Creating articles simply out of spite is highly inappropriate and you'll see a complete block for that, not just a topic ban. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm not prepared to just accept these edit summaries so you can go ahead and block me now. Hilary T (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Prodding spree

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

This was brought to my attention again after the user added a notability tag to Graeae Theatre Company (and re-added after DreamGuy (talk · contribs) reverted it), also shortly after its AFD, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Graeae Theatre Company, closed as a speedy keep. Take a look at his contribs, though, as he has prodded over 50 articles within roughly a 25-minute timeframe. I smell POINT or similar. Can anyone make sense of this? MuZemike 18:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me add that all the prods pertain to Theme Time Radio Hour - something I didn't readily notice. I still sense something fishy, however. MuZemike 18:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The Theme Time Radio Hour prods are sound; most of those articles are just tracklistings for episodes of a radio show. Previous deletion attempts have been dubious or just plain wrong, and he's also created articles which have been PRODded straight away for being non-notable, and uploaded non-free images into articles where they don't belong. I, too, sense something very fishy. (Edit: look at his user page). Black Kite 18:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I informed Azviz about this discussion. Jauerback/_dude. 18:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we ec'd when I was going to notify him. I went ahead and notified User:DreamGuy. MuZemike 18:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This account seems pretty fishy to me, but it seems to be part of a larger problem. It was created recently and jumped immediately to participating almost exclusively in edits related to deleting articles. It's nomination of Graeae Theatre Company for deletion was odd, as that's a little known article, and one of a few targeted for deletion by another recent editor that shot straight to AFD matters after creating a new account, User:Wordssuch, an account now abandoned. The Wordssuch account also targeted a bunch of articles for deletion -- Gloom (card game), Sploofus and a number of others -- whose sole commonality was that I had created them. User:Unionsoap, another relatively recent account focused primarily on AFD-type matters, recently tried getting Gloom (card game) deleted. User:Untick, also a recently created account, tried getting Sploofus deleted and has a user page similar to Azviz's. All of these account have taken actions that appear to be trying to harass me in some way, though usually not as blatantly as Wordssuch did. These all were created in the last month and a half or so and jumped immediately to making strange edits, including nominating very obscure articles of mine for deletion under very shoddy reasons. I'd list User:Esasus as someone who also seems to make very similar edits (mainly AFD-and related edits, harassment of other editors), but that account wasn't created as recently as these others... his user page is reminiscent of some of these others, though...

Also, for those who didn't poke around Azviz's history, he recently deleted warnings on his talk page, so theolder version shows some recent activity there.DreamGuy (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Detailed response by Azviz

I have been reading wikipolicy, and it seems to me that I am the target of WP:UNCIVIL. If the reason for the report against me is proding, then the issue should have already been closed. As stated by "The Theme Time Radio Hour prods are sound; most of those articles are just tracklistings for episodes of a radio show."

I sugest that there is a background concerning the two reporting editors that needs to be examined in detail.

The following is my evidence that both User:DreamGuy and User:MuZemike have violated WP:UNCIVIL. Several days prior to nominating the "Theme Time" episodes, (and in addition to other helpful edits made) I nominated three articles for deletion:

• Rephormula - Proded March 31st and still in AfD (likely a KEEP).
• Live Armageddon - Proded April 1st and still in AfD (likely a DELETE).
• Graeae Theatre Company Proded April 2nd with AfD closed as KEEP.

Upon my good faith prod of the article Graeae Theatre Company, two editors made me the subject of their unwarranted personal attacks and harassment. All of edits have been made in good faith, and I strongly object to the two editors assuming bad faith, and are making personal attacks against me. I have been reading wiki policy, and it seems to me that I am the target of WP:UNCIVIL.

Contrary to the policy listed at Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers, and for reasons that I do not know, both editors User:DreamGuy and User:MuZemike have targeted me for harassment. Both of these editors have accused me of acting in of bad faith. Wiki policy states at WP:AOBF "Making accusations of bad faith can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may be unhelpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is actually in bad faith. The result is often accusations of bad faith on your part, which tends to create a nasty cycle."

The timeline of their attacks against me are as follows:

• 1st at 17:14, 2 April 2009 User:DreamGuy accused me of being a sockpuppet Link

• 2nd at 23:03, 2 April 2009 User:MuZemike accused me of being a sock puppet Link

• 3rd, at April 2 2009, 23:03 User:MuZemike then made a false report against me of as a "Suspected sockpuppets", which was quickly closed as unsubstantiated. Link

• 4th, at 17:16, 10 April 2009 (today), within a few hours of me performing a minor tagging edit on Graeae Theatre Company (the same article that prompted the false sockpuppet report report against me), User:DreamGuy posts a message to User:MuZemike's talk page Link.

• 5th, at 18:08, 10 April 2009, assuming "bad faith", User:MuZemike replies on his talk page Link

• 6th, at 18:19, 10 April 2009, Without giving me any king of warning or notification, User:MuZemike files this report against me about a "Prodding spree" for the reason that he senses "something fishy" This report is a clear violation of WP:AOBF. Link

• 7th, at 22:13, 10 April 2009, User:DreamGuy posts comments on the notice board also using the similar words as User:MuZemike stating that it "seems pretty fishy", and posting further examples of his accusations of bad faith against me. Link

• Neither of the complaining editors User:MuZemike or User:DreamGuy brought their concerns to me first, which is another violation of wiki policy. I was not even aware that the community was discussing my edits until User:Jauerback properly made me aware of these discussions Link.

• User:DreamGuy's Block Log is extensive, demonstrating that he has been a long time problem in the wiki comunity, which make me wonder why his complaint to User:MuZemike was given any credibility.

I hope that my above lengthy response to the bad faith accusations made against me will enlighten some editors to the fact that certain editors harass and make unwarranted personal attacks on new editors, making it very difficult for a new editor to have a good first impression and therefore to become involved in the wiki community. Azviz (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

New editor? I seriously doubt that. Jauerback/_dude. 23:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

My question is that how do "new" users learn how to prod and add maintenance tags on articles so quickly? The only reason the first sockpuppetry case could not be proven was because I was unaware that the other account was stale. I should also point to a sockpuppetry accusation made against me here in retaliation for that. MuZemike 23:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have never claimed to be a new user. Please see WP:SOCK#LEGIT for wiki policy on Legitimate uses of alternative accounts which states "Alternative accounts have legitimate uses. For example, prominent users might create a new account to experience how the community functions for new users." Azviz (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I did not know that, nor was I expected to; I apologize for that. However, there are more collegial ways of informing other users of that, such as a civil reminder on a talk page or even via email if privacy is necessary, instead of retaliating with accusations and baseless threats. MuZemike 01:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't be so quick to apologize. "I have never claimed to be a new user" is a false statement. At least twice in this post he claims to be a new user. Baseball Bugs carrots 01:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to note that contradiction. I don't understand exclaiming BITE when it is clear to many users here that none of these accounts are from new users. MuZemike 01:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

And when called on it, he suddenly invoked the "legitimate" sockpuppet defense, perhaps to try to pre-empt a sockpuppet investigation. All the more reason to conduct such an investigation. Baseball Bugs carrots 01:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I repeat - I never claimed to be a new user. Nowhere in my response do I make that claim. Please point to a quote if you wish to prove otherwise. Azviz (talk) 02:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

My mistake - I forgot to predict in my last post that you would argue exactly what you just did above. Your user ID is new, and you talk about not biting the newbies, and talk about how new editors suffer personal attacks. So you leave the impression you're new without actually saying those exact words. So here's another word: "Weasel". Baseball Bugs carrots 02:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The wiki community will internalize the information they get from this report, and my response, as it sees fit. But as you read this please note that this matter was brought to this forum based on no violation of any policy. I suggest that the report was made to this page for the purpose of harassment. Such uncivil behaviour happens all too often in the wikipedia community. Hopefully the wise editors and admins will realize the negative effect such actions create, and will work towards sanctioning those who make such frivolous and harassing reports. Azviz (talk) 02:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't push your luck. Baseball Bugs carrots 02:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Prodding OK. Socking not OK. One account to a customer, please. (The legitimate exceptions to this are very limited.) --John Nagle (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Just making sure...

Anyone familiar with the history of User:Simulation12--her "mother" logged in today and apologized on my talk page for her darling daughter's transgressions. Shall I block? (Of special note: the Sim13 account, back from "back then" when "she didn't quite understand the policy", was created three days ago and blocked shortly thereafter.) GJC 18:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Block.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Aye. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have enacted the block, as a third party after review, under WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets, point 3. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Gracias, mon peeps. GJC 19:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Linguistic contamination, Gladys? I see three different languages in three words, an impressive feat. (big grin) Horologium (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be "Gracias, mes peeps?" We do strive for accuracy here at Misplaced Pages... ;-)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I dunno from languages. My parents made me take four years of LATIN. And you know what? There's no such thing as "conversational Latin". You wanna talk about Caesar and the Gauls, I'm your girl. (Which actually, okay, I am totally NOT, because my high-school years were spent in a puberty-induced state of hormone-soaked emotional idiocy, leaving little time for any Caesar (unless he was a particular hottie with eyes for a dumpy, fashion-compromised word-nerd. And the Caesar in question? Was not. Old dead Roman dudes were waaaay outside my purview, then as now.))GJC 02:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Romila Thapar: False Allegations of Sock Puppet: Please Investigate.

Posted by User:Lpi-english

I have had correct and unbiased information deleted by someone who is not an administrator.

The aricle I wrote is both accurate and I am personally aware of the integity of the facts and presented both "sides" of this issue.

There are 20 different choises of "dispute reosolution" and as this is my first (and probably last) time to post on Misplaced Pages, I cannot spend days trying to determine the precise process which of the mryiad of possible choices for a resolution is the correct one for me. Like you, I am astoundingly busy.

If what I wrote has no references, it is because there are none. The only "reference" is a book published by the test (the LPI) that I am writing about. Nobody needs this on Misplaced Pages, because the booklet does not tell the whole story.

I am intimately inviolved and extremely knowledgeable of what I am writing. The Misplaced Pages forum is open to those who may disagree. Let them disagree rather than censoring me. Since getting my IP address blocked (but not right now),I have been unable to revert the information about what I am writing back to the form I spent 10-20 hours writing (about 150 edits!). Read it please.

I did not think Misplaced Pages is what I though it is, and this is my mistake. Some things that are important to the people to whom I am writing to on that page (university students in Canada) were provided correct information available nowhere else, including people who are paid a lot of money to teach students something they really don't know about because the LPI (as noted in my page) is quite secretive about the process. Nevertheless, out of respect for the confidentiality given to me, I have not discusssed some aspects of the test that were told to me in confidence, but have written an accurate, unbiased, and frank page that would be of interest to the people who use Misplaced Pages daily (university students).

I have neither the time or interest to battle Misplaced Pages. I have seen endless things on Misplaced Pages which cannot be foot-noted because the subject discussed has not been a part of the academic literature (something of which I know more about than most).

I am angry that the endless hours of work that I have put into this page was made inaccessable to the hundreds or thousands of people who would be grateful for the honest view that it provides.

If there is a short way to resolve this, I would like to do so. If not, I wish to leave Misplaced Pages alone, have my name deleted from your databank and just realize that I need to find a forum that is open to truthful dialogue about a subject that is of interest to the people I serve.

Yes! I am angry. But there is a reason. Sometimes anger is the best emotion, but if this cannot be resolved in a short perion of time, I wish to withdraw from this small battle.

If you do not allow me to write the truth about the subject I addressed, the just post "Read The LPI Book" on that Misplaced Pages page, because no one else will write what I did, and that book has not told students what they really need to know.

I am not even sure how we can communicate on this issue...or even if Misplaced Pages will respond.

If this letter is addressed to the wrong person, please forward it to someone who is willing to talk to me.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lpi-english (talk • contribs) 21:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That was a lot of words just to request a block for edit-warring. "I am edit-warring; please block me" would have been just as effective. I've honored this user's request, as he has multiple warnings about edit-warring on his talk page, and also left a more personal note trying to explain the rules. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Could someone have a talk with him/her?

Hello. As is often the case with long-disputed issues, a certain article talk page has started to get a little heated.
I won't get into specifics about the nature of the dispute, as that's immaterial for the matter at hand, but sufficed to say, it concerns whether or not a certain 'urban legend' belongs in the Richard Gere article. Anyways, as with most issues, it's possible to make arguments either way, but I'm becoming increasingly troubled with the tone that's being taken with me.
The most significant examples can be found here.

• To bring out the WP:CIVIL gun for something so trite in an effort to reduce an opponent's argument is gaming the system. A bit of an AGF issue, but not terrible in and of itself (particularly since good people can disagree on what is or isn't civil).
• I'm not in a position to know whether you inhabit the real world or not so I can't tell if you are being obtuse, pedantic or naively innocent, as such I will assume good faith and presume the latter. I'd made the mistake of using the dictionary definition of a word, thinking that would be logical. Apparently, big mistake. How many insults are crammed into that one sentence? 4? 5? If you think that dictionaries are overly constricted in their definitions, say so. But that doesn't mean I don't inhabit the real word, or that I'm obtuse, etc. etc.
• Oh I forgot, it seems I can't use the term "reasonably" as that presumes that I'm talking to someone who knows reason. My great 'crime' here was to suggest that someone claiming that it's "reasonably accepted" that people primarily know the article's subject for an urban legend rather than his decades-long acting career was incorrect. I deigned to request proof of such a claim, and suggested that until it was proven, it obviously can't be "reasonably accepted" (after all, if nobody accepts it, it isn't accepted, right?). I don't see the need to question whether or not I know reason.
• It then goes into a muddle of accusations about 'wiki-lawyers', 'blinkered editors', etc.

I'm not suggesting that something direct be done to him, but I'd request that someone politely remind him that insults don't really contribute to the articles, and should be avoided. It's hard to get anything done when others involved are so grossly disrespectful.
I'm not asking anyone to take my side in the overall dispute (indeed, quite the contrary. it would look quite bad if I suddenly got a lot of support after making an ANI report). I don't even expect anyone to be particularly offended by his(/her) comments. I just don't want to waste all my time arguing about who said what to whom, ignoring the issue at hand. And, besides, that talk page is already getting long enough over such a trivial issue; the last thing it needs is completely pointless bickering.
I thank you for your time. 209.90.133.75 (talk) 22:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Block - 209.90.133.75 for baiting and wasting our time. Rklawton (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• I think it's highly unlikely that you'll get lots of support as a result of making this report. Quite the contrary in fact. If you're seriously concerned about the language or behaviour of another editor the best thing to do is to discuss it with them before opting for the nuclear option. What is it that you expect an administrator to do exactly? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Erm... seriously?
Rklawton, when was I baiting? I've tried my darndest to be logical and to the point, and yet have been hit by some very unwarranted nonsense.
Malleus, I'd tried pointing out the lack of civility earlier (because of issues in both discussions and edit summaries). This was hardly my first choice. What's more, I'm not the first person on that page to criticize his lack of civility. It's been mentioned on that article's talk page, and you can even see another discussion he had about it here. Can you really read his replies there, as well as on the article's talk page, and think this is something that's so easily resolved? As for what I'd like to be done, I've already said it: could someone have a word with him. He's been threatened with a block, which didn't go so good (and not really surprisingly so. I mean, lots of people don't like threats, myself included), but that isn't where I'd like to see it go. I'd like to see someone simply telling him that calling people "obtuse", "naive", unreasonable, or any number of other insults isn't constructive. I don't see why I should be blocked for wanting to simply get this stupid issue (that's been dragging on for about a week now) finally resolved, without having to deal with this crap as well. 209.90.133.75 (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, this report here is a waste of everyone's time. Webhamster was actually correct in suggesting that you grow some "thicker skin", no one was attacking or insulting you, and you seemed to be making a big deal out of nothing...WackoJackO 23:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

209.90.133.75: To be totaly honest, your tone could have been construed as slightly mocking, such comments as "The third reference suffers from precisely the same problem (seriously, did you even read what I asked for before posting? It's disheartening to say the least. Read and reply, or ignore me, but don't insult me by removing all doubt that you replied without knowing what you were replying to)." and "Please be serious." WackoJackO 23:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Editing wikipedia is about negotiating with other editors, not about getting huffy when they don't agree with you. I don't recommend that you should be blocked, that's a sanction all too often handed out without proper justification, I simply recommend that you learn to collaborate. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(bit of an edit conflict, so bear with me)

I don't argue that I don't have a 'thin-skin' (I've never seen it that way, but I've been told it often enough that I'm willing to acknowledge my own personal bias in that regard), but I think it's a little silly to say that no one was attacking or insulting. Everything I quoted above was insulting. The article talk pages are for discussing the articles or, when necessary, disputes over said articles. When about half of a large block of text consists of insults, general complaints about other editors, or really anything other than the actual topic at hand, I'd say that's a problem. I just want to get this bloody dispute resolved. And I don't see how people can really contribute to the discussion when they have to wade through that sort of thing. 209.90.133.75 (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Malleus: I'd love to collaborate. I put up with a lot of silly arguments without getting insulting about them. I mean, frig, by now I think you know what it is they're trying to put into the article, and yet I'm taking care to make it about the policies and the logic, not based on what they want to put in. (I even avoided the obvious, and common, joke about one editor's username and its relation to the subject) I only had a problem when the insults and such were starting to really derail the discussion.

Wacko (uh, this is in reference to your additional comment), I realize that I sometimes come across as sarcastic (something else I don't see myself, but have been told frequently enough to not dismiss), but, to be fair, look at the context of that comment. If I were to ask you for proof that Aldrin was the second person on the moon, and you repeatedly showed me proof solely that Armstrong was the first, wouldn't you expect me to eventually start wondering if you were paying attention? I was very clear in my request, in terms of what I was asking for sources on. And, as it turns out, even though he posted them as a reply to my request, he later confirmed that they were, indeed, for the very opposite of what I was requesting (ie. it was a reply that directly ignored what it was replying to). So, if my tone really is bothering someone, then I'll take it to heart, but are you saying how you took that, considering the context, or just how it could be taken? 209.90.133.75 (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No, that is definitely how I took that. However, I didn't come here and file a report about it, because it's no big deal. I only mentioned here now in light of your "report" about WebHamster.WackoJackO 23:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Now, I'll bow out, so I don't waste anymore time here with such a trivial issue.WackoJackO 23:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh... you equate my suggesting that someone wasn't paying attention is on the same level as multiple insults within the same comment? That's a bit of a stretch.

Incidentally, I said to 'please be serious' because you suggested that a single comment (made in this interview), wherein a person said, "I've also heard that 'Notting Hill' is fun, but I'm not sure I can ever look at Hugh Grant quite the same way again. I'm still having trouble with Richard Gere's alleged affection for gerbils.", was actually proof that someone (notably) believed that urban legend.

That was your reply to my request for proof that someone really believed it. So... which was it? were you really saying that was proof that it was notably believed (in which case, I'd again question if you were being serious), or was your source entirely ignoring the request to which you were replying? Bah. Either way, it's beside the point. It isn't particularly insulting to suggest that you aren't being serious with something like that. It isn't related to whether or not people should resort to outright insults when others are trying to get something done. I guess I'll try to be more careful with my tone, but our (two-way, incidentally) small disputes are entirely unrelated to this. 209.90.133.75 (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk about this somewhere else please. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd very seriously suggest that you leave this now. There is nothing in your complaint that requires the attention of an administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Obvious sock

FunMan17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is obviously a return of indefinitely blocked Bun39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Creating pages in Misplaced Pages namespace to make announcements, and other various disruptive edits ongoing. Would appreciate someone looking into this more. --Onorem♠Dil 22:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment He put a {{helpme}} template on my userpage , either not understanding what that tag is used for, or to make it look like I was asking the question instead of him. - 2 ... says you, says me 23:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. He threw up an unblock request within 2 minutes. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That had to hurt! Reminds me of the radio announcer who reported that a relief pitcher was "throwing up in the bullpen". Baseball Bugs carrots 08:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

...and declined due to quacking noises. Looking at the topics this account is editing, it is indeed an obvious sock of Bun39. —Travis 23:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I deleted Misplaced Pages:Bun39 is now Defunct per G3 as well. —Travis 23:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Postscript: I have reblocked him with talk-page editing turned off. He was just screwing around, and was not using his ability to edit his own talk page to legitimately contest his block. Given that, I thought we didn't need it anymore... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Wknight94 and Beechmont (New Rochelle) area article

User:Wknight94 just deleted a New Rochelle area article, Beechmont (New Rochelle) which was under active discussion at my talk page User talk:Doncram#This New Rochelle business. Wknight94 just recently commented further down in the same discussion. In context, it seems that the deletion is done in anger.

I had put a proposal to merge and redirect the article on Talk:Beechmont (New Rochelle), and have previously merged and redirected many other NR area neighborhood articles. Wknight94 previously asked here for another admin to delete one or more of those under merger proposal, and administrator Tiptoety judged it was not necessary to delete them. The problem, if any, with the article was under control and would get resolved. An AfD, or discussion at the Talk page, would have been more appropriate in my view.

The arguments for or against AfDing New Rochelle area articles are also somewhat under discussion within ongoing Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Orlady‎, where links to 2 previous wp:an discussions and a request for arbitration regarding New Rochelle area articles, one or more persons involved in a sockpuppet case, and enforcement by Orlady and Wknight94 can be found. In the arbitration request (declined), it was offered by one arbcom member that perhaps a change of enforcement type personnel might be appropriate.

Could the Beechmont article and its Talk page be restored with their entire edit histories? It undermines ongoing discussion. Also, could Wknight94 be advised not to delete others in this way? Also, could it be determined whether he has deleted others? doncram (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Notified User:Wknight94 about this discussion. Exxolon (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me, Exxolon... There were at least six socks (some or all of which were checkuser-confirmed) of banned User:Jvolkblum creating and edit warring on this article and fighting for it not to be merged. WP:BAN says I can delete such pages sight unseen. To make things worse, as shown numerous times, Jvolkblum is a serial copyright violator and has been caught plagiarizing and adding misinformation on numerous occasions. See this investigation by User:Choess catching Jvolkblum red handed. BTW, before the latest checkuser-blocked IP's edits, the article was all of 796 bytes long, and User:Doncram was advocating that it be merged into another list article. So he doesn't even want the article to exist! Much ado about nothing. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Doncram -- your forum shopping is becoming unseemly. You should really desist. Wasn't your last intervention here to urge the unbanning of an editor with over 200 CU confirmed socks? At some point community patience with your crusade against editors who disagree with you (you think vandals are to be coddled and supported; others think they are to be blocked and ignored) will wear thin. Free advice.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

See also short followup at my Talk page User talk:Doncram#Beechmont (New Rochelle) deletion. Wknight94 suggests that i would be able to perform the merge, but actually i don't have access to the article, because it was deleted. The discussion should continue here. doncram (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• I reviewed Doncram's contrib history, and note that they are an active participant in many area's - so I thought I would request comment upon my belief that an indefinite block upon the account, until they re-align their enthusiasm for taking up the causes of banned editors without consideration of the consequences, for disruption to the encyclopedia should be executed. I am serious; vandals, pov warriors, and the like are reasonably easy to detect and remove, but an otherwise valuable editor who decides to proxy for those who the community have decided have no place here is quite difficult. I understand that in many cases the argument for the particular edit is reasonable - which is of course exactly how the banned editor seeks to prove their sanction is unjust - but it is still against established policy to allow it. Any sanction upon Doncram will be lifted as soon as they acknowledge that the policies in place regarding edits by banned persons are to be upheld. Comments please. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Eighteenieeeey (talk • contribs) 03:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)