Misplaced Pages

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

Are we ever going to do anything about Rotational? This user wars interminably over two layout issues, upon which he disagrees with both consensus and the Manual of Style: he hates "=="-level headings because they put a thin grey line across the page, and he hates right-floated right-facing images.

In the last week alone, he has edit-warred at List of Southern African indigenous trees and woody lianes, Jean-Louis van Aelbroeck, René Louiche Desfontaines, Antoine Risso, and Heinrich Schütz; and that is not to mention the many pages where there is no edit war solely because no-one has stepped up to revert his tendentious changes. Other recent edit wars include Magellanic Catalogue of Stars, Franz Sieber, NGC 5679 Group, Walter Hood Fitch and Eucalyptus flocktoniae. Before that it was Joseph Maiden, Barnard 68, Nils Johan Andersson, Katey Walter... that takes us back to the first days of March, when he was warring on about twenty pages simultaneously. It seems he always has at least a few edit wars on the go, and always over the same issues. I don't know what pages he'll be edit-warring on in a fortnight, but I can guarantee you he'll be edit-warring somewhere, if something isn't done about him.

He was blocked indefinitely for socking under his old username "Paul Venter", but talked his way out of the block by denying he was the same user—a denial that is now obviously, even openly, a lie. He was reported for edit warring here, and here, and here, and here. He has been warned on his talk page innumerable times. A great deal of time has been wasted arguing with him. He has even been blocked once. But the warring just goes on and on and on. Hesperian 01:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• The Paul venter sock case was at Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Paul_venter.
• This is the discussion from November 2007 where Rotational gets unblocked, after indignantly protesting the assertion that he is Paul venter, but without actually denying it: Rkitko's accusation of my being a sockpuppet is based on purely circumstantial evidence with possibly a touch of vindictiveness.

I suggest that we impose an editing restriction. Admins could tell Rotational he must stop revert-warring against other editors who are formatting articles in accordance with the Manual of Style. In particular, he must not revert war on heading levels or on the issue of right-facing images. (He strongly opposes the standard formatting of the header line of reference sections: see this edit from May 11. He is relentless on that topic). EdJohnston (talk) 04:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Support restriction. Rotational has been warned far too many times now, and as far as I can tell, they are not a benefit to the encyclopaedia. -- Darth Mike  04:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Support restriction as one of the editors who frequently has to clean up after him. It is also worth noting he has several pages in his userspace, which at one point he created cross namespace redirects to, and had categorised, though quickly the redirects were speedy deleted and the categories removed a couple of days ago. I suspect this action was to circumvent the MoS. Jenuk1985 | Talk 09:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Support restriction, what do you mean "two isn't enough"? Of course it is - one is enough. The key is, did any admin disagree? and no, no one did. KillerChihuahua 13:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Support. The user has fundamental disagreements with strong personal opinions about the MOS, but unfortunately seems to prefer warring in articles rather than discussing his issues at WT:MOS or elsewhere. The amount of disruption that resulted at Walter Hood Fitch was totally excessive and shouldn't be repeated in other articles. Papa November (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose The Gang of Six decries Rotational's layout-related edits -- characterizing them as 'edit warring' and claiming they violate WP:MOS. Rotational then supplies a word-for-word quote from the WP:MOS which supports and validates his editing style (see Rotational's response, below). The Gang of Six then does a 180 and starts characterizing that same MOS as unimportant and now only a secondary or tertiary issue. Now it becomes to them a six-of-us-versus-one-of-you kangaroo court. For the Gang of Six: When you have been shown to be wrong, the proper response is, "Oh, sorry about that. Never Mind." But instead, that group obliviously forged ahead and made up new 'reasons' why Rotational should be blocked. A paraphrase of their 'new and improved' reason goes something like this: We don't care what the MOS says. That document is flawed and ambiguous. There are six of us that want it our way. There is only one of him.

No matter how much you dislike the 'look', the WP:MOS does clearly support Rotational's editing style. The Gang of Six needs to back down on this one. Joe Hepperle (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I support this, so assuming EdJohnston supports his own proposal, that makes six supports and no opposes. Would an uninvolved party please frame precise conditions and consequences and inform Rotational? Hint: The above "must stop revert-warring against editors who are formatting articles in accordance with the Manual of Style" will only result in hair-splitting arguments over what the Manual of Style says and whether an edit can be seen as in accordance with it. "must not revert war on heading levels or on the issue of right-facing images" is much better. Hesperian 23:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Done. See WP:RESTRICT. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 13:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This is absurd, but not altogether unexpected considering the quality of some of the the learned figures taking part in this kangaroo court. There is a clear directive in the MoS and I quote:

• It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left (for example: Timpani). However, images should not be reversed simply to resolve a conflict between these guidelines; doing so misinforms the reader for the sake of our layout preferences. If an image is reversed or otherwise substantially altered, there should be a clear advantage to the reader in doing so (for example, cropping a work of art to focus on a detail that is the subject of commentary), and the alteration must be noted in the caption. Am I to understand that you have without consensus decided to throw out this particular guideline OR have you decided that I of all WP editors will not be permitted to enforce it?. Do try to think clearly before replying. Rotational (talk) 14:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • • A "clear directive".... riiight. If the MOS contains anything at all that can be fairly called a "clear directive", it is the first dot point of that section, "Start an article with a right-aligned lead image or InfoBox". Hesperian 23:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well......something had to be placed first because historically that's the way it happened, but its position in the list doesn't make it the most important, in fact its presence in the MoS is suspect because there is no compelling reason aesthetic or otherwise for its use - in short it is indefensible. Rotational (talk) 06:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see; so "clear" means "clear if I ignore the direct contradiction that I disagree with". Hesperian 07:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No, Hesperian, clear as in, "...place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text..." What part of that is confusing to you? Rotational has provided support for his style of editing via a direct quote from the WP:MOS. Rotational doesn't disagree with the MOS. He provides a chapter and verse quote from the MOS to substantiate and validate his style of editing. Where is your quote from the MOS? Got none? Joe Hepperle (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Your edits like this violated other MOS guidelines by causing unsightly text-squeezing and stripping the alt-text from an image, so please don't pretend to be valiantly defending the MOS! You should start a polite discussion about the matter at WT:MOS and present your concerns and proposals clearly. It'll work out far better for you than edit-warring at individual articles. Also, once again I'd encourage you to discuss policy rather than questioning the intellect of other editors - it's not doing you any favours. Papa November (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Since you're comparing edits look at this and tell me that the layout is an improvement AND conforms to MoS. I'm certainly NOT defending the MoS but rather pointing out your inconsistent interpretation of it. I'm not asking for "any favours", but rather that you acquire an evenhanded approach. Rotational (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the above means "Cygnis insignis is as bad as me and should be treated the same way." An inspection of Cygnis' contributions will clearly demonstrate that this is not the case. Hesperian 23:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well then, inspect closer. Rotational (talk) 06:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The MoS contains conflicting guidelines - indeed the quoted text acknowledges that contradiction - yet you have taken one of those positions (that it is "often preferable" to do something) as a justification for edit-warring across multiple pages. I would ask if you have a similar justification for your position regarding level-two headings, but it's irrelevant. The consensus is very clear that your actions are disruptive and need to stop. Do try to avoid making any further personal attacks when replying. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 14:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've marked this as resolved as no further admin action is required here. There is still disagreement over the MOS issues, so please sort it out at WT:MOS rather than clogging up the admin board. Papa November (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've reopened this thread following a request from SheffieldSteel. However, please restrict your discussion here to whether or not the editing restrictions against Rotational are justified. I have started a discussion at WT:MOS#Centre-facing images and L2 headers for you to resolve the style issues... please don't let the debate spill over onto this thread. Papa November (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

If Rotational had a sincere disagreement with the WP:MOS, you would expect him to work to get it changed by consensus. Ad-hoc revert-warring on the layout of individual articles doesn't seem to be good faith. We shouldn't allow the uncertainties in the manual of style to translate into indefinite tolerance for revert-warring on individual articles. He has been wasting the time of other editors. Please don't assume this is a new issue, where a slightly-misguided editor has to be pointed to the proper channels. It's a matter of his entire history on Misplaced Pages. His above comments don't address the problem he has created. Compare his unblock request from 2007 with the current debate; he has learned nothing, and does not wish to compromise in the slightest. He has not accepted Firsfron's request to him from 2007: I will ask that you attempt to follow the guidelines set out at WP:MOS (already linked on your userpage) concerning headings (WP:HEAD). If you need assistance, I would be happy to help out or give advice. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Has somebody pointed out to Rotational that the thin lines go away if he changes his skin?
  • Yes. Repeatedly. I don't recall ever getting a clear answer why he doesn't like that solution, other than because I proposed it. --Rkitko 12:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    • It doesn't even take a style sheet; just changing your preferences for skin: I use Classic myself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• That failing, a consensus on each article is a sounder argument than MOS, most of which was never consensus, and is now imposed out of a preference for any consistency over diversity. (If nobody at the articles cares, why should ANI?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • People at the article do care. There are a group of people who edit in the same fields as him (e.g. botanical illustrators). He pops up on their watchlists giving an article an ugly layout that he alone likes, on the basis of some trivial vexillogical quibble; they revert back to something attractive and (incidentally, if you like) in accordance with the MOS; there is an argument, possibly an edit war. A few days later he pops up on their watchlists again, giving a different article the same ugly layout; they revert; they have the same tired argument, possibly another edit war. Watch, rinse, repeat. Ad infinitum.

    I think everyone, even Rotational, will agree that only Rotational likes Rotational's layout, and everyone else hates it. That fact alone ought to be sufficient to restrain Rotational from repeatedly applying it to articles. But it is not. Rotational continues to edit and edit war in an attempt to force articles to use his preferred layout, even though he knows everyone but him thinks it hideous. And people are sick of it. That is the problem here. The MOS only comes into this as as a surrogate for "the layout preferred by everyone except Rotational".

    Hesperian 23:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

    • • People at the article don't care - those images at Walter Hood Fitch sat there unchanged from February 2008 when I placed them there until March 2009 when our friend Cygnis arrived and decided to stir up a bit of trouble. Also please don't presume to speak for me "I think everyone, even Rotational, will agree that only Rotational likes Rotational's layout" or for anyone beside yourself. Rotational (talk) 07:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
        • So I shouldn't speak for anyone beside myself, but you're still entitled to speak for everyone in claiming that none of them cares. Your rationale can be summarised as Anyone who appears to care is actually just stirring up trouble; therefore, no-one cares. I can't fault your logic, but the premise you're starting from needs a bit of work. Hesperian 23:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
    • And that, unfortunately, is the case to block. We should use the layout preferred by many even if MOS were against it; if MOS abided by policy, we would then change MOS. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• All due respect to Septentrionalis, the MoS here is a red herring; what we have is a user who is being tendentious & disruptive -- Misplaced Pages jargon for being annoying. He has been told he is under a restriction to, in effect, stop being annoying. Arguing over what this means is, I think anyone will agree, being annoying in a new, but still annoying, manner. At this point I am probably too tired -- which makes me cranky -- to handle this matter in an equitable & wise manner (after posting this, I will be going straight to bed, without even pausing to see what the latest thread about Giano is about), but I believe we have a situation which can only be resolved by disinviting the user. And as cranky as I may be, I still hope that i am wrong here. -- llywrch (talk) 06:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

To be summarised as "tendentious & disruptive" is laughable. My aim throughout has been to contribute and improve articles. Some of my critics are self-appointed watchdogs who contribute extremely little in mainspace and spend their time carrying out trivial edits whilst congratulating themselves on the sterling job they are doing. Most of them spend an inordinate amount of time working on their political alliances and suffering from the puckered-lips syndrome. I regret being seen as a loose cannon, but if that is a catalyst to changing outdated ideas which are lovingly clung to, then so be it. Rotational (talk) 09:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If your aim truly is "to contribute and improve articles", then I suggest you leave this thread and do exactly that. I know of several editors who consider the MoS, WP:AN, etc. good for nothing more than rulewanking, but instead of coming here & sharing that opinion with one & all, they are quietly contributing solid content. Not wasting anyone's time quarreling over the appearance of articles. -- llywrch (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

From my experience with Rotational, the sooner he gets blocked indefinitely, the better for all of the project. Debresser (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

EdJohnston, your response (above, 18:30, 18 May 2009) is disingenuous. Rotational does not have a disagreement with the WP:MOS. On the contrary, he agrees with it and is following its guidelines. He has provided here (above) a direct quote from the MOS which substantiates and validates his style of editing. Characterizing his WP:MOS-compliant editing as "...ad-hoc revert-warring..." is either ignorance or outright dishonesty on your part. It is becoming harder for me to assume your 'good faith'.

You used the phrase, "...the uncertainties in the manual of style...". According to you and your cohorts, Rotational was 'violating' the WP:MOS... until he provided a direct quote from the MOS which supports and validates his editing style. So am I to conclude that anytime the WP:MOS conflicts with your personal tastes, it is the MOS that is "...uncertain..." rather than a simple but clear-cut case of you being wrong?

When Rotational edits the articles in compliance with the WP:MOS and you revert his edits because you don't like them, whom exactly is doing the edit warring? You are. An edit's quality of being "...disagreeable to EdJohnston's tastes..." does not make it a violation of WP:MOS. It is times like this that you need to take a step back, take a deep breath and relax. No matter how much it infuriates you, you must accept it. Rotational has provided a direct quote from the WP:MOS that substantiates, supports, and validates his editing style. Where is your quote? Papa November just wrote to you and your cohorts that he has opened a discussion at WT:MOS#Centre-facing images so that you can try to get the WP:MOS changed to your 'flavor'. You will need to make a case for deletion of the section that Rotational has quoted (word-for-word) in his post above. As long as that section is part of the WP:MOS, Rotational is right and you are simply offended because of that. Your invitation to us to look at his past edits is disingenuous and brings into question your good faith. Are you implying that you should 'win' even though you are wrong about this current issue (placement of pictures in articles) because Rotational has been on your dartboardbefore?

To prevail honestly, EdJohnston, you should provide chapter and verse Quotes from the WP:MOS that would clearly show Rotational to be in error-- if there exist any such section(s). I suspect there is not, which would explain the continuously slippery and elusive reasoning you (plural) present as the supposed justification for a censure of Rotational. Here is a recap of those slippery claims:

1. CLAIM: Rotational needs to be censured because his edits (picture placement in articles) violates WP:MOS.

2. CLAIM: Rotational needs to be censured because he 'disagrees' with the WP:MOS, so he reverts picture placement edits back to his original layout.

3. RESPONSE: Rotational supplies a word-for-word quote from WP:MOS that clearly shows that he IS following the WP:MOS in his edits concerning picture placement in articles.

4. NEW-CLAIM: The WP:MOS is ambiguous so Rotational should be censured and forced to ignore the word-for-word quote, directly from the WP:MOS, which he provided. EdJohnston and cohorts should 'win' by the sole virtue that there are six of them, ganged together, and only one Rotational.

5. NEW-CLAIM: Although no one other than Rotational has provided any word-for-word quote from WP:MOS to support their position, the part that Rotational has quoted is characterized as an "...uncertainty..."

6. NEW-CLAIM: EdJohnston writes that Rotational has a "....disagreement with the WP:MOS..." based on the fact that Rotational is following the style allowed-- and substantiated-- by the WP:MOS (Joe Hepperle Note: Even I don't understand EdJohnston's thought-flow here. I don't know how a person whom is in full compliance with the WP:MOS can honestly be characterized as having a disagreement with WP:MOS. It would seem that EdJohnston is the one with the "disagreement". The WP:MOS allows the style of picture-placement editing that Rotational is using-- EdJohnston disagrees with that WP:MOS-authorized style.)

Rotational agrees with the WP:MOS. Rotational has provided a direct quote from the WP:MOS that substantiates, supports, and validates his editing style. Joe Hepperle (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll also have a try at summarising this whole sorry mess. I'll focus on the image positioning issue here for brevity:

• The MOS guidelines state:
  1. "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text."
  2. "Start an article with a right-aligned lead image..."

• The first and second guidelines are contradictory when the first image is a right-facing photo. Everyone agreed?
• Rotational has a personal preference for the first guideline overriding the second. Other editors strongly disagree.

My views are as follows:

• There is no consensus on how to deal with the MOS discrepancy.
• The discrepancy should be resolved by discussion at WT:MOS#Centre-facing images and L2 headers.
• Edit-warring over this discrepancy (by any editor) is disruptive, tendentious and inappropriate.
• Until the discrepancy is resolved, editors should not change article layouts.
• Rotational has repeatedly entered edit wars over this issue, and other ambiguous areas in the MOS.

I believe that editing restrictions are against the spirit of the project, but in this case they are necessary to prevent further disruption to articles. Some of the editors on the other side of the MOS debate have also been stepping pretty close to the line. I'd suggest that everyone calms down and moves swiftly on to WT:MOS to settle this properly rather than trying to attack their opponents. Papa November (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Banned user editing

Matt Sanchez, aka Bluemarine (talk · contribs), just posted to my talk page, accusing me of vandalism somewhere. He is, as far as I can tell, still under an indef. community ban. It appears his Arbcom site ban ended in January but I see nothing at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine dealing with ending the community ban. The last action I see is this past December where he was placed on a limited unblock with conditions (see the very bottom of his arbcom page). So, can we find out and get a clarification on this? - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 04:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Also note his editing at the Matt Sanchez talk page. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 05:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up about this thread, Allstar. Bluemarine's arbitration ban expired on 1 April 2009. This is the first time since then (that I'm aware) when he's returned to editing. He might not understand that the community ban remains in place. Have emailed him to ask whether he understands this; awaiting reply. (I've been mentoring Bluemarine/Matt Sanchez since his siteban, mostly at Commons). Durova 05:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Have received a reply; he wasn't aware that the community ban remained in force after the arbitration ban expired. Have asked him to edit only to his main account user talk until this gets sorted out. Durova 05:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I asked him via edit summary when undoing his edits to the article about him's talk page, not to edit until clarification was obtained as to the status on the community ban. He ignored me, undid me, and continued on. I assume he will now stop since you've had contact with him? Additionally, since he's under an indef community ban, why is he even able to edit? Shouldn't his account have been blocked from editing? - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 05:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine#Limited unblock with conditions explains this.  Sandstein  06:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. It kind of caught me by surprise this evening while I was working on other things. Matt would like to request a repeal of his community ban; it's been a year. In this unusual situation, how do we go about clarifying the matter. According to many people a community ban is a block that no administrator is willing to unblock. He is unblocked, so how do we clear the air? Durova 06:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, following up. Matt tells me he's been receiving offsite harassment that pertains to Misplaced Pages. Haven't seen it myself, although the arbitration case did establish that he had been harassed extensively. My advice to him was to forward evidence of harassment to ArbCom, if it's demonstrable that it originates from an editor. He did not discuss who (if anyone) he thought was the source of that problem. Seems to be a little confused, so I've asked him to monitor this discussion and post nowhere other than his user talk until things are sorted out. Will be heading to bed now, so please be patient. Durova 06:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Durova. Whoever is harassing him offsite, if they are a Wiki user and it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, should be dealt with for sure. However, regardless of that, he is still under a community ban. I see that Arbcom per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine#Limited unblock with conditions unblocked him with stipulations as to what actions he could perform on Misplaced Pages but I'll also note 2 things in regard to that: A) Arbcom shouldn't have overruled the community and unblocked him for any reason whatsoever. Additionally so with the reason for the limited purpose of his making contributions related to increasing the accessibility of Misplaced Pages to users with handicapping conditions. Seriously, go against the will of the community and unblock someone on behalf of handicap people? and B) That unblock pertained to his Arbcom ban only. Now that it has expired, and since he's still under community ban, he should be blocked from editing except for his own talk page and the talk page be temporary and it too blocked should his community ban continue to stand. I've got no opinion at this time as to whether or not the community ban should be lifted but as it stands now, it's still in effect and should be enforced. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 07:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Actually it is precisely ArbCom's function to overrule the community on occasion. The community's actions are subject to review by ArbCom and sometimes they overturn the community's action. Durova 14:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

As Durova has said above, a community ban is usually expressed as a block that no admin is willing to lift. Since any single admin can overturn a community ban, ArbCom, consisting of mostly admins, certainly can do so as well. If that approach still scales with the number of admins we now have is a subject for another time. Anyways, given that Matt has sat out the year, and is a productive contributor to our sister projects, I think he is one of the rare breed that deserves a second chance. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if any single admin can overturn the will of the community, that policy needs to be addressed as well. Not here of course but somewhere. Why does 1 person get to overrule many? As I said, I have no opinion at this time on doing away with the community ban but I am skeptical.. For 4 months after the beginning of his Arbcom ban, he evaded his block via sockpuppet as evidenced by the block log at his Arbcom page. Just today, I witnessed sockpuppeting by him over on Wikiquote (I know it was him because he made changes to the page about him there under an IP - when he normally uses the name Bluemarine there too - and then came over here and left a note on my talk page while logged in as Bluemarine accusing me of vandalizing his Wikiquote page even though the only edit I ever made up to that point to that page was adding a Conflict of Interest tag to it). When and if a discussion on the community ban materializes, I'll deal with these issues there. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 07:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

A community ban cannot be overruled by a single admin, that is a misconception. Viridae 05:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes, been working toward change in that part of the banning policy for over two years. Got overruled by the consensus. If you'd like to change consensus, by all means join me in doing so after this dispute is settled. Durova 14:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought a ban was agreed upon by consensus and that to un-ban also required consensus. If not, then there's no practical difference between a block and a ban. Baseball Bugs carrots 09:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No, there are significant differences. See WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware that there is supposed to be a difference, and that's the point I'm raising. I'm not seeing anything obvious on who has the authority to lift a ban. But I thought that was supposed to be by consensus, not by an individual admin deciding to do so. Baseball Bugs carrots 11:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Where ArbCom makes a decision, I imagine it simply supercedes lower decisions, and Jimbo can overrule ArbCom. Elsewise, the hierarchy which certainly appears to exist, would not. In short -- action de novo would be needed to effectively overturn ArbCom. Collect (talk) 11:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, OK, so did an admin make a mistake in this case? I never heard of this Sanchez guy, I'm just asking what the rules are. Baseball Bugs carrots 11:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No, no admin made a mistake. He essentially was under 2 bans.. one indefinitely by the community and one for a year via the Arbcom case. The Arbcom ban has ended. The community ban hasn't. So, the mistake is on the part of Arbcom for unblocking him with stipulations that he could only upload files "so that handicap users could access them" and he could only edit his user page and talk page, while he was still under a community ban. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 11:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment on bans and blocks: My reading of the above leads me to think that community bans and de facto bans are being confused. A community ban (discussed fully) requires a community consensus to lift (though ArbCom may lift if they decide community input/process was insufficient to legitimately establish a ban). Any admin may lift a defacto ban, as it really just overturns an indef block made by another single admin. I do agree with the above that MS was under two separate bans, and that while the AC sanction is over, the community ban is still in place, esp. as the AC motion does not address the community ban.
• Agree with Schulz above that we should probably re-visit the community sanction, especially if Durova is keeping an eye on things (but unfounded accusations against current editors would have to stop -tired or not) . . . R. Baley (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sanchez posting in this thread

I just noticed from Sanchez's contribs that sometime during this thread, he made a post here in this very thread, despite being told he was still under community ban. It was undone by Durova so I didn't see it. I'll address the allegations in that post: lies. I don't know the man's phone number, never have known the man's phone number, don't even know his Twitter account name, never have known the man's Twitter account name, don't know the man's email addresses and have never in my life sent the man an email to any email address. Posting that only proves to me that he hasn't changed one bit. I demand proof of these accusations by him, against me, or else he needs to knock that off right now. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 11:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Allstar, he was confused. It was the wee hours of the night in his time zone and nearly midnight in mine. Now in spite of my declaration that I was heading to bed, and request for patience, I awaken to discover this new subthread has been open for hours. This is very disappointing. Durova 14:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It's also very disappointing to see myself accused of such things Durova. If it were you being slandered and accused of such gross violations, I highly doubt you'd have even went to bed on it. How is one "confused" when they make posts like that? If someone were stalking me, calling my personal phone, sending me harassing emails and harassing me on Twitter, and I knew who it was, I'd certainly remember and not make such an enormous mistake as to be "confused" and post someone else's name as the "stalker". - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 18:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I sympathize. I have seen no evidence that you were responsible for any of that, nor was your name discussed specifically before he posted. That was one reason why I made last night's final post (didn't want to draw attention and/or doubts attached to your username, which was the reason for not naming you). Very difficult situation to rise up at the very end of one's evening.

Matt has been subject to a very serious offsite harassment campaign, as noted in the arbitration finding. So far as I know, the individual responsible for it was sitebanned long ago. Last night Matt mentioned that offsite harassment had either continued or resumed, and I advised him that if he had evidence linking ongoing harassment to any current editor then that should go to the Committee (per the general instruction from Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Jim62sch#Grave_real-world_harassment). I had also advised him to post only to his user talk until this matter is cleared up, and given him a link to this discussion so that he could monitor its progress. The unintended result of that was that he got very confused. You have my apologies for the I played in that chain of events; its outcome was unintentional (this was why I really hoped to get a night's sleep in my body before resuming). And if there's need be explicit about an issue that seems to loom close whenever this biography comes up, my own views about LGBT issues are very different from Matt's. Durova 22:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Revisiting the community sanction

Per suggestions above, let's revisit the community sanction. What seems sensible is to implement a topic ban under mentorship and restrict him to one account. Bluemarine (who is Matt Sanchez) is fluent in four languages and has a history of useful contributions at Commons.

So suggesting the following (based upon Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Bluemarine#Limited_unblock_with_conditions):

Bluemarine's community ban is modified to a topic ban from the Matt Sanchez biography, and from LGBT topics and related talk pages, broadly construed. He is limited to the use of one account. If Bluemarine violates the terms of this restriction, or makes any comment reasonably regarded as harassing or a personal attack, he may be reblocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator.

Would appreciate the assistance of a second mentor, if one is willing to step forward (seeking volunteers). Durova 17:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this has gotten pushed so far up the page that you may need to start a new section on it, referencing this section of course. As for the suggestion itself, what is the time constraint on this topic ban? Also, let's change "he may be blocked" to "he will be blocked", difference in may and will. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 02:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the main idea here is to bring in the good he can do for the site without reigniting old fires. Do you think this proposal would manage the major concerns? Durova 04:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have concerns. First, the nature of Bluemarine's actions were so egregious as to support not one but TWO bans. Second, while I grant that he may have been confused about when the bans ended, he didn't choose to ask Durova, who has faithfully mentored him, but began editing again. Third, one of his quickest edits was to accuse an editor here of harassing him. Whatever time it is, that's unacceptable. I do not - at this time - support a modification of his community ban, while at the same time congratulating him on his success on other projects. - Philippe 04:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite inclined to agree with Philippe. The vitriol (calling other users "faggot" among other choice things), the blatant disregard for policy and for the bans (still editing via sockpuppet 4 months into the bans), socking on other projects now (see Wikiquote), asking for meatpuppets via his Twitter account (see the Matt Sanchez article's talk page for that), Uploading of copyvio files (he's had many files deleted for claiming ownership but later found out to be copyvios owned by other sources).. I just don't see why he can't continue to contribute to sister sites while still community banned here. His mode of operation is completely established and are we sure it won't happen on other articles in which he's been the cause of disruption to (Ann Coulter specifically) but which aren't covered under such topic ban? Despite all of this, and my better judgement telling me not no but hell no.. I'm willing to go along with the following:

Bluemarine's community ban is modified to a topic ban from the Matt Sanchez biography and its talk page, and from LGBT topics and related talk pages, broadly construed. He is limited to the use of one account:Bluemarine. He is not to upload any files of which he does not own. If Bluemarine violates the terms of this restriction, or makes any comment reasonably regarded as harassing or a personal attack, he will be blocked indefinitely by any uninvolved administrator.

That's the best I can muster right now. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 04:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

To respond to Philippe, there was a specific and unusual provocation behind Matt's recent edits. I have no reason to believe Allstarecho was responsible, but Matt has been targeted for very serious harassment. During last year's arbitration someone hacked into Matt's computer, posted a (possibly altered) personal chat log of Matt's to the arbitration case pages, and according to Matt the hacker also cleared out his bank account. Someone runs a hate site dedicated to Matt and also impersonates Matt on the Internet. Recently a query came up at Matt's bio talk that seemed like a plausible claim (supposedly Matt had tried to canvass for Misplaced Pages editors on Twitter), and when I queried Matt about it he got upset because Matt had never canvassed on Twittter; that was the impersonator. Matt's been getting other offsite harassment recently also, which I hadn't been aware of.

So in short, Matt wasn't flying off the handle for no reason at all. He has been provoked for a long time by someone who is very patient and diligent about it. Matt wasn't aware that the second ban still existed, and I wasn't aware that the harassment had continued. Durova 05:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Durova, I guess my concern is that this whole thing is ALREADY setting off my "drama"-sensor, and I can't see that the drama is going to decrease. As far as I'm concerned, I'm not willing at this point to support a modification of the terms of the community ban. You asked if your proposed language would manage the main concerns: in my opinion, no. I do not believe that sufficient "drama-free" time has elapsed to over-ride the community ban. If someone truly cleared out his bank account, that's a felony and should be addressed with the police. If he's being harassed, that may or may not be a felony and should be discussed with the police. In either case, I don't think it's justification for anything. I empathize with him, I hope it gets better, and I hope that he takes it to the police: but I'm not willing to use that to excuse his behavior here. There's just way too much drama that follows him on here. Maybe later; not now. - Philippe 20:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Something fishy goin' on

Check out the edit history of StephenLaurie (talk · contribs) whom I wouldn't have noticed were it not for the edit today to Matt Sanchez. It appears through the user's own edits, more recent socks of Matt have been exposed, as recently as this month. This will of course take some actual clicking to look at the edits made by the IPs that user StephenLaurie has tagged as being socks of Matt/Bluemarine. I of course have no proof these are socks of Matt's but they definitely match his editing pattern in related articles, especially Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy. See WP:DUCK. As such, I withdraw my willingness to agree to relaxing Matt's community ban. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 04:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

How about filing a sockpuppet investigation request? This comes as a surprise and I'm as curious as you are. Durova 04:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Bluemarine - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 06:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

 Clerk note: I have endorsed for CU attention. I have amended the reason from community ban evasion to Arbcom sanction evasion, as it seems clear to me that the Arbcom decision to give BM a limited unblock vacates (at least temporarily) the total community ban. Mayalld (talk) 08:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

StephenLaurie's history is also suspicious. His very first edit was to accuse another editor of socpuppetry. That is not the action of a new user. That smells like a stinky sock as well. LadyofShalott 17:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Anyone else feel free to open a SI case on that user as well. I plan on doing so once the first one is dealt with but certainly won't mind if someone else does it. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 18:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Still waiting. As of this time, it hasn't been assigned to a Checkuser. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 04:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added a comment at SPI about the history of impersonation attacks. When it comes to potential socking by Bluemarine, best to keep a totally open mind until the facts are in. Durova 17:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI StephenLaurie has added an IP to the list of suspected socks. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 03:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

To me, as an uninvolved party in this whole issue, it seems pretty clear that Allstarecho has some sort of vendetta against Sanchez, and should probably recuse himself from further discussion of his status. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't make asinine, bad faith accusations without explaining why it "seems pretty clear". I have no vendetta against him. He's under a community ban and as such, it should be enforced, just as it should be with any other editor who is under a community ban. Now suddenly we find that there's a question regarding him evading this ban all along via socks, of which isn't above him as many of his other socks have been blocked previously. Regardless, I reserve vendetta's for real life, not a hobby like Misplaced Pages. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 04:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This, from your userpage, would seem to indicate at least some bad feeling. Viridae 05:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That's been on my userpage for well over a year, maybe even close to 2 years now, and has nothing to do with his or my interaction here on Misplaced Pages. I assure you and anyone else, there's no massive Sanchez conspiracy. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 05:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio

Cryptonio (talk · contribs) has been leaving some odd messages on talk pages recently. Some of them tell editors to go away or that they are expendable and/or unintelligible. I'm not sure what's going on with this editor and, to be frank, I'm concerned for them.

• Samples:
  • "BTW, check my contribs really quick, the last 10 or so could make your day better. lol",
  • "i must tell you, that the space you and others want to use to tell the world how great Israel is, has been confiscated in order to let the world know, something the world already knows. Beatles kick ass. Well, I guess that just makes you expendable here in Wiki, don't let the door hit you on your way out! Some people are tools, some are weapons. Care to guess which one are you?",
  • "dude, seriously, you need a vacation, i am worried about your health. Lately, you have not been making any sense in talk pages, you are reading things wrong, and you seem to have a major problem with NPOV. Seriously dude, take a vacation. A long vacation.",
  • "well you are a tool my friend. A tool fan that is. I am glad that you enter and exit certain articles, like the baseline does in Tool songs. You must be a drummer. Well, let me tell you my friend, that Wiki does not need you at all in project like I/P conflict. But, we have great opportunities for growth, in areas like Star Trek Oral Sex Child Support and all types of offshoots that you can imagine. Please, feel free to investigate around and leave I/P for ever. Thank you, have a terrible time at the poker tables.",
  • "Well, welcome to Wiki .. Hope you don't stay for too long!",
  • "push these crazy ideas that make you and others like you, look like Satan compare to Arab fundamentalists(really, take it from an experience observer). I can really honestly say, you should drop Misplaced Pages, and take the others with you.",
  • "In due time, your suspicion that all will go to hell when it comes to I/P articles in Wiki, will come to be, and we will have to score it as a Mossad victory."

I'm thinking this should be reviewed by a couple people. -- Jaakobou 19:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional note: I was a bit concerned for Cryptonio but, considering their response below, I'm now more concerned for the project. Creating a collaborative atmosphere in these sensitive topics is hard enough without people asking those whom they disagree with to leave the project adding that they "look like Satan". I personally do not find the entire list above "humorous" or "lol" worthy. Jaakobou 21:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments

These are quite troubling. A block is certainly in order, with subsequent mentorship when the block expires. IronDuke 19:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

They are quite funny. And the way this dude has posted them, is taken totally out of context(and provides evidence of of certain editor's style of work here in Wiki). The subjects here are renowned pro-Israeli editors(except a few of them) of the kind that pushes Israel's POV blindly at the cost of Wiki. This, editor, that has brought this concern of me to this board, has a history of his own of "you have not been making any sense in talk pages, you are reading things wrong, and you seem to have a major problem with NPOV." Exactly what I let him know, but of course, in a humorous way that allows him to clearly understand the point. He's concern for me? they are only words and no threat was giving. I actually, recommend for everyone in here to go to the edits themselves and get a quick laugh. Some of these editors don't care about Wiki, all they care about is to represent the rights of others except Wiki. They see Wiki as a tool for their 'war mentality, instead of seeing it as a tool for knowledge.

The reason at large, why articles concerning I/Ps are the way that they are, is because a 'standard' was semi-established, when certain editors, in good faith or not, started to 'produce'(instead of creating) articles that were a carbon copy of already written articles from CIA's Factbook and the US's State Department. Through wikilawyering(and other practices) then, undermining the same rules that was brought to standard, in order to revert that activity, that presented a major danger to Wiki's independence, many of these articles remain intact.

The process, that has been on going, to make these articles 100% Wikipedian, has been an arduous to many editors. Recently, three very pro-Palestinian editors, but at the same time, ACADEMICIANS with pride of their Wiki-work, were recently dismissed in favor of giving certain editors a voice that goes against the load thinking of Wiki. These editors, that would under normal circumstances address a conflict with their best tools from the beginning, had to rather rely on their wits and anger in order to bring down the stonewalling that these 'cliques' present all over these articles.

Wiki has faltered in this matter. Wiki has taken the side of Anti-Misplaced Pages in order to forcefully give statue to a practice that is very much Anti-Misplaced Pages. The practice is Anti-knowledge, Anti-Reasoning, rewarding instead "group mentality" and "point-fixing"(the practice of sourcing one's beliefs and POV). We should not be afraid of quarrels in articles like Star Trek Oral sex and Child support, they are of a different kind, and even though the subject matter at hand is one of many, it provides precedent and will be looked at when considering other matters throughout Wiki.

Wiki is not a democracy, and the first victim of democracy is common sense, and so, Wiki is not under no obligation to give voice to the voiceless, or promote empirical ideals. Wiki has a self-inflicted responsibility to always improve itself, that just because there is an article that covers a subject, under no circumstances means that the subject is already covered, and thus we should move on to the next. Relevant information is a by-product of necessary information and it should be given the least amount of space when space itself, through rationale, dictates so. The judge in all of this, cannot be time, and it cannot be a judge itself. The judge of thought questions and preposition, should be the ability to comprehend an argument through the eyes of Wiki, and not through the eyes set on NPOV. There is a POV that matters and shouldn't be ignored, and that is Wiki's POV.

It wouldn't be difficult to bring examples, where even the least capable of administrators would have little difficult siding with Wiki's side. Administrators cannot continue to act as if they are solving dispute when in all reality they are admonishing editors at the expense of ignoring the question and argument that is brought to them. Was not, the same dispute that editors were told to solve on their own, what brought these editors to these boards in the first place? Why think, that editors started arguing and insulting one another, and never tried to actually solve the dispute? Wiki will not flourish under the current atmosphere. Wiki is not rewarding education and dedication, Wiki seems to be rewarding fanaticism and a sense of undermining Wiki itself.

If, argument and heated debate, insults and the rest, provides better results, the result expected by administrators, Wiki must stand aside or set the rules of engagement, so that Wiki would have the last word. This means, that as long as Wiki continues to give voice to those seeking their own, without regards of the platform, Wiki will continue to view dispute as children behaving badly, instead of reasoning that one must be right and the other must be opposing, not the fact or the truth, but process.

Allow Wiki to be Wiki. If solution is found to certain problems, do not get involve, simply because someone has ask you to.

Thank you, and read those links please. They are quite troubling! Aghast! I would mentor Jok! Cryptonio (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeewd. I'm with Crypt on this one. Those pro-Israel editors are nothing but trouble and destroy the very fabric that makes wikipedia so neutral, objective, and tolerant. In fact, let's just rename wikipedia. We'll call it...Cryptopedia. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"so neutral, objective, and tolerant". You need to understand these concepts in order to use them. You see Wiki is not neutral in the sense that there is no dispute, is neutral because it allows discussion. The act of tilting an article to one way over the other(over that discussion), is not being neutral, but engaging in POV-pushing. So thus, discussion shouldn't be used or needed in order to fix POV.

Objective is not getting every single detail about a subject matter down on paper. Objective is to be able to "judge thought, questions and preposition, by comprehending an argument through the eyes of Wiki, and not through the eyes set on NPOV." In other words, that you bring a source, that in your opinion is adequate for the article, does not merits opposition, but rather consensus that indeed is necessary material. Now here is the magic of Wiki, when you are asked to present your view on inclusion, you must be aware, that you cannot use your 'opinion' in order to reach consensus, you must rather state your case from Wiki's POV. This does not mean, that you feel, think, or reckon, that the reader needs that information, but rather that the reader's experience would be enhance by the addition of said information. When Wiki is held to these standards, there is nothing like it. Trouble is, that one marginal bit of information, for the most part, will invite terrible information in order to balance it. The editor, must be aware, that the objection of other editors, to add or remove information, is not solely based on their view, but also based on their view of Wiki.

Why doesn't Dispute Resolution work? Simple. It doesn't work because we don't accept judgment on a matter we feel so positive about, and thus, through arguing, if feel we could delay a ruling for eternity. The solution is never to stifled discussion, but to stifled ignorance(and ignorance is not the absence of knowledge) but rather "the rejection of acceptance to a contradictory logistical value". In other words, every argument must be brought to the table etc, and it is expected that consensus rises out of that, and if it doesn't, then consensus would be neither remove, modify or add said information.

Finally, tolerant. This is actually a very grave mistake on your part, to think that Wiki is tolerant. It isn't. It does not give you the right, any right, because it doesn't have constitution. Because reality is tilted towards "Westernrism" we equate a free man to democracy and other ideals that does not enter the realm of Wiki. To be tolerant, only extends to being neutral(allows discussion) but it doesn't mean that it needs to give you time to state your claim, or your bias. It doesn't need to respect your bias. If you don't think of Wiki as being a source of knowledge, you will view Wiki as a source of expression. You are going to feel as if you are entitled to a platform for your views. The rules of Wiki, are binding only in Wiki, thus, your ideas and beliefs of what a fair system should be, only extends to your immediate territory. Yes, you may very well think Wiki is tolerant, but when it comes to the job of Wiki, Wiki is, should be unstoppable. Wiki, on this subject matter, has not been tolerant, it has been fooled into thinking it needs to respect all editors(again, a westernerism). not all editors are created equal. Equal weight covers the information, not the editors. Wiki allows equal footing at the start of discussion, but does not require for all to finish at the same time, doesn't even help for all racers to finish the race. Cryptonio (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you for real? Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You enjoy my jokes more. I'll give this example in good faith. Say that there are two opposing views on a matter. Listen, this is the world wide world, this is not uncommon at all, people deal with this kind of stuff everyday without major fuzz, but only if both people are reasonable. Wiki would love to have those opposing views presented, but first, it must make a note that there are two opposing view. That we make that small mention, is worth a lot of trouble. Then, we must put those two views in perspective, paying close attention to the interaction between them. If the conflict arises out sheer POV, as a last resort, consensus should be the inclusion of both opposing views, in relation to the represented capacity of both views. If one view, is being presented as a replacement, it must be looked at very closely, because change is a human trait that doesn't allow us to actually practice it. If the view is being presented, as a substitute, on grounds that it should be looked at as standard here on Wiki, consensus must arise from accepting, that the view is relevant without the mention of the opposite view. Thus a reader will always benefit from consensus that was reached, by a process. If the view that has been presented as the standard in Wiki, is now viewed as having a challenge, that is, that it no longer can stand on it's own, the immediate remedial is not to add the opposite view, but to make mention in the article that such view could be notable(immediately). Then consensus should concentrate, in the addition of the opposing view, but only as a mention, that is notable. All of this is reached through the understanding of current Wiki-policies. Cryptonio (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You take a long time to explain nothing. Your comments are very uncivil. I don't think a block is in order, yet, but continuing to make those remarks would most likely result in one. -- Darth Mike  22:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to attack you to defend myself. I can simply ignore you. Cryptonio (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

And besides, I was brought here. I didn't know you even existed till a few minutes ago. As far as I'm concerned, I can extend myself worthy, to the silliness, if I so choose to entertain. I'm already looking forward to sending you my good night wishes. word. Cryptonio (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

{out)WP:DFTT Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

After reading through some recent edits of Cryptonio (talk · contribs), I'm not clear on what he's trying to say, or what he's trying to do. But it doesn't seem to be helping Misplaced Pages. Can anyone else summarize, concisely, what the issue is? --John Nagle (talk) 05:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

John, I think the issue in a nutshell is simply that

• working in the I/P conflict area for an extended period produces a form of battle fatique
• Cryptonio has decided that he would prefer to stay away from this area of Misplaced Pages from now on
• these are his parting messages which for the most part express the kind of frustration many people seem to experience at some point

I think raising the issue here was probably counterproductive. I would advocate just letting it go as more pragmatic. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Many users, including myself, have received blocks for far less during I/P "battles." Crypt has been hostile and abrasive in previous discussions, so this really isn't that surprising. I'm all for jokes and laughs, but telling people to basically g.t.f.o through thinly-veiled "humor" is hardly an excusable product of "battle fatigue". I do not endorse a block however. I'm just saying the bar seems to apply to some but not all. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a bar, but its not a cool kids type thing, sometimes, when all the stars align and god slowly whispers your name in a seductive tone, and you happen to lose your cool right when the community feels a subconscious yearning for drama, larger powers come into play and to diffuse the whole thing the adults tell everybody the equivalent of mom yelling at the misbehaving children to get out of the house and go away so every can just relax instead of spanking them. It's a decent outcome. Think of it like a defensive penalty in football. It's like the play never happened. --M 10:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Without going into details, my reply to John Nagle's question, from a perspective of an Israeli-POV editor. Working on Gaza War article is extremely hard, the issue is very loaded, both in emotions and information. From my side, knowing that many others will disagree, I try as much as I can (though I am far from perfect myself), to discuss things first. Now if you look at current talk page and article edits from last, say, 10 days - you might see (turns out I am not the only one who got that feeling) that comrade Cryptonio has become totally uncooperative. This is the issue - lack of cooperation, of good will, of some respect to others. Most of us are cynical, its OK. But I see others who are cynical, but still able to cooperate. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

"uncooperative" = unwilling to accept your POV-pushing. Cryptonio (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You're a nuisance. But you have a point, because the there are serious racists running around causing mayhem. Have a look at Islam: What the West Needs to Know and who is editing it. anyone contributing to an article attacking Judaism in that fashion would be instantly barred. 81.156.223.72 (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what point you think I have made, since I didn't say anything about racism, Islam or Judaism. You must be a recent Muslim convert. Cryptonio (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

<- (Unindent)

Okay. That comment right above by Crypto is over the line. What now? — The Hand That Feeds You: 20:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy, 'recent Muslim converts' was an observation that was not critical of his beliefs, but rather exemplify a common trait by recent converts of the Islam faith. In their view, they have found a reason to live their lives by, and they see that Islam is being attacked, and thus they feel as if they are being attacked as well, so they overreact against anything that might be at odds with their faiths(in this case, a stupid movie). Of course, this is not prevalent of female converts and not all male converts feel threatened by a normal 'critical' comment of their faith. Of course, being as religious as I am, knowing Islam the way I do, it was not meant as an insult to his faith, but just a simple observation, that I may have gotten wrong, but I think not. You guys jump the gun on every single comment that may comb your hair in a different way than the usual. How can some of you make judgment decisions when you seem like you can't read or understand what's in front of you. Anyways, when can I get my topic-ban so that I can move on. Cryptonio (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

So, your personal opinions excuse the personal attack of assuming the user is biased by his/her religious beliefs? And your final sentence kinda seals that you're trolling us. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It was a tactless observation. I've been blocked for implying certain users harbored antisemitic feelings that reflected their editing habits. I cannot help but believe comments such as "anyone contributing to an article attacking Judaism in that fashion would be instantly barred" are inherently antisemitic. Suggesting a wikipedia-double standard by virtue of being Judaism-related opposed to Islamic could be considered slander and perhaps even racist. Rationalizations cannot change what has been said. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan is trolling us. Who are you kidding Wikifan? you've been blocked because you don't know what to do in here, or even how to type a coherent sentence. You ain't kidding me though, acting here as if you got some sense to sell.

That was no personal attack, you are putting words on the dude's mouth. Assuming anything is not a personal attack. This is being anti-reasoning, adding that in your case, you also engaged in wasting my time. Cryptonio (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan might want to read the definition of Semitic, as it's fairly racially inclusive of a group that includes middle-eastern persons of the Jewish faith and middle-eastern persons who practice Islam as well. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion nominations of images valid within articles

Damiens.rf (talk · contribs) is on what seems to be an apparent crusade against most images I have uploaded, especially regarding fictional characters. If not that, then soap opera articles in general. As seen here, some of his deletion nominations are valid, but there other deletion nominations by him that are plain silly (in my view). Examples would be nominating images such as Famous Luke and Noah kiss.jpg, which there is significant critical commentary about and is a famous kiss, in addition to Lnlwedding.jpg (which is also quite significant, as I stated there in discussion).

Damiens.rf's sweep deletion nominations of a lot of images I have uploaded is also quite stressing to reply to one by one, and the tag alerts (before I reverted them) took up most of my talk page. Am I really expected to comment on so many image for deletion discussions within the same span of time? And is there nothing that can be done when images are wrongly nominated for deletion like this? Do I have to simply comment on it, and let the file for deletions "decider" resolve this even when the image is perfectly valid within the article? Some of these deletion nominations by Damiens.rf appear to be bad-faith editing, not good-faith. There are other editors who feel this way about some of Damiens.rf's image deletion nominations, and I hope that they comment here on this matter as well. Flyer22 (talk) 00:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked over all of the nominations, but I do have to say that this appears to be a bit POINTy and nominating this many images for deletion is disruptive as well. Rather than go Twinkle crazy, actually communicating with the uploaders would be the right way to go about this. AniMate 00:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This certainly isn't the first run-in a user has had with Damiens and his image deletion rampage. A quick view just now of his contribs is revealing. Most of the images he sends to Ffd are because they are "Decorative non-free screenshot. Helps nothing in understanding the article.". He also seems to have an agenda regarding any LGBT images which involve any sort of affection between the subjects of the images. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 00:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that a few of these images are clearly not "decorative," but illustrating key points in articles, like the Noah/Luke kiss screenshot. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Most if not all of Damiens deletion nominations are valid. It would be wise for Flyer, AniMate and Allstarecho to all learn a little something called WP:AGF. Also, Allstarecho please do not make false allegations. That's extremely disruptive. CADEN 01:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Accusing others of making false allegations, when they aren't false, is also extremely disruptive. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 02:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly! I always assume good faith, except for when edits are clearly not being made in good-faith. I stated above that some of Damiens.rf's edits are valid and that some are not. You want me to assume good faith in an editor who is experienced with Misplaced Pages's image policy and yet somehow manages to nominate all these valid images? He clearly is not reading some parts of the articles these images are next to before nominating them for deletion, or he is flat-out acting in bad-faith. Either that, or I am to believe that he does not understand when an image is serving critical commentary or is supported by the text noting that significant moment. Flyer22 (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that all of these deletion nominations appear to be questionable and possibly part of some kind of vendetta against soap opera images. If you look at the order of his nominations you'll see he went pretty much in the order that the articles appear in the soap opera section of the List of fictional supercouples with a few deviations. Also, he canceled one nomination after I explained how it was valid. My explanation would have been unnecessary had he read the article since what I said was already stated on the page. He doesn't seem to be reading the articles or even the captions to see whether or not each image adds to the article since each nom has almost identical wording and description whether they match or not.

I'm willing to agree that some of the images deserve to be nominated. I'm just not sure Damiens.rf's reasons for the mass noms aren't questionable. Rocksey (talk) 01:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Damien has indicated on his talk that he has no intention of stopping his actions or responding here. Regardless of the merits or non-merits of his actions, refusing to engage with other editors in a collegial manner when asked to do so is not the way to do things. Exxolon (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Telling someone they are "welcome to try to give me any contentful adivice", shows they have great contempt for their fellow editor and shows the user is quite arrogant (in this user's opinion). I would recommend all nominations be reversed until Damien comes to this discussion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the predictable support from Caden (cue: AniMate is being a bully), does anyone think these nominations are a good idea? And since when did Twinkle templates and copy pasting the same rationale 50 or so times replace communication? Despite one assertion above, these aren't all decorative and if he's unwilling to communicate in response to our concerns, I suggest his nominations be closed. AniMate 01:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't blame Damiens for refusing to respond here. More than likely too many editors have burned him in the past. That sort of thing occurs too often on wiki. CADEN 02:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

He has likely burned too many editors in the past himself. Flyer22 (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with AniMate, all noms should be closed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the both of you. Keep all noms. CADEN 02:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) 2 to 1 for removal of noms. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the removal as well. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 02:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do as well. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 03:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Which one of us is going to give it a go and remove the nominations or should we let an admin do that? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

An admin would likely be the one that needs to do this but they seem to be scarce judging from their minimal participation in several threads on this noticeboard that need attention. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 05:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Admins iz taking advantage of temporally localized failure of external fusion lighting function to sleep, eat, game, work (sigh, wanna go home). I recommend placing a note at the top of the section DamienRT started editing in the files for deletion page, pointing here at the discussion, but not removing or blanking or striking the nominations yet. More awakey people can review it and decide to do that or not in the morning. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have done my own suggestion re. the notification over the nominations under discussion, and am now ending my workday and going home to sleep, eat, probably not game, and not work. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

And I am only here now because of chronic insomnia, but I am in no state to deal with complex issues until I finish my sleep- assuming I get the chance. We are not automata, however good a service we try to provide. Rodhullandemu 06:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have temporarily removed his nominations from Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2009 May 18 and Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2009 May 19 and placed them on those pages respective talk pages, pending the outcome of this issue. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 09:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  Hi, Allstarecho. Please understand that this was not a wise move. The nominations themselve can make no harm by just sitting at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2009 May 18, so there's no urge to remove them. Your move, actually, hinders discussion by hiding the nominations from a broader audience. --Damiens.rf 13:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Quite amazing. It's not sufficient to highlight the problem. In fact, Damiens is being referred to as being "on a crusade", engaging in "bad-faith editing", claims of him violating WP:POINT (by a poster who hasn't reviewed the entire case no less), being on a "deletion rampage", inferring he has an LGBT agenda, having a vendetta against soap opera images, has contempt for fellow editors, and is arrogant. Has not a one of you read Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith???????? From Misplaced Pages:Five pillars: "Misplaced Pages has a code of conduct: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil...and assume good faith" The miserable conduct displayed by several editors in this section is appalling. You are blatantly violating core principles of Misplaced Pages. If you can't comment on a disagreement without casting aspersions on the editor you are in disagreement with, then don't comment. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Allstarecho

As I stated above, "I always assume good faith, except for when edits are clearly not being made in good-faith. I stated above that some of Damiens.rf's edits are valid and that some are not. You want me to assume good faith in an editor who is experienced with Misplaced Pages's image policy and yet somehow manages to nominate all these valid images? He clearly is not reading some parts of the articles these images are next to before nominating them for deletion, or he is flat-out acting in bad-faith. Either that, or I am to believe that he does not understand when an image is serving critical commentary or is supported by the text noting that significant moment."

Allstarecho is quite familiar with Damiens.rf's editing style, and has seen these types of silly deletion nominations with Damiens.rf before. After an editor does what Damiens.rf has done this many times, it is quite difficult to assume good faith in that. This editor hardly replies about his deletion nominations when challenged, such as not commenting on them in files for deletion when they are challenged. Why? Because he almost always feels that he is right regarding deletion nominations, no matter what. Is that not arrogance in cases where he is clearly wrong? What is appalling is that an editor on Misplaced Pages is allowed to get away with what Damiens.rf has been getting away with, or at least getting away with sometimes. Flyer22 (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• While an interesting response, it fails to address why it is necessary to assume bad faith in reacting to this situation. Assuming bad faith doesn't bring any greater ability to the table than assuming good faith here. Further, the insults cast at Damiens are wholly unnecessary. Lastly, this is content dispute, and not much of an incident if at all. You disagree with him on content. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• It is an incident for the reasons I stated above. You disagree? That is fine. But I cannot assume good faith in what I strongly feel is bad-faith editing. It is not that different than addressing a vandal, in my view. I am not truly calling Damiens.rf a vandal, but these types of irrational deletion nominations are very disruptive to Misplaced Pages in a way similar to the unconstructive edits of a vandal. He is experienced in nominating images for deletion and knows the rules, and yet he often goes after perfectly valid images. I am suppose to see that as a mistake, when he has done it so many times? If so, it is a costly mistake that he should have learned from by now. Flyer22 (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• And now you're referring to his edits as irrational? Flyer, cut it out. Now. He obviously does not feel they are perfectly valid or he would not have nominated them for deletion. You disagree with the validity, that's all. Your disagreement with his assessment of validity doesn't make him irrational or a bad faith editor. Assuming bad-faith is disruptive to wikipedia, not nominating something for deletion. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Some of his deletion nominations are irrational, yes. As I stated on my talk page, reporting to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is also about reporting incidents you feel are unjust and the reason for it. If one wants to call that assuming bad faith, then so be it. But I felt that what I stated was useful, as did other editors here. We are not some lynch mob going after an innocent editor here; this is an editor we feel are consistently acting in bad-faith. Removing his nominations were noted as highly inappropriate, but what I stated here was noted as valid by more than one editor. Flyer22 (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• It's not a question of us calling your actions assuming bad faith. You called your actions that yourself. Yet, you've failed to come up with any reason why assuming bad faith helps resolve this issue. Instead, we're just supposed to take it on good faith that your assumption of bad faith makes your case stronger. Do you see the hypocrisy here? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Of course it is not a question of people here calling my actions assuming bad faith. You, however, did say that my actions were assuming bad faith. It is not about my coming up with a reason that assuming bad faith solves anything. It is about my feeling that what I reported on this matter, including my feelings about it (some of which you call assuming bad faith) does help to solve this problem. And has helped. I see no hypocrisy on my part regarding this matter, and have already stated my feelings on this matter. I see no point in continuing to "debate" about it. Flyer22 (talk) 03:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have looked at some of the noms and !voted on them. It appears that Damiens mass-nominated all fair use images in certain articles except fot the first fair use image at the top of the article. Now, the articles had too many fair use images, so most images were nominated correctly, but some noms were incorrect because there was a critical commentary so they weren't only for decorative purposes. That being said, the captions in the photos didn't make explicit that the justification existed, at least one of the photos was placed very far away from its corresponding critical commentary, and the placement of the photos gave the impression that they were only decorative. Also, some of the photos are borderline, and even some of the ones with commentary could wind up deleted.

To me, it seems a typical case of several editors having diverging opinions on how many non-free images you can fit into an article with breaching wikipedia's fair use policy. (IMHO, as a personal assesment of what path of action would serve wikipedia better, editors who want to keep the photos should improve the captions and placement of the ones that have commentary about them, instead of complaining about them being nominated. Photos with no commentary should have a proper commentary added or be removed.) --Enric Naval (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Enric, thank you for taking the time to vote on some of these images. I get your point about not complaining. But, as stated above, I felt that this incident was in need of complaining about. It was not simply a matter of disagreeing with an editor, or else I would not have taken it here. Flyer22 (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Technical comment of the deletion template

Please don't put a "|" character between the caption of the photo and the deletion template because then the caption does not appear on the page, I had to look at the source code to read the captions. Maybe this a Twinkle problem? --Enric Naval (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Wholesale removals of properly formatted and not obviously disruptive file deletion nominations may be sanctioned as vandalism unless there is clear and sustained consensus for such removal. The nominations currently visible on Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2009 May 19 are not obviously disruptive because they provide deletion rationales that are not prima facie unreasonable. Whether these rationales have any merit is to be decided in the individual deletion nominations themselves, but very similar nominations could probably be merged into one discussion thread.  Sandstein  16:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC):03

You apparently are missing the discussion regarding how the noms came to be in the first place. The image rampage, and that's what it is, is currently being disputed and therefore they should be removed until the matter is settled. I'll also note that since my actions, the user has now taken to having issues with an article I wrote, no doubt on purpose. I'm just appalled to see hours later that nothing has been done regarding this wholesale image deletion spree. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 20:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous whining from editors and administrators who should know better. Damiens.rf has a long history of NFCC enforcement, which (speaking from experience) is one of the most difficult jobs on the project due to the emotional ties some editors have with their articles, and their insistence on seeing any sort of action against them as a "crusade" or POINTy behavior. Guess what: The rules apply to everyone equally. Yesterday it was TV shows and album discographies and Australian politicians. Today it's soap operas. Tomorrow it will be some other topic that has too many non-free images. To those accusing Damiens.rf of whatever it is he's being accused of: It's not about you. Stop trying to turn it into a personal battle. Show how your images meet the rules, or make them meet the rules, or shut the f up.</rant> howcheng {chat} 20:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Your "rant" was doing just fine until you said "shut the f up" and all the points you made were completely wiped out by that one sentence. Sad, you actually made a good point or two in there. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

@Howcheng and Sandstein; hear hear. Not offended by "shut the f up", though it could have been better put. --John (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. It's nice to see someone making an effort to enforce non-free content policy, and we ought to be grateful for that; at the same time, it's a shame that they are apparently not taking enough care when deciding what should be nominated for deletion. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

In that going even a little too far almost always causes a backlash like this one here, it's an area which requires great delicacy and care to avoid unnecessary confrontations, which are ultimately highly counterproductive.

In that light, I am not happy at all with the situation. The bad feelings this has caused are not helping rational NFCC work.

Recall that Betacommand eventually got shown the door. Even if the policy agrees that this type of work is required, even if someone has to do it, there are times where the person doing it is the wrong person. I don't think Damien is necessarily a permanent problem - but the initial approach was far too pushy, and there's a perfectly legitimate need that he be urged to dial it back to avoid having this sort of blowup happen again... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

@NeutralHomer: that's why it was a rant. :) howcheng {chat} 22:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Howcheng, I do not feel that anything I have stated on this matter has been ridiculous, nor was I trying to make it mainly personal. But if you come back to Misplaced Pages one day and see your talk page filled with image deletion nomination tags, some of which are valid images, you try not to be highly annoyed and feel that it may very well be about you. This was done after Damiens.rf had already nominated two images of mine, one of a non-fictional nature, a few days ago (which, yeah, he had a point in nominating those for deletion). It's difficult not to think that he has gone through your contributions snooping for images you have uploaded. In this case, I see now, however, that he was likely targeting images through List of fictional supercouples, like Rocksey noted above. The problem, despite any annoyance I have had with Damiens.rf about this matter, is that some of his image deletion nominations are plain wrong. And his doing this with a lot of images in one swoop is a problem, especially in regards to editors who have valid images up but are too "whatever" about things to speak up about the matter or do not come on Misplaced Pages as often to defend or tweak their image placement/commentary in time so that those images may be spared. I am glad that several editors here have not "shut the f up" about this matter. I agree with SheffieldSteel and Georgewilliamherbert. Flyer22 (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thus we have our policy WP:AGF. Regardless of whatever slight you might feel, you are instructed to always believe that the other editor is working in the best interests of the encyclopedia. But instead, you jumped to conclusions that he "must" be out to get you in some way. howcheng {chat} 16:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You say that we must always assume good faith. But that is not true. When an editor is acting in clear vandalism, do we assume good faith then as well? No. It is the same when an editor sees very sketchy editing, which is why they report things on this page. I just happened to state what I felt (like some other editors who report other editors here), instead of keeping it to myself when it is obvious that I am not assuming good faith. Furthermore, I already made it clear that my reporting Damiens.rf was not simply or even mainly about believing that he was "out to get me." And judging by the replies here, my report was more than valid (whether a few people are displeased with a bit of my wording in it or not). Flyer22 (talk) 03:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Howcheng, I wouldn't bother pointing Flyer22 towards WP:AGF. I've tried and failed. He wants to assume bad faith. For whatever reason, he feels this makes his position stronger. Apparently telling the world that Damiens is on a crusade, is violating WP:POINT, is irrational, and acting in bad faith adds a great deal of weight to Flyer22's position. I don't see how personally, but I'm sure there's logic in there somewhere. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I am not a "he." If you had read the beginning part of my user page addressing a little bit about me, you would know that. Second of all, I am not some child who needs a lesson in assuming good faith. I have tried to explain to you this matter and failed. I do not want to assume bad faith. When I see bad-faith editing, I call it out as that, as do many editors on Misplaced Pages. You want to assume good faith in even obvious bad-faith editing, then go right ahead. But I will never do so. Your type of approach is what would allow obvious pedophile-pushers to continue to push their pro-pedophile agenda on the Pedophilia article here and articles similar to it. Editors such as me who have seen these pedophile-pushers time and time again, or types like them, and know the signs, never assume good faith in their editing. We often report them here and get them blocked. And you know what? It is a damn good thing. We report them straight up as having an agenda, not as "Oh, maybe this editor is just extremely naive to what pedophilia is about and only seems as though he is in support of pedophilia tendencies and child molestation." Yes, my comments are often logical. You don't think so. Oh well. Flyer22 (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• If you are not a child, then certainly you can see the logic failure in assuming bad faith without any productive output of same. You want to assume bad faith without productive results. I am not particularly interested in whether you view yourself as a child or not. I am particularly interested in you stopping the assumption of bad faith when (a) it is clearly not the case and (b) it produces nothing of benefit. But, I will have to be content with being dismayed at your apparent inability to follow one of our core policies. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Support the removal of the noms -- Damien nominated an picture that I did not upload, but that I was able to come up with a pretty easy Fair Use rationale given how it was used in the article (Trevor Hoffman) -- it's the type of image (picture of a living person on a magazine cover) that is often misused, so it has had to be justified before, but that his nomination is cursory gave me pause. It looks like he hasn't looked over the discussion of the image before. Further study (such as the Time magazine Toscanini cover) suggests that he's not drawing a distinction between those images that are abusing Fair Use and those that are probably on the fair side of it, or at least need a rationale beyond, "we already know what he looks like" to justify deleting (in that article, the magazine cover was tied to a section on media reception and growing popularity, for which a magazine cover seems strongly justified, in my view). Some of these things can be debated, but it shouldn't be up to the concerned editors to determine which of a large list of deletions needs careful reviewing and which are part of a campaign to remove magazine covers. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 00:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Most nominated covers really seem to fit the bill of "decorative cover", including some overuses like almost a dozen non-free images in an infobox, or 6 or 8 non-free covers fitted in one gallery. I have been checking the articles that contain the photos, and I see that Damiens has skipped many non-free images that appeared to be justified, and, for example, if an article had two covers, he only nominated the second one.

In that particular image, I agree that it should be kept, but I would have made the same nomination as Damiens, since a) a strict interpretation of WP:NFCC#8 would have that image removed anyways b) he was nominating tens of covers that are being used in "media reception" sections for no reason at all, so it's easy that this one slipped by. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You can't "strictly interpret" NFCC #8. It is totally subjective and open enough to interpretation that it causes far more grief than necessary. It shouldn't be - as written - sufficient in and of itself to offhandedly delete an image. And as all this is going on are you folks aware of this spin on the whole thing? Wiggy! (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

User:FlyingToaster RfA

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. User has retired, plagiarism issues being worked out elsewhere. See also Misplaced Pages:BN#Flying Toaster RfA –xeno 13:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Resolved – There is no possible admin action that could deal with this, if any dealing-with is necessary. The Bureaucrats' Noticeboard would be the appropriate venue. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Taking the liberty of striking the resolved notice: RFA can't be resolved here, but potential copyvio and vandalism is appropriate for this noticeboard. Durova 23:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC) See subsection below - Copyright violation issues / evidence do belong here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC) I have a serious concern about a recent RfA of User:FlyingToaster. It only scraped through, and would have failed (by my reckoning) with only a couple of support votes. It was contentious because of concerns about content creation (or lack of it), and appears to have succeeded only because FT claimed to have written "156 articles". See some of the comments, for proof that the claim seems to have persuaded a number of supporters. I have carefully researched these articles, and I find that as well as a significant number of disambiguation pages, a large number of the 'articles' are plagiarised directly from internet sources. Most or all of the 40-odd articles on Roumanian generals are plagiarised from a single source. Many of the more substantial-seeming articles are directly plagiarised, without any modification of phrasing or order or other softening. One article was already plagiarised and was only wikified (extensively) by the FT. But why did she not spot this, given it was obviously so? This shows a serious lack of judgment in a person who is supposedly chosen for just that quality. I want to know if all of those who supported this RfA would still do so, if shown full evidence of the plagiarism, which was clearly performed in an attempt to gain credentials. If the election were rerun, would we get the same result? Is it in my power to ask for this? I have a full set of links for those who ask. Peter Damian (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Well, let me go ahead and ask, then. Can you please post the links that support this serious accusation? Also, why didn't you post them already? — Gavia immer (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC) I think this belong at WT:RFA or WP:BN. –xeno 20:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Xeno is right. If you think consensus was misjudged because the !votes in support were not as heavy as they seem, WP:BN is the place to raise the issue. This does not need any admin intervention and it thus not correct here. Regards SoWhy 20:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC) In fact, I agree with Xeno as well. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC) If we're dealing with serial plagiarism and copyright violations, this might be the appropriate venue. AniMate 20:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Agree with Xeno in terms of closing issues, but another thread here may be warranted for the plagiarism concerns alone, if Damian can substantiate the claims. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 20:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC) I think we would all be interested in seeing substantiation of these claims. If they are accurate, that would be the proper time to reconsider the RfA. ] 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC) @Animate: granted, but that issue is merely presented as a platform for the OP apparently trying to re-open a closed RFA. –xeno 20:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Tag the articles and request deletion through AfD. We can reconsider this issue after a consensus has formed on if the material is indeed plagiarized or a copyright violation. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Even if those claims were correct, this is not the correct venue because it does not require immediate administrative intervention. WP:AN would be the correct place to discuss those claims. As for the RFA, it's up to the crats whether to reconsider the closing (after some evidence was shown), so for that I think it should go to WP:BN. Regards SoWhy 20:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Apologies for not posting in the right place. I shall collect the links - though many have already been posted at Misplaced Pages Review, and put them on WP:BN. It is late here, will be back tomorrow. Peter Damian (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Copyright violation evidence and discussion I disagree with some above who feel that this is the wrong place. There are two issues at play - one, whether the RFA results were questionable, which is a BN issue, and two, whether the editor is involved in plagarism or copyright violations. Major copyright violation cases are perfectly at home here. I do not prejudge the latter issue - without the diffs and links there's no evidence on hand yet - however, if they are found to have been doing that, I believe that there's no precedent that being an admin (of any duration of experience) is any sort of insulation from being indef blocked for blatant copyright violations. I sincerely hope that this is a mistake, and that that's not the case - I always hope for an AGF success, and untangling these types of incidents is always ugly - but if Peter has evidence and believes that's what's happening then it should be brought forwards here for review. Please present it as neutrally as possible when you have a chance tomorrow and let us review the information. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Absolutely agree. It's unfortunate that Peter brought these allegations, then signed off for the evening. I'm doing some minor investigating, but have ten other things going on right now offline. AniMate 22:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Hello. Just wanted to say that I don’t mind any investigation people would like to make. I do not believe I’ve committed any plagiarism, and I endeavour to always cite sources correctly and summarize contents of external sources in my own words. I do think that I’ve become a better article writer over time, and as such my early work has various problems that my current work does not. However, I feel confident that I have not committed plagiarism. I hope that if I’m judged on my content, that it’s over the span of content and learning over time rather than on any beginner’s mistakes. Thank you, FlyingToaster 23:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Arbcom? This seems like the kind of thing to kick straight up to Arbcom. They're the ones that do the deadminning, after all. Jtrainor (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC) We're not there yet. If Peter Damian's claims show plagiarism, blocking would be more appropriate. FlyingToaster believes that they won't, though her first act as an administrator was sending out RfA thankspam that contained a copyright violatioin, so... AniMate 23:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC) That would be a punitive block rather than preventative and inappropriate. If she has been plagiarising (no confirmation yet), perhaps she didn't realise (she claims innocence) in which case she can be shown how to avoid it in future. Nev1 (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Voluntary resolution FlyingToaster will probably log on soon and confirm this; we got introduced today and have a proposal to resolve this proactively. FlyingToaster wasn't aware of a problem until very recently and is willing to fix it. Here's the suggestion: she'll start a page in user space devoted to this. People who find problems will be welcome to list them there; please be as specific as possible. Meanwhile she'll go through her mainspace contributions starting with new article creations to add quotation marks, improve paraphrasing, etc. as appropriate. She's being polite and cooperative and there doesn't appear to have been an intent to deceive, so let's give her the chance to get it right. Durova 00:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC) That's a curious definition of the word "proactive", which I'd always thought meant taking steps to avoid problems, not reacting to them when they materialise, as in this case. Let's hope that these allegations of plagiarism are unfounded, but let's also hope that if they prove to be true then FlyingToaster does the honourable thing. Frankly I have more faith in the former than the latter. Once again an administrator is smiled on for behaviour that would get an ordinary editor blocked. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC) In fairness, the allegations are of actions that happened before she became an admin and have only just come to light, so this has nothing to do with admin corruption etc. Nev1 (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC) She appeared to have been genuinely unaware of a problem before this came up, and wants to get it right. Durova 00:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Then she is evidently unaware of wikipedia's policies on plagiarism and copyright violations, and so unfit to be an administrator should these allegations be substantiated. Agreed? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Agreed, but this talk of blocks makes me uneasy as at this stage it would in no way be preventative. Nev1 (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC) I'm not proposing a block; what I'm proposing is a desysopping if these allegations are substantiated, as I'm quite certain they will be. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC) She is not unaware of Misplaced Pages's policies on plagiarism and copyright violations. It was an issue in her first RfA. (See my oppose, #27. During that RfA, she was also requested to remove a fair use image from her userspace.) I'm sorry that I did not catch that there were other issues. If any additional copyright infringements were placed after February of this year, I would find that pretty concerning, since we talked about it at length then. --Moonriddengirl 01:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC) The allegations came to light because someone took the trouble to check whether the claims made during her RfA were actually true or not. Many didn't take the same trouble, or indeed any trouble at all. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC) At DYK, we had many editors do this same thing and none of them were blocked, especially when they put a citation to the source material but didn't quote (as it showed intent to cite but was still done improperly). Ottava Rima (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC) I haven't asked for anyone to be blocked, either here or ever. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC) (ec) Agreed with Nev1: WP:COPYVIO says "Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material despite appropriate warnings may be blocked from editing by any administrator to prevent further problems. In extreme cases administrators may impose special conditions before unblocking, such as requiring assistance with cleanup by disclosing which sources were used." She has already acknowledged the problems and agreed to help with cleanup, so a block would do nothing other than delay resolution. If someone wants to start a conduct RfC in addition, that might be feasible. Although I'm a hardliner on plagiarism (see the proposal talk page; I tried to get it upgraded to guideline recently) it seems right to give her a chance before taking things to the next step: she's being receptive to feedback etc. Durova 01:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Good, but that would only be an appropriate resolution for an ordinary editor, not for a newly promoted administrator who is charged with enforcing rules with which she is so obviously unfamiliar. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC) I wouldn't use the word "obviously" myself, since no evidence has been presented. If some articles are copyright violations tag as prods speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G12, if plagiarised from a single source, send to AfD. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC) We don't prod copyright violations. We handle them as per WP:CP. --Moonriddengirl 01:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Sorry, was confusing prods with speedys. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC) She shouldn't be blocked, as this doesn't appear to be malicious, and I'm fairly certain I'm one of the first people mentioning this as a possibility. As for a desysop, there aren't really many options. This coupled with her copyright violating thankspam, would make a voluntary resignation common sense, but we can't force her to resign. An RfC seems like a fine idea, but nothing said there would be binding. Really, this is just embarrassing all around and there really should be a binding process. AniMate 01:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Can we just drop this blocking thing? I've never suggested she should be blocked, just desysopped. After all, it's no big deal, right? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC) To confirm this, Durova and I spoke and she was very helpful on this issue. There are several actions I will take to improve my created articles which have raised concerns and to better the sourcing and quality of the summaries of sourced content. As Durova said, I plan to go through each article with a fine tooth comb and further improve them, soliciting feedback along the way and charting the progress as I do so on a posted subpage. Comments from people who find problems will be gladly incorporated via this subpage. I'm confident that through this effort any concerns will be laid to rest. FlyingToaster 01:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Though this is obviously jumping the gun somewhat, what if concerns are not laid to rest? I'm not much of a WR reader, but the thread on this over there points me to the article you started on Homeokinetics, and I can't say I like what I see there in terms of how you used your first source. If there are other problems along these lines, I have a feeling that LessHeard vanU 2 may seem all too apropos. Like I said I'm somewhat jumping the gun since we'll need to look more closely at your article work and I recognize that and am very much open to the possibility that we are talking about a couple of isolated incidents, but there's cause for real concern at that article in terms of some pretty basic copyright stuff. Regardless of how this plays out, rather than simply being "confident" that any concerns will be addressed, I hope you are open to the possibility that that will not happen and that you will have to proceed accordingly. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC) It's fairly obvious that a conduct RfC and possible arbitration would happen quickly if she misused the tools in this area. So how about a voluntary pledge from FlyingToaster to avoid using admin ops on copyright issues until she's on a firmer footing with regard to that? Durova 04:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC) As I'm already only planning to use admin tools in areas where I feel I have a thorough understanding and great deal of experience, I was already not planning to be involved in copyright issues (except for speedy deletion of blatant copyright violations) for a very long while, if ever. I'm happy to make this pledge official and state it here. FlyingToaster 05:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC) (ec with FlyingToaster, replying to Durova here) Certainly that's a very reasonable suggestion, but I take a longer view of this, and my concern here is not necessarily that FlyingToaster will somehow misuse the tools in the area of copyright (in fact that strikes me as unlikely). We are writing an encyclopedia, and admins are, or should be, those editors whom we deem especially familiar with the general way in which we go about doing that. While we can all acknowledge that admins are in a sense just "janitors," they are also supposedly expert Wikipedians who have special privileges as a result, and of course are often described as such in the press. Ultimately we want to be just as, if not more, respected as Britannica and the like (though we have some problems in that regard, obviously). In that context it strikes me as exceedingly, exceedingly problematic for us to say "this is one of our most expert editors and hence an admin" and then also have to admit that said editor seems to have some issues with copyright (and by extension plagiarism) that would cause me to take one of my undergraduate history students to the woodshed. As I said above I still need more information on this situation and would like to see more detailed explanations from FlyingToaster, but my initial impression here is not a good one (incidentally I've cut Homeokinetics, a topic about which I know absolutely nothing, down to one sentence until we can figure out how to rewrite it, see here for the previous version where there is perhaps some stuff that is salvageable). I should mention that I understand and fully believe that there was nothing nefarious or intentionally bad in what FlyingToaster did here, but that when it comes to plagiarism, here on Misplaced Pages or anywhere else, that absolutely does not matter in the slightest (and ultimately plagiarism is what we are talking about, compare for example "Homeokinetics attempts to treat all complex systems equally, animate and inanimate, providing them with a common viewpoint" in our article with "Homeokinetics treats all complex systems on an equal footing, animate and inanimate, providing them with a common viewpoint" in the source). This is serious stuff, and "sorry, I didn't know about that, I'll work on it" does not remotely cut it as an excuse for a Wikpiedia administrator. Given what it is we are doing here, I don't see how anyone could seriously suggest otherwise. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC) The entire result of the RFA was influence by her supporters hectoring (and continuing to do so) the opposition about her prolific and amazing content creation - it seems "amazing" is the word. She should do the honourable thing and resign, and use the time to sort out these pages. This is exactly what happens, when people who know nothing of Misplaced Pages, pop across from IRC wanting to be Admins - picking up the 100 automatic IRC votes along the way. Giano (talk) 06:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC) I think we should leave the "hectoring" and IRC stuff to the side since rehashing the particulars of the RfA probably isn't going to help anything at this point. I quite dislike IRC and never have (and never would) use it, but I think the real issue here is with the articles created. I dug into a few additional article contributions from FlyingToaster and immediately found more copyvio problems which I laid out on her talk page here, and where I also asked for a more detailed response from FT. We obviously can't re-run the RfA, but in my view it's hard to escape the conclusion that the result would have been different had these issues been brought to the fore earlier, and if other editors agree with me in that respect I hope FlyingToaster will think seriously on what that means for her status as an admin. Again as the current LessHeard RFA makes clear, we don't really have a good way to deal with situations like this one except to hope that the admin in question takes the opinions of others on board. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC) WP:BN I have raised it here. I am less concerned with copyvio than with the fact that the candidate in an RfA made a claim about '156 articles' created, when over 40 were plagiarised, and most of the rest were stubs or DABs. Peter Damian (talk) 06:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC) I'm concerned that many people here seem to be taking the insinuation by Flying_Toaster that it was accidental at face value. You don't plagiarize 40 different things by accident. Jtrainor (talk) 08:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC) I think the only possible counterargument to your point Jtrainor (assuming we are talking about 40 different articles, and that's plausible since 4 of 5 articles I randomly looked at had evidence of plagiarism and/or ridiculously awful sourcing), is basically the I-didn't-know-that-was--considered-plagiarism defense. And my response to that is that such a defense just doesn't cut it—Misplaced Pages administrators must know basic rules about plagiarism, and they don't (or ought not) get to bone up on them after becoming an admin. Indeed that should probably be a standard RfA question, seeing as understanding how to avoid plagiarizing sources ultimately has a lot more to do with writing a quality encyclopedia than does a question about an A7 speedy candidate (believe it or not). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC) If a user accidentally plagiarizes, thats fine. If he or she does it again... we should warn them. If someone gets the bit and a slew of copyright-vios comes to light... we should probably rethink giving them administrator status. If their first act as an administrator is to send thankspam that contains a copyright violation... Is this really the kind of user we are promoting? AniMate 08:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC) I'll just be the meanie here and say "shame on all of those that didn't actually look into the user's edit history but instead cast blind supports!". With that said, it only further proves my opinion that RfA is a joke and when you add it to Arbcom and Bureaucrats, it makes for one hell of a script for The Original Kings of Comedy Part 2. Unproductive, I know. Or is it? ;] - ALLST✰R▼ wuz here @ 10:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC) I'm deeply offended by that statement; I like to think that we bureaucrats could do our own tour without ArbCom or RfA in general tagging along. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC) RFA has become a social networking process that bestows admin-for-life status on folks who, charitably, don't have the tools or interests to evaluate encyclopedic content. Good luck changing it now, though.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC) In case anyone is wondering, this is at least the second time a plagiarist has passed RFA. Dragons flight (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC) WP:PLAGIARISM In case anyone's missed it, WP:PLAGIARISM was still a proposal while all this unfolded. What we now have is a drive to desysop someone over a proposal: to parse FlyingToaster's mistakes as copyvio would be a close call; the errors were more clearly plagiarism. Within the last month an RfC was run on the proposal, with 26 editors favoring promotion to guideline and 6 opposing. The current situation makes it clear that a guideline really is necessary. So per consensus, plagiarism is upgraded to guideline. Durova 15:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC) I think the status of the PLAGIARISM page at any given point is largely irrelevant; logic dictates that plagiarism is a Bad Thing, and calls for FT's bit over the affair is because it shows exceedingly poor judgement on FT's part, rather than an actual violation of any one guideline or proposed guideline. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Well, we can agree this episode demonstrates that WP:PLAGIARISM has the force of a guideline. So it ought to be formally designated as one. Durova 16:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC) That we agree on. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Thanks to Durova for pointing this out and upgrading that to a guideline, though at a quick glance I already see that the section "Definitions of plagiarism" is quite problematic. We need to be a lot more direct and specific than that if we want to avoid problems here, and our definitions need to significantly conform to real-world definitions (excepting the bit about using free content, which is totally fine) in order to maintain our credibility as a reliable encyclopedia. That section as written would not have necessarily prevented FlyingToaster's problems because it does not explain that changing a couple of words in a sentence and citing your source does not magically get you off the hook for plagiarism (I think there's case law we can cite to make that point). At some point I'll be over there to complain about that though it may take me awhile. And I also very much agree with EVula that the fact that this was only a proposed guideline previously is not really relevant to the FT situation. Someone who plagiarized, even if it's just because they did not understand they were doing so, should not be an administrator on an encyclopedia project. I think that's pretty cut and dried. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Please do improve it. Am doing minimal alterations to the text in order to avoid possible accusations of ownership, but there are definitely places where it could be clearer and better. Durova 19:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Question Given FT clearly seemed to either know little or not care about plagiarism at the time, then it raises questions as to FT's knowledge of other areas, does it not? It also shows the RfA procedure has become a social networking joke... nobody spotted this ahead of time! I fail to see that this would not have generated more oppose "votes" at the time, strengthening the argument against. FT should be deadminned and stand again for RfA now the full facts are available. Minkythecat (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC) The problem is that nobody cared. From what i can see of toaster, having looked into the situation, i wouldn't have supported the RFA had i known/been paying attention. But so what? There are probably lots of admins that i or you wouldn't have supported -- and in many cases, enough editors would have supported so that it would have passed whatever you or i thought. The culture has evolved to reward social networking and the making of friends (inevitable in an open system in which, neccessarily, everyone has a right to express their opinion -- any closed system i could think of would be worse). As the culture and policies stand, i see no grounds on which someone could be desysoped for having shown bad judgement prior to becoming an admin (and we have both lots of admins who created tons of mischief back in the day who eventually reformed and became able admins, and other admins who were model editors prior to passing RfA who became problem editors since). My proposal? We clean up whatever needs cleaning up that has come to light, and assume toaster is a good admin until problems do (or do not) crop up with her as an admin, and then deal with those accordingly.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Which would be fine if FT came out and stated, "yes, I plagiarised. I was wrong to do so". Yes, you're perfectly correct in that RfA has become a social networking event. I just find it incredibly... interesting... if you compare this RfA, where a plagiarising contributor gains the bit, and the Everyking V RfA, where one particular opposer badgered about off wiki events with opposition based around that and one "bad" answer - an honest answer rather than bs to get the bit - where the view was "no". There's a clear problem especially since plagiarism damages wiki more! I'd at least respect FT if they resigned the bit and restood for RfA immediately, given the whole evidence will be available for supporters and opposers to make a more informed decision. Minkythecat (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC) I'd say that potentially misunderstanding copyright on a basic level is a problem that needs dealing with. Nev1 (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC) I don't disagree, but it would have to be ongoing misunderstanding. Now, i understand she recently made an image copyvio mistake, which was caught, she was admonished, and should be well aware of why that was problematic. If it happens again (and again, and again) there might be a case to answer. But at the moment, we have a problem with past actions (some made long, long ago). If admins' pre-admin screwups become fair game, get ready for another Night of the Long Knives.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Well, then, with all due respect, you're highlighting a reason for the RfA to be revisited. Plagiarism occured not just recently, add in the recent image copyvio. There is thus evidence that from day one until recently, FT has (charitably) completely misunderstood the plagiarism / copyright issues with regards to this wiki. Which obviously leads to credibility questions with regard to suitability for the bit. Plagiarism / copyright obviously has cropped up. What other areas does this new admin not grasp? BLP et al? Without a new RfA, people cannot effectively judge... any admin actions FT takes will obviously be questioned. Let's remove any doubt, any finger pointing, "re-run" the RfA. Minkythecat (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC) I don't disagree that these are legitimate areas of concern and were i king of wikipedia, i would probably have a vareity of litmus tests built around them. But i'm not king, nor are you. What you're proposing is a rather major change in the way this open, inclusive, consensus-based project works. Nothing wrong with that. But you're not going to effect change here. Your first step would be to construct a proposal for a system that would work better (as frustrated as i am with the current system, i personally don't have any ideas for a better system at this point, and certainly not ideas for one that would garner sufficient community wide support to pass). That's the sisyphean task you'll have to take on if you want to change the RfA process.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC) As the editor who raised the "one question" which torpedoed Everyking's last RfA, I actually think it's a perfect example of a RfA for an unsuitable candidate (he openly disavows the very concept of WP:CON, for crying out loud) which would have breezed through almost unopposed if that issue hadn't been brought up. Sometimes RfAs fail for things which don't really matter. Sometimes they fail for a good reason. Very often they pass simply because your average RfA if far more about who you know than what you've done. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Everyking's RFA failed because he was honest. If Everyking would have lied about his thoughts on that particular question, his RFA would have passed. See Wizardman's support (support no. 86), and Rootology's comment below the support. AdjustShift (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC) That he'd have passed by lying is probably true, but that's just further reinforcement of the sentiment behind this whole thread. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC) See WP:BANG. They are encouraging people to build articles off teh corresponding thing in Banglapedia. I think paraphrasing is more widespread than people think. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Paraphrasing: also meaning but a 4ricken word in ur own words. So much clearer, now. --auburnpilot talk 23:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC) <cough> Has the alleged evidence been posted anywhere or is this allegation still a hypothetical? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Rirunmot disruption/incivility/sockpuppeting

John Sloan @ 11:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

A few days ago an IP editor left a !vote at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Oguzhan Özyakup that used very similar wording to User:Rirunmot (diffs: & ). Suspecting this to be an attempt at !vote stacking, I left Rirunmot a message about it on his talk page (). He responded tonight () claiming that I was mistaken. I then left him a message providing evidence for my suspicion (). He then responded on my talk page using multiple question marks and an enlarged header asking me to perform an IP check (). I asked him to stop using multiple question marks and enlarged headers, whilst telling him that only checkusers could perform an IP check (). To which he responded with this rather uncivil message that continued to use the enlarged header (). At this point, I decided that the issue was dealt with and I had no wish to continue the discussion. I asked him to refrain from posting anymore messages on my talk page (). He did however post again on my talk page () and when I removed his comment, he quickly undid my removal () and proceeded to use a sockpuppet to leave yet another comment on my talk page (). Whilst this is being investigated, could a sysop please protect my talk page? Thanks John Sloan @ 00:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

User:John Sloan disruption+harrassement+wrong accusation

I found this message in my discussion page:

"...To user Rirunmot" Please don't use your IP to !vote stack at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Oguzhan Özyakup. It is considered very disruptive to the AfD process. Thank you John Sloan "..

As an unknown IP ( 88.254.131.185 ) used some words similar (or copied!) from the discussion page; it was enough to this user for addressing accusation of "disuptive behaviour".!

Please clear this problem with that IP; Really and sincerely, I have nothing to do with it..

If this user wants his page not to be edited this way or that, at least he can apologize for accusating innocent people (act which is a real and undiscussable INCIVILITY) Rirunmot (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC).

In my opinion, John Sloan should not have removed the IP's vote from the AfD as he did here. (An exception could be votes that are obviously from banned editors, which this is not). Tagging with {{subst:spa}} is often done. It is assumed that the closing admin will be able to adjust the AfD results as appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

So what about the harassment on my talk page then!? He used two accounts to do it after I asked him not to! Rirunmotand Quedorme. John Sloan @ 11:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

What John Sloan should not have done is the Wrong Accusation ! He MUST apologize for that (instead of deviating the problem and trying to show it is a problem of writing style on his talk page or so..).... Rirunmot (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The way you handled the situation was completely unacceptable. Not only did you edit war at the user's talk page, but you used both this and your second account. This is not a legitimate use of a second account, and that will remain blocked; any further abuse will lead to this account also being temporarily blocked. Nonetheless, while I can see why John presumed that the IP was also you given the similarity of your comments, it is possible that the IP presumed that this was the standard way of !voting keep. The IP should be tagged with an {{SPA}}. – Toon 11:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

So is this resolved now? If Rirunmot comes back to my talk to continue trolling, should I bring it back here or just leave a note on Toons or another sysops talk page? John Sloan @ 13:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, now everything is OK!. Everyone now is aware about wrong accusations. John Sloan talk page is safe and quite as long as he will be prudent while investigating, thanks to Toon05 and EdJohnston. Rirunmot (talk) 08:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hate to knock you off your high horse Rirunmot, but no ones actually said my accusation was wrong. They're just saying I should have looked into both possibilities. In any case, i'm marking this as resolved now so we can all get on with our lives and our task here. (Y'know building and maintaining an encyclopedia.. John Sloan @ 11:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

wiki-hounding continues

By turning a blind eye to the evidence and letting FyzixFighter off the hook, you have off course given him the green light to continue his activities. He has just reverted a fully sourced edit at 'centrifugal force' and replaced it with the incoherent mess that existed in its place. There was a chance that the edit war on centrifugal force could have been over, but it is obvious that certain persons are determined to keep it going. As before, FyzixFighter's intervention was pointless and it was motivated by sheer opportunism. David Tombe (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If the IP who just reverted FyzixFighter's edits was you, I suggest you acknowledge it. Since nobody else has ever supported you in your quixotic struggles, the probability seems high. Looie496 (talk) 01:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Looie496, That was not my reversion. You really ought to be more concerned about why FyzixFighter made his reversion. David Tombe (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so basically you are in an edit war with this user right? And you think that by coming here and posting about their "malicious" activities, we will automatically take your side and block the other user? C.U.T.K.D 08:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No. I'm in an edit discussion with other users. FyzixFighter does not edit on 'centrifugal force' in his own right. He only comes to that page to revert my edits. Last year I tried to insert what was essentially equation 3-12 from Herbert Goldstein's 'Classical mechanics' into the centrifugal force page. It resulted in FyzixFighter going to the administrator's notice board and reporting me for disruptive editing. That brought me to attention in a bad light and it indirectly led to me getting an unnecessary block record. I was wrongly accused of trying to impose a controversial point of view. This accusation came from elements who clearly had no knowlegde of the topic.

My suggestion is that you fully investigate this issue. I have done alot of research in certain areas of physics and I have been going around making tricky subjects easier to read by emphasizing the unifying features. FyzixFighter follows me around and tramples over those edits. You only need to examine FyzixFighter's latest reversion to see that he is engaging in wiki-hounding. There was progress being made to end the edit war on centrifugal force but FyzixFighter has destroyed that progress by bringing it down once again to a revert war. You gave him the green light to do so because you ignored the evidence that was presented last week when the first complaint was made.

I don't know who this guy FyzixFighter is. He appears to have an ability in physics, but for some reason he is determined to follow me around and undermine my attempts to make physics articles easier to understand for the lay reader. Just take a look at that latest edit of mine which he reverted. I carefully described what Newton's reactive centrifugal force is, giving direct access to two references, and pointing out how attitudes had been changing. FyzixFighter comes in and restores in incoherent and factually wrong jumble that know reader could follow. That is what you need to investigate. David Tombe (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have informed FyzixFighter of this thread, so that he will have the opportunity to reply. Cardamon (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You guys are obviously biased as you continue to believe that you have some access to what the truth is, although you dont have any real facts to back up your positions. You need to realise that you don't have the absolute truth and that Mr Tombe does have a valid position that needs expression here. I am not a sock puppet and you need to stop falsely accusing Mr Tombe. You guys are an annoying group of poorly informed pseudo-experts. I suggest you actually learn what you are talking about before you delete edits of people who obviously are better informed than you are. This wikipedia continues to publish poorly researched articles that seem to be biased and not very scholarly. You eed too correct this or realise that the public perception that wikipedia is not an accurate and valid source of knowledge is going to continue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.47.152 (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2009

Anonymous 72.64.47.152, most of the administrators reading this will not be physicists. If I am correct, I think the point that you are making relates to the unexplainably high degree of trust which they put in FyzixFighter's knowledge of physics. It would certainly seem that way based on what we have read from those few administrators that have stepped forward to speak. But there are a few hundred more who may have read this thread. If they are genuinely interested in making the physics articles more accessible to the reader, then I'm sure that some of them will already be checking through all the reversions to try and establish why this guy FyzixFighter is so determined to undermine all my attempts which are aimed at clarifying difficult subjects in physics. FyzixFighter's most recent reversion would be the one to start on. I suspect that this will all come out in the wash eventually. David Tombe (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Cardamon for letting me know about the thread. I'm not certain what kind of reply though would benefit the discussion. The edit that seems to have precipitated it this time is this one:

At least three other editors agree with the reversion:

• User:Brews ohare - who had earlier made the same revert
• User:Wolfkeeper -
• User:Wilhelm meis -

I reverted for pretty much the same reason that Brews stated in the edit summary and Wilhelm's comments on his talk page. The preferred text is also consistent with the various sources provided.

As for some of the other accusations:

• The first noticeboard encounter David refers to can be found here. The report was intended to be less about the edit debates, and more about David's behavior of reverting random, unrelated edits of editors with whom he had a disagreement.
• The reverts from last week or so that David got up in arms about ( and ) were done because the text David was inserting did not match the source he provided. When I brought the specific statements not supported by the source, David admitted that he had provided the wrong source but still maintained the accusation that I was removing sourced material.

Like I said before, I'm not certain what kind of reply would benefit this discussion. If any of the interested admins have any specific queries, let me know and I'll respond as best I can. Likewise, if any of the above is more detrimental than beneficial to the discussion, let me know and I'll redact it. --FyzixFighter (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

FyzixFighter, You only come to physics articles to revert my edits. Your first complaint against me last year was specious because you were insinuating that I was trying to introduce controversial original research into the article, and everybody believed you. But we have all since seen that equation 3-12 in Goldstein's 'Classical Mecahnics' presents a perfectly legitimate approach to centrifugal force, and that is the approach that I was pushing. Few of you, if any, knew about that approach till I brought it to your attention. And your latest reversion is contrary to what it says about reactive centrifugal force in the 1961 edition of Nelkon & Parker when they were still teaching that approach. How about more discussion on the talk pages before you move in for your reverts? You're obviously capable enough of understanding these issues. But it seems that you are learning as you are going along and then digging in to your previous preconceptions. David Tombe (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If FyzixFighter has been "hounding" David, then so have I. With as much patience as I can muster, I explain to him how he is wedged (most recently here and here). But this has been going on for many months, and there's little chance that it will be resolved, as David has proven himself incapable of understanding mathematical physics, logic, history, or verifiability. He is simply married to an equation and a mysterious interpretation of what it means. The equation is good; the interpretation is not. He is the dog in this fight. Dicklyon (talk) 04:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes Dick, the equation is good. And I ended up with a block record for trying to insert that equation. The equation shows that centrifugal force is an outward radial expansion which arises as a result of absolute rotation. What other interpretation could anybody possibly put on it? See my latest reply to Brews on the talk page of centrifugal force.

The issue on this thread is that FyzixFighter has been following me around over a number of physics articles in which he is never involved in the debate to begin with. He only reluctantly gets involved in the debate after he has done a reversion. FyzixFighter's reversions have usually exposed the fact that he didn't have very much knowledge of the issue to begin with. His arguments above are totally specious. He claims that he made one of his reversions because my entry wasn't fully backed up by the source. If he had understood the topic, he would have realized that the entry was correct, and if he was really that concerned, he could simply have drawn my attention to the fact that I needed a better source (which I did in fact have, and have since put in). FyzixFighter simply reverted the entire edit. The evidence that he is wiki-hounding is overwhelming. It's only now a matter of whether or not there are any administrators who are will to invesigate the issue fully. David Tombe (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Suspicion of another sock puppet involving user Caden

There is another brand new user, Uikopdep (talk · contribs), whose account was created today (23:53, 20 May 2009). Just three minutes after the account was created, this user tries to sing the praises of Caden’s body of work, while condemning all of those who have distasteful dealings with him. Maybe it’s just me, but this sounds like déjà vu all over again with the sock puppet from yesterday, Corpiestre (talk · contribs). No brand new user in the right frame of mind will just create a new account on here, and immediately comes to the defense of a user guilty of many violations. Clearly, there is motive involved here. Anybody wants to chime in on this. It would be greatly appreciated. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Already blocked and has been reported here. —Travis 00:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Corpiestre was a sock of the long-term abuser User:Pioneercourthouse, so it's reasonable to expect that this one might be likewise. Baseball Bugs carrots 00:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Except he's from a different harassment sockfarm, as it turns out. See below. Baseball Bugs carrots 04:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not "resolved". The SPI report basically says there's no way to stop these characters in the future other than whack-a-mole. Baseball Bugs carrots 11:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Let's make this offical already

Pioneercourthouse (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks _suspected | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE)

Per all the socking, not to mention the harassment of other users, and the attempt to get other users banned through socking to make it look like PCH is them, I believe it is time to formally ban User:Pioneercourthouse from wikipedia. Opinions?— Dædαlus 02:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Could there seriously be any more links in that template? :p Nakon 02:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's {{Usercheck-full}}, so I doubt it. Besides that, I wanted to make sure all available information was available on this user for others. — Dædαlus 02:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Except that it doesn't do that, it hides information through volume, and is kinda a mess. Support the community ban, btw, but seriously, we need a discussion about what to do with that template, too. --M 03:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support- Caden is...prickly, but this ridiculousness only serves to make him look undeservedly bad. //roux   02:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but you know this has roughly nothing to do with Caden, in the fact that Caden was almost blocked because a sock was attempting to impersonate him.— Dædαlus 03:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That is precisely my point. //roux   05:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I guess I misread then. My bad.— Dædαlus 05:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Obviously. Pioneercourthouse has been a royal pain since October of 2006, when he first started posting some uncited nonsense about the homeless in Pioneer Courthouse Square. No amount of reasoning with him would get through his thick skull. Until now, at least far as we know, that one article was the extent of his activities. Now he seems to be branching into outright harassment. He's already had more socks than I can count. If no ban was sought before, it's probably that he had confined himself to that one article. Because of him, the PCHS article is permanently protected. It's hard to imagine why such a mundane article would require permanent protection, but those of you who know the history know why. It's time to bring the hammer down on that character. Baseball Bugs carrots 03:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And it turns out that tonight's sock Uikopdep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was actually a sock of Fondesep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and presumably Horneldinkrag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), rather than last night's sock Corpiestre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was a sock of Pioneercourthouse. So now we have at least two of these characters running around, as well as the Axmann8 impostor from a month ago, who might or might not be one of these two. Baseball Bugs carrots 04:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Bugs isn't lying. Pioneercourthouse creates more socks than a Hanes factory, the amount of time that has been spent on page protection, whack-a-mole at checkusers, and so on is amazing. tedder (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support permanent community ban for Pioneercourthouse. The part that really is outrageous is impersonating another user and getting them in trouble. — Becksguy (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

*Oppose. I would be inclined to AGF here, and give them one more chance, as long as it is shown to them just how serious their situation is. If they then choose to abuse our trust, ban them for all eternity. C.U.T.K.D 08:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to say that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. This user spends his free time trying to get others blocked by trying to make others think his socks are the socks of others.— Dædαlus 08:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I accept that I cannot produce an expert opinion on this matter, my thoughts are as follows. If this user has been threatened with a community ban before, yet continued disruption, endorse ban. Otherwise endorse last chance saloon. C.U.T.K.D 08:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No, this user has been indefinitely blocked for continued disruption and harassment. I immediately lose any good faith with users who sock to continue to harass others. I suggest you actually read up on all relevant material before you post your opinion.— Dædαlus 08:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Support C.U.T.K.D 09:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The SPI report is not at all encouraging. Baseball Bugs carrots 11:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced that these aren't all emanating from a single user, just maybe using PC's in sufficiently different places that they look like different users. What's discouraging is checkusers' apparent unwillingness to look outside the box on cases like this and also the Axmann8 thing from last month. What's encouraging is that these attempts to implicate another user have gained higher visibility due to increasing attempts at it. So given the link of one of them to Pioneercourthouse, the next time one appears, we can probably take it straight to WP:AIV instead of wasting time setting up tedious and futile SPI's. Just say "single purpose, harassment-only account, and probable sock of the banned user Pioneercourthouse." If that happens enough, maybe the guy will figure the game is up and will go away for awhile. Baseball Bugs carrots 12:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe it's beyond our power to control this user's behavior or persuade him/her to cease the disruption. What is within our power is to limit the amount of time (read: Misplaced Pages's precious volunteer resources) we spend on the issue. In this particular user's case, there is a clear pattern of disruptive behavior, accompanied by zero constructive contribution to the encyclopedia or to the community. I fully support a community ban, because I believe it will enable us to make quicker, less resource-intensive decisions if and when there are future violations. -Pete (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked another one, seemed like WP:DUCK, was responding to report from WP:AIV: account Explainingpioneer (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support permanent community ban. Seems like this sockmaster/block evasion user has exhausted the community's patience. Cirt (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support permanent community ban. This person has cost somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 to 200 hours time resulting in a net project value of zero. That's enough to have made significant improvements to dozens of articles, even increase a hand full to featured. What a waste.  :-( —EncMstr (talk) 23:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• I support a community ban for pioneercourthouse. I haven't seen anything productive from this user in a very very long time, and only a lot of headache. - Philippe 20:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

*Oppose per WP:DENY. By staging a discussion like this to "ban" them we are just giving the user attention. The user is as banned as can be de facto. What needs to be done is fairly straightforward: whenever they show up, just revert, block and ignore them. They'll get tired of it. Knight-Lord of the Infernal Penguins 21:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• • He's been at it since October of 2006 and hasn't tired of it yet. The one thing a ban would do is possibly result in a swifter block on subsequent attempts. Although we did get this one blocked pretty fast as it was. Baseball Bugs carrots 21:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I'll strike out the oppose !vote, however I don't really see why discussion has to continue. As I said before, the user is as banned as can be. No admin is going to unblock them, and I doubt anybody would object if you were to put the template on their userpage. Knight-Lord of the Infernal Penguins 21:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
      • And on that note, I put the little template on their page. Consider it de jure now. Knight-Lord of the Infernal Penguins 21:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

George Pelltier

George Pelltier (talk · contribs) Currently disrupting Thirteen (House) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) et al (e.g. Allison Cameron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and previously Chris Taub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Lawrence Kutner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) by adding frivolous merge tags to pages. Personal attack after final warning. Sceptre 06:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have notified the editor concerned of this thread. Mfield (Oi!) 07:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That last link you posted was not a personal attack as far as I can see, it was fairly civil if anything. It is my opinion that this thread was started in bad faith. C.U.T.K.D 08:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but accusing an editor of having a mental illness is a personal attack. Sceptre 18:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What makes these proposals frivolous? Sceptre, please explain I think this is a stronger violation by Sceptre of AGF than it is of George Pelltier violating NPA. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Sceptre, please try to adhere to policy in future. Please AGF rather than start attack threads such as this one. C.U.T.K.D 06:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer it if you came out and said that you didn't like me, instead of disagreeing with any threads I start with arguments that are patently false. Sceptre 12:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, adding large maintenance tags to GAs and FAs without a very good reason is purely disruptive. Stuff like NPOV, NOR, in-universe/out-of-universe, plot summaries, sourcing and notability are effectively checked during Good Article reviews (and, by extension, FA candidacies). The only reason to tag these articles is if their quality has significantly decreased. In the case of Thirteen (House) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), it hasn't. I can't think of any FAs or GAs that were deleted or merged while they were FAs/GAs. Regarding the other articles, Allison Cameron (House) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is notable because of the fan reaction to the lack of the character in season 4 prompted more screen time in season 5; and Lawrence Kutner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is notable because the character was killed off so Penn could join the Obama administration, and that death episode was massively reviewed the day after transmission. Sceptre 12:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

NCNOLT AfD

Could someone please have a look at this afd? It could use a set of eyes as to user conduct, and being involved, I don't wish to inflame the situation by attempting to address the conduct of others. Thanks in advance. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 17:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Warning Chuck. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

His repeated asumptions of bad faith and attempts to subvert the Afd process are not helpful. Does this edit of his count as a legal threat? The edit was made after you warned him. Edward321 (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Technically, no, but it's still aiming at a chilling effect. He's currently blocked over a 3RR violation.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Problematic user

This guy Hrhadam (talk · contribs) is not behaving. For some reason he blanked a legitimate reference I added to an article without any explanation , he has an attack posted at the top of his own talk page disparaging people who post there , he insists on adding musical genres to various britpop articles and promises to revert war when they're removed . I don't know what his deal is. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll give him a stern talking to :) C.U.T.K.D 06:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Bishonen using status as admin to control others while violating our civility policy

{{unresolved|Not blockable without warnings. This belongs at WP:WQA. Please take it there.}} Gwen Gale (talk) 01:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Unresolving - what and get accused of forum shopping? No thanks - discussion is ongoing, archiving this thread is completely inappropriate and gives the impression admins are trying to bury the issue or shunt it onto another lower profile/traffic board. Exxolon (talk) 02:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not forum shopping if the thread has been closed with a note to take it to WP:WQA, where this belongs. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:WQA is in it's own words "non-binding". Also this forum is appropiate for "...incidents that may require administrator intervention" - which is what is required here. Exxolon (talk) 02:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Please see this diff, and I quote: Yes, I do, you little shit. Don't interfere with Giano's page. Now get lost. Shoo! Last time I checked, Retired tags are given to those users who have self-identified as retired. So Giano might come back? The user is still retired, and that tag is not any means of insult to them, it is a notice to others that weren't involved in the matter that the user is gone for the time being. Last time I checked, admin status is to prevent disruption in matters you are not involved with, and further, in matters that are seriously disruptive, it isn't some steel toe you can stick in a matter you're personally involved with a use to push around and be rude to others.

True, wikipedia is a private website, but what goes on here, not mentioning matters of oversight of course, is anyone's business. If the matter is private, then make it private, instead of putting it on an open noticeboard. Last time I checked, no one but Bish appointed themselves to be the controller of Giano's user and user talk page, as also noted when they removed an arbcom notice, seen here.

What admin action do I want? Not much, if anything, I would like someone to remind Bish that they can't use their admin status to push those they don't like around, and be uncivil to them without consequence. I may not not been deeply involved in this matter like everyone here, mainly because I chose to stay away from it, but I am not going to sit here and let someone treat me like shit over such a small matter like a retired tag.— Dædαlus 21:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

<cough> Where would you like the steel toe? Bishonen | talk 22:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC).>

• Completely unacceptable. Any normal editor would have been blocked immediately for that. Any bets on Bish being blocked? I didn't think so. //roux   21:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure I'm just missing it, but can you point me to where admin status came into play? Nathan 21:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, when Bish told me what to do, in regards to the template. Yes I do control something, don't do it again? It may not be visible, but if you take the time to look, you will see the or else threat.— Dædαlus 22:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with admin status, it's just plain rude. Nothing will happen though. Admins are generally excempt from policies. Majorly talk 22:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you stop saying this? It's clearly not true. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It clearly is true, to anyone with eyes to see it. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Bishonen was just blocked, by Jimbo himself. Both sides in the spat got warnings from several arbcom members. I am sure that had they continued and Jimbo not stepped in, someone else would have.

I am reluctant to say "nobody is above the rules" - because we have people who have abused Misplaced Pages in attempts to fight personal or ideological battles and are just absolutely sure that Administrator XYZ broke the rules in taking policy enforcement action against them, and every time someone says "...will all be treated equally" we get dozens of people protesting what horrid people us admins all are for letting XYZ get away with it.

But the last couple of administrator cliques that were big enough to possibly cause problems of letting people get away with stuff have dissolved in the face of abuse issues, several people who have been strident critics of earlier environments have passed Survivor:Mop Bucket and now have the bit themselves, and most of the administrators who habitually were overly snappy with annoying people have calmed down or semiretired.

Just in the last week, I have seen dozens of administrators confront each other when they felt there was problematic behavior on one's part. I don't think that the bulk of admins are interested in or think it's appropriate - but there are plenty of us who have stood up and said "No, wrong", and gotten stuff changed or stopped.

Do I personally spend every waking moment lurking on all the noticeboards, primed and ready to go off on any other administrator who strays into a grey area? No. That would violate AGF, be rude and disrespectful to the rest of us mop-bearers, and frankly I have a life and a day job.

Will I or others stand up when people do stuff wrong? Damn straight.

Can our doing stuff preventively block any sorts of problem situations from developing in the first place? Hell no.

I'm tempted to nominate a few loud complainers for the mop. I'm not sure everyone I am thinking of nominating meets the usual not-currently-controversial criterion, but I AGF and think some of you would do well looking at things from the other side. I'm afraid you'd decline, Malleus, but if you won't I'll go nominate you now. Majorly too. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Damn right I'd decline. My views on the RfA bear pit ought to be well-known; I get poked and prodded enough without sending out free invitations to everyone who's ever disagreed with me. The result would inevitably be that I'd fail for a third time, and in the worst case scenario I'd be so discouraged I'd pack my bags and leave. Hardly productive, although I don't doubt there are many who would see that outcome as a good result. Probably about time that Majorly got his tools back though. --Malleus Fatuorum 11:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Please, not more nonsensical behaviour - you shouldn't have put the retired tag on the page, I'm sure you can see how that would be considered, by many, to be a highly contentious thing to do at the moment, and of course, Bish shouldn't have spoken to you in that manner. You both should be hit about the head with a trout (and perhaps not one that is fully defrosted). Nick (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, Bish is now threatening me. More use of status to push others around, when will someone put a stop to it?— Dædαlus 22:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no evidence of Bish using her status to push you around, I see a comment than any editor, indeed, even an anon IP could have made. You've reported the incident, now please stop pushing the matter, it's harmful to the project. I don't know what you want, and I honestly don't think there's anything actionable about the second comment anyway. I do agree that the first comment was out of line, but I believe you adding the retired tag to Giano's talk page was equally inappropriate and that there's no pressing need to take action against either of you. Nick (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

See Maxypoda pair of theses on User talk:Bishonen. Little 'poda think it good solution here. maxypoda tik-tik-tik! 22:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone who sets out to be petty and juvenile as part of a longstanding grudge of severe incivility against another editor shouldn't expect some tonguelashing for it. This whole concept that disruptive and uncivil behavior is somehow fine but less than civil comments are not (especially as a response to the bad behavior) is completely backwards. DreamGuy (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. Bish knows better, and will either be suitably ashamed of herself in the morning, or continue this behavior until she finds herself with our other high-profile, well-loved, and sorely missed forced retirees. As for Daedadelus, you've made your complaint, there is no serious threat Bishonen can do anything to you or your wiki-career, and if you continue pursuing this, you will lose whatever sympathy you've gained.--Tznkai (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh noes, he'll lose all that? You're a cruel man, Tznkai. Bishonen | talk 23:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC).

Looks to me like you ran out in your Sunday finest and big grin to dance on a well-known person's grave, and got kicked to the mud for it. Which is the primary incivility? Should Bishonen have responded in that manner? No. But then, odds are good you were hoping a certain other person would have, so you could bring them here instead. Now your'e here crying that someone ruined your fun. Walking away would be best. ThuranX (talk) 23:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Please. I did what I thought was necessary. A retired tag on a retired user's page. I was then told what to do with a unspoken threat, and was told I'm a little shit. I could really care less about the retired tag, what I care about is how I was treated. I wasn't hoping that anyone would have responded that way, so please stop with the assumptions.— Dædαlus 00:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise, once again the solution to everyone's problems is leave Giano alone. If he's retired, then let's actually make something of his disappearance--namely, not to create more drama to compensate in his absence! Is a tag on a user page really important enough for an ANI report? Motion to close, plz. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 00:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If you actually took the time to read this report, it is not about the tag, but the way I was treated over it.— Dædαlus 00:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm thoroughly outraged that you've been described as a 'little shit', and 'little man', daedalus. How could Bishonen possibly know your size? I think maybe we should ban her for stalking. Privatemusings (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)in other words, you're being a silly person, dude - please consider wandering off to an area of the project where you can help, not hinder - I'm teasing you with the intent of raising a smile, and encouraging you to relax a notch or two.....

WP:WQA if anything. Let sleeping dogs lie? –xeno 00:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

When an administrator uses abusive and uncivil language with another user in an attempt to "shoo" them or otherwise subdue them it makes it look like Misplaced Pages is being ran by a bunch of children. I don't give a flying whit(a whit is a very small amount) about the circumstances surrounding this. Administrators who refer to other users as "little shit" or insist that they do decide what is and what is not the business of others should not be admins. All to often we come flying to the idea if desysoping someone, but when an admin really acts shamefully we just seem to let it go. This garbage really makes us look unprofessional. How can we enforce civility when administrators blissfully ignore it. Chillum 00:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Archiving this discussion is a perfect example of what I am talking about. The behavior of our administrators is an administrative matter, yet we are so quick to dismiss it. "Let sleeping dogs lie"... This happened just a couple hours ago, when exactly did this dog go to sleep? Chillum 00:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I sympathize with what you're saying Chillum, but as a pragmatic matter, I don't think we're going to get anywhere pursuing this tonight.--Tznkai (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"When an administrator uses abusive and uncivil language with another user in an attempt to "shoo" them or otherwise subdue them it makes it look like Misplaced Pages is being ran by a bunch of children." It is run by a bunch of children though, isn't it? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Bishonen was mean to Daedalus, >>>WQA is that way>>>. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

(Just a note that I've unarchived after Chillum's comment). @Chillum when I said "sleeping dogs" I meant the "retired" tag: 'twas unnecessary. –xeno 00:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Wanted. An admin with integrity and the balls (or ovaries, I'm not sexist) to block Bishonen for gross violation of civility, personal attacks and threats of violence - anything less makes a mockery of our policies applying equally to all editors. Exxolon (talk) 01:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Admin are not above civility blocking. Any other editor would have been blocked way before now. A block is in order.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel this is serious enough to be brought to Jimbo's attention and I have done so on his talkpage. To put this into perspective this is only the second time in my entire career here that I've notified him about something (the last time was the Publicgirl issue). If admins are incapable of policing themselves then we by necessity must appeal to higher authority. Exxolon (talk) 01:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Bishonen's comments to Daedalus are appalling and unacceptable! AND because he is a sysop, every other sysop backs him and tells Daedalus to sit down and shut up! Unreal.... If Daedalus was the sysop and Bishonen was not, Bishonen would now be blocked and every other sysop would be backing Daedalus! This project needs to start treating all users as equals. Anyway, to put plainly, I think this matter should not be dropped until either Bishonen is blocked, or he apologises to Daedalus! John Sloan @ 01:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

And yet, Daedelus was not blocked. It's going to have to be a both or neither situation. Daedalus was provocative in a predictably disruptive manner, and got the predictable reaction. Bishonen should have found another way to handle it, but as I said, it wasn't an unprovoked reaction. So unless we block both, it's neither. Finally, it's been a bit of time, so we risk the 'punitive, not preventive' conflict. ThuranX (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, is it now a blockable offence to put a retired tag on a user's talk page, especially one who has retired and actually did it himself when he retired? --WebHamster 02:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

And now we have an attempt to prematurely archive the discussion and a statement that its "Not blockable without warnings." - we can and do block for gross violations of our core policies without stepping through warning levels - any attempt to suggest this as a way of trying to avoid having to take action looks like a transparent attempt for admins collectively to avoid taking responsiblity for misconduct by one of their number - is this really the impression you want to give? Exxolon (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sort of puts one in mind of the Catholic Church's response to the Fathers and the Alter Boys quandary. Same sort of response really, the admins are spending so much time sweeping these things under the carpet that they don't have time to change the bag in the Hoover (so many analogies, so little time!) --WebHamster 02:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

As ever, introducing the nail to the hammer. Hammer, this is Nail. Nail, Hammer is going to hit you forcefully on the head. Nothing personal you understand, just the way it's gotta be. The self-deception and hypocrisy on this site is quite mind-numbing. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I gotta use an exclamation point too! -- Hoary (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked Bishonen for 3 hours. I trust that's enough to cause a bit of relaxation here and there, as well as (unfortunately) a bit of stress here and there, as well. This all seems sadly unbecoming to me, and a direct consequence of our having been too tolerant, for too long, of toxic personalities.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hm. I thought cool-down blocks were discouraged by WP:BLOCK. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they are, and Bishonen (being European) is offline and sleeping at the moment I believe. rootology (C)(T) 02:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo would never pass RfA! Mike R (talk) 02:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

And nor would he deserve to. About time the project grew up and left its pornographic roots behind. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"Toxic personalities..." If not a personal attack, what is it? --Ghirla 11:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

He's the Great PumpkinFounder, he does what he likes :) I wouldn't care, but then again this will probably feed the cycle of Giano and co. drama that should be drying up with his departure, yet is at full flood. I guess it is true, nature abhors a vacuum... --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 02:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Though as for me I've never found Bishonen remotely toxic. (She did call me one or two names once, as I vaguely remember. If that did indeed happen, it didn't worry me. Bishonen, you're welcome on my talk page any time.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, one you dont bring up policy to Jimbo, he knows the rules, and he is above them. two, he got blocked, so leave it alone. This thing is over.Drew Smith What I've done 02:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a point of order, Jimmy isn't above the rules. He technically be blocked the same as anyone, if he violates some policy that merits it. rootology (C)(T) 02:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have blocked any editor for a one-off snark like that. This belonged at WP:WQA, where it should have spun up a polite warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, calling someone "you little shit" goes way beyond snark - this is a gross violation of our civility and personal attack polices. We're Misplaced Pages, not 4chan. Exxolon (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

A warning would have been enough. Likewise, an admin should know that leaving posts like that can stir up lots of needless kerfluffle, this one happened to do that, Bishonen got blocked for a few hours by Jimbo himself. I don't agree with the block but I understand why he made it, as Jimbo. I hope it's over now. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Resolved – CUs/AF engaged to mitigate impact. –xeno 04:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved – This seems to be over. Mythdon has been warned by several admins to leave Ryulong alone. The outcome of the Arbcom case will deal with this matter moving forward. //roux   01:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved – futile complaint Rodhullandemu 17:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

unresolving, issues seem ongoing //roux   06:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved – Blocked 1 week by Quadell, unblock request declined by Aitias.//roux   06:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved – User blocked, relevant pages protected. //roux   06:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved – Indef-blocked by AuburnPilot (talk · contribs) — Aitias // discussion 00:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved – Re-resolved. Content dispute, please discuss at the relevant article talkpages. //roux   06:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards