Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:41, 24 September 2009

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

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

• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Is User:Stevertigo a disruptive editor??

The following stems from this edit by User:Stevertigo, an issue which arrived here very recently. The fact that "the Holocaust" is sometimes used to refer to the destruction of more than the Jews of during World War 2, is not under dispute. However, as can be seen on the talk page, myself and a couple of others have outlined to Steve several times - while pointing to a preponderance of reliable sources, that regardless of how "The Holocaust" is defined, "Holocaust denial", refers (with the exception of a few passing references regarding the implicit denial of Roma peoples, as one user brought forward) virtually exclusively to the denial of the destruction of the Jews during WW2.

Steve has responded with an eye-watering amount of wikilawyering, the most I have ever seen in my Misplaced Pages tenure. Some comments directed at Steve have undoubtedly been less than diplomatic, but this, and then amending it with this, frankly, is absolutely repellent behaviour in my opinion. I believed that I have exercised considerable discretion in this matter, such as by inviting Steve to suggest how he would amend the article, which he has responded to. However, it has occured to more than just me that Steve's desired prose not only misses the relevant points, but tacitly suggests that Steve is making his own extrapolations, then trying to find sources to support them. Well, not remotely tacit at all, in fact.

Judging from Steve's other edits (and pages in his userspace) such as this tremendously protracted redirect he established, not to mention this very recently written item or this BLP minefield, or what can only be described as a contemptuous attitude to other people's comments, I do not think it is unreasonable to infer that the interests Steve is interested in furthering are not Wikipedias. WilliamH (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on a good many points, but what exactly are you suggesting we do here? lifebaka++ 01:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest a block, indefinitely if necessary. It is abundantly clear that he is much more interested in tendentiously furthering his own interests, as opposed to Misplaced Pages's. I need hardly point that that is detrimental to the project, and I see no reason why so much volunteer time should be used to appease it. WilliamH (talk) 01:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a community ban discussion would get us anywhere, nor would it be all that constructive. We haven't eliminated other options yet, so I suggest we use them. How about an WP:RFC/U? lifebaka++ 14:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I've looked over the discussion, and it seems that Steve is now trying to talk in a more civilized manner, accepting what people have to say. I don't pretend to understand the large amounts of philosophical debate flying back and forth on that talk page, but it looks to me that he's calmed down considerably and stopped making threats and stupid comments. A little insignificant (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Completely disinterested observer checking in. Looking over the discussion on the article talk page, it appears to be a discussion, and not at all heated to the extent that is seemingly being portrayed. The ripostes are rather courtly and just because there is a dispute does not necessitate a call for admin action. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC).

Sorry, but I must ask if any of you actually viewed any of the pages I brought forward. How on earth is for example, aiming to hose away reliably sourced material with one's own extrapolations acceptable? WilliamH (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not a matter for AN/I, which deals w/ incipient problems that require admins to solve. Protonk (talk) 06:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If there are disputes about the reliability of sources, try the Reliable Sources noticeboard. And throwing words like "Holocaust denier" around with hopes they will stick to an editor, is not going to further constructive debate. If they do not stick, they tend to boomerang. Next?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

How can one not use the term "holocaust denier" when dealing with the article holocaust denial? --jpgordon 14:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I've had a good night and have not yet gotten any sleep, so I will keep this short.

You paint a very good one-sided story William. I do mean that. Note of course that neutral observers appear to disagree with your one-sided portrayal and aren't hesitant to say so quite straightly. Your comment above (to those who took the time to review your concerns), "Sorry, but I must ask if any of you actually viewed any of the pages I brought forward" should be understood as evidence of the weakness of your claims. Their comments above explicitly testify of their literacy in this matter. You have no evidence to show otherwise, and you have no cause to insinuate their negligence in that aspect.

WilliamH wrote: "How on earth is for example, aiming to hose away reliably sourced material with one's own extrapolations acceptable?" - Your linkage to my subspace (which I on rare occasion use in certain mundane ways) pointed to a draft for an unrelated topic. How do you conjecture a connection between this topic and that one? If you are building an overall case against me, please do so: Elicit help from others and put together some kind of comprehensive report on my behaviour. Not only would I welcome one, I would take the opportunity to demonstrate every weakness in your claims, arguments, and conceptions, and will do so with gusto and sarcasm in full measure to even the slightest vexatiousness shown to me. Your title for this thread already strikes me as a bit vexatious.

I'm going to bed. -Stevertigo 12:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we can safely assume the thread title was meant to be benign. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I always AGF, but I would still prefer that the thread title be changed such that not even the slightest degree of slander remain. -Stevertigo 21:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have made the title more clear in that it is about the article and you, rather than somehow implying that you might ascribe to the theory. I assume this is better. lifebaka++ 04:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that the thread title is completely benign, and all suggestions otherwise are tremendous assumptions of bad faith. WilliamH (talk) 11:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This thread is rife with assertions of bad faith. I don't believe they all need pointing out. lifebaka++ 19:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

A few people have checked the discussion page and note that the discussion seems less heated. Indeed. But this is beside the point. The question - and really, the only question for AN/I (as Protonk points out, this page is dedicated to specific kinds of problems) - is: is User:Stevertigo a disruptive editor? The thing about disruptive editors is, you cannot make a judgement based on just one glance. By definition, disruptive editing manifests itself through a pattern of edits across time or across several articles. That is why WilliamH provided a number of edit diffs. To those who say things have quieted down, I would point out this: Stevertigo has dominated discussion on the Holodcaust Denial talk page for quite some time, occupying quite a bit of space, and all this discussion has lead to not one single improvement of the article. Moreover, it seems to me that the rest of the participants in the discussion do not see any point to this lengthy discussion, do not feel that it is leading to any improvement of the article. This is an abuse of the talk page, which is meant to discuss improvements, and a perfect example of "disruptive" editing since Stevertigo's repeated comments, which never engage what other editors actually point out, is simply displacing any constructive discussion. Stevertigo's MO is to make things up, call it a "concept," and then refuse to provide any verifiable sources. He is a disruptive editor at best - the worse possibility is that he is here to push his own personal point of view with total disregard to our NOR policy. Here is another example . Slrubenstein | Talk 15:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That this was recently archived yet is on this very same, not yet resolved issue, is an indication of the level of disruption. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced Steve is completely gone, yet. As I've seen, he is improving little by little, as we make it apparent that pieces of what he's doing aren't acceptable. I don't know that we can change him completely, but neither do I know that we cannot. Steve is capable of taking the hint from this thread, I know, and is capable of changing his behavior. For the moment, it would be best if we issued a warning about some specific behaviors (such as starting talk page discussions whose purpose is not the improvement of the article) and see if he does in fact stop. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I am not "gone yet," Lifebaka - I was editing here five years before you showed up. I've yet to see anything more than a few insinuations and complaints, so I don't quite understand how anyone would think I would just go away and leave things in a depressed state. I likewise don't understand how some people can go though life thinking everyone else is just stupid, but that's a little off topic. Anyway, I've written down a few thoughts regarding this thread and others, and put them in my log. It's a bit fluid and maybe wanders a bit, but the gist is fairly straightforward.

By the way, I appreciate the title change. Now any slander therein is nearly unperceptible, and nowhere near as obvious. -Stevertigo 00:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Lifebaka didn't mean "gone" as in "retired" - s/he means that you aren't beyond hope, and that you've been learning and improving by mistakes. Sorry, that was a confusing sentence, could have raised all kinds of hell. A little insignificant _(please!) 00:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

My experience with Stevertigo has, unfortunately, been pretty unchanged over a number of years. He generally shows up at an article and decides to put his own unique and idiosyncratic spin on whatever is there, either by modifying text to suit his own opinions, or by adding his own mini-essays. Though he has been editing for many years, as far as I can tell the WP:V and WP:NOR policies have made little, if any, impression on him.

Here is a perfect recent example of this; he showed up at the Reducto ad Hitlerum article, and decided to insert his own confusing digression on whether or not the National Socialist party were really Socialists. Aside from its tangential nature, note that (as is typical) the essay has not one source in it. As is also typically the case, on any article he is editing that is actually being watched by other editors, his insertions are deleted. As is also typically the case, he edit wars to keep them in. When defeated, he drops it on the Talk: page, without any accompanying commentary.

Thus he showed up at the Holocaust denial article, with his own personal opinions of what the article should discuss - as it turned out, mainly a digression into which groups are covered by the phrase "The Holocaust" - something that is actually discussed in Misplaced Pages's article on the Holocaust. After days of circular discussion, including several suggestions by him that we should all be working together on a Holocaust comprehension article, he then proposed completely re-writing the lede, focusing in particular on his original point, and making his proposal without actually basing it on any discernible sources. Long exposure has taught me that every talk page discussion with him eventually comes to the question "Stevertigo, upon what sources do you base your opinions"? Constantly hammering on that statement usually makes him go away; unfortunately, in this case, many editors were unfamiliar with him, and gave him various openings to continue his digressions on his own unusual ideas. He has posted several thousand words on the Holocaust denial Talk: page without, as far as I can tell, bringing even one source that actually discusses Holocaust denial. At the least, this is extremely disruptive. Jayjg 01:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, was there any attempt, on your part or anyone elses, to ascertain what was missing in the reductio ad Nazium article? Indeed, as the term is said to not just refer to the Hitler fallacy, but to the Nazi one as well, I.. conceptualized.. a need for a treatment of the Socialism fallacy, and thought that article was the proper place, given the apparent ambiguity in the ad Nazium term.

So, I take it there was no effort on your part to ascertain what was missing in that article. Hm? Fine. But in the additions of others, do you at least attempt to ascertain whether or not the addition is actually true? Encyclopedic? Factual? Well-written? On-point? Relevant? Material? Substantive? Accurate? An improvement?

It strikes me at the very best "counterproductive" that you and others interpret RS in accord with only inane and destructive modalities that at best resemble deletionism. Keep in mind the context, these are articles in which you yourself neglect to detect any omission, and yet you claim to assert some kind of considered editorial judgment in simply deleting additions to them?

"Disruptive editing," indeed. -Stevertigo 02:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Steve, the way article writing is supposed to work is this: First, you find sources. Then, you write based on the sources. Then, you cite the sources you used. The issue appears to be that you are not beginning by finding sources, but instead writing and then attempting to cherry-pick sources which will support your text. Regardless of why you choose to operate this way, it gives the appearance that you are pushing a view. Please find sources as a first step.

Additionally, regarding the removal of unsourced content, WP:V stipulates that any unsourced contentious material should be removed. You shouldn't be too terribly surprised if, when you add material to a page without sources, it gets removed.

The new title you chose is... Odd. The first title was far more neutral. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Stevertigo has been around a long time and made many contributions. He isn't some troll who suddenly appeared. So whence this talk of banning him? Can't we tolerate people with unpopular perspectives? Do we all have to be mainstream here? If so, then who should we start kicking out: the gays? the libertarians? the Christians? Please let me know, so I can align myself with the Grand Inquisitor, and feel like a good person.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting perspective, Anthon. Keep in mind also the issue is not about "mainstream," its about this obtuse methodology of cobbling articles together from "reliable sources" such that they don't always make actual sense. In some cases it's quite deliberately so. So some people of course are worried that any future requirement of "making sense" will inevitably cause localized and other special-point-of-view concepts to implode. In fact its just a matter of time.

Just to forewarn you, when someone informs The Grand Inquisitor that you were just being sarcastic, he'll probably issue a standard proclamation and declare you "thou troubler of Misplaced Pages" as well. -Stevertigo 05:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Uh, Anthon, to be clear, Stevertigo is a troll who has been around over five years. The first encounter with him I recall (I could well be blocking out others) was when he showed up at "anti-Semitism" and argued that since Arabs are semites, anti-Semitism includes hatred of Arabs. This is the paradigm for how he operates and it has two major components. First, he claims he is using a conceptual method, but what he is really doing is taking actual concepts and breaking them down to parts that are actually not relevant to the concept. In the case of the name Ehud, he went so far as to do this with letters of the alphabet. It is true that Arabic is a semetic language. But "anti-Semitism" was explicitly coined to refer exclusively to hatred of Jews. Anyone who has done what jayjg and others call source-based research ... what I just call "research" ... would know this. As i pointed out on the Holocaust denial page, If Stevertigo really followed his method consistenly, he would be quite surprised to discover what the word "blowjob" really means. If Sgtevertigo really were commited to his "conceptual" approach, he would go the the article on blowjobs, and explain that since blow means a forceful expulsion of air, and a job is form of work, we need a section on people who blow out air for a living. This would be a violation of WP:NOR were it not just so ridiculous on its face. Anyway, the point is that he has done no research, he has no sources to support his claims, in the end it is simply what Stevertigo thinks a word or phrase should mean that he wants to go into the article. This of course never stands up to scrutiny, but Stevertio argues the point for days, weeks, and this is what makes him a disruptive editor. Second major element: Stevertigo has a clear preference for screwing with articles that have to do with Jews or topics sensitive to Jews. Although by his method we would have a long debate at the page on blowjobs, or "logrolling" or "parkway" or "driveway," Stevertigo prefers "Anti-Semitism," "Yeshu" "Ehud" and "Holocaust Denial." What do these things have in common? They are all issues sensitive to Jews, and Stevertigo has never done an iota of research concerning them. His is a simple, close to banal form of anti-Semitism. He has never directly insulted any Jews at ikipedia. But if left to his own devices, slowly, every article here relating to matters of Jewish interest or concern would be corrupted into meaningless garbage. I do not know if this is because this is his actual objective, or because he knows that it will draw some of the Jewish editors at Misplaced Pages, and force them to waste their time on the talk pages explaining over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again why he is wrong.

Please note my excessive use of "over and over and over." It is not a personal attack as such. It did not violate any content policy. But can anyone deny that its only effect is to irritate? This is Stevertigo in essense. It is why he is a disruptive editor. That he has gotten away with it for five years is no defense. In no other kind of violation, would we say that "well, he has been violating NPOV for five years so it must be okay." The only time editors say "Well he has been doing it for five years so stop complaining" is in the case of disruptive editors. That is because disruptive editors, by constantly shifting their targets, and by merely disrupting, rather than attacking, are generaly detected only by a small group of editors who for one reason or another (in this case, Jews or non-Jews who care about Jewish related articles) keep encountering this editor. But we have a policy, WP:DE that describes Stevertigo's MO almost to a tee! Folks, this is precisely why we have a DE policy. Generous editors here will say "let's give him anothe chance." That is because they weren't around for the over a month long "anti-semitism" saga (in which, after Stevertigo started introducing neologisms to support his argument, and created articles for his own neologisms, and was told, No, Steve, you can't create your own word and then create a Wikipdia article about your word, that is a neologism, and then we had to explain to him what the word "neologism" meant, then he went and created an article on neologisms! I kid you not! It is amost funny). But if we let him go this time, in a few nonths he will settle on some other article - maybe he will come up with his own theory about the etymology for Yom Kippur. Now, how many of you have this article on your watchlist? How many of you will notice it? Probably me and just a few others. And we will bring it up at AN/I and a different group of admins will read over the account of the conflict and say "Well, this seems mild, let's give him another chance." Folks, we have a policy against disruptive editors. Let's use it here. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

One could take all of that, substitute "Obama" and "liberals" in place of "Jews" and "antisemitism", and we would have an accurate description of Stevertigo's antics that led to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles as well. Sooner or later the ones with the proverbial mops around here have eat the spinach and say "that's all I can stands and I can't stands no more!" Tarc (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, most likely you'd get someone to act if you put some examples around, other than just the Ehud one. For instance, can you link me the threads from Anti-Semitism that you're talking about? Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• I recently attempted to warn Stevertigo on Talk:Holocaust denial that his repetitive arguing was becoming disruptive; he responded by misconstruing what I'd written, wikilawyering over policy, trying to score points, and making some rather odd allusions that I might be in off-wiki contact with other editors there to silence him (, , ). I don't intend to second-guess why he does this, but regardless of the reasons the resulting disruption, bad feeling, and general unpleasantness caused by his actions are what matter. I would support removing his editing privileges; although a topic ban would be my first choice, I think his interests are wide-ranging enough that this would be ineffective. Note that because I consider myself marginally involved on Holocaust denial, I don't feel comfortable blocking Stevertigo myself. EyeSerene 14:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• I deplore this dogpile.

  The consensus is against Stevertigo in a number of areas, and he has some controversial views. He also occasionally takes an unfortunate tone with people. But this AN/I thread is totally unwarranted.—S Marshall /_Cont 16:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide an example of a "controversial view" he has? The problem I have, and have raised, is not that he has controversial views, but that he is always promoting his own views. Misplaced Pages allows controversial views, as long as they are significant and come from notable sources. Not our own ideas, right? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

While I greatly appreciate the "dogpile" conceptualization, S Marshall, I have to disagree about it being "unwarranted," when in fact it's ridiculous. Particularly so when they don't bother to treat my arguments seriously to begin with, and then, instead of dealing with the concepts, they accuse me of "wikilawyering," which is precisely what this report itself actually is.

Note how easy it was to deal with William, who filed this report?

Slrubenstein wrote: "It is true that Arabic is a semetic language." - Actually, that's not accurate.

-Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 20:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC) PS: Wrote some responses. May submit later.

Lifebaka asks for some more links. Here are two:. I must point out that archives from back then are sketchy - some articles were deleted, and then recreated when people had more research; we didn't have the same procedures for keeping records or archives of everything. In archive 4 of the anti-Semitism talk, Stevertigo makes his argument that Misplaced Pages isn't a dictionary so the article cannot be just a definition of "anti-Semitism." Fair enough. On this I agree fully. Here is where we differ: i think that instead of just defining the term, we need to see what sources exist concerning its history and the sociology of anti-Semitism, or whatever other research there has been, if any. Steve's approach is to apply his own brand oflogic, and this is used to make his own points (note: what is wrong is not that they are controvesial, but that they are his i.e. an editor's). In archive 4 he claims that anti-semitism has two meanings: first, it means hatred of Jews. Second, it is a term used to attack people who disagree with Jews. Uh, well, you can see how Jews might take exception to this second meaning of "anti-Semitism." Now, there may well be people who are anti-Zionists yet who are accused of anti-Semitism - this in fact is now the subject of a couple of articles, all backed up by research. Again, my problem with Steve's argument is that he is relying on his own argument, not research. In archive 6 he refers to himself, ironically I am sure, as an "anti-Semite." I really do not believe that he thinks he is an anti-Semite or was confessing to be an anti-Semite, I am merely pointing out that six years ago he was aware that there were other editors who found his views anti-Semitic. In archive six there is another classic example of his using his own kind of logic, rather than research: anti means opposed to, so anti-Semitism must mean, opposed to Semites, including Arabs. I and RK and Danny argued strenuously that anti-Semitism means Jew-hatred. RK points out that the person who coined the term meand, "Jew hatred." And here is the crucial thing: Stevertigo says it does not matter what the inventor of the word meant, words have meanings determined by logic. As RK points out, the reason that the inventor of the term is important is because there is extensive published historical research on the historical meaning of the term. Steve's insistence on logic is an insistence on his own beliefs. I am sorry I could not provide edit difs but it is hard with my connection to go back six years to find edit difs, but these archives are pretty short - I believe they are incomplete - so just search a bit and you will find all the pertinant stuff. Note: there was a separate archive for anti-Semitism talk, I do not know if there was a separate article or just some talk was being archived back then under a different system. The point is, those archived talk pages are all blank and I cannot recover the content, so some talk is missing. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Lifebaka, here is another link, to an article written entirely by our boy, Stevertigo.. It is pure crap. Let me be clear: it is not his "controversial views." It is his bullshit. I really am waiting for an example of some meaningful contribution to Misplaced Pages. Anyway, his article on a neologism that he himself invented is a perfect example of what I have been saying about his MO, just making stuff up and calling it logic to justify why he didn't need to do any research. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(continued)

Honestly, take a step back. You're accusing a long-term editor of anti-Semitic views and being involved in a plot to corrupt every Jewish-related article on Misplaced Pages. That I think is bullshit. The link you just provided was from 2003. A little insignificant _(please!) 22:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I provided that link because another editor explicitly requested I provide the link ...I explained this. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The behavior in Archive 4 is similar, yes. I cannot find any place where Steve states/asserts/implies that antisemitism is hatred of Semites (including various Arab groups) in any of the archives, though this may merely be because the archives are incomplete (there are certainly responses to such a statement, but I'm unsure if they're putting words in his mouth, as it were). Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

(To Slrubenstien above) Keep in mind that there are historical concepts of editorship and controversy involved. For example, you now say that "ant-Semitism" has a pejorative meaning, but at the time you rejected the notion altogether - not just that there were no sources. In fact the sources I provided, Chomsky, Finkelstein, etc., were met by you with extremely prejudicial rejection. Hence you've been working with a concept of authorship that defies higher conceptualization, frankly because you think it has no relation to your own. Note for example how you surreptitiously promoted Trinitiarianism as an absolute condition in the Christianity article lede, when in fact there is some variance. I discussed this a bit in my wlog.

So, yeah, this has been going on for some time. The important thing though here is for you to build a case, and approach it rationally. This works in any context. For example you and William both above cite a number of diff-links, but you fail to put them into context, and thus fail to make an actual case.

And what is the case you are trying to make here? That I be banned? That my arguments, regardless of substance, simply be ignored? That you can continue to simply reject anything I might have to say, even when I do provide sources? (Which I have done on a number of occasions). That you can continue to take my arguments out of context, or otherwise misrepresent them? Do explain.

Likewise we will have to deal with some issues that transcend us both, even though Arbcom has some notable impotence in dealing with matters of its own fundamental legislation. One thing that has to go is this notion that RS's dominant modality be a deletionist one. I say so just in case collaboration still has anything to do with this project. Keep in mind that you appear to have no issue of collaborating when it comes to dealing with views which are in agreement with your own conceptualizations. Keep in mind also that because you reject collaboration with those you disagree on the fundamentals, you thus demonstrate a serious misunderstanding of what collaboration means, and what it can ultimately do. So I really do want you get your arguments in concise order first, and if that means filing some kind of formal case, I can then refute each.

Getting you and Jayjg to do something other than whine about "reliable sources" all day long - particularly when I referred 38 times to just one - would be good for everyone. My sense of things is that if I can't get obstinate persons to deal with just one reliable source, there's no point in me trying to introduce a second. In fact our presence here means to some degree my success in making you deal with just that one source. The rest is just a logical argument that says that "car parts" has something to do with "cars" and to a lesser degree "parts." Your completely irrelevant counterargument, which says essentially that an article like "cheesing" need not at all mention any definition of "cheese", is interesting. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 22:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Your post opens with a typical example of the source of my frustration. Nowehere have I said "anti-semitism" has a pejorative meaning My position has not changed since 2003: I believe that people can use the term incorrectly. My analogy would be to call an appale an orange - it is simply incorrect. But the word apple continues to refer to a certain kind of fruit. The term anti-Semite can be incorrectly applied to another person, but it is not pejorative, it is a term that refers to people who, among other things, say pejorative things. We went over this six years ago. I continue to see you violating NOR, se,dom using sources and when you do, using them inappropriately, often violating SYNTH, or taking them out of context, all in order to develop your own arguments about a topic, which violates NPOV. Do I want you banned? Well, yeah, until you show evidence of being able to work in a collaborative way with people. Ehud is a perfect examplke because so little seems to be at stake. You insisted it came from Yehudi and I insisted you provide reliable sources for that; instead you provided your own personal interpretation of Hebrew grammar. I said you were violating NOR (which you took to be pejorative). Another user provided the correct etymology and a source, and you had the gall to tell me that I should learn a lesson, and provide sources rather than just argue with people! When my "argument" with you was my insistence that you provide a source! If this is not trolling, what is? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I never promoted trinitarianism. You are just making stuff up. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Disagreement with processes and policy is fair, but even if you are totally correct in your views of RS, V, etc, article space is not the correct place to implement them as folks just want to edit (and collaborate!) within the existing consensual processes and not entertain these "conceptualizations." You mention how long you've been editing here pretty frequently, so I guess you know better than us newbies how wikiprocesses were formed and what you can do to change them. Propose your changes inside the WP process space - a great place for conceptualizing with folks who focused are on that topic. RS's are required because V / NPOV are required. Deviating from current, consensual policy inside of article space is hugely time consuming and disruptive as evidenced by all of the text here and at Talk:Holocaust_denial. Until and unless policy changes, threads that propose material changes to content without reliable sourcing should just be summarily closed until sourcing is provided. Doing this actually supports the process of collaboration as finite resources don't need to be endlessly engaged with discusses content changes that fail (current) policy. cheers, --guyzero | talk 02:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't have to go very far in terms of the policy route than to cite WP:LEDE/WP:LEAD. The fact that much of the substance in that policy's own lede comes from my own conceptualizations about what an article lede needs to do, should not be an obstacle to your continued faith. In short, the substance behind WP:LEDE is higher, relevant conceptualization.

Keep in mind, I did provide sources. They simply rejected their relevance. So the extrapolated principle in this case is simple: If a topic is a specialized one, we need to explain why it is so. Also, if the topic likewise uses more general terminology, in some specialized way, then we need to explain why. There is some historiology for the relevant terms, which is not too controversial. However if even simple, concise, and relevant explanations of these specialized ("denial") and subjective ("motive, scale, intent") historiologies are rejected without substantive argument, then this rejection is easily understood to be based not in policy or a reliable interpretation thereof.

The common-sense explanation for this type of rejectionism is simply that these explanations give some sense that the specialized terminology is actually a specialized one. And thus they are not rejected because they do not fit policy, but because such explanations defy certain ethnic conceptualizations. This is basically what Slrubenstein was referring to when he said above that 'conceptualization destroys meaning' (paraphrasing). My translation-reparsing of this is something like 'such conceptual explanations can only contradict the ones written down in scrolls.' Now granted, these are "reliable scrolls" to be certain. Most of them anyway. But these have no meaning at all here if no efforts are made to unroll them, read them to people, and gain new understanding from their unconstrained resonance.

I have always known how to express myself with "sensitiv," as Slrubenstein calls it. That I often do not is simply a requirement of the age, an instrument of the times, a necessity of the context, and due in no small measure to the lack of good faith that I have grown accustomed to dealing with. I am always pleased, however, to find I am not right in this regard. Regards, -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 03:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where you really responded to anything guyzero said, nor have you given a reason why we should be doing anything other than what he's suggested. lifebaka++ 16:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"deal with William". Oh dear, Steve, there's this thing called real life, which I, judging by your elaborate responses, have to be a part of more frequently than you. I do not have the time or interest to appease your wikilawyering. Incidentally, I have abolutely no qualms about the thread title being changed, and even offer an apology for the impression it falsely/inadvertently suggested.

Consequently, this is the first time I've checked this thread since my comment 2 days ago. I'd just like comment on one thing: on Misplaced Pages, it's always been my intention to keep controversial articles, such as Holocaust denial, as they should be, in accordance with Misplaced Pages's policies. Indeed, I was selected - and supported unanimously - to be an administrator largely on that basis. The fact that all hell breaks loose when someone leaves a few daft opposes on requests for adminship, yet the general response to someone who - on top of all the disruptive editing - systematically rejects core policies such as WP:V and WP:NOR and (by his own admission) cherry-picks material to push his agenda on an encyclopedia page viewed thousands of times a month is largely "uh, nothing to see here, move on", in my opinion, encompasses everything that is wrong with Misplaced Pages if this individual is not sanctioned in some manner. WilliamH (talk) 10:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You could have picked a far better example, Steve. Cheesing has absolutely nothing to do with cheese, unless one has a very strange definition of cheese. lifebaka++ 16:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think.. anyone reading this no doubt thinks we are all talking past each other. (Note, I wanted to keep this extremely short, but I failed in that regard): WilliamH above, just to take one example of this 'talking past each other,' references my example of an argument, but he misses the point behind it entirely that it represented Slrubenstein's actual argument, simply putting into a rather absurd reformulation. Slrubenstein's argument is certainly valid in cases like the example I used ("cheesing") which are entirely idiomatic and unrelated to their apparent core terminology. In cases like this one (Holocaust and Holocaust denial) where the terms are entirely related, his argument is so utterly irrelevant that it constitutes a demonstration of a deeper capacity on his part for fallacious argumentation.

Slrubenstein and Jayjg have echoed this same argument several times, stating essentially that "Holocaust denial" is so far removed from the term "The Holocaust" that no mention of the latter is required in the former. The underlined portion is oversimplified, but these are the essentials of his argument. The underlined portion can be augmented with something like matters of subjectivity in its definition.

The background is straightforward: term "The Holocaust" first split off from its apparent original definition of "all Nazi murders," and became used to refer exclusively to the mass-murder of Jews alone sometime during the 1960s. That's according to the Columbia Guide. Naturally, there has been a concerted effort to promote an entirely Jewish definition of "The Holocaust," to the rejection of several million other victims. There are of course explanations for this selectivity, and these invariably employ concepts of "motive, scale, and intent" (Columbia Guide). The issue then is an editorial one which can be broken down into two basic counterarguments of somewhat differing validity. We've seen examples of each. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 18:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• sigh* this is what makes him a disruptive editor. Now I have to go and explain that I never suggested that Holocaust denial has nothing to do with the Holocaust. Nor have I ever suggested that the Holocaust refers only to the genocide of Jews. In fact, far from it. But by misrepresenting me and the argument, I have no choice but either to disengage (and people will have an unfair representation of me) or repeat what I have said many times ... thus ... further ... delaying ... any ... improvement ... on ... the ... article ... We can go back and forth cand back and forth and back and forth and just let SV continue to use Misplaced Pages like his own little ball of yarn. I'd rather we didn't. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, well at least you're not mad. (Or else not showing any outward signs thereof). Nice talking with you. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 18:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

PS (Slrubenstein): BTW, Salvation needs reworking to get it somewhere back to neutrality. Its upfront usage of "..from eternal damnation" is just the start of it. Please have a look, if you're not busy. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 19:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think either one of you are understanding each other. At all. I think it would be a great help to me, and everyone involved, if Stevertigo said in a single, simple sentence what he wants to do, and Slrubenstein then stated in another sentence what he doesn't want Steve to do. All this without long explanations. I think if people can know for sure what the other side wants, and not respond to what they assume the other side is saying, this issue can be resolved a lot easier. A little insignificant _(please!) 16:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding our understanding, to a certain extent. Keep in mind we have been crossing paths for seven years. In any case It's not really about what I want to do, or what Slrubenstein wants me not to do, but how you and others can help us by sorting out the arguments and giving us your input. So I appreciate the questions.

As far as the article issues go, my argument is that including a reference to the core term's variance (such that arises from a subjective definition) is simply good explanationism, and necessary to move forward in the direction of dealing objectively with issues of terminology and etymology, as well as comprehension, which I feel is an essential dimension within the whole sad topic. As I understand them, Slrubenstein presents two main arguments for dis-inclusion: The first one (m1) is valid only in unrelated contexts wherein a pair of terms might only have a superficial relation, and the second (m2) is implied based on his various expressed concerns for how his own subjective ethnic lens relates to the article/concept. His arguments related to sources are likewise twofold: The first (s1) that I have not provided any sources at all is nullified by my presentation of a very ample and relevant one (Columbia Guide). His second argument (s1) alleges the irrelevance of the above source in the current context - an argument that itself rests circularly on one of his main arguments (m1).

With regard to what do I want in general (which is the other way I interpreted your questions), it's about how to formalize and broaden what I do, which is to turn an articulate wreck into a clear, concise, and conceptual statement of the subject. With regard to Slrubenstein (since we are talking about what the other is supposed to be doing), I'd like to see him transform his acuity for detail from its current expression as a modality of exclusive expertise, into a helpful and outgoing movement based on the assisted procurement of citations and the qualitative adjudication of sources. Regards, -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 10:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, Steve, if I had embraced the part of anthropology that had embraced postModernism, I'm sure that I would understand what you had just written. But, unfortunately, I embraced something much more wholesome. I like User:A little insignificant's suggestion: "I think it would be a great help to me, and everyone involved, if Stevertigo said in a single, simple sentence what he wants to do, and Slrubenstein then stated in another sentence what he doesn't want Steve to do. All this without long explanations." Not much fun, maybe, but helpful... --Anthon.Eff (talk) 03:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Anthon. And Steve, if I'm getting this right, all you want to do is... include a mention that the term "Anti-semitism" can mean different things? A little insignificant _(please!) 17:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

actually, i think it's the different meanings of the "holocaust" that steve wants to note. untwirl(talk) 22:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right. Thanks for correcting me. A little insignificant _(please!) 17:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to A little insignificant: I would like Stevertigo to stop filling up talk pages with obtuse wordy rambles that express his own views, but no research. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Great. I agree- Stevertigo tends to write using a lot of very long paragraphs and very impressive words. Steve, I don't mean to criticize your writing style or to deny the importance of your comments, but such huge posts are daunting to their readers, and people trying to communicate with you cannot do so easily. They end up confused and lost and misunderstanding your points. If you want to be able to communicate better with people you need to address those issues. A little insignificant _(please!) 20:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, (sorry if I am now making it two sentences with specific regard to Holocaust Denial, my complaint is: Stevertigo consistenly ignores the several other editors who have been working on the article, because he responds to any one else's comment with one of these long ponderous and obtude reflections on his own thoughts, rather than ever directly engaging other editors. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(sigh) The point (again) is to include some language in the lede of the Holocaust denial article that explicitly states something like 'while there is variance in the scope of the term "The Holocaust," its meaning in the context of "Holocaust denial" is limited to the Jewish definition, and the coined purpose of the term is to refer to anti-Semitic WWII revisionism and to nothing else.. for other interpretative issues related to the Holocaust, see Holocaust comprehension.'

I am not happy with the fact that people here apparently can't deal with three simple paragraphs: 1) an introduction and expression of gratitude to ALI, 2) a direct response ("my argument is that including a reference to the core term's variance (such that arises from a subjective definition) is simply good explanationism"), and 3) a follow-up dealing with my hopes for the future. Granted the information density in my expressions is high, still I don't see why a secondary or ternary read wouldn't be sufficient for comprehension. If comprehension is not achievable, I don't see what business you people have in trying to make content decisions or activity complaints about me, what I advocate, what I write, or what I do - whatever these may be.

SLR, I empathize and understand your concerns. Still I feel that you are being disingenuous about your criticisms, your motives, your degrees of approach, and your willingness to be reasonable. I have not ignored you or anyone else, and I have been responsive to every inquiry, if not compliant with every unreasonable request. The only issue is that your side now needs to concede that your arguments (which I listed in my above reply) are less substantial than mine, if not altogether flawed and based in disingenuous complaint-ism. I humbly suggest you put your energies toward dealing with the arguments, rather than making complaints which are neither true, nor accurate enough to be close. Do you agree to this request? If not, then please file a formal complaint. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 05:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Dude, someone else filed the complaint, which is why we are here.

Now, you mention "Holocaust comprehension" but I see no link and can't find such an article. Folks, if you are still confused as to the crux of the issue, here it is: Stevertigo has flooded the Holocaust denial talk page with piles and piles of his obtuse circular prose all to promote this idea of a new article (Holocaust comrehension) that would be based on: .... no, no, not other sources, but on Stevertigo's own views. This is just what I meant when I replied to A little insignificant's request for one sentence: I want Stevertigo to stop pushing his POV, especially his proposal to create new articles based on his POV rather than verifiable sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Consider Steven that the premise by which this thread was started was almost instantly rejected by uninvolved people as an ongoing discussion - not a case of disruptive editing. I also made it clear that WilliamH's comment to these people was out of placem and this thread should have stopped there. But then you chimed in and kept it going - so its your matzah ball now.

As far as your 'piles and piles of obtuse circular prose' characterization (apparently your only remaining point), I'm certain that the above admins don't read it that way either. I would characterize the "piles and piles" as my attempts at explaining my argument to you, unsuccessful only because I've had to deal with "obtuse" rejections from you and Jayjg, "circular" not as in your objections/arguments, rather as in 'having to repeat myself,' "prose" is no doubt an underhanded compliment of some sort. Again, anyone can read WP:LEDE for the supporting policy, the Columbia Guide to The Holocaust for the supporting source, and my own "piles and piles" of talk page comments for the argumentation.

You mention "Holocaust comprehension." Great. Finally a question about a substantive idea. There is no article yet, because we have not before considered the concept. In fact my entire foray into this whole awful topic began with my post here, which explained my reasons for an umbrella context, within the general field. Is this original research? Not if you consider all of the dimensions outside of anti-Semitism. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 14:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

We'll just be back in a few month anyways, when User:Stevertigo/Socialism fallacy, another unsourced opinion piece makes its way into article space. Tarc (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually you won't. What is going to happen is that you are going to file a formal complaint against me within the week. I will deal with your "issues" regarding me and my editing there. If you don't formalize your problems, and still persist in annoying me with your incessant hebetudinousness, I'll make you do more than just search a dictionary. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 14:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

In what way is Tarc incessantly lethargic or dull? Or were you hoping someone would accuse you of using the derogatory word for a Jew just so you could say "fooled ya!" with a wink? No, Steve, you haven't fooled us at all. Some people maybe, but not all of us. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. Steven, if you're not going to just come out of the anxiety closet and call me what they do at the Jewish Justice League meetings, then what's the point? (BTW congrats on your acceptance. Say hi to Uncle Leo for me). -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 21:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Steve, eThreats don't become you. Stalking? Please. You have a redlink under "stuff to do" on your user page, and it was hardly a leap to assume you had a draft of such in userspace. I took a look at it and noted that it seems just as problematic as your last project turned out to be. Tarc (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. YAWN. - Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 20:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Stevertigo part 3

To get back to the point, the issue raised, and still unresolved, is Stevertigo's filling articles with his own unique ideas, combined with his filling article Talk: pages with superficially erudite but actually obtuse and obscure argumentation. It's not that people "disagree with his views", it's that Misplaced Pages is not the place for them. Note, for example, his recent comment above, which I'll quote in its entirety:

You mention "Holocaust comprehension." Great. Finally a question about a substantive idea. There is no article yet, because we have not before considered the concept. In fact my entire foray into this whole awful topic began with my post here, which explained my reasons for an umbrella context, within the general field. Is this original research? Not if you consider all of the dimensions outside of anti-Semitism. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 14:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as Stevertigo is concerned, the only "substantive" issue has finally come up; what should we do about that Holocaust comprehension article he wants to write. Not that he has any sources that even discuss the concept; of course not! Stevertigo has an idea in his head, therefore Misplaced Pages should have an article on his idea. He waves away any notion that his recent brainstorm might be Original Research, not by linking to WP:NOT#ESSAY, but instead linking to WP:CONCEPT, an essay written by Stevertigo himself! Personal, idiosyncratic viewpoints are fine for a blog, but they don't belong in encyclopedia, nor should they be used to waste peoples time on article Talk pages. This disruptive behavior of his needs to stop, and it doesn't appear discussion of the issue is actually making any impression on him. Jayjg 23:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This is what Steve attempted to do on a couple of occasions with Obama-related articles as well; edit war, fail, write/propose brand-new WP:OR-tinged articles, fail, create new editing guidelines or edit war on existing ones to support his arguments, rinse, repeat. Seriously; desysopped several years ago, sanctioned by ArbCom just 3 months ago, numerous AN/Is...where does one go from here to deal with such a dug-in, serial disruptor? Tarc (talk) 23:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Full stop. Is this the triggering edit?--Tznkai (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No. Jayjg 00:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Further thought: This thread is very long, and difficult to read. A brief and neutral summary would be a great help. The absence of one will make it more likely for an administrator, to assume wide misuse of Misplaced Pages as a battleground which would be unfortunate.--Tznkai (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's the summary: Stevertigo completely ignores WP:NOR and WP:V, and, when opposed, edit-wars to keep his own original research in articles and/or fills Talk: pages with thousands of words of pointless, reference-free, non policy-related argumentation. This is not about any specific edit, or any specific article; not about Obama, or antisemitism, or Holocaust denial, or his personal essays in Misplaced Pages space. It is about the behavior Stevertigo displays in each of these areas, and many more. Please read my previous comment above. Jayjg 00:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I've begun to read through all of this, but it quite frankly could take me a long while that I'd rather be spending doing other things. Anything else really. In the meantime, I'd like to make a global reminder that patient explaining is superior to the alternatives, that we've already had an ugly case or two about this, and that terms like antisemitism should be used with care.--Tznkai (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Quick review: Tznkai asked for a stop to the chatter and an answer to the context: "Is this the triggering edit?" Jayjg said simply "No."

I know that supposedly no one is as long winded as I am, but even Jayjg is never this terse - at least in the five years I've known him online. Why the terseness? Is it because he lacks another explanation? Is it because he's interpreting "triggering" in a slippery sort of way? Is it because its not true, but by not offering any further explanation, he thinks people are stupid enough to not notice that he's playing a little game of omission, and thus probably thinks he can just sort of back out of it if pressed?

The correct answer was "yes." After all I made no other edit to the article, except for adding the words "and etymology" to the "terminology" section header. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 05:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg provided a supeb summary of the matter at 00:06 23 September. Tznkai writes, "I've begun to read through all of this, but it quite frankly could take me a long while that I'd rather be spending doing other things." To add my own two cents to Jayjg's concise summary: Tznkai, your complaint is precisely our complaint about what happens whenever Stevetigo starts pushing his point of view on the talk page of an article. Other editors must devote a lot of time to reading through all of his obtuse and uninformed rambling, which takes time away from other discussions that could really improve the article. That is what makes him a disruptive editor. I hope Tznkai this meets your standards for brevity. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is just going in circles. Neither Tznkai or I really understand it, despite what we're trying to do to resolve it. And Steve's accusatory clichés (such as the one above) are just getting annoying. Quote, "Is it because he lacks another explanation? Does he think people are stupid enough not to notice he's playing a little game of omission..." Endquote.

This whole thread makes me think of a large, nearly-empty courtroom, with Slrubenstein as the opposition and Stevertigo the defendant. Slrubenstein keeps coughing and dropping his notes, and while it's clear that Steve has done something wrong, Slrubenstein is having trouble deciding what to prosecute him for. As Jayjg, Tarc and others offer their opinion, Stevertigo interrupts them with triumphant cries of "You haven't got a leg to stand on!" and other dramatic accusations. I'm sure this is a complete misrepresentation on my part, but whatever. This will be my final comment here, as I tire of this discussion and I don't understand it.

Bottom line, Steve, other editors have issues with your behavior. No matter where this discussion goes, your gonna have to address those issues if you want to avoid another scenario like this. Victory here lies not in winning the argument, but in solving the problem. For everybody. A little insignificant _(please!) 12:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

A little insignificant, what do you mean by having trouble what to prosecute for, coughing, and dropping my notes? You asked us for a one sentence summary - I offered one on 23:16, 20 September 2009 and another at 00:05, 22 September 2009. Those two sentences are it, that's the complaint. These two sentences are not contradictory, they fit together quite well. Of course they are abrupt - what do you expect when yo are the one asking for a one sentence summary? So now I really am confused: what more do you want? Why do you think I can't make a decisin? I decided to respond to your request, and I summarized very concisely my complaint. Where is my indecision, please? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I did say it was a complete misrepresentation, and it was badly written at that :) I was trying to refer to the fact that the topic seemed to juggle between Steve's writing, the whole Holocaust denial issue, his useage of WP:CONCEPT, etc. My characterization of you was wrong, likely more than that of everyone else. Sorry about that. A little insignificant _(please!) 17:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Okay: Holocaust Denial is simply the most recent example of an article where the problem comes up. The problem has to do with making arguments for changes that keep going in circles on the talk pages of such articles. The arguments keep going in circules because he wants to inject his own POV, and not do source-based research. The Concepts essay is his attempt to justify his approach, which, for the prosecution, is just further evidence of his desire to impose his own POV through OR. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I get it now. Thanks! A little insignificant _(please!) 19:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI wrote (lack of unnecessary emphasis mine): "Bottom line, Steve, other editors have issues with your behavior. No matter where this discussion goes, your gonna have to address those issues if you want to avoid another scenario like this. Victory here lies not in winning the argument, but in solving the problem." - Ill take all the victories I can get. I also appreciate your trying to be equal with the characterizations. I found that the truer ones tended to be funnier. ;-) I'm lacking a proper keyboard so Ill leave it there for now. Regards, -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 17:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm lacking the necessary wisdom and I think the editors here may lack the willingness to avoid murdering a baby, but my thoughts are as follows: Antisemitism, new-antisemtism especially, and Holocaust denial seem to fit suitably under the wide topic of the Arab-Isreali conflict. I am specifically not employing enforcement or personalized warnings at this time because I feel that it would be over the top. I am however, disappointed at the clear misuse of Misplaced Pages as a battleground, because this conflict has a very personal character to it. I am cautioning editors broadly to be careful with their words, accusations of bad faith and statements like "simple, close to banal form of anti-Semitism" do nothing to improve the quality of the wiki. Likewise, responding with long essays and refusing to acknowledge legitimate concerns about the verifiability of statements is not helpful. Reasonable disagreement must be the corner stone of what we do around here, and I for one, am sick and tired of seeing policy used as bludgeon as opposed to an explanation.

In summation: Steve, you have a point about the necessity of good writing, but you need to reign it in. Everyone else, you also need to reign it in as well. I highly recommend recruiting editors from other Wikiprojects who will give a fresh view on the topic. --Tznkai (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai, I'm a bit disappointed here. This has nothing to do with antisemitism or Holocaust denial, much less New antisemitism. Nor does it have anything to do with the I-P conflict; not sure how that managed to rear its head in this conversation. Stevertigo's actions at the Holocaust denial article (which, by the way, were opposed by at least 5 other editors) are merely a symptom of a broader issue. Please review my comments of 01:16, 16 September 2009, which show an identical pattern at the Reducto ad Hitlerum article, an article in which none of the people here (aside from Stevertigo) were involved. This is not a "battle" about content, but rather solely about exactly what I stated above; Stevertigo's refusal to acknowledge that WP:V and WP:NOR are critical policies, rather than optional essays. Jayjg 22:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(Cutting in after change conflict with SlimVirgin): Tznkai wrote: "Sigh. I'm lacking the necessary wisdom and I think the editors here may lack the willingness to avoid murdering a baby" - Hm. Keep in mind that Solomon (Shlomo) had no intention of chopping an innocent child in half. (Yes, the common term "innocent child" is redundant). That you likewise have no such proclivity is rooted the same kind of wisdom.

Tzkai wrote: "but my thoughts are as follows: Antisemitism, new-antisemtism especially, and Holocaust denial seem to fit suitably under the wide topic of the Arab-Isreali conflict." - You won' find anyone agreeing with you there. The Arab Israeli conflict is quite recent. Anti-Semitism, as Slrubenstein and Jayjg will testify, goes back thousands of years. The issue with anti-Semitism as the exclusive context for Holocaust denial is fine, provided there is no other kind (which seems to be the case), and provided that the terminology and etymology are explained (which seems not to be the case). -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 21:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I have only glanced through the above, because it's an awful lot to read, but if I could just make one suggestion to Stevertigo. The problem, as I see it, is original research, both in articles and on talk. If you could use reliable sources for any point you want to make, both in articles and on talk, and stick very closely to what the sources are saying, that would go a long way to reducing the problems. With the Holocaust denial issue, for example, if you want to say something about it not being necessarily antisemitic—because denying the Holocaust might involve denying aspects of it not related to Jews— find a source for that, either a high quality newspaper article, or better still an academic paper or book. And if you want that point in the lead, find several good sources that support it. I think that's all anyone is asking. SlimVirgin 21:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Good advice, reasonably stated.--Tznkai (talk) 21:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. And that's all that people here were asking for from Stevertigo. Jayjg 22:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the helpful tone, SV. On the matter of sources, I have "provided" one - the Columbia Guide to the Holocaust - which in fact was already the first citation in the article. The real issue is not "providing sources," but referencing them accurately. The reference to the CGH as a source for a definition of the Holocaust cannot be so simplistic and ethnically focused as it currently is used in the HD article, while the source itself is rather sophisticated and universal - in fact calling the exclusively Jewish definition "essentially Judeocentric" and based variously on concepts of "motive, scale, and intent" (ie. subjectivity). So while I am referencing the source correctly, they are not. That's the real issue here. Sure they can try to replace the CGH now, just to sort of fit the concept to their definition, but I will most certainly not abide by that kind of academic dishonesty - even here on Misplaced Pages. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 21:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

But this is where the NOR policy kicks in. A source about "Holocaust denial" isn't a source on the meaning of "Holocaust," followed by a source on the meaning of "denial." To approach it that way is a violation of the policy, specifically WP:SYN. It leads to you finding a source that includes non-Jewish victims in the definition of Holocaust, which in turn leads you to say "Holocaust denial" isn't necessarily antisemitic, because here's a source defining the Holocaust to include the Roma, gays, Jehovah's Witnesses, and so on. That's the kind of research that the NOR disallows.

The source needs to be on "Holocaust denial" itself, which is a distinct concept that's widely discussed by scholarly and other sources. How the Holocaust is defined is not necessarily related to how "Holocaust denial" is defined. SlimVirgin 21:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not the definition of "Holocaust denial," but the definition of "The Holocaust" that the "Holocaust denial" article uses. Yours is the same argument they give, and its a rather disingenuous one - one that obtusely mischaracterizes my argument as advocating a redefinition of HD (which I am not doing). The term "HD" rests entirely on a limited definition of "H," that's all my point has been. And in that context the source that deals with "H" is sufficient.

Likewise this argument about specialized sources for specialized topics is a bit counter to our open source/free culture philosophy that rejects proprietary ownership of topics. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 22:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC) PS: Note, Jayjg's insert/comment came after mine - moved below. Please don't use disruptive inserts.

Which is exactly the point people made to Stevertigo, over and over and over, on Talk:Holocaust denial. Jayjg 22:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec, reply to Stevertigo) I think you are right that the definition of "Holocaust denial" rests on a limited definition of "Holocaust." But the point here is that you must find a reliable source who makes that argument. You're not allowed to make it yourself. Or you could be very clear up front: "Holocaust denial is defined as X, based on a description of the Holocaust as the genocide of six million Jews." That would be fair enough, if carefully written and sourced.

As Wikipedians, we almost play the role of stenographers. Our job is to find the good sources on the topic of the article, and add what they say, using our own words. We are not supposed to stray from what they say, or combine the sources in a way that leads to new claims. So, in the article about the Holocaust, you can cite the source you're referring to above. But in the article about Holocaust denial, you must use sources that are writing about the concept of "Holocaust denial" specifically. You can't, as a Wikipedian, set out to deduce what Holocaust denial is. You are only allowed to say, "This is what source X says it is." SlimVirgin 22:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Slim wrote: "I think you are right that the definition of "Holocaust denial" rests on a limited definition of "Holocaust."" - No, its not important that I am "right," or that you agree with me (at least that's what you seem to be saying). What's important is that the definition of "The Holocaust" has variance, and that all subordinate topics that use the term take a few words to define which meaning of the term they are using and why.

Slim wrote: "But the point here is that you must find a reliable source who makes that argument." - I am not making an "argument" about content - simply the reliable use of sources. (Note the distinction from the common term ' "reliable" sources').

The CGH says there is variance, so the onus is on your side to explain not just why the limited definition is used in the context of discussing HD, but why you suggest that HD need not explain its subjective, ethnic, limited usage of H. That's not an argument. That's a requirement of good, ethical editing. Indeed, you seem to agree with me that the Columbia Guide is a sufficient source for "The Holocaust" - not just in articles specifically about "The Holocaust," but in other articles as well. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 22:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No one has asserted that it's improper to state that Holocaust denial uses a certain definition of the Holocaust rather than others. Indeed, I find it unlikely that many would object to such an explicit statement, as it isn't worth disputing. What is being asserted is that the definition of "the Holocaust" doesn't lead directly to the definition of "Holocaust denial", as the latter term was coined to refer only to a specific type of denial of events relating to the Holocaust, and you appear to be arguing differently in many places. If this is just a misunderstanding, say so, make some suggestions on Talk:Holocaust denial about including a specific phrase like the one you mentioned a ways above, and it should all be good. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hm. I really am living in an XKCD cartoon. 1) Yes, I am not advocating for a change in scope for the HD concept, just an more expansive explanation of its etymology. 2) Part of that etymology no doubt rests on the definition of "H" as used in the "HD" article. 3) "and it should all be good" just ain't gonna cut it. People have been prodding me incessantly with their disingenuous nonsensical objections for weeks now. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 22:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec; reply to Stevertigo) I spent a few minutes on Google books to see if I could address your concerns. The following, by two historians, is the kind of source we need for this discussion, because it defines the Holocaust via a discussion of Holocaust denial. That avoids all the NOR pitfalls:

When historians talk about the "Holocaust," what they mean on the most general level is that about six million Jews were killed in an intentional and systematic fashion by the Nazis using a number of different means, including gas chambers. According to this widely accepted definition of the Holocaust, so-called Holocaust revisionists are in effect denying the Holocaust, since they also deny its three key components: the killing of six million, gas chambers, and intentionality" (Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman. Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It?. University of California Press, 2009, p. xv).

There you have your basic definitions of Holocaust and Holocaust denial, discussed within the context of the article's topic, thereby avoiding OR. SlimVirgin 22:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

But Slim, the "Holocaust denial" article already does have a source for its definition of The Holocaust, and its a great one. It's called "The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust." Now, are you saying you just want to replace that source with a different one, just to fit a preexisting point of view? Wouldn't that violate certain journalistic/encyclopedic ethics? Hm? -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 22:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the definition Slim's provided above agrees in substance with the definition that's currently sourced to the CGH -- what's the problem? The current lead at Holocaust denial is clear, concise, and to the point; as far as I can tell, the lead you seem to be proposing is not clear, not concise, and does nothing but confuse the point. Certainly a 416-page book will be able to go into more detail on the subject than a wiki article's lead section, but we simply cannot duplicate that depth of understanding in a paragraph or two. I see a lot of hot air flying around, and not much that actually contributes to progress. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No it does not go into anywhere near as much detail, nor is it as "reliable" as the more objective source - at least that's how I define "reliability." I won't get into dealing with this new, supposedly better source, until SV, you, or someone can explain why the CGH needs replacing - which is essence of the apparent new argument. And replacing it with what? With something that Slim found after a five-minute book search? With something specifically written from an ethnic point of view?

Again, I didn't select the CGH source. I simply read what it actually said, and want it (as with all our sources) used accurately - and not all 416 pages of it - just one. More so I need to destroy this unethical notion that simply playing bait and switch or a shell game with "reliable" sources will solve the issue. Thanks for your input anyway, Luna Santin. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 00:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If anything, the particular quote Slim provided goes into more detail than the particular quote that's being used in the HD article, and more to the point, you haven't explained any way in which they disagree, just now, other than to repeatedly claim that they do. I asked you "what's the problem?" -- a question I think quite a few editors have asked you, recently, and one which you seem loathe to answer directly. What, specifically, does your proposed lead add to the article, aside from word count and confusion? – Luna Santin (talk) 09:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why this thread is still continuing. The Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, covers a lot of things. For example, the President of Iran, regularly rants about Zionists, and last I heard was a purported holocaust denier. These things occupy the same head space, and certainly fall within administrator discretion. I see a wide ranging content dispute spilling throughout multiple pages, despite two cases that have sought to contain it. While in this particular instance we have an argument ostensibly about writing quality and verifiability, it does not take a scholar to notice some irritating aspects of this melodrama, including editors who should know better, and other editors who shouldn't even be editing. It is a self evident principle that if an administrator interferes, (s)he should follow the dispute as far and as deep as it goes, and deal with disruption as it is found. My very short amount of digging has brought me a lot of concern. It should have been obvious from my above statements not only am I personally irritated with the lot of you, but you've all violated relevant Misplaced Pages conduct policies in such a way that threatens to damage the content. I've tried pleading, and I am now resorting to directives.

• Steve: you will write in 436 words or less (and I recommend less) what specific change you want to one article, and why it should be so. You will provide links to established policies and sources as appropriate. You will propose this change on the appropriate article of your choice. If you do not do this, you will drop this entire discussion immediately and remove yourself from the topic, broadly construed.
• Everyone who has been arguing with Steve: You will respond calmly, in equally concise statements. If you cannot come to a compromise with Steve, quickly, you will leave it alone and someone will request an article RfC, or you will exit the topic as well, roadly construed.
• Globally: Sloppy insinuations of antisemitism, accusations of bad faith, and other conduct improprieties are unacceptable. I know middle school students who can comport themselves better.
• Reminder: I have a number of tools in my tool box, including two arbitration cases, a block button and a policy I hold dear. I may be totally off base here, but I don't think I am. Lets not find out.
• Further reminder: I am just one administrator, and you can always appeal to the community or another admin who can deal with this better. But my advice on that is, no one wants to read a thread of this length.

Questions?--Tznkai (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No questions. 1) I appreciate your input. 2) Note that you yourself are likewise adding to this thread. 3) Again the AIC is not the proper context. See #TZNAIC. Anti-Semitism is a context within both ethnic persecution and Jewish history - can't get too much broader than that. I do appreciate trying to keep things in the scope of current events, but sadly people don't always lose themselves in the present. 5) I'm taking a break. I was waiting for SlimVirgin to respond to my point, and its conceivable that she or someone else will now use your wordy interjection as a kind of obfuscation/distraction to base further attacks. 6) Again, I appreciate your attempts at being fair and objective, but I sense (and no doubt do others) that you cannot do the job alone. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 23:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC) PS: 7) I've already stated several times in this thread and on the article talk "what specific change want to one article, and why it should be so." 8) I casually reject anyone's notion that I should confine myself to only 200 words, particularly when such is supposedly supposed to include both 'specific proposed changes' and 'rationale.' (Your own comment employs 436 words). 9) I've already stated several times in this thread and on the article talk "what specific change want to one article, and why it should be so." -SV

Revised accordingly. The reason behind this I hoped was self evident: I am trying to shoe horn you all into doing it correctly once, and hoping it gets better from there. Now please, go and do it, this one time, and link to the appropriate place. ANI is not the proper venue for content disputes, and the alternative is I reweigh the considerable evidence of your refusal to comply to basic editing requirements.--Tznkai (talk) 01:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

1) Please don't threaten me. a) It belies your sincere attempts at meditation, and b) I'm not in the mood for it. 2) Again, see #DEF, #ACC, #ARG, and #ARRGH for the points. - Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 01:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

For many people here, the problem is Severtigo's behavior at Holocaust Denial. For me, the problem is a long-term pattern in Stevertigo's behavior at talk pages, regardless of the topic. Here we have another example of Stevertigo's MO in this pattern: Tznkai makes a set of requests to all parties in an attempt to resolve the conflict, and just at that moment, Stevertigo decides he is going to take a rest from the matter. I tell you: it does not matter what the conflict, this is always part of Stevertigo's pattern. Once it is clear no one is following Tznkai's suggestions, Stevertigo will come back.

To those, like Tznkai, who wish to resolve the dispute at Holocauset Denial, I think I can help with an accurate summary inlude a summary of Stevertigo's position.

• Stevertigo's view Other editors have defined "Holocaust Denial" to mean aruments that the Nazis and their allies did not commit genocide against Jews during WWII. "Holoocaust Denial" is a concept, consisting of two core concepts: "Holocaust" and "Denial." "Denial" means to negate or argue against. "Holocaust" actually means several things, including the genocide against Roma (Gypsies) (source: Columbia Guide to the Holocaust). Therefore, editors who claim that Holocaust Denial is a rejection of the genocide against the Jews are either (1) wrong, Holocaust denial means denying the Holocaust against Roma too, or (2) are themselves guily of denying the Hoolocaust against Roma.
• Everyone else's view Stevertigo is making two mistakes. First, "Holocaust Deial" for purposes of Misplaced Pages should not be treated as a concept built up out of two other concepts. It should be treated as one concept, and its meaning is whatever meaning verifiable sources give to the phrase "Holocaust Denial." (In a very crude example, I pointed out that you will not learn the meaning of "blow job" by looking up the definition of "blow," and then looking up the definition of "job" and putting the two definitions together). Second, it is a violation of NOR to use the Columbia Guide for information about "the Holocaust" and thn use that to make claims about Holocaust Denial. NOR prohipis synthesis, taking diferent ideas from different sources and combining them. You cannot take any source on "the Holocaust" and then combine it with material from another source to make claims about "Holocuast Denial." You need sources that are explicitly about "Holocaust Denial" to make claims about Holocaust Denial.

This argument has been going on, going in circles, building up mounds of mush, for weeks now but as far as i can tell this is the argument at Holocaust Denial. I further add my own view of Stevertigo's reasons for refusing to back down: his "conceptual method" means he can do almost all his research with a dictionary. It spares him the chore of going to a library to read a book. I know Jayjg and Slim Virgin have recently gone through FA processes and both of them can attest to the importance, in writing good WP articles, of going to libraries and finding books and journal articles on a topic. Stevertigo wants to stick to the dictionary and his own "common sense." But, if you will keep my blowjob example in mind, you can understand how sometimes this leads him to argue views that are considered simply absurd by reliable sources for significant views. But that never stops him. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstein's attempts at restating my argument are as inaccurate as they are disingenuous, and his own arguments condense down to simply promoting an unethical selectivity of sources to suit a particular POV - in addition to rehashing his 'blow job fallacy' / "cheesing" argument again. Does anyone else have any thoughts about Slrubenstein's comments? -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 02:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Le mediation terrible

For the record, I'm a terrible mediator, and I have not claimed to be one. I am in fact, attempting to manage a dispute, but alas I appear to have failed. I am going to give you one of two options, a topic ban for six months from Judaism related articles, talk pages, and project pages, broadly construed, or a two week block for your constant misuse of Misplaced Pages as a battleground, and your apparent refusal to abide by core content policies, disruption and excessive tendentiousness. Either choice can be appealed through normal channels.--Tznkai (talk) 02:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Recently arbcom has expressed mixed feelings as to whether whether administrators have the authority to issue page or topic bans. As an admin, you're much safer with the block. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

We can conceptually think of this as me blocking Steve, and then offering an unblock in exchange for a topic ban, rather than one imposed outright, without cluttering up the block logs. If it is overturned on procedural grounds, so be it.--Tznkai (talk) 02:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently this discussion is about whether or not Stevertigo is a disruptive editor according to Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing. Tsnkai, Since you are about to take action because you have apparently judged that Stevertigo is a disruptive editor, could you give the excerpt of Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing that Stevertigo has violated, along with supporting diffs? This would be a good summary of the case against that editor, which is presumably the rationale for your imminent decision. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Didn't see your last message before I posted the above and I didn't get an edit conflict error message. Did you already take action? If so, the excerpt and diffs would still be illuminating. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Sure.

Disruptive editing is a pattern of edits, which may extend over a considerable period of time or number of articles, that has the effect of

• disrupting progress toward improving an article, or
• disrupting progress toward the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia.

Evidence has emerged that Stevevirgo has, with unjustifiable and excessive stubbornness) refused to supply reliable sources in order to verify changes to articles. In fact, Stevevirgo has declined both invitation and instruction to contain content disputes on article talk pages when asked, and has shown himself more interested in taking potshots at other editors than moving forward on creating good content. The most troubling behavior I just described has been shown on this very thread. This is a misuse of Misplaced Pages as a battleground --Tznkai (talk) 03:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: An example of original research. See also Talk:Holocaust denial. --Tznkai (talk) 03:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

First, can I get something clarified? When I looked at that part of WP:Disrupt before you excerpted it, "Disruptive editing is a pattern of edits..." I thought it was referring to edits of the article, rather than discussion on the talk page. Did I have the wrong impression? --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I've always been under the impression that disruptive editing can take place off of article space, if it is part of the overall behavior that causes problems with content. (We also need to include content relevant templates and such)--Tznkai (talk) 04:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that an editor can be disruptive on a talk page. Perhaps that aspect should be made more clear at WP:Disrupt. But in general, one has to be careful to distinguish between a persistent editor with a reasonable minority opinion on the talk page and a disruptive editor. This seems difficult.

Regarding article edits, the task of identifying a disruptive editor may be easier. For example, if an editor repeatedly introduces unsourced material, and a source is requested from the editor each time, with no source being supplied. Then those diffs would be good and simple evidence of disruptive editing. Perhaps this is the type of case against Stevertigo? --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Bob, its those kinds of plain and straight questions that make some people here upset (though apparently I am supposed to answer the exact same question ad infinitum). Tznkai, I didn't know that you were Arbcom. Apparently you claim here to be acting in some official capacity? Why did you not state upfront that you were Arbcom, and that you were here on some fact-finding/troll-stomping mission? (Try template:Arbsig for such times). Have you been unsuccessful in the former? (You've stated several times now that you have been confused by all of the discussion/arguments). Will your success at the latter be a kind of adequate compensation?

I've said before several times that I appreciate your moderate/even-handed tenor here. I don't understand your sudden change of tone, your reasons for singling me out in this, and whatever authority you claim to use to block me for simply trying to engage people in discussion. If this appreciation was misplaced, and you came here under false pretenses, or else are acting under some invisible consultation/authority, then I will deal with whatever the actual forces at work here are.

Lastly, forgive me for not answering your question, but it was the exact same one that I've answered several times before, and I have been getting tired of this "dogpile" - as one admin above called it. It's clear that the other side is now promoting an unethical interpretation of "reliable sources," and I simply expected someone objective to see this. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 03:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Not an Arbitrator, thank goodness. (by the way, I've nominated steve's new template via MfD for deletion) I am an administrator, which means, broadly, that my duties include preventing disruption of the Wiki, and with the correct application of common sense and policy, I can do things, including block people in an effort to make that happen. Which I have now elected to do. I am creating a section for review right now as well.--Tznkai (talk) 03:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Invitation for review

I've blocked stevertigo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for two weeks based on the rationale I've posted above. I invite the community to review my actions, and modify, confirm, or overturn as they see fit. I do request and in fact insist as much as I can, that no precipitous action is taken without time for sufficient review by other members of the community. (So, more than a few hours, please) --Tznkai (talk) 03:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a good move, since this Holocaust denial affair is just the latest in a series of similar disruptions. The Obama affair Part 1 is well-linked at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#Stevertigo, which pretty much originated with this AfD. Part 2, a declined ArbCom case is tied in to the above-mentioned Reductio link, but the origin of that affair was this MfD. Each time it is the same pattern; 1) create/propose problematic (original research/POV forks/coatrack) content, 2) edit war to get it in/created, plus Wall o' Text on talk pages, 3) create new essays and guidelines and cite them to support argument, or inappropriately edit existing ones to do same, 3) XfD takes place, invariably closed not in Steve's favor, 4) Steve runs to ArbCom, more Walls, lots of haranguing about his hand in ArbCom's creation, role, purpose, perceived ineffectiveness and so on. A topic ban would not have addressed the primary problem; that this behavior spans topics. Tarc (talk) 03:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

What was the rationale for 2 weeks? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Longish block log, and I felt that there was a certain amount of "oomph" needed to get things through. Also, 2 weeks is about the amount of time I think it takes for it to become clear if the editing environment has normalized or deteriorated due to an editor being removed.--Tznkai (talk) 04:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Even ignoring the pre-2009 blocks, there's nothing really objectionable (or "unwarranted" as he suggests), given the build-up. Endorse block. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Tarc's summary is spot-on. The pattern has repeated itself very closely several times. Even the insults are the same each time. Despite the personal grief I've had to deal with arising from this editor, I do hope we can find a way to keep him in the fold before he gets himself banned for good. I know we're all equal, and being around for so many years doesn't excuse abusing other editors... but we do owe Steve a debt of gratitude for his early contributions. This seems to me like an interpersonal conflict kind of thing that will take the community's best efforts as far as making peace and getting along. He obviously does care about the encyclopedia and wants to make it better, according to his view at least of what it should be. Perhaps his views on content and behavior were okay back in the old days when there were fewer people and articles, and fewer rules. Back then a dedicated editor probably could have rewritten guidelines with their own experiences as a guide, and they would stick. If he wants to adjust to the new realities, and finds this to be a place he can still enjoy and get along with us newbies, we should welcome and encourage that. Maybe two weeks home detention with a mandatory cup of tea? Wikidemon (talk) 04:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for taking appropriate action, Tznkai. As I mentioned somewhere above, I would have done the same had I not been involved, albeit peripherally, on the Holocaust Denial article. I believe you are right that WP:DISRUPT applies to talkpages as well as article space; in fact, this was one of the points Steve wikilawyered about when I warned him about his disruption on the HD talkpage. I think that unfortunately his particular penchant for nuanced analysis, admirable though that is, is often counterproductive in an environment where we are specifically prohibited from undertaking original research. Like Wikidemon I respect and value his achievements over the years, and I also hope that he can adjust to the way we actually work as opposed to the way he thinks we ought to work. EyeSerene 08:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• The block of only one person in this is totally unwarranted. There were two sides to this Holocaust dispute. By blocking one side only the blocking individual is doing nothing more than imposing his own bias. Eclecticology (talk) 08:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Block someone else? What on Earth for? We don't block editors for fun -- blocks should address some problematic behavior, and specifically should prevent it from continuing. If you earnestly believe someone else should be blocked, here, you're going to have to say why or your post will rightly be ignored as trolling. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

    Clearly, your reference to trolling was only made to be wilfully tendentious. Eclecticology (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Only one "side" was disruptive and problematic, though. The Israeli-Palestinian topic area is fraught with drama and bickering over many topics that could go either way, but the issue that Steve's "side" (a side of one, for the record) was pushing was his own personal opinion and not one backed by sources. Tarc (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I was only addressing the issue relating to the Holocaust. If there was something related to Israel/Palestine, I don't know about it. Eclecticology (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The major failures of the other "side" in this conflict I saw were general surliness, impatience, the tendency to use policy as a bludgeon, assumptions of bad faith, and some sloppy rhetoric. If I started blocking for that, no one would be left on the wiki. Now, don't misunderstand, it is a serious problem and makes that whole consensus thing difficult to achieve, but I've found its more effective to try to bring all parties to a point of parity after explaining to them that they have been caught being a pain and see which, if any of the parties refuse to move forward. Stevertigo refused to move forward despite multiple (and I believe eminently reasonable) requests. It is also reasonable in this case to see that Stevertigo's behavior in general both started and continued this conflict to the breaking point.

If however, you (or anyone else) believe there is a reasonable case to be made against the "other side" please go ahead and make it. Thats what these review sections are for. It helps however if you be specific, as opposed to saying that "both sides were wrong."--Tznkai (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You said it all in the first sentence of your reply. If the result were indeed no one would be left on the wiki, so be it... though I doubt that the results will ever be that dramatic. Just because there happen to be several people on one side, and only one on the other does not make either side right. Bringing all parties to parity is not accomplished by imposing the tyranny of the majority. Stevertigo may very well have refused to move forward, but so too did his adversaries. Disputes about definitions are not resolved with a game of my-source-is-more-reliable-than-your-source when both or all of the conflicting definitions are within reason. It's better to keep both sides off the article, state the alternative definitions, and demand that they come to an agreement before any of them can come back. If need be, even set up a special ephemeral site just for them to work it out. Eclecticology (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You appear to have misunderstood. If (general surliness, impatience, the tendency to use policy as a bludgeon, assumptions of bad faith, and some sloppy rhetoric) always lead to a block, then I would be forced to block nearly everyone, on all of Misplaced Pages. You and me included. Again, I need some sort of more specific allegation against "the other side" that has not already been dealt with by admonition. I mean, I'm not omniscient, I'll need to be linked to the behavior.--Tznkai (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Though I think it's a relief to have a two week break from Steve's ongoing excesses, I'm not quite sure what the point is. It's entirely unlikely that a two week block will change anything in the long run; Steve's certain that he's in the right, and will simply return and continue along the same route. (Steve's been here long enough that there's no reason to have to assume good faith or its opposite; assumption is not necessary when facts are present.) Since blocks are theoretically not intended as punishment, but rather to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia, what's the goal here? Is it simply to isolate Steve to his talk page while the rest of us discuss his fate? I would much rather see a consensus formed to make it clear to Steve that his behavior is unsuitable; I certainly don't want Steve gone from Misplaced Pages, I just want him to knock off this particular behavior pattern. Am I being naive? --jpgordon 17:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Any block exceeding 24 hours is punitive unless it provides real alternatives for solving the problem. Eclecticology (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is a curious and entirely arbitrary definition. What makes less than 24 hours less punitive? What is it about the 86401st second that takes on a "punitive" character? --Tznkai (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

As to Jpgordon's longer point up there, I'll try to respond but I'm going to have to delve into a little but of theory to explain my perspective. When we say we don't "punish" on Misplaced Pages what we really mean is we don't use blocks for the sake of retribution, or a community expression of you-were-naughtiness, but rather to prevent future damage. It is basically suggested without saying it outright that we are nakedly utilitarian in our considerations: we try to maximize productivity (read utils for the economists at home) while trying to minimize costs. In this case I am trying to specifically prevent stevertiog from acting in a problematic way for the next two weeks, deter him from in a problematic acting way in the future, deterring others from doing the same. While the block itself may not do it, the additional voices chiming in, any future blocks stevertigo earns, and other factors may lead to behavioral correction. I hope it is sufficient, but it may simply be a necessary building block to whatever solution is finally arrived at.--Tznkai (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

steve had a response here.

while steve's verbosity can be tedious, his first post to the hd talk page here was replied to with an attack ("Hi Steve, good to see you are back to your usual BS.") and the usual shrieking accusation ("I guess at least we can thank you for being almost clear about your compulsion to side with anti-Semites whenever the chance appears.") the baiting seems excessive to the extreme. untwirl(talk) 21:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It was. Consider it, however, in the context of years of this sort of behavior from Steve. I stepped back because I've little patience with people who say "go fuck yourself" in 1000 seemingly polite words instead of three direct ones. --jpgordon 21:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Topic Ban of User:DHawker

I have posted this at the admins talk page. My first post was missed (I AGF), and the admin hasn't been on since the second message was posted (14th of September).

User:DHawker was placed up for discussion for block evasion . He was subsequently given an extended block by User:Golbez for evasion of his previous block..

Three days later, User:Matthewedwards came in and applied a further, but unwarranted block that was not agreed upon by two of the four parties in the discussion. This block was against consensus, and even against the requests of the user requesting intervention (User:MastCell), who wanted User:DHawker blocked from the article itself for edit warring.

The punishment does not fit the crime (Nothing has happened on the talk page warranting a topic ban), was not per consensus, and was applied several days after the incident was closed and done with. Please remove the topic ban by Matthewedwards so that the user only has the punishment with consensus applied. Thank you. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 20:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Matthewedwards did not block DHawker, he formally imposed a topic ban that was agreed upon by two of the three editors who specifically responded to the ban proposal. A WP:BAN is not the same thing as a WP:BLOCK -- let's keep our terminology clear. Looie496 (talk) 02:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Putting aside the rather vexed issue of under what exact circumstances an admin can enact a topic ban, and the equally important issue of exactly how such bans may be appealed, and exactly how ME came to this determination: I just happened to notice an unresolved ANI thread and decided to take the time to investigate for an hour or three, from an outside point-of-view. I probably did swallow a ten-cent piece once or twice in my infancy (I'd have to ask Mum, and that was back when they had actual silver in them) and I'm admittedly one of the SPOV-with-appropriate-balance crowd, but they won't let me into the cabal. ;)

I'll stand by my assessment that on balance DHawker has been a net negative at Colloidal silver and a topic ban is a plus for the 'cyclo. However, I'll restate that they should be given a clear path to redemption. Specifically, what goals can they be given to prove that they are able to contribute here in a productive way, such that the topic ban can eventually be lifted? Franamax (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the incorrect use of terminology.

While I will not argue the community's census on preventing further edit warring by blocking DHawker from editing the article, I stand by the belief that the user is constructive more often than not on the talk page.

I think given that the complaint issued was regarding a violation of 3RR, the goal they can be given is to allow access to the talk page, and see if they can constructively assist in the construction of the article without engaging in soapbox behavior or endless repetition of shot-down arguments (which a quick look at the talk page will reveal is not really happening). The editor should be encouraged to branch out and avoid being a single-purpose account, but being an SPA is only discouraged, not prohibited. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 07:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I could see lifting the talkpage ban in, say, three months, and go indefinite if they continue posting disruptively. Also, I have notified DHawker of this discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 10:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Would agree with 2/0 with the additional requirement that they exhibit a willingness to improve other areas of Misplaced Pages. When an SPA editor becomes a problem they should be encouraged to "broaden their interests" rather than focusing on a single article. Single article problematic behavior suggests a conflict of interest. Vsmith (talk) 13:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I admit I am an advocate for colloidal silver and currently an SPA I do object to being called a 'promoter.' Yes my edits have mostly been 'positive' but that has simply been (IMHO) to try and put some balance into an article that was unrelentingly negative. The article already contained just about every possible negative statement that could be made about colloidal silver, and usually those statements were repeated many times throughout the article. I believe all my edits were factual and sourced and had some validity. I never tried to include claims about the theraputic value of colloidal silver or any anecdotal comments such as 'colloidal silver cured my dog'. My 3RR violations came about because my edits were being totally deleted by other editors who were putting in little more effort than a keystroke. Mastcell continuously accuses me of 'watering down' and 'contextualization' but surely thats a matter of opinion. In many cases I could accuse him of the same tactics . Regarding the length of my arguments in the Talk pages, I think this indicates the lengths I have gone to to try and win agreement rather than get involved in edit warring. This is a Fringe topic so expanding the article is not as simple as just citing another PubMed reference. But basically I just ended up arguing with Mastcell and Arthur Rubin who obviously are opponents of colloidal silver so I was rarely making any progress. Fortunately other editors have now become involved with the article so I hope things will improve. I actually welcome this discussion regarding my 'banning' as I hope it will bring closer attention to what is going on at Colloidal Silver. With due respect to Franamax, who has made an effort to understand whats going on, its very difficult to come in late and get the full picture, especially as most of the earlier debates have now been archived or deleted.

I would like to propose this course of action: Ban me from editing colloidal silver for the next three months but let me continue to make suggestions in the Talk pages. If I prove disruptive or abusive then take further action. DHawker (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we agree that more eyes on colloidal silver would be useful. Single-purpose accounts are not inherently problematic - some of our best articles are written by single-purpose accounts. But a single-purpose account whose single purpose is to promote an agenda at the expense of the site's basic policies is a problem. I personally feel (as an involved party) that at this point a total ban from colloidal-silver-related pages would be most appropriate. I don't have a problem with setting an expiration date on the talk-page ban, but I would like for there to be some relatively efficient means to re-raise the issue if there has been no improvement.

Regarding a path to redemption, I would strongly recommend editing some other articles to get a better sense of how Misplaced Pages works, and how its policies are applied. A commitment to 1RR, or at least to avoid edit-warring and utilize dispute resolution, would be ideal if the article-ban is ever lifted. I think that the talk-page issues could probably be solved with more uninvolved input, or if they were decoupled from the edit-warring. MastCell  18:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• I see no good reason to amend the restrictions, nor any sensible reason to revisit this after the restrictions were enacted from such a recent community consensus. The community view was clear; please move on guys as nothing is going to change for 3-6 months. We don't want to even hear the possibility that you, DHawker, "prove to be disruptive or abusive again"; please eliminate the doubt for us by finding an area you can edit where this problem will not arise to begin with. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If you check, the consensus was to extend the block, which was done. ME then revisited this closed issue and added their own additional 2 cents to the block. I'm glad wikipedia's justice system is as corrupt and wishy-washy as Canada's or the US. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 23:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of your views on how DHawker should be sanctioned, but to say that Matthewedwards added his "2 cents" to the block is out of line and fundamentally flawed. The matter was not "closed" after the block extension (which incidentally, was enacted promptly to reflect the timing issue). Even if the discussion was archived by a bot, the community consensus was not limited to extending 1 block. Effectively, Matthewedwards enacted the community consensus which remained unenacted, and saved me having to make a formal call to the community to do its job (by enacting what was unenacted). So the fundamental problem here is not with the system, but rather regrettably, your own understanding - you are responsible for opening this thread when you decided to voice your additional "2 cents" about an action that was, and remains, approved by the community. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the community of 3 people. You have a grand understanding of a jury. Why is it that 3RR on any non-fringe topic warrants at best a 24hour block, yet the second its on a fringe theory, the "community" (Aka the several banded editors that disapprove of fringe theories) makes all effort to expel them when they have done nothing worthy of that. Your community consensus is a three person brigade. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 16:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Continuing to harp on about a ridiculous notion that Misplaced Pages is a justice system, or the community is a jury, is really becoming old. Please move on. Someone please close this already. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah quickly, shut it before anyone that has an actual neutral and unhindered opinion on the subject matter makes a comment. What do you call this board if its not essentially a place to bring justice to editors acting out of place or in contempt of the purpose of the encyclopedia? You still skipped my question on why (Even repeated, but occasional) 3RR violations warrants a topic ban with fringe articles but nothing even comparatively close anywhere else on the site? I look through the block log and see users such as SOPHIAN, who was blocked 5 times for 3RR over the span of 2 months before finely getting a ban. DHawker has had 3, two of which occurred nearly a year ago. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 06:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think I've only had 1 previous 3rr violation. I incurred a brief extension to it for some misdemeanor due mainly to my inexperience but it was all one episode - about a year ago. I'm not a serial offender.DHawker (talk) 08:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is (and was) entirely neutral and unhindered, and I have no view on the particular subject, and I proposed said editing restrictions after taking a look at the editing in question. Despite this, I still welcome (and have welcomed) more opinion - the fact that there were no other objections spoke volumes; there's been no change, which is why the discussion ought to be closed, rather than dragged out because you remain the only user who has a problem. This board, much like most other admin noticeboards, simply exists to help bring community attention to particular incidents - this often involvesenforcing any necessary measures to ensure the smooth functioning of the project, particularly in the areas affected by the incident(s) and in relation to the users involved in those incidents. This is not a justice system; it's merely a noticeboard.

It really should not surprise you that I stop answering your questions, when you show all appearances of not making the effort to look through the comments I made at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive563#Editing_restriction_proposal. In other words, it wasn't mere 3RR violations that led to me proposing and continuing to endorse the topic ban. Finally, the case of SOPHIA is not one that you can compare to here, and note, incidents can only be dealt with as and when attention is brought to them. SOPHIAN was community banned; that editor lost their privilleges - they cannot edit ANYWHERE on Misplaced Pages. Unless DHawker violates his restrictions (wherein his fate will be no different to SOPHIA's), DHawker retains all of his editing privilleges except that he is not allowed to edit 2 particular pages on Misplaced Pages (topic ban), and he is not allowed to use more than 1 account (account restriction). Do you get it yet? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

DHawker, editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally, rather than through disruptive editing - revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique. Edit-warring does not require an editor to violate 3RR. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I still do not understand why DHawker is given a topic ban for an offense that normally never incurs a topic ban. I could provide plenty of examples, all of which you'd just shoot down and say "Oh... Well that doesn't apply to this situation" because it simply proves how wrong this is.

Fine, call this a noticeboard. Regardless, it is the place where incidents are brought up, tried, and punishments applied. These are the components of a justice system, but this is besides the point.

You claim to have no view on the subject and yet you placed a vote. Does this mean you reject said vote? In which case it becomes 1 (me) vs 1 (Franamax). We could also look at the fact that you voted All which means your vote is essentially thrown away since you voted for no particular remedy. My vote is thrown away because I am involved. This leaves Franamax. There's your consensus!

I obviously read the entire thread. It reads like every other incident involving a fringe theory. I'll spell it out: B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T. Complete and total mockery. The editor is not a sockpuppet, he merely evaded the block because he is not as up to speed with all our policies. Yes, you have a small bit that defines that as a sockpuppet, but thats amidst the several paragraphs that describe them as malicious editors, which DHawker is not. The evasion wasn't malicious and was a simple reply at the colloidal silver talk page. I reposted his comment as my own and will gladly post it here to show how evil and destructive this user is and why he must be blocked from editing his subject of interest. Why? Because he believes the theory, and thats just too annoying for the editors who want to go on painting the absolute nonsense fringe theory picture and reject all positive influence on the subject matter (Note: I am not referring to MastCell here, I'm referring to the scores of biased elite editors who have taken ownership of each particular fringe theory). To hell, call me a fringe theorist, but it smells like a friggen conspiracy theory! This BS needs to change ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 17:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I placed a set of proposals, and my vote, based on DHawker's conduct (or that which I reviewed). That doesn't mean I have a view on the merits of any content disputes that were going on. The fact that you continue to evade or ignore the comments I made at that discussion and this one suggests I'm wasting my time responding to you - no more. The problem isn't merely that DHawker doesn't get it, but that you really don't get it either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

And I've plainly told you that I'm aware of your comments there, that I have read them, and that I do not agree with them. In addition, DHawker has also pointed out that no examples were pointed out (Besides "The talk page"). Show a specific example of the repeated comments by DHawker that discourage other editors from participating.

On the contrary, they brought a few more editors to the discussion of a page that contained stale discussion prior. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 07:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking back over recent cases of bans I see that an example of the offence is almost always offered in evidence. I'm still waiting to see such an example presented in my case. All sorts of accusations have been made against me by Mastcell but the core accusation, and most serious, seems to be that I am 'dedicated to promoting colloidal silver'. I'm still waiting to see an example of this even though I have previously asked Mastcell to provide one. Apparently judges in this case are expected to either take Mastcells word for it, or form an unbiased opinion by trawling back through the history of colloidal silver looking for evidence of my indiscretions. Not only is that rather suspicious in itself, I really dont know how anyone can do it with any clarity. I'm involved in this case and even I find it hard to follow the history. It also seems that my permanent ban is a rather extreme penalty for a less-than-conclusive case of edit warring. I see that in another recent case ArthurRubin, a long time opponent of mine on colloidal silver, was recently found guilty of edit warring (11 to 1 by the Arbitration committee no less) but he was simply 'admonished'. (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking#Arthur_Rubin_admonished ). I also deny that I have ever been involved in sockpuppetry as has been suggested. I've always identified myself when editing. DHawker (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah go figure, the usual bullshit from wikipedia. Just ignore it because technically they're right and no proof was offered and the ban was based on nothing in order to silence an editor. Fucking cabal. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 15:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

When we see the words "usual bullshit" and "Fucking cabal" pop up at an ANI thread, that's usually a good indication the discussion is going nowhere. Can an uninvolved admin close this please?

I've been waiting for Miszabot to archive this in due course so that I can engage the subject editor in direct discussion. Purposeless comments which prevent the bot from archiving aren't advancing any causes. Can we close this? Franamax (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course the discussion is going nowhere, because it is being totally ignored with the hopes that it will go away, rather than being properly dealt with and addressed.

Completely ignoring and avoiding the point to comment on the fact that I am pissed off about this blatant injustice (Yeah yeah, wikipedia isn't blah blah blah) just goes to show that nobody can show an example of wrongdoing on DHawkers part that warrants a block from the talk page of the article. NO PROOF WAS OFFERED, THIS BAN/BLOCK/WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT WAS UNWARRANTED

1. 3R was on the article, not the talk page
2. No previous incidents involving the talk page, or advocacy, or promotion, or whatever sorry pathetic excuse he is being blocked for (Did we get a reason, or was it "because he makes the talk page an inhospitable zone for new editors to comment"? Can we get an example?) have come up. He has one previous block for 3RR from December 2008!
3. No previous blocks for over 9 months, a pretty sure sign of an editor that isn't committed to having the last word on the topic, and that is willing to work to a consensus
4. No previous complaints whatsoever related to the talk page.
5. The ban was applied after 4 individuals commented:
   1. Franamax (Neutral)
   2. Ncmvocalist (Neutral, didn't specify a preference in the vote)
   3. Mastcell (Involved)
   4. Floydian (Involved)

   Striking the involved editors out, who both have strong ties to the situation, we are left with one voter who rather than making a comment just gave a "Support all" vote, and one voter (Franamax) who is the only uninvolved neutral editor who specified a choice and gave comments along with that choice. This is not a consensus, it's a mockery and a total abuse of power, timing, and is blissfully ignorant.

The reason he is being blocked, is because he doesn't agree with the total negative picture that is painted on every alternative medicine article by this cabal of fringe theory editors. As such, when the opportunity to strike came, it was seized, and a totally out of context punishment applied. I will not let the bot archive this until somebody that hasn't been involved at this point comments. Someone who doesn't have an opinion on fringe theories to cloud their decision. So far, 2over0 and Vsmith have commented, but both have played on the notion that because DHawker only edits colloidal silver, he is a nuisance or a harm to the goal of this encyclopedia (And whats that ladies and gentlemen? Oh right! Improving the knowledge of the human race, and providing free access to neutral information covering all facet of life and the universe). I fail to see how DHawker's attempts to come to a consensus on the plague of issues in the article is harmful to, or against the goals of the encyclopedia. Care to elaborate (Don't forget the other points I made though when you do) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 03:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Floydian, this has been sitting here for a week now. It's become pretty obvious that no-one is willing to advance your case. Lots of editors review this noticeboard and presumably at least a few of them have made a review and decided there is nothing further to be done for now. Quite honestly, I think your extended comments here have hammered a spike into the heart of DHawker's editing career. It's fine that you feel frustration with the way Misplaced Pages works and wish to vent that frustration - but you're no longer helping the subject editor.

DHawker has been offered a clear pathway out of this: edit some completely unrelated articles to show that they are dedicated to improving the encyclopedia rather than just advancing a cause on the world's most popular reference site. I'd prefer to engage them directly as to how to get their restrictions lifted, but I won't do it while this thread is open. But you want to keep the thread open in order to rant about how unfair it all is, and I'm losing interest by the hour. Do you see a problem here? Franamax (talk) 10:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Franamax. I dont blame you for losing interest. I too would like this resolved ASAP but I do not believe the current penalty is at all fair. Its ridiculous that this thread has gone on for so long without a jot of evidence being presented that I can specifically reply too. (Perhaps this is also why so few admins have shown any interest - because there are no details on offer). My only clear violation is breaking the 3RR rule. A lifetime ban for that indiscretion alone seems extremely harsh. If I'm being punished for something else more serious then surely some evidence should be presented. But you guys, the judges, should not have to go looking for that evidence. Mastcell brought this case up so Mastcell should provide an example of what he's complaining about. If I'm such a 'dedicated promoter' then finding an incriminating example should not be difficult. DHawker (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

And thats what I'm also saying. Yes, I'm frustrated, and I have vented a bit, but the points I've made are clear cut, and his ban/block should be lifted until evidence is provided warranting a talk page ban. His block from the article, which could be lifted given an interest in other subjects, is enough to prevent him from "advancing a cause on the world's most popular reference site". Its funny how making that article neutral is "advancing a cause". - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 14:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, the fact that you tie my comments to DHawkers editing career is a great example of how rediculous these notions are. Is it an excuse to further block him? Is it a method for shutting me up? Or is it just another way to avoid the point? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 15:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Giano

Giano's comment I think steps over the edge of WP:NPA. He's usually more clever about dancing on the edge of the policy, but perhaps he tripped and fell over the line. As for tags and so forth, all articles are subject to them, and none, whoever wrote them, is immune. However, a tag should carry with it an obligation to set forth the problem on talk page, and to stay engaged. I agree that standards for FA are tightening, and that even FAs from 2004 or 2006 that have not deteriorated may need improvement to meet standards. Editors such as Mattisse are doing good work in that area.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I assume you refer to "get a life, get an education and write a page yourself - you fool!" ()? I agree that this violates WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. The user at issue, GiacomoReturned (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), previously editing as Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Giano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has a long history of blocks for such behavior and should know better by now. I have blocked him for a week; we should consider an indefinite block on the next occurrence.

Since my last block of Giano triggered a remarkable drama, I invite community review of this block here (I have also added the "Giano" header above for ease of editing).  Sandstein  10:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, you're feuding. Using the tools to feud is a serious offense. Jehochman 10:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

How am I feuding? I am not aware of being in a feud or some sort of editing dispute with Giano. (Sorry for inadvertently removing this reply with a buggy script.)  Sandstein  10:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That's the devious thing about feuds. Sometimes the participants don't see them as feuds. The signs to me are that you're over-reacting to provocation, your response appears emotional rather than rational, and Giano does not view you as a neutral party. This one week block of Giano will cause much more harm than good. Calling somebody a fool is pretty mild. The action here turns a molehill into a mountain. Jehochman 10:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. My (limited) previous interactions with Giano were in a purely administrative capacity; if Giano has not taken well to them, that is not my fault. I would have sanctioned any other user with a similar history of past disruption likewise, and I do not believe that the disruption at issue is mild. I invite you to show me a diff of any edit I made with respect to Giano that is emotional, otherwise inappropriate or somehow indicative of my being unable to act as a neutral administrator.  Sandstein  10:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Just above you said, "Since my last block of Giano triggered a remarkable drama," and then you asked for input at ANI (here) a page watched by >4000 editors. Lighting the fuse and tossing a drama bomb is what I'd call that. Jehochman 11:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd call it asking for community review of a potentially controversial action, which is advised practice for admins as far as I know. So far, it is not I who is generating drama.  Sandstein  11:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sysop tools are not to be used for controversial actions. When is doubt, ask for feedback BEFORE, not AFTER, acting. Jehochman 12:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This was a non-issue to begin with, and it had gone away. Sandstein, as you admit your last block caused drama, it would be a good idea not to do the same thing again. Please unblock before this escalates. SlimVirgin 10:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that severe violations of our conduct policies are non-issues, and Wehwalt's report indicates that it has not gone away. I am simply reacting to a disruption report on this page.  Sandstein  10:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This thread was closed. It should have been finished business. It's classic, classic to the point of farce, for a closed thread to suddenly change topic to Giano and for him to be blocked. Just undo your action and start ignoring Giano. It will be best for all concerned. Jehochman 10:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe any sense of déja vu is because of Giano's apparent persistent inability to observe our conduct policies? My job as an administrator is to prevent disruption to Misplaced Pages, not to ignore it.  Sandstein  10:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You asked for input, Sandstein, you're being given it, and it's good advice. Please undo. SlimVirgin 10:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I will do so, of course, if community discussion here - for a reasonable amount of time, to allow admins from all time-zones to participate - does not support my action.  Sandstein  10:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, this was an insanely bad block, so much so that I'm wondering if we shouldn't block you for disruption. As JHochman points out, the thread was closed, your block was fueding / punitive which is exactly the kind of behavior which led to Jimmy having to "voluntarily" give up his block privileges. Poor judgment. Yes, there are those who are missing the point, below, who are supporting this block. They are viewing the post Giano made only. They are missing that you didn't prevent a damn thing; you've been involved in dramafests due to your quickness to block Giano before, making this block wrong even if everyone completely agrees Giano should have been blocked - as you were most emphatically not the person to do it - and of course, blocking on a very stale event which was provoked by one of the rudest people I've ever had to deal with, who started this mess by making threats and started the thread by accusing me and SV of "admin abuse" even tho no admin actions at all have been taken against her. This is pathetic; I agree with you most of the time, so it makes me even sadder to see your judgment go so thoroughly down the drain. Just don't do anything regarding Giano, Sandstein - you're not neutral and you're not following policy and you're causing problems not solving them. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 11:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Why am I not the person to do it? I'm just an admin doing my job, and we're not usually allowing disruptive editors to choose the administrators that they are comfortable with to block them, yes? As mentioned above, I invite you to show me a diff of any edit I made with respect to Giano that is emotional, otherwise inappropriate or somehow indicative of my being unable to act as a neutral administrator. Unless there is community consensus that I am insufficiently neutral in this regard, I intend to do my job with respect to Giano just as I will do it with respect to other editors, with no particular favor or disfavor.  Sandstein  11:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua, I don't think you are to judge on this block, since you first removed an imaginary personal attack from Collectonian, but then saw fit to reinstate the blatant personal attack by Giano. For you to threaten other people with blocks for disruption in this incident is laughable.Fram (talk) 12:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. If anything, KillerChihuahua should be blocked for reinstatijng the attack, but that is something I'll leave to another admin.  Sandstein  12:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Good block. Giano gets away with too much too often. It won't stick, of course, because the usual cheering section for Giano's outrageous treatment of other editors is loud and cranky enough that they cause disruption until they get their way. And of course that just enables Giano the next time he decides to start hurling invective. → ROUX ₪ 10:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

  Wrong person. Sandstein blocked stale, blocked late, and this is not the first time. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 11:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I have no issue with this block. Giano stepped over the line, again, and was correctly blocked for it. Turning this into an ad hominem about Sandstein's theoretical feud with him (an argument I don't personally agree with) doesn't change the fact that Giano is still being seriously uncivil and one of these days he needs to actually stop doing that. ~ mazca 11:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

  Wrong person. Sandstein blocked stale, blocked late, and this is not the first time. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 11:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Adding a clear-cut personal attack (nothing behind the "keep" was an answer to the FAR rationale, it was only directed at the nominator) with a history of personal attacks is way over the line, I endorse this block. I hate blocking constructive contributors, and have no problem with giving them more leeway in some regards, but that doesn't include answering with a WP:PA to a good-faithed remark (And I don't think I ever commented on one of those before, so I consider myself uninvolved). Amalthea 11:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• I'm also completely uninvolved. I see the block as fair enough. However IMHO if the previous block caused a drama then perhaps it would have been better to just put a notice on AN/I expressing your assessment to the community and let someone else take the required action. Regards Manning (talk) 11:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

  Precisely, thank you for looking at the larger issue. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 11:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Judging from my limited experience, any block of Giano will cause drama, mostly generated by people who appear to be his friends. Leaving the blocking to somebody else, therefore, would very likely have generated the very same drama and no appreciable benefit.  Sandstein  11:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with block though in the interest of full disclosure I've had a run in with Giano in an editing capacity. I like to think the name wouldn't have mattered, that I would feel the same for any editor. Either way, I've given you my view and my COI which is why I took no action myself.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

  Which was a good call on your part; Sandstein should perhaps take note. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 11:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Well, you want uninvolved opinion so you can have mine. "You fool", whilst certainly falling under WP:NPA, would often merit a warning for many many users - not a block. In addiiton the duration between the comment and the block is less than optimal. One week as a block length seems to be total overkill. Mostly however - block first ask questions late (knowing that any Giano thread get's everyone up in arms) would not have been the way I'd have gone about it. In short, whilst the block is within policy(ish) I think it would be very advisable to now unblock. This seems a bit too much like punitive than preventative. Pedro :  Chat  11:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree. The attack (completely unprompted, as far as I can tell) is not limited to "You fool" alone, and as to the length, it's just an escalating block, taking into account all the previous blocks (of previous accounts) from which Giano appears not to want to learn.  Sandstein  12:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Look, there's very little value in starting a thread "inviting community opinion" when you clearly aren't prepared to listen to it when given.Pedro :  Chat  13:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I am listening. I'm not required to agree with every opinion that is expressed.  Sandstein  13:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• It appears that you've decided to listen only to those opinions you agree with, making this a pretty pointless exercise. Your judgement in making this block was clearly flawed, but that's not what you want to hear, so there's no point in reiterating what others have said. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• While the blocking admin may say he is neutral all he wishes, I don't see that is the case, especially as it deals with Giano. Stale block, arbitrary time for usage of the word 'fool.' I'd unblock, but I used my one unblock and can only handle one straight-to-arbcom complaint at a time. Sandstein acts like a robot, reading a manual, and implies that he's the real victim because he has the burden of doing this job. Apparently policy is so clear about each and every administrative 'obligation' that it simply merits no discussion, ever. Law _{type! snype?} 12:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support as the remark is an attempt at intimidation to prevent other such articles from being nominated at FAR. It attacks the nominator for a good faith nomination. It is also an attempt to disrupt FAR which in the past has been disrupted during nominations of articles by the same author. Because Giano has gotten away with similar and worse behavior in the past is not a reason for trying to stem it now. If Misplaced Pages wants to keep and retain editors, than this attack culture by regular editors must change. —mattisse (Talk) 12:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• For those only reading the discussion and not the reason for it, the full PA was "get a life, get an education and write a page yourself - you fool!" A bit worse than just "fool", IMO. Fram (talk) 12:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think the full context should be taken into account and that this was on an FAR page. Please read "Unexplained Admin Abuse by User:KillerChihuahua and User:SlimVirgin" above which involved attacks on the same editor over the same article. This is a pattern of abuse that occurs at FAR when articles by a specific editor are nominated by any editor. Often the abuse starts on the article talk page, as an editor seeks a simcere discussion of the article. —mattisse (Talk) 12:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• A week, for God's sake, and for a stale remark?! Gar, somebody shoot me already. "Excessive" is the only word that applies here. But what should I expect from this stupid website run by rulemongers, anyway? As usual, we waste our time with Da Rules instead of an encyclopedia. Anyone looking to fork? I'd be really glad of a website that is actually about articles and such. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• The complete quote is: "Keep; get a life, get an education and write a page yourself - you fool!" This is an utterly obvious NPA vio and certainly not falling within the standards of civility that one would expect to find on-site. Combine this with the previous remedies that have attempted to dissuade the blocked user from engaging in this type of discourse on-site, and there are reasonable grounds for a block of some sort. I don't believe the calls to completely reverse the block as null and void are justified at all, even if some of the voices are becoming predictable at these discussions. That said, any calls to keep the block duration as it is would not be justified either. Looking at the most recent of his block-log entries, I see two 24hr blocks (one in May and one in July ) which appear to have been OK'd. In such circumstances, to progress to a 1 week block in September is overkill.
• In summary, reasonable grounds for a block of some sort, but the duration of this particular block should be decreased (if not by the imposing administrator, someone completely uninvolved if possible) - the duration should be one that is more appropriate; definitely not longer than 72 hours from when the violation occurred. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Disagree with such an extensive block. Jehochman is correct, as far as I can tell; the block was issued after-the-fact, and does not apparently do anything to prevent damage to the project. –Juliancolton |  13:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Julian: If Giano were to get blocked for his nasty behaviour--and more importantly, if those blocks would stick and not get overturned by a very small and very dedicated group--one might hope that it would have some chance of ameliorating his behaviour. As it stands, he has a free pass to say just about anything he likes, because he knows that within 24 hours, maybe a little longer, enough of his crew will scream and shout loud enough to get the block removed. And then he gets to do it again. And again. And again and again and again. Giano's blocks need to stick--he will not stop otherwise. And they need to start following a pattern: next offence, one week. After that, one month. Then three, six, 12. Oh blah blah blah, blocks aren't punitive--we all know that's a lie. But in this case they would prevent the guaranteed future personal attacks from him. We know they'll come, so no use pretending otherwise. → ROUX ₪ 15:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I fully agree that something needs to be done to prevent further incivility from Giano, but as you said, the dozens of blocks thus far have done little, if anything, to help. Therefore, blocking for one week for what seems a relatively minor incident in the grand scheme of things is not the most appropriate course of action, at least in my opinion. Moreover, blocking under fairly controversial circumstances will in all likelihood do little else than fuel the flames, so a provisional stern warning might have had the same, if not more, effect. –Juliancolton |  17:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
      • The dozens of blocks haven't done anything because they are always reduced or removed. If they start sticking, Giano will be forced to realise he will be taking long timeouts for his nonsense, and at that point he will have to calculate whether it's worth more to be able to attack people or edit freely. As it stands, he gets both--not an acceptable state of affairs. → ROUX ₪ 17:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• I take no position on the justifiability of blocking Giano for his comment. However, Sandstein should certainly not have been the one to take action. Giano has been commenting about the Eastern Europe Mailing List ArbCom, where there have been numerous comments about Sandstein having been manipulated by the mailing list participants. Giano's disapproval for the alleged activites of mailing list participants is clear, as is Sandstein's sensitivity to claims he has been manipulated, so it would be understandable if Sandstein's objectivity is a little off at the moment. I don't know whether thier mutual connection the case fits within the letter of WP:INVOLVED, but it sure makes me think Sandstein's claim of neutrality look tarnished. Added to the action being late, on a stale issue, and pretty harsh (even as an escalating block), I think this action looks extremely unwise. Sandstein, I suggest you reverse the block before someone else does. If the recent WMC case shows anything, it shows that ArbCom and "involved" blocks during a case are dangerous territory for admins. EdChem (talk) 13:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I am not responsible for any edits Giano might have made with respect to me. It would be ill-advised to discourage admins from blocking editors who might have previously attempted to offend them, because otherwise a disruptive editor would only need to attempt to offend enough people in order to claim immunity from being blocked by them. (Maybe that's what Giano's trying to do here?) As said above, I invite you to show me a diff of any edit I made with respect to Giano that is emotional, otherwise inappropriate or somehow indicative of my being unable to act as a neutral administrator.The mailing list matter was and is far from my mind here.  Sandstein  13:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• This is a rather interesting issue; I did not touch on whether Sandstein should've been the one to take the action, or otherwise in my review above. I'm concerned that a lot of claims are being made, while not enough evidence is being presented here to actually substantiate a lot of it. EdChem (or anyone else who can help), could you please provide diffs to the comments Giano made that related to Sandstein? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Sandstein, you have misunderstood my point - please allow me to clarify. I am not suggesting that either you or Giano has made an emotional "diff" about the other. Whether it turns out to be true or not, the claim has been made that you have been influenced by those on the mailing list. This is not to say you have acted improperly - it could be about mailing list participants allegedly provoking others into unwise actions, which you then sanctioned without knowing there was deliberate tag-team provocation in the background. It would be natural and understandable for your judgement to be a touch off with all this going on. Equally understandable would be a dseire for the mailing list issue to just go away, seeing as you feel you have not been influenced in any of your administrator actions - or even maybe feel some anger about being caught up in the whole mailing list issue. Then, along comes an incident where Giano, one of those making a lot of noise about the mailing list, has arguably violated WP:NPA. It's stale, the thread is settled, and you've had a controversy with Giano over a block before - but you still decide to block, and for a week. Can you really be 100% sure you were acting objectively and neutrally, with no influence from any of the background? Also, can you see why it might look from the outside like a less-than-wise decision? Maybe I'm totally wrong and am seeing something that isn't there... maybe I'm not. In any case, I remain of the view that you were and are the wrong person to act in this situation - but you are the right person to undo this block and end this controversy. EdChem (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, some relevant background material that you (and others) might wish to consider...

• The Eastern European Mailing List ArbCom case was first raised at AN/I in this thread, which first raised the possibility that Sandstein had been influenced by mailing list members' activities. "They specifically discussed how to nurture special relations with Sandstein and use them to block their enemies", according to the initial post in the thread. It is relevant to note that the thread was itself a spin-off from another thread, titled Massive problem with admin User:Sandstein.
• It is also relevant to note Sandstein's reaction to the claims made: "I do not take kindly to any attempts to be used as an instrument in any plots, and may need to check whether any of my recent enforcement actions in this area require reconsideration (though I do not believe that I have been influenced by anybody, and have as far as I know not communicated offwiki with any involved parties". This shows Sandstein was concerned about the possibility that he may have been influenced.
• The "massive problem" was a ban imposed by Sandstein on Russavia. Giano's view was clearly expressed here when he wrote "Sandstein, your bulying and threatening is now becoming a problem. I strongly suggest you back off, before others take action against you. You are too involved with Russavia now for your judgement to be sound or trusted. Please let others deal with these matters. You are only an ordinary admin please stop crediting yourself with airs, graces and powers to which you are not entitled. Russavia, you need to clarify your meaning."
• Following the opening of the ArbCom case, Giano commented to Russavia that "There is already more than enough evidence doing the rounds for you to be unblocked unconditionally. I think it would be a pleasant and concillitory gesture if Sandstein were the one to lift any sanctions against you. He has been, in a way, as much a victim as you. I hope he is big enough to see that." Sandstein was notified of this comment by Giano here.
• Giano's view of the mailing list issue: "Thank you. I have definitively formed my opinion. Those concerned are in the mire up to their little necks. The only question following such organised and long term abuse, cabalism and manipulation of Admins and subsequently Arbcom cases is quite how one makes such an example of these people that no-one is ever attempted to be party such a thing ever agian. (Incidentally, for those wondering, Sandstein was not a member of this cabal, but one of those manipulated). My view is that the only option is making them all permanently banned users - The full extent of their actions will probably never ne known, but their proven Wiki-crimes and the damage they have caused, and the innocent reputations permanently tarnished, is too severe for anything less. I don't think any other view is possible or any excuse plausible."
• This background information is provided without comment, simply for others to consider as part of what led to my comments above. EdChem (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Cheers EdChem; that's clarified a lot for me. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• If the block dissuades abuse of editors for nominating such articles at FAR, the the block will prevent future damage to the project. As to length, that I do not know as there seem to be widely varying standards on such matters. —mattisse (Talk) 13:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• Christ almighty, this again? I'd like to note without amusement that this block has spawned a number of battleground behaviors assumptions of bad faith and outright nastiness. I congratulate all of you, with the deepest of sarcasm, on managing to collectively and completely bury the lead, making it impossible for a user to actually understand what is going on here.--Tznkai (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm trying hard to feel outraged, at either the stupid comment or the dumb block or the inescapable march toward pointless drama that followed. But I find that I just don't care anymore. I used to be firmly in Giano's corner, and in general, I still feel a bit more of a kinship with those who are traditionally his Friends, than I do with those who traditionally his Enemies. But lately, he seems less interested in what's Right and what's Wrong, and more interested in who's a Friend and who's an Enemy. His Friends will likely deny that; his Enemies will likely claim he's been like that all along; but I'm comfortable in my opinion. He's finally succumbed to just playing Misplaced Pages The Game with the rest of his Friends and Enemies.

  I try not to care what happens to those playing The Game. The only effect is has on the rest of us is keeping ANI up at the top of our watchlists, making Misplaced Pages look ridiculous to others, and wasting our time when we're weak and momentarily succumb to caring about The Game ourselves.

  But since I am weak, and have succumbed myself, I just want to register my disappointment in pretty much everyone involved. Sandstein: It's possible to communicate with other humans without jumping to the block button. Giano: Content-free insults? Is that what you're reduced to? Worse, inelegantly pedestrian insults?. KC: Inexplicable restoration of an insult, from someone who a few weeks ago asked me to remove a much milder "unhelpful" comment. Please, please don't tell me that you define "helpful" and "unhelpful" as "agrees with KC" and "doesn't agree with KC".

  Luckily, I can solve the "Giano Problem" for myself by unwatchlisting ANI for a day or two, until this either dies down, or you all get a subpage and go play there instead. I recommend this method to whoever has the willpower to do it themselves. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

  I'm in complete disbelief you even considered, let alone posted, such a foul accusation against me. Did you bother to read my edit summary in that post? No? I didn't think so. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 15:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not going to question anyone's efforts here (WP:AGF and all), but I am wondering what the "heat to light" ratio is going to be in the end. All for a FAR? Just seems to me to be another drama chapter in the Misplaced Pages MMORPG at the moment though. At least in my opinion. — Ched :  ?  14:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've seen different editors comment that the issue was stale, too old, or something similar. While I understand that you shouldn't block for things that happened months or years ago, I fail to see why a block of a regular editor for conduct that happened less than 12 hours before, and which fits in a regular pattern, would be a bad thing or too late. The core of our blocking policy is "Blocks are intended to reduce the likelihood of future problems, by either removing, or encouraging change in, a source of disruption. They are not intended for use in retaliation, as punishment, or where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern." Giano has (as an editor) long-term civility problems, some of it excusable, some of it not. This is a current problem (as in, happening in the last 24 hours), and he should be strongly encouraged to change his behaviour. A week long block may send the message that many editors are fed up with this aspect of his contributions, and that all the good he does and has done is no excuse for such remarks. It also indicates that if he does continue like this, his next block may be a month, and so on. That the remark came half a day before the block seems highly irrelevant to me in this case. Fram (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

More reruns? Seriously, lets try adjusting the plot a little bit the next time this episode airs. Chillum 14:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

? Could you explain your reply? It's unclear what you would want to adjust and in what way. Fram (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This entire thread has happened on this page several times before. I was not responding directly to you, but rather to this thread. Chillum 15:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You might want to take more care with your indentations, then. Indenting like that made it appear you were replying directly to Fram, as I am replying to you. — The Hand That Feeds You: 15:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, asking for inline citations is enough to push some people over the edge of civility. This isn't as bad as the "nuclear meltdown" of another user last week in similar circumstances. By now Giano got the message that his remark was inappropriate. Perhaps the block length could be reduced to a standard 24h one? Pcap ping 16:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If Giano has gotten the message and credibly apologizes for his personal attack, I'll unblock him at once. Unfortunately, I do not believe that this has ever happened in any of the past incidents that caused him to be blocked. At any rate, we can't know until he reacts to the block.  Sandstein  16:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Demanding apologies for an unblock is what stinks the worst about this block, Sandstein. Such demands should never be made. Bishonen | talk 19:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC).

One need not call it an apology, but I do think that Giano needs to understand - and say so - that the manner in which he interacts with those he disagrees with (generally through insults, it seems) is disruptive and will stop. That's a rather basic thing, and normal practice, to expect from blocked disruptive users.  Sandstein  19:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Sandstein is DEFINITELY involved with Giano and they have been in repeated disputes in the past. This block also stinks beacuse there was no discussion or effort to resolve the issues in a reasonable collegial fashion. We must expect better from our admins. You're not here to add fuel to the fire, but to help resolve disputes so the content work and article creation can be aided. Bad block. Sanctions against Sandstein may be needed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• ChildofMidnight (and Law, above) may be a bit cross with me at the moment because of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Law's unblock of ChildofMidnight, so I guess his comments may need to be taken with a pinch of salt. I'm still interested to hear what all these disputes are that Giano and I are supposed to be involved in, though. I remember none. I did block Giano (once, I believe), which led to a dramatic discussion much like this one, and since then, Giano has made disparaging comments about me whenever he seems to come across me; I have been ignoring that. I do not think that this makes me too "involved" to act as an administrator here.  Sandstein  16:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• You can use as much salt (and pepper too) as you like, but when you note "Giano has made disparaging comments about me whenever he seems to come across me," that suggests that letting one of the many admins that DOESN'T have that history deal with the issue would have been the way to go. Have you considered that if one of Giano's friends had suggested he refactor the comment we might have been able to avoid all this drama entirely? And indeed it is very similar to your recent policy violating 30 day block against me which included numerous false statements and misrepresentation of my editing history and block log, when a simple request not to edit an article would have sufficed. More courtesy and common sense would result in a lot less drama. I know you're editing in good faith and that I've said some nasty things, but civility is a two way street Sandstein and you have to treat your fellow editors with respect and consideration. Otherwise you're not likely to get much in return. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I entirely agree with that last sentiment and invite any user to show me a diff where I have not displayed proper respect and consideration to Giano or anybody else. (As to your block, that's currently under arbitration, so let's not discuss that.) But as to your first point, no. We can't let users game the system by allowing them to choose who may block them and who may not. If we consider an administrator to be "involved" just because he has been repeatedly derided by the user at issue (as I have), without ever reacting to these comments (as I have), we're allowing just that - and we're encouraging more personal attacks, too.  Sandstein  18:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Did you suggest to Giano that he refactor his comment? Or better yet, given your history with Giano, did you think to drop a note off to Bishonen and/or Lessheardvanu that it would be good if someone asked if he'd be willing remove or refactor the offending statement? Wouldn't this have been a way to resolve the the dispute with the least possible drama and without the need for any blocks? PREVENTATIVE!!! Your actions don't show respect or consideration for your fellow editors. You refuse to make reasonable attempts to resolve disputes in a collegial way. Just because you can justify a block or argue effectively that an infraction occured doesn't make your enforcing actions right. Look at all this disruption and drama your actions have caused. You expect Law to discuss fixing another of your egregious blocks (and it looked to me like he did, but that you blocked and ran without sticking around to respond to questions), but you refuse to engage in any discussion regarding your own decision making process before taking action. Try working through disputes without using your tools. Even in article building you've ignored polite requests to discuss content. I have found you to be exceptionally rude and uncivil. Try collaborating for a change and stop shooting first and asking questions later. You do a lot of great work, but your approach is NOT civil or respectful to your fellow editors. This not a police state, it's a community where we collaborate to build an encyclopedia and Giano is one of our most distinguished contributors. Maybe after this is all blown over you can reach out to him and thank him for all his good work. He edits in good faith just like you do. You are both human and prone to make a mistake now and again. It's not fair to expect everyone to be perfect like I am.ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Giano has a long history of incivility, so no, taking such extra measures of communication is no longer a feasible or productive use of admin time. Try to keep your beef with admins over your ArbCom case from spilling into unrelated issues, eh? Tarc (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• (ec) Hmm, but at some point, all the good will and good-natured nudges to try and play nice have to come to an end. Giano is a big guy, does he really need his friends to suggest not making personal attacks? I mean, look at the block log, for crying out loud, hasn't he realized that by himself? Amalthea 19:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Are you running out of good will Amalthea? How sad. :) People make mistakes. Giano is a very valuable editor who is passionate about his work. It seems practical to try and get mistakes fixed when they occur instead of circling them, highlighting them, sticking them in peoples faces, and creating massive dramas so we can argue endlessly over them. No one has suggested it's a good idea to call each other fools (even though there are many among us). :) We are human. We make errors all the time. The beauty of a wiki is that we can work together to help each other and we can fix all the mistakes that inevitably happen. This approach makes editing collegial and collaborative and combines our strengths. Playing gotcha and busting each other when we mess up just puts everyone on the defensive and encourages a gangland and battlefield mentality where editors feel compelled to team up in order to get some protection. Disputes are often long over, while the arguing over the "incivility" goes on. What good does that do? Give peace a chance. (In a noble display of following my own advice I'm going to lead by example and refrain from commenting to or about Tarc ). ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Out of patience, rather.
  I don't see this thread as an end in itself. And seriously, are you expecting that this is the last civility thread about Giano? Is the underlying problem really resolved? Don't get me wrong, I have no issues with being blunt with vandals, POV-pushers, and other disruptions, or calling out bullshit in general. A certain confrontational nature is also required to get things moving here, so I welcome that. I like reading Giano's essays, for example, I like seeing him call out organizational issues on Jimbo's talk page. It stops with personal attacks directed at other constructive editors though. I can even forgive that a lot of times. It can happen, as you say. But I want to see an effort to try and avoid that, and I don't see that from Giano, not in this case (I realize he has an "away" message on his talk page, but reinstating the personal attack at the FAR says a lot), and I'm not aware of anything following recent blocks or threads here. An effort to oblige with WP:5#Code of conduct, to keep a collaborative and constructive atmosphere. In the long run, I think that's worth more than one exceptional editor. Am I asking too much there? Am I too naïve? Amalthea 21:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• As a general point, civility policy is not a rule made in a vacuum. First, it is a positive claim that we want editors to act with a certain amount of decorum and cordial behavior, for the mutual benefit of all. Second, and more on point, incivility, especially personal attacks, are distracting. They end to quickly sidetrack conversation from the point at hand (ideally content) to fights either wikipolitical or personal. The aim should be to avoid these tangential and ultimately pointless discussions.--Tznkai (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I would support a block of Sandstein. The idea that he is only an admin doing his job rings hollow considering his COI with Giano. He should have gone to another admin to do any blocking. Good luck. --70.188.131.232 (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse block per Roux; it was blatantly a personal attack, and Giano has had a long history of them. Why should he be exempted from WP:CIV? 70.188.131.232 – don't be absurd, we don't block admins except in cases of genuine and serious abuse. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 17:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I don't believe in "civility blocks" on pragmatic grounds; they don't make the blocked party any more civil, and they make everyone else less civil (cf. this entire thread). I'm reminded of Loeb's Second Law of Internal Medicine: "If what you're doing isn't working, stop doing it." So I disagree with this particular action of Sandstein's. But perhaps we could disagree with a specific action without impugning the character of the admin in question? As far as I've seen, Sandstein is an excellent admin who does good work in some of the project's most troublesome areas. This isn't Mortal Kombat; we can disagree without going for the fatality. MastCell  17:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Blocking Giano does nothing useful. Ban him, or do nothing. Prodego 17:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• • • I concur. If blocks are a preventative measure and not punitive, and in Giano's case they don't have the desired effect of halting his behavior, maybe stronger medicine is needed. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Well, there is the possibility that he reacts to this block with an unblock request apologizing for his behavior and sincerely pledging not to do it again. In the case that he does not, I agree that further blocks are unlikely to prevent him from causing further disruption, so a ban would be the logical consequence.  Sandstein  18:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Seems a reasonable block to me, this editor has a history of making personal attacks and has been instructed by ArbCom to "avoid sweeping condemnations of other users when he has a grievance, more light, less heat." Tim Vickers (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'd love to see comparisons of byte counts of "content that Giano has contributed" verus "meta-wonkery Giano has inspired". His content had better be really fucking good for the megabytes of non-content stuff about him people wade through. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Giano hasn't contributed to this discussion at all. So to blame him for our decision to talk about it seems outrageously unfair. And yes, he does fabulous article and essay work. You should check it out. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

An admin's reactions to Giano's actions is usually what starts these enormous threads. Giano is the cause of these threads, even if they're fuelled by editor reaction to admin action. (Where's the meatball wiki VestedContributors link when I need it?)NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Seems reasonable as well. When a user keeps repeating the same actions that he's been warned of in the past, we shouldn't be just nicely asking him not to do it for the 9th, 10th, 99th time. Tarc (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree with this block. I don't think we will achieve anything because of this block, instead this block will generate more drama. And Sandstein had disputes with Giano multiple times. AdjustShift (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to sound like a broken record, but, what disputes have I had with Giano?  Sandstein  19:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• During the recent Russavia case, Giano and you had disputes with each other. AdjustShift (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• Giano criticized your administrative actions during the Russavia case. It may have been better if another admin would have decided what to do with Giano. This is at least how I feel; others, of course, can disagree with me. AdjustShift (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• That he criticized my actions does not constitute a dispute. It takes two for that. As far as I know, I never reacted in any way to any of his criticisms. Besides, as a moderately active admin, I am criticized every day by the many users I take administrative actions against and by their friends (and socks), and by people who just have a different opinion (such as many in this thread); if I were not allowed to block any of them ever again if they cause disruption, I'd soon be pretty useless as an admin.  Sandstein  20:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• There are plenty of very good admins who almost never block anyone. Admins who cease editing articles and become self appointed policemen can easily start to get a bit carried away with the authority issues. As you say, there are many in this thread that disagree with you. Your statement that you would be useless as an adin if you couldn't block anyone reveals a lot. Off2riorob (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• The problem is that Giano is unable to ever let go of a perceived slight, and will continually (and sometimes continuously) complain about any admin who takes any action with which he disagrees, even if that action had no connection with Giano's activities, and even if that person ignores Giano's carping. What happens when Giano runs out of admins to complain about? There are a few admins who will always back Giano (and about whom Giano will never complain), but the rest of us cannot be expected to not block him when he misbehaves because he's bitched about us in the past. Horologium (talk) 13:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• The block is acceptable on principle, as editors are expected to discuss content disputes respectfully and with an eye on the content dispute itself, and not with an intent to personally disparage the person they are talking about. "This article is still feature quality because of A, B and C" is acceptable. "Shut up and go away" is not acceptable. However, the duration is excessive for the offense. Thatcher 14:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

  Indeed, this is precisely what I suggested when I restored Giano's comment - my edit summary was "please discuss with G". I was trying to prevent precisely this kind of nonsense. Instead of anyone noticing my advice to discuss the issue, as DR and common civility indicates, Sandstein opines I should be blocked as well - further reinforcing that he is moving towards the "block everyone who doesn't act like I think they should" mentality - and Floquenbeam actually states, for which I am still in shock, the possibility that I "side with those who agree with me" - clearly Floquenbeam has spent damn little time on Sarah Palin articles, or any articles I've taken admin actions on the editors of. This is so insulting I am beside myself with disbelief. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 15:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thatcher, I do not object to you reducing the block to whatever you think consensus here deems appropriate (while noting that the block, as such, has merit). But I would advise against it, because the discussion about what length of block is appropriate for which offense makes only sense if one thinks of blocks as punitive. They are not; they are intended to prevent continued disruption, and as such they should (as I have also argued below) last exactly as long until the blocked user credibly states that the conduct for which he was blocked will not reoccur. Since that is not yet the case (as Giano's reaction shows), reducing the block duration would be detrimental to the block's purpose of preventing the reoccurrence of such disruption. (Also, of course, I believe that even in conventional terms the block length is adequate when Giano's long block log for similar disruption is considered.) That said, if the community expresses that it considers my blocks in general to be excessively long, I will of course bring my blocking practice into conformity with community consensus.  Sandstein  15:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Based on that logic, I would suggest that you indef yourself and leave, because you have caused far more disruption over Giano's comment than he has. You are the only disruption right now, and you have threatened multiple people against our policies. That is two fold abuse. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Part of the "blocks are preventative" theory is that someone who is blocked frequently for the same offense is likely to learn not to repeat the offense. If Giano were blocked 48 hours every time he told someone to shut up and go away, instead of discussing the merits of the issue, and if these blocks were stable and non-controversial, he would soon learn to stop saying it. Naturally the same block policy would apply to other editors who do the same thing, although starting at a shorter duration. I don't think that the "prevention" theory requires giving people long blocks which are reduced when they apologize, and I'm not a fan of coerced apologies. Thatcher 15:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that coerced apologies get the project nowhere and User Sandstein seems to have a developing self stated history of this type of block and also gets upset if another admin unblocks without discussion with him. (upset to the point of opening an arbcom case) Blocking someone excessively and then saying you will reduce said block if they come and apologise and promise never ever to call anyone a fool again is a bit of a no win situation (for the wiki anyways) people feel more upset if they feel they have been excessively treated and are actually less likely to apologise. As for the excessive block on CoM, here is a diff of someone who is (I think) a clerk, pointing out to Sandstein that he was taking action that was not in his juristiction and requesting he stay away in future. Off2riorob (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher, part of the "blocks are preventative" theory is that blocks are used rarely and have actual meaning. WP:NPA - "The appropriate response to inflammatory statements is to address the issues of content rather than to accuse the other person of violating this policy". It does not say "block at the drop of a hat". The use of blocks in such a situation in such a wide spread way makes the idea of blocks meaningless. It also makes the policy itself meaningless. You have a few options 1. ignoring it, 2. stating that it does not help the issue, or 3. dealing with the issue addressed. There is no option 4 that states "if you have a conflict of interest, make an outrageously long block to ensure maximum drama on ANI". Ottava Rima (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Perspective

No Personal Attacks means to not comment on the real life identity. Saying "you fool" is a characterization of actions - "you are acting foolishly" is what it means. He did not say "you are stupid", he didn't say "you dumb Welsh/Jew/Black/Russian/etc", he didn't say "fuck off, you dumb prick", etc. To say that this is an egregious violation of NPA (which NPA and CIVIL both say it must be -egregious- to warrant a block) would be a misinterpretation of NPA and CIVIL. I think such blocks as above, especially for one week, further undermine both NPA and CIVIL, set a bad tone, and show a misuse of blocks as a whole. "fool" might be unpleasant discourse, but to give it such a reaction is to add to it what clearly does not exist. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree, excessive blocks undermine the project and create a disrupted editing enviroment. This seems to be a recent pattern of excessive wanton big ban hammering, I support a reductiion of Giano's week block Off2riorob (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• The fact that you try to make out that there was nothing personal in what he said is a worry, Ottava Rima, particularly when what he actually said "get a life, get an education and write a page yourself - you fool!" Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Block time is about right, shorter blocks haven't helped and the general route is to lengthen them when dealing with problematic behaviour. And what "you fool" means is >you< are a fool and certainly is a personal attack. Again, this isn't a one-off occurance. It's a pattern, so saying the block is too long is to ignore the history here. RxS (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Just indef him if he is not learning by the punishments. (this is of course a cryptic comment) Off2riorob (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Please reread what NPA states. Fool is a behavioral characteristic. Race is not. Sexuality is not. Intelligence is not. Your clear misunderstanding is problematic and is not within either the spirit or letter of NPA. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No, someone being foolish is a behavioral characteristic. Your wiki-lawyering aside, calling somone a fool is a personal attack just about anywhere you go. Generally when someone starts parsing the rulebook this closely they know they are on thin ice or just taking a postition. Either way, the block was good and the length is about right. RxS (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that the term "wikilawyer" is incivil and your use of it only verifies that you don't understand appropriate conduct. I suggest you stop before you dig yourself into a whole that you wont be able to climb out again. Grammar and language is against your false understanding. Consensus is against your false understanding. Tradition is against your false understanding. Right now, it seems like you and a few others against Misplaced Pages. I think you should read WP:POINT before you continue trying to promote a clearly disruptive and inappropriate belief. Our policies are not for you to suddenly rewrite to add what clearly is not there in order to promote such abuse. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I said you were wiki-lawering, not that you were a wikilawyer. Comment on edits and not the editor. That's the baseline here. You don't seem to get that. And it's not a new concept....it's been here awhile. The rest of your assertions are inaccurate enough to not need any comment. I will say that accusing someone of wp:point because you disagree with them is a little disingenuous. RxS (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Civility does not need to differentiate between personal or actions. Your misunderstanding of the two is telling. This is also telling. I think our lax standards at the time is possibly how you attained Adminship while having a destructive understanding of NPA that goes far beyond what it states. The fact that you would try to claim that someone who exposes you for adding things to NPA which clearly aren't there as a "wikilawyer" is rather disturbing and telling. I suggest you put yourself up for re-election if you honestly believe you are correct. The swift amount of opposes and your quick failure will be enough justice. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

From WP:NPA Comment on content, not on the contributor. Second sentence. You can (although you probably shouldn't in most cases) call someone's edits foolish, you certainly cannot call someone a fool. So I see no evidence that I have a "destructive understanding of NPA". Anyway, I don't have time for this and am unimpressed with your argument by abuse style. Take your last word and we'll be done here. I don't see any consensus forming against the block in question. RxS (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll assume good faith and think that you aren't being purposefully disruptive when you blatantly try to claim a response about an action is not commenting on the action. However, that does not excuse you from having a very dangerous misunderstanding of such a thing. There is no legitimate way for you to hold such a view, and if you continue to hold it and if you dare to bother to force that view onto others via block, I am sure you will find yourself desysopped fast. You are not upholding our views in the letter or the spirit, and your understanding shows either a complete misunderstanding of both grammar and how things operate, or a purposeful misunderstanding to push something you have no right to push. Either way, there is a major problem and you need to stop immediately. And your claim that there is no consensus against the block is laughably absurd. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

comment - huh? 'wikilawyering' is uncivil, but "you fool" is a "characterization of actions"? i'm missing something here.
personally, i think the snide faux-civil sarcasm and baiting that seem to be the rule for many regular editors here is much more of a problem than either of those two comments, but i digress ... untwirl(talk) 21:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL is not WP:NPA. Why would you think that one is the other? They clearly are on two different pages, so it would be hard to confuse the two. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

from the civility page: "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict." a personal attack is automatically uncivil. is it your contention that giano's remark was neither uncivil nor a personal attack? or are you just quibbling over the semantics? this section should probably be collapsed due to drama. untwirl(talk) 22:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl - Please read - Calling someone a "Wikilawyer" is -rude- not an attack. Personal attacks are attacks on someone's sex, race, gender, religious point of view, etc. They are attacks on things that have nothing to do with Misplaced Pages and -only- on things that have nothing to do with Misplaced Pages. Any characterization of any behavior on Misplaced Pages is not a personal attack and can never be construed as one. That is very clear from the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you accidentally miss the part about someone's education, Ottava Rima? 06:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Is that gender? Sexuality? Ethnicity? Things you can't change and have nothing to do with Misplaced Pages? No. His post was directly about Misplaced Pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Making unwarranted comments about someone else's personal education or (social) life is not directly about Misplaced Pages, and it certainly does not comply with acceptable standards of decorum on-site - including the spirit of civility and NPA. What was actually said: "get a life, get an education and write a page yourself - you fool!" While it's easy to concentrate on the issue that's most obscure ("fool"), evading the issues with the rest of the comment (and indeed, the comment as a whole, in its context) does not make it any more appropriate or justifiable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree with the very belated block, but I do think something should be done in addition to a strong warning. This is not the first time Giano has made such comments at FAR, and we should not handle these incidents in the same way every time. I would not be averse to a temporary or even indefinite topic ban from FAR should he make another personal attack / uncivil warning in FARs or related discussions. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
• I support a block for violation of WP:NPA, and a duration of 72 hours. I do not recall any particular personal interactions on my part with the blocked or blocking editors. Giano's comments were clearly a personal attack. Per the above thread, previous blocks have been for about 24 hours by the time they were lifted, so a 3 day block would be the appropriate degree of escalation. IEdison (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest you reread NPA as it clearly states that they are not. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest you take your own advice. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"...you fool..." would be a violation of WP:NPA, as you're referring to a personal trait as in "you are a fool." "...your foolish edits..." could be a violation of WP:CIVIL, depending on circumstances, even though they refer to edits, not the editor. What's the issue? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"Fool" is an action trait. Is sexuality an action trait? No. Is race? No. Please. Do you not understand that there are descriptives that deal with physical attributes and descriptives that deal with action based ones? This is basic English linguistics. "Fool", "Troll", etc, are all acceptable. Otherwise, ArbCom would be blocked for determining that certain people are "disruptive users". The issue here are people who want to expand NPA to justify really horrible blocks. The community doesn't accept it. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I am on neither "side" when it comes to Giano. I write for a living, so please, I took enough English to know a noun from an adjective from an adverb. "You are an X" (shortened to "You X") is and always and will always be a descriptor of "you". Basic 3rd grade grammar. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no rule saying that people cannot use nouns when describing someone. There is no difference between saying "you are foolish" and "you are a fool". NPA is clear - you don't bring in things that don't apply to actions on Misplaced Pages - race, gender, sexuality, etc. Those are -personal-. Your behavior on Misplaced Pages is not -personal-. It is -public-. You can act snide by claiming that the above is "basic 3rd grade grammar", but you clearly don't understand these aspects of the English language, so you look really, really bad with your snideness. You have been proven wrong and arrogant, which seems to happen a lot with those trying to push an interpretation of NPA that isn't even close to reality. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"Proven wrong and arrogant"? Neither has happened based on the discussion throughout this topic, but thanks for your own WP:NPA's. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

"Disruptive user" describes behavior. "Fool" is character assassination. →Baseball Bugs carrots 09:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

See, there you go misinterpreting NPA. Keep up that attitude and you'll never be an admin, which is probably best for the community. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Contrast

I really wanted to stay out of this, in the hope that sense (or my understanding, which may be biased, of it) would prevail... However I will direct readers attention to Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:William M. Connolley/For me/Misc arbcomm-y stuff, which has been closed as "no consensus". On the page User:William M. Connolley/For me/Misc arbcomm-y stuff two contributors (ArbCom members also, but contributors also) are termed "foolish", another one "rubbish", and further on one or more are called "cowards". The page itself provides little more than a summisation of the degrees of personal shortcomings of members of the arbitration committee. The difference is, that the page is not going to be removed unless by the authors wishes, and the author is suffering no penalty for calling people foolish, rubbish, cowards, and being generally unpleasant toward several individuals. I would note that while I argued for the page to be deleted (and was one of the very few to note the relevant policies) I see no reason for WMC to be sanctioned. Under that basis I cannot see why Giano is being sanctioned - for conduct in one instance that is less virulent than WMC.
I know, I am a "Friend of Giano" - but I am a friend of fairhandedness even more so. I think Giano has been blocked for far to long for one comment and, in reference to the accusation that he has been blocked many times, I would note the extensive history of unblocks in his log as evidence that this is a matter in which the community is not in agreement. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

LessHeard - it seems less that people actually believe NPA means what they claim and more of that they don't care that they are violating WP:POINT by promoting such a belief. It seems we will be plagued by these individuals until we create a desysop process and remove them. People should be more vigorous to ensure such individuals are never given power, as they clearly don't have any respect for either the spirit or letter of our policies, which allows for such hypocrisy to exist. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems sense is in short supply these days, LHvU. Blocking someone for a week for calling someone a fool doesn't make much sense at all, but apparently sense doesn't come into the equation when Giano is the blockee. Tex (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU, I agree that these sorts of comments should not exist in userspace or elsewhere, but yours is a sort of WP:WAX-y argument. If disruption does takes place on one page, that is not a reason to tolerate it on other pages or from other editors. (There may be good reasons, however, to allow somewhat more latitude for criticism of officials. You'll never hear me complain about the reams of abuse I get on a routine basis for taking administrative actions.)

I believe Giano's conduct at issue is more virulently disruptive, though, than that of William M. Connolley. (Whether one should call it a violation of WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL or WP:BATTLE or whatever is pure wikilawyering.) Look at the context of the edit, . One person opens a (on the face of it, entirely reasonable) featured article review, and out of the blue, with no provocation, comes Giano with a slur that has no relevance at all to the subject matter. It is difficult to conceive of a conduct that is more disruptive to the culture of calm, rational, collegial discussion that we all agree to uphold. As long as I am an administrator in this project, I will seek to prevent such disruption, whether by Giano or anyone else, by whatever means are necessary - warnings, blocks or other sanctions - whenever such conduct is brought to my attention (provided, of course, that there is no community consensus to the contrary).

In this case, I think that discussions about the length of the block are beside the point, because blocks are not punitive – I will lift a block of any length as soon as the blocked user credibly states that the conduct for which he was blocked will not reoccur.  Sandstein  14:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that it is the excessive length of your blocks that is more disputed than anything else. Here about your (claimed to be excessive) one week block of Giano and also your one month block of CoM that was/should have been a week (according to arbcom restrictions) and on this page yesterday were you called for a indefinite block on another user here when another admin then gave a week. Off2riorob (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, you undermine any sympathy that you may receive that your block interpretation was simply a mistake by trying to dodge the issue by putting forth an -AfD- rationale. AfD and blocks go off very different arguments. Articles are not equal, but individuals' behavior should be. As such, to have different standards would be very problematic. Furthermore, as Lessheard points out, this flawed interpretation of NPA only exists as a way to punish certain individuals that are not liked. This only verifies the problem with administrators abusive our policy to make such vicious blocks. Now, your block was clearly punitive and was not the first time you've made such blocks. It seems that instead of trying to rationalize and pretend nothing happen, you should be apologizing to this community. Otherwise, it would seem that you cannot be trusted to keep the tools. You can start by apologizing to LessHeard about your use of an attack against AfD rationales as if it mattered here. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

And adding to that, on a personal note, Sandstein stated above that I should be blocked for advising discussion rather than more aggressive responses. This is beyond foolish - which I sincerely hope no one is actually block-happy enough to block me for, but I'm not going to be badgered or bullied into silence about my views on what constitutes foolish behaviors. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 15:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I do not object to you advising discussion, or even advocating your views. I have argued that you should be blocked for editwarring to restore a personal attack, and in fact I intend to block you should you do this again. Neither vested contributors nor administrators are exempt from our conduct policies.  Sandstein  15:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You should know better than to promote the removal of a consensus based point. You could ask for it to be struck, but to remove another person's comments when they have been involved with such FARs for a long time is unacceptable. You should know better. You probably do know better, which is why your threat is inexcusable. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Funny, KillerChihuahua did the exact same thing. Why does he remove a (perceived but non existant) personal attack from an opponent, but restores a true personal attack from a friend against that opponent? That is true hypocrisy, and not becoming of an admin. See also his comment below: "You are not considering that removing another person's comments is often considered a blockable offense; ": coming from someone who did exactly that in the same discussion, it is beyond the pale. Fram (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned that myself, to contrast how I handled it vs. how Sandstein handled it: he edit Sandstein linked has the edit summary of "please discuss this with G." This is advising discussion, rather than removing another's comment. It is, as Ottava Rima had pointed out, restoring a comment which was arguably improperly removed. On that same page, I had removed a comment I thought was a personal attack; another editor disagreed and restored it. Sandstein did not block them. Nor did I, nor do I think a block would have been appropriate. His personal view is that the content in Giano's post is a personal attack. He is entitled to his option. He is not entitled to go running roughshod over everyone enforcing his personal opinion about what is and is not rude. So I suggested discussion on the post he thought was inappropriate, he blocked and suggested I be blocked when I restored the post; but I did not demur at all when the post I objected to was restored, but posted a comment regarding it. I have not been hypocritical at all; indeed, I've done precisely as I advised. Sandstein, however, never offered to block the editor who replaced the post I objected to, as his double standard is intact. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 20:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

re Sandstein: the edit you linked has the edit summary of "please discuss this with G.)" This is advising discussion, rather than removing another's comment. It is, as OR points out, restoring a comment which was arguably improperly removed. I removed a comment I thought was a personal attack; another editor disagreed and restored it. You did not block them. Nor did I, nor do I think a block would have been appropriate. Your personal view is that the content in Giano's post is a personal attack. You are entitled to your option. You are not entitled to go running roughshod over everyone enforcing your personal opinion about what is and is not rude. Blocking for personal attacks is clear: the attack must be "egregious" - like "You are a fucking whore and you shit out of your mouth every time you talk. If you try to edit this page again I will find you and fuck you over!". That is probably a comment people would not strongly object to blocking for. You are not considering that removing another person's comments is often considered a blockable offense; I did not block the person who removed the content,but advised they discuss it with him. so we have two comments which some find NPA violations and some do not. I submit to you that I dont' consider the person who restored the personal attack against me to have been edit warring, as there is room for disagreement on what constitutes a personal attack; that I blocked no one and threatened to block no one; and that you've done precisely the opposite. If you really want to see some drame, start blocking admins who restore comments and advise discussion - which is what you are threatening to do. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 15:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If anything, Sandstein has proven himself as disruptive. The Point violation of abusing blocking against the rules is egregious. His then labeling others as wikilawyering for arguing against it is dangerous. If anyone wants to claim that Sandstein is actually a decent admin, then I would suggest a block on Sandstein based on his account being compromised, because his actions as of late are 100% opposite and highly disruptive. KC - I would recommend you filing an RFC/U against Sandstein for the above comments, as they are not such things any admin should say, especially when that admin is making blocks that are completely unacceptable by our standards. There was a saying that Wikianarchists should be chased out for the sake of Misplaced Pages. As such, why is Sandstein still here? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I really wanted to stay out of this but you didn't. If I were to show up on an arbs talk page and call them a fool I'd expect to be blocked. As part of an analysis of an arbcomm case discretely hidden is another matter. Sandsteins block was good William M. Connolley (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion; administrator review forthcoming

I can not currently ascertain a clear consensus about my block at issue, with many supporting it, many opposing it and many supporting it in principle but opposing its length. But probably I am too involved in this discussion to evaluate it clearly. In view of this, I do not object to any previously uninvolved administrator reducing the block to whatever length they think consensus here (if any consensus is to be found) deems appropriate, including time served.

On another note, I am concerned that many here, including editors that I respect, have expressed the view that they find my approach to others in general to be too harsh, authoritative, or otherwise objectionable. If that is so, I am interested to learn how I could bring my admin practice more into line with community expectations. To that end, I will open a Misplaced Pages:Administrator review thread about me and advertise it here.  Sandstein  15:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'll be the neutral admin: there's definitely no consensus here, but the block is problematic enough to reduce to "time served" IMO. I think it's very wise on your part to open the review, since having just read through this long thread, it occurs to me that there wasn't a lot of actual communication going on. Hopefully you'll get clearer input while not "under fire". --SB_Johnny |  16:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your evaluation. All are now invited to provide advice at Misplaced Pages:Administrator review/Sandstein.  Sandstein  16:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I love Misplaced Pages

It's like Groundhog Day. You go away for a couple of months and come back to find that one of our best and most articulate content writers has been blocked yet again for being tetchy with someone who is nitpicking over trivial technicalities on an article that is immensely better that the FAs we get on comic book characters and other fancruft. I was wondering if Wikipedians might one day begin to realise that the US is not the world, but clearly not. I have news for you, people: Giano's comments would not even earn him a mild rebuke if uttered in a business meeting in Europe. I know a lot of people here are American, and it takes a while for those of us who are not to realise that the American use of language is different from UK, European, Australian and so on. Any Aussies here think Giano was blockably uncivil? Over here in Europe (that's the block of land the other side of the big blue bit on your maps, if you have a map that covers more than the USA), we think the US value system is odd. We think it's weird that you have apoplexy over a breast appearing on TV whereas you let people buy assault weapons. You think it's astounding that we allow women to appear half naked on beaches and that we don't allow people to carry a gun in the streets. These are good differences, they make the world interesting. But I'm deeply disappointed that Sandstein, who I always think of as having Clue, blocked Giano for failing to live up to American kindergarten standards of civility, especially when directed at what appears to be needless beureaucratic nitpicking on a very good, well sourced and readable article.

There, I've let off steam now, I will go and sing some Mendelssohn. Guy (Help!) 21:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Incivility by WMC

This shows that WMC is editing other people's comments, which is not acceptable. In doing so, he puts in an in-civil edit summary. This was a response to WMC saying that his attacks on others was acceptable because he hid them, which is rather hypocritical. His attacks in response are only further evidence that there is a problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI isn't for idle chit-chat or shit-stirring. OR should know better William M. Connolley (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Lets see, you remove my edit which is directly forbidden and then use an incivil edit summary, and you say I am "shit-stirring"? This is very telling about your character. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing (not editing) other peoples edits is not forbidden. Your comment was an utter waste of time, as is this discussion William M. Connolley (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I would just suggest everyone moving on. If the attaqcks continue or progress yes bring it here. All it seems to be doing now is stirring up bad feelings. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:TPO "The basic rule is: Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." Ottava Rima (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

WMC is correct though. He can remove any comment of yours off his userpage at any time for any reason. He can't rearrange the comments to misrepresent the stories.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read the link. This was at ANI that he removed a comment. There is no right to remove other people's comments at ANI because you think they add nothing. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok I just read the diff didn't realize it was an ANI comment. Do you think you could tone down your rhetoric though? This is a minor borderline comment, that could be considered to be an attack. As I say though it is extremely minor on the attack spectrum. Hell In A Bucket (talk)

WMC should not have promoted such a thing in any situation. His response to my pointing that out was completely inappropriate, which verifies that his whole purpose here was inappropriate. And Hell in a Bucket, there is no way to consider my comment as an attack in any kind. So please, don't pretend as if it was. If you really want to become an admin, I would focus on differentiating between attacks and normal responses. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

What are you quoting TPO? This is ANI. Not that it matters: irrelevance can be deleted from talk pages too William M. Connolley (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments at noticeboards follow talk page guidelines. Hence, you have signatures behind them. You were an admin, you should know this. And irrelevance cannot be deleted because you say so. There is no consensus for such a thing. Don't just make up rules. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

My being here doesn't have anything to do with me wanting to be an Admin. It will be a cold day in hell whenever that happens, bur it's a nice goal to have. As with everyone you are free to take from my postings what you can. If you choose not to that's your deal. I was just suggesting letting things lie because your complaint is trivialHell In A Bucket (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You may think it is trivial, but most people here know that WMC and Giano had a long past, and that WMC's actions here were iffy at best. He continued to practice outright incivility and disruption via removing other people's comments. He attacked me and claimed that all I do is stir up problems. When proven that I have done far more article work than he has, he removes it as bragging. This is a disruptive pattern and WMC should really stop. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The edit summary was uncivil. Not really actionable other than to say, please don't be uncivil in your edit summaries okay? Chillum 14:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• This is getting nowhere. No admin intervention is warranted or required. WMC whould not have removed Ottava's comments at ANI. Ottava needs to drop the WP:STICK. Can we just archive this and forget about it, or at worst could you guys take it somewehere else? Pedro :  Chat  15:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That's his talkpage, who cares? You have your userpage to trumpet the pages you edit and such. I do know WMC has a long history with Giano. That;'s why they took his mop no? So far he's been a target for a lot of people trying to even scores (not saying you are). Let it go. Unless you have something more substantial to warrant an indef block or userpage desecration, just be the bigger man. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I've undone Pedro's close. He is blatantly partial in this and I disagree with his assertion re removing comments. is fun if you're OR and insist comments should not be edited William M. Connolley (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I have long standing permission from Malleus to redact his comments that have crossed the line. I have never given you such permission. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If you two insist on keeping this up a short block would be appropriate for both to stop the thread and pour encourager les autres. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. This is not the place for interpersonal bickering.--Tznkai (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I've undo Pedro's blatantly partial close again. If either of *you* want to close it - thats fine by me William M. Connolley (talk) 20:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• For Goodness sake can someone else archive this to keep Connolley happy. Pedro :  Chat  20:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Surely, I will regret asking this, but what is the nature the purported bias?--Tznkai (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Criminy, I'll archive the thing myself. I could be accused of having an opposite bias to Pedro so with luck this will balance out, though the possibility of a brilliant fireball from the collision of opposing views is acknowledged. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Erik9 appears to be the sock of a banned user

For background, see RFAR/Scientology#John254, ANI#John254 and Kristen Eriksen, and User talk:Kristen Eriksen

Several days ago, an arbitrator noticed that Erik9 (talk · contribs) appeared to be behaving like a former banned user, John254 (talk · contribs). In particular, this account was filing frivolous RFAR requests which were literally undesired by any party. He injected himself into multiple disputes by writing statements and recommendations for remedies. Erik9 also executed ham-fisted clerking, much like John254 and his disruptive sock Kristen Eriksen (talk · contribs).

With these behavioral clues in mind we examined the account technically. Erik9 began editing January 30, just 2 days after KE was blocked and gave up her appeals. Since then, Erik9 has edited prolifically (as John254 and KE did). At this moment has over 28,000 edits. The time zone matches, and checkuser shows that user geolocates to the same large metropolitan area as John254 and KE, although there are no direct IP matches. Edit: actually there are also technological reasons to suspect that they are socks. FT2 and other CUs have kindly rechecked this for me. Cool Hand Luke 22:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Considering also that this user's early edits are not the work of a newbie, I think it is highly likely that Erik9 is a returned sock of these John254 and Kristen Eriksen. I ask the community to block or sanction this account appropriately. Cool Hand Luke 19:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Pity the poor editor in the large metropolitan area of who started to edit after John/Kristen were indeffed, and has something of a similar schedual. What you haven't noted, is the many differences between my editing and John's. John wasn't a botop, but I run the prolifically productive Erik9bot. John wrote crappy C-style javascript like User:John254/AFD closure/monobook.js indicating he doesn't understand regexps - yes, I'm familiar with John's programming because I used his User:John254/mass rollback.js after seeing it described at WP:ROLLBACK - but I obviously have to understand regexps very well to run a complex AWB task like Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/Erik9bot 9. Oh, and we haven't edited the same articles. You could say, well, I wrote Nemifitide, but not all pharmacology editors are the same person :) However, like most editors, I'm a volunteer, so if the community no longer wants my contributions, I'll find a more productive use for my time - though how you're going to maintain Category:Articles lacking sources (Erik9bot), I have no idea... Erik9 (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I note you do not say I am not John254 or Kristen Eriksen. MBisanz 19:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I do solemnly swear that I am not, and have never been, John254 or Kristen Eriksen. Erik9 (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

CHL forgot to mention the same use of a topless blonde woman on your userpage, same as Kristen's userpage. MBisanz 19:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not the same woman -- and Kristen apparently used the photograph because "she" was a man impersonating a woman (or so the community believes). Hopefully, you aren't accusing me of the same thing... Erik9 (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, what really concerns me is that I don't think this is his only account. John254 kept KE separate by only editing on weekends (until the John account was abandoned). I plotted the edits, and Erik9 was strictly a night and weekends creature for much of its existence. I'm afraid that there might be a work/school account that is not currently known. If anyone has any leads, please post them or email me. Cool Hand Luke 19:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on, that's no mystery - its Erik9bot - or perhaps you don't mean that sort of sock :) So, basically, you're claiming that the horrible banned user John was given an account with a bot flag - I don't have to explain to you why that's a rather trusted user group - and you're searching desperately for John's other account - maybe even a sysop, who knows? It's sure good that I know this nightmare scenario isn't true -- but I suppose Misplaced Pages can be just as scary as you want it... Erik9 (talk) 19:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we just blocked an admin as a returning banned user. You could have avoided this whole problem by appealing your ban. Cool Hand Luke 19:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the John situation, the following is clear:

1. John is never being unbanned, ever.

   Not so. With an admission and some time away from the project, we would love to have you back in the community. We must prevent you from being disruptive though. Cool Hand Luke 20:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

2. John is obviously by now an experienced sockpuppeteer, so if he did return to Misplaced Pages to evade his ban, you're going to need to look a lot harder.
3. As an experienced sockpuppeteer, John probably would have waited some weeks, at least, before starting to edit again, could have used a computer in a different geographic location as a proxy to hide from checkusering, and could have employed his influence with the arbcom to frame me. Don't put anything past this John fellow... Erik9 (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

   No, John appears to have socked because he was an addict. He simply could not stay away. Going from thousands of edits to nil was apparently too hard for him. Cool Hand Luke 20:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ouch. Does this mean I'll have to start Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses (third nomination)? --NE2 19:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

There's just a little fly in the ointment -- John's obviously a very intelligent user, if he could pull off what Misplaced Pages Review describes as the "Massive Kristen Eriksen conspiracy" - I looked there just a minute ago to see exactly what this John/Kristen fuss was all about. Obviously, someone who could write Nemifitide and run complex bot tasks like Erik9bot task 9 is no fool either. So, by claiming that I'm John, Luke can't really be stating that John didn't take the simple precaution of starting his next account some weeks after John/Kristen were indeffed -- Luke must be asserting that John was deliberately trying to be caught, perhaps to show the ease with which horrible banned users can obtain privileged user groups, and to scare editors looking for (what Luke thinks is the) other sock which could have who-knows-what privileges. Does Luke really expect the community to believe all of this? Erik9 (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the "I'm too smart to do that" defense. Actually, we know from experience that it's not true. And what John did wasn't rocket science anyway. He used a library location to edit from Kristen Eriksen, and his home location for John254... until he abandoned the John254 account in one of the most revealing stunts ever seen on this site, that is. Cool Hand Luke 19:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Erik9, since difference in coding style is being used as a defence here, could you explain why your monobook.js contains the exact same function as User:John254's, a function found in no other script page on Misplaced Pages, as evidenced here? I realize there may be a reasonable explanation, but I do find it odd. decltype (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Both my Javascript and his appear to be (substantially different) derivatives of User:Voice of All/nolupin/monobook.js (which contains the substring "ipnote"), updated to use template:blp0 and other warnings in the series. Since the same template is being used, it's not at all odd that the function would have the same name. If you look at User:John254/monobook.js vs User:Erik9/monobook.js, you'll see that Voice of All's script was modified in quite divergent directions. Erik9 (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Something that nags at me as I'm reading all this- Erik9 clearly has extensive knowledge of John245 and Kristen's work and history on Misplaced Pages for having "looked there (at the Misplaced Pages Review) just a moment ago". And the evidence combined with the checkuser review is pretty strong, too strong to be a coincidence in my opinion. A little insignificant _(please!) 20:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that the likelihood of all these points being mere coincidence is fairly low. I really wish there were some stronger "evidence", but the volume of weaker evidence may make up for that fact. Shereth 20:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Erik9, if you want to get out of this alive, here's what you must do: start editing naked short selling and related articles. Mantanmoreland socks require higher standards of evidence. Shhh, don't tell anyone. --NE2 20:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Good enough. Hit the button. Wknight94 20:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Cool Hand Luke emailed me at 18:33 UTC with an allegation that I was John, so I had more time to research this than would be apparent from the timing of his report here. Erik9 (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

So why didn't you tell them that, Luke, when people were claiming that I knew all too much about this John fellow? Erik9 (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating. Like you said, I didn't initially tell you who we suspected. I did not tell you that the suspect was John254 until you refused to appeal your ban. That was 18:33, less than half an hour before the first post. You apparently were not aware of it until at least 18:38. I'm also impressed with how quickly you've "learned" about John254. Your post above at 9:13 raises points we hadn't considered in spite of discussing this for several days. Cool Hand Luke 20:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I just saw this. The Kristen sock's style of defense is alarmingly similar to the one Erik9 is fleshing out right now. A little insignificant _(please!) 20:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Be that as it may, you both have the exact same function "blpn", not present in any other user script page. That doesn't really count as "divergent directions". decltype (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Well, in the John254 and KE thread I was on the cautious side with respect to blocking and banning. Shall I now assume that non-admin AFD closing has become a common pastime in the mentioned metropolitan area? --Tikiwont (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm done with this -- a decision has already been made, it seems. By the way, don't forget to deflag my bot account and empty the now unmaintainable Category:Articles lacking sources (Erik9bot) - just trying to be helpful :) Erik9 (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)What a very odd way of addressing a sockpuppet accusation against yourself.--Tznkai (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Has Erik9 editor been involved in any inappropriate edits? Or are we just trying to block them for coming back without our knowing? If they obey the rules I don't see what the big deal is. I don't see an allegation that they are using multiple accounts (socking), just that they were able to get around a block or ban to edit in good faith. Isn't that what many editors here have done? If they edit in good faith then it's not clear that they should have been blocked or banned in the first place. Aren't these measures supposed to be preventative? Now we (apparently) know who we're dealing with, we can keep a close eye on their edits. Asking for an admission of guilt is ridiculous when all it will do is get the party blocked. I don't see what blocking them now accomplishes. Am I missing something? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

CoM, if we presume for a moment that the ban in the first place was made for a good reason, then continuing that ban seems to be a good idea. That is, if the ban is a legitimate mean to a legitimate end, then continue the mean.--Tznkai (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether the ban was appropriate or not, if the offending behaviors aren't repeated then I don't see an issue. But as Cool Hand Luke points out there are some problematic behaviors that have to be addressed. I should have read the statement more carefully. I was preoccupied with investigating and addressing the "socking" allegation (socking is not an accurate term in this case. It's really more about returning to edit under a new account). ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• CoM: Yes. I put that right up front. The account has been disruptive at RFAR, fanning the flames of disputes that had subsided. He's also been similarly disruptive at the recent MFD. At the least, I think he should be given editing restrictions to prevent disruption. Cool Hand Luke 20:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

In response to COM: I was just having the same thought. We're pretty sure this is John, but he hasn't done anything really disruptive. Why don't we deal with the problematic Arbcom requests like we would any normal user? As long as Erik9 limits himself to one account I don't see an issue. A little insignificant _(please!) 20:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that approach. That's one of the reasons this was taken to the community. I would like to see editing restrictions to prevent disruption. And it would also be nice if Erik9 had a little more candor. Cool Hand Luke 20:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm less ok with it. The level of deception and effort to maintain that deception suggest that the user is likely to disrupt. Socking like this is also inherently disruptive to consensus building processes.--Tznkai (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

On principle I dislike the notion of ratifying a banned user's surreptitious return. Especially when the problematic behavior hasn't entirely ended: he was highly disruptive at the Scientology case workshop and resumed poking hornets' nests with disruptive RFAR filings. To John: have a look at the Misplaced Pages:Standard offer essay. Abide by its terms and email me in 3 or 6 months (depending on whether you build a good history at a sister WMF project); if everything checks out I'll initiate your unban request myself. User:Rms125a@hotmail.com accepted a similar offer and came back after a very long ban. There's an honest way to return. Shoot straight with us and we'll be fair. Durova 20:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If he's reading this, I think he should strongly consider Durova's kind offer. I tend to understate things a lot. Asking for "a little more candor" is a polite way of saying he needs full disclosure and to put his games behind; and only then would it be appropriate to discuss editing restrictions. Cool Hand Luke 21:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, editing restrictions can be overcome. Nearly a year ago the community brought back another editor after a pretty lengthy ban. He had a topic ban and a mentorship for a while but has graduated from both and now edits without restriction. Has earned barnstars. We just want to know things are on the level and have confidence the problems will end. Durova 21:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't see it as ratifying bad behavior. I think the focus should be on getting editors to abide by our policies. If there's no way to do that then banning is the only option. But if a banned or blocked user returns to edit in good faith without our knowlege it seems to me to indicate there is no reason to punish them when we catch them other than to remind them that we expect them to avoid a return to the problematice behaviors. I don't see a benefit to punitive action. Asking for candor when a confession results in a bad outcome for the editor involved seems kind of ridiculous and is a practice engaged in by some of the most despicable regimes. A better option would be to make a reasonable offer conditional on coming clean. I see all stick and no carrot. There's a huge incentive to IP hop, and no incentive to be upfront and work with the community to find an appropriate remedy such as mentorship. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Erik9 came to my attention by non-admin closing an AfD early. When I asked him/her to reopen the AfD so I could make a comment, s/he refused. I went to Deletion Review, where I was criticised for bringing it to DR until I put forward evidence that Eric9 made a regular practice of closing AfDs early (see the second entry). Then consensus shifted to the view that Eric9 should ease up on the practice of early closure. To me the whole episode was indicative of a person who is a compulsive editor. Should this editor ever be brought back, s/he should be restricted from closing AfDs. Abductive (reasoning) 21:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

To CoM: banned users don't get to use sock accounts as bargaining chips to broker a return. I'm more impressed when a banned user respects community consensus by editing productively at any of the other WMF sites where their participation is welcome. Durova 21:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, ChildofMidnight, you're seeing the stick because Erik9 had already refused the carrot. I wanted to make disclosure his best option, but he chose to persist in this game.

The reply to this message was that they were not a banned user, and that we should conduct this publicly.

Erik9 still has the opportunity to request an unban. I hope that he does it as Durova suggests, after several months of good work on another project, and with honesty. There are success stories. Cool Hand Luke 21:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Erik9 blocked

I've indefinitely blocked the ] (talk · contribs) account given the evidence and responses here. I don't particularly see the purpose of the Articles lacking sources (Erik9bot) category at all, but that's a discussion for a different venue. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That leave Erik9bot (talk · contribs) which needs a block, a de-rollbackering, and a crat to de-bot. Also, Erik9 (talk · contribs) needs a de-righting by an admin. MBisanz 20:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Request made at Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#User:Erik9bot. MBisanz 20:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The evidence looks convincing to me, so block endorsed. As for the category, banned users can have their work reverted or deleted regardless of the merits of the edits. So you should have the green light to delete the category (unless you think others would find it useful). Spellcast (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Bot blocked by another admin, most recent edit rolledback by me because it was used to evade.--Tznkai (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the category, it's a good one to keep (although it could use a rename). There's been multiple requests at WP:BOTR for it. I'll start another one to try and get a eager bot op. - Kingpin (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, in particular I'm trying to figure out why the category was ever created / implemented. Is anyone actively using it? At a minimum, it needs to be renamed to a generic name; but really I don't see much reason at the moment to not simply get rid of it altogether. That said, it's used on over 140,000 pages currently, so we should be sure before doing any mass actions. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

There is certainly a lot of support for a bot-maintained list of unsourced articles. However, there are improvements that could be made to the way Erik9bot used to categorise them, for example, the pages could be categorised into sub-categories depending on the topic. However, this isn't really the venue, please add any comments/suggestions you have to Misplaced Pages:Bot_requests#Bot_to_take_over_categorising_unsourced_articles_from_User:Erik9bot. Best - Kingpin (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

MZM: I didn't get that either. Seemed like redundant busywork. The new bot proposal looks more promising though. Cool Hand Luke 21:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The category can just be merged with the normal category where we have all unreferenced articles. The special category was a way to distinguish mass bot edits from the other ones. Can someone provide me a link for why User:John254 was banned? IF it was just "multiple accounts" we can check if Erik9 participated in xfDs or discussions. Maybe the ban could be reduced to something else. I don't know the case but Erik9 was/is very active in janitorial stuff. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• A category of unreferenced articles is useful. I disagree with this block and it seems to me there is a double standard compared to the the treatment of a former Arbcom member who WAS caught socking with multiple simultaneous accounts and who wasn't just a banned or blocked user returning. I see a lot of evidence this editor was doing some good work. The focus should have been on addressing the problematice behaviors instead of taking punitive action. They'll be back. The indefinite block seems particularly pointless, silly and counterproductive. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• • I agree with you that they'll be back, and I wanted it your way, but they refused to come clean. Cool Hand Luke 21:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

We took that the attitude that we weren't interested in "bargaining". Why on earth would they come clean? I didn't see anything on offer and with the options available I'm not surprised at all that they weren't willing to admit guilt and face a firing squad. Better to just create a new account with none of the baggage. I can't believe that after all the recent disclosures of editors not being who we thought they were that we're still taking the cat herding approach. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Durova's "standard offer" (which is a very reasonable one) was put to them. Is that not enough? What do they expect, truffles and some after eights? Ironholds (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

We were attempting to bargain though. See message above. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if other users criticize me for attempting to bargain. I thought it was the best thing for the project, and so I made the offer before bringing it to ANI. Other might believe that we should have just done that or SPI to begin with, or even block with instructions to contact ArbCom. This was the best opportunity we could possibly offer, and it was rejected. Cool Hand Luke 21:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed both technically and behaviorally that Erik9 is extremely likely to be almost beyond doubt the same user. I have rechecked the basis of the technical evidence (per CHL) which is fairly compelling already, and added to it some rather striking further evidence for other checkusers to review; each appear fairly conclusive. I tend to agree that given Erik9's responses, they do not suggest much chance of a forthright discussion. FT2  21:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I just read the email to Erik9. This mess up with the ArbCom it's a reason for a ban. I striked out my suggestion above. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved?

Problem solved The same editor will be back (today? tomorrow?) with a completely new account and none of the baggage. We had an opportunity to see if we could help someone who spends lots of time on-wiki editing. We would have known who they are and had access to their full history. We could have worked with them to improve their approach moving forward. Instead we encourage them to continue cheating. Remember kids, next time, don't get caught!

Such is the way of Wiki justice. If we repeat newspeaky statements like "an indefinite block is not forever" enough times does it start to make sense?

I think it would be better to use "blocks pending evidence of reform". I would ask editors to stay away for a while and meet specific conditions to work their way back. Instead we ask that they confess their sins so we can have the additional pleasure of gloating as we banish them to the wilderness for months at a stretch. The simpletons will be stuck out there while those with any computer skills can return the same day.

I hope George Orwell is laughing as he looks down on us. "Agree to our terms and you'll only have to stay away for 6 months"? What a joke. I look forward to following the sock sleuthing of those who supported this "remedy". What a waste of time. Durvoa can name a couple "success" stories of this method. I can name dozens of examples demonstrating it works just as well as the war on drugs.

If the policy is to push troublemakers to keep getting fresh starts why don't we just state that? If you get into trouble or get caught returning before a block has expired just start over with a completely new account and make sure we don't catch you. Maybe we should put it on the pages we post to instruct new editors? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't want to get into the larger argument here, but I've yet to see where Orwell references do anything but irritate people and otherwise inflate the rhetoric over the operation of a website.--Tznkai (talk) 22:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to work in comparisons to Chairman Mao's focus on getting the accused to admit their crimes and the Soviet Union's use of gulags, but I couldn't get it quite right. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree with ChildofMidnight but at least at this discussion Erik9 had to admit that he created a new account and doesn't wish to do what he did before. As far as I understand now he follows the same string of actions that caused his ban the last time. I really would like to see him unbanned and keep his janitorial work as he did the last months. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If we can't trust a user to act within the bounds of Misplaced Pages's etiquette about not editing when blocked or banned, how can we trust them to act within the bounds of etiquette about getting consensus? Or NPOV? Or.. well..anything really? I personally consider Durova's "standard offer" to be light, comparatively. There has to be trust amongst editors, and someone who serially breaks that trust makes Misplaced Pages that much poorer. SirFozzie (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

How does it encourage trust when you push people to edit under new identities without disclosing their history? You're just encouraging subterfuge. According to your logic on who we can trust there are NUMEROUS admins that can't be trusted based on their KNOWN hisories, not to mention all the ones we don't know about. Isn't it preferable to have someone edit with a known account where we know the history? The standard offer is a joke and is totally unrealistic. Are you ready to take a 6 month break Fozzie?

For an editor who is only interested in working on a narrow range of articles you may be able to keep catching them. But for anyone who is flexible and has wide interests you're just pushing them to create whole new identities and promoting lawlessness by refusing to engage in sensible reform. We need to compromise our high but unrealistic standards and accept that we're dealing with humanoids. I wonder how many admins have undiclosed histories and are editors who have returned after being blocked or banned? What message does it send that it's better to hide your past than to be honest about it? The number we catch indicates is small compared to all those who remain in the shadows. Not to mention that the more cheating we encourage the better people get at it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Time away from wiki is quite satisfying actually.--Tznkai (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I already had a six month break, pretty much, thanks already *grins*... It's not whether I want a six month break, or even is Erik9/Kristen/John wants a break, it's whether he has the approval/support of the community at large. If they don't have that, if the community (or the Arbitration Committee, who is elected by the community) does not think that they can be trusted to edit constructively UNDER WIKIPEDIA'S RULES AND ETTIQUETTE then that's that.

Editing Misplaced Pages is not a right, it's a privilege, and that privilege can and will be revoked if it is misused. I have seen multiple users where hundreds of socks were used in an attempt to sock their way around a block/ban. Either we have rules that we follow, or we embrace total and complete anarchy. If someone wants to come back and be a active contributing editor, that's great.. but we need some evidence that they won't fall back into the disruptive behaviour that caused them to lose the trust of the community. The standard offer is a light way around that. SirFozzie (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you can revoke that editor's editing privleges and I don't prescribe to the see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil school of enforcement. But we'll see. I'd prefer we reform editors and bring them into the light rather than keep pushing them to the fringes and into the shadows. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

We tried, and he refused. If he had edited non-disruptively, this wouldn't have been an issue. If he had admitted it and worked with arbcom, this could have been handled quietly. But he apparently prefers to play games. There's not much else we can do. Cool Hand Luke 00:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting claim, but I just looked at their user talk page and at least one editor thought they would make a good admin candidate. The picture on their userpage also indicates to me that they would have been okay with having their history known. The accusation keeps being made that they insisted on being deceptive, but I don't see that they had any choice. The choice we're offering is 6 month cold turkey or hop to a new account and keep their identity a secret (which of course requires lying if anyone asks and engaging in some deception to cover their tracks). I'm not trying to make y'all mad, I just don't think that's a reasonable offer. Fayssal asks below what offer I would make so here it is: I would ask them nicely if they'd be willing take a week off, come clean about who they are, accounts they've used in the past, and any sock accounts they have. They need to agree to avoid engaging in the problematic behaviors noted by Cool Hand Luke and be willing to take some regular breaks from editing if the addiction is itself part of the problem. I'm not sure on the last part, but the rest seems pretty reasonable. I would also assign them a mentor. GTBacchus indicated some willingness to take on being a mentor so he might be someone to ask. If people want to stand by the ban knowing that they'll be back unbeknownst to us then so be it. I'd love it if they e-mailed me so I could track how long it takes before they're at RfA and I'd like to see if it is successful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you actually read the email I posted above? We were not demanding a 6 month ban, nor were we persecuting a purely productive user. They were disruptive in similar ways as their old accounts—that's the only reason it even came to our attention. And even then, several arbitrators thought it was appropriate to give them a face-saving way out. They refused. One week with full disclosure and editing restrictions was open for debate, but it was rejected. Jeez, they could still email ArbCom if they wanted. They could have done that at any point since January. But they did not.

Until they make some showing that they've actually moved on, there's no need for you to argue in favor of their hypothetical appeal. You have to demonstrate good behavior before you get "time off for good behavior." Cool Hand Luke 00:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I got as far as the "we ask that you immediately retire your account so that you can request unban by the Ban Appeals Subcommittee (BASC)" and started rolling my eyes. Sorry if that sounds dickish, but it seemed like an enormous amount of bother for someone who has demonstrated that they can start editing under a new identity at will. I've read beyond that now and I don't see anything specific on offer. It's all rather nebulous. I don't know about you, but I'm also cautious about who I start e-mailing. So I'm not surprised that the editor chose to roll the dice knowing they were busted. They may even have preferred just starting over. But at the very least I would have put something on the table to see if they were willing to meet us halfway and turn over a proverbial new leaf without having to go into the witness relocation program. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, they knew that they were busted, but they still had a way out. Would you prefer that we tell disruptive socks that we value them more than those who play by the rules? In effect, we do, you know. I modestly don't think it's good for the morale of the project. Cool Hand Luke 01:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

CHL I don't ask or expect you to agree with me, but please reread what I wrote and consider it. Nowhere do I suggest that I like disruptive socks. Were they using multiple accounts at the same time? If not I don't think the term socking is accurate and it is at the very least misleading. (cont. below...)

The same editor will be back (today? tomorrow?) with a completely new account and none of the baggage. Well, the problem is not that a new account will be created because any potential new account behaving in a similar disruptive way will be dealt with in a similar fashion. The socking issue here is too secondary; it is not the main concern. Disrupting the process with three different accounts is a very bad sign and it is a nuisance to many editors. The user in question is experienced enough to understand that he needs to reform before coming back. He had a good chance today and I personally was thinking that he'd say sorry and promise to stop disrupting when answering the ArbCom e-mail. He chose to not to answer and instead he was at the MfD claiming that another user has federal powers and believing ArbCom came to the rescue of the other editor. This is not a game as everyone here got plenty of positive stuff to do instead of wasting our time here.

There were two offers on the table; that of ArbCom and the Durova one which is still open I suppose. If you want to help him reform, please put your offer on the table (mentorship or whatever). Otherwise, please let's move on. -- FayssalF - 00:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yup, Misplaced Pages:Standard offer remains on the table. Its time frame begins whenever he decides to stop socking and accept it. No apology required. Durova 01:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

whenever he decides to stop socking... and disrupting! -- FayssalF - 01:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There ain't much fine print to the offer, but that's part of the deal. :) Durova 01:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(Continued from right margin above) I've tried to make it clear that I have a strong preference for knowing who I'm dealing with and addressing problems out in the open. That's why I'm advocating reforms and encouraging a better way of working out these issues instead of sweeping them under the carpet and having to stay on constant alert with paranoia in never ending spy game. Speaking of which, I'd love to have a check user do some checking up on various accounts. How strong do my suspicions have to be to support an investigation? I'd like to know that the editors I deal with are on the up and up. And how do I stop mailing lists and collaborations devloped off-wiki and in chat rooms? Maybe we should fix what we can control and instead of being inhospitable to those with imperfections?

The reason that it's not necessary to make the conditions more substantial is : 1) we can't stop them from editing and 2) editing with their known history already provides an enormous deterent to repeating the poor behavior and is in and of itself a hardship that they will have to overcome by earning back good faith.ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope my fellow arbitrators are amused by this conversation—I agree with you in principle, and I was actually making those arguments a short while ago. I believe we should accommodate users who want reform, which is why we even bothered to send the email. I don't think that we should break our spines bending backwards though. Cool Hand Luke 01:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

CoM, maybe it would help to explain the wikiphilosophy behind Misplaced Pages:Standard offer. An individual's dedication to the project is not (by itself) enough to succeed as an editor here. Sooner or later we each find ourselves on the short end of a consensus decision. Most of us accept the outcome (perhaps with bit of grousing) and move on. A few refuse to take no for an answer. Edit warring, Reichstag climbing, incivility, etc. are all variants of a refusal to accept the word no. Good content work does earn extra chances because we like to keep productive people, but no one deserves an indefinite license to act out. We all get a voice in creating site policies; it's possible to improve those policies when they are really wrong. This website is not an anarchy. Occasionally someone goes so far that we show them the door. Yes they could return through the window, but that'll get their hands dirty and tear their trousers at the knee. We can show them the door again (sometimes hundreds of times) until they understand that it really is much less stressful to take time out and then knock at the front door. That shows they're willing to respect limitations--to observe the same rules that apply to the rest of us. And that's when they deserve a respectful welcome. Durova 05:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This event deeply disappoints me. Erik9 was the one who filed an arbitration request where I was heavily involved (Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/194x144x90x118) even though he had not been involved in that dispute. In that case the request was not frivolous, indeed it ended with a conclusion along the lines requested by Erik9 (as well as myself, SarekOfVulcan, and Scjessey who were also involved). The main problem with this discovery is that it lends unnessecary credence to 194x's stance that there was a conspiracy to get him through improper means. I am surprised at the choice of arena. I would think that a "secret comeback" ought to stay far away from ArbCom, and not doing so can only be explained by an excessive interest in the drama of conflict resolution. I don't see any point in endorsing or opposing the block since the policy is quite clear about what "banned" means. Regarding the possibility of a future unban, I agree with Durova's postings in this thread. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The past behavior of John254/Kristen Eriksen shows a keen interest in drama, yes. That case was certainly an example of that. They started an even bigger feud in the Scientology arbitration that mystified users on both sides, tried the clerks, and was enormously disruptive. Cool Hand Luke 14:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight: Personally, I see this as a classic example of WP:BEAR. The very nature of our site's registration system is that nearly anyone can game it given enough time and energy. The idea behind blocks and bans is to prevent disruption (usually, at least). If someone gets indefinitely blocked, returns and edits productively in a different area, nobody will be the wiser about their previous history. But in cases like this, Erik9 deliberately went around poking the bear (ArbCom in this case) by filing frivolous requests and doing other similarly-boneheaded things. If he had stuck to bot work, he very likely could've gotten adminship and nobody would have cared. But he chose to "piss on the wall of the police station" instead, and, yeah, that usually has negative consequences. I don't see this as a particular failing of Misplaced Pages's account registration system (it was either already broken or already working long before Erik9 arrived). This is simply a failure on this person's ability to stay the hell away from certain areas. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree. People are overlooking the fact that it's not the socking, but the return to the negative behavior that is the problem. Using The Simpsons as an example, it's rather like Milhouse's dad in A Milhouse Divided, where he quarrels with his wife until they get divorced. His blank incomprehension when he gets fired from his job at the cracker factory (a job his wife's father got him) is the best lesson. Everybody is a "big wheel down at the cracker factory" here. Abductive (reasoning) 07:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Odd edits by new account

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

Thoughts? Cirt (talk) 05:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

IS making a vast number of edits in a very short time frame - I have blocked for 3 hours until we can investigate. Manning (talk) 05:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Indef blocked. Cirt (talk) 05:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sock of John254/Erik9. This can be a {{checkuserblock}}. Risker (talk) 05:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess this means John254 (talk · contribs) has chosen not to take up the above Misplaced Pages:Standard offer. Cirt (talk) 05:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It's still on the table. He's just reset the clock on its start. ;) Durova 05:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Reverted their edits, per the request at the bottom of this page, the fact that they are the sock of a banned user, and the fact that this category (which they were removing) may be helpful (as noted in a section higher up). Steven Zhang 06:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

An interesting development

Anyway, Misplaced Pages:Standard offer has been mentioned above, and I'd like to comment. It can work, but it's tough. It needs to be tough (other project work should be *required*). I was indefed on the last day of March, 2008; see the eight-month-long dip in my en:wp editing here (I was unblocked for a few days in May). I didn't create another account, as John/Erik has (although I went that route some years ago). I went to Commons (spike!), to id:wp (almost 40% template edits) and then to wikisource.

I was unbanned on en:wp in December 2008 largely due to having done good work elsewhere, being honest, and listening. My account is activated on 167 different projects and I've made non-trivial edits on close to half of them. For some, a ban is The End. I coined the term "Single Project Account" for such folks. This is the 800lb gorilla and that is what attracts many and is the core reason for what we're currently calling a "Toxic Environment". Our size is the root of a lot of problems. Bans serve multiple purposes. The proximate one is to end some objectionable behavior. In some cases, it can also serve to widen an editor's perspective. There are hundreds of other projects for banned editors to work on to earn another shot at this project, but many have no interest in anything but the big baby; many of them are merely here to push a POV, to exploit disagreements and inflame situations. These all amount to trolling and online lulz.

Bans should be easier to impose. There are many editors here who need it. If they go away and develop as editors elsewhere, they can probably be allowed to return. If they are truly interested in the foundation's broader goals, they will be able to do this. If they're not, the ban adheres and the socks get whacked, too. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 08:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well said! I wish that everyone who has been indefinitely block/banned and resorted to socking would take these words to heart. — Kralizec! (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

So we make it tough on known accounts to come back to editing after agreeing to mentoring and reform. But if they come back surreptitiously, avoid disrupting (at least enough not to get caught) they have our blessing? Surreal. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Jack, thanks very much for posting. It reminds me you deserve a barnstar for the successful return. Durova 17:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

CoM, that's the way the whole world works. People who avoid paying their taxes don't have to give up their income and are forced to lie about it to stay out of jail. Of course you can benefit from breaking the rules, that's why people break them. Nobody is giving someone a "blessing" by secretly socking and staying out of trouble, but by staying under the radar they get away with it. Again, that's just how things are, and that's not restricted to Misplaced Pages. Your alternative of amnesty, however, would just embolden bad behavior. -- Atama頭 17:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That's the opposite of what I'm saying. I object to amnesty. The status quo and what you and Durova are arguing is that we make reform and accountability back breaking. But if an editor returns surreptitiously they get total amnesty and a clean slate with none of us having any idea who they are. I prefer transparency and accountability. I don't understand why we're encouraging people to cheat. And as far as the comparison to taxes, incentives are made and deals brokered to encourage the filing of back taxes and to push people to come clean. What's the point in setting up a whole bunch of disincentives to fixing wrongs? Why are we just pretending that this approach is working when it isn't? We've decided to do away with plea bargains in favor of summary judgment, except that we have no way of carrying out these severe sentences except on editors who are unable or incapable of figuring out how get around it (which also makes enforcement very unfair). ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Amnesty means forgiving a person's wrongful deeds. If a person sneaks back into the project, that's not amnesty, because if they get caught they'll get blocked. I hope you forgive the analogy, but this is very much like immigration. I do not want to hijack this debate with real-life politics, so please forgive me, but it's a pretty close analogy. Misplaced Pages is not unlike a country that has deported someone for breaking the law. For the person to come back and request "citizenship", certain restrictions are requested. Instead of going through that process, the person has sneaked over the border with a false identity and was caught. What you're suggesting is to ignore all of their past crimes because they haven't committed any new ones since they sneaked back in, even though hopping the border is itself a crime. Obviously, to any reasonable person what you propose is the textbook definition of amnesty, however you want to twist things.

I realize that Misplaced Pages doesn't have a system of law, and doesn't give out punishments. Misplaced Pages only wants to prevent disruption and any actions taken against editors are meant to stop current disruption and prevent future disruption. But I still think it's a very apt analogy to make regardless. Just as with immigration, if the rules aren't enforced they cease to have meaning. Perhaps you want to change the rules to make it easier, but do you really want an unrepentant sockpuppet around? And as Durova stated, eventually these people do cause disruption, as we saw yet again in Erik9's case. -- Atama頭 22:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

On a practical level, most banned users who sock return to problematic behavior. An arbitration case from 2007 makes an interesting example: midway through the case checkuser discovered that one of the parties was the reincarnation of a community banned editor who had previously been disruptive at baseball articles and returned to disrupt football articles. The sock of the banned editor and a different shadowy IP editor had been trolling a productive editor who was trollable. After those two irritants were removed the remaining editor reformed and has over 50,000 edits now. Either of those banned editors could probably return by now if they asked for reinstatement, but apparently their priorities are elsewhere. Durova 18:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, folks ;)

Someone who reacts to a ban by socking has not learned anything, they've not developed; they just want to keep playing whatever their game is. This is why they get caught again, too. John/Erik above filed the E&C 2 case that I was involved in and he aggressively sought the deletion of a page in my user space. He returned to a lot of his prior areas, like filing a lot of RfAr requests. This attracted scrutiny. He skipped the crucial step of developing as an editor.

I've tried that. Socking is an awkward business. You have to act — stay in character and manage your image. You have to consider every edit and the odds that it might show your true self. It is fundamentally at odds with honesty because being honest will get you caught; being yourself will get you caught. For some, I expect, this is just more game-play, which they enjoy. I didn't enjoy it and I was indefed when I came clean. While there were a fair number of folks who were pretty sure that I was a sock, it's possible that I could have lied my way through it. I do not regret it; it felt good. As they say, confession is good for the soul.

There are very good reasons to leave the easy door to socking available to the Template:Lang-id (mischievous children); the same reason we leave admins the ability to unblock themselves: it's a test. Those that take the easy route exhibit their true colors. My intentions have always been good, but the means I employed were unacceptable. My time in bantown was good for me; I understand the foundation's goals and projects far better for having been given a compelling reason to go do appreciated work elsewhere. I have learned that there are good people here who can be trusted and who share my goals.

There are certainly others who will read this who have significant experience on other projects, but the vast majority of editors on en:wp have never even looked at another project. They have little idea that they even exist and no idea what they are like. News Flash: This is the only toxic wiki. The others are all very mellow places. Take id:wp, for example. In Indonesian culture, aggressive behavior is considered unacceptably rude and outright vulgar. Grawp followed me there and went on a few sprees. Most folks were aghast; they had never seen such uncivilized behavior. It's no secret what culture produced our unwelcome troll. Why do we have so much toxic behavior? My view is that it is an aspect of an affluent society with an abundance of leisure time and which has a long history of escapist behaviors. I am from one such society, but I live in a much more relaxed one, now. I am also in a very different time zone than most en:wp editors and this means I don't see most of the drama 'live'. The whole Erik9 business landed and was all over before I saw any of it, and I read the whole story as a piece. I edit when most editors here are asleep and I see a mellower en:wp than most of you do. So I see that this place can work; all it takes is for the littluns to not be editing.

We let (most) anybody edit and that includes malactors of all sorts. When a pattern of problematic behavior is identified and other efforts to correct it have been unsuccessfully tried, it is quite appropriate to ban an editor. If they are serious, they will learn from it, and if that is demonstrated on one of the other projects, a return should be considered. The road back is a winding one, full of ruts and mud. This is to sort the serious from the not serious; most will not make it. I have long said that Misplaced Pages has scalability issues. This is not just about the proliferation of less than appropriate articles; it includes the concern that too many problematic editors are tolerated for too long. A ban is not the end of the world if the person is serious; it is a demand that they pay attention to the other serious people and wise up. Some will fail this test, which is good; it improves the caliber of editors here and reduces the ambient toxicity of the environment. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 07:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Banned user?

• 74.104.160.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 38.104.186.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Rbj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (banned, confirmed by ArbCom, has used IPs and socks before)
• ArbCom declines review; this has links and of course extensive posting by Rbj

This has been brought to my attention on my talk page, but I'm not positive. Would someone else take a look and give a opinion?

The banned user Rbj has been editing Planck units as 74.104.160.199 and 38.104.186.254. Please see Discussion Page for that article, section titled Hi Rbj. The tell-tale signs for those who know Rbj are attitude, phrasing (eg 'sorta') and subject interests (eg Marriage).

Thanks in advance for your kind attention - KillerChihuahuaAdvice 00:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

anyone... anyone at all. Thanks. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 13:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

.... any input will be appreciated. thanks. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 15:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you want people to say? The old account edits are far too old to CheckUser, and statements that the similarity will be evident to "those who know Rbj" is going to discourage anyone who doesn't know Rbj from commenting. I find the usual AN/I refrain of "diffs, please" coming to the tip of the tongue. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was brought this on my talk page, and you have the entirety. Its not a similarity I noticed, you comprehend. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 18:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Going through some of the contributions there are definetly some striking similarities in interests and speech.--SKATER 20:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by IP on my talk page about banned user

Could someone have a look at this? It appears to be a comment by an IP on my talk page about a banned user, but I don't have time to work out what this is about. Carcharoth (talk) 08:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• This merger of duplicate incidents should enlighten. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 09:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Banned user User:Zephram Stark is trying to start an edit war on Law of the United States, both directly and through friends

Moved from Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Banned user User:Zephram Stark is trying to start an edit war on Law of the United States, both directly and through friends

Stark was banned four years ago by ArbCom, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Zephram Stark, but continues to vandalize Misplaced Pages from time to time through various sockpuppets. He has urged all his crazy friends to vandalize Law of the United States with his kooky unsourced POV/OR at this blog entry here. See also the discussion at Talk:Law of the United States where his strange edits are discussed in detail. He was trying to vandalize the article through sockpuppet User:Russell Savage, who was finally identified as a sockpuppet and was just banned a few hours ago. But while this nutcase Stark continues to urge people to vandalize the article, it should be semi-protected or protected by any available admin. --Coolcaesar (talk) 01:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected by Fuhghettaboutit. I find it quite amusing that Zephram Stark's idea to improve Misplaced Pages involves allowing individuals to choose which reality they want to exist in, and have each article display ideals relevant to that chosen reality. (link, see comments) — Huntster (t @ c) 03:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Note that Zephram Stark just admitted that he still has other active sockpuppets, "including four who are progressing nicely in Misplaced Pages's bureaucratic ladder". Everyone needs to keep a lookout for those. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Could be bluffing, trying to intimidate us from within maybe?--SKATER 20:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Jeff G's use of Huggle.

Bringing this here for a review. I was going to let this pass because this incident happened a couple of days ago, but it seems there are ongoing issues with their use of Huggle. Earlier in the day, I saw this report where they stated the IP had been removing the {{whois}} template from the top of their talk page. I discussed this matter with the IP, and explained the situation. They co-operated, and I closed the matter at AIV as resolved.

Seeing this IP at AIV again later in the day raised my eyebrows, and the six diffs he cited as vandalism (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), none of them vandalism. I raised concerns on their talk page, as did an administrator who blocked the IP in error. When asked for an explanation, they basically blamed Huggle for the error. A mistake or two is excusable, but an ongoing pattern is not. This edit today was pointed out to me as well.

I feel that Jeff is unable to differentiate between what is and what is not vandalism, and should have his rollback removed. Alternatively, he could take these two lessons on vandalism, and keep his rollback, but I see an ongoing pattern here that needs to be addressed, and I'd welcome input from administrators. Steven Zhang 02:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Procedural Note I have informed Jeff G of this discussion, on his talk page. Basket of Puppies 02:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That slipped my mind. Thanks. Steven Zhang 03:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Other questionable uses include; The Funniest Joke in the World, Anadolu Airport, Marsia, List of Omnitrix aliens, Wes Ramsey, Glasses Malone, Characters of Extras, Taronga Zoo, and Eskişehir Airport, and CityRail K set, just to list a few. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 04:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm planning to address these one at a time:

• The Funniest Joke in the World: Sorry, I guess I put too much faith in 115.128.43.169 (talk · contribs)'s translation and humor sensing capabilities.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

But your edit restored the questionable assertion. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Anadolu Airport: 88.244.74.28 (talk · contribs) removed "*Anadolu Jet (Ankara)" content without explanation and added two lines without citing a source. What do you question about that?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Lack of an edit summary doesn't make it vandalism - in fact, it's at least in part a valid edit as two minutes of research shows. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Marsia: 203.190.147.124 (talk · contribs) removed a paragraph, a {{wikify}} tag, and a {{Husayn}} infobox template without explanation, and added a whole swath of unreferenced text. What do you question about that?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Your use of Huggle to undo an edit that may be questionable but not obviously vandalism and apparently done in good faith. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• List of Omnitrix aliens: 76.177.243.197 (talk · contribs) added more unreferenced info without explanation, despite having been warned not to do so 10 minutes earlier. What do you question about that?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Still doesn't make it vandalism. Steven Zhang 06:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Given the current state of Misplaced Pages:VAND#NOT, under exactly what circumstances is it appropriate to use the following unsourced templates (and consequently the Huggle versions of them)?

• {{subst:uw-unsourced1}}
• {{subst:uw-unsourced2}}
• {{subst:uw-unsourced3}}

  — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Wes Ramsey: 71.52.103.188 (talk · contribs) made an unsourced change. After further review, the entire line about Mr. Ramsey appearing in an undisambiguated Heroes is unsourced, so I've disambiguated it and tagged it with {{fact}}.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• Glasses Malone: 97.117.210.232 (talk · contribs) removed content without explanation. What do you question about that?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Another accurate edit, as shown by 3 minutes of research, labeled vandalism. Hardly a case of unambiguous vandalism. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Characters of Extras:
• Taronga Zoo:
• Eskişehir Airport:
• CityRail K set:

  — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I think this concerns me, Jeff G. (talk · contribs) (note the dot), rather than the uninvolved user Jeff G (talk · contribs), who has been inactive since February, so I undid the notification mentioned above by Basket of Puppies (talk · contribs). Concerning this edit, the user I was reverting, 93.86.164.168 (talk · contribs), sarcastically called Verbal (talk · contribs) "allknowing" and accused that user of "lying" in this edit. I took the "lying" part as a personal attack (since it involved the language of {{subst:uw-delete1}} in this warning edit, which was not a lie and concerned this original content removal edit), and reverted/warned accordingly.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Rollback is only to be used for reverting vandalism or your own edits. This clearly states that personal attacks (perceived or otherwise) does not fall under that criteria, so rollback should not be used. The edits that 98.248 also outlined are concerning. Why should you be allowed to retain rollback, when there is clearly an ongoing pattern of problematic edits. Unless you'd agree to go through a lesson on how to use rollback appropriately, and how to differentiate between what is and what is not vandalism, which I'm happy to go through with you, I'm worried that problems like this will continue to arise. Steven Zhang 05:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to go through a lesson, but I'd like to finish responding to all of the above first.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Given the current state of Misplaced Pages:VAND#NOT, under exactly what circumstances is it appropriate to use the following templates (and consequently the Huggle versions of them)?

• {{subst:uw-npa1}}
• {{subst:uw-npa2}}
• {{subst:uw-npa3}} (formerly {{subst:npa3}})
• {{subst:uw-npa4}} (formerly {{subst:npa4}})
• {{subst:uw-npa4im}} (formerly {{subst:npa4im}})

  — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Good question. Some interpret the vandalism policy a bit looser than others, I interpret it quite strictly, simply because reverting poor edits, that may be made with good intentions, and labelling them as "vandalism" is one of the fastest ways to make a new editor stop editing. When you're ready, pop a note on my talk page and we'll go through the Vandalism lessons. Steven Zhang 06:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, not tonight, I'm too tired (it's about 03:06 here). I'll be back tomorrow evening or night.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

All those templates appear to relate to personal attacks, not vandalism. I can say that vandalism is only when it is unambiguously clear that an edit was made with the sole intent of damaging wikipedia as a resource. There is a long (but not exhaustive) list at VAND#NOT of disruptive or unpleasant edits which aren't vandalism. The basic rule is, if there is any doubt, use the edit summary feature in HG. Protonk (talk) 07:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a note here; rollback is for blatantly unproductive edits, and not only for vandalism. If an edit can in no way be thought as made in good faith, it is quite appropriate to use rollback for that. Huggle provides options for reverting personal attacks and unexplained content removals, among others. However IIRC, in each case huggle gives the same edit summary by default (Reverted edits by x to last revision by y (HG)), but the warning issued will be different. That aside, I agree that Jeff G. should exercise more scrutiny and care when using huggle. This edit is somewhat understandable considering that a large amount of text was removed without explanation, and I think many RC patrollers would have reverted that. But almost every other example seems to be a careless mistake or a result of being too hasty. ≈ Chamal  ¤ 07:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

With as many as 9 edits per minute (03:26, 22 September 2009), there's not any doubt in my mind that Jeff is being too quick to push the button. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 08:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I must agree with this. he reverted my edit too because i said other editor lied -- which he did -- so it was not a personal attack. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 10:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it reasonable to assume that the nine-edits-per-minute revert rate described above is too fast for an editor to be effectively judging the individual merits of each edit? — Kralizec! (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That's only 5 reverts, plus 3 warnings and one AIV report. The reverts in question are , , , , and . I'll leave it to others to judge if they are good reverts. Tim Song (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

"Craftsman is someone that is a tool, or a big douche bag!", "it has somewhat of jewish origans" concerning a family of beetles, "The Ford Mustang is an insanely awesome automobile", and "*Howard Stern - Radio show host, King of All Media" were easy to spot as vandalism. The birthdate change I had to research for a bit. The user I reported to AIV for vandalizing Ford Mustang, 72.199.232.33 (talk · contribs), got blocked subsequent to my report.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Try not to obsfucate the point being made - that the speed of rollbacks is indicative of Jeff not taking the time to give each due consideration. This one minute period is just an example of his rapidity. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how I'm obfuscating the point - I agree with Jeff's assessment of the reverts, BTW - you said that he's rolling back too fast and not giving each due consideration because he made 9 edits in a minute; I pointed out that it's actually only 5 reverts; I also think that they are all sound. And for four of them it probably takes 3 seconds to figure out that a revert is appropriate. So, no, I don't see you proving your point with this example; if he made a bad revert in the minute, yes, but I think that they are all good. Tim Song (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Tom

Tom is engaging me in a very inappropriate manner. He is engaging in personal attacks and now he is apparently going through my history looking for I don't know what.

1st attack 2nd attack My response3rd attack My final response He then responded on my talk page.

He was then warned

But, now he is hounding me.

The attacks were of little consequence, but now that he is apparently searching my history I have decided to file a complaint. Arzel (talk) 02:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Procedural Note I have informed Tom of this thread, on his talk page. Basket of Puppies 03:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? ... that may have been personal but maybe it wouldn't have been if

• 1. he made real arguments that actually might contribute to the article instead of pushing a POV
• 2. talked to me directly instead of evading me leading me to "hound" him.
• 3. This sounds a bit more like censorship and hypocrisy...
• 4. He personally attacked me too, by the way
• 5. What "history" did I search, it's ON YOUR OWN TALK PAGE! ... All the ridiculous the accusations and the paranoia ugh I can't stand it. ..needs wiki break

Tom (talk) 03:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest you take one, then. Your behaviour in those diffs given is improper to say the least. "Miss, miss, but he started it!" is rarely an acceptable defence, and certainly isn't in this situation. I note that "only the truth is good enough for you" - we don't work on truth. We work on verifiability. If you are that fanatical about something that you want to push in what you think happened/is happening/whatever at all costs, it's probably best to stay away from that area as a starting point. Ironholds (talk) 11:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but he has a history of pushing for a POV clearly evidenced on his talk page from many users... I'm only here because I had the nerve to take him on it. Tom (talk) 12:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI. Tom stated that I created a specific article with which to push my POV. He was actually referring to a section heading on my talk started by another editor. Tom, please stop accusing me of pushing a POV. Arzel (talk) 13:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No, Tom, you're here because of your outrageous behavior toward another editor. Take some personal responsibility or take a wiki break. -- B.Rossow _contr 13:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I could have toned it down, I'm not denying that... Note that the reason why he reported me was the fact that I stalked his history... which is obviously a lie seeing he couldn't look on his talk page, so there's obviously a little paranoia. Regardless, here is another issue I will not back away from and that is he promotes a POV.

Examples:

• 1. User_talk:Arzel#Kieth_Olbermann
• 2. User_talk:Arzel#Liberalism_Is_a_Mental_Disorder "liberalism is a mental disorder" - severe POV push.
• 3. Similarly, he's been very close to violating the 3RR rule and has been warned multiple times on articles such as User_talk:Arzel#Gretchen Carlson, User_talk:Arzel#Political positions of John McCain and User_talk:Arzel#Criticism of Bill O'Reilly topics on his talk page. ..... I can keep going.

Now again, I could have toned that down, but then again with a history such as the one above ... it speaks for itself. Similarly, if you want to look at my history of my edits, I welcome it, especially with my edits in controversial topics such as Talk:Same-sex marriage. One last thing, I have

"...and is open to any discussion regarding any edit."

on my talk page for a reason. If he had a problem, he could have taken it there and we wouldn't be here. Tom (talk)

Are you going to go through my whole history? I suppose I could just delete everything negative like you have just done. FYI, removing a 3RR warning from an administrator is probably not the best thing to do. Arzel (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

As one can find here, an editor is permitted to delete anything they want from their talk pages. Some of us do not. Some of us archive. Others, delete. The policy/guideline at WP is that when a user deletes — especially when they delete warnings — such deletion is evidence that s/he has read the warning. It is as telling as signing for a registered letter. To wit,

Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and anonymous users.

Thus, it is inappropriate and misleading for one editor to suggest that attitudes, guilt, etc., can be inferred from another editor’s warning deletions from said editor’s own talk page. The above guideline makes clear that the only inference that can be drawn is that the editor in question has been notified by, and read, the warning deleted. — Spike (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Spike. Arzel, this is a waste of Admin's time when they can be working on real problems. Next time just take it to my talk page and then when I give you a hard time, you can come here an report me. Tom (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

IP 70.108.59.249

This IP and various similar ones of a dynamic nature (70.108.121.71, 70.108.86.23, 70.108.66.63, 70.108.89.47, 70.108.61.231, 70.108.70.197, 70.108.104.200, 70.108.114.181) has been engaged for the last nearly 3 weeks in trying to insert content sourced to a blog-type source, written ostensibly by someone named Jawn Murray, into the article The Game (U.S. TV series). He made reference to other CW network shows as "trash" and "bullshit" , Some of the content was sourced to twitter posts regarding an alleged "plagiarism" claim by the same Jawn Murray against TV Guide over an item, and even admitted the story was the IP's story in one edit to the article , when he posted the plagiarism accusation into the article, and also in an early talk page post Funny thing its basically my story from June 16!. Other sources were found for the same content and placed by established editor User:Pinkadelica. Pinkadelica reverted the addition of the plagiarism accusation and Twitter post refs three times and posts were made to the talk page of the IP being used at the time by three different editors, regarding two different articles and edit warring, inappropriate content including incomplete sentences and other grammatical errors. At one point, the IP stated "for the 2nd time 3 colums(look b4 u rever). if you're going to credit some1 credit the one WHO PUBLISHED IT FIRST. &if twitter isnt reliable you need to strip it from the hundreds of articles it is in", seeking credit for himself for the story. I also removed the plagiarism accusation and use of the Twitter source. The IP persisted, posting the plagiarism accusation on the talk page and Pinkadelica finally requested semi-protection on September 14. At that point, the IP began to post to the article talk page, at which time I asked if the person was Jawn Murray, , here, here, here and here. I repeatedly pointed out that the actual link the IP was posting was not going to the story he thought he was posting, since each new blog entry pushed the story further back in the pages. The IP response was "I wont give up. While this may be sexual pleasure for you...". I asked the editor at least four different times to remove this incivility The IP began to refer to Pinkadelica as "pink", and when asked to call her by her full username, posted a tirade, repeatedly calling her "pink", said "Can you not focus? Go drink some giseng & then come back", "I disagree as I still see smoke coming from you area" and other incivil comments . I reverted that post due to the harassing and incivil nature of it and the IP began to call me "wild", despite repeated requests to use my full username. In addition the IP kept messing with the column markup, claiming that the 3 columns were absent, although it was not each and every time I looked at the page. This is blatant WP:COI, trying to insert his own column into the article, incivility, edit-warring and harassment and it would be very nice if someone put a stop to it. I've requested the page be protected again, but so far, no action has been taken on it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Fully protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Looking at the IPs he uses, a rangeblock would be impossible to enact without huge collateral damage, so this is probably the best we can do. --Jayron32 03:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. We knew that the IP hopping was going to be an issue. Appreciate the help. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

AOL Black Voices is not a blog. It is an entertainment website, just as marc malkin/eonline and ausiello/ew. The CW network is trash, I am not the only one who feels like this. I did not include it being trash in the is the article, so pointing it out is of no matter. I did quote twitter but never did "...even admitted the story was the IP's story in one edit to the article". Pink did revert the twitter source, and I posted on the talk page asking why, but Pink didn't reply. I then acquiesced and compromised by removing the twitter, and jsut adding the AOL source, leaving the matt mitovich source. I do feel twitter is removed arbitrarily. Twitter is used as a source, for example in many Miley Cyrus articles, and it stands as a source. Wild said this link was not the actual link which I corrected, but wild wont accept the corrected. Yes I did reply in the ride manner in which I was posted to. Wild is not tellling you that wild/pink are friends. Thus wild is calling my replies incivil but did not warn their friend pink. I did not mess with the markup, I fixed it so that 3 columns were visible; the 3 columns were not visible each and every time I looked at the page. This is not blatant COI. I am inserting a reputable source, it is not my column. 70.108.122.230 (talk) 11:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss this issue at the article talk page. If you can establish widespread consensus among editors for the changes you propose, then and ONLY then can you implement them. But either way, this venue is not the place to discuss content issues. --Jayron32 01:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Block-evading Musatov again

Special:Contributions/216.240.51.58 is spamming both the article and talk pages of halting problem with some "solutions". He has been warned: User talk:216.240.51.58. Technically, he's not vandalizing, he's just a crank, so I'm reporting him here instead of AIV. Pcap ping 08:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

See also User talk:MartinMusatov. The same guy also "solved" the P = NP problem a while back using the same (sockpuppeteer) methods, for which he has been indef blocked. Pcap ping 09:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You can solve P = NP using sockpuppets? I'll start writing the nature paper and you work on the nobel prize acceptance speech. I'm teaching this next week, would be shame to have to warn my students off wikipedia. Verbal chat 09:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, apparently P=NP that was way easy since he now moved to the halting problem... Except nobody else could understand the solution. I guess the sockpuppets can act like oracle machines for creating consensus or something. Better not think about it too hard. ;-) Pcap ping 15:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

He appears to have stopped of his own accord for now. But I'm curios if my post not actionable for some reason, or are we seeing a manifestation of the much-debated admin shortage? Pcap ping 10:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Can an admin look up prior deletions?

(moved from WP:DRAW which I thought was an admin request channel)

I don't know if this is a proper question to ask but could an admin look at the delete history for Clark Heinrich to see if it was WP:PRODed or WP:CSDed before? The edit history does not start with an "N" (new page). The page is up for AFD and I was curious on if there were any prior delete discussions (such as on the article's talk page) and/or deletion reasoning. TIA. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If you look at this history for instance, you don't see "N" at the first edit either. Only articles which were created fairly recently contains an "N" at the first edit. Further, looking at the logs for Clark Heinrich it would appear that the article has not previously been deleted. Gabbe (talk) 09:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, non-admins are able to review deletion logs, and there's no record of a previous deletion of any kind. In addition, I can confirm that there aren't any admin-viewable deleted edits here - so this article certainly hasn't been deleted at this title before, though it could of course potentially have been created at a slightly different one. Hopefully this helps. ~ mazca 09:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't created/deleted at Clark heinrich either. Only articles created after the MediaWiki software was modified will include the N page marker – the date of which still evades me but obviously after September 2007. – B.hotep •talk• 09:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - I had not realized non-admins could look at the delete history for an article via Special:Log and that the "N" marker is a new thing. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

User causing problems

I am having certain difficulties with the user LAz17. He is persistent in his action to remove certain information from the article Boris Tadić. The content in question is important because it shows that the Russian president sent a very personal note to Tadic just a week before the election (these messages aren't that often, Putin didn't write any cards of that type to Tadic before or after) and this probably had some effect on the election results. This information stayed in the article since January 2008 and therefore we can say that is part of the established consensus but user LAz17 came up with "Stop the edits until we come to a concensus". Since when is this the way we go? Can I go to the article on Barack Obama and erase the information on endorsement and not let anyone put it back until the consensus is achieved? Well I am sorry but the consensus is already there. It is also properly sourced so removing it for the reasons of personal animosity is the most basic rule breaking. He came up with some rather confusing and funny arguments on my talk page, telling me how I inserted this information to the article on purpose in some kind of conspiracy - "This was for the sake of helping in his election campaign. If some random person comes and looks him up, they will think hey putin likes him, when in fact it is not the case." and other rants I simply can't respond to like "You and paxequilibrium on purpose lied in the talk page of the article saying "on his future presidency". That is lying, and purpose. You knew it was false, and you both insisted that it is true, on purpose." as I have no idea what is he talking about. I am pretty certain that adding something that was reported widely in mass media to this article did not change the election results, maybe the act itself did but not my or edits of anybody else on Misplaced Pages.

I am writing here primarily because I want to avoid edit war and breaking the 3RR however I wont let this user abuse the lengthy process of problem resolving by leaving the article in the wrong state for a long period of time. Second reason to write here is the fact that this user is very difficult to talk to so any attempts to talk with him and come to the dispute resolution end up failing. This could be a tactic as well, he knows that if he refuses to communicate with others his version can stay for the long period of time. However this can't go on forever. This user has received sufficient number of warnings for his previous edits and usually stubbornness in pushing for certain extreme nationalist agenda that you can find on his talk page just searching for words like warning, block, ANI, AN/I etc., he was also reported here on AN/I before for incivility and was warned by admins consequently, then he received the final warning from some of the admins but didn't stop so he was finally temporarily blocked. Obviously this user still hasn't learned how to behave on Misplaced Pages and that it is not a playground for someone's nationalist or any other extreme views but an encyclopedia where we respect external sources and consensus not personal views and abusive behavior. Please take the necessary actions.--Avala (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This is probably not helpful but I can't resist: Wouldn't you expect problems from a problematic user? Sorry. Anyway, I see your dealings with this person take place on your user talk pages. You should probably bring up the issue on the article's talk page (Talk:Boris Tadić) instead, so that it's not just you and him arguing back and forth, and a wider consensus might be determined. This doesn't look like an issue that requires any sort of admin intervention. It's just a content dispute. In addition to bringing the issue to the article talk page, you can further use the following avenues to resolve the conflict:

• Misplaced Pages:Third opinion
• Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts
• Misplaced Pages:Content noticeboard

As far as his alleged abuse of the system to keep bad information in the article while consensus is determined, well, generally that isn't considered a problem, for better or worse. Conflicts unfortunately take time to resolve, and while they are in progress, the "wrong" information might stay up (ie. the version you disagree with). WP:Don't panic. Equazcion (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The consensus is already there, the content has been in the article since January 2008 but now this user removed it and after I reverted him he goes no, no you can't add that you need to achieve consensus. Well who is crazy here? The only reason he erased this is the conspiracy theory how it was added to change the election results, so am I really expected to discuss that? And he has the history of such behavior with many warnings, final warnings, ANI discussions and even a block so yes I do think that an admin needs to act and that it is long overdue because the soft approach you suggest apparently didn't work well before, the only time when he calmed down for some time was after the block.--Avala (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say that yes you should make an attempt to discuss the issue and involve other editors. Making an attempt at broad discussion helps your case. The past problems the editor has had don't really factor into this, at least not yet, as this is just a case of two people arguing over content. If he continues acting irrationally and other editors agree with you there, it'll be easier to get the content restored and take administrative action against him for acting against consensus.

I'm not an admin though. Maybe one of them has a different view. Equazcion (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I did try discussing the issue but I was slammed back with conspiracy theories. What if it takes some six months before we get a few editors willing to discuss this (I repeat we are supposed to discuss whether this information should be removed because it supposedly was inserted to change the election results)? This isn't the most active talk page you know. If we allow this, then we can allow anyone to carve out the article based on his personal irrational views and we tell the complaining user to discuss this, to try to achieve consensus. If the talk page is inactive and if the user in question is abusing the slow system we will have thousands of small articles basically vandalized with small hidden vandalism like removing a sentence or a two because other editors will have difficulties reinstating the information. If someone removes relevant and sourced content with irrational reason for doing that it is called vandalism, not content dispute. Otherwise half of the vandalism on Misplaced Pages can be labeled as content dispute ie. everything that is not complete page blanking or adding profanities.--Avala (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This was not resolved but was archived and since the user is continuing to twist the common sense (by seeking consensus to be achieved on the stable version, and acting that his version is the newly born one man consensus) and keeps on reverting my edits that are actually reverts of his blanking I am bringing it back here per agreement to come back if the irrational behavior continues. Please actually read everything above before deciding to take part in this by either archiving or telling me how it's all cool.--Avala (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• I have asked for page protection on the Boris Tadić page. I think both parties should be reminded of the 3RR rule here as both are clearly over the line. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and warned both users of 3RR via TWINKLE. Avala, don't take it personal, it is just a standard warning. I wanted to cover all bases with the warning. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I made myself quite clear here what my intentions are and why I started the process (to not end up in an edit war and 3RR breach) and I think I presented the situation quite clearly. It's not my fault that it got archived with no resolution, and no response from an admin. All the other details are present above where I clearly explained what is the problem all about, why is not a content dispute but something that requires admin action which is long overdue, and why it can't be resolved through discussion with the other user (though I did try as well some other users involved) as the user in question is first of all irrational in the sense that he is twisting the situation so that according to him the stable version needs to be proven on talk page and not his recent blanking (which is in turn based on conspiracy theory that can not be a valid edit reason) and secondly because he has a history of disruptive behavior including several warnings, ANI reports and a block.

I am not taking the warning personally but I find it very unnecessary for a user (me) who brought the whole thing to your attention and for a user who brought it to your attention in order to avoid the thing that the warning is all about. Anyway I still thank you for some action because prior to it the only reaction from others was to dump this into archives or rename it.--Avala (talk) 10:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait, you are not an admin either? Will any admin appear on the Administrators' noticeboard?--Avala (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to be an admin to post on the admin board. I am just here to help. It might be a couple before the admins and other users get out of bed. It is only 7am on the east coast of the US, only 11am in the UK. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm awake. A few points: in response to your comment "therefore we can say that is part of the established consensus", consensus can change. User:Equazcion was quite right in advising that content disputes should be discussed on article talk pages and that you should invite broader community input so that you can establish whether or not consensus is still with the inclusion of that information. He gave you links to some places where you can invite wider community input so that you don't have to wait months for somebody to show up at the talk page. If consensus is reached and a contributor continues editing the article to promote his preferred version, you have clear evidence of disruption. In the absence of current consensus, except where clear vandalism is ongoing, you have a content dispute. This is not clear vandalism, as this individual has expressed reasons for the removal at your talk page and in edit summary (derived from WP:UNDUE and Misplaced Pages:Synthesis). This one has not crossed 3RR, but is an edit war nevertheless, and I have temporarily fully protected the article to allow time for the consensus to emerge. This does not mean that I am in support of your version; protection is applied to whichever version happens to exist at the time. Neither do I support his. But the two of you need to seek consensus. --Moonriddengirl 11:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes consensus can change but if there is no consensus to change the consensus than it has to be sought on the talk page not through edit wars. And as for the reasons, I already said that anyone can disrupt WP then if we allow for the reason to be "you added this to the article so he could win the election" because that is a conspiracy theory and not a valid reason that can be discussed. As for reasons that were linking to Misplaced Pages policies they are bogus as the content has a source and it doesn't take more than a minute to check it if you don't believe me. Again anyone can go and disrupt Misplaced Pages and give a random Misplaced Pages policy as a reason. I could go and remove some well referenced content and say "no original research" but that is simply a fake reason as the content I removed has a source so I can't make a serious claim that I did it because it was original research. We should really sanction perjury in Misplaced Pages to avoid anyone disrupting Misplaced Pages based on completely false claims that have got absolutely nothing to do with the case in question. Imagine if I go and blank any page and say "NPOV" or remove half of some page and say "no original research", would admins really tell the user that would normally revert such an edit to discuss the issues of npov and nor with me? It's ridiculous. Also I don't see the point of directing me to talk with this user over and over again when from the first moment I said two things - first of all that I already tried talking to him so that is not a new idea, second of all it failed and not to my surprise knowing his history. Now I don't see the point in giving me optimistic proposals while you can yourself see it's going nowhere and while you yourself wouldn't be able to resolve the issue based on your suggestions. I appreciate that you are doing something here, but if this was so easily solvable you would have solved it yourself as a neutral party and good faith admin that wants disputes to be resolved as fast as possible but you know you can't solve it that way in situations like this. It's not that simple, actually nowhere near simple but probably impossible and that is why I came here.--Avala (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict; replying only to what you had originally written) I have all confidence that I would be able to resolve the issue based on my suggestions, and have resolved a number of issues using that very approach. I've volunteered my time at a number of boards created to help with these very kinds of situations: WP:3O, WP:BLPN, for two. Even as an admin, I frequently seek exactly this kind of assistance at WP:COIN. You may have tried talking to him, but if you have read "dispute resolution" then you should know that it doesn't stop there; the next step when two people don't agree is involving other contributors. This does not require administrator input; all contributors are equally welcome to contribute to consensus, and the fora that were recommended to you are good ones for getting exactly the kind of input you need. In the absence of current consensus, there is no unilateral disruption here. Neither of you is following Misplaced Pages:Consensus policy. The article is protected. While it is, you should seek to resolve your differences in accordance with that policy. --Moonriddengirl 13:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

What I said was referring to directing me all the time to talk with him when I have already tried that and explained here why it doesn't work. As for the third party, I can only see one other editor that was involved in this same discussion and LAz17 wasn't any nicer to him either. This user is no longer active, edits only here and then. But LAz17 didn't forget him, though he didn't consider what was written to him as an argument, as a discussion but "You and paxequilibrium on purpose lied ...". That's how he sees attempts to talk to him - as lies on purpose, the words he wrote more than a few times on my talk page.--Avala (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussing on the talk page isn't necessarily about talking to him. It's about putting it where other contributors to the article can join the conversation...and, if necessary, requesting that others contribute. If two editors reach a stalemate on a matter of text in an article, additional editors can break the stalemate. At the point when, say, five editors agree that the material does or does not belong, it is no longer an edit war if the sixth continues to edit the article to push his or her preferred view. At the point that a contributor continues "to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors", you have disruptive editing, and then it is a matter for admin intervention. But clear consensus must exist before you have clear violation of consensus, and a conversation between three editors from January of 2008 does not establish clear consensus. That further conversation is needed is rather underscored by the fact that a fourth contributor has now weighed in and opposes the inclusion. It seems more discussion of the material is needed. --Moonriddengirl 20:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Avala - Please don't make changes to the archives. The header at the top of archive page that says not to do it is for-real. I hesitated to undo the edit, I don't want to make things worse.- Sinneed 13:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I am sorry about that, didn't even notice. However much bigger problem in my opinion was dumping this into archives in the first place as it wasn't resolved.--Avala (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

A neurosurgeon said: "A hospital is where you go to get better. You go home to get well." - The article and the article talk page are eventually where the problems in the article will be resolved.

The admins can only do limited things to help. Like... protect the article in a random state to give time for editors to work out their differences without wp:edit warring. This is also a place where editors interested in helping with problems watch for problems with which to help.

In this case, the article is now protected, and you now have suggestions about how to move forward including avoiding wp:edit warring (no matter how right one is, edit war is not the way, and my revert button finger itches too) and possibly seeking help through wp:conflict resolution. I don't see either of you discussing the problem with the quote on the talk page during the edit war.- Sinneed 15:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no concensus. Avala specifically avoids the talk page, as there is no consensus. Avala is a supporter of tadic and thus his POV wants to keep something there. Putin in no way endorsed tadic, the letter he sent was mainly focused on business, particularly in the energy sector. The talk from the past agreed to remove the information, yet someone put it back. I was involved back then, and am involved again, in order to remove this POV. A discussion has reopened to discuss this matter on the talk page, and clearly Avala is ignoring it. So far the consensus on the talk page is that this should not be part of the article. But, Avala ignores it, as he has a POV which is one of tadic's supporters. This is quite significant, because it is well known that tadic's ideology is against russia, and that most serbian people want closer relations to russia. By having such fallacy on wikipedia, it can help nurture more support for this corrupt president. I do not endorse any political party, and tend to think that most politicians are bad, be it putin, tadic, obama, or others. The point is that supports of certain candidates must not be allowed to transform an article into their own POV propaganda. (LAz17 (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)).

A 3rd opinion has been offered by user:No such user. I see there was discussion way back in Jan 2008 on this, with 2 editors for inclusion and one opposed, disagreeing about what the source said. There is now a new discussion area Talk:Boris Tadić#Putin stuff. Which, at this point, neither of the 2 in the current content dispute seem to have joined.- Sinneed 19:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Evidence of the IP's edit history strongly suggests one of them has. :) (Note I'm not suggesting sock puppetry, but more likely that somebody forgot to log in.) --Moonriddengirl 20:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There were three users back then. Me, Avala, and some guy, Pax. I am not very familiar with pax, but he is a problematic user who has been banned in the past for having very many sock puppets. On top of that, his contribution in the discussion a complete lie. I exposed his lie, and he did not show up again in the discussion. He said that Putin congratulated Tadic on his future presidency, which clearly all sides here agree that he did not. Therefore Pax falls off as a legitimate/worthy source to get information from. Later avala insists that pax was correct about future presidency - and disappears from the discussion. (LAz17 (talk) 05:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)).

So does this diatribe claiming how I am "tadic's supporter" and "By having such fallacy on wikipedia, it can help nurture more support for this corrupt president." still leave any room for people to suggest to me to give another try to discussing the matter with this user? The second quote continues directly from the previous conspiracy that adding this information to the article helped or was intended to help change the election results (and now also includes elements of libel for calling Tadic a corrupt president, followed by funny claim of impartiality). So all my coherent arguments are countered with conspiracy theories, of attacks that I write "lies on purpose" or "Avala is a supporter of tadic and thus his POV wants to keep something there" etc. I assume good faith but I keep getting slapped.--Avala (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you read of the text on this page about dispute resolution and the point of inviting other contributors? --Moonriddengirl 22:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

How many people is enough for there to be a consensus? We got one third opinion, which sides with me. Do we need more? (LAz17 (talk) 04:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)).

Who is siding with you, we are discussing the issue. And how about you stomping over the user PaxEquilibrium and calling me and him liars on purpose etc. At that time you had a different logic.--Avala (talk) 11:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

More can help. 2-1 is not a very strong consensus. There is nothing wrong with seeking additional feedback to more definitively settle the matter. Given the nature of the issues, you might want to ask for input at WP:NPOVN. Another good possibility is Misplaced Pages:Content noticeboard. Please be sure to word any request civilly and neutrally to avoid canvassing. --Moonriddengirl 12:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yorkshirian

• Yorkshirian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Yorkshirian
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Yorkshirian
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive563#English Defence League

First up, if you're one of the usual people that reply to any thread within minutes saying it's a content dispute and doesn't belong at ANI, please don't reply. This isn't a content dispute as such, although content is involved obviously. Since being unblocked in July following a year long Arbitration Committee ban and subsequent indefinite block for evading the ban using sockpuppets, Yorkshirian has continued to edit in the same problematic way. In fact, I believe below is evidence that every single type of problematic behaviour detailed in the finding of fact in the Arbitration Committee case still applies right now. I really don't want to go to RFC as when editing is this bad I consider having to jump through hoops to find someone willing to certify an RFC to be unhelpful, especially when an editor has had ample opportunity to learn from their mistakes after a year's ban. So I'd rather try and deal with the problem here, and if a consensus can't be reached I'll be happy to take it to the Arbitration Committee.

Yorkshirian's editing is generally problematic in various areas (although improving in other areas apparently, for the sake of balance), in particular with regards to the far right in the UK and related articles about anti-fascists who oppose the far right, attempting to paint the former in a more positive light and the latter in a more negative light. Dealing with articles one at a time, or actually two at a time for the first two since they involve the exact same content and problems.

• Red Action (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Anti-Fascist Action (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Short version. Two people who happened to be members of Red Action and/or Anti-Fascist Action (AFA) became involved with the Provisional IRA and took part in a bombing campaign, for which they were jailed for 30 years. Yorkshirian believes that both the Red Action and AFA articles should mention this. Others disagree with the inclusion (especially for Red Action, which is a short article and causes major undue weight problems), for example if a Greenpeace member becomes an Animal Rights Militia member and bombs a lab, does that belong in the Greenpeace article, and would that get a "terrorism" category too? Problems include undue weight, POV language, inappropriate categories, personal attacks, accusations of vandalism, edit warring, assumptions of bad faith and flat-out lying about what books actually say. Diffs:

• - Initial addition of the problematic content. Note the inappropriate and POV use of "bombing their home country", which is a judgmental view that does not appear in the source, it is Yorkshirian's own opinion. Also note the use of this unreliable source which is nothing to do with Searchlight (magazine), it is a far right spoof website.
• - Adds "terrorism" category (in addition to an unsourced and incorrect "communism" category on one diff, AFA are not communist. They had communist members, anarchist members, and all sorts of other members. Their only political position was anti-fascism, they were single-issue).
• - Claims removal of information with well explained edit summaries are vandalism.
• - More edit warring to retain the information above, including personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith.
• - More personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith.
• - After an editor points out neither book deals with Red Action, Yorkshirian responds by saying "Both book mentions Red Action explicity", this is a lie. The books being referred to are The Irish War by Tony Geraghty (Google Books link to the relevant page, and feel free to use the search function on the left to search the book for "Red Action", zero results, and neither does "Red Action" appear in the print version I also have), and Terrorism, 1992-1995: a chronology of events and a selectively annotated bibliography by Edward F. Mickolus (Google Books search for "Jan Taylor", Google Books search for "Patrick Hayes", Google Books search for "Red Action"), where as you can see both people involved are mentioned on page 282, yet there is no mention of Red Action.

• Stop the Islamification of Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Short version. A group in the UK have been protesting against Islam and have been met by counter-demonstators and there has been rioting. Yorkshirian has attempted to smear anyone saying anything negative about the group or who oppose the group. Problems include accusations of vandalism, original research, POV language, edit warring, assumptions of bad faith

• - Two tendentious claims added. First is that present at a demonstration were "Muslims who claimed to be there to "defend the mosque"" sourced by this, when no such quote is attributed to Muslims. Depending on your reading of the actual sentence, the Muslims could have been there for the same reason but it is ambiguous, thus failing WP:V which says citations have to be unambiguous. The second tendentious claim is that "The Muslims and the far-left rioted, attacking the police with bricks, bottles and firecrackers" sourced by the same source, which gives no information as to who was actually attacking the police, be they "far-left" (that label is also Yorkshirian's own invention, as it does not appear in the source), Muslim or Stop the Islamification of Europe.
• - Adds unsourced "left-wing" description to John Denham.
• - Adds "with riots against the police" to the sentence "Unite Against Fascism have opposed the group" sourced by this, which again gives no information as to who the rioters were, and does not directly implicate UAF.
• - Edit warring to maintain those tendentious additions, complete with a slight on a contributor for editing anonymously and a false accusation of vandalism.
• - Related to the above. Combines the title of this source ("Islamic groups riot with police in Harrow") with a sentence from this source ("Bricks, bottles and firecrackers were thrown at police officers who were present in riot gear at the scene") to create the synthesised sentence "Islamic demonstrators clashed with the police, throwing bricks, bottles and firecrackers", despite objections about OR in an ongoing discussion.
• - Assumes bad faith and says removal of information sourced by an unreliable source was "partisan removal of sourced LDN info by Nickhh. rationale seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT", when Nickhh had explained on the talk page why it was unreliable.

• English Defence League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Short version. A group in the UK linked to Stop the Islamification of Europe, similiar demonstrations with similar violent reactions and similar condemnation from politicans and the press. Again, Yorkshirian has attempted to smear anyone saying anything negative about the group or who oppose the group. Problems include accusations of vandalism, original research, POV language, edit warring, assumptions of bad faith, misrepresentation of sources

• - "sort out some militant left bias inserted by Presbo" edit summary first of all. Opening sentence changed to "The English and Welsh Defence League is a British pressure group which organises protests against what it regards as Islamism, the introduction of Sharia law to the UK and a percieved errosion of civil liberties against native people under New Labour governance", sourced by this (which sources that the EDL and Casuals United have held a number of "explicitly anti-Muslim rallies" with more to follow), this (which sources EDL protests against Islamic extremism and the use of sharia law in Britain) and this (which sources an upcoming EDL rally against Islamic extremism). So the "percieved errosion of civil liberties against native people under New Labour governance" is a Yorkshirian invention. The claim that UAF "violently react to protests" held by the EDL is also unsourced, and the addition of "(a town in which Islamists recently held protests against the British Army)" with regard to Luton looks like a clear attempt to push a point of view that Muslims are allowed to protest in Luton yet "English" people are not.
• - Same sources as above edit, used to source the claim that the EDL oppose the spread of Islamic terrorism in the United Kingdom, none of which even contain the word "terrorism". Another invention by Yorkshirian. Also removes substantial content correctly cited from this source claiming "unsourced POV by JzG", considering JzG's changes are properly sourced and Yorkshirian's are his own opinions, what?!
• - Changes "anti-fascist" to "far-left", despite both sources saying "anti-fascist" and never mentioning "far-left".
• - Further attempt to add the "Islamic terrorism" claim. Labels the BBC as "left-wing", as well as John Denham again.
• - Another attempt to add the "Islamic terrorism" claim, as well as labelling John Denham as left-wing again.
• - Adds claim that counter protesters are "far-left...who call themselves "anti-fascists"". Source is no longer on the original link, but it's an AP story which can be seen here. The "far-left" label is attributed to the EDL, yet Yorkshirian insists that the EDL cannot be simply called "far-right", it must be attributed. Reasonable enough, if the same applies to "far-left" which it clearly doesn't! The "who call themselves "anti-fascists"" addition is quite laughable, considering the dozens of sources relating to the incidents that call them exactly that.
• - Changes the previous AP reference to this source, where the label "far-left" does not ever appear.
• - Unexplained removal of {{UK far right}} with misleading edit summary.
• - Adds irrelevant information about John Denham being a member of the Fabian Society, seemingly to try and discredit his opinion of the EDL.
• - Changes that the EDL chanted "We hate Muslims" at pro-Palestinian demonstrators at International al-Quds Day to the claim that they chanted it at "Hezbollah demonstrators", despite the source saying nothing of the sort.
• - Changes "pro-Palestinian demonstrators" to "a Palestine themed demonstration, featuring Islamic immigrants (some with Hezbollah flags" based on this image (and a Guardian hosted video for the second diff), which does not in any way support the "Islamic immigrants" addition and neither does the already cited source.
• - Proposes that the article should say "the far-left have levelled the term far-right at the EDL. This is used mostly as a form of newspeak to try and blacklist, as the EDL has yet to produce any political goal other than peaceful protest against the far-right Islamist movement". So apparently almost every media outlet in the UK is now "far-left", and they use the term for the reason in the second sentence. And don't get me started on "the far-right Islamist movement"
• Assumes bad faith and shows his obvious politcal leanings with "The recent edits which you put into the article are clearly bias in favour of violent communist militias IMO" and reference to "reds", which in the UK is a term used almost exclusively by far-right activists, I'm sure you've all heard of Redwatch?
• - Refers to some unions out of National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education, Communication Workers Union, UNISON and the TUC, as "corrupt unions", which is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read.

There's more besides, but I wanted to keep things relatively brief. Everything that got him banned by the Arbitration Committee is still being done - "personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith", "edit-warring", "attempts to use Misplaced Pages as a battleground along geographical, cultural, and ideological lines" - yes to all three. The admin who unblocked him has already warned Yorkshirian of problems with his editing and said "the next valid complaint I receive about you will lead to the indef block being reinstated. Examples include but are not limited to: revert warring, editing against consensus, or being rude to anyone in any way. If I am not around to do it, an other admin can so so with my blessing", so perhaps it is time for that to be put into action? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• User:One Night In Hackney - Here is a short answer to a long thread (which I read and reviewed thoroughly). You have a strong case here and I agree that an indef block is warranted. Manning (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Yorkshirian since being unblocked has made alot of good contributions to different articles. This character assassination is unfair and doesnt belong here. If you had a problem with some of his actions or comments, you should have questioned them at the time, instead of plotting and creating this long list of examples which has clearly been in the works a long time. Disgraceful BritishWatcher (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Thoguh I've only been involved in the English Defence League article, I can't do anything but agree with the evidence that BW has brought up here. Yorkshirian has a distinct POV in these articles and constantly edit-wars and fights against anything negative being added, as well as adding wildly inaccurate and inflammatory speeches on their talkpages, especially that of the EDL. Editors who need more evidence need only look over that article's talkpage to see what he's been upto. Skinny87 (talk) 13:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Whoops. That should be 'One Night in Hackney' and not BritishWatcher, my apologies to both of you. Skinny87 (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I was about to post here in partial defence of Yorkshirian - despite my fundamental opposition to many of his edits, and concerns about his behaviour - then realised that the block had already been reapplied, without the opportunity for any debate. A very hasty and regrettable decision has been taken, in my view. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
          • Ghmyrtle - I have no doubt this user had the potential to be useful to the project. I have no doubt that since his release he has made some useful contributions. Now I am actually regarded as one of the most lenient and forgiving admins around and many admins question my willingness to give people a second chance. Regardless, my decision was a simple and uncontroversial one. His status was not that of an "editor in good standing". His status was of someone who had been released from an indefinite block under very stringent conditions of good behaviour. He clearly breached these conditions and therefore the block was reinstated. I had no alternative. Manning (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
            • I hear what you say, and under the rules I'm sure you are correct - but I think it is unfortunate, firstly, that Yorkshirian was not given more specific warnings recently; and secondly that other involved editors were not given an opportunity to comment. I know Yorkshirian can be abusive (as can many other editors, of course) but in my opinion he is more willing than some other editors to back down in the face of conclusive evidence and guidance; he has contributed constructively to many articles, which I think is common ground; and so far as I am aware there has been no repetition of his previous sockpuppetry. Perhaps I'm just being naive here, but I would have thought that a short sharp ban, to bring him to his senses re his occasionally abusive comments, would have been better on this occasion than an indef one. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
            • How do people know they are "stepping over the line" if the first time its raised is when a long list of actions is presented here instead of them being told at the time to stop? BritishWatcher (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
              • You mean apart from the Request for Comment, the Request for Arbitration, the Arbcom case, being blocked, then being unblocked under the strict ruling that he not start up his old behaviour...then starting it up again? Skinny87 (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
                • He should have been dealt with at the time if he stepped over the line, not have this huge list of examples over a period of time added here, with no possible way to defend himself as hes already been blocked so cant post here. Thats unfair BritishWatcher (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
                  • (od)No, it really isn't He was blocked the last time for doing this kind of thing, then unblocked under the strict proviso he not continue what he was doing. He did, and now he suffers the consequences. Skinny87 (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Summary of review: The user involved has been indef blocked on previous occasions, in addition to the Arbcom remedy of a 12 month ban. The reversal of the block came about after extensive pleading and promises to adopt acceptable Misplaced Pages practices. These assurances have been reneged upon. I see no further reason to assume good faith with this user. The indef block has been reinstated. Manning (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Considering when other people bring matters to this place about editors disgraceful actions they get told to bugger off, the double standards is incredible. For example, every time an issue is raised about an editor who has been sanctioned by Arbcom for her anti British pov pushing, people get told its a content matter and to get lost. Disgusting and offensive hipocracy from this place as always BritishWatcher (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• Good block Manning Bartlett continued disruption since return. BigDunc 13:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with the re-block. As I pointed out to Theresa Knott, Yorkshirian had involved himself in eleven problems in only the first 48 hours since his unblock: . I stopped paying attention after that but I know he was warned about various things since then, so I imagine things continued as disruptively after that time as well. From the beginning of this thread, that is obviously the case. This is a user who socked mercilessly for most of his recent ban with nasty threats and intimidation any time he was caught, so I was of the strong belief that he shouldn't have been unblocked in the first place. I was right. Wknight94 14:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, editors were dealing with this without blocks, and actually tackling the content issue (which is a content dispute, despite the framing here, and was directed to the NPOV noticeboard the last time that it came up at AN/I) at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#"far-left" and "far-right" at English Defence League and elsewhere. It's somewhat misleading to frame English Defence League as Yorkshirian-versus-the-world, and to then treat it as such. For starters, there's another editor on Talk:English Defence League who agrees with Yorkshirian. And the diffs above are somewhat selective, ignoring edit summaries by Yorkshirian such as "seems to be talk consensus to mention labour, but not 'wings'", for example. Uncle G (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I just want to point out to BW that the evidence regarding RA/AFA is from the last couple of days, and the other stuff is pretty recent too. Also the diff from Theresa Knott (it's right at the end of the post by ONiH) pointing out that Yorkshirian would be indef blocked on receipt of the next valid complaint, so he had ample warning in addition to having been banned for a year for what he's still been doing. BigDunc 14:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I endorse this block. Yorkshirian has made some decent contributions in his time, but the catalog of PoV-push edit-warring detailed here really do suggest he's poorly suited to a collaborative environment like this. Reinstating the indef-block does seem the only solution at this point - letting him back was worth trying, I think, but the experiment has pretty clearly failed. He's had his opportunities to reform, and has not. ~ mazca 14:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Restatement of my decision - there seems to be some confusion about what went on here, so I will restate it.

• Yorkshirian was released from his block under very specific conditions which related to no disruptive editing, no personal attacks, and no POV pushing. The most recent warning he received from Admin Theresa Knott in late July was quite explicit in that a single act of reoffending would incur reinstatement of the block.
• There is clearly at least one incident of reoffending in the numerous examples given above. As a result I saw no option but to fulfill the warning already issued.
• I remind all concerned that Yorkshirian was NOT an editor in good standing who deserved the protection of WP:AGF. He was a user who had been released from an indefinite block under strict conditions. All of the demands for fairness above fail to recognise that all manners of fairness have already been extended.
• BritishWatcher - If there are other users being the beneficiary of a "double standard" then by all means inform us. We cannot act on vague statements of unfairness, but need solid evidence we can review. I assure you we treat all cases of misconduct with impartiality. Manning (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you manning, the next time a matter is raised here about someone who has been sanctioned by arbcom for their past actions i hope it wont simply be dismissed as a content dispute or their comments ignored. As Yorkshirian is not able to discuss this matter here as hes blocked, perhaps you could atleast try to explain your reasons to him on his talk page where he can atleast try to defend himself. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Not to dredge up the past, but he was only unblocked after an agreement with Theresa Knott made in January 2009 or so. By rights, his ban should have been reset to one year at that point since he had not served any of it (instead creating dozens of socks for the first half of the ban). If that had happened, we wouldn't be having this discussion - he'd still be serving the original ban until next January or so. So he got off very easy and has returned the favor by disrupting the project at numerous turns starting almost the moment he was unblocked. If ever there was a preventive block, this was it. Wknight94 15:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

BritishWatcher - I assure you that if such a situation arises and you feel you are getting dismissed on AN/I then please feel free to contact me directly. As far as Yorkshirian, this highly POV diff alone was sufficient to reinstate the indefinite block, as it is in clear violation of the findings of Arbcom. (There are numerous others which were equally unacceptable.) There is no defending it, so there is simply no point in discussing the matter further. Manning (talk) 15:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm torn between regarding him as (i) an example of an lovable english eccentric, who amuses (Fascist football hooligans described as innocent christians defending their faith against islamic terrorists to take one of this comments) and a useful editor on esoteric issues (recent material on England), or (ii) a major force for disruption as evidenced above. Overall I would endorse the ban. I'm not sure why BW is opposing this, OK there is an overlap in their political perspective but a disruptive editor is a disruptive editor. Also BW, I do think you should name names, making generalised accusations is not helpful. On Yorkshirian, It might be an idea to leave it three months and then consider allowing him back in under "supervised edits" ie requiring prior approval, he has done some useful detailed work, its just a pity he couldn't confine himself to that. --Snowded 15:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request - Yorkshirian has formally requested a block review at User_talk:Yorkshirian#ANI. As the blocking admin I obviously cannot conduct this review, so I'd be grateful if someone else could examine it. Manning (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Very problematic block I started looking through the evidence and there were some problems. But the dispute clearly has two sides. The same person objecting to Yorkshirian's use of terms like "left-wing" keeps using problematic terms like "right-wing". The Irish British feuding has been very problematic lately. Some sort of mediation is needed. Perhaps some limitations like using the talk page and getting consensus might be helpful. But I don't see that this block before we've heard from the accused and before we've had a chance to discuss the problem and work through it is helpful. I support an unblock at least to allow Yorkshirian to post here. Asking him to limit himself to the talk pages while an investigation is carried out would have been a lot more helpful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• For example just looking at the EDL article I see the very first sentence is problematic as it uses the wording "professed aim". Clearly this is not NPOV and casts doubt on what their aims really are. We don't do that kind of thing. All the parties involved should slow down and we should work out a way to work through the disputes to address the issues of dispute one by one. This is in fact a content dispute with passions high on both sides. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

So your logic is that both sides are in the wrong. Only Yorkshirian was already in a final final final last-chance situation. An Arbcom ban isn't just a time out, it's a message that such action will not be tolerated. Not only has he returned to the exact same stomping grounds engaging in the exact same activity, but there is good behavioral evidence that Yorkshirian = Daddy Kindsoul (talk · contribs) which means he's twice been banned for the same activity! Maybe he's not edit warring with the same people as back then, but he's still edit warring. He is the common thread in all of the edit warring situations that he is blocked/banned for. And listen to him below with the thinly-veiled threat, "I have an unstoppable ability to create thousands of socks at will". And the ludicrous socking claim, "which I have stopped completely". Of course he stopped socking - he was unblocked! He has probably been busy all day creating socks in order to pick up right where he left off. And the claim that he was indeffed last year "ONLY for socking" - not true, he was indeffed for socking to evade the year-long ban. It's just going to go round and round like this forever. It's all about community patience and he's worn it out for sure. Wknight94 17:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• This is not just a content dispute it's a user conduct dispute. The finding of fact on the RFAR regarding Yorkshirian's conduct had three things - personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith, edit-warring, attempts to use Misplaced Pages as a battleground along geographical, cultural, and ideological lines. The first two are easy to show just by providing diffs which ONiH has done above, the third has to involve analysis of content to show that it applies. BigDunc 17:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't an agreement from Yorkshirian to limit himself to the talk pages of the disputed articles for the time being solve the problem? Other editors involved in the dispute should ALSO be trying to use the dispute resolution mechanisms. Mediation is needed. Simply blocking one side or the other doesn't seem constructive to me. Where will it end? The last ones standing get to edit the article? Why don't we all agree to slow down, use the talk pages, and establish a mediation venue where the disputes can be worked out according to our policies. A little while ago people were trying to go after Irish editors, now it's an English editor, let's come together as Misplaced Pages editors. There are major differences in perspectives, but we can work through the content issues in good faith. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

COM - if this was in any way a content issue I would complete agree. However I have so far treated this as purely a behavioural and conduct issue. What I see from the evidence is a pattern of behaviour repeating itself - a pattern for which Arbcom has already issued a 12 month ban which was then circumvented via sockpuppetry. I don't see myself as going after any editor or favouring any standpoint. Manning (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Addendum - Regardless of the conduct issue, I think your suggestions about comprehensive mediation for the content dispute overall are highly valid. Manning (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward

• Yorkshirian has agreed on his talk page to limit himself to the talk page of the Red Action article. He's also agreed to use follow the dispute resolution procedures by using the appropriate noticeboards and getting outside input when there is a dispute, instead of reverting back and forth. He's also been reminded to comment on content and not other editors. The same approach should be followed by other editors working on these articles. His "history" shouldn't make him more of a target or exempt others editors from following the same rules. Comments and edit summaries addressing other editors instead of article content, and revert warring with hostile edit summaries will result in interventions that are never pleasant. You've all been warned. :) Please try to work in a more collegial and collaborative manner and work through content disputes using the discussion pages and relevant noticeboards where outside opinions and perspectives from experienced editors can help resolve disagreements. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah? Sounds like what he said in January. And again when he was unblocked. And again a few days after that. And what will his answer be in 3 weeks when it happens again? Let me guess - "Yes, I'll limit myself to collegial discussion"? And how about 2 weeks after that? The same? Ad nauseum...? Wknight94 20:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• (ec) Is that not what editors are supposed to be doing especially an editor who was given another chance after promises to change their behavior and when blocked for repeating what they had been sanctioned before on, they then say that they will do what they should have done since their unblock, bit late is it not? BigDunc 20:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Also could I point out that while blocked he said vandalistic removal of referenced information as part of republican POV editing about the editing of ONiH. Hardly an act of contrition and could probably be seen as a personal attack at worse or a disregard for AGF. BigDunc 20:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Response

Yorkshirian has requested the ability to respond here, so I've created a section of his talk page in which he can do so. I am transcluding it below. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 15:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to my talk.

Click to start a new section House of Neville Impressive work! Hope you don't mind, I've put in a few commas and so forth. Have you thought about putting it up for WP:DYK on the main page in the next few days? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC) August 2009 Welcome to Misplaced Pages, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Rhisiart Tal-e-bot. However, please be aware of Misplaced Pages's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Misplaced Pages page, must include proper sources. Thank you. --Joowwww (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC) How amusing. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 02:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC) WP Syria I just wanted to personally welcome you to WikiProject Syria! Yazan (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Catterick I don't know if he's just following you around stirring up trouble wherever he can or if he has actually made useful contributions to the articles that you have been working on. But I figure that you would know that and given that I have just indefinitely blocked him on the grounds that he is far more trouble than he is worth I figure that you may wish to say a few words in his favor. So you are very welcome to contribute here if you want to but do not think that you are obliged to. Theresa Knott | token threats 08:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Old North Neither that website nor that book are reliable sources. I'll respond more fully at the article talk page.--Cúchullain /c 13:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I got ahead of myself. Let's take the discussion back to the article page.--Cúchullain /c 13:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Done.--Cúchullain /c 14:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Nova Scotia I don't disagree with the sentiment of your edit but may I suggest you work up the text in the talk page supported by sources. Slanje va. Justin talk 16:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC) DYK nomination of House of Neville Hello! Your submission of House of Neville at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! hamiltonstone (talk) 02:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Great Britain Probably because almost no-one looked at it. I did, but other priorities got in the way; I wasn't expecting you to act without giving people more opportunity; and, frankly, it would have taken me a great deal of time and effort to engage with you on every point where I think your version could be improved further. I would have hoped I could have helped you out over this over the next few days but, unfortunately, I'll be away on holiday, and I'm sure that at some point over that period you will face further criticism. Sorry. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC) PS: Tactically, I do think that you are much more likely to win people over by proposing one change at a time. Say, by starting with the biodiversity section which most people are likely to find uncontroversial, apart from I expect needing a few tweaks. Then, gradually, suggest the most important changes to the other parts of the article. One of the problems with adding 40K bytes in one edit is that it is simply too much for most of the editors involved in pages like this to cope with at one time, and their instinct will be to hit the revert button, perhaps even without reading what you are proposing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC) I agree it would be far better to add section by section at a time rather than a full change, certainly would make it easier to give feedback, theres just so much information and text to take in (for me anyway) and there are certainly some problems with the changes. I like some parts of the changes but am not sure about other parts. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC) DYK for House of Neville On August 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article House of Neville, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC) More Trouble with Naming Conflicts There has been another attempt to change/reverse the policy on self-identifying names - which would re-open many naming arguments on Misplaced Pages. Having failed to gain consensus for changing the policy on the article talk page, (Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conflict), and despite attempts to reach a compromise on trimming the existing wording, Kotniski and some of his allies have attempted to reverse the policy unilaterally and moved the debate to Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Is_there_consensus_for_this_or_not.3F. In breach of the compromise I have reverted the original wording, extant since 2005. Can you please add your comment at the new discussion. Xandar 23:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Naming conflict page Pmanderson has reverted the original text of the Misplaced Pages:Naming conflict page several times to an unagreed version that is the reverse of the long-standing policy. I have uused my three reverts, so can you, if someone else hasn't already done it, please revert the page to its last version by me - which is the long-established original text? I have asked for page protection, but it is important that the guideline is not compromised. Xandar 20:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC) No, that's meat puppetry and such a request is inappropriate. If there's a problem, take it to somewhere like WP:ANI. Nev1 (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC) You seem to misunderstand Meatpuppetry. Yorkshirian is not a new user, recruited by me. He is involved in these discussions which apply to relevant articles we are involved in. he has a legitimate concern in this dispute and in the instance where one person is repeatedly altering an important guideline without consensus, it is redolent that this be pointed out. Xandar 20:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Power of prayer Hi, Just a note to explain why I changed back the power of prayer page. I had originally called that page Power of Catholic prayer and people objected, saying it was about beliefs. So the titled settled at that. In fact I wrote two articles, one on beliefs on prayer and the other on the Efficacy of prayer as an analysis of cause/effect relationships, so the words power and efficacy are really needed in the titles. I hope you understand the move back. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Naming conflicts proposed changes RfC Those wishing to radically change the WP:Naming conflicts guidance have set up a position statement/poll at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conflict#Positions as a prelude to RfC. Since you have expressed a view on this guideline and have not so far been informed of this, could you now express which proposals you support on the guidance talk page. Xandar 00:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Vatican template I don't see the point why you delete human rights and lgbt rights in Vatican City template when, as i have written, it is common that state topics template's contain these in "politics section". 79.163.220.176 (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC) The first of all - Human rights is not Mumbo jumbo - at least not for the Vatican since they signed it John Paul II in UN, if you wanna say something, you should first get know what your Church says about it. :) I agree that this article doesn't exist so it is now unnecessary to fill it in, but i must disagree with your biased statement about LGBT rights article. Vatican City is sovereign State which is recognized by UN and its members and as I said in state topice template it is common to fill in LGBT rights article in politics section. If you claim that this article is gay lobbying LGBT rights in Vatican City, you can share your ideas in discussion but do not act like homosexuality doesn't exist because even Catholic Catechism discourse about it (I know because I'm Catholic and I have read it). So if you have any specific argument which is not "homosexuality is irrelevant topic" (what does it mean and why?!) share it with me and we can discuss it. Saudi Arabia, UAE are also theocaracies and they contains "LGBT rights section" and it doesn't bother anybody, I don't understand why Vatican City should. I restore LGBT rights. 79.163.220.176 (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC) I see you don't get the idea of sovereignty. As Vatican is such a state and has the right to enact whatever they like laws. LGBT rights is still important part of civil code. I don't understand why you can't see that Vatican is not only 1000 people state but also one of the biggest tourist attractions in whole Europe, they have millions of tourists visiting every year, and believe or not some of them are interested what status does homosexuality have in that place, they have the right to know if they can be punished for homosexuality in this area and I strongly disagree with you that adding "LGBT rights" to this template what is in fact common policy, and you do not throw out this from over countries templates it seems more like you are leading subjective and propaganda. Our Great Pope John Paul II is dead in the matter of fact, but what he has signed is still recognized by Benedict XVI. And it seems you haven't read Roman Catholic Church Catechism there is nothing like you wrote "in fact it actively opposes it" if is, please quote this. Additionally you have written on your page: since this is an encyclopedia not a pressure group. And what you do seems to be a pressure, treating Vatican like it was overcountry. And for the last, I said that I agree that Vatican has no article about human rights, but it does have article about LGBT rights. Whatever you think it seems to be weird for me, because in the matter of fact article about LGBT rights in Vatican City does not stand that Vatican is killing gays or something but you can read there something astonishing like "legal". 79.163.216.171 (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC) And another thing: I'm not lobbying for anything. So I request You to stop impute this to me. OK? 79.163.216.171 (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC) The IP changes because I'm now in another city. I will make an account to make our war easier. As I am A Roman Catholic and I am also homosexual I still strongly consider it is an important part of Vatican City politics and also Catholic Church politics. Otherwise I can not agree with your ad personam arguments and imaginary lobby. The only organisation I am member of is Catholic Church. I do not lobby for anything. I beg your pardon, in many countries as Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Australia and so on, Catholic Chuch is the strongest opposition of LGBT rights so don't try to make me believe or acknowlegde in what you are saying: "since it has no effect on the life or politics there. It is not a significant issue". 79.163.216.171 (talk) 17:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC) As I admire your work on Misplaced Pages, I think that momentary it goes to personal for You. As I don't say that Vatican is bad I just can't recognize your opinion that if something is not in accordance with your faith it shouldn't exist on Misplaced Pages like "LGBT rights". And I am not trying to lobby I just think that if there is common policy in state topics templates (like containing LGBT rights) every state should be treated equal not only for "equality for itself" but because you can not deny that LGBT people exists and as Vatican bans LGBT people as cardinals and so on policy concerning LGBT is important to Roman Catholic Church. 79.163.216.171 (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC) And the last thing: I strongly believe that we can reach some consensus. At least because we are both members of the same Holy Church. And maybe my life is not in total accordance with Catholic teachings but the you can not deny that Vatican does not approve LGBT people as priests which is significant part of it politics even only inside their 0,44 km2. Can You? 79.163.216.171 (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Vatican template Hi I have added section "Sciene" in Vatican City template. I think it is interesting thing about Vatican. I hope when you see it you won't have the willingness to revert this. :) A Man from Poland (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC) I have found only "Christianity and science" in article "Religion and science" but maybe "Science" could direct to "Pontifical Academy of Science"? A Man from Poland (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC) England population density Of course, silly me. Thanks for the correction! Hayden120 (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Template talk:Cornwall I've proposed a splitting out and reorganisation of Template:Cornwall at its talk page, and would welcome your thoughts. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC) England Hey Yorkshirian, I'm in the process of reviewing England for GA. I haven't finished reviewing it as of yet, but as I've mentioned on the review page, I'm going to be placing it on hold. See the review page for the comments I've made so far. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Standard hold time is a week, but as mentioned on the review page, I'm a bit short of time this week, so I'll probably end up dragging it out a bit. I think I should be able to finish up the review tonight (assuming I don't fall asleep at the keyboard), so I'll leave it to you to get to work on it and I'll check in when I can. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC) House of FitzGerald Hi - just wondering if there was any discussion on this move of FitzGerald to House of FitzGerald. There are almost 16k surnames but only 3 with "House of..." in front. Thanks.  7  07:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC) Ok - should we remove the {{surname}} template then? Thanks.  7  07:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC) Kingdom of Desmond Sorry we disagreed on the Geraldines. I love the infobox you added for Kingdom of Desmond and we need its like for a few more. Would you consider adding one for Tyrconnell? Then we have to create an article for Tyrone, which should not be redirecting. Tír Eogain simply redirects to Kings of Tír Eogain and the other spelling Tír Eoghain redirects to County Tyrone just like Tyrone, which is entirely unsatisfactory. I'm not sure how to fix the mess. DinDraithou (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Nice. It looks excellent. I think going with maximum extent is good, like with Thomond, although the southern portion (mostly Uí Fidgenti) was long part of the Earldom of Desmond even though theoretically subject to the O'Briens since Domnall Mor O'Brien took it in 1178 and they remained capable of asserting their authority (Gerald FitzGerald, 3rd Earl of Desmond). As far as the Kingdom of Desmond, actually the maximum extent should be greater and cover part of the southern coast (Barony of Carbery too?), depending in part on the inclusion of MacCarthy Reagh territory. Compare http://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Ireland_1300.png with http://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Ireland_1450.png DinDraithou (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC) SIOE So Stop the Islamification of Europe isn't a far right group?! Ha!  Francium12  07:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC) Folklore The outline I wrote for it (or modified the older form into) is not a mess, nor disorderly and it sticks to the facts more than the one you wish to see on the page. Originally it claimed that Arthurian myths pre-date the Anglo-Saxon invasions which should be blatantly obvious to not be the case when it features a character resisting the Anglo-Saxon invaders. Anglo-Celtic.org does not fit the criteria for a valid source, as a) it says many unverified claims (such as bagpipes being Celtic, Cernnunos being in Britain and becoming Herne The Hunter (which has been suggested but most scholars disagree with this. Cernnunos is a Gaulish God and there is no evidence of "Cernnunos" being in Britain), Morris Dancing being from a Celtic-rite (which flies in the face of most scholarship) and the Maypole being Celtic when it is thought by most scholars to date from after the Romans). It doesn't state its sources unlike the sources I found to fix the article that are from scholarly websites. What is more Anglo-Celtic.org does not say who runs it so for all we know it could be you (or another member) putting in weasel words. And lastly it doesn't state anything connected to King Arthur or the "Matter of Britain". Likewise the other source (which at least is a scholarly one) does not state or imply what is being implied in the article. The section as it is now loaded with weasel words that imply that the so-called "Matter of Britain" is far older than it is, is a survival from the Brythons instead of being a post-Norman mythos *inspired* by Welsh myths, genealogies and Welsh and to a lesser extent English traditional histories. The placing of the Arthurian mythos so prominently gives it undue weight as well as making it look like it is continuous and older than it is, and much of the information is lost. Lastly the section was not any longer than many of the other sections and contrary to you calling it a "mess" (thus deciding to insult (which is against wikipedia's rules in the first place) rather than being rational) it was far more orderly and less biased after my edits (as I don't personally consider it to be folklore, and I disagree with Michael Wood's analysis it does not conform to my views but agree it is of great value regardless that it should be unbiased and be based on current scholarship). I would be happy to trim the section (not that I feel it is needed) but you removing well sourced sections is verging on (if not) vandalism. I shall reinstate the section (which may give the article a better score in its assessment). Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 11:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC) Well, I was going to make a new topic on this same issue. A summary should contain information about the contents, contexts and history of the topic in which it is summarizing and therefore, Sigurd's revision meets the criteria. And I would agree with the few that Anglo-Celtic.com is not a valid source of study as it contains little worthwhile information that can be used for an encyclopedia and in this regard it is similar to the new age wicca books and websites which are criticized by scholars. We know that Cernunnos is a Gaulish and not British good, we know that Morris dancing does not date to Celtic times and we know that bagpipes are common in the Scandinavia, Spain (which admittedly did have Celtic tribes, however, the oldest bagpipe found there was, I believe, pre-Celtic). And Arthurian myths, whether they are folklore or not, do not predate the Anglo-Saxon era but instead are from Wales at the same era with latter Anglo-Norman. I do not feel that the subsection, which is roughly the same length as a lot of the other subsections, needs to be shortened but I do not think it needs to be extended either. The current revision by Sigurd is informative and works well as a study whereas the revision that you, Yorkshirian, reverted to was not. The current one by Sigurd exists upon neutral grounds. whereas, the previous one did not and contained many claims that no historian, archaeologist or folklorist would agree with; the confusion of Gaulish and Gaelish with Brythonic is non-Scientific. The Mummy (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC) To Yorkshirian: The order gives a false impression for one thing, the Matter of Britain should not be at the top. It should give a summary of where it comes from and why it entered the mainstream. In fact the whole "Matter of Britain"/"Arthurian" section gives mostly half truths, no truths and distorted truths. It uses unverifiable sources and it is chronologically incorrect. The prose is not "tight or neat" and neat and I beg to differ on biases. I wrote my edits in such a way as they cannot be seen as biased and do not reflect my own opinions, the version you seem to be so intent on keeping is written with the author's views in mind. After my edits it now looks encyclopedic and should pass the GA. I doubt it should or will pass the GA review as it is. If there is anything you think should be included which isn't under my edit (which is only the unsourced statements and distortions of history) then by all means tell me which they are and I shall accommodate them. As for listing all of Geoffrey of Monmouth's sources, that is an intelligent point and I may trim it rather than listing most of them as they are listed elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC) Now that you are giving sensible suggestions to why you think it can be improved, I shall see what I can do in those regards. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC) Yes, I agree that Geoffrey of Monmouths sources should be trimmed, aswell. I woul dlike to hear your suggestions, Yorkshirian, to see what else could be added or trimmed, however, the general and unbiased wording and layout should remain the same as Sigurd's edits as the previous version was biased and messy. The Mummy (talk) 12:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC) far right and radical nationalism I have restored the prior position on both the article and the template to the position prior to your undiscussed moves on the 17th September. Please discuss such moves first. Just to make it clear, I acknowledge that you do a lot of good work here (many of the recent edits on England) but you really need to proceed with more caution and less polemic on political issues. --Snowded 09:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC) ANI Hello, Administrators' noticeboard. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2 lines of K303 13:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC) I have reviewed all of the evidence presented in the above and see no reason not to reinstate the block alluded by Admin Theresa Knott on 30 July 09 in this diff. Hence you are being blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing and violation of Arbcom directions. This has been noted on the Arbcom case. Manning (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Well, Yorkshirian, you can't say you weren't warned - but, for what it's worth, I think that the hasty decision to reapply a block without the opportunity for discussion was quite inappropriate, and despite our many differences I wish you well. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC) its disgusting how quickly some people are "dealt with" What really bothers me about this case is someone has chosen to document his actions over a long period of time instead of questioning him or telling him he should stop at the time. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Quite. And anyway, I find BritishWatcher far more disruptive than Yorkshirian.. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC) LOL shhhhh!! ;) BritishWatcher (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Concur with Ghmyrtle on all points --Snowded 15:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Per agreed-to conditions for unblock (viewable here) Request handled by: EyeSerene 16:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request. We can transclude this page on WP:ANI for a time. Wknight94 15:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC) I've taken the liberty of creating a section below for that purpose. Feel free to undo me if you don't want such a section. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC) I'm not declining this unblock officially because Yorkshirian has yet to clearly defend himself, which is part of the point. I believe that One Night in Hackney's report on WP:ANI goes into a lot of things that are a content dispute. But there are certainly some things in those diffs that do look to me like a violation of policy, and after Theresa Knott's final warning in July, and given that you were only unblocked after substantial promises to reform, the block is justified. Specifically, your repeated reinsertion of content at Red Action and Anti-Fascist Action, along with edit summaries that at least violate WP:AGF: . Even on just that basis, the block looks justified to me. Mangojuice 16:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Yorkshirian, the dispute is disruptive. You are clearly not solely to blame and there are multiple parties involved, but you are not innocent either. I know you are editing in good faith, but you need to slow down and work through the disputes with other good faith editors and those willing to mediate. I respect your passion, but it's getting in the way of effective article improvement work. Would you be willing to lower the temperature and the intensity of the conflict by taking a more gradual approach and limiting yourself to talk page comments for a time? There are places where outside opinions from indepent parties can be obtained such as WP:BLP/N and WP:Content Noticeboard. Short neutrally worded requests for input on specific issues, one at a time, would be most helpful. It's very hard for us outsiders to keep track of the long arguments. And of course soap boxing and comments on other editors should be avoided by all parties. Or do you have other ideas for a way forward? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Hi CoM. Its mostly just the Red Action article content which is in dispute at present. The other one is from more than a week ago and has already come to a consensus. Yes I'd be willing to do what you said there. On the IRA boming thing, it seriously agitated me, because I'd found the information in books and news articles on the bombers, then to just have ONIH remove it completely was to me unjust. But yes, I'd be willing to do the WP:BLP/N and WP:Content Noticeboard things for it. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Seems reasonable to me. Reverts with the edit summaries you were using (although they made me laugh) are not going to fly. So please 1) use the talk page and 2) seek outside input once a back and forth revert indicates there is a dispute and discussion bogs down. And please focus on the content and not other editors. If others act inappropriately leave a note for Manning or other admins requesting some help to keep discussion and editing focused. And try to be patient. It's going to take some doing to lower the temperature and to get collegial collaboration between the disputants. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC) I think it will take a lot more than that, and its not about any particular article, its the style and nature of the edits coupled with the fact that you were under warning. My gut feel is that you would have as a minimum to agree to cease anything remotely resembling the edit comments etc. that you have been using, Agree not to go near designated articles, only participate on talk pages elsewhere (or at least take a 1RR restriction) and apologise without reservation. I'm not asking you to do that mind, just expressing an opinion that anything less is unlikely to get you back into the fold and even that may not be enough. I'd support a lesser version of that by the way if you need it. I agree with G, you are less disruptive than BW --Snowded 20:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC) I think that's pretty close to what I was suggesting. 1RR sounds reasonable. And a short leash as far as comments and edit summaries is certainly understood as a condition of the unblock. Yorkshirian will you be able to comply with these rules? If you can abide by them I don't see a need for subject limitations. But you're going to have to mind you Ps and Qs for sure. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC) He needs to take the initiative to apologise CoM and he will need to sound like he really means it --Snowded 20:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Agreed, it seems reasonable to get the block lifted and be given another chance. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Likewise, I hope this is the way forward. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC) I apologise for commenting on the editor rather than the edit in the heat of the moment. The actual article content itself however, I feel is worth trying the WP:BLP/N and WP:Content Noticeboard process. For me what was unacceptable, was that after removing the referenced info, ONIH didn't even leave a message on the talk about it. After the hard working of looking all of these things up before I put anything in the article, this was what annoyed me. I'd try the 1RR thing Snowded said. - Yorkshirian (talk) But you said "I have an unstoppable ability to create thousands of socks at will". That makes 1RR an empty promise - you'll just sock your way around it. Wknight94 21:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC) If he was just going to "sock around it" then his account here being blocked makes no difference, hes said he has not done that for some time in talks with the original admin who unblocked him. Surely if hes operating this account at the same time as running socks it makes him MORE likely to be caught out than if he wasnt using this account? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Since coming back, I haven't created any socks at all. Even when disagreeing with some content. I think its pretty well established that I have reformed in that area, since I've not created any for almost a year now. It would be pretty easy and obvious to spot a sock in such circumstances anyway, so its pretty difficult to circumvent. - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC) You'll pardon me, but four attacks over a 19 hour period is not "heat of the moment" Times and diffs: 23:55, 21 September 2009 to 18:47, 22 September 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Red_Action&diff=315396624&oldid=315285787 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Red_Action&diff=315407758&oldid=315403058 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Red_Action&diff=315557133&oldid=315468335 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ARed_Action&diff=315557893&oldid=315431904 This is edit-warring, refusal to assume good faith, and personal attacks in furtherance of your belief that there is a "republican cabal" on Misplaced Pages that has it in for you. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC) As has been pointed out by some others here, there are very strong feelings by different sides over at that Red Action article (i think id best not even look at that one). As that seems to have been the main focus of the problems, Yorkshirian avoding that article completly and being unblocked to carry on editing other articles, many of which hes made productive edits to without major conflict, would address this problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Section break </noinclude> Yorkshirian's comments First of all I would like to say that the block should be removed, (1) because the rationale which ONIH present is riddled with strawmen and this is about simply a content dispute, rather than specific policy or anything else. (2) Manning also rushed in with the ban before I had a fair chance to present a defence and answer the ANI and indef blocking for a mere content dispute when he doesn't seem to understand why I was blocked before, is incorrect. Two points on that; The reason I was blocked on ArbCom, for a year, not indefinetly, was due to pushing regional separatism. Since returning from my block I have completely reformed on this. I have helped editors I previously had problems with, in their tackling of such POV in the project and have helped to build up the England article as a way to make up for past errors. In fact that article is half way through a GA process as we speak and I need to finish off a few things to get it through. The reason I previously had an indef block by Theresa was because of sockpuppeting (I have an unstoppable ability to create thousands of socks at will). Once I agreed to stop socking for around half a year Theresa allowed me to come back. Since then I have reformed on this too, I have not created a single sockpuppet. Reinserting the indef block for an issue of a content is completely illegitimate. Since I was indefed last year ONLY for socking (which I have stopped completely), not content or ArbCom. Now down to the rest: Red Action / IRA — This is the reason ONIH launched the ANI, the rest he just trawled through my contributions to try and create a strawman to bolster his argument. In 1993, two members of the British communist organisation Red Action, Jan Taylor and Patrick Hayes, bombed their own country at Harrods on behalf of the IRA. The full story for quick view is available on The Independent here. One says; "Besides running a big IRA bombing campaign, he was a leading member of Red Action, and his political associates maintain that "he was heavily involved" in their anti-Fascist activities, legal and illegal, "playing a crucial role, right up until he was lifted ". Thus, I put such information, reliably referenced also by two books on the incident into the article on Red Action. ONIH (who happens to be a leftwing British, activist for republicanism in Ireland: see, COI) completely blanked this verifiable information from the article. To give an American equivelent, it would be like an Islamist activist trying to get mentions of 9/11 removed from Al-Qaeda article. Seems an obvious case of vandalism, right? ONIH then preceded to create an extremely weak argument to rip all of the referenced info out, in the summary (other stuff exists) or that it gives "undue weight" because its a small article. In summary, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. No such policy exists to blank referenced information from articles, just because its an underdeveloped article. Lets just say sources for Red Action helping old grannies across the road, are rather slim on the ground. My stance on this is not based on Irish-vs-British; my own personal background is half-Irish, half-Italian. It is the referenced information for the Red Action article about their involvement in carrying out the bombing which I am saying needs to be included. English Defence League / SOIE — ONIH was completely univolved in discussing content or editing these articles around a week ago. He has just created a strawman on here, after furiously rifling through my contributions to try and find anything bolster his presentation. Ie - move attention away from the Red Action issue and his removal of media referenced information. As Uncle G said this was discussion and differing opinions between various editors on content, ONIH's framing & selective commenting on the diffs is complete strawman. I cited my sources & presented an argument, collaborating with editors on the talk, some editors presented similar arguments, some presented different opinions. Even the two editors who most strongly disagreed with my opinion there, & I in some sense "know" & work with on different articles across Misplaced Pages (Snowded and Ghmyrtle) are not throthing at the mouth here, which is telling on the extremely dubious framing by ONIH. For instance Ghmyrtle says above: "in my opinion he is more willing than some other editors to back down in the face of conclusive evidence and guidance; he has contributed constructively to many articles .. so far as I am aware there has been no repetition of his previous sockpuppetry." I'll just give a couple of examples of the mischaracterisation of the diffs in this content dispute, presented by ONIH above. If this reply itself does not convince I'm willing to go through each one, till the point is got across. Keep in mind you do not have to be a communist to edit Misplaced Pages (thankfully). regarding left, far-left and so on. The organisation who have rioted with the police in protest against these groups (UAF) are described by the press as "socialists". They are described by the Guardian as part of the "far left". They were formed out of a group belonging to the Trotskyite Socialist Workers Party. The article didn't mention the position or origins of their opposition at all, so I felt this relevent—I even used references from left wing sites, to present the argument. ONIH spuriously claims I removed the organisation chanting "We Hate Muslims". Yet the diff he presents shows that I did no such thing at all. In the edit I added that some of the Islamist marches, where EDL protested (they claim to be opposed to "Islamism, terrorism and so on) were flying the yellow flags of Hezbollah. I used for reference, this video report the Guardian website, which you can see the yellow flags. And also this picture from the Associated Press. Though again this is simply content, some editors agreed, some disagreed, we worked to come to a consesus (ONIH wasn't even involved). Based on all of this and repeating what I said at the very start, I should be unbanned, since it is completely unwarranted, completely unrelated to ArbCom, more importantly the sockpuppeting which I was previous indefed for. This is simply a disagreement on content, nothing "malicious", I'm always proving references, collaborating and discussing to come to a consensus. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Reply to Manning below. You rushed in from my view, because you didn't even give me a chance to reply at ANI first before you formed an opinion (other editors have said the same). You didn't give other editors actually involved a chance to make comment either, rather took ONIH's dodgy propaganda presentation on face value, which has since been described as selective and dubiously framed by people actually involved (including ones who disagreed with me on the articles themselves). In the ArbCom thing you see there about "geographical and cultural". That is what its refering to, regarding my previous (now reformed) regionalist pushing. Read through the ArbCom case. In any case, I served half a year block without editing for it. As for "POV editing", I present verifiable sources, collaborate on talks and come to a consensus—all completely within editing policy. There are no rules against presenting referenced information some might not agree with. You don't seem to be assuming good faith on it, perhaps take into account comments above such as ChildofMidnight. If a block can be handed out on that basis, then you should block ONIH too, for vandalistic removal of referenced information as part of republican POV editing. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC) So what you're saying is that because you're pushing an extreme English nationalist POV and not your former English Regionalist POV (if there is actually a significant difference between the two strongly overlapping camps), it is somehow not a problem? Sorry, that doesn't wash. You are soapboxing, misrepresenting sources, using mainspace to pursue a political agenda including against living individuals, and you seem unwilling to admit that there is much of a problem with this. The only way you are ever going to be able to edit without turbulence, in my view, is to steer clear on article where you have a strong POV. Perhaps you can give a list of articles not on issues of British politics where you have made significant positive contributions? Guy (Help!) 20:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Sorry, but I can't let that last slur pass unchallenged. Any cursory inspection of Yorkshirian's contributions since coming off his last block - or even just a glance at his talk page - would show major inputs of content on a whole variety of historical, ecclesiastical and European subjects, including a DYK. That's not to excuse some of his recent behaviour, or to suggest that I agree with all his edits or his manner of undertaking them, or for that matter his politics - but I do get the feeling that some people here are making comments based on the serious issues that happened some time ago (but which have now ceased), rather than on the relatively minor disputes (speaking as one who's been involved in some of them) that have taken place in recent days. I've had far worse arguments with "experienced" and "valued" editors than I've ever had with Yorkshirian. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC) It's been mentioned above, that you've (in the past) evaded a ban (via socks). To quote a Shania Twain tune - 'That don't impress me much'. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC) ..and if anyone can find any evidence whatsoever of recent behaviour by Yorkshirian along those lines, please make it public. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC) I was closely tied, for my sins, with Yorkshirian's pre-2009 contributions, RfCs, ANIs, Sockpuppets, etc etc. We have locked horns and have had (I think it is quite fair to say) a turbulent, if not hostile relationship in former times. However, I really am with Yorkshirian on this; I share his views entirely on why he should be unblocked here and now. I do believe Yorkshirian is a different editor since returning, and has done some invaluable article work (a complete revamp of England for example) that proves him to be an asset. He has strong views, and can be difficult to persuade (hell, I know), but I don't see anything of this supposed bad behaviour that he's been blocked for, and so also agree with User:Ghmyrtle that evidence (diffs) should be shown together with which policies he has broken. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC) I too am of the opinion that Yorkshirian should be unblocked unless there's recent evidence of serious misconduct, despite not always having seen eye to eye with him in the past. I've been very impressed with his work and attitude on the England article, and if we're all required to be perfect here then wikipedia's going to run out of contributors pretty damn soon. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC) (EC) I was an uninvolved editor who has only encountered Yorkshirian since coming back from being blocked (a fact about which I was, until very recently, oblivious). I too have locked horns with Y. at the England talk pages, and have been trying to find a NPOV way forward at Talk:Red Action. I find Y. to be rather opinionated in talk contributions, but I have to back a couple of other editors here like Ghmyrtle and say that Y.'s contribs have been net positive. Y. certainly has a POV which is relevant to the articles where they've been an active editor, but this mostly has been managed successfully through discussion on talk pages, the way it should be. I'm not tracking the specifics of this incident, but i will say that there are POVs on both 'sides' at Red Action, and as a neutral editor on that topic, I wouldn't lay all fault at the feet of Y. I think Y. also makes a good point that the previous block was for socking, and there's no evidence of socking here, so I'm not sure it is appropriate to be relying on Y 'having form' in making the judgement calls on the current complaint (if that is the case: i'm not across the detail). hamiltonstone (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC) I've noticed Yorkshirian around since coming back from the block, and though he is obviously still very opinionated, his behaviour does seem to have improved drastically. I am completely unimpressed that the evidence given proves serious behavioural issues and it seems the ANI is being used as a means to silent an opponent on the issues. Quantpole (talk) 09:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks fot the comments everybody (including on my talk). Can somebody take the block off now so I can get back to seeing to England's GA? It seems most involved (or who I mostly come into contact with here) think this block was incorrect, its obviously a content difference of opinion and absolutely nothing to do with last years socking or anything else. - Yorkshirian (talk) 10:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC) I'll be willing to unblock you if there is no opposition...? Is there? --Jza84 |  Talk  11:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC) May be best left to the blocking admin - have you approached them? Keith D (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Why should it be left to the blocking admin. He's cocked up once already. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC) I strongly oppose unblocking. I don't think it was cocked up at all. Theresa Knott made it clear that Yorkshirian was on a very short leash, and he has mostly ignored that. He's simply not allowed to play around in these controversial areas. Just like Guy said above - which was conveniently ignored like the rest of the opposition - all Yorkshirian has done is exchange one POV bias with another. If he is unblocked, we'll just be right back here in a few weeks, guaranteed. Wknight94 12:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC) And Jza84, you've made your stance pretty clear which makes you "involved". You unblocking Yorkshirian would be just as inappropriate as me re-blocking him afterwards. Wknight94 12:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC) You seem to have very strong feelings on this matter Wknight94, Yorkshirian has apologised above, hes stopped using socks a long time ago, hes reformed. Avoiding the specific articles which has caused this dispute would resolve the problem and allow him to go on to contributing at articles where several respected editors have said hes done alot of good edits. Surely encouraging more reform is better than just giving up which means wikipedia loses out in the long run. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict)I think that is a little odd, but you do right to put "involved" in scare quotes. I am not involved in this case, and all my contact with Yorkshirian in the RfC etc (which I hope you have read to have passed your judgement?) were broadly before me becoming an administrator. However, I concede this as opposition for me to unblock (though disagree with the rationale, and I'm still looking for what diffs are policy breaching, where his warnings are, etc) and will not perform it. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC) I agree that Yorkshirian has contributed to the project in terms of improvements to articles. However, although his behaviour does seem to have improved drastically since his return from being (officially) blocked, his interaction with and lack of respect for editors who do not share his views is still, frankly, appalling. I would be in favour of the block being lifted only if his behaviour toward other editors is moderated considerably. Perhaps a probationary period with an experienced editor monitoring his contributions would be the answer. Daicaregos (talk) 13:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Since Jza84 can't find any policy violating diffs, I would just like to ask him if he's familiar with WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPA being policy, as there's clear evidence of violations of all three in the diffs provided. BigDunc 13:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC) You're being silly: do you think I'm going to say I'm not familliar with those being policy BigDunc? Come on. I'm asking which diffs? That's what I'm asking, but I'll underline it incase you missed it: Which are the offending diffs? What policies have they breached? What steps/warnings were made to curtail distruption? I'm sure that something has happened, if a block has been made, but Yorkshirian's request to be unblocked raises serious questions, questions that you'd want answering if in that position, right? --Jza84 |  Talk  13:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC) No I am not being silly, there's a large collection of them on ANI which most people have bothered to look at, but here's a few specific ones, Personal attacks, Addition of unsourced claim about the EDL protesting against the "percieved errosion of civil liberties against native people under New Labour governance", Lying about sources. Also could I point out that people who've been banned for a year for various conduct issues, and received a final warning after that do not have to be warned any further before being blocked, and there's no policy that says otherwise. BigDunc 14:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC) I don't consider the first a personal attack: who is being personally attacked (if you say republicans, and that it is a blockable offense then I'll be blocking half of WP:IR for the stuff I see against "the British", and let go by)? The second is a breach of WP:OR, but that's not a blockable offense, it's an editorial dispute. The third diff () is not a blockable offense, it's an edit that needs further input and refinement (and I presume you're not assuming bad faith that Yorkshirian forgot to add a source or misunderstood one of them?); its edit summary is, actually, more of a personal attack than the first diff as it names an editor, but it's certainly not raging hatred; it's a poor summary that Yorkshirian should've been warned about. Yorkshirian needs mentoring, not blocking. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC) You asked for violations and you have been provided with them that you chose to ignore is your own concern the fellow traveller comment is a clear attack. Also you say that individually they are not blockable but considering that this editor was on a final warning yet continues the behavior that got them blocked originally then the reblock was a good one. BigDunc 14:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC) How exactly is fellow traveller an attack or offensive? BritishWatcher (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Yes, I didn't see that. Am I missing some context here BigDunc? I don't see who (editor or group) is being attacked. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC) You asked for an example of WP:PA: here - noting a good faith edit with which he disagreed as Welsh nationalist vandalism. Here are other examples of Yorkshirian's style: here failing to WP:AGF + insulting/baiting Scots & Welsh editors, here insulting/baiting Scots & Welsh editors, here belittling Cornish/baiting Cornish editors, here racial baiting. Mentoring would be good. But would it work? Daicaregos (talk) 15:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Sorry, but how an earth can "Far more important than any "Saxons and Druids" stuff" be called 'racial baiting'? Quantpole (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC) It isn't. Daicaregos, there's nothing wrong in those diffs and I say that publically, on record and with conviction, because it's so clear. You're showing a fundamental lack of understanding with the WP:PA policy: nobody was mentioned by name and there's no use of derogatory language or slurs, or saying a particular editor is (wrongfully) harming Misplaced Pages without basis; so I ask again, who was personally attacked? At worst this is anglocentricism, but I think the truth is more like one editor sharing an opinion on a talk page. I don't agree with some of it, but, even as a half-Scot, I just see one perspective in a debate about lack of progress on Misplaced Pages. If you don't like it, then say so, counter it with evidence, but don't say they should be blocked/banned for it, as that's not what blocking/banning is for. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Come on Dai, we can cope with that level of baiting, he can be amusing and he does his position not good with the stupid comments. On the other side he is willing to do some good detailed work to improve articles. He won't ever get another chance after this one, so lets go with it. --Snowded 18:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Unblock review OK, I'll bite the bullet. I've read through the various diffs and comments here and at ANI (where this section is still transcluded). My understanding of Yorkshirian's response above is that you'd be willing to accept ChildofMidnight's suggestion. To clarify, as I understand it this would mean you are agreeing to: a one revert rule on all articles relating to Irish Republicanism, broadly construed a temporary talk-page-only editing restriction on the above articles (two weeks?) Added EyeSerene 15:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC) avoid personal or inflammatory comments, including in edit summaries seek advice on suitable noticeboards, such as WP:BLP/N and WP:Content Noticeboard, where appropriate If I've misunderstood, anyone please feel free to correct me! If you can confirm the above, I'd be willing to unblock under those conditions and on the understanding that this is very much a last chance there will be no further chances. Your thoughts? EyeSerene 13:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC) No, this was the last chance. You're offering a last last chance. At the very least, any unblock should include a topic ban of some kind. Otherwise, this will just be a merry-go-round. He clearly can't control his temper in certain articles and topics. Wknight94 13:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Amended per your above. Did CoM propose a topic-ban? I didn't notice one being suggested above. EyeSerene 13:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC) No, CoM did not propose a topic ban. Why does that matter? Wknight94 14:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Because I believe Yorkshirian has already indicated that they accept in principle CoM's suggested restrictions, and my assessment is based on their acceptance. Given that, I don't believe it's entirely fair to start moving the goalposts. I also have no idea what areas Yorkshirian works in; if a topic ban amounts to a de facto site ban, there would obviously be little point in considering an unblock. EyeSerene 14:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC) I accept the above terms as laid out by EyeSerene and agree to do that. Thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC) OK, that'll do for me, and the blocking admin has also agreed to an unblock under these terms. I have to say that if it wasn't for your excellent article work, I wouldn't have considered unblocking, but given the improvements highlighted by many editors above I do believe you come down on the right side of a cost/benefit analysis. However, just to reiterate, any infractions of the above conditions will result in an indefblock, and I'd imagine the chances of it being reversed again are vanishingly small. Play to your obvious strengths and, if at all possible, avoid areas where you might be drawn into conflict with other editors. If you must visit contentious articles, stick exclusively to their talkpages for the next two weeks, and 1RR on the articles thereafter. If you need advice, I'm sure many of the admins/editors that have posted here (including me) will be happy to help out. I'll head off now to unblock your account - all the best with the England GA :) EyeSerene 16:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Postscript It seems to me that one of the lessons to be learned from this episode is that Y should recognise that the editors who interact with him on a regular basis on articles are, in many cases, much more tolerant of his behaviour than admins in the rest of the Wikiverse. So, when editors who "know" him start to object to his actions (whether on republicanism-related or other matters), that should be treated as a fair warning that he should immediately stop what he's doing, and move on to something more constructive. And, hopefully, over time, the "cost/benefit analysis" of his involvement (I'm assuming it's a "he" by the way) will continue to swing more strongly in his favour. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Inappropriate edit? I am concerned about this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Category:History_of_Cornwall&diff=prev&oldid=316006549 Is this appropriate? The Cornwall article provides a multitude of reliable external refs attesting to the fact that Cornwall is a nation. --Mais oui! (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Please explain what you mean by this comment you left on my Talk page: "Though by all means feel free to add "national" cats to Shetland, Orkney and so on." --Mais oui! (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Now you claim (at WikiProject Cornwall) that User:Goustien "seems to have added it by mistake". Is there any basis for your assertion? Should we not perhaps ask the User if he/she was mistaken in his/her editing, rather than simply assuming? --Mais oui! (talk) 23:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC) You are now canvassing known supporters: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:BritishWatcher&diff=prev&oldid=316021168 Would it not be better if you honestly adressed the substantive issue, rather than treating this as an exercise in gaming theory? Why is it inappropriate in your opinion to add the Cornish history category to the National histories category, and yet you say "feel free to add "national" cats to Shetland, Orkney". Is this not totally topsy-turvey? We have a wealth of reliable ext refs referring to Cornwall as a nation, yet none that refer to Orkney and Shetland as nations - they have always been simply parts of other nations. And yet you tell another user to "feel free" to go around adding unsourced cats to Misplaced Pages. Do you grasp the grave inconsistency in your approach? Misplaced Pages must be based solidly on real life, as witnessed by reliable ext refs. Not on how one user or group of users would like the world to be. --Mais oui! (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Well i would have replied on that project page with or without that message. I have had the project on my watch list for sometime and been involved in a few conversations on there. As for the references, they show some view Cornwall as a nation. That is not the view of the British government, and theres no evidence that its the view of the majority of people in Cornwall itself. Many of the references are infact organisations or people that profit from advancing the "Celtic Nations" agenda. Anyway even if others disagree with the removal of the category and restored it, id hardly describe its removal as an "inappropriate edit", seems reasonable and understandable. BritishWatcher (talk) 05:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC) Color background I've removed the color background on your Talk page. Since it's being transcluded on ANI, it's messing up that page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC) Untranscluding Yeah, I think just going to ANI and removing the transclusion, with an explanation, that should be no problem. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC) Update Just thought I'd let you know that I now have a copy of Trevor-Roper's The Invention of Scotland. Haven't started it (I'm reading The God Delusion at the moment) but will do soon. Also managed to catch Jonathan Meades on BB4 the other night - there's a summary of his documentary here that dovetails with Trevor-Roper. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Re your question The restriction as I wrote it was just Irish Republicanism. Maybe that wasn't entirely what was intended by others, but no-one else objected at the time. However, if you feel it might lead to conflict or perhaps calls from other editors that you're obeying the letter but violating the spirit of your restriction, it might be best to voluntarily refrain from editing the EDL article too. I see no problem with your edit, and you've demonstrated good faith by self-reverting, so... your call. My personal opinion is that, although I have no intention of sanctioning you for editing EDL, I think as one of the articles involved in the dispute you should probably tread carefully for now ;) EyeSerene 09:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC) I think the edit was a useful one, but not as a full box, just insert it at the end of the paragraph about the BNP as a quote with the source and reference. --Snowded 09:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC) NowCommons: File:HaroldWagstaff.jpg File:HaroldWagstaff.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:HaroldWagstaff.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Misplaced Pages, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Misplaced Pages, in this case: ]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC) Irish surnames Just noticed some of your recent edit summaries. For future reference, O' in Irish names does not mean "of", it means "grandson" - see Irish name#Surnames and prefixes. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC) No problem - outside my area of interest basically, but I thought from your summaries you were interpreting "O'" as "of". Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC) Hello, Administrators' noticeboard. You have new messages at Rannpháirtí anaithnid's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. x2 --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC) WP:NPA "Yet Mais oui! is doing the whole activist bit..." I think that you would greatly benefit from reading WP:NPA very, very, very, very carefully indeed. You will follow the spirit of WP:NPA, not just the law, if you want to continue editing Misplaced Pages. --Mais oui! (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC) You are canvassing, again This kind of behaviour seems to be your standard response to being challenged about your editing: running to a pal asking for their support. I strongly suggest that you desist from this behaviour - it will only end in tears. Note: I have removed a wild accusation that you made at my Talk page. As the founder of WikiProject Scotland I have every justification for take an interest in all Scotland-related articles, cats, templates etc. And of course your WP:POINT campaigns would be totally impossible to ignore in this regard. I spotted this new cat long before you edited it, but I refrained from getting involved in the CFD, as generally speaking the correct decisions get made at that forum. However, your removal of a cat that is supported by many tens of reliable ext refs at the parent article forced me to get involved. You would try the patience of a saint. --Mais oui! (talk) 04:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Yorkshirian - by now you should know that if you don't stick closely to the rules here, you'll be out. Please tread very carefully - some of us don't want to lose you, but to stay on board you must follow the behaviour guidelines rigorously. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC) United Kingdom Did you ever plan to do an overhaul of the UK article? Having come back to it after a spell away I'm pretty disappointed. Might be one to collaborate on after the England GAC? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC) I replied on my talk page, but was also wondering what kind of things we're missing for "contemporary England" in the final part of the England article's history section. I was thinking maybe something about the world wars might be useful. Maybe something about the ensuing deindustrialisation of England too. Ending with something about post-devolution England might be fitting too; I remember reading that Euro 96 was an event that reinvigorated English national identity - that might be worth putting in. Thoughts? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC) La Marseillaise des Blancs (1793) Bonjour Yorkshirian! I found the whole text of the Marseillaise des Blancs, transcribed in modern French from its original Vendéen form, with translation already done by a Franco-American author by the name of Charles A. Coulombe. To read it, please go to http://www.takimag.com/site/article/the_real_bastille_day and scroll down to about 2/3 of the article where you will see the text, first in French, then its translation in English by Charles A. Coulombe. I do not know if Misplaced Pages allows the use of material found on the web, but here it is, probably OK to use as long as Mr. Coulombe is properly mentioned & given credit for the translation. http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:TdLWbYL_CQ8J:www.cheetah.net/~ccoulomb/index1.html+Charles+A.+Coulombe&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Yorkshirian, oui, I think that as long as Charles A. Coulombe is named & linked to the site where both text & his translation are given, it should be OK. It would also be nice to have the original text in vendéen. Bonne chance! Frania W. (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC) {{reflist|colwidth=30em}} Explanation of my edit to England: "Using {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} will allow the browser to automatically choose the number of columns based on the width of the web browser. Three-column lists are inaccessible to users with smaller/laptop monitors and should be avoided." – from here. Thanks, Hayden120 (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Friedrich Nietzsche‎ Deciding to change Nietzsche into a writer rather than a philosopher (the information box) without discussing it on the talk page first is really pushing it. An editor of your experience should know that. Restoring that change after it had been reverted compounds the error. Your edit summaries were also misleading. Given that you are on probation I suggest you don't do anything like this again, it makes the position of those (such as myself) who supported your retaining editing rights difficult to say the least. --Snowded 07:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Medici Hello, Administrators' noticeboard. You have new messages at Jack1755's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. File:York england UK theatre royal.jpg You have marked that a commons file has replaced File:York england UK theatre royal.jpg, but it has a different name, so the two articles that use it need to be updated before we delete it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Nietzsche and Nationality Hi there. I've restored the fact that Nietzsche was a German to the Friedrich Nietzsche. The current wording is the result of a long discussion that is preserved in the talk page archives. RJC Contribs 14:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Risking life and limb I agree with your page move on RC in E&W, but you really should propose it first you know. I'd seriously think about reversing it and then saying on the talk page that you plan to do it. --Snowded 07:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Roman Catholic page moves As you well know from previous attempts at removing the word Roman from articles on Roman Catholicism these moves are considered controversial and as such I have reverted the unilateral page moves you have made as there has been no discussion on any of the talk pages. All such moves should be made via WP:RM as they are controversial in nature. Any further such page moves without going via WP:RM will be considered vandalism and blocking will be in order. Keith D (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC) England The Teamwork Barnstar For England. Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Good article I just want to say how much I enjoyed your article, the House of Neville. You provided a lot of information regarding their ancient origins.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Re: Passed I replied on my talk :) --Jza84 |  Talk  23:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC) slippers and.... Slippers and socks!!! Off2riorob (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC) The sandbox edit there is in response to my accusations towards that account, are you any good at sockpuppet comparisons? Off2riorob (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks a lot Yorkshire. Regards to you. Off2riorob (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Leonard of Blakemore Hi Yorkshirian, I see you have reclassified Leonard of Blakemore as a West Saxon saint. Do you have a useful reference for this? Thanks Tmol42 (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC) edits on some Catholic articles Hi Yorkshirian -- we're having some differences. If you look at the discussion page on Catholic Democrats (or was it Catholics for choice?) under "POV again") you'll see that the discussion has already been had; I view your contributions here as WP:GF, but there was quite a storm of WP:POV edits, and the reasonable conclusion was that cats are for networking information, not for affirming controversial inclusions and exclusions. Best,DavidOaks (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC) November 2009 You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Catholics for Choice. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Loonymonkey (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC) MigrationWatch UK POV issue Hi. It might help to explain your problem with the inclusion of the Tony Kushner quote on the talk page of MigrationWatch UK in addition to tagging it. I don't really understand the rationale for your addition of the {{clarify}} tag, for example. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC) OK, I see that you've edited the article further, which addresses my concerns. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Continuation of unconstructive racist dialogue on talk pages related to Celtic topics You have been continuing on User talk:Sarah777 the incivility I first experienced with you on Talk:Republic of Ireland. This includes accusatins of whinging and crying, claims about how "99.9%" of republicans have "victim complexes", "don't seem to care about Irish culture to begin with", "spend all the time arguing about English-speaking tourists from Britain like Connolly and Pearse", pulling out fanciful terms such as "Big Brit-Yank conspiracy", further quotes.. "Aside from clutering the encyclopedia with fantasty and mope, there doesn't really seem to be any relevent encyclopedic fruits from the whole self-degrading republican shtich", "Irish people were all wearing grass skirts and feathers in their hair until the 1950s", "Spare me the whinging and crying. How does one be "racist" in this area, when my own ethnic background is half-Irish", "Judging by RTG's Wiki spree tonight apparently "thats waysist!" is his favourite ad hominem", "Discredit you racially??", what exactly are you on". Do you think that this carry on should continue and should I root out our previous encounter some months ago and any related material, which I now assume there is at least some, I can find in between? I cannot recall any openly Unionist/Loyalist contributors being even comparably offensive, Yorkshirian..? ~ R.T.G 12:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC) List of saints of Northumbria Please stop inserting references to allexperts.com articles into List of saints of Northumbria. These articles are simply copies of the Misplaced Pages articles, and therefore may not be used as Misplaced Pages references. If you have any doubt on this matter, scroll down to the bottom of the allexperts page, where Misplaced Pages is explicitly identified as the source. There may be some differences in the text, because the alexperts scrapes of Misplaced Pages may not be current. While other content on allexperts.com may be original, its encyclopedia articles are generally mirrored from Misplaced Pages. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Hello, Administrators' noticeboard. You have new messages at Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Please read Please read this. ♦ Jongleur ♦ 09:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC) You just don't get it do you? I did NOT claim that Aussies are ignorant. I asked why Ausseagull was talking about ignorant Australians on a talk page devoted to Neil Kinnock. Read it again - slowly. ♦ Jongleur ♦ 10:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC) And while we're at it: this, this and this is a serious accusation of bad faith and, presumably, of a personal attack made by me. Please provide diffs to support your accusation that I was saying "North Americans are ignorant" last week. Thank you, Daicaregos (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC) A belated reminder, but further to the above mentioning this diff, please take a step back and think about your comments before you click the "Save page" button. If what you've written might be seen by others as offensive, don't save it. As noted by Jongleur100, your editing restiction to "avoid personal or inflammatory comments, including in edit summaries"() still applies. EyeSerene 09:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Dear Monsieur Chateaubriand Its been over 200 years since you visited the Levant :P the blessed Marie-Alphonsine led me to you and I noticed you share my interest in the Levant. I'm running into a dead end mate, there is this fairy tale crusader castle in northern lebanon called the Mseilha Fort aka "le puy du connetable" , I was working on its article but i cannot further to more than a couple of lines since i have found no references relating its history. I know that the castle was a part of the County of Tripoli yet i cannot corroborate this data too. Where do you suggest i search????? Eli+ 20:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks for trying mate, thank you for your time. i'm not giving up on the article, looks like i'm gonna have to pay a visit to a couple libraries :S. About Catholics in palestine, well i hope this frail community remains and prospers, but this is unlikely with the current Judaization/Islamization ambitions Eli+ 20:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC) CfD nomination of Category:House of Neville I have nominated Category:House of Neville (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Neville family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 17:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC) O'Donnell Dynasty v. O'Donnell of Tyrconnell ? With respect, this merger was a big mistake. The name O'Donnell in Ireland has several quite distinct origins, or septs, i.e. if anything, several dynasties. But the historically most-important are the O'Donnells of Tyrconnell - a distinct sept, of former rulers, indeed a noble family, of Tyrconnell. I recommend that you restore a distinct article which would indeed be better titled "House of O'Donnell of Tyrconnell", in line with prevailing wiki-practice for noble and royal houses. See the article Dynasty. Also, in creating a separate List of people named O'Donnell, you have failed to link it to the main article. By the way, "O'Donnell of Tyrconnell" is well-enough known to Europeans - and this "de/von" argument of DinDraithou rather shows a provinicialism that wikipedia should avoid reflecting. The O'Donnells of Tyrconnell have long-established records of historical roles played in France, Spain, Austria, and elsewhere. By the way, the so-called "O'Donnell" arms are only one variant - the one (ab)used by tourist souvenir shops. Arms as such are only borned by armigerous persons, and the armigerous O'Donnells have at least 5 variants. Furthermore, your map of Tyrconnell (maximum extent) is wrong in that historical evidence points to a far wider spread at its maximum, indeed almost half of Ireland, which is why the earlier O'Donnell kings were called "Righ Leath Cuinn". Seneschally (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I see what you're saying to some extent, but I agree with DinDraithou that the ones which reigned in Tyrconnell are the "main deal" so to speak and are worthy of primary usage of the main "O'Donnell" redirect; the later lines after they fled to different countries should probably have different articles created specifically for them. On the naming, I personally don't see why "dynasty" is used on these articles (DinDraithou's choice). When I made the O'Brien article for example, I put it as "O'Brien Clan" before it was changed. That is the title I'd prefer for these Irish dynasties; ___Clan. On the coat of arms and the map; the map was derived from a work by WesleyJohnston.com, there doesn't seem to be an abundance of material available on this period (for some reason everything before Cromwell gets criminally neglected). The map on the Tyrconell article is from the 13th century I think. The arms I haven't seen any others to create, isn't the symbolism of the cross one derived from the Habsburg allied Nine Years' War via Hugh Roe Ó Donnell? - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC) The "latter lines" as you say, assuming you mean the noble O'Donnells, such as General Daniel O'Donnell and also Count O'Donnell in France, and the O'Donnells Dukes of Tetuan in Spain, and the O'Donnells Counts Von Tyrconnell in Austria, are all provably of the main "Tyrconnell" dynasty - and not descended from other septs (such as from Leinster or Clare). The Tyrconnell O'Donnells by the way, meaning the noble dynasty, should be distinguished from the wider clan of whom they were the rulers, so "clan" would not be appropriate. The coats of arms: the yellow field and red cross is a variant of the arms of Rory O'Donnell, 1st Earl of Tyrconnell, although his registered arms depict the cross as blue in the office of the Chief Herald of Ireland. The O'Donnells of Trough Castle (descended from Tyrconnell's, and established in Limerick) have a different armorial, with fish and no cross. The O'Donnells of Austria have the hand and cross but also the Habsburg eagle. The O'Donnells of Ardfert have a cross-crosslet in gold against a blue field. all of these share the same motto In Hoc Signo Vinces and the general emblem of a cross with that motto derive from a legend (influenced by Emperor Constantine's vision at the Milvian Bridge) that Saint Patrick emblazoned the cross on the progenitor of the O'Donnells, namely Conall Gulban (son of Niall of the Nine Hostages). It has nothing to do with the Nine Years War (1592-1601), and nothing to do with the Habsburgs. If anything there is a possible influence by the MacDonalds of Scotland, but medieval Gaelic manuscripts that I have personally studied cast doubt on that, and pre-date any such influence. By the way I am Irish, and specialised in medieval history and can assure you there is an abundance of heraldic and genealogical information on the O'Donnells of Tyrconnell. Seneschally (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Catholic Church article Yorkshirian, thank you for coming to the page and offering your comments on the talk page. We have been having difficulty with some editors regarding WP:civil. I have not said anything to these rude editors in the past but have decided now that, since there are no admins doing it except occasionally Richard, I will remind these editors about WP:civil. I hope you are not discouraged by the rudeness and will come be part of the effort to help make the page FA. NancyHeise 17:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Christopher Monckton When you change this. Then you are not making it less POV ... You are rewriting reality. Since Moncktons arguments aren't with the policy (which he of course also doesn't like) - but are about the science. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC) The politics and the Enlightenment fundamentalist hoax itself are so closely intwined that to separate them is impossible. Lord Monkton sits in the House of Lords of the United Kingdom and thus is publically known as a politican. His counter-activist involvement is a contribution to the political sphere. Nobody would be bothered about the hoax as such, if the far-left weren't attempting to manipulate political and economic culture itself with it. For instance the Taxpayers Alliance in the UK have spoke out strongly against Marxists trying to exploit the public in the name of the climate change hoax. Besides the intro to Lord Monkton's article being POV, it is also WP:SYNTH. After the far-left were essentially defeated at Copenhagen anyway, we should now make sure there is no POV or SYNTHy bias against biographies on Misplaced Pages. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC) No, Lord Monckton does not sit in the House of Lords (thats just the first of the errors in your comment). And i'm sorry to say that the rest of your comments are so blatantly POV that it makes it hard to take serious. How do you define "far-left" for instance - is Gordon Brown far-left? (he was on the opposite side of Monckton in Copenhagen, does that make him a Marxist?). You need to differentiate between science concepts: Greenhouse gases will warm the atmosphere. And policy concepts: This is a problem that we need to do something about. Monckton is attacking the science and the policy - but mainly it is the science that is his focus. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC) The Green Party are the most successful far-left party in the UK and are cultural Marxist on almost every position. In regards to Gordon Brown, he also claimed that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq—the Labour Party are not above lieing to meet their purely political globalist ends and exploitation of the taxpayer. Lets put it this way; some people claim Bigfoot exists; this in the political sphere is largely inconsequential because nobody is attempting to extort billions in the name of the "Bigfoot threat". The adoption of scientific language to political concepts is at the core of the Enlightenment fundamentalist hoax. If not, why would political heads of state from around the world need to meet in Copenhagen for a game of globalist chess, if the politics was just a tiny "side issue" to keep out of sight? - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC) sorry I think there was an edit conflict there. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC) Can we keep this here? You are letting your political views taint your editing. And i'm sorry to say that your comments so far make you seem rather more biased than the viewpoints that you apparently disagree with. We have to describe things as it is seen by the majority (be it in science or in policy), that is what NPOV is about, it is not "equal time" to all viewpoints. As a side-note, what you are saying is also a false dichtomy, since the policy agreement on climate change transcends political barriers (at least in Europe), so that the Conservatives in Britain are also arguing for it - just as Nicolas Sarkozy or Angela Merkel do respectively in France and Germany. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC) Lessons learnt Hi Yorky, you've been doing some fantastic work. Remember the Labour immigration scandal article you made not that long ago, that got deleted? (Which absolutely should not have been deleted) The article was perfectly fine, and should eventually be rebuilt at a future, appropriate time. You know where you messed up in launching that? One of the first things you did after creating it was putting it in a Labour party template/infobox!! That was a very silly tactical mistake! Think about who likes to look at that grid, who travels through it, who built it. Answer: People who would not be fans of your new article. You walked into a 'kill-zone', with not enough friendlies about who knew about the new article, who could have provided support and assistance. Approached differently, and that article would be up there right now. You actually had MP's staffers all over your article, so of course it was ganged up on and wiped out. (Plus, it wasn't really the most appropriate place to put it for general information reasons anyway). Next time, build up any "future new articles" within a friendly ideological harbour. Build up projects you're working on slowly, make sure that other friendlies know about it, and you'll do much better. Good luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grillteache (talk • contribs) 08:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC) EP for Luxemburg Not Viviane Reding since 2009, She is a EU commissioner but not in parliament. The name of th EU politician is Georges Bach in parliament for CSV since 2009. GLGermann (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC) BNP and C18 Be careful. You seem to be playing around in the BNP article with C18 and moving it to suggest that it is the same as the BNP's security force. This is not true (though I suspect that the one was in fact heavily dependent on the other). BNP has always denied links to C18, which is not the same as saying there are none. That's why C18 featurs as a section in the BNP article. I have taken the liberty of reversing these moves, and suggest you look a bit more carefully at the issue. Hoepfully, this will avoid a lot of problems later. Emeraude (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC) You're stilll editing the article so I can't make the changes. There is a whole chunk of text that you moved from the C18 section into the 1990s, plus a pasting from the C18 article itself that need to be replaced. Emeraude (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Agreed, but the sources may not be reliable. Tyndall always denied (publicly) any knowledge of C18, so he would also deny having had it set up (see here and , despite what the BBC reference says. My own view is that the BNP did set it up and disowned it when it got out of hand, and there seems to be some evidence for that. However, it is also plausible that C18 was set up unofficially by individual BNP members, supporters and hangers on (and there is evidence for that as well!). If you haven't already, read the rationale I gave on the talk page for removing some text from the C18 article. Emeraude (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC) You must stick to what the source says. It nowhere mentions the League of St George, so any mention in the article is unsourced. The article does not say Red Action attacked the Kensington Library meeting, anywhere, so that's unsourced. The interviewee mentions Red Action, but does not specifically name them as the hammer wielders, so that is unsourced, and would be even if he did mention them. His claims are not not proven and the Independent is simply reporting what was said - it makes no claim for the veracity or otherwise of anything said by its interviewees - indeed, how could it given the nature of the article? Everything said by the C18 members in the Independent must be taken with a pinch of salt. Yes, the paper is a generally reliable source, but it would not assume to be used as proof that what people it has interviewed have said is true, rather than what its own reporters have discovered. Emeraude (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC) Edit Warring You are failing to abide by WP:BRD please self revert your changes on the BNP page and discuss them as requested. --Snowded 05:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC) Architecture of the United Kingdom Hi Yorkshirian, I hope all is well, On the trail of the success you had with the England article, and remembering you had some plans for Great Britain, I wondered if you would be interested in contributing to User:Jza84/Sandbox3? I have 'pinched' some of the material you did for England and used it at the sandbox. I was motivated to do something about this important article, because a couple of bright sparks turned an article into a disamibugation page.... in good faith of course... --Jza84 |  Talk  00:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the pic Thank you for the interesting picture of Anne Boleyn on a hunting expedition. I have already uploaded it to her article. She was a keen huntress. As for Henry resembling the Jolly Green Giant; well, that's a good description of him. He was also known as Bluff King Hal. Green was one of the Tudor colours, the other being white. It's strange how a cruel tyrant such as Henry was highly regarded by the populace, whereas Richard III, who was interested in obtaining justice for the people was reviled-except in the North.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Template talk:Infobox UK place Hello again Yorkshirian, We've disagreed in the past, as you know. I wondered what you thought about Template talk:Infobox UK place, specifically the part under the heading Dublin. I have no idea as to what your answer will be, but I know for sure that you will speak your mind. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Template:Roman Catholic theology Hi. I have seen that you remove some theologians from Roman Catholic theology template. I have previously added some names mostly important figures in 20th century Toman Catholic theology and philosophy. Some of them are included in book Twentieth-Century Catholic Theologians by Fergus Kerr (like Bernard Lonergan). In article Karl Rahner write that Rahner is consider as one of the most important Roman Catholic theologians of 20th centuri among with Hans Urs von Balthasar and Bernard Lonergan. Étienne Gilson, probably leading interpretor of Thomas Aquinas in 20th century also removed. I dont insist to put all Roman Catholic theologians but some os the most important are excluded from list. Best wishes,--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 08:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC) I understand that recentism can be a big problem. but I thint that we can put same number of theologians in 20-21st cebtury box as in 19th century box. I think that 20th century was much more inportant for Roman Catholic theology than 19th. Especially related to Second Vatican Council and after-concil theology. Also I think that modern theologians are more interesting for thelogy students, for example, than theologians from other periods. I dont thin that we need to put 20 or more names, maybe several more like Marie-Dominique Chenu, Yves Congar and especially Hans Küng (he is well known not only among theologians). Maybe article Roman Catholic theology in 20th century should put tham all together :) Best wishes,--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 11:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Have you visited Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Christianity/Theology work group--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 11:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Interesting idea about theologians per country. Did you mean on specific templates for Roman Catholic theologians per some coutries (of course not for every country just for some of leading theological centres if I can use such phrase like Germany, Italy, France, Italy etc). Also it would be very usefull to make List of Roman Catholic theologians. Modern theology, as I can see, isn't only concentrated around great names like Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus but thre are many important writers on specific areas of theology who aren't well knowen so we need some more cooperator to do such job. I am interested to write on Roman Catholic topics but I am not expert so I cant do many things alone but I would like to cooperate. Best wishes,--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 06:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Dom Pedro II, Emperor of Brazil Hello! I have been working for quite some time by now in Pedro II of Brazil article. I've divided it in several articles (I've just finished Early life of Pedro II of Brazil) that goes from his birth to the the period beyond his death. The problem is that I am only one and can't do everything by myself. I've been trying to write on articles related to the Empire of Brazil (Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná, Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil, Platine War, etc...) but I could use some help. There is no need at all to know anything about Brazilian history. Do you know could I get some? Thank you very much, --Lecen (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Snowded Hi. I see your exchange with user Snowded. I've had experiences with him. His behavior is really strange. What's going on with you guys, seems to be similar to my experiences. He doesn't get much involved in the discussions, seems to not really read the talk pages, and then just comes in and claims that there's no consensus or something like that, or reverts something without really explaining why, and then just interrupts the whole flow of progress that was taking place. It seems like he's just intervenes for the sake of intervening in order to see himself as some type of policeman or arbiter that swoops in to make sure nobody does anything without consensus, but he just makes things worse throwing a wrench in the progress that's been made. He'll revert things and in his edit summary say to stop edit warring, but not seeing that he's edit warring. It's a really strange thing. Maybe just bored. Can I touch it? (talk) 08:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC) ANI report here. I see you have someone else who has been reverted against three other editors expressing sympathy--Snowded 08:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Edit warring at British National Party, failure to assume good faith, and personal attacks You are currently involved in an edit war at British National Party. Making bold edits to improve an article is laudable, especially when there is a broad consensus at the talkpage that improvements are needed. When other editors in good faith request further discussion of your edits, however, the onus devolves to you to engage in the specifics of that discussion rather than simply reverting to your preferred version and continuing to make controversial changes. Such discussion should be civil, focusing on the content of the proposed edits themselves to the exclusion of commentary on your fellow volunteers. Particularly to be avoided are accusations of bad faith, dismissive references to political leanings, and personal attacks. Your contributions are valuable, but please keep this in mind. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 16:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Before cutting any more text from any portion of the article, can you please propose/discuss it as you have been asked? It doesn't apply only to the History section. I have no problem with the correction of refs/dates/etc, it is specifically the removal of paragraphs of text without discussion. Thanks, Verbal chat 15:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC) BNP article Thanks for your note. I saw the recent ANI thread, though I came to it late when it seemed that you'd managed to work things out (up to a point) so I didn't think I could add anything useful. Re the article, as an admin I can't get involved in content disputes; I have no more say than anyone else on content (as long as it doesn't violate policy), so my opinion would be nothing more than simply my opinion. As an editor, I really don't have the time to get involved in anything substantial at the moment, and that dispute looks like it would be a bit of a time sink! There are some suggestions on WP:DR if things come unstuck again, and I'm always prepared to help out with things like page protection if edit-warring becomes a problem. Sorry not to be of more help. EyeSerene 18:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Your userpage I'm sorry to say that I've basically ripped off your user page, because it's one of the best I've ever seen, and my old one was shamefully bad. If you visit it, you will notice I've even stolen two of your userboxes, such is my poor Misplaced Pages-ing ability. I hope you don't mind - if you do, let me know SE7/Contribs 12:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC) Seán Mac Stíofáin The article Seán Mac Stíofáin, along with other articles relating to The Troubles, is currently subject to active arbitration remedies. All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per day). When in doubt, assume it is related. Editors who violate this 1RR restriction as may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.--Domer48'fenian' 18:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Triumph for the House of Savoy Hey, Yorkshirian, did you hear about Emanuele Filiberto, Prince of Venice and Piedmont coming in second place at the Sanremo Music Festival despite the catcalling and yobbish behaviour from the anti-monarchists in the audience?! Ha ha ha.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Catholic Church FYI, you've been mentioned in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Catholic Church and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use— Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration; Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide. Karanacs (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#O'Brien dynasty Hi, I just wanted to alert you to this, I saw your interaction while looking at recent changes. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Your edits to Talk:Sinn Féin Firstly, apologies for missing your reply to my earlier post - I often check my talk page via the last change link in the message bar when I log in, and if there has been more than one change (especially to an older thread) I don't always notice the older ones. I found it just now while looking for a convenient link to your talkpage. Secondly, you need to be very careful about edits like this. It could be taken as trolling because it contains provocative implications that you must be aware some editors will find offensive; from a hostile perspective it reads as though you are actively looking for a dispute. As I've explained on RTG's talk page, I have cut you some slack in the past because you're on your final 'life' (and you do some good article work). It would be a mistake to rely on this though; other admins might not be so reluctant to reblock your account for minor infractions, and community patience is not endless. EyeSerene 22:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Members of the EP I really appreciate your work on those navboxes—{{Members of the European Parliament 1999–2004}}, {{Members of the European Parliament 2004–2009}}, and {{Members of the European Parliament 2009–2014}}—but it looks like they're getting too large. --bender235 (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC) So you don't want to reply, okay. But don't you think we should split up these templates? Like one for each country's MEPs. --bender235 (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Catholic Church I apologize for other editor's incivility on the talk page. Your question is very valid and I answered you on the talk page here . NancyHeise 01:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC) The new version The old version of the article is now dead, and there was never really any consensus for it. Please discuss major changes in the talk page. The new version is now the baseline model: do not tamper it with it substantially unless you bring up your complaints in the talk page first and get consensus for your ideas.UberCryxic 23:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC) The straw poll ended 11-7 in favor of changing to the new version. Thank you for your understanding.UberCryxic 23:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC) It doesn't matter if I made a "bold innovation." All of that was part of the straw poll. That's what we voted on. Please do not tamper with the article in that manner until you gain consensus for your changes. Thank you.UberCryxic 23:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC) You are edit warring and I wish you would stop. I do not plan to follow in your path.UberCryxic 00:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC) This confrontational style cannot and will not improve the article. Do not take your concerns to my talk page, but rather to the talk page of the article. That's where these discussions belong.UberCryxic 00:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Yorkshirian, a reminder that WP:3RR is not a license to revert, you don't have to revert three times to be blocked, and you should probably read that page lest you be blocked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I want to thank you very much! Despite our differences, we came together to find a working compromise. I look forward to working with you in the future to improve the article. Thank you again.UberCryxic 01:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC) BNP What are you doing? The claim has four reputable sources (all books) from political scientists. Refer to the talk page about WP:EXTREMIST, which you don't understand very well at all (in fact, you completely misunderstood what it means). "Extremist" can be included if it's sourced properly.UBER 20:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC) You are also changing the lead in a way that no one previously agreed to, substituting "right-wing" far "far-right" without any prior consensus. At the very least, until we sort out the extremist stuff, leave far-right in the lead. Again, I'll follow the same strategy as at the CC article: you can either make the changes yourself, or I'll make them for you if you continue your reckless edit wars.UBER 20:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC) You can not find reputable sources from political scientists calling Obama an extremist, so please do not attempt to make such a ludicrous and appalling comparison.UBER 20:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC) What you will not find, or at least I would be shocked if you did, is a reputable source from a neutral political scientist calling Obama extremist. You're playing around with terms like "mainstream media" without identifying any specifics. Just so we're clear: the likes of National Review, Fox News, and Rush Limbaugh are not considered reputable sources under Misplaced Pages guidelines. Again, stop bringing up this botched comparison before you further taint Misplaced Pages's good name.UBER 21:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Since you're constantly bringing up this tired mantra of yours, provide me one reputable source, as defined by Misplaced Pages, that explicitly calls Obama racist or extremist. Either do it or stop wasting our time and start being serious.UBER 21:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Stop wasting my time and see this.UBER 22:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard Please don't link RL names to accounts, regardless of whether you think you may be right or not. It's not allowed per WP:OUTING and, in certain cases, can be considered harassment. You already know the rules on this stuff - Alison 22:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Orphaned non-free image File:Mein Kampf.png Thanks for uploading File:Mein Kampf.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media). PLEASE NOTE: I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions. I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again. If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request. To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page. Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Kingdom of Connacht Hello Yorkshirian. I was delighted to find illustrations of the kingdoms of Thomond and Desmond recently created, by yourself I believe. I have long since wished to create one for Connacht and its kingdoms but do not know how to do so. Rather than ask you to do it for me, could you advise me how I should go about it? Imagery construction is a mystery to me. Fergananim (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Again with the edit warring I appreciate and respect your "wikidragon" mentality, as you say in your userpage, but the lead sentence for the JBS was placed there through consensus and that's the same thing you need in the talk page before you can change it further. Thank you for your understanding.UBER 18:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC) You're doing it again. Unbelievable. The difference between the changes you propose and those that Haldraper proposes is that Haldraper actually has consensus behind them. You don't. Please take it to the talk page.UBER 03:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Haldraper has actually discussed his changes regularly in the talk page, and I advise you to do the same.UBER 03:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Hello Yorkshirian. All credit for your sterling work in trying to keep balance in the article. I have posted a critique of the recent drastic changes on the talk page, and have proposed a rather different solution that could set the article back on a proper track. I hope you will read it and give consideration to my suggestions. Xandar 11:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC) My suggestion I hope I haven't annoyed you with my compromise suggestion of deleting the History section from the CC article and restoring all the rest. It was a suggestion floated to see if it could quickly resolve the situation - and would actually amount to just a de-facto splitting of the article between Catholic Church and History of the Catholic Church. This is in view of the sudden immense pressure to hugely cut the article. The suggestion has not generated great enthusiasm in any event. I very much appreciate your great work recently to keep the History section balanced and preserve it from the hack and slash that has been applied to the other sections. Personally I don't have a strong view on the History section being in the article now that we have a HoCC article. But with people saying that there's no room to tell people about the Church Today and its beliefs and Organisation, changing the History section to a link to HoCC seems an elegant solution. I don't like History at the top though, because it just makes the article look like HoCC, and hinders people reading the other material - which has been cut on the page to Stub level. Xandar 11:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC) ANI notice - Proposal on community ban of you Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2 lines of K303 14:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC) To amplify this - the discussion is a proposal to community ban you from Misplaced Pages for ongoing disruptive editing and source fabrication. As of the moment I am posting this, there is a 12-1-1 ban/don't ban/ban from all talk pages and reverts alternate edit restriction. It would be premature to call a consensus only 4 hours after the proposal was posted, but obviously there is some very significant concern being voiced by very senior Wikipedians. Please address the issues on ANI. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Result of ban discussion Yorkshirian, I'm enacting the very clear consensus here, and blocking you indefinitely; unfortunately, you have been banned from participating in Misplaced Pages. If I understand right, this can be appealed via email to the arbitration committee, but not through an unblock request, so I have also prevented you from editing this talk page to emphasize the finality to this decision. If you have any questions, you may email me; I've left the "email this user" function enabled. It appears you and Misplaced Pages are not a good fit for each other. Please consider taking your considerable talents elsewhere, rather than... you know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Sockpuppetry case Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Yorkshirian for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 19:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC) Replaceable fair use File:Mein Kampf.png Thanks for uploading File:Mein Kampf.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Misplaced Pages. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please: Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable. Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject). If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MASEM (t) 23:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC) Contests User:Dr. Blofeld has created Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Africa/Contests. The idea is to run a series of contests/editathons focusing on each region of Africa. He has spoken to Wikimedia about it and $1000-1500 is possible for prize money. As someone who has previously expressed interest in African topics, would you be interested in contributing to one or assisting draw up core article/missing article lists? He says he's thinking of North Africa for an inaugural one in October. If interested please sign up in the participants section of the Contest page, thanks.♦ --Ser Amantio di NicolaoLo dicono a Signa. 01:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Beverley Grammar School.png

A tag has been placed on File:Beverley Grammar School.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused duplicate or lower-quality copy of another file on Misplaced Pages having the same file format, and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. — Ирука 13:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Klub Zachowawczo-Monarchistyczny.png

Thanks for uploading File:Klub Zachowawczo-Monarchistyczny.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for England

England has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Reply

I did not rush in, I reviewed the matter quite carefully. I am very slow to make blocks.

1. The characterisation of the Arbcom's finding is wrong. I quote: "Yorkshirian has engaged in a variety of unseemly conduct, including personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith, edit-warring and attempts to use Misplaced Pages as a battleground along geographical, cultural, and ideological lines". The finding of fact makes no mention of "regional seperatism" as asserted above.
2. It is perfectly evident that there is a content dispute at the various pages referred to. This was not a factor in issuing the block. The block was made on the basis of disruptive and POV editing such as those I highlighted above.
3. You received a warning in July that one more case of misconduct would result in an indefinite block. Such misconduct occurred, and the indefinite block resulted.
4. As a compromise, I would be willing offer you that instead of the indefinite block, you simply serve the one year block that Arbcom originally levelled against you. As you sockpuppeted your way around it the first time you have yet to actually serve ANY of it. So I am willing to alter the block back to a full year instead of the current indef. Manning (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• ONIH spuriously claims I removed the organisation chanting We Hate Muslims. What was actually said was Changes that the EDL chanted "We hate Muslims" at pro-Palestinian demonstrators at International al-Quds Day to the claim that they chanted it at "Hezbollah demonstrators", despite the source saying nothing of the sort. So ONiH didn't claim he removed anything, he said he changed the target of the chanting. BigDunc 17:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Formal block review

I have reviewed this case after a night's sleep and find my attitude has not changed. Despite the user clearly having made some positive contributions recently, I see this as a case of a long-term disruptive editor who has repeatedly abused policy, conducted sockpuppetry to evade a 12 month arbcom sanction and whose net benefit to the project is negative.

Regardless, Yorkshirian has formally requested block review on his talk page and I note that this has NOT yet been conducted. Due process should be followed and my comments above should be taken as nothing more than another single opinion.

In light of the heated content debate that exists parallel to this issue I would recommend that the review be conducted an admin with no prior experience editing in the related subject matter. I would also recommend that the review be conducted solely with regard to user conduct.

In conducting the review please also examine the alternate remedy proposed by ChildofMidnight on Yorkshirian's talk page. Manning (talk) 01:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

ROC/China/Taiwan conflict

Werewaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been on a spree changing China/Taiwan/Republic of China terms in several articles towards the "One China" view. I have no particular interest in this topic, but I do know that it's a contentious area and no-one should make wide-spread changes without discussion. I've asked the user to discuss, reverted, and given him a 3RR warning. He has not replied so far. Some additional eyes would be welcome. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

To be fair there is a minority of editors (including myself) who feel the China/PRC split to be highly POV and rather ethnocentric. Although I don't condone vandalism even when I agree, to a limited extent, with the editors view, it should be noted that this is an emotionally charged issue that could be perceived as a problem spot on Misplaced Pages for about 1.5 billion people. (Most of whom don't speak english but, still)... Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Procedural Note I have informed Werewaz of this discussion, on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 14:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I almost blocked Werewaz for vandalism when I saw that he changed "Myanmar" to "Burma" in a list -- then I found that our article actually is moved-protected at Burma. Are we supposed to know better than the UN what that country has been called since before Misplaced Pages was founded? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Not a useful comment in this location, please don't discuss here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes. With the Russians, Estonians and Poles all tied up at Arbitration, why not get into another series of geo-social-ethno-political move wars on China and Burma. Good times, folks, good times. Thatcher 14:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I have had a similar problem with this user, and warned them here after several exchanges (see history page of List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita. As happened later with Stephan Schulz, the user was invited to come to the talk page, and did not, not even making edit summaries. Whatever anyone's feelings, policy on this issue is very clear - see WP:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Political_NPOV and the section after that. Flags, as state symbols, should not be labelled simply "China" and "Taiwan". It may seem petty, but sadly it isn't, as evidenced by this user going through and changing all the names despite many requests not to. The account is more or less SPA, too.

(edit conflict) As a note, the Burma/Myanmar issue is a good deal more complicated, and cannot be compared to this more settled matter.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Werewaz (talk · contribs) has reverted again. I don't see any point in not blocking at this stage.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Standard 24-hour block for WP:3RR issued. EyeSerene 17:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Note Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Rayesworied; user was a block-evading sockpuppet. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Outside administrator needed

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Harry Benjamin's Syndrome