Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:50, 28 November 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

Continual re-creation of deleted article about 'Team Touchdown'

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to put this - if it's not, I apologise.

A group of editors have been trying to re-create the same article, all about a non-notable group/club in NSW, Wales.

The deletion log entries are as follows:

• 13:18, 16 November 2009 Redvers (talk | contribs) deleted "Team touchdown" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion)
• 10:24, 17 November 2009 JohnCD (talk | contribs) deleted "Team touchdown" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion)
• 10:40, 18 November 2009 User:Peripitus (talk | contribs) deleted "Team touchdown" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Team touchdown)
• 05:17, 19 November 2009 User:Acroterion (talk | contribs) deleted "Team-touchdown" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion)
• 05:44, 19 November 2009 User:Amorymeltzer (talk | contribs) deleted "Team touchdown FC" ‎ (A3: Article that has no meaningful, substantive content)
• 07:27, 19 November 2009 User:Gogo Dodo (talk | contribs) deleted "Team touchdown FC" ‎ (A7: Article about a group or club, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
• 07:28, 19 November 2009 User:Gogo Dodo (talk | contribs) deleted "Team-touchdown" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion)
• 19:36, 19 November 2009 User:Kinu (talk | contribs) deleted "Team / Touchdown" ‎ (A7: Article about a group or club, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

The editors involved include:

• Deanops (talk, contribs)

• Blocked: 09:26, 19 November 2009 DMacks (talk | contribs) blocked Deanops (talk, contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Disruptive editing)

• Special Operations (talk, contribs)
• Horse M (talk, contribs)

One of the variations is already protected from creation:

• (Protection log); 10:41 Peripitus (talk | contribs) protected Team touchdown (expires 10:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)) (repeated recreation)

Is it possible to SALT using a regexp?
Something like T*

I doubt that they are going to stop trying to recreate the article, as they have been so persistent so far!

Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• This ] too for a little background. Users were editing a disambiguation page and adding their soccer club info repeatedly.. - 4twenty42o (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note All three of the above editors have been notified of this thread, included the one who is currently blocked -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I had nuked another variant (same regex):

• 09:25, 19 November 2009 DMacks (talk | contribs) deleted "Team Touchdown FC" ‎ (recreation of unreferenced article about non-notable subject that has previously been deleted after AfD)
• 09:06, 19 November 2009 DMacks (talk | contribs) deleted "Team Touchdown FC" ‎ (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Team touchdown)

Their repeated recreation after salting of previous spelling (after *its* AfD and then recreation) and associated cloning at Touchdown Jesus is what led me to block Deanops. DMacks (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Further to 4twenty42o's link, 2 more editors need to be added to the list:

• Feelin' Fine (talk, contribs)
• 144.131.87.72 (talk, contribs)

• I have left ANI notices on both of these editor's talk pages -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• (E/C) PimpdaddyMcPhee (talk · contribs) (blocked), Insertnamehere10 (talk · contribs), 124.149.98.97 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 121.218.220.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are also involved in this fiasco. Horologium (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I have left messages on the talk pages of all except the first, which was indeffed. Horologium (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• There is also Team Touchdown, which I have deleted and salted, from user Team Touchdown (talk · contribs), for whom I planned a username block if he tried it again; he has had the article on his userpage. See also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Team touchdown. I think we just continue to delete, salt, and block: they are under-14s, they'll get bored in a day or two. JohnCD (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I have filed a SPI case on the involved parties included from this thread. MajorMinorMark (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how much good that will do; I suspect these are meatpuppets, not socks. IIRC, Team Touchdown is a made-up football group; this is probably a bunch of guys trying to get their little club on WP. GlassCobra 23:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Another oddity: Insertnamehere10 (talk · contribs) was created by Horse96 (talk · contribs), an account with no edits. Horse96's only activity was creating Insertnamehere10, four minutes after creating the original account. The similarity of the name to Horse M (talk · contribs) caught my eye, as did the similarity of Special Operations (talk · contribs) and Deanops (talk · contribs). Horologium (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Millsy360 (talk · contribs) vandalised my talk page 3 times in quick succession: 01:46, 01:49 and 01:54. In between the last two, another editor came out of nowhere (only made one edit since creatign account): Bam.bam0406 (talk · contribs) 01:52. Bam.bam0406 has made no other edits, but I'm guessing it's another sock - the co-incidence is too high! MajorMinorMark, do you want to add those two to the SPI? -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 02:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• One more sock User talk:Millsy360 just found that one on the touchdown jesus article posting the same club crap on a disambig page ] and vandalizing a user page ]. - 4twenty42o (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Semi-protected Touchdown Jesus for a day, to prevent the socks from continuing there. JamieS93 02:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Another sock User:BananaMcFats. On a vandalism spree. Crafty (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• And another User:Jumpinpimp. Crafty (talk) 04:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Beat me to it but now the user is adding creating Teem Touchdown and adding the club stats to the Pumpkin pie article. - 4twenty42o (talk) 04:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• User:Angrytown, has jumped out of the sock drawer.--SKATER 05:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • BananaMcFats, Jumpinpimp, Angrytown all indef'ed, and added to SPI page. DMacks (talk) 05:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Confirmed - a whole bunch of accounts at the SPI case here - Allie 06:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• They're back...

User:Monochrome Scope (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

...and blocked. DMacks (talk) 08:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

user:Xenos2008-racism, accusations of illegal acts

• user has been blocked for vandalism and incivility 1

• user has (following the block) made racist comments to the effect that Greek people are assholes and peasants

2

• user has been warned on at least three occasions by an administrator user:Henrik

3 4 and by myself user:Anothroskon 5

• user then proceeded to make further racist comments to the effect that Greek people are nationalists and racists

5

• User has finally accused me of belonging to a far-right, semi-legal group and of having threatened him in public, the latter of which would be illegal in my jurisdiction. 6

• I had taken the user to WP:AE but the case was deemed to be unimportant since the user was at the time for a long time inactive. This is no longer the case and in any event the user has commited what would appear to be further breaches of WP policy in the mean time. Thanks.--Anothroskon (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• User has been notified. 7--Anothroskon (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• I am not active on WP: I am responding to allegations of racism by Greek nationalists. I have given up trying to remove the biases and falsified history on WP. Xenos2008 (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Dude... if you want us to take you seriously as a troll, you're gonna have to try harder than that.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, this is the first time I think I've laughed in the Administrator's Noticeboard /Incident section! --Rockstone (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This section is a constant source of comedy for me.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

He called them peasants? Next thing you know, he'll be calling them upstarts. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm always partial to varlets. --NellieBly (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately not entirely funny. I have left the user a warning. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually something weird was going on with this editor the time he was active: personal attacks & rascist comments ], talking always about a fictious Greek propaganda scenario and his personal problems with the academic community in Greece ].Alexikoua (talk) 11:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If any of you are serious (and you can be sure that the Greek editors are not) to understand what this is about, I suggest you ask any foreigner living in Greece. Personally, I have fewer problems than most, so the last allegation by Alexikoua is malicious and indeed typical of how Greeks deal with foreigners. I do not have a personal agenda and am being attacked for not supporting Greek propaganda: this also is typical of Greek behaviour on the internet and generally. If you do not know anything about Greece, then do not be so foolish as to think it resembles the USA or Europe. It is a Balkan country. Xenos2008 (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Please mind that user:Xenos2008 means this last part to be a slur and not as a simple geographical fact. In his mind being Balkan probably amounts to some sort of personal defect, never mind about being Greek as well. As I said on the talk page I could produce evidence to the effect that Greeks are neither more nor less nationalist, racist, peasant or assholes than any other group of people but that would imply crediting his position as something other than a racist rant. --Anothroskon (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that Anothroskon is a Greek and his opinions and so-called evidence are part of the problem, not the solution. Xenos2008 (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a desperate need for more non-Greeks to be editing Greece-related articles, and a great deal of leeway should be given to such editors, given the inevitable hostility they will come up against. However, I know that administrators seem to prefer articles to be wrong and quiet, rather than right but busy with edit wars, reverts, and controversy. Meowy 21:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Meowy, would you be willing to clarify what you mean by the "inevitable hostility" statement and whether this is tied to one particular nationality as you phrased it? I am asking for a clarification to avoid a potential misinterpretation as a simple ethnic insult. Thanks. Antipastor (talk) 10:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Your own reply might be an example of that "inevitable hostility", since I wrote nothing that suggested it is "tied to one particular nationality". It is a fact that most Greek related articles, especially ones dealing with contemporary Greece, are going to be edited by persons with some sort of Greek background, and that many of them are going to consider such articles "internal matters" for Greeks only, and are going to edit those articles to remove anything that they consider to be "anti-Greek". Meowy 03:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Your predictions about hypothetical situations are not "a fact" though. But, anyway, I see what you mean, and from what you said in your first sentence, I take it that you mean this could happen for articles about any country. So this does not seem to warrant a special justification of a kind of problematic behavior discussed in this thread. I think that on the contrary, in sensitive and potentially controversial situations, the standards for civility should be higher to avoid an obvious degradation of the editing environment, and this must apply equally to all parties of course. Antipastor (talk) 04:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, no. There is way for non-Greeks to get involved with editing Greek-related articles without having to go and make general stereotypes of Greeks. Are you also saying that in order to encourage non-Jewish people edit Jewish-related articles, we should put up with anti-semitism? Of course not. Same thing here. Xenos2008 has been told to edit without degrading Greek people (and saying all Greek people have a peasant mentality, or that we shouldn't expect rational arguments regarding Greece because it is a balkan country - whatever that means - is degrading, insulting, and not constructive). Xenos2008 has been warned by administrators after this thread started. He chose to ignore that warning and continue making such comments in his posts on this thread. Misplaced Pages should not have to put up with this behaviour. Singularity42 (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a person, so has no say in what it should put up with or not put up with. The content of articles is all that should matter, and is all that the users of Misplaced Pages care about. If Xenos2008 knows enough about Greeks to touch at some sensitive points in their self-identity, he probably knows enough about Greece to make a positive contribution to Greece-related articles. BTW, when the complainant talked about being accused of committing "illegal acts", I was assuming they were sheep-related ones - now that is a general stereotype of Greeks! The comments Xenos2008 has been making are not actually stereotypes, they seem to me more like internal criticisms that I (would hope) Greeks make about fellow Greeks (or that any society might make about its self-perceived negative qualities). OK, they are probably not helpful to the editing process, but to compare them to anti-Semitism is completely OTT. Meowy 03:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is a community, and the community can say what it will or will not accept. There are plenty of examples of that. The community can say it will not accept repeated offensive behaviour that ignores warnings, including making broad, offensive stereotypes about Greek people. This includes broadly saying Greeks have no respect for Misplaced Pages and that Greeks have a peasant mentality, that the entire Greek society is racist, that other editors complain about his/her behaviour solely because they are Greek, that a Greek person cannot follow a reasoned argument, simply because they are Greek, that it is typical of Greek people to attack anyone that does not follow a Greek nationalist agenda, and Greece should not be taken seriously because they are a Balkan country (whatever that means), and that editors should ignore another editor solely because the editor is Greek. Misplaced Pages as a community does not have to accept this type of behaviour, especially after the editor in question has been warned but still continues. And what is wrong with comparing to prejudice against other enthnical/religious groups? Isn't that what is happening here? Singularity42 (talk) 04:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I gotta back Singularity here. Racism and culture wars are not welcome on Misplaced Pages. Going down that road leads to blocks. — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

These are mostly misrepresentations or misunderstandings of my position. I work in a Greek university, publish with Greek colleagues, and never have problems with imposition of conventional nationalistic views on my work. It is with the wider public that the problems arise, for the reasons stated on my Talk page (school education). There is also a real problem on WP because it is not established academics writing the articles on Greece, and the Greek nationalist viewpoint prevails. One or several of the Greeks protesting here know my real name and have had very nasty arguments with me on other websites, where their racist views have been condemned. Their response? to accuse me of racism against an entire society for daring to open my mouth. I have no intention of editing on WP, but I am responding to these allegations to defend my personal reputation (as all of the Greeks here seem to think they know who I am). Xenos2008 (talk) 14:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

1. I neither know nor care to know who User:Xenos2008 is irl apart from my objection to his accusation of me having threatened him in public which would be illegal.
2. Who one is irl doesn't and shouldn't matter in WP where we are judged by our edits. And the user's edits have been presented above so people can draw their own conclusions.
3. I have neither exchanged nor wish to exchange any communication via the internet with the user and this includes other websites, emails etc.
4. My accusations of racism against the user however stand and he has but his own outbursts to thank for that. I point the reader to the list I prepared above as well as the one presented by User:Singularity42 and finally to two warnings the user has received from as many admins (Georgewilliamherbert and User:Henrik) and despite which he persists undettered. Thanks.--Anothroskon (talk) 14:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

And the incidents which led to my comments, such as false historical "facts" which I deleted and were persistently replaced by Greeks, are all ignored. The arguments presented for such behaviour include "you have to prove that such and such did not happen" simply because all Greeks believe that such and such occurred. There are no sources, and no evidence for such beliefs. When there are sources used, they are highly selective and almost always supporting the Greek nationalist point of view.

It is not racist to say that a society has a general problem with nationalism, peasant mentality from its recent history, racist mentality etc: these are verifiable facts actually written by Greeks amongst others, regardless of what Greeks in the USA or elsewhere may think. Furthermore, the issue of IRL is relevant, because it is well known (even from my nickname) that I am not a Greek: the outright hostility expressed to me here has been very clear, and is racially motivated. Again: ask any foreigner living in Greece...Xenos2008 (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read wp:NPOV before editing further articles. We are not hostile because of who you are, but rather because of your edits. We do not know, nor do we care to know, who you are in real life. We don't even care what nation you are from.--Rockstonetalk to me! 01:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Xenos2008, I wonder, can you cite some examples (on Misplaced Pages) of that hostility which you think is racially motivated? However, making comments about editors and their motives and their society isn't going to lead to your content-related edits being more likely to survive - so in the long run, what is the point of making such comments? I think you should give an assurance that, in the future, all edit summaries you make will be restricted to descriptions of the changes you have made, and all article talk-page comments you make will be restricted to the content of the articles. As I said earlier, there is a desperate need for more non-Greeks to be editing Greece-related articles. I hope that giving that assurance would be enough to allow you to continue to edit Greece-related articles. Meowy 02:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Meowy, thank you for your open-minded approach. Since this is my second ID on WP (a few years previously I edited under my real name) and it has proved equally impossible to deal with the nationalism of all Balkan nationalities, but especially Greek) I have no intention of editing anything on WP. When adult and university educated Greeks spout schoolbook propaganda as the truth, and simply refuse to deal with facts, there is no possibility of compromise or decent quality historical articles on WP. One person, however expert, cannot fight off another 20 who know little of their own country or the basic principles of academic research.Xenos2008 (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The above comment by the user is borderline incivility and personal attack but considering the other much more serious infractions of his (racism) I believe it can be safely ignored. And to answer your question Meowy, the point behind his making such comments is simply that he has to vent. I agree with the need to have more Greek editors edit Greek related material which is why some time before this discussion I had invited on several occastions PMAnderson 12 to help edit the Greeks article. You too of course are invited. I have also recently placed the article Byzantine Greeks on peer review and I would thank anyone reading this to take a look. By the way PMAnderson has very strong opinions on the Greeks article's failings but manages, for some unfathomable reason, to avoid calling Greeks assholes and peasants or shouting "fuck you" at other editors. The reason of course is that he is not a racist.--Anothroskon (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Do please check your statements for Freudian slips! So revealing, this subconscious nationalism that eats away at people's brains. Xenos2008 (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, Misplaced Pages isn't an academic institution - it is a medium for the dissemination of propaganda. It disseminates a lot of other things as well - useful things, and mostly true things - but its distinguishing feature, its unique selling point, is propaganda dissemination. It is about time the academic world gets a bit of backbone and begins to confront the evil that is at the core of the Misplaced Pages concept. Because of the scale of the problem I don't think this can be done internally by just editing Misplaced Pages articles. Meowy 22:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I repeat, for those who choose to ignore it: It is not racist to say that a society has a general problem with nationalism, peasant mentality from its recent history, racist mentality etc: these are verifiable facts actually written by Greeks amongst others, regardless of what Greeks in the USA or elsewhere may think. I should also mention that revisions I have tried to make taking sources away from student unpublished materials and towards published articles (including my own) and Greek nationalists systematically revert to the student material out of spite. This is not beneficial to WP: it is a typical Greek cabal approach, making sure that "outsiders" cannot participate except on the Greek terms. So, Anothroskon can bleat as much as he likes, but his protests are either deluded or false. Xenos2008 (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, enough. Consider this a warning. You can repeat "it's not racist" as much as you want but, when many people here are telling you it is, you should listen. We don't care what your personal experience or opinion is. Your comments are offensive and derogatory towards an entire ethnic/racial group. Stop it. — The Hand That Feeds You: 01:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No. NOT ENOUGH! Who are you to tell me what is racist? Do you publish on racism? I do. Do you have any expertise in this area? I don't think so. So cut the WP crap that you think a lot of people saying something makes it the truth. Try living in the real world, for once. Xenos2008 (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Dial back the attitude, Xenos. That response just lost you a vital amount of good will. Like with yours truly, who does live in the real world. -- llywrch (talk)

I will echo the calls for Xenos to tone down his language, but I will also call into question the labelling of his comments as "racist". Attributing a particular set of actions or prejudices to the citizens of a particular nation is by no means racist. It may be wrong, it may be inflammatory, and it may be unhelpful, but it is not racist. Please show how his comments denegrated a "race" of people. They may be nationalistic, but racist they are not. I would caution Xenos to be more considerate in the future, but I would also chastise Anosthroskon for his hyperbolic wielding of the "racist" tag. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

While Greeks do not constitute a race they do constitute an ethnic group and it was at this group as a whole that comments were directed and not to the individual editors the user had issues with. Hence the application of the term racism. The term was used to imply ethnic and not racial discrimination as indeed it is often used (e.g. according to the UN conventions further there is no distinction between ethnic and racial discrimination). The former is what Xenos2008 engaged in and for lack of a better term (I have never heard of the word ethnicism used) I used racism. If you are still not happy we can compromise and call him a Greek-baiter. Doesn't change what he wrote.--Anothroskon (talk) 07:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Since both race and nation are arbitrary distinctions that we humans make to distinguish us from not-us, I think it is moot what you call it. Bloody-rude-characterisation-by-ethnographic-stereotype is a bit of a mouthful for me.Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately the user is inactive the last weeks, that's the only good thing in this situation. At Sept. 6, I received a short e-mail from him, written in the usual style he is used to. I didn't paid much attention since his activity died down the following days. The e mail is forwarded to Georgewilliamherbert. Alexikoua (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You're more than likely right about the word "racism" here Throwaway85 but had Xenos responded in the dispassionate, rational manner you just did, there wouldn't be half the drama & nastiness we've seen so far in this incident. amazing that someone who claims to be an academic could not keep his cool & be rational. :-/ llywrch (talk) 05:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:H Debussy-Jones

This is a new account (two weeks) that obviously has been around the block regarding Misplaced Pages before. The talk page is collecting quite a bit of polite requests from myself, Jeni, AVraham, Bwilkins, Wildhartlivie, etc to stop making odd edits contravening WP:LAYOUT and other Misplaced Pages norms. The polite advice is not being taken, the talk gets archived immediately, and the stubborn behavior continues. The "new" user does not appear to recognize or accept that their changes are real problems and annoyances for people with non-standard browsers and ADA devices. There is nothing blockable here at the current time. As a warning, administrators will be acting on this in the future. Perhaps something more stern than polite requests from users might head that off. Miami33139 (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

H Debussy-Jones has been notified of this thread. Singularity42 (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

My thanks to Singularity 42 and JamieS93 for notifying me about this thread.

The status of my account has been looked into by ArbCom member John Vandenberg, who reported his findings here. Since he looked "quickly", if another CheckUser feels the need to investigate, I'm more than happy for that to happen. As I said before, for reasons of my own, all I ask is that the name of my previous account not be publicly revealed, unless the CheckUser feels it is necessary to do so.

I'm not sure there's anything else to address in Miami's post, since it all appears to be about a (potential) content dispute about style, and was posted before I'd even had a chance to read and respond to his last note on my talk page. I'm left with the feeling that the purpose of his note isn't actually to get administrator action, but to act as a cudgel to coerce me into accepting his pronouncements without discussion. I'm always more than happy to discuss my edits with other editors, but perhaps others will understand why I blanche at doing so under duress. Sach (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what relevance a checkuser has to the original post. Are you getting polite requests from different users about your format-related edits causing problems for other user's browsers? If so, have you responded to their requests? -- llywrch (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm odd, but when Miami says This is a new account (two weeks) that obviously has been around the block regarding Misplaced Pages before and The "new" user, I took that as casting doubt about the legitimacy of my account, hence my response.

Regarding the posts on my talk page, all have been politely acknowledged, most have been answered with an explanation (with no return response from the inquirer), some have been met with requests for additional information, and the latest from Miami was posted just before he opened this thread on AN/I (as his very next post, in fact) before I had a chance to respond.

Incidentally, Miami's post here is more informative than anything he posted on my talk page -- this is the first, for instance, that I've heard of "ADA devices" being part of his problem. As for "non-standard browsers", I edit with IE, but periodically check my changes under Firefox, Chrome, Safari and Opera to make sure there are no problems, so I'm not sure what "non-standard" browser he might be referring to. I would have asked him that question, except that he seemed to prefer to open this thread rather than discuss things with me. If I'm wrong about that, and he would like to discuss these topics with me, I'd be very glad of the opportunity to clear up any difficulties. Since I don't have an "ADA device", I invite him to send me some screenshots of the problems he's having with my edits via e-mail, so I can understand what he's experiencing and work with him to avoid any problems. Sach (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Llywrych, there is no relevance to a CU. it has been brought up before and the previous account was blocked (temporarily, this is not a banned user) for stubborn MOS changes. The fake naivety in that discussion and continued peculiar MOS changes is what made me think I should raise a red flag here, so that I can say "I told you so." if this is a future issue. Miami33139 (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up that previous AN/I thread. Obviously, I don't agree with your characterization of it, but I do think it's instructive. What it shows is that when someone points out to me a definitive policy (), I quickly accept it (), and then immediately go about reverting those of my errant edits which haven't already been fixed, ( and ).

Again, I reiterate my suggestion that you e-mail me some screenshots of the problems you see so that I can better understand your objections. Sach (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sach, do you take screenshots of a braille device? Do you take screenshots of a narrator? Do you understand that forcing images to 250 pixels causes mobile devices to waste CPU shrinking them to a 240 pixel screen? Instead of asking for how to conform your edits to these devices, how about you just follow the MOS, stop inserting whitespace, stop moving hatnotes under the infobox, stop changing section headings, stop forcing image sizes, and the other odd things you stubbornly insist on doing and have insisted on doing for years. The MOS, which you've been pointed to, explains some of the reasons for doing things the way it does, and it is usually only for a very good reason it should be ignored. You ignore it on purpose and this is harmful to the project. Miami33139 (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Miami, there is no need for such a tone, please dial it back a notch.

I'm glad that you've (finally) explained what an "ADA device" is, since I couldn't find anything that explained it, and didn't know you were referring to the Americans With Disabilities Act. So, in what way does adding an extra line of space to set off navboxes from "External links" sections so that they are easier to read effect such devices? Not having one, I don't understand.

As for image sizes, something north of 90% of the articles on Misplaced Pages have forced image sizes (since almost all infoboxes used forced sizes), so I think your complaint has much more to do with the way a Misplaced Pages page is rendered for mobile devices, and not with the layout of the page itself. My edits in that respect are all aimed at making an article clear and visually attractive, and are not forbidden under MOS. These are not "odd" edits, they are not outside of policy, and they are all done to make Misplaced Pages look better and make it easier for the user to take in the information. Sach (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your complaint about placement of hatnotes, I believe I understand the nature of your complaint now. In the future, it might be better when informing other editors of problems to actually point to something that will explain the difficulty, rather than simply making demands. As I've noted above, if I understand the problem and can see the relevant policy, I'm happy to comply, but I (and many other people) don't respond well to the Argument from authority. Sach (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I have gone through my contributions and reverted those instances where I had moved hatnotes under infoboxes & lede images. My changes were visually preferable (since the hatnote still rendered at the top of the page, but the infobox or image moved up so space wasn't wasted), but I understand how screen readers might be thrown by it. Sach (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I share Miami33139's concerns that this is a return of a former user, notably User:Ed Fitzgerald, whom we had exactly the same problems with before, tenuous editing, inserting pointless spacing, moving templates around to suit his personal preference, renaming references to notes. Now, coming back as a new user isn't a problem as far as I know, but coming back to edit in the same disruptive way, that is where the problems are. Jeni 12:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Having read how this thread has progressed & the earlier thread Miami referenced, I have to say that how H Debussy-Jones, aka "Sach", is handling this disturbs me. The issue appears to be about how H Debussy-Jones is making edits which other editors find problematic; this editor responds with ... well, discussing everything except for the actual matter. I would expect a suitable response to be something along the lines of "They aren't disruptive, & this is why" or "I understand their concerns & I am trying to work on addressing them" Instead, what I see are a lot of words which fail to convey whether H Debussy-Jones agrees with the complaint, disagrees with it, or even understands what the issue is. (And what is with this "Sach" thing? If you want to be known as "Sach", change your username. Having one username & signing with another only confuses people.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

School Role Accounts?

I noticed

• Special:Contributions/Gfs6gradeA
• Special:Contributions/Gfs6gradeB
• Special:Contributions/Gfs6gradeC
• Special:Contributions/Gfs6gradeD
• Special:Contributions/Gfs6gradeE
• Special:Contributions/Gfs6gradeF

I'm not sure what to do with these. They appear to be some kind of school role accounts. The edits seem constructive, but accounts like this probably run afoul of our shared account guidelines and policies. I have left a message on the talk page of the first account asking for the teacher to contact me. Gigs (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the edits are constructive, but they're probably role accounts. It may be helpful to point the teacher(s?) responsible to Misplaced Pages:School and university projects too.--Unionhawk 19:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I left that link on the talk page of the first one. Gigs (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I am stunned that these "students" haven't shown forms of vandalism. Doesn't mean that I won't be keeping an eye of them. ⇒ Pickbothmanlol 22:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I can see you have WP:AGF memorized. Killiondude (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

AGF, like any other policy, has to be read and applied with a bit of common sense. We all know that edits from schools are very often vandalism so I completely agree with Pickbothmanlol. RaseaC (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Like most experienced editors, I am aware of vandalism and its sources. Nevertheless, announcing that bad behavior is expected from students is an excellent way to invite it. Acting as though good behavior is expected and is the norm sometimes encourages it. WP:AGF applies to individual Misplaced Pages users, and can be lost only by individual Misplaced Pages users' behavior. Policy does not permit creating exceptions to WP:AGF for categories of users. It is not Misplaced Pages's policy to Assume bad faith#From IPs, Assume bad faith#From students, Assume bad faith#From liberals, or Assume bad faith#From other suspect groups. There is a word for that kind of attitude: prejudice. —Finell 02:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I created these accounts for the teacher. There are 60 students. It seemed reasonable to create only 6 accounts rather than 60. The lesson plan is how to use, and edit, Misplaced Pages. Fred Talk 00:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Who is using the accounts - the teacher only, or 60 students? Cirt (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

There was a fair bit of discussion, including confirming (as best I understand it) that the request was bona fide, how they would be used and supervized, the class purpose, how it would be organized, and "no testing by making bad edits". The requestor gave a full summary of how they would be using it, who controls the accounts and the logon/logoffs, and the approach they'd aim to follow. However Fred Bauder's more up to date with the specifics if that matters. FT2  01:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It would probably be best to add a note explaining this on the user page. Triplestop x3 03:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I still believe they should be banned for violation of the "Role Account" section of WP:SOCK. ⇒ Pickbothmanlol 00:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

As it's reasonable to assume the admin who created these accounts knew what he was doing at the time, I do not. HalfShadow 01:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Do we know who said admin is? Can we contact him/her? --Rockstonetalk to me! 01:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

'I created these accounts for the teacher. There are 60 students. It seemed reasonable to create only 6 accounts rather than 60. The lesson plan is how to use, and edit, Misplaced Pages. Fred Talk 00:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)'

HalfShadow 01:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Or cast your eyes up 5 or 6 posts to where Fred tells us that he created the accounts. Really, if you can't be bothered reading the thread then don't bother commenting either. Kevin (talk) 01:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

How does it make sense to violate wikipedia policy for a group of potential new editors? The lesson plan should be how to properly and correctly use wikipedia and that should include following wikipedia policies. Multiple users on a single account would get the account blocked. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this comment by IP69.226.103.13 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

In theory, you're right. So instead of users called Gfs6gradeA through F, they could have Gfs6grade_Student01 through 60, as I think you'll agree that using their actual names in their ID's would not be appropriate. That would also give each student a lesson in how to create an account. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Plus, if each student has an individual account, they will have individual contributions - and the teacher will be better able to determine the progress & merits of the edits for class. GiantSnowman 20:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Starting them off on a lesson about how to use wikipedia, by breaking a wikipedia rule, is kind of similar to the old joke about teaching someone Christianity by first having them steal a Gideon Bible from a hotel room. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Except that taking Gideon Bibles from hotel rooms isn't theft, the Bibles are free and replaceable. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

So is wikipedia. That doesn't mean we shouldn't enforce the rules. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but don't enforce the rules for the sake of enforcing the rules either. An admin is making a good faith effort to teach people how to use the Wiki properly. I assume he has highlighted to the class that the usernames are out of the ordinary and if they ever want to use it outside of the classroom they should make their own. I also assume that he is overseeing their edits and as has been stated here already, there has been no disruption. The admin can track (or at least narrow down) the culprits if they do something bad, so what more is nessesary? I'm sure slapping a sockpuppet tag on their userpages would be a WONDERFUL *sarcasm* way of showing how kind and helpful the admins of wikipedia are to new users. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Meh. They're sixth graders? Anyone who's spent time in the American public educational system is already well-used to the enforcement of "rules for the sake of rules"; it's we who dwell in AN/I (and people who live in countries where education is less about standardized testing and more about what you need to know to live) who are more likely to be sensitive about this issue. Anyway, once they hit the workforce they'll discover that blindly following rules gets you promoted, while following common sense gets you the stink-face from the boss...might as well get their cynicism good and started now. (Note: I am not entirely sure how much of the preceding should be taken as sarcastic, and how much at face value.)GJC 01:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

New user blocked

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

User:Black Kite has blocked a new user User talk:Boneyarddog citing (Disruptive editing: New account reverting on 1RR article; blocked as an obvious sock; may be unblocked with suitable evidence that it isn't CU will likely be useless, so not used.) This editor has made two edits one a revert and the other an explanation of their edit. Now there is no evidence that this is a disruptive editor or that it is a sock, so how can an admin just indef block a new account without any valid reason. BigDunc 13:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

For some reason, I can't see any evidence of you taking this to Black Kite first, nor of Black Kite being informed about this thread after. Have I missed a couple of diffs? ⬅ ❝Redvers❞ 13:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified both BlackKite and Boneyarddog about this discussion. GiantSnowman 14:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I've suggested that Boneyarddog comments on their talk page. If the editor does comment, the comment can be copied over to this page. Mjroots (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm very confused. I saw no evidence of this user using the revert button, but he/she only seemed to be making a change. That change was followed by an explanation on the talk page. Also what is the deal with the one revert rule anyway. I see it as counter productive to the project and only contributes to biting new users. That would be the first thing I would get rid of. If we let the 1RR thing go too far, I see major problems in the future.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

One does not need to have a rollback button to revert. Syrthiss (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The "obvious sock" part is what people should be focusing on, not the 1RR. The explanation is that Black Kite probably knows something is up. Like Redvers said, the best way for this to have been handled is for BigDunc to make some inquiries directly to the admin, not posting it here. Tan | 39 14:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, trying to discuss it directly with the user or admin is the first step towards resolving any issue. Only if that fails should it be brought here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) BK already accused me of being the sock master and then apologised saying it wasn't phrased correctly, I accepted the apology and then without a shred of evidence regarding socking or any disruption indef blocks the new user. If disruption is reverting and giving your rational for reverting on the talk page the their will be no editors left here as we will be all blocked and BK can switch the lights off on the way out. BigDunc 15:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Who's the sock-master suppose to be? GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Who knows? The point is that when an account's first edit is to jump directly into the middle of an edit war, it's a sock. Of who it doesn't really matter. Take your pick. Wknight94 15:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• A look at the article history will probably tell you enough. Revert war on 1RR article followed by brand new account popping up and reverting three minutes after account creatiion? Riiiight. As I said on the talkpage, AGF is not a suicide pact. Frankly 1RR probably is counter productive if it is going to result in socking, although it has had good results in other areas. I reverted the sock (purely because it was clearly a throwaway account to game 1RR, not because of the content), though I later expressed doubts about some of the content being edit-warred over. I am not going to edit the article further though, as it could be tenuously argued (and no doubt it would be, knowing this area) that I had inappropriately used my admin tools. I have already been accused on the talkpage of blocking the account purely because I am British, which I answered as it deserved. Black Kite 15:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd feel more safe, if we knew who was behind the sock. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Safe from what? This is as obvious of a sock as yer gonna get. Not all socks have "master" accounts; some people just jump from throwaway to throwaway. Tan | 39 15:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I thought it was a 'blocked' account trying to evade its block. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) At best, it's a meatpuppet. As Tanthalas says, it's pretty routine. Wknight94 15:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(ecx2There is no evidence of any wrong doing at all from the new account but fuck it blocked them in any way they might do something eventually so block it now. BigDunc 15:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If you have a problem with Black Kite - as seems evident - create an appropriate RfC or come up with something better than this. Marking resolved; there is no admin action necessary here. Tan | 39 15:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Suppose it was a stupid place to resolve an issue were a new user was blocked for NO reason great work Tan your a credit to wikipedia. BigDunc 15:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This is far from resolved! The editor has not even had an oppertunity to say anything. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You removed the resolved tag for that? We're going to be waiting around a long time here, then - the editor has been blocked indefinitely. Tan | 39 16:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure they can comment under their usual username instead. Black Kite 21:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well Mjroot offered to post their comments here. Now were is the evidence that the editor is a sock! If there was an admin with a set of balls they would lift the block and the editor could comment it they wanted. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

So no evidence = indef block, plenty of evidence = nothing. Call editors "terrorist fanboys" and you get blocked for 3 hours, type the word "bum in an article you get blocked and when their is plenty of evidence of sock abuse there's nothing to be done? --Domer48_'fenian' 18:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(←) Seems to me Black Kite did the right thing here. Sound reasoning led to appropriate action being taken. Crafty (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of WP:1RR, but I saw no evidence in the article, that the article is under a 1RR rule as it is. The only mention is on the talk page. The talk page says that an editor is able to make 1 revert a day. Since the new user only made one edit, he/she did not violate the 1RR rule, according to what is written on the talk page instructions. This was a horrible block.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I find it interesting that Domer48 is so excited about this topic. Is it possible that this user account was his creation? It looks that way to me. Jdorney (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

That is a very strong accusation. Do you have proof, or are you trolling?--Jojhutton (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I just find it suspicious that this user pops up (having made no previous edits or subsequent edits) just after Domer has started reverting in this article and in the same language as Domer, argues the same thing. It is also suspicious that Domer and Big Dunc, who is also reverting on that page, have suddenly jumped to this user's defence. Maybe I'm too suspicious, but to me this looks like Domer created this account to revert more once. If this is not the case then I apologise to them, but that's how it appears to me. Jdorney (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If you have genuine concerns about sockpuppetry, the honourable thing to do is initiate a Sockpuppet investigation. Crafty (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I could spend all my time doing that or I could try to continue editing the article. I was asked for my opinion, I gave it and said why I gave it. It's up to admins to do blocking policy, something I have no interest in doing. Regards, Jdorney (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Yet when it comes to admins, I always find it very alarming when admins who are involved in editing an article, are the ones who do the blocking. A user who is an admin should be able to distinguish between being an editor of an article and being an admin. I don't think that this was done in this case. No other accounts were given blocks for editing or reverting on the same article, including his own. Why was this one? If Black Kite had an issue with the new user, then he should have asked for help, rather than block a user he does not agree with. I know that this is a seperate issue, but this has become a problem all across wikipedia, admins abusing their tools.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

<facepalm> Actually, a bigger problem, which I find even more alarming, is users spouting off on WP:ANI without either reading the thread properly or bothering to check their facts, thus making themselves look ridiculous. I was not "involved in editing the article" (never edited it before), I didn't "block a user I don't agree with", (I merely blocked and reverted the sock because it was a sock). That was the complete extent of it. I did later post on the talk page about a completely different section of the article from the one the sock edited, but I haven't touched the article apart from that single revert. Feel free to refactor your posting at any point. </facepalm> Black Kite 07:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough on not editing the article. You seem involved now though. But what you are saying is that you just randomly came across an edit by a new user who did not violate the '1RR, but decided on your own, that this must be an obvious sock, without knowing anything about the article or whose Sock that this new user may be. That actually sounds worse. Please tell us your method for determining this? Was it a gut feeling or do you have actual evidence that we cannot see? I have heard alot of accusations about this account being a Sock, but does anyone want to back it up with an actual checkuser?--Jojhutton (talk) 12:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think domer is the master for this account. Protonk (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the edit war or identity of the probable sockmaster, but Black Kite's block was objectively reasonable, per WP:DUCK and WP:RBI, even for an involved administrator. Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

No way was it reasonable, per WP:DUCK and WP:RBI. Stop with the excuses please! The editor still has the right to respond. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Lets have a go at the duck test and see how it goes. Black Kite ignores Jdorney's personal attack on me, despite being warned about this type of conduct by three admin's, , they ignore Jdorney's canvassing of editors who share their POV, onto this article despite told to stop. Black Kite ignores Jdorney when they continue to canvess despite being told not to , and then blocks an new editor you reverted and explained why they did on the talk page, Jdorney's desputed edit. Now when we know Black Kite ignores Jdorney's edit warring already, coupled with their latest disruption being ignored, do I here a quack? --Domer48_'fenian' 10:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I don't know why Domer finds it necessary to defend Boneyarddog so fiercely, but it must have something to do with the revert in question being against "opponent" Jdorney. Anyway, Boneyarddog seems nothing more than a throwaway sock, considering the lack of effort in getting himself unblocked. Block endorsed as far as I'm concerned. Too much time and energy is spent on this.--Atlan (talk) 11:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you get a grip of yourself. No eviednce has been provided to support the block! If you suspect that there is sock abuse you file a report. The logic here is, no point filing a report because there is no proof, so I'll block regardless! So shove your insinuation as to my motivation and while were at it, Black Kite supports Jdorney's edit if that is the way you want to look at it. How do we know Boneyarddog is male? --Domer48_'fenian' 11:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Since when is citing WP:DUCK not enough? Socks are blocked on that basis all the time, without filing a report. Fine if you disagree with the block in this case, but consensus here seems to be the block was sound. My "insinuation" makes more sense to me than "You block because you're British", which was your argument on Black Kite's talk page. I don't care whether Boneyarddog is male of female, btw.--Atlan (talk) 11:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The editor in question has requested an unblock. BigDunc 12:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Boneyarddog creates an account, and as his first edit jumps into the middle of an edit war, with a long and detailed posting which shows an in-depth understanding and skill in relation to wikipedia editing. This is clear and obvious sockpuppetry. Or at a stretch meatpuppetry. The editor in question has been notified of this thread, and can discuss it on his talk page.--Anthony.bradbury 13:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh Please! You describe this edit as evidence of a long and detailed posting which shows an in-depth understanding and skill in relation to wikipedia editing. There is something here which is a bit of a stretch and its not meatpuppetry. If this is clear and obvious sockpuppetry file a report. On the other hand, for an editor with very very limited intelligence and intellect it migh have been a difficult edit. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

There is something here which is a bit of a stretch and its not meatpuppetry. I wonder why you'd be so sure about that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Well you can wonder all you like! Now the editor has placed an unblock request, I wonder how long they will be left waiting? --Domer48_'fenian' 13:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Not long. Obvious meatpuppet. All new accounts who jump straight into revert wars with their first edit should be blocked, and this is no exception. Moreschi (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

File a report then! What happened to assume good faith? --Domer48_'fenian' 14:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Domer, when it comes to you and your circle of Irish patriots, good faith expired a very long time ago. Moreschi (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Well we can see were your coming from! That explains your declining this new editor. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I have no particular wish for yet more far-out nationalists - of any stripe - to be running around on the loose. We have quite enough of those already. Moreschi (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Moreschi could you tell us who this circle of Irish patriots are, because it might explain our block loggs! Considering the number of them that have to be overturned. By the way, your comments are considered a personal attack on wiki. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? So you are not, then, an Irish patriot? You are, perhaps, an Inuit with a deep interest in Irish history? Moreschi (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see it, how is this different than the hundreds of socks we block each day? 14:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Moreschi are you going to say who these editors are that you hold in contempt or are you going spout more inane crap? --Domer48_'fenian' 14:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Uh huh. So, first you remind me to "assume good faith" and link to the personal attacks policy, and then you tell I am "spouting inane crap". Coherence, much? As far as the Irish patriots are concerned: yourself, BigDunc, VK, and Sarah777 would appear to be the worst re policy-compliance and neutrality, although I have no intent of ever doing any serious work in this area and as a result am not familiar with all the editors involved. "Hold in contempt", by the way, is entirely inaccurate: you are entitled to your political viewpoints and certainly, in an atmosphere of intellectual pluralism, they warrant respect. Unfortunately, here your politics need to kept fairly separate from your editing, which you signally fail to do. Moreschi (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me Moreschi; I am scrupulous about defending WP:NPOV. You're continued defence of Anglo-American pov as "neutral is becoming tiresome. Nor am I a patriot. A retraction is awaited. Sarah777 (talk) 09:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If Boneyarddog is unblocked? bar him from the article-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm seeing nothing here but lots of heat and very little light; AGF is neither a suicide pact or a guideline that forces us to pretend we're naive. Good block. Domer, please take it down a notch or two; although admins generally have a high tolerance for being abused, we do expect you to try to engage politely. In both endlessly arguing against this obvious block, and the increasingly strident and hectoring tone of your posts, you're not doing yourself any favours. EyeSerene 15:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

If more people are looking at this thread: can someone deal with this as appropriate? Moreschi (talk) 15:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That's unacceptable; Dunc blocked for two weeks. This is not normally an area I get involved in, but personally I'm totally fed up of seeing argumentative, endlessly tendentious editors on this board, who are apparently prepared to dispute the time of day if it comes from the wrong person. If anyone thinks I've been lenient and wants to increase, feel free. EyeSerene 15:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's worth noting that Dunc's response to the block was to inform the world that I am a "lying fantasist": Chillum reverted and locked the page down. Moreschi (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, much of this has nothing to do with ANI. Please take personal disputes to your respective talk pages and stop filling up this already overburdened noticeboard with squabbling. 15:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Worth closing again? There seems to be a consensus that BlackKite's original block was appropriate, and flaring tempers are only going to lead to more inappropriate reactions and avoidable blocks if it's allowed to drag on. EyeSerene 15:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Moreschi opens this tread here get Dunc blocked, and then closes it again having got a result. Chillum this has everything to do with ANI. Moreschi has expressed contempt for a group of editors here, they decline an unblock request from an editor they despise, and they attack with off the wall accusations and have an editor blocked when they respond and you say this is not the place to discuss it? Please! --Domer48_'fenian' 15:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

EyeSerene this will not be brushed under the carpet! BlackKite was wrong with the block, could he possibly share the same extreme views as Moreschi? Why will no Admin file a report if they consider it to be a sock? --Domer48_'fenian' 15:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)All of that has nothing to do with this thread. There is a more relevant thread down below that you have already joined. Lets keep this in one place, this page is long enough. I am marking this thread as resolved. 15:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Chillum how can this be resolved! An editor was indef blocked with no evidence! Are Admins apt to cover up mistakes! Do we or do we not have a process for dealing with socks! --Domer48_'fenian' 15:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Listen Domer, dozens of admins have seen this thread and nobody is doing anything. This thread is not even discussing the original topic anymore but has instead fallen into personal squabbling. Let it go. 15:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, rather than making statements of the obvious ("nobody is doing anything") could you explain how this is therefore resolved? What you are saying is someone was blocked/banned without any evidence whatsoever (or than, it seems to me, some Admin wanted to censor him) and that because he remains blocked the matter is "resolved"? Could you expand on your thinking here because the rationality of your statements is not obvious on first reading? Or second reading. I gave up after the fifth attempt. Sarah777 (talk) 09:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It's resolved, because consensus is not to lift the block, hence "nobody is doing anything". It's patently obvious to everyone else. I'll archive this now (at risk of being accused of censoring), so we can end this discussion which has long outlived its usefulness.--Atlan (talk) 13:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Epeefleche abusing Twinkle, harassing IP editor

Epeefleche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) yesterday harassed an IP at User talk:98.204.201.79. That IP made six edits to Anwar al-Awlaki. Two of these edits included informative edit summaries that made it clear this was a good-faith objection to content in that article, and not vandalism. The IP's edits began at 16:55 and ended at 17:09, and no one else edited in the meantime, so the IP could not be said to be edit warring.
Beginning at 17:26, Epeefleche left five consecutive vandalism warnings on the IP's talk page, v1, v2, v3, v4, and v4im.
The IP editor asked at Talk:Anwar al-Awlaki what was the problem with these edits and how they constituted vandalism. Epeefleche did not reply. I responded to the IP's question by informing the IP that these edits were not vandalism, and I recommended the editor register an account. Epeefleche responded on the IP's talk page by calling my comment to the IP "wikihounding."
Epeefleche also abused Twinkle rollback by calling a different IP's edits "vandalism." That IP did not use an edit summary, but that does not make a content dispute into vandalism.
I raised these issues at WP:AN3, but as I familiarized myself with the purpose of that board, I decided it was not the correct venue. I have tried to discuss the harassment of the IP editors with Epeefleche there, but Epeefleche sees nothing wrong with the harassment.
I understand that Twinkle use can be revoked for misuse, and harassment of new users can require a block. I ask that admins take both possibilities into consideration. ~YellowFives 15:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, if someone else could please welcome the IP at User talk:98.204.201.79 and make clear that the Misplaced Pages community understands these edits were not vandalism, and the IP really is welcome to make an account, that would be lovely. I am afraid that Epeefleche's newbie-biting and ownership of the article is going to drive away good-faith editors. The article itself is a huge WP:UNDUE problem at the moment and would benefit from others' involvement. ~YellowFives 15:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This sequence does seem pretty odd. 98.204.201.79 made six consecutive edits to the article. Epeefleche apparently reverted them all one-by-one and left a separate warning for each. In general, there is not enough discussion on the talk page to match the revert warring in the article. Wknight94 15:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a plain old edit war. Epeefleche should not get to label his content opponents as vandals just because they are IPs. Triplestop x3 16:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I've informed Epeefleche of this thread. Basket of Puppies 16:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Good. Looks like several editors including the IP disagreeing with Epeefleche. There's a political element here also. Dougweller (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The worst thing is leaving five consecutive warnings; I'm absolutely baffled - as well as disheartened - by Epeefleche's actions! GiantSnowman 18:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Although I cannot cite chapter and verse of examples, Epeefleche has been doing this repeatedly for a long time. It's not a new behavior. Is this the first time it's been reported? Editors who counter Epeefleche's edits or comments are also followed and their edits, comments, or articles are then disrupted. This really needs to stop. I cringed before writing this, knowing the possible consequences, but it's the right thing to do. --Sift&Winnow 19:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Hi. Stepped out of a meeting that will tie me up most of the day, but here's the lay of the land. 1) Most of what YF raises, he already raised--and is already addressed in depth here.

2) As to using Twinkle, I just got it and used it for the first time ever a day or two ago, so if I'm hitting the wrong button let me know. I thought it just did exactly what reverts would do before Twinkle.

3) The IP is clearly a vandal. I first looked at his two edits directly before the Awlaki edits. He reversed the black and white population percentages for an area. I checked census.gov, and confirmed it was vandalism. That's no "first time user mistake". That's blatant, intentional vandalism. In his next edit he inserted unsourced text, so that the Wikpedia article says the Nation of Islam worshipped a false prophet. I then, concerned, without even stopping to revert those, rushed to see each of his edits to the article I was working on. He: a) inserted unsourced opinion as fact, b) inserted snarky commentary as article text, c) deleted a reference that did mention 100 ... saying it didn't ( that lie YF refers to above as "informative edit summary"); d) inserted unsourced opinion ("exposing a propoganda war of neocons") as fact, and e) deleted a sourced statement and its ref saying (with wp terminology, even though he is "new") "if that doesn't define POV, I don't know what does" (YF's second example of "informative edit summary").

And yes, after having determined from the pre-Alawki edits that he was given to non-good-faith vandalism, I took each of those as vandalism (understanding v to include blanking as well as insertions). And as I looked at each in turn, I reverted him. And I believe that each time I reverted him, I left a warning. He didn't reply to me on his page, or on my page, and I didn't see his comments on the article talkpage, which I now see were the last comment in a thread. I'll be happy to get back to him. Jumping back into the meeting in a moment.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the only one who's getting a big kick out of this ridiculous debate... am I?--66.177.73.86 (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope. :) Crafty (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: 66.177.73.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now on a short vacation at the wikipedia comedy club. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You are incorrect about the IP's action at Montgomery Village, Maryland. Look at the version right before the IP's edit. It says something very strange.

• The racial makeup of the area was 29.24% ], 61.90% ],

White and African American have been switched already in the wikilinks. This was done earlier by a different IP. It looks to me like 98.204.201.79 saw that there was a problem, but wasn't sure how to fix it, and did the best they could to make sense of it. That appears to be the action of a good-faith contributor. ~YellowFives 19:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As for the edits to Islam in the United States and Anwar al-Awlaki, you need to read Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. Or let me quote it for you. "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism". ~YellowFives 20:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

And a person doesn't have to be very experienced to have heard of POV and NPOV, even including those acronyms. Every time you edit Misplaced Pages, it says "Please maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view." The talk page at Talk:Anwar al-Awlaki says "POV" 11 times. And even the mainstream print media has discussed Misplaced Pages's policies. While NPOV might be rare outside of Misplaced Pages, POV is not. If that is how you make your claim that this editor is a vandal, I might suggest a read of WP:AGF. ~YellowFives 20:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

What you call unsourced opinion appears to be a summary of Awlaki's publications. It would be better to make clear that these are summaries and not Misplaced Pages's own opinion, but again this is obviously a content dispute and not vandalism. ~YellowFives 20:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Epeefleche, even ignoring therest of this, you certainly made one very basic error. "The IP is clearly a vandal. I first looked at his two edits directly before the Awlaki edits." Very good, apart from the fact that these edits were more than two weeks (for the most recent) and more than a month (for the older one) before the current incident. What evidence do you have that the IP who made the edits on Nov. 23 is the same person that made edits on Nov. 7 or Oct. 16? Fram (talk) 09:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Epee left a long explanation on the IP's talkpage. It appears that none of the edits that were labeled (and the IP warned) were vandalism, as per the definition. They may not all have been according to policy, but they were not vandalism.

Twinkle is a useful tool - it allows you to do valid things quickly and easily. However, it also allows you to make mistakes quickly and easily. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

As someone who just saw this controversy for the first time just now, it appears to me that Epeefleche was responding to the same problem I have seen, namely people growing instant Misplaced Pages muscles. It appears he was trying to reverse the negative effects. It appears he may have been slightly heavy handed, given the multiple warnings left. This on one page regarding one person. On another page, I coincidentally just awarded him a barnstar for his excellent work. It appears from his talk page that he has garnered quite a few barnstars for his excellent work on quite a few other pages. Given all that, I think what is going on here regarding Epeefleche is also slightly heavy handed. If Epeefleche needs guidance, that's one thing. To call it abuse is another. Do I sense a double standard? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by "people growing instant Misplaced Pages muscles"? This discussion was necessary because Epeefleche dismissed even a friendly welcome to the IP as "wikihounding" and still can not admit any wrongdoing. On the IP's talk page, he is currently insisting upon an act of contrition from the IP editor before he will extend good faith. The IP has nothing to apologize for. Some honest mistakes made, followed by a civil question of "what did I do wrong," meet the highest expectations we should have from inexperienced editors. Epeefleche chose to ignore the evidence against vandalism at Montgomery Village, Maryland, and went to the IP's page demanding an explanation. That article was so tremendously screwed up when the IP encountered it, it is unreasonable to hound the editor for some explanation of what should have been done differently.

Epeefleche did act abusively. This might not be a cause for ongoing concern if there was now some expressed self-awareness of wrongdoing. We're still waiting for that. ~YellowFives 16:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Epeefleche, I don't know what "wikihounding" is, but I do like Seamus. Is it possible simply withdrawing the wikihounding statement may defuse tensions? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Some editors already indicated above their view that this thread is ridiculous. But as I've received a request on my talkpage to keep it going, so as not to be disrespectful I'll add a few items. 1) I've left the IP this message. YF's above comments suggest that perhaps he misconstrued the message. 2) The IP edits were disruptive, over more than one article. If he did not intend to be disruptive, but was simply accidentally in a series of edits deleting material backed by RSs, making a misstatement, inserting false information, inserting opinion as fact, and inserting text accusing a group of living people as following a false prophet (which I gather YF and BW believe), I apologize for misconstruing his motives. And have so indicated on his page. 3) Others on the Montgomery Village page have referred to similar revisions by IPs on that page this year as vandalism--see here, here, and here, and a glance through edits on that page show many (the bulk?) are IP vandal edits. 4) I don't have any evidence that this IP was only one person. But there is no indication that this is a shared IP, or school or the like. It is of course possible that disruptive edits were made by different people, consecutively, on the same IP address. 5) BWilkins and YF have asserted more than once that the disruptive edits were not vandalism. If he intended them to be disruptive, it would appear they were vandalism. Happy T day to all.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

"I don't have any evidence that this IP was only one person. But there is no indication that this is a shared IP, or school or the like." Epeefleche, you are aware that many, many IP adresses are dynamic? Have you any evidence, besides the fact that in your view, both the older edits and the new ones were vandalism, that they were made by the same person? Same or closely related articles, same style of posting, whatever? If you don't, then it is totally unacceptable to judge the actions of the current editor of that IP address by the actions of previous editors on that address. Barring evidence to the contrary, one has to assume that an IP editor is not the same person as a previous user of the same IP address. Fram (talk) 08:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

1. The 2nd disruptive edit (on Nov. 7) was to "Islam in America". The more recent disruptive edits (Nov. 23) were all to an article on an Islamic religious leader who was the Imam at a US mosque (and his connections to three of the 9/11 hijackers and the Fort Hood shooter). I'm uncertain why you see disruptive edits to articles on such a narrow subject matter as proof that we have two different editors here. 2. By analogy--if IP edits are disruptive over time, its not my understanding that we give them a pass, and fail to warn or (if appropriate) block the IP just because it may be a dynamic IP. 3. I'm not even sure what harm you are protesting here. I didn't revert the first two edits. Or even raise them to the IP's attention. All that happened was that they raised my level of concern about his later edits, and led me to review them carefully.

Are you complaining that my level of concern was raised--because you feel I shouldn't have had those concerns (and not done anything about them), because we may have two different people here who happen to be making disruptive edits to Islam-in-America related articles from the same dynamic IP? Frankly, I'm puzzled.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that I have proof that they are different editors, I asked for evidence that they were not. The subject matter may indicate that, bt is not enough to convince me. Whether the subject matter is specific or not depends also on the origin of the IP address (if it the address of e.g. an Islamic institution or an predominantly Islamic country, then interest in these subject matters may be logical for different editors). I have not said that we shouldn't warn or block IP's, I indicated that we have to assume that an IP editor is not the same as the one that edited two or four weeks ago, just like it is not necessarily the same as the constructive editor of the four edits before that (e.g. on Ali al-Tamimi, an article you edited as well). Fram (talk) 09:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The IP is in Maryland. Where 99.8 percent of the population is not Muslim. I stand by my other points, and still have no idea where your comments are going. Unless there is reason for me to respond further, I'll deprive those who are "getting a big kick out of this ridiculous debate" of further pleasure, and leave this as my last comment. Happy Thanksgiving to all.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You still maintain that his edits previous to Nov. 23 were disruptive, where in actual fact one was clearly helpful (even though it didn't fix all the earlier vandalism by other editors), and the other was perhaps not helpful, but largely correct and not disruptive. So even if it was the same editor, his previous editing should have earned him good faith instead of working against him. Fram (talk) 10:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Fram, if as I suspect you're referring to this helpful edit, that was in October. Never mind, I misread "previous to Nov. 23." ~YellowFives 11:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I've already discussed why I had thought that edits such as the Nation of Islam worshipped a "false prophet" were disruptive, and I've already as you know apologized twice to the IP for making the wrong assumption at the time and leaving warnings if those edits were in fact good faith and not vandalism. I'll add that I now understand that it would have been better to not leave any warnings or to at most leave one if it was in fact vandalism. I apologize for that as well, and will be more careful in the future.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You've told the IP that you believe they were acting in bad faith, but you apologize if you're wrong. That's still assuming bad faith, and that's not an apology, because you aren't accepting any responsibility for your mistake, shifting all the responsibility to the IP editor. What you are calling "disruptive" has no basis in Misplaced Pages policy. On the contrary, WP:VAND is clear: "Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism." It is not vandalism say just once that Wallace Fard Muhammad was a false prophet, and if the IP could be educated about what we mean by NPOV and RS, there's a potentially useful edit in there, saying that he is widely viewed by other Muslims as being a false prophet. Yes, it would have been better to leave no warnings. It would also be helpful to read the vandalism policy and understand what disruption actually means. ~YellowFives 17:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

YellowFives, I think the horse is well-beaten here. Let's try and leave him a way to quietly nibble some crow and get back to being the long-term editor that he is. We're not trying to beat Epeeflech into submission. Although apologies are nice, they're not forceable. As per my most recent addition to the bottom of the thread, there's a way for everyone to move forward - so let's move forward :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• BWilkins, Wknight94, Triplestop, Dougweller, and GiantSnowman are all trying to tell you that your behavior here has been disruptive. Why are you ignoring the substance of their communication?
• You still have not acknowledged that you made a mistake in interpreting the edit at Montgomery Village, Maryland, which was not vandalism. Even now that you know it was not vandalism, you are still using it to assume bad faith of this IP editor.
• This IP has never disrupted Misplaced Pages. Not once. The IP has made edits which were not useful, and edits which you disagreed with. These were all objections to content, and the IP should be counseled to read our policies so that objections to content can be implemented in a useful way. (You still have not explained why you objected to me offering such counsel.)
• Now on the IP's talk page, you are accusing the IP of bad faith, and demanding an explanation before you will assume good faith. You say here "If he intended them to be disruptive, it would appear they were vandalism." That is exactly the problem. You have no evidence that these content objections were intended to be disruptive. You have assumed bad faith. The only edit you ever offered as evidence of possible vandalism was that to Montgomery Village, Maryland, and now that you know that wasn't vandalism, you're still assuming bad faith anyway.
• You offer a dishonest false dichotomy: either the IP made edits completely accidentally, or the IP was disrupting Misplaced Pages. The more likely truth is that the IP made every edit deliberately, in a good-faith attempt to improve Misplaced Pages, without full knowledge of how our policies work. It is clear that none of the edits constitute vandalism, as it is clear that you will not read and try to understand WP:VAND, yet you continue to portray the IP as a vandal.
• You still have not acknowledged that leaving 5 escalating vandalism warnings in 8 minutes, when the editor had already stopped editing 17 minutes ago, is unreasonable and intimidating behavior.
• You have now possibly intimidated a good-faith editor who had made constructive edits away from contributing to Misplaced Pages further. If you can not admit any problem with your actions here, even now that the problem has been explained to you, then there is no assurance you will not do it again, and you should be blocked to prevent you from further disrupting Misplaced Pages. ~YellowFives 11:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Blocking seems unnecessary, but removing Twinkle may be a good idea, as it would force him or her to slow down and pay more attention to the edits. 12:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Agree, except if Twinkle is removed, it should only be for the shortest time period possible. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I keep looking for the following from Epeefleche:

• a correct understanding of WP:VAND
• an understanding of WP:BITE
• an understanding of WP:WARN, especially as to purpose and method
• maybe even a look at User:Bwilkins/Essays/SMART - realizing that a warning is a "sanction" in some ways and to some users (especially new editors.

At this point, removal of Twinkle may be WP:PUNISH (something else they should also read). However, I say that only if I see that there is an understanding of the above, and no further incidents. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Eppefleche has already apologized for the mistake about the Maryland town. It wasnt't due to using twinkle, but from not looking far enough back in the history--a common error--I';ve made the same mistake myself a few times. As for overuse of the word vandal, we tend to be prone to that collectively. I 'd suggest the first step is finding a way to reword templates and the like to use it much much less. It is often misused the way he did. I'd suggest a warning where it appears to not use it if some lesser term would do. . However, I think Yellow Fives is overusing a term also: failure to AGF. This is a strong accusation also, and it is also overused. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Apologies again to all concerned.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This all seems excessive. Perhaps it was OTT to say that these IP edits were vandalism, but they do look odd and this is a highly sensitive subject. There is also reason to suspect that the IP may be another Editor in disguise. But please can we reduce the level of wikilawyering it has become disproportionate. I'd recommend that Anwar al-Awlaki be semi-protected to reduce the likelihood of such incidents in the future. NBeale (talk) 08:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Repeated Reverts at Solid

User:Logger9 has reverted for the 3rd time certain edits on solid:

• I moved a figure showing an one-dimensional model of thermal vibrations to the "thermal properties" section; he moves it back to the top of the article.

You created a new section called thermal properties by copying the text from the image - word for word. Then you placed the image there. That text hardly constitutes section on thermal properties. The image was fine where it was, especially since it is now just a large blank space. -- logger9 (talk) 04:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• I deleted lengthy explanations of anorganic and organic compounds; he restores them.

The most basic chemical differentiation of solid matter is in terms of organic vs. inorganic compounds. To say that these sections are irrelavant is absurd, and the section on inorganics is actually quite brief. I don't understand why you are so dead set against them ? -- logger9 (talk) 04:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I have explained my edits in edit summaries, in part also at talk:solid; he reverts without entering discussion and even without edit summaries.

This behavior must seen in the context of a long history of conflicts in which Logger9 has been involved, lately at talk:liquid and at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts#Solid: reverts by user:Logger9. In my humble and partial opinion, time has come for blocking Logger9 for a couple of days. -- Marie Poise (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you notified Logger9 of this thread? Crafty (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

<personal attack removed>.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Logger9 has been notified of this conversation. Crafty (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I also am concerned by the long-term edit behaviour of User:Logger9. I dissociate myself from the comment of the anon, though. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC).

Logger9 seems intent on forging ahead despite the good faith objections of other editors, to the point that it is becoming disruptive. I have suggested at User_talk:Logger9 that more discussion and less editing would be better, and that a response either there or here is required before further editing. If there is no response, or the same editing pattern continues I think a block will be inevitable. Kevin (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

At the same time Marie Poise tends to come across as overly agressive, which is not helping the situation. Kevin (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Several editors including myself have found the edits of logger9 to be of poor scientific quality and unhelpful to Misplaced Pages. In view of his continuing practice of ignoring pleas and warnings and ploughing ahead with his often inappropriate edits, for which he has been rebuked and blocked in the past, it is not surprising that irritation is aroused. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC).

Not saying it isn't understandable, just unhelpful. Kevin (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I hardly think she can be held to be at fault after having been called a parasite. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC).

It may be worth noting here that I am not editing the article. I wrote the article in its entirety, and I am trying to preserve the majority of its content. Paula Pilcher / Marie Poise is obsessed with removing certain sections. In certain cases, I don't see why that is necessary. -- logger9 (talk) 05:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I also find it interesting that everytime an article is blocked from editing, it is Paula Pilcher/Marie Poises version that is retained. Conicidence ??? -- logger9 (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments like this one are most unhelpful. Is this the extent of your response? Kevin (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out simply that Paula Pilcher or Maria Poise (or whatever name she chooses to be this month) had never even seen this article (nor any of the others she has tried to contribute to) until I tried to make something out of it. Her pattern on Misplaced Pages is to follow me wherever I go, trash my work (which is largely acceptable to everyone until she shows up), using a blanket deletion mode, then try to make make something completely different out of the article while creating an edit war -- which attracts massive attention. And when I try to make sure that my work is included, I automatically become the bad guy.

Now she has changed her editorial style in Solids -- thinking that if she takes the trouble to describe in detail each one of her deletions that they will all stand as a whole. The most interesting part is that none of the other educated editors seems to have any trouble with these sections except for her. Her most recent action was to remove the primary figure from the very top of the article, leaving a most conspicuous blank space where before we had a very informative and helpful figure. This figure was placed there by a member of the core of active science editors. As I said, she knows no bounds, and is relentlessly obsessive in her editorial behavior. Futhermore, she vows openly to continue with these editorial antics.

When questioned, she states simply that : "You are very bold in inserting, so you have to accept that I am very bold in deleting."

We don't have to accept anything. Her behavior clearly violates Misplaced Pages protocol.

Regarding the blanket deletions of my work, she claims that "I haven't done yet" and referes to the article on Solids.

And when queried by Misplaced Pages editor Woudloper regarding a more specific discusion of my work, she states simply that "I refuse to answer the above battery of questions."

She insults me continuously on all sorts of personal levels. Her attacks are continuously obssessive, aggressive, and highly destructive. None of her actions have been appropriate in this context. Just look at what she has published about me personally on Paula Pilcher user page. And somehow, still, she manages to gain the sympathy of those around her.

She knows no limits, and her technical experise is questionable at best. At one point, she was insisting in putting pictures of peanut butter on a page about the glass transition. I put up with the peanut butter for awhile (as did other polite editors) trying not to hurt her feelings, as she seems to be quite volatile. Her rude behavior has been dismised by others as being due the fact that she knows English only as a second language. What does that have to do with anything ? A personal insult in exactly that-- and it has no place in the educational arena -- anywhere.

I have never, ever, rejected ANY of her work. And yet her classical motif is to simply blanket delete ALL of my work. She follows the blanket deletions up by bringing in a hoard of sympathetic administrators -- none of whom would ever be able to read the theoretical contributions without a sufficient background in the subject matter. Then she dismisses my work in its entirety as "scientific blunder" (amongst a text full of other insulting adjectives) and continues with the identical pattern of her "Anti-logger crusade" on the next page that I try to contribute to.

In the case of Liquids, any and all current editing could have all been done without an edit war or any adnministrative intervention. All she have to do is come contribute. My work could easily be included -- and edited-- below all the other material on a section for Theory of the Liquid State. If you wish to dismiss it because it is not accessible to an eight grader (or to Paula Pilcher, for that matter) then you had better go ahead and lay waste to the majority of your articles in science -- many of which I cannot even understand.

I am here to contribute on that level. And I have been happy to include readable introductory sections on all of the some 15 articles that I have been a major contributor on Misplaced Pages. My record stands for itself. I am giving you folks the best that I've got. What I can't understand is why she resents that so much. It's like I have this red target painted on my forehead. I really wish that she would contribute what she has to offer, and move on to something else besides what I am working on. It is something like being stalked -- literally.

I believe strongly in the concept of scientific education. In fact, I have dedicate my adult life to it. I have found Misplaced Pages to be an incredible resource on my classroom. Beginning this year, I have tried my hardest to make my most quality contributions on your webite. Please don't let Paula Pilcher/Marie Poise destroy that.

-- logger9 (talk) 05:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you able to respond to my request above? It's not just Marie who disagrees with your editing style, so we need to understand how you intend to work better with other editors. Kevin (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Do I have to accept being called a parasite ? For the third time, by the way: this text has been pasted elsewhere before. I admit, I have been bold in my choice of words, too, and I am ready to apologize: These days, kind mediators brought to my attention the importance of the good faith / bad faith distinction, and I am ready to retract whatever in my past comments might be understood as assuming bad faith. Yet, Parasitism (social offense) is quite another level of insult, and worse than the word for which just above someone immediately got blocked. -- Marie Poise (talk) 07:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Quotes from Paula: (regarding her blanket deletion of several of my articles)

"It is preferable to slowly collaborate on stubs......instead of accepting in bulk a valueless and uncurable contribution like the present one.."

"...yet he re-pastes his old stuff literally, including absurdities like..."

"Folks, you call it "technical" because you think it's your fault if you don't understand it. Please understand: there is nothing to be understood in this text."

"The point is: the text is mostly off-topic, it's loquacious, partly wrong, bordering theory finding; and from past experience we can be sure that any attempt to improve the text by removing the most blatant nonsense will inevitably to a repetion of the edit war we have had on glass transition. Any attempt to improve this article is doomed to be a waste of time as long as the original author keeps intervening."

Alternatively:

"The topic is an excellent one and the treatment is well-written and sourced. Deletion would be contrary to our editing policy. The excellence of the topic for our purposes may be seen by its extensive coverage in numerous books. I have read the article and consider the writing to be of good quality, albeit not yet in our usual house style. The sourcing is also commendable. Your reference to the ARS seems to be some sort of ad hominem incivility but, in so far as it's relevant, my patrolling activities cause me to see great quantities of poor quality articles which do merit deletion. This article is nothing of the sort and the nomination is quite contrary to our deletion policy." -- Colonel Warden

You maintain the following on your Userpage for all the world to see: "It is very easy to get nonsense in, and very difficult to get it out. See my attempts to stop User:Logger9 from dumping pseudoscientific blunder." Which is worse ?? It was suggested to you by a senior editor that you remove that content as being offensive -- yet you refused.

You are FAR more aggressive, confrontational, and non-negotiable than I have ever been. I have to do something just to stay afloat. If it were up to you, I wouldn't exist -- nor would any of my "pseudoscientific blunder". How would you feel if someone treated you like that on a daily 24/7 basis ????

When I sense apologies and/or retractions, than I will consider doing likewise. But as long as you keep that personal statement about me published on your Userpage, it is obvious the extent to which you have always been willing to go to belittle me and my work. It's very insulting. -- logger9 (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I have had no serious problems with other editors. Materialscientist did a massive overhaul of much of my early work, and I agreed with virtually everything he requested. We also agreed on a section removal in Solids (Chemical analysis), as per his reasoning. I agree with constructive editing. In anything but extreme cases, I don't agree with removing vital sections "because the article is too long". -- logger9 (talk) 07:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Eh, that is not quite true. I have only run into you in liquid, but there your style of editing (replacing an entire article with one of your own devising of a, in my opinion at least, somewhat poorer standard) did make me sad, and we did exchange a few bouts of words. Removing irrelevant stuff from pages is the 2nd-most important part of editing (just after adding important stuff) Esben (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering why you called me a "hotshot" ;-) You were caught midstream, ny friend (as most of Paula'a advocates are). What you did not realize was that she had previously deleted the ENTIRE article -- several times, in fact. I was just trying to put it back. -- logger9 (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

While this discussion is still ongoing, Logger9 continued reverting without discussing at page liquid: he restored a subsection with crude speculations, supported by primary sources from the 1920s/30s, without answering to the reasons for deletion I had given in my edit summaries. -- Marie Poise (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I added 3 short paragraphs on the effects of association in liquids. My reasons are now stated clearly there for you. I feel strongly that this material is critical for an understanding of the mechanisms responsible for liquid viscosity. The dates of the publications are irrelevant. -- logger9 (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

There are multiple issues here, but one just came up to my mind and without judging it, I invite (preferably uninvolved parties) for discussion. Please try your best to be brief.

Logger9 states that he uses his web-site http://www.wavesignal.com/ for on-line teaching. That web-site cites about 20 WP articles edited by the user as "on-line publications" for the courses. Please state your opinion whether or not this constitutes WP:COI and whether or not this might affect his possible protectionism of those articles. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 05:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Correction on your assumption. These articles have absolutely NOTHING to do with the courses I teach. They are simply there to show the readers (not just my students) my fields of expertise, and share with them some of my contributions. If this going to be a conflict, I will GLADLY remove them from my website at any time. In fact, at this juncture I will remove my website address (once again) from any text associated with Misplaced Pages. Thank you. -- logger9 (talk) 05:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

In this context it might be interesting to note that one of the threads Logger9 started at talk:liquid is entitled "In Defense of the Realm". According to WP, "a realm is a dominion of a monarch or other sovereign ruler." - Compare this to how physics of glass, ceramics engineering, colloidal crystal, phase transformations in solids and so on are all linked to each other by "See Also" links: it really is a network of private publications, and nobody would have cared, hadn't Logger9 transgressed the bounds of specialist lemmata and tried to incorporate key articles like "liquid" or "solid" into his realm. -- Marie Poise (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody would have cared ???????? You have been trashing ALL of my articles since the Physics of glass. The picture you paint is always so devastingly crooked. I have to spend half of my life just defending myself from all the attacks you launch in all directions !

This discussion is a perfect example. You have them all on a witch hunt again. I congratulate you on your cunningness. But I still don't see any serious work done by you here on Misplaced Pages. -- logger9 (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Logger,you said above "It may be worth noting here that I am not editing the article. I wrote the article in its entirety, and I am trying to preserve the majority of its content. " Nobody here owns a page at WP, (see WP:OWN) and the contents can be edited by anybody. If you disagree with what they have done, it needs to be discussed on the talk page--if you cannot reach agreement, DR is needed--probably starting here with a 3O from some other editor with experience in the subject. Misplaced Pages does not work by academic credentials, though we certainly encourage people with them to work here, and they certainly have no less right to edit than anyone else. It appears that in this case both you and Marie have credential in the subject. We are not asked to judge between them. At Citizendium, arguments over content can degenerate into arguments about whose academic credential are stronger, but we try not to do it here. We rely on the assumption that the person who understands the subject best will make the best edits, and that other editors will see that. Your attitude here about others' editing is not in the spirit of Misplaced Pages, and you will need to re-evaluate it.

Marie, this to some extent applies to you also: you are trying to write a version that you think better. What you need to do is to develop a version that is agreed by consensus to be better. On Talk: Liquid you proposed a vote between the two versions, but this is not the way we do things. Kev in properly protected that article, but as he said, it cannot stay protected indefinitely, and he un--protected it. He seems to be taking responsibility for bringing about a compromise, and I encourage him to continue with it. Kevin, if they both stayed away from boht articles, do uyou think you (with help from NW and others interested) could do what editing is necessary? We need someohow to get a consensus version.

As a practical matter i am quite prepared to block both parties a short time for persistent edit warring, regardless of merits of the edits--and I see from his talk page Kevin thinks similarly. But I would also be prepared to block Logger for longer periods if needed, until he is willing to engage in cooperative editing and both explains and shows that he has abandoned the idea of trying to own the subject area. DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to "own" anything. But I can't just sit back and let Paula delete entire articles as she sees fit. And I think that allowing her to do so, while blocking me for a longer period, is hardly what I would call justice. She creates the scene, and I am the one who is punished. -- logger9 (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a very good summary of the situation. We're at the point that behavioral changes are needed for both logger9 and Marie Poise. A topic ban is another option I have been thinking about, for both editors. Clearly both have a difficulty in remaining neutral and one way or another they have to stop. My worry with a topic ban is that unless it is very broad the dispute will simply move somewhere else, or the talk pages will be flooded with large blocks of text rather than discussion. Kevin (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I will be offline for a week for private reasons. Maybe that's a good coincidence. All the best - Marie Poise (talk) 07:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the concerns of MS below, I want to again make something quite clear (since he has intentionally deleted my message, and ignored its contents). Correction on your assumption.

These articles have absolutely NOTHING to do with the courses I teach. They are simply there to show the readers (not just my students) my fields of expertise, and share with them some of my contributions. If this going to be a conflict, I will GLADLY remove them from my website at any time. In fact, at this juncture I will remove my website address (once again) from any text associated with Misplaced Pages. Thank you. -- logger9 (talk) 05:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

There are multiple issues here, but one just came up to my mind and without judging it, I invite (uninvolved parties) for a discussion. Please try your best to be brief.

Logger9 states that he uses his web-site http://www.wavesignal.com/ for on-line teaching. That web-site cites about 20 WP articles edited by the user as "on-line publications" for the courses. Please state your opinion whether or not this constitutes WP:COI and whether or not this might affect his possible protectionism of those articles. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 05:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with MS that some form of COI is happening with logger9 (and not just evidenced by his website, which is overall a minor concern IMO). IMO, it is absurd to think that logger9 purposefully wants to harm Misplaced Pages. logger9 seems to be used to write journal articles or reviews, and thus apply the same line of reasoning when writing Misplaced Pages article. The problem is that writing like in a article/review does not translate well on Misplaced Pages. First is the concern of original synthesis. What would tremendously help IMO is sticking to the ideas and views found in literature reviews and textbooks. AKA if the ideas are not in a textbook, leave them out. Second is that reviews need to cover every little detail and cite everything that's been done on each of the details since the last review plus what's considered to be standard citations for those details. On wikipedia, you are much better off saying "Bob proposed the theory of X, in 1949. The theory explain the implication of X on the first and third laws of thermodynamics." than "Following the work of Claude, Suzy, Paul, and Jim, Bob proposed the theory of X, which explains the first and third laws of thermodynamics." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Headbomb (talk • contribs)

It is quite clear that an administrative action is required in this case. Please place your suggestion here. I understand the solution is not straightforward, but please try to be brief. Logger9 and Marie Poise. Please do not edit this section. Other editors, please move your comments here as necessary. Materialscientist (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I have expressed the view before that the edits of logger9 are of indifferent quality. They demonstrate little ability to synthesise the material into an effective overview and to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant material. They are sometimes verbose and rambling. While this was not important in the earlier stages of Misplaced Pages it is becoming more noticeable as WP matures and its overall quality improves. This is a content issue and administrative action is not needed to deal with it. It does explain, though, why other editors are attempting to improve the articles of logger9 and are becoming frustrated at the obstacles they find in doing so.

What is more disturbing is logger9's reaction to those who attempt to develop and improve the articles that he identifies himself with on his web site http://www.wavesignal.com/. His standard operating procedure is to revert to his own version. He ignores, provokes, insults (parasite) and drives other editors away. I fear that there is only one way to deal with obsessive and recalcitrant behaviour of this sort (which unfortunately is not uncommon on WP). I suggest an indefinite block on his editing the articles that he identifies with namely: Solid, Sol-gel, Liquid, Crystal growth, Crystal structure, Kinetic theory of solids, Transparent materials, Transparent ceramics, Ceramic engineering, Nanotechnology, Strength of glass, Physics of glass, Glass transition, Colloidal crystal, Light scattering, Spinodal decomposition, Transformation toughening, Plastic deformation in solids, Phase transformations in solids. Those of his edits that are found to be useful will be retained; those that are not can be improved without the threat of an edit war.

An indefinite block is not a permanent block and when the articles have settled into a steady state after the efforts of other editors logger9 can appeal for release from the block. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC).

Gibraltar

Can someone take a look at Gibraltar for some time we have had Spanish editors trying to make the article 'more Spanish' involving long discussions which are currently stalling in informal mediation;

Today we have a repeated attempt to include a long list of allegedly notable Spanish people under the heading who are most certainly NOT Gibraltarian people, as these are by definition British Citizens.

• Here

• Here

• reverted again here

The editor responsible for this is user:Ecemaml who has previously been blocked for misbehaviour on Gibraltar related issues. User:Cremallera may be a sock of his - can someone check this.

This looks very much like an attempt to start an edit war. --Gibnews (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm involved in trying to help mediate the disputes at Gibraltar. As I'm involved in the mediation and I've been an admin for less than a week I hesitate to use any tools but I've been watching over the situation. The only person who has violated 3RR at this point is User:Justin A Kuntz, but he informed me that he is taking a 2 day Wikibreak so I don't think there's any point in a block. Anyone who wants to help out and intervene, however, is more than welcome, as the heat on this article (and History of Gibraltar) seems to be rising. -- Atama頭 02:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Although you are doing a good job in trying to mediate in the Gibraltar article, it looks like there is an orchestrated attempt to disrupt that and other articles on Gibraltar and set up Justin and myself. Its very unproductive but frankly typical of the sort of harassment tactic continually used by the Spanish Government against Gibraltar. --Gibnews (talk) 07:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I've fully-protected the article both articles for one week while mediation is ongoing; it might take the heat out of the situation if editors can discuss things without needing to worry about what others are doing on the article. FWIW, I see no immediate reason to think that Cremallera and Ecemamlare are sock accounts, although an WP:SPI might be helpful to settle that. EyeSerene 11:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Bad move. Loosmark (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Why? EyeSerene 12:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Well what if some other serious editors who are not involved in this dispute want to make some good edits? Loosmark (talk) 12:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}... I hope you don't mind me asking, but you're not a new editor. Is this a serious objection to what you must be aware is standard procedure in hot content disputes? Your userpage notes that you retired a couple of days ago; I can't avoid the impression that either you're making some kind of point, the reason for which is lost on me, or I'm being trolled. EyeSerene 13:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Trolled!? I simply wasn't aware it's a standard procedure. Loosmark (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, no worries :) I just thought it was a strange objection. I apologise for misconstruing your post. EyeSerene 14:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. So now pointless personal attacks, Spanish bashing, attributing "orchestrated disruptive intentions" to other editors, unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry and vilifying the Spanish Government is considered fair play in the Administrators' noticeboard? Still can't believe it. PS: actually, protecting the articles isn't a bad move given the current climate, in my opinion of course.Cremallera (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with protecting the articles. The contentious edits refer to events 300 years ago so there is no urgency. --Gibnews (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, this is Ecemaml, the man who seems to have shot Liberty Valance. Well, I see this is not the place to discuss on the content of the blocked article, but I'd like to make it clear some of the accusations I've received:

• I've done an only semi-reversion (explaining why, dropping one of the persons in the list and including references to justify notability in those who didn't have an article yet). BTW, the edition summary in the removal of the information I had created was as explanatory and related to the Misplaced Pages policies as "ridiculous entry". No further information was provided in the talk page (I'm supposedly the disruptive editor).
• Examples of those that are not deemed as notable are Diego de Astorga y Céspedes (just created).
• There are solid explanations to my editions in the talk page. You can agree or not with them, but my editions are far from being arbitrary. To sum up, I argue that, as long as there is an only article for Gibraltar (that is, there is no article for the town of Gibraltar and other for the British territory of Gibraltar, much in the like of Taiwan and the Republic of China), it's valid to include in a section named "Notable people from Gibraltar" any notable person from Gibraltar from whatever period, either Roman, Visigoth, Vandal, Moor, Spanish or British. If a list on "Notable Gibraltarians" is wished, its place should be Gibraltarian people. Moreover, from the 13 people currently listed in the section, only 4 or 5 may qualify as Gibraltarian (the rest being British subjects accidentally born in Gibraltar as their parents were military garrisoned in Gibraltar, none of them known to have asked for "Gibraltarian nationality", quite sensible since they're are full British people.
• An odd sign of what's going on can be seen here. It seems as if any person in the phone directory in Gibraltar is more notable than any Spanish person born in Gibraltar.

That's all, I'll wait until next December 3, although given the long quarrel in the talk page, the section we're talking about should carry an obvious {{NPOV}}.

On the other hand, may I ask you which further step I should take. Should I ask for a RFC? Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there is precedent elsewhere. Notable members of the British Empire, such as Kipling who were born in India are not described as being Indian, although when listing their birthplace one should correctly say that Kipling was born in Bombay. It follows that Kipling could be included in a list or category of notable people whose birth occurred in India (or even in Mumbai), but not in a list of famous Indians. This would suggest that notable people of any nationality who were born in Gibralter should go in the list or category of people born in Gibralter. To exclude notable persons who are or were not citizens of the current regime in Gibralter would be unreasonable and incorrect.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you've seen my point. The most weird issue is that in the current list most of the people listed cannot be described as Gibraltarians since that term applies only to what was/is the civilian population of the town and not to the members of the garrison and their families (which are obviously only British, even if they could apply, if they had wished, to the Gibraltarian status). That is, in its current status the list only comprises people (either Gibraltarian or not) born in the city since the 18th century, when it was transferred to Great Britain (now UK), but notable people born before are simply "banned". Nobody intend to list Spanish Gibraltar-born people as Gibraltarians, but just as Gibraltar-born notable guys (of course that notability may be discussed in a case-by-case basis, but it has been excluded since the beginning). --Ecemaml (talk) 11:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Reinserted reply to HotR after WP helpfully blanked it. EyeSerene 12:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC):

That sounds eminently sensible to me. Perhaps splitting the section into "Notable Gibraltan citizens" and "Notable people born in Gibraltar" (or something similar) might also be worth considering, if it's felt necessary to make a clearer distinction? EyeSerene 11:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Your proposal also sounds sensible to me. The issue here is that there is no an equivalence between periods in the history of Gibraltar and nationality (that is, although all the notable Gibraltar-born guys in the Spanish period happens to be Spaniards, notable Gibraltar-born guys in the British period may be, usually, either Gibraltarian or British), so that option might be sensible. Other alternative could be including an only list, alphabetically ordered, including the nationality of the notable guy (for instance: "X (1850-1900) - British military engineer", "Y (1900-1950) - Gibraltarian painter", "Z (1600-1650) - Spanish cardinal"). --Ecemaml (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The very concept of "notable people" in itself could raise new issues, I'm afraid. Like this one, for instance.Cremallera (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed PROD (reason given "Not notable for English encyclopaedia"). I hold no brief for the Spanish, but there is no way this deletion would be non-controversial. Advise Gibnews to use AfD if he wishes to delete any more Spaniards from Gibralter (as none would be non-controversial) and to consider the content of WP:POINT before making any nominations, particularly of figures who were of any significance in the history of the Catholic Church - which is very much a subject for the English encyclopaedia. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Good move; that article is in no way a PROD candidate and would certainly get kept, and most likely snow-kept, at AfD. There's also no such thing as "Not notable for English encyclopaedia" outside the normal GNG; Gibnews might like to look at El Señor Presidente, Mario Vargas Llosa and The General in His Labyrinth, to name but three FAs off the top of my head. EyeSerene 17:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just to let you know that I've reverted the PROD template (which were not removed when Elen explained to Gibnews that his attempt to make Diego de Astorga removed was inappropriate), on the same grounds, in Juan Romero de Figueroa and Gonzalo Piña Ludueña (both, as Diego de Astorga y Céspedes, created by me). I don't know the inclusion of the PROD template is a disruptive action or not in itself. I simply want to let you know that the former, Juan Romero de Figueroa has been in wikipedia for more than a year (I created it in September 2008). The latter, , had a {{underconstruction}} template as I created it yesterday. In none of the occasions I was notified as the template requires. --Ecemaml (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with this. If Gibnews continues to feel the articles are without merit, he can try AfD - but it would be worthwhile reading Eye Serene's comment's above before he does. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

These been created by Ecemaml to provoke a dispute by including obscure people from prior to 1704 were born in Gibraltar on the Gibraltar main page. There are a number of articles on Misplaced Pages about Gibraltarian people however, the list on the Gibraltar main article does not include all of them, just a handful of the more prominent ones.

Inclusion of obscure people like Gonzalo Piña Ludueña who does not (currently) merit an article in the .es wikipedia simply for the purpose of starting an edit war is something I think deserves looking at carefully. --Gibnews (talk) 09:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit war developing over EL at Chiropractic controversy and criticism

The article Chiropractic controversy and criticism is obviously unpopular with chiropractors who edit Misplaced Pages, and whitewashing has been a problem. When I noticed that there was no External links section, I remembered that the chiropractic article had previously had a very nicely developed section with links that were perfectly on-topic for this article. The selection and wording had been developed after long and intense discussions, negotiations, compromises, and collaborations between editors on both sides of the issues, and the two strongest editors at the time had found a Solomonic solution by following the EL guidelines to an extreme degree, with detailed descriptions of each source.

I took that list and copied it to the article. Since User:Levine2112 is topic banned from the subject, I hadn't expected another chiropractic editor to take up his whitewashing crusades, but unfortunately chiropractic editor DigitalC decided that they weren't appropriate and started deleting them, and finally made a mass deletion of all the "Internal criticism" links. When he kept at it and was reverted by two other editors, he turned to something that was legitimate - deleting dead links. (Even then, the proper thing to do would be to seek to find active links, not delete.) So far so good, but then he restarted the deletions and I have restored them. I'm not interested in edit warring and would like more eyes on the situation. The links are very much on-topic, pass WP:EL, and have previously been vetted, approved and worded by chiropractic editors, but DigitalC doesn't like them.

Relevant links:

• History

• Mass deletions of EL

Brangifer (talk) 04:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC) (Comment restored after being deleted by DigitalC.)

DigitalC notified of this debate. EyeSerene 12:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps BullRangifer should have participated in the talk page. Both User:2over0 and myself opined on the talk page that Homola (2006) should not normally be used in the article. It is already used as a reference in the article, and as such shouldn't be repeated in the external links section. I also deny any allegations about whitewashing, although I will point out that the article in question is a blatant POV fork. As for the links being previously being vettted, approved, and worked by editors at Chiropractic, you will notice that the links do not occur there, because they were deemed to violate WP:EL. This is again addressed at the talk page of the POV-fork. DigitalC (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Not true. ALL the links (both pro-chiropractic and skeptical) were removed in a major overhaul of the whole section at the other article, not because they violated EL. Your removals were reverted by two other editors, showing that they considered your talk page arguments to be faulty and/or your manner of deletion to be disruptive and destructive. The article was made poorer by their lack. Certain deletions were left by myself because they weren't complete violations of policy, although someone who wasn't intent on whitewashing would have chosen a different approach. Dead links should be fixed when possible, rather than just deleted, and integration should occur before deletion.

As a courtesy I have removed your profession from my comment, but you had revealed it before, so it was public knowledge and significant to showing your COI. I was surprised you took up the actions typical for the topic banned editor, and am wondering if you shouldn't suffer the same fate for engaging in similar behavior.

BTW, don't remove my comment again. It is perfectly proper to post here to get more eyes on the situation. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

DigitalC - do not remove comments from this board again please. It's a great way to get blocked. Plenty of admins watch this board - if someone posts something that is actually out of order, you can be sure it will be challenged. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Haven't articles about "controversy and criticism of X" been nominated & after discussion deleted in the past? This may be the direction this dispute ultimately takes, & would make the issue of external links to this article moot. -- llywrch (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

That's another discussion that hinges on this being an allowed content fork. In fact, editors are warned to "not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing." DigitalC has repeatedly done this, thus assuming bad faith. While it's a legitimate discussion that has occurred over this article, it is indeed another subject, so let's not let it sidetrack this particular thread. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

ARBMAC parole

Request closure of the Thierry henry handball Afd

It's overdue now, and the place is starting to stink of socks. MickMacNee (talk) 13:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus. Off2riorob (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was closed as a 'Keep' about a half hour after the previous statement... Honestly I think 'No Consensus' would be a better because it'd leave future options far more open for other actions instead of forcing a fight uphill to even get a discussion going. Consensus? On text volume and majority vote, yes. Weighted result based on Misplaced Pages policy? Iffy. Most Keeps using "it's obviously notable" as a reason doesn't address any actual Misplaced Pages policy. Really would have to suggest a result change to No Consensus in respect to the strong case made for delete with Misplaced Pages policy guiding them. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 02:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I was also surprised by the decision. That the article would not be deleted was obvious, but it looked like a rather obvious "no consensus" or "strong" based on the opinions expressed. I would agree with daTheisen about a review of the decision.Jeppiz (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Go through a deletion review just to say "no consensus" if you wish, but my reading of many of those arguing for deletion was that they favoured retaining the content either through a merge or renaming, which amounts to keep. Those citing WP:NOTNEWS give a certain reading of Misplaced Pages policy, but others disagreed with them; we have no policy that prohibits writing articles about recent events. Fences&Windows 23:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I am normally fairly lenient re incivility, but...

This is really a little OTT. In response to the WP:ANI#New user blocked thread above, whereby I declined the unblock request citing the obvious fact that the blocked editor is clearly a meatpuppet of one or other of the Irish patriots (a fairly rational analysis, I would have thought), I get that little piece of bile on my talkpage. Please deal with as appropriate. Moreschi (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Foul language is easily dealt with. Merely alter the post, replace the colorful words (which is what I do at my talkpage). GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Now blocked 2 weeks by EyeSerene (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). All dealt with, thanks. Moreschi (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This just keeps getting better, Moreschi gets asked a reasonable question and Moreschi in reply launches into a personal attack. Because the editor responds in kind they get blocked. Moreschi on this tread offers editors the same contemptious remarks with accusation accusations and then EyeSerene has the brass neck to tell me to take it down a notch or two after they block Dunc! Moreschi then has the gall to post this? They get the editor they attacked blocked with this biased and one sided notice. They must be please with the result of the situation they created. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It is both Dunc's and your continually combative attitudes that made this situation spiral out of control. You really can't see how Dunc brought the block onto himself after that comment? I guess being too busy blaming everyone else blinds you to the obvious.--Atlan (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Were are the personal attacks which prompted this response. How many accusations does it take? --Domer48_'fenian' 15:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you should make it more clear that the above is a quote. At first glance it looks like Moreschi is posting in all bold. On that note, the all bold is a bit annoying, perhaps italics? 15:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess the nationalist comment is borderline, but I can't believe you of all people would consider being called an "Irish patriot" a personal attack. At any rate, thinking you are being attacked does not entitle you to a personal attack of your own, which seems to be your argument here.--Atlan (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...I would venture to say what he seems to be complaining about is the context the comment was made in rather than the comment. I really don't see why this is worth the long, drawn out discussion, though. It's not the worst that's been seen, not even close. Ks0stm 16:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Domer, surely you can see why "far-out nationalists" would merit a warning, whereas "fucking fool so go ahead and block me too this place is a fucking joke with admins like you" would merit a block? It is a matter of degree. 16:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Moreschi's signature has been transfered here as though he has posted the comment when he hasn't, this it not correct and it is excessive to draw attention to his comments by unnecessarily bolding his comments. edit conflict, good I see the bolding has been corrected but the signature still requires dealing with. Off2riorob (talk) 16:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Chillum why am I not surprised with you addressing your comments to me and not Moreschi! I agree with Dunc's comments, do you agree with Moreschi accusations? Lets start with This is quite obviously someone you or Domer either roped in via some forum, or, equally possibly, you are acquainted with IRL. Do you share this view? --Domer48_'fenian' 16:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Domer, before lobbing accusations at me please get your facts straight. I have talked to Moreschi about this. I am not about to go stating who I think is right and who I think is wrong in matters of debate, but I will point out when someone is acting disruptively. 16:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I find Moreschi's comments provocative, arrogant and aggresive. An admin should know better. Loosmark (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Recommend the ..roped in... & the ..acquinted with IRL comments be re-tracted. BigDunc's colorful language, should also be retracted. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I find this degenerating into heat like the section related to this above. Domer48, tone down just a hair and try for less bold, please. Everyone, at the least, keep reasonable. Ks0stm 16:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Domer48, the manner of your comments are needlessly exhausting community patience and resources. There are better ways to communicate the same point without being so inflammatory. Light, not heat please - that would go a long way in part resolving the way others are tempted to respond to you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Domer48, you have raised this issues on 2 threads on this page and 2 user talk pages. Please stop forum hopping and keep this discussion in one place, here(or even better just let it go). 16:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

A request: Howabout BigDunc get unblocked, then he & Moreschi can apologies to each other & chalk it to being just a heated moment. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be great once the parties were prepared to do so. I am currently trying to get BigDunc to agree to the simple matter of not engaging in further personal attacks, then we can work on perhaps getting them to shake hands and make up. 16:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't like to see BigDunc unblocked until he has cooled down, otherwise the same thing will happen again. Give it at least 24 hours before considering unblocking, he should have cooled by then. Jeni 16:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we all agree that block durations are never written in stone and that once the underlying issue not longer requires prevention then the block is no longer needed. I am in e-mail communication with BigDunc right now and I think we are making progress. 16:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, progress is indeed being made. 16:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note I will not be considering BigDunc's unblock request(if he chooses to make one) as I have been adjusting his block settings and think someone who has not been involved with his blocking review it. I am sure someone here will notice if he does post one. I do recommend that one makes sure the preventative nature of the block is no longer needed before removing it though, tempers can take time to settle. 16:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

A slap on the wrist for bad faith accusations with not blot on their record, and Big Dun blocked! Now is it the case that any new editor suspected of being Irish can be indef blocked after there first edit? We now know what Moreschi's view of the above editors are, a "circle of Irish patriots" who are not entitled "good faith" as it "expired a very long time ago." How many Admin's have this opinion? --Domer48_'fenian' 17:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Domer its time to take a dog for a walk. Spartaz 17:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• And while you are at it, you can drop the stick. We are currently trying to work towards getting BigDunc unblocked and this situation deescalated. You seem to be seeking further escalation and we don't want it to get worse, we want it to get better. 17:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note that I broadly support unblocking sooner rather then later but Jeni is right that we need everyones tempers to cool first. Personally I would support an unblock in the morning (GMT) if not before now that Dunc has promised to disengage from Moreschi. Spartaz 17:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding the initial block, just wanted to say that I concur that this comment was block-worthy. As for length, considering the previous block log of BigDunc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 2 weeks may have been a tad long, but was within the realm of administrator discretion. As a followup to this though, BigDunc should also be placed under formal probation via Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles case, as probation covers incivility, and would provide further authority for a block or ban if BigDunc continued with such language in the future. I have some familiarity with the necessary paperwork for probation, so if no one else wants to do it, I can take care of it. --Elonka 17:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• The result of BigDunc being given back his talk page rights has indicated to me that he is not yet calm. He has removed his unblock request and I think this is a good idea for now. Let him come back when he is calmer and repost his unblock request should he desire. I think the best thing we can do now is just wait for a while. 17:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• I refrained from posting earlier; with Domer clearly upset with my block of BigDunc, I hoped my disengagement might help to de-escalate this pointless dispute. I also regret that the block was necessary, though of course only BigDunc can take responsibility for his words. My original request to Domer (before, not after, I blocked BigDunc) was in the hopes that we could head off exactly this situation, but unfortunately events overtook me and I had to take other action. I appreciate that Domer and BigDunc were annoyed by the block of what virtually everyone is certain was an obvious sock account, and also by the speculation as to who the sockmaster might be. I understand why that speculation took the direction it did, in the face of such vehement protests that were out of all proportion to BlackKite's action. However, I also understand why Domer and BigDunc found the speculation offensive, and think it would have been wiser if Moreschi had kept it to himself... but we are where we are and regardless of provocation we still choose how to react. Impulse control and being big enough to know when to shrug offenses off and walk away are things we ask of all editors. Re BigDunc's block, I have no problem with them being unblocked early if other admins find their assurances credible, and agree that probation would probably be a helpful move. EyeSerene 17:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

BigDunc is on a WikiBreak. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Given the long history of sock-puppetry around The Troubles by certain editors (most now indef blocked), it really isn't a controversial decision that Black Kite took in identifying and blocking the edit-warring new account. It clearly was not a good faith edit from a new good faith editor.

A corollary to this history of sockpuppetry, though, is that accusing experienced editors of operating sockpuppets is insensitive a likely to cause offence. BigDunc and Domer, for their faults, are not sockpuppeteers. If they were, they would have been caught long before now and anyone familiar with their editing would know they would not even consider such a thing. So I perfectly understand that the casual way Moreschi accused BigDunc of being involved with that account invoked anger. It shouldn't have happened. Hopefully Moreschi will now realize that admins should be more thoughtful about making such accusations in future. That said, one can express one's disapproval without resorting to an abusive tirade, something BigDunc should certainly know by now. Therefore I suggest BigDunc take however long it takes to compose himself, request an unblock indicating he is composed and we can all move on, older and (hopefully) wiser. Should Moreschi and BigDunc choose to exchange expressions of regret or apology then that is up to them, but it certainly shouldn't be a condition. I also really don't think Dunc needs to be under sanctions as a result of this outburst. We all say things we shouldn't in the heat of anger, lets not make it more than it was. But he should be aware that sanctions will probably be a consequence if there are repeats of this sorry, and needless, type of exchange. Does this sound like a resolution? Rockpocket 19:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a resolution to me. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed (deferring to your greater familiarity with the editors re probation) EyeSerene 20:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Sockpuppeteers they are not, and I didn't accuse them of being so. Meatpuppetry, on the other hand, is perfectly plausible. Well, perhaps meatpuppetry isn't quite the right word. We have here a sort of tag-team who will back each other up on ANI, do reverts for each other, engage in each other's discussions. Evidently there's a degree of off-wiki collaboration involved, although nothing, I suspect, as organized as the recent EE mailing list scandal. Despite local variants in ideology there are all, more or less, Irish patriots, and have, ahem, strong views on the various relevant subjects. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, and they are all well aware of their biases. The problem comes when such strong views are applied to contentious articles: WP:TIGERS says we have to be careful here: that Troubles pages should not be written by ANI-drama-fuelled-debate between extreme Irish nationalists and their British counterparts.

• So what's a result? An obvious sock/meat account gets blocked and instantly Dunc takes it to ANI, and Domer follows up with some very strongly-worded posts and wild accusations, defending the indefensible. The first thing that comes to mind is that this is some friend of theirs who's just been blocked. Little else would seem to explain their outrage. Such was a rational chain of logic and hardly proof that I am a "fucking fantasist", as Dunc so eloquently put it in his email to me. Am I the only one who finds this outrage a little put on? I find it hard to explain why Dunc and Domer would go to such lengths for a one-edit account who they never interacted with. Rationally speaking the account was never going to be unblocked, nor BlackKite desysopped etc...so why the fuss on ANI? Why such outrage? Because they know more than they're letting on?

• I suspect so. This is probably, of course, be some returning banned user just trolling, or, more likely, it may be a rather clueless "lurker" who decided to plunge in at an inopportune moment, and certainly Dunc and Domer aren't stupid enough to actually solicit a revert from anyone at that point. But that is beside the point: the point is that the appearance of such accounts - and the hysterical defence of them on ANI - points to a degree of collusion. Sockpuppetry, no: meatpuppetry, not necessarily, but certainly collusion. A degree of imaginative realism is needed here. Do we really think we've seen the last of this? Just as several years ago various Yahoo groups were being used by our Hindutva friends to solicit support, just as we've seen the recent expose of the anti-Russian EE mailing list, so there is likely to be a Putinista-l mailing list and, quite plausibly, a fenian-l. We cannot read their traffic but we should certainly take their existence for granted. And perhaps be a little less credulous. Moreschi (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes when different people are independently acting towards the same goal the illusion of conspiracy can appear where there is none. 20:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid the recent experiences with the EE mailing list, and the Hindutva problems of a couple years back, would rather tell against that. Different people, certainly, but "independently acting"? I find it a shade hard to believe at this stage. Moreschi (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm minded to agree with Chillum. I do feel we should be more careful about distinguishing between the appearance of meatpuppetry (which I agree is certainly an issue) and accusing editors of engaging in it. This is something I have discussed with BigDunc in the past, and encouraged him to be careful of that appearance and dissociate himself from Domer. Its actually a wider problem in The Troubles. Editors from either side are unbelievably quick to jump to the defense of a like minded editor, almost irrespective of the context (often with the opening, "I don't condone X's actions but..."). They are also unbelievably quick to criticize an editor that they differ in POV with. It gives the impression of organized factions, when I don't really think that is the case at all (though I could be wrong, of course). Its quite easy to spot those editors who edit in this area that have no real POV in the subject, because they are the only ones willing to defend and criticize editors from both sides, depending only the edit in question (and consequently, they tend to be the target of abuse from all sides!). Its a real bugbear of mine, actually: if editors from both sides were treat their friends by the same standards as they treat those who differ in opinion from them, we would have a lot less of these problems turn into faction disputes. Rockpocket 21:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

From the Hindutva groups to CAMERA to the EE mailing list to the Judaism group, I've seen an awful lot of off-wiki collusion in my time and investigated some of it. If we aren't dealing with organised factions here, I'll be very, very surprised, because all the signs are there, and this little kerfuffle was just another give-away. No doubt someone, somewhere will leak the logs eventually, and we'll all pretend to be surprised, but really, by now, we shouldn't be. Moreschi (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

We clearly have a small group of Irish nationalist editors who operate at or past the expected bounds of civil behavior here. That said - as Chillium and Rockpocket said, there's a huge difference between them stepping up and blindly supporting trolls or low-clue new users who are ideologically aligned with them, and them organizing a campaign to create new socks or meatpuppets offline on a hypothetical fenian-l.

Pressure groups that want to have long term effect adopt wider and lower profile approaches than this, and fly under the radar for longer. If this is a conspiracy, it's a remarkably inept one. There's no real evidence of it, and it strains credulity for me to assume that it's what's really going on.

The behavior of blindly supporting anyone who agrees with you, no matter how problematic their edits are, is in no way constructive behavior here, and as a pattern (which, I agree with) forms a basis for user conduct review and sanction for disruptive conduct. Responsible behavior would be if Dunc, Domer, Sara walked up to new Irish-related editors who are causing problems and made friends with them and helped them learn how Misplaced Pages works, not defending them blindly but working to constructively bring more independent people into the Misplaced Pages community.

What has happened in a number of cases now was not responsible. Failing to acknowledge problems or bad acts by people on your side of a debate does nothing to help Misplaced Pages improve and solve problems.

Moreschi, I know this is frustrating, but here you seem to have assumed bad faith. ABF is drama inducing. You've been around long enough to know that. It didn't help. Please don't do it again. I support Chillium's comments on your talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's inept. I remember when we were forwarded the CAMERA mails. That was so poorly organized we would have had no trouble dealing with it even if the project had successfully got off the ground in secrecy. Forgive my rudeness, but there's a reason these people (from both factions) are editing Misplaced Pages, the encyclopedia anyone can edit. As I state above: we've all seen enough collusion to know the signs by now, and they are screaming in our faces. This account, for instance, if it is not a banned user jumping back in, is a hapless lurker on "fenian-l" who didn't quite realize what he was doing.

This is not ABF (and anyone can apply AGF to Domer and Dunc these days, I don't know). This is rational analysis based on years of experience. Wachet auf, people. Apply a little realism. Moreschi (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

As a point of information, Vintagekits (now indef blocked) was caught recruiting meatpuppets back in the day for the purpose of furthering the Republican agenda (see Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Vintagekits). That was pretty inept too. There was, however, no suggestion Domer or BigDunc were involved. Having significantly interacted with these two editors for a number of years now (perhaps more than any other admins - and I'll include Sarah in this too, since her name has been mentioned in the same context), I simply don't feel that the pay off from this would be sufficient to offset the risk. I know I'm probably not their favorite person because I do have issues with the partisanship in much of their editing, but am also willing to stick my neck out and say that they are simply not the sort of people to engage in that sort of coordinated deceit. I know that sounds naive, and obviously I could be completely misled, but that is my opinion for what its worth. Rockpocket 22:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Moreschi, I understand where you're coming from, but I think you're too close to this one.

I've been around about as long as you have, I've chased down far more than my fair share of persistent abusers and sockpuppeteers, and I think it's obvious that I'm pushing as hard as anyone on trying to improve the civility problem around here.

I have seen enough collusion to know the signs, and stomped on plenty of it in my time. In this particular case - in my opinions - naive blind support for like minded editors explains the behavior seen adequately, without requiring any collusion behind the scenes.

I can't rule out collusion - that's almost impossible to disprove - but I see no reason to assume it at this time.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

"Too close" is perhaps a little off. My direct interaction with Domer and Dunc has been quite limited, and my administrative involvement in this area extends to banning Astrotrain, who was, from memory, someone from the other side of this dispute. I've never edited any of the articles and my views on Irish history, as far as they go, are pretty bland and inoffensive.

The extra factor, I think, is the long, long history of the Domer/Dunc tag-team (or "collaborative effort", if you prefer). They've acted in concert too frequently and too often for the coordination to be worked entirely through the wiki, otherwise, like Icarus, we are flying in the face of common sense. This series of threads is just another example. And I'd be very surprised if this coordination extended to just the two of them: the temptations of bringing in the others would be enormous. Moreschi (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Here we go again... Can someone please explain to this United Kingdom editor that as soon as Irish nationalist orientated editors start talking about a "British editor conspiracy" that said pro Republican editors are warned and blocked for bad faith allegations, but when a Irish Nationalist editor gets upset for being claimed as soliciting comment or making sock edits (with no more evidence than the accusations of British conspiracy get) then the Republican editor gets blocked. For fucking bad fucking language for fucks sake - and nothing about the fucking bad faith casually thrown at them either. This situation reminds me of the Jewish proverb - "When the rock falls upon the jug, it is bad for the jug - but when the jug falls upon the rock it is bad for the jug. It is always bad for the jug!" No wonder I try to keep out of this fucking shambles. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Hmm. Well, there may not be a britishbounders@anti-irish-l list yet, but I'm sure there will be. It's a much more common problem than often assumed, as we really should have learnt by now. Moreschi (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
    • And really, LHVU, your picture of an oppressed Irish minority just doesn't stack up. Remember how long it took to ban VK, for all his meatpuppetry, sockpuppetry, edit-warring, mentorships, personal attacks, dozens of blocks, you name it? For how long have Domer and Dunc got away with flagrant tag-teaming? Or how Sarah777 is allowed to get away with not-so-subtle attacks like this and nobody bats an eyelid? Moreschi (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I take your wider point, LHVU, but to be fair, I don't recall anyone, Irish nationalist or otherwise, having being blocked for talking about a "British editor conspiracy". Rockpocket 23:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. If an Irish editor takes me to task for doing something on the basis that I'm British, I simply (and politely) tell them that they're talking bollocks. Usually works, as long it is clear that you have a history of being fair in this area, which I hope I do. Most Irish editors are pretty good with things as long as you have that. Clearly there's nothing we can do about the likes of Sarah777 in these cases, but then no-one takes her claims of Anglo-admin bias seriously anyway. I have had no problems with dealing with the other regular Irish editors apart from the occasional spat (eh, Domer?). Black Kite 00:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Move to archive. Same old rubbish from the same tag team of nationalist editors who the community is generally fed up with it, and with a the same few people defending it. Nja 07:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yay, contributions to less than half a dozen noticeboard discussions involving Irish article related issues and now I am one of the "same few people" defending it? I note also that "the community" is "generally fed up" with it, so I guess there is little point in discussing this with the usual closed minds too often found around here. That makes me sad to be proud to be British. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Imperialists, ex- or not, always find it easiest to dismiss the concerns of the ruled, formerly- or not, and not take them seriously. The more difficult path is to take to heart the traditional Native American maxim, "Don't judge a person until you've walked a mile in his moccasins". For example, try reading Invisible Man, or at least the plot summary in the article. A dismissive attitude is always more likely to increase, rather than assuage, the defensive attitude of those felt put upon. And the downward cycle continues. Sswonk (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Nationalisms of any flavor are cancerous when unchecked on a project like this. We must allow people to challenge our systemic biases without the kind of disruption it seems to be causing. We must stretch our assumption of good faith to the limit when working with editors from other POVs. But we must also be ruthless in showing those who are chronically unable to follow our norms the door. It's a tricky balance and we don't always get it right. --John (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Persistent socking at articles linked to the Climate Research Unit hack (and climate articles in general)

The climate articles (in the widest sense) have been the target of several sock masters, the most persistent of which is User: Scibaby (see Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Scibaby) with over 460 confirmed socks (Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Scibaby) and 130 suspected ones (Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Scibaby) so far. Currently, there are several new Scibaby socks per week. Recent investigations at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby/Archive have uncovered two more sock masters (User: Flegelpuss and User: Tinpac, also see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Tinpac/Archive) "working" in this area. After the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident hit the blogs, we now have a steady stream of "new" editors, many of which show surprising knowledge of Wikilingo, policies, acronyms, and syntax, and nearly all of which have similar positions. WP:SPI and Checkusers have been valuable, but seem to be overloaded, and by the time a result comes back much of the damage has been done. Also, as long as it is more work to prepare an SPI report than to create a fresh sock, we are burning out well-meaning contributors - both via WP:BURO and by repeatedly frustrating their good faith attempts at communication with socks that have anything but. A few more eyes would be welcome, as would be suggestions. Possible measures could include a fast-lane to a dedicated CU, or semi-protection for all the articles and talk pages for a few weeks to at least force the sockmasters to at least age their socks. None of this is perfect, though. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps spreading a false message on the blogospere about another incident with far more serious accusations and then creating a wiki article about that will divert the traffic for a while. We can let the socks edit such an article as much as they please. So, William please post something really damning on RealClimate :) Count Iblis (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The socking is getting out of hand. Can we please have a CU on Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't Raul working on this? This is supposed to be his full time Wiki-job. Count Iblis (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

If Raul is an American, he's probably enjoying a holiday off-wiki. — The Hand That Feeds You: 01:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it has anything to do with Thanksgiving. Please see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Raul654. Mathsci (talk) 13:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Sock attacking me and Mick

This is the third time in less than a week that I've been called a "cunt" on Misplaced Pages for my views on the game between France and Ireland. . This is not just a common vandal, it's someone who has been watching the debate and know that I've had an argument with MickMacNee, as the user name, created for this sole purpose, is Mick's name backwards and the talk page is copy-pasted from Mick's. I don't suspect Mick for a minute, but this vandal is trying to attack Mick at least as much as me by trying to make it seem as if Mick are behind this. I expect an indefinite block, of course, but would also suggest a check on this one-purpose sock to the user behind it could be blocked.Jeppiz (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked EeNcaMciM, rolled back his edit to your page, and deleted his fake user talk page under WP:CSD#G3. Sorry about the experience. 19:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I've made Mick aware about this discussion to get his two cents. Oh, and I also made the fake user aware, before I knew he'd been blocked...GiantSnowman 19:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

He copied my talk page? I feel violated. MickMacNee (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It's the price of fame - being mocked by trolls that have all the subtlety of The Three Stooges. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Re User:EeNcaMciM - it's clearly a poor attempt to spell MickMacNee backwards. I feel that this username is not completely in accordance with WP:U. Anyone else with similar thoughts? Mjroots (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

*knuck* *knuck* *knuck*  22:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete the username, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Just be careful not to delete it from right to left, or you'll zap the wrong user. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

He he he. GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to suggest to trolls in the future not to target opponents in a dispute? It just might make them friends. (Or maybe we ought to encourage this?) -- llywrch (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Steel2009

This editor has made a series (of the same) bizarre edits to the Battle of Kursk page. Despite the illogical revisions, which have been reverted by two editors, he proceeds without common sense to edit war. I am asking for someone to have a word, or necessary, prevent him from editing this page. Dapi89 (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified the user about this discussion. GiantSnowman 22:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Giant, thanks for leaving the message on my page. The issue is rather straightforward. My opinion is that the Battle of Kursk was primarily a land battle, and is famous for tank battles etc. Hence the land battles should be mentioned first. The opposite opinion is that the air battles chronologically came prior to the land battles and hence should be mentioned earlier. As for the user Dapi, I have been abused by him enough times, and hence am starting the thread below to complain about his lack of civility. Steel2009 (talk) 05:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

And there you have it, My opinion. This individual fails to understand the most basic premise of wikipedia. You have been reverted by two editors. Cease and desist. Dapi89 (talk) 14:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Steel2009, this won't need admin attention if you stop reverting and discuss your opinion on the talk page of the article. Read WP:BRD for more informaion. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah sure, I can discuss on the discussion page. I did leave short messages with the edits but if discussion page is better, I can do that. Steel2009 (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

User: Lapsed Pacifist

Requesting a closer look at actions of user Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

This user is the subject to 2 separate RfARs:-

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist which resulted in them being banned from editing articles related to the conflict in Northern Ireland
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed Pacifist 2 which resulted in them being banned from editing article relating to Corrib gas controversy and placed them under an editing restriction of 1RR and required to discuss and content reversions as well as encouragint them to use edit summaries.

These RfARs found that Lapsed Pacifist had engaged in habitual POV editing, edit warring and other negative behaviour.

LP is currently the subject of a RfE.

Since their last RfAR, LPs behaviour has carried on barely modified.

• They have failed to make correct use of edit summaries eg.here. and have continued to make reversions without discussion.
• They have been petitioning on talk pages of related articles for introduction of material , . In this example they have named a Garda Siochana Superintendent as being subject of a disciplinary procedure on a talk page, despite them not being named in the ref supplied. This was advocating a breach of WP:V and was OR.
• The Irish section of this diff contains edits which push the bounds of what is acceptable under the 1st RfAR as does this edit.
• During recent WP processes, LP has failed to engage in any meaningful way, not making a statement at the RfAR or RfE or responding to communication attempts by admins.
• LP returned from their first block this week to create this article: Afri (organisation). On the face of it, not a problem but a quick google search reveals they are involved in campaigning against the Corrib gas project. Its even on the front page of their website to which a link is provided. IMO it was created in the hope another editor will come along in the future to add details on the Corrib gas controversy and is in effect soapboxing by proxy. Next up LP picks up where they left off in this edit war. This edit while not in breach of any remedies, is pushing the boundaries again and considering they have been topic banned for conducting a campaign against a gas pipeline, its certainly against the spirit of the remedy. Its incredible that all this has come on the day they have returned from a block.
• The block log shows they have been sanctioned from violation of terms of remedies multiple times and twice in the last week. inc. an unambiguous violation of their topic ban here. Despite this they have failed to recognise it as a problem.

Lapsed Pacifist has repeatedly tried to game the system. The actions of this user aren't those of someone trying to reform their behaviour and it seems the the remedies from RfAR are not working in modifying LPs approach. Instead LP is gaming the injunctions and continuing to push the limits of what they can get away with. 2 blocks in 3 days and a number of other edits that push the limits of acceptability show a continued pattern of disruptive behaviour. They continue to push the boundaries of what is acceptable and indeed past it in not discussing reversions as well as continuing to seek the razors edge of acceptability.

In the interests of conciseness, I have kept this here as short as possible but a closer look at Lapsed Pacifists activity will show a long history of troublesome behaviour. Examples here do not even scratch the surface. Just their talk page alone shows poor interaction with the community.

I realise that LP and I have a bad history but this is aside to their problematic behaviour. I'm requesting a review of the user as suggested by another admin here. GainLine ♠ _♥ 21:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I have made Lapsed Pacifist aware of this discussion. GiantSnowman 21:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this the correct place for this? The user is still blocked, so will be unable to comment here, block expires in a couple of hours, wouldn't a RFC User be a better place? Off2riorob (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

probably the ideal place is to continue the discussion at WP:Arbitration Enforcement, where it seems to have been essentially ignored. Since the discussion seems to be here instead, I note Arb Com originally said: "If Lapsed Pacifist edits any article from which he is banned, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year. " The current short block is for the sixth violation. Given the information there, and here, I suggest we follow their advice & extend the block to one year ard log in at AE. . If this is regarded as too much of a jump from the previous ones, then 6 months. I would agree to pausing this, though, until LP can comment--which will be tomorrow.. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Procedurally speaking, I think that RFC/U is the correct place for this manner of discussion. Basket of Puppies 00:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

How so? If this is a violation of the topic ban, then WP:AE and either a block (a long one as DGG recommends) or not. RFC/U sounds like a step backwards for someone twice banned by arbitration. Wknight94 00:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the topic bans must certainly be dealt with by the appropriate board of the ArbCom. However, a more broad community review should be filed at RFC/U. That's what I meant. Sorry for being so vague! Basket of Puppies 01:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I KNOW I have heard this guy's name before. Idk where. I do know that wp:banned users doesn't have him listed, but I could have sworn that is where I learned is name. Anyway, yeah, if he is violating his restrictions he ought to be banned. --Rockstone (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

In fairness to Lapsed Pacifist two of the examples quoted above by Gainline couldnt be seen as connected to the Corrib Gas Controversy. I first came across Afri when they were erecting plaques on Famine graveyards in Ireland.{There's one in Kells eside the Wellington?)lighthouse) monument Their primary interest is raising awareness in Ireland in the third world hunger. They are a small advocacy NGO, any involvement in Corrib isonly one of their anti MNC activities. It is not their reason for existance, The Centre for Pulic Inquiry issued many reports and was attacked by the Irish Government not about Corrib but because they were initiating a report into Dublin Port and Docks which would have further impigned the then Govt. leader/(OR). He didnt edit anything to with the Corrib reports. Just my 2 cents.Cathar11 (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Cathar. What are being described as violations are not as clear cut as some are making out. A discussion on this has been initiated on my talk page. Certainly, more clarity is necessary here. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

From Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed Pacifist 2:-

• Remedy 3.1) Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs) is topic banned, indefinitely, from articles related to the Corrib gas project, broadly defined.

Centre for Public Inquiry is part of the Corrib gas controversy category.

• Remedy 5) Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs) is subject to an editing restriction for one year, namely is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should Lapsed Pacifist exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

There have been a number of reversions without any discussion, in fact there was only one input into a talk change that vaguely resembled a discussion before being blocked including a direct request from an admin to explain a reversion being ignored.

How much more clarity is necessary? Perhaps some constructive input into the RfE or here would help. GainLine ♠ _♥ 17:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist is already "banned indefinitely from articles which relate to the conflict in Northern Ireland." On 16:45, 24 November 2009 Lapsed Pacifist (talk | contribs) m (4,250 bytes) (moved List of terrorist incidents, 1992 to List of non-state terrorist incidents, 1992. This move was made with no discussion, but the article contains two IRA bombings in its list. This is a breach of the Northern Ireland topic ban. Snappy (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

restored after checking with DGG GainLine ♠ _♥ 22:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I was asked if it would be a good idea, and suggested doing it this way to keep the discussion together. If anyone has a preference how to do it otherwise, just change it.

As for the point under discussion, I think that repeated change was a clear violation of the restrictions--and not very sensible in addition, for it was one page out of the entire group of such pages, and the only practical way to deal with something like this consistently is to discuss it in a general discussion. (I have no personal opinion about the merits of the change itself.) I regretfully conclude that Lp is unable by himself to keep away from the topic. Yet, the small amount of other editing that has been done in the last few days is not the least problematic. It was earlier suggested that a one year block would be appropriate, with 6 months as an alternate. I am prepared personally to do either one, or to endorse whatever other time someone might suggest. But I think we need to do something now. DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Something certainly needs to be done. The main problem with LP is that they have a history of consistently failing to recognise or even listen to others about problematic behaviour. This is evidenced in failing to respond to COI, edit warring concerns, failing to see why editing an article they are topic banned from are problems etc. A more recent development has been lack of engagement with any problem solving processes and admins. GainLine ♠ _♥ 12:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the first time I've recommended a ban for Lapsed Pacifist. I hate to say "I told you so", but yeah. A one year ban would probably be the best option in this case, as they have failed to heed and abide by their sanctions. Steven Zhang 17:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I endorse either of DGG's suggestions. Just let's make sure this doesn't fall off the radar again? :) SirFozzie (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the thrust of my argument has gotten across. I've often edited parts of articles that contained references to the Ulster conflict in other parts of the article. That ban has been in place for almost four years, and this has never been an issue until now. Why on earth would I consider those edits violations of the ban when nothing was said for years? Don't you think you're moving the goalposts on me? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

List of male performers in gay porn films - WP:OWN issues

I may as well start this here, since it will undoutedly end up here anyway (see the completely unnecessary ). I have attempted to make what should be a fairly straightforward change to move an image from the lede section of List of male performers in gay porn films to a more suitable location, as documented in this talk page discussion and in the article's history. I believe Benjiboi is engaging in ownership of the article to prevent me from making any changes.

Allow me to point out that as well as myself, two editors also moved the previous image out of the lede section (, , & ), two editors have agreed that the image is not appropriate in the lede section ( & ), and now another editor has also changed the caption of the image presently in the lede section (). In each case, Benjiboi has simply reverted to his previous version. Any attempt by me to discuss the issue is met with speculation on my motivation, and comments directed at me personally, but little or no attention paid to the actual arguments made.

Since Benjiboi has now stated that the image currently in the lede section is only a "stop gap image" I have requested that they remove it so that we can avoid a completely unnecessary discussion about the caption of this temporary image, but they have refused even this. There are serious WP:BLP issues yet to be addressed with this article, but if it is impossible to make even a small change, it is unlikely that the necessary changes can be made to stick. Some admin help and more eyes would be appreciated. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Benjiboi (talk · contribs) about this discussion. GiantSnowman 01:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. As I've stated rather unambiguously a few times now I feel Delicious carbuncle is simply WP:Wikihounding me as I have generally stood up for David Shankbone, one of Misplaced Pages's most prolific image uploaders, in the near past when Delicious carbuncle seemed to be Wikihounding them, which seems to continue against both of us. And the case where I think I first saw this all in play was on Men of Israel, which Shankbone wrote concerning Michael Lucas' latest film. The image Delicious carbuncle wanted removed, or at least moved? The Lucas one from the lede by Shankbone noting he was likely the most accomplished of those we have images available.

The most worthy comment I can pull from their interpretation of events is they feel there is any BLP violation on the list. If there is this seems the absolutely most counter-productive way to mention it. That should have been the very first issue to bring up, IMHO. Instead they suggested that no images should be on list articles and certainly in the lede, then when that was proven as bogus, they insisted that an image of one person on a list of notable people in the lede was in some way wrong that too was undermined by the fact that many featured lists on people do the very same thing, undeterred they keep arguing. I'm awaiting a valid reason besides WP:Idon'tlikeit to remove the stop gap image - which coincidentally is also about Lucas and by Shankbone - and have waiting from NE2 how WP:Undue can be applied to the image discussion whether one actor or one producer. It fails the WP:Duck of WP:Idon'tlikeit. In fact on the stop gap image no one was even cited in the image nor was it explained whose movie it was, so now these two are tag-teaming to remove high-quality images.

As for WP:Ownership issues I can certainly see why I'm accused of such but a quick look at that article before I started clean-up five months ago shows why. It's a night and day difference. I have added, I believe, every on of the 200+ references while maintaining the incoming content to weed out vandalism and source anything usable. Meanwhile Delicious carbuncle seems only interested in deleting gay porn content, images and articles. They are certainly welcome to nom articles for deletion and certainly welcome to question images on articles. But when someone gives you an answer, a reasonable and policy-based one no less, and continues to try to understand your concerns. Then just maybe they have a valid point that it's a style issue that is well supported by the Featured List folks who do this work on a regular basis.

I still feel harassed by Delicious carbuncle and even if they are well within the letter of the policy they certainly seem to be tip-toeing past the spirit of it. Frankly I feel they should likely walk away from the article and focus on some of the 2-3 million other articles that need attention and vigilance, likewise they should probably stay clear of User:David Shankbone who does not need Delicious carbuncle's guidance or suggestions. Delicious carbuncle, who apparently is Carbunkle on Misplaced Pages Review, also insinuated in a past ANI thread how it was disruptive all the anon's that were harassing me and suggested if I accepted their proposed ban likely the harassment would disappear. And here we are and still they are the only one who seems to be grinding and making editing here quite unpleasant for me. I don't care why they are doing this, I wish Delicious carbuncle would leave me alone. -- Banjeboi 02:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi, I would very much appreciate it if you could stop attempting to further sully my reputation here by trying to link me to Misplaced Pages Review and tarring me with the same brush as is generally used for it. Please see my request to David Shankbone on the same issue. I am not especially interested in deleting gay porn articles or images except where they are in violation of WP policy and guidelines. I recently nominated two or three BLPs of gay porn performers for AfD, because they had been completely unsourced for many months if not years. Since changes were made to WP:PORNBIO criteria, dozens of BLPs of female porn performers have been deleted, but the gay male porn performer BLPs are long overdue for a clean-up. Enforcing WP policy is not homophobia or prudishness, despite how it might seem to you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I never mentioned homophobia so your motive and reputation are yours to win or lose. And no the image in question did not violate any policy or guideline so your concern here is truly remarkable. What you do offsite generally holds no interest except where it makes editing here stressful. Likewise what you d elsewhere has little interest except when it negatively impacts my editing. -- Banjeboi 04:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Generally this is not an ANI issue, use WP:DR folks. Nja 07:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't entirely disagree, but as i said, it will undoubtedly just end up here anyway. Please see the thread I have started about my BLP concerns: Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#List of male performers in gay porn films - the quintessential BLP nightmare. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You devotion to airing what again seems your keen interest in me is noted. I do applaud your addressing your stated BLP concern although it's unfortunate you again chose an admin board when teh article talkpage likely would have been sufficient. No worries, the alarmist BLP flag-waving has resulted in yet another AfD and hopefully the community will make the best decision again. -- Banjeboi 05:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that there are some serious WP:OWN issues here, as is evidenced by the posts by Benjiboi at the deletion discussion in reply to anyone who dares to argue for a delete. I am particulary concerned about the accussation that the deletion nomination is reactionary . Pantherskin (talk) 09:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Anietor blacklisted from Twinkle

A notification that I have blacklisted Anietor from Twinkle for repeatedly rolling back good faith edits as vandalism.

This problem first came to my attention after PMAnderson made an edit to Catholic Church that Anietor didn't like, and Anietor responded with a Twinkle vandalism warning.. I reacted to that with a warning to Anietor that I would blacklist him/her from Twinkle if I saw them abuse it again.

Yesterday Anietor used Twinkle to roll back as vandalism another good faith edit to the same article, and again left a vandalism warning.

I think it is fairly clear that Twinkle is being misused here, and to further an edit war.

The reason I am dropping a notification here is because the last person I blacklisted from Twinkle has been carrying on like a pork chop ever since, and I figured this time around I would lodge a clear and rational explanation before the accusations of admin abuse start flying.

Hesperian 01:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Anietor (talk · contribs) has been notified by about this discussion by Hesperian (talk · contribs). GiantSnowman 02:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how anyone could possibly look at those diffs and think they were vandalism-- meaning disruptive to the Encyclopedia? No. Really, no. I'd say give the editor a change to explain this first. Actually, see what's happened to the "vandal" since; Are they still editing and things were somewhat cleared up, or did they disappear in anger/fear? That'd be one way to judge in an IAR (but still logical) way... seeing how something directly impacted the community. One mistake, possible, but the second one I'm most curious about... and even with those explanations/excused there's the whole matter of a warning being ignored and no effort made to request an opinion from the "vandal". I've accidentally hit vandalism rollback a few times instead of AGF... it had me rushing to the article to rollback my post, remove it from the user's talk page and write a personal apology in its place. That might be a very extreme reaction, but it cuts down misunderstandings a lot... unfortunately this looks like a case where a course of action like mine would have been perfect, and I hope the user hasn't been intimidated at all or scared away. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you don't think changing "help families" to "help and/or abuse families" is disruptive? Bringing up the recent revelations about the Church in Ireland may well be appropriate elsewhere in the article, but as it was done, it was very inappropriate, and I don't find the vandalism warning excessive.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like a good faith (though flawed) attempt to improve the encyclopedia. Certainly there are no grounds to declare it a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages", which is what vandalism is. Hesperian 06:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

That was clearly vandalism and I can't in good faith see how it could be interperted any other way. Jtrainor (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Ian Spackman's edit was clearly intended to be disruptive to make a point - he even said in his edit summary that he expected it to be reverted.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not my place to judge what to call what the edits to say "vandal or no", I was stating that I generally didn't see them to be appropriate... It wasn't a social commentary; it was sad attempt at satire. Mea culpa. The rest sounds right. My instinct was inappropriate edits and it might look that way to many, there are multiple interpretations and I'd like to hear from the editor in question out of fairness. 'Tis all. ...Sorry for looking oddly ignorant. Just... wanted more information in the matter. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 13:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we get back on the subject, please. I do not think Anietor should be blacklisted from Twinkle based on this evidence, and the fact that I would have reverted that edit as vandalism, no question, and I don't believe I'm known anywhere as a mad deletionist. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed Anietor from the blacklist for now, since there is a pretty clear, though not overwhelming, opinion here that the edits could be considered in good faith to be vandalism.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. As Datheisen points out, without a dialogue with the editor one cannot know for certain, but I think Anietor came to a reasonable conclusion as to the nature of the edit. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:VAND:

• "Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism."
• "For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism"
• "Avoid the word "vandal". In particular, this word should not be used to refer to any contributor in good standing, or to any edits that might have been made in good faith. This is because if the edits were made in good faith, they are not vandalism. Instead of calling the person who made the edits a "vandal", discuss your concerns with them."

The edits in question were detrimental to the article, but were categorically not vandalism by any stretch of the imagination - or more importantly, by any stretch of the policy. It is disappointing and worrying that the editors above have such a fundamental misunderstanding of a widely-known and widely-understood policy, but especially so of User:SarekOfVulcan as an administrator. This may be a more common misconception than realised, but it is still a misconception.

Repeatedly and inappropriately templating regular users' good-faith edits is not good practise, whether or not Twinkle is used. The blacklisting from Twinkle is neither necessary nor sufficient to stop this happening again in the future, so the reversal is not a problem - but the templating really ought not happen again. Knepflerle (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note that Anietor only templated Ian Spackman once, not repeatedly. And I still stand by my opinion that changing "help families" to "help and/or abuse families" is not "controversial personal opinion", but rather an attempt to disrupt the article. However, your point that I should re-read WP:VAND carefully is taken.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The "repeatedly" referred to different editors:

Attacks on my user and talk page

I seem to have picked up a wikistalker. :-) Someone who dislikes me has been vandalizing my talk and user pages. Today I logged in to find this . Yesterday, I had this on my talk page. Oddly enough, this post appeared quite some time after discussion at that forum had ended, and not long after the vandalism to my talk page. It's actually kind of funny. But it would be nice if someone could investigate as I'm quite sure this is not some random person who jetted in from Slashdot and "isn't familiar", but is probably someone who hates me for my contributions to the WP:NEWT stuff. The comment on my userpage about "100% defense" seems familiar somehow. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 07:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I see... <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

One IP was blocked for 31 hours for the personal attack. If attacks persist, report it back here. Fences&Windows 01:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The wikistalking continues with one of the IPs now threatening that if my "real name is leaked it could become a significant issue for me". Again, I'm quite sure this is not a random IP but a regular Misplaced Pages editor. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 07:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The threat of outing should be taken very seriously as an attempt to intimidate an editor. I suggest a CU be performed immediately to ascertain which, if any, registered user(s) are involved and then block them. This is serious business. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I definitely appreciate your taking this seriously. I did file a request at SPI; if someone wants to run a quick checkuser we should make a note there as well so folks don't step on each-others toes. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 07:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. I have to run now. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

To whomever responds: here is the link to the SPI report if needed . <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Untangling multiple redirs around Visalia and related articles

This user is weaving a tangled web of multiple redirects and moves around Visalia, Visalia (disambiguation) and related articles. I can't see enough of the histories to sort it out, would appreciate assistance. Thanks, Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 07:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yikes. I thought this was going to be a case of bulk redirect or category toying this is a mess. Just massive numbers of small edits continuously is one thing, but moving/redirecting and working heavily on very superfluous child articles is another. Sock case! Or at least a need to consolidate accounts. Reported user sure knew how to handle things from day 1 of the account 2 weeks ago. For all intents and purposes this "started" at this edit on 11 September 2009; when below users made all edits, edit summaries disappeared and talk pages were never touched. Keep in mind these are entirely unproven tidbits put together with logic and subjective evidence available like behavior/edit patterns. SPI deals with this, but giving it here since I have no idea if this is 100% worth looking into or not. Anyway, this group as a whole covers literally 98% of all edits on the main article in the last 500 edits, and most all edits on child articles. (Links are to contribution pages; most don't have a user page or a talk page...)

Extremely suspicious:

• User:Visaliaguy , established contributors to related articles for some time. Has had zero disagreements with or changed edits from VISALIAso559 nor used user or article talk pages for anything. Lead candidate for parent account.
• User:VISALIAso559 , created 2 weeks ago and was doing larger-scale full-blown Misplaced Pages edits in less than an hour after creation on the exact same things all the other users on this list were doing.
• User:Parisian415 ,
• 71.195.164.51 ,
• 67.182.122.147 ,
• 204.155.47.45 , with the 3 IPs Geolocating there. Not true evidence but still incriminating.

Only a tiny bit less suspicious than the above, but still way up there

• User:Gemini818 , and
• User:Ilovevtown , seemed to perform the editing tasks that WISALIAso559 does now, ever since that account was created. The two ceased edits around 8-9 November never to return, but typical "work" replaced with and done on the new account.

Common calling card of all the named accounts seems to be copyvio image problems, uploaded repeatedly. This second set far less, however, suggesting at least some duality in identities. Still, zero chat with, disagreements or edits against any of the others listed here.

Very unlikely compared to the rest, compared via Geolocate / behavior / edit histories around Misplaced Pages:

• 173.14.201.214
• 67.114.8.56
• 96.10.243.132
• 71.133.11.78
• There are other editors with perhaps 1 or 2 entries, but seem to be related to random vandalism. This is mainly on 7-8 October and didn't actually change the article content at all.
• User:Ohnoitsjamie is noted as being quite diligent in RCP work in what looked to be a rather odd situation a few days ago.

Duck Test: Fails. Common Misplaced Pages logic says that it would be impossible for 10 'different' users to get along and never need to communicate on any matters whatsoever either personally or relating to an article. Not just one article, but the whole set of them worked on interdependently. At the very least, a few should have objected to the massive canvassing.

I also see... 5-6 pages that'll probably end up in AfD over notability and long-established precedent on Misplaced Pages municipality articles, and one category doing the same. A few article examples would be Divisadero, Visalia and Encina Street. Misplaced Pages is not a fast food shop directory for anywhere to sit down for a burger at the mall, and not the white pages directory for posh neighborhoods in your city, contrary to what the articles created under the city would lead your to believe. Actually, I'd love to take up a discussion on how Hot dog on a stick in the mall is notable. However it's worth noting that Visalia Mall sneaks in for notability and survived an AfD a year ago. The fast food places? Not so much notable. Good grief. Um. So yea, there's my research(?). This should be fun to clean up. Plenty of the content added is quite fine from the "gang" but yea, a lot of entirely unnecessary stuff. It appears that PRODs were put in some of the articles I'm scratching my head over, but were just blanked without explanation or contact to the placing editor despite these being experienced editors working on the articles. Lastly, there's the whole issue of the inherent POV push from users openly willing to take usernames showing their relation to their article of choice. Right! Opinions? And is there any way to write up this stuff so that doesn't take a few hours? ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC) -- Edits: ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You'll want to file at WP:SPI; a quick look shows intense but obvious socking. --jpgordon 16:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Aha! Thank you. I actually feel better that it wasn't all in vain. I started that all as comparison between the two usernames mentioned and for an hour straight kept looking backwards and realizing how ridiculous it was. Really, it looks like it could have started in 2006 but hardly matters now. To original poster-- feel free to use my info to post at SPI (it would mostly be copy-paste I think), or if you're not around now I'll have at it later today when I have some more time. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 17:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Original poster replies: Many thanks Datheisen. This one gave me a headache just trying to understand what had been done. I've never posted to SPI and I'm sure I'd screw it up, if you would be so kind I'll watch and learn. Regards, Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 23:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Now posted at SPI, as Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Visaliaguy. Marked above as resolved, though pending results of that there's probably article cleanup in bulk to work on. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

IP vandalism on Ngo Dinh Diem presidential visit to Australia

Several IPs replaced content on this article with "Nobody cares about Ausfailia". Example here. They are:

• 211.30.137.7
• 66.254.201.33 (blocked)
• 24.1.91.41
• 76.107.97.198
• 68.99.180.40
• 70.187.134.226
• 76.107.97.198
• 24.98.14.167
• 64.113.250.159
• 71.137.158.57 (blocked)
• 204.191.141.104 (blocked)
• 91.186.75.70
• 75.143.65.80

See page history for the article.

24.167.247.252 removed some content instead of putting "Nobody cares about Ausfailia".

Those IPs kept vandalizing the page. What now?  Merlion  444  08:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Warn 'em and report 'em to WP:AIV? Crafty (talk) 09:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It's today's featured article, so I guess it warrants mention here on ANI. The article should be semi-protected, in my opinion.--Atlan (talk) 09:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hurry!!! Semi-protect it!!! I agree with you, Atlan.  Merlion  444  09:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 3 days due to elevated vandalism, especially in the last 2 hrs. Feel free to change the protection level. Materialscientist (talk) 09:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Then it was unprotected, and I've just protected it again for a day. I've watchlisted too, just in case. GedUK  11:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There's really multiple issues surrounding this user that I really couldn't find a specific place to put this in. But anyways Gintong has a long problem of incivility and has been sufficiently warned for inflammatory edit summaries and overall poor behavior. See his/her talk page (this is the one reasons why I didn't go to Wikiquette alerts because he/she has already been warned and I believe some administrator action is needed). His/her most recent edit summaries like this and this are some examples of the edit summaries and these cases treating Misplaced Pages from what it seems like a battleground, taking ownership of articles, and not assuming good faith. Other summaries can be found through their contributions list. This kind of behavior can drive editors away from the project. He's/she's is being quite a disruptive editor.

Not only this, but he/she is also admittedly broke consensus, see the very first sentence. He/she keeps reverting to his/her preferred version and he/she seems intent on doing so per ownership of articles and personal feelings. However, when multiple different editors reverted him, he then suddenly claims that he has achieved consensus through these links claim #1 and claim #2. None of these claims support that a consensus was reached to keep their version. I know this is a dispute but, again there are multiple issues.

He/she is also one revert away from 3RR on the article Philippines.

• revert #1
• revert #2
• revert #3

Elockid ·_Contribs) 11:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Confirmation that Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw has been notified. Elockid ·_Contribs) 11:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

That first revert was on the 25th, so it doesn't count for a WP:3RR violation. There is a clear problem with his claiming consensus and not giving evidence of where this was obtained, though, so I'll keep an eye on it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops, messed up on my dates. I'm a date behind. Elockid ·_Contribs) 15:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

User Syjytg requesting unblock

Syjytg (talk · contribs), indef blocked in March 2009, has requested a review of his block at my talk page. You may recall him as a tendentious editor who spent most of his time focusing on having his edits remain on pages, with little regard for consensus, policy, or just plain collegiality. I created this thread on his talk page, outlining a tendentious editing pattern. Later, after being blocked for edit warring, he pointed fingers at others and rarely took responsibility for his own actions. He then started socking, for which he was indef blocked. There's more; a review of his talk page will show others' points of view along the way, not just mine.

Syjytg has decided he wants to return to editing. I see no evidence of socking, and I do see evidence of reading policies associated with returning, including the "standard offer" and the idea that an admin can open a thread here at AN/I to discuss unblocking the user. He requested (as an IP) that I do so, and I requested he place a statement on his talk page, under his own account, acknowledging past behavior. He has done so, and while I can't say I think it's an overwhelming attempt, I do feel there is some sincerity behind it. I also note that he does not appear to have resorted to continued socking in the intervening months, which is a positive sign (if true).

I think any unblock must include a tight watch, which I would participate in but not want to take full responsibility for. Other thoughts solicited.  Frank  |  talk  15:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

....Was posting on your talkpage as an IP not itself socking? Just asking. Or do you feel it was justified as a way of attracting someone's attention. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it was a reasonable means of opening communication on the subject. He apparently wanted to contact an admin first, for the purpose of opening this thread.  Frank  |  talk  16:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

74.73.120.243

I'm not sure this is the right place for this, but I'm pretty sure it's inactionable at AIV but I don't know what to make of it myself. This IP suddenly turned up out of the blue and vandalised my talk page (adding some link to random sections). The IP has made no other edits before or since, but I find it difficult to believe that, if someone were going to vandalise a page, they would, of all pages pick that one. Can anybody shed any light on this? HJMitchell You rang? 15:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed odd that a random visitor would hop in, do what's not terribly serious vandalism and just disappear. The web address inserted is far from "typical" vandalism, so it almost makes me think it was deliberately meant for you as a joke, or was a total fluke. It does happen sometimes. Unfortunately, I think you're going to have to write this off as strange/inexplicable unless it happens again. You could try to come up with a list of persons you'd care to ask about it offline if you want to see where the IP address is from, but that's the only info available. I don't see any edit warring or reverts of any sort in your edit history the past many days so that makes it all the more strange since drive-by retaliation vandalism is a common type. As a fellow rollbacker who fears little stuff like this even maybe sliding into a mess for unknown reasons, I understand your concern, but I'm not sure what more can be done here. As for your question, AN/I is where "most" stuff winds up... AIV is really only intended for articles and things in the mainspace I believe. There's WP:WQA but the "feel" it is meant for starting-class dispute resolution and not a need to have something sorted out ASAP to stop it from continuing or becoming worse. Could also request semi-protection of your userspace if it comes up again, which would keep the IP user at bay if you get the same visitor. Best of luck! ♪ daTheisen(talk) 17:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't belong at either WQA or here. Step 1 whenever faced with something "odd" (which is what this is) is to try and discuss it with the other editor. A template is not a discussion. If it was a random drive-by, or a one-off incident, discussion won't continue, nor will the issues. If the attempt to discuss becomes heated, then it's time for WQA. If the edits escalate to actual vandalism/wikistalking, then ANI is the place to come, coupled with possible page protection. It's possible that it's simply someone who forgot to login with whom you've had an incident - that will become obvious soon enough usually. Let's not forget that direct communication always comes first. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:Everyme

Self-admitted in this edit summary: . Less than helpful "contributions" so far, so perhaps someone wants to issue a block.--Atlan (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Some context need to connect those IP edits to an account. Fences&Windows 01:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

F&W--if you look at the edit summary, "Dorftrottel" is the previous name of banned User:Everyme.GJC 02:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, what Gladys said. I have no reason to believe the IP is making that up. Anyway, I don't think this situation requires immediate action, but if no action is taken at all, I do wonder what the point is of keeping Everyme blocked.--Atlan (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing at Crucifixion

Please see Talk:Crucifixion#Explanation for this situation. A little more than 24 hours ago, a large number of IP editors suddenly began section-blanking Crucifixion#In anime, which, previously, had been stable for quite some time. The vandalism was quickly reverted, and the page has been semi-protected, which has gotten the situation under control for now. However, the talk page has now been inundated with comments calling for deleting the material, mostly (though not entirely) in incivil terms. It has turned out that these editors have come due to an off-site posting calling for meatpuppetry at a link I have provided on the talk page, at the link above. When you follow that link to the talk page, you will see that I have asked editors to stop canvassing and to use RfC or similar mechanisms instead. I am not requesting sanctions against anyone at this time, and I hope that sanctions will not be needed. However, I think it is prudent for me to put this notice here now, even if no formal action is taken right away, so that more eyes than mine can be on the situation. I hope you do not mind that I have reported it now. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

A couple of them have a point and the dialogue is worth continuing regardless of why it started. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I actually agree, just that the discussion needs to get under control first. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

And it still does need to get under control, judging by what just showed up. :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I thank Elen for going to the talk and making a helpful effort to get it back on track. An RfC has been opened, which I hope will eventually bring fresh eyes and some constructive talk. However, as of this time, all that is happening is continuing trolling and personal attacks against me by people who have apparently come via canvassing. I'm going to ignore the trolling, but I'd appreciate some continued administrative observation. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This is somewhat tricky. Something Awful is a website owned by Richard "Lowtax" Kyanka that depends on stirring up controversy for ad revenue, and often unfortunately they go way too far. A few years ago the SA forum members, referred to by themselves as "goons", blitzkreiged a mentally ill woman who had suffered 14 miscarriages, almost driving her to suicide by bombarding her with rude, cruel comments because she had a website they deemed inappropriate. (They even used the - there's no other word for it - sociopathic excuse that this type of immense cruelty would "snap her out" of her mental illness and show her how wrong she was to grieve excessively over her miscarriages.) They've also suggested that people with serious facial deformities be brutally murdered at birth (often with false expressions of sympathy appended to make it sound as if they were actually sympathizing with the person they intended to have brutally murdered) and have called for everyone with peanut allergies to be murdered so those without allergies could exercise the constitutional right to eat one food out of 10,000,000 on an aircraft. Suffice to say that any time SA features anything, you end up with a lot of people who are, assuming the best of faith, young and easily influenced who think they have to fight Lowtax's battles for him. --NellieBly (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

One does get the feeling an admin or two with a baseball bat would be useful at this point. Unfortunately, I think they're all sleeping off their Thanksgiving celebrations. The only ones I've seen around are Brits/Aussies. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Dapi89

I had left the following note about Dapi89 on this board that Dapi89 deleted ]. Not sure about the "legality" of his action, is a user allowed to delete a post bringing his behavior to admin notice? Here is the original post again:

This editor has repeatedly indulged in uncivil behavior. He has been blocked 4 times earlier by 3 different administrators but continues to use offensive language.

Dapi89's block logs ] Last blocked on July 2009

Since being unblocked Dapi89 has indulged in the following uncivil behavior:

Calling edit by Slatersteven "nonsense edits" ]

Calling edit by Redheylin "silly" ]

Message left on my IP page (I registered this name later) in Dapi89 wrote: "Your 'edits' to the Battle of Kursk and Blitzkrieg are stupid" and "find the appropriate article to do it instead of dicking around". ]

Message left on my talk page "you are incapable of common sense" ]

Please note that my responses to Dapi89 have always been civil, I have confined myself to explaining why I was making a particular edit.

Given that Dapi89 has previously been blocked yet persists in uncivil behavior, I would ask an admin to take necessary action.

Thanks,

Steel2009 (talk) 05:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Steel2009 (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I've left Dapi89 a message re the deletion of discussions from ANI. Mjroots (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I am very concerned about this. Basket of Puppies 18:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The removal was unacceptable, but I don't see that an admin action is needed against Dapi89. He needs warning about civility, but I don't see that a block would be helpful at this point. Fences&Windows 01:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

He has previously been warned for incivility and even been blocked 3 times, with little effect apparently. Steel2009 (talk) 03:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Tendentious editor at Barnard College

I'm not going to go through the bureaucratic nonsense that one is typically advised to go through so I hope that someone can step in and block SPA Wkiwoman for her blatantly tendentious and consensus-violating edit warring at Barnard College. Her editing history and the article's Talk page make the situation clear. --ElKevbo (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It's very clear that this user is edit-warring and unwilling to compromise or even try to reach consensus. Basket of Puppies 18:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked the user indefinitely. Invite review of this action here. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 18:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Indef seems a bit harsh given recent editing patterns, but I note that she has never edited on another subject and has a habit of posting the same thing over and over again on talk pages. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Support block. There could be some nuances to the exact relationship between Barnard College and Columbia University. An open-minded exploration of that relationship would be fine, but steady month-after-month reverting, going on since September 30, is not fine. The term 'SPA' is correct in this case, since this editor's only interest on Misplaced Pages is in showing that Barnard students are somehow disenfranchised in the relationship with Columbia. EdJohnston (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. While I'm not entirely convinced that an indef block is the way to go, it's clear that something had to be done. I, too, am saddened that these events have overshadowed what probably should be nuanced and careful language and content in the article and I hope that we can constructively figure out how best to handle that now. --ElKevbo (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense moves

Fakus_Edition_2008 has moved a number of pages and I'm not sure if it's vandalism or good intended but completely misguided edits. The most bizarre is moving Rioplatense Spanish to the nonsense name of Argentine Castellane. People in Uruguay would certainly protest against being called "Argentine" and while Spanish may sometimes be called Castillian in English, it is never called "Castellane". The user has also performed other, similar moves but they have been reverted. I would suggest that the article is moved back to Rioplatense Spanish and that the user is cautioned against moving pages. It is obvious from the user's user page that his English is not very good, so he may not be the ideal person to invent new article names. As "Argentine Castellane" goes to show.Jeppiz (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, what is Argentine Castellane? I would move the page back, but the previous page is currently a redirect, so I can't move it to that title. We need an admin to do this for us. --Rockstonetalk to me! 23:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, and something should be done to prevent similar oddities. A user moving a page to a nonsense title, and ordinary users cannot move it back. The system is made for trolling and vandalism. Misplaced Pages has had the fantastic article on this little known language called Argentine Castellane for quite a while now.Jeppiz (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I moved it back to the original title. Fences&Windows 00:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The editor, who gives his full name on the talk page, is 13 years old. Dougweller (talk) 06:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

My instinct is to remove the sensitive information/blank the userpage and request oversight. Too fussy? Crafty (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've edited his userpage to remove some information and posted an explanation on his talkpage. Crafty (talk) 06:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Disruption on Kosovo by User:sulmues

This user has been of late quite disruptive on that article. He has made a highly controversial move regarding that article's infobox (note the lack of an edit summary) while falsely claiming consensus , all the while shouting at people not to change it. The claim of consensus is patently false, as this and discussion demonstrate. A number of users have objected to change and the way it was made, by slapping "Republic of Kosovo" and the flag on top of the infobox, a clear endorsement of the seccessionist POV , and many more. When his change was independently reverted by two users , sulmues responded with edit-warring , making two reverts in two days, thus breaking the 1RR restriction the article is under . When confronted by me on the talkpage, he responded with insults and personal attacks . On a battleground article such as this, such behavior is all the more unacceptable. I note this user has been topic-banned from this article before, and given his recent behavior, a new topic-ban would seem appropriate. --Athenean (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I have completely lost all good faith in Sulmues and am quite convinced the user is here only to disrupt and push his or her POV. An indefinite topic ban should be the next step. --Cinéma C 20:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked 96 hours, topic-banned 6 months. Moreschi (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

More stalking and AFD shenanigans from User:IP69.226.103.13

I posted an "article for deletion" on a rather dubious, probable urban legend known as the "Shotgun Man." see Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Shotgun_Man. Within minutes, User:IP69.226.103.13 jumps out of nowhere to disrupt the process -- accusing me of being "bogus" more than once and generally employing a snarky, nasty, uncivil tone. This IP has made such comments two days in a row now and is making my wikipedia experience unpleasant. I did some checking up on this fellow and I notice that he has been in trouble for this before. see this ANI report from 2 Nov. 2009. This user, User:IP69.226.103.13 had even been permanently banned for such conduct. Apparently he has learned nothing from his experiences, having been banned and re-admitted into Misplaced Pages and already engaging in the same antisocial nasty behavior already even less than a month later. Gerbelzodude99 (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

User:IP69.226.103.13 has been notified of this discussion. Crafty (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Notified by User:Crafty, User:Gerbelzodude99, on the other hand, notified User:Betacommand for some reason. Think about that. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I stand by my post on the AfD page. The AfD is nonsense posted by a single purpose account that joined for the sole purpose, it appears, of nominating this article for deletion for no apparent purpose (no deletion purpose). Impressive that it took this user one edit to find the article and nominate it for deletion. Then, in less than a dozen edits on wikipedia he posts an AN/I, notifies, not me, but User:Betacommand. I suspect sock puppetry. ANd, this is boring, please someone with sanity just close it. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Sirs, that is because User:Betacommand knows more about the unwelcome antics and stalking propensities of the user in question than any other citizen of Misplaced Pages. Gerbelzodude99 (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I too suspect sockpuppetry. Crafty (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Suspect is too weak a word. A brand new account created yesterday, whose first edit was to (properly formatted) nominate an article for deletion, and then launch an ANI complaint against a user, is clearly a sockpuppet of one form or another.

From WP:ILLEGIT (illegitimate uses of sockpuppet accounts, under WP:SOCK) -

• Editing project space: Alternate accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections.
• Avoiding scrutiny: Using alternate accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors cannot detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternate accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions.
• "Good hand, bad hand" accounts: Keeping one account "clean" while using another to engage in disruption.

Gerbelzodude99 - If you would like to come clean as to your other account, and agree to abide by WP:SOCK in the future and not act disruptively, we can wrap this up without further sanction. Please cooperate here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Awww, but I love the Plaxico effect :-( (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess I just see the best in folks. ;) Crafty (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the suspicion of sockpuppetry. Noming an article for deletion isn't a usual first edit. Aw crap Crafty's here, I gotta get outta here. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you better run punk. ;) Crafty (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I have applied an indefinite block (not permanent) on User:Gerbelzodude99 as they went quiet rather than explain themselves in a timely fashion. If they identify themselves and their other account and pick one as their permanent account going forwards, the block is not intended to be permanent on all participation on Misplaced Pages. The abuse here was so blatant as to require attention, but not so deep as to require long term sanction on the master account, IMHO. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I am too new in Misplaced Pages to say a word, but I am very frustrated with this nonsense raised by Gerbelzodude99. I want to stand to support User:IP69.226.103.13 I've seen him investing his precious time doing outstanding editing and working hard on complete verification of facts. To my experience User:IP69.226.103.13 is very dedicated editor who helps Misplaced Pages to be the decent place and the reliable source. I would suggest you, dear Gerbelzodude99, to stop attacking dedicated editors but rather collaborate if appropriate. I have no idea what the real user ID is in fact related to your new one but the matter you have raised here should be resolved by cutting this irrelevant disturbance. Please step back and do not attack editors like User:IP69.226.103.13, please let them execute their noble and outstanding service to Misplaced Pages. I beg a pardon if I was too emotional. Thanks in advance. --3ont~☺~ (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Restore broken WP:RS page move, please?

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources was moved to Misplaced Pages:Verifiability/reliable sources without discussion. WP:RS gets a lot of traffic, linking and auto-management by bots and archivers. These are now broken and will require a ton of manual intervention to fix. Can this page be put back please? In the future, if important and long-standing resource pages are going to be moved, it should require notification, discussion and time just to make sure nothing breaks. Thanks. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

People have been discussing doing this for years, with no objections. I've posted on the page to see if there are objections. If there are, we can hold a poll, but I'd be surprised if there are, because the point of RS is to expand on V. WP:RS directs to the same page it did before; nothing is broken, and its guideline status remains unchanged, obviously. Having it as a subpage will help to avoid the guideline being inconsistent with the policy. SlimVirgin 22:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I hate to contradict you as I'm sure your action was meant in good faith but the discussion did not start until after the page move. As for "people talking about it for years", there has been no discussion on the talk page and the oldest, non archived thread on the page is nearly 2 months old. I would say the page should be restored to its original location and a discussion held as to whether or not it should be a subpage of WP:V. HJMitchell You rang? 22:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, this can be discussed on the talk page. Thank you! Majorly talk 22:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved now. Juliancolton moved it back. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Astonishing: Verifiability for contentious material is non-negotiable. Reliable sources are the means by which verification is achieved. This is Misplaced Pages 101 and the two stand together, or not at all. Rodhullandemu 00:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sock claiming a different sockmaster?

I had recently blocked User:Highenergypulses as a sock of User:Chrislipthorpe, as it was a used to continue an edit war at AIDS denialism, and blocked the sockmaster 72 hours for this as well as misleading edit summaries/minor edit use. , . Chrislipthorpe has not contested the block. However, things have taken a bit of a bizarre twist, as Highenergypulses is claiming to be someone else's sock: , and has apparently brought along a new sock to make sure I knew it: . To me it looks like an interesting way of claiming not to be a sock (especially given Chrislipthorpe's early misuse of edit summaries and minor edits, indicating more experience), but does anyone else recognize this type of behavior? Seraphimblade 23:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like he has a touch of Evil Genius Syndrome. You know there was an anon posting something about being Teh Unstoppable 1337 Puppet-Mastah on Ten of All Trades talk page earlier today. I'll see if I can sniff up the diff. Crafty (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok that's from a named editor (User:UranusMoons) and this is under the IP he was using. I don't know if these are any help. Crafty (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Certainly looks like the same editing pattern, and attitude. But, the question still remains—was Chrislipthorpe the victim of this would-be evil genius, or yet another sock of his? Seraphimblade 00:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

That I cannot say. Perhaps consult the Sacred Chickens?. Crafty (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If the original editor contests, may do that. Otherwise, going to block the obvious second sock and call it done for now. Seraphimblade 01:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages article nominated for deletion by thrice-banned user (vandalism and self-promotion)

Hello, administrators.

The user currently known as Beetleguice has been cyberharassing me via Misplaced Pages for several months now. He started out as Azayas4reel. Since then, he has adopted various sock puppets, including HarabianNights, Harabiannights1, Tainotalisman2 and now Tainotalisman8 and Beetleguice . He was banned for vandalism and for self-promotion (he created an article for himself).

All of the above stated users write in the same inflammatory style and misspell the same words (most notably "playwrite" instead of "playwright"). Please ban him again (as both Tainotalisman8 and Beetleguice) and prevent him from vandalizing again on Misplaced Pages. There is nothing wrong with the article on Banjee . It should not have been nominated for deletion. Thank you so much.

Ronald Backardy (talk) 02:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Ronald Backardy.

Hello, administrators.

Since I wrote the above letter to you, there have been two comments asking for the article to be removed, one by Penumbraborealis and one by someone named Overdarainbow. I firmly believe these are by the same person and that would be the user originally known as Azayas4reel. When this person was harassing me via e-mail, he once quoted The Wizard of Oz. (He wrote me, "How about a little fire, scarecrow?" after calling my boss in an attempt to get me fired.) He is not respecting Misplaced Pages's guidelines at all. Overdarainbow has no previous history editing Misplaced Pages so why would Overdarainbow know to delete an article? He is upset that his article was deleted and is now trying to exact some sort of cybervengeance, I suppose.

For the record, the paragraph regarding the stage play Banjee include several reviews including one from the Village Voice which is annotated in the Misplaced Pages article itself. He is trying to make a mockery of Misplaced Pages and its guidelines. Please ban him (and his varying sockpuppets) from editing on Misplaced Pages. Thank you so much.

Ronald Backardy (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Ronald Backardy.

The current AfD is, in my view, a train wreck waiting to happen--the nominator and all of the voters have practically no edits to their credit. I'm tempted to speedy keep and block the whole lot, but wanted to seek other opinions before doing so. Blueboy96 03:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I think that's a very good idea. @Kate (talk) 03:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kate and Blueboy. Close it down and clean 'em up. Crafty (talk) 03:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Support speedy keep and block the socks, but why not also asking for CheckUser (can be done speedily because of the obviousness of the case)? Perhaps other socks and masters come out. Materialscientist (talk) 03:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I was gonna do that too ... it's pretty obvious that these are somebody's sockpuppets. Blueboy96 03:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe the master is indeed blocked already. Who knows (except for CheckUser :-)? Materialscientist (talk) 03:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD speedily kept, and SPI case started--in the process of blocking the lot. Blueboy96 03:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo article probation 1 RR per week?

In this edit administrator Nishkid put the article on 1RR per week I propose a discussion of this to determine if this restriction still applies. Recently user:Sulmues and user:Cinema C both violated this restriction both making two reverts within a week in a dispute about info boxes. Sulmues , Cinema C (also calling the opposing edit 'vandalism'), . However only Sulmues was blocked for the violation, which suggest that the 1RR per week was lifted, as under 1RR per day there would be no violation on the part of Cinema C. Were the terms of the probation modified, is it 1RR per day or 1RR per week??? Any input is welcome. Hobartimus (talk) 05:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems like this article is under the purview of WP:ARBMAC restrictions; administrators are given a broad leeway of placing reasonable restrictions on articles and editors as needed to slow down particularly virulent edit wars. I see nothing to indicate that Nishikid's restrictions have been lifted. You may want to contact him directly with any concerns. --Jayron32 05:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I considered that, however his editing pattern (4 edits in November) does not suggest that he is available for queries. He seems quite busy IRL with not much time for on wiki activities. Hobartimus (talk) 06:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that I have broken the 1RR rule. I completely forgot about it and am glad to have been reminded. Although I'll accept any measure undertaken by administrators in this case, I would like to express the fact that I reverted a user who was acting as a vandal, and he has been blocked for 96 hours, banned from Kosovo related articles for 6 months. Still, if the administrators decide to punish me, I'll respect it. I apologize for breaking the rule. --Cinéma C 06:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

As Cinéma C has recognised their error, I suggest no further admin action is warranted here subject to no further breach of the rule while it remains in place. Mjroots (talk) 06:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of talk pages

The account Stars4change (talk · contribs) has been used for general discussion about topics, rather than improving articles. Despite numerous notices on the editor's page, no action has been taken. Could an administrator please look at this. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Earlier discussion here. You should have notified him, I'll do that now. Dougweller (talk) 06:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Note

Not sure if anyone noticed this since it's way up on the page . <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 08:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing violation by Cookiecaper in order to reach a false consensus

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

Please see here, for the gross WP:CANVASS violation, thank you. I for one believe we should block the editor for such a gross violation. He had before been slow edit-warring on the Sean Hannity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, and now that consensus is against him, he is trying to tip the scales in his favor. This is unacceptable.— Dædαlus 09:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings#Sockpuppetry
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/Banjee

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards