Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:42, 21 December 2009

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

Umpteenth edit war in Gibraltar

Entire discussion moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Gibraltar to centralize discussion and to free up space on ANI. MuZemike

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)

But there's a pretty big (and important) distinction between "griefing" and "criticizing". The thread you linked to is not about griefing at all, as anyone who reads it will see. Just because a number of people, be them from the same website or otherwise, are saying things you don't agree with or don't like doesn't automatically mean they're "griefing". Xenomrph (talk) 12:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The number of SPAs who have bombed away at Tryptofish and involved articles (especially Crucifixion in art) says otherwise. tedder (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the threads at the SA forum show Xenomrph discussing with other persons his/her plans to come to Misplaced Pages to dispute at Talk:Something Awful, and others egging him/her on to do so. That doesn't mean that the points made by any of these editors are necessarily wrong. Indeed, just as someone can be a meatpuppet without being an official spokesperson for an outside site, one can also be a meatpuppet while being thoughtful and having a valid criticism to make (although a good many of the editors in this case do not fit that description), and there does not have to be a leader. The point is that the foundational principles of how editing is done at Misplaced Pages break down if editors do not simply come to a particular page as part of the normal "wiki" process, but rather come as part of something organized, and organized in a way that is not transparent here on-wiki. A vivid example: we have a system of RfC for resolving content disagreements, and it usually works pretty well. But if an RfC gets flooded with griefing entries (as happened recently at Talk:Crucifixion), then the RfC process breaks down, to the detriment of the project. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

No one was egging me on, nor did I say it was my plan to dispute over there. I posted there saying I'd already done it after I'd already done it, and that was that. In a thread with over 1100 posts, I've made exactly 7. But like you said, people coming from a particular site doesn't necessarily make their criticisms less valid, so I'd think that just crying out "Meatpuppet!" as some sort of judgment of what people are saying is disingenuous at best. Xenomrph (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is really about much more than just you. But I think I recollect you saying there that you were going to make comments and see what would happen; my apologies if I remember wrong. In any case, that's a small point, as no one is singling you out for scrutiny here in a thread about another user. But it's not "just crying" anything, and it's not "disingenuous". People can make (arguably) valid points, but do so in the course of disruptive editing, and that does not make it any less disruptive. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I call foul! Tryptofish, you have absolutely no problem going back and pulling up links that support your statements and posting them all over every talk page you come across, why can't you do that in this case? Because you're creating a straw-man or a red herring argument? Because you don't want to admit that you were wrong? The forum post still exists. Go find it, it's free!

Although I just started an actual account -I didn't want to be a part of the wiki-community and understood that anybody could edit with or without an account, so there was no point until now- I've been reading and occasionally editing wikipedia for the last five or six years on different IPs (I have changed ISPs six times since 2004, not to mention using my home network vs my School network between 2004 and 2006 and my home network vs my work network since 07. Prior to about the middle of this year, I edited from an ISP in Korea). I am not an SPA, I simply have no desire for notoriety on this site. Suggesting that I am a Single Purpose Account is a violation of WP:NPA and WP:Uncivil.

Personally, I look at people's talk pages and cringe at the flags and baubles that they can collect. If you want to know what's really wrong with Misplaced Pages and why new user numbers are falling off while old users slowly bleed away, it's garbage like this. You're anonymous, but you have a flag that says you have a PhD and you've been published in Peer Reviewed Academic Journals. Aside from the fact that every professor I've ever had has said unequivocally that Misplaced Pages is a waste of time and an invalid resource, I find it incredibly difficult to believe that somebody with a PhD in Neuroscience (!?) has the time and energy to dedicate to so vociferously defending non-science articles. I demand a source, or you (and every other "Anonymous PhD") need to delete that flag on your user page. Having that there to prove your worth or your status as a respected veteran is wrong. It's a blatant fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

Frankly, judging by the 'His Noodly Appendage' and other super-atheist flags of your defenders, as well as comments like the one by Tedder (above) that he thought SA was a religious group, and that new 'Anti-flame' flag you have on your talk page congratulating you on defending against Morality and Religion flames in these crucifixion pages (hint: this wasn't about religious concern or morality issues), if anybody has engaged in canvasing here, it's been you. Additionally, you've violated WP:Civil by waving your hand and dismissing anybody who posts from SA as a meatpuppet, ignoring their points even when they are civil about it. You haven't treated them with due respect because you thought it was a personal attack on your atheism or your anime fandom, I don't know which. Yes, there were SPAs who came in from SA, but they usually came in and said one thing before moving on. There's a pretty clear rule in WP:NPA that says you cannot engage in ad hominem attacks based on affiliation with a group ( http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F ), yet that's exactly what you've done. And on top of that, based on your behavior over the last week, you're actively trying to stir up support against SA among other disinterested members of the board by posting about it anywhere you can, then casting aspersions on the group by pointing out that the general discussion forum is called "General Bull Shit" (with quotes. As opposed to General BS or GBS, as reference to people who just sit around and BS about anything), making a reference to the name Something Awful while providing a link to the wiki page about SA ( http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=332379959 ) instead of the forum itself, and then editing the SA wiki page yourself to include certain negative 'facts' sourced by forum posts outside of SA and articles that you yourself have misquoted to prove a point, all in a campaign to drum up more support against us. That's the very definition of Canvasing and Engaging in Personal Attacks. - Diesel Phantom (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Misquoted sources? No. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

If you feel that way, then why not rise above their disruption and actually respond to their (admittedly) valid points, instead of disregarding it out-of-hand just because you see it as disruptive? Sure they're still not following protocol and being disruptive, but people can be educated on that. They'd also likely be more receptive (and thus be less disruptive) if people showed an inclination to look at *what* they're arguing, instead of fixating on *how* it was argued. I've worked with plenty of disruptive people in "real life" and you can't just ignore problems and hope they'll go away. Xenomrph (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh please, I and other editors have been responding to their points, and we've hardly been ignoring anything. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

That's debatable. Xenomrph (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll settle for three instances where you have directly answered a criticism, without citing WP anything, and not been cutely dismissive. Good work reverting my meager edits, by the way. I guess Pulse 2 & 3 are high water marks in the surrealist genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.165.188 (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You haven't been ignoring, you've been dismissing. You haven't been giving viewpoints that disagree with you due respect in violation of WP:Civil. This isn't a case of the supreme minority of flat earthers demanding inclusion, it has been the majority of people with common sense objecting to the inclusion of a very extreme minority view in otherwise unrelated articles. - Diesel Phantom (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above users. Certainly, there has been incivil conduct against you, but you're using their policy violations as a way to avoid the underlying statements and the problems many users have with your own conduct, Tryptofish. Have you stopped to consider the reasons why so many editors seem to have a problem with your editing?Yzak Jule (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

(moving left, ugh) It's amusing to see Yzak implying an editor has odd behavior. In any case, what's this about me thinking "SA was a religious group"? The issue was not knowing that "SA" referred to some random trollforum, not that I thought somethingawful was religious. tedder (talk) 02:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact, at least one commenter above seems to be making a big deal out of the fact that an uninvolved editor who gave me a barnstar has a Flying Spaghetti Monster-related userbox, and appears to extrapolate from that that I'm part of some sort of anti-religious systemic bias at Misplaced Pages. Also, despite the framing, I have consistently responded very thoroughly and specifically whenever an editor has raised civil complaints about content. If the complaint here is that I'm dismissive of trolls, then guilty as charged. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Amazingly, on this very page, the second thread/topic under SA you said "One point to Sarek for figuring that out. I was thinking it was Christian-based, so that didn't even cross my mind. tedder (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)" Not knowing what Something Awful was, I can forgive, Trypto's posts elsewhere consistantly claimed "Christian/Western Bias in the Crucifixion Article", and that's what I have the problem with. - Diesel Phantom (talk) 07:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

What's not amusing, Tedder, is your continued uncivil behavior towards me. Adminship is not a pass to not follow policy.Yzak Jule (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing you are also implying the following users are uncivil: Elaragirl, SlimVirgin, Fish and karate, Elaragirl (2), Oxymoron83, David Fuchs, Cirt, Edgarde, Slakr, Commander Shepard, L0b0t, Evil saltine, NuclearWarfare, Elen of the Roads. tedder (talk) 04:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on being able to read my talk page history, but no, I'm talking about your consistent snide remarks towards me, both here and on your talk page.Yzak Jule (talk) 04:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's rather telling of tedder's attitude and behavior that whenever I bring up concerns with diffs like this he starts ignoring conversations he has previously been active in.Yzak Jule (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Not that you asked me, but my advice is to drop the stick. Really. You've just done some very helpful editing at Crucifixion, and that's the way to go. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a Something Awful account and I have read that thread. I agree wholeheartedly, from reading this conversation, that I have an 'SPA'. My account has one purpose and one purpose alone: to express my views whenever I feel I want to give them. If that only happens when something is drawn to my attention, that is not my problem. Misplaced Pages is an open encyclopedia and there is no rule which says I need to have a continued presence here in order for my opinion to count, despite the ridiculous sense of entitlement some users appear to have against anyone with the gall to express support for a point of view with origins outside the wikipedia ecosystem. I find the repeated use of the terms 'meatpuppet' and 'meatpuppetry' offensive, if not a blatant attempt to handwave away the views of anyone who disagrees with an editor's strongly held controversial views. Josh04 (talk) 04:15, 20 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)

Before this section gets archived, I want to note for future reference that, as of this time, the user resumed some of the kind of editing that started this section (user's edits of December 16), and has not resumed the constructive edits that were noted during this AN/I discussion. (And editors can assess for themselves the thread about "SA" above.) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Noting, with appreciation: . --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Founder notice

There seems to be some edit warring over whether it's appropriate for users to put Template:Founder on their page. I don't care since it's on another user's page (beyond Jimbo's) but I would like to see community input. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not the userbox - which is frequently used as what I can only supposed is a piss-take. It's the way Yzak Jule reverts all comments to his talk page with a vandalism tag that bothers me. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Modifying another user's user page content without reason is a textbook case of vandalism. Also, the use of this userbox on my page has already been brought up here on ANI before and the decision was made that it's ok. Yzak Jule (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Yzak with respect to the user page (but with the caveat that the choice of material will tend to attract unwelcome attention), but I agree with Elen about user talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't cite vandalism, I cite harassment, which I think is fair when it's you, Elen, or tedder.Yzak Jule (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Request interaction ban on Drolz09

Entire discussion has been moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Drolz09 to centralize discussion and to free up space here. MuZemike

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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayron32 (talk • contribs)

• Why block? He's doing what he's doing with the best of intentions. The fact that most people believe his actions aren't warranted, and are against consensus, suggests to me that his ability to delete images should simply be removed. That lets him continue editing articles, which is the important thing here. Parrot of Doom 12:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Works for me; if this is an example of how he does image patrol, that portion of his administrational duty might better be served by a wind-up toy... HalfShadow 22:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC not going to work?

Going on this comment , I don't know if the RFC is going to help very much... Exxolon (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think it does. The community spells out its concerns, and suggests methods by which the concerns may be alleviated. The subject ignores the communities attempt to resolve the issue. The community comes to a consensus on how to minimise disruption, which an admin enacts (if those buttons are required). LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

An RFC can be helpful later on if this goes to the Arbitration Committee, even if Rama chooses to ignore the results of the RFC. -- Atama頭 23:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

As I noted at the RFC this comment indicates Rama plans to withdraw from image deletion, so I think at this point the RFC is for the most-part moot. He does continue to argue his interpretation, but he has stopped deleting files per it. I think this ANI thread may be marked tentatively "resolved". –xeno 23:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

That's the Wrong Thing. There is no end of un-controversial image admincrap, starting with the linked stuff. And Rama is a Commons admin, so all the "this bot move has been checked" clicking and fixing of broken uploads, and template-fixing and -adding is really something he could do better too. He's a volunteer so he doesn't need to do this, but it would be good for us and for Commons if he did. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Incivility by User:TJ Spyke

• TJ Spyke (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)

I had a discussion on mine and his talk page about an earlier good faith edit which I undid (See here: ), early in the discussion he did hint towards some incivility and I did discuss what I thought the main element of the conversation was before and after his incivility and then he blatantly violated WP:CALM while I was still trying to keep it civil and then he called me an "ASS" before he cracked a Sarah Palin joke which I believe it to have an uncivil meaning, he's had numerous warnings about uncivil behaviour, as well as edit warring which he was recently blocked for if you check his block log , I believe this to be just another case involving some of his immature antics and he obviously hasn't learned from his unblock on September 1, 2007 which reads "User agrees to conditions set out on his talk page and on Misplaced Pages:Community sanction noticeboard. Further disruption to result in an indefinite block", I believe its time for an indefinite block as he's clearly caused more disruption and anymore disruption was supposed to result in an indefinite block. Afro 03:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse indef block - Final civility/edit warring warning was given last month after this ANI thread. He was just blocked for edit warring a few days ago. Enough already. iMatthew  at 03:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree as well sadly. I've had numerous discussions with him about his failure to accept changes, I feel he is just causing a disruption now. I once looked up to him, but now noticing all the problems that have resulted from him, I see he'll never change. I'm not saying I am perfect, but sometimes I even know when to let things go. He obviously goes by his own rules, and most times they just cause more problems than needed.--WillC 04:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Will, I think you are doing this simply because you don't agree with me on many things. TJ Spyke 00:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse/support as well given the block log (17 blocks, including a couple indefs and one block from just a few days ago) and warnings. Such additional comments as "expect by people too lazy to check the capitalization" from today come off as needlessly hostile if not baiting (notice the others oppose there without making the suggestion that those who support are somehow "lazy"). Plus in such recent discussions as this, berating everyone who dares argue to keep with repeated WP:ITSCRUFT (not even policy/guideline based) comments seems a bit too antagonistic as well. Sincerely, --A Nobody 04:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The YouTube comment wasn't aimed at anybody on Misplaced Pages, I was referring to people in the media since often they don't bother to get capitalization for tech stuff right before they print articles (it's annoying reading a article and see the writer constantly write "Ipod", for example). All of my replies in the AFD have been civil, so I don't see what you are trying to do with those. TJ Spyke 00:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Unsubstantiated - Sept 1, 2007 was more than two years ago. The current discussion is heated, but barely passes the noticable level under WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA. It is certainly not disruption. If you have evidence of further personal attacks or disruption or gross incivility please provide diffs of those. We need much much more evidence to justify indef blocking someone who's a longtime contributor. Please don't bring cases unless you have sufficient evidence ready to go... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Further this - the block log is numerous prior to the Sept 2007 indef and then parole. However, since then, he's only had two - 3RR blocks in June and a few days ago in December. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose indef block Per GWH above. I don't see where this rises to the level of indefinite blockage. Yeah, this stuff is a bit incivil, but I don't see where we should hold a 2-year old block against TJ Spyke here. Other than 2 editwar blocks, he seems to have avoided any trouble in the past two years. --Jayron32 05:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, there was the incivility final warning from last month, but he's behaved since then other than these two. Even if this is a violation of that final warning, if that's all that has happened since the final warning then he's really only in line for a 24h block (beginning of the block escalation chain) as he hasn't been blocked for this recently. And it's not clear to me that this is justification for a block at all, even with a final warning a month ago. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

See this shouldn't be entirely about his incivility. There is also his endless edit wars over some important and some trivial things. His refusal to agree to a consensus. Plus his harassment on AFDs, including the current Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of WWE Raw Guest Hosts. Him being blocked 2 years ago is still a problem. No matter what the time frame, this just comes to show he never learned from those many blocks in the pasted. Plus he just being blocked a few days ago and I've already seen that he went straight back to edit warring over list formats after it ended. His incivility was even discussed just a month and 12 days ago. In this archived discussion, plenty of proof is given to show that he has had enough time to stop his incivility. That discussion did not result in a block because he agreed to change his ways. That being so recent, clearly he has not. With all these disruptions present, I don't see a reason to not block him.--WillC 06:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

2 out of 3 admins responding so far seem to disagree with blocking, on the evidence submitted so far. You need to make a better case than this. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me clarify that somewhat. The proposed jump to an immediate indef is definitely clouding this discussion. I believe that given the evidence here, an indef is simply completely inappropriate, and it was inappropriate to ask for one.

The question of whether he's misbehaving to some degree or another, violating the final warning from last month, whether these recent comments are sufficiently uncivil as to be actionable - these are different questions than "should we indef him right now".

Jumping straight from a warning to indef - absent obvious disruption/vandalism only abuse or something stunningly horrible - is moar dramaz pls - not a responsible approach. If you want to make a case that he's done wrong here enough to justify normal blocking - for 24 h, 48 h, whatever - that's a far easier thing to do, and not obviously a mistake under the circumstances.

If someone would like to restart this conversation from that standpoint and argue the case for enough abuse post-final-warning for a short, normal block, then that would be a good next step.

I do not have enough time this evening to conduct a complete examination myself. Some other admin may - or you can provide us more appropriate levels of detail to justify it (to me, Jayron, others).

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The complainer, User:Afkatk (renamed Afro), seems to have lost. Complaining about someone is incivility. We must have accountability. In America, there is no accountability, which is why lawsuits are rampant and causes all kind of trouble. If the consensus is to block TJSpike, then do it. If the consensus is against it, then Afro should be blocked for at least a week to prevent another disruption of drama and nuisance complaints. Only when there is accountability, will drama be reduced. JB50000 (talk) 08:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support blocking User:Afkatk/Afro if the current consensus continues. JB50000 (talk) 08:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

"Complaining about someone is incivility"? Yikes. I'm no fan of our current civility standards, but that's got to be one of the most pernicious statements on civility I've ever seen made outright on-wiki. I see nothing in WP:CIV to support this statement; in fact, it directly contravenes that policy:

From WP:CIV (relevant phrase in bold): To insist that an editor be sanctioned for an isolated, minor offense, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself potentially disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated.

This is the sort of statement that can be used to justify overzealous enforcement of standards not applicable to the given situation, or to skew sanction discussions in directions they weren't ever meant to go. Please, in the light of what WP:CIV actually says, please reconsider this stance. Thanks...GJC 20:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm still undecided on this per the discussion above. However, can TJ Spyke or anyone else explain this? MuZemike 09:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

JB50000, I ask what has Afkatk done wrong? Reporting a user for constant violations of civil, 3RR, etc. If that is such a crime, then everyone in this entire site should be blocked. JB50000, are you not at fault for what you just said. You are complaining over this report. Mind you, this discussion is still in its early stages. MuZemike, it looks to be a discussion over formats. Something TJ has discussion with 4 different editors and edit warred with 5. Yet even after being shown changes has been done with format, he goes ahead and starts up another edit war.--WillC 09:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

People have asked for more evidence, and I can not give that at the moment since I don't know where anymore is, though I am sure it exists. I would rather TJ not be blocked out of the kindness of my heart, however, his constant disruptions have turned my hand. I would like for more users who know TJ to get involved in this discussion. Would anyone mind if I was to contact WP:PW, the project which is primarily participates, about this discussion, to allow more users to give their opinion?--WillC 10:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

WillC, look at that diff more closely. You may have missed something in there which was why I brought that diff up. MuZemike 17:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Other than a few insults, all I see is a format discussion. Not sure what exactly you are referring to though.--WillC 18:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

"ASSumming"? MuZemike 20:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• TJ Spyke has quite a history of problematic behaviour but does seem to have been better lately. Given the history a block is probably warranted, and I would have trouble knowing when to expire such a block given past history, but it's surely not time for the banhammer here. I'd say we need to talk to TJ Spyke and find out why this particular issue has caused such a problem. I've suggested to Afro that xe seek a mediator as the present debate does not seem to be heading anywhere good. The root is what looks like a good faith content dispute so I don't see any reason why mediation can't fix it. Guy (Help!) 11:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Since the unblock in 2007, there have been quite a few incidents, including at least one admin board interest per month this season:
  • October 2009: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive569#TJ_Spyke and Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#User:TJ_Spyke_using_wikicleaner_to_bypass_redirects_contrary_to_WP:R2D
  • November 2009: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive576#Incivilty_from_TJ_Spyke
  • December 2009: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:TJ_Spyke_reported_by_User:Afkatk_.28Result:24_hours_.29 and of course this current thread
• Sincerely, --A Nobody 16:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment about TJ Spyke's block log. Most of the blocks were placed by Alkivar, who was desysopped in an arbitration case with his behavior towards TJ Spyke a significant part of why he was desysopped. So perhaps it would be prudent to take all the blocks Alkivar instated against TJ with a grain of salt. 96.244.150.95 (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse. Per above. If this disruptive behavior isn't going to stop, then the user should be blocked. -FASTILY 20:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Ordinarily I'd agree but here we see a long-standing pattern of problem behaviour, a significant period of evident reform, and then what looks like a slide towards recidivism. I think we should try some kind of parole first before we simply give up on the guy. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because he wasn't banned for two years doesn't mean he was reformed. There has been at least 4 ANI discussions about him (besides the ones linked above) just in the past few months. here are several just from October. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Is there a reason no one bothered to inform me of this discussion so I could defend myself? First, to the first user: I was not trying to b uncivil and I apologize if they thought I was (I don't think I was). I asked him why he was assuming he knew my thought on something and I jokingly asked him if he knew what happens when you assume (the old adage that "when you assume, you make an ass out of u and me"); I wasn't trying to be rude. The Sarah Palin thing wasn't incivil and came after I had to ask him something 3 times before he answered (referring to how Palin always tries to avoid answering questions and instead comments on something unrelated). As for Will's comment about refusing to accept consensus, I stopped doing the activities mentioned in that report. As for my block log, thanks to the IP for pointing that out; the admin who was responsible for most of them (including the indef block) eventually got de-sysopped for his actions torwards me and others. TJ Spyke 00:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Because User talk:TJ Spyke#ANI Notice, wasn't notice enough? and the Sarah Palin crack really wasn't necessary, I still gave you the answer you requested and you responded by being uncivil and cracking an unnecessary joke. Afro 00:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Indef block Per GWH and above. The links provided show somewhat heated disputes, but nothing that rises to the level of indefinite blockage. 00:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

BjörnBergman

(moved from Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism)

• BjörnBergman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is the same as 213.65.211.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), says (here on wikipedia in english) that he will start vandalizing other users discussionpages if he isn't unblocked from wikipedia in swedish. His account and his IP have both been blocked on wikipedia in swedish. The warnings and threats are in Swedish, and thus might be harder for you to follow. He has also attacked several admins on Swedish wikipedia on the discussion pages here. GameOn (talk) 12:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

BjörnBergman

The user user:BjörnBergman have been blocked on swedish wikipedia, for using a really bad language in discussions and some other things. After he were blocked his language got even worse, and he swore at us. After removing his ability to edit his own discussionpage he tried to contact us using english wikipedia. Please, block him until 22/12. (Thats when he can edit swedish wikipedia again) Contributions on Swe wikipedia. Evalowyn (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: Didnt notice the request above, merging them.. Evalowyn (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

If he's going cross-wiki threatening vandalism, then I see an indef in his future. -Jeremy 21:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I love it when they make it easy. Will actively monitor user. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I ran his talk page through Google translate and I don't see the threat to vandalize here, just a lot of conversation that belongs at the Swedish Misplaced Pages and has nothing at all to do with the English wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The threats are on other (svwp) admins talk pages here on enwp. I suggest that you do nothing for the time being, in a few days his block on svwp will be either lifted or changed to a permanent one. Someone, perhaps not me or Evalowyn (who's an admin at svwp) will get back to you if we need assistance here. Merry Christmas to you! GameOn (talk) 17:40, 20 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)

Is your objection to the suggestion that they participate in the Jewish Defense League, or to calling the JDL an "FBI-designated terrorist group"? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, is anybody reading this? Debresser (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

When you start off Talk:Cave_of_the_Patriarchs_massacre#Mediation with (and I'll quote) "all edits by User:Zero are POV down to their minutest details", most admins are going to ignore both of you (or block both of you). You can decide which way I should go. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I've collapsed the mediation section as it's just a poisoned well and nothing good can come from it. There's plenty of conduct that's not productive but I'm not interested in playing the who was the first to be uncivil game. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you seriously mean to say that you put saying that an editor has a POV on one level with saying that he is racist and participates in an FBI-designated terrorist group? Debresser (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Jojhutton

In early December, User:Jojhutton began removing "United States" (both the link and the text) from articles, primarily geographical articles about cities, townships, et cetera, but also from biographical and other articles. He was quickly questioned about this on his talk page, and in the ensuing discussions he often cited WP:PLACE, sometimes referring to WP:PLACE#United States. He was informed again and again that this guideline is about naming conventions, and that nowhere in that guideline (or any other policy or guideline that has been identified so far) is there a call for the removal of "United States" from the infoboxes or bodies of articles. The principle stated by many opposing editors (including myself) has been that in an international encyclopedia, articles about people and things in the United States should not assume that the reader knows which country is involved, but should specify the country consistently. However, he has doggedly continued to remove this information from articles (albeit a small number of articles thus far), even after a public discussion at the Village pump. His practice, when questioned about this on his talk page, has been to archive discussions using the "hat" template, so as to "close" the discussions, thus indicating that he is not willing to discuss any further. So far, it appears that at least 11 editors have questioned him on this on his talk page since December 7, and that no one has supported him; additional editors disagreed with him in the village pump discussion. This seems to have had no effect, as the edits continue through today, December 19. He is a well-established editor, and I believe his edits are typically of good quality. It's just that with this particular issue, he believes that various (non-Misplaced Pages) manuals of style tell him to remove the country, and he seems determined to do so in spite of opposition from many other editors, lack of support from any other editors, and the lack of supporting Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines that anyone can find; so far he has not cited any that stand up under scrutiny. What makes it worse is that in these discussions he has had a tendency to accuse other editors of wikilawyering, gaming the system, stalking, et cetera and using sarcasm and insults; and he resorts to these devices very quickly. He accused one editor of stalking after a single isolated revert. I have repeatedly asked him to discuss this and have remained civil throughout; but I'm not sure what else to do, so I am mentioning it here. Thanks. Omnedon (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Relevant related discussions:

• in this ANI archive about Jojhutton
• this long section in Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)
• talk:MOS

Toddst1 (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a content dispute that has sparked a minor amount of edit warring and incivility. Forgive me if I'm a little bit green on this particular issue, but as a style / content matter there seems to be no absolute rule or overwhelming consensus to include "United States" in place names within an article and in infoboxes, when the lede has already clearly established that the setting is the United States. Sure there are strong arguments on both sides. The proponents claim it is America-centrism and disrespectful of non-American readers to assume they know something is in America, or to have different rules for American place names that seem to assert that the United States is some kind of default location when the country is unnamed. The opponents claim that articles should be written for clarity, not to encourage equality among nations, and everybody knows which country we're talking about when we say that someplace is a city in California. The outcome of those discussions isn't really relevant. You can't legislate consensus from a guideline page. What's relevant is that consensus is not so clear that choosing one versus the other is anything other than a content choice. Like a lot of style choices (American versus British spelling, punctuation inside versus outside the quotes, citation styles) deference should be paid to status quo, the opinions of regular editors on an article, and consistency among related articles or within a project. Making mass changes or mass reverts just to enforce your favored version is disruptive and can lead to lots of wikidrama. So best not to do this on either side, just stick to the articles you enjoy editing. I sympathize with Jojhutton's frustration, but calling it "stalking" is unduly inflamatory. Technically it is not stalking. Stalking is when you follow someone from one article to another to pursue a grudge. By contrast, noticing one bad edit, then checking up on the editor's other recent activity to see if it's a pattern, is only good wikignoming. The problem here is that Jojhutton's edits are not clearly wrong, so reverting them en masse is provocative. If someone really wants to add, or remove, or link or delink, the country name "United States" from a bunch of article bodies and infoboxes, they need to get a strong prior consensus not only that this is the correct way to go style-wise, but that the mass edits are a good idea. Best to get approval for a semi-automated bot or the like. But this is such a tiny issue. The two editors have been reverting each other to 1RR or maybe 2 on perhaps five or six articles in the past few days. Administrative mediation could be useful, but I don't see anything warranting sanctions here. Just my opinion. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It began as a content dispute, and content is still at the heart of it, but the issue now seems to be a refusal by User:Jojhutton to accept that every time he makes an edit to remove "U.S", someone disputes it. Not always the same editor, so it's not a simple matter of two editors disagreeing. The issue as I see it, is that User:Jojhutton has an opinion that the United States is redundant when discussing a place name for a United States town or city and his contention is that it should be presented as "City/State". He's entitled to his opinion, but his opinion should not and does not carry any more weight than that of any other editor. It has moved from a content dispute because, he has used WP:Place#United States as justification for removal, and although every editor who has commented has said either strongly or weakly that he is misinterpreting that part of the guideline he has dug in his heels, told everyone they are wrong, and has continued to use it as justification. You say, "The problem here is that Jojhutton's edits are not clearly wrong, so reverting them en masse is provocative." I would say that Jojhutton's edits in the face of opposition, and without anything resembling consensus is more provocative. I've been concerned mainly with the use in the infobox, rather than the article body. I've pointed out to him that several infobox instructions explicitly state to use the "City/State/Country" format, with no exception made for "U.S." and I've also given numerous examples of WP:FAs that use this format. I've also pointed out that consensus is not always achieved by a formal discussion, and often consensus is indicated by the fact that something exists, is used commonly over time over a wide area, and has remained without opposition, which is the case for at least the infobox component of this disagreement. His response has been to say that it's very interesting but still completely wrong. Clearly there is some kind of consensus in place to say that the use is at least "acceptable" given that it's used widely, and even in featured articles that have been more closely scrutinised than many articles. He does not need to accept that it is a preferred style, because nobody is suggesting that, but he does need to accept that there is nothing to say it's incorrect, and that editors who choose this style are not wrong. I'm disturbed that he reacts to some editors as "stalkers". That's particularly hostile, and in the case of User talk:Omnedon and you need only look at this user's page to see that editing American geographical articles is a primary interest. I was concerned with this edit at Marilyn Monroe which removed "U.S." from the infobox and added sources with the edit summary "removing original research and adding a ref to support current version" Having "U.S" in the infobox is not original research. This suggests that User:Jojhutton is either unfamiliar with or is misinterpreting what is meant by "original research" or is providing a deliberately misleading edit summary. Neither is acceptable. "United States" was first added to Marilyn Monroe's infobox when the infobox was included with this edit in April 2006. (Admittedly as "Los Angeles, United States" which is not correct either). Since April 2006 this has not been a contentious point, and it is only a contentious point now because one editor has decided it's not appropriate. I believe that due to widespread use, support by infobox template instructions, and the fact the some of Misplaced Pages's best articles use the country name in the infobox, there is a consensus to say that it is acceptable, and anyone wanting to add this to the infobox should not feel hindered - but there is no such evidence to support the removal. It is currently, as you say, an issue primarily between two editors, and a small issue, but when User:Jojhutton first started this about a week ago, he got a response from several editors who seem to have moved on now that he is not making such widespread edits. I would have too, if not for the Marilyn Monroe edit which shows that he has not accepted the other viewpoint, and has put the change through with a dodgy edit summary. I would hope that is the last time that happens. Rossrs (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it seems not such a big deal to people who have memorized the names of the US states, their postal abbreviation, etc. and who speak English as a first language. Leaving out "United States" (and it has been removed from the lede in some instances) is not a tiny thing: it encourages confusion and can mislead. Believe it or not, not everyone outside the US knows what an Arizona is or that AZ is its postal abbreviation. Some will think AZ means Azerbaijan, CA Canada, and KY Kenya. Without the country name somewhere obvious, we run the risk of misleading international users. I don't think that's encyclopedic. --NellieBly (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that there are those who do not understand that New Mexico is part of the US and not Mexico. MarnetteD | Talk 23:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

There would be a not-small number of Americans who don't know that either. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

This being an English encyclopedia, most people who have learned the language know that California is in the United States. Those who have not can probably figure it out from the first sentence of the lede if the article is written properly, e.g. "City National Bank is an American financial institution headquartered in Los Angeles, California", not "City National Bank is an American financial institution headquartered in Los Angeles, California, US". Anyway, I agree that the arguments are strong on both sides but not unanimous, which makes an isolated edit on the subject a matter of editor discretion, not behavior. If consensus is clear in a particular area (say, articles about airports, or an infobox, where counter to my earlier statement, a small group of editors maintaining that particular template or family of templates can establish consensus for how the location fields are to be used) and an editor violates that after objections, it could cross the line into tendentious editing. Also, edit warring is bad, making accusations in edit summaries is bad, and doing mass bold edits over others' oposition outside of one's normal editing space is bad. Is he on some kind of campaign, or does this just affect articles he's actively editing? If he's minding his own business on a small number of articles and other editors are ganging up on him outside of their normal editing range, that does approach some kind of hounding. I'm reminded of the geocoding fights and date delinking, kind of funny that people get so passionate about the details. It's like, war of the wikignomes! - Wikidemon (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I must point out that I came into this situation after several other editors had already taken issue with Jojhutton's practice of removing "United States" from articles. Those discussions have since been moved into an archive; they started here on 7 December. There were four such discussions which took place (three of which were "archived" with the "hat" template) before I even became aware of the situation. I became involved when some articles on my watchlist were similarly edited some days later; these are articles which I've been involved with in the past and which I watch. Among these were articles for several (but for some reason, not all) townships in Marion County, Indiana, as well as articles for several Indiana towns. For example, here he removed "United States" from Decatur Township, Marion County, Indiana. Because of these edits, I calmly questioned the practice on his talk page like many before me, and was quickly accused of wikilawyering and gaming the system. However, I have not engaged in edit warring with him.

So, this is not simply a content dispute between two editors. Rather, it is part of an ongoing pattern in which at least 10 editors (not including myself) have questioned the practice on his talk page over the last couple of weeks and have been met with the same answers over and over without any resolution or progress at all. The practice itself is not the core issue here; rather, it is the way this particular editor is dealing with the situation. The validity of the reasons he cites has been questioned again and again, but though he has altered his edit summaries, the edits themselves have continued in the same manner throughout the various discussions (albeit on the same small scale as before). Given that everyone involved in the discussions on his talk page has disagreed with him, his determination to continue, combined with his tendency toward sarcasm and accusation and his unwillingness to have discussions, shows clear disregard for any kind of consensus-building. Basically, he seems not to be interested in anyone else's opinions. Consensus is a frequently-discussed concept on Misplaced Pages, of course, and its application and methods of development are sometimes vexed questions; personally, I think it's easier to define what consensus is not rather than what it is, and it is certainly not ignoring the well-founded objections of a dozen other editors and pushing on regardless with a dismissive attitude. Omnedon (talk) 05:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"Dismissive" is one way to describe it, but given the accusatory and ridiculing tone in some of Jojhutton's comments, "dismissive" is probably the most tactful way of describing his approach. His frustration is duly noted. I also note the frustration of those that have attempted to discuss this with him. Regarding the earlier comment : "If consensus is clear in a particular area (say, articles about airports, or an infobox, where counter to my earlier statement, a small group of editors maintaining that particular template or family of templates can establish consensus for how the location fields are to be used) and an editor violates that after objections, it could cross the line into tendentious editing." That was exactly what he was doing with some of the actor related infoboxes despite the fact the the infobox itself, supported by WP:ACTOR says that for birth and death place the format is city,state,country. Jojhutton removes and reverts against this consensus and the clearly expressed opposition of several editors - this is a behavioural issue which stems from a content/style issue. If Jojhutton can accept that there is a community based consensus to allow the use of country as acceptable -not preferred, not mandatory, not standard - just acceptable, there won't be a problem. If he can also accept that removing against the objections of other editors is unacceptable, again there will be no problem. That's what we've been trying and failing to achieve over the last week or so. I believe Jojhutton has the best interests of Misplaced Pages at heart, but I'm not as confident as he seems to be that he has all the answers on this topic. Rossrs (talk) 06:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Since the discussion started here on ANI just yesterday, Jojhutton has continued his practice by removing "United States" from more than 20 articles about places in California, once again citing WP:PLACE#United States in the edit summary. That guideline has been shown again and again to have no bearing whatsoever on what he is doing. He has been questioned repeatedly by many editors on that, yet he is clearly determined to continue anyway. He is continuing to operate against the clearly-voiced objections of many editors. Omnedon (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to say I share the concerns of Omnedon, Rossrs, Cptnono, Cybercobra, and the various other editors who've been trying to grapple with this problem recently. A couple days back I politely suggested on Jojhutton's talk page that he should refrain from carrying on with these edits, given that it's clearly provoking concern from many editors, none of whom seem to support his campaign. Unfortunately, he seems intent on ignoring these concerns and just doing his own thing.

As others have already pointed out, Jojhutton cites the Place policy when making these cuts, but the policy has been shown to have no bearing on what he's doing. Alternately, he references in discussions and on his talk page "every English language manual of style" as the basis for his activity. Manuals like the APA or MLA handbooks are certainly fine resources, but a) I see nothing in my own copy of the MLA Handbook that addresses this (and he doesn't cite any specific sections/pages, despite my request), and b) such handbooks don't control Misplaced Pages content anyway.

Various editors' voicing their concerns has so far had no effect. Attempts to engage Jojhutton in debate haven't been fruitful, and reverting the cuts simply prompts him to quickly put the cuts back (often with accusations that the editor is "stalking"), resulting in 3RR violations and edit wars, for which he's already been warned. Guidance from administrators on this would certainly be appreciated! Huwmanbeing ☀★ 20:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I love how people are always claiming Americans are geographically ignorant, but won't allow the removal of "US" from place names on the grounds that people outside of the US don't know where American cities are located. They attack Americans for wanting to label things like Paris, France as proof of American ignorance, but won't allow the removal of the country name from Paris, Texas, USA (for example) on the grounds that nobody outside of the US could possibly know that Texas is in the US. Woogee (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion request

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

Not sure where to post this but i'll put it here. This edit should be deleted because it gives instructions on how to hack paypal. The user is already blocked but it should be removed from public view. Thanks. Momo san 20:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not delete yet, I'm reporting this to Paypal, who will need to be able to see the diff. Mjroots (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, they should be aware of this. Also when a DIFF is removed from the public view, only administrators can still see it and no one else. But yeah I would wait to delete it since Paypal needs to see it. Momo san 21:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I've sent Paypal a full copy of the text, and have it saved in a Word document too in case there is any problem with the e-mail I sent them. It can be oversighted now. Mjroots (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Bah. It's a scam. Stop worrying. The described method will not work. It will, though, compromise your PayPal and email password. Aditya Ex Machina 21:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I can explain why it won't work if required. There's nothing PayPal can do about this. Aditya Ex Machina 21:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realise it was a scam, but either way it should be removed to prevent people from being a victim of the scam. Momo san 21:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was probably a scam, which is why I've informed Paypal. If they are not aware of the scam they can't act on it, can they? Mjroots (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

PayPal can't act on it. Gmail can, however. Though if the diff get's oversighted then we have no proof. Either way, it's not a big issue. Aditya Ex Machina 21:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Gmail will be able to get details through Misplaced Pages if necessary if the diff gets oversighted. Mjroots (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Aditya has this right. Basically the instructions tell you to send your PayPal login and password to a gmail account. Google could disable that account if they find it's being used for fraud. ReverendWayne (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The diff has now been oversighted. Mjroots (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it's a caching issue or what, but when I go to the link while logged out I can still see the diff. -- 128.205.47.7 (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It is your cache, go into your browser options and clear your cache out, then the problem will go away. Momo san 22:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by AJS2050 at Talk:List of best-selling music artists

The user inflates the estimated sales figure for Eminem ignoring both the provided source as well as my explanation on the sales figures that I have provided for Eminem's albums respectively at Talk:List of best-selling music artists. In addition, AJS2050 has been removing the part of my explanation (1st removal, 2nd removal) from the discussion where I provided my explanation based on reliable sources as to why Eminem's worldwide sales cannot be 112 million as it is believed by AJS2050. I have asked AJS2050 on two different occasions both at Talk:List of best-selling music artists and his talk page not to remove other editors' comments whereas his response at his talk was this. And today, the user removed the entire discussion immediately after which he went ahead and inflated the estimated sales figure from 80 million to 84 million. It seems to me, unless this user is blocked for a period of some time, he/she will not stop vandalizing regardless of how many times editors warn him.--Harout72 (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I should address this myself, but I want to note that I've encountered this user at List of best-selling music artists in the United States, which I monitor for disruption following a letter to OTRS (Ticket:2009052110008347) that brought home to me what a POV magnet it is. I have also warned him about refactoring talk pages, on December 2, which he obviously read, because he removed it. He knows better. Combined with his changing sourced material inconsistent with that source, it seems to me that we do have some disruption going on. --Moonriddengirl 12:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request (The Pimp Hand)

• The Pimp Hand (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Drolz09

Just wondering if somebody could take a look at The Pimp Hand's indefinite block.

. By all indicators this editor was blocked for nothing but suspicions. He was blocked for "abuse of editing privileges" and for being an "apparent sock puppet". I can find nothing inappropriate from this user not even one 3RR. He even used the talk page on WP:LOC, that shows some good faith. Perhaps mentorship from an experienced user could help. but I think this user may have been judged to harshly given he was listed as a possible sock of userDrolz09. --172.163.33.223 (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The user, and that user only must email arbcom: arbcom-l-at-lists.wikimedia.org to appeal his indefinite block, it was indicated on his talk page. Please read WP:BSAC. Momo san 01:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry was confirmed by a checkuser jpgordon. It would be hard to argue against that. Everyone on BASC is a checkuser, so they would be in a position to confirm or refute jpgordon's conclusions. However, I've never heard of his conclusions being questioned in matters like this. --Jayron32 01:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: I didn't confirm sockpuppetry; I said, "Checkuser evidence shows you are employing methods to evade scrutiny; this in itself is sufficient to sustain the block, as there are no reasons to use such methods that are to the benefit of Misplaced Pages." I'd consider all the evidence, including mine, behavioral. --jpgordon 03:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

as an aside, I may need to invoke WP:PLAXICO on the OP. How does a new IP user suddenly find a blocked user's talk page with no prior evidence of contact?--Jayron32 01:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh please.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Should this user ever be unblocked, the question of the inappropriate username should be addressed prior to unblocking. Names like "rapist", "pimp", "thug", and whatnot really aren't in keeping with our mission. --TS 02:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"Pimp" hardly has the same meaning these days as it did a couple of decades ago. I don't find the username inappropriate. Throwaway85 (talk)

You might want to check out pimp and wikt:pimp. It might have a tangential meaning in popular culture derived from the usual meaning, but it very definitely does still have the original primary meaning as well. Guy (Help!) 10:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, but calling yourself "gangster" or "thief" or "criminal" or what have you isn't outlawed. It's not blatantly offensive, and I can see a lot more innocent interpretations than sinister or offensive ones. The editor in question has plenty of problems at the moment, and their name is the least of them. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD circus

Perhaps I've been out of touch with software AfDs for too long, but Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/QutIM (3rd nomination) is exceeding my memories of ridiculous WP:SPA activity. Pcap ping 03:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I may be also out of touch with gross disruption/clear off-wiki canvassing on AFDs, I don't think semi-protecting the AFD for its duration would be unreasonable. (I haven't seen that happen in a while; I won't do it if it will being a lot of heat within the community.) Thoughts? MuZemike 03:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I've only seen that done a very small number of times. After all, AFD is NOTVOTE and the SPAs can be discounted. So if you protect it, move the SPAs together, mark them all SPAs, or sign up to figure out WTH the actual consensus is. tedder (talk) 03:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

One of the IPs has basically admitted there is meatpuppetry going on. I think a semi-protect would be useful, as it seems obvious they are just going to keep at it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Semi'd, 5 days. -Jeremy 06:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

User:PCHS-NJROTC has unilaterally declared another user to be "banned"

User:PCHS-NJROTC seems to have a particular interest in what they refer to as "cheerleader vandals". They have seem to have decided that there is a ring of "cheerleader vandals" who spread their message via secret "chain letters". PCHS-NJROTC has recently added a banned user template to User:LBHS Cheerleader, the account which they seem to believe is the ringleader, despite having only 11 edits. The edit summary was "Has been banned for a while, ought to be tagged". LBHS Cheerleader does indeed appear on the list of banned users, because PCHS-NJROTC added them.

When I asked PCHS-NJROTC about this, their responses were somewhat evasive. Apparently there was no community discussion of a ban nor any decision to ban this user. I am concerned that a user has been improperly labeled as "banned", based on the somewhat dubious decree of a single editor. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries, it's already been settled. Not officially banned, taken off the banned list, template removed, issue resolved. PCHS-NJROTC 04:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Just be to clear, LBHS is indef banned: 19:18, 28 January 2008 Philippe (talk | contribs | block) blocked LBHS Cheerleader (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Vandalism-only account). — Huntster (t @ c) 04:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you perhaps mean to write "blocked"? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

No, seriously, I'd not letting a troll win this by convincing a user that I am "power hungry," so unless admins here seriously think there's a need for an "official ban," let this one drop as simple vandalism for my sake. The vandals will be blocked one way or another anyway unless they behave and contructively contribute, in which case there's no reason to hold their past against them in my opinion. I feel as if the general community has been very supportive of my efforts to fight this particular vandal, but I'm done with them entirely. This is not worth my good name. PCHS-NJROTC 04:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood why I brought this here. You declared a user to be banned when they weren't and then you dissembled when asked about it. Apparently there were other accounts affected by this, based on your actions since this thread started. Edits like this are not appropriate even if you suspect someone of being a vandal. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I quit, since you're going to try to persue action over something I was never warned about, and occured when I was practically a newbie, after I chose not to run checkuser on your account. Bye Misplaced Pages. PCHS-NJROTC 04:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

One person complains about you, no one else backs him up, and you quit within 4 messages? Wow. --Golbez (talk) 04:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I quit because this is not the first time I've been sanctioned over this kind of mess. I realize I am imperfect, and I tried to handle this within reason, but I will not be sanctioned because of a troll, which is why DC is being so... unreasonable? This was not over 4 messages. I hope this point is heard loud and clear. PCHS-NJROTC 04:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If I may butt in where it is really none of my business, I don't feel that Delicious carbuncle is being at all unreasonable. In fact he could of been much more direct in his communication, and told you quite plainly that you are way out of line putting banned messages on any pages. Beach drifter (talk) 06:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Indef blocks where no admin is willing to unblock is pretty much a ban. Since the vandal keeps coming back under new accounts, we're tossing the socks as we find them. PCHS-NJROTC is familiar with the long term abuse and for ease of processing, tags the account(s) as banned. Not seeing the problem here. Shell 04:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at this SPI case. Absent the bogeyman of "cheerleader vandals" why did User:Jess Selders 2012 get indef blocked? A 2 minute Google search show that there is a Jessica Selders at Charlotte High. Let's not get into this bans are just blocks etc bullshit. PCHS-NJROTC is quickly undoing all of their edits relating to this "ban", so I think they see the problem. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It's over DC. Someone block my account at my request please, that way this discussion can just be closed and forgotten. I feel I have seriously wasted my time with certain elements of this project. For the record, just because Jessica Selders is a real person doesn't mean she has the right to edit. Are you trying to say that LBHS Cheerleader is a robot? Seriously... PCHS-NJROTC 05:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

As my last request, I would like a full blown sockpuppet investigation on DC; I think more than ever now that he is the same as the Cricket IP user troll. PCHS-NJROTC 05:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you've made my point for me. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe they're undoing it because you've continued to push the issue despite it being clear that PCHS-NJROTC really isn't doing anything but defending the 'pedia from rather long term abuse. PCHS hasn't blocked any of these accounts and has used appropriate channels. Laying this on one editor's doorstep with some rather nasty accusations and hyperbole might just be the real problem here. BTW editors interested in playing around rather than contributing have been known to use real names before, even one's that aren't their own (shocking, isn't it) - that's hardly an indication of good will given the contributions of that account. Shell 05:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. What if Jessica Selders wasn't even responsible for that, and she got into some real life "crap" over it all? Wouldn't that just be special? I reverted everything to sastisfy you, which was evidently a waste. No, undoing everything like that right now in order to "hide" something would be stupid, and I sincerely hope you don't really see me as that ignorant. You're probably going to be nailed for AGF among other things. You have this entirely backwards, and you're just mad that I made a big deal about the name issue. Bye. PCHS-NJROTC 05:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I lied that I'm done with this entirely; I'm going to, with approval of the community, try to find that person on Myspace or Facebook and personally and calmly, politely ask her if she was responsible (and may I add she most likely was not), and if not, I personally feel the username needs to be changed and her edits be oversighted. Of course, that will be my last contributions to this project, although I'm having second thoughts if the community isn't going to unreasonable as DC has. But only if. PCHS-NJROTC 05:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

In short, I realize it looks kind of silly that I'm leaving this over one person. It's not that I can't handle it, it's not that it's just this, it's that I need a break from the drama. I realize I have a lot of support here, and probably some opposition too. Fact is, I know just being the subject of a report here hurts one's reputation no matter how outlandish (unless it's blatant abuse, where it gets reverted immediately), and I feel it's time to seriously take a Wikibreak or even retire to cool down this stigma that has been brought upon me. PCHS-NJROTC 05:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, don't worry about it, anyone who doesn't take the time to look and see what happened doesn't matter. See you later. Sephiroth storm (talk) 05:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed the retirement templates so that the IP troll won't see "victory" and try it with other users. Bascially, I have to continue to contribute now just so the troll don't get his wish. DC wouldn't even satisfy with that anyway. I restored the entry at LTA because it appears consenus that consenus has been in my favor here. But I'm done fighting LBHS Cheerleader. I never lost my cool or anything; I only wanted to settle the dispute. See, when it comes to legitimate users, I prefer to settle issues without getting into a lot of heat. Sigh, guess I'd never pass an RfA, but who needs RfA anyway? Darn, all of this to try to stop baseing everything on a possible link to another banned user, what a misunderstanding this has been. PCHS-NJROTC 06:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Dude. When you start talking in terms of "you" and "them" and using words like "victory", you are getting trolled. Just relax, move on to an area where you aren't emotionally involved and come back in a week's time. It is not important to win. Look at it this way. Your "opponent" has nearly limitless time, resources and entry points. Attempting to resolve the issue through provocative edit notices, formal bans and direct engagement is a fool's errand. The only course of action which will avail you is to drain the emotion out of the issue, limit the time and extent of the impact on mainspace and wait for them to grow bored. No one is served by your flaring up. Protonk (talk) 07:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Restarting serious discussion

There is a real issue here seems to have been lost under a torrent of emotional outbursts. An editor who had made a total of 11 edits (assuming there are no deleted edits) was indef blocked for what is very run-of-the-mill vandalism. That isn't abnormal. Having a single editor -- who seems to be on some kind of crusade relating to the high school which they attend -- decide that they are banned, is abnormal. The "a ban is just a block that no one is willing to lift" argument is a false equivalency, since we don't add all blocked accounts to a page which states "Banning is different from blocking".

From what I have seen of the "cheerleader vandal" threat, it is nothing more or less than simple vandalism and it is unproductive to elevate it to anything more. It seems likely to me that IPs and accounts have been blocked on spurious grounds because PCHS-NJROTC has associated them with this bogeyman. Certainly labeling users such as User:Random Chick236 as "banned" when they are not even blocked is wholly inappropriate (as is the edit summary "Give up kid, you're not funny. Try being contructive for a change"). Can we deal with the issue (unilateral declarations of bans by a single, overly-involved user) now, please? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

A user who has edits that solely consist of blanking articles on various high schools and replacing them with a message that praises his/her own school and does so consistently and with several possible alternate accounts after the original is blocked seems to be an indefinite block candidate to me, especially when subsequent sockpuppet accounts deliberately vandalize and attempt delete articles on rival schools. Whether it is right or wrong to label a de facto banned user as banned is besides the point.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Without having confirmed it, I suspect that PCHS-NJROTC personally identified most of those as sockpuppets, just as they decided that certain users were "banned". Take a look at User:Monsterbob234. PCHS-NJROTC added the sockpuppet template and "Hello to you to, here's my welcome wagon unwelcome wagon:" and the edit summary "Go to hell pollywog". The user appears to have made exactly one edit that is at all related to cheerleading. Please don't misunderstand, I'm not suggesting that this particular usage should be unblocked since they appear to be a vandalism only account, but I doubt they are a sockpuppet of User:LBHS Cheerleader and I don't think the message or edit summary were appropriate. Do you? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

DC, although some of what you say about being "tag happy" may be true, you must see how holding what happened over a year ago (before my grandmother's death even for goodness sake) is unreasonable. I'm sure there's actions you took as a newbie that you would not take at present because of experience. I have learned a lot since then, but I cannot go back and erase my "renegade, tag happy vandal fighting" past. More recent cases have been blatantly obvious. Jess Selders 2012 was not just blocked because of a random sockpuppetry accusation, but rather because there was a pattern of abuse, and because CheerleaderAgainstROTCFacism jumped in the middle of the discussion, pretty much proving my point. Now lets WP:AGF, say the latter wasn't the same person, the Jess Selders account actually belonged to Jessica Selders, and Jess only wanted to help the project. If that's the case, it should be the troll behind CARF on trial here, not me. If the two accounts are not linked, Jess was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. If JS was indeed responsible for Jess Selders 2012 (and there's a significant chance that she was not), and she wants her name cleared of the sockpuppetry stigma, then she needs to request a username change. If the real person is not responsible, then I imagine she'd want the username changed so that her name is not involved in all of this. PCHS-NJROTC 20:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion you have manufactured a false threat of "cheerleader vandals" which you have used to have editors blocked for small amounts of simple vandalism. I could be wrong, but I have seen no evidence that any such group exists, or is a cause for concern if they do exist. Your histrionic message in this SPI case is ripe with speculation (and includes the all-caps "THESE GIRLS ARE RELENTLESS TROLLS AND NEED NOT BE FED!"). In that rant, you again asserted that User:LBHS Cheerleader was banned when you said "So does the "wiki-love" for those who (unknowing of their ban) give them a second chance". Editors can look at the details of the SPI case themselves, I'm not interested in getting sidetracked by going into the details. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems that consensus is that DC is making a mountain out of a mole hill here, and I'm sure you can all agree that I've been completely reasonable in the handleing of this case aside from contemplating retirement. Actually, retirement, along with my removal of all references to the user in question being banned, was all no more than a failed attempt to compromise. No emotions, no anger, just an attempt to compromise. Thought if I left just like that he'd have been satisfied. It seems as if I have set DC on fire when I challeged his disclosure of my real life name in a particular discussion, which he claims was coincidental. Is biting a troll really any better than him biting an established user? It should be clear to everyone here that anyone that would continue to persue action at AN/I after an honest user in question has already agreed to cave is seeking punishment, not prevention. We block and ban as a preventative measure, not to punish; it's all laid out at the blocking policy. IMO, consensus is that LBHSC is defacto banned. My only intention in adding LBHSC to the banned list was to stop assuming that LBHSC could be considered banned under User:Bobabobabo as the idea was pure speculation anyway. I see nothing unreasonable about the movement; we can't use such speculation against users suspected to be linked to LBHSC, but since she's been considered banned for quite sometime, I felt that she needed to be added to the list independantly. I was being WP:BOLD, which is encouraged here, and I didn't discuss it first because I wanted to WP:Deny recognition. PCHS-NJROTC 21:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Whoever this LBHSC person is, she is not Bobabobabo. Bobabobabo edit warred over anime episode list articles.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

PCHS-NJROTC, I got involved in this issue only because I watchlisted User:LBHS Cheerleader's page after you made some frankly bizarre accusations on my talk page and elsewhere. For your sake, I won't link to them directly, but the discussion is http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Delicious_carbuncle#WP:VILLAGE here]. I believe you know that what you did was wrong and I believe you lied about it in our initial discussion because you knew that. Your subsequent actions suggest that you are trying as hard as you can to get out of this without admitting that. I think it's too late for that. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that PCHS's concerns were not real. I am not saying that you did or did not correctly guess his first name there, but if someone posted MY real first name in an on-wiki discussion about me or with me, I'd be a little disturbed and confused myself. This is beginning to look more and more like a personal battle, and I think both sides need to disengage and return to neutral corners. There does not appear to be much to be gained here, and its getting nasty in both directions. I'm not sure any admin action is appropriate here, but the entire mess looks just like personal sniping, and not much more. --Jayron32 21:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Thank you for making my point here for me Jayron. As I was saying... Right, I now agree that it is a longshot that LBHSC is Bobabobabo; the basis behind the speculation was the fact that she was going by the name "Jessica" (in multiple incidents), and begging everybody like Boba, but the modus operandi was completely different. However, I see that some people were basing decisions on this "possibility," so I decided that something had to be done to halt the mistaken specualtion being referenced to as fact. Trying to get out of this? No, I'm not in anything, and I really feel it is inappropriate that you made a subsection implying that arguements against you was not "serious discussion." Do you honestly think you could deal with the trolls better than I have? Note that not all "cheerleader vandals" are LBHS Cheerleader, a fact that I acknowledge. Bizzare accusations? For one, I cannot stand to see you attempt to "stick up" for a blatant troll, regardless of whether (s)he's a sock. Random harassment is not something that I'm used to seeing just "happen" out of no where. Off-wiki, people claiming to be cheerleaders from LBH have behaved in much the same way Mr. Cricket has, which is why I suggested the possiblity. Some of these LBHSC trolls have said off-wiki that they used to be admins/established users much the same way as Mr. Cricket. It's pretty obvious that Mr. Cricket is not a current cheerleader at LBH, however, because Cricket is not a carrier in Florida. To cut to the chase, what do you intend to accomplish with this thread? Revenge? Help for a troll? A name for yourself? Victory? Some kind of punative action towards me? What policies have I violated? What is your point? PCHS-NJROTC 22:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Per Jayron, I propose a speedy closure of this fiasco. I'm trying to keep my cool here and make peace; DC needs to do the same. PCHS-NJROTC 22:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This is somewhat off topic, but I managed to find this "Jessica Selders" on Myspace.com, and the original text that the user added to her user page is a direct copy and paste from the "about me" section of her profile. If the vandal was not actually Jessica Selders, then it was a copyright violation. PCHS-NJROTC 00:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Personal Info Disclosed

I ran across an article in recent changes, which led me to this, which discloses personal information. The edits and the user need to be dealt with. If this isn't the right place, please point in the correct direction. Newt 08:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Those diffs appear to have been oversighted already. Protonk (talk) 08:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Also, since the edits of Sarah Murphy have also been oversighted, I don't have any way to tell what they were or whether or not the user should be blocked for making them. Protonk (talk) 08:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Indeed. Without being too terribly specific, the user appears to have been making use of Misplaced Pages as an extension of Facebook. Both the userpage and the article contained serious BLP violations concerning a minor, and both were unsalvageable; the article was a speedy delete, and the userpage revealed personal details of minors in all of its iterations. At minimum, I would appreciate it if another admin gave a severe warning to the user. I try to separate user-specific actions from the oversight end of things where possible. Thanks. Risker (talk) 08:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• The very diligent User:PMDrive1061 quickly blocked the user in question. I would put one of those "resolved" thingies on here if I knew how. Newt 08:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Kmweber blocked then unblocked

Kurt was blocked earlier by Hiberniantears with the following post to the talk page:

Kurt,

I have blocked you indefinitely for long term abuse. I recognize this will be debated. In light of that, if an ArbCom case is required to determine once and for all whether you should be allowed back with or without restrictions, the community should pursue this. If you feel that you can bring value to building an online encyclopedia, please explain this. However, if you are here to treat Misplaced Pages like a country in need of a libertarian centered human-rights struggle, you're missing the point. Any one of your actions can easily be viewed as merely annoying or immature. However, when taken in sum, your votes in various areas of the project and your numerous candidacies for every position under the sun lays out a clear pattern of contradicting actions intended solely to call attention to your "struggle", all of which plays out at the expense of well-intentioned users who are simply trying to build a collaborative encyclopedia.

I will not review your block, nor do I endorse the lifting of this block by any other admin without the approval of ArbCom. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I personally endorse this block, as I had a one hour discussion with Kurt about this on IRC. And from what I gained from that discussion, he doesn't plan on editing in the article space in the near future, because he doesn't feel like it at them moment (which is understandable). Yet he has only made 19 edits to the article space this year. I asked him to make an onwiki statement that declared that he would edit more in the article space, and he refused calling it a game. That shows to me that either he has an ego he doesn't want to hurt, or he doesn't plan on editing in the article space. Either way he shouldn't have been unblocked without more of a discussion.

However EVula did just unblock him:

Block overturned. Dubious grounds with zilch on the evidence front, and pushing it back on ArbCom is weak.

I'm not saying Kurt isn't a jackass at times (though, to cover my ass, I'll also point out that I'm not saying he is a jackass at times), I'm just saying that this block is incredibly poorly thought out. Kurt is not an insiginficant participant in the entire Misplaced Pages process; whatever your opinions about him may be, he does not deserve to be swept under the rug, which is the chief reason that I have no qualms about overturning this block. EVula // talk // ☯ // 08:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this needs a bit more from the community at any rate, as it seems that few people are aware of the block. --Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 10:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

<scratches head> Are we here to endlessly debate about community standards or build an encyclopedia? AniMate 10:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Following the lengthy discussion last year, Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Kmweber ban discussion, Kmweber was unblocked with a restriction that he could not edit in Misplaced Pages space. It's understandable that the restriction would be waived to allow his participation as an ArbCom candidate, but was it ever actually lifted? Maybe enforcing or reimposing it would address the problem.   Will Beback  talk  11:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It was never lifted, and I'd argue that the ArbCom elections—or at least, standing in them—aren't exempt; if you're banned from Project-space, it's for a good reason. That said, it's a moot point. He escaped a ban a year ago by quitting Misplaced Pages. It's evident that Kurt is a master troll, gaming the rules so that he can escape sanctions that would befall other editors. The most obvious being, of course, his minority opinions, which make any attempt to get rid of them to be perceived as getting rid of dissenters. There's also the fact that he's known to harass editors on IRC and WR, saving most of it until his ArbCom run last year so that he couldn't be banned from the only people who can do so: the ArbCom themselves. Of course, any ban by the ArbCom is also "motivated by a desire to stamp out dissent". It's also evident that he has not outgrown this immature behaviour, and show be reblocked. Sceptre 11:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record: . Sceptre 11:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I should think a re(in)statement of the conditions per the Kmweber ban discussion - not blocked while he does not edit in Misplaced Pages space - noted by Will Beback should suffice. I am not impressed by yet another admin acting unilaterally, even in evident good faith, in indef blocking an editor without reference to recent consensus or even discussion. However, in the interests of a quick return to the pre ACE09 status quo I would suggest that this matter is put to bed as quickly as possible. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it'd work. When asked last year if there were any sanctions against him, he answered "none that I consider legitimate". Two months into his topic ban. We honestly need to treat Kmweber as having one absolute final chance. He fucks up once more, he's gone. Hell, I want him gone now, for, among other things, harassing female admins, but I'd be willing giving him a final chance as long as it's treated like that. Sceptre 12:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Just told him I will enforce the WP space ban. Viridae 12:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

(Response to Sceptre) I was not including Kmw's viewpoint. I was simply saying we do not block him while he does not edit, per the result of the noted discussion, and we will - per Viridae's notice - sanction him if he does. Whether or not Kurt believes it legitimate is irrelevant. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

EVula, I respect you greatly, but the unblock was incorrect. KMweber is not a "participant in the entire Misplaced Pages process", he is simply a troll. There is no need for another final chance; either a strict topic ban, or an outright site ban, appears to be the only way to mitigate KMweber's disruption. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

A strict topic ban was made back in 2008, that told him to not edit the Misplaced Pages space. Of course with the ArbCom election, he thought he could start it back up again. Viridae and I have reinstated that topic ban. I did leave a clause that he can discuss the election until January 15. --Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 13:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Can I point out that Kurt has supported reasonable candidates at RfA? I personally agree that he's a troll, but I've seen him do very helpful things. He seems to be just a guy with a different opinion then everyone else - that may sound cheesy, but he's referenced it and it seems to be true. ceranthor 13:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

A guy with a different opinion, who harasses people to make sure they hear it. The latter part is why he should be gone, not the former. Sceptre 14:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Wheel warring is bad - yes, I know the definition, but hasty unblocks without debate or consensus cause the same damage. They embolden the blocked editor to think they have been wronged and then vindicated, their behavior acceptable, and they make it nearly impossible for the community to enforce its standards in the face of problematic editors. Perhaps it's best that administrators not issue indefinite blocks without some prior discussion except in exceptionally clear cases, but administrators are entitled to enforce policies and standing sanctions without first conducting a poll. As we all know from this board, nearly all proposals to block editors begin to attract a lot of debate and opposition from all corners that does not necessarily reflect the will of the larger community. So whether the block is short or long, if it is not without basis, please hold off and discuss any proposed unblocks. The length and conditions can always be adjusted, but releasing the blocked editor to run amok on the encyclopedia is not a good way to go about things. The default should be to protect the editing environment and the integrity of the encyclopedia against disruption, not process quibbles about blocking policy. In my opinion every admin is entitled to take a stand now and again, but if the same admin regularly overturns the actions of others without discussion I think their performance ought to be further reviewed. I don't know which is the case here. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I always thought it was standard practice and edicate for administrators to only issue an indefinite block to a long-term established user after some community discussion, not semi-arbitrarily. Now, if we're talking about blatant vandals, spammers and trolls (I use this term very strictly), then that's a different matter altogether. While I do not welcome yet an ANI thread about Kurt, that's probably what should have happened. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 15:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

There was such a discussion, last year: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Kmweber ban discussion. Kurt left the project for some time, then returned recently and seems to have resumed the same disruptive behavior that led to the ban originally. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of the previous discussions, as I probably participated in most of them, however, the above link does not show a clear consensus one way or another. Is Ryan's archiving statement binding? Regardless, it's over a year later and it would have benefited from fresh discussion. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 15:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• My own two cents: I think Kurt's interventions in project space are unhelpful, and designed to provoke rather than contribute productively. His intentions appear to be sincere, but he is a net impediment and not a net benefit, and I would not think a restriction away from project space would be excessive.

  That being said, his participation in ArbCom elections is a legitimate output for his philosophical and political positions and I think it is imperative that we do not prevent participation in our sole true political process to anyone who has something to say — even if it's marginal enough that they inevitably end up dead last every time. — Coren  15:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  • While recognizing that Coren has much more experience in the WP community, I disagree with the statement that ArbCom elections are the "sole true political process." The Misplaced Pages community makes decisions through a variety of means, one of the most important being civil discussion. If a user cannot contribute productively in that milieu, I'd say that person has already flunked out of the "political process" of the 'pedia; participation in ArbCom being an adjunct to the everyday, run-of-the-mill decision making process. — æk 20:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)FWIW, when things get this complex on Wiki, there will never be consensus. "Consensus". The unblock by EVula - someone with some serious clout in these parts - was a de facto (or prima facie) recognition that, well, people are allowed to be this disruptive here. Check his contribs, it's not like we'd be losing one of our top content people, but someone will always be around to defend his use of this encyclopedia for his own personal agendas. It's the way it is, I guess - so it goes. Tan | 39 15:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll see your de facto and raise you one counter-point: I see allowing a rather arbitrary "well, I'm tired of you, and without any true consensus from the overall community, I'm going to block you and say that only ArbCom can overturn it"-type of block as setting a much, much worse precedent. Do I care if Kurt is blocked? Honestly, no, I don't. I do care that any attempt to permanently boot someone out of Misplaced Pages has community support; a couple of "Endorse Block" tags on a user talk page do not community consensus represent. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Saying I've "resumed the behavior that almost got me banned last year" is simply false, since I was repeatedly told--in no uncertain terms--that my participation in AfD and RfA was NOT why people were wanting to ban me--rather, it was because I was harassing people ("why do you hate Misplaced Pages?", "deletionists are an especially fucking retarded subclass of the rest", going after Seraphim and Krimpet for their behavior towards Bedford, etc.) and because the general quality of my discourse was starting to decline. I fully admit I was way over the line there, but I challenge anyone to point out any sort of behavior of that sort on my part since I returned. As far as I can tell, all I've done in project-space since then is, at worst, started some discussions that were carried out peacefully and calmly and ended with a simple "agree to disagree," and at best actually helped others understand me--and me understand others--better.

As for the ban from project space--it was for three months. It's been well more than three months, and since then I haven't resumed any of the behavior that people were (rightly) complaining about. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 15:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Your on-wiki actions are essentially the same before you "vanished" last year. It shows you haven't grown up. And if you haven't grown up, there's no reason to believe you won't start harassing people again once this is all forgotten. And you never apologised to Seraphim or Krimpet, or me, or Majorly, either. Sceptre 17:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

What is that idiom? Something about when you point a finger at someone, three point back at you?--King Bedford I 22:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

And look--if it is in fact the actual substance of my RfA and AfD contributions, then why not start an RfC? Every time so far, I've been perfectly happy to refrain from the actions in question while the RfC was taking place, and only resumed when (as happened both times) the RfC pretty clearly concluded that I wasn't doing anything wrong. I think my track record is pretty strong on this. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 16:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

. You violated your namespace ban to run for ArbCom, and even worse, you said you didn't consider the ban legitimate (when it was applied by the community). I don't believe you'll adhere to another community request, per my comments above. Sceptre 17:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Kmweber's on-wiki action also sometimes translates into off-wiki behavior, such as the rather upsetting messages he sent me on IRC. I had to place him on ignore because of it. I realize this is not actionable due to being off-wiki, but it was in response to my recent (failed) RfA that he found the reason to send me private messages on IRC. Basket of Puppies 18:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm about as surprised that my unblock ended up being reported here as I am about a sunrise, but I still find it somewhat odd. The block was endorsed by a couple of people, yes, but it was also questioned by several others; John Vandenberg and MZMcBride both specifically stated that they were willing to unblock, citing the rather weak ground that the block was built upon. The entire thing smacked of "I'm tired of you and so you're gone now", which, I'm sorry, but I don't give a rat's ass what your opinion of Kurt is, that's just plain wrong.

Was this wheel warring? No. Hiberniantears tried to lend false legitimacy to the block by somehow claiming only ArbCom could overturn it ("nor do I endorse the lifting of this block by any other admin without the approval of ArbCom"). As was pointed out at User talk:Kmweber#Blocked, that's not how ArbCom should be cited; it's an attempt to make the block "untouchable". Sorry, no, one person does not make consensus (myself included). Given Hiberniantears' unambiguous position on reviewing or lifting the block ("I will not review your block, nor do I endorse the lifting of this block by any other admin"), there was nothing to discuss. To fluff up this paragraph with lovely shortcuts, this was WP:CYCLE, not WP:WHEEL.

Look, I don't want anyone to look at this as some sort of defense of trollish editors. It isn't (chiefly because I'm not assigning "trollish" or "not trollish" qualifiers to Kurt's actions), and I'm pretty rabidly opposed to the concept of suffering a troll based solely on their contributions. The only thing I'm concerned with here is that an actual attempt at a community-derived decision is made. Hiberniantears' block didn't do that, and there was sufficient consensus that it should be overturned; hence, I did so. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, going to the community first will probably not get a consensus to block him, as editors will be convinced we'd be persecuting him for having minority opinions. Despite the fact he's stalked (at least) two female admins before which, is apparently, the cardinal sin against editors. His opinions effectively give him carte blanche to do whatever he wants. Sceptre 19:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Taking a point by EVula a little further, those with a long memory will recall another instance where one admin made a determination in respect of an editor, blocked, and suggested that only a referral to ArbCom would be permitted to undo the block. That action resulted in a furore that echoes even today, and even if a similarly sanctioned account was known to the entire community as being an incorrigibly disruptive influence that is the precedent why we do not allow admins to make unilateral decisions in contentious areas; we ensure that admins are the vehicles of community consensus and not its arbiters. For this reason alone EVula's unblock was appropriate and proper. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Kurt wrote above: "As for the ban from project space--it was for three months." The topic ban was formalized by user:Ryan Postlethwaite. He reminded Kurt of it a month later. While Ryan wrote that it could be lifted in the future, I don't see any mention of a three month duration. Could Kurt or someone else please priovide a diff to support that assertion? Otherwise the topic ban is still in effect and may be enforced.   Will Beback  talk  21:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Signature policy

User:Mrschimpf signs as "Nate" which is (a) horribly confusing, because page histories do not appear to match the contributions (and confusing signatures are recommended against in WP:CUSTOMSIG), and (b) is the name of another user (which is explicitly prohibited by WP:SIGEDITORIMPERSONATE, although that editor appears to be inactive). My request to change it was declined. Could an admin advise? Thx. I42 (talk) 13:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

As long as the link in the sig resolves to the account it doesn't matter what alternate they use as long as it isn't an attempt to be considered as being another account belonging to someone else. Quite a few peoples "common" name is not the registered one. This isn't an area where people are required to conform to a specific standard providing their contributions are well intentioned. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I42 (talk) 13:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I refused to change my signature based on the simple principle that it is my legal first name. As LessHeard said, many others like me choose to register under a surname or alternate name but then edit under their first name to provide that personal touch that they can't get because they weren't lucky enough to get a first name username way back in '04 or '03 (I got on in May '05). I have used this signature in the form it is right now for two years with only minor changes in coloring to support causes (breast cancer, Iran, Packers), and never has an objection been raised to it at all; the sig goes to my user and talk pages, like it's supposed to, and a link hover clearly tells you there is no impersonation of said user. There is no confusion with a dormant editor in my opinion, and my signature is so different using the customizing options as to not be confused for any other here who might use "Nate" for their conversational name on this site.

To ask change my signing identity after 18,000 edits here in response would be an inconvenience when it has not been brought up to this point in my long time here as a contributor. Thank you for understanding. Nate • (chatter) 13:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I am ok with the sig, but I am biased :)..anways, --Tom (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a clear case of following the spirit if not the letter of SIG law. We allow a large amount of latitude in signature formatting, provided it still resolves to the right name (and is not a blatant and deliberate attempt to impersonate someone.) Otherwise, there's be a lot of people in trouble (me included :D) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 15:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The existence of {{user12}} acknowledges differences between signame and ID, e.g. {{User12|Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|Nearly Headless Nick}} → User-multi error: "Nearly Headless Nick" is not a valid project or language code (help). — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 18:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hans Adler's lack of humour and related matters

Joopercooper has copied a comment by Rlevse from its original context to a user page of Giano's, complete with the original signature and timestamp, but without Joopercooper's own signature or a correct timestamp. The user (seconded by Ottava Rima) insists that this was perfectly acceptable behaviour and is accusing Franamax and me of pomposity and lack of humour. Could a neutral party please evaluate the situation and, if necessary, advise me how to improve my sense of humour.

• – Rlevse's original comment at WT:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee
• – Joopercooper copying Rlevse's comment to User:Giano/Complaints
• User talk:Joopercoopers#Faking Rlevse's signature on a page that Rlevse never edited

Thanks. Hans Adler 14:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Marking this as resolved. Any feedback about my sense of humour can go to my talk page. Hans Adler 14:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This is normal, because Hans is a logician and German. Suggest glass of glühwein and two pfefferkuchen. Mathsci (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• FYI, {{quotedfrom}} would have been useful, e.g. {{quotedfrom||Rlevse|11:05, 18 December 2009|332472943}} → "— Preceding text originally posted here by Rlevse (talk⋅contribs) 11:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)" instead of copying the signature. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 17:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

history merge

I know GFDL compliance isn't required anymore with cc-by-3.0, but history merges are still nice for continuity. In this case, Copyright in architecture in the United States which appears to spring forth fully grown like Athena from the forehead of Zeus, but which was actually incubated at User:Architecturecopyright/Copyrightinarchitecture. Thanks :) -Nard 15:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that CC-By-SA compliance also requires attribution. :) --Moonriddengirl 16:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

And all submissions also need to be compliant with the GFDL and that requires attribution as well. Regards SoWhy 18:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Noticed creation of many advertising pages by a specific group of users

I noticed that all the following sites which are cross linked with each other are basically advertising spam which seem to have been created by (apparently) a common group of editors:

• Liberty Global, Extreme_Sports_Channel, JimJam, Romantica_(Romanian_TV_Channel), Zone_Club, Zone_Europa, Zone_Fantasy and many others which you'll find cross linked in the Liberty Global site.
• All the sites have randomly common creators/authors like Liberty_global (talk · contribs), User:Juro, User:Dan69en, User:Cyzor, User:Dell9300, User:C.byron, User:Cyzor, and many others.

I have marked a few of the sites for speedy deletion. However, I wanted you to kindly look at all these sites (and many others which I haven't been able to mark for speedy deletion) for any further action on (perhaps) persistent spamming. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ 17:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I really don't see those as blatant advertising. As such, I've declined speedy deletion on all of them. Feel free to take to AFD if you care to appeal. However, I have gone in and removed lists of shows broadcast on these channels in the articles per WP:NOT. Toddst1 (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Perfectl alright. thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ 18:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

However, there is a bunch of COI, promotional editing and autobiographies being created by users like:

• Alistair Gosling (talk · contribs)
• Extreme245 (talk · contribs)
• Extremeinternational (talk · contribs)
• Lloydbadams (talk · contribs)

Likely others. Toddst1 (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Security Problem?

Something strange seems to have happened in Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Nigeria#Update needed. Check the change log since this section was started by User:Ohms law. It shows the discussion, with contributions by me and User:DGG and me again - looks right. But check the current version - someone has inserted a long story about Alhaji Halliru Abdullahi Kafur - A Biography, with no trace in the change log. It appeared after I made my last contribution, but shows up in earlier versions. A bug? Aymatth2 (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Possibly! I think the folks at village pump tech would have more insight. Basket of Puppies 18:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

-- zzuuzz 18:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That explains it - had me really puzzled. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Generally if you're flummoxed by unexplained changes to page text, search Related changes and you'll find it. This won't work for templates which are a few transclusions up the chain, but those are normally protected anyway. Protonk (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Brittany Murphy

The Brittany Murphy article might need a couple eyes just until there is better confirmation than TMZ on the reporting of her death at 32 today. I would keep an eye on the page just to make sure no edit wars break out. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Right now, it's full-protected until there is confirmation via a very reliable source that she's dead. –MuZemike 20:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Same problem is occurring at Deaths in 2009. Rodhullandemu 20:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The Chicago Tribune has the coroner confirming, is that reliable enough ?Yzak Jule (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but they are just reporting what TMZ is reporting. There needs to be some independent confirmation, like The Chicago Tribune doing the work themselves to confirm it, instead of just going with what TMZ is saying. This does lead to another question. When does TMZ get to a point where they are a reliable source? They were first with the Michael Jackson story, now it appears first with this. When do they (TMZ) get so many reliable first reports to become a reliable source. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not so much the number of scoops they've managed to get; it's the amount of other unreliable gossipy stuff that they also report. TMZ is never going to be a reliable source on its own, even if they're right about some things. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• OK, it can be added, CNN is now reporting it with their own reporting and confirmation. TMZ breaks another one. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• A bit of a side question: is there any way to implement an editnotice for BLP articles like this where we know someone has been reported dead but we've deliberately held back from reporting it? {{recent death}} has been changed recently to include the possibility that someone was only reported dead, but it's still not appropriate for cases where we aren't confident in the source, because tagging the article to say that someone might be dead is tantamount to saying they are in the article prose. I don't know enough about the technical implementation of editnotices, but it would be nice to have one that said "We know this person has been widely reported dead; please read the talk page to see why this article doesn't reflect that". — Gavia immer (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Why not a hidden comment? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the time, the people rushing to add death news are new or unregistered users who probably wouldn't even notice a hidden comment.Yzak Jule (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Potential unapproved and malfunctioning bot

75.190.239.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) During some antivandalism efforts I came across a curious diff that looked like headers from an HTTP request. This might be indicative of an unapproved and malfunctioning bot that I figured I would bring to administrators' attention. This might be a bit early to report it, but I figured I would put out the heads' up anyway. --Shirik (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: Some discussion has lead to the conclusion that this may not be a bot but rather something else acting strange; perhaps a script. I'll leave a warning on the user's talk page. --Shirik (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Could just be an editor. Look at the most recent diff (specifically the edit summary). There is a bug that periodically inserts that stuff into edited text (I've only seen it on talk pages). Protonk (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  I agree; I didn't notice the edit summary. I've left a notice on the user's talk page suggesting the sandbox and user space for further edits if it's a script, and I'll keep an eye on the contributions. Thanks! --Shirik (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like headers are being submitted after the \r\n\r\n in the form submission. It is a problem with the IP's useragent, be it a bot or browser. Chillum 19:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Radical-Dreamer

This came to my attention through vaguely unnacceptable edits at Siemens - Note the title "Support of Iran's Nuke program" - suitable for a newspaper perhaps, not justified in this article at all.

Looking through the users edits I see numerous potential POV issues eg (I don't know the subject but I suspect a 17th century Islamic scholar is a notable resident).

Similar edit

Edit summary :

Shortfatlad (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• He's obviously lunching a personal attack against me. He kept deleting my addition to the Siemens article. When I told him I'm going to report him for vandalism of the article, he blames me instead ! This guy is a joke. No wonder he got banned 3 times already. Admins - please check the history of the article and see for yourselves. I offered him to change the article but instead he deleted the whole paragraph !!!!! He's doing great by DELETING other people's work.Radical-Dreamer (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

'Lunching'. BEST. TYPO. EVER. HalfShadow 21:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Moreover, he was already warned in the past by User:Geschichte against personal attacks on Misplaced Pages (see user's talk page). Radical-Dreamer (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Radical-Dreamer you're not supposed to change the title of the section as you did here , and you are definately not supposed to delete my post to this page as you did here. . You've already had two editors question your edits Don't you think you might be going in the wrong direction on this.Shortfatlad (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The edit to Siemens is inappropriate, plain and simple. Radical-Dreamer's behavior here on ANI is even more so. I have now twice reverted attempts to change this report so it's about Shortfatlad instead of Radical-Dreamer. The last attempt also deleted every participation from Shortfatlad.--Atlan (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Instead of deleting my edit completely, either of you could make the paragraph more neutral (IMO, it was neutral already). Right now, both of you are trying to cover this up and completely remove it from Misplaced Pages unjustly. Radical-Dreamer (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm currently awaiting further input (from third parties) at Misplaced Pages:Editor_assistance/Requests#Siemens_news and am willing to add it in a non-biased way.

You have been removing links to the arabic wikipedia on some articles - which doesn't look good - can you say if there is a reason for this (please note I cannot read arabic)Shortfatlad (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Also your recent edit to Siemens history breaks the "three revert rule" see Misplaced Pages:3rr#The_three-revert_rule - again this is something you shouldn't be doing. Please read Misplaced Pages:Edit warring as you should be aware of this.Shortfatlad (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I've reported the 3RR violation, as it doesn't appear talk page discussion is quite enough incentive not to edit war over this.--Atlan (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Shortfatlad - Now you're stalking me??! I'm pretty sure this is a personal attack. Radical-Dreamer (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look like anything close to a personal attack, to me. Shortfatlad is reporting on your behavior in a neutral fashion. Woogee (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

RD: You might want to take a gander at this and see what is considered to be a personal attack, and what is not. Nothing in this thread even comes close. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Bill the Cat 7

Bill the Cat 7 (talk · contribs) insists on calling Rosemary Radford Ruether "fringe, leftist" in the article Antisemitism in the New Testament, and a "nut job" on the article's Talk: page. When challenged for a source for the "fringe, leftist" claim, he has produced this footnote:

She is a member of Democratic Socialists of America (http://www.dsausa.org/about/structure.html), a self-described ecofeminist, and as a signatory to the 9/11 Truth Statement (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633), she is a conspiracy theorist."

The "fringe, leftist" descriptor has been removed by another editor and me several times, and the description of her as a "nut job" on the article Talk: page has been removed by three editors, but he persists in restoring both. I brought the mattter to WP:BLP/N yesterday, with no response, and I've warned him twice on his Talk: page with little apparent impact. Unless someone has a better idea, I plan to block him for 24 hours if he adds either description again. Comments? Jayjg 19:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the process of researching how to request mediation between me and Jayjg. This is the first time I've had to do this so it will most likely take a few days. At any rate, I firmly believe that my edits, with sources, justify the wording I used to describe Rosemary Ruether. The sources Jayjg posted above can be consulted, but he left out one which I guess got lost in this edit war. Here it is:

But I am always aware that I reappropriate Christianity from a markedly different basis than do traditional Christians. http://womenshistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ/Ya&sdn=womenshistory&cdn=education&tm=9&gps=130_296_1020_567&f=20&tt=14&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title%3D1753

This last source, in her own words, makes the use of the word "fringe" justifiable. The other sources listed above can be researched and can lead an honest person to conclude that she is indeed "leftist" (which is a fair, non-insulting word).

Also, regarding the phrase "nut job" - I was in the process of removing it but there was an edit conflict and Jayjg got to it first. Here is what I wrote right after:

--------

Ok, fair enough. I removed it (actually, you removed it; seems like we are editing this page at the same time). Note however, that my edits of the article itself are NOT personal opinions; they are well sourced. I also added another one, in her own words. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looks like an edit war has just begun. I'll be restoring my well-sourced edits soon, but I think we are now at the point where we require arbitration/mediation by Misplaced Pages since you are deleting acceptable sources and then falsely claiming that I didn't source my edits. Are you willing to participate in a mediation Jayjg? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

--------

Finally, my main point in editing this page from the very beginning was to show that the person being quoted (Rosemary Ruether) about so-called antisemitism in the New Testament (which she believes permeates the ENTIRE New Testament) is not in the mainstream of NT scholarship and has an agenda of her own. The way the article stands now, it is filled with POV and even the title itself (Antisemitism in the New Testament) is biased. It should be called "Perceived Antisemitism in the New Testament", or something like that, since that doesn't automatically assume any antisemitism.

Be that as it may, I am very willing to discuss this with Jayjg (and others) in detail, but since he only seems to want to threaten me and exhibits a "my way or the highway" attitude, I'm going to have to request a neutral moderator. Thank you for listening. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Bill, I'm not an editor of the article, I'm an administrator there. As an administrator I'm charged with (among other things) enforcing WP:BLP. If I see persistent, continued violations, in that article or others, I will block the offenders. If you continue to insist that you will "be restoring my well-sourced edits soon", and in particular if you act on your threat, then you will experience that. I strongly urge you to carefully and slowly read WP:BLP, at least twice. Jayjg 21:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I would further comment about the label of "leftist"; if review of the various positions taken by the subject tends the reader to consider them a "leftisit" then fine, but it is not something the article writer should place in the article - because then the writer is making the judgement and not the reader (and there is the problem of the implied authority of the writer and encyclopedia). Also, if a reliable source calls them leftist by either their own interpetation or reporting another source then that can be included, but in a neutral manner. This encyclopedia reports the sources, and leaves determination up to the reader. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Just so. Personal characterizations -- especially ones intended as derogatory, such as these -- should be avoided unless they are completely well sourced (for example, saying "XXX is a discredited YYY" requires very strong and highly credible sources saying precisely "discredited"). This applies to article pages as well as talk pages; our policies are that items breaking WP:BLP must be immediately removed on sight, and are not subject to 3RR restrictions (they may be treated as vandalism.) --jpgordon 22:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

For whatever it is worth, I've never heard anyone use the word 'leftist,' or seen the word ever used in writing, in any way other than a derogatory way. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It's used as a neutral term all of the time. It is only used as an epithet amongst some conservative circles. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards