Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:11, 21 October 2009

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Template removal & incivility...

17:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)}}

Restored from archive... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Again... still unresolved, silly Miszabot... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Once more, due to continued activity... - Adolphus79 (talk) 06:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
This timestamp will prevent auto-archiving. Please remove it when the thread is marked resolved. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2199 (UTC)

Back on September 20, 2009, Chao19 (talk · contribs) was blocked for removing article maintenence templates and incivility. He was removing {{fact}}, {{refimprove}}, and {{references}} templates from assorted Creed articles... he was given fair warning, and his only replies the the warnings were that no references were needed and I was an asshole for restoring the templates. After the block, that user was inactive for a while, although there were one or two IPs (67.167.33.47 (talk · contribs) and possible others) that continued the pattern, even going so far as to continue the incivility on my user talk page (this and the following half dozen revisions)... within a minute of the IP's last comment, Chao19 had logged in, and replied to his own IP comment (Chao19's first edit since the block)... Since that edit, the IP has not made any further edits, and Chao19 has continued the incivility and removal of maintenence templates without reason... I filed a report at AIV, and was going to file a report at SSP, but was told it would be better brought to ANI...

It is obvious that the IP is a sock of Chao19, and it is also obvious that Chao19's original block did nothing to change his editing habits... his counter-productive editing and harassment of other users has become more than an average bother to me, and I would like someone else to look into this... - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes this behavior is pretty bad. Comments like "Why do you expect everything to be referenced? Jesus.." leave me with doubt that this person has the willingness to comply with Misplaced Pages's most basic editing rules. If this was a new editor I would suggest that a person have a talk with them about the necessity of verifiability but seeing that they've been an active editor for over 9 months with over 600 edits I'd consider any ignorance of rules at this point to be willful. -- Atama頭 19:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

For the last month I have tried to explain this to him, and have been met with nothing but stubborness and incivility every step of the way... I just sat down to find his latest revelation, "And from what ive seen over the year and a half ive been on here, your the only once who truly gives a flying fuck about the unreferenced stuff."... Anyone that takes a look at my conversation with him so far, will see that this guy obviously does not care about Misplaced Pages's policies, and plans to continue doing what he wants with no regard for them. Add to that the incivility, and you've got the makings of someone who (while not a blatent vandal) will do nothing but cause harm to the project in the end... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Although, I am still looking forward to my Worst Admin Ever award... LOL - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll get started on an excremental barnstar for you. :) -- Atama頭 19:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sa-weet... that'll be number three in as many years... - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Back to the original comment, the editor in question has now begun vandalizing my user page, and continues the incivility on my talk page... Someone with tools please do something about this... - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Adolphus79. That last comment was completely out of line.--Crossmr (talk) 01:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur. A block per WP:NPA would seem to be in order if this happens again. --Bfigura 01:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

His being blocked a month ago for it, and coming back to continue harassing me isn't enough? Or the contsant and blatent template vandalism, which also continued after the last block? I can guarantee that the harassment and template removal will continue, it's not a matter of if... - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, that didn't take long, I just sat down to find that the user had removed maintenence templates again on assorted creed articles, and continues to think that twitter, youtube, and blogs are reliable sources... I am really getting tired of having to constantly clean up after a user that thinks third-party, reliable refs are stupid... - Adolphus79 (talk) 06:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This needs to be stopped right now... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 55 hours. I'd ask you, Adolphus79, to give him a wide berth once his block expires - either he will, in turn, leave you alone as I've instructed him to do, or he will invite a longer (or indef) block. Edits such as the one you cite above are absolutely unacceptable, and as blatant a violation of WP:NPA as I've seen in the past few hours. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 17:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to do so, this user's edits that were done in good faith, and those that were beneficial to the 'pedia, have gone untouched by my hands... My only concern is the blatent template removal, the bad refs, and the incivility... I will certainly give Chao19 a chance to change his ways (just as I mistakingly did with the last block), but I can not help but keep an eye on his future edits, due to his editing history... I promise that when he comes back from this block, and shows evidence of an effort to follow Misplaced Pages policies, he will never hear from me again... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, you've acted properly - I did not mean to imply otherwise. Rather, it's clear that Chao19's anger is directed at you, so if you choose not to interact with him/her, then they either a) seek you out for further attacks, or b) let it drop. We'll see what happens. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 18:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Incorrigibly disruptive editor

Skipsievert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an incorrigibly disruptive editor who has systematically undermined the best efforts of a team of editors on the Sustainability (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article for nearly a year now. During this period there has been a collaborative effort by a team of editors to bring the article to GA or FA status. Membership of the team is open to any editor who agrees with its goals and process. All the regular editors of the page have signed up to this team, with the exception of Skipsievert, who does not subscribe to its goals and process. Throughout this period, Skipsievert has mocked the collaboration, systematically confronting each editor in turn, tirelessly grandstanding back and forth with unfounded attacks and wikilawyer flourishes.

Skipsievert is always right, always. Anyone else's view is POV, while his view is always neutral. When the collaborative team disagree with Skipsievert, that is proof to Skipsievert that the team collude against him, and that their position is therefore invalid. He repeatedly states that even if there were 100 members on the team disagreeing with him, then it still wouldn't count, because Misplaced Pages is not a democracy and his view is the neutral one. He retains in his memory every disagreement he has had with the team, and endlessly recycles the same worn out issues, never letting anything go, determined that he is going to flog each of his dead horses back to life.

Most days, he tediously adds back into the article, one or more of the positions the collaborative team has rejected. He has been restricted to one revert per day, although recently he has not been adhering to this. He also has a suspected sock/meatpuppet called AdenR, who usually edits in tandem with Skipsievert. AdenR occasionally adopts a rather strange and stilted style. Then he reverts to his more usual style, which is an uncanny mirror of Skipsievert's, echoing his opinions and language, including his idiosyncratic grammar. AdenR has never been known to disagree with Skipsievert.

The upshot is that work on the sustainability article has largely ground to a halt. The talk page has become little more than a vehicle for Skipsievert's grandstanding. The unpleasant and non-collegial atmosphere generated by him has driven off new editors — prompting Skipsievert to make more attacks on the remaining editors, claiming they are the ones driving the new editors away.

It would be easy, but not really helpful, to give long strings of diffs. What is happening here cannot be reduced to this or that incident. It is a pattern of behaviour that tenaciously games the system. He has mastered wikilaw. The flavour of it can be appreciated only by scanning the actual talk page material. I would suggest scanning the last archive followed by the current talk page. Then a cursory examination of the edit history to the article page, where Skipsievert's pattern of tendentious edit warring is on display. --Geronimo20 (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Note that previous disputes involving this editor have been reported here and here. Skipsievert's disruptive behavior is also currently being discussed at Wikproject Economics, on this thread on the wikiproject talk page. Skipsievert has been warned several times about uncivil behavior, for example, here, here and here. On the Austrian School article he has continuously reverted User:Cretog8 and myself when we removed edits made by the socks of a banned editor User:Karmaisking, and then accused us of wrong doing. He refused to withdraw the accusations even after being confronted with conclusive evidence that the socks were of the banned editor. LK (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not a regular editor of the sustainability article, and so only know as much about this issue as I've seen from Skipsievert discussing the conflict at other talk pages. However, I did want to say that Geronimo20's description of Skipsievert's behavior is mostly consistent with what I have seen in economics articles. (I would disagree that Skipsievert has mastered wikilaw, since he often seems to misunderstand policy, but he is very free with arguments from his understandings of policy.) CRETOG8(t/c) 14:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Tsk, I forgot it's not a good idea to make ironical remarks when commenting. I merely meant that he extensively quotes wikilaw, as though his take is definitive.--Geronimo20 (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This smells a bit like a content dispute, but I should also note that I am one of the project econ editors who has run into skip and basically been driven off articles in frustration due to his editing. His pattern of behavior fits the profile for civil POV pushing almost precisely. I don't actually know that AN/I is the right venue (and there is an ongoing attempt at mediation), but most of the comments made above are accurate. Protonk (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Protonk, your input into this thread looks like it could do more harm than good. Best to think twice before commenting here.--AtlanticDeep (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? Protonk (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope that the Mediation mention by Protonk would not be hindered by whatever action might be taken with respect to other complaints. (I have observed only a limited share of skipsievert's edits, and am not well-positioned to comment on his general editing behavior.) —SlamDiego_←T 16:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that this does seem like a content dispute, it actually is a repeated string of violations of behavioral policies]. IMO, the current mediation is an entirely separate matter. Sunray (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This revolves around a content dispute on the Sustainability article regarding a word definition (sustainability) to a political pov, which is not an actual definition of the word in question but to another word (Sustainable growth or development), and the use of uncivil interaction by user Geronimo who has misrepresented the situation. Also some people coming here to comment have made some disturbing personal attack commentary recently like Cretog's way over the top attack.

Also, User:Lawrencekhoo has interacted on several articles very much not according to policy and guideline editing in my opinion, along with making extensive use of personal remarks in a very negative way and that person (L.K.) believes that sources should be weighted toward a mainstream view and has asked me to not be a participant on the Wiki project economics page more or less or suggesting I should not edit there here, thus a larger issue of that editor and policy guideline issues.

N.p.o.v. is my comment as to my editing style, and also verifiable as contrasted with truth giving, whether mainstream or heterodox. Neither in or of themselves have weight. I may drop out of the Mediation described Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/WikiProject Economics Guidelines, now concerning the Econ project page, because of the resulting bad faith explanation of L.K concerning my editing activity. Coming to this page by L.K. and using it as an attacking vehicle while this other mediation is happening, seems like a very very bad idea.

I am a good faith editor on Misplaced Pages. I doubt whether there is any evidence to show otherwise. I edit a lot and on a wide variety of articles. Real issues of non neutral pov to a political pov on the Sustainability article exist in my opinion. The sign up editing team there have used consensus more as a weapon than a positive editing process. Removing a tag calling for more scrutiny done by Geronimo and citing consensus or edit warring as he has done is not good. All around making false charges of calling another editor an Incorrigibly disruptive editor in the heading here is that persons opinion, but does not reflect my trying to make the Sustainability article into a better article by trying to maintain policy and guidelines as to neutral pov on that article. skip sievert (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Geronimo20 has provided an excellent summary of the situation, IMO. As a member of the editing team that has been trying, for the past year, to raise the quality of the Sustainability article to FA status, I can attest to the fact that there have been almost continual disruptions by Skipsievert. Five of us agreed to work on this in November, 2008. We have continually invited other editors to join. However, likely due to the disruptions, until recently no one else has signed up. Two things have changed within the past month: 1) The disruptions have become more pronounced with tandem reverts and continual violations of WP:POINT by Skip and AdenR, and 2) other editors have now joined in the discussion (User:Geronimo20 and Lawrencekhoo).

The article has had two peer reviews this year. In the second peer review Ruhrfisch advised that the article should be submitted for good article nomination prior to FA assessment. There is a consensus between all of the regular editors except Skipsievert/AdenR that the basic content should remain stable, subject only to format improvements, copyediting and reducing the size of some sections using summary style. The content of the article has been worked out over a long process of collaboration between Granitethighs, Travelplanner, Nick carson and me, who, collectively, have considerable expertise in the subject matter. We have been aided in this by the editing and administrative skills of several other editors, including OhanaUnited, Geronimo and Lawrencekhoo.

Going back to the beginning of October, the current pattern of disruption is evident when one considers this edit , which is a major change to the consensus version of the article. It was reverted with the message to discuss the changes on the talk page . Despite lengthy discussion on the talk page from September 23 to October 13,, Skipsievert and AdenR failed to get a consensus that the changes had merit. Despite repeated requests to not make changes unless agreed to by consensus, the pattern of edit warring by Skipsievert and AdenR has continued: , , , , , , , , , , , and so on and on, my fingers are getting blistered, but there are probably at least 10 more examples up to the present date.

It is important to note that, although the current situation is more blatant than before, the pattern has been consistent throughout the past year—over a half dozen issues that stem from a particular POV that is being propounded over and over by Skipsievert. He has singlehandedly brought any productive collaborative editing to a standstill. If the article is to have any chance for improvement, we need assistance. I conclude from the abundant evidence that a topic ban for Skipsievert/AdenR is warranted. Sunray (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• I've encountered Skipsievert on a number of pages. I broadly agree with the comments above. Skip supports a fringe POV and pushes very hard to get that POV given more attention and credibility than is consistent with WP:WEIGHT. That includes a good deal of unproductive wikilawyering and straight-out disruption.JQ (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute. Despite working for nearly a year on the article, Sustainability (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) still has some not inconsequential NPOV and source issues. I do not know what condition the article was in a year ago but it appears that these problems have been caused as much by the group of editors trying to get the article up to FA standards as by Skipsievert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his "disruptive" editing. While it is a problem that Skipsievert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems unable or unwilling to work with other editors toward building consensus on the article, I think he is not the only editor on the page causing a problem. There is plenty of blame to go around. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Voiceofreason01: Would you be able to support your contentions above about the "group of editors" with some examples? I think that the regular page editors have been open and responsive to all outside parties, including other editors, various notice boards, and two peer reviews. With respect, given the evidence presented above, it seems to me to be a superficial view to refer to this as a "content dispute." Sunray (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Voiceofreason01: I have worked on the article now for about 2 years. I have found that the team of editors has worked extremely well (and efficiently) together except for the relentless and debilitating criticisms of Skipsievert that have protracted the development of the article by about a year. It is an unfortunate fact that over time the kind of disruptive editing exhibited by Skipsievert builds in resistance. When compromise only ever proceeds in one direction then the relationship eventually must deteriorate. Skip does not compromise - ever - and this does not endear people to his case(s). Perhaps a new but more "collegiate" editor expressing views in a less uncompromising manner would be a help in improving the article. Would you act as an advocate for those "not inconsequential NPOV and source issues" which you believe the article contains? In the meantime it is my candid opinion that Skipsievert has, since first working on the article, proved a relentless and indefatigable negative influence. Granitethighs 22:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I meant no offense to the regular editors of the Sustainability article, User Skipsievert's behavior seems to have been, in the balance, detrimental to the improvement of the article. In retrospect my comments, and the converns about the article that promted them, are probably not relevent to this discussion and I apologize. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 05:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Skipsievert, on numerous occasions, made me pull my hair out. Whenever he loses an argument, he will employ the "I didn't hear that" strategy. By citing comments against his view as incivil and personal attack, he will removed comments on talk page even when the comment itself is neutral-worded to try redirect the attention. This is a clear violation of talk-page guidelines. In addition, he violated yet another 1RR just a week ago. Skipsievert should have received a few more blocks due to his multiple 1RR violations, as shown by my evidence and from others. OhanaUnited 04:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, Skipsievert has also been banned for disruptive behavior from various Technocracy groups and internet forums. As seen here: and //technocracynet.eu/backup/old_net/20_4_07/index.php?option=com_mamboboard&Itemid=103&func=view&id=3818&catid=44 (which is currently on a spam filter list) LK (talk) 06:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The above ^ is a personal attack Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor. I suggest it be removed. This is the reasoning

linking to outside information for use in attacking another Those are internet blogs that L.K. is using. This is turning into a witch hunt now above.

L.K. has canvased other users blatantly to come here in a very very negative way here. Linking a blog forum attack in this section points out something about what is going on here. Also the way this whole thing was presented Incorrigibly disruptive editor was not neutral or accurate for a content dispute. skip sievert (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I viewed it as a neutral message. Both you and LK have interactions on that page, so what makes his message viewed as "canvass" while you removed the post and claimed yourself to be neutral? Just today, you are getting close to violating 3RR at WikiProject Economics, which you tried to prevent people from coming to here and comment on the issue. Others are warning you that you're edging towards 3RR violationg. OhanaUnited 20:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Skipsievert's activities obviously extend far beyond only the Sustainability article. Perhaps, in addition to the topic ban there should be a shorter term block to restore order and give him a chance to cool off. But please, let's address this question of the topic ban in any case. Sunray (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a topic ban for the Sustainability article and shorter term blocks are an essential first step. But I would mention that I have never seen such a blatant case of POV-pushing by SS, across a whole raft of articles as in Category:Technocracy movement. I am concerned that SSs own brand of pro-technocracy views have unbalanced articles such as Technocracy movement, Technocracy Incorporated and Energy accounting. (SS's agressive promotion of his own agenda has resulted in hundreds of posts from him to the Technocracy movement talk page.) There are many scholarly books written on the issue of Technocracy but these are not being referred to, and the WP articles typically rely on the slanted views of a few self-published and wiki sources. There is a lot of overlapping content in the Technocracy articles (ie., particular paragraphs and chunks of text appearing in several articles), see Talk:Energy accounting#More repetition and , and it appears that repetition of content across articles has been used by SS as a way to blatantly push technocratic ideas. I and other editors discussed this POV-pushing extensively on Talk pages of the articles involved and in extensive edit summaries in early 2009, but we had no success in bringing more balance to the articles. And SS has sometimes warned off other editors in a way that could be seen to be threatening, using edit summaries such as "Do not remove tag" or "Do not add again" see . POV pushing was an issue that was discussed at SS's 2008 user conduct RfC, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Skipsievert. Johnfos (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

October 17, 2009

Just to underscore the seriousness of this problem, here are today's edits to the article:

• Skipsievert reverts once again with major changes to the article lead
• I revert, pointing out that there is no consensus for these changes
• AdenR reverts with the statement "Your POV is in conflict Sunray/GT/TP/Nickcarson/Geronimo. You edit in tandem."
• Lawrencekhoo reverts, once again pointing out that the edits by Skipsievert/AdenR are against consensus.

Meanwhile the tendentious posts and violations of behavioral policies and guidelines continue on the talk page:

• Endless rehashing of the same point ,
• Personalized comments at the expense of content ,

I believe that this tandem-editing duo is making a mockery of Misplaced Pages's fundamental goals and most important policies; there is a need to take action now. Sunray (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban for Skipsievert and AdenR

Given the evidence presented above with respect to continual reverts and insertions of major changes to article text against consensus, disruptive and tendentious commentary on the talk page and violations of WP:POINT, the following action is proposed:

Skipsievert and AdenR are topic banned from the sustainability article and associated talk page for a period of one year.

• Support. This combo has obstructed collaborative editing and violated Misplaced Pages behavioral policies. A topic ban is the minimum step needed for a constructive editing environment to be restored. Sunray (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• No This isn't the right venue, we haven't explored or exhausted DR and there is an ongoing mediation with skip as a party. Protonk (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The mediation is unrelated to the Sustainability article. This is not mediatable, IMO (and I am a mediator). Sunray (talk) 01:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• If this in not the right venue, then let us move it to the right venue. The ongoing mediation has no direct connection with this case. You were referred above to 300K of talk page text attempting to resolve the dispute. And there is probably one or several megabytes of earlier attempts. You would not take this position if you had already experienced some extended process with Skipsievert. Skipsievert is interesting in grandstanding, not in resolving disputes. I think a lot of good editors will just give up at this stage if this matter cannot be settled. --Geronimo20 (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• A few responses. First, I feel he has disrupted articles well outside the sustainability sphere, so a narrow topic ban may only actually resolve things for that one editor. Second, An/I is generally not a fair venue for those facing topic bans nor it is a good venue from which to seek a permanent solution (unless there is overwhelming support). Third, I noted above that I have been and am now involved in some version of the DR process w/ Skip, so you can't assume ignorance of the subject on my part. Lastly, the right venue is a user conduct RfC. Protonk (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, good points. From what you say, this process may have to be expanded. However, we are currently prevented from constructive editing of the sustainability article and we need an immediate resolution there. Someone may wish to initiate a broader RfC relating to his activities elsewhere. Given that, how would you vote for this specific proposal? Sunray (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• I still oppose a topic ban, based at least partially on the unwarranted hassling on my talk page about this position. Protonk (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. As a wholly uninvolved outside party, I agree that - from the description above - this appears to be a clear-cut case of persistent civil POV-pushing which is having a deleterious effect on the project. Editors who do not participate in good faith should not be allowed to disrupt those who do. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Skipsievert always stoutly maintains his behaviour is impeccable, and everyone else is out of step. If they are not topic banned, the behaviour will continue and the article might as well be abandoned by constructive editors as a lost cause. It is not right that so much time and energy from so many constructive editors should be shredded in this way. The collective effort lost, trying to contain and work around the Skipsievert/AdenR barrages, would have resulted in several FA articles elsewhere in Misplaced Pages. --Geronimo20 (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Agree with Geronimo: Skipsievert believes he is always right, and everyone else is wrong, so no collaborative editing is possible, and much time is wasted. Johnfos (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support Skipsievert, to my mind, is a paradigm of what is meant by "tendentious editing". Granitethighs 03:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• User Johnphos has previously followed me with negative commentary whenever the opportunity has arisen like here. I do not believe I am always right and I am a collaborative editor.

• To Geronimo... I have never said that my behavior is impeccable as you quote me above. I am human. I am a neutral pov editor that has had concerns about the Sustainability article directed in a non neutral political pov.

• To Sunray and Geronimo suggesting a topic ban? What is the point? No one is, or has, stopped anyone from editing the article. The same core of people have been editing this article for a very long time as this shows I only have tried to copy edit it for neutrality, and take out glaring non neutral aspects. Concerns about the article are different than being a disruptive editor. Also to propose a topic ban on a newbie editor... AdenR?? The sign up team previously tried to say that he was a sock puppet because he agreed on some editing points that others have also agreed with in opposition to Sunray and a couple of other editors. It is noted that the pov toward political in the article is so overwhelming as to be beyond question such as the over-sourcing of a political pov. which is still a dominating issue and has been the source of driving off multiple editors that disagreed with that over-sourcing for a long time, so this a consistent pattern.

• Suggestion to ChrisO. Manipulating sentiment by giving a one sided or incomplete view is not so hard if people are determined to do that. You might go to the talk page of the Sustainability article, and see my behavior instead of being convinced here by a negative attack. If there is a Rfc,... I believe it should directed at the article editing direction itself with a question of is it being neutrally edited? This is or was a content dispute. Now it seems a variety of disgruntled users that do not seem to like me for what ever reason, have appeared here through canvassing also Lawrence khwoo calling others to come here - Sourcing an entire lead to a political point of view is not a good idea. That is the only ref/citation in the lead. I tried to source the word to a dictionary meaning instead. That would have no baggage. Instead the editing team prefers the definition of sustainability to the U.N., but there is a problem there. That is not a definition of sustainability, it is a definition to sustainable development or sustainable growth, and it is dated. My wish is that other editors actually go to the article and get involved to improve it.

• Can people in the sign up team come here sign up team, and suddenly propose a topic ban because they do not like their edits being questioned as to n.p.o.v.?? Then pile in their friends for extra support? This is not good. skip sievert (talk) 04:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support topic ban and add in a few more blocks per 1RR violations. He still leads people going in circles even in here. Had I been a neutral admin, I would have issued the blocks right away because clearly Skipsievert did not learn his lessons after his previous block, which the admin blocked him indef for "Created blog to attack users, has an obvious axe to grind, nonstop tendentious editing and edit-warring, POV-pushing and general unproductiveness" before shortening the block to 1 week per ANI. OhanaUnited 04:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• There were no 1RR violations or undoing reverts in the time frame. I may have edited other parts of the article but that is not undoing an edit. Sunray under a 1RR did violate that though, at least once. I did not. I am not leading people in circles. Previous block... several years ago. No... I grind the ax of neutral pov. and that should not be a problem. How is it that you are dredging negative stuff from several years ago above? Not good. And why are people from the sign up team showing up here to now make negative attacks?? Previously I tried to resolve some issues through informal mediation and Ohana also showed up to castigate and make demeaning commentary and dredge edits from years ago and now he repeats the same kind of behavior. It is noted that he has not participated except negatively on the discussion page in question. Ohana is also a member of the editing team on the article Sign up team. Also it is noted that Ohana came to a sock puppet investigation by the team, which was proven to be not true, with the same kind of negative polemic here - skip sievert (talk) 04:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Ah ha, thanks skip for pulling out more evidences against yourself. This edit shows your abusive behaviour. His edit is removing my comments on someone else's user talk page, added his own comments, and in the edit summary states "comment". You're trying to mislead others into thinking you're adding your own comments, when in fact you're also removing people's comments. I gave Skip one last chance in December 2008 in the hopes of AGF, but Skip did not improve at all and my faith is losing fast. OhanaUnited 05:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. The above comments, the evidence against the two user accounts and the continued disruption of collaborative, unbiased editing on WP in the affected articles, speak for themselves. I am disappointed it has come to this, but all other avenues, short of a face-to-face chat, have indeed been exhausted. I see 6 in support, 2 calling for the process to be expanded. Nick carson (talk) 05:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. as an uninvolved party - one individual (and has a sock-check be done) cannot hold up progress. After reading the talkpage and the archive, I'm happy the other editors are acting with the best intentions of the project. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support' as uninvolved. It's obvious from the comments above that SS uses false accusations of NPA which is a violation of policy. The issues with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT et al. show a tendentious editor who refuses to accept consensus. We need editors from all points of view editing here, but they must follow the rules and accept consensus. Auntie E. 15:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support as uninvolved. It is clear that progress on this article is being impeded. --Iacchus —Preceding undated comment added 20:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC).

• Support based on discussion above. (For disclosure I am involved in a mediation just beginning which includes Skipsievert.) The Four Deuces (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Enough already. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. If Misplaced Pages is to have a sustainability article worth reading, then the proposed ban is the only option. I have been editing the Sustainability page for one year now, I was part of setting up the editing team specifically in response to this post from Granitethighs, who is clearly an expert on sustainability, ceding defeat to Skipsievert whose disruptive tactics had caused GT to give up on editing under normal protocols. One year on I have come to the conclusion that progress on the article isn’t difficult with Skip involved – it’s impossible.

Mediation and RfC are pointless – as pointed out at the very beginning of this thread, Skip is always right. The entire talk archive since Skip began editing has been one long mediation process – in common with all the other constructive editors I have spent hours attempting to mediate with Skip for every minute I have spent contributing to the article. An RfC will just require us to waste even more time, and nothing will change as a result.

BTW the above support from Misplaced Pages admins is heartening; I have been put through more incivility and timewasting than it is reasonable to expect anyone to tolerate, and the other constructive editors of this article have all had it worse than me. It is a delight to hear the Misplaced Pages community agree this is unacceptable.--Travelplanner (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I don't see any alternative, given the track record. This sort of situation is exactly what discourages improvement and deters collaboration. There shouldn't have to be a lone group of editors fighting against extreme tendentious behaviour to improve any article on this project. (For the record, I don't recall having ever edited this article or any closely related articles.) user:J aka justen (talk) 07:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Tally thus far

• Support = 14;
• Oppose = 0;
• Other = 1 (move to another forum)

As a sign of good faith, I will 'step back' from editing the article for at least a few weeks and stick to its talk page. The issue of neutral point of view editing on the article is not being addressed in my view and obscured with information that is not connected to that issue. skip sievert (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This wouldn't work, I'm afraid. Most of the havoc you have wreaked has been on the talk page. The continual reverts are highly annoying and against WP:CON, however most of the violations of behavioral policies and guidelines occur on the talk page. The inability to edit collaboratively and abide by consensus; endless disruptions to make a point and frequent violations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA by you and AdenR are what prevents other editors from progressing with article improvements. As Travelplanner points out, above, dealing with you over the past year has been a continuous mediation. Nothing has worked. The only way to avoid a ban or a block, IMO, is for you and your puppet to leave the article completely. For good. Sunray (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This proposal to 'step back' seems out of character, and I doubt that it is serious, as edit warring continues on the sustainability page, and personal attacks on the talk page. It's more likely that the proposal is being made only because of advice given to Skip about how to respond to this proposed topic ban. LK (talk) 04:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, today it proved that this "stepping back" wouldn't work. AdenR is now doing all the work for Skip while Skip refrains from editing the article. For example, AdenR cited consensus in the revert when the consensus is against such edits doesn't hold much weight. Merely using the word "consensus" in edit summary does not give you a "get out of jail free" card. It is the actual consensus backing your edits that matters. And has anyone realized that AdenR never come to this page and tries to defend himself? Hypothetically, if I were the subject of a topic-ban, I would come to this discussion immediately and try to stop it from happening. From what I am seeing right now, Skip is doing all the talking while AdenR is doing all the editing. OhanaUnited 05:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for interjection, but given the care that seems to be placed in the review process I wanted to bring to light that while researching for a AfD I saw in Skipsievert's contributions page a solicitation for protection to another administrator here in regards to this ANI. It would seem unethical for a protagonist to subvert the AIN process this way as similar WP:GAMES seems to be central focus of the incident review against this editor, so could be considered as evidence. At the very least I hope this can prevent more delays in getting a resolution for what is a very impressive portal. Again, sorry. Datheisen (talk) 07:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

whoww! Jeez guys. I never really check my page for messages. It would have helped if someone mentioned to me that this was happening on the talk page. I only saw it mentioned for skip by Geronimo20. I didn't know I was involved with this. Anyways, these accusation are ridiculous and false. I admit that some of my reverts could have been dealt with more reasonably but I still don't constantly revert. But my recent revert was already agreed by consensus. And I have proof, and we are currently discussing this on the talk page. AdenR (talk) 07:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If I'm being discussed for a topic ban then I think it would be reasonable to separate me from skip in this argument. I haven't gone agianst consensus but for a few times. I don't make Hugh changes either. I admit I did revert some edits that are questionable and I'm sorry about that. Also, my recent revert Is being discussed on the article. I have proof it was agreed by consensus and some editors are ignoring that fact. I will take this slow though. Plus most of my edits were not major changes and were still reverted citing consensus. I was reverted for switching "community and political structures" to "humanity" over here. I was reverted for deleting a sentence that added no value to the article and introduced comical comparisons of cancer here. I was Even reverted for doing an edit that that WAS agreed by consensus Here and reverted here. Now, These were most of my edits except for the Blue marble image edit that is still being discussed. All of my minor edits are being reverted all the while the team and others are making edits similar to this. I do think it should be discussed if thier are problems and I am doing that. And once agian my recent revert is being discussed. AdenR (talk) 07:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Right now an editor just recently changed an edit that is being discussed without getting consensus here...How is it that others are allowed to do this but anything made by me is reverted for ridiculus reasons. It seems I am being attacked just for agreeing with skip on some edits. AdenR (talk) 07:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have also been attacked over and over agian by Sunray. He never talks about the subject and talks about me being a sock puppet which is not true. I have asked him MANY time to please stop. Even when I only stick to content him and GT still talk about it. Also, he has stated he doesn't pay attention to anything I bring up about the article HERE because of his opinion of me. AdenR (talk) 08:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Aden, you continually reintroduce your and Skip's preferred version of the lead, knowing that this significant change is disputed by every other person actively editing the page. Since the beginning of the month, you have reverted to yours and Skip's version of the lead: here, here, here, here, here, and here. This is not including other disputes and reverts. Several people on the talk page have asked you to stop doing this, and yet you continued doing so. In fact, your edits are so similar to Skip's that other editors have taken to treating the both of you as one voice. Given this, I hope you understand why you have been named in this complaint. LK (talk) 08:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The second edit you mentioned is still being discussed. That is not anything major. Also, The blue marble image is still not agreed by consensus. After only a few opinions about what it should and should not be you automatically change it to YOUR view. Without consensus by the team whatsoever. I suggest you revert yourself now. Since it seems like you are doing this to stir things up. Only SUNRAY, LK, MORPH, and myself have talked about what that edit should be. But you still took it upon yourself to speak for the team and changed it. An ongoing problem which should be dealt with in content dispute. Not in this manner. Personal attacks about me and another Impeding the progress of the article are ridiculous IMO. This is about content NOT the contributor. Also, I think it is only fair that the ability to say things like "their actions are impeding the progress of the article" can be stated in the content dispute. You guys don't know what is and what is NOT good for the article. Edit wars "i assume" occur because of content. And that IS an issue we are discussing. THis is not the right venue. AdenR (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the diff of the caption change (which I included by accident). That still leaves many times since just the beginning of the month, that you have reintroduced a significant change in the lead that you knew was disputed. This list does not include the other minor edit warrings that you participated in (over the caption for instance). LK (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

OK Aden, the above is a subject dispute and we should probably move it back to the talk page. At first I believed you to be a sockpuppet of Skip's, but this was checked out and came back negative. Your own editing history is, as you point out, not grounds for a ban so unless there is other proof that you are the same person I can't see how a topic ban on Skip should be widened to include you.

Can I change my vote to Support topic ban on Skipsievert for incorrigibly disruptive editing as per evidence above.--Travelplanner (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

However, as the clerk noted in closing the sockpuppet/meatpuppet investigations, Skipsievert and AdenR edit in tandem. The MO of both accounts is relentless hashing of the same points in an aggressive and disruptive manner. So whether we call it "tandem editing" or call it "puppetry," it is just semantics as far as I can see. I have said to AdenR several times that if he does not develop a separate identity from Skip they are likely to be treated as one entity. There has been no change in behavior so they need to be treated as one IMHO. Sunray (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope, that won't work Sunray. If you have problems with it then reopen the case and do whatever you have to do if you think I am a sock puppet or what have you. Until I am "convicted" of something you need to quit with the personal attacks and remarks. They do NOT address anything I bring up concerning the article. You have been shown to lead the discussion into personal attacks/remarks instead of talking on content on the talk page. You and GT specifically. Such as saying things like I am not surprised you side with skip. Or thanking other editors who have personally attacked others on the talk page. Such as this, you could have talk about content but didn't. Same here for GT. You guys constantly do this, which has added to the madness of the article and talk page. Therefore I do not think I nor Skip should be topic banned. Skip has already said he will take time off. I think he has learned his lesson. But still the editing styles and personal remarks if applied to skip should be applied to the other editors as well. AdenR (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Next steps

Can I point out that this dispute over Sustainability is one of three separate disputes in which Skipsievert is engaged at this moment, involving largely separate groups of editors. There was also a Mediation with WikiProject:Economics which broke down on Skip's withdrawal and an AFD on one of his POV-pushing Technocracy articles. In each case, his conduct is similar. I'd suggest that a block is needed so he can take some time off from Misplaced Pages and return with a more constructive approach.JQ (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I suggest we move over to RfC for user conduct, citing WP:Disruption. We should ask for a block as it's clear that the actions of this user(s) are disruptive, and leading to a lot of wasted time and effort on the part of other editors. LK (talk) 02:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Not true, as to disputes I am involved in according to JQ. How is it fair to call my involvement in an Afd. a Pov-pushing article and a dispute? I am getting sick of that kind of banter, here is the Afd, and there is no dispute going on there just normal debate. The mediation your speaking about stopped because of Lawrence Khoo from the sustainability article sign up team , and yourself making a very negative appeal for people to pile in here which they did. This is sometimes referred to as canvasing, and it was blatantly negative. I am not involved in any disputes currently, except maybe defending myself here, because I am not agreeing with what I would term a political pov and a wrongly given definition to a word, on the Sustainability article. I also volunteered not to edit the article page for a few weeks as a good will gesture. Now I see the article still having problems with me not around it also. Could we stop the attack blog approach now? skip sievert (talk) 02:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

We need to bear in mind that if it goes to RfC it will not be about "asking for a block." As WP:RFC states: "An RfC cannot impose involuntary sanctions on a user, such as blocking or a topic ban; it is a tool for developing voluntary agreements and collecting information." I agree, though, that if a topic ban is not possible here, we do need to explore all options to find a solution. Sunray (talk) 06:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

An/I seems seriously broken. What makes you think RfC will not also be just another black hole for sucking up energy? --Geronimo20 (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that ANI is broken. Only that it is not equipped to deal with this kind of problem. ANI works for clearly demarcated incidents. It is not set up to rule on evidence, or sort through huge piles of verbiage and long strings of diffs.

It is true that an RfC would take many people away from their normal editing tasks. Given the persistent behavior patterns over the past two years, it would also be unlikely to succeed in getting a resolution. That could prove discouraging for many and may even drive off some good editors. However, Skipsievert and AdenR deserve a fair hearing and due process. If it were to go to a user conduct RfC, it would be to get community-wide input. Logically, from what we have seen here, if there were no change in Skipsievert and AdenR"s behavior as a result, it would then proceed to arbitration with a lifetime site ban being the likely request. The other approach would be to see if there is a change in Skipsievert's and AdenR's behavior now, and, if not, proceed directly to arbitration. I am leaning towards this latter approach, but would be interested in hearing other views. Sunray (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy, editwarring, disruptive editing and personal attacks

• ~19:20 20 oct. I like to have some reaction/advice from any admin interested in this case. If not here feel free on my talkpage. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy (talk) Last unprovoced personal attack and false accusation made me decide to take action at this side.

16 oct 04:37 "Incidentally, I just want to add that we (all editors) were playing quite nicely in the sand box together until Mr unsigned Anon came along, reverting like a madman and tossing and mixing paragraphs and sentences as though this article was a salad. The edit wars began with him and unfortunately, protection status was instituted becuase of him and his inability to work with others"

First, my last edit on Gaza War before articleprotection was 6 Oct 06:17 self reverting

Jijutsuguys part of editwarring. Proving he was a, if not the, reason for the need of protection of Gaza War

• 8 oct 06:13 more complaining on admins talkpage and accusations "There are a few of us who are only trying to restore some balance into the artice"
• 8 oct 04:12 Complaining on admins talkpage (who protect page) complaining over reverts (His own editwar, Possibly violation of gaming the system).

• 8 oct 03:58 editwarring, revert RomaC, last before protection and version during the protectiontime.
• 8 oct 03:10 editwarring, revert Sean.hoyland
• 7 0ct 20:58 editwarring revert Dailycare
• 7 oct 20:52 editwarring, revert Dailycare
• 7 oct 20:42 Editwarring, possibly revert Blanchardb indiscriminate

Here are all his edits on the days before, showing his combative editstyle.

• 7 oct 15:27 Added "indiscriminate"
• 7 oct 01:57
• 7 oct 00:36
• 6 oct 20:43 revert Mr Unsigned Anon
• 6 oct 20:19 editwarring revert Untwirl, no RS, posibly BLP violation
• 6 oct 19:50
• 6 oct 19:41
• 6 oct 19:36
• 6 oct 19:34
• 6 oct 03:39 Possibly editwarring lead section
• 6 oct 01:14 editwarring revert Nableezy
• 5 oct 06:41 editwarring, revert Mr Unsigned Anon,
• 5 oct 03:08 editwarring revert Sean.hoyland
• 5 oct 02:48 editwarring, revert Sean.hoyland

Disruptive editing and personal attacks

• 16oct 04:37 "Incidentally, I just want to add that we (all editors) were playing quite nicely in the sand box together until Mr unsigned Anon came along, reverting like a madman and tossing and mixing paragraphs and sentences as though this article was a salad. The edit wars began with him and unfortunately, protection status was instituted becuase of him and his inability to work with others"
• 8 oct 06:13 "The most vile of the bunch is Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) who was already warned that he would be blocked for persistent vandalism to this site. Please go to his talk page to see what I'm referring to "
• 6 oct 15:57 "The article was shaping up to be pretty good, though when it comes to Middle East, no one can be entirely satisfied. But comes along Mr Anon Unsigned and starts reverting like a mad man with out regard for any etiquette or decorum. "
• 6 oct 14:29 "This fella has gone crazy with reverts and will not even entertain discussion"
• 6 oct 01:24 "The reasons for attacks against civilian had been stated in the lead for a while undisturbed until anonunsigned went crazy with reverts. I could't even respond to him becuase his English was so poor I had no idea what he was talking about"
• 5 oct 19:54 "Unfortunately, work obligations prevent me from dedicating more time to this nonsense and dealing with these abusive censors. It seems that they've adopted a tactic of coordinating their reverts and come at you in swarms and try to overwhelm and exhaust you " answer to Stellarkids 'list of edits'
• 5 oct 08:10 "Revert to your heart's desire just don't call it the Gaza War or Operation Cast Lead. Call it a recruiting poster for Hamas and don't forget to throw in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" while you're at it."
• 5 oct 07:00 "They don't even bother hiding their anti-Israel bias, By the time their through with this article, it's gonna look like a Hamas recruiting poster."
• 5 oct 02:35 "I must say that you've taken what was shaping up to be a pretty decent article, somewhat balanced, fact-intensive and gramatically correct and turned it into garbage. Just another example of how a perfectly good Misplaced Pages article can be single handedly butchered by a lone, rouge "editor" "
• 5 0ct 02:05 "Your English is barely understandable so it's difficult for me to respond to your incoherent, illogical arguments. Again, I suggest you take a two-year English course and come back when you can articulate a coherent thought"

His personal attacks was up at Wikiquett but it was met with more attacks and case didnt come to a resolution.

There is more problems around Juijutsuguy about POV-editing and I can probably dig up advice from other editors telling him to stopp that he neglect. But I think my presentation of diffs should be enough for administrators to take action after checking them.

Reservations for errors with the editdiffs but I hope all are correct.

Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 10:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr Unsigned Anon

Sigh. It seems that Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) has filed yet another complaint against me. Honestly fellas, I work for a living so it's difficult for me to spend an inordinante amout of time compiling "evidence" of the sort my friend seems to have compiled. However, I did make a short list of some of Mr Unsigned Anon's gems:

• Come on Wikifellows. His IP says he is from Brooklyn USA. Why on earth can one believe a guy from Brooklyn working for the Israeli Goverment. Just look at all nice areas and etnic... Borough Park... Wait! Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 12:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Finally I found that recruitment office. Now where is jiujitsuguys bankacount so he can get that recrutbonus? Lookie new bombwest. Wonder what happen if I push this red button. Oh shii.... Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 05:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Just trying to grind up a solution, no accusation involved. But BashBrannigan suggestion is a middleway. No bold text and no Cast Lead. And thats just the first part of lead. Damnit, there is more diputed. But without you and Nableezy agrea this will take long time. I understand he will drop the bold text if Im right. Cant you accept BashBrannigan:s? Its attractive to me as 'Cast Lead' is, even kind of abstract as I never been in Gaza, a name splattered by up to 926 civilians blood. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 09:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC

• Yes, November 4 shit started... Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• If you are a Israeli or American jew I like to discuss some tings with you. Because there is some things i dont understand and you could help me with it. But first I think you should stop edit articles about the conflict between Israel and Palestinians. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 09:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Never mind, hope the weather is good in Brooklyn. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

His comments, in addition to using inappropriate foul language, are laced with a racist undertone based on ethnicity and demographics. I believe that his invective toward me stems from the fact that his last complaint against me was found to be without merit and fell flat. Indeed, it backfired on him and he became the subject of scrutiny and criticism.

My only regret was poking fun at his spelling and grammar and I have already apologized for that. It actually did not come out the way I meant it but I really had difficulty understanding him, making any meaningful dialouge and exchange of ideas difficult.

Since his last complaint against me, I have refrained from addressing him directly lest I be accused of insulting him again and have asked him not to post on my talk page. He has difficulty comprehending instruction as he still continues to post messages on my page.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps what upsets me most is that (based on his first comment) he assumed that I lived in a certain geographical location and based on that assumption, he presumed that I belonged to a certain ethnicity.Because of that presumed ethnicity, he assumed that I held certain pre-disposed beliefs. He is wrong on all three counts. But I needn't justify myself to him. I am just presenting the facts to you.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The message below was left on my talk page by another editor who encountered similar problems with Mr Unsigned Anon (talk)

I don't know what to make of it or do with it but I analyzed Mr Unsigned Anon's contributions. I can't believe this can be seen as productive, collaborative editing! He has been here for just over a month and worked almost entirely on the issue of the Gaza War. There are few (if any) positive edits, all seem to be editing from a strong anti-Israel bias (POV) and consist mainly of removing material that has been added, with quite a lot of discussion on the talk page, but little or any of it actually calling on Misplaced Pages policy.

90 total edits since Sept 24, 2009 - 27 of these on just two articles (Gaza War & International Law and the Gaza War) and virtually all of the rest on their talk pages : of the 27 actual article edits, some 15 -over half of all edits were removals of (mostly substantiated) material or reverts.

# -rvt

1. -- moved material to lede
2. rvt
3. rvt
4. rvt sourced material
5. rvt sourced material
6. rvt
7. rvt
8. rvt
9. rvt
10. removed material
11. removed material
12. totally reworked article called it "restructured section"
13. removed sourced material "removed israeli side exlanation that it is undue weight in lead"
14. removed sourced material "remove superfluous opinions fron not involved parts"
15. removed sourced material

I didn't even know there was such a thing as Wiki etiquette alerts, but anyway, that is the only other place besides your talk page and Roma's that he has "contributed" besides the Gaza War. Somehow I find something not terribly polite can be seen in the results of the above analysis. Again not so sure what can be done about it, but maybe something.? Stellarkid (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that this message was posted on Oct 5. Since that time, Mr Anon Unsigned has reverted back to his usual unilateral ways, reverting sourced material without doing any original research of his own. It is truly a frustrating experience to watch your research and sourced edits go down the toilet by someone who's trying to push a non-neutral POV.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Second time that list of editdiffs is up. It was used as an incorrect accusation then and so now. It is second time Jiujitsuguy respond to complains of personal attacks with countercharges , and this by his friend stellarkid badly compiled list. Last time it led to a vandalizingwarning by uninvolved editors, later removed "I hearby remove this warning. As, according to the edit difs it doesn't seen like vandalism. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 10:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)" I hope you admins dont let Jiujitsuguy bring you out of focus with this mostly nonsence counteraccusations and really out of context claims. The importent thing shown here is that he have no intension to stop, or change his behavour and I have to ask you to ban or topicban him. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If that's a bad list I want to correct it. I somehow must have copied something other than the diffs, like "previous" or something. I did however check every one when I wrote it up and they were reverts or removals. So please scatch that list if you would and I will put up a corrected one. Not sure what happened but I am sorry if it is wrong as I said earlier. I want to recheck each diff and to find the correct link. Something went screwy if it is wrong. Stellarkid (talk) 03:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I dont understand how jiujitsuguy could post it the second time well knowing of its inconcistnsies and faults. Or the first time without checking it. Or just adress my complains in first case. But no... Here we start wars Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 03:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> There were mistakes in that list and for that I do apologize to Mr Unsigned Anon. I am not sure how it happened, but I take full responsibility for those mistakes and again am sorry. The list ran from Sept 26-October 5. Most were not real reverts. Just a couple. Two were duplicates of each other. One was a proper revert of (anti-Israel) vandalism. One had just moved stuff around so much it seemed disappeared. Here are the ones that I do feel are relevant and that demonstrate that Mr Anon is removing (sourced) material based on POV rather than NPOV:

1. Not a revert, but wholesale removal of well-sourced material from a certain perspective -- including removal of JPost, The Economist, Amnesty Internation (Cant understand why the lead is filled upp with pov stuff even if ballansing out eachother. Start a section or continue to use the reportin other sections. I put the stuff I cut in talk for use els)
2. not a revert but a POV removal
3. not a revert but removed huge amounts of sourced material, edit summary {International law: removing opinion and views better discussed in the main article} However the material maintained the opinion of Hamas
4. removed sourced material appears to be a revert -(Edit summary "views, comments away")
5. rvt straightout revert , no comment
6. rvt straightout revert
7. totally reworked article called it "restructured section"'' Removed considerable amount of sourced Israeli POV
8. removed sourced material explaining Israel's reasons for "destroying mosques, houses, medical facilities and schools" -- which was that (according to Israel) they were being used by combatants. This was very POV to remove. (edit summary: "removed israeli side exlanation that it is undue weight in lead"
9. removed sourced material "remove superfluous opinions fron not involved parts" Superflous because it presented an opinion (Cordesman) that could be seen as favorable to Israel.
10. removed sourced material edit summary: "removed the Marc Garlasco stuff) This is arguable, although it might have been less POV to have removed some parts of the material until they could be discussed instead of using a butcher knife.

Again I apologize for my errors. I hope I have not made any in this corrected list. If I have I please ask for you to point them out so that I may correct them Stellarkid (talk) 05:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

So you take full responsibility for this. Start explain why you posting this list and to what purpose. This is ANI. Make a complain accusation or requst for admin action. You edited in Jiujitsus text. Am I supposed to edit aditional analyses in your 'list' ? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 05:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Further, this list surfaced here 19:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC). Why? What was your intension for creating it? You didnt respond when I asked you to elaborate. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 05:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Your way of teaming up with jiujitsuguy raise conserns, early on by making the list. And this show you are not unawere about your lists intent to be used against editors not supporting your POV Same spirit as Jiujitsuguy. The list nonsence, and the making of it, tells about a mission. Importent enough to keep list on supposed opponents editing. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 06:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy, you was the one Godwined yourself!

• 5 oct 08:10 "Revert to your heart's desire just don't call it the Gaza War or Operation Cast Lead. Call it a recruiting poster for Hamas and don't forget to throw in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" while you're at it."

Note timestamp, and stopp insinuate racism. As you remember from Wikiquett that was not your first , what you call "gem". Wikiquett is a problemsolving, not action taking by anyone. Your counterattack made me back off after understanding you are not reasonable. I dropped it. Two times. This is diferent. Adress my first complain. This one:

"Incidentally, I just want to add that we (all editors) were playing quite nicely in the sand box together until Mr unsigned Anon came along, reverting like a madman and tossing and mixing paragraphs and sentences as though this article was a salad. The edit wars began with him and unfortunately, protection status was instituted becuase of him and his inability to work with others" Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 04:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr Anon, I had to go look up what it meant to "Godwin" oneself. Jiujitsuguy was perhaps over the top with the remark about Protocols but it was not a direct personal attack. Antisemitism and the Nazi treatment of Jews in WWII is no joke or game, especially in an environment such as WP and editing of articles in relation to Israel and Palestine, where there is a need for sensitivity on both sides of the fence. Remembering that the European Union's working definition includes using a double standard when discussing events controversial issues such as is inevitable in an article such as Gaza War. I am not a "friend" of Juijisugy but a colleague in the Misplaced Pages endeavor, as I am your colleague as well, and I read hints of ethnic profiling in your remarks on his talk page. Perhaps it would have been better to discuss your real intent or meaning when you noticed he was sensitive to your remarks rather than dragging him to a wikicourt and making jokes about "Godwining" himself. Stellarkid (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about in Jiujitsuguys place? And why? I find this a strange answer to the request above. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Filed an Arbitration case see: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Gaza_.22Wikipedia_Edit_War.22 --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 21:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Blogs used as references

For the last 2½ weeks or so, editors have been trying to remove links to a blog used as a reference in an article. The blog in question is http://mentalblog.com/ , an apparently defunct, anonymous blog, and the article is Menachem Mendel Schneerson. I brought the issue to WP:RS/N (see Misplaced Pages:RS/N#mentalblog.com), where it seemed the consensus was pretty overwhelming in favor of removal, but two or three movement members are insisting on the article Talk: page that the blog is nonetheless reliable as a source for Schneerson's will, based on their personal knowledge of Schneerson's signature etc. They refuse to allow links to the blog in references to be removed, and revert any such removal within minutes. Since article Talk: page discussion and WP:RS/N discussion appears to have made no impact, I've brought the issue here for wider review. Jayjg 20:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The assertion made by this editor is incorrect. The main argument is that there is no consensus to remove a source which contains what I and other editors know to be genuine copies of the original. I have explained so in a reply to this editor on my talkpage, please see there as to whether his removal reflected consensus. The blog source removed by Jayjg and restored by me and others is just a PDF copy of two pages from a book. I and others have seen that book, and it is mentioned in the article as a source together with the blog. The blog is kept mainly for easy accessability. Several editors have reversed his removals and protested against them on the talkpage of Menachem Mendel Schneerson, but Jayjg insists he is right and keeps seeking other venues inside Misplaced Pages (first Misplaced Pages:RS/N and now WP:ANI) that would justify him, and is overly zealous on this subject (see the length and time frame of the discussions), which is also no appreciated by other editors. Debresser (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

If you've seen the book, why not source the book instead of the blog? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Debresser's post above is a perfect example of the issue; the blog is a reliable source because "I and other editors know to be genuine copies of the original." In the same dispute, Debresser has refused to give page numbers for "the book" in question, though he has inserted it as a reference, explaining that he read it years ago, but is sure it contains the material somewhere. His co-members of the movement have insisted—based on their personal assessment of "the book"— that "the book", published by little-known rabbi on an unknown press, is more reliable than books published by a university professor-subject matter expert, on reliable presses. Debresser and a couple of others have refused to accept that Misplaced Pages is guided by WP:V and WP:RS, not their personal assessments of source reliability. See the RS/N or Talk page discussions for more details. Jayjg 21:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let me lift the relevant part out of the previous paragraph for easy reading: it (the book) is mentioned in the article as a source together with the blog. The blog is kept mainly for easy accessability Debresser (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Your lifting words out of context is not appreciated. And nobody has refused to accept any Misplaced Pages guideline as you assert without any proof. It is just that editors disagree with you as to the reliabilty of certain sources. You seem to have a problem with that. That is not good on Misplaced Pages, which is based on consensus. And that is the real issue here with you. You just don't have consensus for your removal, as I explained to you on my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPS says that blogs are not reliable. Please explain why the defunct, anonymous blog mentalblog.com is exempt from this rule. Jayjg 21:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I refuse to enagage in this content-related dispute for the third time. You have had your answers on the talkpage and on that noticeboard. Now please calm down and accept the fact that people disagree with you. Debresser (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

"Calm down"? Please don't speculate about other editors' emotional state. Jayjg 23:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Stick to the issue please. Debresser (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is about reliable verifiable sources, not what you know to be the truth. Find a suitable source for the information, otherwise it should come out. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

We have heard that before. You completely ignore the subject. Which, BTW, reminds me that I do not think this is a post for WP:ANI, since this is subject related. Debresser (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a behavior issue, since you have ignored the consensus at WP:RS/N, and continue to edit-war the blog link as a reference into the article. Jayjg 23:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

People should have the decency not to revert in the middle of a wp:ani discussion. Not after being informed of that, at least. Debresser (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. So stop reverting. Jayjg 23:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

As I told you before on my talkpage, your so-called consensus is disputable. Debresser (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, three members of the movement say it's reliable, 7 uninvolved editors say it's not. Not much that's "disputable" there. Jayjg 23:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That is a factual untruth, and ill becomes you. It is sad you have decided to resort to such methods. Debresser (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's see. I said it wasn't reliable, as did Fiflefoo, Itsmejudith, Squidfrychef, Dlabtot, Slp1 and Nathan. That's 7 editors who say it's unreliable, none, as far as I know, involved with the Chabad movement. Against that we had you and Zsero saying that the blog was reliable, and Bongomatic wouldn't opine on the issue, saying it was the wrong question/board. So, I don't think my math was that far off, was it? Which part was the "factual untruth"? Jayjg 00:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The part omitting Count Iblis here, Bongomatic, who is clearly enough in favor of keeping the blog, and Yehoishophot Oliver on the talkpage. Squidfryerchef and Itsmejudith are not clearly against on the noticeboard, as far as I understand. All of this are things you conveniently do not mention or alter. Debresser (talk) 06:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no involvement in this whatsoever, as I've never even heard of the article prior to this discussion. But I am absolutely flabbergasted that a well-respected editor such as Debresser would even consider trying to claim that personal knowledge is an acceptable source. Blogs are not reliable sources for such material, period, find a reliable source. How difficult is that? Edit warring isn't the way to deal with a sourcing dispute. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Please follow the thread. I said "you have ignored the consensus at WP:RS/N". Count Iblis didn't comment there, nor did Chabad member Yehoishophot Oliver. As for Bongomatic, fortunately we are able to read his exact words on: "A primary source (such as a will) is appropriate in various cases—I am not opining on whether this is such an instance." I have no opinion in this particular case. As for the rest, the words of the individuals are plainly evident from the links I provided. So, yeah, 7 uninvolved editors said it was unreliable, 2 movement members said it was reliable, and 1 editor wouldn't give an opinion. All done here. Jayjg 00:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

And rightfully so. That is why am I so happy I have not made such a claim. Please read my words carefully. Debresser (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Gentleman, what you're missing is that while personal knowledge is not a valid source for facts, it is certainly a valid source for the reliability of sources. What "reliable source" do we cite for the proposition that the NYT is a reliable source? We don't, and we don't have to. The only personal knowledge Debresser and I (and others) are claiming is that the scanned page does indeed appear in the book. -- Zsero (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, since Jayjg has forgotten to do so, I posted at Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson that this discussion is taking place. Debresser (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors, please read everything carefully, and understand what the issues are. Has any of you had a look at the disputed footnote already? Debresser (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Jayig is ignoring one crucial fact: the blog is not cited as a source for anything. The will itself is the source; it is a primary source, cited for nothing more than what it says, and for that purpose it is the best possible source. (Secondary sources are only needed for interpretation, not for direct quotes or description.) The blog is simply a URL where a scan of the will can be found, for the reader's convenience. If the will were not to be found anywhere on the web, it would still be just as valid a source, but the reader would not be able to personally verify that it says what the article describes it as saying; linking to the copy at the blog solves this.

The scan itself is obviously genuine, which can be determined by anyone familiar with the subject's signature, which thousands of people are. It is also known to be genuine because it appears in the book which is cited as a source; that's where the blog scanned it from in the first place! Removing the link to the blog cannot possibly make the article better or more useful, and therefore is against the prime WP rule: to make a better encyclopaedia. -- Zsero (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me see if I've got this right: 1-"anyone familiar with the subject's signature" has now become a reliable source. 2-"it appears in the book which is cited as a source", except the cite is to a blog, not to the book, which for some reason the proponents are reluctant to source to. Is this correct? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

For the third time: it (the book) is mentioned in the article as a source together with the blog. The blog is kept mainly for easy accessability Debresser (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you had that look at the footnote as recommended? Debresser (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Coming late to the discussion here, but we don't use "convenience" links. We site the reliable source. We don't provide unreliable sources to hold the information as "convenience" because we can't trust that the unreliable source is holding the correct information. You might assert it is, but no other editor can trust that. They are after all, an unreliable source. That means that we sometimes have citations without weblinks and that is fine.--Crossmr (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. This is the point - the book exists, and will not be changed. The scan may be accurate now, but it may change later. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 10:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

How can any .pdf file, which can be created by anybody with minimal forgery, be used as a reliable source? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

We must have 100-250-500 thousand PDF sources on Wikipdia, as you well know. So your point of view is untenable. Debresser (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

PDFs found on reliable sources are considered reliable. PDFs found on blogs are not. Jayjg 23:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have the book and can supply the page numbers required for the source. To be sure the blog is not being used as a source, the source is the book. The question now is if we may link to this blog (which itself is undoubtedly not a reliable source) just for convenience sake. Is that a problem? there are actually many references in articles which link to blogs and private websites, should these also be removed? can we finalize what wikipedia's policy should be for these links (or has it been done already)?

About the book Heshbono shel Olam: It is written by Binyamin Lipkin and published by "Mechon Hasefer". Avraham Alashvili is the head of this Mechon (organization). Lipkin has written another book I know about callad "Al Hakavenet" about the Brooklyn Bridge terrorist shooting and the aftermath. This second book is published by " Hostzaot Toras Chayim" which I believe is well know publisher in Israel. Shlomke (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

All that is in the article already, apart from the precise pagenumbers. Debresser (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In general, blogs are not acceptable sources. You'd have to give specific links as to whether or not the blog is a reliable source. If you have the book, if you sourced the claim to that, it would solve this entire mess. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. we have heard that ad nauseandum already. Debresser (talk)

And yet, for some reason, you are refusing to do the bare minimum needed to end this contretemps. Is it just a matter of bullheadedness, and that it has to be your way or no way? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Talking about "bullheadiness". For the fourth time: the book is already there as a source. Please leave this discussion... Debresser (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Without a dispute about statements made in the source, it is not ok. to remove the source, even if it is a type of source that you would prefer not to use in general. Count Iblis (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand which side of this discussion you're endorsing here. But I'm out of this discussion, I don't like beating my head against a wall and it's clear that nobody here is interested in trying to resolve this, they're just interested in getting their way. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me help you. He says: "keep the blog". As have many before him. Which is my point, that there is no consensus for its removal. Debresser (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You have it exactly backwards. Zsero added the blog link on October 1. There was no consensus for its addition. There still is none. Jayjg 23:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, in the beginning there was chaos, then... How far do you want to go back? Debresser (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's go back to when the link to the blog was first added. I believe that was on October 1, 2009, by Zsero, was it not? And it was reverted in the very next edit, was it not? Jayjg 23:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the clear question here is as follows: Why does the blog need to be cited if the content exists in an identical fashion in a book already cited within the article? 100 words or less please.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

For the same reason why I included preprints links in this article and in many other articles: accessibility Count Iblis (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

And how do we know that the material on this defunct, anonymous blog is an accurate representation? Jayjg 23:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The blog is not anonymous, he has stated his name many times: Tzemach Atlas living in the Boston area. Shlomke (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

And what is the problem with it being defunct? Asimov is also "defunct": he is dead. Debresser (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have now inserted the page numbers of Lipkin's book. Those are the same copy's. You and anyone else can check them. I hope this this solves the problem as Who then was a gentleman? suggested.Shlomke (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

One would hope, but I have no doubt the blog link will soon be back. Jayjg 23:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, if the issue has been resolved, why shouldn't it? Shlomke (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Because it has been resolved by providing a (somewhat) better source, so there's no need for the irredeemably unreliable one. Jayjg 00:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The link to the blog is a copy to what both sources are discussing, it's not being used as a source, it's there for accessibility. Shlomke (talk) 00:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please review the discussion at WP:RS/N. Aside from the fact that WP:V and WP:RS specifically exclude these kinds of sites as reliable, the concern raised by seven editors there (and several other editors here) is that we had no reliable source indicating that blog pdf was an accurate representation of anything. Misplaced Pages editors, btw, don't count as reliable sources. Jayjg 01:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg, I've been in similar disputes before and my experience is that what you are doing here is unnecessarily causing a conflict. I think this is as far as you could take it. You could temporarily add the "dubious" tag and then try to get hold of the book or try to contact people who have the book to verify if the PDF file is bona fide. As I understand it, Shlomke has already done that. The problem with remove the link to the blog is that no one has raised questions about about the contents. This will then cause anger. It is a bit similar to how not sticking to AGF causes anger. You are a priori treating a valuable source of information as unreliable, even though it may well be 100% accurate. Count Iblis (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you review the consensus at Misplaced Pages:RS/N#mentalblog.com, which was exactly the opposite of your position? Jayjg 01:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You've won me over. Although I do not doubt these particular scans since I'm able to compare them to the book and I see them to be the same, as a rule if this practice were allowed, there would be many fakes on WP as anyone can make any image they want, put it up on a website or blog and claim it is a primary source. I will wait for this discussion to finish before editing. Shlomke (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg, from a pure Wiki Law perspective you are right. But then Misplaced Pages is not based on rules. In this particular case, your objections to the blog link based on only Wiki Law has raised tensions. You can imagine that allowing the blog link for pragmatic reasons here and perhaps in other articles on similar grounds may lead to new rules for potentially unreliable sources. This case is exceptional because we have an editor who has verified that the blog link gives accurate information. Count Iblis (talk) 02:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Count Iblis, what you may not know is that even the source this material is allegedly copied from is not reliable. It's a book published by a nearly unknown publisher, written by a rabbi whose only other claim to notability is that he apparently at one time edited a small weekly haredi newspaper. And neither source is even necessary; the article already has links to a reliable book that contains all the necessary information, so there's no need for either the blog pdf or the book it allegedly comes from! So, tell me, what's the point in including them? We already have a reliable source for all the information, so why put in the unreliable ones too? Jayjg 02:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

About reliability of of Heshbono shel Olam: As pointed out above, it is published by "מכון הספר" ("Mechon Hashefer") a publishing organization run by Rabbi Avraham Alashvili. When doing a google search for "מכון הספר" 289 results come up. There seems to be another org. with this same name that is not connected, but there are still plenty of results for this books publisher. I have a book published by them called "Hefsek B'Tefila" written by Rabbi Yoav Lemberg. The Agudas Chasidei Chabad Library lists them as a publisher in a listing of publishers. About Binyamin Lipkin, I see another book by him called "Al Hakavenet" as mentioned above, printed by Hotzaot Toras Chayim 52,800 results. 40,600 for בנימין ליפקין. No question about reliability. The question is if this source is necessary, especially since we have an English source. But the English source does not have copy's of the will's, which the Hebrew one does. So if an editor is insisting on inserting it, then why not? Shlomke (talk) 04:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean, "No question about reliability"? Is "Mechon Hashefer" a vanity press? Is it the personal enterprise of Rabbi Avraham Alashvili? Does it have a website? Is there any third-party information about it? Just publishing a few books doesn't immediately make this a reliable source. Jayjg 00:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Bali ultimate

Bali ultimate is reverting on Menachem Mendel Schneerson, even after he was informed that this is the subject of a wp:ani discussion. In fact he removed my comment rudily from his talkpage. Debresser (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I propose warning this editor that this is unacceptetable. Debresser (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

And you keep reverting him in turn. Do you propose warning yourself too? Jayjg 23:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to add here every ill thought through comment that pops to mind. Really. Debresser (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

In particular, I was reverting to the version from right before this thread, and only his uncvivil edits. Uncivil in that they mix into a discussion. Debresser (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether it's the subject of AN/I discussion or not, there is no reason to suspend editing of the article.   pablo_hablo. 23:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I consider it a lack of decency not to await the outcome of the discussion. Perhaps you mean other edits, that are non related? That I agree with. Debresser (talk) 23:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

And it seems everybody else considers leaving it against our policy. Grsz 23:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I was not considering your personal standards of decency, nor would I, just normal editing practice.   pablo_hablo. 23:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I blocked for 24 hours for reverting while knowing full well an attempt to resolve the situation was being made here. In my opinion, that is clearly edit warring. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. the same will happen to anyone else who reverts, while knowing the situation here (after this message). I will happily unblock Bali is he agrees to join the discussion and stop reverting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

More tendentious editing

Here's an example of the kind of tendentious editing that I've been faced with, right in this very thread: I made a comment at 21:22 GMT, referring to "Debresser's post above..." A couple of minutes later, Debresser moves that post below another post of his. Well, of course, at this point my comment "Debresser's post above" no longer makes sense, since it's below a different Debresser post. Despite my moving it back, he moves it under his again, and even changes the indenting, so that it now definitely looks like I'm responding to the second comment, not the first! I try to put it back where it make sense, even explaining in an edit summary that the "Debresser's post above" I refer to is *not* the comment you inserted *after* mine. Nonetheless, he moves my post again, while claiming that I have "no right" to remove his post from its relevant place. This is the kind of topsy-turvy tendentiousness I have to deal with. Jayjg 23:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Please, let's not start a second edit war. Debresser just leave Jayjg's comment where he placed it or I'll have to block you for edit warring. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. But he is mistaking. There was an edit conflict here, and my reply ended up below his, and out of context. I tried to fix that. Debresser (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You are both correct in that both of your posts refer to the post "above" and thus don't make sense out of order. Unfortunately one has to be out of order and yours technically came second because of the edit conflict. I have added {{ec}} to indicate this, which I suggest is a much better may to "fix" things like this in the future. :) That said, it is not something either of you should have been edit warring over as any intelligent person could figure out which post you guys were referring to form the context. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What is a blog?

A blog is a (generally non-notable) person's personal opinion, posted on a self-published site where the author is the the sole "editorial control". Thus, they are primary sources. When the blog author is an expert, blogs may be used as primary sources, within limits articulated in other policies. Likewise, when a blog belongs to a newspaper or other traditional media who exercises editorial control over the blog, then the blog is acceptable.

In this case, it appears that a PDF copy of a published source, hosted on a blog site, is being criticized solely because it's on a blog site. That's just silly.

• Would the reference be acceptable without the PDF? Sure seems like it.
• Does linking to the PDF help understanding? That seems to be the argument.
• Is there any editorial control exercised by the poster of the PDF? It seems not.

Thus, the real issues seem to be

1. Is this PDF hosted in violation of copyright laws? If so, it should not be linked... but the fact that it is hosted on a blog site has nothing to do with that.
2. Is the PDF a copy of a vanity press book, rather than an RS book selected and edited with appropriate editorial control? If so, then it should be limited to use as an unreliable source.

And yes, ANI is a silly place for this. Jclemens (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

For clarity, what would make the blog author an expert? Shlomke (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone who has been cited and published as such. If an individual is constantly cited or interviewed on a subject, they can be considered an expert on it. We let reliable sources determine who are experts and who are not. Their self-published sources are usable only in the context of what they are an expert on. So someone who is constantly interviewed about military policy might be an expert on military policy but if he wrote a post about how his Toyota is a piece of crap we couldn't cite him on that.--Crossmr (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If they are a recognized academic expert in a field, who has published in third-party reliable sources on the subject. Deborah Lipstadt, for example, who is an expert on Holocaust denial, has a blog, which one could cite (with caution) on the topic of Holocaust denial. Jayjg 02:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Do they have to be an academic to be an expert? I think not. Shlomke (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No, they have to be published and recognized as such. Their personal qualifications are immaterial if reliable sources are referring to them and using them as experts.--Crossmr (talk) 04:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have no evidence that the person hosting that PDF hasn't altered it or won't alter it in the future. That is why we don't link to it. An unreliable source holding "reliable" information isn't usable. Cite the reliable source. We don't use convenience links because we can't trust them. They can cite it without the blog link and its perfectly fine.--Crossmr (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Then should every Google Books link to content be removed? After all, Google isn't a reliable source. Your argument assumes bad faith on the part of the non-RS, that it would falsify material. If the blog site claims to reproduce a verbatim copy of a copyrighted RS document, the primary issue is copyright. If it's fair use, it would then fall to the person who challenges its veracity to demonstrate that the offline RS doesn't say what a (potentially) unreliable RS says. Your interpretation would provide the torturous outcome that I can claim an offline RS says XYZ and not be subject to challenge except through someone going to get a copy of the offline source, but that someone else can claim an offline RS says XYZ, cite a PDF of an allegedly verbatim copy on an unreliable website, and the document link can be challenged, but not the content of the assertion. That's just silly. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I also don't think falsification is the suspicion standing behind the policies. And this has been mentioned on the talkpage before. That a suspection of falsification is not acceptable as an argument, unless there exist specific reasons to suspect so. Debresser (talk) 07:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the blog isn't reliable is enough to make the copy suspect. A source which isn't reliable is unreliable by wikipedia's standards and we simply cannot link to it in a citation, because it isn't the source. The book/original document is the source.--Crossmr (talk) 07:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this can be an interpretation fo wp:rs. I find it hard to agree with this interpretation though. And with me other editors involved in this discussion. Debresser (talk) 08:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you really want to compare Joe blogger to google a public organization? The problem with the document link isn't whether or not you or I believe the document has been falsified, its that the average reader of wikipedia has no way of knowing who this blogger is and where these pages came from. It becomes a crutch and it misleads the reader into thinking the reliable source is the linked documents and not what is actually being sourced. Google is a public company and depending on what goes on behind google books, there could be a case made to consider what they scan and publish on to be reliable sources.--Crossmr (talk) 07:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Jclemens, it's silly this ended up here. It started on the article Talk: page, then moved to the RS/N board, where 7 people said it was an unreliable source (against the two editors who kept inserting it). When those two editors insisted that there still wasn't really a consensus against inserting it, it moved here, because that's pretty much the next logical step. While one could argue that it was initially—in part—a content dispute, once the RS/N consensus was clear, it became an issue of inappropriate behavior; see Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing#Signs of disruptive editing, which describes this behavior pretty exactly (particularly "Cannot satisfy Misplaced Pages:Verifiability" and "Rejects community input"). Jayjg 02:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he's looking for a wider audience (sometimes denigrated as "forum shopping"). I've seen far too many "we can't cite blogs" rote arguments, without understanding the basis for such an argument in the actual policies like V, N, and RS. I am not speaking to conduct issues, but failing to take an unreasonable answer and walk away is not disruptive editing. Frankly, I'm unimpressed with the responses in this section. You may all be ticked off at the guy for bringing it here, but calm down, have a nice cup of WP:TEA, and think through the policy bases for the exclusion of such a link. It's not as strong as the level of consternation would imply. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The one forum shopping is Jayjg, who started out on the talkpage, met unanymous disagreement, continued on the noticeboard to get support, and now came to WP:ANI to get it enforced. Isn't the talkpage where it should be decided what should and should not be in the article in this specific case? I find it interesting, that on the talkpage all editors apart from Jayjg want to keep the blog, while on the noticeboard almost all are against keeping the blog (counting again Jayjg with those against and the people who came from the article talkpage as in favor). It does suggest to me that those who know what they are talking about have a better understanding of the issue than outside noticeboards (that are notorious for being frequented by their respective hardliners). Debresser (talk) 06:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any forum shopping. It is perfectly reasonable to go to the reliable sources noticeboard for the review of a source. And no, the talk page of the article is not where it should be decided if a source is reliable or not, as not many editors would see the discussion, and it is prudent in such a discussion that uninvolved editors are present for the obtaining of consensus. Lastly, seeing as how you are so steadfast in refusing to abide by WP policy regarding reliable sources, he brought the discussion here for enforcement. Perfectly reasonable.— Dædαlus 09:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Going there is reasonable in general, but in this case, where there was unanymous disagreement on the talkpage, that was forumshopping. Then trying to enfore his opinion by coming to WP:ANI, even though there was no clear consensus (although I agree a certain majority shares his opinion) was incorrect. I'm unwatching this discussion. If there will be any things that concern me personally, please contact me on my talkpage. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 10:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

By "unanymous disagreement on the talkpage", you must mean the three Chabad members who seemed to be unaware of or uninterested in WP:V and WP:RS. Taking an RS issue to the WP:RS/N board is not "forum shopping", it's recommended procedure. Jayjg 00:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The agreement of three editors does not give you rights to do whatever you want with a page. It was not, nor will it ever be forum shopping for Jay to have gone to RSN and here.

Agreement on an obscure article by most of the only editors that edit it does not give them the right to walk over policy. If that was the case, then several thousand articles that have been previously deleted wouldn't have been. I shouldn't have to explain why.

Secondly, there was clear consensus at RSN. Three dissidents who were trying to control the article don't count. Only uninvolved editors count in the matter, and consensus among those uninvolved editors was that the sources were not reliable. Consensus doesn't require that the original dissidents agree with everyone else.— Dædαlus 08:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Book

• We have two issues. #1 is the book reliable? Bring it to the reliable sources noticeboard. I suspect it is not. #2 is a link the to blog of a copy of the page unacceptable? Assuming that the book is found to be a reliable source, we have often linked to scanned copies of a page. Often. I'd say cite the book and provide the link. If the book isn't a reliable source, it might be reasonable to mention the book if a RS has discussed or at least mentioned the book. Otherwise, out it goes. Hobit (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Just put it in external links. Per WP:ELMAYBE, external links can include, "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Really, you're not trying to use it as a reference, because you already have a reference (the book). So put it in an external links section. Assuming that the copyright issues mentioned are found to not be a problem. -- Atama頭 22:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • That makes sense, although if the goal is to let people find the will that might make it a bit harder. Ah well, it seems reasonable and within our guidelines. Hobit (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I already brought the book to the RS/N noticeboard. Unsurprisingly, the consensus of uninvolved editors there was that it was not reliable. Jayjg 00:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Are there any sanctions the community can take against editors why say blatant lies in WP:ANI discussions? Because if so, this is the time, and this is the man. Debresser (talk) 10:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • • The consensus at Misplaced Pages:RS/N#mentalblog.com was mainly about using the blog as a reference (vs linking for accessibility which we are discussing here), not about the book. I've added additional information above about the reliability of the book which I think would make the book pass. Do you suggest I put that information there too (even though that was not the intention of that notice, as the name suggests), or perhaps start a new discussion? Shlomke (talk) 03:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I'd suggest starting a new discussion. Hobit (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
          • I will leave it to those who want to use the book as a second reference. I'm fine either with or without it. Shlomke (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright

Jclemens touched on a good point above that no one seems to be discussing. Ignoring the fact whether this blog should be used a "convenience" for a WP:RS (which I personally think is ridiculous), if copies of pages of the book are copyrighted, we shouldn't be linking to them. Period. Jauerback/_dude. 13:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• We link to material that is under copyright all the time. Sometimes to nyt.com. Sometimes to archive.org or googlebooks. As long as the selection we are linking to is legal (under the fair use doctrine) I think we are fine. Hobit (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the question is whether the blog is a violation of copyright. In that case, we wouldn't link to it. Jauerback/_dude. 20:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Aye. For example, we might link to an official site with a film trailer on it; we wouldn't link to a site with a pirated copy on it. Black Kite 20:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but we might (and do) link to other sites that (for example) make fair use quotes of copyrighted material. And we often link to archive.org for copyrighted material that is no longer available on the original site. Hobit (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the blog would not be in violation of copyright, because the will's in the book are not the original work of the author, they are copy's of the Rabbi's will's (perhaps public info?) Shlomke (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Above when giving some detailed facts, you wrote "why not?". It seems to me that Jayjg and everyone else should ask this question. It's time to write up a new wiki policy WP:Why not?, an extention of WP:IAR. Count Iblis (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not? becuase linking to this blog does several things, it gives the impression that the blog or the author of the blog are some kind of reliable source, it also drives traffic to a random blog. Allowing these kinds of links would not only imply credibility to unreliable sources they would end up being used to host content just to get traffic from wikipedia as holding convenience links. We currently don't have anyway to differentiate between a reliable source and a convenience link and I'm completely against putting any kind of unreliable source in a position to masquerade as a reliable one.--Crossmr (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. There's a reason we have WP:V and WP:RS. Heck, we're not even supposed to link to blogs as external links; see WP:ELNO, number 11. Jayjg 00:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

But it's not a link to a blog, is it? It's a link to a document being hosted at a web site that also hosts a blog. Now, I agree that the blog itself isn't a reliable source, but a link to the document should be allowable per WP:ELMAYBE if it's not being used as a reference. -- Atama頭 00:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can host anything on a website. Is that website a reliable source? Its not a citation unless its being hosted by a reliable source. Otherwise we're giving credibility to random websites, blogs, etc.--Crossmr (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Crossmr, my comment "why not" above was not about linking to the blog, it was about using the book "Cheshbono Shel Olam" as an additional reference. See above. I'm basically in agreement at this point with what you and Jayjg are saying. I would like to see what the final consensus is on this issue and apply it to similar situations in the future.Shlomke (talk) 02:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay. If the talk from RS/N is properly quoted, then it would seem like the majority support not linking it, which has in the past been the agreement I've always worked under.--Crossmr (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Likebox and tendentious re-insertion of original research

I apologize for the length of this post; the incident has been on and off for several years, so a thorough description is necessarily somewhat long. Brief summary: this is essentially a case of "I didn't hear that" regarding WP:OR. Discussion has been attempted several times to no avail, and so I am requesting an uninvolved administrator to review the situation.

User:Likebox (talk · contribs) has, in several incidents since 2007, inserted what he calls "modern proofs" into the articles Halting problem and Gödel's incompleteness theorems. These were removed because they give original interpretations of the material that cannot be sourced to the literature on the subject. Likebox acknowledges that his motivation is that he feels that the literature should have been written in a different way:

• "There is nothing wrong with the proofs, except that they are different than the usual textbook presentations."
• : "I agree that textbooks do not often mention quines in this context, but I feel that this is a pedagogical mistake."
• : "The modern "literature" is textbooks, which are written by a different process than research papers, and are not generally very well written."

These arguments are parallel to the arguments he made in 2007, such as "Misplaced Pages is a place where certain questions need to be resolved. What constitutes a valid recursion theory proof is one of those questions. ... Textbook proofs are reworked by secondary authors, and they are, as a rule, the worst proofs in the literature."

Numerous attempts have been made to resolve this via discussion. Some of the older discussions are at:

• Talk:Gödel's incompleteness theorems/Archive 3 (November 2007, starting with the section "modern proof")
• Talk:Halting problem/Archive3#Formal statement redux (November 2007)
• Talk:Halting problem/Archive3#What Is A Rigorous Proof? (November 2007)
• Talk:Halting problem/Archive3#Likebox edits (March 2008).

Likebox acknowledges that, when he inserted this material before, it did not gain consensus . He now says he is making the edits to make a point, to press his case for a proposed guideline .

When Likebox inserted the material again this month, the matter was raised at

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Halting_problem_and_Likebox
• Misplaced Pages:NORB#Halting_problem_and_Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems

Several editors in these two discussion pointed out that the novel proofs should not be added , , , (not counting those who said this the last time it was added), and consensus is against including the material that Likebox has added. Nevertheless, Likebox reverted his edits again today . Likebox has said he plans to continue doing this .

Because the consensus against adding this material that developed both in past discussions and in the more recent discussions has failed to convince Likebox to stop adding this material, I would like to ask some uninvolved administrator to review the situation. Likebox appears to be a productive editor apart from these two pages, so perhaps a topic ban would resolve the continued disruption he brings to those pages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What is exactly the problem with including a novel derivation that is more accessible (apart from it violating the usual wiki rules)? Novel derivations, albeit usually quite simple derivations, are given in many wiki physics and math articles. Count Iblis (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC

The issue here is not that Likebox is expanding or rewriting proofs from the literature in his own words. The problem is that Likebox is simply ignoring the literature, and rewriting everything the way he wishes the literature was written, As I said, this has already been discussed at great length, which is why I am bringing this here, since Likebox has apparently ignored numerous explanations of WP:NOR over a period of years. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but what Likebox is not doing is modifying the standard proof that is in the article, he is adding a new section for a "modern proof". At least that is what I see here. The way this is written suggests that this actually is the modern proof, while in fact it is Likebox's proof. To me that would be the main problem with the text and not any OR policies (I've violated OR on similar grounds in many articles).

If it were up to me, I could live with a rewritten version of Likebox's text such that it is immediately clear that it is an alternative proof that can only to be found here. Count Iblis (talk) 02:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Right: the text suggests it is the modern proof, while it is really simply Likebox's original interpretation of how the theorem "should" be proved. But if this alternative proof can only be found on Misplaced Pages, then it violates WP:V and WP:NOR. This has been explained to Likebox by numerous people, which is why I opened a thread here. Simply pointing out that the proof is not permitted because of WP policies has not discouraged Likebox from adding it over and over. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, Iblis? That would make it a textbook case of WP:OR. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

CMB, I think Likebox would argue that the whole point of the proof is to make Gödel's theorem verifiable from first principles to interested Misplaced Pages readers. The proof itself is then not the main subject, it is merely an argument that shows why Gödel's teorem is true. That's also how I have defended including original derivations in other wiki articles. But you can make the proof itself to be the subject of the article that then has to be verifiable itself from citations to the literature.

I agree that a consensus needs to exist among the editors before this can be done. An alternative could be that Likebox creates a Fork of the article. He can then write up his proof there, but then in such a way that it is clear that the article is an accessible self contained proof that is not similar to what can be found in the literature.

JoshuaZ, In practice we do allow original derivations in wikipedia even though, strictly speaking, this violates OR. I raised the problem a few times on the OR talk page and I was always told that I could invoke IAR. The OR policy was not going to change any time soon to legalize what was going on on a small number of pages. Count Iblis (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if we were to allow OR in this case there's nothing resembling either a consensus to do so. Indeed, all the regular math editors who have weighed in don't want this included. As such an individual who has not weighed in let me add that I agree. Indeed his presentation if anything obfuscates what is going on in Godel's theorem. The primary issue that we should be discussing in this thread is what to do with this user not whether the content should be included. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

We could tell Likebox to put his proof for the moment on a subdirectory of his talkpage so that he can work on it to make it acceptable from a purely mathematical perspective (disregarding OR). That would solve the immediate problem. The OR issue can be dealt with later. Count Iblis (talk) 03:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Count Iblis, 1) Misplaced Pages, including Misplaced Pages user space, is not a venue for developing original proofs of anything (some synthesis from published proofs is necessarily accepted, but that's not what we're talking about here). If Likebox wants to publish new proofs, that's what journals and textbook publishers are for. 2) As CBM says, Likebox's attempts to insert his own research into those articles has been going on for years, so a compromise involving writing them in userspace doesn't sound likely to hold up. 3) The basic problem with Likebox's "proofs" is that they are bogus (see the RFC response from 2007, particularly Hans Adler's remarks) in terms of both content gaps and presentation.

See also the declined arbitration request involving Likebox (and yourself) just a couple weeks ago where User:OMCV, a knowledgeable chemistry editor, proposed a long term block against Likebox. Likebox is highly intelligent and is fairly small fry compared with Misplaced Pages's worst problem editors, but he disrupts several specialized areas whose editors really have better things to do than deal with him. Some kind of editing restriction definitely seems to be in order. 66.127.54.181 (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The "declined arbitration request involving Likebox (and ) just a couple weeks ago " was declined because an amicable resolution was achieved. Likebox's derivations are useful and no different from hundreds or thousands of proofs elsewhere in Misplaced Pages. --Michael C. Price 08:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael, if Likebox and OMCV have worked out their differences, that is great, though I'd be more assured if OMCV said so directly. Likebox's derivations are not the same as "hundreds or thousands of proofs elsewhere in Misplaced Pages"--can you identify a single other proof in Misplaced Pages that so radically departs from published proofs of the same fact, in both substance and style, and has been rejected repeatedly by consensus of knowledgeable editors, but has still stayed in WP? It's true that math editors often (sensibly) go along with it when a math article says something that isn't in a textbook, as long as what is said is correct and is generally fits the standard approaches. That doesn't even slightly describe Likebox's "proof", whose basic motivation (that the textbook proofs are no good) is fundamentally wrong, in addition to the proof itself being mathematically wrong, and whose presentation in the article was just plain ugly, and was found by consensus to not be appropriate for the article. The proofs of the incompleteness theorem found in logic textbooks are perfectly good, and they are studied and understood without undue trauma by many thousands of undergraduate math and philosophy students every semester. Their only problem is that Likebox doesn't like them. 66.127.54.181 (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

<-- As an involved administrator I wish to make a point. This is not an isolated incident. Likebox has been doing the same type of thing in a totally unrelated article called History wars. Another article where he has expressed a strong opinion on the, and rather than attempt to compromise over the issue and work through the edits he would like to add sentence by sentence, he has resorted to re-adding the text every so often with comments on the talk page such as

• "This means we need to have a big change, and go on from there. I have made an attempt at a big change. I will do so periodically until it sticks. Likebox (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)" (see Talk:History wars/Archive_2#Large Changes/Incremental Changes, Talk:History_wars/Archive 3#Large Changes, Incremental Changes,)
• "Listen, those sources don't google, and I'm not about to go do research. But I know the general picture, because I read references to this in popular books many times over. This statement is designed to comply with undue weight. I am not adressing my comments to you, because it is not possible to convince people like you of anything, you must be suppressed by force of numbers Likebox (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)"
• "Again, there is no point in talking to people like you. You must be put down by force of numbers.Likebox (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)"

No only has he made these threats but he carries them out by periodically making large changes to the article: e.g., and by insisting that large amounts of material that he has written to the talk page is not archived but each time is copied back to the start of the talk page, , he is disrupting the usual development of new conversations on the talk page.

These two disputes on articles about very different subjects are not about content, but are about how Likebox fails to handle consensus building and is disrupting the project. -- PBS (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Rossnixon also behaves in a similar way on the Global Warming page and perhaps also on other wiki pages. But he is not editing there very frequently, so it is not really a problem. No one is arguing that he should be banned. He is not behaving like Scibaby, neither is Likebox. Count Iblis (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually Likebox seems to be a very nice guy and generally seems to have very reasonable opinions. (Which doesn't mean that I always agree with him about everything. I don't.) He just seems to be a bit too stubborn when he realises that he is pushing against a consensus. But he is open about this and I haven't seen him use any dirty tricks. Hans Adler 16:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-nagging

Since some people are talking about my edits, let me try to explain. There are three accusations above about my nagging:

1. Godel's incompleteness theorems/Halting problem
2. History Wars
3. Quantum mysticism

3 was resolved by a fork, and everyone seems to be OK with it for now. OMCV has said "I can live with this text" on the forked quantum mind/body problem page. So that's done with. No more nagging.

2 is a big issue. Misplaced Pages needs to be mindful of racially offensive historiography. On U.S. history pages, this is dealt with reasonably well. On Australian history pages, there are cases where a Eurocentric point of view is presented without counterbalance. This means that I periodically nag the editors on that pages, leaving behind a trail of sources. I only do it when they archive the discussion, because the issues are not resolved. The nagging is just to alert any interested editor that if they wish to contest this historiography, they will find at least one supporter.

1 is the main issue, and it has come up before. Why do I keep nagging here? One reason is that I can't be sure what consensus will be once people understand the proofs. This is the third time I've put it up. The first time, it stayed for months. The second time, it was deleted, but at least people understood it is correct. This time, the issues have been clarified to the point where I know everyone's position.

I don't like this consensus, not because the text I wrote is so great, but because I am pretty sure that if Misplaced Pages can't give a simple proof of Godel's theorem, it's going to be a problem for other logic articles. There are a ton of proofs in the literature that are more obscure today than they should be, because the language has not been properly modernized. The method of injury/priority is by now over 50 years old, and still is obscure enough that people are discouraged from using it.

The only editor who pretty much fully understands the text and strongly opposes it is CBM. His position is that text on Misplaced Pages should follow the consensus of textbooks. Needless to say, I think this is an absolutely terrible idea. Other editors have opposed the proof for other understandable reasons.

I do agree that there might be a some issues with the proof as written. The reason I wrote it in exactly this language is mainly because I have been "talking" this proof to people for many years, and it has ossified in my mind, but also so as to prove the Rosser version of the incompleteness theorem easily, which I don't know how to do easily in other ways. As Michael Price has said, the real issue here is that the proofs in the literature are never self-contained. They always refer you to some other theorem, and some other theorem, and this is a disservice to someone who wants to learn the proof quickly.

In these cases, the policy of WP:ESCA suggests that text that only fills in intermediate steps in a proof is OK, so long as the statement of the theorem is OK, the main idea is sourced, and the intermediate steps are verifiable from first principles. This is true of the proofs I am suggesting. I could place them somewhere else, but there is no guarantee that they will stay up. Also, I am hoping that someone who likes the proof can speak up. There used to be supporters in the past, who have drifted away (also opponents).

I believe that this issue will be resolved one day, when a clear proof of the theorem is up. Until then, I nag a little bit, very infrequently, to keep the issue alive.Likebox (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Likebox, your statement "I can't be sure what consensus will be once people understand the proofs" presupposes that people don't understand the proofs now. That is bogus: 1) if your proofs are so hard to understand, what business do you have claiming them to be better than the textbook proofs that people do understand? 2) Your notion that people other than CBM don't understand your proof is wrong. I'm sure Hans Adler understands it. I understood it (the 2007 version, I haven't bothered looking at more recent ones). I'm sure plenty of other editors involved in that article understood it too, and found it unsuitable for the article. If your proof is so great, why don't you send it to (say) American Mathematical Monthly, and if they publish it, Misplaced Pages can cite it? The issue here is not that you have bestowed on us a new and wonderfully clear proof foolishly rejected by Misplaced Pages's hidebound bureaucracy clinging to stupid rules. Misplaced Pages's more active math editors are smarter than hell and they are quite capable of ignoring rules with the best of them, when that's the right thing to do. This is not one of those times. There are other online encyclopedias like SEP, which don't have Misplaced Pages's policies against original research, because they rely on recognized expert referees to make content judgements similar to how a journal does. I don't think SEP would accept your proof, so I don't think Misplaced Pages should accept it either. If you submit it there and they accept it, then we can revisit the issue. Otherwise, stop beating the dead horse. 66.127.54.181 (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue of "experts" is a red herring. This is mathematics, and it is trivial to check when a proof is correct. Correctness is not the issue anymore, it is originality.

I apologize for interspersing comments: while I agree that most of the mathematically minded editors (including Trovatore and Hans Adler) did understand the proof very quickly (Trovatore noted an error in the original version of the Rosser proof within a few minutes, which I quickly fixed), there were also several very loud voices that did not understand the proof, and the debate with them drowned out any reasonable discussion for a long time. All these people are gone, and the people that remain understand that the proof is accurate.

While the proof is very easy, this is exactly why many non-mathematical people thought it must be wrong. It's too simple to be correct. The reason I started editing the page is when I saw a comment on the talk page from years ago that said "The lay person will never understand Godel's incompleteness theorem". And I thought to myself "Why not?". I expected that a simple proof would make people angry, precisely because it sidesteps a lot of notation and terminology that people who write about the theorem would like to pretend are necessary.

The question of originality is difficult to address. I know that this proof of Godel's theorem by itself is not original. The Rosser proof is borderline for Misplaced Pages, but it is not original either for a journal. You can go on, however, to prove a few new theorems in the same style, and if enough of these are found, the result might be suitable for a journal.Likebox (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Your post above is mostly wrong:

1. Your proof of the incompleteness theorem is in fact not correct, in that CBM explained that it has a large gap. While it doesn't actually prove something that's false, a famous description that comes to mind is that it's not even wrong. That is, your "proof" is not a proof.
2. Checking when a proof is correct is certainly not trivial (as your own inability to do so shows), except possibly for the case when the proof is completely formalized and can be checked by computer. Quite a lot of undergraduate math education (e.g. introductory real analysis) is mostly geared towards teaching how to write and check proofs, and at this point I don't have the impression that you are so hot at it. See Thurston p. 8 for more discussion of the cultural acclimation process necessary to understand what an acceptable unformalized proof is. That acclimation is what Hans Adler was describing in his RFC response, I think, and it does not seem to me that you have absorbed it enough, thus the resistance you get. ( Remember also that Gauss famously gave the first "rigorous" proof of the fundamental theorem of algebra in 1799, only to have a gap discovered in it ~150 years later. Checking proofs is also (part of) why math journals have those referees that you sneer at. A lot of the early development of mathematical logic was precisely an attempt to pin down exactly how to check a proof. Don't trivialize that which is not trivial.)
3. As an aside, formally proving the incompleteness theorem is in fact rather complicated: see . You will see the formalization cited spent considerable effort addressing the issues CBM described and which you simply handwaved.
4. Showing non-OR-ness on the other hand is trivial: just cite a textbook or published article giving a similar proof to yours, and establish notability for it by the usual means. That you haven't given such citations is a strong sign that your proof is OR.
5. Even if your proof was completely fleshed out and checked, the amount of space you want to devote to it in the article is ridiculous. If it were published in a journal, I'd support adding a sentence to the article like "Likebox has given an alternative proof using Turing machines" with a citation, but anything more than that would be undue weight since the proof is so unorthodox. Of course that would change if textbooks and journals started switching to your style of proof in large numbers, but not until then.
6. I am glad that you acknowledge that mathematically-oriented editors other than CBM also understood your "proof". I just looked at the current version of Talk:Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems and not a single one of those editors supported inclusion. Trovatore, Zero Sharp, Arthur Rubin, and Paul August all spoke against inclusion. Hans Adler didn't weigh in, so I assume his view didn't change since last time. While a few editors like Count Iblis liked your proof, none of them as far as I can tell have shown any familiarity with the existing logic literature including the usual published proofs. With no disrespect intended to those editors (we all have our own areas of interest), the notion of deciding what to include in Misplaced Pages based on such uninformed judgement is squarely in WP:RANDY territory and is precisely what the NOR policy is designed to prevent. We are trying to write an encyclopedia whose contents are acceptable by professional standards, so while I can understand a case for inclusion if someone like CBM thinks it's ok, it's completely different if only some less informed editors (anyone unlikely to be given the responsibility of refereeing such a proof for a journal) think it's ok.
7. Also, your continued harping on the proposed ESCA guideline to shoehorn your bogus OR into Misplaced Pages is shaping up to be a strong argument against accepting that guideline. If the proposed guideline supports including your OR when informed consensus says it's bogus, the proposed guideline is no good and should be rejected.
8. Finally even if your proof is correct and backed by citations, there is more to the suitability of a given proof than mere correctness. It was a big deal when Erdős and Selberg found arithmetic proofs of the prime number theorem when there was already an existing proof, because the old proof used complex analysis which while correct was considered mathematically unsatisfying. It's of course a subjective matter, but your own proof's excursion into Turing machines for something that can be done directly with arithmetic could be seen as similarly unsatisfying. I am confident that the logicians who wrote the existing textbooks that you don't like, knew perfectly well what Turing machines are and could have written machine-based proofs if they felt like it. They used the approach they did because they found it more tasteful or appropriate. It is not persuasive seeing you attempt to substitute your own judgement for theirs. You are trying to override not only the NOR policy, but the neutrality policy as well, in wanting to present a fringe-ish proof in place of a mainstream one. That, I think, is what CBM is getting at by staying to stay with the consensus of published sources. You cannot be the arbiter of what the best of the available correct presentations is, never mind that you want to use an incorrect one.

You are one of the reasons why I lost interest in editing the incompleteness theorem article a couple years ago. CBM has a fact-based writing style where he rarely expresses personal opinion about anything, and I can't speak for him, but that he finally brought this issue to ANI after all these years makes me theorize that he is quite fed up. So, I continue to support his call for an editing restriction against you. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(deindent) Hey, Mr. anon. you are totally wrong.

1. CBM's "explanation" is totally unfounded. The gap"he pretends to find is the exact embedding of a computer into arithmetic, meaning, how do you take statements like "R halts" and turn them into statements about integers. This "gap" is not a gap at all, but a painfully obvious statement which is easy to prove. It is precisely because this is much easier to prove than anything about logic that I chose the presentation that I did. CBM is resistant to doing things in any way but the textbook way. That's legitimate. But even he doesn't pretend that there is any inaccuracy in the proof anymore.
2. Perhaps it's not trivial for you, but I don't find it difficult at all, and neither do any of the editors at Godel's theorems. They have checked the proof, and all of them agree that it is correct, with the exception of Arthur Rubin, who might or might not. N.B. Gauss's proof does not have a gap in it. His proof is that the winding number of the map z->z^n + lower order is n at infinity, and winding number is additive under bisection of a region. This proof was correct, and has stayed correct until the present day, ignorant opinions nonewithstanding.
3. Proving Godel's theorem is easy--- provided you do it exactly the way I showed.
4. Blah blah OR blah blah. No proof of Godel could be considered OR today. Period. It's too well understood.
5. The amount of space is just right, since it is a complete, self-contained, easy-to-understand proof of the theorem. That is important on a page called "Godel's incompleteness theorems".
6. Yeah, yeah, but all of them now agree that it is correct. Other editors in the past have criticized it 'because they thought it was incorrect. Many of the editors who like this method are just keeping quiet. With time, consensus will become "include", because that is true. It's just a question of when.
7. Yeah. It's not obvious. ESCA takes a little while to appreciate.
8. Dude, all the current textbooks use Turing machines to prove the incompleteness theorems. You should not edit the page if you don't understand this elementary fact. It is good that you were driven away.

In fact, one of the nice things about rephrasing proofs in different ways is that it lets you see if you really understand the theorem. If you truly understand the proof, then it doesn't matter how you phrase it. In this case, the proof I am giving is just a minor restatement of the usual proof in textbooks, but making it self-contained, and not shying away from using explicit computer programs.Likebox (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Likebox, Stephen Smale, one of the foremost mathematicians of the past century, wrote:

I wish to point out what an immense gap Gauss's proof contained. It is a subtle point even today that a real algebraic plane curve cannot enter a disk without leaving. In fact even though Gauss redid this proof 50 years later, the gap remained. It was not until 1920 that Gauss's proof was completed.

(Citation: Smale 1981 here). Of course the gap is very famous and many others have written about it too, as you are apparently well aware. That you would consider someone like Smale to be "ignorant" and yourself to be a better evaluator of proofs shows the boundlessness of your arrogance and incompetence. As far as I'm concerned, it establishes that you have zero credibility about anything. So I've had enough, and will not bother replying to the rest of your similarly erroneous crap. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 10:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Like box you wrote: "On Australian history pages, there are cases where a Eurocentric point of view is presented without counterbalance. This means that I periodically nag the editors on that pages, leaving behind a trail of sources." In this ANI we are discussing a page called "History wars" which is about a debate taking place in Australia. As you threatened you would on the talk page you periodically revert the article content to a version of the text you wrote. Such threats and the actions are considered on Misplaced Pages to be disruptive, particularly when you have consistently refuse requests to go through you additions sentence and address the issues raised in those discussions. You have been asked on numerous occasions to produce sources eg:

If you have sources that you can cite showing that comparative genocide scholars have been using Tasmania as a defining example of a genocide "ever since" the 1940s, i.e. they were saying it in the 1950s, the 1960s and all the way through to the present day, let's see them. Not just vague phrases like "repeated in several sources" but give us verifiable citations, otherwise, how about you just admit you can't support your preferred wording with appropriate sources and we go on from there. Webley442 (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Listen, those sources don't google, and I'm not about to go do research. But I know the general picture, because I read references to this in popular books many times over. This statement is designed to comply with undue weight. I am not adressing my comments to you, because it is not possible to convince people like you of anything, you must be suppressed by force of numbers.Likebox (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)— Talk:History wars/Archive 3#Genocide debate

To PBS: You are talking nonsense. It is absolutely true that everywhere outside of Australia, the Black War has been a defining example of genocide all through the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s, the 1980s, the 1990s and today. The source I gave you "The Last of the Tasmanians" should have settled the issue as far as the inaccuracies in Windschuttle. This is just the latest source, in addition to Lemkin's notes, the detailed analysis of Lemkin's notes by another scholar, Rashidi's book, the countless web pages, the academic articles by Madley, the academic articles by Ryan, and the textbook on Genocide by Tatz. All these sources, and on the other side is Windschuttle, and a couple of right-wing Australian revisionists, most of whom don't contest what happened.

I urge anyone here to look over the page, the discussion, and the archived discussion. It is painfully obvious that there is no proper coverage of the majority of sources on the Black War, and there will not be so long as several editors gang up on whoever inserts it.Likebox (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Likebox I note (and I hope others have) that you do not deny that you have repeatedly edited in your large changes to the article history wars after making threats (more than once) on the article's talk page that: "I have made an attempt at a big change. I will do so periodically until it sticks." without any support on the talk page for the edits.

I did not raise the issue of edits to the history wars to open up another forum to discuss the rights or wrongs of the sources. I did it to highlight a pattern in your failure to act within the acceptable methods of consensus building in the Misplaced Pages project, which appears to span several different subjects and involve several different groups of editors. -- PBS (talk) 11:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. You are (and have been) consistently editing against consensus in a number of articles. As Hans Adler quite generously and correctly points out, you are doing it 'in the light' and not resorting to (for example) sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry to push your agenda. That is, doubtless, to your credit. Nonetheless, you have by your own admission continued to edit against consensus and what's more pledged to continue to do so. Despite how much you would like to portray yourself as the Innocent Victim of the Big Bad Wikiocracy, (and, as an added bonus, portray those people who disagree with you as idiots who Just Don't Understand You. The very arrogance!) you are quite simply being disruptive. Period. Therefore, it's time (long past time) for sanction, an edit restriction, something. You've managed to exhaust even Carl's legendary patience. Enough is enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.145.148.154 (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I have invited User:OMCV to comment here. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 04:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Its true that I reached text "I could live with" when trying to edit with Likebox but the process took far to long. It was a little more than two months for something that should not have taken more than two days. Honestly I think it was the threat of arbitration that ultimately pushed him into a reasonable frame of mind in line with WP policy. The text we disputed currently exists as a compromise, a compromise which I believe still contains implied OR that Likebox has "owned". Its a compromise because it isn't worth fighting over. I mostly definitely found Likebox's editing style/comments disruptive and exhausting. I made my case against Likebox's activities on quantum mysticism and it was declined in the given context. If anyone wants to review my concerns when exploring or establishing an editing pattern or history they only need to look here. I offer this comment because it was requested and my interaction with Likebox have been discussed in a few places. With that said, I do not wish to participate in the discussion further. I plan to do my best to avoid Likebox now and in the future.--OMCV (talk) 05:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"Editing against consensus" means that I have brought the issue of Godel's theorem up once every year and a half, to see if consensus changed, and made an argument on history wars every time they tucked away the previous talk page discussion into premature archive. That's not particularly inflammatory.

OMCV and I have no more dispute.Likebox (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's still editing against consensus if you add it, even once, after it's reverted. Shall we reach an agreement that you are subject ot 1RR every 2 years in regard the material you continue to add against consensus, or as to "testing the consenus". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed editing restriction

When I started this thread, I was not aware that there were similar issues on other pages. Now it appears that the same sort of problem has happened on other topics. Given the number of editors who have commented here that Likebox should pursue a different method, perhaps an editing restriction would be enough to resolve this thread. I would suggest the following:

If Likebox adds material to an article that is later removed with a claim that the material is inappropriate, Likebox is prohibited from adding that material again until clear consensus in favor of the material is established on the talk page of the article.

This would still permit Likebox to edit normally and discuss things on talk pages, but it would address the primary difficulty, which is that Likebox continues to insert the same material long after it is clear there is no consensus for it. Moreover, the proposed restriction still allows consensus to change. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a pity. I would be in favour of an article on for instance the computer program approach to Gödel's proof. But sticking in 8k of own's idea of better pedagogy is just not right. One needs to stay reasonably close to what is actually done in published sources. He should go an write wikibooks or wikiversity if he wants to do that. And by the way I believe writing a long spiel obscures the points if any in an argument. Dmcq (talk)

I think this 0RR restriction should be limited to articles on philosophy and to articles on mathematical logic. I don't think it is necessary for articles on ordinary physics topics, like e.g. quantum field theory, special/general relativity etc.. On those type of pages, someone like Likebox repeatedly reverting the page would be ok., because from time to time cranks appear who add (subtle) nonsense and for outsiders it is not clear to see what the consensus really is (the pages are not always frequently edited). I think Likebox' professional working experience lies more in this theoretical physics direction. Perhaps the disputes we've seen with likebox is the typical case of the "arrogant theoretical physicist" trying to lecture philosophers and mathematicians (just joking). Count Iblis (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing of Outlaw motorcycle club

Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) is repeatedly reverting legitimate edits to Outlaw motorcycle club on the flimsy excuse of some unspecified "formatting" problem., , and . After long discussions at the article's talk page (and more), the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and then here at ANI (for outrageously deleting talk comments), several editors agreed that this information belongs in the article, and that the only question was one of what the wording ought to be., , , , , .

Delicious carbuncle ignored every request to offer any compromise wording or to collaborate in any way, Instead, they stonewall. Today, Delicious carbuncle is simply reverting edits, and has refused multiple requests to specify what the formatting errors are, or to simply go ahead and fix the supposed formatting problem.

What this comes down to is an editor who refuses to get the point. Bluffing about formatting errors is silly, childish, and disruptive. I'm requesting that this user be banned from Outlaw motorcycle club for a reasonable period of time as a means of encouraging Delicious carbuncle to edit constructively and to respect the consensus reached by other editors.--Dbratland (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

And can this be reverted back to the way I left it without me also being dinged for a 3RR violation? Thanks.--Dbratland (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

A quick glance at the recent history of the article and talk page will show that Dbratland has completely misrepresented the situation in his comments above. Formatting is not the issue, as Dbratland should be very well aware at this point. This diff and this diff should shed some light what is really happening. I've grown rather tired of Dbratland's tendentious methods, so I'll likely not comment further unless compelled to defend myself. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Four separate statements about formatting problems: Here it says that my edit made"...no attempt to format them correctly." Then here you called my edit a "text dump;" i.e. there was some phantom problem with the of raw, unformatted text? Note that the edit summary says they don't wish to edit war; within an hour they violate 3RR. Again "text dump." That was a reference to my fifth offer of a new revision, and Delicious carbuncle again did not try to constructively offer any changes. Here, for the fourth time they said "There is somewhat more to this than the formatting..."

But now formatting is not the issue? You can't collaborate with an editor whose bluffs have be called on the Administrators' noticeboard just to get them to take half a step towards working constructively. --Dbratland (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be continued differing opinions over sources. Disruptive is a mischaracterization, though both editors need not edit war. Consensus (if there is any) isn't justification for warring. Grsz 21:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a reading comprehension problem.

Delicious carbuncle read WP:TALK and apparently believes somewhere in there it says he is allowed to delete talk page comments. It makes no impression how many editors tell him you can't do that, and WP:TALK does not say what he thinks it says.

When told these three edits , , and are a violation of 3RR, he simply denies and denies.

It goes a long way to explaining why he clings to the belief that I'm biased and trying to slant articles to make motorcycle gangs look good. I have this editor disputing with me what sources say, but this person will not listen to anyone who points out his reading of the words is mistaken. He decides it means what he wants, and then digs in and will not listen to anyone else.

That is why a ban is called for. Discussion does not work with Delicious carbuncle and consensus means nothing if it doesn't agree with him.--Dbratland (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Dbratland, I suggest you drop the whole "deleting talk page comments" accusations. There are legitimate reasons to remove other users' edits on a talk page, I've done it multiple times. DC thought that he was right to do so on that talk page, others disagreed, and he hasn't done it since. Bringing it up over and over again makes it look like you're just stirring up trouble to punish him, which isn't going to strengthen your claims. You're both edit-warring, and the way to resolve this is not through administrator action, but dispute resolution. -- Atama頭 22:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm bringing it up to point out how many times he had to be told he was wrong about WP:TALK. I can put up a half dozen diffs of how many different editors it took if that will help. My point is that I'm being told to work out my differences with a person who does not listen to sense. What am I supposed to do with him? I offered many variations on how to word the article, and it made no impression. I went ahead and made my changes without his input, and he reverted. We've had 3rd opinions five or six times. What's left? Can you talk to him? If you or anyone can make him be reasonable, I'll be happy. But again and again and again he has shown that he won't listen.--Dbratland (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'll get involved, I was going to suggest you take it up with WP:MEDCAB but since I volunteer there anyway I guess I can just give it a try. I can't help but feel there's a way to compromise without having to escalate this further. -- Atama頭 23:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC

I would appreciate it if you would like to try.--Dbratland (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Dbratland has evidently decided to continue to edit war even while this is at ANI and no further discussion has taken place on the talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? Even replacing one fact tag with three solid citations is a problem for you? Have you even looked up "Hollister riot" at Google books or the Google news archive? Ever? Books, articles and documentaries that say the so-called riot was sensationalized are a cottage industry. They quote a half dozen living eyewitnesses who say it was not a riot. Would you like 20 citations to support this single statement? I can do 20. Can you find even one source willing to defend the reporting of the incident? Even the SF Chronicle and Life magazine don't even try to make excuses for their abysmal coverage back then. I'm beginning to think you are totally unfamiliar with this subject and have not read the sources that go with it, which calls into question what business you have accusing me of bias or making blanket revisions to sections of this article. This is going beyond absurd.--Dbratland (talk) 04:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Dbratland, I owe you an aoplogy - I saw the edit summary of "replacing deleted citations, adding Yates1999" and didn't look closely enough at the diff. I assumed you had made yet another attempt to revert. I have no problem with your additions other than to suggest that it might be better use of your time to improve the main article at Hollister riot and direct readers there. Your tendency to include long quoted passages in citations is unusual and, given that I have already noted your tendency to selectively quote references, probably not a good idea. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Your complaints are the only reason for the quotes.--Dbratland (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you were doing that well before I arrived on the talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that the "disruptive editing" of this particular article has been going on for quite some time. Anyone can skim over the history of the article and see a slow pattern of Dbratland pushing a POV of his onto this article. Slowly removing or altering sections dealing with the criminal aspect of the content, while selectively and misleadingly using references to push a pro image. Hooper (talk) 05:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And you are selectively ignoring all of my edits on many articles dealing with outlaw motorcycle clubs that do the reverse of what you accuse. Stop repeating this rubbish unless you are prepared to back it up. Find the diffs that prove your accusation and I will then proceed to bury them in diffs that show the opposite. You don't get to just go around making accusations against people without proving it.--Dbratland (talk) 05:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yawn. That article's entire history is my proof. Hooper (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, thousands of editors were putting quotes in {{Citation}}'s quote= field long before I came along. But the set of citations you were complaining about had no quotes until you decided to make an issue of them. The quotes in this case were for Delicious carbuncle's benefit.--Dbratland (talk) 05:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Jeff V. Merkey

Can we get some more eyes on Jeff V. Merkey? There seems to be some tag-teaming going on to remove maintenance tags and insert self-promotional info. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The IP has been warned for 3RR violation and has refused to AGF as indicted by the comment above. QuackGuru (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a sockpuppet account of the SCOX trolls. Leave the photos in the article is better with them. People need to know all sides of me, not just the opinions of the Merkey-hating trolls from Yahoo SCOX. The whole point of biographies of living persons is to enhance the content of an article. PLEASE. Thaknk. Jvmphoto (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Where are your sources, Mr. COI? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 19:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not what should be asked. Why did you delete the sources and content? QuackGuru (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What sources? I didn't see a single source in your edits. Never mind, I didn't see the primary sources at the bottom; that section is decet. Still, is there a reason why you're editing your own article again? And adding an unsourced DOB, unsourced spouse, unsourced unsourced unsourced? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 19:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You did delete several sources including sourced text. For example, you did delete this reliable secondary reference. "United States Attorney Press Release Mooney indictments".

Why are you saying I am editing my own article. Please strike you comment or run a checkuser. QuackGuru (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidently Jvmphoto (talk · contribs) is Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is indefinitely blocked. Unless something has changed that I'm not aware of, Jvmphoto should be blocked on that basis. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I did some cleanup of the article, unaware of this discussion and JVM being indef blocked. --Ronz (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat, protected

Subsequent to Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry's block and FisherQueen's decline, Jvmphoto posted "everytime you block me or post more of these lies, you are violating a Court Order.", which seems to me to be unambiguously a legal threat. So I've protected his talk page (but not blanked it; another admin may choose to do so) to prevent further threats. Evidently he's au fait with the arbcom, Jimbo, and the Foundation, so he knows where to go to ask for an unblock, and he should be doing that on his main account anyway. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oh FFS. Jeff always talks that way. He's also pretty much incapable of working with the Misplaced Pages community, so I will send him email asking him if there is any error of fact that needs correcting. He's not evil, actually he's a great guy with many good and steadfast friends in the tech industries who really respect him, but he is very passionate about some things and he has been royally trolled because he rises so readily to the bait. Oh, and that photo is the same as the one on his FaceBook profile, so is probably OK even if it was a joe-job (which it probably wasn't). Guy (Help!) 22:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I've received a few unpleasant emails from JVM, but I'm keen to agree that he means well and just reacts badly to not being in control of a situation. I'd appreciate it if you let him know that personally, I have no hard feelings against him, but obviously on-wiki there are rules, etc. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this guy the one who said "I will sue you in a COURT OF LAW in Trenton, New Jersey"? Regardless of whether he means well deep down inside, we shouldn't give him further opportunities to go make legal threats on Misplaced Pages, not even if they're unintentionally hilarious. rspεεr (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That was someone else, the threats to sue and legal liability made by this guy aren't specific to location. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Rangeblock please

99.165.105.168 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 99.139.220.179 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 99.139.220.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 99.139.231.245 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seem to be the same anonymous user editing from the same IP range. This user has a pattern of adding an unsourced store directory to Washington Commons and then throwing a wikitantrum when I remove it, including random undoings of my edits. 99.139.220.238 got blocked by Jéské Couriano on 10/16 for very vicious attacks (see ANEW archives). Just today, 99.139.231.245 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made a random undo of my editing, and not only re-added the store listing again, but also added "Kiss my a** 10 inch weiner, you're not god and you've been breaking the rules on here" in comments. This definitely warrants a rangeblock to get this @#!*$ away from the article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 19:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If you include the first IP listed there, the range is way too big. Is semi-protection an option? Tan | 39 19:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say just go with the 99.139 IPs if you rangeblock. Semi-prot isn't out of the question, but I think blocking would get the point across more clearly that this user is not helping things. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 19:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Could we try semi-prot first? I'm happy to do so, rather than rangeblocking, which causes all sorts of problems for people. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Jéské is handling the semi-prot, and he just blocked the IP. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 20:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

"Before I give you a midnight wake up call" Is that a death threat I hear?--SKATER 20:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I've semi'd for one week, but given this guy's modus operandi, I'd keep an eye out for any IP in the 99.139.xxx.xxx vicinity suddenly appearing on an article to undo TenPound's edits. -Jeremy 20:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Brews Ohare's right to collect evidence

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

User:Brews ohare was the subject on an arbitration case. He feels that he was not treated correctly in this whole process. The precise details are not so important. The point is that many people involved in this process have to some degree behaved in an uncivil way, but only Brews and David Tombe were punished. Whether that's correct or not is irrelevant for this particular discussion. My point here is that Brews does have the right to build his own case for an appeals process or just for the record. He is, of course, not allowed to launch personal attacks.

Brews made this subpage to his userpage. Brews is now blamed for launching a personal attack, while all he is doing is quoting Physchim62 when Physchim62 says that Brews is nuts (he suggests that Brews believes in a giant conspiracy). I believe that the title of the page is to be interpreted like that.

The question is if other editors who have had problems with Brews can just accuse Brews of launching a personal atack, if Brews is just quoting what someone else (who was also involved in the arbitration case) has just said. Count Iblis (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I've just added {{db-attack}} notices to four pages:

• User:Brews ohare/Physchim62: Is he nuts?
• User:Brews ohare/Physchim62
• User:Brews ohare/Dicklyon
• User:Brews ohare/Physchim62: A typical discussion

These pages have nothing to do with collecting evidence for an arbitration case that is near to closing, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light. They serve only as a collection of (very recent) satements which Brews ohare (talk · contribs) does not seem to agree with. In the case of the pages concerning me, they are extracted from a discussion which is still active on my talk page, as anyone can see. These pages should be delted forthwith as serving no purpose for the encyclopedia. Physchim62 (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

While I initially deleted all four of those pages, I later restored the last per Brews' request on my talk page. However, I admonished Brews to be civil in his discussions with Physchim62. With this post, I also strongly admonish Physchim62 to be civil as well. I am not taking sides on this dispute because 1) I do not know all the facts of the ArbCom case and 2) I am not a science major. Willking1979 (talk) 22:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I request redeletion of User:Brews ohare/Physchim62: A typical discussion, simply because of the title – it is not a typical discussion – because it would be recreation of otherwise speedy deletable content contained in User:Brews ohare/Physchim62: Is he nuts?, because the material is available on my very own talk page (Brews ohare simply took a few paragraphs) so the page serves no purpose except to attack me. Physchim62 (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Since I was involved in the initial deletion of the pages--and the subsequent restoration of one--I will abstain from any other actions regarding them. This ArbCom case is too complex to digest and interpret in a brief period of time. Again, I urge the editors to be civil during the case. Willking1979 (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a bizarre comment that material quoted directly and verbatim from PhysChim62 without additions or deletions or any editing of any kind, taken from PhysChim62's talk page somehow demeans him. By putting this material on my own page I insure that this content will not be lost due to further edits by PhysChim62, who apparently finds his own remarks do not reflect well upon him. Brews ohare (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

(redent) My comments are there for all to see, on my talk page, but in context. Failing last minute surprises, with 22h to go on the motion to close, Brews ohare (talk · contribs) will be banned for twelve months "from all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed" due to his disruptive editing and "engaging in tendentious debates and soapboxing" . Would an admin like to quietly delete this material, or must I take it to WP:AN/AE? Physchim62 (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no missing context: the comments and replies are self-contained. Brews ohare (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

What about the first line? "A verbatim dialog with Physchim62 illustrating a failure to follow simple discussion:" Finell (Talk) 00:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Judge for yourself. It is certainly typical of his interaction with me. Brews ohare (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Contact the case clerk for guidance, but my advice is for everyone to cool it. Don't create material that serves no constructive purpose, don't feel obligated to read it.--Tznkai (talk) 01:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• It is disruptive to bring matters under arbitration back to this board. I recommend deleting the evidence gathering pages; the case has been voted on and will close shortly; such pages serve no useful purpose. Other admins are cautioned to steer clear. This matter should be handled by the clerks, and this thread should be closed. Jehochman 01:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• • I was asked to swing by this thread as someone thought I was clerking the relevant case (I'm not - Hersfold is). Regardless, the above comments by Tznkai and Jehochman above are well worth heeding. Manning (talk) 05:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If Jehochman's suggestion is to delete the evidence gathering pages of this Case, it is very self-serving, and certainly a cover-up of the first magnitude, although a great relief for those implicated. Brews ohare (talk) 10:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

As Brews continues to battle and assert conspiracies where there are none, I recommend a block. Count Iblis should be admonished to stop drama mongering. Clerks, step up and do your job. Arbitration cases should not be allowed to spill over to other pages. It is disruption, pure and simple. Jehochman 11:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This thread certainly reads as the usual 'cool kids' circling the wagons 'round one of their own. I'm not a physicist, but I understood clearly the distinction Brews was getting at between the two 'c' measurements, and I get the snide derogatory attack from Psychim62. I see nothing wrong with building an appeal process page, especially since Arbcom's such a hackneyed mess of cross-purpose procedures and rules that unless you watch it for sport, you can easily get confused and consumed. Everyone should be able to appeal, especially given the numerous controversial edicts handed down. Preventing appeal is no more than another dictatorial decree with no teeth - it's not as if they can't just construct the entire thing in notepad or word, then post it all at once, or post it at WR instead. Nothing's to be gained from deleting such pages, so long as they build to a purpose, and frankly, that one snippet seen on the 'typical discussion' page, isn't a PA in any form - Psychim62 should not have shot his mouth off if he didn't want to see it again. ThuranX (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This matter is at arbitration. Please don't shoot from the hip when you don't understand the entire history of the dispute. Jehochman 13:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If it is agreed that these are evidence gathering pages, and the arb is still open, then why is deletion needed? And if it is under the exclusive jurisdiction of ArbCom, why is deletion taking place pursuant to discussion here? It strikes me as rather odd. If it is routine to require the deletion of evidence gathering pages, then of course they should be deleted, but if it is not so, and these are userspace pages, it is customary to give great discretion to the user per WP:UP#OWN. I'd like to see some clarifications here and less mentions of "blocks" or "shoot from the hip", which may tend to make people afraid to engage in debate.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The arbitration has been voted on and will close within a day. The evidence presentation phase is over and done. The pages serve no useful purpose at all; they merely antagonize the other disputants. It is routine to require deletion of evidence gathering pages that are derogatory towards other editors once the evidence has been presented. Keeping lists of grudges and disputes is not permissible. Wehwalt, we have grown very tired of repeating the same arguments time and time again with these disruptive editors. They should not be granted an umpteenth bite at the apple. There's nothing new in this thread at all. It's just pure disruption and abuse of process. Jehochman 13:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that at least for appearance sake (which is part of what is being complained about), deletion should have awaited the formal closing of the ArbCom case. "He who did sell the lion's skin ..." To do otherwise seems to be stepping on ArbCom's toes, nothing wrong with that in a good cause, but not sure this qualifies.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This thread should not be here at all. I agree, all the parties should let the case close and then request enforcement. I'd very much appreciate if an arbitration clerk would appear here to admonish Count Iblis for doing an end run around arbitration, and to forcibly archive this thread. Jehochman 13:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Strikes me then, we should reverse the actions taken in this out of jurisdiction thread and leave a clear field for ArbCom.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be one approach. However, it might be best to leave the current position as it is, and ask a clerk to sort it out. I've been asking ArbCom to send a clerk here to close up this thread, but that has not happened yet. Jehochman 14:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think restoring status quo ante is better than status quo ilikeit.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I think letting the clerks sort it out is best. Don't use tools at all here. Just leave things where they are so as not to confuse the matter further. This thread should not have been started here, the files should not have been deleted, and the clerks should have attended to this already. Jehochman 14:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Note:

• Some are talking about the evidence gathering pages of the arbitration case. Others are talking about the copies of these pages Brews has been gathering as subpages of his own user page. DVdm (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If these deleted pages are copies of pages found elsewhere which will not be deleted at the close of the Arb, then I think we are arguing about nothing.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

"Don't shoot from the hip"? You prove my point. This is you protecting your buddy, and ignoring the entire fact that he is doing this for an appeal, because ArbCom is a mess to learn how to deal with when you're in the thick of it. I stand by my position, and I'll thank you to keep your own snide attacks to yourself. and no, DVdm, I'm not confused at all. any appeal starts somewhere, and gathering evidence is the best place to begin. ThuranX (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure we're getting anywhere here. If anyone needs what's on those deleted pages, I can make them available to them so it can be had off wiki. Perhaps email me, and I'll send the text in my reply. Otherwise, I don't think we're accomplishing anything. Again, I think appearances don't look wonderful on this one.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's not forget that Jehochman is an involved Admin in this dispute. Before the Arbitration cased started he raised the problems with Brews, David etc. here (a few times I think). Physchim62 and I are also involved in this case. Jehochman, however, was not a party in the Arbitration case itself.

To be clear about my position, I do not support Brews' POV in the dispute about the physics. The problem as seen by many editors was basically that Brews was posting so frequently and pushing so hard for his (allegedly) idiosyncratic POV, that he was hard to deal with. The Arbitration case was aimed at this.

A few days ago William Connoley stepped into this debate (as far as the physics is concerned) on his own talk page and also on Physchim62's talk page. These are more or less invited discussions, purely about the physics. Brews also participated in these discussions. Then on Physchim62's talk page, Physchim62 made a remark that Brews found typical of how discussions that are initially about physics escalate into big fights. On the Arbitration case he tried to argue that point but he was not successful in that.

Now, when I raised this particular dispute about Brews collecting evidence here, I immediately notified Physchim62 on the particualr Arbitration talk page where Physchim62 himself had raised the matter. I told him that because I support Brews (under certain conditions) in this particular matter, that he needs to come here and give his own POV. I think Physchim62 was ok. with that and that only Jehochman seems to strongly object to my action. But I don't think it is correct if involved parties can exert so much influence in this particular dispute. Count Iblis (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't copying and pasting another person's comments into a collection page a copyright violation? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That depends. If the comments were made on Wikipdia, they were released under CC-BY-SA and GFDL. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

 Clerk note: You know, it's funny how people keep saying "it's the clerk's decision; the clerks should have handled it already; clerks, step up and do your job" and yet it wasn't until Brews gave me a link to this page five hours ago that anyone bothered to give me the slighted notice that this discussion was going on. The clerks are not omniscient nor online 24 hours a day. In fact, I was asleep for the majority of this discussion. If you people want Arb Clerk action on an issue, ANI is the precise last place to request it. The proper locations would be the case pages, the clerk's talk page, or the clerk's noticeboard. I have neither the time nor patience to read through, much less find, a heated argument like this to try and figure out who wants what done and why. If you have a specific request that absolutely cannot wait until the case is closed in six hours, let me know on one of the three pages mentioned above. Otherwise, stop the complaining. Hersfold 16:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Brody6900

I ran across this user when he/she was making editing tests and a clumsy but good faith edit on Black Death. That is alright, there could still be potential for a contributing editor in him/her, but I am a bit unsure about the editors userpage. It seems he/she is using it as a chatforum with two other IPs. I just wondered what is the official stance on this? --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The articles created were (I think) probably about people the user knew, which is not good. If they're chatting, I'd say give them a WP:MYPACE warning. May want to keep tabs on their edits to see if they improve. They deserve a warning before we take any action. But what do I know, don't listen to me if you don't want to, I'm probably wrong, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 11:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope, you're probably right. I blanked their userpage, gave them a honkin' Welcome template, let them know that their edits have drawn attention of admins, and advised them of this ANI. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes! Someone agrees with me! (sorry, irrelevant, I'll just go now...) Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 11:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Thanks, I guess the ball is in Brody6900s court now. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I reverted further IP vandalism to the user page. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

high volume minor changes - not sure about this....

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/82.47.120.38

User is applying minor changes to the height of tennis players. I'm asking him on his talk page what's going on but someone may have seen this sort of serial change marauder before. Leaky Caldron 13:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism - taken care of. Leaky Caldron 13:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it was vandalism,the IP should be blocked --NotedGrant Talk 14:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of referenced text is disruptive

SarekOfVulcan has been removing referenced text form this article. There first edit was to revert my edit which replaced text that had been removed by an IP. There next edit was to remove a whole section from the article, with the edit summary “checked 8 other articles -- none reproduces the definition of a bull, they just link to the term” could the editor be told, that first, Wiki is not a source of reference, and secondly the text was supported by secondary and third party sources. Their third edit was again to remove large amounts of referenced text, in addition to removing attributions to authors, which are required when dealing with controversial subjects. They then placed this notice on my talk page despite the fact that it was their unexplained actions which were being reverted. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

How is this a problem? That sentence is unreferenced and makes no sense at all. I see no real attempts on your part to actually try to discuss anything - you revert with "POV pusher" and then come straight here to ANI. I see no action that can be taken here. Tan | 39 14:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, considering Domer made a 4th revert after being warned, there is some action that can be taken here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that he made a fourth revert, but it would probably be best if someone else handle any administrative action that is deemed necessary. user:J aka justen (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I reported him at the 3RR board, so someone uninvolved can handle it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Tan, I used the term Troll not "POV pusher" and the sentence is referenced. So considering you have a problem with reading, maybe that would explain why the sentence "makes no sense at all" to you. I've seen no part on SarekOfVulcan or the IP to actually try to discuss anything, but again, no mention of that by you. Now you only bothered with one of the edits I outlined above, so lets deal with the others. I've seen no effort by you to discuss them here at all, and the fact that I came here when a problem developed, should not be an issue unless you are trying to make an issue of it. Were else should I have gone?Reverting vandalism is not considered a revert.--Domer48_'fenian' 14:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tan above, and Rannpháirtí anaithnid on the article talk page. This is not vandalism. Unfounded accusations of "vandalism" and "trolling" are of absolutely no use; are not accurate descriptions of what's going on; and do nothing but create a more difficult editing situation. It's a collaborative encyclopedia, so... collaborate. By the way, the fact that text is referenced is not a cloak of invincibility, meaning it can never be removed; inclusion of text is an editorial decision, made in collaboration with other editors on the talk page of the article. Domer, please consider reverting your fourth revert, and soon; I'd hate to see you blocked for 3RR, and I'm pretty confident that's what will happen, soon, if you don't self-revert. Instead of reverting, please just discuss on the talk page of the article.--Floquenbeam (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Domer48 (talk · contribs)'s edit summaries appear fairly disruptive, and he seems to quite like the word "trolling: "rv trolling", "rv further vandalism by trolling admin", "rv trolling admin", etc. --Elonka 14:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Clear that Domer needs a block. How long though? Would a month be too long? I see a horrendous block log, the 4rr highlighted above, and loads of uncivil edit summaries. In addition the language of the post just above shows no evidence of learning. This user can be very slow to "get it" and maybe a month to think about how we work here would help him. --John (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Given the previous block log, nothing short of 1 month. Toddst1 (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Please note that much of the "horrendous block log" is modifications/cancellations of existing blocks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Removing referenced and sourced text without any reason or discussion is not vandalism? Removing a whole section from the article because it is not supported by wiki as a reference, but is supported by secondary and third party sources is not disruptive? --Domer48_'fenian' 14:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Typical! Lets raise the red herring of a block log, rather than deal with the issue at hand. When was the last time I was blocked? A quick look at the log we see an number of them over turned, and we see SarekOfVulcan block on me being a bad one. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Block logs are very material when discussing length of blocks. Toddst1 (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

domer, here is where you use "POV pusher". I have no problem with reading, but you have a problem with civility. Sarek, can you comment on the removal of the above section? I don't see discussion about it anywhere on the talk page, but I could be missing it. Tan | 39 14:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't discuss it on the talk page, but I noted in the edit summary that I ran through the list of papal bulls and checked 8 or more of them, and none of them included a section duplicating the papal bull article -- they just wikilinked it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Please, your edit summary said "checked 8 other articles -- none reproduces the definition of a bull, they just link to the term" now since when does the fact that 8 other articles on wiki that don't deal with the definition of a bull justify the removal of text which does explain what a Papal bull is? Note also that the section is completly referenced. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Block logs are very material when discussing length of blocks after the nature of the dispute has been addressed. You have not commented on the dispute yet. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Domer has shown quite a streak of incivility, no doubt about that and should be sanctioned accordingly. Nevertheless, I understand that Sarek's edit as presented above was easy to misunderstand. "checked 8 other articles -- none reproduces the definition of a bull, they just link to the term" makes no sense whatsoever as a reason to remove referenced text - without knowing which articles he refers to. He has now clarified it and it can be discussed whether it's pointless or not to duplicate such information but that's an editing dispute that needs a discussion on the talk page instead of here. The incivility Domer showed though needs to stop as well and I propose to support aformentioned block if they continue to use such language instead of trying to solve the problem. But if they understand that such language is inappropriate and will not accepted and show this in future comments, a block would be punitive. As such, I think we should only discuss a block if further incivility occurs. Regards SoWhy 15:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Rephrased to reflect further comments made while I was writing this.

Also, I disagree that my edit summary made no sense -- why would I be checking anything except other papal bull articles to see if a section defining papal bulls was appropriate?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If by addressing the civility issue, it will focus the attention onto the dispute itself, I have no problem stating that I will no longer describe Mooretwin as a “POV pusher” or SarekOfVulcan as a “Troll.” I also know, by giving such an undertaking, that Admin’s would also consider such terms being used towards me as equally wrong and act accordingly. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Logical fallacy. It's only wrong to consider you a troll if you aren't trolling. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ya'll should protect the article-in-question. Then work-it-out on that article's discussion page. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to protect it at this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I declined the 3RR block for now. While technically a violation, a block would be primarily punitive at this point since discussion is underway. I did however undo the violating edit and will block if another revert takes place (within 24 hours or otherwise). This action was only a comment on the 3RR aspect - a possible block for incivility can still be considered separately. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(←) User:Domer48 has got to stop with the hostility. That being said, I think it's important to understand where that may be coming from... I believe it's obvious he views User:SarekOfVulcan antagonistically (made clear by his reverts to his talk page, and probably due to a problematic block in June). Likewise, with User:Toddst1 (problematic block in August). This does not excuse the incivility or absolve him of his responsibility to edit collaboratively, but two recent instances of problematic blocks would undoubtedly make him anxious of noticeboard discussions trending in the direction this one is trending in, and the earlier reference to his block log to justify a new monthlong block is really salt in his clearly still fresh wounds (which, to his credit, User:SarekOfVulcan pointed out). Another block isn't going to help in the long run, although I agree it's the only option unless he agrees to drop the hostility and incivility. Still, I'm disappointed it was the first option discussed here, disappointed by this (given the history), and disappointed that neither User:SarekOfVulcan nor User:Toddst1 considered their histories with this editor relevant as a preface to their comments here. user:J aka justen (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If I had started the discussion here, it's likely that I would have linked to the previous discussion. However, I didn't. Domer came here without attempting to discuss first (not even in the edit summaries), and knowing that AN/I discussions get all parties looked at. J, why are you disappointed that I told him that I wasn't going to block without warning him first? Note that that response was on my talk page, not his. Posting it on his would have been trolling by most definitions, agreed.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Because you shouldn't be blocking him -- or threatening that you will block him -- given that you were involved in the dispute as an editor. (That's even ignoring that you should probably be a tad more careful given the past situation with him in your capacity as an administrator.) user:J aka justen (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

":I'm not going to block you without warning first..." is not actually a threat to block, though it might be read as such. I agree it would be better if someone without a history with Domer was the one to block. Even better if Domer would stop being uncivil and edit-warring of course. --John (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

"Even better if Domer would stop being uncivil and edit-warring of course." I couldn't agree more, and I hope he takes the fact that this particular recommended course of action has been reiterated here multiple times today seriously. user:J aka justen (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I've had the same experience with the same editor on the same article. See that ANI. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Domer has now been reminded to be more civil at least eight times in this thread. 3RR block has been declined. Content dispute can now be moved to a relevant talk page; marking resolved. Tan | 39 16:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no substantial content dispute to discuss. The matter is that Domer48 accuses his perceived "enemies" of persecuting him ("trolling" in this case, "stalking" in my own) should they copy edit a page that he has taken a liking to. The matter is not even ownership or incivility, it WP:BATTLE. There is noting of substance to discuss regarding content.

I used to edit that page - both under my current user name and my old one - but I feel I've been chased away from it now since any edits I make (literally no more than spelling and grammar fixes) are reverted on sight by Domer48.

There is nothing to be discussed with Domer48; nor is there any point in discussing anything with him (as I know from experience of his modus operandi elsewhere). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

User IP address misusing talk page or something

The IP address 70.121.33.144 removes my recent notice of the removal of the sandbox and the header. He/she went to my talk page and scolded me and put "Stay off my talk page. I removed your template warnings but the sandbox is virtually unvandalizable. Don't remove messages I put there either. Any of the such will be reverted." I reverted that edit, and now he/she put "In my opinion, your careless use of the rollback feature, by reverting valid messages as vandalism, is inappropriate and will never garner you as an admin on Misplaced Pages, so read this while you can becuase you'll just revert it as vandalism, even though, by definition on Misplaced Pages, it isn't. Just an attempt to cover and hide your mistake." I do not have rollback rights yet. And now I saw the user talk page for the IP address redirect to Penis. How can I deal with him/her?  Merlion  444  14:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks. Tan | 39 14:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

But now the unblock review said "No such actions existed. Where did I attack? The only thing I can considor I an attack was his edits. Which is acceptable as critism." I think he/she just put these quotes shown above on my talk page, that's all. He/she might not have attacked me. However, he/she still misused the talk page by creating a malicious redirect before he/she was blocked.  Merlion  444  14:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

...and they are still blocked for two weeks. Jpgordon denied the unblock request. If we end up having to protect the IP talk page, we will - there's no more action necessary from an ANI standpoint. Marking resolved. Tan | 39 14:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Jimhsuseattle creating disharmony

Jimhsuseattle is creating disharmony in this thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Too_Beautiful_to_Live#Merger_proposal

Among his slurs against another poster:

1. "ignorant" 2. "sad individual" 3. "it" 4. "ignorant" 5. many others ...

THX Secretoffatima (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Level 1 warning given. You should notify the editor of this thread. Tan | 39 15:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - just notified him. Secretoffatima (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Can someone else look into User:Secretoffatima? The situation has gotten away from me a bit on User talk:Jimhsuseattle's talk page, and Secret themselves are proving to be problematic. Any additional eyes would be helpful. Tan | 39 16:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoever is currently patrolling SPI has deleted Secret's SPI notification and asked him to resubmit. I think Secret thinks that Jimhsuseattle did it. I have advised Secret on their talk page of what has actually happened.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Epigraphist

More about the user page than the user (who is mostly retired): are lonely hearts ads appropriate for user pages? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted per WP:NOTMYSPACE. Tan | 39 16:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Reasonable outcome, but MFD would have been more appropriate. Stifle (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, outcome was inevitable. No need to be bureaucratic about it. Tan | 39 17:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think doing this was extraordinarily bitey, since only the last of the three paragraphs met this description--the first two were just quiet & polite complaints about feeling unwanted at Misplaced Pages. I'd like it undeleted and sent for RfD, where I will suggest giving him a chance to delete the paragraph. His last comment to article talk space was just 3 days ago and earlier edits were helpful. We talk about not discouraging new editors. This was the diametrically wrong response to an existing contributor who has done nothing else wrong here. DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC) .

"I've pretty much given up on editing Misplaced Pages because it's a huge scam where the Big-Business-Government pays off head Wikipenazis to distort all knowledge to keep the public uninformed." This is quiet and polite? We have very different notions of "polite", then. If you want to take it to MfD, go right ahead. Tan | 39 18:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with DGG: the sentence Tan cites is the most venomous line on that page -- which, when all is considered, is mild for an "I'm outta here, lusers!" rant. Although I think he's wrong about us regulars being paid to edit here -- or else I'm the only one who hasn't received any remuneration for all of my work. (Then again, I do regret giving my bank account information to that guy in Nigeria; never did see any of the $650 million dollars his uncle needed help getting out of that country.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, DGG. Misplaced Pages is not a dating service. The person has some obvious issues, and we should not be encouraging such behaviors by restoring his user page. WP:THERAPY is a good essay explaining this sort of thing. MuZemike 18:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Epigraphist has been contributing for more than two years, and it is precisely his exposure to Misplaced Pages's rules which led to the current state of his user page. If I'd considered that he's likely respond positively if questioned I'd have gone nowhere near the dramaboard with this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

POV pushing and propaganda by User:Ketabtoon

Ketabtoon (talk · contribs) is once again propagating WP:POV and WP:OR, this time in Afghan Mellat. He is deleting sourced and relevant material, proving that the "Afghan Mellat" party is considered ethnocentrist, nationalist, and racist. He removes a relevant source (from the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung) which explains that the founder of the party was fascinated by Nazi ideology. He also removes a relevant link to the homepage of the Socialist International, proving that although the "Afghan Mellat" party calls itself "social democratic", it is neither a member of nor accepted as such by the Socialist International. Tajik (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to the article's discussion page. (Ketabtoon (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC))

I already have. And I am not interested in any "discussion", when there is a clear act of propaganda for a fascist and ethno-nationalist party and ideology. It's already a shame that you knowledge the party's (and its founder's) liks to the NSDAP regime of Adolf Hitler's Germany, yet you say: "the source does not mention by which aspects of Nazi policy he was fascinated." So I am asking you here: is there any aspect of Nazi policy that YOU support? Tajik (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I asked the admins (or other parties involved) to refer to the talk page. (Ketabtoon (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC))

User:Tajik is very disruptive, a racist and he should be banned. , He has been blocked so many times but is still edit-warring, POV pushing, vandalizing pages and meatpuppeting. , Since he's restricted from making over 1 RV, he instructed another Tajik to come to Misplaced Pages to revert pages for him. He may also be borrowing his account/passwords and using it. Tajik is engaged in ethnic war, he's obessesed with hating Pashtuns and he should be banned so Misplaced Pages can improve. Everything he edits is about ethnicity, he should be at least be restricted from editing Pashtun related articles.--119.73.4.170 (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

119.73.4.170 is the IP of banned User:NisarKand. This has been confirmed by admin User:Alison here: . However, it's not really a surprise that this banned user is coming to support User:Ketabtoon. He did the same in Ghurids and Muhammad of Ghor (and of course vice versa). Tajik (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have fully protected Afghan Mellat for one week whilst you are both edit-warring over the content of the article. I have also reverted the obvious new vandal edits by IP 166.205.131.88 at that page. I have ignored the comments of the suddenly arrived 119.73.4.170 who does appear to be here only to disrupt. I will be watching the talk page for any supported consensual requests for addition/deletion of material to the article. I ask that you either reach agreement of NPOV content which does not provide UNDUE coverage of any particular area - or you walk away from each other to edit at articles with a different theme.--VirtualSteve 21:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me for being disruptive. You're helping a racist editor to spread his racism. All I did was comment on Tajik and his actions here, this was not directed only to you but to all editors. Racism is just going to eat you live, it'll make your life very short.--119.73.6.149 (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee elections: Urgent! Final call for applications

Time is rapidly running out. The closing date for completed applications is 23:59 (UTC) 22 October 2009. If you are interested in becoming one of the three non-arbitrator members of the Audit Subcommittee, see the election pages now for the job specification and application details.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies 17:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Testing the waters

Hello there. Some of you may remember that a week ago, I was here asking for a summary reinstatement of my Twinkle rights. After a while, some level heads intervened, some explanations and suggestions were traded, and I decided to give it a two weeks and ask for a reassessment. All of it is here or in the archives for this page, if you are interested.

This is my one week "testing the waters" request. It is not a request for reinstatement (although that would be nice,) but a request for advice and guidence. I want admins and other skilled users to look over my actions in the past week and show me where I need to improve.

In the last week I made a few adjustments that you should be aware of.

1. I have been spending significantly less time in recent changes, only popping in occasionally after doing something else, and rarely spending prolonged time in RCP.
2. Instead I have been working with Featured Pictures, Valued Pictures, and Picture Peer Review. The regulars there have been showing me the ropes.
3. I am interested in GA nominations and to a lesser extent FA nominations for articles in the fields of East Asia, Politics, East Asian Politics, Video Games, and Role Playing Games. When I have longer periods of time (I.E. when I'm not using Misplaced Pages as a study break for midterms) I will be delving into that.

Please confine comments to edits happening in the week, I don't need to be chewed out twice over things I already have decided I made mistakes on. Also, please confine the discussion to one place, so I can copy it and save it. Thanks.   Nezzadar ☎   18:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not violently opposed to it, for one thing I think your picture work is fantastic and a big boon to the project, and I also think you mean well even when you made mistakes. I've looked at your interactions with new/anonymous editors over the past few days and I don't see any communication that was out of line. I'm still concerned about what occurred in this ANI incident, and your interaction with new editors in that situation. That did occur less than a week ago. But I don't see any problems after that time, so my only suggestion would be to keep doing what you've been doing. -- Atama頭 22:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Admittedly, that was handled rather poorly. It was my first incident where it was almost entirely in a gray area. Was the user a sock? Was there bad faith? Ironically, the message I left on the talk page was my attempt not to bite the kid. I was trying to give him a message that would encourage him to contribute without jumping right into the chaos that that incident was. However I see where you are coming from, and I see how it could be biting. Another irony is that the reason I had to wing it was that I didn't have the warning bank from Twinkle. I know the warnings are at WP:WARN but Twinkle explains them much better and allows me to choose the best option. Thanks for the feedback Atama. Domo arigato gozaimasu!   Nezzadar ☎   23:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

68.231.147.253 spamming

Apologies for dumping this on ANI, but my internet connection is useless right now. Can someone please revert all of today's contributions by 68.231.147.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? They are all spam. Thanks. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it's all been reverted by various users as of 20:10 GMT. -- Soap /_{Contributions} 20:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

836-character sig

Launchballer (talk · contribs) has a signature which is based on an unsubstituted template. After numerous warnings and threats on his talkpage, from myself and a couple of admins – Rd232 / Stifle – (stretching back well over a month!), he was finally induced to change it. Whereupon it became 836 characters long, taking up 9 lines of my widescreen computer. He also insisted on using the (bright yellow) tag as the subject heading of every thread he started.

I informed him of this on his talkpage, where he responded with: My signature is a measly twelve characters, and Don't tell me a five-line string of characters is nine lines long HOW DARE YOU try to fool me. This message was signed with (you guessed it!) the unsubstituted template.

Given that he has ignored and quibbled with repeated requests to shorten his signature length so that it is fewer than 255 characters, and fits in the box at Special:Preferences as per WP:SIG, and that he has not edited Misplaced Pages at all (save for arguing about his sig) for over a week, may I request that he is blocked until he explicitly agrees to start obeying our policy? I'll inform him of this thread. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 19:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I used language like "HOW DARE YOU" because I can't believe for one minute your computer is widescreen when it takes up nine lines (Mine's also widescreen, and it takes up five lines) which means either yours is not a very good widescreen or you are lying through your teeth. Also, the reason for the truncation is to prevent too long an end result (which is what I've done). Given that, I'm not sure what I'm here for, especially that I cannot get that any more condensed.--Launchballer 19:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, this is his trick... keeping the template and manually substituting it afterwards. And, for your information, it is taking up nine lines of my 1280x800 screen. If you want a screengrab, I'll take one. I am not "lying through my teeth". Block still requested. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 19:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

They're screendumps, not screengrabs. Here's mine:

--Launchballer 19:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm seeing five-and-a-half lines of code, and that's at 1650x1050 widescreen - clearly too much. Please reduce your signature to something that fits within the 255-character limit, or else someone may have to do it for you. Thank you in advance. --Ckatz_spy 19:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, if you can find a way of shortening it WITHOUT touching the implemeted effects or removing the links, I'm happy to change it. But I don't know of any way.--Launchballer 19:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood what I've said. The code is far too long and has to be trimmed. You need to create a signature that fits within the limit; that may well involve giving up some of the features and links you've implemented. --Ckatz_spy 20:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm counting 8 on this standard-res monitor. I was pushing four when I started my RFA and was criticized there for sig length. Do yourself a favor and trim down the code. -Jeremy 19:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, here's my screengrab (don't be so petty about the term, Launchballer, and read this webpage). Count the lines yourself... I took the liberty of numbering them in the diagram to help you. And every other Misplaced Pages user manages to have their signature at a reasonable length, you are not a special case, you can too. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 20:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's seven and a bit here. Launchballer, your signature has too many links. Too many effects. There is no need to "condense" your sig - cut it down, because it's disruptive. A block is coming from someone if you don't respond constructively.  GARDEN  20:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflicts, not helped by the fact that adding a template and then substituting it afterwards doubles the number of edits you make to a page, which is itself ridiculous). Launchballer, you don't need all of the following (a) a fancy font (b) colours (c) class=explain (d) links to your contribution page (e) links to your email. Simple links to your user and talk page will do to start with; then add anything else you want until you reach 255 characters; then stop. It's simple, really. Otherwise, you will be blocked until you agree so to do. Bencherlite 20:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC) whose signature is the least fancy of all of those on display...

(stop edit conflicting already!)I have a 1360x768 resolution, and it takes up 7 lines of text for me... that's extremely excessive... I subst my sig, specifically from here, but I actually make an effort to keep it 255 characters or under... Until It Sleeps 20:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Your current sig is more prominent than the text itself; Misplaced Pages is primarily about content not contributors, and your apparent ego is interfering in our writing of an encyclopedia. DMacks (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about mine, or Lauchballer's? Until It Sleeps 20:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Was talking about Launchballer's, sorry for unclear antecedent. DMacks (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There's definitely a consensus here that the signature needs to be shortened; Launchballer, shorten your signature immediately or you will be blocked until it is changed. Thank you. Hersfold 20:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

In fairness, I would be the first to admit that my signature is long; I use a substituted template to manage and preview the code, it stands out, and probably takes at least four lines on a standard resolution such as Jeske's. However, my signature is still under 255 characters, nor do I sign with a transcluded template, which is expressly forbidden by the signature guideline. Hersfold 20:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yours takes up more like 3 in toto. Mine's 208 characters, and takes up 2½ lines.-Jeremy 20:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec x3)Lauchballer, when you have to call out the end of your sig so others know where to start editing, it's too big. Besides the fact that it's not very useful. I'd make an attempt to contact you on your talk page but it's pretty hit-or-miss to click on your sig to find it. So, not only is it over the char limit, it fails to be a useful addition to the talkpage. Padillah (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

And sorry if I've just triple edit conflicted anyone, but I've left a notice on Launchballer's talk page telling him to change his sig or be blocked. With unanimous consent here, it seems there's more than enough support for such a block if he continues to refuse to change his signature. Hersfold 20:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Block, change the template he's using to standard sig, then protected it until it can be bot-subst'ed. Misplaced Pages is not designed for WP:PEACOCKs. Physchim62 (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's possible he stopped editing; his last edit was over an hour ago. I would hold off on a block until we see him edit without chainging the sig. Other than that, I agree with my esteemed colleagues above - when you need a warning within the sig, it's too much. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 20:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Recently I have also had to change my signature, here is some advice. You do not need to declare the same colors four times, only once. Same with bold. Also, use the words red and cyan instead of the hexidecimal codes. See my sig if this confuses you.   Nezzadar ☎   20:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Try something like this:

Launchballer

• Or, even better, something like this: Launchballer (talk). The more outlandish the signature, the less likely it is that people are going to take you seriously. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Disagree I know of plenty of admins and trusted users with funky signatures. Atama, Tinuchurian, raeky, Durova, NuclearWarfare, etc. He is entitled to his quirkyness as long as it follows the rules.   Nezzadar ☎   23:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Actually a few years back with this basic sig the idea was to have something just a little bit different--slightly different shade of blue from the usual signature, different font that still displays well on most browsers. Eye-catching rather than flashy. And fwiw, a bad sig is more worthy of a trout than of a block. Let's get back to work. Durova 02:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've taken this to MfD. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Launchballer, it might be a good idea to get one's name noticed for the quality of one's contributions and insights, rather than the length of one's signature. ;) Durova 02:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've edited the user's signature code page down to 270 characters (the software limit is 255). The appearance is maintained but the mouseover effects, email link, and html comments are gone. I think the MfD can be ended if the user can live with this change, and agrees not to make the code any larger. Perhaps protecting the signature page could enforce that somewhat. Equazcion (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The MfD seems to be heading for an outright delete anyway, which is probably for the best considering that it's crept back up by about 50% since you pared it down. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahh and this is why I keep this page on my watchlist. I love the smell of chaos in the morning. Good luck solving this without a few MfDs, I tried. Equazcion tried. Durova suggested a trout instead of a delete, and... drumroll please... nothing.   Nezzadar ☎   13:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I have since taken it down. Not to 255, but please bear in mind how high it was to start off with.--Launchballer 15:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Just remember ... it must fit within the box on your My Preferences page. To paraphrase a famous trial: "if the sig don't fit, you must MfD-it" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The sig he signed with above is 247, so it's acceptable (we don't include the timestamp in char limit). –xeno 15:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

User:TrueColour

Could somebody please block or firmly admonish this user? For the past several days, he has made hundreds of unilateral page moves without any consensus or discussion and likely against MoS. It's gonna take ages to clean. Several users including myself have already explained to TrueColour why what he did is wrong and needs to be reverted straight away. TrueColour disagrees with the concerns, which is fair enough, but when I start reverting the mess he reverted me back and is now accusing me of unconsensual page moves and edit warring. Could somebody put an end to this? I prefer not to block the user myself as I am Portuguese and his disruption has mainly affected articles on Portuguese municipalities and districts. All such articles, to be precise. A lot to clean. Thanks. Húsönd 19:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion is in progress. I've asked TrueColour to stop his moves pending the outcome of the discussion. Can you hold off on moving any back yourself, Husond?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you offering to move hundreds of articles back after the discussion ends, plus redoing the changes made to those articles by other users while the discussion was taking place? It was an undiscussed non-consensual mass move, everybody discussing with this user agrees that it shouldn't have happened. If the user persists, it's disruption. The longer it takes to fix it, the harder the task will be. Húsönd 20:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Moving after edits doesn't remove those edits, so that argument doesn't apply.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately in this case it does. The editor didn't just move the articles, but also edited the first paragraph to have them conform with his moves and the subsequent duplication of the subject. Cleaning will involve moving+reverting. Húsönd 20:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph doesn't necessarily need to match the article title, though it's generally desirable. As long as he discusses and doesn't move anything else, I don't see that further action is needed. I've hinted that editing articles to match his desired naming scheme might be a Bad Thing as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not just that, but also insertion of sentences directing to new articles that the user effectively split and which shouldn't exist as separate. Hundreds of them. Again, the longer the changes stay in place, the harder it will be to fix. You can't protect hundreds of articles while a discussion is in place. If you really want to help, check the magnitude of his edits, investigate what he did and what needs to be undone, calculate the work that will take for that, and then maybe you'll realize that leaving everything as it is while a non-discussion takes place (because nobody else agrees with what the user did) is probably not a good idea. Húsönd 21:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll be surprised if bots, redirects, and WP:AWB can't clean things up effectively enough. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Feel free to bring them on later. Húsönd 21:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The user doesn't need to be blocked and I'm not sure what you mean by admonish (sounds like some sort of official warning or reprimand, I'm not aware of anyone on here with that sort of authority short of going to RFAR). The move issue is a name (read "content") dispute. True Color's responses were a bit defensive and difficult but the comments that led to them were a bit bitey. Both sides should back off, cool off, and discuss the naming convention. A third party, maybe Sarek, may be able to help the two sides see each other's points of view as both sides have merit and deserve to be understood before anyone goes further or reverts all. The fixes are relatively simple in the event everything eventually needs to go back the way it was. Recommend close this thread and consider WP:MEDCAB if Sarek can't break the deadlock.--Doug. 21:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:MEDCAB? Sorry, fixing this problem is already too much work, I don't think I would need a week of unproductive and insanely boring discussion on top of it. No, let's reach this compromise instead: I will not bother with this "content dispute" anymore, and Misplaced Pages has just gotten a few hundred disruptive-useless-split articles that damaged the original ones. All happy. Húsönd 21:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I must concur with Husond's opinion (I assume he asked me as somebody who does not cooperate with him, most of the time). This seems a remarkably useless series of splits, which move the articles on the actual towns to such unEnglish forms as Resende Municipality, Portugal, to make some point about there being an administrative division of the same name on a different level. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Doug, you found this to be "bitey"? Really? Maybe if you are going to go to the trouble of commenting here, you could be a little more specific about exactly what you are talking about. --John (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not find that comment bitey. I did find bitey: ignoring that editors are charged to Be Bold, listing a half-dozen or more places that the editor should have gone for consensus, most of which are rarely used for such discussions (I've never heard of posting an idea for a rename at the Village Pump), etc. But most importantly, my point was that ANI is not the place for this discussion. This is not the place to debate whether page moves were necessary and proper, even if they were were against consensus, past practice, etc. This is a WP:Dispute resolution matter and should be closed and taken elsewhere.--Doug. 05:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not a dispute resolution. All users are welcome to be bold, but when the boldness is damaging and reported as such, persisting in this boldness counts for no less than plain disruption. Disruption that needs to be halted and fixed, not to be hindered by bureaucracy and complacence. Húsönd 06:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It has been halted, without blocking or admonishment. TrueColour has created Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (Portuguese-related articles)#District names to discuss the subject, but I haven't seen you there yet.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Editors PhilthyBear and ScottRios being disruptive at Toronto

After a lengthy (2+ month) discussion involving pretty much every editor that showed on the talk page, a new skyline photo was chosen by an almost unanimous consensus (Though few editors participated, there was plenty of time to do so for those who chose not to). Upon attempting to change it, two editors (User:PhilthyBear and User:ScottRios have repeatedly undone the edit claiming it against consensus (which they did not participate in). I have reverted twice, and am temporarily withholding a third at this point until I get a go-ahead (Though I feel strongly that this should count as vandalism and not 3RR). The editors have failed to even comment on the talk page, and only revert the edits despite both my edit summaries mentioning the talk page discussion.

Diffs

• My addition of consensus per talk page discussion
• first revert by PhilthyBear with summary of "No one agreed to this picture. It's terrible"
• first revert by myself with summary of "Actually all but one person in the talk page did. Please take comments there."
• second revert by PhilthyBear with summary of "Actually it was only 3 people discussing the change. Hardly a consensus." (and continued to not participate in the discussion)
• second revert by myself with summary of "Stop reverting against CURRENT consensus and take this to the talk page please. You don't discuss, you don't get your say." (which is true, if they will not discuss on the talk page then their say should be ignored as undemocratic)
• revert by ScottRios with summary of "This is not a dictatorship User:Floydian. You have been reported for 3R's" (a rather snappy summary, without any comments on the talk page (the user did not report me for my 2 reverts)

• User:PhilthyBear has not participated at Talk:Toronto, and very few other talk pages, which shows a lack of cooperation with other editors
• User:ScottRios has only participated in discussion at Gangs in Canada, and never at Talk:Toronto

I am notifying these users now. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 21:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• • User:Floydian has committed 3R's and is disrespectful to other users. The Toronto page main image has been used for some time and is perfectly good. User:Floydian removed the picture after a lengthy incoherent discussion with 3 other editors most of which was personal chat. The image which he replaced the good quality image looks of poor quality and resembles a 1982 family photo quality. A coherent conversation on the talk page should take place and not personal chat with dozens of images posted. PhilthyBear (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

After having a quick look through the talk page I'd like to say that it appears that User:Floydian is in the right here. There is clear consensus (it's not his fault only a few users took part in the discussion) and despite anything else, that trumps all. There's no point in coming on to this noticeboard and saying he engaged in 'personal chat' when one can go to the discussion and see that is simply not true, I think there was a good quality, in-depth discussion about the subject in hand between editors that seem to take a keen interest in it, I think if anything it is one of the better talk exchanges I have seen. Also, if User:Floydian did revert the 3rr rule (I would argue he didn't, he was combatting vandalism, i.e. editors going against consensus) or was disrespectful then don't simply make that your response to this post because it simply looks like you're grabbing at straws, if he has played unfairly then start a new thread about his conduct. In summary, there is concensus to change the picture and what it should be changed to and therefore PhilthyBear and ScottRios should accept that and take any concerns to the talk page. RaseaC (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The point was also to draw more conversation in to the talk page, a point which PhilthyBear clearly missed (and given the quick removal of my post from his talk page (which is technically against policy I believe), has no interest in persuing). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 22:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It is (although this is a source of controversy) acceptable to users to do anything they like with their talk pages, there's not much that can be done about it. However, it is gernally the sign of a poor editor. The user in question seems to have a history of clearing his talkpage due mostly, it would appear, to other users raising concerns about his questionable behaviour, so I wouldn't worry about it too much. RaseaC (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Also possibly not entirely relevant to this discussion, but are users ScottRios and PhilthyBear the same user using sock accounts to get around the three revert rule? Yes they are both Canadian editors so do share some article editing history, but their manners and turns of phrase sound identical, especially when it comes to mistakes. For instance ScottRios's edit summary here is more than a little similar to Philthy's edit here where they both accuse him of 3R's (erroneously I must add.) I think this bears looking into, though I'm willing to admit I could be wrong and go with AGF. Canterbury Tail talk 01:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• • Try to keep your points clear, the issue is disruption through multiple reverts and apparent refusal to discuss. Consensus can and does change and the fact that a perceived consensus existed is only important for supporting the need to discuss; in other words "we've had a discussion, so BRD isn't an appropriate method for editing here". A discussion between a small number of people does not "trump all". Also removal of comments on the user's talk page merely means that the user has read them.--Doug. 05:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me just clarify two of my points you raised. Firstly WP works on consensus, and therefore if a group of people reach a consensus, then we work with what that group decides (in most cases). Simple. Secondly, an established, respected editor blanking their talk page of valid comments (lets forget vandalism here) is one thing (I personally would still consider that person a poor editor and not give them the time of day, but I would bare in mind their experience) an editor who devotes most of his time on WP to be disruptive and incivil who then goes on to blank their talk page is obviosuly a different matter alltogether. RaseaC (talk) 10:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Disruption at Race and Intelligence

An editor has claimed that he has problems with my edits at Race and Intelligence, but won't tell me what they are. Instead, he has offered to be wp:POINTY. He complains that nobody else reverts me while making wild accusations that I want to circumvent consensus. He also complains that I am a troll and a sock puppet. This has gone on for quite a while, but specifics are never offered. Can someone step in and explain these issues to this editor? T34CH (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's add some balance here.

• I've never claimed T34CH was either a "sockpuppet" or a "troll".
• The "wild accusations" were on the basis of T34CH's own words.
• Rather than explain - which I have tried on numerous occasions - what I found to be "wrong", I simply edited the section in question. Thus, T34CH can see for himself.

There's no need to investigate anything here, as far as I'm concerned. But if an "investigation" is found warranted, I willingly submit to a full and impartial inquiry. Thanks, --Aryaman (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it was Occam and Fixentries who called me a troll. You simply thought I was a sock. I'm confused how stating that I will "hopefully get consensus to rename it to something more meaningful and descriptive" is working to circumvent consensus. I'm not sure what there is to investigate. It's just that I keep asking for examples of your accusations against my edits and consistently get nothing. I hoped that someone here would be able to point this out to you as you don't seem to trust the other editors at R&I. I'm off line for a while now. T34CH (talk) 22:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I called you a problematic editor, not a sockpuppet. Regardless, can we stop with this here? I thought this was for informing admins of conflicts, not bickering between those involved. --Aryaman (talk) 23:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Mufka

This user User:Mufka has a big secret. I asked one of the checkusers to scan Mufka's IP Address. That checkuser told me that Mufka has 2 sockpuppet named User:ISWAK3 and User:Peparazzi.Those sockuppets have very similar edits to Mufka. I reported this to Misplaced Pages:Sock Investigations but they did not believe in me. Please block these 3 users please. Thanks Kontrabida (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This is quite an allegation. Do you have any proof? Shared interests among several editors does not indicate sockpuppetry. Basket of Puppies 22:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Obvious trolling is obvious. A new user out of the blue seems to know what sockpuppetry and checkuser are? Fishy. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 22:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, for crying out loud, an army of socks of User:GMA Fan have been raining down on Mufka's userpages as well as Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mufka (which I had to semi-protect for blatant sock disruption). This is another one of those socks. Can we get a checkuser, please? It's obvious GMA Fan will not stop. MuZemike 22:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• • I agree with User:Kontrabida . Mufka is an administrator who blocks user that did not do anything wrong. I believe that Mufka should not be an admin at all. Especially, when Mufka has 2 sockuppets 166.129.142.64 (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • Speaking as a checkuser, no checkuser would state to a random user that an admin has undeclared sockpuppets. We'd email ArbCom and keep our mouths shut on the issue. However, I will be checkusering the both of you, Kontrabida and IP editor, shortly. Hersfold 22:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • • Really?! I have lots of proof that Mufka is ISWAK3 and PEprazzi. Mufka also blocks people that did not do anything. This user really needs to be block forever now!!! Kontrabida (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Liar. I'll be by shortly to block you for trolling. -Jeremy 22:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ne'ermind; Hersfold whammied 'em. -Jeremy 22:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Jessica Foster

Not sure where else to go with this one, so I'll post it here... Can someone with a bit more experience than me cut back this article to something more encyclopedic, and talk to the article's author without standard templates. It's an article about a missing teenager, apparantly written by the teenager's mother. If notable, it probably doesn't need to be deleted, but I'm not sure how to explain it properly to the author... Singularity42 (talk) 22:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Meh. I prodded it. I don't think this would have a chance in hell even with cleanup. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 22:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • This should be speedy deleted. Not only is it soapboxing, it's an egregious BLP violation concerning claims of criminal activity on the part of a third person, and just far too much linking to YouTube. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I did leave a note on the author's page; see here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 22:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll deal with this. Don't worry chaps! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's been dealt with by someone else, it seems. Resolved, anyway. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the article as a G10 right after I was blockblocked by Hersfold above :P -Jeremy 22:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

ChinaUpdater

Incorrect usage of {{discussion top}}

I believe a note needs to be made in the edit notice for this page, along with other noticeboards. I just finished cleaning up a mess created by improper use of this template. It is placed below the section title, not above it, as if it is placed above it, then when the archival bot archives the thread above where the template was placed in, it takes the template with it, basically disrupting how the archives for the page look. Because the discussion top template was removed by the bot, we now have several unrelated threads hatted together as if they were related. This cannot be stressed enough.— Dædαlus 04:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Grundle2600: continued problems

Between 20 March and 21 June, ArbCom took on a case examining the Obama articles in detail, and ended up finding (among other things) that Grundle2600 (talk · contribs)'s edit-warring was problematic, and as a remedy, imposed a revert limitation (1RR) for 6 months on him here. On 25 June, the community were still finding problems with Grundle2600's disruptive conduct, which resulted in the community imposing a 3 month topic ban on him from all articles relating to US politics and politicians (although explicitly allowed to comment on talk pages). Unfortunately, his conduct has continued to be a problem, particularly after the topic ban has expired.

He was making test edits on his talk page to measure to the minute when his topic ban would expire ( ) which was deeply concerning. The moment it expired, he returned to editing those articles. Since then, he's reignited old battles, and continued to disruptively edit war, making pointy edits along the way too:

• 25 September 2009:
• 26 Sept 2009:
• 26 & 27 Sept 2009:
• 5 October 2009:
• 12 October 2009:
• 13 October 2009:
• 19 October 2009 (even after the request for ArbCom amendment/clarification was filed, reinserting contentious material previously removed and discussed):

He has also continued tendentious editing in its other forms, like refusing to get the point.

Clearly, further sanctions beyond 1RR is necessary, and those sanctions would need to be greater than 3 months (somewhere between 6 months and indefinite). ArbCom have suggested that the community use its tools to sort it out. A single uninvolved admin can end this disruption by invoking Obama probation. However, I can also draft something that goes beyond the scope of that probation, if the community needs to impose a broader remedy on him that covers all articles/pages relating to US politics and politicians. Based on the above (and any further evidence that comes to light), any thoughts on which way to go? Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no point putting up with such crap when there are plenty of other good editors actively working on the same subject. Impose a permanent topic ban as broad as you see necessary. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 07:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the IP. If the editor has shown that they cannot work under the restrictions imposed, then it is better that the are not allowed to edit in that area. An indefinite topic ban is in order, unless the editor would prefer to be blocked indefinitely as an alternative. Mjroots (talk) 07:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, the first alternative would be "Grundle2600 is subject to an indefinite topic ban - he is prohibited from editing pages related to US politics and politicians." The second alternative would be the same as what's written here, except it would read as "indefinite topic ban - he is" and would omit the "for a period of three months" part. Can you (and others) explicitly clarify whether you prefer to include or exclude talk pages in the ban? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if I should allow this to be entered here but for the record, here goes... I'd rather lose one capable gung-ho staff (but he is always late) than to lose a bunch of average performing staff (but they take their work seriously and are always on time). It's bad for morale if that one gung-ho staff is allowed to carry on misbehaving and I risked that fact affecting the others due to my oversight or turning of a blind eye to. Having said that, Misplaced Pages is a community and as such is a collaborative effort by many individuals, its time to stop such nonsense once and for all. Out. --Dave1185 (talk) 08:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban. John Carter (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite politics topic ban (including article talk pages), if only so we don't see him counting down in a year to see when he can start making problematic edits again. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban on all US politics topics-related issues as I did previously. Toddst1 (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite ban, ban to extend to talk pages. PhGustaf (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite ban on politics related articles, and temporary ban from related talk pages.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive edits - request for block

I call admins to block this user

user Hxseek did a lot of distruptive edits in the article of kosovo history edits including Dardanian Kingdom, territory etc You can see history of the article he removed the text a couple of times and reverted

I warned him to stop these reverts check his talk page Hxseek talk

You can verify that this kingdom existed just go to google books and type dardanian kingdom you can find hundreds of books about this kingdom.

thanks-- LONTECH  Talk  08:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

As it says at Talk:Kosovo, all editors are subject to 1RR on that article, and are to discuss any content reversions on the talk page. I see some discussion on your user talk pages, but nothing on the article talk page. You should get a discussion going there so that other editors can weigh in. And stop reverting each other immediately, until the dispute is resolved. Head to WP:Dispute resolution if you need guidance in resolving this. So far this is a content dispute, and doesn't require any admin intervention. Equazcion (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

User Lontech is a new user, a has been inserting unsubstantiating edits, changing the previously established status quo in the article. Moreover, he blatantly misquoted a reference, given that it did not state anything resembling what he claimed. As evident from his above statement, he appears to have little grasp of how proper referencing works or how Wikiepdia etique runs Hxseek (talk) 08:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hxseek, please take it to the article talk page. I notice your name is conspicuously missing from that page. New user or not, you still have to collaborate with Lontech if you want to continue contributing to that article. Good luck. Equazcion (talk) 09:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

he keeps reverting and admin intervention is required-- LONTECH  Talk  13:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Both editors reminded of 1RR probation, Hxseek warned about personal attacks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't remember this sockmaster

] (talk · contribs) is a sock, but I don't remember the name of the sockmaster. He has recreated wikiprojects that were deleted at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion/Small_Pakistan_wikiprojects as POINTy creations of a sock. A clear WP:DUCK case. Please look at the deleted versions and post here the name of the account. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe I know which case you're talking about, but I can't remember the name either, let me search through my watchlist and archives and such.— Dædαlus 10:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Investigations concerning the above conducted by myself and mainly Redvers(mostly Redvers) have turned up five accounts, all blocked by Future Perfect. I however need some sleep, but I'll be contacting him, and filing an SPI, tomorrow.— Dædαlus 11:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the account you both have in mind is Teckgeek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). No comment as to the question of whether Yousaf is a sock puppet. AGK 11:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually the account I had on my mind was a similar sounding username.— Dædαlus 11:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

IPs and page creation

As far as I know, IPs cannot create new pages. However, it seems that they can create new talk pages. Twice this morning I've deleted new talk pages created by IPs where there is no corresponding article.

Is this a loophole that needs closing or something we just have to put up with and deal with as and when it happens? Mjroots (talk) 08:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There are many legit reasons for IPs to create talk pages - to comment on an article, for instance. In addition, the Articles for creation process depends heavily on IP's ability to create talk pages. Submissions are created in the Misplaced Pages Talk namespace, and, if accepted, moved to mainspace. Tim Song (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I came here to ask the same question, because I have noticed a lot of orphaned talk pages being created about the place tonight (like Talk:Elysha Pinkstone Queensland Author, for instance). Some new form of obtuse vandalism? A coincidence? A bad set of help pages somewhere? I'm really not sure. Lankiveil 09:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC).

Better idea, instead of allowing IPs to create any talk page, restrict the creation to articles which exist, so that IPs cannot create talk pages which have no corresponding article.— Dædαlus 10:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't that also prevent them from creating the talk page for their IP? Or would you make an exception in that case? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That would totally mess up AfC. Tim Song (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

How so?— Dædαlus 11:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at CAT:AFC. Most, if not all, of the pages are in WP talk exactly because IPs cannot create project pages. None of them have corresponding project pages. Tim Song (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it'd be a great idea to create some method so IPs could not create new article talk pages without an existing article. But say they reverted and then wanted to warn a new user without a userpage or talk page. Then it would be appropriate for them to be allowed to create user talk pages, provided such a user existed. (I have no expertise in the area of technology and maintenance, so I don't know if this is plausible or not.) A little insignificant _{(I have candy!)} 12:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

IP Vandalism

Various IPs are blanking user talk pages and replaceing them with "YOU ACTUALLY THINK I SHOULD GO TO JAIL FOR RETALIATING AGAINST WIKIPEDIA'S LIBEL AND HARASSMENT? YOU TRULY ARE A BRAINWASHED IGNORAMUS.".

• 141.209.57.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 69.156.98.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 206.116.6.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 198.189.57.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 141.151.201.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 66.229.2.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Similar vandalism also by 98.168.193.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

One talk page has been semi-protected by another admin, I've asked Fred Bauer if he wishes to have his semi-protected. Mjroots (talk) 09:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Since I posted the above, further IP vandalism has occurred to DarkFalls talk page. Not sure what is going on, but it seems to fail WP:NPA at the least. Mjroots (talk) 09:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Just grawp having his daily fun. Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis —Dark 09:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Jarl tends to target not articles, but users. Just say the three magic words, though, and he'll scram. (You may only need one, but make sure I'm not on the page as well.) -Jeremy 09:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged all the IPs as suspected socks. Also semi-protected DarkFalls talk page as I feel that the vandalism is now excessive. Mjroots (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Now DarkFalls unprotected the talk page, but it's his decision to do that as "the idiot might decide to vandalize the mainspace instead". He "would prefer to keep the theatrics in one page, and on a page where it does not cause much damage". Quotes from my talk page.  Merlion  444  10:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, how best to deal with this then? An immediate 1 week block for all IPs who perform such vandalism? Mjroots (talk) 10:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page Mjroots (talk) Commenting here because ANI is protected: you should know that you are apparently dealing with a bunch of 4chan idiots , i.e. there is more than one vandal. I don't know what to suggest doing about it other than letting the recent change patrol know what's up, so they can make sure to revert it all. I don't know who "Dark" is. Maybe it's worth finding out, maybe not. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 10:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

69.228, "Dark" is User:Darkfalls. Until It Sleeps 15:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on English Defense League

I am reporting this here based on my understanding of Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing and in particular Dealing with disruptive editors.

In the English Defense League article a consensus was reached yesterday on the lead sentence in which the previously disputed use of the word “political” was agreed to be dropped. Consensus and reasoning are here: . There were clear issues concerning WP:NOR, WP:Weight, WP:Synth & WP:Verifiability relating the insistence that this group is, in its present form and structure, a political group.

Verbal has strenuously argued against this in the past but did not participate in the most recent consensus discussion. Nevertheless, a previously strong supporter of the word (Snowded) did agree to drop his opposition in the discussion referenced above. Only following that agreement with a previous antagonist was the disputed phrase modified (by Snowded himself) clearly reflecting the revised consensus . The previous consensus had been weak and was confused by the use of the expression "far right" which is no longer at issue. The latest consesus is strong - especially as it is backed by a previous opponent.

Today Verbal maintains that the use of political is “factual and well supported content” in this dif. and maybe had not read the amended consensus before reverting what he judged to be an unapproved change. I therefore changed it back per consensus here pointing out the new consensus. However, he has since changed the lead back at this dif: claiming consensus, RS and bizarrely, “dictionary definition and the fact this is an encyclopaedia,”

He has strenuously argued about this previously. Without providing a source he has relied upon the interpretation that political is inferred in the use of “right wing”. That in itself is a taut rendering the use of the word “political” redundant. However, the main argument against using “political” remains most importantly the lack of any source. Given what is reliably sourced about EDL it would currently be unduly prominent in the lead for an organisation characterised as a street-based, football hooligan-based mob.

If there is a more suitable venue for this please advise.

Leaky Caldron 12:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, so this is the wrong venue. Also, it is not my editing that is disruptive and there was no attempt at following WP:DR before bringing this to ANI. A "new consensus" has not yet been established. For these two reasons at least it is premature to bring this here, especially as there has been no edit warring. However, I would welcome the input of more editors at the article and would hope more people get involved and add it to their watch lists. Verbal chat 12:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Verbal, this is edit warring but I'll not revert it until guided. However, the consensus (even without you) is very clear. I've played everything by the book here. The content dispute was resolved by consensus and your edits were therefore out of line. Dealing with disruptive editors point to here and I cannot find a more suitable forum unless the NPOV noticeboard is preferable. This would have degenerated into 3RR in a matter of minutes. Making false claims of a personal attack does nothing to help either. Leaky Caldron 12:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Two reliable sources (Reuters and tv press gazette) have been added, many many more could be added - but that would be pointless, and this discussion should return to the article talk - where people are still trying to get "far right" removed despite nearly every report describing them as such! See also recent attempts to get the BNP labelled "left wing". This area needs a lot more eyes. PS that isn't edit warring for technical (not more than 3 in 24hrs) and practical reasons - I added the requested RS in a two edit block. Please report me to WP:AN3 if you disagree, but I'd ask you bring it up on my talk page to see if we can reach a compromise first. Thanks, Verbal chat 13:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Neither of the sources verify that EDL is a political group. I have brought it here because you are insisting that your consensus of last week cannot be replaced by a fresh consensus in which you did not participate and you will not allow the revised consensus to stand. If you accept the new consensus and are willing to discuss on the talk page then that is clearly the right place, but you cannot keep restoring "your" particular consensus - especially in view of the strength of the new one. Leaky Caldron 13:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Please take your concerns to the article talk page. Verbal chat 13:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem in doing so if the article is returned to the consensus. The new material which was requested last week and not provided, still fails to advance your opinion that EDL is political and needs wider discussion before being accepted. As will the obvious taut. The status quo is the concensus version. You insisted on reversion to consensus last week regarding "far right" and I agreed. I am asking you to show those of us who disagree with you (about "political" in the lead) the same courtesy. Leaky Caldron 13:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Following your suggestion to discuss on your talk page you have advised that if I revert the article to consensus you would “think if you reverted again without discussion, you may well be blocked. Consider this your edit warring notification. Misplaced Pages doesn't take kindly to people setting conditions for debate, and promising future disruptive behaviour”.

Anyone reading this, together with the article talk page and yours, will see that what you accuse me of is completely without substance. Your allegation (that I am promising future disruptive behaviour) is reprehensible. I think you are stepping close to breaching policy on conduct and would urge you to stop and ideally retract that statement. Leaky Caldron 15:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect and misleading. The other editor has stated he wont debate the issue until I remove sourced information. There is also not a consensus for his version, even before the new sources were added. I reverted him once and then added sources and started a discussion on the talk page. I don't see why you have to reply to a post made on my talk page here. Reverting without discussion now sources have been added and a discussion added would be disruptive. I just counted up the opinions on the talk page, and didn't get a majority for removing political. I saw a few "don't care", some "remove right wing" and only two "remove political" - before the sources were added. Now sources have been added that changes the debate again, and discussion should continue. You boldly removed the phrase you are objecting to, for reasons I still don't understand, and I reverted and added new sources. I also started a discussion. Following the WP:BRD process, that discussion should continue. I has been my experiance that Misplaced Pages doesn't take kindly to people setting conditions for debate, and promising future disruptive behaviour (I stated this as the other editor stated they would only return to the debate if I restored his preferred version, and he asked what I would do if he did that himself). Please engage on the article talk page and show a clear consensus there to remove well sourced factual information. Verbal chat 15:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

User:TJ Spyke using wikicleaner to bypass redirects contrary to WP:R2D

TJ Spyke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've brought this up with the user directly and was seemingly unable to successfully explain to them why it is generally unhelpful to "fix" redirects that are not broken (especially en masse and without regard as to whether the redirect might one day become an article - this is explained at the WP:R2D guideline). However, they continue, and often use a misleading edit summary of "Repairing link to disambiguation page". I invite additional scrutiny and comments as to how best to proceed. –xeno 14:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Using misleading edit summaries is disruptive. Can you provides diffs where the user has done so?--Crossmr (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

as an example, but pretty much every edit they make with this edit summary: WikiCleaner 0.96 - Repairing link to disambiguation page - You can help! - as they are bypassing redirects, not doing WP:DPWL work. They are also bypassing redirects on talk pages and in archives (e.g.) which should really never be done. –xeno 14:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Example:

There is at least one actual disambiguation fix (South Park Elementary), though it's questionable whether it should have been fixed like this, in addition to the redirect bypasses (some just useless like Earshot (Buffy episode) to Earshot (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), some actively harmful like Lunchlady Doris to Springfield Elementary School). If he continues, block him. If this "WikiCleaner" is unable to be set up to not bypass redirects, it needs to be fixed or banned. Popups is a nice replacement that will disambiguate links, and bypass individual redirects when desired, such as on navboxes.

If the triviality of this pop culture example disinterests you, imagine one like Brattleboro and Whitehall Railroad to Central Vermont Railway, where the former is definitely a valid topic for a separate article (). --NE2 14:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't use misleading edit summaries on purpose, I just sometimes forget to change the default edit summary (the majority of times my summaries are correct). I don't get Xeno's problem, I am not doing anything wrong. Instead of wasting time attacking me and going around reverting my edits for no reason (which is NOT acceptable, reverting valid edits that improve an article), maybe he could be constructive for once. TJ Spyke 15:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no vengeance here. You are making edits contrary to the WP:R2D guideline. If these edits have consensus, then the guideline should be changed. –xeno 15:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not like it's a policy, just a guideline. I see plenty of other people fixing redirects as well, so why you seem to focus on me makes no sense. Even if you disagree with my edits, you have no rights to revert them (and if you do, I have the same right to revert right back, although I have not done this for articles). The only reason you seem to be going after me is because once in awhile I will fix a bunch of articles in a row. As for your earlier comment, the majority of the links won't get separate articles (for example, changing ] to ] or ] to ]. Even though it's just a guideline, I do agree it should be changed so that you would stop complaining. TJ Spyke 15:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines should still be followed absent a good reason not to. To do otherwise is disruptive.

FYI it's never a good idea to continue with edits under dispute while they're being discussed at ANI.

The Duff beer change is ok (actually beneficial) but these Superintendent Chalmers changes are not. These are exactly the kind of redirects you should not be fixing. Why do you feel redirects need to be fixed in the first place? –xeno 15:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Those 2 examples are moot as the guideline you love some much specifically says that templates are exempt from it (and userboxes are considered templates). As for redirect fixing, it depends on the specific link being fixes. It could be something like making sure it's spelled correctly (fixing Super Mario RPG so that the link goes to Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars) or episode names (like $pringfield to it's full name). The vast majority of those Simpsons minor characters have consensus to be merged into one article (do you see Scott Christian ever having a article? He's had speaking parts in 2 episodes and both combined are about 6 lines, he hasn't even appeared on-screen in over 10 years). TJ Spyke 16:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The guideline speaks to navigational templates. Userboxes are not, and users may have linked to the redirect for a reason, you should not change it. –xeno 16:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is not with the edit summaries; it is with the bypassing of redirects. Stop. --NE2 15:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Do NOT delete my comments like you just did, that is vandalism. TJ Spyke 16:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and the fact that you may have read WP:R2D but you don't seem to understand it. "That GUIDELINE says templates ARE allowed to have redirects fix (and userboxes are considered templates)" gives this away; please read it again and understand why bypassing redirects on some templates can be beneficial. --NE2 15:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not doing anything wrong. At least while this is still a issue, I will not edit a article just to fix redirects. If I need to edit the article anyways (like to revert vandalism or add to the article), I don't see the harm in doing some other fixes at the same time. As for your last comment, fixing links on templates is allowed, so I will continue on that (especially fixing "D'oh" to "D'oh!". TJ Spyke 16:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

recreating Edward McMillan-Scott, Michal Kaminski and the Observer

Note: This thread was archived but I'm moving it back here as there still seem to be some unanswered questions about this.

Original thread

I was reading the papers this morning over breakfast with my wife, and read the article in today's Observer.

Given the article in today's Observer: , might I suggest that an admin looks into the following accounts:

Special:Contributions/John_of_Gaunt23

Special:Contributions/Xerxes23

Special:Contributions/EPP_fanatic

Special:Contributions/Yorkshire_Bumblebee

Special:Contributions/Saer1957

All of whom seem to solely edit McMillan-Scott's page, in a similar manner to Special:Contributions/Strasburg who is named in the article. They also seem to show evidence of some POV pushing, and may all be the same account. I was talking to my wife about this and she said it was important to let you know. Thank you for your time, Mr Hands. Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 12:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting that. I have raised a report at WP:COI/N quoting the original Observer article. Stephen! 14:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The edits of User:Strasburg, User:194.60.38.198 (which comes from the British Parliament) and User:136.173.162.144 (which comes from the European Parliament) should be looked at, as well. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

A sockpuppetry case has been opened here but it's waiting for clerk review. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I noticed 136.173.162.144 (talk · contribs) wasn't listed in that investigation. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

end of archived text

The original sockpuppetry case revealed some accounts, but User:Xerxes23 or User:Saer1957 don't seem to be listed or blocked. Can someone please confirm if a) these accounts are unrelated, or b) there is a COI problem from another source. Certainly these accounts seem to be carrying out the same disruptive and POV pushing behavior as the other accounts, but are currently unblocked. The checkuser case has been archived, but I'm concerned that there are still accounts which have been disruptively editing the edward mcmillan-scott page which this investigation has not revealed. Can the checkuser (or any checkuser, for that matter) confirm the status of these accounts, and whether any other accounts have been involved in sockpuppetry - best we sort this out on-wiki before the Observer gets hold of it! Many thanks, Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 14:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Please make this stop.

PennySeven (talk · contribs · count) has just has just left this long series of messages on my talk page. I would like someone to talk to him and ask him to stop.

What started this all was this message that I left on his talk page, where I informed him that I was planning on reverting his changes to Inflation, and why I was going to do so. I left this message as Pennyseven has a history of pushing those exact same edits on the Inflation article, but I had hoped that he had stopped. He transferred my message and his reply to the Inflation talk page and then left a long complaint there about me.

I left this reply on the Inflation talk page, and then removed his recent additions to the Inflation article.

PennySeven then left this series of messages on my talk page. I left him a short reply on my talk page, thanking him for his message.

He then went on the article talk page, and left another long series of complaints, with my name featured prominently in the section headings (against guidelines I believe), accusing me of various wrong doings.

I did not reply to his talk page posts, as I did not want to further provoke him in any way, and hoped that he would stop by himself. But I did leave a Wikiquette alert , asking for someone to please talk to him and ask him to stop putting such posts on the talk page.

Since then, even though I have not replied to him at all, he left again this series and then this series of posts on the talk page of Inflation. This is what the talk page looks like now.

Which brings us to the present series of posts on my talk page. (I may have left out some other posts made by Pennyseven, he's so prolific, I can't be sure.) As far as I can tell, I have not in any way provoked this last few series of posts. I'm not sure if this is just his personality, or if he's losing it, or if this is calculated to scare me away, or calculated to scare anyone from contradicting him in the future – at this point, I don't care. I would just like him to stop.

I hope someone will take appropriate action. Thank you, --LK (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards