Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:03, 29 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)

• Though the duration of the lock may be effective enough for now, it will not be as effective hereafter, as when ever the lock is then removed, anyone will be able to recreate the article. An indefinite lock is effective and should be done to prevent any future recreations such as this. If only I had the power to block those responsible for the recreations....--_{Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN} 05:15, 29 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)

Yeh, right, academics are not allowed to get angry about fraudulent history, propaganda or general intolerance of racial and ethnic difference. Do any of you non-Greeks live in Greece or a Balkan country? do you have any idea of what goes on here? Xenos2008 (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't care if academics get angry about whatever. However, if you get angry at someone on Misplaced Pages & rant on at them, even if they deserve it the best that will happen to you is that you'll be ignored. The worst is that you get banned. You have the training, & I would expect the brains to channel that emotion into persuading us to see your point. So far, I wouldn't grant you tenure on what you've posted here. -- llywrch (talk) 23:01, 28 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)

Unless you have specific evidence that this IP is another editor in disguise, that's a rather over-the-top accusation, NBeale. What is your evidence, and have you opened a sock puppet investigation? It's ironic that you denounce this thread as "excessive" while you take it to the furthest excesses yet. ~YellowFives 10:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

DGG, I do not believe I am overusing the term, and I think you would be hard-pressed to explain how this could have happened were Epeefleche assuming good faith. Had a welcome template to the IP not been interpreted as a personal insult, no further disussion would have been necessary. If we're now going to discuss my behavior, I'm OK with that, either here or at my talk page. But I will need diffs or quotes, and much more specific explanations of just what I've done wrong, because this vague criticism illuminates nothing. ~YellowFives 10:56, 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)

Formal Apology

I want to take this time to express my most sincere apologies and deepest regrets for any ill will I may have created by way of my deeds and actions here at Misplaced Pages. In retrospect, I can see now that thru my lack of constuctive interaction and feedback on the Talk pages, my silence has been interpreted as arrogance and/or hostility.

I am truly sorry for any behavior which has been construed as rude or unfriendly. I am very tired now of laying the blame on any specific individual(s) who may have somehow gotten me 'kick started'. I can see now that it would have been much better for all parties concerned if I had handled it in a more professional manner.

Being a classical Taurus, I am sometimes particularly headstrong when it comes to the completion of goal oriented activities. (The only person I know who is worse is my 25-year old Taurean son). Once I saw what was possible here, I could not stop until I had done the best job that I could possibly do with any and all articles closely related to my fields of study (Materials Science/Engr/Phys Chem) which appeared either to be in need of creation or service. To be honest, I have virtually completed the job I set out to do. I.E. I have no immediate plans for further article creation, major editing or contribution.

If anything, I may show some interest in Physical chemistry in the future. But I have already made one serious textbook shot at it, and it became immediately clear that was not what they are looking for to expand the stub. So I cleared out in totality. Solid and Liquid were both pretty much bonuses after the fact. I stumbled on Solid as a stub while searching all articles on mechanical properties. And Liquid has been in the back of my mind ever since one of the major Glass editors asked my why I had not included the Radial distribution function in my description of the Physics of glass. (I am still looking for a better image of g(r) for the Liquid page - concentric rings of high particle density w/ diffuse boundaries).

As far as I am concerned, my job here is virtually done for now. One thing I have learned while working here is that nothing stays the same. Nothing is carved in stone (like journal articles). Everything changes constantly -- much like a coastal beach which is ravaged by seastorms on a regular basis. And I will surely find it interesting to look back ten years from now and view the evolution of whatever I started here.

I also wish to thank you for the privilege of publishing my work on the world's largest information source. I have the highest opinion of the work done here @ Misplaced Pages, and I am very proud to be a contributor and editor. That is why the articles which I have contributed to in any major way are listed on my website. There is no other reason. Other than teaching, this has been my primary work arena this past year -- and I would like to show people what is possible here.

In conclusion, I would like to wish everyone the best of luck with all of their future activities at Misplaced Pages. I sincerely hope that you all find it as rewarding as I have. As far as I am concerned, when it comes to the expression and presentation of scientific knowledge, there is no substitute :-) -- logger9 (talk) 02:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible COI

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)

Suggestions

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)

• Topic ban for Logger9. 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 ban 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 ban is not a permanent ban and when the articles have settled into a steady state after the efforts of other editors logger9 can appeal for release from the ban. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC).
• Support: Xxanthippe's proposal of a restriction that would keep User:logger9 from editing the above-listed articles. From the above discussion, it's clear that editing by Logger9 is causing distress among several editors who work on those articles. His responses in this thread seem inappropriate, and don't reflect a sincere desire to reach compromise. The observations by Materialscientist and Headbomb about a COI are sensible. The title of this thread is #Repeated reverts at Solid, so this is a long-term edit-warring complaint of the kind that ANI can and does handle whenever there is a problem affecting many people. Logger9's effort to find consensus for his edits seems weak and inadequate. (If his edits had found support, he wouldn't have to keep reverting them back in all the time). EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support restrictions. logger9 does not seem to understand or even care about the nature of the Wikiproject (i.e. what WE is or is not, the concept of consensus, or just walking away from articles when things get tense). Logger9's contributions that I have dealt with have been inferior in quality. The editor is not stupid, just very tone-deaf. The ideal approach (that is impractical) would be that Logger9 be required to submit proposed editing plans and seek some pre-editing consensus.--Smokefoot (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• As an uninvolved editor, I will Support, although with the option of allowing him to edit the talk pages constructively so he may learn the way consensus works. This has got to be one of the worst cases of WP:OWNership I've ever seen. Auntie E. 01:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• Moot - Unfortunately, Logger has decided to leave the project. I suggest we just archive the thread and let things be as they are. NW (Talk) 02:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• Aside from the decision, he also apologized to all Wikipedians involved. However, as being uninvolved, I would say Dismal Support.----_{Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN} 06:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid your confidence is misplaced. Since he issued his Apology logger9 has continued to edit the project, making nine more edits to Solid, one to Physics of glass. The sad truth is that people who behave in this manner are unable to control their compulsions. The only way to get them to stop is to apply external constraint. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC).

• Support. Though still do not believe intentional harm was intended, several articles declined markedly in quality during his "stewardship". I believe this course of actions do seem to be the only way to improve Misplaced Pages. Though I agree that it appears to be moot from his recent apology. Also note that I was slightly involved in the case, though not in the actual edit-war Esben (talk) 10:58, 29 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)

If you believe it is of no value, WP:AFD is thataway. Also, per your note on my talkpage - Gibralter is a bloody great rock. Attempts to argue that it did not exist before the Brits arrived is ludicrous. As there is not two articles, one on the current situation and one on the rest of history, or one on the current regime and one on the geographical location, it follows that the article ought to be about the whole history of the rock. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You miss the point, the article IS about Gibraltar the whole history of the Rock, including periods of occupation by the moors and Spanish is in History of Gibraltar. However the section in the main article on 'notable people' is very restricted and creating nonsense articles to justify adding obscure people of no consequence in the history of the territory is only done to provoke a dispute. And that is why its mentioned on this noticeboard. --Gibnews (talk) 10:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

No, you miss the point. I'll assume this is down to my phrasing it badly. The article Gibralter is about the bloody great rock. It's not about British-Ruled Gibralter. It includes information about the current regime, a summary of the history (for which there is a longer article), the geography, the climate etc. By that definition, you cannot define people from Gibralter only as citizens of the current regime. See also the notes above about Kipling - its anyone notable of any nationality who was born on the Rock. I also recommend that you stop being WP:POINTY about people born on the rock before the Brits arrived. Again see the notes above - if you think they are truly not notable, go to AfD. Otherwise, I strongly recommend you let the matter drop. Now I am going to the talk page to recommend that we put the pre British persons back into the article, perhaps using subheadings to distinguish some time periods. Given that I am a Brit and have (as far as I know) not a drop of Spanish blood, nor any political view on Gibralter, nor any reason to advance a pro-Spanish viewpoint, I would appreciate a cessation of the personal attacks. Thank you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I think you're missing the point, adding a whole bunch of obscure people to the Gibraltar article purely because they are Spanish is being pointy. The purpose in doing so was being pointy and to provoke a dispute, the next stage of which when the people are suggested to not be notable enough to be included in what is an overview article, will be to scream that the Brits are censoring the article. Why else do you think that the editor added a stack of redlinks, how many other articles think a goat herder is of sufficient merit to be included in an overview article, or perhaps the local parish priest of a town with less than 4000 people. Notably there was nothing to even say many of the proposed additions were even born in Gibraltar.

The same editor who added 5 obscure people to the article, was edit warring the previous day to change the start of the second world war from 1939 to 1940, for an entirely specious reason. That is being pointy. The pointy edits are continuing see this diff and this diff , the second is purely intended to be provocative.

To also make a point, this occurs during mediation at the start of which all of the editors involved agreed to an undertaking not to disrupt the article. They also agreed to discuss any changes in the talk page first. This isn't happening.

I'd also make the point, that on the British side, the editors involved made a offer to draw a line under any possible misunderstanding from the past and to work together in the future. That offer was flung back in their faces. There seems to be a tactic of disruption, edit warring, talk page posts to escalate tension, then turning round and expecting things to be discussed reasonably.

And whilst I am a Brit, I'm also half-Spanish my mother being one of the 3000 Spanish refugees who fled Franco's Spain to Britain. You suggest on the article talk page that there should a consensus discussion about who to add, the people suggested might be notable enough to justify a stub article, they're not notable enough to suggest inclusion in the overview article on Gibraltar. Now I would suggest that if you're planning to intervene, you stick around, because when the personal attacks accusing people of censorship and suppressing the truth start I would hope you'll intervene. For me, I've had a gutfull of being attacked as censoring the article because we respect NPOV and refuse to allow the article to be edited to favour a particular viewpoint.

The second reason I hope you stick around, is that I have a very strong suspicion that there is collusion off-wiki on these articles, because the actions of the editors involved is just too co-ordinated to be co-incidence. There is also an entry on the talk page that alludes to communication by email. I would really appreciate a neutral admin sticking around to ensure fair play. Not a personal attack but for me, writing was the "view of AN/I" on the talk page is questionable.

Purely for the record, Gibnews use of PROD was pointy and I don't support it. It doesn't help to adopt the same tactic of disrupting wikipedia to make a point. I do support locking the article, I would suggest it continues until ALL OF THOSE involved respect the undertaking they signed at the start of mediation, stop the personal attacks and work toward improving the article, using the talk page to discuss edits and adding consensus material to the article. Justin talk 13:03, 29 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)

I believe that DigitalC is referring to the comments of other editors at the time of this articles inception. The article still suffers from rather overt POV issues of the main contributors of the article, as an example, the way that the Gallup poll has been used in the article is somewhat misleading as it fails to note that respondents rated Chiropracty on par with Psychiatry. I haven't been following this article closely but I can see that the talk page edit history has now become fragmented between page moves. Unomi (talk) 04:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Further, the last time it was up for deletion there seemed to be a number of editors voicing their opinion that it was indeed a POV fork and should be merged or renamed. Unomi (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually he calls it a POV fork in THIS thread, so he isn't talking about other editors. Even though it might be considered off topic for the article (which is an allowed "content fork"), the statistics for psychiatrists is actually included, so there is nothing misleadig going on. The inclusion of those significant statistics is buttressed by commentaries from chiropractic sources, where THEY state that chiropractic came in "dead last" among healthcare professions. The statistics aren't presented in a misleading manner, and their significance is affirmed by chiropractic sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, my eye caught the following (summary?) line "A Gallup Poll and various research studies and commentaries, some by chiropractors, have pointed out unfavorable facts related to the ethical standards, rampant fraud, abuse and quackery, and unsubstantiated claims made by chiropractors". You are correct the Gallup Poll results are clarified in the article text, this was not previously the case and I am happy to see that this has been incorporated. Unomi (talk) 08:36, 29 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)

As per my entries to the discussion page of Battle_of_Kursk I have accepted the last version of the article created by editor Hohum after he/she reverted me, so this one can now be closed. As for the other article Blitzkrieg I have left a message on the discussion of the issue started by Hohum. Steel2009 (talk) 17:54, 28 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)

<= On the contrary, there has been 4 blocks on this ban with possibly more violations, including one during a RfAR where a clear warning was ignored. There has been a clear violation of the second topic with no real appreciation for the fact there was a violation. In a lot of case the goalposts were simply ignored. When given the choice of erring on the side of caution or pushing the bounds of acceptability, LP frequently chooses the former. GainLine ♠ _♥ 19:14, 28 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)

Benjiboi, the thread at the BLP noticeboard doesn't even mention your name (or reference this ANI thread). Nor did I nominate the article for deletion. I am concerned that you are so dismissive of serious BLP issues. If I had attempted to address any these issues or started the discussion on the talk page, I suspect you would have felt that I was harassing you, since that is how you characterize any interaction we have, regardless of the underlying issues. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:04, 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)

That is your interpretation however my answering real concerns is what AfD is for; and I wasn't accusing nom as reactionary but your !vote after all the discussion there. We don't delete lists because there might be a BLP problem, we fix the problems, if somethings needs sourcing ... we find sources, etc. I do stand by my comment that it all seems a bit alarmist. Luckily another editor has started helping disambiguate anything that seems to be pointing to the wrong article. That's regular editing - and per WP:AFD, articles that can be fixed through regular editing are not good candidates for deletion. -- Banjeboi 10:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you think that AfD nominations are the place to ridicule the arguments of other editors by calling them ridiculous or nonsense, or by attacking other editors, then this is incident report has it place here as we need to discuss your editing behavior. Pantherskin (talk) 12:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I think other editors trying to delete entire lists because there might be a BLP problem is ridiculous, apparently others feel similar. You may note I didn't mean to imply they themselves were ridiculous but there rationale may have seemed that way. That these are experienced editors doing this is indeed abominable but at least when AfD #6 rolls around we'll have #4 and #5 to look at and compare how this massive list has indeed improved. For those curious, the most egregious problem seems to have been wikilinks going to the wrong person. I hope it's apparent to everyone else that those were not to cause any confusion but done, I presume, in error. I will personally go through them all to ensure we're on target. -- Banjeboi 20:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the largest single concern I have about the list is the inclusion of red links. Not only is this against policy since the links are referenced (thus making them poorly referenced BLPs), but it is also contrary to the guideline for standalone lists which states "Don't use a list as a "creation guide" containing a large number of redlinked unwritten articles". Aside from the immediate BLP concerns, there is the danger that articles will be created for some of those red links, as you mention. For example, Ben Andrews is a common name - perhaps someone will eventually create an article about this Ben Andrews. Yes, renaming the link to Ben Andrews (porn actor) will solve that problem for now, but it didn't help:

• award-winning screenwriter Christian Taylor
• or tv producer Kevin Kramer (who is still labelled a porn star in another article)
• or football player Kevin Glover
• or born-again Christian actor Ron Pearson

from incorrectly being labelled gay porn performers until just hours ago. You say you have been "cleaning up" this list for 5 months, but you don't seem to have taken even the basic steps required to ensure that it was following BLP policy. I don't expect very many admins are bothering to read this thread (and I fully understand why not) but I hope those who are reading this are taking it as seriously as they should be. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Outdent, this remains not an ANI issue. Everything you're all hopped-up over seems like regular editing issues. If you are ever so concerned ... why did the BLP aspects of your worries not get mentioned until you engaged an edit war on an image? If you're so concerned why did you not simply disambiguate those entries instead of complaining about it? Frankly your entire tenor in this area - including todays AfD of an article two hours old, including a post here and at BLP when civil talkpage discussion likely should have been the first step - suggests your judgment may be a little cloudy here. Luckily more civil editors have weighed in and several have even started going through to check all the wikilinks. And no, WP:Redlinks are quite useful and every list handles them differently - this list is the middle of a major overhaul and so deleting material is quite premature. And your starting discussion in several places seems rather disruptive to me. And I still see you as simply causing drama where none is needed. I certainly look forward to when that will no longer seem so. -- Banjeboi 03:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi, I'm getting tired of your distortions here. Check the history of the article - you are the one who was reverting several editors, not me. Have you noted the topic of this thread? I didn't discuss the issues on the talkpage because of your ownership of the article, as you amply demonstrated with a relatively minor issue which is still unsettled. The list is now getting some attention because of the issues I raised on the BLP noticeboard. After 5 months of clean-up, you're only now checking the links? You deserve a barnstar for that! Even now you are arguing for inclusion on this list of porn performers whose articles have been deleted at AfD due to lack of notability. One of is pushing a POV here. I don't think my nominations of poorly sourced or completely unsourced BLPs should be misconstrued as a vendetta on gay porn. I suspect that some people have let things slide with regard to gay porn BLPs because they are either afraid to be seen working on them or they are afraid that they may be labelled as a homophobe. I know I am not a homophobe and while I don't enjoy the insinuation that I may be one, it doesn't deter me. The more eyes on this article and related articles the better. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

No one is talking about homophobia but you. Really whatever your motivations, I only care as they are causing disruption months after I asked you to leave me alone. And still, you persist raising alarmist concerns and stirring drama, and yes, distorting events to achieve some end which continues to feel like nothing but an interest in deleting content in this subject area. Loads of editors do work on these articles and manage to do so without needless bullying and wikihounding, without crying foul and by actually working with and helping other editors. This just may not be a good match for you if you need to spend so much time arguing. -- Banjeboi 05:00, 29 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)

• Why not? They seemed to have requested an appropriate unblock request, evidencing they have reviewed and understood policy. On that basis any further problems with editing means that they have chosen to disregard policy, and the block can be re-instated. If everyone understands that, then they should be allowed to prove they can contribute to the project in the correct manner. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Was my opinion not sufficient? I am crushed! LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(Restoring thread for more discussion)  Frank  |  talk  12:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:Everyme

• Everyme (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 78.34.233.179 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 78.55.65.160 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

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)

That was precisely the context needed! Why is Everyme blocked? Block evasion as a reason to block indefinitely seems a bit, well, circular. Fences&Windows 17:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for harassment and personal attacks. After that, the block was extended a few times for block evasion, eventually extended to indefinitely.--Atlan (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I blocked the IP for two weeks. Fences&Windows 18:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

See also User_talk:MuZemike#Another_case for another IP. For more background, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Everyme. Sincerely, --A Nobody 19:04, 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)

Seeing as how this is a forum post not made by Lowtax, it is hardly a 'call to action', so your comments seem a bit off. Pretty much nothing you said has any bearing here; when other groups vandalize Misplaced Pages, do we go around trying to impugn the group, or do we revert, ignore, protect, and get on with our lives? No one's fighting his battles for him. Goons are, believe it or not, able to think and act independently. You seem to have a personal issue with SA. --Golbez (talk) 16:13, 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)

That's very interesting (if disgusting) about SA. There's some hate speech starting to find its way into the talk page here. But it increasingly seems to me to not be "tricky". This has become disruptive editing, period. I think it should be possible to distinguish between editors who are making (or attempting to make) an argument based on content, from those who are only engaging in vandalism or personal attacks, and I think it would be proper to block the latter. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I see irrelevancies, but not trolling. As long as the discussion remains on the talk p. I see no harm in even newcomers expressing their ideas about what does or does not constitute appropriate content for Misplaced Pages. Personally, I think formalizing it as an RfC was not really appropriate or necessary. The page itself has been semi-protected, and that seems to have dealt with everything except an ongoing edit war over an image among some experienced editors; since this is now being also discussed on the talk p. I think no admin action necessary at this point. DGG ( talk ) 17:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

There is trolling, and I warned one user for personal attacks, but it seems under control. Fences&Windows 18:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is trolling and personal attacks against me. (It wasn't my idea to start the RfC that soon, and I kind of wish it hadn't happened until things quieted down a bit.) Thank you F&W for that warning, but I feel like there is more than one user going way beyond what DGG calls "expressing their ideas about what does or does not constitute appropriate content", at least expressing it in a civil way. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Civility at Crucifixion

(outdent) Enough is enough. I'm all for not feeding the trolls, and I'm fine with welcoming new editors who wish to discuss what they believe is wrong with Misplaced Pages. But. There's a real problem here. I ask that administrators look at each of the following diffs (more are coming in by the minute), and decide if this is just acceptable discussion:

Without these, the discussion could actually be rather productive. I do not think that I am being unreasonable in objecting to this stuff. (P.S.: Maybe I lead a sheltered life :-) but it took me a while to realize that all those mentions of "sperg" are derogatory references to Asperger's syndrome.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

And: . --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

And: . --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Question Would it be appropriate and within talk page guidelines to remove all of the ad hominem attacks and references to Asperger's syndrome, mental illness, or otherwise disparaging anime fandom? Leaving these comment in place does create an uncivil atmosphere. —Farix (t | c) 01:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yzak Jule (talk · contribs) is now restoring a personal attack by an IP editor that was removed per WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK. He/she is calming in the edit summaries that the removal of personal attacks is tantamount to censorship] and the Right to Free Speech. —Farix (t | c) 04:56, 29 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)

I thank the editors who see Steel2009's complaint as nonsense. The removal was in frustration at this 'editors' behaviour. Lack of civility is repeatedly undoing another editors LOGICAL restorations and refusing to negotiate. Military history articles are thought out chronologically. Steel2009 seems to think chronology, his "opinion" counts more than consensus and logic. He has been disruptive, he has used sock puppets to avoid violating 3RRR,m and now he has the cheek to complain - of course he only did so because I filed a complaint. This in itself is puerile in the extreme. I can see the sensible heads here are ignoring his B.S. Steel2009: You are a new editor that has not contributed ANYTHING to wikipedia yet. All bar one of your edits has been reverted, and you are heading down the road of becoming a consistently blocked editor. The previous blocks of mine you notice, were a result of a running dispute with ONE other editor. So keep your erroneous accusations to yourself. 13:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dapi89 (talk • contribs)

Can you provide the diffs showing that I have "used sock puppets to avoid violating 3RRR". This is a pretty serious allegation, and I would like you to follow up on this. Also you continue using abusive words like "puerile", "BS" etc. And really, two editors who disagree with one does not a consensus make. I do think you should apologize to Slatersteven and Redheylin for your incivility towards them. Steel2009 (talk) 17:26, 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)

given that this editor has not edited any other article, I do not see that the block is excessive. It's not that we are inhibiting useful work from her in other areas. DGG ( talk ) 16:54, 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)

Note

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

I've watchlisted the SPI report. If there is a positive response that needs sysop action then I can do the necessary. Any further instances of vandalism/harassment in the meantime can be reported to AIV for quick(ish) action. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, may thanks! Apologies for our earlier misunderstanding. :-/ I blame it on the Asperger syndrome. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 16:19, 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)

I've had Sean Hannity on my watchlist and I've seen all the b*tching going on back and forth. I should probably post this over on that page, but I support Mr. Hannity on most issues, am a conservative, and yet oppose the inclusion of this info. The guy says tons of stuff on his shows daily. What makes this event notable? As for the the editor, I'd suggest just warning him on it. It's obvious (from the majority of the comments on the reddit) that the post there isn't going to swing the consensus. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 14:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Not a false consensus neither a gross violation. Is a "false consensus" a consensus achieved by more than the regular editors on an article? I posted this to the WIKIPEDIA subreddit, so that people who enjoy this pedantry, ridiculousness, etc., and yet agree that this should be included could contest. I stopped editing WP regularly several years ago because I was sick of this kind of thing happening; anytime someone ventures out of their posse to edit an article with something slightly controversial, the regulars on that article flip out, proclaim their own false consensus, revert, threaten, protect, and ban their afflictors, even though the information added is perfectly notable, viable, and neutral.

I think the number of times this incident specifically with the Hannity waterboarding has cropped up demonstrates that many people, including those who don't constantly troll Hannity's page to make sure only positive things are said about him, feel that Hannity's statement and subsequent promise are indeed notable. The consensus proclaimed by the regulars is the false consensus; Hannity disciples consent as a group to keep things which may reflect negatively on Hannity off of his page, but that's not how the world sees it.

My posting follows all rules outlined in canvassing. Note that I didn't post that to a subreddit about liberalism, Democrats, Olbermann, Anarchists, or outright Hannity-hating, I posted it to /r/wikipedia, where people who care about Misplaced Pages often visit. Its scope was limited; one only subscribes to /r/wikipedia if they want to know about things that are happening on Misplaced Pages; this is a thing which is happening on Misplaced Pages. The post was limited (only posted to /r/wikipedia, the relevant subreddit), neutral (I told it like it is without editorializing regarding this specific issue), nonpartisan (posted in a general forum with patrons of many parties, no incendiary political commentary or anything like that), and transparent (links to the discussion posted). There is therefore no violation here, and Daedalus is just annoyed that someone challenged his gang's territory. He fancies himself the gatekeeper of Hannity's article, and supposes that no information may be added thereto without his consent or that of Hannity's other regular editors. Surely this is not appropriate, and surely it's not appropriate to ban me for following rules and responding calmly to threats while not suffering intimidation. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 19:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It falls under the area of inappropriate canvassing, as outlined on the table, as a biased message. You posted, and I quote: Please defend the inclusion of Hannity's promise to be waterboarded "for the troop's families" on his WP page.(title)(message:)I implore all Wikipedians to fight the good fight and keep on Hannity's page mention of his promise to get waterboarded. Oh, and this next part is especially good: But, anyway, I'm trying to tap into reddit to help solidify the mention there and keep it there and outlast the others.

Followed the rules outlined by canvassing? I don't think so. Your message was biased towards your point of view. It did not ask for more eyes on the topic, it asked for support on your side of the topic. It violated WP:CANVASS, and no amount of spinning will change that.— Dædαlus 23:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It did ask for more eyes on the topic. Of course in my posting I'm going to discuss my favored outcome and solicit its support; you are free to make a posting advocating the other side, or a headline that will be utterly ignored, like "Please view this edit war re: Sean Hannity :)" -- WP is crazy, as we know, and expects people to be robots; people are not robots. No one is going to come defend this just because I posted that, they'll come defend it because they believe in it or not. I gave all of the information necessary for individuals to read and come to their own conclusion, including links to the source material; I'm not veiling my bias behind flowery language as is ingrained in Misplaced Pages custom, I'm straightforward about it and that's obviously better. I'm sorry if you think that people are so stupid that they'll just come fight for my side because a stranger on the internet told them to do it, but I don't; it's just a way of alerting people in a concise, evident manner that will actually gain traction.

There's no immorality or crime therein. Do I really have to say, "Some people believe this shouldn't be included" to be unbiased? That's self-evident. Give me a break, and maybe listen to people besides Hannity and his fellow propagandists on either side so you can learn how it feels to think for yourself. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 04:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do me a favor, and cease assuming shit about me that you don't know. I'm on this article to simply make sure it complies with WP policy. I care not a thing for the individual, nor any show he has. It isn't my forte.— Dædαlus 11:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

R1a talkpage turning into one persons blog opinionating about problems in genetics literature "generally"

The Talk:Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA) page itself is the best evidence of what the headers says. I was criticized for long postings on earlier attempts to get help on this problem. It has since developed further. I think the following diffs are plenty. They are simply the several edits made so far by User:Pdeitiker to create the current version of his latest creation on that talkpage: , , , , , . Although I have written a response and tried to treat it as if there is a discussion going on , past form shows that this user will probably continue editing what he has written, partly in order to make the response look wrong. If this is not disruptive editing, what is? Genetics articles with popular interest are hard enough at the best of times to get balanced.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hurrgghhh. This is a clear series of WP:TALK violations. Anti-Kurgan-hypothesis ranting has a long and ignoble history, from the Hindutva fanboys at Out of India theory (who want the PIE urheimat to be India), to Rokus01 (talk · contribs), who, from memory, wanted it to be in the Netherlands. Some unholy alliances resulted. No one is denying the theory has its problems: at the same time, it is the most widely accepted and fluent explanation available: certainly "academic mainstream". Where this guy is coming from is not clear but he's certainly not offering anything constructive. Thoughts on what to do? Moreschi (talk) 12:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Moreschi asks about the background to "this guy". Examination of the talk page will show that this is not the only blog-like subject taking up space there, and heading towards OR, SYNTH, etc. User:Pdeitiker's background is in genetics, and he has explained his interest here as being trying to show that a genetics article can be brought up to GA level. Articles he works on such as Mitochondrial Eve have been heavily criticised for jargon. Therefore he became interested R1a while it was recently being brought from a very poor standard to a much better standard (according to all other editors following this article). Therefore, the basic theme of most of his digressions is to try to argue that the article is actually "crap", despite what everyone thinks, and needs his urgent large-scale re-writing. I have tried to keep this short.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)::

Oww, my eyes. My gut reaction? User:Pdeitiker and you could both use a day off. The text blob there (247k!) is just so huge that, though you diffs are entirely reasonable, it would take hours to pick out counterpoints or anything close to neutral out of it. Looks to be mostly rambling to try to take the last poke at a hideous pile of horse meat, and you both likely are looking at it as gaming or an attempt at mass POV pushing via the bulk posts. This is going to look like the cheap way out of giving an answer, but since you're about to tear your hair out, just message the other user and admit that it's not worth the stress and you think a weekend away would be helpful. Oh, and don't take the bait on anything, jeesh. Reading some lines of your user talk page comments looked like a game of macho intellectual thumb-biting on the hope that maybe one of you will go way out of line on more direct civility somewhere. Try to think of it that way. Don't let someone trick you into doing or saying something extremely dumb when you're confident policy and guidelines are with you. Nothing is looking terribly productive.

For simplicity on what would probably be a result of looking over chat, just say everyone has had a ... "frustrated tone" to this point? Look back, relax, talk through and get multiple opinions from the other editors of where consensus stands so there's a starting point to work off of. Those in opposition might not end up caring, but it does matter if there have been discussions done on what a current status is so that it's easier to see where disruption is from. Consider this your first advice on backlash and dispute resolution that people like to draw out for no reason; don't shop forums or specifically write to any editors about it, even if it's just to get a starting consensus. WP:RC. Crafty disruptive editors will spot all of it and gladly post a list of diffs a mile long about how you'd trying to pile-on. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 13:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The record shows that I have tried leaving the article, and that Pdeitiker did as he says he will. Pdeitiker's stated aim is to treat what has been achieved there recently as crap and re-write it. In the words of another editor: "Left to his own devices, Pdeitiker would convert this article into Einstein's theory of general relativity as he has done with Mitochondrial Eve"--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW I know what you mean about "crafty disruptive editors" and I know at first sight it might look like such a case. But it is not. Pdeitiker really seems to have confused himself about what Misplaced Pages rules are, and in this state he has shown now several times that he will make major unilateral changes to the article when given a chance. I am concerned not to let that happen. Other editors have expressed a quite clear consensus that recent editing direction has been a major improvement. This article was an edit war minefield for a long time. We should really try to avoid a bull in a china shop messing that up.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not totally convinced. Should the page be about the gene flow only, or should it give a general discussion on the spread of languages and cultures? They do not necessarily correlate close with genotype. DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not think we can seriously propose that Misplaced Pages can treat the whole enormous field of interdisciplinary speculation (linguistic, genetic, archaeological) about ancient population movements as "fringe"? If the literature is full of it, in all three fields, and it is notable and mainstream, what are the options? Pdeitiker's proposal is clear: we make our own judgments. Let me by the way point out that the subject of "ancient population movements" is touchy. There is always some group or another watching for any slight sign of bias against, Albanians, Serbs, Turks, Indians, Africans, whatever. These articles are increasingly being read by a wider public. But I have now managed to damp down massive edit warring in two articles like this, E1b1b and R1a by compromising and trying to see the good in all sides, and I know that Deitiker's approach is simply not possible or desirable, and that Misplaced Pages's guidelines actually work: let every reasonable opinion be mentioned, in context, with alternatives mentioned, etc etc. WP:UNDUE. Please also do not forget the reality of the context: the problems of the Kurgan hypothesis have only now been raised after a new editor mentioned them, and good on him, this section does need work. For Deitiker this is only the latest in quite a number of desperate attempts to argue that the article is "crap" and "disturbingly badly" written, and people need to start giving way to Deitiker "or else" because only he knows how to make the article "encyclopedic". (The quotes are real. Diffs available.) Strange thing is that he also openly says that his interest in the article is because it has been brought to a relatively good level for a Y haplogroup article, and he wants (he literally says) to try to be part of getting it to GA level, both as an example to other Wikipedians, and also and in particular to put me personally through a "painful" experience of "self improvement". Just read the talk page. I have seriously tossed up making a case for Wiki-hounding.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to make one thing clear before admins switch off: yes, the whole enormous field of interdisciplinary speculation (linguistic, genetic, archaeological) about ancient population movements is very speculative. Nearly everyone who complains about how speculative it is really has a valid point. But this valid point helps no one when it comes to deciding how to edit on Misplaced Pages. It is simply a challenge to be solved without too much wikidrama if possible. If we have massive and obvious violations of wikipedia talkpage violations this job becomes quite difficult.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not see the primary problem as talk page violations, but rather Ownership. He is not the only person to have expressed this attitude, but his attitude towards this is indeed quite extreme, and does seem to need some considerable adjustment. DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you make the insinuation about WP:OWN. I've tried stopping editing, and that did not work. We've had other editors agree with me and get hounded off the page , or asked to post elsewhere , etc. The guy seriously will make the page more like Mitochondrial Eve. If saying that this is not good is "biased" then OK, I'm biased. But I think you can not have looked at Mitochondrial Eve and its record then. It is chalk and cheese. Sometimes saying one article is better than another is not biased.

Simple enforcement of wikipedia talkpage guidelines, or even just a couple of people saying what they are in particular real cases, would probably do a lot. In some ways this is a weird case. In some ways it really is a no brainer. One basic point is that while Pdeitiker thinks he can say things like "you are not arguing me, but with Misplaced Pages" over something like for example, bullet points, or the number of paragraphs in the lead; while he thinks he can review the article and then cite himself in third person as a critic, or call for a GA review during a content debate, and then tell everyone he just did so in order to ensure they give way and work to a deadline, thinks he can rewrite his posts after replied to or even edit replies, etc etc etc...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• WP:TLDR Obviously there are deeper issues here. I will answer one critique from DGG. Language and genes do not often flow together. For example the Irish speak and IE tongue but are genetically more closer to the Basque than they are to any anatolians. There is neither a cultural, linguistic, metal age or any other cultural association with the genetics. It is quite common examining HLA haplotypes to find finger print haplotypes shared by two different peoples that have no known historical or paleocultural link what-so-ever other than common Eurasian origins. It is also not too uncommon to see papers show certain links, which are soon followed by archaeological studies that support those links. I have a nose for speculation, and that material that has been on this page for quite some time reeks of speculation. The bottom line, and Andrew will probably agree with this, using either shallow SNPs (surface phylogenetic variation) or STR diversity (the clocking of which is highly questionable) the range of migrations times from or to Eastern Europe extends over 1000s of years. The problem is the the Kurgan culture existed for only 1500 years, and the bigger problem is that cultural flow from eastern Europe into other parts of Europe have been suggested in many studies. Here are two studies that go into great deal about the late paleolithic Mesolithic and Early Neolithic and are online.

• Late Paleolithic, Mesolithic and Early Neolithic in Lower Alpine Reoing between the Riveris Iller and Lech (South West Bavaria).-Birgit gehlen
• Review- Final Paloelithic and Mesolithic Research in a Unified Germany- Street et al., Journal of world prehistory:15 (4) 2001
• An example of Gene-Language study gone wrong: The correlation between Languages and genes:The Usko-Mediterranean peoples. Human Immunology 62:1052-1061 (2001).

As per Andrew_Lancaster and his clearly WP:OWN attitude concerning my edits to the page. Eventually you will need to deal with this issue in Arbitration. Final comments on this page, yall have fun.PB666  22:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

daTheisen, you hit the nail on the Head, I purposefully took a timeout yesterday to do some gardening, just as today. I got a Biskmark palm waiting outside to be planted. The problem, Andrew is like the guy at the hotdog stand that elbows you in the gut whenever you try to Make an order, or look at what's available, he's got major Own Issues. He took up most of my morning yesterday because he, although he says I known nothing about Y-DNA stuff, did not apparently understand the difference between a Haplogroup and a Haplotype or Patrilineality. He finally did figure it out, but he really botched up the lead sentence in the Article and everytime I replace that lead paragraph with my version he reverts it, no matter how poorly matched his material is or no matter it if follows the wikiguidelines or not. He just elbows me in the gut.PB666  22:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

PD, honestly, your guesses about my intentions and opinions are so amazingly wrong sometimes, even when I think they are perfectly clear to everyone else. For example your whole story about us arguing about a term, and me finally understanding, is nonsense. We simply never discussed it in any two way conversation. I simply said it was irrelevant, and you were not looking at the wording being proposed but just off writing on another tangent. I still say it is irrelevant. All these events in the discussion which you remember never happened. They were between the lines for you and you alone. Anyone reading the talk page will not see them. I can say exactly the same thing about how you recall all the debates you think you've had since you tried to split the article a few weeks back and then got nasty because no one liked it. You've come up with all kinds of theories about why no one agreed, all except the reasons that people clearly explained to you. I do not know how to try harder than I have to communicate with you.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

possible bad image: File:Babypamper.jpg

File:Babypamper.jpg has been used as an unpleasant image in the nuisance page I Fucking Hate You, With a Smile. Is it a candidate for {{Badimage}}? Pseudomonas_(talk) 13:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say yes. What article is it for? A8UDI 13:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, lord yes. And being used for vandalism. No encylopedic advantage for it. (Also almost put me off my lunch when I first saw it, which is a good reason in itself for deletion.) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 14:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You might also want to nominate it for deletion from the commons. See commons:Commons:Project_scope#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose and scroll down to Examples to see how this image might not qualify for being on the Commons. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Nike iD, a WikiProject Homework production

I offer the following, related to article NikeiD-- About 24 hours ago I put a PROD on under self-advert reasoning. One of the editors saying to be involved was actually awesomely kind enough to contact me on my talk page, very politely, where I got a very interesting reason that explains why something is amiss: I'll even admit, just for full disclosure, I was a little strong in the PROD text. The histories of the editors off the list were longer-standing and I wouldn't have deliberately bitten anyone if I saw only new users as contributors.

This is in response to the recent article deletion proposition, you made on the article NikeId. (sorry if I'm typing this in the wrong place!) But it's Just to let you know that we're a group of students who have been assigned the task of creating a wikipedia page, we're totally new to wikipedia and have been trying our best to find a topic not already covered on wikipedia to make. We never intended for the page to come across as a blatant advert, and maybe some of our points need to be changed. We were given a checklist of things we must include in the article- for example demonstrating that we can use italics, which is possibly the reason they seem misplaced. We'll continue working on the page to improve it.

I've left the new user cookies to start a talk page and will be leaving a link to this discussion here. Before I get mushy, my official view must of course be to state the obvious, that Misplaced Pages is not a homework assignment.

Having never run into this before-- especially it being said openly and not assumed-- I'm at a total loss. I'm loving the positive attitude and good faith being shown, so I'm going to put in writing that I'm begging policy purists (including my normal persona) to give a pass on the self-admitted account garble or puppetry matters. Take what would normally be a comedic and juicy bit of text resulting in lawlings, snowballing XfDs, etc., and please see if it's alright to try to help a bit. I'm not sure which users specifically are doing the homework project, but none of the users who have ever edited this article engage in vandalism or other bad faith editing. Just, please don't go out with a hammer and try to injure anyone. Since the assignment is not completed an we cannot accurately predict the future status or letter grade of Misplaced Pages articles. That said, it could well be taken out of the mainspace based on the admission. It also shouldn't stay out there since it could be hacked up by anyone and their good faith blown away by any random editor.
Can I get an admin to Userify this? Please. Likely to User:All.watson, the one who contacted me. A copy perhaps, since there have been other contributors to the existing article. After this revelation, I'd be soulless to do nothing to try to help. A one-off good faith case, perhaps, since I never again want to learn about Misplaced Pages as a school project. Ever. My Wikisenses are twitching at the thought of debating the destruction of something like this, as well, but good faith wins.

Searches aren't finding any kind of precedent on this for me, so this is an attempted bolt-on to WP:AGF and WP:IAR, I guess? Userify it with a noindex... just look away for a few days until they're supposed to be finished or pretend it was a requested article. Who knows, maybe they'll come up with an great article. I don't mind watching over that to make sure nothing interacts with the mainspace. When they say the assignment is done content can either be a new article all together (I'm not taking the PROD off the current version), merged with an article that lives, or just CSD-G7'd and allowed to scatter into the night. I know it'd most always be bad to just blindly give free editing space like this, but I'd say valid this one time at least because we might get a good article. ...Thoughts? I can entirely record all their actions and, well. I don't know what I can really offer as collateral versus any unmentionable horrors resulting from granting an odd request. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 14:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: Userficiation with deletion or merging if appropriate at the end of the project sounds like a winner. A longer-term general solution would be to have a 3rd party site or possibly Wikimedia to have a wiki specifically aimed at the student crowd for such projects, with an import/export functionality to Misplaced Pages so anything good that came out of it can be imported after review and some mechanism to preserve GFDL and CC-BY-SA compliance. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Shhhhh! Per WP:BEANS, we're doomed if these things are ever mentioned in public! That's a really thin line to work on, though, where theoretically it triples the size and results in 10x better quality within Misplaced Pages, but wow. Such awful mess if things weren't perfect. For now I'll just evade your import/export matter by saying "I think volunteers have enough to do already". ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter why people write articles: if it conforms to the policies, its fine. In fact, if you take a look at WP:SUP you can see we are more than happy to assist schools in giving students instruction about Misplaced Pages. Every person who tries editing once has the potential to become a long term editor. I'll ask the user if there is an email address for the instructor of the class that we can use to contact him or her, and monitor the project more easily, as well as making sure it is productive for them, and us. Prodego 16:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Blah, I think I'm being misunderstood. Well, this isn't a forum on global educational philosophy so I'll avoid that again. I certainly never said the "why?" was a reason it shouldn't be here, it's that I was blindly taking good faith on this with no evidence because my gut reaction was that there nothing "bad" going on and that an unknown list of users with unknown edit histories were all going to be okay. As someone very often worried their head will be chopped off if certain people fly by, I figured it proper to report that someone was openly admitting to things that that would be mostly unacceptable unless it were for school, and was openly saying "I can't say how many of us there are, who they are or what they've done" in terms of accounts controlled or articles followed. I do hope the user gives a list of anything you want, because it'd be a lot better for us to know where this was happening. As a non-admin it's not my place to nor considered appropriate to solicit contact from any user, which is why I left the note saying they should listen listen to whatever pops up. Sorry... ♪ daTheisen(talk) 17:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Your comment was fine, and bringing it up here was a good thing to do, nothing wrong there. If you would like, you should feel free to ask them to contact you, and work out something with them yourself, but you certainly shouldn't feel obligated to either. Nothing to be sorry about, thanks for bringing it up! Prodego 17:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Students experimenting with Misplaced Pages must experiment in accordance with our normal rules. It is perfectly appropriate to expect them to follow editing conventions. Nobody owns an article in mainspace, even for a class project. It is perfectly appropriate to correct style changes given as requirements by a teacher if they are not according to our MOS. Datheisen, any non admin can deal with it, unless it requires admin powers. But do familiarize yourself with the practices on those school guideline pages. Myself, I think it might be possible for it to become a proper article. A prod tag had been placed on it as an advertisement. I do not think it was, at least in the form I found it, and so I removed it. If sourced properly,it might even pass AfD. DGG ( talk ) 19:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Students experimenting with Misplaced Pages must experiment in accordance with our normal rules. It is perfectly appropriate to expect them to follow editing conventions. Nobody owns an article in mainspace, even for a class project. It is perfectly appropriate to correct style changes given as requirements by a teacher if they are not according to our MOS. Datheisen, any non admin can deal with it, unless it requires admin powers. But do familiarize yourself with the practices on those school guideline pages. Myself, I think it might be possible for it to become a proper article. A prod tag had been placed on it as an advertisement. I do not think it was, at least in the form I found it, and so I removed it. If sourced properly,it might even pass AfD. DGG ( talk ) 19:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Ooh. I never thought it wasn't salvageable. I also didn't really think it wasn't notable, but that there was nothing to say it was past what it said it's name it and even then the pictures demonstrating it was Nike kept getting copyvio-yanked if I recall. I don't doubt this can turn into a good small article, Nike-related stub or merged in for a few paragraphs. I still find the statement about "awards for internet marketing" to be adorably ironic, actually moreso now since it's there as a legitimate point in part of a comprehensive article instead of it possibly being just a street team bragging about what they're supposedly pulled off. AfD I'd say is 40/60 as-is, to 70/30 wouldn't be that hard I hope, and even 1-2 mentions out of big pop culture somethings would be almost a 100%, but mean trimming it back down a bit to whatever its scope is. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 23:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Propose block for User Vcrmaster

I feel that User Vcrmaster should be blocked preferably for 24 hours for general incompetence , trolling, vandalism and breach of wikipeida guidelines. Please discuss this matter further with me and other users. 81.132.107.82 (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hardly an admin issue atm, two test edits and two warnings. If it continues then it goes to vandal noticeboard. RaseaC (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Vcrmaster (talk · contribs) about this discussion. Incidentally, 81.132.107.82, why do you feel Vcrmaster deserves a block? What evidence do you have for "general incompetence, trolling, vandalism and breach of wikipdia guidelines"? GiantSnowman 15:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No one noticed the total humor in this? See this post where someone is objecting to a block on their that had expired 6 days earlier, stating they are said that IP and not a sock of someone else. They then sign it. Apparently forgetting they're at a different IP, it's signed with this 81.132 fellow, thus 100% solving their own case against themselves that never needed to be objected to in the first place. Hmm. So Mr/Mrs 81.132.107.82 = 86.136.78.170 that was used to revert edits of the indef block of one Mcjakeqcool a week ago. Chillum kind of had a no-brainer, but the user isn't the source of what's almost surely to continue in some form. It's just ironic that IPs lived even while looking as suspicious as the user. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 16:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I blocked this user before seeing this ANI report, I followed a note on the users page to here. I don't by default investigate every person I see making a report of vandalism, particular when that report was not involved in my decision to make the block. 20:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible legal threat by User:Stroker Serpentine

This user has made a large revert to the article Stroker Serpentine with the edit summary: Returned site to original condition prior to griefing. Notified admins and attorneys. Requested lock diff. The entire article is a bit of a mess, but this isn't helping. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(...and no, user did not "notify admins" Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 16:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC))

I wonder if "notified attorneys" is really a legal threat. I guess you could argue about a chilling effect, but I think it's too vague. I've warned the user, so let's see how it goes from there. TNXMan 17:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I know I'm usually on the hardass side of NLT, but it seems obvious to me that "notified attorneys" is intended to stifle discussion by invoking fear of legal action, preventing which is one of the two direct objectives of the policy. (In fact, I'd be hard-pressed to find another meaning at all). — Coren  17:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Given that their previous two edits had summaries of "Edit is libelous, No references and griefed by porn site Reported to admins" and "Libelous, irrelevant references, points to dead links of porn website", I'd have to take it as a legal threat. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

In conjunction with the "reporting to admins" comment, I took it as a "I'm telling mom and dad!" kind of threat. I've cleaned up the article some and more eyes would probably be useful. I agree with Bugs below, if they keep up the threat, they can be shown the door. TNXMan 17:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

As a courtesy I made doubly-certain no text had been altered after the reverted edits of the previous user. Not passing judgment on that user, but I did need to remove a bit more unsourced BLP material that was ugly bright red lettering in a version comparisons between current and last edits 2 days ago. Anyway, it's the text as-was after the reverts, as desired. Really wanted to make sure I actually found the correct version that was unofficially requested be locked. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 17:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a single-purpose account, making legal threats. My guess is that it won't be back. But if it does come back, and it's first edit isn't a retraction, then it should be indef'd. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree and that's what I was assuming a bit ago. I just really, really wanted to make sure cited BLP text from before and after the alleged inappropriate changes and reversions were both the same. There was this strange unreferenced line of gushing praise that had somehow appeared in the version with the lawyering edit summary. Figured it had to be a re-reversion somehow since equal and "locked" was the goal, and with it gone there are zero possible discrepancies that might trip up a legal effort. Yup. Zero. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 17:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance towards proper Misplaced Pages procedure. I did NOT write this article however it WAS accurate until the editor began their campaign with an agenda to promote their porn site as a reference. The editor has no basis in reality citing heresay articles in his singular pay-per-click blog. I am the subject of the article and I have indeed contacted wikipedia directly because frankly the procedure for doing so here is beyond my comprehension. The following responses were given by direct email through the "Report Libel" interface:

I have removed the section, as the only source was unreliable (see also <http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:RS> for an explanation). If you have any further issues, please feel free to let us know. Yours sincerely, Peter Symonds Misplaced Pages - http://en.wikipedia.org

The two amendments you requested have been made.It is not possible to lock or remove the article, but we will be watching it to ensure, as far as possible, that further issues like this don't arise. Yours sincerely,Joe Daly - http://en.wikipedia.org

A lot of this content appears to have been edited since you wrote to us. Can you please advise whether the article is acceptable in its current form? Yours sincerely, Joe Daly Misplaced Pages - http://en.wikipedia.org

In each incidence the editor replaced the changes made by Mr. Daly. If Mr. Daly is not an administrator then I certainly apologize for not using proper procedure. However, the legal reference was made in my edit because I will have no choice but to petition Misplaced Pages to remove the article entirely before I will allow this editor to continue to use wikipedia as a pulpit for libelous claims against my person with a commercially motivated agenda. I certainly do not need to use Misplaced Pages as a promotional tool. The article is NOT autobiographical as the original posts will substantiate. I am more than happy to remove the legal comment with cooler composure. I default to the admins here. I appreciate the attention and apologize for the trouble this may have caused. Kevin Alderman/aka/Stroker Serpentine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stroker Serpentine (talk • contribs) 19:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do in the future is refer to Misplaced Pages policies (such as WP:Biographies of living persons or WP:Reliable sources) rather then referring to potential legal consequences. Not only is that the best way of not falling into the WP:NLT problem, if a person continues to ignore Misplaced Pages policies (especially WP:BLP), the community and the administrators will be more appreciative of your concerns. As I said, it's just some useful advice for the future. Singularity42 (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Singularity. I did not post the original article and I am a wiki novice. No excuses, but this is all new to me. Misplaced Pages can be quite intimidating for non-programming types. I will amend the edits post haste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stroker Serpentine (talk • contribs) 06:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't seem to edit the comment without undoing the revert. Any help please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stroker Serpentine (talk • contribs) 07:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Carol Queen / IP using 145.18.242.63, 146.50.79.95

Warned user, take arguments to the talk page and always assume good faith

Yesterday, this anon editor made several edits to Carol Queen which were flagged by abuse filters as possible BLP violations and/or vandalism. I reviewed the edits, which amount to moderately argumentative, clearly unbalanced discussions of the article subject's sociopolitical writings, with significant sourcing problems and removed them, mentioning WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP in my edit summaries. The anon is repeatedly reinserting the edits, posting personal attacks on me on my talk page and on the article talk page; the most recent talk page edits includes an announcement of intent/threat to harass me over the dispute ("If you think those editors "hounded" you before, you ain't seen nothing yet"). The anon certainly appears to be an at least moderately experienced editor editing out of an IP to avoid scrutiny. I believe the Carol Queen article should be at least temporarily semiprotected and the IP should be blocked for socking, incivility, and refusal to comply with BLP and related policies. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll warn the IP to AGF for starters.. and then review the history A8UDI 17:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Ask for semi-protection to clear the ring and then do a nice cleanup, maybe? I'd argue that you're still almost being too generous with what's left! You're at 3RR, do you need someone to watch it while waiting for protection? ♪ daTheisen(talk) 17:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Darrenhusted and Speedy Deletion tags

I really hate to bring this up, since the user is generally doing a lot of positive work on vandalism and new page patrols and I don't want to drive a hard-working volunteer away, but the issue below is starting to become a problem.

Darrenhusted (talk · contribs) seems to over-tagging new articles for speedy deletion. Mostly with A7 and G11. With A7, the user is tagging articles that are outside the scope of subjects, tagging article with clear claims of importance, and tagging articles that have been kept after AfD. With G11, the user is tagging articles that are clearly not spam.

Darrenhusted has recieved numerous messages about the use of speedy deletion tags, including this message. Yet Darrenhusted continues to inappropriately tag articles for SD.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying we all have to be perfect with how we tag articles for SD. Even I have made a mistake or two in that area. But the idea is that we learn from our mistakes, and we avoid being disruptive (either intentionally or unintentionally). Given the high number of inapproriate tags and the continuation after recieving numerous talk page messages about the problem (which Darrenhusted never replied to, other than removing them from his talk page manually archiving the messages), this is something the community needs to deal with.

The problem is that it discourages new members from continuing to participate in Misplaced Pages when their articles are tagged for speedy deletion. This can especially be a problem when new users are told their articles will be quickly deleted for reasons that don't seem to apply to their article.

I would propose the following temporary editing restriction:

Darrenhusted is restricted for three months from personally tagging a Misplaced Pages page for speedy deletion, except for the editor's own user pages. I've revised the proposal slightly - see below. Singularity42 (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I would also appreicate hearing if anyone has any better solutions... Singularity42 (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Revised proposal:

Darrenhusted is restricted for three months from personally tagging a Misplaced Pages page for speedy deletion, except for Darrenhusted's own user pages and pages where Darrenhusted was the only substantial contributer. Singularity42 (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: A form of mentorship is probably more appropriate. How about creating Darrenhusted/CSDs and letting him fill it with recommendations and rationales, then you, me, and anyone else who wants to can use his recommendations as suggestions to tag. Here's the important part: Over time he'll see the ones that we accept, the ones we reject, the ones we accept with changes, and the ones someone else already tagged and he'll be able to get good enough we can restore his tagging privileges. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Much better idea, provided Darrenhusted is willing to go along with it as well. If so, I would be happy to be involved. Singularity42 (talk)

Yeah, I'm not going to be mentored, nor create a sub page where people vet my CSD tagging. Here is a different solution, I won't bother. In my last 500 edits I have tagged 50 articles under CSD which have been deleted, and some which have been turned down. Some of which I PROD-ed. If an admin does not view an article I have tagged as a CSD then I'm fine with that, the process is CSD-PROD-AfD. CSDs get applied then either the article is deleted, or they get turned down and the editor can pursue the other avenues. If my CSD tags are judged as disruptive then I will skip that step, it's not worth the hassle. And I didn't reply to Singularity42 'cause there was nothing to say. I read it, I archived it, and given that the notice was on my talk page there is nothing out of the ordinary, there are plenty of notices on my talk page that I don't bother responding to. But now, Singularity42, you have your response. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(BTW - I did not start this thread because my message had not been responded to - I assume the message was read when it was manually archived. The issue is that the problems raised in the message were still continuing, which combined with the lack of a direct reply, was an issue. Singularity42 (talk))

What helps most is sending each article to the proper channel in the first place, according to WP:Deletion policy. Articles that meet the CSD criteria should be nominated for speedy. Articles which uncontroversially should be deleted but do not meet those criteria should be nominated for PROD. Articles about which there will be an argument or that need discussion go to AfD. It is not helpful to nominate obvious speedy candidates for AfD--it adds to the already excessive workload there. Nominating articles that do not fit the CSD for speedy is even less helpful, because they might accidentally get deleted--admins are not perfect. If in doubt, Prod is often a good choice,because I and the others who patrol there will move things to where they belong if necessary. DGG ( talk ) 20:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Since Darrenhusted continued making bad speedy nominations after this response (e.g., tagging Omega gamma delta as a G2 test page), I have temporarily disabled WP:TWINKLE for him, until this issue is resolved. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reply to Darrenhusted's comments). I think right there is the heart of the problem. As pointed out by DGG, it is not CSD --> PROD --> AfD. Each one serves a different function. It is possible (and, in fact, usually normal) for something to meet normal deletion policy (and would therefore fall under PROD or AfD) and not meet the very narrow scope of CSD. There may also be something that seems to meet deletion policy, but the deletion is obviously not going to uncontroversial. Therefore, PROD would not apply. Basically, each of the three deletion methods serve very different purposes and have very different scopes. One is not an escalation of the other. They should be treated differently as very seperate processes. Singularity42 (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Bosnia/Herzegovina map dispute

Vandalism on Demographic history of Bosnia and Herzegovina

User Laz17 deleted sourced data (maps, censuses) here . The same map can also be seen in "Povijesni atlas"--Kartografija Učila, Zagreb 1984. It is an elementary history atlas which was made in the time of ex.Yugoslavia. Discussion with the user is not helping . --Čeha (razgovor) 14:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Ceha simply has no source. It's as simple as that. We also have no source on the exact borders. (LAz17 (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)).

I have the census data for 1879, 1885, and 1895. The data indicates different results from what his map shows. Until we get an official referenced thing, we should remove all unofficial fantasy maps. (LAz17 (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)).

is a map which can be found in old yugoslav atlas;"Povijesni atlas"--Kartografija Učila, Zagreb 1984. On that map borders of districts are clearly seen. Removing that is considered vandalism.

Second, Laz borders of districts are clearly seen on that map. You also removed part talking about ethnic structure of those districts. If you had the census, try counting it up. It should get the same results. --Čeha (razgovor) 10:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

harassment by user Ceha

User ceha is haraassing me. Please see , at the end of the talk page. He is insisting that a particular place should be included on yet another one of his fraud maps. No previous map has included this particular town, and maps that we have in high resolution show that the town was not part of what he insists is part of. Upon seeing sources ceha denounces them as false, and claims that his maps that have little detail are still correct. He is very rude and obnoxious. Please can someone help in quieting him? Also, there is the big map problem regarding his 1991 false map... he seems to like to discuss it on multiple talk pages. Could someone educate him as to keep the discussion to only one page? (LAz17 (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)).

I have made Ceha (talk · contribs) aware of this discussion. GiantSnowman 17:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know of these kinds of disgustingly inappropriate personal attacks, though you really didn't need to report yourself. Sigh.

Content dispute; yet personal enough that LAz17 edits Ceha's posts, which by itself is generally not so cool. Besides the colors on a map version aren't so great and you like yours more, what makes today worse than any other? Seriously, content dispute. Tone on both sides is pointed for obvious reasons even the word 'please' looks like an insult now, but I'd highly suggest this ANI today be "resolved" and endorsed as-is by the nominator and walk off lucky to not actually have been caught doing things on the abusive side of tedious. Just as the self-report on the abuse, I see you left out signature edits for trying to hide yourself not logged in as being a sock ... and it would be a great sign of extra good faith if you could stop following User:Ceha around to every single place they post and deliberately post about the map even when that's not the topic of the other conversation? Good time to take a few days off. Another round of ANIs bounced off and you'll be getting away with some pretty questionable stuff. Something goes on forever like this and I'm sure it's common knowledge that at least one person ends up blocked. It's a map. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, these two users have been fighting over historical and demographic maps of Croatia for many months. It is extremely confusing, because neither of them are very good at actually explaining to an outsider in a matter-of-fact way what the perceived problems about this or that map are. I'm trying to get them to talk calmly at Talk:Banovina of Croatia now (at least talk to me, separately, if they can't talk calmly to each other); if we fail to sort this out peacefully I am afraid it looks like we will need ARBMAC sanctions for both. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Datheisen, I usually have log in automatically. This is good for only 30 days. So, I did not notice that I was not logged in. That is why I changed the stuff back. Accusing me of sock puppetry is really outrageous.

There are more than one map dispute. The map here is involving the Banovina of Croatia. The other, and primary, map dispute is regarding the 1991 ethnic map of Bosnia. FutPerf had deleted ceha's fraud map, which was a reproduction of a 1981 map. Ceha used this source map create another map. This other map is very wrong, and we are arguing about it. Currently the discussion is on hold because Ceha does not accept any criticism on that map and there is no moderator. I do not follow ceha around much. However, the guy is problematic. FutPerf, could you please help mediate in the map problem? User:Rjecina/Bosnian census - it looks nasty, I must admit. Direktor helped gained much ground, as he forced Ceha to stop continueing to take the discussion into circles based on the census. (LAz17 (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)).

LAz, I don't know if you saw my remarks on that article talk page yet. It contained a strong warning to stop making accusatory remarks about each other, and to concentrate exclusively on discussing the facts. This goes for all spaces, not only that page. I see that in the posting just above you again couldn't refrain from accusing your opponent of "fraud" and other such things. This is a final warning, please stop personalising the problem like this, immediately. – On another issue, I do not think you can be blamed for attempted sockpuppetry, don't worry about that one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I'll do my best, but I do hope that there will be some mediator, as that is the most useful way for anything regarding disputes between ceha and me to move forwards. (LAz17 (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)).

Thanks, DaTheisen and Future:), I hope that with help of a mediator we'll finally have a civilized discussion. --Čeha (razgovor) 10:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

La Salle Extension University

There's a brewing edit skirmish at that article, over a number of issues, between Dmadzelanedgov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who represents himself as a U.S. government employee in the Department of Education; a user calling himself LEU Truth Squad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whose point of view is obvious from his name; Jokestress (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who first edited the article long ago and has been dragged back into it; and myself to some extent as I did one reversion to Dmadzelanedgov's unexplained reversions today, and have had talk page discussions with the other three. This apparently has something to do with a political figure (connected with Obama) who is citing LSEU as part of his educational background, but I don't think LEU Truth Squad (who raised the issue) has actually come out and named the guy. In any case, while there has been talk on the talk pages, there is also frequent reversion going on, primarily over the validity of sources. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified all three users about this discussion. GiantSnowman 20:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

So have I. I'm thinking of creating a second user. I'll call it "Redundancy Squad of Redundancy". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

And I'll change mine to Speedy Gonzales ;) GiantSnowman 20:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

From what I can gather, there's an off-wiki dispute over a Virginia healthcare executive claiming to have a Ph.D. from LSEU in 2000, but according to the Bear Guide, LSEU closed in 1982. According to ads and actions by the Federal Trade Commission, LSEU offered Associates and Bachelors degrees, but no ads found to date mention Masters or Doctorates. Unsourced information has been repeatedly added to the LSEU article that supports the claims of the person who says his doctorate came in 2000. Both User:Dmadzelanedgov and User:LEU Truth Squad are using problematic usernames. Someone also created User:LEU Truth Fairy Squad. User:Dmadzelanedgov's name (D. Madzelan at ed.gov) suggests the real name of a real government official, but there is reason to believe this editor is not that government official and may in fact be the Virginia healthcare executive. User:LEU Truth Squad claims to be a consortium of people trying to add the "truth" to the LSEU article. Both are WP:SPAs, both have been warned about usernames, and both appear to have a conflict of interest. Both keep trying to add citations that are not reliable, such as phone numbers or web pages that do not support the statements they wish to add. I recommend blocking those usernames if they are not changed, or if they continue to revert reliably-sourced information. As a veteran of the Pacific Western University WP:OFFICE action, I know that these distance learning articles often attract highly partisan SPAs. These users are bordering on disruption at this point. Jokestress (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: usernames involved in the same series of edits:

CRITICS

• LEU Truth Squad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - who claims to be speaking for a trio - started Oct. 20
• Grr8-1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - June 11 only

SUPPORTERS

• Dmadzelanedgov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - who claims to be a govt. employee named Madzelan - started Nov. 6
• Lesson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - only edits were Dec 7, 2006 - yes, three years ago
• Garykuta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - who claims to be a historian for the school - only edits were Apri 9, 2007 - 2 1/2 years ago
• Drptrgnm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Aug. 10-12
• 74.127.73.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Nov. 5 only
• 74.127.72.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Aug. 10 only
• 74.127.72.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Nov. 4, 26, 28

VANDALS

• LEU Truth Fairy Squad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - an obvious troll - Nov. 26
• Lapneth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - wholesale blanking, today

My guess is that a Checkuser would show that a number of these accounts are connected with User:Dmadzelanedgov, with the rest connected to the opposition. Jokestress (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I took the liberty of reconfiguring your list to allow easy reference to their activities, and separating by apparent supporters and critics. The IP's geolocate to Monterey, Virginia. LEU Truth Squad stated that that would be an expected location from a person claiming to have an LSEU Ph.D. issued in 2000, when LEU Truth Squad says the school closed in 1982. Also, LEU Truth Squad said he would rename his user ID, but I don't think he has done so yet. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

And I took the liberty of notifying the listed users that they're being discussed here in the Thirty-Eleventh Circle of Hell. GJC 23:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

...at least for the ones Bugs didn't get on the first pass. Clearly I am not on today; I didn't realize Turkey Coma could be a chronic disease.GJC 23:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't bother notifying the others because they're just drive-bys, some of which have not edited for some time now. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser won't likely be able to do anything with the ones from 2-3 years ago, and maybe not even the ones from this past summer as the data is not kept indefinitely. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, Giant Snowman - thank you for the alert of this discussion.

First - because of the dust-up over the user name "LEU Truth Squad", a change of user name will be done as soon as possible. There have been intervening time-absorbing issues involvint the holiday and other responsibilites since that was action was promised. Please be advised that no additional posts under the user name "LEU Truth Squad" will be entered and the change will be done as just stated as soon as possible (and how to do it is read through).

Without being redundant in explaining the reason for the styling of the user name as it has appeared, it was to represent that three individuals who are very familiar with LaSalle Extension University who collaborate on responses (but only one accesses the site and enters text) had the motive and intention of providing verifiable information from the Illinois State Board of Education that the school never offered any degree above a Bachelors (notwithstanding LL.B which is at a different strata than an academic degree in say history, math, or other subject.

Why? Witnessing first hand the struggle to locate information about LEU/LSEU that could be thoroughly researched pursuant to degrees offered (or not), to try and help anyone (such as potential employers like schools, legitimate universities, medical and industrial organizations, etc) wanting to verify claims they were being presented with by candidates and/or others claiming advanced degrees from LEU/LSEU - given that almost NO resources are available to any such potential employer.

So - what if such potential employer simply would not know to contact the entity that oversaw the school's degree programs and has actual transcripts? Many would not think of the State of Illinois Department of Education. Some might think that would be an obvious thing to do - but "we" have first hand knowledge about a major vetting service that did not know or think to do exactly that - and missed the fact that the candidate they were recommending had falsified academic credentials claimed to have been conveyed by LEU/LSEU.

This is a more widespread problem that perhaps you are aware (and although down for the moment, the site Ebmnet for years provided an internet-based list of graduates that (a) required no verification of actual graduation from LEU/LSEU to be listed and (2) showed a number of "graduates" claiming degrees from after the school closed. Note the other "lists" they offer such as "Directory of Haitian Churches", Directory of University of Montreal Graduates", and of course, the currently "..page is not accessible now pending internal review" for LaSalle Extension University.

So because "we" became involved in the impact a major employer was experiencing from the hiring of an unqualifed candidate (claiming an advanced degree from LEU/LSEU) we decided to add information for the benefit of ALL to any site (that allowed for such action) about the "truth" of what LEU/LSEU was authorized by the ISBE to convey on the completition of course material since there were almost no other resources available by an internet "Search" to research the degrees LEU/LSEU could and did offer.

This now moves to the issue of requiring a "published source" before Wiki will recognize comment and/or citation of which Baseball Bugs and Jokestress has made "us" not only aware but stated in no uncertain terms that the entry of that information although backed by direct correspondence from the ISBE (considered "personal research") was not sufficient to be allowed to remain in the article.

If you check the History - you find "we" have not re-entered anything on the site basically since that alert was received.

Next - there is a problem with the Misplaced Pages "vetting" process of what can be recognized as "allowable" material from which to quote.

Bear in mind that no state agency such as the one that oversaw LEU/LSEU publishes lists of courses it has authorized a school to offer - leaving that job to the school in their promotional material - but the State Agency will respond to inquiry about what the school was authorized and was not authorized to convey.

The insistance therefore that the ISBE has to have published that LEU/LSEU was not authorized to offer Masters or Doctorate level degrees before it can be referred to or quoted from (documentation responding to inquiry) set up a standard that falls entirely beyond the purview of what a State Agency does and thereby rejects out-of-hand the highest level of authority available.

An example to illustrate the problem this arrangement causes - if LEU/LSEU entered an ad in a 1946 Popular Science wherein nothing about the type of certificates/degrees was even mentioned - WHATEVER they said in the ad would be accorded more validity from which to quote than a letter from the ISBE on State stationery specifically stating (1) the school could not have ever conveyed any Masters or Doctorate degrees because (2) they were not certified to do so by the State of Illinois.

This protocol of barring high-value resources because they have not "published" relative to an article's topic does, with all due respect to those dedicated volunteers forming needed protocols, deprive ANY Misplaced Pages site (potentially) from containing the most accurate information that is available but not allowed to be viewed by anyone attempting to research a topic through the service and most specifically in this instance, the highest level of authority available to verify what the school was authorized by the state to convey and what it wasn't.

Given that such a scenario (a State agency that does not publish and should not be expected to do so compared with commercial and other organizations) the Administrative Staff of Misplaced Pages should consider how to accommodate information provided by a State in writing to address such a topic as that of what LEU/LSEU was allowed to convey upon the completion of course work.

Perhaps even though there is no "heirachy" at Misplaced Pages, some arrangement can be found wherein correspondence from a legitimate and best source that is a non-publishing entity but which will provide printed correspondence in response to a topic such as being discussed here - and that stored correspondence held by an approved Misplaced Pages site could become the "published source" sufficient for the "vetting" process required by Wiki for insertion into an article.

The Illinois State Board of Education, Closed Schools Department, will absolutely confirm that their records show the school actually closed in 1981, that they maintain the only certified transcripts issued by the school, and that no one could have earned any degree above a Bachelors because the school was never certified/authorized to convey a Masters or Doctorate level degree. All anyone has to do - is call and request written confirmation of this fact or write and request same. That is as close to a "published" document that can be expected from a state agency such as one that oversaw a school like LEU/LSEU and continues to oversee every school in the State of Illinois.

Just "for fun" - why not contact the State Board of Education where any of YOU live and inquire if they publish a list of degrees any of the schools they oversee for the general public to read (or if they leave that job to the school itself in their promotional materials) - and report your findings in this forum.

Sorry this is so long - but seemed appropriate for a full explanation of the issue, the "vetting" problem of a high-grade source that does not publish as a standard part of its function along the line currently required by Wiki, and a recommendation for a possible modification/arrangement by the Misplaced Pages Administrative Staff to effect a solution.

Regards to all - and "we" (usage soon to disappear pursuant to the pending user name change) hope this helps understand the issues that have been raised concerning entries by "LEU Truth Squad". LEU Truth Squad (talk) 03:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LEU Truth Squad (talk • contribs) 03:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Article full-protected for one week--surprised it wasn't full-protected sooner, this has been going on for almost two months. Blueboy96 03:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Disturbing content (report moved from WP:AN)

From Administrator's Noticeboard: Ks0stm 20:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

From Chris Woodrick: "He seacretly is plotting somthing against the popular kids at his highschool somthing really big that its scary." What should be done about this? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)First, find out who taught him how to spell. Something went terribly wrong there. Then see if the supposed threat has anything resembling facts that could be useful enough to report to any authorities. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

what should be done was to delete it. Another admin already did so. I do not take it as a credible threat, as it was part of a article full of the typical nonsense for an article from one schoolboy teasing another. If anyone thinks it worth proceeding further, they can do so. DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Who are we to determine what is a credible threat or not? Notifty the authorities with as much info as possible and let them investigate. GiantSnowman 20:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If the threat names a specific school or person, then some followup would be good. Columbine happened because no one took the kids seriously. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur with GiantSnowman. Ks0stm 20:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It does not name a specific school; it does not name a specific person. DGG ( talk ) 20:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

From what I saw of it before it was deleted, it had potentially identifying information in it. Ks0stm 20:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Plus the IP can be traced to find a location. GiantSnowman 20:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The article gave the person's full name, birth date, physical characteristics and family information. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Since DGG saw fit to delete it, he now assumes the responsibility of notifying the authorities. If he thinks it's not a credible threat and doesn't want to bother, he should un-delete it and let someone else take care of it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

DGG said "it does not name a specific person" and yet Mandarax said "the article gave the person's full name" - so who's lying?! GiantSnowman 21:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

As I thought I said at the beginning, another admin deleted it. I expressed the opinion he was correct in doing so. (I have notified him--nobody else seems to have done that) The person about whom the identifying information is given was the person writing the article, or pretending to write it, not a person about whom a threat is being made. We do not undelete such content--in fact, its the sort of information that really should be oversighted according to our privacy policy. Any of the hundreds of the other admins who wants to do something can do it. DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs: I trust admins to act in good faith and I trust that they almost always have good judgment, subject to occasional mistakes or blind spots. If DGG says there was no reason to report, then unless he made an error in judgment there is no reason to report. Given the harm that could happen with undeleting something that should by all rights be oversighted, if anyone has any concerns they should ask DGG to get another admin or functionary to review it. My personal preference would be to send it to someone who can oversight with instructions to review it and to oversight edits that even admins aren't supposed to be able to see, but that may be overkill. It's probably sufficient to have another admin eyeball it in case today is the one day this month that DGG makes a mistake. <-- a little humor there for you davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

what action of mine do you want them to review? I have taken no action at all with respect to the article. I do make mistakes of course, I would say perhaps one a week, not one a month. So undoubtedly does the deleting admin, and all of us. Perhaps you want another admin to review the action of the guy who did do the deletion. I reviewed it, and certainly anyone else can. This page is the place to ask. The normal course if someone does notify is to restore long enough to let the agency see the information, and then delete again. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

← As I read the article, there's no question that the person whose identifying information is provided is absolutely the person who is allegedly plotting to do some big scary thing against the popular kids. There's no indication that this is the same person as the writer, but that may very well be the case. With the full name, birth date, and location information provided by a checkuser, law enforcement authorities should certainly be able to find him. (And, yes, deleting the article was definitely correct.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Since when can our checkusers provide name, birth date, and location? At best, useragent and IP. 22:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me rephrase: With the full name and birth date listed in the article, which should be sufficient, as well as possible approximate location information based on data provided by a checkuser.... MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Two questions: (1) Is it possible, right now, without the deleted info, to tell who either the intended perp and the intended victim are? (2) From the deleted info, which you have apparently seen, is it possible to discern that info? If the answer to either of those questions is "Yes", then one or two admins' gut feeling, that there's nothing to worry about, may not be sufficient. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not sure that Misplaced Pages Admins should be deciding whether threats of violence are real or not; we need to inform the relevant authorities and let them take appropiate action. GiantSnowman 22:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

In all likelihood, the threat is just a hoax. But, if contacting polices is prefered, no prob. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that 999/1000 times these kinds of 'threats' are bored kids having fun; but there is always the chance that one of these threats is real, and if we just ignored it it'd be tragic. Ignore the vandal, and report them to the authorities to deal with as they see fit. GiantSnowman 23:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw it as well, and from the deleted info, you can discern (as said above) a person's full name, description, and birth date. You cannot tell who the intended victim(s) are, other than the mention "the popular kids at his highschool". The person was named as "seacretly is plotting somthing against the popular kids at his highschool somthing really big that its scary." FWIW, If it was my high school they were talking about, I would want something done about it. Ks0stm 22:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that when I say "full name", I mean full first, middle, and last name. In addition to birth date, the article gives his height, weight, and what members of his family are in his household. Although no geographic information or school is mentioned, the data which is present should be quite sufficient for authorities to find him. The chilling note reminded me of the evidence which police and news reporters always dig up after a school massacre, and they always wonder how nobody ever heeded the warnings. I think it would be irresponsible to simply ignore this. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Please report this to the police and let them handle it. I get a chill just thinking that we may have missed something. Basket of Puppies 23:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The laissez-faire attitude of a number of editors and admins with regards to threats of violence & suicide on Misplaced Pages is extremely disheartening, and I feel that this site needs a concrete policy for these matters. I believe that Misplaced Pages:Responding to threats of harm was previously rejected as policy; how can I nominate a new draft for consideration as acceptance as policy? GiantSnowman 23:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I just had a look at Misplaced Pages:Threats of violence, which seems to be a more recent attempt to codify a guideline/policy. It failed, however. What I did see was statements from police officers asking Misplaced Pages editors to refer all threats to them. I think that's really good advice to follow. Basket of Puppies 00:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages:Responding to threats of harm is not rejected policy - it's an essay, describing administrators' best practice and recommendations regarding the problem. (disclaimer - I wrote most of it). It was not proposed as policy, because there are intractable disputes among the community on what "the right thing to do" is. It's an essay, because essays aren't up for community consensus per se.

With that said - administrators as a community do that, and follow that, so it's a good idea.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You are right, however I was referring to something that had been proposed as a policy but rejected. Basket of Puppies 09:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, don't bring things to AN or AN/I if you are going to complain when admins dismiss it as non-credible. If you are convinced of a threat, email checkusers. They can forward the appropriate information to police and we can skip this whole conversation about 99% hoaxes. Protonk (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

How to deal with topic bans

There is currently an AfD on a British journalist, Jonathan Cook. Cook has been writing for newspapers such as The Guardian and Le Monde, often with a critical view of Israel. Some pro-Israeli users are currently trying to have the article deleted, and a situation has arisen in which I'm not sure about the proper procedure. One heavily pro-Israeli editor, Gilabrand, has been removing many comments by two other editors , , . I don't know any of the users and don't know what kind of topic bans they have or if their comments (both abstained from voting) violated their topic bans. If they did, appropriate action should be taken. I am concerned that Gilabrand is so eager to removed comments not supporting his own POV. I'm particularly concerned as he waited a long time, after which a long discussion had taken place between one of the editors and another. By removing every second comment in a long discussion, Gilabrand's edits render it almost impossible to understand the page. I doubt this is the way to enforce a topic ban, but I might be wrong so I bring it here.Jeppiz (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:AE is thataway, if Gila feels that the edits are in violation of the topic she should go there instead of repeatedly removing others comments. nableezy - 21:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD closing not complete

WP:Articles_for_deletion/Committee_for_the_Propagation_of_Virtue_and_the_Prevention_of_Vice_(Gaza_Strip)
The discussion is closed but the article (page) still has the "under AfD" template. Cleanup needed there? -DePiep (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be done by Nuclear Warfare. TNXMan 21:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously something was wrong with my AfD closure script......Tim Song (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sock at Jim Bowden

The Jim Bowden article has just been vandalised twice by an IP replacing content with information about a different Jim Bowden who is 20 years younger. Current IP is User:71.129.235.170 but these selfsame edits have previously been made by IP User:71.140.64.15 User:69.237.145.140User:12.33.210.66. Could someone block the current IP for a few hours please - on previous form, they will keep reverting until they get brassed off tonight. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

As he switches IPs, Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection would be more efficient. Page reported for protection. HalfShadow 23:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought about that, but I'm pretty sure this is just one guy, and RPP will just come back and say that there's insufficient vandalism to warrant page protection. Just blocking his IP for 48hrs is better, because on previous form he's likely to go a way for a couple of weeks.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It can't hurt to list it anyway. HalfShadow 23:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, I just note that Kevin is undertaking a general clean up of the article, so there's some extra eyes on it anyway. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Shiron.net

Hello. Could someone please review the sources the creator of this article added? I used google translate and the recently added sources do not even mention the subject. The other refs are discussed on the AfD. I do not want to get into an edit war with this user and I would appreciate someone intervening between us and give a neutral perspective.--TParis00ap (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Use ctrl+F and look for the word:

שירונט

in the references. You will find it on each and everyone of them. Eddau (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried that. I also used Google translate to convert them to English and looked for Shiro as well. I found several times like Lshirot and Bshirot but nothing like Shiron or Shiron.net. Please understand that I approached and article with neutrality and nominated that article in good faith and I am only looking out for the 'pedia. I checked your sources in and could not verify the sources.--TParis00ap (talk) 23:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The only things I understand are that you insist talking about things you do not know and to claim that I am a spammer. You do not even recognize the Hebrew alphabet, but you almost deleted an article about a Hebrew website. You deleted sources in a language you do not read. It is about time you start believe in my good faithEddau (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, use Ctrl+F to look for

שירונט

Not for

שִירוֹ‏נֶ‏ט 

Eddau (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I absolutly believe in your good faith, I just have trouble seeing us working this issue out without help because you don't seem to understand that even though I cannot speak Hebrew, I can still use tools to descern what is said and apply Misplaced Pages policies. Is there really no one who can help us here?--TParis00ap (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

1. On the ref http://www.nrg.co.il/online/10/ART1/047/978.html, the word שירונט appears on the first line of the subtitle, in double quotes. On the ref http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3256121,00.html that word is underlined on the first line of the first paragraph. I hope you find it now.
2. Claiming I'm a spammer is not a belief in my good faith.
3. Translation machines may do a good job translating from Dutch to English, from Arabic to Hebrew, or from Italian to Spanish. However, the differences between English and Hebrew is way to large for them. If you think you really understand their translation, you are wrong. As you proved, you could not even recognize the main subject of some of those references. Eddau (talk) 04:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If it helps, "Shiron" in Hebrew translates to "Songs". So when you run a Google Translate, the website "Shiron" is translated to "Songs". I believe that is the confusion. Both references refer to the website. How relevant they are to the what they are being used for, etc., is really a content issue. However, I don't mind assisting on that front if needed. Singularity42 (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, based on Eddau's third point, this is not an English to Hebrew problem. This is a translation program problem, which could occur with any computerized translation from one language to another. Translation programs have major problems with proper nouns and titles. Singularity42 (talk) 04:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, guess what happens if you use google translator to translate the Hebrew Misplaced Pages article about Shiron.net. If you only look for the word "Shiron" you conclude that the Hebrew article about Shiron.net, is not about Shiron.net. That terrible translation is:

"'Sing N T "is a Web site that contains Israeli Hebrew by soundtrack. In addition it also has trivia, ringtones, dates of birthdays of stars & info about them, Oidaoklifim, pictures artists, albums covers pictures and ads on impressions battles.

Songs site currently has the largest legal database on the Internet the latest words of Hebrew songs.

The site was established in late 2002, began in 2003 with the company operates under license Di.ai. Si Acum. Di.ai. company concerned to Si Acum creators royalties for using the works site."Eddau (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

So if I can summarize, since I think both parties are misinterpreting each other. TParis00ap reviewed the Hebrew websites through Google Translate, ran into the problem I described above, came to a reasonable conclusion that the references did not refer to the website, and raised the issue with Eddau who supplied the references. Eddau, who is a Hebrew speaker, reviewed the websites in Hebrew, saw that the websites were refered to, and believed TParis00ap was searching for the wrong Hebrew word writing style of the Hebrew word, rather than having a problem with the English translation - which I believe Eddau has now realized based on his comments above. It is a case of simple misunderstanding, and I think is probably solved now. Singularity42 (talk) 04:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Keegscee's inappropriate warnings

User:Keegscee has continued to encourage vandalism to another Wiki after being warned two days ago. Although it is nice to have someone reverting vandalism, a quick scroll through his/her user contributions make me wonder if the user's true intentions is to reroute Misplaced Pages vandals to another Wiki rather than help this encyclopedia project. He came to my attention asking a question about abuse reports on my talk page. I immediately noticed his user talk page (which I have nominated for speedy deletion, but was asked to take it to MfD) instructing vistors to vandalize this wiki instead of Misplaced Pages. I also noticed in this person's user contributions that (s)he had been providing links to the site in warnings posted to vandals. This is disgraceful and gives Misplaced Pages a bad name; people encouraging such behavior fuels pages like this and I can imagine what would happen if someone at the site read his/her immature comments. PCHS-NJROTC 00:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Notified Keegscee of this discussion. @Kate (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

So your issue is that he is using Misplaced Pages to encourage people to vandalise Conservapedia? Crafty (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, mainly, and he's doing it after being warned too. That gives us a bad name, especially to the newbies that he's encouraging to do this. We don't need to end up in somebody's email to The Oreilly Factor saying "Misplaced Pages is a bunch of biased liberals" over one user. Thank you for notifying the user Katerenka, I forgot to do that. PCHS-NJROTC 00:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with being a "biased liberal"? @Kate (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

So what administrative action do you think should be taken? Crafty (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

ec: Not sure if a block is appropriate or not because that has a tendancy to make matters worse. Topic bans have to be done by ArbCom. I personally think the user page meets WP:CSD as an attack page; what he's doing is not far from telling people to vandalize any particular page which would result in a deletion of the comments along with a 4IM warning at the very least. Misplaced Pages is not 4chan; we cannot allow people to instruct others to inflict damage at other sites. What's next, will the user tell people to bash videos at YouTube or write bad reviews for products at Best Buy's website? And it has nothing to do with the site in question or his political views, it's about malice and immaturity. PCHS-NJROTC 00:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Has User:Keegscee continued to use those nonstandard warnings since he said "Yeah, I understand. I'll just warn normally, as boring as that is. Thanks." If he hasn't I see no purpose to this thread. ϢereSpielChequers 00:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(←) His userpage has been deleted. If he's not persisting with this conduct, I don't see what more there is to do. Crafty (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I have delete the userpage as a clear attack page and have left the admin who declined it a note explaining myself. We don't let pages that exist solely to encourage others to attack another website sit around for 7 days, we delete them on site. As for the user, I have left a firm warning for the user and will block them if they continue to encourage others to vandalize websites. 00:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)My biggest problem is with his user page which has not been deleted. I figured this would be a better option for reaching consensus than MfD which could take several days. MfD is not for attack pages, which is basically what this was. And dang these edit conflicts PCHS-NJROTC 00:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that if the behavior does not continue that the issue is resolved. 00:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I think this is resolved for now. PCHS-NJROTC 00:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

In response to GO-PCHS-NJROTC (do you have a nickname? please?): "Topic bans have to be done by ArbCom." Nope. We could do it right here, if it was at all germane to the (now not really existent) problem. Tan | 39 00:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You can call me "PCHS" if you'd like; I've long since changed my name from GO-PCHS-NJROTC because of claims of it being promotional (it was, really), and yes, I know that. I was "thinking out loud" with that. PCHS-NJROTC 01:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What does the "PCHS" stand for? Is that a New Jersey high school? Port Charlotte High School, as per User:PCHS-NJROTC. Roger. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Louis Lesser

I wrote the Louis Lesser article, and I was notified that there was a Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents report on this. But I can not find the incident. Is it over? Also, I do not understand the allegations that still are up calling the article a "hoax" that are here ]. Is this the right place to ask these questions? HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe you mean this discussion which has been archived. GiantSnowman 00:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there more response I need to make? HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to respond to anything? GiantSnowman 00:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Not really, since I was wrong and others were right.

I did try to fix the article, and I understand the initial criticism. And I actually enjoyed spending all those days trying to add sources (I missed Thanksgiving with all my friends doing so). But when people are still calling it a "hoax", or "not notable", so my articles will probably all get deleted, I dont feel like working on any articles anymore. HkFnsNGA (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't be disheartened when one of your articles is deleted, I've lost count (probably well over two dozen) of how many articles I created when I first began editing and didn't understand the notability rules properly that have been deleted. But it just encouraged me to be a better editor in the long run! :) GiantSnowman 01:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

And please do not assume it will be deleted--it may not be. I cannot at this time predict how the AfD will end. The accusations of hoax, at least, seem to have been withdrawn. What you need to do is the same whether it is deleted or it isn't. If it is, you need to write a better one , following the suggestions made there. If it is kept, you need to improve it similarly. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I offered to help the OP improve the article. This person does seem (at least to me) to satisfy Notability. If the AFD results in a delete, could someone move the article to either HkFnsNGA's or my userspace so it can be improved sufficiently? <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 06:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Lapneth quacks...

Lapneth (talk · contribs) had their account created at 00:39 UTC. At 00:41 UTC they deleted a section on this very sacred page, and at 00:43 UTC they then blanked the La Salle Extension University page, which is, interestingly the topic of another ANI discussion. Those are the only edits to date. To my humble non-admin eyes this looks like a vandalism-only WP:SOCK, and it certainly seems to meet WP:DUCK. Thoughts please? GiantSnowman 00:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I am watching this user, they are very close to a vandalism only account block, however when it comes to blanking I think a full set of warnings are important as intent can be unclear. I don't really know anything about potential socking regarding this user, it looks like the sort of thing we get about 25 times a day. 01:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Surely vandalising two ANI-related pages isn't the behaviour of a normal vandal? GiantSnowman 01:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Normal may be a bit generous, common would be a better term. 01:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Still strikes me as very odd behaviour for a 'new' editor...GiantSnowman 01:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously a vandalism-only account, but could well be unrelated to the topic. One of my old "friends" turned up today, so it could be him, following my edits to see what he could get into. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Cirt

Today I enquired at Talk:Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh)#Alford plea whether the article is correct to assert that such a plea necessarily means that the plaintiff admitted there was evidence enough to convict. I noted that the two pages Alford plea and North Carolina v. Alford (two overlapping articles) fail to agree on this and were unsourced. Unable to find confirmation on the web, I posted to the Law Project to request help and also added tags and talk page notes to the two "Alford" pages.

User:Semitransgenic posted a string of refs to Talk:Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh)#Alford plea but failed to respond to requests to incorporate these refs into the articles concerned.

However, User:Cirt, who had been involved in discussion on the above page today and is sole author of several pages on related subjects, then moved the page Alford plea (with 32000 Google hits) to Alford guilty plea (11,000 hits). User added several of the references supplied by Semitransgenic to the page with a view to establishing the assertion that an "Alford" plea entails acceptance of likely conviction. (DIFF and following changes), altering tags requesting refs.

I then checked the refs and, at Alford guilty plea#Tags posted links to these (which appear on Google books), pointing out that the refs given do not support the article's statements.

I also checked the same editor's work at Byron v. Rajneesh Foundation International and here too found unverifiable and dubious references for certain key statements, which I noted on the talk page. In this case there is apparent violation of BLP standards, which I noted.

In both cases the editor has simply issued flat denials - the references DO say, ARE verifiable, ARE reliable and authoritative etc.

I believe it is apparent that the move of Alford plea was an ill-advised measure undertaken in the course of WP:POINT making and that on this and other articles the editor has used bogus references to shore up inflammatory NNPOV OR. It is the editor's habit to claim that more references are to be added - but this does not excuse the use of inadequate refs.

Further, I have become aware that the editor concerned has been involved in many previous violations of articles on new religious movements and, when applying for adminship, undertook to refrain altogether from editing this class of article. However, the editor appears to remain more or less a single issue activist, originating and linking together articles with a view to discrediting a few such movements. Redheylin (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Redheylin (talk · contribs) is a WP:SPA on the topic of Rajneesh movement-related articles. See earliest contribs, and most recent contribs. He seems to be refusing to accept WP:SOURCEACCESS, and claiming that only sources that are fully available online should be used, where Redheylin says Unacceptable, owing to the complete absence of reference to the article on the web. As for the move, I cited it in the edit summary to the WP:RS source, Criminal Evidence: Principles and Cases . Cirt (talk) 02:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Further, at Alford guilty plea, I took the article from its previous state of having zero sources when tagged by Redheylin (talk · contribs) - to now having every single sentence in the article cited to WP:RS sources. Please see improved version . Cirt (talk) 02:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the possibility that this report to ANI is motivated by revenge. Cirt recently reported Off2riorob to this noticeboard, who was in contact just today with Redheylin re: off wiki contact via e-mail. Note this diff: where he urges the comment regarding same be wiped, and the discussion between them on the Redheylin talk page at the bottom. NOTE: Full disclosure, Off2riorob reported me today to WP:WKA, but the matter was speedily resolved with no admin action and archived. Suggest same for this, and investigation/report of the possibility of collusion. Thanks, Jusdafax 03:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The evidence of collusion there is suggestive but not indicative. Redheylin - would you like to comment on the nature of emails you and Off2riorob exchanged? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Cirt asked me to come take a look at this. I've done a review, of the incident and Redheylin's contributions.

Re Redheylin, I don't agree that they are a single purpose account. They are clearly someone involved in and with a conflict of interest regarding the Rajneesh movement, based on contributions, but they're also making significant unrelated content edits.

Re Cirt's sources, Cirt is properly interpreting Reliable source and source verifyability standards. We do not need to have a magazine, book, research paper, etc. online in order to cite it and for it to be a reliable source. Redheylin, your interpretation of policy on that point is wrong.

If someone is found to be fabricating sources, that's a legitimate problem. However, you have not presented any evidence that Cirt is making anything up, or has any underlying bias or reason to do so.

Cirt is a Misplaced Pages administrator and someone trusted by the community. If you do have evidence of misbehavior you need to bring that up - either dig up a copy of a book or article he cites and show he's fabricating information, or prove that a claimed source does not exist using a reasonable bibliographical search. This may require real-world library research, if you do feel that this is going on. I doubt it, personally, but I want to be open about what standard of evidence and type of research we're talking about here.

We do not consider it appropriate to accuse people of forging references without evidence. You can ask someone for a more detailed cite - which edition of a book, what chapter and page, etc. But you have to then put some effort in and go find the source and verify what it actually does say.

Lacking any evidence presented, there's no case here for administrator action / nothing for us to do on this noticeboard.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• George has asked me to clarify...I don't even understand what that thread is all about, I have not colluded with or encouraged anybody to harrass user cirt. Off2riorob (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Reading this thread, I do think that user Redhaylin is correct to have issues regarding the moving of the Alford plea, to..the Alford guilty plea, it looks a bit like it was done to affect the discussion regarding the insertion of the Osho mugshot into the Osho aticle, which user cirt is supporting, as there are objection to inserting the booking picture due to the fact that Osho never actually pled or was found guilty, I do think looking at it the this move was ill chosen by user cirt considering he is involved in the discussion that the move would affect, I know that it is not an administrator move but still imo it was ill advised. Off2riorob (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob's non-answer ignores the obvious fact that he and Redhaylin had what appears to be an agreement to talk off-wiki only hours before Redhaylin filed his curious notice here. Off2riorob, could you comment on the timing, the substance of your discussion as requested by George Willian Herbert and your comment regarding being taken to ANI by you know who? Jusdafax 06:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

ec. I have answered, it is just up from this, I was more hoping to get a reply regarding this issue of user cirt moving the Alford plea article, which I just discovered after being directed here, to me this is the issue here not fanciful accusations without any evidence of off wiki collusion to harass another user. Off2riorob (talk) 06:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a legitimate content dispute at the heart of this which is best resolved at the appropriate project page, content noticeboard, or other relevant consensus seeking discussion pages. Editors are allowed to e-mail one another, despite my strong support for disallowing all off-wiki communications. And until my investigation of the Admin IRC channel is completed, we won't know exactly how much inappropriate collusion has been going on there, but in the meantime it's probably best to try to lower the temperature of these feuds and to seek common ground and a more amicable approach to interactions (there are probably enough guilty pleas to go around). If there's no admin action required, I suggest marking this resolved and trying to extend goodwill to one another. We're supposed to be all on the same team here. If I can be of any help, I'm happy to weigh in on the dispute itself and to tell you how it should be resolved. :) That's usually enough to bring the opposing parties together. At the very least try discussing it courteously and respectfully with one another without any accusations or suspicions of malintent. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

A sound comment by ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs), thanks :). FWIW, I moved the article back to its original title, per some excellent research by Brumski (talk · contribs). Cheers, Cirt (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Very kind of you Cirt. I should probably point out that the word I used (malintent) is not actually a word (yet), although it is included in the Urban Dictionary. Thanks for your good faith efforts to work through the content issues raised. I'm sorry to see so much acrimony.

Malcontent is a word, but doesn't appropriately describe anyone on Misplaced Pages. We're all well meaning and kind here, if occasionally misguided. Especially GWH. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight, per this I have some concerns. Would rather this thread not yet be resolved, and not by one who is not an uninvolved party such as yourself. Cirt (talk) 07:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay. No problemo. What are your concerns? I had noted on that editor's talk page that they seemed to be doing some good work at the BLP/N noticeboard and I think they were just replying. I think we were just trying to be collegial and all. Anyway, good luck. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully request that Off2riorob and Redheylin answer the relevant concerns re: the timing and content of their private discussion just hours before the filing of this notice at ANI by Redheylin, as was requested by admin Georgewilliamherbert and . (relevant diffs and ) Jusdafax 07:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That line of inquiry seems a little witch hunty. Who are you to ask anyone to disclose their e-mails? Editors are allowed to communicate (again, I have long opposed this and support a ban on all off-wiki discussion) so I don't see the issue. Why not focus on resolving the underlying dispute (which seems actually to be getting worked out?). I haven't seen any diffs of problematic attacks on Cirt or anyone else, just an ANI report that seems reasonable if a bit premature. There's certainly some distrust and assumptions of bad faith on both sides, and I don't think you and GWH are helping with that. Let's try to lessen the drama. There's no way of knowing what anyone is e-mailing anyone else (no legitimate way, anyway). If you're into conspiracy theories I've been hoping for weeks now that someone would restore exopolitics as a stand-alone article and expand its content. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Admin Georgewilliamherbert's requests for elaboration from Off2riorob and Redheylin are appropriate, and relevant to this discussion. I would like to see a clearer response from both users, and/or a comment regarding their lack of same, from Georgewilliamherbert. Thanks to all parties for their consideration, Jusdafax 07:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to be a jerk and mark this as resolved. It was, mostly, with the article moved back as requested. End! Good job, etc. ...Actually, that's not intended to be sarcastic. This was actually a rather simple and civil ANI if all the uninvolved or non-professionally-related stuff is mentally filtered. If you're digging into chit-chat diffs of a non-involved editor and having internal debates between two different parties not in the ANI, asking for the specifics of emails... well, that's no longer the scope of this ANI and I'm pretty sure you know where to go with it. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hold on, there. I would like to ask how a non-administrator can close an ANI thread? Can any non-involved editor mark ANI threads as closed, even when questions by an administrator have not had time to be discussed? This is the first I have heard of this. Jusdafax 08:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• While I, too, was surprised by an non-admin close, the action is good and well-rationale'd (and appropriately deals with some distracting side issues by moving on). Further comment if necessary, but let us all hope not, if for no other reason than it's the holiday season. Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 08:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Proofreader77 is not really the most uninvolved to interject here. Here is a comment he made to ChildofMidnight about Off2riorob, The kind and beautiful grace you displayed on Off2riorob‎'s talk at a time.... Jusdafax 09:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• It is not Datheisen's place to close it, and it ought not be closed until both the OP and Cirt are ready. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I support the close. The situation with the offwiki contact is suspicious but this complaint and the situation don't justify pursuing further action. It was a reasonable question to ask. I don't know that I'm entirely satisfied by the answers, but there's a point at which pushing too hard for further info after a relatively minor possible abuse simply becomes harrassing of the other party. Even if they'd said that they'd colluded it wouldn't have been worth more than a warning and future careful watching.

We have the original issue, the suspicions, and responses on the record. There's no point in making a bigger deal out of this than that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello - I have received notes of "bad faith allegations" from Cirt and George William Herbert on my talk page and note them here. It will be evident from my contributions that I am not a "single-purpose account". I confirm that I have received a request for email contact from user offtoriorob, but there has been no such contact. I similarly invited user Cirt to discuss the issues of-wiki: I feel this is a reasonable extension of good faith in an obviously fraught environment. Yet the above adds up to a very serious allegation of bad faith that requires investigation, and I call upon the editors concerned to institute such an investigation or else to withdraw their allegations. Since these allegations continue the matter cannot sensibly be considered closed.

I note that the above matter has been taken as a reason to close this complaint. Yet the references added at Alford plea do indeed fail to support the assertions made, while this, which involves BLO consideration, refers to an article of which I stated there is no NOTICE on the web, no apparent connection with subject and no notice of publication: the editor says "I found it on a database" but cannot identify the database: it is not verifiable. The author, Peter Gillins, is apprently an Oregon lawyer. I am aware, of course, of strong negative POV in Oregon re Rajneesh.

So - I am having slight difficulty here finding a proper investigation of my report in the above and it seems I have to re-open it. It has been said: "We do not need to have a magazine, book, research paper, etc. online in order to cite it and for it to be a reliable source. Redheylin, your interpretation of policy on that point is wrong." I hope I have explained this. A BLP allegation of conspiracy to murder requires sound, verifiable sources: I cannot tell why these allegations are not available in legal proceedings and there is no way to trace the article. "If someone is found to be fabricating sources, that's a legitimate problem. However, you have not presented any evidence that Cirt is making anything up, or has any underlying bias or reason to do so." As I noted, the references added to Alford plea clearly fail to support the statement that such a plea consitutes (in every state) an admission of strong evidence.

I second Cirt's request that this matter be not considered closed: regrettably, Child of Midnight, the hoped for rapprochement is not there, allegations still stand. I beileve it is clearly unacceptable to present unreliable views of legal terms in pursuit of a single purpose unrelated to the law. I must add that there are previous unresolved issues regarding this editor's use of bogud references which, like this, have been met by a counter-attack combined with admin failure to investigate.Redheylin (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Jahn Henne suspected sockpuppetry

This post may constitute sockpuppetry. While not being logged on, an IP signature has been left on the talk page and it appears that Jahn Henne has been using this IP for responding (a rather late response, though.)----_{Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN} 06:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I had a quick look and Jahn Henne doesn't appear to be engaging in abusive behavior, either with his account or the IP. It just looks like he forgot to sign in, which isn't a big deal at all. Do you have any evidence that he has used the IP to evade a block, or votestack, or engage in any other disruptive behavior? <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 06:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified the editor in question of this thread. Basket of Puppies 06:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That's happened to me on more than one occasion... Heck, I got logged out in a earlier version of Huggle once. The sock that should not be (talk) 07:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

IP/Sock Concerns

An IP address, Special:Contributions/166.217.214.229, appeared this evening and quickly blanket reverted a number of edits made recently by an established editor, User:Amoruso. The edit summaries it left with each reversion, and its response to my comments on its talk page, leave me with a feeling of WP:DUCK. I researched the IP and it resolved to cellphone company. Not sure if and/or how to proceed, since I have been unable to identify a possible "sockmaster". --nsaum75 06:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Notice left for IP -

It may well DUCK like blanketing and really... DUCK-like edit summaries, but technically the IP in basically all cases changed the categories back to what they'd been since article creation and Amoruso was the editor changing their existing content. That user's edit summaries making the changes before these reverts aren't exactly truce-seeking. Established or no means nothing, IP or account means nothing, have to treat it all the same unless you have a sock concern somewhere. I also call your 166.217.214.229 and raise it a 99.253.230.182 from a few weeks ago since it even triggered angry flags like rapid reverts from not-confirmed editors... right. No more of that, since literally it balanced itself out despite it being gapped a few weeks. There's also zero point to arguing either side of that further.

The only thing I can think of that would just ignore POVs completely would be to remove Syria and Israel of the categories and place/keep any and all of the Occupied Territories; also create a something along the lines of "Category: Mountains in disputed Syrian territory". Ta-da! You have one side, the other side, and Golan Heights already there. Originally I was going to say drop all the tags, but realized it'd be a total waste of an argument to trying to play devil's advocate and argue the UN position of claiming they have it all under control, which persons of any persuasion familiar with the matter consider rubbish. Seriously though, that's my suggestion. This is one of the going-to-be-disputed-'til-the-end-of-time matters if the regional situation never changes. Can we say that any and all discussions about locales, landmarks and other misc places in area are moot for the time being; make sure they all have the 4 tags that balance it out. I see that Category:Disputed territories in Asia is also available so how about we add extra dull neutrality onto that so everyone is hopefully bored to death with these mountains and you can work on the major content. Just my thoughts, and if you've tried something similar feel free to disregard this... it's just all I can think of. Good luck to the lot of you. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You are correct in that the content at issue will not be resolved easily; however my reason for posting here was not about the content issue, but rather my concerns regarding a new IP editor who -- from their edits, edit summaries, personal attacks and talk page conversations -- appears to be an "experienced editor" socking under an IP from a cellphone. --nsaum75 09:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Groans* I really don't want to think about Misplaced Pages edits via a cell phone. You've got a point though. So blah, what would you prefer to see to avoid mutually assured destruction over some small mountains? Include... all 6 categories on all of them (ownership/counter-ownership/heights/asia disputed)? It would look really silly but we could add notes in the category pages about why it's been done that way... I can't see anyone objecting to some bonus canvassing with categories if it even remotely helped a top-10 general controversy area. Really, just spit out ideas on what you think is fair, what you'd like, what you'd think would be generous, etc etc. There has to be a way to sort out ... mountains. Are there any named mole hills to pick up? ♪ daTheisen(talk) 12:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Block the account, probably fake name, two attack articles on same person

User talk:Cydneepatterson User just created second attack article on same person. First one speedied (Timothy Borown), second one, spelling variation, waiting to be speedied (Timothy Bowron). The user name is probably some variant on someone's name. This is a quick fix, block/ban user, speedy attack page, mark this closed. Not interesting in the least. Be done already. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 07:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

There has been no further attack page creation after your warning. Please report to WP:AIV if disruption continues despite the warning.  Sandstein  08:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Gave the person a "first and only warning" against creating inappropriate attack pages like that, upon threat of a block if repeated. MuZemike 09:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Adam Lyons sock allegations

There are sock allegations being thrown by both sides of the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Adam Lyons debate. I refuse to offer or even form an opinion one way or the other, but intrigued parties may want to drop by and try to sort things out before the AfD closes. And having left you that hand-grenade, my work here is done. Adios. Josh Parris 09:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidence? A8UDI 11:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Tim Ellis

User 123.243.53.233 has been making a constant flow of changes to the page Tim Ellis http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tim_Ellis&action=history over the last two weeks.

Some changes have been accepted, but many others are either malicious or incorrect and the user keeps returning and putting them back up again.

Judging by the IP and the history of this user, he appears to be connected to another Australian magician who has personal issues with Tim Ellis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.139.6 (talk) 09:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Best to just assume good faith, and warn when appropriately. You may ask him on his talk page too if the IP is still disruptive. But I'll review the edits.. I don't see anything worthy of a block. Simply discuss the issue on the talk page because it doesn't look like vandalism. A8UDI 11:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards