Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:37, 20 July 2009 view sourceMastCell (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators43,155 edits →Recommended reading: hmmm...← Previous edit Revision as of 03:38, 20 July 2009 view source John Bot (talk | contribs)23,415 edits →Subpages: sadfNext edit →
Line 1,224: Line 1,224:
::That's ridiculously premature. Either way, MfD is over ]. – <small>] (])</small> 03:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC) ::That's ridiculously premature. Either way, MfD is over ]. – <small>] (])</small> 03:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
:::Okay. —<font color="green">]</font> (<font color="teal">]</font> • <font color="teal">]</font>) 03:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC) :::Okay. —<font color="green">]</font> (<font color="teal">]</font> • <font color="teal">]</font>) 03:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
<font size="10">niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs </font><font size="10">niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs </font><font size="10">niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs </font><font size="10">niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs </font><font size="10">niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs </font><font size="10">niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs </font><font size="10">niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs </font><font size="10">niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs </font><font size="10">niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs niggahs niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs
niggahs </font>


==Imposter== ==Imposter==

Revision as of 03:38, 20 July 2009

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Shortcuts

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

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

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

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

    Start a new discussion Centralized discussion
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165
    1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Other links


    probation, or something at Talk:Centrifugal force

    Stuck
    Extended content

    Nearly a year ago I initiated this RFC , and ended up giving up in disgust and un-watchlisting the page. Random Wiki-happenstance led to me viewing the current talk page today, and guess what? Nothing has been resolved in over a year of argument. I'm no physicist, but it looks to me like the same conversation spiraling on and on endlessly, mostly with the same users who were doing the same thing last July. The talk page sometimes sees 100 edits in a day, from only three or four users! Personally, I'm not going to wade back into this mess, but I thought a post here might prompt... something, anything, some attempt at sanity through article probation or other WP:SANCTIONS or, something else that can end this madness. Honestly, this is one of the most screwed up things I've ever seen on Misplaced Pages, a circular argument that never ends, and users who apparently never tire of arguing on the same subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

    Ah, so you visited WP:WQA today :-) The problem when people who are involved in the sciences is this:
    • in science, you're more important the more you write
    • many scientists have different points of view on any given topic
    • all scientists are right
    These corollaries cause all the problems. (Note: the second is the only one that is actually true). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    I've popped over there and said that my gut feeling is that this saga won't stop without a topic ban. It is probably time to do something about it, it's been going on far too long and the discussions on that talk page would put anyone off from trying to edit the article, and we shouldn't allow that situation to persist. Dougweller (talk) 10:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    This showed up at ANI in November last year (here) and was eventually closed after David Tombe and Brewers_ohare resolved to take their discussion off-wiki. Those two users (plus a couple of others) are clearly still up to the same endless arguing; I'm thinking topic bans may become necessary if this doesn't abate. ~ mazca 12:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    The pattern I am seeing at Centrifugal force and related pages is one of long term POV pushing by David Tombe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Basically, David Tombe is attempting to bring Misplaced Pages into line with his own peculiar views about physics. This is being resisted by several users. Recently, David Tombe has been
    This diff] should give some idea of David Tombe's agenda on Misplaced Pages. More information about David Tombe's highly unusual beliefs about physics can be found here . Cardamon (talk) 08:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Alright, it seems others are seeing what I see, let's take this to the next step:

    Topic Ban on User:Brews ohare and User:David Tombe

    • Should these two editors be banned from editing this article and it's talk page, and related articles due to their extremely prolonged arguments on the talk page?

    Support

    So the numbers mount up for censorship as the pressure mounts up on FyzixFighter to reveal his reasons for trying to deny that the convective term in equation 3-12 of Goldstein is the centrifugal force. Six so far, including FyzixFighter himself! And how many of the other five have got a background in physics? David Tombe (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

    OK you seven, you've hung your colours to the mast, so now it's time to do your homework. Six of you do not have a physics background and therefore couldn't possibly know what the dispute is about. So I would suggest that you all run along and and come back when you have carefully gone through the last edit of mine that FyzixFighter deleted, and present your evidence here in a clear and concise manner. We will be looking for evidence of unsourced material and/or original research. David Tombe (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    You're not doing yourself any favours you know. Misplaced Pages is not an encyclopaedia for experts, and consensus rarely favours the "I'm an expert so leave me alone" approach. If FyzigFighter is deleting sourced material, show us some diffs and we can all look at them.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    Mr. Tombe, you do not hold a Ph.D. in physics, so by the standards of many people you have no physics background. I read through the Talk page of Centrifugal Force and I googled your name and then followed the links to crankish websites where you expound your views in the face of opposition from real physicists. I am sorry but I feel that a topic ban is the best solution for all concerned. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    "Six of you do not have a physics background and therefore couldn't possibly know what the dispute is about", as it turns out you don't know me, so I'd appreciate it if you stuck to the subject, which is your behaviour. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

    Oppose

    1. I see no reason to assert that the article proper is excessively edited, and I tend to think that long discourses on article talk pages are not intrinsically evil. A solution in search of a problem. Collect (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    1. I completely disagree with both the points you make here, as the facts do not support them. The article is being edited much too often for such a trivial topic, and the talk pages for this topic isn't just 'long' is positively obscene. At one point I did the archive and the talk page archives were about a megabyte; and most of that was people arguing with David Tombe; it died right down when he was banned.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    Nice to see you Wolfkeeper. I knew it was only a matter of time before you'd come along and join the party. But you need to get your facts straight. Those facts are very easy to check. I was banned from the end of July 2008 until mid-October 2008. The edit war raged continuously during that period. It is very easy to check. In fact, I was very upset at the time that because I wanted to join in, in order to back up editor Fugal. It was my attempts to communicate with Fugal on the side that got me banned permanently. What kind of justice was that? David Tombe (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, you used sockpuppets when banned. You were trying to push your POV even when banned. Which part of banned don't you understand?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    Any evidence for that? Even at this stage he could still be called on it.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    If I recall, most of the "sockpuppetry" was done on User talk:Fugal, where Tim Carrington West and the 217.- and 81.- anon IP's were David, and on other user talk pages. David did use the anon IPs 217.44.75.36 and 217.42.108.55 to participate in a debate on a centrifugal force article talk page while under a block. --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, that's right. Check out the indefinite block he received because of it: - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    You've just ducked the important point that the edit war raged continuously even when I was banned. You claimed otherwsie. You misrepresented the facts. David Tombe (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, you used a sockpuppet ensure that, while you were blocked.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    1. As an interested party, my view is that the discussion is just normal WP back and forth. Brews ohare (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    1. As an interested party, my view is that the argument has gone on much longer than necessary because the controversial material in question was initially opposed as a knee jerk reaction on the erroneous belief that is was unsourced original research. Although that idea has now been dispelled, the momentum of those who opposed the material in the first place has kept the argument going. A wider investigation needs to be conducted before individual editors are singled out for sanction. This needs to be done by editors that are knowledgeable about the content matter of the dispute. David Tombe (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Oppose for full disclosure I know David off-wiki from another online community. From what I know of David and this situation, a topical ban isn't appropriate. I am on a mobile right now, and will expand my reasons shortly (3 hours aprox.) -- Ned Scott 02:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Oppose. I have explained below why editing physics/math articles requires one to discuss the actual physics. A very narrow discussion limted to direct quotes from sources can lead to very bad articles. I have given a few examples of such bad articles. From time to time you can then have problematic editors, I also addressed that a bit in that section below. Banning people just becase they talk too much on the talk page is a very bad idea.

    What you can do is organize the debates on the talk page better, have some votes on how to proceed with the article. Then if one dissenting editor keeps on reverting the article against the consensus, you can raise that here. That would be a better way to deal with any problem editors. Count Iblis (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

    Article probation

    Should the article and talk page Centrifugal force be placed on probation, with editors subject to WP:SANCTIONS?

    Support

    • Comment As somebody who is at the very least peripherally involved in this debate, it wouldn't bother me if myself, David Tombe, FyzixFighter and Brews Ohare were all topic banned. There's enough people around that understand this topic to stop it going to hell in a handbasket, whereas with David Tombe on-wiki it requires constant watching.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

    Oppose

    1. A solution in search of a problem - I see no reason to object to the number of edits on the article page, so it boils down to being upset at excessive use of a talk page - which I think is insufficient to invoke any specific actions. Collect (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    2. Banning people from entering into discussion is always going to be a bad idea, and will never solve any underlying issue/problem. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 17:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

    Further discussion

    • I haven't informed the involved parties about this thread, out of concern that they would jam up this page with their usual fifty or sixty edits to make one point, but I guess somebody should probably tell them. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • You really do need to let people know about this page. IF they are excessively verbal that would strengthen any point you were trying to make. I have no particular comment to make, apart from to ask editors/admins to look at brews contribs to the 'wavelength' discussions. Perhaps someone could help brews contribute in a more constructive manner? 87.113.86.207 (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I've taken the liberty of analyzing the last 100 changes to the article, ending with this version. Seven users have one edit each, including four IPs. One user has two edits, and another has three; a third has six. The remaining eighty-two edits are accounted for by three people. These 100 edits took place over a period of thirty days, of which fourteen days passed with no edit; but the article has been edited every day from the ninth onward, with 79 edits in those six days, or thirteen edits a day. Only seven edits are not by the same three people mentioned above, and of that, and four of those are two IP vandalisms and their reversions. Mangoe (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply to opposers The problem as I see it is that this overly long horribly belabored debates intimidate users new to the page, and it seems the two main antagonists are never going to agree. While I realize the need to discuss changes, this endless circular debate has the effect of making previously uninvolved users not want to join in to such a protracted debate. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    If you can't be bothered to follow the discussion, you shouldn't raise this problem (unless the problem is a straghtforward disruption of wikipedia, of course). Neverending discussions in physics topics can be effectively dealt with by letting an expert to take final decisions. If you are no an expert in physics, you are not the right person to get involved here at all. Count Iblis (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • As one of the involved editors, in my view there are two issues with respect to David Tombe that make it difficult to work cooperatively with him. The first is David's complete disregard for reliable sources. The long talk page debates are due in part to other editors trying to teach David correct physics (and him teaching them his version of physics) usually without directly talking about sources. For the last little while I've tried to eschew such behavior and to keep strictly to quoting and discussing sources. This has had very limited effectiveness. However, it was through a source provided by another editor that I became aware of the Lagrangian mechanics usage of the term which I was previously unaware of. The second and more problematic issue is David's interactions with editors that disagree and resist his fringe POV pushing, which the report I made at WP:WQA touches upon. When a request for a source results in something like this, what can you do? Since I'm an involved party, I won't "vote", but I definitely support a topic ban for David Tombe. --FyzixFighter (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • My two cents, from a somewhat-involved editor: An argument with David Tombe about physics is like an argument with Jim Marrs about who assassinated JFK. If this was an argument about whether JFK was killed by aliens, we would have long ago banned the editor who was actively researching and promoting fringe theories. But David Tombe, who is actively researching and promoting ( ) his own fringe physics theories, is still here and still editing. Why? I don't know. Probably because most administrators don't know any physics so can't follow what's going on. --Steve (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Would it be possible to have separate sections for the proposed topic ban for Brews and proposed topic ban for David? I'm betting that several editors have stronger feelings with respect to one of them - I know I do. Some of the responses below are about one of the editors, only a few are talking about both. The WQA reported that might have partially precipitated this report was about only one of these editors. It could also help to focus the discussion a bit. --FyzixFighter (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • FyzixFighter, there was an opportunity for compromise tonight on the centrifugal force page. You turned it down. You reverted my edit once again. You are getting bold because you have seen favourable noises on this page coming from editors who haven't got the first clue about the subject matter. But even any honest editor who doesn't know about physics would be able to see that my edit tonight was a genuine attempt to solve the impasse. You clearly don't want a compromise. I would request that anybody considering your suggestion here should look at the last two edits at centrifugal force before making any important decisions. If that were to be done by an honest and objective administrator I think that it would be you that would be subjected to the topic ban. David Tombe (talk) 02:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

    Editing physics and math articles requires extensive discussions

    I've not interacted a lot with Brews, but from what I've seen he has the right approach toward editing physics articles. There was a dispute on the wavelength article that we at wikiproject physics were alerted to. When I took a quick look at the talk page there, I saw that while Brews was arguing on the basis of physics, the others shot that discussion down by citing from other sources and disputing things based on wiki law procedure etc.

    Now, if you're dealing with a kook who doesn't know much about physics, then sticking to wki law may be appropriate, any discussions of the actual physics would be a waste of time. But Brews is an expert in physics and there can sometimes be difficult issues that one has to talk about even in case of elementary physics topics (usually this then has to do with finding rigorous definitions).

    Let me give one typical example of a article in which things went terribly wrong. It was never discussed here, precisely because there was never a dispute between editors. The article Helmholtz free energy contained many mistakes for many years, until 2008. Not just small minor mistakes but huge mistakes that were never corrected. this was the latest flawed version, the section "mathematical development" was totally wrong. And similar mistakes were corrected by me in many other thermodynamics articles, so it was a systematic problem.


    The only realistic way this error could have been corrected earlier is if someone had questioned the derivation and discussed that on the talk page, basically the way Brews goes about his business. The tradional wiki way of arguing on the basis of sources alone does not work well for these sorts of topics. The error is most conspicuous when you actually study the equations using paper and pencil and write about any problems on the talk page. The fact that what was written is in conflict with the literature would not easily lead to someone noticing the error. It may als be the case that there exist sources in which the erroneous derivation can be found. It is well known that in engineering and chemistry texts you can often find flawed derivations.

    Of course, there are then other textbooks in which you can find the correct derivation. The problem is then that if you have someone who is resisting the correction being made, he could always dispute your source in the basis if his source. If you want to discuss the actual physics to settle the dispute, he could shoot that discussion down.

    This is how Brews is being treated and that is completely wrong. Count Iblis (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

    • Comment: I disagree. It would seem to me that the core Policies effectively insist that we absolutely do not derive any equations ourselves, obviously this is WP:OR and not WP:RS, no matter how correct your derivation. If "expert in physics ... dicuss the actual physics to settle the dispute," you are then conducting research, and using the talk page of the article as your secondary source. Obviously this will not work. The issue of errors in existing secondary sources seems well-handled by WP:NPOV. I think the erroneous approach that User:Count Iblis advises here is a common and systemic flaw in articles on science and engineering. IMHO. Eaglizard (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    The core policies clearly led to severely flawed articles on thermodynamics and then Count Iblis came along in 2008 and rewrote them based on his notes he uses for teaching. So, it seems to me that I would be justified to invoke WP:IAR here. The articles I'm talking about were so flawed that any Prof. who teaches this subject who would have stumbled on the pages, should have warned his students to ignore the pages. Worse then not having studied a subject is having it learned wrongly.
    Note that when we at university discuss teaching this subject with grad students and think about problems for students, we sometimes discuss things on the blackboard amongst ourselves. Is that "original Research"? Of course not! Why can't we look everything up in a book? We do do this, but a book doesn't always give you all the relevant details. Some subtle things are sometimes missing, some details are found in some other chapters. Note that the very reason why students are given difficult practice problems is precisely because you need to actually solve problems yourself to master the subject.
    Writing a wiki article that explains things from first principles is as hard as teaching the subject at university. This can thus only be done by someone who is expert enough to be able to derive everything from first principles. And he must actually derive everything that goes in the wiki article himself to be absolutely sure it is explained correctly.
    The mathematical derivation is the ultimate verification, not the citation to some book. Because what's in the book "Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Physics" on page 432 is only verifiable to someone who has the necessary physics background to be able to understand this book and has read the first 431 pages. So, a statement quoted from page 432 in isolation is not really a good verification of any statement. Count Iblis (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    This is not a good excuse to ignore all rules. But it is a good characterization of Brews's attitude that whatever he can derive, or whatever connection he can show to the topic, is fair game, whether he can find in support in sources or not. Dicklyon (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    I agree with many of the points made by Count Iblis, but especially the last. The biggest problem with Misplaced Pages is lack of authority, and that is why a derivation is very important in WP: it provides credibility. Some editors think math is gobbledy gook, but in fact it is a succinct language devised to avoid logical error, or enable error to be traced back to the initial assumptions. It is not window dressing. It is exposition. It is not equivalent to its conclusions because it helps make the concepts clear. Brews ohare (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    But WP:V says otherwise. You need verifiability without requiring the reader to have the expertise to check your derivation. You've made enough mistakes in your math-heavy stuff that you can't credibly claim that this "succinct language" is inherently more accurate or reliable than any other creation of fallible editors. Without verifiability, we have nothing to restrain you with. Dicklyon (talk) 06:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    If that's what WP:V says, then that is not applicable to some physics and math articles because if someone cannot understand the mathematical derivation, that person would not be able to understand the source. Often it is possible for an expert to explain a result from some technical physics subject that is taught at upper level graduate university, in such a way that it is understandable to high school students. But then just writing down the result without explanation and just giving a citation to the source which the target audiance cannot understand is a nonsensical thing to do. It is far better to present a taylor made derivation that can be understood by the target audience. Only then does the stament become verifiable to the target audience.
    The examples of the flawed thermodynamics articles I gave prove my point. The flawed versions contained more references and were verifiable in the way WP:V requires. However, no one actually verified the content in that way, which explains why the huge mistakes coulkd have remained in the article for so many years. When I rewrote the articles, I decided not to give references to the literature. It is not that such references cannot be given, but giving the references would probably lead people to not check for errors. I derived everything from first principles in the articles, so these derivations themselves serve as the verification.
    Giving a ref. where the derivation can be found is pointless, because if someone needs to verify the derivation in that way, then that person doesn't have sufficient knowledge to understand the article. Also, in some cases a suitable derivation cannot be found in any book at all, e.g. when the topic is typically discussed in textbooks for grad students or in reference books for researchers. Count Iblis (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    Gah. What's you're espousing is somewhere between highly admirable and slightly stupid. It's admirable, because you can IAR to make it work, but it's stupid because without verifiability somebody sooner or later will come along and fix it (i.e. mess it up) from sources. The wikipedia holds verifiability higher than truth. You're saying that truth is more important, but it's unstable in the wiki, unless it's also verifiable. You're nearly always much better off finding a reliable source that actually gets it right and pointing to that- there's no prohibition at all against linking to grad-level textbooks.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

    I'm highly impressed with everything that Count Ibliss has said. It's time that those truths were spoken. Sources can be used maliciously, and that is happening right now on the centrifugal force page. I am being billed as the villain who doesn't abide by sources, and attempts are being made to get me removed from the project. But the truth is that certain elements are trying to keep well sourced key facts about centrifugal force off the page in the name of scientific political correctness, and hiding behind wikipedia's rules and regulations on consenus. I should emphasize the word 'consensus' because ultimately it has got nothing to do with sources. Any group of three can gang up against a single editor and claim to be on the side of sources. If the single editor produces a conflicting source, the other three only need to deny the contents of that source, and they will prevail by playing the consensus card while claiming to be playing the sources card. This has been going on at centrifugal force for over two years. And this entire thread here is a misrepresentation of the facts. Brews ohare is not my opponent in this. I have done collaborative editing with Brews ohare on other physics articles and it has never led to an edit war. The difference with centrifugal force is that there are certain other editors involved who are destroying any positive outcome from the discussions by continually opposing any important edit that I make. You can see that right now. If anybody wants to know the truth about this, go to 'centrifugal force' now and watch FyzixFighter playing his game of 'textbook whist'. Look at the history section for the last few days and you will see that it is only FyzixFighter who wants to remove my edits. But this thread has created a situation in which I am in the dock and FyzixFighter has been able to come along and act as an innocent prosecution witness. If you want to talk about topic bans then you should start by bringing in personnel who actually understand what the dispute is about, and you should bring every involved editor into the dock. This thread, by its very nature is totally biased because it has arbitrarily sought out two editors in particular without the slightest explanation as to why those two editors have been singled out, and then allowed their opponents in the dispute to come along as if they were innocent upstanding victims and make their complaints. David Tombe (talk) 00:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

    Right, FyzixFighter just wants to remove your edits; and I just want to remove Brews's edits. Anyone interested in finding out why will need to do some work, rather than just reading these complaints. Dicklyon (talk) 06:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    Dick, I would certainly hope that somebody does indeed do that work. They could start with the very last edit of mine that FyzixFighter removed. David Tombe (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


    Let me give two examples of successful talk page discussions were disputes were settled. In both cases discussing the physics form first principles was essential while direct quotes from sources were misleading.

    Example 1:

    Discussion with Ed Gerck

    Ed Gerck is basically quoting things out of context from the literature and coming to erroneous conclusions. To see that he is wrong requires a working knowledge of special relativity. Refuting qoutes by Ed Gerck by directly by other quotes would not be a practical way to end the dispute. I'm pretty sure that had there been no expert editors at the special relativity page, Ed Gerck's edits would not have beeen opposed, because to lay persons, everything looks ok: You have statements directly sourced from the literature and Ed Gerck provides direct quotes, so what could possiblly be wrong?  :)

    Example 2:

    Discussion with anon on Helmholtz energy

    Here the anon claims that the constant volume condition is not necessary, he has a source that says so. Of course, I have a source that claims that it is necessary, but merely stating that would not end the dispute. It is essential that one understands why the sources make different statements and that cannot be easily extracted from a source in the form of a single quote. You must have mastered the subject to see this. So, I explain in detail what is going on here. Count Iblis (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

    I am not involved in the centrifugal force dispute, but I edit primarily mathematics articles, so I have a great deal of perspective on these issues. Count Iblis' comments are very apt: one cannot solve these sorts of disagreements by just throwing around random quotes from sources. As Cout Iblis has said, verifying a reference to page 401 in a book really requires understanding what the author has done in the first 400 pages, and the conventions she has established. A broad understanding of the literature is necessary to determine which statements are in agreement with the literature and which are idiosyncratic or taken out of context. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    This is not really the place to discuss this, but I will note that stating the facts in a reasonable form in the article, and including multiple references to reliable, notable sources that support the case is the correct way to proceed in the wikipedia; but they need not be presented identically to the source, provided they are equivalent. If the references are challenged then they can be discussed on the talk page. If references are not given, under the wikipedia's policies the material can be removed at any time. For fundamental epistemological reasons this is probably the only way it can work here; ultimately we do rely on experts, just not expert editors here, but experts that have written books and such like.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    In practice, at least in mathematics, we do rely heavily on expert editors. I have no reason to suspect that things are different in other sciences. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    Example 1 that Count Iblis mentions above is IMO very similar to what we have going on with David. He's got his hands on a few sources and adopts a very fringe interpretation of what those sources say. When a wide spectrum of sources are provided that contradict his conclusions and interpretations, he disregards the mountains of additional sources as "rubbish". Multiple editors including myself have tried walking David through the derivation, but he adopts some rather strange limitations to the derivation (his vector triangle argument) and uses very nonstandard terminology (like what he calls radial acceleration). The exercise gets repeated over and over with David refusing to admit that his interpretation of the derivation is wrong. It is because of the futility of the past endeavors that I've stopped indulging David, and now try to limit discussion to talking about sources and how the sources can be synthesized together for the article. --FyzixFighter (talk) 00:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    I will be away for a few days, but I would be willing to attempt to mediate the dispute when I return in the coming week. As I have said I am not involved or even familiar with the dispute at this point, although I am familiar with both WP policy and practice. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

    Some comments from Brews_ohare

    I agree that a lot of debate has circulated on the various centrifugal force pages, which include Centrifugal force; Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame); Reactive centrifugal force and so forth. This debate is not all about the same thing, however, and none of these debates requires intervention limiting editors or topics for discussion, as is detailed next.

    One subject has been a revolving discussion between D Tombe and various editors over the intuitive aspects of centrifugal force. D Tombe has his own perspective, and this discussion has generally not adopted his view. Nonetheless, IMO the articles have benefited by these discussions in becoming clearer and in adding particular examples that arose from these discussions. At the moment, this discussion is not prominent on the Talk pages. Related to this discussion is the desire by D. Tombe to eliminate Reactive centrifugal force on the basis that it is not distinct. I don't think that is supported by anyone else, and is not a topic consuming great space.

    A second subject, also involving D Tombe, is the status of the planetary orbit example as a significant departure from other examples, warranting special discussion. This debate is presently ongoing, and I do not wish to state an opinion upon its eventual outcome. It is largely a judgment call upon the significance of this topic and whether it warrants a lot of attention. That might be settled "objectively" by google counting, by logic, by eloquence, or by WP lawyering such as this present attempt to curtail discussion.

    A third subject, that involved many editors over a long period of time is the so-called "curvilinear Centrifugal force". This is a terminology that is rather mathematical in origin and relates to the use of (for example) polar coordinates, and to the interpretation of the radial equation in terms of centrifugal force. This particular issue has proved very difficult to deal with. The debate has been correspondingly extensive. At the moment, it has somewhat calmed down with the introduction of the Lagrangian approach to mechanics, which appears to subsume the "curvilinear Centrifugal force" as a special case. Unfortunately, this topic will arise periodically because there are schools of opinion that take the view that "curvilinear Centrifugal force" is the only kind, and with sources that refer only to this interpretation. Thus, the talk page often is a long discussion that eventually acquaints editors with the existence of disparate sourced viewpoints. That discussion will recur as editors believing in the "one and only one" centrifugal force show up. I do not think any action to suppress this discussion by banning editors from participation makes any kind of sense. Censorship may well lead to a complete distortion of the articles by removal of one point of view in favor of the others.

    A fourth subject of recent origin concerns the inclusion of the topic of absolute rotation in the article Centrifugal force. Here again, my view is that this is simply a normal WP discussion, and it is at least so far, not long-lived. It is not a suitable subject for any action in banning editors. Brews ohare (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

    Some comments by David Tombe

    I might be able to summarize the root cause of the dispute. It lies in the fact that the literature does not give a consistent view on the subject matter, and that the slant in the literature has been changing even in recent times. So part of the dispute even involves a conflict between two generations. On the issue of sources, we should take note of the very valid point that Count Ibliss has made. He correctly pointed out that sources can be used destructively against a person who has an overall comprehension of a topic. This is especially true when the literature contains a wide selection of confused and contradictory sources. This dispute is not a simple case of any particular editor ignoring sources.

    The approach which I have wanted to promote (The Leibniz approach) is found in the modern literature. It is legitimate and its authenticity is no longer the subject of the dispute. But the Leibniz approach is not the approach which is being pushed as an introductory approach to centrifugal force in most modern textbooks. I have already conceded that point. The question is how to introduce the Leibniz approach into the article at the right level, bearing in mind that it not simply history.

    The article has improved alot as a result of this ongoing debate. All editors involved have learned alot. A topic ban on any particular editor would merely give unfair advantage to a particular point of view. David Tombe (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

    No, a topic ban on one particular editor will allow them some time to think about the difference between finding the truth and including only information that can be gleaned from reliable sources (emphasis on reliable). We still hold articles about the Earth being flat, but thankfully reliable sources have proven otherwise. Once alternative theories of this article have valid reliable sources, then we'll move on to them. Hey, how about a section in the article that is called "recent research" or something ... use only reliable sources, take 2 paragraphs to explain what the heck it is you insist belongs. Draft it in you own sandbox first. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    In physics it is normally more to do with WP:UNDUE, if you look hard enough you can find at least some evidence to support the idea that the earth is flat... and that's what Tombe has been doing.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

    BWilkins, you obviously haven't got the first clue what you are talking about. Planetary orbital theory is long established fact, still taught in the universities. It ill becomes you to come along here and compare it to the flat Earth theory. You have simply swallowed the lie that I have been trying to insert unsourced original research. I suggest that you check your facts before you speak. Do you have a physics background? David Tombe (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

    I assume you actually read what the real argument was that I was making, and didn't just focus on an pithy example. Besides, who gives a Massachusetts if I have a background in physics (read this illuminating essay)?! Policy is clear: abide by it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

    OK BWilkins, so can you please repeat which policy that you think I am in breach of and then give us all a detailed explanation in relation to a particular edit which I have made? David Tombe (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

    Comments by uninvolved user Collect

    Scientists are prone to disputes. This is a given. Are those disputes as seen on article talk pages wrong? No. It is how scientists work. It may not be how some writers on other stuff work, but it is a fact, and trying to use topic bans and the like is not the way to go in my opinion. In the case at hand, neither editor appears anxious to lose the colloquy with the other. That is sufficient, in my opinion again, to drop this matter. Collect (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

    Disputes between scientist I can stand. Such disputes on talk pages here should be civil and should respect policies of WP:RS and WP:V. Derivations on the talk pages are fine when everyone agrees on the same basic foundational definitions. However, when working with David, none of this happens. Just look at the latest response from him on the talk page . (I've never gotten anything so vitriolic from Brews.) David has been warned before that such disregard for WP:AGF is unacceptable. If not a topic ban, then what will work to prevent such behavior? --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    Show me Tombes edit warring on the article proper maybe ... but such has not been shown. The issue at hand is the question of whether people can post on talk pages freely. Tombe, ohare, and Dicklyon seem to cover most of the usage (seems that DL is also part of the excessive post problem in that case). None of them appear to be making excessive article edits AFAICT. IMHO, Topic Bans for using talk pages too much are not justifiable. Collect (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

    FyzixFighter, I stand by exactly what I wrote in that reply. You have been trying to turn the truth upside down. The convective term in Goldsetin's equation 3-12 is the centrifugal force. You are trying to tell us that it is the centripetal force. Put that equation side by side with the Leibniz equation. Now check off the two inverse square law gravity terms. They have negative signs and are attractive. They are the centripetal force. Now check off the two positive inverse cube law terms. They are the centrifugal force. And that's what Goldstein and Leibniz both call it. Why are you trying to suppress this equation? What is your ulterior motive? It's a pity that nobody is asking you this. David Tombe (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

    More Coments From An Involved User

    It seems to me that the idea of censoring Mr Tombe, an editor who seems to be the most informed of the editors and who has worked very very hard to make this article a physically accurate and meaningful one, is misplaced. The problem is not Mr Tombe but the inability of the other editors to actually open up to the fact that their ideas may not be as correct as they beleive. I wonder why censorsip is necessary if the ideas of Mr Tombe opponents are able to stand alone by themselves. Obviously they can not stand up to his criticism. I oppose censorship of any editor of wikipedia. Mr Tombe has done more for wikipedia and been appreciated less than any editor I know here. Instead of censoring him you should be giving him an award for his efforts to get the correct physics into this article. I oppose this proposed action. That would seem to go against the purpose of wikipedia, don't you think?71.251.185.49 (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC) — 71.251.185.49 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:08 15 July 2009 (UTC) (UTC). No. I have seen many edits from an IP server like that over the last couple of years on centrifugal force and other physics articles. David Tombe (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

    • his efforts to get the correct physics into this article - unfortunately Misplaced Pages is not about "correct" physics. Misplaced Pages is about the physics in reliable sources, even if that physics is incorrect. You'll see this happen with newspaper articles. They'll be used to support something in an article, but the correction printed a few days later (which might totally destroy the newspaper report) does not get mentioned. 87.113.86.207 (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    You got it. Straying from WP:V always ends in tears.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

    Comments by involved user Dicklyon

    I've been actively involved in these disputes at Centrifugal force, too, and just saw this via the notification to Brews. In these articles, David Tombe is the outlier who has been forcing the protracted debates for 15 months or so. He is unyielding in his illogical and wrong-headed misunderstandings of all that the sources and other editors say. Brews, on the other hand, is also pretty much unyielding, and generally responds to David's and others' pushback by adding more and more mathematical and explanatory content, usually in runs of several dozen edits in a day, bloating articles and sections to big messes out of proportion to their relevance or importance. I'm sort of unyielding myself when I see people doing stuff like that, which is why I've been in an edit war with Brews at Wavelength (and now also Wave and Dispersion relation), where he has actually been a much bigger problem than at Centrifugal force.

    If I had my way, I'd say ban both of them on any topics where they've demonstrated an inability to collaborate with other editors. Of course, I'd risk having someone judge me the same way, so I haven't pushed that approach. I've tried to get help via Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Physics#Need more opinions at Wavelength and other sections there, but what little I got, Brews felt free to ignore. He continues to work hard on expanding the article, which is not all bad, but which makes life very hard for anyone who doesn't want to just let him run away in his idiosyncratic directions with it. Dicklyon (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

    Whether an explanation is out of proportion is a hard call. Maybe in a printed encyclopaedia one weighting applies, and in WP a different weighting for this simple reason: the printed case is written by one or maybe a few authors who can set the balance as they see it, and let's say for the sake of argument, make a sound judgment. However, that same article on WP would not fly because there are readers & editors that have different questions than those addressed (whatever their importance in some Platonic universe) and there are controversies that crop up that must be addressed somehow or they will go on forever. The basic points are these: WP is an interactive encyclopaedia with a very diverse audience. It is not a print encyclopaedia. Dicklyon complains about my bloated expansions; I have my complaints about his unduly brief oversimplifications. Brews ohare (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    But hard calls can be made in collaboration with others. On Wavelength, you proved your ability to go it alone in the face of unanimous opposition. On Centrifugal force, which I created as a summary-style alternative to the messes you had created on the Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) and other articles, you insisted on bloating it similarly. Nobody supported you in that. Dicklyon (talk) 23:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

    I was not under the impression that this forum was a soap box to present personal opinions of each other, which cannot be supported properly without far more detail than a newspaper banner. It's objective is to assess the discussion at Centrifugal force, as I have done above Brews ohare (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

    I don't know about objective, but there are other things to discuss when trying to decide what community sanctions to put on editors. Dicklyon (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

    tl;dr. Why is this even here, to begin with, and why is it still being discussed? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

    Irreverent comments by Tim Shuba

    This is all too typical, and a good example of why I choose not to work much on trying to provide serious content for this project.

    David Tombe is a physics crank, and it is highly detrimental to treat him as if he is just another editor with the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind. It's easy enough to check Tombe's record off-wiki, where you may find a connection with a group of physics cranks called the Natural Philosphy Alliance, which I not so coincidentally tagged earlier for a g4 speedy deletion.

    Cranks like Tombe run rampant on wikipedia, which is a big reason why physics articles in general are highly unreliable in spite of a lot of well-meaning contributors. Certain areas have undergone significant improvement since I've been paying attention, in part due to the Fringe Noticeboard and a collection of reasonably sane editors, but the idea that someone wishing to work on an article like centrifugal force should have to worry more about coutering obvious cranks than producing good information is ridiculous. It's little wonder that so many articles are substandard.

    I don't particularly blame the average admin for these crank-induced problems, but I doubt things will improve much unless admins with an understanding of the subject are allowed to keep cranks out of such articles. I know how it goes: someone like me who says exectly what many others are thinking -- in this case, that Tombe is a detrimental crank and should be shown the door if we are a proper reference source -- is not showing good faith and is not following the doctrines of civility, et cetera. Well I don't care about that. I will continue (along with perhaps one or more of my legitimate sockpuppets) to do a very small amount to counter the large number of cranks found here, and let the chips fall where they may. Mostly, I have learned to just laugh at the pathetic state of the many articles that are crap due to this failure of the system.

    So, whatever. Topic banning Tombe would be good for the other editors who are contributing to the article. In the wider context of cranks who soil many articles, it really doesn't matter. Until wikipedia decides that proper content is preferable to mollycoddling cranks and vandals, nothing substantial will change. Tim Shuba (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

    Tim, I challenge you to produce a single edit of mine that you consider to be a crank edit, and explain to everybody here exactly why you think that it is a crank edit. David Tombe (talk) 02:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    I think that if Tim picked one of your edits at random, you could get me and several others to document why it's crank. Want to try? Dicklyon (talk) 05:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    Tim, I think that counting on admins is not going to help. You need to speak up and help us get to community sanctions when such things are happening. I just saw what you mean about his off-wiki activities; his Open Letter to the President of the Royal Society is quite a hoot, as is his "Journal"; I thought he was just confused, but now I see that he is actually much worse than that. Dicklyon (talk) 05:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    Hi Dick. I am not counting on admins for anything. This entire ridiculously long section should be collapsed or dev-nulled. No admin should be expected to wade into it, unless a particular admin has a serious interest in the subject. I only added to this nonsense because I saw it already in progress, and felt like gassing off. This is my final comment here. If the spirit moves me, I'll make a comment on your talk page or at the article talk. Tim Shuba (talk) 08:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

    Regarding Tim Shuba's parliamentary immunity

    Tim Shuba openly admits above that he "is not showing good faith and is not following the doctrines of civility, et cetera." and that he doesn't care, and that he will continue to do so along with his sockpuppets. He seems to possess some kind of confidence that he has got parliamentary immunity from sanction, and that he is free to deliver insults and unsubstantiated allegations.

    Can we all share in that immunity on this page? David Tombe (talk) 13:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

    FyzixFighter Is The Current Problem Here

    Despite the current opinion expressed here, there was a lot of progress, and most of the issues were resolved until Mr FyzixFighter wiped out all of the progress. So he is the one who should be banned. His action was uninformed and arbitrary. He was not involved in the compromises and then just wiped out all of the progress because of his personal dislike for Mr Tombe. This is not about the facts but about the personal ego trip of Mr FixitFighter who sees wikipedai as his personal play pen. I think you need to be discussing restrictions on him and slap his hand and ban him for awhile. Or better yet, ban him permanently as he is a big trouble maker. He doesn't know much about physics either. And that is another good reason to ban him.72.84.65.202 (talk) 12:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

    IP's only edit, but geolocates to the same area that the SPA IP above does. Obviously a regular user. Dougweller (talk) 13:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    This IP pops up every time Tombe is under discussion to demand the banning of all who disagree with Tombe. No connection at all to Tombe, who has a distinctive writing style and who is in another part of the world anyway , and not very helpful. Acroterion (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    I didn't think it was Tombe, if I did I wouldn't have posted here, but would have asked for an SPI. Thanks though, I didn't realise that about the IP's behaviour over time. Dougweller (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    The "not very helpful" was meant to describe the the IP, not you - sorry if it read that way. Acroterion (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    Don't worry, I didn't take it that way. :-) Dougweller (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    It seems to be a different user, probably User:Fugal . He nearly always supports David Tombe.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    I've always thought the 72/71.-- anon IP from Virginia was User:Electrodynamicist. --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    Dougweller, I think that it's time that you took a look at the details of the argument. Do you have a physics background? I seem to recall at one stage reading that you do. The argument largely centres on one equation. That equation appears at 3-12 in Goldstein's 'Classical Mechanics'. It is identical in purpose to Leibniz's planetary orbital equation. It is a force equation in the radial direction. One of those forces is the gravitational inverse square law force. Nobody is disputing that. The other force is the inverse cube law centrifugal force. FyzixFighter is doing all that he can to keep this equation off the page, outside of the history section. That is what the dispute is all about. There is no point in all this talk about sources. The facts are well sourced. You need to be asking FyzixFighter, and some others, as to why they are so keen to hide this equation. In FyzixFighter's latest edit on the talk page, he attempted to claim that the inverse cube law term was the centripetal force. This is this kind of blatant distortion of the facts that have caused all the problem. And at the same time, he is trying to falsely accuse me of inserting unsourced material.
    This is not about original research. This is about the total intolerance that comes with scientific political correctness. This explicit illustration of centrifugal force as a radially outward push that is induced by transverse motion is an intolerable fact in the eyes of many modern scientists because it is evidence of an absolute frame of reference for rotational purposes. It's for these same reasons that we are now witnessing a new editor, Martin Hogbin, wanting to remove the section on absolute rotation. I didn't even write that section. It is a modified version of a section on centrifugal potential energy that was on the centrifugal force article that I first saw in 2007.
    There is absolutely no need for all your groundless and malicious allegations above. You need to show to everybody that you understand the subject matter before you can start making those kind of allegations.
    Misplaced Pages needs to decide which way it wants to go. Is it going to be shown up now as an on-line encyclopaedia that strives to get information correct? Or is it going to be shown up as an on-line encyclopaedia that panders to mob rule and political correctness? David Tombe (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    You know, even if you were right on the physics, I'd support a ban because of your behaviour. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

    I know you would. You made your animosity towards me clear last year, even though we had never met before. Can you please elaborate on exactly what behaviour you are talking about. You admit that you don't know who is correct. So why are you getting involved in this at all? David Tombe (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

    Can we just ban him because he can't even indent his discussions? Seriously, he's been here a long time... sheesh.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

    Comment from uninvolved user Elen of the Roads

    I have never edited this article or interacted with David Tombe. However I have been involved with another physics article (Black hole), where an editor made repeated attempts to include material representing his view on the current understanding of General Relativity.

    In the end, Misplaced Pages is not a place for scientists to debate theories with each other, and the talk pages should not be full of people lecturing each other on the correct interpretation of X theory or Y theory. Articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources - the knowledge of the editors is required to (a) find the sources and (b) rewrite the content in a form that avoids copyvio and is intelligible to the general reader.

    Keeping that in mind provides a way to deal with the disputes of scientists that may not be to their taste, but is the one that meets the policies of Misplaced Pages.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

    Elen of the Roads, If it was a simple matter of keeping to sources, the problem would have been solved two years ago. David Tombe (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    Elen of the Roads, you have expressed an idealized picture that sometimes works. However, it evolves that sourced material is not invariably correct or correctly interpreted. I believe this point is made by Count Iblis, and accords with my own experience. He has suggested that at least in technical arguments a mathematical derivation sometimes can settle matters, although WP guidelines may not support such an approach.
    I'd add that requiring an entire article be intelligible to the general reader is not always desirable, and is in fact not true of WP as a whole (see particularly the math articles, which are impenetrable in many cases). I'd suggest that the typical article should in fact have a gradation of levels, some intelligible to the general reader and some of interest to the more interested or demanding reader. Brews ohare (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    I agree with your point about correct interpretation of a source, some sources can be less than crystal clear. But the answer is not to go into reams of what is at the end of the day your own opinion (howevermuch based on your expert knowledge) on what the source means. It is to go and find other sources that clarify what the first source meant. Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source - it is a collection of the wisdom of secondary sources. If source X is advancing a view that can be interpreted as (say) a challenge to Newton's 3rd law of motion, you go out and find what the scientific consensus is - or if there is no consensus, you find out whether this view is regarded as an acceptable theory by the scientific community, or whether it is disregarded as fringe nonsense. I do wonder whether this is more difficult to do if one is an established expert (I mean, you might be a Cambridge professor of Newtonian mechanics for all I know, and actually be extremely well placed to say whether X interpretation is brilliant or barking), as what one would expect to do is explain it onesself.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

    You've hit the nail on the head here. The expert is not likely to spend a ton of time trying to track down hundreds of sources so he can outnumber the wrong view. He's likely to say, look Landau and Lifshitz and Schwinger say this, and they are experts. The opposing view will not necessarily agree upon the expertise. So one derives the result and says: look you guys, if you don't like it, show where it is mistaken. That will shut them up. They now will turn instead to Wikilawyering. Brews ohare (talk) 05:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

    I'm not convinced deriving the result shuts up the fringe theorists with perpetual motion machines anyway, but it may work with those who are just terminally confused, and I can understand why you do it. It certainly makes some talk pages very interesting, and I've learned a lot, but it's an unsatisfactory process if the other guy carries on peddling his perpetual motion solution. Wikilawyering is a downside whatever you do I suspect, a product of the personality type.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

    Adjournment

    I suggest that this thread be adjourned while the prosecution prepares their case. The seven prosecution witnesses have been referred to the last edit which I made to the centrifugal force page, and which was reverted by FyzixFighter. When they return with their indictment, I expect that they will be very carefully cross examined for clear evidence of original research and/or unsourced material. David Tombe (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

    Comment by an uninvolved admin

    Would anyone object too loudly to me blocking David Tombe for three months to give the rest of us a break? He seems to be the catalyst for the pages upon pages of discussion; without him, I expect things to quiet down. --Carnildo (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

    As someone staring at this mess from the outside, I'd say go for it. If nothing changes, then at least he will have proved his point that it's not him. Incidentally, I note a report above that the last time he was blocked, he took to sock farming. Someone might watch out for that.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    Oh ... my ... God. David Tombe -- do you remember that it was me who unblocked you, giving you a last chance in October 2008, while others were calling for, and had just about succeeded in obtaining, your permanent ban? Looking at this massive gas-cloud that has quite suffocated the ANI page, not to mention several article talk pages, I'm starting to think I made a bad decision. Yep, I'm with Carnildo here. Antandrus (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    I no longer support a block for David Tombe. On reflection, I see the following: 1) I am not willing to do it myself, in good conscience, and therefore it seems reasonable to oppose letting someone else do it; 2) I neither understand the physics, nor am willing to read through the massive amount of verbiage, to determine that David should be blocked, and one must be absolutely certain about a block to implement it -- we have way too much use of the block button around here for people trying to contribute in good faith, methinks; 3) I think it sets a bad precedent, since most of the action is on talk pages. Count Iblis says it well. If many users feel that David is truly disruptive, then there are less draconian methods to address the problem, such as article probations and topic bans, and I'd rather see these discussed by those knowledgeable in the topic area. Antandrus (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    Are not science (or fringe aspects of science) articles under some kind of arbcom sanction? (apologies if i got the wrong term) and with previous consent for permanent ban, isn't there a possiility that david tombe would get a long block or even a an that no-one is prepared to lift? and would other editos see that, and then reflect upon the importance of 5 pillars???87.113.86.207 (talk) 00:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I take a nice long break, come back, and find arguments about physics clogging up half of ANI. I'm not sure what conclusions to draw from that... Anyway, support a nice long block for Tombe and a stern wag of the finger at Brews for perpetuating the situation. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    Care to point out just what I have "perpetuated"? Perhaps my introduction of the Lagrangian approach to centrifugal force (a well sourced mainstream approach) "prolonged the argument? Perhaps the hashing out of several concrete examples of Centrifugal force "prolonged the argument? My view is that you have made a snap judgment here based upon column inches rather than content and ultimate impact upon the articles. Brews ohare (talk) 15:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    Let's not lose track of the facts here. This began as a complaint by one editor that there was too much talking going on at the centrifugal force talk page. Brews ohare and I were singled out for special mention despite clear evidence that others are involved on that talk page. A topic ban was then proposed for the two of us. It has rapidly turned into an arena where certain editors are campaigning to have a ban imposed on me. Let's not forget the fact that absolutely no offences have been committed. There are alot of malicious allegations being brandished by persons who admit to not knowing about the details of the situation. Nobody is prepared to elaborate or indeed give any details of their allegations. The entire situation will become clear if FyzixFighter's last revert on the centrifugal force main page is fully investigated. David Tombe (talk) 06:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    Actually, he kind of did break a rule - I pointed out to him that he had gone over WP:3RR here. But more disruptively to the cooperative effort than this, he routinely disregards WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL making interactions with him on the talk page completely disruptive (see the WQA report for tip of the iceberg examples) since it is impossible to disagree with him or draw his attention to sources that contradict his view without being accused of having ulterior selfish motives or being part of a conspiracy to cover up the truth or just being an idiot. This is David's consistent modus operandi. Is such behavior really acceptable interaction on talk pages? --FyzixFighter (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    He's already been permanently banned for sockpuppetting and edit warring. But even when given a last chance he's never stopped edit warring, he just doesn't (often) hit 3RR, but he's still edit warring, continously. How many 'last' chances do you give him? This is it: he got to go.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Support permanent block/ban; he has been given every chance to be a useful contributor, and has proved that that's impossible. I also support the "stern wag of the finger at Brews for perpetuating the situation". Dicklyon (talk) 07:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    I would agree that discussion has been circular at times, or maybe a spiral is a better description. However, the complaining editors here don't have to engage in these discussions if they don't want to. They are simply annoyed that they cannot deliver the pithy one-two punch that settles an issue. That hurts their self image as amazing savants. There is no substantive reason to curtail these discussions. Brews ohare (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    Dicklyon, you cannot be serious! This just exposes the thread for the pantomine that it is. You are one of the contributing editors to the centrifugal force talk page and you have now seen this thread as a golden opportunity to deliver a punch against your two opponents. It's only a farce like this that could permit a situation where Brews and I have suddenly ended up in the dock while you FyzixFighter, and Wolfkeeper can now throw cabbages. It's all becoming a bit of an Alice in Wonderland situation. A proper investigation into the situation, if there had actually been a problem at all, would have involved clear indictments against all editors concerned. How come that you and FyzixFighter got off the hook? David Tombe (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Support I've tried to wade through this and sort it out; I'm getting the same feeling that David Tombe is not going to be able to interact here productively which looks to me like an indefinite ban is called for. I agree with Dicklyon as well, that Brewer should remember not to make situations worse. Shell 12:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    I'm sorry Shell but I have to respond to what you have just said. You seem to think that the fruitful discussions between myself and Brews, which have greatly expanded both our knowledge of this topic, seem to represent some kind of problem for wikipedia that warrants me being permanently banned. Last year I argued alot with Brews. The situation changed dramatically when Brews discovered Lagrangian mechanics. That was new to me, but the concepts were so closely related to what I had been explaining about polar coordinates that it changed the whole nature of the debate. Even FyzixFighter has admitted that he hadn't previously been aware of centrifugal force in polar coordinates. I think that you need to study the debate more carefully before advocating draconian measures. If you can't understand the subject matter, you shouldn't be involved here. David Tombe (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    This is not about whether or not someone understands the subject and its a bit offensive that you assumed the lack here and asserted it as a reason to invalidate my opinion (I see you've done this with many others throughout the thread). This is about your ability or lack thereof to conform to the standards expected of Misplaced Pages editors. You seem to be under the misunderstanding that your assertion that you know more about the subject than others somehow excludes you from the policies and guidelines that every editor is expected to follow. I think everyone had hoped for better when you got a second chance after the last indef block. Shell 13:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    I have seen no problems with D Tombe following the block. I agree that one can identify abusive behavior without understanding the subject. (I'd say that Wolfkeeper and Dicklyon have shown very obvious indications of same.) However, much of the objections raised are not about abusive behavior, but about the length or course of the discussion, and these objections are not useful if they are not based upon explicit examples that probably cannot be evaluated without an understanding. Brews ohare (talk) 19:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    He's causing nothing but article problems. To my knowledge off-hand none of his edits has ever survived in the article... but he keeps on editing... over several years. There's never been any realistic claim by anyone that this is just the other editors ganging up on him either, there's no RFCs on that anywhere, it's just his edits are consistently poor quality, over several years, and people are having to constantly revert him.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Strongly oppose D Tombe has raised good points that have improved the articles. His ideas have led to clarifications, examples, citation of sources, and rewording even where his thesis has not made it into the article. It is a very bad precedent to ban an editor that is trying to improve WP just because of the impatience of some hot-heads. Brews ohare (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    Shell, show us all the evidence of what you have just said. This thread began as an allegation that there was too much talk going on on a talk page. It has now been transformed into an opportunist theatre for FyzixFighter, Wolfkeeper, and Dicklyon to try and get me off the project.
    There hasn't been a single substantiated allegation of any wrong doing on my part. There is no edit war going on and the discussion on the talk page is not unreasonable. I can't imagine myself ever intervening on a discussion page about a topic which I had no interest in, nor knew anything about, and then singling out an individual editor for a permanent ban as a means of reducing the amount of discussion. This whole thread has become one monumental farce. If any administrator takes the draconian action which is being demanded here by my opponents on that talk page and also by the continuing stream of uninvolved editors, then it will be a gross abuse of the administrator tool.
    On this thread, there is alot of noise going on about nothing. I have already suggested that the accusers produce their evidence, but so far we have seen nothing of any substance. Equally, there has been a total refusal to examine FyzixFighter's last revert on the centrifugal force article. David Tombe (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Hey there Brews, I know you don't like this and are offended by it, as I'm sure anyone would be in your position, but I'd really appreciate it if you could dial back the personal attacks. I don't believe it's at all fair to characterize me as a "hot-head" since I've been aware of this for over a year before coming to ANI, and the idea that the only problem here is that I or others are "simply annoyed that they cannot deliver the pithy one-two punch that settles an issue. That hurts their self image as amazing savants." Since I'm the one who brought this here, I can only assume you are at least partially referring to me, and, aside from being dead wrong about my motivations, it's just not very nice. I would also remind all of you that you don't have to be an expert to contribute to an article, that's just not how Misplaced Pages works. The purpose here is to try and prevent this article from being a walled garden, where only those who have been arguing for a year can even wrap their mind around what is being discussed on the talk page. I don't understand how anyone could look at the absurd length of these discussions and conclude that they are only reasonable discussion of the article itself. There seems to be a larger debate going on here about the accuracy of the underlying science behind the sources, making this a discussion that probably does not belong on Misplaced Pages at all, no matter it's length. It's not up to us to interpret the source material, or to create new theories, but merely to report on what is already available. I'm sure you guys are aware of this, but you would never know it from that talk page. And David, badgering everyone (even those who don't want you banned!) and acting like this is a court of law is not helping you at all, although it from my perspective it is helpful as it demonstrates what it is like to try and interact with you. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    Beeblebrox, if I stumbled across a lengthy debate on a topic that I knew nothing about, I would simply walk away from it. If wouldn't drag out two of the contributors at random and put them in a pillory for their opponents and also the angry villagers to throw rotten cabbages at. David Tombe (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    Hi Beeblebrox: Actually, I wasn't thinking about you in these remarks about "hot-heads" (I won't trouble to list who I was thinking about). I am very unsure why you have elected the role of taking out the garbage here; you seem to have little interest in contributing to this topic, so I guess it's "general principles" or "the good of WP", or something. However, the parameters demarcating a "reasonable discussion" are pretty hard to pin down. They depend upon personalities, temperature of the debate, subtlety of the topic, and many factors other than what might seem sensible for a simple exchange of opinion about sources.
    Your walled garden reference is a misuse of the terminology, but you seem to feel left out of the Talk page because you can't grasp what is going on there. That is not an issue, really, because you can start up a discussion of your own on any topic you wish without any requirement that other issues be settled before you join in. Brews ohare (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    I notice FyzixFighter and Darrenhusted proffer no real reasons for their support decision, not a very good sign. Nor do they take issue with the general guidelines suggested by those opposed to the motion. As noted by Ned Scott "no actual "rules" are being broken here, no evidence of edit warring has been shown, just a bunch of editors who have a lot of disagreements and arguments on the talk page." As Collect has noted: "use of a block for a content dispute on a talk page is not a good idea". Brews ohare (talk) 03:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Throughout all of this, including when I first became aware of all this a year ago, I was struck by how the two of you seem so smart about physics but so clueless about what is wrong with that talk page. That both of you, even now, simply say it is just a normal talk page conversation boggles the mind. I haven't even tried to grasp what you two are arguing about, to be honest. I, like most other users, have no interest in getting involved in an extremely protracted debate spanning 8 extremely long talk pages. That is what creates the "chilling effect" that leads to users shaking their heads and giving up on editing such an article. It was mentioned up the page that the last time this came to ANI, you guys agreed to take this off-wiki and argue elsewhere. So, in effect, by breaking that pledge, you have "broken a rule." And I might add you seem to be ignoring my point that you are discussing the science itself as opposed to reporting on what is in the sources. Instead of responding to that point, you have chosen instead to repeatedly suggest that everyone else lacks the intelligence and/or knowledge of physics to dare to criticize you. If you two would simply agree, and actually stick to it this time, that this conversation does not belong on Misplaced Pages, we could put this to bed, but I'm not such an optimist that I actually expect you to do that, that's why we're talking blocks and topic bans here. I may not be Brian Greene, but I can figure out why a conversation like this is not helpful to Misplaced Pages without a degree from Oxford. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    I'm glad you are honest enough to say you haven't even tried to follow what is happening. Your view of these matters is not factual. Brews ohare (talk) 04:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    You want a reason, here's a reason, you both give me a headache. You both fail to grasp what this whole site is about. For a start Tombe starts telling people that no one but him and you have physics backgrounds, I'm sorry but you don't know me, you have no idea what background I do or do not have. But io can tell you this with certainty David Tombe has no sense of perspective, he has 3,321 edits in under a year and yet only 22% are article edits, with 58% being talk edits. He talks about his edits three times as much (rounding up and down) as he actually edits. He has had four ANI threads, and has twice ranted on Jimbo's page about FyzixFighter (who has been here for 3 years and has a 60/20 main space edit/talk %). Even if he didn't spend all day creating drama he is not editing much outside of one page (in the last 1000 edits). The only reason I even started looking at him was because of his behaviour. Whether or not I understand physics has nothing to do with this, because this is not about physics. It's about the fact that David Tombe cannot grasp that he is harming this site by continuing to make edits, and then spending days complaining to everyone when they are reverted because on Misplaced Pages the phrase "I am cleverer than you" is not justification for bad editing. In summation, not about physics, is about both of you not seeing the wood for the trees. Darrenhusted (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    The above is why we don't taunt people with "give me one good reason...", because you'll be given one, with the assistance of a hammer-drill. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

    The tenor of Darrenhusted's remarks speaks for their "reasonableness". It is odd that BWilkins interprets a request for a reason as a taunt. Brews ohare (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

    After the absolute waste of space that this ANI entry has, the waste of editors time, the more-than-numerous reasons already given, for anyone to angrily say "give me one good reason..." is like asking your mother-in-law to give "one good reason" that you're not good enough for her little girl: we all know she'll go on for hours, and that's just what happened. Not sure what your definition of "taunt" is. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    I think David knows just enough physics to be dangerous, and we know he has at least one physics book (an old edition of Goldstein's Classical Mechanics), and that he promotes radical and revisionary physics off-wiki. So it's "about physics" at some level, but he doesn't get that wikipedia needs to be more conservative about how we portray things relative to sources, unlike his off-wiki domains where he can freely preach his version. Brews knows more physics, and has more books, and is not usually pitching a radical POV, but he does get stuck on idiosyncratic POVs unsupported by sources at times, and it is very frustrating to try to work on an article when he's on one of those tears. David eggs him on, and he eats that up, which I think is why he doesn't want David blocked, in spite of all the harm he does. If you want to see Brews in typical form, look at Wavelength and its talk page from June 10 to July 10. Srleffler and I and sometimes others had to fight like hell to hold back his nonsense; he got blocked at one point, resigned from the article at least twice, but is still at it (but more reasonably in the last week or so). If you look at his contribs, you can see that he focuses on one article at time, doing typically 30 to 100 edits in a day with no other editor having a chance to comment until he has completely bloated the article. It doesn't always provoke an edit war, but when it does, he digs in and keeps adding more and more complex stuff to overwhelm others. He likes to bury his concepts in mathematical language, which he claims is precise and doesn't need to be sourced, but which he actually misuses to make faulty conclusions. It's really sad to watch, and really hard to fight. I think he's a lot like David, basically a big baby about not getting his way, rather than seeking a way to collaborate, listen to constructive feedback, and form a consensus. I can't recall a time when another editor has supported him in an argument (though he did recently thank Lou Scheffer for coming up with a good alternative at Speed of light; I don't think Lou meant to be taking his side, but tried to acknowledge a sensible middle ground; this is another article where Brews has been a consistent complicator, and Martin Hogbin has been in the role of beating him back (I don't always agree with Martin, either, but this is another example of the horrible dynamic that ensues in most articles that Brews takes on). Brews is proud of his massive amounts of contributions to wikipedia, but I'm not so sure it's a net win, in terms of how hard he makes it to get articles right and sourced and not overly complex. Dicklyon (talk) 06:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    Well, there's Dicklyon's side of this. It's not my view. The history of the Wavelength page shows Dicklyon adopting a stance, blanket deleting entire sourced subsections without suggestions for modification, refusing to entertain any opposing view no matter how sourced, eventually relaxing his stance as he comes to understand the subject, and eventually agreeing to an emasculated statement of the original suggestions. Along the way he blanket deletes with cryptic, often abusive remarks, makes few if any constructive suggestions for modification, and instead makes statements tantamount to: 'This is the way it is, I said so.' And, naturally, he is an angel, and I don't play nice because my entries are too explanatory or too digressive (in his view). The history of Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) shows Dicklyon entering the discussion with no clue about what is happening in planetary motion, being educated by Brews_ohare and D Tombe (which discussion is now held against them as a wasted use of the Talk page), and finally becoming (in his view) a savant with amazing insight. However, he still "forgets" the Lagrangian version of centrifugal force, a major sub-section of Centrifugal force and argues against the inclusion of the important (very well sourced) subsection describing the relation between centrifugal force and the notion of absolute rotation (based upon his own sensibilities, nothing more). Brews ohare (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

    This circus was convened by editor Beeblebrox, ostensibly to discuss something benign like probation for the centrifugal force talk page, whatever that is supposed to mean. It is now rapidly sliding down the path towards becoming a warrant for crucifixion. Try to keep the discussions to the original point. Has there been too much talking going on at the centrifugal force talk page? If the answer is 'yes', then I'm sure that all the editors involved will bear that fact in mind and try to shorten their edits on that page. David Tombe (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

    • Oppose, this would sent a very bad precedent that would likely affect other articles. The way to deal with problematic editors is using the basic wiki laws like the 3RR violations mediation in case of edit warring. I explained above why discussing the actual physics is so important. Laclk of discussions led to severely flawed articles. Most people here do not know about that because it never led to conflict between editors. Only foccusing on conflicts between editors and taking measures to deal with that may adversely affect the way other articles are edited. Count Iblis (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

    Let someone else edit it a while

    It seems to me that there must be other people out there with the knowledge/expertise to write on this subject. Why don't the main contributors to the article agree to refrain from editing the article and talk page for, say, two weeks in order to let others have a chance at it? Mangoe (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

    I agree. The discussion is most certainly circular; the arguments seem to involve different frames of reference and a debate over which frame is correct/better (neither, according to Einstein!) An outside editor (willing to spend a significant chunk of time churning through sources and assembling a fair representation of both sides) would do will for the page. I also have to vote against the aforementioned bans. I fail to see where any one editor has been more uncivil than any others. Ban them all or ban none, but not some. Perhaps warnings all around? Clayt85 (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    I'd vote for this suggestion provided all participants e.g. including Martin Hogbin, Dicklyon, Wolfkeeper, FyzixFighter, etc. agree as well. Inasmuch as the instigator of this brawl, Beeblebrox, has never actually indicated any interest in contributing to the page, nor have Darrenhusted & BWilkins, I don't expect much will happen during the hiatus. However, it would be great if revisions were (i) explained on the Talk page, (ii) sourced and (iii) balanced. Brews ohare (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    I'm amenable to this, but I wouldn't include Martin in the list of participants that should take a hiatus from editing the article and talk page. He's only recently started to participate on the talk page, and I would like to see what he could do while we take a break. I'd also highly encourage that those like Iblis and CMD who think that just talking about the physics and going through the derivation will convince David of the errors of his ways and stop his fringe POV pushing to go ahead and try. It's easy enough to say, but doing it is another matter entirely. Others before you have tried to no avail, but maybe you'll succeed where they have failed. However, Brews, please don't discount the opinion of others like Darrenhusted and BWilkins just because they haven't participated on the article page. As I understand it, their opinions are based on David's action (failure to AGF and incivility) in general across multiple talk pages. --FyzixFighter (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    And I thought the point was that uninvolved editors gave their opinion. More to the point do you think that either the actions of you (ohare) or Tombe would encourage anyone to even try to edit any page that either of you have been near given the amount of drama you attract. What would happen if I made an edit at centrifugal force? Could I expect 4 ANI threads and two complaints to Jimbo as FF has been subjected to? At this point I would only try to contribute if I knew you were both banned from those pages. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

    Move to close/Summary

    • This is turning into the same thing as the talk page we're commenting on, a very verbose debate in which nothing is settled. It would be good if a couple of admins came forward and stated if they felt it warranted admin action or not. Since this has gone into WP:TLDR territory, I will try to summarize the core points here:
    • David Tombe and Brews ohare have had an extremely protracted debate for over a year on the centrifugal force talk page
    • This debate does not seem limited to discussion of the article but rather is a debate about the science itself and therefore an inappropriate use of an article talk page
    • Previous attempts to resolve this, including reports at WP:WQA, several WP:RFCs, and a previous report here have failed to resolve the issue
    • David and Brews seem to feel that if you are not a physicist you do not have the right to comment on their contributions, and are unwilling to acknowledge that this is anything other than a normal talk page conversation
    • There was a consensus to ban or block David Tombe last year for these exact same reasons, but an admin chose to unblock him and apparently did not follow up and make sure this behavior did not recur.
    • The above suggestion that they voluntarily remove themselves for two weeks will not solve the underlying problem of an off-topic debate beyond the usual scope of article talk pages
    For these reasons I believe some sort of administrative action is warranted, either in the form of a topic ban, blocking, or article probation Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

    I explained in detail in the extended discussion section, why the actions suggested by Beeblebrox would be a bad thing. One has to take into account that on this noticeboard page we only hear about disputes between editors. The fact that the way Brews edits articles has been very successfully used by me and others in correcting long standing and horrible errors without causing an disputes is a hard undeniable fact.

    Now, it can be the case that an editor is talking too much on the talk page. But then it is up to the other editors to deal with that ocnstructively. Instead of moaning like Beeblebrox is doing here, one has to reach a conclusion on the talk page. If one editor is behaving in an obstructive way, then that canot prevent a consension being reached by all the pother editors. So, ultimately one can always proceed without that problem editor and if that problem editor still disrupts the article, you can come back here and raise more clear cut violations like 3RR etc.

    If we take a shortcut by limiting Brews or David from discussing the physics/math on the talk page, then I see potential problems with other articles. We have had cases where extensive discussions based on physics were really necessary to settle disputes. In some cases there was one editor who was using sources in a misleading way and he was wikilawering. Now, such an editor could in the future come here and accuse the experts of talking too much physics and math. Count Iblis (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

    Summary is inaccurate

    • David Tombe and Brews ohare "debate":
    Long ago considerable debate occurred over the nature of centrifugal force. That involved many editors, and was not strictly a Brews-Tombe back-and-forth. It was a well intentioned effort to reconcile Tombe's notions with those in the article by looking at several examples, some of which ultimately were added to the article.. That era has passed. Any recent Brews_ohare - Tombe exchanges have been short, constructive and related to content.
    • This debate's subject.
    I'd say present debate is focused upon the content of the article, and discussion has that objective in mind.
    • David and Brews seem to feel that if you are not a physicist you do not have the right to comment.
    A complete misunderstanding bordering upon deliberate distortion.
    • There was a consensus to ban or block David Tombe;
    A true statement, the ban served its purpose, which was to control name-calling and paranoia (not all on Tombe's side, I'd add). No recurrence of this behavior on Tombe's part.
    • The above suggestion that they voluntarily remove themselves for two weeks will not prevent off-topic debate beyond the usual scope of article talk pages;
    What is this about - preventing talk on editor talk pages? Preventing use of the article talk page indefinitely?
    Considering that a large proportion of the figures and text in Centrifugal force Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) and Reactive centrifugal force originated with Brews-ohare, and that Beeblebrox has never made an attempt to add content or to engage in discussion on these pages, his crusade here is peculiar. He is interested in influencing decision by rhetoric, not by principle. He has no direct experience with any of the editors he attacks anywhere that I know about, never mind on Centrifugal force. What are the motivations and the credentials of Beeblebrox anyway? Brews ohare (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    You wonder why he hasn't tried to edit the pages given what has happened in this ANI thread alone. To any admin out there please put a lid on this. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    Beeblebrox and Darrenhusted have made no attempt whatsoever. Don't tell me you are too bashful to even show up on the Talk page. It has not intimidated a lot of other editors: Rracecarr, Wolfkeeper, The Anome, PeR, FyzixFighter, Martin Hogbin, Henning Makholm, Dicklyon, Dougweller, Harald88, Fugal etc. etc.Brews ohare (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    Brews, whether the editors commenting here have tried to get involved in the debate on the article talk page or not is irrelevant. This is a report at ANI not an RFC. A report here asks uninvolved editors to look at the behavior of the editor(s) in question and give opinions based on the agreed upon standards of the Wiki community. It is not meant to get them involved in the actual debate on the talk page (that would be what an RFC or mediation is for), although it may lead to that. Stop trying to marginalize the comments of others by using standards that don't apply. --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Whatever guys. Must you resort to this sort of base tactics every time, questioning the intelligence and motivations of persons you don't agree with. Here's what you just don't seem to want to understand: it is absolutely not required that an editor be an expert on a subject before contributing to an article or a talk page conversation, so my credentials, and yours, are not really relevant. You both keep harping on the point that I have not participated in your debate, as if that makes any comment from me invalid. I would say it is exactly the opposite. Clearly, I don't have an opinion in your actual dispute and could care less which of you is right or wrong, meaning that it is easier for me to see this from an impartial outsider's perspective. Don't try to turn this around and make it about me, because it isn't, I'm hardly the only one who sees a problem here. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    No one is preventing you from participating editing the article or its talk page. So, what is exactly the problem? Just that there are a lot of discussions on the talk page as you wrote in the OP? While I agree that David may talk a bit too much, that alone cannot be a good ground for any action to be taken.
    Many disputes on article contents have been settled by lengthy discussions witout escalating to major conflicts, so on this page you'll find no trace of such disputes. That happens far often than unnecessary discusions that go on for too long. But a lay person cannot be expected to see the difference. So, if David and Brews were sanctioned for talking too much then I could also be sanctioned for talking too much on thermodynamics talk page articles. You can easily imagine some editor with some POV that is based on a misunderstanding of a source to come along and the only way that can be refuted is by a lengthy argument, because you can't always refute a quote out of context by a quote that counters that directly. Count Iblis (talk) 13:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    Count Iblis, with regards to David Tombe the problem goes far beyond just talking too much on the talk page. What is your opinion of the behavior described in the WQA report? Is such persistent behavior acceptable or not, and if not what is the next recourse in getting David to change such behavior? --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    That's a far better way to address a problem. I.e. instead of complaining about very lengthy talk page debates, you cite specific incidences of verbal abuse. Sanctioning an editor based on that sounds legitimate to me in principle (I haven't look at all the instances of alleged abuse yet). Beeblebrox treats Bews and David in the same way based on their lengthy talk page discussions. I.m.o., that's wrong.Count Iblis (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

    As is typical with Misplaced Pages, you fellows are trying to kill the wrong people. This entire problem is due to FyzixFighter who intervened after much of the long discussion between Brews and Tombe was worked out. FyzxFighter then swooped in and deleted Tombe's edits, which were at the final stage, and wiped out all of the progress. Hence I am a bit surprised that you are not discussing a ban on FyzixFighter, as he is obviously the source of the current problem. Now we have Mr Beeblebrox stepping in to make things worse. He is trying to establsh rules for editing physics articles when he doesn't know any physics. I will make this problem clear. The physics community has been arguing about the physics of centrifugal force for at least 200 years. Does he expect that wikipedia will produce a satisfactory article on this topic if wikipedia tries to enforce a conclusion that the physics community doesn't agree upon? I think not. The problem here is Misplaced Pages procedures and the way it handles disputes. The correct way is to allow both view points into the article while telling the reader there is a disute and letting him decide. Misplaced Pages thinks they can avoid mentioning there is a dispute and then determine which side is the correct side of the argument. Such a procedue is bound to ruffle feathers and is more than likely going to lead to wrong information in Misplaced Pages. Apparently, Mr Beeblebrox believe that the best solution is to choose up sides, like in a children's playground, and ostracise the bad boys from the playground. That is not a solution and will only help to keep Misplaced Pages's reputation for erronous information intact, and confirm why that reputation was properly earned in the first place.72.84.66.220 (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

    Beeblebrox, the participants on the talk page are doing just fine without your participation. You say: "Clearly, I don't have an opinion in your actual dispute and could care less which of you is right or wrong, meaning that it is easier for me to see this from an impartial outsider's perspective." You are trying to solve a problem you have "seen" as a non-participant with no interest, assessed the "problem" based upon a partial understanding of what the back-and-forth is about (taking it as fruitless debate even when it is simply the evolution of thought), and interpreted the actions of other editors with no experience of your own in dealing with the participants, nor understanding of the structure of the discussion, never mind any other qualification. Forget it. Brews ohare (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    Sorry sir but it is exactly about you. Your inability to understand the issues has resulted in a demand to kill two editors. That is simply wrong, and if you dont see that, you don't belong here in my opinion. This latest dispute was caused by FyzixFighter. Why didn't you make a move to block him? That would be a more productive move from my observations regarding the problems of trying to edit wikipedia articles. Mr FyzixFighter is always intervening when a compromise has been reached destroying the efforts of Mr Tombe to work out a solution. This is because Mr FyzixFighter doesn't know anything about physics and never will. He is just trying to cause problems for MR Tombe who does know physics. I don't think you understand the problems and simply want to kill the participants efforts because you don't understand them or physics.71.251.188.202 (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

    Welcome to the incident noticeboard. This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Misplaced Pages that require the intervention of administrators. Any user of Misplaced Pages may post here. Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting. As a courtesy, you must inform other users if they are the subject of a discussion.

    Frivolous complaints and unsubstantiated requests for administrator intervention do not belong here. Please do not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion. Before posting a grievance about a user here, it is advised that you discuss the issue with them on their user talk page.

    Count Iblis (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

    FyzixFighter 3RR: FyzixFighter went over 3RR on exactly the same day as Tombe, by the same amount, at almost exactly the same time, by the same iffy 'last edit of the day + the next day's three edits' method of counting. Like I care. What I do care about, though, is Fyz reporting it to Tombe on the talk page, and later here, in the collapsed "Extended content" section, when he was guilty of the same thing himself. My guess is he just didn't notice he had done it himself, the alternative is less likely.

    Refusal to engage arguments

    There is a discussion on Talk:Martin Luther King about the inclusion of a quote that may be illuminating of his character. Some editors refuse to accept that character may be a relevant aspect of the man. User:Jonund has presented arguments why he thinks it is relevant. They have been met with a dogged refusal to engage the arguments or answer concrete questions. This is a violation of WP:DE#Signs_of_disruptive_editing, which describes a disruptive editor as one who does not engage in consensus building:

    • repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
    • repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.

    Two RfC:s have been submitted. One led to intervention by an editor (and administrator) that engages in the same kind of behavior that has been described as disruptive editing. The other led to intervention by an editor who takes the opposite position. The discussion on the talk page is long; much of the relevant material is found under the section RfC King's sexual conduct.

    The behavior of some editors prevents progress in the article. In my opinion, it's a serious treath to wp:s integrity and credibility if a number of dedicated editors are able to stop the addition of material that they apparently oppose on dogmatic grounds. I ask for proper measure to be taken to guarantee that the editing process is not obstructed. I suppose a warning is the best way to start. --Årvasbåo (talk) 10:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

    Allright. I'll hereby warn you not to misrepresent the arguments used by people with a different opinion. They have reviewed the sources, and concluded that the four sources given are actually one source plus three repeaters, and the first source is most probably based on hearsay from the FBI, not on proper research. I have also noted that people oppose the inclusion not only because of reasons of verifiability, but for WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. No one opposes the section on his extramarital affairs, but the inclusion of one piece of dirty talk, based on such poor sourcing, is not warranted at all. This has nothing to do with "refusing to accept that character is a relevant aspect" and even less with disruptive editing. This is standard policy application. After two RfC's, it may be best to quietly drop this instead of continuing like this. Fram (talk) 10:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    As one of the many editors accused in this notice, I will add that Fram's summary pretty much covers it. The only editor who is really insistent on including the material under dispute feels that one exclamation that Hoover's COINTELPRO-era FBI claimed King made in a moment of passion, is so incredibly revelatory of King's nastiness that it must, simply must be included in the article, because otherwise people won't realize what a horrible, skanky blasphemer King was. (Full disclosures: I have belonged to at least one organization destroyed by FBI manipulations during this era; and still belong to AFSCME, the union on behalf of whose garbageworkers King was speaking when he was assassinated.) The insistent editor backs this up with references to how important this issue is to all the best theologians of his (the editor's) religious tradition as he interprets it. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    I am also one of the many editors accused, I think perhaps the admin who is alleged to be engaging in disruptive behavior. A review of the talk page will reveal two things: (1) that there is pretty much a single editor insisting that additional material regarding King's sexual conduct be included so that the article will conform to that single editor's POV regarding how the individuals who are regarded by some as a form of "religious icon" seemingly must, by definition, have their known shortcomings explored in detail, and (2) another editor who, as far as I can tell, thinks that a quote from King must be included because of "insights" it offers into King's personality, despite the fact that I am aware of no encyclopedias that include such information for such purposes, and that doing so very likely even runs against the spirit of encyclopedias, which is to present unbiased factual information. I would very much welcome a clear reference to either a policy or a guideline which indicates that either is considered acceptable, something I believe I have to date never seen. Otherwise, I have to very much question the motivations of an editor who starts a discussion such as this one regarding, basically, how editors who are ltimately trying to ensure the article remain NPOV are somehow behaving so badly that it has to be brought to a noticeboard. John Carter (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    Hey, I thought I was the admin alleged to be engaging in disruptive behavior. The OP does have a point; I'm not bothering engaging in the sourcing and verifiability issues, because I don't think the quote belongs in the article for reasons unrelated to the sourcing. I also don't think there's any admin intervention required here; nobody has taken any administrative actions in regard to this discussion, nor suggested any is necessary (except when a bit of edit warring was going on a few weeks ago, but that's ceased.) Slightly heated discussion is ensuing on the talk page, which is exactly where such discussion belongs. --jpgordon 14:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    As yet another one of the editors alleged to be engaging in disruptive behavior, I don't care whether the sources are reliable, although I have my doubts. My view is that what King may or may not have exclaimed during orgasm doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article, period. — ] (talk · contribs) 16:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    We should be firmer about sanctioning editors who abuse the dispute resolution process (whether ANI or other venues). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    My position is simple. There was an RfC, I came and commented, the majority of commentators did not agree with the POV of the editor who posted the RfC, the discussion continued, despite the consensus being against one editor. The RfC was closed, and I stated that as the RfC was closed and because the consensus was that there was no weight in the argument for inserting the material (drawing on several WP policies) I made it clear that was my position, and that as far as I was concerned the matter was closed, and took the page off my watchlist. So, I am surprised to see this is ongoing still. My understanding is that if one makes an RfC, and consensus is against the proposal on grounds in line with WP policies and guidelines, that is the conclusion - not that a single editor persists in agitating discussion until (through a process of attrition) he gets his own way. The arguments have all been laid out quite clearly, so I see no reason why we need to keep going over this, unless some new information has come to light. There ought to be a process where editors who place an RfC, but do not like the responses of commentators, then malign those who do not respond in ways that would favour them, are disciplined. What is the point of placing an RfC if you aren't prepared to accept the response you get? Those who responded in a way that contradicted the wishes of this editor were accused of various things - when clearly the bias was on the part of the editor who appears to have an axe to grind. Mish (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    Actually, if an RfC is questioned, then the apparent next step is to seek mediation. I have already indicated as much on the talk page of the article in question. Why this step was instead taken is something I have very serious difficulty understanding. John Carter (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    I responded to the RFC and argued in favour of inclusion. I've loosely followed the discussion since. After the RFC Jonund continued to put his case and, in my eyes, did so with very cogent argument. He raised several points which, as far as I saw, were not answered with anything other than claims that he was trying to insert a POV. I didn't see it that way at all and I have no idea what his POV is. I've no opinion on whether ANI is an appropriate venue for this, or whether the disruptive editing policy is applicable. Consensus is not about head counts. In my opinion Jonund has presented the superior and most convincing argument. John's suggestion of mediation sounds reasonable to me--MoreThings (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    My apologies for having not looked over the previous discussion before posting here, and having forgotten that there were additional supporters of the idea. John Carter (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    No worries. I think there have also been at least a couple of IPs arguing in favour. The first paragraph from this post by one of them sums up the way it looked to me, too, from a distance. --MoreThings (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    As I recall there were a couple of supporters, and they fell quiet, but the consensus seemed to be not to insert. The issue of POV was raised by Jonund initially, as I recall, when people wouldn't accept his reasoning, which was basically along the lines that the information was relevant because of certain religious beliefs; it is a problem, and when accusing disinterested editors who respond to an RfC of having a POV, one shouldn't be surprised if it is pointed out that the reasoning for inclusion appears to reflect a certain POV itself. As I recall, the argument was that most Christians believed something, and this was evidence that King transgressed this standard of what a Christian leader should be, and that made the information relevant. I didn't think that Misplaced Pages was about endorsing specific religious views, and basing the eligibility of entries on that basis. The issue about the source was that it was an allegation about what a primary source said, that in itself being a problematic primary source as it was part of a counter-intellegence operation aimed at discrediting King, and that the material was challenged at the time and still is. As I recall, it was thought that if it were to be included, it should be so on the basis that it was an allegation that had been refuted, and not as something that could be verified beyond 'so-and-so said this', as we do not have access to the original source, and the allegation was based on a transcript. There was also the issue that the RfC was based on the wrong link - i.e., the link given in the RfC did not relate to a relevant source at all. This became clear at the close of the RfC, and was the point at which I felt I had little more energy to engage with the discussion further. With hindisght, however, I think that simply including a source on the basis that 'all Christians' believe 'such and such', and this source will make them realise 'so and so' was 'something-or-other' is bogus - especially when there is already extensive discussion about the guys philandering. The only sense I got that this source was worth including was because from this it would be clear to 'most Christians' that he was a blasphemer, and therefore not 'a man of God'. Sorry, I don't see this as a valid reason for including dubious material. To me that is not a POV, it is a no-brainer where Misplaced Pages is concerned. Of course, my memory is not infallible, and I don't have time or energy to go through the (long) discussion right now. Mish (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    I tend to basically agree with the above. The quote in question was challenged at the time, and thus would require indicating it was an "alleged" statement or something similar. If there were a specific reliable source which said something to the effect of, "based on this comment, it is clear that King committed one mortal sin while in the act of committing another mortal sin, and thus cannot be seen as being even a weak Christian", I could maybe, maybe, see that being included. But to argue that information must be included to substantiate an argument which no one produced evidence of a reliable source as ever making is at best crossing into POV pushing. John Carter (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    I would disagree with several of the points above but I guess this is probably not the place to rehearse the arguments. I think the thrust of Årvasbåo's incident report is that Jonund has been presenting reasoned argument which has met with no real counter-argument, but has been dismissed in the way described by the IP I linked to above. The way Årvasbåo and the IP describe the debate is also the way it loooked to me. I don't know what mediation involves but that certainly sounds to me as though it would be more appropriate than looking for any kind of administrative intervention, if that's what is being requested here. --MoreThings (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages is written from a neutral, secular point of view. Character may be relevant to an encyclopedic biography, but where the incident being described was obviously driven by a politically motivated attempt at discrediting a public figure, where no longstanding notability has been established, where the argument for inclusion is clearly being made in religious terms, and where no apparent encyclopedic grounds for inclusion seem to have been provided, what exactly do you expect? – Luna Santin (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    If Årvasbåo is saying what I think he is saying, then, with respect, none of you what you have written above has anything to do with this incident report. It's not about the whether the quotation should be included. It's about whether editors have been refusing to enage Jonund in discussion about its inclusion. Anyhoo, I ought not to put words in Årvasbåo's mouth. --MoreThings (talk) 01:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    Sorry, on re-reading your post, I see that I misinterpreted it, somewhat. I would reply that, from what I saw, Johund was indeed making his case on encyclopedic grounds. His case was that the other editors would not engage with him in a debate about whether inclusion would be encyclopedic. Anyway, I'm off to bed. --MoreThings (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    I would only add that the quotation was at the time it came out argued as of at best dubious sound quality and coherence at the time it was first "released", making adding a quotation which was even at the time considered by some (yes, possibly biased) listeners as incoherent would be very likely violating neutrality rules, by taking one side's opinion over a possibly garbled quotation over another side's without any clear evidence to support taking that position. To include a possible misreading of an apparently dubious quotation as evidence of anything is particularly problematic. This is over and above the other existing concerns regarding the alleged content which have already been expressed here. John Carter (talk) 00:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    Speaking as someone previously uninvolved, it looks to me like consensus is firmly against including the quote at this time. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    Looking at the title of this thread, and looking at the things listed under 'are you in the right place?', where the topic of this thread is not listed, I have to ask: is ceasing to engage an editor's argument once an RfC has closed, even though he persists in maintaining he is right when the consensus appears to have gone the other way, something that needs administrative attention? I don't see how this fits here. Any action that needs to be taken should be directed at the person who posted the thread, like pointing out that Jonund did an RfC, that his arguments were weak, and people didn't seem to agree with him, and that he should deal with it. Mish (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    Looking through the discussion thread once more, I would counter the accusation of disruptive editing; for a start it was not the discussants who sought to make such an edit, and a long discussion was engaged with - disagreement is not failing to build consensus; rather this looks more like a case of WP:Tendentious editing on the part of one editor, in trying to force this material in, and disregarding the input of other editors and those who responded to the RfC. I cannot see that the discussion has substantially changed since my departure - and this was part of the reason I left. The page I just referred to makes clear that when an editor persistently makes the same point over and over again, it is wise to reflect on whether this is a POV issue. The same points were made, and contrary to the wording of this ANI they were responded to - exhaustively - but ignored, with the same points being restated again. I do not see how mediation will help in this, because there was an RfC and the editor would not accept what people said. All that is needed is for the editor(s) promoting the insertion to accept that, rather than escalating the matter in the hope that they can override the consensus not to insert it in some way. Now, if I do not respond here, or on the discussion page, again, it is not because I am refusing to engage the arguments - I have done that - and I consider there is no more to say. That is because I do not have strong views on this, unlike the editor(s) who seem to want it inserted (obviously, or we wouldn't all be here now, would we?). Mish (talk) 01:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    Mish, you say " arguments were weak, and people didn't seem to agree with him, and that he should deal with it." You go on to paint it as POV-pushing by a single editor. You imply both here and on the talk page, that you are not interested in further discussion. You finish up by saying that everyone who wants it inserted is probably also a POV-pusher. All of that is exactly the kind of behaviour that is alleged in this incident report. One editor whom nobody agrees with? There is Årvasbåo, who opened this report, Jonund himself, me, the ip I linked to above, and the second IP I mentioned. That's 5 people mentioned in this thread alone. POV-pushing? It's easy just to invoke these acronyms, but where is the argument to substantiate your claim? What exactly is the POV that is being pushed? I don't have a clue which POVs the others might hold about anything. The only POV we share is that the article would be better for the inclusion of the quote. What do you think my point of view is? What do you think the IP's is? I've named five people above who would dispute your claim that consensus exists for exclusion. What's wrong with mediation? --MoreThings (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

    No. That is not what I said. (Your statement is also self-contradictory). What I said was that the editor who brought up POV-pushing in the original discussion was Jonund, when those who responded to the RfC did not agree with him, and his arguments suggest something about his own POV - that we have to put this in because of something Christian's believe about blasphemy and he says scholars are agreed upon - nothing that actually relates to the sources. I said nothing about other editor's POV. What I said was about overriding there being no consensus to insert the material, I did not say why people might want to do that - I said nothing about POV in that respect. It is not I who accused editors of responding to an RfC on an article they had no history with of bad faith - that is implicit in the wording of this ANI. Sure, if mediation will help you to accept that people did not agree with the insertion, mediation could be valuable. But I am not sure I wish to engage in a process where, having engaged in an RfC in good faith, I once more have my motives questioned, and having gone through these arguments once, then taking the article off my watchlist when the RfC had closed, then being dragged here to account for why I had stopped discussing the insertion once the RfC was closed, and finding myself accused of disruptive editing of an article I had made no edits of before the RfC, or in connection with the RfC, and then have to go through all the arguments again. I would prefer to be doing something else, to be honest. Something a bit less trivial than whether a man who died 40 years ago might have said something while he was having sex with somebody he wasn't married to, and whether that is still significant today. Mish (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

    That's cool, Mish. I'm not looking to get into a tit-for-tat—just adding my 2p on here as I did on the RFC. Let it go whither it will. --MoreThings (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    Sure, nor do I. To me, this discussion ended when the RfC ended, and I am surprised that it is still going on. Mish (talk) 02:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    To give the lie to my previous post, and to be sucked into a gratuitous tit-for-tat: I don't think the discussion is ended; I think it should be continue. Okay, no more, I promise :) --MoreThings (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

    This discussion is not impressive. A number of editors who have been involved in disruptive editing on the article talk page spam this page with irrelevant posts, and a few administrators, who haven't bothered to investigate or comprehend what the dispute is about bite the person who brings up a serious issue. Nobody has yet dealt with the question raised at the opening of this thread, let alone answered the questions my opponents so obstinately have dodged for two or three months.

    An early formulation of my questions was:

    • Are lewdness and blasphemy really immaterial qualities in a Christian minister who has on top of that been commemorated by two churches as a saint/hero/martyr?
    • Is it really improper to assume, as King did, and as most philosophers have done, that moral character is important?

    Since the answeres amounted to a simple no, I elaborated the questions thus:

    • Which objective criteria do you propose for determining which viewpoints are significant? How is it possible to dismiss the majority of theologians and philosophers as irrelevant? Aren’t you placing your own opinions above those, which is against WP:UNDUE?
    • If you feel that it is improper appeal to theologians and philosopher because their position is a POV, are you aware that “The requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly,” and “As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is 'POV'”? On what grounds do you eliminate widely held perspectives? Or can you demonstrate that these quotes are invalid in this case?
    • How do you deal with the fact that ribaldry and immorality (on a far larger scale than the occasional succumbing to temptation) was a typical trait of King’s life? Shouldn’t this be given due weight in the article, by being mentioned?

    If there is a case to be made against the inclusion of the quote, why don't you have the quote bueried by answering the questions? The avoidance to do so shows a very poor ability for a matter-of-fact manner, or a bad faith. There is no way to evade the questions and substitute answers with dogmatic positions.

    Pace Luna Santin, Misplaced Pages is not written from a secular point of view. It's written from a NPOV, which means "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". You don't need to be religious to understand the quote's bearing on MLK's character and agree that it is important. I'm not trying to discredit King, but to give information from several sides, which enables the reader to get a nuanced picture of him. And even if I had political motives and where out for discrediting, that's not to the point. WP articles are judged on the merit of their contents and not the editor's supposed motives (sometimes bad motives render good results). There is indeed a longstanding notability in this case. Serious sources continue to report the quote. The encyclopedic grounds for inclusion become evident once you answer the question I have asked.

    The verifiability part of the dispute now seems to have been settled. Let me anyway remind you that I always wanted to include also the statements of King's coworkers, to get all significant views represented.

    For an example of a WP article who reports an incident perceived as evidence of hypocrisy, see Peace Now#General Secretary. Probably that incident was less offensive in terms of the values of the General Secretary, since he also had the law to take into account. Yet, editors find it relevant to point out behavior that seems to contradict his own values (which, in his case, are shared by few of his fellow citizens).

    As the problem of disregarding questions that might settle the issue has not been solved, I appeal to disinterested administrators to take responsibility and intervene. I understand that the amount of text deters those editors, but WP cannot function with behavior on this level going unchalleged. --Jonund (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

    A number of editors who have been involved in disruptive editing on the article talk page spam this page with irrelevant posts: Those are fighting words. --jpgordon 22:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    No, it shows who is refusing to engage who's arguments. Clearly my responses were not engaged with, as they are regarded as 'spam' and 'disruptive' - and when I decided not to waste any more of time on somebody who simply ignored anything that was said to them, I get accused of refusing to engage with his arguments. Note that allegations about King's adultery are included here: Martin Luther King#FBI and wiretapping, so Shouldn’t this be given due weight in the article, by being mentioned? shows some confusion on Jonund's part, as it is mentioned in the only way possible - as allegations. On the other hand he says Since the answeres amounted to a simple no, when it was responded to with more than just 'no', in some detail as I recall. I could go through the inaccuracy and self-contradiction in more detail, but as that would be 'spam' and 'disruptive editing' according to him, I will do what I have done with the discussion on the article, I will be silent (and this seems to be what this is all about - silencing disagreement). Please note that I am not refusing to engage, however, I am simply being silenced. Mish (talk) 23:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, "allegations" about King's adultery are included in the article, but my question was about something more: "ribaldry and immorality (on a far larger scale than the occasional succumbing to temptation) was a typical trait of King’s life".
    The answers to my questions have lacked substance and hardly give more information than that you don't think moral character is relevant. Three editors have pointed out that my arguments have not been met with any real counter-arguments. My repeated attempts to get real answers should have given you a memento about the need for engaging my arguments seriously. That you ignored my patient attempts to have an honest discussion about the points i believe are crucial, and now play innocent, speaks volumes about your ability, or willingness, to contribute constructively.
    Assertions like "you didn't answer!" and "yes, we've said all that needs to be said!" are not conducive to the discussion. I expect administrators to lay it down that ignoring arguments is not acceptable and only places you out of the consensus-seeking community. The editors also still have a chance to answer my questions clearly and thoroughly. --Jonund (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    I was not aware you asked about citing a source that discusses King's moral character. You have a source for this then: "ribaldry and immorality was a typical trait of King’s life"? If an author has said this, then it should be included in accordance with the weight due - and stated as what it is - that so-and-so gives evidence that "ribaldry and immorality was a typical trait of King’s life" (as a quote, referencing whoever). My apologies, I thought you were still arguing that this statement should be inserted on the basis of WP:OR - that theologians/philosophers say that people who do X are Y, King did X, therefore King was Y - because based on the source provided in the RfC that would be synthesis. Mish (talk) 22:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    (outdent) Jonund, why are you repeating your same tired arguments here? It seems clear you're more interested in writing a Sunday morning sermon than an encyclopedia article. You seem like a petulant child whose got his fingers in his ears, repeating "I don't hear you." You have no right to demand answers to your silly questions, and then reject them if they don't suit your purpose. Grow up already. And to everybody else, please stop feeding this troll. — ] (talk · contribs) 00:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

    Concern about excessive rangeblocks

    A few weeks ago I guestblogged a series of posts on The Volokh Conspiracy. Since then I have received e-mails from several readers of that blog on various issues. One of the most frustrating was from an eminent retired law professor, who indicated that he has attempted to contribute to Misplaced Pages articles several times, but has been blocked from doing so. He summarized the message that he receives when he tries to log in, and it turns out to be a Scibaby rangeblock. I have written back and explained how I can go ahead and create an account for this editor, but he seems to have moved on and I fear that we have lost the possibility of his contributing permanently.

    In the wake of the publicity surrounding the ArbCom decision in the Scientology case, I was asked to appear on a radio show. There was a short call-in segment in which three people called in, and one of them also complained that he too has been caught up in longterm rangeblocks. Again, I offered to explain to him how to get an account opened if he would e-mail me, but I never heard from him, so he may have given up as well.

    It is understood that rangeblocks, particularly ones placed by checkusers, are intended to address long-term abuse situations and are sometimes necessary. However, if they are overused, we risk cutting off our nose to spite our face, and there are also times when semiprotection or just dealing with petty nonsense is a better answer than blocking tens of thousands of IPs. I think we should all please make a point to use rangeblocks as narrowly as is reasonably possible. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

    Perhaps we should make instructions on how to have an account created more prominent/easier to understand for folks who encounter a rangeblock. Some collateral on rangeblocks is inevitable, but possibly it can be addressed and explained more constructively. Nathan 15:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    There are instances where as many as a dozen range blocks have been imposed in attempts to control only one vandal. In one case, the blocks of User:Scibaby, at least one person mails unblock-en-l every day asking for help. Who knows how many give up when they encounter the block. Fred Talk 16:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    I think I agree with this. These SciBaby rangeblocks have been up for years. I would say that several times per week someone asks for help in navigating these at CAT:UNB and they are almost always legitimate users. Most vandals get bored and move on; I think it may be worthwhile to test the waters and remove these on a trial basis. If SciBaby becomes a problem again, we can always reinstate them, but for the time being, I think they are currently doing FAR more harm than good. Additionally, the rangeblocks were placed long before the Edit Filter came on line; SciBaby's abuse can now be controlled using appropriate edit filters much more easily, and it would be preferable for the project if those methods were attempted now that we have them availible. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 16:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    Support lifting them. These rangeblocks definitely turn off new contributors. –xeno 16:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    Rangeblocks are here to protect the project from harm, and to cause less stress for those involved in doing so. But when they result in at least one on-wiki unblock request a week, and a email to the unblock mailing list almost every day, the rangeblock is accomplishing the opposite. I say that we lift the rangeblocks, and take a look at setting up an abuse filter instead. Tiptoety 17:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    If the range blocks are targetted at one person, they should be replaced with an abuse filter. An abuse filter could protect just certain articles from certain ranges or stop a particular type of vandalism from certain ranges, etc. Wknight94 17:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    These Scibaby rangeblocks have been going on for months if not longer. We get unblock requests on a regular basis as well. I've been against these excessive blocks for a while and I've heard that there has been extended discussion amongst checkusers and other functionaries. Given that admins are (rightfully) hesitant to remove rangeblocks and Raul is generally against removing them I think that ArbCom needs to address the issue. Generally speaking, I don't think we have a problem with "regular" admins excessively blocking ranges. So please, checkusers/functionaries/arbcom - this is something that you all need to work out (in my opinion). - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    I also support lifting the Scibaby rangeblocks. It's been suggested several times, but Raul always resists. Enigma 17:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    Well, in all reality it is not really up to him. Should the community, or the functionaries feel that the ranges need to be unblocked to better serve the community then that is what needs to happen. The decision, is really the communities (as it is with any other block). Tiptoety 17:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    I've often geolocated the IPs in the sockpuppet category for this user and have mapped them to every corner of the USA, from California, to Texas, to the east coast, and up to Montana. If this is one user, he appears to have the ability to change IPs at will (maybe through zombie proxies) and it appears this would make rangeblocks entirely ineffective against him. MBisanz 17:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    I have been privately complaining about these rangeblocks for some time (citation needed, I know), and I'm glad to see it under discussion. The disruption these rangeblocks is undoubtedly causing is not worth the effort to block a single vandal who can easily be identified otherwise, is easy to revert, and persistently evades the bans. The rangeblocks should be removed. --Bastique 18:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

    I have lifted about 15 of the blocks at this time, and note that an abuse filter has been set up. Tiptoety 19:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

    I've spent a few hours programming up a couple of abuse filters, #205 and #206. (Note: do not discuss the rule-sets publicly. Scibaby is very good at changing behavior once it is revealed how we track him) Thanks, Wknight94, for the tip. I somehow hadn't heard about the abuse filter feature until you mentioned it.

    There are two problems with the situation as it now stands. (1) The abuse filters do not have access to private checkuser data and the developers are not going to implement that feature until there is consensus on-wiki to do so. (See Bug 18429) As such, the rule sets cannot take advantage of the knowledge we have accumulated about the IPs he uses. All IP checks still have to be done manually by someone with checkuser access. (2) The abuse filters apply only at edit time. So there is no way to prevent Scibaby is maturing sockpuppet accounts.

    Taken together, what this means is dramatically more work for the admins and checkusers who deal with him -- primarily me. I'm open to suggestions for fixing this, because I consider this an intolerable situation. Raul654 (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

    And on a related note, see bug 19796, a feature request for a checkuser watchlist. Raul654 (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

    Raul654, I encourage you to discuss the issue on the Functionaries-l. We've been discussing the topic for the past week. My understanding the situation is that Scibaby is not someone that engages in harassment or other conduct that makes it essential to try and stop every account from making an edit on site. As well, his edits are pretty easy to recognize and can be reverted without loads of harm done to the project. So, maybe alerting more people to add his favorite topics to their watchlist would be a good solution rather than the approach that causes the ongoing need to create accounts for users or otherwise deal with the collateral damage. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    My understanding the situation is that Scibaby is not someone that engages in harassment or other conduct that makes it essential to try and stop every account from making an edit on site. - that is true.
    As well, his edits are pretty easy to recognize and can be reverted without loads of harm done to the project. - that is partly true. (A) In general, you actually have to know a little something about the topic (global warming) before you can recognize his edits. Otherwise, it's all meaningless jibberish. (B) Occasoinally a legit user is confused for a Scibaby sockpuppet. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen once in a while. (C) There is a cadre of users (GoRight and Abd among them) who have a history of meatpuppeting on his behalf (That is to say, restoring edits by Scibaby after a sockpuppet of his has been identified, tagged, and blocked). In the latter case, earlier this week I issued both GoRight and Abd final warnings that further such edits will result in a block. However, dealing with such meatpuppetry by disruptive users is both time consuming and, in the long run, exhausting.
    So, maybe alerting more people to add his favorite topics to their watchlist would be a good solution rather than the approach that causes the ongoing need to create accounts for users or otherwise deal with the collateral damage. - I have *repeatedly* asked for other checkusers to pitch in and help, so that I wasn't the only one paying attention to these articles. Little to no help has been forthcoming. Raul654 (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    I was blissfully unaware of Scibaby until I noticed that Raul654 had reverted, with no explanation, an edit to User talk:GoRight. Since Raul654 is a dedicated opponent of GoRight, I wondered what he was doing reverting an apparently harmless edit to GoRight's Talk. Having, myself, reverted vandalism to user talk pages, and having been reverted on the claim that the user could handle it themselves, I reverted. I was reverted, and Raul654 warned me about "meat puppeting", and we debated it with no resolution. Notice above how the single incident, where I had no information at all about socks, has been conflated into a pattern by Raul654, who, in spite of now being directly involved in a dispute with me, was and is threatening to block me. I have no intention of defying him to make a point, but if I see an example where the benefit to the project would outweigh the possible disruption, I'd have no hesitation in going ahead.
    So I looked into the situation. Scibaby, an editor interested in Global warming, was originally indef blocked in September, 2007, by William M. Connolley, on a charge of sock puppetry; it looks like WMC had been reverting this user. However, at that point, as far as I've been able to find, there was one old account, Obedium which may have been a role account, it was odd for sock puppetry because it was actually old, as old as Scibaby. But identical interests. No checkuser was run, to my knowledge, to connect Scibaby and Obedium. Neither editor was warned about the SSP report. There was no warning before Scibaby was blocked. Obedium was not indef blocked at that point, but was short-blocked for edit warring. However, Obedium was meeting what all editors skeptical about global warming have met, and continue to meet, at global warming: hostility and tag-team reversion. Few survive this. (By the way, I am not of this POV, I believe global warming is real and very dangerous.) In December, 2007, Obdeium apparently created a series of socks. It looks to me like, by failing make sure we welcome editors with dissident views, and that we integrate them into the community and the consensus, as was the original vision, and instead relying on blocks and bans, we have created a situation where some people resent that and refuse to be shut up, they don't just go away. Scibaby has now created as many as 300 or more new accounts; and this is one reason why I consider administrative recusal to be such a crucial issue that I've been willing to risk my account confronting it. Raul654 is complaining about lack of help. He helped create the situation that requires this continual defense. --Abd (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    How about a cost-benefit analysis? I understand not wanting to make things needlessly difficult for new users, but before lifting the rangeblocks altogether I would ask that at least some consideration be given to those of us who edit the articles that Scibaby targets. This is just one more thing we have to deal with in addition to the other stuff that happens on those pages. Raul, what's your impression of how effective the rangeblocks are? (BTW semiprotection won't work, because he ages his accounts.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)\

    A year or two ago, it was commonplace for me to find 10, 15, or 20 scibaby socks at a time. Now he registers them in ones and twos, and spends a couple of days maturing them. Clearly the range blocks have been effective in reducing the number of accounts he registers. Raul654 (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    The checkusers report that rangeblocks have been effecting a large number of new users. There have been concerns raised about these blocks over time. This is not something sudden. And most significant, it does not seem to be very effective since he finds new ips to use. We need to consider other ways of dealing with the edits. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    I'm always up for a new approach. Got any ideas? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    The last time I tried something new (protecting the affected pages), Cool Hand Luke unilaterally decided to unprotect them all. Raul654 (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

    Guess who just showed up twice on one of the ranges Tiptoey unblocked? (Namely, from 24.205.68.78) Raul654 (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

    and a third time... Raul654 (talk) 05:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    and a fourth time (all four from ranges Tiptoey just unblocked - the latest from 71.94.156.13). Is anyone else noticing a pattern? Raul654 (talk) 07:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    ...and #5. And with that, I've restored the 24.205.0.0/16 range block for a week, because I'm getting tired of these games. Raul654 (talk) 07:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    If this person's MO is to push POV in a few articles, why don't we just protect these articles and/or disallow his edits with the abuse filter instead of blocking ranges? That should be just as effective and produce less collateral damage.  Sandstein  12:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    I'm fine with protecting the affected articles. Note, though, that that's probably about 100 articles in total (possibly more).
    As for the abuse filter, it's *not* a magic bullet. All of the accounts it detects still have to be manually checked and blocked. And I have yet to see anyone volunteer to help do this. The abuse filters also have a workload issue -- that there's a finite limit on how many filters can run, and apparently the two Scibaby filters (one of which is currently disabled) are complex ones that add to the workload. Raul654 (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    I'm not sure if this is appropriate for the conversation, but I will add that I am currently under a Scibaby block. Riffraffselbow (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    ...except that the block only affected logged-out users. So as you have already noted on my talk page, the block didn't affect you, except when you wanted to edit while logged out. Raul654 (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    I'll also note that many people who advocated most strongly for removing the rangeblocks seem to have conveniently disappeared from this thread, just as it is becoming apparent how much work that decision is going to create. Raul654 (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    When a mess is made, it can take work to clean it up. --Abd (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    Perhaps one should create a copy of Misplaced Pages on some servers and redirect the IP ranges used by Scibaby socks to such servers. They can then edit the global warming related pages all they like on the fake Wikpedia. Only edits on other pages will update the real Misplaced Pages. To fool Scibaby for as long as possible, you need to revert the Global Warming page on that fake Misplaced Pages to let it look like the real Misplaced Pages. It must also be synchronized with the real Misplaced Pages from time to time. Only a careful examination of the history will reveal that something is wrong, so Scibaby may not find out that he is editing a fake Misplaced Pages for quite some time. Count Iblis (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    Technically, that idea is quite impossible to implement. —Dark 07:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    Iblis's suggestion is creative, but as DarkFalls said, it's a technical non-starter. Anyone have any other ideas? Raul654 (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    On the general issue of range blocks

    Not to sidetrack any discussion above, but I've asked for a database report to be created listing all range blocks. It will be updated every week. You can view the report at Misplaced Pages:Database reports/Rangeblocks. This should help increase transparency with regards to range blocks and allow administrators to monitor for blocks that may be excessive. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

    I agree this could be helpful for admins monitoring the blocks, but making the report viewable by anyone and everyone might not be the best idea. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    Anyone and everyone can see it now here. BJ 01:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    Anyone can already see rangeblocks by going to special:IPBlocklist and hiding registered users and single IPs. Thatcher 02:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

    Improper block by Georgewilliamherbert

    I received a 24 hour block for "edit warring" at Views of Lyndon LaRouche by User:Georgewilliamherbert. The article in question had seen 11 reverts spread evenly over a 17 day period, 5 by Will Beback, 4 by myself, and 2 by another editor. The 3RR threshold was never approached by anyone. As edit wars go, this didn't even rank as a skirmish. The negotiations on the talk page are presently succeeding. In my opinion, no admin intervention was necessary, but if such an intervention were necessary, Will should have been blocked as well, since it takes two (or three) to tango. Therefore, I believe that GWH's block was improper, and I would like to have it expunged and my clean record restored.

    In this dispute, I simply maintained that a large-scale and contentious re-write of a stable section, involving several possible violations of BLP, should not proceed until all issues were resolved on the talk page. The LaRouche articles have gone through a period of relative peace and quiet, and I think that all editors would do well to be circumspect about initiating any fresh round of POV warfare.

    Now to a more serious matter. I received a warning on my talk page from GWH, advising me that I was in violation of the various LaRouche-related arbcom decisions. With all due respect, this is utter hogwash. I began editing Misplaced Pages two years ago. After a while I began to observe the POV battles at the LaRouche articles without participating, other than to leave an occasional comment on a talk page. I never touched a LaRouche article until October of last year, and my occasional edits since then have never involved adding material, either positive or negative, about LaRouche or his group. I have edited only when I observed violations of policy, and my edits have been limited to reverts or to posting policy tags. GeorgeWilliamHerbert's threat to me is incorrect, inappropriate and should be withdrawn. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

    Edit warring blocks aren't restricted to violation of 3RR. Why didn't you appeal the block? Dougweller (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    All LaRouche articles are under a long list of mediation and arbitration restrictions as long as my arm. These are clearly visible on every talk page related to LaRouche. Editors must take caution. Also, 3RR is not a liscence to revert three times per day. You may be blocked for edit warring on any article at any time if your editing shows a willingness to use reverting as a method of forcing others to accept your personal view of how the article should read, regardless of how often you do it. The compelling reason for an edit war block is the appearance of using the revert function to stifle others contributions. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 16:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    Leatherstocking had been actively participating in discussions with Will on the talk page, but had also taken to simply reverting saying "No consensus for that". It appeared that he'd crossed the line into sterile reverting rather than good faith discussions at the time I blocked him.
    We have the long, long problem history with this topic; that very article was full protected for much of the last two years.
    Leatherstocking's edits appeared to be pro-LaRouche; he appeared to have escalated to sterile reverting; the articles still have special attention due to ongoing efforts to insert POV.
    Will Beback has been attempting to work with everyone to build the best, NPOV and not whitewashed article we can there. I've tried to stay well back out of the content issues so that he can be the admin working content and I can be the admin working enforcement when socks show up and try to abuse things, to avoid either of us having a COI over content / enforcement issues.
    Leatherstocking - If you really have no pro-LaRouche agenda, everything you gained by those reverts would be gained equally well by long term talk page discussions. Will is extremely ethical and determined to do the right thing there. Please take the step back and talk to him more determinedly. He knows all about BLP and NPOV. He's one of our admins - with many many years experience. Work with him more collaboratively and there's no problem going forwards.
    Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    George, I think that you might want to take a closer look at the talk page (particularly before you block someone.) I have been fully engaged in the talk page negotiations. As I mention at the beginning of this post, I simply maintained that a large-scale and contentious re-write of a stable section, involving several possible violations of BLP, should not be posted to the article until all issues were resolved on the talk page. Will was repeatedly and aggressively pushing to post his new version of the section (he also wrote the old version of the section) while three other editors still had serious, unresolved objections. I had not "escalated to sterile reverting," nor was I trying to "insert POV" -- I was negotiating to restrain the insertion of POV. The block of me was premature and incorrect, and I am asking here to have it reversed and my clean record restored.
    Now, in response to Jayron32, the arbitration committee rulings are really quite simple. Aside from user-specific remedies, it boils down to this:
    1. Don't use LaRouche publications as source material other than in LaRouche articles (LaRouche 1)
    2. Don't use Misplaced Pages to promote LaRouche (LaRouche 1)
    3. BLP applies to LaRouche (LaRouche 2, post-decision)
    As I mentioned at the beginning of this post, my occasional edits have never involved adding material, either positive or negative, about LaRouche or his group. I have edited only when I observed violations of policy, and my edits have been limited to reverts or to posting policy tags. With this approach, I am in no danger at all of running afoul of the arbcom decisions. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    I signed onto Misplaced Pages:The Great Misplaced Pages Dramaout, so I won't comment here beyond saying that there are other sides to this story.   Will Beback  talk  04:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    User:Badagnani category blanking again

    Badagnani (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

    Just returned from his block – still visible at WP:AN/EW#User:Badagnani reported by User:William Allen Simpson (Result: 48h) – he began page blanking categories again, as his 8th edit. (The 1st three edits were also reverts of my very recent edits, within minutes, perhaps WP:STALKING.) This is the same as the previous behavior.

    removed category header

    Page blanking is generally considered vandalism, category blanking should be similarly treated.

    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    Removal of material is not automatically vandalism, so no. This removal is apparently done in good faith because he disagrees with the material, for whatever reason. Content dispute. Incidentally, I find the boilerplate text of that template he removes utterly confusing and useless. Shouldn't such a category header explain what should be in the category, rather than what should not? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    He's been deleting the headers from multiple categories. That doesn't seem like a "content dispute", that's just a continuation of his dispute (and multiple DRV) about how to handle surname categorization.
    This language is the product of multiple editors, discussed at length, and incorporated in a template for uniformity across all the related categories. The template says what should be in the category as its first sentence: Surnames of origin.
    Unfortunately, some persons (the ones that opposed the new system) began gaming the system, moving Gaelic names into the English-language category, as they'd been "anglicized". Or Russian-language became English-language because they were "transliterated". These are about language origins, not the current modern spelling. So, each and every category has had exclusions added for clarity. (Most are still very simple.)
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    Oh and, W.A.S., why are you revert warring against him on another issue in parallel, removing his additions of Category:Native American surnames (in cases where on the face of it that category makes perfect sense)? At the very least, it appears you are both engaging in sterile revert warring here, and I don't see you discussing at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    Native American is not applicable. Creek and Navaho are not the same language group. These are categories concerned with language origin, not some abstract "racial" or "cultural" grouping – as noted in the 1st edit summary – I don't waste my time repeating myself in later edit summaries, I just click the Undo button again. French-language origin surnames do not magically become Creek-language origin or Native American language origin, either; not even under the notably rare circumstance that a French explorer marries into the tribe.
    Likewise, Ukrainian names of folks that were born during the Soviet Union do not become "Russian-language origin" names (another area of previous dispute with a different editor).
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    "I just click the Undo button again"? Well, with that attitude you are hardly in a position to complain of others revert-warring, are you? Anyway, I personally find Badagnani has a point on both issues, and I invite you to a discussion at the relevant category talk pages; this noticeboard is not the place to discuss the content. I'll just say that I don't find your explanation of the native American case compelling. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    That discussion already took place at the relevant category talk page (Category talk:Surnames) and previously at WP:CFD, and has concluded. I was just re-explaining to you, because you asked. Sorry for wasting our time.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

    William Allen Simpson's complaint

    William Allen Simpson (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

    • I find this compliant disturbing because William Allen Simpson too engaged in "edit warring". The CFD closure without notification to all pertinent projects is skewed in my opinon. If the discussion for the massive deletion had been notified to the projects (quite a lot 30 ~ 50 projects?), then the result would be not the same as the current one. I did not notice it until Good Olfactory complaint about another admin's alleged wheel war. Therefore, I can sympathize Badagnani's wrath a bit since he is known for "inclusionist" and "status quo keeper". However, Badagnani did not violate 3RR on your report, but equally edit war with you, William Allen Simpson. The only reason that you're not blocked for that edit warring is that somebody complaint about Badagnani's manner to WP:WQA, and you used it to block Badagnani. Indeed, he was blocked for the reason, not for non-existent 3RR violation. And since you too have been engaging in the same subject, the false accusation of "stalking" looks like an attempt to make Badagnani bad. This is a "content matter" that you need to find a solution via WP:DR, not to land here. Besides, you too keep reverting on multiple articles multiple times at the same time for your POV, so please be wary of WP:Edit warring.--Caspian blue 15:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    Regardless of the complaint, I find this to be completely inappropriate and a blatant form of forum shopping. This isn't the first time he's done this either. Several past AfDs were canvassed/votestacked literally all over Misplaced Pages to talk pages with obviously biased participants. In fact I call this spam, not ordinary canvassing. GraYoshi2x► 20:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    And this certainly isn't an appropriate attitude. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    He's been warned many times for that behavior now, blocked several, and still has yet to change it. So it's a typical conversation for him, and I'm finding it difficult to assume good faith. GraYoshi2x► 17:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    I've done a little further reading into his comments and again, this page contains quite a bit of dialogue that's just plain rude, not to mention that he's talking with an administrator like that. GraYoshi2x► 17:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    Happens yet again here. And this time in a worsening manner. Apparently we have a bit of a WP:OWN issue here. GraYoshi2x► 18:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    Please, feel my pain: Category talk:Icelandic-language surnames. I tried—really I did. Then I gave up trying. Good Ol’factory 00:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

    User:AndreaCarax

    Time for a nice big long block. AndreaCarax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked three times for edit-warring on In a Perfect World... (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and today she did it again. Previous similar edits were here,here, here, here, here, here, here, ... hell, you get the drift.—Kww(talk) 12:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/AndreaCarax opened as well.—Kww(talk) 12:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    For now, a reminder of WP:3RR should do. I'll try to keep an eye on it, in case waring starts up again, rather than a single edit and revert. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    Note:obvious socking].—Kww(talk) 15:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    I am curious as to how repeating an edit after being blocked three times for making it would possibly justify a warning. Three blocks aren't warning enough?—Kww(talk) 16:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    Brains, I need them. The obvious socking shoulda' clicked, sorry. Blocked for a week, due to the second revert. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    LB, I would suggest an indefinite block, as, per the SPI report, this account is a banned user evading their ban.— Dædαlus 04:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    Breast article

    Check my History and see that all of the edits i did make on this page was quickly removed and now im scared to edit again because of getting blocked for a simple reason, how shall i handle it?--Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

    You have not edited the article Breast since February. When you did edit the article, it appears that you added unsourced original research. I would encourage you to read our info on using reliable sources and verifiability. TNXMan 13:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    I did make an edit now and got it removed by another user without leaving a note or a reason? --Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    Nakon removed your edit, probably for the reasons I stated above. Please do not re-add the material without a reliable source. Misplaced Pages is based on info that can be verified in independent sources and all of our articles should reflect that. TNXMan 14:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    Fine I will not change the article but eh? everyone knows that African woman are known for having large breasts and by adding this information should be pretty normal--Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    That's the point. We can't accept material simply because "everyone knows it". It has be cited in an independent source before we can add it to an article here. TNXMan 14:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    Apparently, someone was scarred by the covers of National Geographic when growing up. I know a great number of African women who do not have "large breasts". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    Hey! That stuff was rarely on the covers of National Geographic. I had to actually look through the magazine (oh wait, too much information.) --jpgordon 14:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    Yeah right, and Jenna Jameson will someday settle down and have kids. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    Didn't we go through this nonsense back in February or so? Wasn't Wiikiiwriter seriously chastised then? → ROUX ₪ 16:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, it was February, the same types of edits, and I believe he was blocked at one point for the same edits. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, it's deja vu all over again regarding that stuff about African women. Regarding NG, I recall one black comedian (can't think of his name - might have been Irwin C. Watson) said, "National Geographic was our Playboy!" Baseball Bugs carrots 21:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    Ah, yes. I also remember a story from the sixties about a "Native" woman who was shown bare-breasted, be cause it was educational. She was, however, quite pale-skinned, and had to take a trip through PhotoShop under the airbrush before she appeared in the magazine. PhGustaf (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    Merging multiple usernames

    I’ve registered a few usernames but wasn’t happy with them until my present username. I’ve made a number edits under each username, is it possible to merge them together? HLE (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

    No, sorry. The software does not allow merging. You should iscontinue using those usernames and can link them from your userpage so others can review the edits easily. Regards SoWhy 18:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    Developers have the capacity to do this, and used to (occasionally) using the mechanism at Misplaced Pages:Changing attribution for an edit. But as the site grew, and under a torrent of un-provable and often trivial requests, they gradually quit doing it, and it hasn't been done (to my knowledge) for years. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    As the others have said, it's not really done any more. If you're concerned about attribution, you could get all the other usernames changed to some derivative of your preferred name (e.g. HLE 1, HLE 2, etc.). Stifle (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks for your replies. It would have been good they were merged but since its not possible I think I'll take Stifle's suggestion and change the other usernames to similar derivatives. -- HLE (talk) 10:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    Edits by User By78

    For some time now, By78 has been making edits to pages related to India without consulting others. Most of edits have alarmingly negative overtones. While some of his data is cited, it is either sourced from non-neutral sites, a single source or from outdated source (i.e. using 2002 data about India's road network and pass it off as current). This has brought him into conflict with many other Indian editors of Misplaced Pages as his behaviour seems motivated by hate and not by a desire to improve the article. He continues to engage in edit-warring and seems to revert any claim that does not conform to his point of view. In his Mumbai article, he added 20 pictures of Mumbai's slums and then proceeded to make the argument that 60% of the city's population are slum dwellers while not providing any strong evidence to back this up. It is also worth noting that other cities in the developing world also have large slum populations but this isn't reference all throughout the article. There are places where this is appropriate but modifying a featured article in such a way seems to me like a blatant violation of some of Misplaced Pages's policies. Either By78 should collaborate with other users before making modifications to the article OR he should be prevented from making any modifications. His presumed YouTube profile page (http://www.youtube.com/user/by78) is riddled with anti-India information that spews hatred on the country and Indians in general. A look at his recent contributions will reveal this and substantiate my accusations (http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/By78). Vedant (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

    "While some of his data is cited, it is either sourced from non-neutral sites, a single source or from outdated source". Vedant, could you please provide concrete examples of the "non-neural sites" and "outdated sources" that I have used in my edits? Let's hear them. By78 (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    According to CBC 60% of Mumbai's population do live in slums, so it's not hard to source......although 20 pictures is surely excessive and could probably come under the heading of POV pushing. I can't see any relevance in an article on Mumbai to point out that there are slums in other countries as well.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    Looking at his last 300 edits or so, the Indian roads article and the article on the tallest buildings in India seem to be the only two he has edited. Freeways, armaments and tall buildings - guy (yeah, stereotyping I know) seems to be a numbers nut. And is there more current data than 2002 for indian roads? My guess is there isn't much more up to data info in public domain for roads in the UK!!. I think the admins might need a few more diffs.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    I understand what you are trying to say but it is my impression that his edits have a fundamentally discriminatory character associated with them. I did not mean to imply that the Mumbai article should state that slums exist in other cities. What I meant is that other cities in the developing world (including Beijing, Shanghai and many other Chinese cities) have their own fair share of issues including poverty and environmental pollution. I don't see other users however using Misplaced Pages as a political platform on which to launch attacks so they can push their own point of view the way By78 has. Another example I can cite is on the Submarine Launched Cruise Missiles page , he explicitly removed the Indian entry on the page citing lack of evidence even though VOLUMES of evidence existed. In addition, regarding his modifications to India's Road Network, I don't see why India's road network has to be compared to the United States or China. If this article is indeed on India's road network, then the opening paragraph does not need to draw comparisons to other countries. It is widely understood that India being a developing country is not going to have the first world infrastructure of the United States. It is also widely understood that the Indian Road Network has its fair share of problems and they are discussed in the article but By78 is attempting to make these problems the core focus of the article and thus pushing his anti-India POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vedant (talk • contribs) 21:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    Vedant, I think he's probably seen this or something similar, which reports that the sub (the SSBN) won't be commissioned by the Indian Navy for maybe 3 years. He's right - you can't say you've got submarine launched ballistic missile capability if you haven't got the sub to launch the thing fromElen of the Roads (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    Lest I seem totally unsympathetic, I think if you provide the admins some proper diffs for edit warring, they may take more of a look at this.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    Fair enough, I will keep an eye on him in the future though. I do however want to make one thing absolutely clear; my intention is not to promote "Indian triumphalism" as By78 claims but I do want to prevent vandalism or other inappropriate edits to India related pages. I do think that judging by his likely YouTube profile page and his previous edits on India related pages, he seems to be intent on promoting a negative (and non-neutral) portrayal of these articles.

    99.238.167.207 (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

    Maybe it's just me, but I smell a sock. Jauerback/dude. 23:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    You can be as skeptical as you please but I have no relation to Chanakyathegreat. You can check the IPs if you want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vedant (talk • contribs) 00:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    I smell a sock too, Jaerback. Vedant, or Chanakyathegreat, is that you? Back to the substance of the accusation, I think my edits have been well researched, and backed up by well-cited sources (no blogs, no internet rumors), and most of my sources are from newspapers and specialists magazines and websites such as Globalsecurity, CIA World Factbook, BBC, AFP, Reuters, etc. Vedant has accused me of vandalism, which is simply unfair. Vedant has also accused me of POV-pushing and Chinese-Triumphalism. To be honest, I am interested in East Asian culture and do speak a bit of mandarin, but I am not Chinese, and I have no desire to demonstrate one country's superiority over another. If you look at my edit history, you will find that I have also frequently removed questionable claims from China-related articles. I stand accused, however, for being a stickler to facts, numbers, and figures. User "Elen of the Roads" was correct in saying that I am a numbers nut, and I happened to notice many more incidents of questionable, premature, triumphant claims being made in India-related articles, and I did what any good editor would do, I researched into these claims, and I corrected them as I saw fit. I will not make any apology for that. Oh, one last thing, I do NOT have an account on Youtube. By78 (talk) 01:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    You don't have an account on YouTube? So the page /user/by78 with an impressive list of Indophobic and Sinophilic favorites which closely mirror your Misplaced Pages edits, and which spouts frequent hate speech against India and Indians, is not you? Give me a break. Even on a site like Misplaced Pages where you are expected behave professionally and maturely that Indophobic attitude of yours pokes out, as evidenced by the two warnings you have. GSMR (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    No I certainly do NOT have an account on Youtube. Although I might get one, seems like a good idea. One has to wonder, of all the hundreds of millions, no, billions of people who have Internet access, what are the chances of two or more people picking "by78" as their account names. Hmmmm... I did a cursory search on "by78" in google, and lo and behold, I found no less than a dozen accounts, spread across a wide variety of websites, by this name. So why pick my account on Misplaced Pages and this other person's on Youtube and try to make sense out of the supposed similarities? Funny, it's not hard to see that if we are to take into consideration of all these other "by78s" out there, then, gasp, there is really not much there in behavior similarities, except of course, that they all have Internet access. It seems to me that those who objected to my edits are those who are a bit lacking in skeptical attitude and all too eager to accept "facts" at face value, OR, has a bone to pick with me because I've edited some India-related articles with factual sources, which strangely offended some editors out of India. Who is at fault here, I do wonder sometimes. I also ponder as to when these editors would stop using ad hominem attacks on me and instead, as they should per wiki policies, focus on the merit, content, and factual accuracy of my edits. Thus far, it seems, that few had been able to raise objections to my edits on factual grounds, which is no surprise, as my sources have been chosen rather, I might boast a bit, judiciously. Lest you want to write off AFP, Reuters, Indian Express, Globalsecurity, CIA World Fact Book, Ernst&Young, Der Spiegel, UNICEF, World Bank, and IMF as a bunch of propagandists bent on sullying India's good image. By78 (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    Really?
    http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/7706/youtubem.jpg
    http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/8582/wikipedia.jpg
    That sure seems like an amazing coincidence.
    And no, the only reason I have a bone to pick with you is because I have witnessed this behavior on YouTube and then again on Misplaced Pages - while I have no problem with your constructive edits based on factual sources, you may remember the brief edit war we had regarding the etymology of cash where your reason for believing that Englishmen did not use the word "cash" for the currency in Canton was that the Aryan Invasion Theory (which is, FYI, an Indophobic theory which credits Vedic culture to White Europeans rather than Indians) was false. Aside from the fact that this theory does not and never did entail Indian conquest of China or anywhere else, your comment that "aryan" is synonymous with "German" angered me - the fact is that the word "aryan" was never in the European lexicon until Max Muller borrowed it from the Vedas, and that in its original Sanskrit context 'Aryan' did not refer to a race at all. (and yes, the Aryan Invasion Theory _is_ false, the only people who believe that Nords had anything to do with Indian achievements are White Nationalists on Stormfront).
    GSMR (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    LOL, I do appreciate the "evidence" you presented. But, anyone can make a screen grab, errr, I meant use photoshop, provided there is enough motivation. Furthermore, anyone can copy what I said on wikipedia, and then create a youtube account to make the same comments, so as to "prove" that I am the same person in both places. Good job. Good job indeed. If you so want to accuse me of being anti-India based on my Wiki edits, then so be it, but do make the same accusation against the good folks working at AFP, Indian Express, The Indian Business Standard, BBC, CIA World Factbook, Reuters, Janes Defense Weekly, Federation of American Scientists, the Indian Parliament, the IMF, the World Bank, etc. Why? Because the whole world is out to get India, sully her good name, and bring her down. Even better, why not accuse Danny Boyle of anti-Indian sentiments as well in his wiki article. Oh, even better, might I suggest that you finally get around to provide some REAL evidence of my so-called BIASED editorship. Anyone care to give it a try? I thought not. Why? Ad Hominem attacks are just so much more exciting. By78 (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    These comments are five months old!
    http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=oYxO3LOZQ6Q&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3DoYxO3LOZQ6Q (deleting them won't help; it will still say "comment removed by author").
    Yes, for the past five months, I have been operating a YouTube account with your username from Misplaced Pages with the sole intention of associating it with you. Come on, Bo Yu, just searching for "Eendiah" on Google shows me everywhere you have an account.
    Also, if you care to read what I said above, I do not condemn any of your VERIFIABLE edits.
    GSMR (talk) 03:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

    user:Abecedare user:Shreevatsa user:Priyanath at Aryabhata

    Resolved – Stopthenonsense blocked for edit warring--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 00:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    Extended content

    There is a violation on WP:Biography, because of the not so conservative style they want to press into the article. They are not interested in WP:NPOV. Abecedere is the most troublesome edit warrior with no interest in talk page discussion. --Stopthenonsense (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

    A quick run over the page history and talk page suggest that the two editors are anxious to find sources for "everyone knows he comes from Kerala" type of statements. In fact, I note that the current lede of the article states without source that he definitively comes from Kerala, whereas a whole section lower down provides plenty of evidence that he doesn't. Is this the POV pushing you are refering to?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    Elen of the Roads is correct in pointing out that 'Stopthenonsense' is doing anything but. By "not so conservative style", Stopthenonsense means that user:Abecedare and user:Shreevatsa favor a very liberal use of reliable sources and hold the radical view that the mainstream academic view should be given prominence in the lede. Priyanath  22:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

    Attempting to use ANI as a stick to beat someone because you disagree on sources, seldom comes out well for the complainant.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

    No, the latest research suggest, that he was from Kerala. Hence there is nothing wrong about it to tell it in the lead. The study was from 2007, and since then not disputed. However, this is not the main issue here. The problem is, that these people want to make Aryabhata a man, who's identity is Sanskritian. There is no way, he would have spoken Sanskrit, since this language died long before. Since this is a biography, which has to be handled cautiously, the best way to handle this is to keep any language out. The point in this report is not the content wise issue. It's the identity stealing point, which is not supported by WP:Biography.--Stopthenonsense (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

    More eyes at the article are welcome. In my view this is a simple case of POV pushing and edit-warring by Stopthenonsense (talk · contribs) and possible IP socks 91.130.188.40 (talk · contribs), 91.130.91.7 (talk · contribs) and 195.64.23.130 (talk · contribs) who are trying to promote the view that the Indian mathematician Aryabhata unambiguously hailed from the Indian state of Kerala and spoke Malayalam.
    The editors have been repeatedly asked to discuss on talk page and cite reliable sources to support their views (see latest request), but have edit-warred instead (diffs: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ).
    Stopthenonsense was give a 3RR warning just yesterday, but has persisted with edit warring since then. Is it time for blocks yet ? Abecedare (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

    And the edit-warring by Stopthenonsense (talk · contribs) continues . Admin intervention will be useful at this point. Abecedare (talk) 23:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    There was enough discussion, where YOU did not participate. Somebody should block you indefiniteley from editing in wikipedia.--Stopthenonsense (talk) 23:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    That would certainly suggest that WP:BLP would not apply... :D -- Deville (Talk) 23:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    ... and even though the original complaint cites WP:BIOGRAPHY, I'd say that notability is not an issue for this historical mathematician and astronomer given that a lunar crater and India's first satellite were named after him. :-) Abecedare (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

    Glad to see some discussion finally. Just in case it isn't clear from the discussion above, the issue is that User:Stopthenonsense (along with some IPs who might also be the same person) wants to stick into the first sentence of the lead a place of birth and a language, which are in contradiction to what historians actually think (and what the article summarises), and do this with just edit warring and no discussion. Reverting these undue edits and insisting on discussion apparently makes us violate NPOV, in Stopthenonsense's view. Shreevatsa (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    Personally, in the long run I don't care what historians think, I care about what historians wrote down and published in a recognized book :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    Uh, that's what I meant, modulo including journal papers as well. (How else can we verifiably know what historians think?) Shreevatsa (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    This guy is Kalarimaster (talk · contribs) who has a long block log YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

    Legal threat

    Resolved

    Could an admin look at Houstonfoochik (talk · contribs) and this edit summary ("I have removed, now for the third time, an article which is defamatory and will litigate if it is reinstated. Pleasse take this seriously") on the Ceawlin Thynn, Viscount Weymouth article. --WebHamster 23:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

    User blocked until they retract the statement. Jauerback/dude. 23:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    Ironically, another user has removed the same info, citing BLP violation. It would seem there is a fine line being walked here. Baseball Bugs carrots 02:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    Individuals with an agenda against subject matter pertaining to or related to the noble Barbaro-family

    Resolved

    I have been picked on, today, after I edited the Barbaro family recently, only to find out, by a little research on line, that there has been some long-standing agenda against Barbaro-family information on Misplaced Pages. False cases of sockpuppetry have been made up against users and tons of legitimate information has also been destroyed in the process. I am asking a professional administrator to keep a look out against the several prolematic editors talked about in this link: ]. I have currently been harrassed by user Deor and Edward 321, who are both talked about in the link as problematic. Thank youPagetools (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

    Our only agenda is removing hoaxes. Please see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mctrain, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mctrain/Archive, Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mctrain, Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Societyfinalclubs, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive95#Hoaxer, Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_1#Barbaro_family, and Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive370#User:Mctrain. Edward321 (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I strongly recommend that the problematic administators taked about in the link that I posted above be permanently banned from Misplaced Pages. What they have said is libelous, and was fueled by a jealous agenda against one of the Barbaro family members, who happened to be an American. They are also liars, who blocked unjustly, and then proceeded to write whatever they wanted in their case files, which are completely bogus. Their libelous and bogus accusations have spilled all across the internet- on what can be deemed as nothing more than a childish, jealous agenda. They have made a mockery out of Misplaced Pages ].
    • In one case file above, they try to discredit the family's ancient Roman links, yet that point was absolutely accurate and sourced within the original article that they have sought to destroy. Here is a link of the original fully sourced article, and if you back track on Misplaced Pages, you will find the most excellent sourcing available was used for the topic, such as the Encylcopedia of Italian Nobility by Spretti and works by Zorzi, the finest historain of Venetian subject matter. Here is alink of just some of the information that has since been destroyed by their outrageous actions: ]. Pagetools (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    • But this is only the tip of the iceberg, these users went and destroyed anything and everything related to the Albergo branch of the Barbaro family, including an article about a well-known French abstract experssionist by the name of Lucien Ruolle ], Baroness Capace, Countless noble Barbaro family members throughout history, and their nonstop attacks on the Current Head of the Albergo branch, a well known aerospace engineer who has worked on the development of Vision Industries K2, which if you back track you will see the appropriate page- fully sourced and even with links to images.Pagetools (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    • You tell me, is honest and good hard work, that is done for free and which allows Misplaced Pages to keep on existing, deserving of this treatment by individuals like Deor and Edward 321, who appear to be clearly on a power trip to support their jealous agenda. Is good sourced work a hoax? And are individuals with seperate accounts on a public-used terminal sockpuppets? Of course not- this outrageous agenda needs to end- and I strongly recommend that users like Deor and Edward 321 be permanently banned- their 'power-trip' antics have gone on long enough: with unjust blocking, destroying good information, and outrageous hoax and sockpuppet accusations. There unwillingness to listen to reason, is mighty immature- to say the leastPagetools (talk) 02:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    The abuse to users intersted in Barbaro-family subject matter has gone on for years now- at least since 2007- to the point where individuals like Deor and Edward 321 have almost completely removed any information about the Albergo branch of the noble Barbaro family from Misplaced Pages- and they have completely succeeded in removing any mention of both acting heads from both branches of the noble Barbaro family right out of Misplaced Pages. They have fully established a strong history of libelous accusations that both members don't exist, or are hoaxes- right up to abuse that even went to freebase encyclopedia. You can not google Barbaro subject matter today without coming accross countless accusations of "hoaxes" from these users. I am livid at my treatment today, and I strongly recommend that these problematic individuals get banned- they are unchecked with their blocking privledges and they are liars and coverup artists who change their case file pages to suit any agenda they are after.Pagetools (talk) 03:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    You need to provide WP:RS reliable sources about this family and about the "Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent". Never mind, I read in one of the links provided by Edward312 above and I found Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Pugilist Club and Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/The_Sacred_Order_of_Skull_and_Crescent which were closed as obvious hoaxes and as the creator making up sources. I notice that he has not provided any source here apart from old copies of his own hoaxes. I suggest archiving this thread as trolling and blocking this account as another sock of Mctrain. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    There is already an open SPI, so just archive the thread. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    I have blocked Pagetools as a disruptive account and high probability sockpuppet of Mctrain. Jehochman 04:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    There has been funny business going on here for years, I started once to write about the Barbaro palazzi in Italy, and gave up because of constant rubbish (and dubious unreferenced material) being added - it became virtually impossible to keep even a stub stable if it had any mention of the Barbaro. From what I remember when I looked into it, this trouble seems to come from an "American branch" of the family headed by a "Prince Vitus" - I keep meaning to look them up in the Libro d'oro when I am at home, but always forget, anyway an American citizen cannot be an Italian prince so he would not be there anyway. Giano (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    Reynoboy

    Over the past couple of weeks, Reynoboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly adding speculative or blatantly false information to the topic area I primarily work in. This has included creating the (deleted) articles Kamen Rider: 555 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Tokon Sentai Resuringer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), for which I gave him a stern warning on his talk page. A few days ago, he changed the content of another article to include speculative content. I clarified my warning to him on his talk page. He recently repeated this edit. In the past five months of his registering, I cannot find any useful constructive edits from this user, and he does not seem to heed warnings or any messages left on his talk page. I know he is making these edits in good faith, but he is harming the project more than helping it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    For the sake of keeping this UW friendly, 4im'd him. — neuro 09:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    Andy Murray again

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
    Resolved – Admins are not content referees. Spartaz 07:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    Extended content

    Dlabtot (talk · contribs · logs · block log) reported by Milo.

    Dlabtot appears to be engaged in edit warring against consensus, a combination WP:EW and WP:CONSENSUS violation. He will argue that he just made one edit: (diff). But I argue that one edit is a WP:GAME intended to POV-trump a settled content dispute. (See WP:EW#Handling of edit warring behaviors.)

    The key facts are:

    1. User ignored my edit summary providing the location of the concluded consensus discussion, (diff)
    2. user provided no exceptional revert reason in his edit summary, and
    3. user posted nothing to the talk page.

    This user is a hardened veteran of talk, policy, and notice venues, with no newbie excuse for his behavior. He has previously been blocked for edit warring.

    Andy Murray was hit by two WT:EL vigilantes. The first one, as noted in my edit summary, was probably confused by multiple venues, partly created by a now-blocked sock, and partly created by the user named in section WP:ANI#Talk:Andy Murray above. That user seems to have accepted consensus and moved on.

    The reported user has not. I request this situation be dealt with appropriately, to include restoring the consensus-decided edit. Milo 06:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    It is obvious that fan sites are not acceptable per WP:EL and every forum you have shopped your concern to has told you this. I don't see a consensus for the inclusion of such links at WT:EL or at the talk page of the article in question. Furthermore I don't see what action is required by administrators in handling this situation. ThemFromSpace 06:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    You seem to be confusing me with another editor. Milo 06:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    Milo, you might want to check your post for accuracy. You claim Dlabtot "posted nothing to the talk page". I see him responding to an RfC, addressing the question, and redirecting you to WP:EL. That's 3 posts on the talk page, all addressing the issue in question. I'll assume you simply forgot about these posts when drafting your inflammatory accusation above.

    An alternate summary might be this: a bunch of uninvolved editors responded to an RfC (including Dlabtot); you didn't like their responses; so you've alternately reported them to AN/I or out-and-out threatened them with malicious litigation for their troubles. Of course, it could be argued that I'm not a neutral party, since you applied the same sort of approach in your interactions with me. So it's not like I'm going to take action here - previous experience prejudices me - but if anyone's behavior warrants administrative attention in this regard, it's Milo's. MastCell  07:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    I've never seen an ANI closed by refusing to answer a consensus violation as being a content issue. But that's the way it is.

    However, closing it without allowing an answer to a smear of the poster is another matter. Here is the post I was trying to make during the edit conflict: ... 3. user posted nothing to the talk page . ...

    There's a limit to how much history one can post. The RfC was concluded, but at your implied insistence that it matters, I've added that. As you've linked, Dlabtot already knew that the edit had consensus. Makes it worse for him, I'd say.
    The user I warned at the RfC, fooled two editors into answering the wrong question at the RfC, possibly by carelessness rather than malice. But it was still damaging to consensus, and that justifies the warning that if continued, they would face "some kind of WP process, such as RfC/U or ANI". That warning looks completely by the book to me.
    Yes, you're completely non-neutral. I'll refrain from likewise posting your egregious violation of consensus at BOB – unbecoming of an admin, to say the least. I invite a full review of your actions in the appropriate forum, but this isn't it. I suppose you're likely to blow smoke like this every time I post about another issue, but that's just an unfortunate part of the ANI reporting job.
    Please move along and let consensus prevail for an edit that I did not vote on either way at the consensus discussion: Talk:Andy Murray#Fan site link. Milo 08:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Lg16spears continuing disruption

    Lg16spears is one again running around and randomly adding Category:Gun fu films films to dozens of categories. He has already done this numerous times unver various IPs while both blocked and not blocked, and has repeatedly been asked to stop as the categories are randomly applied to films that are clearly not "Gun fu" works. He was also blocked under various IPs as it is clear he is doing these edits with some sort of unauthorized bot or mass editing mechanism due the sheer number he's able to do at once (anywhere from 5-10 pages hit a minute) and always the same group of articles (seems to be going straight through every link in Gun fu). See also Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_13#Category:Gun_fu_films (where issue was discussed during category discussion) and User talk:69.124.8.165 where it was noted he was running an unauthorized block under an IP. It would likely take a check user to refind all of those IPs he used, and I suspect if done, one would find he evaded the block he was placed under on June 5 for doing the same inappropriate category additions. All attempts to talk to him on both this issue and other disruptive editing he has done is ignored, with him just clearing his talk page without response. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    User:Celebration1981 at History of Transylvania

    Resolved – Nothing for admin intervention here, this is a content dispute. Suggest gaining a third opinion or dispute resolution. Black Kite 09:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    Extended content

    I need an advice, please. Is it me paranoid or there is something to this?

    In History of Transylvania, I added a sentence (with its reference). 10 hours later I was revered. After another editor restored my insertion, it was partly reverted again. I allowed myself to revert it because we should have either a correct citation, or no sentence at all.

    Following that, in Talk:History of Transylvania, I explained my last edit (the revert). To this I got an answer, and then I replied. Up to here, everything is content related. Unfortunately, the second answer I got after this contains such words: "Medieval Orthodox World was very very shocking backward and poor civilization." The content discussion has nothing to do with medieval orthodox world. We were talking about including or not my citation that mentioned that in ca. 1600, Romanians amounted to about 60% of the population of Transylvania. Romanians are Orthodox (with a Greek-Catholic minority), while the other ethnic groups in Transylavania (Hungarians and Germans) are Catholic and Protestant. Perhaps, then I should have replied that we shouldn't mix religion, as it is not related to the issue. Unfortuanately, seeing the connection Orthodox=Romanian, and obviously disagreeing with the above statement, I replied in a manner that did not help calm my discussion partner's spirit. I said: "I am reading this as a personal attack. Please, reftract it, or our discussion here is over." At least I hoped I would here something "you misunderstood, this was not a personal attack". Unfortunately, I got this: "MAny times, the mimic pipque is just a form (and reason) for escape from the defeat." and "You call it anti-Orthodox or whatever anti***** etc... If something is unflattering for you. It's childish. As I said, It is not superiority feeling. The cultural/technologian economic societal differences between Orthodox Europe and Western cultured countries in Europe are similar to the differences between latino-Americaan South and English Speaking (USA Caanada) parts of the American Continent. But Average American people are open minded and they don't despise/contemn for bacwardness the Latino-Americans."

    I am in a difficulty to keep this dialog. Please, advise.

    P.S. I am expected to explain why the statements below are incorrect. But it is very difficult to think what arguments should I use with an editor that has just said the above.
    • "The Orthodox church wanted to preserve its exclusivity in all sphere of cultural and intellectual life. Therefore secular intellectuals did not existed in orthodox world until the 18th century (in Russian Empire) and until the 19th century in Balkanian territories."
      • They did exist since 1630s.
    • "There are 4 main historic development levels for every counry. 1. nomad half-nomad (sepherd the majority) 2. feudal- (agricultural) 3.industrial 4.post-industrial. All Western-Christian states arrived to the 2. development level (feudal-agricultural) from year 600 to 1000AD. In Balkanian Orthodox countries (except Greeks) most people lived pastoral sepherd lifestyle in the balkanian mountains until the 14th (!!!) century. In romanian territories the half-nomad sepherd lifestyle remained more important than (the more civilized) agricultural lifestyle until the the 16th century."
      • There were also sedentary populations that were not nomad. Also it is very difficult to explain how a people has managed to create two independent principalities in 14th century and for over a 100 years successfully defend against Ottoman Armies of up to 150,000 strong, while apparently "half-nomad sepherd lifestyle remained more important than (the more civilized) agricultural lifestyle until the the 16th century".
    • "Have you ever read books about the history and developments of fine arts and architecture? Don't forget that the successor of the true Byzantine fine arts and architecture is the Middle-Eastern Islamic World. But the motive of onion-dome appeared foremost in Islamic word. In the Orthodox Balkan , average people wore Kaftans (clothes from Islamic world) and primitive sandals (instead of shoes) until the 1860's."
      • no comment. IMHO, this borders an attack on one's ethnic group.
    • "Read about: Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality"
      • It's about Tsarist autocracy, not about every Orthodox nation. I have somehow to explain that there were also other Orthodox countries except the 19th century Russian Empire.
    • "There is a well known historical reason for this. Byzantium was always in close contact with the absolutism of the Eastern peoples, the ideas of despotism derived from there."
      • no comment
    • "it produced the state-church in all Orthodox countries, executing the power of government administration and supervision, almost as an organ of police. In such a political system, the clergy cannot progress and remains on a low level, the state does not develop either, life becomes rigid. (...The history of the Byzantine empire is a monotonous story of the intrigues of priests, eunuchs, and women, of poisonings, of conspiracies, of uniform ingratitude. similar to an Asian country) This is the cause of the amazing primitiveness one notices when crossing the border of Orthodoxia."
      • It is always very hard to justify you are not "primitive"...
    • "In the middle of the Twentieth Century, led by Bolshevik Russia, Slav nationalism conquered Central Europe, but that was all it has achieved: it could not give more than what is its essence: hardly anything more than Byzantinism manifested as Bolshevism."
      • I sincerely believe there was much more to Bolshevism than a manifestation of Byzantine tradition. It's like saying Fascism is a manifestation of Protestantism. Try to explain this logic is not true...
    • "Romanian as a country name or name for an ethnic group is young. It was born just in the modern period."
      • The word Romania indeed was coined in 19th century, but Romanians called themselves "români" since they are known. Due to geography, Romanians did not have a single country until 19th-20th century, but 3 principalities: Wallachia, Moldavia, and Transylvania. In the former two they were both the nobility and the peasants, in the latter they were the peasants, while the nobles spoke Hungarian.

    Dc76\ 08:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    wikistalking/general disruption

    Resolved – Blocked (and watchlisted). Black Kite 09:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    DavidA (talk · contribs) seems to have picked up a stalker - in their first identity of Asgawdian (talk · contribs), they left this message suggesting they were Asgardian (talk · contribs) and then went about reverting David's edits to articles. Those were quickly reverted and the account blocked, they have now popped up again as Loki'sRus (talk · contribs) (Loki is of course an Asgardian), after resorting their original message to David and are now reverting David's edits and it now seems mine. Beyond blocking the editor, can some admins watchlist David's talkpage and watch out for (what sure to come) the next identity and try and nip them in the bud. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


    Unusual hobbies and civility

    Resolved

    One thing that amazes me about Misplaced Pages's admins approach to civility is that when confronted with true abuse and incivility from those who one must assume have limited vocabulary the civility police are strangly silent and reticent - or is it that when they are singing on behalf of Slim Virgin they are allowed to use the language of the gutter? Obviously those Admins so beloved of civility have varying standards when blocking will give them less kudos and publicity than blocking certaon others. Giano (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    Your own comments weren't too nice, you know. Such words as "mob" and "maliciously" really do not improve the civility of Misplaced Pages. And when you got bitten you ran over to AN/I. Really, that's trollish behavior. Cut it out, please, it isn't resolving anything or helping anything. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    Not at all, were I to use such language, I would rightfully be blocked. Such a word is not in my vocabulary or that of many other educated people. were I to use it Sandstein, Connolly and God knows who else would be racing and falling over each other to block. A comment such as yours displays a monumantal ignorance of what is actually going on here, with one law for one and another for another. Get real! I see you an Admin too, Wehwalt - what a poor one you must be.Giano (talk) 10:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    I appreciate the feedback! I guess you saw the mop on my user page next to the dozen or so FA stars and GA crosses. However, I don't let myself be drawn in that manner. I will leave a comment in the thread asking both you and the other editor against provocative and strong language. Administrators are not here to mete out justice, but to keep the peace so we all can build an encyclopedia. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    "Fuck off Cocksucker! "That is obviously completely OK to say - is it, so I shall not hesitate to say it when confronted with things I do not care for. If you read my post there, you will see it is succinct and accurate, if you post anything to the effect that is it is inflamattory you will have such a fight on your hands here you won't know what has hit you. Giano (talk) 10:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    I appreciate on the latter count. As I don't qualify on the first count, I will assume it is for dramatic effect and measure your maturity level accordingly. All the best,--Wehwalt (talk) 10:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    and that is whay I think of your post Now I am quite happy to be blocked for objecting to being called a "cock sucker" and highlight the doubkle standards you Admins employ here. Giano (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    I'm not blocking either of you, but I don't distinguish between the "seven dirty words" and language otherwise phrased to get the same reaction. You've both been given friendly advice to cut it out and the thread over there has died. I suggest we mark this resolved and move on to building an encyclopedia, which is supposedly what we're here for!--Wehwalt (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    • And ... stop. IMHO Giano is actually right here - whilst his posting on the thread was perhaps a little intemperate it wasn't aimed at any user in particular. Doc Tropic's posting, however, was - and was out of line. It ias absolutely correct that there are admins who would've blocked Giano in a heartbeat for posting something similar, and that smacks of double standards to me. If I'd seen it at the time I'd have probably issued a short block for Doc (or anyone else for that matter), but I'm not going to do it 8 hours after the event - instead I'm going to drop a stern warning on his talkpage. But Giano - this doesn't help either. Black Kite 10:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    I am not stoppng until he is blocked! Admins stared and ignored that post for hours - do you see me saying cockfucker! Just imaging Sandsttein, Herbert and their friends if I did - you would be racing to block and a thread half a mile long of others wanting the block extended. Giano (talk) 10:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    Why is that, Giano?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    your reply above is exactly what I have come to expect from Admins on this page. Giano (talk) 10:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    Because Giano has a point that any incivility from him is usually met with a block, whereas this one wasn't. So this looks like double standards from his point of view, though I suggest it was more likely that no-one actually noticed it at the time, and probably wouldn't unless someone had reposted it here. I have locked the ADCP thread for a short while however in an attempt to stop G getting himself blocked as a WP:POINT exercise. Black Kite 10:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    I would rather be blocked that sit and look at the gross hypocrisy displayed by Misplaced Pages's admins on this page! at least, my actions would be honest! Giano (talk) 10:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    There's honest, and then there's futile, however. You can call me - or anyone else - hypocritical but there's no way I'd block Doc, you, or anyone else for a comment made 9 hours ago unless it was part of a repeating pattern. Black Kite 10:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    And to call me hypocritical and make it stick would require you to show that I had treated you or other involved editors differently on another occasion. Good luck on that one.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    I see you have reverted me and replace Wehwalt's ill conceived warning - well if you read my paost you will see it requires no warning. In fact I suspect we have a little partisan here. You will either gave to block me over this hypocrisy or keep that page protected for a very long time. As for you Wehwalt, we only have to look at your initial response here. Giano (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    Nothing further to do here. Again suggest we mark this resolved. Thanks for your help, BK.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    Nope it is far from resolved - if you think cock sucker is an acceptable term to be permitted, then you are quite wrong. Giano (talk) 11:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    I have removed Doc Tropic's personal attack and the sub-thread that led from it. Hopefully this will resolve the issue. Now I'm going to do something more productive and go down the pub go to take some more photos to help get Brandon Marsh to GA. Black Kite 11:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    Thank you, it is pity I have to battle so hard to acheive what is quite reasonable. Now all that remains is to know the real reason why no admin was prepared to block an editor who refers to another editor as a cock sucker . Perhaps Sandstein, Connoly or Herbert or one of the numerous others would like to start the ball rolling. Giano (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    As I see from the diff, he said as soon as he learned how to spell "cosk sucker", he was going to give you a piece of his mind. That is rather different from what you said. Frankly, I'd consider referring to others' motives as malicious to be as bad or worse. I know which would result in a bigger payday in a libel suit.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    Glad you have finally read it. I think that you have displayed your ignorance quite enough for one day. Giano (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    Right, seeing as you obvioulsy want to continue this, what is unacceptable as you say here . Think before you answer this timeplease, you may find I have right on my side. Giano (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    Calling other editor's actions or attitudes "malicious" is horribly destructive of WP:AGF and inconsistent with the collegial atmosphere that we hope WP should have. And really, that is all I have to say about it. Please feel free to respond at your leisure, I don't think there's more to be done here unless you hope that the admins you named will weigh in.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    Given that this is a site that deals with facts it must therefore be incumbent on us to ascertain that you don't actually suck cocks before the statement can be construed as an insult. Should it be the case that you do indeed suck cocks then it is merely a statement of fact. --WebHamster 11:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    I confirm have never sucked anything more than a a peppermint. My own personal civility policy only has three fairly easy to keep and simple rules that post breaks three of them. In my book it was very uncivil and the usuak admins ignoring it was suspicious in the extreme. Giano (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    We're going to need diffs on that peppermint!--Wehwalt (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    And Peppermint's surname is? Just for the files of course ;) --WebHamster 12:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    I can't say that I'm a fan of retroactive blocks, but obviously this comment should have caught attention sooner. Seems like it's been blanked, by now, and rightfully so. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

    Block resulting from the above

    Thank you Jehochman, obviously the usual members of the civility police are taking a day off. Giano (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    A good block, in my view. Endorse. Note, however, that I've unblocked Doc ... I think he gets the point and is not likely to repeat the error or cause further disruption. He has a block on his block log forever more to remind him not to, as well. ++Lar: t/c 16:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    The editor-in-question (Doc Tropic) has certainly breached CIVIL & therefore should have served out his block. Indeed, Giano has been blocked (and had them reverted) numerious times for 'colorful language'. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not bothered about him being unblocked, so long after the event because today, we have seen the end of any pretence that Misplaced Pages's admins may have of being genuinely concerned about civility. The civility block is just a weapon to be used at random and for personal gain and whim. I'm glad Jehochman and Lar arrived belatedly on the scene, but as for the usuals! well contempt is to put it mildly, but at least we now know their true colours. If it had been me they would have been conflicting each other in their obscene salivatory need to have the block extended - what jokes they are, and we all know who they are - don't we? Giano (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I'll tell you how surprised I am, I even checked to see who of the well known ones were editing during all of this, and 66% of them were. Obviously "Doc" was singing the right song - "cocksucker" indeed, I can think of few words more offensive to anyone. Giano (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    @GoodDay: Blocks are preventative, not punitive. I endorse the block, even coming late. But I also note that Doc spent some time thinking about why his approach was not a good one, and when pressed on the matter, gave an entirely satisfactory indication that there won't be a recurrence. I could be wrong, it was a judgement call, but the disruption that the block would be preventing is not, in my view, likely to recur now that Doc has had a chance to contemplate, reflect, and make assurances, giving his word. The word of another user should always be taken unless they have given us cause in the past to doubt it. I hope that addresses your concern about the unblock.

    'Tis the reason I could never be an Administrator. IMO, blocks should be (at least) equally punitive/preventative. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    @Giano: I derived no personal gain one way or the other from either the block or unblock, to the best of my knowledge. But the wiki took a loss. Fortunately you are not such a delicate flower that the original comment had a chilling effect on your inclination to share your views, but this is just another (relatively minor) corrosive episode in a long series. ++Lar: t/c 17:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    You are correct, Giano. That diff should have resulted in a short block immediately—implying that someone is an "arrogant cocksucker" is not acceptable here. You are also correct that if it had been you, you probably would have been blocked. If I were a sysop, I would have issued a block when I saw it. Even though the block was issued late, thank you for bringing it to our attention. Hopefully the user in question won't do it again. Cheers, Firestorm 21:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    Recommended reading

    I recommend Choosing Civility by P.M. Forni of the Johns Hopkins Civility Project. Jehochman 02:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

    • Hmm... I was going to recommend Mutz D, Effects of "In-Your-Face" Television Discourse on Perceptions of a Legitimate Opposition, American Political Science Review (2007) 101(4):621-35. "Violating social norms... increased the intensity of affect among the opposition, but remaining civil did not intensify the positive feelings viewers held toward their own side. Civility appears to be the default expectation, and it is arousing and influential only when people deviate from it... When those holding differing views violate social norms by being uncivil and disagreeable right in viewers’ faces, it is all that much easier to demonize them along multiple dimensions." MastCell  03:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

    User:Dopplegangerr at Serial killer

    Unresolved – No admin intervention required (especially as subject has not edited since final warning), suggest WP:WQA or WP:DR. Black Kite 09:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    Dopplegangerr (talk · contribs) has made repeated racially motivated POV edits to Serial killer, ignoring notifications on their user page and the article talk page. momoricks 08:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    WADR to Black Kite, I have reviewed Dopplegangerr's edits and he does seem to be a disruptive SPA. His name implies that he is a sock. WP:SOCK explicitly forbids "Good hand, bad hand" accounts and says it "is never acceptable to keep one account "clean", while using another account to engage in disruptive behavior". --B (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    This user's disruptive edits have continued after the final warning and now include Carl Eugene Watts. momoricks 22:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    Does seem to have an unfortunate preoccupation with race... seems most every edit deals with it in some way or another. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    Note: I have changed the resolved template to unresolved. --B (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    Robertredfern

    Resolved – Blocked indef, clearly not here for any useful reason. Black Kite 13:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    Robertredfern (talk · contribs), a.k.a. Robert Redfern, has done nothing in his entire time on Misplaced Pages but try to promote the use of Serratiopeptidase. He has been blocked several times for his disruptive behaviour.

    He has resumed this behaviour, and I would ask he now be community banned, as he's wasting a lot of time on patently unusable material.

    For instance, his latest replace-entire-article-with-whatever-the-hell-he-wants contains the following:


    “ The following is an opinion by an private organization mainly funded by one or more of the Merk Drug Companies. Merk companies have along history of illegal activities and is continually being fined by authorities throughout the world for funding misleading publictions and . One of the Merk companies allegedly carried on marketing Vioxx in spite of the reports of thousands of deaths and paid over $58billion dollars in damages connected with this. This and more can be found by searching Merk in WikipediA and on the web ”

    Likewise, here's what he thinks is an appropriate edit to Bandolier (journal) (), as it published a study on Serratiopeptidase he dislikes.


    “ Bandolier claims it is an independent online electronic journal about evidence-based healthcare, written by Oxford University scientists. It would be accurate to say it is no friend of Natural Health. It was started in 1994 and the National Health Service paid for its distribution to all doctors in the UK until 2002. It is beleived the main support comes from drug companies and those organisations tied closey with the drug inductry. This explains its bias towards drugs and away from Natural health. An example of bias is that is does not appear critizise drugs, even when those drugs are shown to be dangerous and mostly ineffective eg Viiox. Publication of the printed version ceased in 2007 and new material is now published entirely electronically. The NHS Executive (NHSE) and National electronic Library for Health (NeLH) continue with some support for the electronic site. ”

    I don't think he has a single edit that isn't either blatant attack pieces or blatant promotion. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    Philadelphia

    Hi there, I wanted to notify you of an incident happening on the Philadelphia page. Since I'm not an administrator, I can't do a lot about it, except revert things. I created the new lead image for the article and replaced the old one with it by a majority of votes (see the talk page). One or more users however keep reverting it to the old lead image. Despite several warnings they still refuse to take part in the discussion on the talk page. I'm willing to restore the old lead image only if a majority of users decides so through this discussion. So I'm asking you, to put a lock on the article or something similar. Thanks in advance, Massimo --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    I've semiprotected it, to encourage discussion. You should be aware, however, that you're technically violated WP:3RR, as those reverts were not vandalism (consider this your warning), and it'd be best to get the user(s) to discuss on the talk page, perhaps by asking at their talk pages, or perhaps by placing a note on the article's talk page. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks, I'll place a note on the article's page to refer to the discussion. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    Ah, a comment would be much better. Or something inside an {{ambox}}. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    3-revert rule broken

    Resolved – — Aitias // discussion 22:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    User:Legolas2186 has broken the 3-revert rule on the page The Fame Ball Tour. Please have him blocked. Alex (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    You should report 3-revert issues at WP:AN3. You'll need to list the reverts, and show where the user was warned. Cheers, TFOWR 16:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    Legolas didn't even come close to breaking 3RR on that page. Tan | 39 17:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    True (hadn't spotted that, thanks). Hadn't been warned, either. I figured a link to AN3 and the requirements would be informative to the OP, though. Cheers, TFOWR 18:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    AlexHG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), here, is a fairly blatant sockpuppet of indef-blocked Alexander.hugh.george (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Suggest blockage. McJeff (talk) 19:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    Indefblocked. Tan | 39 19:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    Swamilive rangeblock expired

    Hello. A 1-month range block was placed to stop User:Swamilive in March (seen here). As soon as that expired, he came back to the old things. The block was reset to 3 months in April (seen here. Now, that's expired and he's back at it. See the history of Winnipeg Folk Festival. Also, see these edits to Graham compared to these edits by former sock.

    For the more of the history here, see:

    Would someone mind resetting the block? Thanks. Apparition /Mistakes 17:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    I blocked the range for six months. If anyone objects, feel free to remove/modify. J.delanoyadds 17:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    Wow, that was quick! Thanks a lot! Apparition /Mistakes 17:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    Single purpose editor with dynamic IP causing disruption

    The IP 86.136.34.91 is repeatedly rearranging band members without explanation at 21st Century Breakdown and The Network and has received a final warning. See , , , for their edits. Also personal attack here. Has made these edits after being warned as another IP, under which he made the exact same edits to the same articles. Even before that, he had been doing the same edits under numerous other IPs for weeks. The only edits this person has made under his multiple IPs are to rearrange the band members on Green Day articles regardless of edit notes and attempts to discuss the matter with him. Timmeh 18:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    An area-block seems needed. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    The IP is a BT Broadband dynamic and as such is far too large a range to block; if they start again, I suggest nominating the articles for semi-protection at WP:RFPP. Black Kite 21:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    Noted, thanks. Timmeh 00:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

    Problematic IP at Earth Song

    80.177.99.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) A very problematic IP is continually removing a quote from Earth Song, mainly because he doesn't like it and apparently can't understand it, although it seems quite clear what the quote means to me. Not once has he used the talk page, continuing on after his final warning. The quote has been removed six times this month: Pyrrhus16 19:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    Left 3RR warning. Stifle (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks. :) Pyrrhus16 19:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    Sturm College of Law

    I have edited Sturm College of Law to look like a wiki page. Another user on here keeps reverting and placing a picture in a blatant attempt to vandalize the page. Please look into. keystoneridin! (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    There is no way that the other user was trying to "vandalize" this page. Please review the Misplaced Pages definition of vandalism before making any accusations of the same nature. I have protected the article for a week due to the edit warring. Tan | 39 20:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    As per convention and common courtesy I have informed User:Wikics14 of this discussion. – ukexpat (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    Gah, that whole article reads like an ad. It's going to have to be depeacockitized after the protection expires. Looie496 (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    User:Darwinek (admin edit warring)

    Darwinek (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Following this report at the WP:AN3 board, this is a clear example of edit warring by both sides (history of article), but I note that User:Darwinek, an admin, has blocked his "opponent" in the edit war.

    Given that this block is clearly invalid, have unblocked and then reblocked the IP for the equivalent time for the 3RR violation, and have blocked User:Darwinek for 24 hours as well.

    Obviously the more pressing issue is the use of admin tools; comments are welcome about the blocking of an opponent in a content dispute. Black Kite 20:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    The first step is that Darwinek should get a block for edit-warring. Although the warnings given by the opposing editor were botched and the opposing editor is pretty clearly in the wrong content-wise, as well as being incorrect in referring to Darwinek's edits as vandalism, an admin needs to know better than to engage in a revert war. Looie496 (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    As mentioned above, I have already done that. Black Kite 21:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    Sorry, sloppy reading on my part. Looie496 (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    BTW: Darwinek's administrative privileges had been revoked in April 2007 as a result of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Darwinek. He was resysopped in October 2007 per decision on ArbCom mailing list . -- Matthead  Discuß   21:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    They should be revoked again, permanently; this is blatant abuse of sysop tools. Would that take a whole new RFAR, or a motion or what? And I'll take the opportunity to plug my proposal for a community-driven desysopping process. → ROUX ₪ 21:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    I agree completely with Roux - given the history and egregiously abusing admin privileges in a content dispute, they should be immediately desysopped. Wisdom89 (T / ) 21:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    I see no need for discussion. We all agree and know that you mustn't use your admin tools against someone you are in a content dispute with, don't we? Darwinek has abused them and he has been correctly blocked, good decision Black Kite. A quick look over their contributions does not show the similar amount of behavior in recent times that lead to the 2007 desysop but if you found more, please do tell us about it. Regards SoWhy 21:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    The block was for edit warring, not abuse of admin powers. They are completely separate and should be treated as such. Wisdom89 (T / ) 21:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    I don't know the particular circumstances, but admins should never use the block or protection buttons in a content dispute. The only exceptions would be clear vandalism (where any reasonable person would agree that's what it was), or an unambiguous BLP violation where there's no one else around to deal with it. SlimVirgin 21:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    I also found a year's block of this dynamic IP for this single edit in a dispute with Darwinek, and a long slow edit war between Darwinek and other editors on this article, during which he blocked one of the IPs but this is going back to 2008 - he doesn't use the block button often. Black Kite 22:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    In addition, a content dispute with User:Adam.J.W.C. about the use of Template:Tourism in June 2008 seems to have led to a 24h block two weeks later. -- Matthead  Discuß   01:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    If Darwinek apologizes and promises to be more careful, I think we should let it be, perhaps with a short block in a block record as a reminder. Sure, admins should not abuse admin tools, but a singular exception in the background of years of good work should not be enough to strip one of their adminship. If you disagree, I'd suggest taking this to ArbCom, but this would really be blowing this out of proportions. PS. Please note that I saying that I oppose taking away his admin rights if and only if he apologizes and promies to be more careful in the future. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    You realize he already did apologize and promised to be more careful in the future. Tan | 39 22:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    In March 2007. Or was that what you meant?Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    My edit summary noted the year. To me, this makes no difference - an apology and promise made in an ArbCom case shouldn't have an expiration date. Tan | 39 23:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    So is what you're saying that he apologised, promised not to do it again, and then did it again? Or that because he promised not to do it, he didn't do it. (sorry, I'm being a bit thick. I'm supposed to be in bed - I have the flu)Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    I recommend reading the above thread, particularly the opening post, prior to getting involved. It's pretty clear. Tan | 39 23:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    I think I'll just take some more Anadin and go to bed. It seems the safer bet. I'll leave you guys to it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    @Tanthalas39: It is not completely clear what point you're making, sorry. One interpretation is that Darwinek has apologised (back in 2007) and all is well, and another is that Darwinek has violated his promise not to do it again. Could you clarify please? Often, if someone evinces confusion, it's because they are confused and need help understanding. I've read the entire thread. ++Lar: t/c 02:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    Darwinek recently blocked someone for edit warring with him (an abuse of admin tools). Piotrus said, "...I oppose taking away his admin rights if and only if he apologizes and promies to be more careful in the future." In response, I pointed out to Piotrus where Darwinek had already done exactly this, prior to the most recent breach of policy. I thought (and think) I was being pretty clear, but my point was that he already did promise - and broke that promise. Tan | 39 02:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    Nod. (that's what I got when I read it but I can see the other interpretation) I think you and Elen are actually agreeing with each other, but at least one of you doesn't realise it, and I think Elen will once they read that restatement. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 02:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    What I meant was that a new apology is needed. The 2007 one is not enough, since he made a new mistake. One mistake per two year can be understandable (we are all human, and we err), but he has to acknowledge it. If he doesn't, than he is not fit to be an admin. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

    User:Badagnani reopening CFD

    User:Badagnani is persistently re-opening a closed CFD. I presume this is against Misplaced Pages policy. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    Notified Vegaswikian about this edit. Frankly, he better have a good reason for reverting an admin's closure or I'm giving him a week. He's been on a terrible roll so far. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    Agreed. Ever since his 48 hour block I've mostly seen disruptive editing from him instead of anything constructive. And he's been given too many 'second' chances to count. GraYoshi2x► 22:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    I think he missed the original close decision. It took me a few minutes of headscratching to work out what Vegaswikian was on about.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    Request for help from administrator

    Resolved – — Aitias // discussion 22:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    I made the editing in Turkish Van cat article, but mixed the signs of references, and I am not able to solve it. Please, help to correct the reference marks. Thanks in advance.--Zara-arush (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    Done. Please see my edit to see where you went wrong. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    PS: I'm not sure that this is the best place to ask for help with editing. Try placing the {{helpme}} tag on your user talk page instead. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    Mischa Barton / User:MJBurrage/BLP violations

    There are a lot of tabloid reports about a recent incident involving this actress. However, most of the reports, and virtually all the reliable-source reports, are hedged and report matters in speculative terms. (The less reliable sources are, unsurprisingly, becoming increasingly sensational.) WP:BLP requires that biographical articles be "written conservatively" and "be sourced very carefully." MJBurrage has repeatedly added a short section to the article stating as fact that the actress suffered a "breakdown" -- sourced only to a newspaper report presenting the claim as "reported," not as established fact -- and stating as fact that the actress was involuntarily hospitalized for psychiatric observation/treatment under a specific provision of California law -- sourced only to a caption/introduction in an online photo gallery hosted by the LA Times, which states the claim as factual even though the Times's actual news articles don't even present the claim in a speculative form (and was written by a columnist who, per the LA Times, "dishes celebrity gossip and fashion" rather than by a news reporter). The news cycle has reached the point where less careful news organizations are repeating each others' claim with fewer and fewer of the appropriate qualifications, and the presence of such unverifiable (to date) claims on Misplaced Pages only contributes to the problem. I don't think there's any question about what BLP requires here -- that we "get the article right." The only substantiation for the claims involved turns out to be an anonymously-made statement to Access Hollywood (self-identified as a gossip source) by an undescribed and unidentified "source close to the situation." No matter how often that gets repeated, carefully or carelessly, it's not appropriate support for a Misplaced Pages BLP. I'm sure the other editor is acting in good faith, but isn't following BLP carefully enough -- and some reminders could be helpful. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    • There seem several problems with this summary: First, even as Access Hollywood may call itself a gossip site, it is affiliated with MSNBC.com, which carries articles in its Entertainment section under the AH byline (see, e.g., here), and, as such, is a reliable source. Second, some of the articles offered on the talk page are not as oblique as you suggest; that of BBC.com, for instance, sources directly to the Los Angeles Police Department and a statement issued by the biographical subject's publicist. Third, there is no consensus for the exclusion under BLP of material published in prominent reliable sources but given as the fruit of unidentified sources. We need not reach the broader issues here, though, I think, because of the BBC and AP stories, which, again, quote the Barton's own publicist as confirming her admission and make the unqualified assertion that her admission followed from the LAPD's "escorting her from her home"; those, I think, permit us to add most of the disputed text (there is no debate, AFAICT, over whether the incident is sufficiently notable as to merit mention in the article), after which we might debate whether to state explicitly the section 5150 commitment reported by AH/MSNBC.com. 68.249.4.105 (talk) 02:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

    Possible sock list

    Posted on OfficerJackBoot's talk page(an idef banned user. Could an admin look in to it? Possible sockfarm.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 23:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    Note: several of these are socks of User:ClaimJumperPete.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    Would a checkuser or IP block do any good? This guy is getting annoying.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 23:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    Do you need to file a sockpuppet report? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    I'm on it as I speak.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 23:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

    Lineup

    Long socklist.
    1. ClaimJumperPete (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    2. ClaimJumperJack (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    3. ClaimJumperBob (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    4. ClaimJumperDan (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    5. CIaimJumperJoe (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    6. SnakeBootSamuel (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    7. AlamoAaron (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    8. RoundemUpJeff (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    9. CactusDaniel (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    10. Tumbleweedjoe (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    11. WhiskeyDave (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    12. QuickdrawEnoch (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    13. BeerBellyBob (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    14. SaloonStan (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    15. BuckShotBill (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    16. BeltBuckleBob (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    17. CampFireEthan (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    18. ClayDerringer (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    19. BuffaloAmos (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    20. CoyoteBill (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    21. FastHandSteve (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    22. HenryStarr (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    23. CherokeeBill (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    24. ShotgunSanches (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    25. BenchmarkBen (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    26. StrawHatStewart (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    27. BuckarooTom (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    28. SwiftGus (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    29. ClaimJumperBill (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    30. UncleVodka (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    31. PrairieDogDoug (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    32. DaltonGang (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    33. CassidyJones (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    34. AlfredTerry (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    35. LeviStrauss (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    36. JerkyJoe (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    37. FortyFiveSteve (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    38. BroHa (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    39. ShootoutSam (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    40. VigilanteVern (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    41. HoldupHoncho (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    42. HorsebackHoss (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    43. LassoClay (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    44. SaddleAdam (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    45. HitchinPostHank (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    46. DylanWayne (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    47. FarmerDavid (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    48. CowpokeBrady (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    49. ClaimJumperJohn (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    50. OfficerJackBoot (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    Checkusered all. Those not stale are all  Confirmed, for what it's worth. I'll refrain from mentioning more on the wiki at this time. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

    Could someone please keep an eye on an IP please?

    I have other things I need to do, and 68.185.89.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is making tendentious edits like this which is a highly inappropriate link. They are also rambling on about "liberals" amongst other things, and their previous edits are also highly dubious. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 00:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

    I think O fenian needs some watching too. We don't remove people's attempts to discuss content disputes from talk pages. Toddst1 (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    Oh my god, do you have a clue? It isn't a content dispute, look at where the link goes and the sentence it was put in. Then look at what was written on the talk page, it was bigoted soapboxing which you have added back. If the "watchers" are all like you, we're doomed. In case you cannot work it out, that link is similar to pipe linking to Criticism of Christianity with a visible link to Jesus. It was vandalism, it even says as much in the vandalism policy under "Link vandalism". The IPs edit summaries make their intentions clear, that was not a good faith attempt at discussion, it was bigoted soapboxing and should have been removed. And it was removed, until you came along.. O Fenian (talk) 01:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    O Fenian does have a point. The link, ] links to an opposition page not to a support page. This should be removed immediately and the anon user warned. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    I'm not saying I agree with the IP either. However, we don't remove people's attempts to discuss their edits from article talk pages unless they're offensive. My point is that both editors appear to be wrong in this conflict. Toddst1 (talk) 02:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    What the IP wrote was offensive, do you not understand that? O Fenian (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    So, it is OK for the IP to add an intentionally misleading wikilink on the page? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    You guys are missing the points. There are two issues here: There was nothing offensive in this comment. It removing the comment from the talk page is highly inappropriate. I agree that the link in the article was misleading. However, discussing things on talk pages is how we solve issues here. Toddst1 (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    I don't think anyone is saying anything about the comment, just the link that was placed by the anon. That is the only think that should be removed. Comment should stay, link should go. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    Sorry - I said something about the comment. And I discussed it on O Fenian's talk page as well. Toddst1 (talk)
    Then my main concern is the link, which with your revert, still remains and should be removed. Correction: the link has been removed (by O Fenian) and that is my main concern, that the link stays gone. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    I'm not missing any point. My initial revert of the inappropriate link was reverted with an edit summary of "Reverted bad-faith extreme POV reversion". That instantly tells me, and 99% of other people, that the IP isn't acting in good faith. Then for the IP to claim it is "extremely biased of Misplaced Pages to even mention Uruguay's recognition of Homosexual relations as legitimate", based on the previous edits I, and 99% of other people, would correctly identify that as bigoted soapboxing against even the inclusion of a mention of same-sex unions. If that the first comment from an editor it could be interpreted differently, but from that editor with that history it is not a good faith attempt at discussion, and nothing meaningful could possibly come from that discussion. And Toddst1, you didn't discuss anything on my talk page. You came along with a pointless templated warning, and still don't understand that the discussion is pointless, offensive, and should be removed. O Fenian (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

    While I sort of see what Toddst1 is getting at here, I think that it's a little akin to raising a stink because we didn't serve a condemned man's last meal at the proper temperature. The IP editor lost his "discussion" privileges. These IP edits are clearly not appropriate, and I see no need for them to be discussed on the article talk page, as there's no way in hell those edits are ever going to be included on the page. Tan | 39 02:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

    My main concern was the link. If it isn't there, I am happy. It appears it has, in fact, been removed, so my involvement in this issue is over. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

    User:CWii

    Resolved – blocked indef Tan | 39 03:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

    User:CWii has placed "Leave me the fuck alone" on his user page. Should this be removed? It's very discouraging and offensive at that matter. --How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2 02:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

    Also, he seems to be acting uncivil. WP:CIVL. Look here to see what I mean: User talk: CWii. --How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2 02:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    WP:CENSOR CWii(Talk|Contribs) 02:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    Well, that user page won't do at all, and the reason has nothing to do with censorship. Looie496 (talk) 02:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    I see your point CWii(Talk|Contribs) 02:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

    I bring this edit to everyone's attention. He/she has placed a "Touch this and it's a guaranteed shitstorm " - Can somebody please remove the content from the page? I am unsure of whether it should be removed, or left alone, so if anyone else wants to, please. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

    Cwii's edit summary here ("attn wikifags") is repellently homophobic and completely unacceptable. → ROUX ₪ 02:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

    (ec) On the subject of putatively problematic userpages, I observe that that of Marshall notes that " ha been with the Wikimedia Foundation since July 29th, 2008". Everyone who partakes of any Foundation project can, of course, be said to be "with" the Foundation, but the wording strikes me as misleading to the average reader (unless, that is, MW is other than a volunteer; if I have mistaken his role, I apologize and, of course, withdraw my remarks), and I wonder whether it ought to be changed. (It is inappropriate, I guess, for me to raise the issue here without first addressing the user on his talk page, but I see that the complainant no effort was made to raise the issue with CWii before bringing it here; I recognize that CWii's user page might discourage communication, but MW nevertheless managed to apprise CWii of this listing, and so I fail to understand why this had to come to AN/I straightaway.) 68.249.4.105 (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

    What does your comment have to do with this discussion? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    The usual spotlight brought to bear on someone who complains at AN/I. I'd also note that "ATTENTION ALL VANDALS: IF YOU CHOOSE TO VANDALIZE, THEN YOU WILL RECEIVE PAIN FROM ME." is completely inappropriate (from MW's userpage). → ROUX ₪ 02:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

    CWii userpage blanked, someone else can deal with MW - since he is an active user, I would suggest a note on the talk page requesting removal of the offending part. Viridae 02:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

    (e/c) While Roux is probably right about MW here, I did block CWii for a month - and thought about doing it indefinitely. A stroll through his/her talk page, contributions, and edit summaries ("attn wikifags") shows that they are incompetent to participate in the collegial, collaborative atmosphere here. Tan | 39 02:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    Is your block for reasons other than the uncivil message on the userpage? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    Sure, in fact, I wouldn't have blocked solely for the userpage issue. See the block template on his page, and my above statement. Tan | 39 02:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    Could you please show me a few diff examples? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    I support Tan's block completely given the amt of vitriol I'm seeing. If you can't behave on Misplaced Pages in a collaborative and congenial manner, then go away. Wisdom89 (T / ) 02:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

    Due to this edit (repeated twice) I have locked the talk page so he cannot edit it while blocked. Viridae 03:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

    can somebody please indefinitely block him. This type of pitiful behavior is completely unsettling. Wisdom89 (T / ) 03:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    Way ahead of you :-) Marking resolved. Tan | 39 03:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    Nicely done, got the talk page before I could save :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Wow. I wasn't entirely sure about the original block -- was still thinking it over while looking at other things, trying to see if I might have a useful comment to add -- but those talk page edits are just beyond the pale. Obviously we can't allow that sort of thing. Might be worth unlocking the talk page in a while, see if they may have calmed down by then. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    I think the user should be banned. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    I'd like to express a different point of view. When high school students melt down, they tend to melt down totally, but it doesn't mean they won't become good editors in the future, especially if they've been good editors in the past. A long block and full protect of the talk page are clearly necessary here, but I don't think there is a compelling need for them to go longer than a month. If the pattern repeats after a month, the next step is a year. Looie496 (talk) 03:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    The user should be banned simply for this conduct. The user has proven not to be able to be nice to the editors. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    And another one at CWii2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), abusive unblock request. I've blocked the account. Also blocking John Bot II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and John Bot III (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a preventive measure. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


    Subpages

    Since the user will not longer be with us, can someone nuke this gigantic subpage list?— Dædαlus 03:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

    Since the user is indefinitely blocked, the pages are moot, but I can't delete the pages, because I'm not an administrator. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    That's ridiculously premature. Either way, MfD is over there. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    Okay. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

    niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs niggahs

    Imposter

    Resolved – Impostor account blocked. MastCell  03:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

    Gwens Gale (talk · contribs) is a new user vandalizing various articles...Modernist (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

    Was a new user; I blocked it about an hour ago . Antandrus (talk) 03:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    Good. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    Category: