Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:22, 18 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 admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

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

• 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

Umpteenth edit war in Gibraltar

Hi, I'm sorry to raise a new issue on Gibraltar-related articles, but this time it's seems the most weird situation I've lived in this wikipedia.

Possibly you're not familiar with Gibraltar-related topics. So, I'll try to provide some information in order to make the issue understandable. The issue relates to the section Demographics of Gibraltar. When reviewing the whole article (there's an ongoing RfC) I found the following text:

You'll possibly not see any surprising statement, but I did. Well, as I've been reading a number of books on Gibraltar, I've got very familiar with this topic. The first strange issue was the lack of mention to Jews in Gibraltar, as I knew they were one of the main "nations" in 18th century Gibraltar. The second was the lack of mention to the Spaniards, as they has been for the whole history of British Gibraltar more than the Portuguese. The third, and even weirder, was the mention to Maltese people. It's widely known that Malta become a British territory in 1802 so it was impossible such a massive presence.

Well, in this point I could have included a {{fact}} template. But it was not sensible, as I have the means to get the right information. I took one of my books (William Jackson (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (Second ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, United Kingdom: Gibraltar Books. ISBN 0-948466-14-6.) and looked for the information. It provided information about the 1753 census (I don't know which this specific date has been chosen) and got the following figures: British: 351; Genoese: 597; Jews: 575; Spaniards: 185; and Portuguese: 25; without further mentions to other nationalities. I was right (no Maltese, but Jews and Spaniards). So, I included the following text:

You've possibly noticed that the original text did have references. However, it referred to a one of the nationalities (the "Minorcans", from Minorca) and not to the whole sentence.

For me, it was simply a "routine" task (fixing an obvious mistake). To my surprise, Justin A Kuntz reverted my edition with a weird edition summary "happens to be sourced and correct, ask Imalabornoz who helped draft it on Demographics of Gibraltar". As I've shown, the paragraph was neither sourced nor correct (as I had verified data with a proper source; today I've double-checked it with other source and, as couldn't be otherwise, the same data is provided). So I reverted, explaining why ("your edition doesn't happen to have a source (Maltese stock in 1753? :-D). I have provided one (Jackson) and unless you provide a source on the 1753 census (I did) I needn't ask anyone"). Well, I thought it was solved, but unfortunately wasn't. New reversion by Justin, with a new and weird edition summary ("FFS will you stop edit warring over every fucking thing. IT IS SOURCED ON Demographics of Gibraltar"). Obvious to say that Demographics of Gibraltar does not talk about any census or similar information dated in 1753).

So, at the end, I wonder why this is happening. It's not a secret that Justin and me are "opponents" in a mediation process. However, I don't know where this stupid edit war comes from. I could guess that it's because I've introduced the banned word in Gibraltar-related articles ("Spanish"). It wouldn't be the first time. It took several days, and only because third-parties supported it in an ANI, to introduce Spanish guys in the section on notable people born in Gibraltar (you can see it here). On the other hand, the section I've removed has sources in the Minorcan stock (curiously that's the only "nationality" with an explanation), and I've done it since Minorcans are not mentioned in the 1753 census. The reason of that mention (and sourcing) can be seen in here (it took months to remove an story entirely invented by Justin on how perfidious Spaniards had expelled Minorcans upon the devolution of the island to Spain; I say it took months because the story begun here).

Well, possibly I'm a little bit paranoid, but I hate wasting my time with stupid things like this one. I'm not here to destroy other people's work for no apparent reason. I obviously challenge the current status of many Gibraltar-related articles (as I think they have an obvious anti-Spanish bias), but the issue I'm raising has nothing to do with any dispute, but with an obvious mistake that must be fixed. I wouldn't like to know that these incidents are part of a tactic to, as Gibnews openly suggest, get rid of Gibraltar-related articles. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Well this goes back a long way, right to the very first time I interacted with Ecemaml.

As an example, I would bring to your attention my first interaction with Ecemaml . I give a clear edit summary explaining the reason for my revert of his edit, does he take that comment in good faith? No he does not, he immediately reverts ignoring the comment see . And again and again . Regarding his claim that there is no consensus in the talk page please see . And if Ecemaml claims that I never pointed this out to him see . Further Ecemaml is an admin on the Spanish wikipedia, he really should have known better than to edit war over a content dispute. After a long history of needling, admittedly by both sides, I thought this is stupid, why don't we just stop this draw a line under it and made that suggestion on his talk page. See .

Ecemaml sees all Gibraltar related articles as biased and since he started editing those articles, the tension and fractious nature of the edits has increased. What he forgets to mention is that I am in fact half-Spanish, hence the repeated accusations of an anti-Spanish bias are not only irritating but deeply hurtful. The story about Minorcans is invented, I worked with other editors to develop the article to its present form, I simply hadn't noticed that one article was missed.

To be honest I'm just tired of butting heads all the time, I kind of feel this is a tactic to chase editors from Gibraltar articles. Trouble is it seems to be working as two serial contributors to Gibraltar articles have already left. Justin talk 00:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Ecemaml (talk · contribs) seems to be disrupting wikipedia to prove a point. He is treating wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND and his continued postings here are unhelpful. He is an administrator on es.wikipedia.org, but his behaviour here seems to have become disruptive. It looks like his intention is to WP:BAIT User:Gibnews and User:Justin A Kuntz by constantly picking fights with them and bringing content disputes over niggling details to this noticeboard. Leaving aside the standard of his english, he seems to have started writing on this wikipedia simply to push a Spanish nationalist point of view on Gibraltar-related articles. If this continues, a topic ban on Gibraltar-related articles might be needed. (Why did he not use WP:AN3?) Mathsci (talk) 04:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Mathsci. First of all, sorry for not having followed this discussion. Sometimes real life bursts into the wikipedia and a wikibreak is unavoidable. Family matters have kept me away and I must ask for your understanding. Just for the sake of understand your statement. Which is the point I was trying to prove. I've been said that many times and at the moment, nobody has been able to point out to such a point. In this specific issue, what is disruptive from my side? I understand that in articles with different point of views, conflictive editions are unavoidable. But, I can't understand (and I haven't understand yet) why perfectly sourced editions are removed leaving information factually wrong? The only reason to raise this issue here is because this edit war is absolutely stupid. Details are, as you appropriately point out "niggling". But the fact that my work is gratuitously removed is what brings this issue here. Come on, the information currently in the article is false. There were no Maltese guys in Gibraltar in 1753. This is not an edit war on divergent interpretations of a fact but a plain sabotage, not only against me but against the very Misplaced Pages principles. Again, please, which is the point I'm trying to prove. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC) PS: BTW, you're referring to "continued postings here". Considering that I was brought here when Justin provoked another edit war (when I tried to "make another point" including some notable Spaniards in the article of a town that was Spanish for several centuries), I can't see which continued posting you're referring to.

Agree --Gibnews (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mathsci, this is the second time I've read you pointing Ecemaml to WP:BATTLEGROUND policy recently. Well, I've read the aforementioned policy and it refers to certain attitude which I can't see Ecemaml indulging in. He hasn't broken 3RR lately nor has he restorted to personal attacks but rather. Finally, I don't know how exactly challenging unsourced statements could be deemed as disruptive behaviour. On the contrary, he has added referenced material instead. Don't be so fast in singling him out for his "nationalist point of view", nor in advocating for a topic ban, please. Thanks.--Cremallera (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Cremallera (talk · contribs) seems to have formed a tag-team with Ecenaml, with the same WP:BATTLEGROUND pattern of editing on Gibraltar-related articles. They no longer seem to have discussions in Spanish on their user talk pages. Mathsci (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

What kind of argument is that?! Do you naturally suspect of people capable of speaking Spanish, or you've been taught to it? Have a nice day. --Cremallera (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Can this please stop being made into a race or national issue? All it does is put people off. Content disputethat consisted of two reverts? Hardly ANI level. Justi needs a trout that he doesn't have to hit the RV straight away, if things are wrong then consensus will form around that. Ecemaml needs to realise this isn't other wikipedias and he /does/ have to talk to people and can't just go off on his own when he knows it will be controversial. Lets stop making assumptions based on nationalities. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious, Narson? "he /does/ have to talk to people". You possibly know that Justin has a different way of interpretation of communication among wikipedists :-DDDDD --Ecemaml (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Very serious. Justin is not acting perfectly and appears to be rther cross, though I can understand this as he is involved inwhat has become a battleground, one of the reasons I left any active involvement in that article was because I could see where it was going. However, as imperfect as Justin's behaviour is, statements like Rv: your edition doesn't happen to have a source (Maltese stock in 1753? :-D). I have provided one (Jackson) and unless you provide a source on the 1753 census (I did) I needn't ask anyone stand out in the edit history of the article. You knew you were being controversial, you knew that primary sources will be controversial, you knew that there are many interpretations....yet you decided and declared that you had, in essence, a divine right to make that edit. You cannot use Justin's loss of temper as an excuse when you appear to be either deliberatly stoking that temper or, as I'd prefer to assume, blindly stamping around wthout understanding or caring how your actions can cause friction. When the points are raised on the article calmly and rationally, they can be followed and opinions given. As it is now, that talkpage is barely useful and I commend Imalbornoz, Justin and whoever else was involved for managing to get something resolved. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to raise a few diffs to ask an opinion, ,,,,. There does on the face of it appear to be a spot of co-ordination of activities among three editors on Gibraltar. I could provide more as it goes back a long way and it does regularly feel like I'm being tag teamed on Gibraltar with a good cop bad cop routine. Although I could just be getting paranoid. Justin talk 21:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering that we are using those quotations (that you tried to delete) in the RfC, which are the co-ordination? --Ecemaml (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

So answer the question

Just answer this question. Why was the information supplied from the source on the 1753 census reverted. Do not say anything about Spanish editors, points of view or anything at all about the motives of the poster. The validity of the information is not affected by the motives of the poster. Just say why the information somehow doesn't belong in the article. If there is no reason not related to Justin's mistrust of the Spanish, then it should be put back in, and Justin told to stop this pattern of behaviour. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

His 'mistrust of the Spanish'? It is nice to see AGF is taking it in the ass so early in the Misplaced Pages Day. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The figures for the 1753 census are here. They are 597 Genoese, 575 Jews, 434 British, 185 Spanish, 25 Portuguese. So what is in the article is not quite correct. It probably is better not to use this particular date, which has no special significance. The book of Sir William Jackson is still in the references. However, the book of Edward G. Archer gives a far more detailed breakdown of the history of the settlers in Gibraltar, post 1704, which is correctly summarised in Demographics of Gibraltar. Choosing the 1753 census was arbitrary, since there were many other censuses (eg 1721). All that is needed is a brief list of settlers. I have no idea why this content dispute has been brought here, when the sources are easy enough to check. Statements about the 1753 census are somewhat irrelevant when Archer's book contains full details on demography, which has evolved in the last three centuries. Mathsci (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any harm to use the census data if it doesn't overload the article, but I think the Spanish contributor has misread the sentence he objects to. The category 'Spanish' plainly should not be included, as the sentence is describing the incomers who arrived after 1704, not the Spanish part of the population. I think however that the article should mention the comparatively large number of Sephardic Jews who inhabited the area during the 1700s. No mention at all is made of them, even though they outnumbered the Brits during the 1700s, and vastly (factor of 10) outnumbered the Portuguese. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads, I don't think your line of argument is particularly helpful. In articles about places with a long history, there is normally a section on demography. It has to give a brief account of the various waves of immigrants. (Marseille is a more significant example.) For Gibraltar that includes of course various categories, including Spanish, Jews, Maltese, British, Genoese, etc. These are all discussed in detail in Demographics of Gibraltar and the book I cited. I don't understand your remarks about the Spanish, who were expelled but gradually returned in small numbers. This is clearly recorded in the sources, which you should probably read yourself (if only to learn how to spell Gibraltar). The edits you're trying to defend connected with the 1753 census are a red herring. The census and this date have no particular significance in the history of Gibraltar or its demography. The book of Edward Archer contains all the necessary data that needs to be summarised, possibly in a historical way, (In Marseille, rough dates are given for the waves of immigrants, such as Italians and Armenians.) Of course the Jewish population from Morocco should be mentioned: prior to to the British occupation in 1704 they would have been burnt in Gibraltar. Mathsci (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Mathsci, some of what you wrote might not have been particularly helpful either, but lets try to keep going shall we. The Spanish editor misread the sentence By 1753 Genoese, Maltese, and Portuguese people formed the majority of this new population by not noticing the word new. Hence he was trying to demonstrate that Gibraltar (did I make a typo - really I try to avoid being rude about spelling errors myself. I just don't think it's helpful) had a Spanish population, when no-one was denying this, he just thought they were. This is where all this POV pushing (which is happening) gets one - everyone mistrusts everyone else's motives. I find it odd that the sentence I have quoted mentions the Portuguese but not the Jews - according to the census data there were about 10 times as many Jews as Portuguese in the area at the time, but it is only one sentence, and the Jewish community in Gibraltar has it's own article. I wasn't making any other point. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You might not have much experience with writing articles on Mediterranean towns with a long history, even tiny ones like Gibraltar. It is WP:UNDUE to mention a specific census. What is required, and is not quite in the article at the moment, is a concise summary of what for example can be found in the book of Edward Archer. There are sections on all groups of immigrants in that book over the last 3 centuries. Your own statements about statistics are irrelevant because they are one snapshot and are your personal interpretation from a primary source. The Archer book devotes many pages to the Jewish presence (I gave a summary above). You are making inferences based on one census from a primary source: that is not how wikipedia is edited as I'm sure you're aware. A good source exists, a short and accurate summary should be made and that is about it: the task is to locate reliable sources and to transfer an abridged version of their content to wikipedia. Like Marseille, which I edit, it is a Mediterranean town with a long history and a strategic location. I would expect the articles to be written in a not dissimilar way, even if Marseille is several orders of magnitude larger than Gibraltar. Mathsci (talk) 07:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Mathsci, Elen, thank you for taking the time in discussing this. I'd just point out some issues. I agree with the statement on the triviality of mentioning a specific census. There are plenty of information available for giving a comprehensive summary of the evolution of the population in Gibraltar for three centuries. That's what the article should include. I agree with it. On the other hand, and answering to Elen, I did noticed the word "new". The issue is that this Spanish population was "new", not the previous. Finally, Mathsci, agreeing on the necessity of having a good section on demographics, the issue remains: considering that your statements on the way to describe Gibraltar demographics are right, why should the article say that in the 1753 census there were Maltese population in Gibraltar? I remember to you that it was the issue I'm raising. The motivation of Justin to simply revert something that he simply does not about is beyond my understanding, but you've claimed that I wanted to make a point. So, in the end, fixing a mistake is making a point, and reverting it to a factually wrong version is OK. I don't understand it. Really. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Narson. I don't think Justin has made any secret of the fact that he believes the Spanishes a couple of Spanish editors are POV pushing on Gibralter articles because of the political situation on the ground. Sometimes he's right, sometimes I think that the information belongs even if it is being put in by a potential POV pusher.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see User:Elen of the Roads is back with the presumption of bad faith that anything I do is based on racial motives. As it happens on the Demographics article, I worked with a Spanish editor to improve a poorly referenced piece of work. At the time we updated the main Gibraltar article but I guess it became confused with the combination of two sources poorly referenced. Funnily enough the same Spanish editor has made another suggestion to revise the current section getting rid of the dates. Bizarrely given my mistrust of anything Spanish I agreed straight away it was the way to go. Now I have previously dealt with your bad faith presumption, given my racial origins its a bizarre accusation that I'm biased against myself. Justin talk 20:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean it to sound as if you were biased against the entire Spanish nation, just a couple of Spanish editors that you do consistently say are POV pushing (which I think they sometimes are - I'm by no means supporting them all the time). I will strike/refactor my comments, as clearly they can be misunderstood in a way which is not my intention.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that this has been resolved amicably by Justin, User:Imalbornoz and others on Talk:Gibraltar. Just a glance at Demographics of Gibraltar, the Archer source and what was in the current article on Gibraltar showed that something was not quite right. I think also the sourcing and content of the not unrelated article History of the Maltese in Gibraltar could be improved at the same time. Mathsci (talk) 12:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it hasn't. Factually wrong information remains in the article. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC) PS: it doesn't explain why reversion is used as edit tool, something that Justin hasn't explained yet.

Your own behaviour still seems problematic and arbitrary. You continue to dispute niggling points by cherry-picking from sources. It's better to take a good secondary source and systematically summarise what's in it. Mathsci (talk) 07:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mathsci, I've asked you some questions above and you are now answering. Furthermore, you keep on with gratuitous statements about myself that I'm beginning to find offensive. I'd like you to rectify them not because I'm offended (I'm not) but because they're not based in anything. I've got two strong handicaps in the English wikipedia. The first one is my obvious unability at using English. That's an obvious problem since I'm not able to express with the same accuracy my thoughts that with my mother tongue. The other is that I'm used to Spanish Misplaced Pages policies and tend to think that they're the same here. For instance, I naturally talked in Spanish with Spanish-speaking people until I was warned that that was strongly discorauged. Another policy that is totally different from here is that you're not allowed to make unsupported statements such as "Your own behaviour still seems problematic and arbitrary" unless proper and evident diffs are provided. The insistence in doing so is obviously asimilated to a personal attack and may lead to the block of the person making unsupported statements. As I've explained many times, my main concern here was a good faith edition that fixed obvious mistakes (stating that Maltese people was in the Rock in 1753 is as stupid as saying that there was a large population of Arabs in Marseille in the fifth century). Regardles of how bad the previous edition already was (you're right when you say that picking a specific census is pointless... mind that such a specific census was mentioned in such an edition) the fact was that it included factually wrong information. I used the first secondary source I had in order to fix it. From that point on, two unjustified reversions were performed. You've failed to explain why I'm being problematic and, especially, arbitrary. That's something that I'm waiting for. If you're not able to explain why, you'd better drop your gratuitous attacks.

You've also made other arguable statements about myself (such as trying to create a battleground... it would means a pattern of behaviour which requires to be true more than your lighthearted assessment, especially considering all my editions in this Misplaced Pages or the articles I've created) or directly false (such as me continiously coming here, when this the first time ever I've raided an issue here). Finally, you've also complained about my usage of this board instead of using the one on 3RR. The only reason to use it was that this was not the first edit war started by Justin in the last times (the first one was duly raised here by his mate Gibnews and I haven't seen any complain about it), so it was not an edit war but a pattern (if you want we can talk about the petty verbal abuse by Justin —you can simply read this ANI section—, the way in he forbids communication with him, small wikihounding, or how he sniffs my talk page for making spurious canvassing accusations). It's this pattern of behaviour what I'm trying to address.

Mathsci, I don't want to argue with you, but I'd ask you a balanced assessment and, especially, to drop your offensive statements, which I obviously don't share although I don't see bad faith in them, just a rushed analysis. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Since when was improving an article with inline citations and formating per MOS wikihounding? And since when was asking someone politely to stay of my talk page, because they use it disruptively, verbally abusive? Or suggesting that people use the talk page to discuss article improvements, rather than userspace, because that leaves them open to accusations of canvassing or collusion? Are we to believe that only my behaviour is problematic? Interesting. Justin talk 16:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"because they use it disruptively". Can you provide a diff or is it just another verbal abuse as you obsession in calling me "a vandal"? "Or suggesting that people use the talk page to discuss article improvements"? I can't see in here any "suggestion"? Can you? Can you explain why did you editted an article (Spain) you haven't edited ever, curiously to modify my editions? --Ecemaml (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Now nationality isn't a factor here. It comes as a relief, to say the least, because I was growing increasingly uncomfortable to read the term "Spanish" repeatedly qualifying some editors/opinions (which usually happen to disagree with Justins'/Gibnews' point of view). As far as I remember, I've never described myself as a Spaniard. I do speak Spanish. I speak English as well, je parle Français aussi, e io capisco un po' di Italiano altrettanto (quantunque io non lo parlo). And yes, Justin, I know already that you are "half-Spanish". You say that all the time to avert accusations of bias but, as you might know "excusatio non petita, accusatio manifesta". Gibnews and yourself are both British (and at least Gibnews is from Gibraltar). However, I've never pointed that out as relevant data concerning our debates, because I value your opinions, neither who you are, nor where you are from. I suggest you do the same, because proceeding otherwise smells like racism to me despite your alleged meta-ethnicity.

As for the reverts thing, whilst I've not participated in this discussion and I hold no opinion concerning the right approach to describing Gibraltar's demography, that certainly wasn't the way to go. Moreover when taking into account precedents like this one. Ecemaml's editions were referenced correctly, and a discussion in the talk page was in order. --Cremallera (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Right I see, so is dragging up something from the past that was already resolved helpful in moving forward? See . Something already explained at length. As regards my mother, no I usually bring it up in response to accusations of racism, usually of an anti-Spanish bias. The issue of race has only ever been raised to try and discredit the viewpoints of anyone that disagrees with certain editors, its not helpful and is designed to portray anyone disagreeing as unreasonable. Its offensive and I'm tired of it. If you don't want it raised, I suggest you have a word with the people who raise it as a red herring. I would also suggest you refrain from the bad faith attempt to spin it as an issue I raise, when you know that I don't.

Further, did you feel changing the date of WW2 was a helpful edit, or edit warring to keep the change? Diffs ,. If you were to perhaps equally condemn that sort of disruption, then to be blunt about it, you'd have more credibility. Just to make the point also, that if there was less of a confrontational attitude and turning everything into a battle, use of the talk page then people might not be so hot on the revert button. Just a thought. Justin talk 00:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I am not stalking neither Ecemaml nor yourself. So, I'm unaware of most of your editions here. However, in defense of my credibility I'll point out that I've addressed him whenever I've felt his comments inappropriate, in concordance with your remarks (!) or even looking forward to your participation in the debate. As for Ecemaml's alleged vandalism concerning WW2 dates, he explained his edition to you in the talk page, and you've read it already as shown by your response which ends stating "Purely for information, my main area of interest is the Falklands and the Falklands War, funnily enough I can manage to work together quite nicely with the Argentine editors there". That was rich. Are you half-Argentinian as well? Whatever. Finally, attribute me "bad faith", lack of credibility, a confrontational attitude and the like, I'm getting used to it. But please stop addressing *any* editor by his putative nationality. Thanks. --Cremallera (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Alleged vandalism, no. Changing the date of the start of WW2 was vandalism and the explanation was lacking in credibility or reason. I see the point about not raising the red herring of nationality has clearly gone straight over your head as you've done it again. I don't address people by their nationality, nor do I seek confrontation. I may respond inappropriately sometimes when wound up. Again if you don't want nationality raised, then suggest it isn't raised so often as a red herring. :"Are you half-Argentinian as well?", the word is Argentine, no. Somewhat ironic to raise it in such a confrontational manner given your subsequent comment. Don't you think?Justin talk 20:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer concerning the word 'Argentine'. You'll excuse me. I am not really that used to labelling contrary opinions by the alleged nationality of their holders, their assumed bad faith, credibility or 'vandalism' records yet. It is quite naïve to expect me raising the 'red herring of nationality' without extensive evidence available, for you to just dismiss the whole issue by stating "I don't address people by their nationality, nor do I seek confrontation". Both Gibnews and yourself have repeatedly... 'described' the opposing editors. Their 'inferred' nationality, inter alia. Please, refrain from now on. It may be amusing the first time, but it is a bit racist thenceforth. --Cremallera (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Newsflash, I'm not biting. Justin talk 16:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"Changing the date of the start of WW2 was vandalism". Yes, that would have been vandalism... if true. However, I never changed the date of the start of the WW2 as you know and as I explained to you (you keep insisting on that in spite of knowing it's false and in spite of having received a duly explanation). For the sake of clarity and for avoiding your usual personal attacks, I'll explain it again (only for you not go on lying). I thought (and think) that 1940 is a better date for "the periodification of the history of Gibraltar" than 1939, as 1940 was the date of the evacuation of Gibraltarians, creation of the Force H, suspension of the City Council and mass-scale fortification of the town... I won't explain it again, although I know that you'll go on lying by saying something as stupid as that "I changed the date of the start of the WW2".

On the other hand, as you hasn't been able to explain yet why factually wrong information must remain in the article (besides your usual small talk, you've failed to explain why you use reversion as edit tool), I'll restore the sourced information that I introduced, along with the reference provided by Mathsci (and removing Spaniards and Portuguese, since its mention seems to be "problematic"). Of course that the section needs to be improved. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

As I've already pointed out the information in that section starts in 1939 and it is specifically titled WW2, the date you changed was the date of the start of WW2. I don't find your explanation in any way convincing, particularly as you edit warred to keep it and since you only provided this explanation later it has all the hallmarks of something you came up with it after the event; you didn't mention it at the time.

Equally I've restored the sourced information for the ethnic groups you simply excised from the article, which you could have done. Often successive edits separate sourced information from their cites but as was pointed out to you, you could simply have referred to the Demographics of Gibraltar article and fixed it. You chose instead to cut out swathes of text, that removed useful information from the article. You were of course referred to that article, why you chose to ignore that suggestion to instead start an AN/I thread is a mystery to me. As is claiming to improve articles by removing information rather than correcting the source. That would probably explain the comments here, which acknowledge the POV nature of a number of your edits, not to mention your combative and confrontational style. Anyway this is wasting my time, so this will be my last comment. Justin talk 23:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Justin, please don't call Ecemaml's good faith edits vandalism. He had a reason for the edit, and while you may have disagreed, and he may have even been wrong, but it's a far cry from intentionally trying to make the article worse, which is the only definition of vandalism we use on Misplaced Pages. Calling someone in a content dispute a vandal because you think they made an error can be very offensive. I know, and you know that I know that you have a very valid difference of opinion with Ecemaml on the article, and that you get frustrated at times (as does he) but you do yourself no favors by making false accusations. -- Atama頭 20:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You know I respect your opinion but come on, changing the date of the start of WW2 is vandalism, pure and simple. I don't find the posthumous justification convincing in the slightest. WP:DUCK springs to mind. This wasn't a content dispute, I can't see how changing the start date of the conflict to an utterly arbitrary figure can in any way, shape or form to be a constructive edit. We'd have ban hammered an IP editor making the same change. Justin talk 21:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

What part of "he didn't change the start date of WWII" are you not getting here?Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Which part of the diffs showing that he did aren't you getting here? ,. Anyway I'm gone, this is getting ridiculous. Justin talk 21:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That paragraph isn't saying that WWII started on that year. The paragraph is saying that Gibraltar residents were evacuated during WWII. They weren't evacuated until 1940, so technically Ecemaml was correct in the change. Not to mention, you reverted a fact tag and a typo fix when you reverted Ecemaml. If I were to assume bad faith in you, as you are with Ecemaml, I would call you a vandal for intentionally reinserting a misspelling in the article. That's certainly closer to vandalism than what Ecemaml did. -- Atama頭 23:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

AGF does not require suspension of disbelief. Missing a spelling mistake and a fact tag doesn't insert misleading information into an article. That paragraph sets the scene for Gibraltar in WW2 and changing the date, changes the start of the war. The two are not comparable and if you feel that what he did was constructive, then I have to say that I strongly disagree. You have your opinion, I have mine and it seems on this they won't be reconciled. Justin talk 16:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Opinions are opinions, true. But you are falsely stating that Ecemaml had declared that World War II began in 1940. He didn't. Just as he didn't vandalize the article. Your dogged insistence on fals accusations regarding editors you are in an ongoing content dispute with are troubling. You are correct that AGF does not require suspension of disbelief, and honestly my assumption of good faith on your part is becoming strained. I'm not going to "agree to disagree" on an issue like this, because you're bordering on personal attacks against Ecemaml with this campaign of yours and that's intolerable. I'll compromise on one thing; if you want to believe in your own mind that Ecemaml is a vandal, go ahead, nobody is trying to be the thought police here. But if you continue to assert that in writing, it's going to make things difficult for you eventually. -- Atama頭 18:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Up above Ecemaml makes the utterly false allegation that I tried to get his extensive list of quotations in userspace deleted. They're actually a copyright violation, what I did was to ask for an expert opinion because I was concerned it could cause a problem and I asked someone who knew more than me first for their opinion, when my fears were confirmed I also asked them to explain it to Ecemaml as if it came from me, I was pretty certain it would be taken the wrong way based on a presumption of bad faith. Seems my expectations were rather realistic. What I find interesting is that I don't see you tackling Ecemaml for his bad faith presumption. I note that you're not leaping to my defence. Equally when he states that I am lieing there is not a murmur of comment from you. Then he states that I'm wikihounding him, verbally abusing him and spurious accusations of canvassing. Not a peep.

Now when I have been wrong, I've apologised unreservedly and you've seen me do it. When Ecemaml has crossed the line, his "apologies" have been along the lines he is sorry that I misunderstood his comments. Again just to make the point I have not heard a murmur of comment from you.

For the record I also stated that by changing that date he effectively changed the start date of WW2. I have never declared that Ecemaml stated that WW2 started in 1940 but that is what his edit effectively did. Now I may have gotten careless with my language or did not make it plain enough but thats what I meant. I don't find his explanation convincing because if you look at that section the first 3 events took place in 1939, starting with the construction of the runway. For me it just doesn't add up and requires suspension of disbelief to accept.

What is also interesting to me is that twice Cremallera attacks me of accusing me of using my background to avoid accusations of bias. It seems race is frequently brought up as accusations of racism paint anyone opposing an edit as unreasonable and its an attempt to shut down debate. I've not seen anyone leaping to my defence there either.

So, I apologise unreservedly for honestly stating a strongly held personal opinion based on the evidence before me. I promise I will never again state a strongly held personal opinion in writing again. Justin talk 22:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again

Justin keeps on with his unusual behaviour. Following me, reverting my editions with no apparent purpose. His last edit war is as stupid as the one described above. Several days ago, I introduced a table and a chart in the article Demographics of Gibraltar. The table included the figures of population through the censuses of Gibraltar since its sovereignty transfer in 1713. Censuses are not periodic (at least in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries) and the information provided is sourced. Justin keeps on removing the information on the table on the grounds that "duplicates information". Given that the chart does not include figures, either on the exact population figures or the census dates (it's only a lines chart) such a pretension is rather implausible, especially considering that Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopaedia ("There is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page"). Possibly it's me being arbitrary. --Ecemaml (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Ecemaml, you seem determined somehow to disgrace Justin on WP:ANI by continuing to quibble in as public a way as possible about very minor points. Justin is not following you: you are editing a page in which he has participated, which is presumably on his watch list and which he has mentioned in this thread several times. The table you created duplicates the already existing graph. It serves little or no purpose. Your behaviour seems to consist in finding ways of making tiny changes to Gibraltar-related articles, of little or no consequence, but making a huge issue about their importance. Perhaps it's time for you to start editing in a more constructive and less provocative way. You can always add a point to the graph if you think a piece of data is missing. (I had to do a similar thing with transcontinental countries on the large map at the beginning of Europe.)

It might also be an idea to translate the article into Spanish for es.wikipedia. (So far it's only been translated into French,) Mathsci (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Mathsci, it's nice to hear you again even you keep on with personal attacks that I don't personally think I deserve. You state "Your behaviour seems to consist in finding ways of making tiny changes to Gibraltar-related articles, of little or no consequence, but making a huge issue about their importance", but that's a little bit contradictory. The edition I'm talking about is mine, both in the table (I took it from one of those secondary sources you mention) and in the chart. So if the chart is kept is just because it's of some consequence. You also state "The table you created duplicates the already existing graph". But as said, that's not right since the chart does not include the information about the figures of the census and their dates (which are not periodical). Consider also that Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia. So, at the end, it seems that my "little or no consequence edition" is not duplicated at all. My editions, you're right, are not of importance. But they simply take time to write and it's frustrating to get them removed with no reason, as it's the case. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There were no personal attacks. You don't quite seem to have got the hang of en.wikipedia yet. Bringing little content disputes here is a total waste of time. For future reference, the jargon here is "edit" rather than "edition". I hope that helps. Mathsci (talk) 09:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Also on there: Misplaced Pages is not a collection of indiscriminate information. We had a similar issue in Formula One areas, we are just not a repository for any old fact anyone gathered. There is a debate to be had over which way is better, but both is just unnecessary clutter. Worth pointing out that the table you are introducing is also wrong as we use different notations than the continent in English (The table says there were 27 and a half, roughly, people in Gibraltar in 2001). Also noticd that the graph is also wrong due to use of decimal place. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages is not a collection of indiscriminate information". Yes, Narson, you're right. However, I can't see how the table that creates the chart fits into any of the items the policy you mention describes (is it "Long and sprawling lists of statistics"? I don't think so). Such "old fact anyone gathered" are from current secondary sources (that is, I didn't took the censused and made original research) and give accurate information about population in the different stages of the Gibraltarian history. On the other hand, not only the table, but also the introductory text (mind that the policy states that "In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader"). Finally, the policy is clear: "consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists". On the other hand, you're completely right on the decimal place. I'll fix it. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I put commas instead of points in your population graph File:Población_de_Gibraltar_(1725-2001).png on Commons. I hope this is OK. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 10:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we just kill this drama fest

Please? Justin talk 00:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse Please could this thread be archived by an uninvolved administrator? No administrative action is required here. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Yzak Jule repeat personal attacks on homepage

I appreciate this is incredibly petty, but....a number of anon and account users have been attacking Tryptofish to the extent that his userpage has been semi-protected for several weeks. This follows extremely acrimonious arguments at Talk:Crucifixion and Talk:Crucifixion in art. At some point in that melee, someone made a truly out of order statement that included Tryptofish, Aspies and people with mental health disorders, and someone else put up a banner advising against that comment.

Yzak Jule, who had been blocked for his comments in the dispute, copied the banner and posted it on his user page. He then piped the Asperger's link to point to Tryptofish instead . I took this down as a personal attack. Later, he replaced it with which pipes "someone" to Tryptofish and is, in my opinion, still a personal attack, so I took it down again. Today, he has put it back up again . Is the consensus that it is a personal attack, and if so, could something be done about it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to thank Elen for starting this thread, and I appreciate the concern on my behalf. I think it is worth providing additional information about this user's recent activities. Yzak Jule was recently blocked, and has resumed editing after the block only over the last two days. It is illuminating to observe how he has been focusing his edits in this short time.(1) He has gone to User talk:TJRC, an experienced and valued user who has recently become unhappy about editing, and expressed pleasure at the user's unhappiness . (2) He has made transparent attempts to get back at the administrator who blocked him , . (3) He has frivolously placed a 3RR template on Elen's talkpage for edits that were simply reverting vandalism by an IP . (4) He has repeatedly blanked legitimate comments I have made at Talk:Crucifixion in art , and then frivolously placed a template about creating attack pages on my talk . (5) And he has configured his user page to be a parody of mine (for example: this user opposes the Society for Neuroscience Misplaced Pages Initiative, etc.). One might hope that an editor coming back after a block would attempt to contribute to content improvement, but this has manifestly not been the case. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Note, I've edited Tryptofish's comment to number his arguments for ease of response. (1)My comment that his and your actions in the Crucifixion argument has provoked similar feelings on the other side was an attempt to give you two some perspective so a consensus on the issue could finally be found. (2)As noted below, his actions in the two arguments were similar, and I felt it might be noteworthy that it seems to be a pattern on tedder's part and not an isolated incident. Cool Civil/AGF violation, by the way. (3)The IP was removing the material you added that a significant number of editors on the talk page have voiced as a poor source. Elen's actions were edit warring. (4)Per my arguments below, your comments were incivil. (5)Although I did first notice the Initiative on your user page, my concern is that it violates WP:COI and WP:Canvassing. There'd be no point in parodying your handful of userboxes, it's not constructive to the construction of an encyclopedia at all, just like this argument.Yzak Jule (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

To admins: for each of those responses, please look at them alongside the actual diffs. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

To admins: This is the third time Tryptofish and co. have brought this petty argument to ANI without ever attempting to discuss it via user talk pages (and ignoring any of my own attempts to do so), and I'd like to get back to working on the encyclopedia and quit wasting your time with this. Yzak Jule (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not start this report, Elen did. There is a difference between trying to discuss on talk pages, and what this user continues to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Yzak has a habit of considering anything to be a personal attack, removing comments from talk pages as well as their own userpage. Here are some examples: , , , , as well as aggressively going after anyone who has slighted themselves (including myself and Tryptofish, likely Elen too).tedder (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Those first three clearly violate WP:AGF and WP:Civil, specifically sections 1C, 1D, and 2A. The last one you're correct in that I shouldn't have reverted it, although I feel Tryptofish is using Elen as a meat puppet for reverts in the Crucifixion in art edit war precisely to be able to make such arguments. I don't understand what you mean by "going after" you, since all I did was note that your behaviour in the edit war I'm involved in at Crucifixion was similar to the behaviour the above ANI thread is looking into. As for Tryptofish, he has clear issues with the WP:Own policy, in my opinion, and I'm still involved in trying to reach consensus on the page both of us are involved in, so it's unsuprising we're in the same places.Yzak Jule (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that Yzak has again restored the link to Tryptofish's page. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Because I don't see anything in WP:NPA it's violating and no one here sees fit to discuss that, instead unilaterally making decisions without consensus. However, in the spirit of cooperation I've removed it for now.Yzak Jule (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think one can determine from the user's replies here the likelihood that the user will or will not improve his editing behavior in the future as a result of this report. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to improve my editing if someone would like to tell me what it is I'm doing wrong. The level of condescension in your comments as well as those of most others involved in this edit war (with the exceptions of Elen and Gary) is staggering and extremely unhelpful, and is why this is a continuing issue.Yzak Jule (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

After this AN/I thread started, I note that Yzak Jule has made what appear to be a large number of in-policy vandalism reverts. Given his stated desire to improve his editing behavior, as well as his stated lack of understanding of why the complaints were started, perhaps a better alternative to a block would be some sort of mentorship? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"SA"

Note something non-Yzak related(?) is happening with those crucifixion pages from an off-wiki website- I don't know what, I've just seen it mentioned as "SA". tedder (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Off the cuff, I'd guess Something Awful. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what SA is. Just before Thanksgiving, they started a section called something about how Misplaced Pages is falling apart (within a section called "general bullshit") showing a screenshot of what was then at Crucifixion, and egging one another to meatpuppet here, amid a lot of hate-speech about persons with Asperger's syndrome. It has been morphing into egging people to come here and harass me and other editors who disagree with them. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Diffs about SA: and . Not pretty. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, you seem to think this is some official "section" of SA. It is a forum post. Nothing more. And yes, they don't like the article. I've contributed to that thread, shared my feelings, and acted on some things they've said. --Golbez (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I understand that it's a forum. But that's really beside the point. The issue is what Elen, Tedder, and I have raised above. I already pointed out the SA thing in an earlier AN/I section, now archived, and it simply is what it is. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Their points are valid; their methods, less so. --Golbez (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. If you think it's worth defending, that's your right. But that isn't the issue before AN/I, in any case. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• One point to Sarek for figuring that out. I was thinking it was Christian-based, so that didn't even cross my mind. TLDR: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Obviously it's a big meme involving Tryptofish and Anime, especially this Anime/Crucifixion article. What should be done about it? I'm involved, otherwise I'd probably block Yzak for disruption. tedder (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Much as I said above to Golbez, I think the SA thing just is what it is, and Misplaced Pages can't regulate what happens at other websites. The solution to meatpuppetry is to give meat-comments less weight. The user issue above is a separate issue, one that is not resolving itself (just got a whole lot more incivility at my talk), and I hope that is where uninvolved administrators are looking, not this side-issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Please explain, exactly, how offering an olive branch, per the civility policy, is incivility.Yzak Jule (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't an olive branch. , --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, see also: 4chan. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

While I commend your effort to explain these things to those of us not "in the know", I believe that, ultimately and unfortunately, your knowledge of the rather complex dynamics involved is slightly superficial, and this situation would benefit greatly from a more nuanced approach. Being a web forum, as opposed to a Wiki, SA has "topics", not "sections". Moreover, SA and 4chan are two separate sites, sort of like Misplaced Pages and Citizendium, and though the latter was created by a member of the former, the two groups are hardly a single entity. Oftentimes, they find themselves at cross-purposes, both philosophically and practically. Think the ASPCA and PETA, Plato and Aristotle, or Goku and Vegeta. Badger Drink (talk) 05:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining that. In the end, though, meatpuppeting is meatpuppeting, whether the people are officially representing an organization (not the case here), or are acting unofficially as individuals. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

But what if they're not meatpuppets? The definition on Misplaced Pages is people recruited to back up someone else's position, and I'd say that this isn't the case; you've legitimately got individuals who honestly believe what they're saying, they're not swarming over to Misplaced Pages as some sort of "hive mind" or at the rallying call of a SA "leader" or something. As such, I'd say it's unfair to disregard their opinions out-of-hand just because some of them are coming from the same place. As with any online forum, like-minded people are going to congregate in the same place. That doesn't make their opinions less valid. Xenomrph (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

There's been a pretty enthusiastic outpouring of (SPA) accounts and IPs bombing away at Tryptofish and involved articles, especially the two crucifixion articles. It is/was the textbook definition of meatpuppetry, combined with the sort of trolling that can only happen with a large group of followers interested in disrupting, trolling, and griefing, which is backed up pretty well in the ~1600 posts on this thread. Misplaced Pages's policies and investigation of sockpuppetry is fairly well defined, but taking this group at face value has shown some serious weaknesses of the processes. tedder (talk) 05:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Show over?

Yzak Jule has taken down the offending notice and done some productive editing. He's asked what he was doing wrong, and I've suggested on his talkpage that he needs to drop the stick. Suggest we can now consider this closed.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

As I said yesterday, I am satisfied that there is no need for a block at this time, while I also think that, based on what Yzak Jule said himself, some sort of mentoring may be more useful. If the drama stops, the AN/I matters can, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Noting that the stick was picked up, again, briefly, today. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

User:JHunterJ violating WP policies.

Suspect this resolution will need replacement due to WP:COI of resolver, but who could resist a Christmastime swipe at the "Navigation-priority disambiguation cabal." Humor license invoked. Holiday season pardon invoked. Too much beer license invooked. That ought to cover it. Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 04:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

User:JHunterJ is violating WP policies. There is a WP:RM Calbuco, Los Lagos -> Calbuco pending from 11 Dec. But he is moving anyway. There is Calbuco (disambiguation) where he deletes valid content. He deletes pages claiming the deletion falls under G6, but G6 says "Uncontroversial maintenance", the deletion is not uncontrovertial. He has been warned, his reply shows that he had no valid reason to delete content and also that he has no complete understanding of the policies he cites. This misunderstandings in his head are showing again in another reply by him. Such admin behavior drives away editors!!! Please can some admin review whether Calbuco Island was deleted and by whom? I think I created that page in the last 48h hours but can see no evidence. TrueColour (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Calbuco Island has never been an article on the English Misplaced Pages. You apparently did not create it; it has not been deleted.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I see nothing wrong here. You could try to work with him rather than taking an adversarial stance from the first contact you make on his talk page. This appears to be a content dispute between the two of you, and if you tried to work it out together, I don't think there's much to do here. You should also notify him of this discussion. --Jayron32 22:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Calbuco Island note. Still his other policy violations apply. After I warned him he went on to violate G6 etc. Are you here for proper process or are you just defending a fellow admin??? I notified him of the WP:ANI thread, took a little longer since I included some extra info. TrueColour (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick statement to confirm that I am aware of this AN/I. I am happy to see that the rest appears to be clear. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• It appears this was the first attempt at discussing this (let me know if I'm wrong). I wonder if this place would work better if MediaWiki was tweaked to disallow the phrase "warning", or in particular "formal warning", to appear on user talk pages. A conversation that begins with a "formal warning" is unlikely to evolve into a productive discussion without lots of wasted time, energy, and bad karma. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Now he also closed the WP:RM. What is this? The private WP of some admins? He was acting in violation so I had to warn him to stop this! The bad karma comes from admins like JHunterJ. Who violated the policies in the first place? Me or him? Who has no complete understanding of WP:MOSDAB and is making up own conditions for MOS:DABRL and even after being asked for clarification defending this own creations. This is not official WP policy: Red links are used on disambiguation pages when (a) the red link is also used in a Misplaced Pages article and (b) the red link entry on the disambiguation page includes a blue link to a Misplaced Pages article that discusses the ambiguous topic. This is private policy of him and maybe some other editors. TrueColour (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • TrueColour, your consistant refusal to assume good faith in other users is disheartening, and is likely to be a self-fulfilling delusion here as people begin to become stretched thin by your adversarial attitude. Others (and myself) have already told you that if you tried to work with, rather than against, JHunterJ, and took a tone of voice which was collegial and cooperative, you would get much farther in resolving this issue. From the first, you have basically set yourself up as an opponent rather than a collaborator, and such a stance makes it hard for any of us to help you. --Jayron32 23:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry, this is nonsense. See http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Calbuco_(disambiguation)&diff=331922488&oldid=331908855 - JHunterJ is just sticking to delete valid material. Only because he is an admin he cannot override rules and invent his own. TrueColour (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You do not appear to be hearing what Jayron32 is saying; why not discuss your concerns with JHunterJ in a manner which indicates you are willing to work toward an agreed solution? Coming here and complaining that JHJ is abusing his admin bit when it appears that this is simply a content dispute with someone with a great deal of experience of editing Misplaced Pages is not going to get any traction. You can choose to either attempt the collaborative editing model that forms the core of Misplaced Pages editing, or you can simply assume that as Jayron32 and I are also both admins we are simply ganging up on you... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem not to care about his editing. That he is "Experienced" - what is the value? He makes up his own rules. Do you call "Collaborative editing" when he makes up his own rules out of his mind and enforces them? Is it collaborative if he deletes valid references from a dab page? Is it collaborative to move a page while there is a WP:RM pending? This behavior is very bad. And yours too. It seems here are a lot of people that have the same attitude as him. You are making Misplaced Pages bad looking if admins do what they want even if it is against policies and against the very core of WP: create a good encyclopedia. TrueColour (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

No one has displayed any "attitude" here. You came here seeking a solution to your problem. We have given you a solution. Here's how to fix your problem, in three easy steps:

1. Understand that JHunterJ is not an enemy or opponent
2. Start a civil discussion with him about the issue
3. Work with him towards building a consensus solution

Your approach to this point has consisted of: 1) see something I don't agree with 2) demand that the person doing it gets punished. That approach is unlikely to yield positive results for you. Why not at least try the plan we have laid out for you? --Jayron32 15:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• JHunterJ deleting several blue links. And the reference to the 2nd Calbuco Department! TrueColour (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

  And restored the new blue links from your 3RR violation nearly an hour before you complained about the deletion here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

TrueColor blocked for 31 hours pursuant to JHunterJ's WP:ANEW report -- and yes, I did read through this first. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

User:DBaba

DBaba (talk · contribs) in this edit on the talk page of Cave of the Patriarchs massacre is accusing me of being rascist/nationalistic, running a cabal, harassing, and being POV. And all of that after I worked it all out with another editor there, due to both of us being civil and sticking to the rules of Misplaced Pages, as that same section testifies. DBaba seems to have a serious bias here, as well as a problem with neutrally assessing my person. I have informed him of this discussion here. Debresser (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with these characterizations of what I've had to say. Debresser's activity continues to trouble me, and I find that this is just an alternative means of obstruction he has resorted to. DBaba (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Your viscious and baseless attack compared to the discussion preceding it says it all. Debresser (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem a seriously sticky attack. Is that all there is, or has he made other statements you find objectionable? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That is all, mam. Frankly, I find that more than enough. Debresser (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

My previous post got removed somehow. It ran like this:

DBaba continues on Talk:Cave_of_the_Patriarchs_massacre#Mediation calling people by unacceptable names. Debresser (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is DBaba's post in full:

Hope this helps. DBaba, my experience is you're generally a pretty good guy, but there's a problem with calling other editors racist. Remember the fiasco on Nanking Massacre a while ago? I was just being stupid, but you and User:Flyingtiger were convinced I was a Japanese negationist. Try and assume good faith of Debresser. ALI 01:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

E.g. If I remove a sentence or paragraph, it is either unsourced, or irrelevant. And I am willing to defend any my decision to do so. If User:DBaba has any specific problems he could have raised them on the talk page, as another editor has done. In view of my edits, it seems unjust to assume I have a POV agenda. In fact, I have made edits and comments to this article and its talk page that are contrary to what I would have liked, based on the facts and a neutral way of representing them. Calling editing - "interfering", is plain ridiculous. Especially since I am not what you would call a "newbie" on Misplaced Pages, and have numerous edits to my name, including many on pages related to Judaism. In short, User:DBaba seems to have a bias here, both in regard with the article as with me personally, and he has a very unpleasant way of expressing it. I think a civility warning is the least he should receive. Debresser (talk) 10:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Here are six instances of Debresser using the Undo function to remove cited and neutral text, all from this same article, in the space of one week.

I do not peg him as actually participating in any FBI-designated terrorist group, as is apparently the case with some of my other foils in this area, but this hasn't stopped him from working fruitfully to the same end: blanking factual and cited information, with the claim that it is "not important". I am troubled by this and I am troubled that he still does not understand what he has done wrong; and I believe he is being manipulative when he suggests I am "calling people by unacceptable names", or that I have been vicious.

I also think he and I can work this out without any help from outside, and that his choice to come here to seek sanction against me is a stunt which further demonstrates political activism on his part. And I apologize for calling him an ethnonationalist, which only served to change the subject from how awful and POV his editing has been, as well as being needless and an inefficient method of bringing him into the light. DBaba (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. But you see, you are doing it again! Now you are accusing me of coming here as "a stunt". You just don't seem to know what Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith is about... As to my removals of "cited and neutral text", please see the talk page that at least part of it is considered POV by some, or is indeed plain irrelevant to this article. These are content issues that you should discuss on the talk page, not here. But your failure to apply WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, now those have to be brought here. Debresser (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, being that he calls experienced Misplaced Pages editors "participating in any FBI-designated terrorist group", perhaps it is wiser to just block this guy altogether? Debresser (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Tombaker321 single purpose account at Polanski

User:Tombaker321 Is a single purpose account as regards Roman Polanski , his editing has been a constant disruption there as he has over a long period of time, continually tediously attempted to add his point of view, yesterday he made imo a poor edit to a section about Polanski's bail, this edit removed details and totally removed the fact that Polanski was in jail for 2 months, I reverted and he put it back and the beginnings of an edit war were there, I stood back and opened a section in the talk, there was no support for his rewrite at all, two editors supported my position so I replaced the original content this evening, user Tombaker321 has come back and ignored the fact that he has no support, he doesn't care about that, and he has simply again removed the content and replaced it with his content, he has been here long enough to realize that ignoring the opinion of other editors is disruptive this is a constant repeated situation with this single purpose account and it is tiresome and tedious for other editors at the article. After he made the edit today I left him a note reminding him that there was no support for his edit and to please revert but he refused, I think it is time to curtail the tedious disruption of this editor. Off2riorob (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

1. My edits are in good faith, my POV is singularly to have a well cited factual record reported, which I strive to make all of my edits conform to.

2. The edit being questioned, has the arrest date, and the date when he was released in bail. (it does not type out "2 months in jail" but the math is not hard) To what issue Off2riorb is contending is POV or disruptive is unknown.

3. Just 3 minutes after spending the time to update the entry, Off2riorob reverted my edits, saying "(Reverted 1 edit by Tombaker321; This edit adds nothing to the content. (TW))"

4. Without looking at the merits of the additions of facts (in what is a time, place, and situation section), Off2riorob sought out some form of "instant consensus" which he then determined and used to revert everything. Off2riorob's modus operandi is to claim authority and insist he can gavel discussions.

5. I did not remove content, I reworded and added content. I still do not know what is objectionable about the edit.

6. Off2riorob has continued his ad hominem attacks of me in multiple venues, and now this one.

7. Off2riorob writes in the TALK page days before "Tombaker, please stop posting your opinionated summary on this talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)"

• Off2riorob continues to confront,edit war, and disrupt editors, and I am just the latest target. --Tombaker321 (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive571#Harrassment.2Fdisruption_from_User:Off2riorob

Extensions of good faith given to Off2riorob

1. 16 April 2009 - 72 hour block for disruption at WP:GA article was reduced to 48 hours, after Off2riorob agreed in the future to seek out dispute resolution instead of be disruptive .
2. 29 September 2009 - Sanctioned with parole of 1RR per page per day for 5 weeks, instead of being given a "lengthy block".

Prior disruption and blocks

See prior ANI threads detailing disruption by Off2riorob and blocks:

• 14 March 2009 - blocked 24 hours for disruption of a WP:GA article.
• 16 April 2009 - blocked 72 hours for disruption at same WP:GA article - Off2riorob was then given a good faith reduction of that block to 48 hours, after Off2riorob agreed in the future to seek out dispute resolution instead of be disruptive .
• 25 April 2009 - Blocked 72 hours, for disruption at same WP:GA article.
• 29 April 2009 - Blocked one week, for disruption at same WP:GA article.
• 19 July 2009 - Blocked 2 weeks, disruption at Tony Blair.
• 21 August 2009 - Blocked 3 weeks, block log edit summary by admin Chillum: edit warring yet again
• 29 September 2009 - Off2riorob sanctioned to 1RR per page per day for 5 weeks.

Comments by admin Chillum

• 25 August 2009 - Entry in his block log by admin Chillum (talk · contribs): "User gave word not to edit war in the future, reducing block", which was citing this comment by Off2riorob: .

• 22 September 2009 - Comment by admin Chillum: I am considering you to be fully aware of our edit warring policy in the future Off2, and will not be considering warnings to be needed in the future. You gave me your word that you would not edit war as a condition of your last unblock, given that you have not kept this word I will not be extending that offer next time you are blocked.

• 29 September 2009 - When I brought Off2riorob's disruption to Chillum's attention, Chillum responded: It looks like edit warring to me. If I was not taking a break from my admin tools currently then I would likely hold Rio to his prior promise. . Perhaps another admin will feel the same way I do, but my buttons are currently not being used.

Comments by admin Moreschi

• 29 September 2009 - I think we have the choice between a lengthy block, an indefinite block, and a 1RR per page per day revert parole.

--Tombaker321 (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: --JN466 04:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Disruptive WP:SPA on a contentious and sensitive WP:BLP should qualify for a topic ban. Whether that should extend to other warriors as well I could not say, it would need further investigation. My recommendation is a 30-day topic ban for Tombaker321 with a 1RR parole at expiry. We need this kind of fight like we need a hole in the head. Guy (Help!) 08:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

* JzG, I am taken aback by your comment, and have to believe that you did not familiarize yourself with what has been raised here, certainly 30 days is a classic overkill action. Since we have never interacted, I am baffled by your assertion for the overkill 30 days. maybe you juxtaposed names?..the long chain of previous ANI is Off2riorob's not mine

* Perhaps to illustrate what was raised at me here and now, I need to put down the actual sentences at question.

Here was the previous version.

"In September 2009 Polanski was arrested by Swiss police because of his outstanding U.S. warrant when he entered the country to accept a Lifetime Achievement Award at the Zurich Film Festival. His initial request for bail was refused noting the "high risk of flight" and his subsequent appeal was rejected by Switzerland's Federal Criminal Court. On November 25, 2009 a Swiss court accepted Roman Polanski's plea to be freed on $US 4.5 M bail. The court said Polanski could stay at his chalet in the Swiss Alps and that he would be monitored by an electronic tag. The Swiss authorities announced on December 4, 2009 that Polanski had been moved to his home in the resort of Gstaad and placed under house arrest .

Here is the current version which I wrote.

"On September 26th 2009, Polanski was taken into custody at the Zurich airport by Swiss police at the request of U.S. authorities, for a 2005 international arrest warrant, as he traveled to accept a lifetime achievement award at the Zurich Film Festival. After initially being jailed, on December 4th Polanski was granted house arrest at his Gstaad residence on $US 4.5 M bail, while awaiting decision of appeals fighting extradition. "

The above is what is being contested by Off2riorob.

My edits were a valid and earnest rewrite, regardless of any assertions. The same information is conveyed, more information is added, and word count is halved. When I streamlined the text I did not think it would be controversial. I am at a complete loss to see how the rewrite and aggregating is so problematic. Off2riorob premise seems to be those with a viewpoint other than his own, are acting in bad faith. When I look at the two sentences above, I stand by my edits, they are written well. --Tombaker321 (talk) 10:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Your edit even after you have altered it, has still removed informative detail, the reader now is not given the information the Polanski is electronically tagged, you have removed for what reason I do not know, two perfectly good citations, you have removed detail that Polanski first made two attempts for bail that these were rejected and the reason that was given was that he was a risk of flight.

Beyond content disputes (as illustrated above)

These type of changes, where none were needed, is exactly the point, your continual content creep in a tedious and disruptive attempt to alter the expression of the text to your often declared point of view, I strongly support Guy's comments that a short term , 30 day topic ban or a similar 1RR parole would help, the editor seems not to care about whether there is any support for his position and simply makes the edit anyway, under this position there is simply no point in editors bothering to discuss the issues. Also although the editor removes them, there are a multitude of warning notes have been given. This users conduct has been the same since day one and I am certain that without some form of reprimand or control it will continue to disrupt in such a way. Off2riorob (talk) 12:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Guy, I know you mean well, but heavy-handed comments like that without any adequate explanation or analysis of the situation are not going to make the atmosphere any more pleasant. You know that as well as I do. Personally, I see this dispute as a perfectly good faith content issue blown way out of proportion by a lack of clear and reasoned communication between editors, as well as a tendency on both sides to jump to conclusions regarding the motives of others. Brilliantine (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There are, at this point, three editors still working on Polanski, with two more semi-contributors. I am one of the latter. Most have conceded defeat because of the contentious atmosphere, and most of that has been generated by Tombaker321, who early in his editing career responded to a discussion he was having with Off2riorob on his own talk page that "I take it you support the rapist of a 13 year old? Why because you like his films?--Tombaker321 (talk) 00:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)." In my opinion, the editors on Polanski have shown a great deal of patience while dealing with content creep. We have endured, and I do mean endured, pages of Tombaker321's repetitive content in Talk, in which he advises us of what we are dealing with, because apparently although we have all been on the article longer than he has, we are clueless.

Nothing much is happening at the moment in the Polanski saga, it would be nice if the article were cleaned up a tad with citation checking and then left alone. This will not happen if Tombaker321 continues to edit. There is a companion article Polanski Sexual Abuse, which could use attention, and which was bifurcated in an attempt to create stability in the main article. No one is touching it.

None of the other editors have any desire to elevate Polanski above his crime; we see that the victim has moved on, that there are serious charges of jurisprudential malfeasance, and that much is left to be decided by the courts. Were an admin to decide to block Tombaker321 for a time, I am confident that the article would not suddenly become a victim-bashing, pro-Polanski spectacle. Another completely rational (and kind to us all) choice would be to lock the article entirely, and allow the participants to refocus attention elsewhere. I appreciate that Tombaker321 is completely outraged by the assault; however, the flavor and the neutrality of the article can be skewed by a few minor edits, and he has demonstrated that he is far from neutral; that fact is reflected in his behavior. Oberonfitch (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Re: Off2riorob, edit summary of item at question "Added date of arrest, ..Added location of arrest,.. Added date of warrant, ..Added information on appeals,.. Added information on extradition, ..Kept cites and content, ..worded for conciseness" House arrest is Wikilinked which talks about flight risk and electronic monitoring, both of which are well understood as reasons for house arrest by readers. For some reason you have failed to mention Proofreader77 whom you interact with heavily, and team with in reverting. My edits are in good faith.
• Re: Oberonfitch. Oberonfitch is a single purpose account of Roman Polanski. His manner of actions suggest a sockpuppet of Proofreader77. He raises viewpoints in his remarks of viewpoints on the crime and its resolution, here as argument. He does not address my edit being questioned here which remains a good faith edit. Both fail to mention Proofreader77 as a catalyst on the Talk pages. The conversation the Oberonfitch quotes from my talk page is a sample from discussion instigated by Off2riorob, its sampling is very selective and for purpose. His remarks about locking the article before Christmas, and small wording are highly tuned to the same remarks of Proofreader77, though this SPA does not reflect Proofreader77 participation.
• Off2riob has said that citing that the victim had sex prior to any involvement with Polanski is relevant for citing in the entry. Yes I did oppose this. Proofreader77 advocates that the appearance of the victim is mitigation of Polanski's actions needing to be cited. Yes I did oppose this.
• Proofreader77 has framed this ANI about a specific edit as "Bottom line: ANI is NOT about last edit—but all before. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)" Proofreader77 is currently under ANI restriction for Polanski. One Admin said in the ANI leading to those restrictions: "This editor appears to be a personified denial of service attack on Misplaced Pages's consensus building mechanism. Hans Adler 07:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)"

• In opposition of this specific edit, these editors formed the following flying wedge, at a very early morning hour.

Is there any support here for Tombakers edit? 07:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No. Would elaborate but must get to bed. 07:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Off2riorb and Oberonfitch. No. 07:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• See also http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=331429921#Roman_Polanski_article_again._Editor_refuses_to_stop_inserting_information_to_whitewash_case

• Today and prior to resolution of this matter raised in ANI, Off2riorob had changed the specific sentences at issue here. When reverted by an editor, Proofreader77, quickly attacked the need for revision.
• Then another unsigned remark is added that has no signature and no IP address, is left. (which is possible from a IP changing utility) That message says they are leaving their seat at Polanski, reflecting WP:OWN by its author. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ARoman_Polanski&action=historysubmit&diff=332124856&oldid=332123702
• Then Oberonfitch goes in to specifically and only update his signature. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Roman_Polanski&diff=prev&oldid=332133242

• The specific edit being questioned here, in this ANI, I stand behind fully. They were proper and and in good faith --Tombaker321 (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I feel inclined to make specific comments on the topic dispute at hand, but I must say that the attempt to sway this discussion by dredging up Off2riorob's past transgressions demonstrates extraordinarily poor taste by Tombaker321. To be honest, this kind of attempted character assassination in order to win an argument makes me extremely disinclined to take his argument on good faith at this point. Shereth 22:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Shereth, it is a copy and paste attempt at, as you correctly say..character assassination..perhaps in future I will post it myself, as it is simply a smoke screen as you say. I am certain that at the least through this thread that more people are aware of the situation. Off2riorob (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Shereth: Please read the original remarks made by Off2riorob starting this thread for tone. Please read the two edits above, and weigh whether I am doing anything in bad faith or with bias. House Arrest is a term that both conveys bail, and electronic monitoring, its Wikilinked if anyone needs more information, but house arrest is a pretty well understood term. Offriorob's manner of action has caused a litany of Administrator interventions. Its certainly not character assassination, since the cumulative record is used by administrators to effect new actions. I am just the latest object being bulldozed. The historical record of administrator actions should give insight. Beyond that, what on earth is wrong with the edit, that caused me to be here. --Tombaker321 (talk) 13:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Please comment on the content dispute and not the contributor. This discussion should be designed to resolve the current dispute regarding the edits on the Roman Polanski article; it is not a referendum on Off2riorob's previous issues. Intentional or not, your dredging up of his transgressions (which are, by and large, immaterial to the dispute at hand) creates the strong impression that you are simply engaging in an ad hominem attack on Off2riorob in an attempt to discredit his argument rather than addressing the substance of the dispute. Shereth 16:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Are there any questions for Proofreader77?

Note: I have been BLP/NPOV "current events wrangling" on Roman Polanski since around 4 Oct (amidst one week full lock). FYI: I've been summoned to ANI twice about the Roman Polanski article. Second time, dismissed. First time, restricted from using formatting and talking more than 100 words at a time and 10 posts per day (which will be appealed: overlooked was that all my effort was "counterbalancing" the subject of this topic).

Comment: If you survey the territory above, you may have some flavor of the "combat" atmosphere which unfortunately often reigns at the article. But it should not be surprising given the social controversy around Polanski's fate. Historical note: The day Polanski first encountered Judge Rittenband, a T-shirt entrepreneur was outside selling two kinds of t-shirts: "JAIL POLANSKI" and "FREE POLANSKI." It is the same now. No T-shirts allowed in the Misplaced Pages restaurant, of course. And the content dispute above does not illustrate that dichotomy — and perhaps that makes it more suitable (for something unsuitable) here at ANI.

The question that ANI can address, of course, is whether the patterns of editing behavior and interactive communication of the subject of this topic are such that restrictions of some kind would be warranted for the benefit of the community.

I will respond to questions, if there are any for me. (Excuse delays, I'm off and on re holidays details ... In any case, happy holidays.)
--Proofreader77 (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Retort by Oberonfitch

• I do not know what the proper procedure is for addressing the allegations of sockpuppetry, however, I am offended beyond words. I am requesting a checkuser on my account, if the other named party allows the same. Tom, this is the second time you have alleged that I am a sock of Proofreader77's. The first time I chose not to reply, however, as we are at ANI I do not feel that I have any choice. It would be a fantastic trick to pull off such diverse writing styles.
• As for the IP change utility, when I noticed that it had not signed (which confuses me as I was signed in according to the screen I was working on) I went back and fixed it. I DO have other edits, if small, on other articles. It is this pervasive hostility which has created the article which we have today. I have resigned from working on Polanski and intend to resign from Misplaced Pages as a whole, pending the results--which I expect to be placed on this page--of checkuser. Oberonfitch (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Oberonfitch you have a similar commentary as both Off2riorob and Proofreader77, as shown in your commenting here. You have chosen to opine as a SPA on a set of specific edits, with instead, a trumped up mischaracterization of my actions as an editor. The edits in question are shown above, what is the problem with them? Your statements attempt to speak for all editors using "we" and "none of us" framing. I find it very objectionable that you seek some sort of ban on me, or locking the article completely. --Tombaker321 (talk) 12:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

<redented for readability. Tom, your behavior is disruptive. First of all, this is not an SPA. That I have limited time to devote to Wiki is none of your concern. You can follow me over to Pentti Linkola after this. Regarding other matters, you were clearly told by three editors that there was no support for your edit. I apologize for using a global "we," and I'm sorry that I am so completely done with working with you that I am leaving the Polanski article to your editorial changes. I am suitably astonished that you characterize us a cabal whose purpose was "to form a flying wedge, at a very early morning hour," completely discounting the possibility that three editors could think that you are wrong.

That you would even bother to reply to my Retort, when you deleted from your user page my request that you launch a sock puppet investigation on me and Proofreader77, which I invited you to do in a pleasant manner even though I had left the article, shows a lack of grace. You then point at my leaving as proof of WP:OWN. This continual picking is obnoxious. You could simply acknowledge quietly to yourself that you had succeeded in running off another editor. As for what is wrong with what you did, 1) you acknowledged previously that this was a collaboration and that no single editor should be making decisions (and I will add, even more than usual given the environment); 2) you were told that the other editors did not like the change but you reverted their reverts, 3) I had not brought forth here the mis-characterizations of late, preferring this not to turn into a TLDR post, but you have, therefore, I will summarize.

Within the past month you a) changed the Quaalude article to reflect that it is hypnotic reinserting a chart of questionable value that had been removed by those editors on the Quaalude article which lumps anesthesia in with prescription and illegal street drugs so that you could change the wording of the Polanski article, b) you have said specifically that the Quaaludes allowed easy entry into Geimer's teenage bottom, c) you have prophesied that Polanski will jump bail, and d) argued endlessly on whether he was hired by Vogue Hommes and that it was simply a ruse to take advantage of Geimer. I will take these in chronological order.

• On the 25 November, you forecasted that "The odds that Polanski will escape (say through some daring mercenary helicopter extraction) are pretty high now." following the acceptance of bail. -Tombaker321 (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC) I suppose this could have been a joke.

• On the question of whether he was hired by Vogue Hommes, your quote: "But the context of his conversation is about Polanski sexual exploits of young girls, with a joke about getting the youngest girls he can get in Los Angeles. What happens next, he goes to LA and has "consensual" sex with a minor. The pictures taken were all of low lighting at dusk, which could not even be used for a professional magazine. Long story short. If the entry has makes the assertion Polanski was working a job, it needs to reflect the employer denies this. Geimer was never paid for the work either. The casting interview, film test, photography session that turns into naked photography, have long been cliche's of Hollywood, as a means of having sex with women, under the premise of future fame. That cliche did not come about without ample facts of many incidents. We had a version without mention of the Vogue Hommes, it may be better to go again in that direction. --Tombaker321 (talk) 11:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

  And, "Polanski states clearly that Vogue Hommes denied he was on an assignment. A citation added and seems deleted now shows that assignment to be a joke. A group of men telling Polanski to go out an shoot pictures of as young as girls as he can get in L.A. The only person saying it was an assignment was Polanski. Further, the victim was not hired. She was not paid. She was only raped. All of the photographs were unusable for a magazine. None were lighted properly." Tombaker321 (talk) 02:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC) The article cited was unverifiable as no names were associated with the statements, and the quotes were from the Polanski biography which you contrarily deemed useful at one point and fraudulent at another. How you would know whether the photographs were usable, when they had been seized and could not be used, is another question entirely. When other editors brought up concerns regarding synthesis, you return to your argument that VH had not hired him, and graciously agree to take the entire reference to VH out, which would have left Polanski photographing the young Geimer with the express purpose of assaulting her, which is, I believe, what we call content creep. Note: Cited secondary sources all point to a VH assignment.

• And then the lengthy Quaalude discussion: "The testimony of the victim does indeed show her to have been drugged. Had she not been drugged with alcohol and a sedative-hypnotic she could well have fought him off or screamed, or whatever. The definition of the drug brew-ha was caused by a poorly worded sentence here and an attempt to reword it for readability. Quaaludes are now an banned drug, no longer able to be prescribed, but they were in use as a sexual stimulant and hypnotic in the 70s. Reflecting the drug as it is---should not have been a problem. At the rate this WP entry is being "sanitized for purpose", (your bolding). I will be happy if the given a mixture of alcohol and Quaalude, is retained, just by itself. --Tombaker321 (talk) 05:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

  "Everything points at the girl was drugged with a controlled substance, a strong sedative-hypnotic drug. She was confused, and events "just happened" to her. He effectively gave her the date rape drug (in modern parlance) and then proceeded. While I agree with Rossrs that I can not know, and did not claim to know exactly what happened. I do know that if a person is not sedated and boozed up, they will be more physical to stop being anally raped. The drugging of this girl was a large part of the problem. The drug is classified as a hypnotic, with some sources saying it a sedative-hypnotic. Conceding to voices here, I don't plan on seeking the up to date terminology of "hypnotic" people seem to be fine with sedative. I did at the same time remove the wording of "muscle relaxant", maybe people want to have that back in also. (your bolding) Sadly that function better explains the ease of the anal rape too.-Tombaker321 (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC) As I pointed out in Talk, there are many indications (including her testimony) that Geimer was not unaware or drugged to the point of being physically helpless. That you persist when you cannot know is problematic.

Therefore, an attempt to hold the line to NPOV and the responsibilities inherent in creating a BLP is seen as "sanitizing the discussion." As for your continuous claims of Good Faith, (six times on the current Polanski Talk page) yelling it louder does not make it so.Oberonfitch (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

What you are quoting for the most part are discussion within Polanski TALK. Which I engage in because of deletion of content already within the entry or the refusal to allow factual information in. Polanski plied a 13 year old with alcohol and Quaaludes, took child porn photographs of her, and against her protest sexually assaulted her. These are facts that are not comfortable for some, and reflecting the facts is no argument for asserting I am biased. The edits that I did that are being questioned here are fairly specific, and I have not seen anything written by you which addresses the merits of these specific edits. There are many threads within the talk pages, which I engaged in, so as to make good faith edits, I don't see using the talk page as being a negative. I am particularly adverse to considering the "okay I am taking my toys and going home" argument. I stand by my edits, for their content. And yes, unlike their characterization, these edits are in good faith. Recent reversion and deletions of content do concern me, as much as your request to lock the article. --Tombaker321 (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The issue is not a content dispute over one edit, but rather, as Off2riorob stated in beginning:

"User:Tombaker321 Is a single purpose account as regards Roman Polanski , his editing has been a constant disruption there as he has over a long period of time, continually tediously attempted to add his point of view,..."

The fact that the edit which "broke the camel's back" (i.e., inspired Off2riorob's creation of this ANI topic) is an edit which would, on its face, seem too innocuous to be an issue, perhaps gives some clue to the level of frustration involved. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Proofreader77 you were specifically sanctioned regarding Polanski by this ANI. One admin said of you before the placing of your restrictions "This editor appears to be a personified denial of service attack on Misplaced Pages's consensus building mechanism." This is the environment that I am working through. You have broken the tenants of the restrictions placed as well, and have likely not sought out mentorship which was requested of you to do. The continuing problems of Off2riorob are documented above. The edit at question you now feel is innocuous, them why did Off2riorob start an edit war over it? I believe this use of the ANI forum is an abuse, with the entire thrust being an expectation that others will assume I am acting in bad faith. My meritorious edits are in good faith and I stand behind them. --Tombaker321 (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Disruption may be executed in good faith. To my knowledge, no other editor doubts the editor in question's good faith — WP:AGF is not a license to disrupt. Proofreader77 (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Requesting this be closed

As I said about the entire nature of this topic is based on good faith edits, which stands as reasonable and as others have now said, innocuous. Off2riorob began an edit war just 3 minutes after I placed the edit. He has a history of this type of interaction. Proofreader77 is under current restrictions for disruptions on Polanski. Oberonfitch is a SPA account. I have used the talk pages in Polanski in good faith, however those discussions are selectively quoted above as being inappropriate. The quality of my edits seem far down the list.

I believe this should be closed, with no action done to myself, the innocuous edit as Proofreader77 now states, is not requiring of Administrator action. The constant reverting of edits done by Off2riorob and Proofreader77 are highly problematic and I will raise issues, that I have, in an appropriate time and place.

The request to this ANI is to assume I am acting in bad faith, as I am not, there should be nothing done. --Tombaker321 (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The recent unreported 3RR vio (from simultaneous dual edit wars) by SPA in question

(Note: Yes, I could have reported that at AN3, but this ANI had already been initiated, and the issue is broader than 3RR.)

The reason for bringing this up now is not to highlight a stale 3RR vio; but rather to illustrate the disruption, which above, has been discussed in terms of one apparently innocuous edit — Note: which reduced the size of the Roman Polanski#Sexual assault case summary in the BLP (note: a brief summary of the article Roman Polanski sexual abuse case). As illustrated above, that edit was contested by Off2riorob.

What has not been mentioned (until now) is that while the SPA in question was reducing the summary size with edit #1 ... he was also contending with Proofreader77 (me) to keep other information in. Let us call this edit#2 (which took several forms).

To recap: the SPA in question was in the process of simultaneously contending with Off2riorob to take some information out (debatable) ... which I will characterize as making more room in the summary ... to keep their preferred information in'' (Note the SPA in question has previously received a block for edit warring against consensus to increase the size of the summary).

While ANI is not the place to decide content disputes — the question of whether what the SPA in question is doing on the Roman Polanski WP:BLP is disruptive, surely is. Clearly there are matters to be further clarified (obviously the key one of "who is disruptive" — just one, or more than one editor?). But let me stop there for now.
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 02:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions for User:Proofreader77 (2)

Request interaction ban on Drolz09

Drolz09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)

• User:Drolz09/Quotations
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive584#User:Drolz09
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drolz09
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive585#Misplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion.2FUser:Drolz09

I am continuing to have problems with User:Drolz09, and he does not seem to be able to leave me alone. I would like to request either a temporary or permanent (doesn't matter to me) ban on our interaction in either mainspace, user space, project space, or all of the above. I feel that Drolz is involving himself in discussions that have nothing to do with him in order to harass me, and I find his comments to be disruptive. I have no interest in being baited to sink down to this low level of behavior and I would like to remain focused on encyclopedic work. Therefore, I would ask that this ban be imposed to prevent any further problems. Basically, this means that we must ignore each other. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 06:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I was going to address this through RFC, but I guess this works.

It's pretty simple. Viriditas posted on User_talk:A_Quest_For_Knowledge, which I had on watch because I have posted there. I read his post and disagreed .

At this point, Viriditas decided it would be okay to move my post to another section .

I move it back and ask him to stop, and he begins an edit war, repeatedly moving my post to new sections each time adding new threats, like "wikihounding."

While doing this, he makes increasingly dismissive and threatening posts on my talkpage

And finally he comes here to get my banned. Also note the hostile and pedantic tone of his original post on AQFT's page. Drolz 06:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I attempted to contact two senior editors for advice, but couldn't get in touch with them .

In my view, Viriditas needs to be admonished to treat new editors with more respect, and reminded that he does not have authority over what they post. Certainly not on another user's talk page. Drolz 06:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it would be nice if the both of you just voluntarily agreed to avoid each other in all capacities. If one of you does do something outrageously out of policy, someone else will catch it, so there's no need to report each other. A nice, voluntary agreement to simply avoid each other would greatly reduce drama and prevent us from having a long tl;dr discussion where dozens of editors take up their pitchforks and torches and take sides in an otherwise pointless battle over who is more wrong. --Jayron32 07:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and that's all I've asked for from the very beginning. Drolz refuses to leave me alone (read the MfD) and he has recently been hounding me on talk pages that have nothing to do with him. I would therefore request that the community enforce an interaction ban between us if Drolz cannot agree to it. I feel like I'm being harassed and baited, and I want it to stop. I have zero interest in responding to anything Drolz says or does, as I am totally convinced he is not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather, to tear it down. Nothing is going to change my view on this situation, so I'm asking for enforcement. Viriditas (talk) 07:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm hounding you on talk pages now? What other one? And as I've said, I have posted on AQFT's page before, and your comment was about a discussion which I have been a big part of. I am in no way wikihounding you. Drolz 07:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

My comment had nothing to do with you whatsoever, not even in its original context, and I feel you are incapable of honesty in any form, so there is no purpose in us having any interaction with each other. Please continue to edit Misplaced Pages, but stop interacting with me. It's very simple. Do you agree? Viriditas (talk) 07:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If you avoid posting about things that I have an interest in, you won't see or hear from me. Secondly, your original post was highly related to discussion of the CRU incident, so it's untrue that it wasn't related to me. Drolz 07:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty clear to me that you are overwhelmingly in the wrong here--I am not going to apologize for posting or for objecting when you moved my post without my permission. Drolz 07:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Voluntary ban

Let me be perfectly clear: I, Viriditas, agree to ignore Drolz09 on Misplaced Pages, and to avoid all interaction. Do you, Drolz09, agree to do the same? Viriditas (talk) 07:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean, in consequence of your misbehavior and attempt to get me unjustly banned, do I renounce my right to post in certain areas of wikipedia? No, sorry. I think this ANI needs to go through and you need to be reprimanded. Drolz 07:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I think my proposal was clear enough and does not require any elucidation. Therefore, I ask the community to enforce a ban between us. Viriditas (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

We're not gonna enforce an entirely absurd "ban" like this. You two could y'know try to act like grown-ups and resolve this between yourselves without the Grade-A "look-at-me" shitfit here on ANI. How's that for a novel suggestion? Crafty (talk) 07:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Totally inappropriate comment. This entire page, and others like it, are set up to give help and structure to editors who are trying to resolve differences in opinion. If you're not here to help, it would be better if you kept those sort of comments for your own personal Talk page. --HighKing (talk) 10:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary it's the enabling double-speak offered by well meaning types like yourself that's so often inappropriate. Crafty (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain what is "absurd" about wanting harassment to stop? There's enough evidence in the above linked MfD that shows Drolz refuses to leave me alone. I have no interest in interacting with the user and there is really nothing to resolve. I'm simply asking for the community to enforce a ban between the two of us, such that I will not respond to Drolz and he will not respond to me. That's it. As you can see from the above, I have already volunteered to do this, and Drolz has not. Viriditas (talk) 07:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I can't because you refuse to have anything explained to you. You hear only what you want to hear. The same goes for him. The community can't make people behave in a mature, constructive way. That's down to you two. Crafty (talk) 07:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? I have been harassed by this user in both main and user space, and I have asked for the harassment to stop. You claim this is "absurd". How is this absurd? And the community most certainly can make people behave, and as part of this community, I am volunteering to ignore the user towards this end. All I am asking is that the user reciprocates in turn. How is my overture towards insuring the peace "absurd", and how could you possibly say this is "down to you two", when it is clear that we cannot get along? No offense, but I'm questioning your judgment here. There's already a history between us, and it needs to be resolved. Since Drolz isn't willing to accept my proposal, I'm asking the community to enforce it for the greater good. This is not "absurd" in any way. It is required. Viriditas (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Viriditas has spoken: "It is required." Drolz 08:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• This is as lame as a three-legged donkey. Just find something else to do. Guy (Help!) 08:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• In the RfC on Viriditas that Drolz09 he has started here (yet to be certified), he writes "Viritidas admonished to be less demeaning to new editors and respect their right to edit." Could Drolz09 (talk · contribs) explain in what sense he is a "new editor" in view of the fact that his first edit with this username was in February 2008? Mathsci (talk) 08:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

My account was created a while ago but I only started seriously editing last week. I have probably ~15 edits before then, and no talk page discussion that I recall. A lot of Viriditas's dialogue to me centered around how I am a new editor and need to watch myself, do what I'm told, etc. He says something similar to AQFT in the OP here, and is constantly posting things like "this editor only registered two weeks ago" when people say things he apparently objects to. Drolz 08:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm trying to avoid even thinking of Drolz09, but I would like to correct the erroneous claims made above. For the record, what Drolz09 is referring to is the use of the {{spa}} tag on Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, which has been overrun with SPA and sockpuppets, or as Drolz likes to refer to them, "new accounts". Drolz is one of several accounts which have not edited in a year or more, but suddenly showed up on the talk page in the last few weeks to edit on a daily basis. Several have been voting in a hotly contested requested move discussion, and while I'm not sure of the exact count at this time, many have been blocked. At one point, it got so bad that the talk page had to be SP, which as far as I understand it, is a very rare event. Viriditas (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked in on one of the discussions, where Viriditas states that he stopped being able to assume Drolz' good faith. I've respected Viriditas' editing in the past, but it looked a lot to me like a heated misunderstanding. Viriditas said that the article wasn't about Climategate; Drolz used this to say that, well then there should be a separate article on Climategate. This strikes me as a fairly routine disagreement. Drolz is a new editor, so it's easy to distrust; however, I'm not seeing the evidence that he's being unreasonable, or clear evidence that he's a sock (surely there will be socks and legitimately new accounts that show up when this kind of thing arises). Honestly it looks to me like two pretty articulate editors who didn't need to go down this road. Is there an option to dial it down? My recommendation to Drolz would definitely be, as someone who assumes his good faith: pursuing dispute resolution as a new user is probably just not a good idea, even if you have been treated unreasonably. You don't have to concede any point, but please do consider approaching this as if there are no other options besides editors on both sides working together. This is a good short cut, in my experience. Mackan79 (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a misunderstanding. The user has repeatedly made personal attacks on the CRU incident talk page, purposefully distorted my comments and took them out of their original context to use them as a proposal for his own ideas, dishonestly claiming that he agreed with "my proposal" - a proposal I never made, and the user continues to argue that basic Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines do not apply to articles. Then, there is the MfD linked above in the header, and if you still assume good faith after reading that tortured discussion, then I don't know what to say. I simply have no wish to interact with this user. Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked through pretty carefully. My view is that he doesn't assume your good faith and that you don't assume his, and I think you're both mistaken. I could be wrong, of course. But even then I'm pretty sure editors here would need something more specific in order to impose a specific sanction. Mackan79 (talk) 09:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

How many diffs of personal attacks, wikihounding, deliberate distortions and false statements do you want? From what I can tell from his edit history, it was created as an attack account from the very beginning. Have you even looked at his contribs? Start at the beginning in December. Viriditas (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The evidence of wikihounding seems to be primarily him collecting some quotes of you talking down to him. I saw that when one editor looked at this, he accused Drolz' of personal attacks because he thought the statements were Drolz' own. It looks to me like you've been quite critical, and like I said, the major disagreement in which you lost faith strikes me as a routine disagreement where he was accusing you of inconsistency, not misrepresenting your comments. I understand being annoyed that he took your comment to support something you didn't support, but that's basic argumentation as it's often carried out. With all due respect, I don't believe for a second that he was acting in bad faith by saying you admitted there was no article on "Climategate." I do believe you saw his comments in that way. I could be missing other aspects as well, but seriously, I've looked, and it doesn't seem I'm the only one who is coming up short here. As to his early edits, I'm not sure what you mean. I saw him take issue with one editor for bolding their !vote, so if he's a returning user he's a pretty clever one. I think it's not quite what you see. Just one view. Mackan79 (talk) 10:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're dead wrong on this, and I've collected the diffs. I'll post them below, but it will take me about an hour to format them. Here's a few to start with, all from one day of frantic editing:

• Deletion of talk page edits by Apis O-tang
• Accuses editors of cabalism
• Distorts argument made by ChrisO and accuses him of being a "pro-science Misplaced Pages editor-zealot" who "will stop at nothing to conceal".
• Reveals a bit too much info about his real purpose on the CRU page, claiming that "climateaudit is routinely DDoSed".
• Links ChrisO to "nuts on every side of every debate" and "eco-terrorist nuts on the other side", accusing him of trying to "make everyone skeptical of global warming guilty by association."
• Accuses ChrisO of refusing"to fork the hack and controversy because you need to draw attention away from the latter"
• Tony Sidaway politely warns Drolz to stop making "accusations of bad faith against other editors", but Drolz ignores him and continues to do it, distorting comments by Chris0 again, and accusing him of "openly admitted to believing that the "real story" is the hack." User then makes another attack, accusing all the active editors of being part of the cabal: "It is transparently obvious to everyone that the dominant wikipedia editors are essentially a public relations firm for organizations that are the mouth pieces of climate activists. There's no reason to pretend otherwise."

There are so many of these attacks directed against myself and other editors that it will take time to compile them all. Mackan79, may I suggest that you have not properly reviewed the evidence? This sample represents less than 1% of the attacks and assumptions of bad faith made by Drolz09 against polite and civil editors working to improve Misplaced Pages. Viriditas (talk) 10:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to compile the diffs of every disagreeable action. In fact, that would be counterproductive. Pick a handful of the most egregious diffs and post them. (You should have done so in your original post.) As for requesting a mutual ban, simply enforce it on yourself. Stop talking to Drolz. If he approaches your talk page, remove any comments without commenting. If he follows you to some place else, ignore him five times, and if he refuses to take the clue, come back here, post the five diffs, and ask him to be blocked for wikihounding. Jehochman 10:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Will do, but I invite anyone to review his contributions. They are chock full of attacks and deceitful distortions of comments made by other editors, and the attacks and assumptions of bad faith have not stopped. Viriditas (talk) 10:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm checking over the diffs you cited immediately above...They look interesting. Jehochman 10:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That's only the beginning. He went on like that for days on end, and the attacks and bad faith assumptions haven't stopped. What upset me the most was when he pulled quotes that I made from an entirely different discussion and pasted them together to form a proposal to fork the article, claiming that I had originally made the proposal. Since I had been on record opposing the fork for days on end, this was not only deceitful, but transparently intellectually dishonest. Viriditas (talk) 10:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• More diffs and previous complaint a week after the above. Only a small sample: User_talk:Drolz09#Recent_attacks_on_other_editors_at_Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident. Viriditas (talk) 10:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

• Drolz09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I think any wikihounding is of secondary importance, and that you've been excessively patient with this user, Viriditas. I see misuse of Misplaced Pages as a battleground, assumptions of bad faith, at least one personal attack, and disruptive editing by Drolz09. Those diffs also embody content policy violations, such as WP:NPOV and WP:FORK. Drolz09 is a single purpose account that essentially started editing in volume a week ago. Tony Sideway and 2over0 both provided warnings, but they seem to have had no effect whatsoever on Drolz09's behavior. Therefore, the result of this review is to indef block Drolz09 (talk · contribs). Do not unblock without a consensus to do so. Jehochman 10:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Good call. When I review the comments at the beginning of this thread it seems to me that many commentators didn't look into this issue to deeply, and it isn't in the best interests of this project to quickly dismiss these types of claims. At least it's great to see that with a little persistence, somebody will put in the necessary legwork, reach the right conclusion, and take action. Nice one J! --HighKing (talk) 10:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm very surprised by this. Indef blocking a user who has been editing for a couple of months, for a very mild "battleground" attitude, without any request or consensus? Definitely not what I was expecting. Honestly this seems bizarre. Mackan79 (talk) 10:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Your facts are mistaken. The editor registered first edited six months ago, but made only 11 edits prior to December 8. All editing since then has focused on a single, contentious topic, and has been entirely anti-collaborative. Their behavior has not been "very mild". Maybe you were looking at the contribution history of somebody else. The account received several warnings, including a block warning from admin User:2over0.] Under these circumstances, when the account continues being used exclusively for disruption, they get indef blocked. Jehochman 11:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, the user registered at 12:52, 18 February 2008. Viriditas (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd forgotten that Drolz09 was the same user whom I'd recently warned approached about his repeated accusations of bad faith and conspiracy to subvert policy. In view of that, Drolz09's recent interactions look more problematic than I at first thought. While an indefinite block may seem rather extreme, Drolz09's pattern of abusive interactions with other editors has been well established. While the subject of global warming has been notorious for interpersonal squabbles, user conduct related to the article "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident" has been reasonable, with Drolz09 and one or two others being notable outliers. I support the indefinite block and, should he ever be unblocked in future, I propose that a topic ban on global warming, broadly construed, be considered as a substitute. --TS 11:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Requesting review for indefinite block of Drolz09

I am somewhat dumbfounded by the above block. From what I can see Jehochman shows some very mildly combative behavior from User:Drolz09 over a few days, facing at least the same from other editors, and what he describes as two warnings both from two days ago. Based on this, with no request to do so that I can see, with some disagreement and no support, Jehochman has indefinitely blocked this user. I don't think I've ever seen anything like this, so I'm not quite sure what to make of it. Mackan79 (talk) 11:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

As of this moment, there appear to be three uninvolved users supporting the indefinite block, and only you opposing. Mild? I don't think that word means what you think it means. Jehochman 11:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

In the last 20 minutes? You just indef blocked an editor for a week of editing, who had never previously been blocked, based on a couple of "warnings" from two days ago, and no indication of what problem had continued. In the comment you link it was ChrisO who brought up the murder analogy, and the response is absolutely "mild" for a block of any sort, let alone one that's indefinite! What on earth. Mackan79 (talk) 11:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Mackan, the account was used to attack multiple editors for eight days. How could this be described as "mildly combative"? I've actually never seen anything like it before. Eight days of straight attacks. Viriditas (talk) 11:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas, you can't possibly support an indef block of this editor. Mackan79 (talk) 11:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I support it, but I can't justify it, so I've asked Jehochman to shorten it to a week. Viriditas (talk) 11:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I think it's still nuts, but I'll leave that to others for the evening.... Mackan79 (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

An indefinite block for someone who is a relatively new user, and who has no block history seems a disproportionate response. I have looked at some of his edits to article talk pages, and they seem reasonable comments to make. I think we have to accept that when people feel they are under attack, they tend to bite back. Biting back is against Misplaced Pages policy, yes he was warned about this, and should have been banned. I think a 1 to 6 month ban would have been more appropriate. Some of the other combatants would also have benefited from short bans.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

@Viridas - well, we haven't seen eight days of diffs posted here. It does look as though a block would be appropriate, judging by the diffs posted by Jehochman above, but for someone who has in effect only been editing a week, an indef seems rather harsh to me. It may be the user is incorrigible but the usual practice is to block a few times for a short period to give the user some chance at least to modify his behaviour. Certainly I think an indef only on the diffs presented by Jehochman above is excessive. Gatoclass (talk) 11:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I am very curious to see the standard under which this editor of eight days should be blocked, and not the other participants in the discussion. If the linked edit here is offensive, how about the previous edit by ChrisO? There is nothing remotely more or less appropriate about one than the other (or for that matter remotely blockable about either). This editor needs some positive advice, for goodness sake, not to be blocked. Mackan79 (talk) 11:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

He's received quite a bit of positive advice, with no change in behavior. I even encouraged him to compose a version of the disputed article in his user space so that we could work on it. He refused to do so, claiming that we needed to iron out policy first. Viriditas (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If ChrisO or any other editors has behaved badly, start a new section with diffs. I or somebody else can evalate the evidence and place any needed sanction. We should deal with this conflict thoroughly. Jehochman 12:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

accounts used primarily for disruption may be blocked indefinitely without warning

— WP:BLOCK#Duration of blocks

I looked through the user's entire contribution history. There is no need to post every diff from that history here when you can just click the link above and peruse it youself. I've highlighted a selection of diffs presented by Viriditas. When an account has done nothing but act disruptively, it gets blocked indefinitely. Second chances are for editors who show signs of making useful contributions. Moreover, this account was registered 22 months ago, waited 16 months, then made just 11 edits over six months, and then jumped into a highly contentious article, making numerous personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith against other editors. I think it is a mistake to assume that this is a new user. Circumstances suggest about 50/50 chance of new user versus sock puppet, and I think I'm being generous in that assessment. Jehochman 11:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, I think you're right, and I support your block. Unfortunately, the arguments made by Toddy1 and Gatoclass defend the status quo in regards to blocking, which is best to follow in case the user is truly willing to reform. In other words, Drolz09 should be given a chance, and that's his right. It might be best to shorten the block to let's say, a week. I would have responded earlier, but I've been getting nothing but edit conflicts. Viriditas (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Status quo allows indefinite blocking of disruption-only accounts. They are not treated the same way as productive contributors who make mistakes. Jehochman 12:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but it could be argued that the user has made some constructive edits, therefore it is not a disruption-only account. I only say this because after reviewing the edit history, I can see that the user has made some some good contributions, but very few so far, considering his short length of time here. Viriditas (talk) 12:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Aye. I think I wrote the relevant bit of policy quite some time ago. The key phrase is "primarily used for disruption". To avoid gaming of the rules, a relatively small amount of productive (typically WikiGnome) type edits may be discounted. This user's edits appear to be 95% battle, and 5% productive. I think on balance they qualify as a disruption-only account. Jehochman 12:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a reasonable interpretation, and I support it. But, given that the user is so new, the percentages are skewed against them. When I first started editing here, I made a series of good edits, and some very bad ones. I would not want to be judged on my first month here, even though 95% of them were good. In fact, I was accused of being a vandal when I first started, not because my edits were poor - they were actually very good and are still in the articles today, years later. No, it was because I was editing through an anonymous proxy, and that IP was simultaneously being used by a real vandal, without my knowledge. Luckily, someone believed me (User:Pir I think it was) and I registered an account. Viriditas (talk) 12:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to give them a second chance. I too started out on the wrong foot at Misplaced Pages. However, they need to show by words, and then by actions, that they are amenable to feedback. Let's not let them off the hook too quickly. I promise to unblock them well within the one week you suggest if they take the necessary steps. Jehochman 12:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, that doesn't make any sense. Do you really not see how a new editor could get pulled into a dispute? To say he waited 16 months begs the question of whether this is a returning account; it's hardly evidence. How can you know after 8 days and no real attempt at discussion that someone is beyond all reason? I'll say one thing: I could hardly think of a better way to create highly motivated enemies of the project. Mackan79 (talk) 11:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Should this editor be unblocked, I hope that the unblocking admin will consider a topic ban. An editor interested in good faith participation would find plenty of opportunity to contribute on one of the many subjects in which he does not have a record of abusive interaction. --TS 11:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a topic ban would certainly be needed, given the abusive conduct in this instance. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the block. Droltz09 did not work toward concensus on the talk page, and approached the article in a combative manner with a clear POV. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Did not work toward consensus... in eight days of editing and without ever having been blocked. You have to be kidding. I doubt I have time, but if there is any serious sanction left on an 8 day user who has engaged in absolutely no gross disruption -- or anything close to it -- the case should be taken to ArbCom on their behalf. No reasonable person would waste their own time. Mackan79 (talk) 12:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not think an indefinite block is merited. A short block is enough, and follow-up if necessary. I myself created my own account a couple of years ago, and never really edited much until a few months ago, so the whole "He is a sock" argument (just because he has an account he never used much until now) is a bit ridiculous. Many people who initially register but never use their accounts much may wind up feeling passionate about a subject and start to actively edit because a topic piques their interest. As newer editors, they tend to get involved in edit wars, incivility, etc. because they don't understand the rules of Misplaced Pages yet. That doesn't mean that the account was created only for disruption. I would support a shortening of the ban. Moogwrench (talk) 12:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the indef block is way out of line. There is a learning curve on Misplaced Pages. People start out editing what interests them offwiki, which generally means something that they have opinions about. It takes time to learn how to do it properly. Suggest reducing to 24 hours from initial block. Article talk page warnings are well and good, but it sometimes takes a small lesson to head off bigger problems. Indef block and throw away the key is becoming the rule around here, and it is very unfortunate.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The block is per established policy. Who's throwing away the key? I've even suggested unblock conditions. If the editor is serious about wanting to collaborate, they will accept them, or make a counter offer. Jehochman 13:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, per established policy, if you grant your conclusion that Drolz is a single purpose account, which I don't see the evidence of. Editing what you are interested in, when you start, does not equal single purpose attac. If he is not a SPA, it is not per established policy. If you want a counteroffer, or an acceptance, again I suggest unblocking with him only being allowed to edit here outside his userspace.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)--Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If Drolz is not a single purpose account, he should be happy to edit some articles outside global warming, where everybody agrees his editing has been problematic. How about an unblock on condition that he avoid GW articles for one month, and also avoid conflict with Viriditas. Drolz09 is also on notice about WP:NPA and WP:BATTLE; further violations of those policies may result in blocking without additional warnings. Jehochman 14:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Wehwalt says that he can't see any evidence that Drolz09 is an SPA. How does he interpret the 191 edits to the talk page of the CRU article which represent the bulk of his contributions to wikipedia (apart from the MfD page, his talk page and here)? Mathsci (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Because everyne starts somewhere in editing Misplaced Pages. Everyone started with one article. Some people branch out from there on their second edit. Some take longer. There is no actual prohibition against editing only one article. The problem arises in using Misplaced Pages only for disruption, or only for vandalism.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of possible unblocking conditions

If Drolz09 agrees to change their style, they might be unblocked. Up to now, I have seen no indication whatsoever of any willingness to change, but there is still hope. If they post a proper unblock request, their block might be lifted or shortened. Things I'd look favorably on: (1) agreement not to pester Viriditas further; (2) agreement to follow all relevant policies, including WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:BATTLE; (3) agreement to leave the global warming dispute venue, at least temporarily, until they gain experience as an editor. Somebody intending to be a productive contributor would agree to these things. Somebody who's here to battle about a single issue will not agree. Jehochman 12:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to state for the record, and with all due respect, that I consider this block to have been completely out of process, baseless, and frankly an abuse of the tools. The editor had never been blocked, was not given any chance to respond, and was blocked indefinitely on the thought that he may be a sockpuppet. There was no effort to seek consensus, despite the fact that Crafty and I had questioned the report (though I think it was filed in good faith). This editor should not have been blocked at all here. I hope at the least that you'll show more care in the future. Mackan79 (talk) 12:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The potential of socking was noticed, but was not the reason for the block. The user did have a chance to respond; he did so several times on this thread, and the poor quality of those responses influenced my decision. They continue to have a chance to respond on their talk page and anything they say can be quoted or linked here. I've already cited WP:BLOCK#Duration of blocks which specifically authorizes indef blocks for accounts used primarily for disruption (as this one was). Jehochman 12:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I've notified Drolz09 of your unblock proposal. His response is not very encouraging. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The editor had a full chance to reply at the beginning of this thread, and continued a combative stance against an editor with whom he had a disagreement. Really, having that attitude and arguement in front of dozens of admins was just shooting themself in the foot - and not in a Plaxico way either. Even when the other editor extended an olive branch (I'll AGF), the response was effectively "no, screw you". Well, that shows a lack of desire to resolve the situation. As such, action needed to be taken. Personally, I might have made it 3 days or so for someone with such a light history (agreeably most of it being combative). Maybe they need a mentor, although something tells me they'd refuse. Keep a close eye on their return (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

He responded to Viriditas' request that they not address each other; there was no proposal to block, let alone ban, for him to respond to. It will be astonishing to me if a user who is put in this situation retains any respect for the project (and I say that as someone who does respect the project), but that is rather our doing at this point much more than theirs. Mackan79 (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Do you call this a valid, noncombative response to the request:

I AGF that Viriditas was willing to go through with this, and hours of drama - and a block - would have been saved. Where are we now? Was it worth it? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Indenting is getting strange here, but yes that's one reason I suggested that he not try to pursue dispute resolution as a new user. He and Viriditas have been accusing each other of bad faith for several days. Viriditas is a long term editor, very competent, with a good deal of legitimate support around here. Could this editor stand to learn a little? I should hope, but I'm certainly not going to judge someone who has been around for such a short time. Frankly that he hasn't said something to thoroughly justify a ban at this point is probably the strongest evidence that he isn't actually a new user... but then that's kind of like saying if she sinks she's innocent, isn't it? Mackan79 (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The combination of elements is a bit odd. A sleeper account activated about 20 months ago, suddenly becomes active on a Global Warming article with a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. With hardly any editing experience, the account starts collecting a laundry list on his user page, then, when an MfD is started, moves it to a subpage User:Drolz09/Quotations and then, without help, starts an RfC. It's very hard to believe these are the actions of a newbie editor. Mathsci (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. That's why I maintain that I support the indef but can't justify it. Viriditas (talk) 12:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

FTR, he moved it to a subpage, because I recommended he move it to a subpage. I was attempting dispute resolution (but failed). I even noted that I wasn't sure he knew what a user subpage was, which is why I was letting him know.--SPhilbrickT 20:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, we do have a lot of pages that teach a new editor about Misplaced Pages concepts, and certainly new editors look at what is going on around them and try to adopt what other editors do. You say sleeper account like the guy purposely started the account 2 years ago so he could be disruptive on this particular article. Many people who initially register but never use their accounts much may wind up feeling passionate about a subject and start to actively edit because a topic piques their interest. I really don't see how you can automatically assume that he is anything other than what he says, a newer editor who made some mistakes, and whose punishment is a tad excessive for one so new. Moogwrench (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking from my own experience. Many editors don't even know about WP:ANI when they first start here, let alone all the jargon of wikipedia. GW unfortunately does attract a lot of sockpuppets, although obviously that needn't be the case here. Sleeper accounts are often set up by puppetmasters, but again that needn't be the case here. Mathsci (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO, can you say that your comments here and here, immediately before the one that Jehochman links, do not reflect exactly the WP:SOAP and WP:BATTLE approaches that you are putting on this editor? Mackan79 (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Could we avoid tangents? If you'd like to discuss ChrisO, please start a new thread. Jehochman 14:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It is hardly a tangent to ask how ChrisO can possibly accuse this editor of promoting a battleground with a straight face, or how others can support him in this charge, when it is transparently obvious that as a new user he was doing exactly what long term editors were doing on that page. Please consider what you are actually advocating as a process here for this site. The point is not that ChrisO should have been banned. Mackan79 (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"He did wrong so I can do wrong" isn't a defense. If experienced editors have been setting a poor example, the new editor should say so, and indicate that he will stop following their bad example. Jehochman 18:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Please be serious, Jehochman. If experienced editors are setting a "poor example", no rational project can make it a new editor's obligation to see the problem and set it straight, or else be banned while the experienced editors go on doing the same. That becomes not a "poor example," but the mark of a patently corrupt organization. Other than to defend this block I can't think that anyone would even propose it. Mackan79 (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Drolz09

copied by TS

1. All of the diffs which were relied on to establish my pattern of behavior were from 12/8.

2. The two warnings I received were on 12/14.

3. There is no evidence that I continued any questionable behavior after that date.

4. This ANI started with Viriditas moving my talkpage posts without my permission. Prior to this point I had not engaged in any uncivil behavior with him probably since around 12/8, and as you can see from the diffs I provided, I was civil even when he was moving my posts.

5. Some of the evidence against me is way out of context

• The Apis deletion was an accident when I didn't understand edit conflicts
• The ChrisO diff about what the article was about was a direct quote of ChrisO, not taken at all out of context
• The battleground behavior is something I was never admonished for and I was really just mirroring the behavior of other editors in a highly contentious article

6. The reason I have so few "productive" edits is because I was told (By viritidas) not to edit without consensus. Consensus never came, which is why all my posts were talkpage, for the most part.

7. ChrisO and TS are involved parties and not neutral witnesses, if this wasn't clear.Drolz 12:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

More diffs in response to the above

• 22:23, 16 December 2009 - Attacks ChrisO again: "The one who is engaging in "pure unsourced speculation" here is you, ChrisO." Note this is quite different than Chris' statement, which specifically addressed Drolz's "opinion" as unsourced speculation, not his person.
• 02:42, 15 December 2009 - Attacks Viriditas: "You are absolutely immune to reason." This was after being warned about personal attacks earlier in the thread.
• 02:34, 15 December 2009 - ChrisO asks Drolz, "So what would you add and what sources would you use?" Drolz responds "I am not going to go looking for sources until we establish some reasonable bright line rules about what can be allowed in." He has been repeatedly informed about the policy and guidelines for sourcing for a week, but refuses to abide by them.
• 05:15, 14 December 2009 - "The overriding problem here is that the "cabal" editors refuse to admit bias. I freely admit that I am an AGW skeptic, and acknowledge that I have a POV. You guys refuse to admit that you have a POV, and because of this you see whatever you believe as being NPOV. I know that the balance in this article does not lie with what I personally believe to be the case. Things would run a lot more smoothly if people would just admit to being people and not data recorders or something."
• 00:54, 14 December 2009: "Why is this happening?" It is happening because a group of four or five editors has taken possession of this article and relentlessly driven it towards a very specific bias. This group of editors has used every trick and tool at their disposal (including full protection) to mau-mau an article that ought to be about a controversy into a press release on why that controversy actually isn't one. And at the same time, these editors play the consummate victim, always the one on the wrong end of some awful POV pusher. What could you possibly expect but for the people you have gone to such lengths to exclude and vilify to escalate their own rhetoric in response?"
• 23:53, 13 December 2009 - "This is exactly the problem with cabalist activity. You are all pushing the same spurious arguments, but you use your numbers to make it look like there are a lot of reasonable arguments, and 'consensus' against other editors who are trying to bring balance to this article. There is no way that a reasonable outside observer would not determine that there is POV collusion between TS, Guerttarda, Viriditas, etc...What's worse, is that you have arranged for an article about a developing story to be locked, which is facially absurd, and certainly not a means of improving The Project."
• 05:04, 10 December 2009 - Attacks Guettarda: "Once again you reveal a complete failure to understand this article. This is not an article on whether AGW is real (and even in that case, skepticism does not rise to wikipedia's definition of a fringe or pseudoscience). This is an article describing a public debate, which has been aggressively edited to erase one side of that debate, while giving extreme weight to ancillary issues (the hack, death threats) that serve only to draw attention away from the fact that there is any debate at all. The notion that you are protected by WP:AGF is outrageous.
• 04:24, 10 December 2009 - Attacks Guettarda after she politely and gently explained how to read the policy : "I read the whole article and as I said, nothing in it recommends against the inclusion of this piece. I think it's about time that instead of just spamming the talk page with WP:BLP WP:NPOV etc., you and your friends start explaining what part of these policies are actually violated by the quotes et al. you don't want included in this article."
• 02:14, 10 December 2009 - "As it stands now, about five extremely committed people have complete control over the article, and aren't afraid to threaten anyone who disagrees with blocking." This statement was made right after User:Gigs politely asked Drolz: "Please try to assume good faith. While I agree with your sentiment, these sorts of accusations aren't helping build any real consensus". Note the fallback on ABF right after the request.
• 00:04, 9 December - "Misplaced Pages editors: immune to context."

Viriditas, come on! You're just making him look prescient for the comments he put in his user space, all made by you about him. Or how about ChrisO's comments that I linked just above, and he hasn't addressed? This is a travesty, moving closer to ArbCom by the second. Mackan79 (talk) 13:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, almost none of these diffs are about me, and they directly contradict his claims. Please read closer. In his unblock request summarized above, Drolz claims that 1) All of the diffs which were relied on to establish his pattern of behavior were from 12/8. and 2) There is no evidence that he continued any questionable behavior after that date. I have clearly demonstrated that this is false, and if it weren't for the last edit conflict, there would be twice as many diffs above. I'm in the process of adding them now. Viriditas (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Almost none, Viriditas? He says you are part of a conspiracy to POV that article. Therefore, every diff in which he complains about a conspiracy or cabal refers to you. As for ChrisO, I find the diffs comparing the circumstances of the hacking to reaction to the murder of the abortion performer shocking, if not entirely surprising, given the fact we're talking ChrisO here. I think the question really becomes, did Drolz have a reasonable basis to conclude that a small group of editors were controlling the POV of the article. Doesn't have to be true, just has to be he had a reasonable basis. If so, he had a perfect right to continue to seek redress here at AN/I, even in the face of the er, "olive branch".--Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose WP:CIV and WP:NPA are no longer relevant then. Are you honestly going to tell me that attacking editors and assuming bad faith is acceptable? What reasonable basis did Drolz have to make any of his attacks? There is none. Viriditas (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I really hesitate to call "You are absolutely immune to reason" a personal attack. Sounds like being flogged with a wet strip of toilet paper. As for your final question, why don't we unblock Drolz (with a prohibition against editing any page except this outside his userspace) and let him say.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Really? Telling someone they are immune to reason is not a personal attack? That's an interesting take on what is a clearly defined personal attack. And for the record, many of the diffs do not refer to me or any discussions that I was involved in with Drolz. He may have dragged my name into it, but that doesn't mean I was involved. You seem to be openly defending incivility and personal attacks, the two things that prevent this site from actually functioning. Why? Viriditas (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Not in the least. I am calling for fairness for a new user per WP:BITE. And really, the only difference between his comment about you and yours about mine are that he didn't know that if you throw the word "seem" into the comment, you can say virtually anything. Presumably this will serve to educate him. I could say with equal validity that you seem to be engaged in conduct designed to discourage new users at a time when our editor count is falling (if you believe the WSJ). Why?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is the user refusing the unblock conditions? Why did the user refuse to heed warnings on his own talk page, and why did he reject peace overtures from Viriditas at the top of this thread? Jehochman 14:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if I would characterize Viriditas's comments as a "peace overture". It's kind of a backhanded admission, even though Viriditas maintains that he's not an opponent of Drolz, that there was an adversarial relationship there. Let's see how he reacts to my proposal, which in a couple of ways is tougher than yours, Jehochman.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This is absurd

This is yet another example of bait and block: goad an inexperienced editor (usually, one with an opposing POV) into making newbie mistakes, then mischaracterize their actions on AN/I and get an admin to block based on reputation alone. It should be overturned immediately. ATren (talk) 12:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can reasonably claim that Drolz09 was goaded or baited into his repeated accusations of conspiracy to subvert the neutral point of view policy. As well as my request and 2/0's warning, he must also have read repeated calls by me on the article talk page asking users with conduct complaints to follow the dispute resolution policy, and reminders that doing so is not optional. --TS 12:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The attack on his User page was silliness, and unbecoming of a long term editor like Viriditas. The quotes being collected were unattributed, they could have been about anyone, and there was no commentary, yet Viriditas made a huge deal out of it, escalating the conflict even more.

I'd also like to add that Viriditas recently tried to bait another skeptic-leaning global warming editor on his talk: "You are dishonest, and prone to making false statements. Your stated purpose here is not to improve articles, but to engage in battles with your opponents. You are, by your own admission, a SPA designed solely to push a single, fringe POV, which goes against the NPOV policy and shows that you have no understanding of it. ". This diatribe was completely unprovoked and is an indication that Viriditas may not be able to deal properly with editors that have opposing viewpoints on the issue of GW. ATren (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Here are three diffs that directly and conclusively contradict ATren's claim about me: Those three links compliment and invite Cla68 to contribute and to participate, and encourage him to do so at his greatest capacity. I even recommended him as a mentor. For the record, Cla68's viewpoint is completely at odds with my own, but he understands NPOV. It would be nice if ATren would stop making stuff up. I not only encourage editors with different viewpoints to work with me, I enjoy it. Viriditas (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, ATren, stop making stuff... er, um, I mean, providing embarrassing diffs! Does "he understands NPOV" mean that he has been cowed into not responding when he is reverted? Moogwrench (talk) 13:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

We're discussing Drolz09's block at this point. Viriditas has not been blocked, and a good proportion of Drolz09's conduct problems are unrelated to Viriditas. So I don't think we can consider VIriditas' conduct in mitigation of the block on Drol09. --TS 13:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes we can. A newbie is far more likely to be played by those who have their own POV and are letting it show. Provocation is not a full excuse but we are entitled to consider it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That is a reasonable angle to pursue, and I encourage you to do so. You will find no evidence for it, however. Viriditas (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Block too harsh

I disagree with almost everything Drolz09 says, and I find this editor's approach to interaction to be inappropriate and tiresome; however, I do not believe an indefinite block is justifiable. This should have been handled with the usual 24-hr block, with escalating block lengths in the event of continued disruption. WP:RFC/U is another venue where Drolz09's behavior could've been discussed first. I recommend that the block be reduced to time served, and I remind admins that blocks are not supposed to be a tool of punishment. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It is wrong to ask volunteers to spend many hours of their time dealing with disruptive, single-purpose accounts of short tenure. This particular account may very well be a sock puppet of a previously sanctioned user. This particular account has done nothing except make disruptive edits. They do not deserve to consume so much volunteer resources. Jehochman 14:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course, disruptive editors of long standing (see the abortion murder comments mentioned above, which have nothing to do with improving the project) are vested, and nothing is done to them. You shall have one rule, for the stranger and for the native of the land.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) - While I agree that the editor has been disruptive, there is no proof of sock puppetry. A right-out-of-the-gate indefinite block is usually reserved for blatant vandals, people who make death threats or proven socks. This editor has strong views (which I do not agree with), but that is not unusual on Misplaced Pages. A 24-hour block, while frustrating for the recipient, gives them enough time to reflect and perhaps learn from their mistakes. An indef block is guaranteed to enrage the recipient to such a point that they are not able to calm down and defend themselves appropriately. If an "opponent" of Drolz09 (such as myself) can bring himself to this editor's defense, surely it is worth reconsidering the block length? -- Scjessey (talk)

I agree with that as well. To say that Drolz may be a sockpupput is to attempt to influence feelings about him without bothering about little things like evidence. Jehochman, if you don't have enough to hand to a checkuser, please leave the suggestion out. It kinda suggests that you're thinking what you have is not sufficient, and so you need to be suggestive that there's more there. It violates the spirit, and possibly the letter of WP:AGF.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, reasonable people can wonder, as myself, Jehochman, Mathsci and others have questioned, whether Drolz09 resembles a "sleeper account" and if the user is only a newbie who is here to help build articles, or a SPA intent on causing problems. Where's the learning curve? He came here with a vision and a purpose. Viriditas (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the sock insinuations need to be dropped, unless anyone wants to open an SPI. However, I agree that a block was likely needed here, but disagree with the length. There are a number of long term editors opposed to this, and perhaps we can convince them to mentor him. If problems persist, we can always indef block later. AniMate 14:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I contacted the checkusers by email for an opinion. Jehochman 20:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The editor's behavior is pure battle and personal attacks. They can be unblocked as soon as they agree to stop the objectionable behavior. I do not want to have a revolving door situation where we are back at this board, or another, as soon as the editor is unblocked. Why haven't they accepted the simple unblock conditions I proposed? Jehochman 14:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Because your indef block made them angry. It is hard to be apologetic and reasonable when you get slapped with such a strong punishment. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

They'd be equally angry with 24 hours, and then they'd just sit it out, and come back to get 48 hours, and so on. It is better to draw a line in the early, and turn the editor away from disruption. When the editor agrees to suitable unblock conditions, they will be unblocked. It would be helpful if you could convince them to negotiate conditions. I am not interested in any sort of apologies. They just need to agree on terms. Jehochman 14:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable approach. The door is left open, all he has to do is agree to be reasonable. --TS

It seems like a case of "shoot first, and then offer to extract the projectile if they agree to play nice" to me. Indef blocks do not make people feel like negotiating. It's like giving the whole class an "F" and then telling them if they work hard enough, some of them might be able to achieve an "A" by the end of the semester. I always start my college students with an "A". -- Scjessey (talk) 14:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out that indefinite block is just indetirminate length block, not a permanent ban. If someone's behaviour is such as we would not want it repeated and it is the only behaviour they have shown, I see no reason we shouldn't put a block of indeterminate length on them until they accept, overtly, to operate within accepted rules. Considering how often we all bitch about persistant disruptive accounts only getting short blocks and not getting indeffed, we should maybe stop leaping down the admin's throats everytime one of them has the guts to put on the flak jacket and wade into the shitstorm that follows. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC) (ECx2)

When a new user(or a user who is unfamiliar with how Misplaced Pages works) is disruptive, an indefinite block is sometimes a tool that will work. If a user is banned for a certain amount of time then they will just wait until that time is through and go back to editing in the same manner that they received the block in the first place. But if a user is forced to look at the reasons for the block and produce a good reason to be unblocked, they will learn more about the project and (hopefully) become a contributing editor. Being blocked indefinitely does not mean you are permanently banned. DD2K (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There are deeper issues which it would be impolitic to explore deeply at this point and in this location, but I'll outline them. There is a quite prominent whispering campaign among some editors who, on talk pages and user talk pages, allege conspiracy to subvert the neutral point of view ("cabal"). The correct response to this is to direct people who believe they have legitimate conduct complaints to follow the dispute resolution policy, which is what I and some others have done. One can say that perhaps this relatively inexperienced editor has been misled by our relative lenience towards these whisperers and their long-running personal attacks. But what can one do but continue to encourage these people to gather evidence and present their complaints in an appropriate forum.

The result of this issue is not just felt by one editor who is currently blocked, but by several editors who, over quite a long period, have endured personal attacks and the souring of talk page discussions. For those people, tomorrow will be yet another day in which editing on an important topic is complicated by persistent attacks and slurs on their good faith. --TS 15:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this is over-reaction against a new editor. Essentially, I agree with Scjessey--this sets an example of what might look like experienced editors imposing harsher than usual penalties on a newcomer The over-reaction is not primarily Viriditas's fault, who came here asking for much milder and perfectly appropriate sanction--an interaction ban. the new editor either out of intransigence or inexperience refused this. The appropriate course was probably to get consensus fro such a ban and issue a short block if it was actually ignored. that would be enough to show that what he was doing was unacceptable. If it continued afterwards, then that's the time to step up, in the usual way. I cannot support an indefinite block in this case. A block no admin is willing to remove is a ban, but I am willing to remove this one. As I understand it, I have the right to do so, and consensus here would be needed to restore it. DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering the user appears to believe he should have never been blocked, you would at this point be vindicating that view point, that his behaviour had been appropriate and that Jechohman should be de-sysopped and he is owed some apology. However, you have the tools and the community's trust, on your head be it (Essentially, unblock based on events, not on a principle). As a note, a ban may require consensus, but this was a block. If no admin is willing to remove a block, then it remains a block. A person avoiding a block with a constructive account is usually allowed to go on their merry way, ban evasion is not. Also, if no admin is willing to unblock someone, then one would assume the person is probably better off blocked. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

DGG, we are not proposing a community ban,. Wehwalt, Scjessey, and I have put forward unblocking conditions at User talk:Drolz09. We are merely waiting for the user to agree. A speedy unblock would undermine this process and increase the risk that the user will repeat the same errors, down the familiar path of escalating blocks, leading to a site ban. That is the path we all seek to avoid. By saying, "Stop, you must not continue this behavior," there is a chance to avoid that bad outcome. In any case, there is a consensus on this thread for at least a 24 hour block. There is time for the discussion to reach it's natural conclusion before unblocking the user. Indefinite does not mean infinite in this case. I wish the block menu included distinct options for "indefinite - conditional" and "indefinite - infinite". Much confusion could be avoided. Jehochman 18:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Perspective

I don't think I have ever seen such a lack of perspective on Misplaced Pages as is evident in the above discussion. User:Drolz09 has effectively been editing for 8 days, and seems to have little experience with Misplaced Pages. Here Guettarda explains to the editor that !votes are usually bolded, when the user criticizes another editor for doing this. A few prior edits by the account were productive, uncontroversial, and completely unrelated to climate change. It is apparent that the user became active in September to reinstate an edit to Glenn Beck (TV program) after his IP edit had been reverted. This is completely consistent with a good faith account.

Viriditas started this discussion by asking that an interaction ban be imposed between him and this user. He accused the editor of bad faith, said he could not see anything the editor did in good faith, and therefore said he did not think they should interact. Several editors suggested that the whole thing was ridiculous, and that the editors should find a way to avoid the problem. At this point Jehochman enters, and without consulting with anyone, any proposal to do so, or any prior blocks or sanctions against the user, he indefinitely blocks them on the theory that the user has promoted a battleground environment. It is now being demanded that for any unblock he should have to come to some agreement to behave better in the future.

I can not believe that this is how Misplaced Pages treats a new editor. It is beyond indefensible, it goes beyond any rational debate about how to deal with new users. It is a total abuse of this editor, not to mention of Misplaced Pages. And yet several of the involved editors, including Jehochman, do not seem even capable of discussing their reasoning or reevaluating what has happened. It is hard to know what to say to this, except that in some way some additional perspective here is needed. Mackan79 (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

A nice, neutral perspective! I agree as much as anyone that new users can go through a lot of BS, but I can't remotely stretch that this time. In case it was missed above, the admin in question is trying to actually end the matter. I'm not sure about this "several editors suggested... was ridiculous" matter at the start, since plenty did think it was a civility issue, too. Indef block? Probably no so great. It'd being corrected, just as all indef blocks are encouraged to be farther discussed. Just don't forget about the incivility. New to Misplaced Pages or not doesn't excuse that. Perhaps discussion above on block dropping might be more productive for now? Take this to RfC or WQA if you have a problem. Read recent threads in the past few archive folders involving lots of other admins having at each other's throats and spot some of those actions, and see what a better definition of "abuse of power" is. Actually, there's an ArbCom case closing that's a really major case of abuse of power. 1 block of indef with zero intent of being done in bad faith, and being reduced or removed now... isn't abuse. Abuse by a lot of users just in general is far, far more hideous. Sorry. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I reduced it to a week, since that seems to be the rough consensus on this thread. The user has been blocked exactly zero seconds longer than the final result, so no harm done. Indef means undetermined; upon discussion, it was determined. We've got some sanctions pending as people seem pretty concerned that a week off isn't going to cure this problem. Jehochman 19:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Shortening block, proposing sanctions

Per consensus here, I agree to shorten the block to one week. If Drolz09 accepts the unblock conditions proposed on User talk:Drolz09, or counters with acceptable terms, they could be unblocked sooner. If there is no agreement, then I request the following restrictions be placed in effect when the block expires:

• Drolz09 is topic banned from Global warming articles and related pages for a period of three months.
• Drolz09 is restricted from using Misplaced Pages as a battle ground, making personal attacks or making baseless accusations. If there are violations, any uninvolved administrator may block without further warnings.

I hope we can get a consensus for these conditions. Jehochman 18:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I would support a reduction to a 24hr block (getting closer to time served all the time) should the editor accept these restrictions. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the user Drolz is a major voice of opposition on the climate page in question (striving to neutralize the article), as well his comments do not seem out of place to me. It seems the the admin Jehochman is basically holding out to castrate Drolz voice indefinitely on the issue he is passionate about and letting a group of editors who attach ownership to have their way. I'm in favor of a desysop of Jehochman for his abuse of power.--172.162.204.143 (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

My quack-o-meter is going through the roof! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, god forbid the involved admin is trying to take responsibility for a little of the mess and starting to propose an informal solution without blocks. On an "abuse of power" scale, given there was a history of incivility in some regards, this ranks somewhere between baby harp seal and baby kitten on a scale of 1 to 10... as in about a -2 of abuse. Read the other recent threads on this stuff and report back here after that. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Add-on note-- I don't particularly support the original indef block (just "some" block), but I laughed at this idea. Just entirely laughed given how uncivil other discussions have been as of late and that Jehochman's action was 1000x more likely to have been in good faith than any of the other stuff around. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! Finally, an answer for a question at this diff, which was a pretty-freaking-simple solution. How is it that, without exception, the persons who refuse to agree to voluntary AGF distancing from user editors are the ones that always get sanctions? Same thing has happened to me here a lot recently, since apparently both editors walking away for the day with fully functional accounts seems to be too much to handle. Thank you for trying to simplify this. Easy way out? Unblock on "time served" upon agreement to above. I would add a point of no direct communication between the users. Limit topic ban to 1 month assuming good behavior elsewhere, to limit notion of "picking sides", but ban can be extended at any time. Heavy warning to the opposite warring party for generic incivility in some respects and mention of anything incidents in the future being blocks at any admin's discression. Desysop? That's for ArbCom. ANI is not a magic factory where pixies can toss dust about and grant wishes of people just because they think they have consensus at that moment. Read some of the pathetic discussions here lately-- it's entirely out of hand. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh for Pete's sakes

Jehochman, just unblock and call it time served, before I do it for you. I looked at the guy's talk page this morning, saw some serious baiting, and am really surprised to see this unresolved by now. 24 hours is a better place to start, however many hours it's been plus drama should be more than ample to make his errors clear to him. I'm sure you meant well, but you overdid it a tad, and you need to leave this to others. --SB_Johnny |  20:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hours of discussions have gone into building a consensus about what to do. Please don't toss all that by the wayside and substitute your own judgment. Your opinion is welcomed and valued, but the ultimatum is not appropriate. Jehochman 20:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above doesn't look like a consensus-oriented effort. The "ultimatum" is nothing personal, I'm just an uninvolved admin willing to unblock. Generally better if you do it IMO, but YMMV. --SB_Johnny |  21:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

A few people have restated their opinions and made this a lengthy thread. Nevertheless, a number of uninvolved admins and editors have commented, and most support some sort of block. The consensus appears to be one week, unless the editor agree to unblocking conditions. Please don't substitute your personal view for that of those who've already commented. Jehochman 21:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I see a lot of personal views in the discussion above. Mine is of equal weight. --SB_Johnny |  22:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that Drolz is more trouble than he may bring to the project. There's a lot of sniping, a lot of outright personal attacks at the CRU email page, but in Drolz's case its continual. And the thing is that behaviour like that poisons the entire atmosphere. When you're pissed off from that kind of stuff, you're more likely to snap back. More to the point, the fact that his constant stream of PAs and assumptions of bad are tolerated has set the tone for a lot of other new editors (which, of course, have been flocking to the page). I don't care whether he's blocked or not, but I think that a topic ban is crucial. Guettarda (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I unblocked him. If he doesn't take the day's lessons to heart, he'll be blocked again. 'Nuff said. --SB_Johnny |  22:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate unblock. Woogee (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, inappropriate unblock. For what it's worth, I thought a week was more inappropriate than indef. Brilliantine (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Not encouraging.. Nor is his response to the unblock. Guettarda (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate, both the unblock and the reaction by Drolz09.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I expect that since SB Johnny has chosen to substitute his judgement for that of the other discussion participants, he will also be watching this editor closely, and will take full responsibility for any further disruption from this editor &mdash and is prepared to apologize to editors affected? Bad unblock, bad snap decision in lieu of discussion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't be so dramatic. Our rules give discretion to the admin willing to unblock. This was discussed to death, and I read it as no consensus either way. Frankly, given the draconian sanctions which are getting to be routinely handed out on this page these last few weeks to editors who don't have friends, I'm glad that we're seeing an admin or two willing to step up to the plate and call 'em like he sees 'em. --Wehwalt (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• I support the unblock as well, and I am totally uninvolved. Newbie biting is an issue, and yes, he's a newbie. I registered in May 2006, but didn't even have a talk page until May 2007. (I had 109 edits when I created the page. 38 minutes later, I had my very first comment.) I won't address some of the larger issues, but he was jumped on fairly early by someone who obviously has a substantially differing perception of the issue. Horologium (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked to escalate to RfAr? (request now withdrawn)

• Comment Drolz09 has made a number of highly disruptive comments on the CRU talk page since his account became active. The are still many problems with his account, not least the laundry list User:Drolz09/Quotations and his current user page. (How in the current MfD does he know as a newly arrived user about User:Raul654 who stopped participating in GW articles some time ago and how does he know about Raul654's subpages?) I am certain that User:SB_Johnny did not unblock him so that he could immediately continue his disruption in the recent needless RfAr of User:Mackan79. Some kind of block was in order because of Drolz09's disruptive behaviour when his account suddenly became active a week ago after being dormant for two years. Mathsci (talk) 04:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Drolz09 has pointed out that Flegelpuss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) suggested he mention the subpages of Raul654 and GoRight in the MdF on Drolz09's talk page. Mathsci (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The RfAr has now been withdrawn by Mackan79 . Mathsci (talk) 10:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

A small concern

Take a look at User:Heterodyne's user page. Although he didn't link it correctly, a bit of self advertising, me thinks. I won't touch it, but an admin might want to deal with it. Who knows?--Jojhutton (talk) 13:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(1) Have you notified the user of this discussion here as instructed at the top of this page? (the answer is no). (2) Have you perhaps asked the user if he would consider removing it? (the answer is also a redlinked User talk:Heterodyne). IMO, its well within the bounds of acceptable userpage content especially since it isn't an active link and isn't "HI PLEASE VISIT MY FABULOUS SITE". Cheers. Syrthiss (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Syrthiss. We're open minded here. If he had said "I work for . Buy our fabulous computers." I don't think anyone would have given it a second thought.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Um... What exactly is the problem with identifying as Canadian? LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with being Canadian ... it's the Torontonian part that's offensive ;-P (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Man's entitled to exhibit his shortcomings.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Crikey, I hope you're not recommending full-frontal nudity! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That certainly wouldn't be self-promotion. Toronto's cold this time of year. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I was referring to his nationality, wasn't that clear? (belated cred to David Niven, btw).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow.... And this is *exactly* why I never bother contributing, and why Misplaced Pages has such a hard time being taken seriously as a legitimate source of information... It's when wikinerds are more concerned with a single link in one's personal page (not an linked to an article, mind you... a link in someone's un-promoted, orphaned not-linked-to-anything-else-and-not-touched-since-it-was-created-several-years-ago Misplaced Pages Userpage featuring a link to a non-commercial, advertisement and revenue free hobby website) than actually addressing issues that matter to Misplaced Pages. Absolutely shameful, and thank you for everybody who stuck up for me in this sordid affair o_0 ... Wow. just..... wow.... --Heterodyne (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, I am ashamed to be from Toronto, which is why I live in Calgary these days :P --Heterodyne (talk) 02:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Requesting temporary block of bot

Hi. I brought up an issue here regarding an undesirable consequence of User:BOTijo's edits. The short of the issue is that some of the bot's edits require administrator intervention to reverse. The bot's operator has not responded in the nine days since I notified him/her of the issue, and does not appear to have visited Misplaced Pages for the last 12 days: . I'd like to request temporary blocking of User:BOTijo until these concerns can be addressed.--Father Goose (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried to see if they are active on the Spanish Misplaced Pages? I note that the bot owner is only intermittently active on en-WP, so it does not appear to be an unusual absence. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, no, I didn't realize that this is not the user's primary wiki. Nonetheless it would be reasonable for someone running a bot on a wiki to check in on that wiki periodically, or at least give instructions on where they can be reached more expediently. But that's a matter I'll have to take up with Emijrp.--Father Goose (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I blocked the bot per Father Goose's concerns, and that a bot operator needs to maintain control and supervision of the bot. Once concerns are addressed/fixed/alleviated, bot can be unblocked... Tan | 39 00:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The bot operator has responded, and disabled the bot. Therefore I am requesting that the block be lifted.--Father Goose (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done –xeno 00:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

CIA conspiracy

I don't know how we deal with conspiracy theorists, but 89.164.16.105 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is trying to use his conspiracy beliefs to win his way in a dispute. This user (on a Croatian ISP) has edited under 89.164.104.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 89.164.22.83 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 89.164.39.114 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 89.164.0.22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 89.164.10.135 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 89.164.115.136 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), etc. (it seems this ISP is 89.164.0.0/16 and any edit by an IP in the range to pages in Category:Gackt songs or Category:Gackt albums is him). He has been removing external links and references to websites that he does not believe should belong (Allmusic reviews, Japanese ranking websites , etc.) and has been constantly referring to the CIA in his comments to me and MS (talk · contribs).

How should this be dealt with?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I just left a warning on the IP currently in use. I don't care what their conspiracy theory is, but if they're edit warring with you and others and removing information then it's approaching vandalism, and definitely not OK.

If they won't stop, I recommend blocking the current IP, and if they reset IPs and keep going then semiprotect articles until they will discuss reasonably and work in a collaborative manner.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, PMDrive1061 blocked the IP for a month. Doesn't stop him from coming back tomorrow to edit the pages again.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Let us know if he returns, we semiprotect everything they're touching until they get the point and stop doing that... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That would require semiprotecting every single page about a Gackt album and single.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

We have had to do worse in the past. There's only 20-30 articles in there, from what I saw earlier... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

35 articles on individual songs, 21 articles on albums.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat by SPA

Let's try this again, as my previous attempt went nowhere. I'm guessing a case of TLDR...

An SPA editor, User:Debora999, recently reverted an edit with a summary of "Reverted to revision 307690212 by Uwishiwazjohng; improperly cited; legal history section libelous."

Could an admin please explain NLT and NPLT to this editor? Thanks, Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I see this edit as deleting an overly criticizing section, not as a legal threat. There was literally a section called "legal history" that was removed. Calling something libelous isn't a threat. Tan | 39 00:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

When is an accusation of libel not a legal threat?

WP:NPLT says editors should "refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion," and uses "libel" as its primary example of what's understood as a legal threat. WP:NLT says "Legal threats should be reported to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or an administrator."

I'm not asking for a block per se, just for an admin to discuss this policy with the editor in question. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The user did not imply that they were going to take legal action. Libelous material is routinely removed on sight as per policy. Triplestop x3 01:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The edit summary just says that s/he thinks the content is "libelous"; not that s/he is threatening to take legal action over something perceived to be libelous. I agree that you overlooked it a little and that it's probably not a legal threat. MuZemike 01:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Was the information sourced appropriately with neutrality in mind? Can it be rewritten with the proper sourcing? A SPA removing anything possibly negative-sounding in a BLP deserves some extra scrutiny, for fairly obvious reasons. I get the feeling it's not going to be all that awful and it's going to look like a major WP:OWN-looking issue. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 03:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The entire article has lousy sourcing, primarily due to ① novice/SPA editors who think WP:COI means only those with a favorable opinion of the subject can edit the article & WP:BLP means any less than glowing text (no matter how well-sourced) must be removed, and ② the inability to find an admin who actually wants to take on cleaning up this dog of an article. Yes, it has to be an admin; I've gotten the "You're not an admin, so your policy links don't mean squat" enough times, tyvm.

Everything in the legal history section (as seen here) was sourced. A good-sized chunk of it, though, was sourced only to San Francisco County Superior Court rulings (found here). I don't see how a court ruling can be considered libelous, myself, so I saw the edit summary as an attempt to scare off a new editor, User:Devsdough.

I honestly don't think that there's a content conflict here; or at least I don't have one. The legal history section was previously removed as failing WP:PRIMARY, which I've been fine with in the hope that other sections without sources or with primary-only sources could similarly be trimmed. No joy there, though. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats by User:AP1929

I shan't write-up an essay here on the behavior of User:AP1929, which is more-or-less self evident. What I'm primarily interested is his newest "rhetorical tactic". He has apparently decided to get rid of me quickly by searching out some statement he or his affiliates can sue me for. I'll be brief, here's the post, and here's the attempt to conceal it. The user has been promptly warned for the blatant threat, but knowing him, what followed is merely his "standard issue" attempt to avoid action after yet another report. His threats are obviously to be taken dead seriously at all times.

I would also like to add that the post which gave User:AP1929 the excuse was indeed inappropriate, but also that it was a terrible joke on my part taken partially out of context. I called an author a "Nazi fuck" after another user mentioned his KKK affiliations, his apparent characterization of non-Caucasians as "non-human" and such. I am aware of my mistake and can only sincerely apologize for my blatant lack of taste, and I'll add, my sporadic lack of self-control. I have apologized to User:AP1929 if my choice of words was offensive to him.
My error of judgment, however, should not be an excuse to sidetrack the topic of this post. --DIREKTOR 01:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, what WP:NLT seeks is the withdrawal of the legal threats, that has been done. I trust you have notified AP1929 of your starting the thread?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have, of course. No such withdrawal has been made, the user merely apologizes to User:ShadowRangerRIT for inconveniencing him. I must admit I am highly skeptical that the User intends at all to sincerely withdraw his threat, due to the intense animosity he claims to feel towards me for my political position on a number of Yugoslav history issues. I hold that he shall no doubt try to inflict some form of harm to me for not sharing his political viewpoint. --DIREKTOR 02:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

AP1929 said "Not a problem" when asked to withdraw their "quasi-legal threat" and removed their comment. That looks like withdrawing it to me. Until they repeat a legal threat, there's not an ongoing issue as far as WP:NLT is concerned. Fences&Windows 02:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

All right, thought I'd check it with you guys here and I did. Thanks for your time. One day I'll just get used to these threats... :) --DIREKTOR 03:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

And those you are engaging with may get used to "Nazi fuck". I will tell you that if I had seen it at the time (I avoid Balkan articles, personally), you'd have been blocked instanter.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Wow, I feel dumb for not digging far originally. This is a personal squabble that's gone on for a full year with an ANI a few weeks ago. First trouble I can see is here, and apparently nothing has changed. I do get a massive vibe of WP:OWN, and there are a number of persons sitting about the talk pages of both users that I recall in previous ANIs that some editors in this "group" have some... underhanded tactics. Honestly, the version that was reverted by AP1929 was appropriate sourced, and to me it appears the user is striking back out of personal anger versus any use of objective terms or Misplaced Pages policy. imo the lead cited to Britannica is correct per Misplaced Pages standards and anything on top is a POV and an issue of personal morals... not necessarily for ANI, and . ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

btw, we're allowed to re-write other's posts? ...? Instances of immediate concern on a BLP issue are one of the things rollback was tailored to since it's practically instantaneous. I didn't think we were allowed to ever to do such edits other's posts. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I will admit to bending the rules by rewriting a portion of the post. I didn't notice it when it was first posted, so my options were:

1. Leave it intact (and sending a request to DIREKTOR to fix it, but given the legal threat related issues, there was some justification for haste)
2. Remove it (making the thread confusing, as there would be replies to a non-existent parent)
3. Rewrite it in a minimalist way such that the relevant, BLP violating parts of the post were removed, while the information remained the same.

While I recognize that refactoring another's talk page comments is generally verboten, the alternatives were similarly bad. I figured that in this case, WP:IAR applied. I left a comprehensive edit summary, and did my best to avoid putting any words in DIREKTOR's mouth. He keeps a close eye on that page, so presumably he would be notice and object should I have misrepresented him in any way. Yes, I feel a little icky about it, but at least he replied, indicating approval for the change. Given this is the first time I've *ever* cited WP:IAR, I would hope people would be understanding. —ShadowRanger  04:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries, really. Far odder things happened in even my limited experience that needed a quick instant decision, especially on a complicated topic. For the kind of "shoot first, ask questions later" approach, I pick whatever version in the article history looks "stable" before any recent of conflict, then run the total comparison on the diffs in the middle to see what ended up "okay" to add or remove and manually do it if there's no intermediate version that looked safe. That's my IAR way of screaming in panic, and I can see how it'd look like total hijacking in some cases. I'd never wish any wrong upon an intervening editor if something gets bent at the sides a bit. What's the undo feature policy page say? It's okay to make mistakes in undos and revert edits because you can undo them? I'll extend that to AGF, since by definition no harm is wished to be done :) ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

My reverts had a purpose and I would highly appreciate other moderators to take a look at the talk page, to view NDH related articles as well as articles concerning Josip Broz Tito and his communist totalitarian regime. User:DIREKTOR is surely displaying WP:OWN as well as making constant insulting remarks to various users. Thank you for your time and patience. AP1929 (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Banned user going cross project

Apparently, 姫宮玲子 (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of a user who was banned at the Japanese Misplaced Pages and now the user is continuing the activities he performed over there here (they even have an LTA entry for him as seen here). I would like to request that we nip this in the bud before his disruption spills over from the Japanese Misplaced Pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Have they done anything here that is a problem? Beeblebrox (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

And have you notified him? Apparently not, there's a talk redlink. I don't think you can characterize him as a sock anyway. So far as I know, a ban on one project is not a ban on all.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This user is a native Japanese speaker. I do not think I can communicate with him in any fashion that will be helpful. And I can characterize him as a sock because another project does. From what I know he disrupts articles relating to the Ultra Series and making way too many subcategories. While he has not done this yet here, the account has been blocked from the Japanese Misplaced Pages. I will try to get more information on this and determine whether or not we should allow him to edit here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you assuming that a native Japanese speaker cannot also be fluent in English? As mentioned above, why did you escalate this to ANI before (1) contacting him via his talk page, (2) knowing what led to his block, and (3) whether those reasons are relevant at en? Nobi (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I've notified the user of this thread. Basket of Puppies 02:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Well ... if he's not a native English speaker and you can't communicate with him in any meaningful sense, exactly what harm is he likely to cause here at en:wiki?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

MascotGuy level problems.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Are there any people who could translate, whether on this project or ja-wiki that could help communicate? Ks0stm 03:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Try User:Jason7825. He is ja-5 and an active rollbacker on en. Ks0stm 03:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

MascotGuy? Can you translate that too? Domo arigato gozaimas.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

MascotGuy is the name given to a long term abuser on the English Misplaced Pages who due to an assumed diagnosis of autism was a problem to have him stop making good faith, but overall harmful edits to the project.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain better the reasons that lead to the block? Creating "too many subcategories" seems like a completely pointless reason to justify blocking anyone. Were such categories vandalic ones? Did he ignore some "categories for discussion" discussion result? (or whatever system for this is there in that project) MBelgrano (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I can only glean so much from the Japanese project page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

A user Azurakkii/AZLUCKY (あずらっきー) was initially blocked in January 2008 for a week because he created articles with content directly copy-pasted from off-wiki sites, abusing his own User page as a sandbox (i.e., creating excessive edit entries) while developing subcategories about Ultraman. I don't think the creation of subcategories themselves were part of the reason for this block. Azurakkii then proceeded to evade the block, causing the block to be extended to one month. He continued to evade the block, and on 1/31/2008, Misplaced Pages users were able to convince Azurakkii's ISP to give him a static IP so he could be permanently blocked. In 4/2009, another set of his alternate accounts was found to be creating excessive subcategories (such as "Fictional mushrooms" and "Fictional pandas") and was subsequently permanently blocked for avoiding the main account's block. From what I can tell, all the subsequent blocks were due to block evasion, not due to disruptive subcategories, which were just used as evidence that they were the same user. Nobi (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, "too many subcategories" was deemed disruptive because Azurakkii moved (not copied) articles from a higher-level category into the subcategory, so people wanting to look for, e.g., all fictional creatures, wouldn't be able to without first accessing each subcategory that he created. And it does seem that those who supported the permanent block did use this disruptive editing against him. Nobi (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Jason7825, who may be able to help with Japanese translation. Ks0stm 03:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• This sounds about right. What happens in Japan should stay in Japan. Ohconfucius 14:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Just throwing my two cents in, I don't think this editor would have been a remote problem on our wiki and it is rather inappropriate for any one to block him if he has done nothing at all. However bringing it to the communities attention is most certainly appropriate and appreciated and if he messes up we will know who we are dealing with. Off Topic:Also, I never thought MascotGuy's autism excuse was a good one. Rgoodermote  17:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Network of hoaxes needs attention

Earlier today, Xanarki spotted several apparent hoax articles about bands, including Backwoods Warriors, Four Sick Cats, Etan, and Shovel. He nominated them as A7 speedies, which was off target, since the articles clearly (but falsely) asserted notability (major label releases, etc). Some of the speedies were declined, others weren't acted on. was looking through the articles and realized that the band articles were only the beginning of the problem -- there are also fake album articles, fake band member articles, phony graphics uploaded, and who knows what else. The hoaxster, who's been around at least since 2007 and was editing as recently as November 28 is using multiple accounts, of course, and makes some legitimate edits. The hoaxing is getting more sophisticated, and recent creations are not only mixing real people into the phony articles, but even seems to involve the creation of fake references . I've added PROD tags to more than a dozen articles so far, and haven't come close to ID'ing everything involved. There are articles like Nate Sidek, with apparently fake images included, where the images need to be checked and tagged. Most of the articles lead to other hoaxes of one sort or another, so I think it's a good idea not to speedy-delete them until the linked articles and related images are checked out, and the accounts involved flagged for further investigation. Nate Sidek, for example, is also listed in March 4; Shovel has been listed in Ozzfest lineups by year. Given that the hoaxster's been at it for nearly three years, if not more, there could be a lot of junk to clear out. (There apparently was a partial cleanup about two years ago, but the job wasn't finished and the hoaxing has been growing.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Very rarely do such things actually end at just the artist pages. That would be too easy :) ...Claims of being signed to labels and chart positions for notability seems to be "the thing" as of late since it's harder/slower to check, especially some of the genre-specific US charts (some never existed at all in that year). Agree also that a few existing persons with articles seem to get mixed in a little too conveniently, be it accidentally or not and it's all the more frustrating. The WP:BAND guideline of 2 notable persons almost seems to have been tailor-made just to avoid a gimmick on cycling in 1 person or an accidental connection. I'll work through contribution lists and double-check what you're catching. Haven't gotten to work on a large band hoax in awhile, should be fun. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 05:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If only they put that much effort into real articles. Let's dig through them and see what is legit and what isn't. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't we speedy these as hoaxes? Also shouldn't there be a discussion as to what to do about the account that created these? Ridernyc (talk) 06:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Permab&? I didn't think there was much discussion needed. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hoaxes are specifically usually not supposed to be speedy deleted. Brilliantine (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Some can be. – ukexpat (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

True, though I think they would need to be rather more blatant and less plausible for that. Brilliantine (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

While it is appropriate to remove hoaxes and the like, because of the the potential damage to Misplaced Pages's reputation, I should comment that this instance it is not something to regard as much more than usual vandalism; since these are non existant entities they are extremely unlikely to be subject to searches. At most they are a boasting example, something created to show off to their mates. Under the circumstances the probable best response is to clean up the dross and slap a block template on the accounts and then ignore them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It's extremely hard to show something is a 100% obvious hoax, which is what the CSD it meant to cover. I spent 3 friggin' hours one night piecing apart a somewhat similar hoax.. Since we don't know the logic of the patrol who had let it through originally on acceptable quality, it would be in somewhat poor taste to speedy something because we just found evidence their 1 notability claim (or close to it) was a farse. PROD and etc afterward has a papertrail to look back on if needed, as well. Frankly, I think tightening the regulations is in order. I doubt anyone expected the sheer volume of new articles that would come from the loose standards... also a terrible underestimation of the desire for a Misplaced Pages page to make them notable, not as proof they are. It's s point of pride in some cases. Since we've cracked down in the past year on like duplicates to redirects, merges, BLPs,. etc, so it's about time this gets the same treatment. Can't we come up with something better? ♪ daTheisen(talk) 18:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

IP harassment towards another editor

An IP range has been harassing User:Wjemather since the 4th of December posting personal information on the userpage and his talk page, all of which requires oversight. Because of this, both pages got protected but the range has found his subpages listed on his userpage like this one and this one. I was able to locate the range, it's 65.92.124.0/22 and it's been blocked before because it appears that a banned user User:ScienceGolfFanatic is using this range but the newest IP 65.92.124.252 self proclaimed himself as User:Editor XXV. I don't know if it's one or the other but I would like to find out if this IP range can be reblocked again? Momo san 07:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Harassment by admin

Copied from Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance/Requests, probably belongs here

This was posted @ Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance/Requests Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 11:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Warn or Ban Suggestion

Hi,

This person, who has the user name: Puppyph and is also using the IP: 124.106.168.42 is trying vandalize SkyCable and Global Destiny Cable's Wiki Pages and is also acting up like a Misplaced Pages Policy police.

He thinks that the sub-article, Future channels is considered as a vandal when in fact the sub-article itself already has a disclaimer.

Is there a way you can ban this person or warn him?

Thanks in advance. --202.128.48.224 (talk) 13:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Cableguy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.128.48.224 (talk) 11:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

(end of copy)

It seems like both parties in the dispute are mudslinging (, ), socking or threatening to sock Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 11:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

(users have been informed , )

User:Rama - still trying to delete that image

Previous discussion: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive585#Admin:Rama ignoring previous consensus, refusing to gain new consensus

Admin Rama (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has once again (for the third time in two weeks) made a move to have File:Chicago_Spire.jpg deleted. He continues to insist that it can be replaced with an image which he created himself, which is itself the subject of a deletion request at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chicago spire.svg. Everyone but Rama agrees that this second image is an obvious copyvio, as he drew it based on the architect's plans, and everyone but Rama agrees that the first image is usable under a FUR until the building is actually built and someone can take a photograph of it, which s120 of the US code confirms would be free. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Who apologises for her total markup fail and thanks Moonriddengirl for fixing it.

link fixed. Abecedare (talk) 12:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

(commons deletion request does not exist Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 12:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

This is because I suck very badly at markup :) Abecedare fixed it.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Beyond just this, I'm a bit concerned about Rama's views on fair-use and his willingness to bend the rules to get his way. For example, he is using the speedy process to immediately delete any images that are missing a rationale or he believes are replaceable. He is choosing not to wait the required 7 day period and when asked to go through the usual procedure, accused the other admin of wheel-warring. This is starting to look much less like misguided use of the tools and more like an intentional crusade. Shell 12:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Chicago_Spire.jpg has previously been determined to be not replacable, and appropriate fair use by User:Quadell, who closed the fair-use discussion. See , . Perhaps the latest nomination can be closed early. Abecedare (talk) 12:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I note Juliancolton has just closed the commons debate as delete, so now there is clearly no alternative image. I would speculate that the latest nom can therefore be closed early. I do find it worrying that Rama nominated the non-free image again at this time - it could easily be perceived as an attempt to get that image deleted in order to bolster his case for keeping his own drawing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm previously uninvolved, I've gone ahead and closed the most recent deletion request for two reasons. First, the discussion was just held and you don't re-nom because the outcome wasn't what you expected. Second, the "replacement" was roundly called a copyright violation and deleted. This would be a good time for Rama to take a breather and see if he can get a clue from all this. Shell 13:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have serious concerns about his competency to handle this area. His response here and here with respect to the use of non-free images of deceased persons is (a)really unnecessarily agressive, (b) completely ignores the FUR and (c) suggests that someone paint a picture of the deceased because it is no longer possible to create a non-free image by photography! Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I find Rama's position to be perfectly sound and in the spirit of building a 💕, which means no non-free content, period. That means no non-free images. This is the minority WP:VEGAN POV: while it is a minority POV, it is not forbidden to think that way (else, please block me). Rama is better than me, as he at least tries to create free images wherever possible. I personally find Rama's drawing of the Chicago spire to be superior to using the "non-replaceable" photograph: it is impossible to create a free image, but by drawing a new non-free image, we use as little as possible of copyrighted material. — Kusma 13:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not forbidden to think that way. It's forbidden to act disruptively. By analogy: it's perfectly okay to think that a particular article does not belong here. But it's not okay to nominate it again and again and again until it gets deleted, which is disruptive. Tim Song (talk) 13:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. No one is criticizing his zeal for a 💕, what we are concerned with is willingness to ignore the community or bypass a 7 day waiting period because of that zeal. For example, there's nothing wrong with nominating an image as replaceable even if others might not feel the same, there *is* something wrong with summarily deleting those images instead of nominating them. Shell 13:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Kusma, I couldn't agree more with Rama's intentions to use free images wherever possible. But I would be hard pressed to find someone (we actually didn't at the commons deletion) who thinks the non-free image with a FRU should be deleted AND THEN that same person believes creating a derivative work of a copyrighted design is fine and dandy. If consensus is that the non-free image shouldn't be used - fine, then delete Chicago Spire.jpg (I don't agree, but recognize this opinion). But it is contradictory to then also state that a derivative work based on that copyrighted design is NOT a copyright violation. It is a double standard. Either delete both, or keep the copyrighted with fair use. At least Chicago Spire.jpg notes the copyright and credits the author. DR04 (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse my French, but how the fuck are we supposed to get bogus fair use images deleted without getting a lynching ? Immediate deletion is permissible per the first paragraph of WP:CSD; now, to avoid further tensions, I choose to apply the tag rather than remove the image again, because I, for one, do not do WP:WHEEL. And I get this.

The image is not only replaceable in theory, which should suffice, but actually does have a Free replacement in File:Chicago spire shape.svg, which has gone under a specific review on Commons and was ruled to comply with copyright (see Commons:Deletion requests/Graphics with copyrighted silhouettes).

I have gone at great lengths in trying to explain existing policies to people who simply to not want to understand because they don't like it. I am by no means an extremist; I am not a WP:VEGAN, I do use Fair Use from time to time, but I happen to do it properly; I do not see why others cannot do things properly too, and most of all I do not understand why we get litterally lambashed when we simply apply the policies. If WP:CSD and WP:Fair Use are not to be understood the way they are written, they by all means change the policy, and stop pestering the people who enforce it. Rama (talk) 13:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:CSD does not empower administrators to delete material outside of the specific rules laid out for such deletion. The first paragraph is quite clear on this:

The criteria for speedy deletion specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus support to, at their discretion, bypass deletion discussion and immediately delete Misplaced Pages pages or media. They cover only the cases specified in the rules below.

To reiterate, only the cases specified permit immediate deletion. The rules for WP:CSD#F7 are likewise clear. Only files which have been blatantly improperly tagged (as a mascot tagged as a logo) may be immediately deleted. In all other cases, there is a grace period of two days. Immediate deletion is out of process. --Moonriddengirl 13:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Then change the policy. As it is written, I understand that the template step is optional. Rama (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe the policy is clear. The word "only" is definitive. I'm afraid that the problem is in your understanding of it. --Moonriddengirl 13:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

PS: And yes, I have just restored another deletion note, again, on File:Chicago_Spire.jpg, not because I do not like the outcome, but because it is not proper to invoke year-old discussion amongst three people, and ignore the fact that a Free replacement exists, to close a deletion request. Rama (talk) 13:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I was just going to point that out, but thank you for self-reporting your wheel warring. Would that everyone could simply ignore administrative decisions when they know they're just "wrong". </sarcasm> Just to clarify, I was not referring to a "year old discussion", rather the discussions of December 9 and 10, 2009 which are hardly old. Shell 13:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)ARGH. No one is argueing the deletion of bogus-fair-use images in general. What the problem is is that your behavior shows that you have little regard or understanding for the application of Misplaced Pages policy in a manner which is consistant with either community consensus, or at this point, reality. There is not a problem with the concept of deleting images which do not belong at Misplaced Pages, and yet you seem to have a particular singular opinion on the meaning of the words "replacable" and "same encyclopedic purpose" mean, or even apparently, that you are willing to ignore the fact that this image was uploaded and used with the permission of the copyright holder. I can't see where anything near a consensus for your actions. The issue is not that you work in this field, its that you seem to be doing so without the support of others, even highly experienced Wikipedians who also work in it. Acting boldly is good. It is bordering on the edit war phase, by now... --Jayron32 13:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Wheel warring: "a struggle between two or more of the website's administrators in which they undo one another's administrative actions—specifically, unblocking and reblocking a user, undeleting and redeleting, or unprotecting and reprotecting a page.".

The term does not apply to the situation where a discussion is re-opened because it was closed without addressing the actual question because the people who felt authorised to do so did not inform themselves. Rama (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I don't think restoring a tag counts as wheel-warring, since it's a simple editorial action. That said, I too agree with the fair-use rationale in this case. The argument that there is no replacement because every conceivable replacement would by necessity itself be a non-free derivative is pretty strong in a case like this. (And, mind you, I think I qualify as something of an NFCC hardliner admin.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring/wheel warring - whatever you want to name it, continuing to undo the actions of other admins because you don't agree with the outcome of a deletion discussion is seriously problematic. We're now on the fifth sixth iteration in the last week. (Sorry, forgot about Rama's initial deletion out of process) Shell 13:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but File:Chicago spire shape.svg looks like a 5-year-old's magic marker drawing that one would put on the fridge next to the soccer schedules and school lunch menu. This is not in any way quality or encyclopedia material, and File:Chicago Spire.jpg is a far better representation of the subject matter. Do we want our articles to be low-quality and free, or high quality with fair use? Tarc (talk) 13:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It take no offence, but how is that relevant? It is an image of the Chicago spire, is it not? Our policy is to use Fair Use when an image is not replaceable, not when we happen to prefer the nice copyrighted pictures made by the grown-ups. Rama (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It must be replaceable with an image that "would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". Your outline falls far short of that mark. –xeno 14:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That is not a licence to snatch anything we happen to like. And in any case, there is a discussion process for that, you do not remove deletion tags. Rama (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

"a Free replacement does exist" is not a valid claim though, since this SVG image is for all intents and purposed unusable. Tarc (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Rama is still warring at Chicago Spire.jpg . The "shape" does not even come close to serving the same encyclopedic purpose. I think an RFC is necessary on their approach and whether someone who was made an admin in the laissez-faire days of 2005 can retain their status with such an apparent deficiency in their ability to appropriately interpret guidelines and policy. –xeno 14:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You attempted to revert my tag on the grounds that the replacement image was deleted, which it is not. Inform yourself first. And you are free to disagree that the silouhette image is not an adequate replacement for this image, but then you do that in the discussion, per policy; you do not remove deletion tags. Am I asking how you became an admin? Rama (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted your disruptive edits because you are repeatedly asking the same question to try and get the result you want. The fair use of Chicago spire.jpg is permitted both by policy and explicit permission from the copyright holder and pretty much everyone other than you agrees on this. Please move on, take a breath, and modify your approach to the review of fair use images. –xeno 14:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

To Rama: the argument about the unsuitability of the silhouette replacement has already garnered so much support that we can safely take for granted deletion of the original can no longer pass for a simple speedy-deletion matter. This makes removal of the tag legitimate. If you want to further pursue the replaceability case, the proper place for that would be a new WP:FFD. To Xeno: I think the point about the explicit permission is a red herring here - such a permission essentially makes only one of the NFCCs moot, namely that about economic opportunities and damage, but replaceability is quite orthogonal to it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right that we should still replace this image when a suitable free alternative becomes available, my point was that the furor over this particular image is particularly misplaced given the additional permission to support our fair use. –xeno 14:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Rama's actions with several other images

• File:Syd_Barrett_Abbey_Road_1975.jpg
• File:Pink_Floyd_68.jpg

I must ask, is it proper for the admin who tags fair use images as replaceable to try to be the one who then makes the decision when that is disputed? I would hope that it is someone else to make the final determination in these sorts of cases, as this would be like a someone closing his own XfD. Tarc (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No, in principle the same admin can do both. The tagging is really just meant to ensure the waiting period; other than that it's still a speedy deletion - which, by definition, is a process that can be performed by a single admin on their own. It's not like an XFD that requires an independent judgment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I would say that if no one response to the tag, then the admin can carry out the deletion, but if someone counter-argues their rationale then it should be left to an uninvolved party. Else they would be taking the role of judge,jury,executioner. –xeno 15:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If there were no objections I'd agree that the opener can close, sure. To me though it seems analogous to a WP:PROD, where if someone reasonably objects then the next step usually is to take it to an XfD. Tarc (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's actually more closely analogous to a "hangon" tag on a normal tagged speedy. Reacting to the hangon argument or overriding it is a matter of admin judgment. If the argument is self-evidently invalid (like, somebody arguing that an image is "not replaceable" merely because no free replacement has been created yet, or somebody arguing that NFCC X is fulfilled when the problem cited as grounds for deletion was that a different NFCC Y is violated), then the original tagging admin can override the di-disputed argument, just as they would ignore a "hangon" on an A7 speedy that just says "but I know them, they're cool". Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not comfortable with Rama making the final call on an image they tagged, they has already shown themselves to have several peculiar and novel interpretations of policy and practice. –xeno 18:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Can someone also take a look at File:Freedom_Tower_New.jpg and its replacement by File:Freedom Tower shape.svg in the 1 World Trade Center article ? Abecedare (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have added a counter-argument to the tag . Further to the above another admin should be the one to make the final call. –xeno 15:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Line drawings in BLP infoboxes

And see this thread at MCQ: Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions#A question about new drawing downloads. – ukexpat (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Rama deleted this fair use image (admins only) out of process and replaced it with his own line drawing, which to me at least is unrecognizable. At this point, I think we need to impose a temporary topic ban on Rama barring him from deleting or replacing fair-use images, till an RFC/U can be instituted to come up with a more finely tuned and permanent solution. Is anyone interested in starting such an RFC ? Abecedare (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have restored that image. Its a poor FU image but was deleted out of process. Spartaz 16:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I would certify it as Rama's comments today show no indication s/he intends to modify their approach, but don't have the time to draft it. –xeno 15:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Can an admin at least go through all of Rama's deletions to check if there are any further examples? Quantpole (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

They appear to have been summarily deleting files out-of-process like this going back to 2007 (see deletion log entries for "irrelevant fair use" or similar), and maybe even here-and-there before that. –xeno 16:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Though, this does show some promise that they will start using the procedures set out for appropriately disputing fair-use of images. –xeno 16:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) A quick check shows that Rama has made dozens of out-of-process WP:F7 deletions in the past few weeks itself (many of these images have already been procedurally restored by User:Xeno). I am not claiming that none of these images should have been deleted after proper tagging or discussion; only that Rama substituted his personal opinion for wikipedia policy and process. Note also that his deletion caused bot removal of the images from articles they were used in, so the images are now liable to be deleted under WP:F5 - quite a mess! Abecedare (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• I've initiated an RFC on the matter here: Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content#Does a drawing of a person, or the fact that one might be drawn, mean all non-free photos of people are thus replaceable?. –xeno 00:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it time to Block Rama?

Strikes me we have a classic case of a editor disrupting wikipedia by refusing to listen to community comment about their conduct. Am I the only admin considering a block if he doesn't mend his ways. Spartaz 16:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

<-- This may indicate they've been pulled back from the brink, so I would say wait to see how it plays out. –xeno 16:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not an admin, but I hope you don't mind if I chime in. Regular editors and admins have been wasting an ENORMOUS amount of their valuable time undoing, checking, and reverting changes Rama has made that have no to minimal, at best, community consensus. His actions over the past several weeks are consistent in that he will continue to do everything and anything he can to ignore consensus and continue to waste everyone's time. I would like to say he is doing this out of some misplaced but desperate attempt to keep Misplaced Pages free (a nobel motivation), however his double standard shows that this is not the case. DR04 (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that much editor time has been consumed trying to convey to Rama why his interpretation of the CSD and fair use policy is wrongheaded, however, iff he is going to use the proper procedures from here on out, blocking would be unnecessarily punitive. –xeno 16:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No, because he holds a minority opinion and blocking him would be censorship. Sceptre 16:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Pay attention. Nobody is suggesting blocking him for holding a minority opinion. Block is proposed for acting on a minority opinion, against consensus and creating disruption. So put your dick away and give it a rest. 208.97.245.233 (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, IMO Sceptre was being sarcastic. Whoever you are, logging out to come make this sort of remark is not helping matters any. Tarc (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I didn't log out to make this sort of remark. I've been IP editing for almost a year. Not that it's relevant, but I don't care for the accusation. That goes for you, too, Chillum. 208.97.245.233 (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I too think a block at this point would be premature and punitive. Lets wait to see if Rama follows the process from hereon and react accordingly. Abecedare (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No need to block, but removing the bit would stop the out of process deletion. If Rama disagrees with the presence of these images, let him do it as any other editor has to. If he wants to retain his adminship, then he should go through and restore every file that he has deleted improperly. If he wants them deleted he can request it, but he should not be doing so himself. Quantpole (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to clarify my above comments - my point was that he is wasting a lot of valuable time of several editors and admins - therefore there he needs to change his behavior (which I'm skeptical of) or these types of edits need to be blocked or watched (I don't think it would be fair to just block his entire account) - as Quantpole stated "If Rama disagrees with the presence of these images, let him do it as any other editor has to". It is a big liability if other editors and admins have to babysit his every administrative action and request reviews. DR04 (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not time to block him (or, and it irks me to say this) remove the bit, as yet. There is process here for a reason. I am currently drafting a user conduct RFC, so we can have clear evidence that we have tried every avenue to get Rama to align his behavior with community standards. Should this not produce desired results, we can move forward with sanctions. --Jayron32 18:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC on this issue has been started here: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Rama

User:InkHeart

I started a sockpuppet investigation for User:66.199.237.22 and User:72.11.138.103, but since the anon has begun removing my comments from an admin's talk page, I thought it would be best to report it here before she can become more disruptive. Anyways, I believe these are sockpuppets of the blocked user InkHeart. She has been blocked indefinitely for creating sockpuppets. These recent ones have pretty much only edited stuff that Inkheart had, and is following the same MO of removing improvement templates and removing comments about her from talk pages. When I reverted the removal of one of the templates, she told me to "f*** off!". Ωphois 12:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

And after I posted this, the anon attempted to remove the report. Ωphois 12:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Started Vandalism-warnings templates @ level 2. All files/targets on my watchlist. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 12:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 1 week for disruptive editing (The IP that is) - no comment on the relation between InkHeart and the IP. Something to note however is that the IP has previously been blocked as a sock of Garydubh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - not sure is that helps. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

User switched to 72.11.138.103 Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 12:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

User switched to 72.11.138.117 Ωphois 12:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This edit suggests that the anon is a meatpuppet of InkHeart. Ωphois 13:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Extremely fast, too :P... reported to AVI Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 13:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the latest sock/meatpuppet and semi-protected File:Gourmet(SBS) Poster.jpg, File:Hero(MBC) Cast.jpg and My Girl (2005 TV series) for a few days. (File:InvincibleLeePyungKang Poster.jpg, too.) --Moonriddengirl 13:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

What is going on with the tagging of edits in the Donal Murray article history?

I added sourced information to the article about Donal Murray and the sex abuse scandal: "and described his actions - or lack of - as "inexcusable". (The reference was given as http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8417507.stm "Irish bishop Donal Murray resigns over abuse report") and see on the history section that next to my edit is "(Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism)". What is going on here? Who has tagged my edit? More importantly - why? It is a perfectly good edit, cited to the BBC website article. Are edits that are critical of Murray being tagged thus? Is it an attempt to stifle valid editing? I resent the tagging and want it removed. 81.156.126.212 (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That's tagged automatically by the software, I think because of the words 'sexual abuse' in there. It's just to highlight that the edit might be a WP:BLP issue. There's no stifling of editing going on, the edits stand. It's just a feature to help combat disruptive editing, which this certainly doesn't appear to be. GedUK  16:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I see tags like that all the time that aren't relevant. If the tag isn't really true, then whoever reviews the edit (if anyone does) will see that. Don't take it as an automatic indictment of what you did, your edit can stand on its own merits. -- Atama頭 19:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible Threat to Former VP

The editor Thmerr posted a possible threat to the former member of government. See . Is this something that needs a follow-up? ttonyb (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

He probably should be blocked for that edit, i'll let other admins weigh in on it. Momo san 19:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like run of the mill vandalism to me, there is no statement like "I am going to shoot Dick Cheney." Blocking on that one edit would be premature, but he is now at the "this is your final warning" level on his talk page, so if he keeps it up, WP:AIV is the place to go with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. If a disturbing/disgusting Facebook poll can get you a visit from the Secret Service, some kind of block for that insinuation should be made. DD2K (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

What would be the point in shooting him now??? Isn't it about 9 years too late? :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Martial arts styles

I see these show up in the recent changes IRC channel every so often (because almost every time they have the string "ryu" in their name which notifies me of their existance). Articles like Shinjuken ryu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Shin Shinkage Ichiden Ryu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Fukui Hyoemon Yoshihira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and users like Tenswords (talk · contribs) and Bushikan (talk · contribs) show up all the time but they are never caught. We need a concerted effort to expunge all these mom and pop martial arts styles from Misplaced Pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I for one distrust anything with "ryu" in its name. (Just kidding.) How would we go about doing something like this? And I agree that there seems to be a disproportionate number of non-notable martial arts-related articles, especially on "styles". I'm a former martial artist, and I know how passionate and even evangelistic some martial artists can be about their chosen art and how they'd want to "spread the word" on Misplaced Pages. -- Atama頭 21:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

For example, go through templates like Template:Navbox koryu and see if there are any pages that have it transcluded but are not in the listings.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for review of my proposal at Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change#Locked

This article has been subject to continual edit warring, disruption, and tendentious editing, as evidenced by the protection log and the archives here. As over-long protection is damaging to the encyclopedia, I have made a fairly draconian proposal at the abovelinked thread. Advice, comments, and help from uninvolved administrators and editors are particularly welcome. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a good move. When a similar situation occurred at Provisional Irish Republican Army, the page was locked and then User:Rd232 hosted a discussion and redraft on a subpage of his, where proposals were debated and discussed with fairly heavy mediation and moderation. The result was much more successful than I would have anticipated, given the rancour that was plaguing the talk page before those measures were taken. Can you see something similar helping in this situation? If you would like to know more about the PIRA situation and how it was resolved, I'm sure Rd232 would be happy to fill you in on the finer points. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion by long-term disruptive IP editor

99.151.169.221 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is repeatedly disrupting Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident and the associated FAQ with rants, accusations, the deletion of content and repeated re-opening of archived discussions (e.g. ), , ) He was previously blocked by Vsmith (talk · contribs) and Toddst1 (talk · contribs) for the same behaviour, first for 24 hours editing from 99.151.166.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), then for a month (later reduced to 72 hours) for block evasion and continuing this behaviour from 99.144.192.74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). His block expired two hours ago and he has resumed exactly the same pattern of behaviour from a different IP. He has already gone past 3RR. He is completely unresponsive to any request to desist. I've been told that the IP is apparently used by a long-term disruptive editor - see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Troubles/Archive for more from the same individual. The IPs all trace to the same small area of Illinois. Some assistance is requested to deal with this serial disruptive editor. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I entered into a civil, reasoned discussion in this section here: It was deleted entirely, then archived off page, then archived on page. In total, my civil contribution was hidden, deleted or disrupted nearly 12 times in total. My comments were well supported, germane and brief. If as I'm told, the subject is still under discussion (as all discussion on Misplaced Pages is open for reconsideration), and the supposed prohibition is found only in a suggested style guideline, then I'll suggest that brief, civil and well referenced discussion is legitimate and welcome. Brutal gagging of views that one does not support through manipulation of discussion, deletion and refactoring does nothing to further the legitimacy of Misplaced Pages. 99.151.169.221 (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You are a long-term disruptive editor who was supposed to have been blocked for three months from the start of November 2009 per Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Troubles/Archive. You're evading your block again. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident has been semi-protected in the past because of problems like this. I'm inclined to semi-protect it again. There's no really efficient way to block someone who has a dynamic IP, short of a rangeblock - and that would probably be overkill, much more disruptive than semi-protection of one talk page, and would probably need a checkuser to scan for potential collateral damage in any case. I'll wait for a few more comments before semi-protecting. MastCell  21:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If you do that, please also semi-protect Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident/FAQ for the same reason. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Stockholm

I'm not sure what's going on in the Stockholm article, but White Nights in Stockholm (talk · contribs) was reverted as a sock of Historian19 (talk · contribs) by Marek69 (talk · contribs). WNiS later reverted Marek69s edit. I don't know anything about the sockmaster so I'm bringing this up here for review. I will inform WNiS of the thread. Mjroots (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know one way or another if this is Historian19, but Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Historian19 may be informative. He's known for maintaining large sockfarms, so if this is him, then someone should likely file a new SPI report to root out more socks, even if we decide this is WP:DUCK enough to block... --Jayron32 21:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

SPI case reopened and checkuser requested. NW (Talk) 21:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Eyes needed at Barack Obama

I'm topic banned (until next week, anyway), but I just spotted these edits while monitoring RecentChanges. They've sat there for a while without being reverted (and there was no prior discussion before their inclusion). Could someone take a look at them please? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverted a few minutes after you posted this, so no action needed. -- Atama頭 21:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Just as a quick follow-up, all the same material that was reverted from the article has now been added to the talk page instead. Obviously the user in question isn't getting it. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You should've just reverted it. It's a case when you'd ignore all rules, as the banning policy, and probably even an AC-applied sanction, are not immune from being ignored for the sake of the encyclopedia. Anyone who would complain over you reverting that, despite your topic ban, is, how the French say, an utter cunt. Sceptre 23:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Well that may be so; nevertheless, I am keen to return to the topic when my ban expires (appropriately on the day of the Winter Solstice), and I have no wish to stir up any trouble. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Diaspora templates

I've had a lot of trouble at Diaspora Templates. I'm trying to make an overview CAT for ethnic diasporas, and sometimes it works. Others, like now, it includes all of the links on a given template in the cat. How can we resolve this permanently? --Dudeman5685 (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC) My problem is with the Category:diaspora templates--Dudeman5685 (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested intervention for edit warring

Can someone please take a look at the revision history of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (US game show) and intervene with the current edit warring going on between Tomballguy and WikiLubber? Sottolacqua (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Both are at 3 reverts on the article. If either goes past 3, report them at WP:AN3 (not here). I've left warnings for both editors, so that they are aware that they have almost breached the limit. -- Atama頭 22:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikilubber reverted again, so I blocked for 31 hours (he had a previous 24h block for an edit war a few months ago). Also, you didn't notify either editor about this notice at ANI, which is mandatory. I've informed Tomballguy, there's little point in informing Wikilubber since he can't comment right now. -- Atama頭 23:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for that disruption earlier; I just got P.O.'ed at my edits being constantly reverted. I shall refrain from this warring...--It's my Junior year in High School! (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Chris

User In Need of Administrator Guidance

I feel that editor 2005 may need some guidance from an Administrator. He/she seems to do a good job of patrolling the poker/gambling articles for spam etc. but has (in my opinion) gotten a bit carried away and is dominating and controlling articles in a way that is counterproductive to Wiki's purpose and to encouraging the involvment of other editors especially new editors with limited experience. It appears that he/she reverts sourced text placed in articles by other editors without discussion. Also, this editor seems to do a lot of reverting rather than discussion and collaboration. For example I see 12 reverts on his/her contribution list, made in just the last 3 days. He/she makes substantive changes to other editors contributions and places an "m" for minor edit in the edit summary box, seemingly to 'hide' what he/she is doing. When approached on his/her User Discussion Page about these issues, this editor is defensive and gruff, and selectively deletes posts from his/her User Page to "clean-up obsolete" entries which contributes to keeping this domination issue 'under the radar'. I think this person is a good editor but is just lacking guidance that would best come from a Wiki authority figure since the editor doesn't seem to have a huge amount of respect for other editors. Can someone help with this situation?-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hiya Kbob! Unfortunately, admins aren't authority figures. But I can try to talk with 2005 anyway. -- Atama頭 23:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Try a talk with Keithbob instead. First he posted a blatant falsehood on my talk page about a minor edit, and when I pointed out that reverting myself on an edit made a few moments before is basically always minor, he then reasserted the same nonsense, and has a third time stated this falsehood here. Now he persists in this drama by suggesting me reverting vandalism is a bad thing, or reverting entries that duplicate material already in an article is bad, and that removing WP:BLP violations is bad. This editor needs to learn that making things up is not a good way to edit, nor is deliberatly causing drama helpful. His particular complaint stems from the Chris Moneymaker article, where he thus far refused to engage in discussion of the guideline-based reasons I made certain edits. Obviously he is unfamiliar with a couple guidelines like BLP, so he needs to educate himself and particpate in article discussions, not start unhelpful personalized drama. 2005 (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no. That's not a falsehood. I've looked over some of your edits, and most of them are simple content disputes that you are communicative about, so I'm not too concerned. (There's no rule in Misplaced Pages that removing sourced content isn't allowed.) But Kbob is correct, you've reverted others' edits and marked those reverts as minor. Your explanation to Kbob was that you mark self-reverts as minor, but this was a revert to an edit Kbob made, not a self-revert. I'm not sure if just you made a mistake, but if so that mistake has been pointed out to you at least twice now and you still deny that you did it. There are other examples of removal of material marked as "minor", such as this and this. Marking such edits as minor is not a good thing. -- Atama頭 00:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time seeing how the caribbean stud poker (which removed an EL that was duplicate information - already used as a ref in the article - which 2005 explained in his edit summary) and the powerball (which removed two spam ELs) edits are problematic if marked minor? Note that 2005 has been engaging KBob at the moneymaker talkpage with detailed explaination. Rather than respond there, Kbob opened this ANI which appears to toss WP:AGF with comments like "selectively deletes posts ... to keep this domination issue 'under the radar'." KBob, if someone removes an item from their own talkpage, it is fine, within policy, not intended as an act of "disrespect", and not a demonstration of anything other than that the person has read it. thanks, --guyzero | talk 00:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The patent edit is minor for sure. I can't imagine why you would assert changing an external link to a reference is not minor! That is exactly the sort of thing the minor thing is there for, to alert other editors that nothing substantial happened. The powerball edits were removing two spam link drops, and yes that is minor too, though not as obvious I suppose. The one edit of Kbob's you mention, that is a different one than the point of contention, and I did mark that as minor. In retrospect I should not have, but rather added a "WP:BLP and WP:WEASEL" note in removing it, but at the same time it plainly merits removal so I suppose I instictively marked it as minor. The one substantial edit I made to that article is not marked minor, and has a cleanup note, which accuraely reflects the removal of duplicate information, etc. In any case, Keithbob should have discussed this for a period of time on the talk page of the article, not started a meritless dramafest. I mostly edit in heavily spammed and vandalized areas, including a lot of BLP articles where vandals driveby and say belittling things about the person, so I revert a lot of spam drops and vandal additions. When other regular editors mark such reversions as minor, I am glad because I know I don't need to take a look. On rare occasions I might mark something that isn't a typo/dupe/vandal/spam edit as minor, but I certainly am not going to change marking genuine minor edits as minor as I want other editors to not waste their time looking at minor edits just like I appreciate it when they mark things as minor too. 2005 (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Kbob asked you to look at WP:MINOR. You have apparently chosen to ignore that. I implore you to do so, because you're marking your edits as minor in a manner that is improper. Not all of your edits marked as minor shouldn't be, but a number are.

Just a note, that's all that I'm suggesting that you're doing wrong. The edits themselves all seem productive, even the ones that Kbob is complaining about. I agree with you that BLP issues need to be handled with more care at Chris Moneymaker, and all of your other changes are improvements to articles. I'm just suggesting that you take it easy a bit with marking your edits as minor. -- Atama頭 02:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Even more help with edit-warring required

I'm really at a loss what to do with two articles (Bulgarisation and Doxato) and especially with a user not allowing for some reason valid tags to be added to the article. I tried to reason with him and explain on the talkpage why the paragraphs in question (pretty much the same in both articles) were one-sided and pretty much POV since they represent only one of the sides (which is clearly not ok when you're dealing with armed conflicts). I also got the support of User:TodorBozhinov on the Doxato article and of User:Ptolion on the Bulgarisation one (see the talk page section: here). Since I got the feeling this is turning into an awful edit-war with me as an active participant I refrain from making any more edits. I do realise, though, that I'm on the verge of breaking 3RR on both of them. This must be one of the lamest edit-wars ever, which makes me maybe one of the lamest edit-warriors ever. The fact is I got accused of vandalism for adding an NPOV tag - it happened twice - see and . This quite frankly means that me and the two other editors in question obviously support vandal actions on the wiki. Nothing annoys me as much. Maybe besides the other things I got on the talkpage of the Bulgarisation article. Thanks for any action you'd decide to undertake. --Laveol 23:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a standard content dispute between Balkan editors. I will look into it and attempt to reach a compromise. --Athenean (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

(, ) I explained many times my position in the discussion that he cannot overtag an article without any explanation on why . In both cases he putted the tags without discussing a word before . Anyway, already both of us agreed to avoid any farther edits before discussing in extend the issue , which makes this report just another unexplained event from his part. --Factuarius (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Louis Hayward

Yesterday I twice requested page protection for the Louis Hayward page given the constant attempts by an anonymous IP unregistered user to insert text alleging Hayward was bisexual, vis a vis a homosexual relationship with Noel Coward. The user cites a publication of Coward's diaries, but provides no specific quote, merely a page number, and that only after my insistence that he provide more evidence. This user has engaged in this kind of behavior at least a dozen times since May. Only the last two times did he/she even bother to provide any source, and the info provided is, in my opinion, insufficient for an encyclopaedia. Admin tedder confirmed to me that the salacious edit is a violation of WP:BLP. As my second request for page protection was apparently denied, please provide at least semi-protection for the Louis Hayward page for now so that I will not have to constantly monitor the page and rv these edits, leading to my possibly being blocked for violating WP:3RR, although tedder informed me that I would be immune from 3RR under these circumstances. Thanks, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Did some research and found that the information being sourced to something that didn't even mention the information supposedly being sourced. I have semi-protected the page for a good long while. NW (Talk) 01:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I notice your reliance on the American version of Google. I prefer the British version.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 01:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

There isn't much difference; it's still the same search engine. -FASTILY 01:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

They give dramatically different results for the same search criteria, however. I know this from experience, when my default browser settings in IE were putting my searches through google.co.uk and I kept getting odd and unhelpful results. (For example, I don't care how many pounds I can buy a plasma TV for in the UK.) -- Atama頭 02:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

When you get to an actual copy of the book though, it doesn't make much of a difference how you got there... NW (Talk) 02:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved – IP blocked 6 months -FASTILY 01:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved – ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 04:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards