Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:36, 2 December 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'

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

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)

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/Mathematics) 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).

Very surprising. For the moment someone had told me that he had left Misplaced Pages per Nuclear Warfare's comment above! Possible misinterpertations, maybe?--_{Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN} 13:33, 30 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)
• Moot I do not think it is any of our business as admins to judge article quality and give topic bans for that reason. The reason for a block seems no longer to be present. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That's true, but the real issue is the behavior, which I note has not changed since the apology above. Kevin (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support I'm on the fence here, as I think a ban should be a last resort. Clearly, there is a problem that goes beyond the normal POV pushing and rude behavior. Logger9's tactics are subtle while the overall strategy seems pretty blatant. I have tried myself to help give Logger9 advice on editing in a more collaborative manner, to improve writing style, and to use a little more of a diplomatic approach. I have suggested that Logger9 try working on something else, like vandalism reversion or some other type of article which he is less passionate about, if for no other reason than as a learning experience. I have seen some slight improvement in writing style, but have not seen much improvement in other areas. Areas which others have clearly expressed on this and many talk pages. At this point, I too would have to support a topic ban, but would like to see if Logger9 could then be able to contribute constructively on the talk pages. I would very much like to see if Logger9 can learn from past mistakes and the advice of others, and can begin to contribute constructively in other areas. Zaereth (talk) 01:40, 1 December 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)

To be clear, my only accusation relating to WP:POINT was Gibnews's attempts to PROD the articles in order to get them out of the list. This is the very essence of point - it is disruptive because it fails to follow Misplaced Pages's own rules. Given that as it currently stands neither the short nor the long list contains any Spaniards, the concern that there is a deliberate effort to remove all evidence that Gibralter has ever had any connection with Spain has prima facie validity. A (well conducted) discussion on who belongs in the short list would not be pointy, but should not include "Spanish" or "from before the British arrived" as a category for exclusion. I am not sure that Gibnews would agree to this, but a fruitful discussion could be had by others with knowledge in the various areas, to allow us to compare say Penney with the Spanish Inquisitor - neither of whom I've ever heard of, but at least the Inquisition is something I have heard of, so that's probably influencing my decision at the moment. Personally, John Galliano is the only person on the list I'm familiar with instantly. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Prior to 1704 Gibraltar was a small town of a few thousand people, it wasn't exactly a pleasant place to live and the Spanish monarchs had to compel people to live there. To be blunt it was the arse end of the universe. That there may be few Spaniards to go on that list might have something to do with that. Thats a more rational explanation than to assume bad faith and that they've been deliberately expunged.

A rational discussion on who should be included is perfectly possible but not I fear with the editor who made these changes. They were introduced purely for the reasons of being pointy. Gibnews can be stubborn when his back his up but he is amenable to discussion otherwise. And having Ecemaml tell him that Gibraltar doesn't exist was intended to do precisely that. As I've suggested, any discussion that concluded that some or all of those do not merit inclusion would result in accusations of suppression and censorship.

Stick around, you might find it interesting. May i suggest that the article remains locked until there is a consensus on the edits under mediation. Justin talk 19:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Waiting for more input from mediator I think. And it's very well known that Birmingham is the arse end of the universe. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Not if you happen to be an engineer, then its heavy engineering Nirvana. Ciao. Justin talk 20:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

unindent

Would an uninvolved admin please take a look at Spain – United Kingdom relations, history here and Talk:Spain – United Kingdom relations. The same bad tempered exchanges are breaking out there as on Gibraltar. Justin talk 22:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Going back to the point we're discussing, I'd like to say something:

• With regard to the mediation process, it was always understood (at least by me) that it applied to a specific disagreement (how the capture and exodus of the Gibraltarian population after the Anglo-Dutch takeover in 1704 has to be described). For me, introducing five "notable" guys that happened to be Spaniards in a list already containing 13 people, was not intended to be controversial. Upon my only reversion I explained carefully my edition and provided references for the articles not created yet.
• With regard to the five "notable" guys (described as "obscure"), I'll list them just to highlight why they're notable (more verbose explaination can be found in their articles):

1. Simón Susarte: lead one of the attacks over Gibraltar during the first Spanish siege. He's notable for two matters: it's the only Gibraltar-born guy that lead an attack to the town and the only that did it over the top of the Rock. It fulfills the criteria listed in WP:NOTABILITY. However, as the section under discussion seems to list people that were notable "outside" Gibraltar, I have no problem (and I've said that above) if he's not included.
2. Juan Romero de Figueroa: the "local parish priest of a town with less than 4000 people". That town happens to be Gibraltar. That town happens not have reached again 4,000 people until the 19th century (that is Henry Francis Cary, John Beikie, Don Pacifico and John Montresor were born in a town smaller than Spanish Gibraltar). That parish priest happens to be one of the 60 people that remained in the town after the Anglo-Dutch takeover. That parish priest happens to be the only eye-witness of the siege and takeover from the inside. That parish priest happens to be the primary source of what happened in those events by all the historians of Gibraltar (yes, including William Jackson, the British Governor of Gibraltar) That parish priest happens to be the responsible of that the current Cathedral in Gibraltar stays where it stays and has kept Catholic worship for five centuries. That parish priest was the first Vicar General of Gibraltar (that is, he was no longer a parish priest). That Vicar General happens to be especially respected by the Catholic Dioceses of Gibraltar and buried in the Cathedral (here). However, same comment applies.
3. Diego de Astorga y Céspedes: Archbishop of Toledo, Primate of Spain, Grand Inquisitor, sponsor of one of the finest Baroque artworks in Spain (the Transparente). It fulfills the criteria listed in WP:NOTABILITY. I don't think further comments are needed.
4. Gonzalo Piña Ludueña: Spanish conquistador, governor of the province of Venezuela, founder of several colonial cities in nowadays Venezuela. Founder of the only other town in the world which shares the same name (as it was given it by Ludueña). Same comment as before.
5. Juan Asensio: General of the Mercedarian order, president of the Council of Castile, bishop of Lugo, Ávila and Jaén. At the moment, as he has no article, I don't object to include it.

So, to sum up, two guys from the Spanish period (in which, BTW, the statement "it wasn't exactly a pleasant place to live and the Spanish monarchs had to compel people to live there" is plainly false, since it happened only after the first Christian capture of the town in the 14th century). I can't see how such an inclusion may be controversial. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, I'm beginning to feel really unconfortable about the constant personal attacks and defamation I'm receiving. I'm trying to stick to a strict "no personal attack" behaviour, but the way I'm being defamating, as if I were a putching ball, seems to be far away from the Misplaced Pages principles. We can discuss about NPOV, strongly and fiercely support our positions, but personal attacks again and again are simply outside the usual behaviour in Misplaced Pages. Only in this discussion it's been said that:

1. "it looks like there is an orchestrated attempt to disrupt that and other articles on Gibraltar and set up Justin and myself" (Gibnews)
2. "Its (..) typical of the sort of harassment tactic continually used by the Spanish Government against Gibraltar" (Gibnews)
3. " been created by Ecemaml to provoke a dispute" (Gibnews)
4. " simply for the purpose of starting an edit war" (Gibnews)
5. " nonsense articles (..) only done to provoke a dispute" (Gibnews)
6. "The purpose in doing so was being pointy and to provoke a dispute" (Justin)
7. "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" (Justin)
8. "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" (Justin)
9. "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" Justin
10. "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" Justin
11. "A rational discussion (..) is perfectly possible but not I fear with the editor who made these change" Justin
12. " were introduced purely for the reasons of being pointy" Justin
13. " And having Ecemaml tell him that Gibraltar doesn't exist was intended to do precisely that" Justin

Most of the items are IMHO at least blatant assumptions of bad faith, but I'd like to highlight items 8 and 13.

In item 8, Justin claims that I've intended to change the start of the WWII from 1939 and 1940. Here you have my edition (explaining in the edit summary that it intends to talk about the "Gib involvement in WWII") and my explaination ("stating that there was no active involvement of Gibraltar in WWII until 1940 is a "disruptive edition" (..) You possibly know about the Phoney War, that conscription was introduced in Gibraltar in 1940, that evacuation plans were drawn up and implemented in May 1940, that Churchill considered the evacuation of Gibraltar in June 1940 or that the City Council was suspended in 1941"). It could happen that, as long as my explaination was in Gibnews talk page, Justin sincerely thought what he misleadingly describes. But I did explain it to him ("Stating that the active involvement of Gibraltar during the WWII started in 1940 is possibly something that could be denied, even if it's true"). Yes. All this seems really stupid, but it's really disappointing to listen to the same misleading description of something that has been already clarified.

In item 13, Justin claims that I've told that "Gibraltar does not exist". Well, the problem here is that he fails to quote the whole sentence that says "Gibraltar does not exist from the Public International Law point of view, so a sovereign state cannot dispute anything but with other sovereign state)". I clarify that the discussion was about a dispute on territorial waters around Gibraltar. In order to clarify that such waters are British and not Gibraltarian, since only a sovereign state (the only subject, along with supranational organizations, in the Public International Law, the branch of Law dealing with international relationships between states) can "own" territorial waters, I simply mentioned Public International Law. As the statement was shocking (I didn't intend to), I duly provided a verbose explaination in here. Possibly Justin is not aware of this, but anyway, my edition has been misquoted.

Sorry for the verbose message, but really, I feel upset. May I ask for some shelter from this? Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC) PS: Elen, I'd be really glad if you'd stick around the article

Actually the above in many ways the above summarises the problem. See you could have just explained, instead you choose to respond with a bad faith presumption. That your edits were reverted might have something to do with the fact that the previous day you changed the date of the start of WW2 and then edit warred to keep it. I find the explanation above less than convincing, particularly when after being reverted you never chose to give it, edit warred to keep it and it only became apparent after it was pointed out as needlessly disruptive. Given your history of a negative interaction with Gibnews, not even a charitable interpretation would assume you were simply misunderstood in your comments about Gibraltar being a none entity. Noticeably you can suddenly become very eloquent when you want to be.

Seeing as we're listing examples of edits that apparently "upset" you:

• Talk:History of Gibraltar#Unsupported and POV edit on the closure of the fence An outrageous POV accusation for simply pointing out the problems of congestion at the border crossing.
• Talk:Gibraltarian people#Page numbers Funnily enough I get upset at being called a liar.

So yes I would appreciate someone sticking around to get the full picture and not the carefully edited highlights. Justin talk 23:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, just for information, I'm quite fed up of Justin's personal attacks as well. Some of them can be seen here,here or here. Cremallera (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If you ask me, everybody needs to stop attacking everybody else. Lets leave all the nationalist viewpoints out of this - the rock was once run by the Spanishes, currently the Brits are in charge, perhaps in the future, it'll belong to the Chinese. Our role as Wikipedians is to record the current state of knowledge about the subject.Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

All of those carefully highlighted diffs were in response to other's comments, just to put things into perspective. I would prefer to concentrate on articles but it feels like being backed into a corner under a number of editors who want to skew the POV of articles for nationalist reasons. I've simply asked for a neutral admin to look at the articles, with no attempt to pre-influence them with diffs. Justin talk 09:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• This thread is getting into tl;dr territory. You're not going to get more than a few, if any, uninvolved editors to read so much verbage and make a thoughtful comment. I suggest you do two things:
  1. Consider recourse to WP:SPI. I think I remember investigating a very tenacious sock puppeteer who was disrupting Gibraltar articles in the past.
  2. If there are disagreements among editors over content, try third opinion, neutral point of view noticeboard, or mediation. This board, WP:ANI is only for issues where administrator intervention is required. I don't see that resulting from this thread.

  My thoughts; yours may differ. Jehochman 01:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does verge into tl;dr territory, the point raised at AN/I is quite simple, that an ongoing mediation attempt is being disrupted by editors who agreed not to make ANY contentious edits during mediation. That is now spilling onto other articles, see here for example, while the disputed article remains locked. I suspect when the lock expires we'll see more of the same. So I was suggesting the lock remains until everyone calms down and agrees to work constructively. I'm leading to the suspicion that if this isn't dealt with now its only going to escalate. I would also suggest locking other articles until people stop the bickering and edit constructively. Is there any objection to that simple proposal? Justin talk 09:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your interest, Jehochman. Let me just point out that there is an ongoing mediation process already. Recent complaints refer to uncivil behaviour, which is quite one-sided in my opinion, not to content disputes. As for "our contentious editions spilling onto other articles", sorry but I can't see the contentiousness in the Spain – United Kingdom relations talk page albeit being one of the editors involved in the current discussion. And I don't think of myself as being a particularly insensitive person. However, I do apologise if some comment of mine has been offensive to any editor. Finally, Justin please notice that I do not really enjoy the accusations of sockpuppetry, nor being described as a wind-up merchant to the mediator, neither being systematically labeled as disruptive and the like, the last time in a row being the above comment. Have a nice day. Cremallera (talk) 10:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Meat puppet, as in co-ordinating activities off-wiki, it was expressed as a suspicion not an accusation. Noticeably I did not specify any particular editor! I'll resist the rather obvious inference that could be made there. If you don't wish to be described as a wind up merchant, then cease the provocative postings in talk pages. Simple. Justin talk 12:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No. You didn't specify. You blamed all three editors you didn't agree with instead ("All of sudden, three Spanish editors are all ganging up together, rather like they're co-ordinating off-wiki. This screams meat puppet to me"). Sorry if I consider myself alluded, as one of those three persons. As for the inmediately prior sentence ("not to mention an editor we haven't seen in months suddenly turns up stoking tension"), tell me who is he?

I'd like to know as well if, when you said "Forget it, from past experience Cremallera is a wind up merchant" to the mediator you were referring to me or to another "Cremallera"? A simple apology would have been the sensible approach here, if you ask me. Cremallera (talk) 13:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If an apology was in order you'd get one but having admitted to be on a wind up, see , your demand for an apology seems contrived. Justin talk 20:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry? I can't see how exactly having to ask you up to four times to stick to the content of the discussion instead of attacking the editors can be interpreted as "admitting to be on a wind up". Whatever. What strikes me most is that you are still trying to justify your resorting to personal attacks by blaming me for it. Please, stop. And I genuinely mean it. Cremallera (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

A simple example, I admitted to an error in naming a source, your response "Yeah. Right. Of course." So can you please explain to me how that wasn't intended to raise tension? What actually strikes me most, is that so often your posts are intended to stoke a dispute, yet you try and blame others for it. Please stop, given that agreement is apparently so close in mediation. Justin talk 23:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. And that's how you rationalize your constant violations of WP:NPA for 12 days already? How exactly is that my fault? Just in case I've not made myself clear enough earlier: personal attacks are not allowed, and you are responsible for every word you have written. Period. Cremallera (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem whatsoever in accepting responsibility for what I have written. I would be perfectly content for some neutral admin to look over the talk page history. Somehow I doubt anyone would come out of it with any credit, given the bad tempered discourse that has taken place. However, I'm not asking for people to only consider the carefully edited highlights. And as I don't see this going anywhere productive, I'll draw my participation in this particular discourse to a conclusion with the suggestion that you should listen to your own advice. Justin talk 00:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Again as it keeps being hidden by verbage, the suggestion is to keep the lock on those articles until an agreement is reached in mediation. Does that not seem sensible? Justin talk 12:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I've extended the protection indefinitely on Gibraltar and History of Gibraltar; I think the above suggestion is a good idea and I'm seeing signs in this thread that resolution is still some way off. I further believe that edit-warring is likely to resume once protection has expired. This is slightly unusual in that we don't normally protect pre-emptively, but I think if it's made clear that there's no choice but to resolve this content dispute peacefully, hopefully all parties will be motivated to do just that. I think it's also worth making clear that, should the edit-warring widen to other articles (such as Spain – United Kingdom relations noted above), blocks will be forthcoming. The spirit as well as the letter of WP:3RR is expected to be adhered to. EyeSerene 12:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, EyeSerene, I must say that I strongly disagree with such a measure and I'll explain why. My main concern is the double standard that might be deduced of the indefinite block of both articles. In the first one, there was a disagreement about the interpretation of a given part of the history of Gibraltar and the text was removed while a consensus was made (sorry to consider the inclusion of Spanish guys in a list of Gibraltar-born guys as controversial... it would be as if someone considered controversial to add a notable woman to a list of notable men from a given place). In History of Gibraltar, as far as I've been involved, it has happened just the opposite. Justin has introduced a controversial text (which was reverted and explained by me once) and duly restored by Justin. Your block leaves it. As the block is indefinite, there is no possibility to include a proper {{disputed}} template (as there is a strong disagreement about the factuality of what Justin has introduced). Therefore, the indefinite block leaves the article such is. Obviously, it's up to you. I just wanted to object :-) --Ecemaml (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I presume that the edit referred to is this one, explained here and here. If someone could explain how traffic congestion is controversial, they'll have my gratitude. Justin talk 00:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, EyeSerene, this is Cremallera. I was previously for the temporary full-protection of both articles as it is a standard procedure intended to cool down a little a heated debate, and also to avoid the possible (albeit brief) unbalance between the pleading parties as a result of an editor deeply involved in the discussion deciding to take a short break from wikipedia the night before the blocks.

However, an indefinite protection of the articles is another kettle of fish, as I see it. I acknowledge that the intention is to motivate the parties to settle the content disputes peacefully, but I do think that the parties are not in equal positions here as can be seen in the reversion history statistics of Gibraltar's article (editions in History of Gibraltar's article are more evenly distributed, though). One party being comfortable with the current content of an indefinitely fully-protected article has no incentive to resolve any argument about it. In my opinion, unlocking the article and letting the ongoing mediation run its course may be more fruitful. It would probably be helpful to keep track of the articles as well, but I'm confident in Atama's diplomatic skills. Thanks for your time. Cremallera (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I welcome the block it seems to have cooled things down and the talk page is being used. However, given the heated comments are still being exchanged it would be premature to remove it now. Justin talk 09:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, seems coherent, since it was you who proposed the indefinite block. Additionally, I'd like to remark that the talk page has been profusely and uninterruptedly used to discuss on the details of Gibraltar's capture as of the 4th of October 2009. Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 10:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The talk page discussions weren't being productive, mediation kept losing ground as whenever it appears agreement was near, the goal posts were moved. Also the outbreak of edit warring and increasingly bad tempered comments helped no one. As soon as one article was blocked, disputes seemed to break out elsewhere. It might have been my suggestion but it took an admin to accept it as reasonable and all credit to EyeSerene it appears to be working. Justin talk 14:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Keeping it short, because there is ample evidence on the talk pages etc Ecemaml shows up with an agenda of promoting Spain on related Gibraltar pages whenever there is tension, as there is now over the waters issue. Read the talk pages and you can see in one place he refers to the Spanish inhabitants as 'Gibraltarians' {highly provocative, it only refers to the current ones) and in another place denied he did. He also frequently me a liar, which is uncivil. He was previously banned for stalking and causing trouble about Gibraltar articles. Adding a number of Spanish non-entities to the main Gibraltar article is a tactic designed to provoke trouble, which is precisely why I raised it here. Gibraltar is more than 'a rock' it is the home of 30,000 Gibraltarians who are still being harassed by their neighbour in relation to a 300 year old irredentist claim and although being attacked in cyberspace is preferable to hot cannonballs, its still not what I think Misplaced Pages should be about. Asserting that Gibraltar does not exist is unhelpful.--Gibnews (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Not I feel a helpful interjection at this point. While you may or may not be right about a particular editor, that does not give you the right to deny that Gibralter has a history prior to the installation of the current regime. After the Norman Conquest, England never went back to being a Saxon country, but that doesn't warrant removing Edward the Conqueror, Harold Godwinson et al from a list of notable people from England. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read the articles Gibraltar and History of Gibraltar The Spanish period is included. What I am complaining about is adding articles about insignificant people to justify including them as 'notable' just because of their nationality. --Gibnews (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Elen, thank you for your statement on the content issue of this dispute. However, I've got a direct question, that is therefore related to administrator intervention (something that Jehochman has mentioned previously). You've made a request previously: "I would appreciate a cessation of the personal attacks". Although I've tried to stick to your strong advice (and I think that I've got it) I see that personal attacks (against me, as usual) are the 90% of the content of, for instance, Gibnews edition: "there is ample evidence on the talk pages etc Ecemaml shows up with an agenda of promoting Spain on related Gibraltar pages whenever there is tension", "in one place he refers to the Spanish inhabitants as 'Gibraltarians' {highly provocative, it only refers to the current ones)" (mind that Gibraltarian in Spanish, "gibraltareño" does not have such connotation, this statement by Justing is clarifying in which he says "Gibraltarian is problematic when it is applied to the Spaniards living in Gibraltar before 1704, there is tension related to the term caused by the claim that the people living in Gibraltar are not the real Gibraltarians", outside that context, where is the problem in using it once?), "He was previously banned for stalking and causing trouble about Gibraltar articles" (I was banned for breaking the 3RR, something that I've never done again and that, as Atama's points out above, is what Justin and not me has been the one getting closer breaking 3RR), "Adding is a tactic designed to provoke trouble, which is precisely why I raised it here.". Finally the usual deliberate misquote of my words about Public International Law which has been duly explained (simply by offering the whole quotation). Is that fair? Is WP:NPA suspended in here? Should I just simply resign myself? --Ecemaml (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPA, just curious but is using a gratuitously offensive analogy as here considered a personal attack? Can we just stop it as agreement seems near? Justin talk 23:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The truth is out there on the talk pages. --Gibnews (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the comments of Elen of the Roads are particularly helpful here. Ecememl's stated aim on his user page is to edit Gibraltar-related articles. He seems to have adopted a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude in his editing patterns. I have no idea how he justifies that somebody born in Gibraltar after 1704 is not Gibraltarian, but that is what he has done here in what he describes as a "minor edit". Edits like that are non-neutral and show all the symptoms of nationalist POV-pushing. Surely, considering the huge number of articles on en.wikipedia, Ecemaml should be able to find articles to edit here that do not involve Spanish-British conflicts/controversies. Mathsci (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ecemaml actually states in his user page that he is currently focused "on the creation, expansion and neutralization of Gibraltar-related articles". I can't see what's wrong with that. Regarding gibraltarian status, you may want to read the quoted article and/or this discussion, for instance. His edits may show all the symptoms of nationalist POV-pushing (or not), but you can bet they are reasoned and properly referenced. And at the end of the day that's the only way to avoid subjectivity. Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Mathsci, thank you, WP:BATTLEGROUND hits the nail squarely on the head. I'm glad that someone independent has finally recognised it. Justin talk 22:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

And here we go again... Cremallera (talk) 22:25, 1 December 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)

Note that Steel2009 followed advice given when his edits to Battle of Kursk were brought here, fruitful discussion and good editing appears to have followed. If Dapi89 is still at it, it would appear he is the one causing the problems. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Elen, thanks. Also note that besides continuing to use uncivil language on this very page, Dapi is also justifying his earlier improper removal of the posted item on this page by "The removal was in frustration at this 'editors' behaviour." Rather than admitting it was wrong to do so, his position is that it is someone else's fault. Steel2009 (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I have known and worked with Dapi89 for almost three years now. In this timeframe I have learned to appreciate his exceptional deep and thorough knowledge of military history. His editing is extremely well researched, broad in coverage and unbiased in nature. I understand that this incident here has nothing to do with his skill as an editor but I feel that it must be taken into consideration when judging his actions. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no exception for well informed editors in Civility which is one of Misplaced Pages's five pillars.. Steel2009 (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Be that as it may, editors who make a lot of positive contributions to the encyclopedia are given a greater tolerance than those who don't. Call it inconsistency, call it following WP:IAR, but that's the reality. The justification for this is that our goal is to build an encyclopedia and putting up with bad behavior is sometimes necessary. I don't really like it but if Dapi89 gets a pass, know that this is why. -- Atama頭 19:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As per the messaging on my page: I won't be repsonding to anymore baiting by the trouble maker. In repsonse to his latest 'post': We are here because of you. No one else, just you. Good day. Dapi89 (talk) 23:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

So it really comes down to the question: Does the Misplaced Pages community as represented by the administrators really stand by the so called "5 pillars of Misplaced Pages"? It is quite obvious from Dapi's continued lack of any expressed remorse at his past behavior, and continuing incivility ("trouble maker") that he is going to continue being uncivil. Non-action in this case equals acceptance. Cheers, Steel2009 (talk) 02:07, 1 December 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)

I'm not changing my name at all, because its so much cooler than yours. HalfShadow 01:33, 1 December 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, GiantSnowman - 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 involving 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 the instructions on how to do it are 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 or legitimate universities interviewing to hire an academically qualified teacher, medical and industrial organizations hiring for various positions, etc) wanting to verify claims they are being presented with by a candidate claiming an advanced degree. The problem any such organizations face is that there are almost NO internet-based resources available to any such potential employer to research - other than a very few such as like Misplaced Pages which as you, Baseball Bugs, described as not reliable (because of the open-edit availability to anyone wishing to do that). There are many wonderful sites of information that present accurate information throughout Misplaced Pages and "our" thought was to add that very tiny bit of information regarding the degrees LEU/LSEU was allowed (and not) to convey by the ISBE to make the site more reliable in the depth of its description of LEU/LSEU.

Continuing - what if such a potential employer simply does not know (or think) to contact the entity that oversaw the school's degree programs and has actual transcripts? Sounds simple, background-check 101 right?, yet you would be surprised at the number of sophicated "vetting" organization for hire to potential employers that never bother to contact the State of Illinois Department of Education regarding LEU/LSEU ("we" know because "we" asked). In addition, apparently a Washington DC-based "vetting" service as well as a "Certified Recruiter" never bothered to check with the ISBE regarding the claimed Ph.D. in 2000 from LEU/LSEU being made by the Virginia-based health care executive mentioned elsewhere.

If you do an internet search for information about LEU/LSEU - the Misplaced Pages site is just about the only one that comes up that has any extended information about LEU/LSEU that attempts to provide definitive information about the school - so that situation which so limits attempts to research information about the school reinforced the decision to add the one bit of information we attempted to do about what degrees the school was and was not certified to convey by the ISBE.

C.V. fraud attempting to take advantage of hard-to-verify information because a LEU/LSEU is now closed is apparently a more widespread problem that perhaps many are aware (and although down for the moment, the site Ebmnet is down) the site for years provided a "list of graduates" that (a) required no verification of actual graduation from LEU/LSEU to be listed thus providing a claimed list of graduates 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. This site was never a "real" list of LEU/LSEU graduates (such as maintained and microfilm transcripts available through the ISBE) although no doubt some legitimate LEU/LSEU graduates were in the Ebmnet list mix).

So because "we" had once become 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 the information accumulated from that process and the ISBE for the benefit of ALL to the Misplaced Pages LEU/LSEU site as well as to any other such site that allowed for such information to be entered.

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 then become the "published source" sufficient for the "vetting" process required by Wiki for insertion into an article as a solution to the current vetting process involving a non-publishing but high-value entity such as the ISBE.

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 after this exchange has concluded just to be sure it can still be accessed under LEU Truth Squad login) hope this helps understand the issues that have been raised concerning entries by "LEU Truth Squad". (Recent edit this date and time to correct a few typos and hopefully improve structural reading clarity) LEU Truth Squad (talk) 15:42, 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)

Yikes... is this a candidate for mentioning Durova's WP:WallofText essay? Or just WP:TLDR? I seriously could not make it through 1/4 of the novel posted by LEU Truth Squad. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you could take it as a correspondence school course. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm, should the response to the discussion between Baseball Bugs and GiantShowman on this subject be receiving such derisive treatment ("Wall of Words", or "...take it as a correspondence school course", etc.) when it only contains 503 words more than THEIR textual exchange? - especially in view of the fact that there is not one word by those commenting so far in continued discussion on the points raised and possible solutions proposed?

If an Occam's Razor version is desired without the supporting detail provided in the initial response - then:

Misplaced Pages should review and revise it's "Published Source" vetting protocol for deciding what can and cannot be entered into an article because in many instances, the most authoritative "source" (such as the ISBE) will be barred from being referred to, quoted, or cited in support of a statement because it does not "publish" information as does a magazine or newspaper to conform with the narrow guidelines for being cited now in place.

Case in point - the state agency overseeing the academic credentialing of LaSalle Extension University did not "publish" the courses and degrees offered by LEU/LSEU then - nor does it publish that kind of information today - for any school it oversees. The Illinois State Board of Educations leaves the business of publishing courses and degrees offered to a school in its own promotional materials.

What a state agency such as the ISBE WILL do, is respond (on state and responding department letterhead) to an inquiry of what a school is and is not authorized to convey.

Without a protocol to recognize and archive such definitive (and "iron-clad") information from a high level source that does not routinely "publish" information such as the courses/degrees offered for every school it oversees - then Misplaced Pages's current vetting protocol deprives any article (such as the one for LaSalle Extension University) from containing the highest level of authoritative source available for its historical and/or descriptive narrative.

There now, 777 words +/- less than the initial discussion between Baseball Bugs and GiantSnowman :) LEU Truth Squad (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The entire point of using published references is so that other people can read them and review them, to ensure their accuracy. We cannot take information passed by "call their office" or "email them" as those are not verifiable sources without every reader of the page contacting the individual/office. It simply won't work. — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Moving on - if left in its current form (and not allowed to continue to be raided by those seeking to hide information specific to what LEU/LSEU was authorized by the ISBE to convey), the site contains sufficient information so anyone wishing to further research that matter can do so. The user name of "LEU Truth Squad" will be changed to satisfy those who have considered it offensive (even though nothing but the truth was ever entered into the site's information) when this particular discussion concludes. LEU Truth Squad (talk) 01:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

LEU Truth Squad, could you please stop creating all these bizarre redlinks. It's not an acceptable form of highlighting. Thanks Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds - the current protocol it understood but therein is the problem. A high-value non-publishing source (such as the state agency that oversaw LSEU) does not funtion as a school's advertising department by publishing what it certifies the school to convey as certificates and diplomas.

This then creates the situation where an incorrect claim to offer a Ph.D. (for example) in a 1947 Popular Mechanics would be accepted as citable material while a written statement from the ISBE stating it could not and never did - would be rejected. Any Wiki reader of the site, therefore, would come away with entirely incorrect information. Is that acceptable - or should the narrow "vetting" process to determine the quote-worthiness of a source be reviewed and changed? LEU Truth Squad (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads - sorry about the incorrect emphasis coding (resulted from a misunderstanding of Wiki coding from one of the sites that compared ] with HTML resulting in a color change.) Tried to take out all the ] from the previous entries to correct the mistake but didn't work. Will use HTML. LEU Truth Squad (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Rotational

Rotational just returned from a two week block for violating his editing restriction against edit warring over image positioning and heading levels, and has immediately returned to edit warring over the same issues. He has stated that he will revert on sight any changes made to his articles by Jeni, Rkitko or myself. Can anything be done to prevent this promise of disruption? Hesperian 23:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere have I suggested that they are my articles - as usual, Hesperian, in order to bolster his flimsy case, is not above distorting the facts. Can anything be done about Hesperian's continuing harassment? Rotational (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverts were promised for any edits made to "the articles I start". Does this imply ownership any less than my employment of a possessive pronoun? Or is this merely obfuscation of the key fact, which is that Rotational was placed under a formal editing restriction back in May, and six months later the edit warring continues unabated, and still nothing is done.

As for harassment, I doubt if I have ever edited an article created by Rotational; I'm unsure if I've ever reverted him on any article; and I certainly have never engaged in an edit war with him. My role in this sorry affair is solely to report violations. If Rotational doesn't like that, he might consider changing his behaviour. Hesperian 04:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The key fact is that you have chosen to target and harass me. Your role in this "sorry affair" has been to drum up support for your rather wobbly point of view, to orchestrate a kangaroo court editing restriction and to run whining to the ANI when I don't kowtow to you. Trouble-stirring and ramming your version of the MoS down other editors' throats are a major entertainment for you. Rotational (talk) 07:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Final warning given. Black Kite 23:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not distorting the facts if that's what you said: suggests you don't understand the concept of ownership on WP (i.e. there is none) which is a real concern. Your continuing threats () are more of an issue than any 'harassment' right now.raseaC 04:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

My "threats", as you term them, are a direct consequence of harassment - I don't see how you can assign them priorities. Is there a scale of values of WP issues that I am unaware of? The real issue here is that Hesperian would like us to regard the MoS as a holy document handed down by God himself with Hesperian as the chief interpreter. Instead the MoS is a "work in progress" and nitpicking arguments about the meaning of commas and priorities do nothing to improve WP. Rotational (talk) 09:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

We've been through all this many times before. Rotational thinks years of edit warring against clear consensus is okay, because he's bringing fresh new ideas; if we don't like his ideas, that's our fault not his: we are "totally unreceptive to new ideas". And so the edit warring continues.

I remember it was eight against one at Talk:Walter Hood Fitch, but Rotational still reverted to his preferred version six times. Why? Because he was right and we were wrong, of course. Because he was the only one of nine with any aesthetic sense. And somehow the whole thing became an example of Hesperian harassing Rotational—Hesperian, who was at that article a year before Rotational, and who made zero edits to the article during the edit war, was harassing Rotational by virtue of daring to disagree with him. And still the edit warring continues. Hesperian 11:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right - we've been through your arrogance and rabble-rousing many times, except you don't see it that way. Let me repeat for the umpteenth time - if I'm truly such a threat to the calm and serenity of WP, then step back and let others take care of the so-called "disruption" (according to you there must be many who are converts to your preaching, so that there would be no shortage of volunteers). If you don't accept this suggestion, I for one will not faint with surprise. Your disagreeing with me is not harassment, but your refusal to get off my tail certainly is. Rotational (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparently if I stop reporting Rotational for edit warring, then the edit warring will magically cease. Okay, I'll give it a go. I promise not to report Rotational for edit warring until the next time he edit wars. Hesperian 23:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

On your talk page I count five editors 'taking care' of your disruption (either through warnings, ANI or blocks) in the last month alone and you were blocked for half of it! You do a good job of introducing new pages to WP, don't ruin it by getting blocked for being a WP:DICK. raseaC 15:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Do some more research - you'll find that a lot of warnings are given by editors new to the fray - like yourself - and probably manipulated by those who scream "disruption!!" and then remain in the background while others do the dirty work. Let me repeat - I can live with alterations or even warnings by casual passers-by - it's the chronic harassment by Hesperian and his buddies that gets to me. Rotational (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I warned you because you were disruptive and, like any other disruptive editor, you have a knack of making yourself stand out like a sore thumb. If another editor(s) is playing by the rules and it 'gets to you' then I think the problem lies with you, and not the others. raseaC 17:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that Hesperian so much "plays by the rules" as "plays the rules". If the rules allow chronic harassment, then the rules are inadequate and should be changed. You and Hesperian use the catch-phrase "disruption" a lot, but what exactly am I disrupting other than Hesperian's complacency? As for "standing out" that is the last thing I want - I am here because Hesperian has turned my persecution into his personal crusade. I have repeatedly stated that I would like nothing better than to contribute without the Hesperians and Jenis of this world acting as my personal gadflies. Rotational (talk) 05:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Rotational, as someone whose only experience of you comes from this thread, I humbly offer the following advice: People are much more willing to listen to you when you are calm and considerate. Take a break, go unwind, then come back and state your case in a calm and methodical manner. You will find people much more amenable to your point of view. Once again, this is friendly advice, not criticism. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

He is still at it. Jeni 16:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That was a good revert. Per WP:EL#External links section what Rotational did was just incorrect. If that is an example of the kind of contributions that Rotational is intent on making then perhaps they shouldn't be contributing. I also see on their user page: "I have been reduced to making trivial edits and deterred from making contributions of new articles by the chronic and wilful misinterpretation of the Manual of Style by a small gang of Pharisees posing as editors." This looks like someone with their own personal manual of style and willing to enforce it with edit wars. -- Atama頭 19:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

And I was naive enough to think that the "in use tag" meant something. Quite soon you're going to have to decide between whatever value my contributions have and Hesperian and Jeni's plaintive bleating and their perversion of the MoS. I'll be happy either way. Rotational (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"In use" doesn't mean that you are given free reign to go against Misplaced Pages guidelines in formatting articles to your personal whim. Intentionally going against style guidelines and engaging in edit wars to maintain such formatting is disruptive. -- Atama頭 21:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

Enough of this. The edits show somebody who doesn't care to work with others. WP:POINT violations are enough for me. He can come back when he learns to play well with others. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism-only accounts adding defamatory comments at an AFD

Apparently, I have incurred the wrath of Mustapha Khalid and the employees of his firm. After nominating the vanity autobiography for an AFD, the subject (most probably) and/or persons associated with him are creating attack pages with defamatory comments about me.

• Talk:Mustapha Khalid - see Priority09's comment, which was removed by an admin.
• AFD/Mustapha Khalid, comment by User:Homar2155, which I had removed as attack text, but he has since re-inserted the personal attack.
• Banglabhai01 vandalized my talk page by adding defamatory comments.
• Shipoftruth/

Note that all these accounts have been created just today, and are only vandalism only accounts, and I'm pretty sure that they will turn out to be socks belonging to User:Mustapha khalid (the subject of the article under AFD).

Cunard has since cleaned up the AFD, but seems like the trolls keep on creating accounts to bypass the bans. I am hesitant to block the trolls since I have nominated the article for AFD, so I'll recuse myself from taking any admin actions against them, but I'll appreciate if another admin can look into these group of vandals. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 06:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

All of the editors mentioned here have since been blocked, has there been any more trouble? -- Atama頭 00:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

How do others deal with unresponsive editors?

By unresponsive I mean not using edit summaries, talk pages, etc. In this case it is Yongle the Great (talk · contribs). I moved Kingdom of Dazhou to Kingdom of Da Zhou - the first time simply explaining in the edit summary that this was what was used in the sources I could find, the second time going into some detail on the talk page as well as posting to the editor's talk page. He's reverted me both times. Now he's created Factory Guards and Template:Factory Guards which are again naming convention problems. And Government of the Ming Dynasty with no link to Ming Dynasty and which is on unnecessary fork from that article (he's copied the text from perhaps New World Encyclopedia, so it may be from an earlier version of Ming Dynasty. I'll notify him of this discussion, perhaps that will draw him in. Ironically I asked him for help with another editor creating unreferenced Chinese history stubs who is also unresponsive. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 06:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Experimental solution-- This seems to be a good case for just-finalized-yesterday new CSD-A10. I put it on Government of the Ming Dynasty, as it literally meets the description word for word. Almost too easy. Trial by fire is always good. ...If the A10 is declined it's still more than appropriate for normal deletion process. The other two creations, when combined, seem tricky. They're redundant, meaning only one of the 2 exist...... at least with the Factory Guards is that formm. Because I'd like to AGF for now on it and the notability I can make no fair decision on, my opinion is that it's acceptable to have that there as a stub, even if it's an article version of a category. Since it has no formatting I can't start to guess what the intention was. This is far from an official opinion, but on the assumption that Factory Guards will need to grow and prove notability , for the time being... since it's just a list right now, same as the function of the template, CSD-T3 likely matches... however, I'm going to go with just removing it from the pages with a normal edit including a link to this in the edit summary. as an explanation.

Since the 'Guards' article is going to have to be largely expanded and presumably articles for the other 3 redlink'd entires has at least some kind of chance of later use there's no extra point to deleting

I'm looking at it this way-- the article can grow and might end up with all 'Guards' without separate branching articles for each. The template is, until the Factory Guards page is substantially enhanced and there are justifiable separate article for each entry that would be there, the template is entirely meaningless. Need to post some tidbits a few other places concerning this and I'll check again a bit later. If you (and author, too!) could give statements on what to do with the Guards article and template, please do! ♪ daTheisen(talk) 10:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

One thing we don't do is assume good faith indefinitely. If an editor is editing against consensus and good faith attempts have been made to communicate with them, via edit summaries, their talk page, article talk pages, etc and they won't answer after a reasonable time, then their actions have become disruptive. There could be a variety of reasons they might not respond, in the past I've had editors who come from other language wikis to insert stuff but create some kind of a problem and continually revert it, but don't speak english. If you think this might be the case see if you can determine if they speak another language and find a user to translate, or use google.--Crossmr (talk) 11:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Indefinitely? Of course not, but for a user without a bad track record and before any of the "questionable" content has been reviewed there's no reason to change the AGF push while the process is going on. Incidentally, decision of my A10 nomination was a redirect to the Government section of the parent article without any content changes needed. Good learning experience. ...And yea, if it's endless non-responses to requests for reply that can start to wear on good faith as well.

My extremely unofficial way to test AGF in random conflict is similar to how 3RR is violated. Original actions were onfounded? -1AGF credit. Apparent unwillingness to discuss or at least explain at some legth a rationale for those actions? -1 more. In this case, if the user in question has still been contributing to the encyclopedia and ignored our request here, or has deleted the delivered courtesey message of the ANI off their talk page, well, -1 is "3AGF" and I'll start looking at things a lot more firmly. Naturally, extreme events can skip or extend the system. Also, if I'm coming in to a dispute fresh even if 10 involved parties are at 3RR with final warnings on harassment and civility, since they haven't been uncivil to me they get one shot at a good impression at least. About the situation on the renamed article-- could make a redirect on the opposing page and ask for a lock on it? Naturally, an admin would want pretty overwhelming evidence that it is the "correct" version, or if deciding this run itself out, disruption and incivility warnings would swiftly become more justified since any other options appeared to have have been exhausted. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 12:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This user isn't doing anything obviously wrong, unless everything they are doing is a hoax. Leave them alone. My quick look at Factory Guards indicates the capitalization is correct. It is a title. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The user is not using edit summaries and not communicating. They aren't referencing their articles. I don't think everything they are doing is a hoax and I'm glad you responded on the renamed article, all I wanted was a justification for the spelling. But when I make a change that I explain and get reverted with no reason given, go to their talk page and to the article talk page and they still ignore me, that's wrong and leads to edit warring. I still think that Factory Guards if it is worthy of an article needs an unambiguous title (more than just a capital 'G') and that we need to get the editor to start using edit summaries. Dougweller (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, unresponsive users are the most frustrating. What I've learnt to do? is ignore 'em back. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Total agreement with above. Even if you have totally opposing viewpoints you can usually bend some things around to find a little middle ground the majority of the time if you talk. If persons never communicate, you can't actually do a thing. I believe it's the matter of just blindly moving an article for what seems like the fun of it that starts the trouble, and though not "wrong", it isn't encouraging. The lack of communication is after that is possibly elevating it all since it's pretty hard to justify what you did in direct opposition to another editor when they never speak. Looking at their edit count... 6 total usertalk messages? I'm not having high hopes on the "team player" angle. That'll make this a bit harder. Edit history as a whole suggests a WP:OWN type of feeling, but I don't think with all that much malice. I don't know. Something feels amiss and it's hard to drop that feeling without any statement. There's more for me to look into ... wow I can't believe I forgot to sign before ♪ daTheisen(talk) 00:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not that I don't trust the very large and mostly awesome contribution history, it's if the efforts or opinions of anyone else cannot don't seem particularly compatible once encountered. In virtually all this user's high edit count articles there were highly unopposed, on occasion lone and extremely similar IPs hopping along. A few times a number of edits were done in opposite directions the user's next edit was section blanking. Yea, more research. Still really can't do anything for now besides trying to beg for comments. Even worse than someone avoiding communication?

Un-responsiveness can be considered disruptive, IMHO? GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting that he knows enough to start a stub with an 'unreferenced tag' such as Li Zicheng Uprising but there's no link to Li Zicheng - which actually does a better job of covering the same thing. One of my concerns is that he is creating articles which are more or less duplicates of existing articles. Hopefully he'll be back on line in a few hours and start communicating here. Dougweller (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Communication is the foundation of collaboration, and absolutely fundamental to the way we work here. If they simply ignore all attempts to engage them, the only recourse we're left with is to block them indefinitely with an explanation as to why; this either forces communication or they find something else to do. I've left them a note explaining this, so hopefully we'll get some sort of response. If not, then we can think about taking other action. EyeSerene 18:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Oooh nonono, indef blocks over just some article content disputes are so depressing when a solution might be something as simple as getting a NPOV reweite and both users agreeing to never touch (one of?) their contested articles again. Socks? Both agree that they're open to random CU checks vs users that edit suspiciously. No... Too easy, right? A few days ago and ANI came up about a mountain. It could not be agreed what it's "official" location was. I suggested they just add every imaginable category to it that was factually correct so no one could complain a POV bias. I mean. It's all there. I later learned the pair had issues deeper than that, but it's never good if someone is so fixated on "victory" (in an encyclopedia!) that they'll fight so hard over one mountain that even the idea of an overload with somewhat redundant categories to make it as neutral as possible to allow some relaxation... and still not find that extreme amount of a NPOV from an uninvolved party, knowledgeable random responder editor...? That's not good enough? To offer as much neutrality as possible to deliberately put it away for awhile for discussion later... that mountain is important than it's worth ignoring the good faith of others and very unusual attempts to try to help... it's just hard and discouraging for me since since it about flags things as "wasted time" it leads me to even more time researching to try to figure out why this is common to this user. I will never understand how only one article-- no matter how much it might mean to you if you're the largest contributor-- is worth the sometimes high risk of a complete removal from Misplaced Pages. And stillllll waiting for a comment over here... ♪ daTheisen(talk) 00:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You can't get both users to agree to something if one user refuses to communicate, that is kind of the point here. You absolutely cannot work with someone if they refuse to discuss any edits, especially if what they are doing goes against consensus.--Crossmr (talk) 05:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately this particular editor is still not responding but still editing. Dougweller (talk) 06:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

My own technique for dealing with non-responsive editors, is I assume that they are just completely unaware that anyone is trying to communicate with them. Sometimes they don't know about the history tab, and the orange bar "you have new messages" is just a permanent fixture on their browser, which they ignore because maybe it looks like an ad to them. As for reverting, I've talked to new editors who were genuinely perplexed why their "new" information suddenly disappeared from an article, so they just assumed it was a software glitch, and re-added it. If it "disappeared" again, they re-added again, and sometimes would get quite persistent (and frustrated) as to why the software kept "losing" their edits. They didn't know that others were reverting them, they just knew that the article was strangely changing when they weren't looking.  ;)

When push comes to shove, usually it's a 3RR block that'll finally get such an editor's attention. Like someone will add {{cn}} or {{cleanup}} or AfD tags, the non-responsive editor will remove the "bizarre" templates (which from their point of view just appeared out of nowhere), then other editors add the tags back... Eventually the non-responsive editor gets blocked, and then, finally, they may notice that they have a talkpage. But in the meantime, unless they're really adding bad info, or charging ahead completely unaware of a talkpage consensus that they're violating, I'd say to just leave them be, in their own little wiki-worlds.  :) --Elonka 07:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem there is when it's an article no one else is interested in, and 3RR works both ways - so unless it's a copyvio or BLP issue, this approach could get messy. Dougweller (talk) 08:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Noticed your latest on their talk page. Elonka's suggestion definitely has its merits, but copyvio can't be taken lightly (and I don't read her post as suggesting that it should be). If they don't respond this time, I think intervention is in order. A short block would be preferrable, but typically I go for indef on evidence of persistent copyvios after a warning and with no response to that warning. EyeSerene 12:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

User has uploaded a number of images that might need to be checked. The general logic used on the file pages has no violations due to image age (as in, the 700+ year variety), but things uploaded don't particularly look like scans or images out of a museum. License and copyrights aren't listed on a few... though a polite random editor fixed a few. Some are linked as from a museum in China, and I have no idea what their copyvio standards are... others look digitally altered/enhanced with no original for comparison, but again I have no idea whatsoever on their copyvio, or how we deal with it overwrites in any way because of our server location, etc. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 13:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Wait... GRRR... Ooh, now I'm grumpy. It's on to premeditated disruption besides the copyvio text matter now. One of the user's new articles was something seemingly CSD-able under the brand new A10, and yesterday I listed it here. Responding admin made me realize that most A10 decisions could be redirects (I felt very dumb) and changed the article without new content to a redirect to location I'd earlier specified here. ...User apparently didn't remotely care about this despite the warning appearing on their talk page and an edit summary mentioning the appropriate change of the article to a redirect, later putting all the old text back in here. Does this could at the "magic bullet" step mentioned about of how usually someone hits a 3RR violation by mistake? Oh, and Dougweller caught this a bit ago and changed it back to what it should have been, though his politely-detailed edit summary wasn't really needed given an official admin article action was reverted without a reason given. I'll let the admin know. ...Reverting an official admin article action related to an incident report without any reason given is bad, right? Why do I get the feeling something is going to happen fairly soon... ♪ daTheisen(talk) 13:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Although they haven't edited since Dougweller's latest note to them about copyvio, they were active since the earlier warnings and have clearly ignored them. That revert of a perfectly valid redirect, again with no attempt at communication, is I think the point at which good faith becomes unduly strained. I've blocked them for 24 hours. They're active enough that they should notice, so we'll see what the response is. EyeSerene 18:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, a block is the way to go. Yongle's actions are coming across as arrogant. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Improper rollback use

I don't think this edit (, which readded a disputed shock image of a gaping rectum to the Goatse.cx article) qualifies as one of the accepted uses of the rollback function. I noticed this user has had the rollback privilege removed before; perhaps this is another one of those times. 72.65.200.22 (talk) 08:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That was indeed not vandalism and rollback should not have been used. Sceptre went to the talk page after that to discuss, so I wouldn't call it rollback abuse. But yeah, he should've used "undo". The end result would've been the same though.--Atlan (talk) 08:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

While I do admit that it was a bit iffy, the fact that I went straight to the talk page right after and the fact that the person I reverted was an admin who's been on Misplaced Pages for seven years instead of a newbie (so there is no BITEing involved, which seems to be a major part of the RBK policy) should mitigate it. I've always said that rollback is put on too high of a pedastal since it got debundled; really, as Atlan says, it's just a faster version of the "undo" button. (Incidentally, I notice that the IP who started this thread seems to be well-versed in how Misplaced Pages functions, making this post his first edit. Hmm...) Sceptre 11:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(OP here) Not my first edit by far. My IP is dynamic. I've been around for about a year or so, chipping in here and there. Anonymous doesn't necessarily mean clueless noob. 71.162.25.80 (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• This isn't the first time that Sceptre's use of rollback has ben questioned and I believe he had it removed at least once before for abuse. I don't think i can be considered impartial where Sceptre is concerned so I won't do it but I do strongly recommend that they have it removed again. Rollback is not a tool for users who use it carelessly and the the edit that was rolled back is clearly not vandalism. Iffy doesn't even come close to describinghow inappropriate that rollback was. Spartaz 11:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

  See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Putting rollback on too high of a pedastal. It's not a shotgun that fires towards the head of the person you're reverting. It's simply a technical tool to make reverting edits easier. If you use rollback and instantly explain to the user why, there is no harm done whatsoever (another place where the rollback policy is wrong; it focuses more on the how than the why. If I rollback an editor and warn him, it's the same as undoing the editor and warning him, except for a slightly different edit summary and two less clicks.) And seeing as adding the image to the article without consensus has been traditionally seen as vandalism, arguably the reverse should be true as well. Sceptre 11:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

  Like it or not culture is that rolling back edits is the same as declaring them vandalism so it ill behoves oyu to show a lack of caution in the use of the tool, especially as you have been here before. I would have hoped that losing the tool would have made you more careful in its use rather then arguing that its reckless use is a fault of the way we look at it rather then your own carelessness. Spartaz 12:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

  If I was using rollback "recklessly", I would be going onto the RC feed and randomly clicking "rollback". The point is, ever since we were able to get the image on the article, it's been removed by people who don't think NOTCENSORED applies to the image. And it gets annoying. I could argue that removal without consensus is vandalism itself (as removing the Muhammad cartoons from that article would be), but that's a greater violation of AGF than just clicking the button. Sure, I could click "undo", but the end result is that it takes five seconds longer, takes two more clicks, and only for the change of one word in the edit summary. Seriously, people need to stop worrying about how one iffy use of rollback is the ultimate evil when we have stalking, defamation, and partisan editing rife on Misplaced Pages. Sceptre 12:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre left a talk page note. That's better than an edit summary. He is also right that removing something from an article that has solid consensus to stay is not a good faith edit. Using rollback like that would be questionable, but I've done it and I'm sure everyone with rollbacker status has done it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 12:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Where exactly is this "solid consensus" that you speak of? Certainly not at Talk:Goatse.cx, or any of the archives, or at this deletion review in April 2009 concerning the Goatse image. I'm a bit flabbergasted that you think removing this image somehow displays bad faith, and I wonder why Sceptre is so continually adamant that this image must be included in the article. 71.162.25.80 (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

CarolineWH

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

In the interest of full disclosure I am currently engaged in a discussion to which the user in question is party to on several abortion-related articles. Fortunately, the pro-choice side has many articulate users whose opinions I respect and who have been productively contributing to the discussion, Caroline's absence would not detract from its quality.

Caroline came on the scene as an anon SPA fighting on abortion-related articles in October. The ip address was initially banned because it was the same as a previous sock-puppeteer who had edited the same articles. After some e-mail correspondence between the user and the CU submitter the ban was lifted and little good has followed.

The user wikistalked me for a bit, following me to places as diverse as the talk page of a Canadian military scandal and a Sockpuppet investigation. After that fun she started back into the abortion articles. Though she later apologized after a RfC was filed, she has denigrated the Christian religion and attempted to discount the opinions of its followers. She has waged a long edit-war and worst of all, has repeatedly reinserted false material into an article for no other discernible reason than that it was removed by editors who oppose her political outlook. In that last one she reinserted the statement that "there are no American pro-life Jewish organizations", this is damagingly false and is in no supported by, or even insinuated by the source. But rather than look at that source, Caroline just punched the revert button. Later on in the same edit she reverted the tense in the sentence about George Tiller to say that he is alive for reasons that I cannot comprehend. George Tiller is very much dead, he has been for a while and we have been embarrassed for things like that in the media.1, 2, 3 After I explained, curtly, albeit, the reasons for these changes on the talk page she just reverted them again 6 hours later, compromising the integrity of that article to an unacceptable extent.

After that, yesterday she filed an ANI on me (withdrawn after a lack of community support) and against policy, she never let me know.

She also claims to have phoned an editor's workplace posing as a journalist to try to confirm his or her identity.

At a time when we are having problems with editor retention this user's shenanigans have already cost the encyclopedia a highly valued senior editor, to which she reacted with malice.

It is possible that this user has productive contributions to make in other fields but nothing good has come of her actions on abortion-related articles and she has caused A LOT of damage. For the good of the encyclopedia, I think Caroline should be topic banned from abortion-related articles. - Schrandit (talk) 08:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(We have senior editors? When do I become one?) I have no comment about the pro-choice vs pro-life edit warring, but I do see a problem in calling another editor's workplace to uncover his/her identity. That's entirely inappropriate.--Atlan (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Schrandit, please, just drop this matter? First you and Paul came to Wikiquette alerts‎, asking that we help resolve the apparent personal attacks, Caroline promised not to make comments about you that could be construed as offensive in future, problem solved. But no, you then go on to RfC demanding an apology and redaction of a statement, which naturally Caroline gives you. Yet still you seem to be taking issue with the matter, you've now taken it to AN/I to have Caroline topic banned. Not only will that result in you "winning" your edit war, but it will also annihilate any good feelings Caroline has remaining for this project.

Through out this Caroline has shown extremely good judgement and good faith, and it has been made clear that she herself has been acting from good faith in all cases. However you seem determined to keep bringing the matter up time and again.

Caroline has apologized for the statements she made in regard to you, which is what you asked for. So please accept that apology and move on from the matter, its counter-productive to keep bringing the issue back up.

As for this whole outing accusation. Well, yes, Caroline has phoned someone's work place, and mentioned that she's done as much on wikipedia, if however, we take some time to examine the incident, we can see that Caroline's comment in regard to her phone call was very specific about not revealing the names, numbers or locations, except those freely available on the internet already. Therefore if we punish her for the phone call, we're as good as saying: "all editors on wikipedia must maintain a strict etiquette on and off the project, otherwise they get blocked", since the accusation was about something that she did off the project, it is completely irrelevant to the project. Save for the fact that she made a post that basically revealed the following: "I made a phone call to try and find out whether this user could be a certain person; they're not", that reveals next to nothing.

Unless we what to become some authoritarian power that dictates over user's activity off the project I suggest that we drop the matter. Kind regards Spitfire 10:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Her on-project activity troubles me as much as her off-project activity. - Schrandit (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Just as a note: there is currently an RFC for CarolynWH where the phone call to the editor's workplace is being discussed (and poo-poo'd by a couple of editors), and a long discussion on my own talkpage (including a couple of entries that I removed) about the same issue. I agree that the incivility seems dealt with, but the User:Ecoleetage-like phone call to an editor's workplace is highly problematic. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "forum shopping" comes to mind as to the number of places this matter has been discussed, Wikiquette alerts‎, RfC, AN/I, user's talk pages, project talk pages, etc etc. Also, I wouldn't say we've "poo-poo'd" the accusation, we've pointed out why its not a valid complaint, if you just scanned over that and disregarded it as, uh, "poo-poo'ing" then maybe that explains why its become rather hard to communicate effectively. Spitfire 10:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not worried about outing, as that hasn't been the case, but would you like it if people from the internet call you at work for no other reason than to check who and what you are IRL? Calling someone's workplace you have a dispute with on Misplaced Pages could be considered real-life harassment. For reference, User:Ecoleetage was banned for such actions.--Atlan (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I see Bwilkins was thinking the same thing.--Atlan (talk) 10:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we stop bringing up this thing about Ecoleetage, he was banned for an incident that was unrelated to the real-life harassment (sock puppetry, I think...). And this incident is completely different from that one anyway, Spitfire 11:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Ecoleetage was banned for harassing a user by calling his work place. Pastor Theo was banned as his sockpuppet. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this phone call. What was the purpose? AniMate 11:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)No, the harassment was exactly what he was banned for. Saying, "sock puppetry, I think" gives me the impression you have put no effort at all in looking into that matter. I will not stop bringing up that matter, simply because you find it undesirable to discuss it. I think the parallels to that issue are relevant.--Atlan (talk) 11:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec with Atlan) Hmm, maybe he was, still, the two are very different (Caroline and Eco). The purpose of the phone call was to work out whether an IP user was the same person as a previous sock master, something that interested Caroline as she had previously been accused by Schrandit of being a sock of the user. Spitfire 11:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That seems unnecessary. Why not just file a request for checkuser? Frankly, I'm appalled by this user's actions. AniMate 11:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If I told you I'd shot a man in Reno (just to watch him die) you'd probably be appalled too, and rightly so, however, that gives you no grounds to block me. Spitfire 11:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. And you complain about the lack of relevance to the Ecoleetage case?--Atlan (talk) 11:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Haha, the main point is; off wiki actions shouldn't have an impact upon our presence in the project. Spitfire 11:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)We have checkuser for such investigations, which allows everyone to remain anonymous. I think you trivialize the phone call too much. Yes, Ecoleetage's call was pure harassment, while Caroline was investigating an IP editor. I still think that's taking things too far, and it creates a chilling effect to other editors. But that's a matter for debate.--Atlan (talk) 11:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

What do we want to achieve here? A block is meant to be preventive not punitive, although I still think what Caroline did wasn't something terrible, I doubt she'll be doing it again. So what constructive gain is there by discussing the issue like this? Spitfire 11:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"It already happened, there's nothing to prevent". You can get away with anything but blatant vandalism with that reasoning. I wasn't arguing for a block by the way, I'm merely discussing the appropriateness of calling someone at work.--Atlan (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't what I said. What I said was more alone the lines of: "the user won't do it again, so forget the matter", if the user was likely to do "it" again then you could block them as a preventive measure, if they are not likely to do it again then any blocking becomes punitive. Anyway, I'll be leaving the discussion for a while, I may get back this evening. Kind regards, Spitfire 12:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

PS, I didn't mean to imply that you were calling for a block, and I do realise that you're just discussing the matter, my question however was: "will anything constructive come out of the discussion"? To which I personally think the answer is no. Kind regards Spitfire 12:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't really like discussing here, while there's an Rfc about basically the same issues going on right now. In that sense, I agree with you. As for what a block would prevent: I can understand if editors Caroline works on articles with, have concerns about such intrusive investigations. We don't want an atmosphere where people have to worry about their personal lifes being investigated, simply because they take an opposing stance on abortion related issues. You may assume she won't do it again, but the die has already been cast, I feel.--Atlan (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The user account has been active less than a month, although she did edit anonymously for some time before that. In that time she's been willing to issue an apology and retraction based on community feedback at WQA. At my request she immediately withdrew the WQA she posted regarding Schrandit. It seems reasonable to assume that she would agree to refrain from making phone calls relating to Misplaced Pages if asked. Would such a commitment be sufficient to allay your concerns? If not, what would? Gerardw (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Can we agree to limit the scope of the discussion to the phone call? Gerardw (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

What is problematic to me is that based on the posting on my talkpage, CarolineWH still fails to see that making the phone call was a problem - they continue to justify it. The defence and minimalization of the phone call by others is just as bad. If, when presented with a clear and similar case, the user still "doesn't get it", how do they move forward? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the edit-warring and the re-insertion of false material need to be discussed as well. - Schrandit (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

All phone calls to people's places of work should result in immediate indef blocks. It's chilling, and wrong, and failing to take immediate action will spread more nonesense beliefs like spitfires that this is acceptable. Bali ultimate (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur, there seems to be a misunderstanding regarding what preventative means, it is not only so that the user in question does not cause further direct damage but also to ensure that other users are aware that such actions has consequence. Tracking down an IP editor in order to gain satisfaction within wikipedia is by no means 'off-wiki'. Unomi (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Can somebody provide a reason not to block CarolineWH indefinitely for attempted outing? Why shouldn't she remain blocked until she agrees not to attempt to do such a thing? This does not look like an edge case. Jehochman 14:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, all. Now that I know that this discussion exists, I'd like to contribute.

I'll say three things briefly, then answer any questions. First, I have no intention of making any phone calls in the future. Second, I am absolutely certain that my actions in no way threatened the privacy of any editors and therefore was not an example of WP:OUT. Third, please note the context of this accusation. CarolineWH (talk) 15:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, here's the context: your supporters feel that the phone call to someone's place of business does not belong in the RFC. Fine then, based on the section of WP:NPA that I have quoted both in our discussion on my talkpage, and I believe I left it in the RFC, this is an issue that requires immediate intervention - if there is indeed action to be taken. Indeed, when I became aware of the situation in the RFC, I should have brought it here myself. You have had about a full day since the end of the interactions on my talkpage to reflect - based on the above, I'm not sure you used the time wisely. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

A couple of weeks ago, I voluntarily revealed the fact that I did this research, while carefully avoiding any revelation of private information. My motivation was to demonstrate that yet another checkuser conviction was mistaken.

Weeks passes without a whisper, until the now-departed User:Paularblaster digs it up to try to add substance to an unpersuasive RfC/CU that he and Schrandit launched. There was no haste or cause for it, just an ax to grind.

Now, I said outright that I won't be doing this again, and whether or not you agree with the action, there was never any potential to harm anyone, much less an intent to do so. All this talk about a "chilling effect" is well-meaning but simply mistaken. No matter how you add it up, the situation is one that requires calm reflection, not urgent action, because there's a risk of knee-jerk reaction without actually understanding what happened.

Now, I'm going to ask you, Bwilkins, the question you refused to answer before, and which you deleted from your talk page. Bwilkins, how could my phone call have caused anyone to lose their job? CarolineWH (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(@ CarolineWH) Do you understand why we would be concerned with your off wiki sleuthing, and how that could have a chilling effect? In other areas it would be bad enough, but considering that you are editing abortion-related articles (some of which likely document the murders or stalking of abortion providers) makes it more so. Syrthiss (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec):It was uncalled for sleuthing. You clearly indicate investigating the workplace of either Spotfixer or Phil Specter, even if it eventually didn't turn out to be their workplace. Had it happened to me, I would consider such intrusive investigations into my private life just to one-up me in a content dispute, harassment. Despite saying you won't make such phone calls in the future, I see no indication that you understand how serious and inappropriate it was.--Atlan (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The "I have no intention" phrase is what sports coaches famously say when asked about their interest in another coaching position...the day before the big announcement that they're changing jobs. Take this user's carefully nuanced response, add it to the complete inability/unwillingness to recognize that the previous act was harassing and inappropriate, and you have one very problematic user here. People who cannot conduct themselves properly in hot-button topics should simply be removed from the topic area. Tarc (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked CarolineWH indefinitely. This shouldn't have even been discussed this much. Completely inappropriate behavior; no real indication that the editor realizes why it is wrong. Tan | 39 16:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tan, I wonder if you could do me a favour? Please quote the precise part of policy that Caroline violated. Kind regards, Spitfire 16:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:HARASS#Off-wiki harassment, specifically this: "Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely.".(let wiki-lawyering commence...)--Atlan (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't lean too hard on that phrase, it might break. The problem here is that the moment WP:HARASS is mentioned everyone gangs up for a witch hunt, when WP:HARASS has actually been violated, then maybe its fair enough that they do, however, on this particular occasion the policy has not been violated. Starting with this accusation of privacy violation, at no point did Caroline actually intrude upon the person who she was trying to "find out" about. She rang a work place, and asked if anyone by the name of the person she was looking for worked there. They didn't, thus, no ones privacy was violated. Now you're probably thinking: "Okay, but what if that person had worked there?", the answer to which is: they don't, so it doesn't matter. (also note that Caroline has said she won't do it again)

Secondly, WP:HARASS states: "This policy is aimed to protect victims of genuine harassment which is meant to cause distress to the user, such as repeated and unwanted correspondence.", Caroline obviously didn't mean to cause distress, there was no victim, as the person she was phoning up about didn't actually work there and so her phone call had no effect upon him, and finally, it was a one-off isolated incident, which brings us on to WP:HARASS#Consequences of harassment: " editors are encouraged to ignore or respond politely to isolated incidents". I request an unblock. Kind regards, Spitfire 16:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me, Carolin recently said that she: "did not ask for anyone by name. I asked about recent hires who were graduates of my schools. In this way, nobody in specific was mentioned. I then hung up and used their automated system to check for any employees named Specter; none were found. So even if he had worked there, the receptionist would not know that I had checked." Spitfire 16:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Any call to a work place, under any pretense or justification, is harassment in the wikipedia sense and would have the tendency to very much chill the editing environment if tolerated. Indeed, one can almost see the implied threat in the innocuous call to the office. Maybe the next call won't be so innocuous, hey, if your editing doesn't shape up... The user in question continues to prattle on about her "intent" (as you appear to be doing) as if any of the rest of us should care. We don't. Until she provides a statement along these lines (I welcome her to copy paste this) she should remain indef blocked. "I understand that calling that person's place of work was wrong. I promise I will never, for any reason, try to call the workplace or home of another wikipedia user again. I now understand that there is never any justification for actions like the ones I recently took. I understand that i will be indefinitely blocked if i break this promise and that i won't be given a second chance to come back."Bali ultimate (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As someone driving by I must say I agree with Bali. Spitfire's dependence on the fact that CarolineWH didn't violate anyone's privacy exempts her from having tried. Whether she was succesful or not is irrelevant, the fact remains that she tried to discover the identity of another editor. I, for one, would not feel comfortable knowing that other editors are allowed to investigate my background with impunity. It does not directly violate any wiki policies but I'm not sure it should be condone (or even embraced as your postings seem to indicate). Just because she failed doesn't negate the attempt. Padillah (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)As a completely uninvolved party, I completely agree with Bali Ultimate and Padillah. There is no wiggle room when it comes to this type of privacy violation. Tan's block here is sound. --Jezebel'sPonyo 17:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

RE: to Bali; Firstly, the use of the word: "prattle" only causes to further inflame the situation, please be careful when dealing with sensitive matters. Secondly, you're supporting the block on the possibility that she might call someone's work place again (not "home", some please don't use that word), however, you say that you're willing to let the matter pass if Caroline says she won't do it again, therefore I suggest you observe her previous comment in this discussion; "Now, I said outright that I won't be doing this again." Spitfire 16:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

RE: to Padillah; I don't embrace violations of policy, please don't suggest that I do. Another thing I don't embarace is editors getting unfairly blocked just because someone yells outing. you suggest that Caroline tried to find out another editors identity, this however is false, what Caroline actually did was try to find out if and identity she already had matched a certain editor. she did this in an extremely careful and sensitive manner, see this edit. You also say that just because she "failed doesn't negate the attempt", yes, she "failed" (or from her point of view succeeded in showing that the editor was not working at that place), however, as she didn't find out anything, there was no harm done, no harm done provided she doesn't make this a pattern, which she won't (see above comment: "I said outright that I won't be doing this again.") Regards, Spitfire 17:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

First, I don't mean to suggest anything except what your continued justification and defense of these actions suggests: that you condone the actions. Since you are, in point of fact, condoning them and justifying them, it's really the only conclusion I am left with. As for her failure, that is secondary to her attempt. As RaseaC points out below Attempted Murder is still a capitol offense. Just because you suck at shooting doesn't mean you weren't really trying to kill. You argue that she already had the identity she was just trying to match it to an editor - for me this statement calls into question the very basis of this discussion. If you are trying to equivocate the discovery of someone's identity by "matching" vs discovering someone's identity via other means then we have a serious problem. There should be no circumstance under which one editor is allowed to investigate the real life identity of another. No amount of wikilawyering should allow any amount of investigation under any circumstances. That this isn't painfully and obviously clear to both CarolineWH and yourself is a great concern to me and, I hope, to others. Padillah (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but if you meant to miss and you did, then that wouldn't be a problem, particularly if you fired the shot into the ground at your feet (although a lot of people would probably argue that you'd been trying to hit the person, but really really really sucked at shooting), Caroline didn't aim to find out where the editor worked, she aimed to find out where they did not. As I said, I don't condone a violation of policy. The problem is that policy is debatable, and I have not seen proof that Caroline's actions were a violation. Kindest regards, Spitfire 18:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Spitfire, enough! Caroline is not going to be unblocked because of anything you say here. Padillah, I think you should feel free not to have to prolong this ridiculous argument (just a thought). Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Elen, enough! Spitfire is not going to shut up because of anything you say here. Although, I'm starting to think that maybe its time to let this die, I can see that no one is going to change their minds, and as your argument is the one supported by an administrator (who apparently reckons that consensus doesn't matter: "While consensus isn't a vote etc etc etc, this rings in at Caroline and Spitfire vs. Everyone Else.") there's not a lot to be gained. Regards, Spitfire 18:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah seriously, as soon as you go off-wiki and start looking for people you've crossed a line and don't belong on the project. The 'she didn't find them' argument is ridiculous, if I go and shoot my neighbour but miss I'm still going to have some questions to answer. The editor obviosuly doesn't understand that what she did was wrong and that is probably the most worrying part of all of this, for that reason alone it is probably best that they stay away from WP for a very long time. It's all well and good trying to educate people, but when the issues are as fundamental as Caroline's I think the only possible route is an indef. I've been following this discussion and have been amazed at how long it's been carrying on, Tan, or any admin, should have issued a block a while back. raseaC 16:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Spitfire -- If you don't like being accused of prattling then stop prattling. As for caroline - real, extended grovelling, and iron clad evidence that she understands why calling the home, work place, church, former school, etc. etc. of any wikipedia editor is very clearly wrong. Then promises that she will never, ever try to track, either by phone or internet records or any other means, the real life identities of any wikipedia editors. Perhaps an essay making it clear why these sorts of violations are so harmful is in order as well. All i've seen on her talk page so far is surliness and self-justification. Again, a prolonged, full prostration is needed to come back from a violation of trust this serious.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure quite what you aim to achieve by having her grovel at our feet? Spitfire 17:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a good block. Any attempt to contact the workplace of an editor with whom one has a conflict – successfully or not – is entirely unacceptable. This is a 'bright-line' rule. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

She didn't have a conflict with the editor, which immediately throws that "rule" out of the situation. Also, she was only trying to see whether or not some one she already knew worked there, her aim was to prove that they did not work there, not that they did. Spitfire 17:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Who are you, her wiki-lawyer? You are sure doing a lot of poking and prodding around the edges of policy, looking for gaps to exploit. The moment someone attempts to "investigate" another user in this manner, that crosses the line into harassment; there is no wiggle room here. This approach to editing in what is supposed to be a collaborative project is simply cancerous, and should not be tolerated n the slightest. Tarc (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No just an editor who doesn't like to see people unfairly accused of things they didn't do. You people sure do a lot of "assuming" about policy that isn't actually there, apparently just so that you can justify blocking people. The policy actually states: "editors are encouraged to ignore or respond politely to isolated incidents", I haven't seen any proof that this is a pattern, and certainly no proof that policy justifies a block, Spitfire 17:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. While consensus isn't a vote etc etc etc, this rings in at Caroline and Spitfire vs. Everyone Else. There's no need to convince Spitfire of the appropriateness of this block. Let's all move on. Tan | 39 17:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"etc etc"? As an admin you kind of have a responsibility to justify your blockes, I am left in extreme doubt as to whether you can when the only response you've made is "There's no need to convince Spitfire of the appropriateness of this block". Regards, Spitfire 17:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

While I indicated at the RfC that the forum was inappropriate for bringing up material not related to the dispute, I believe the block is completely appropriate. I also attempted to discuss the phone call privately and found that Caroline was either unwilling or unable to understand why the behavior was such a serious concern. Checking up on an editor in real-life, no matter how well intentioned, is completely inappropriate. I'm very concerned that Caroline is continuing to defend her actions; she doesn't appear to realize the seriousness of her intrusion. Shell 17:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Might help to look up: Misplaced Pages:HARASS#Private_correspondence. She has already shown that she appreciates how serious any actual off-wiki harassment is, and she has said she won't do this again, even though she doesn't think it qualifies as harassment, which shows that despite her own feelings on the matter, she is prepared to let you (the community) be the judge of whether or not certain behavior is appropriate. Kindest regards, Spitfire 17:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't believe that's the case. She's just called her actions harmless and repeatedly stated that she didn't break any rules; there's just nowhere we can go from there. That's some serious stubbornness despite copious feedback; her actions were inappropriate, full stop. Shell 17:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Please explain in detail how the phone call and attached edit harmed anyone? Not how it could have harmed them, but how it did, regards Spitfire 17:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

One last try Spitfire. While i can't demonstrate harm to any particular person, that sort of action is very, very harmful to wikipedia's editing environment. In theory, a productive editing environment is the most important thing here. Actions like hers are corrosive to this most important thing.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I can, easily. It has irrevocably damaged my ability to trust that I can edit articles like Abortion without fear of being investigated, outed or harassed. How's that? I don't say this to "win" the argument, I say this as an honest response to the question. You are looking in one specialized spot and saying "There's no harm" but you are failing to see the effect these actions have on other editors. Do you not see that condoning the investigation of editors in Real Life, however innocuous it may seem to you, tells other editors that they are subject to the same consequences? Don't you see the harm in this? Padillah (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, what I am saying doesn't deserve a block is when the investigation has no harmful consequences and none are intended (provided there's an understanding that future investigation will lead to a block), what would deserve a block is if the investigation did have consequences, intended or not. So really, Caroline's edits will only make people feel that they can investigate people so long as they don't find anything out and they don't aim to, and no one (except under cicumstances like this incident regarding Caroline) really sets out to investigate people not intending to find anything out. If that makes sense. Regards, Spitfire 17:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic block - why anybody is arguing this is completely beyond me. Contacting an editor's workplace is completely out of line - This is one of those situations where even a "sorry, I won't do that again" wouldn't be good enough. What Caroline did completely crossed the line and then some - the only answer is to swiftly show her the door and make sure it's securely locked. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

For the last time: she's said she won't do it again! WP:BP states very clearly: "Blocks are intended to reduce the likelihood of future problems, by either removing, or encouraging change in, a source of disruption. They are not intended for use in retaliation, as punishment, or where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern." However, you seems to be justifying the block on the ground that what Caroline did at the time was shocking, however, she won't do it again, so the block is punitive, Spitfire 17:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Outing, or anything that resembles outing, is one of those situations where it doesn't really matter if the editor says they won't do the said crime again - the fact of the matter is that they've already done something which most people consider to be the most serious thing you can do here. I'm not going to get into the intricacies of whether not she outed the editor, but it does come under that umbrella. Is this is punitive block? I don't think so because of the seriousness of the charge. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The "seriousness of the charge" has no effect on whether or not a block is punitive. Spitfire 17:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

A bit late to the discussion, but I'd like to quickly state my support for this block. Any sort of off-wiki investigation is completely inappropriate, over the line and indicates a severe lack of propreity. GlassCobra 18:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Late to party but absolutely support this. I said at the RfC that this was an immediate block rather than a discuss first. Calling up the person you believe to be another editor's employer/professor/priest/mom because you want to find out who they are, is right out. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I am leaving the discussion. I'm sorry that the discussion couldn't have had a more productive outcome, in my opinion a punitive block is about as far from productive as is possible. But, as I said, its clear that no amount of discussion is going to change the matter, and so I'm regretfully going to have to leave it as it stands as the discussion is becoming counter-productive. Kind regards to everyone involved, and thanks for your time and opinions, both of which are valued, Spitfire 18:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Since 1) this is winding down into a pissing match between one fan and everyone else, 2) the user in question is unable to find fault in their off-wiki stalking actions 3) the user is no longer contesting the block, can this be marked resolved? Tarc (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment Spitfire, I think you should reflect on how it is that community consensus seems to be behind this block. The likely outcome of appealing to excerpts of policy is unlikely to result in having the block overturned. I agree that perhaps language regarding the unacceptable nature of trying to deduce the workplace or identity of an IP editor should be spelled out more clearly. It is unfortunate that it should be necessary, as most hold it to be self-evident. I also do not see this as a punitive block but rather one aimed at protecting wikipedia from further harm. Allowing attempts at breaches of privacy, which I believe CarolineWH's actions constitute, would be to invite harm to wikipedia and its editors. Unomi (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I see when I said "let wiki-lawyering commence" up there, it was taken as an invitation to do so. Clearly consensus is for the block to remain. This discussion isn't going anywhere else from there.--Atlan (talk) 18:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There's pretty much no way that calling someone's employer, even without bringing their name into it, can be justified. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, OK, The matter is over (see above comment), please, please, just leave it? Spitfire 18:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Move to mark as closed. John Carter (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It has been since 18:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Look at the top of the post (this is just a section) Padillah (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Waste / CarolineWH

While I do not condone the activity I do not feel an indef ban is the appropriate response. The losing of a potential good editor in a rush to judgment is a waste and does not benefit the Misplaced Pages community. To summarize the consensus position of community as I understand it, the issue is not that Caroline refuses to agree not to repeat the activity but rather that she is defending herself and refusing to take the position that she should have known a priori that making the call was an improper activity. I have been involved since the WQA on 24 Nov and have found Caroline to be willing to listen to advice and counsel when presented in a respectful manner. Meaning depends on context, and interpretation of action should be made in that light. To start, let's consider the original post by Caroline herself

I doubt it, since CU is immune to oversight and has no reason to be honest, but I'm sort of proud of myself so I'm eager to brag. I might have very limited computer skills, but I'm tops at research! I clicked a few links here until I got the company name behind the IP (which I won't mention here in case they Google), then found their phone number on their web site and gave them a call. All I had to do to get their cooperation was explain who I was, including my role in the student paper, and say that I was researching where our recent graduates went off to and how they're adjusting to the real world. I didn't say so, but I'm sure the receptionist assumed it was for a story.

]

Note:

• She states her skills are limited. Therefore, saying 'she should have just done a checkuser' presumes she even knew that checkuser existed. This is not reasonable
• She is clearly cognizant of the need to prevent breaches of privacy. She intentionally did not post the company's name and provided a cover explanation for why she was calling. At no point does she mention Misplaced Pages is this account.

Therefore it is understandable to me to she is unwilling to state that she someone should have known the making a call was unacceptable before being told.

Meaning depends on context. Caroline had gotten engaged in disagreement over Abortion page content with Paularabaster and Schrandit. The history here is intervention postings, focused not on the outing but rather on unrelated Abortion page discussion, by Paularbaster on WQA 24 Nov, and Paularabaster on WP:RFC 25 Nov and finally here 29 Nov by Schrandit. Both BWilkins and Elen of Roads have stated they should have escalated the issue to AN/I but in fact they did not. I infer from many of the comments above that is is obvious to the community here that Caroline's activity should have resulted in a block immediately. In contrast, no one reading either the WQA nor the RFC brought the issue to the attention of AN/I. Therefore it seems to me that what is obvious to the experienced administrator community was less obvious to the general editor community. Therefore it is unreasonable to expect that it would have been obvious to a new editor.

under attack

Multiple factors came together that likely resulted in Caroline feeling attacked:

• The fact the AN/I was posted by Schrandit rather than a third party editor despite the fact the activity had been known for days
• her action was compared to stalking abortion providers
• reference was made to countries where Misplaced Pages activity could result in harm, although I believe the call was not made is such a country

why the haste?

Based on past interactions I considered it likely that if Caroline was forced to respond without having an opportunity:

• to have explained to her the mores of this new community she was part of, and
• given time to reflect and digest the reasoning behind those values
that she would not "get it." To which extent I counseled her to wait before responding ]... I had hoped to have an opportunity to talk her through this. Unfortunately other editors demanded she respond immediately, to poor results.

When a person feels both attacked and pressured to respond quickly it is significantly less likely they will respond in an insightful way. What I don't get is why the rush? Why the need for haste? An explanation of Misplaced Pages's point of view, concurrent with positive validation of Caroline's intent while making the call while disapproving of the method, coupled with time for her to process, could very well have resulted in a much more positive outcome.

The justification of the ban as a deterrent against future misbehavior presupposes that a new editor such as Caroline would both be aware of and review past Case_law of AN/I. This is inconsistent with the anyone can edit model of Misplaced Pages.

Therefore I respectfully request the indef ban be mitigated. I don't think any block is necessary at all; however if the community feels some cooling off period is justified my past experience suggests a few days would be sufficient. Gerardw (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Gerard, the user was given all day yesterday to rethink as per a discussion on my talkpage. You don't call someone's work/church/home, period. When politely confronted and shown a similar case, you don't continue to justify it. Arguably, Spitfire's discussion absolutely shot down any chance for her, however, she was provided more than enough opportunity to realize her bad, bad, bad judgement. She chose to justify it instead. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No mitigating circumstances. Caroline sought real-life personal information of other editors to be used to her advantage on Misplaced Pages. Her totally unapologetic response when asked about it, sealed the deal.--Atlan (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

She called what she thought was another editor's place of work and refused, despite repeated prodding, that this was a major wrong hereabouts. She continued to insist there was no problem with her behavior. Excellent block. Prevents more possible instances of same from an editor that crossed one of the brightest red lines here and pour encourager les autres (one can hope).Bali ultimate (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Linking to "case law" is missing the point entirely. This isn't a government and no laws are being enforced. The intent is to protect Misplaced Pages and its editors. Tracking down and contacting an editor's employer is so far over the line that there's little point in debate. If I thought that such things were given an inch of tolerance I wouldn't want to participate in Misplaced Pages. That kind of thing is scary. -- Atama頭 01:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see also ] Gerardw (talk) 01:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Gerardw for bringing this continued discussion to my attention. One of the most disturbing things for me about this whole sorry saga has been the way it has been conducted all over the shop in various forums. I am no newbie here, but I have found it very difficult to keep up with all the various threads of the discussion in all these different places. In my opinion this is an abuse of process. It has been nothing more than a gaming of the system by two experienced users (one who has since flounced) who have taken exception to an oposing opinion about a content dispute. People here who should know better have allowed these two to dig for something that could be turned into a hot button issue and responed unthinkingly when they had no compunction in pressing that button. Certainly CarolineWH's actions deserve censure, but she has been denied natural justice by all this forum shopping - which surely should have raised some alarm bells with people here - which has made it impossible for her to respond, especially given the pressure that has been applied to elicit a rapid response from her. Frankly it looks like a kangaroo court to me. I have stated in the link supplied above by Gerardw what I think should have happenned. It is not too late (I hope) for this precipitate action to be reversed and more naunced approach to be tried.

Finally, there remains the issue of the two who started all this, whatever CarolineWH's actions deserved, this sort of simultaneous multiple forum attack on her is unjust and unconscionable. We cannot afford to allow this sort of abuse to continue. The two perpetrators of this should not escape with their actions unsanctioned, especially given the way the current case for a new user has been dealt with. - Nick Thorne 02:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

CarolineWH has been told how to contest her block. I can't see any administrator willing to unblock under these circumstances, so she can always take it to ArbCom. AniMate 02:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Gerardw, your entire argument falls at your very first note (why would she even know there was such a thing as checkuser). Read the text you quoted - that bit about CU not being subject to any kind of oversight. CarolineWH had in fact had a disagreement with a checkuser in an SPI prior to the events described, which was why she decided to conduct her own off wiki research. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR

On article Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia user DIREKTOR is deleting valid source and edit warring, and has the nerve to write me Please stop edit-warring to push your edit, but actually he is pushing his POV by removing valid source. Thank you in advance. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 15:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Article fully protected for three days. Tan | 39 15:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks (you actually protected version without valid sources, but that can be corrected in 3 days), but user DIREKTOR is also abusive on my talk page his edit Last 2 sentences of above edit are: I really hope you read the above carefully... I get the feeling this is one of those things I'll have to repeat. I hope being so rude (presuming he will have to repeat something to me because I couldn't fathom it) is not OK here. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, please see this--Ex13 (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Standard attempts by a nationalist WikiClique to get me banned. This time Croatian (betrayed by my own balkans faction :). So I make a very complicated point and I add

• ME: "I really hope you read the above carefully... I get the feeling this is one of those things I'll have to repeat."
• HIM: "Please be polite. Sentences like you wrote me I really hope you read the above carefully... I get the feeling this is one of those things I'll have to repeat. are insulting."
• ME: "Polite? I did NOT mean to sound arrogant or anything! (Keep in mind that raw text can be ambiguous.) I was just hoping I'd have your full attention. But if you want to talk about politeness than I suggest that first and foremost you stop edit-warring to introduce your edit. Its still there and it can be easily restored. Edit-warring destroys conversation."

I'm not sure if I violated 3RR, but an article I worked on got "invaded" by one of the Croatian WikiCliques who started introducing standard anti-Serbian POV edits, so I reverted the edit and kept pleading for the article to be left alone while the discussions are on. Of course, I'm always the bad guy for trying to keep Balkans nationalist POV out of articles... Its a standard tactic, outnumber the other guy so that you out-revert him with WP:MEATPUPPETS that never violate the 3RR - and introduce whatever you want. I did not think it should be allowed to work this time. --DIREKTOR 17:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice wording: Croatian WikiCliques, anti-Serbian POV edits.... Well, you are troll who is removing valid sources. It's a standard tactic, remove the valid sources of other guy, and call him names, and you will get your POV. I hope not. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't labeling me as "Croatian WikiCliques". I provided the sources for my edits, and you violated wikipedia's verifiability policy for several time, and I explained on talk page. There is no anti-Serb POV pushing edits. There is only yours anti-Croat edits with bad explanations--Ex13 (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand where DIREKTOR is coming from. He's reported on this board on a regular basis and almost always without cause, usually the person reporting him is the one blocked. If he's a little paranoid about nationalist cliques, it's not without justification. On the other hand, edit wars are never a good idea. I don't think that DIREKTOR literally broke 3RR on the article, though he did reach three reverts a couple of times in a 24 hour period. The 3RR rule does not mean that reverting up to 3 times is okay; it means that more than 3 times is almost always worthy of a block, while less than that might still result in one. The bottom line is that any kind of edit war is unproductive regardless of actual revert counts. Just keep this in mind in the future. -- Atama頭 21:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody please explain to me why are Admins so inconsistent with their decisions? I was recently put on a 1RR even if I have not reverted more than once. Now I see that this DIREKTOR keeps edit warring and dancing on the 3RR line and all that happens is he gets some generic warning. Seems to me that wikipedia's Admins have double standards. Loosmark (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Every situation and every editor is different. I doubt very much that you and DIREKTOR have completely identical actions and so I wouldn't expect you to face the same consequences. If there were a set of easy and consistent rules to follow that would evenly apply in every case then admins wouldn't need to use their judgment in such things. -- Atama頭 00:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed that's true, me and DIREKTOR do not have completely identical actions in fact our actions aren't even remotely similar. I never come even close to edit warring, I did one revert on one page and then another one on another. And somehow even if nobody found my actions disruptive or problematic the Admin put me on a 1RR. I am more and more convinced that the Admin system on wikipedia is just totally broken, because lets face the truth, the Admins' decisions are completely inconsistent and more, if the Admins like you, you can do whatever you want, but if you happen to have some argument with an Admin then they keep "beat you down" for nothing. Loosmark (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This ANI doesn't surprise me at all, given some semi-related surrogates were here a few days with an ANI of harassment ago over a debate of which map to use on a page: the better-looking one or the slightly-more-accurate one. There I believe 3 more users involved in the larger dispute for the Balkans as a whole, and at this rate it won't be that long until they appear here for whatever reason. I won't give names but edits histories all around paints a rather depressing image as a whole. This report and replies from a few semi-involved editors continue to suggest that there could be a puppet issue afoot. It can't entirely a coincidence that this ANI listing comes near the time that a recently-blocked user in this case would have received and read his block appeal request. This is far from over regardless of anything decided here or not. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 13:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I dont wanna talk about 3RR. I put referenced text (with several sources), and someone deleted that text, telling me that his edits are better and NPOV. I explained a lot,but I just got a label "nationalist", "POV pusher", "Croatian WikiCliques", etc. without any real argument. Nobody explain to me this. How is this possible--Ex13 (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Harassment directed at User:Wknight94

This user was recently blocked for what seems like a case of wikistalking Wknight94, and reverting all of his edits using a edit summary that constitutes a personal attack. I believe I have seen this harassment before, and I'm wondering if this is an ongoing problem. The thing that should not be 17:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved – Editor has been indefinitely blocked. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved – Obvious troll blocked. NW (Talk) 23:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved – IPs blocked for evading ban, MfD closed and all project pages deleted (I think) Bencherlite 13:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Semi-protected for 3 months by RegentsPark

Resolved – Further comments should go at WP:AN#David Shankbone where a thread is already open. EdJohnston (talk) 06:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved – Protecting user talk pages is not against policy. Also, this was reported by a blocked proxy — Oli Pyfan! 09:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved – Reverted, blocked, now ignored. @Kate (talk) 13:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved – Both IP's were blocked by NW about 2 hours before this thread was started... --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved – DCEdwards advised of WP:UP#CMT, Tintor11 blocked. Spitfire 20:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)