Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:17, 19 January 2010

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

MisterWiki. Again.

User:MisterWiki has not learned. He was indeffed for acting inappropriately, and then unblocked on the provision that he would get his game together and stop treating WP like a place to have fun (among other things, such as, y'know, not socking). this and, to a lesser extent, this FPC shows that he's not taking it seriously. Comments? Ironholds (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, is this a joke or what? --MW talk contribs 17:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You, be quiet before you get yourself into more trouble!! </mom rant>

Ironholds, isn't Misplaced Pages supposed to be fun? OK, the kitteh piccy isn't of the greatest, but two articles are using it. Why shouldn't he nom it? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Elen: and redirecting piss-on-elmo? Ironholds (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Because he knew perfectly well it didn't meet the criteria and that it would fail. And that's plain disruption. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 17:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I would be interested to hear MisterWiki's explanation of how this is non-disruptive activity, and the same for this – ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 17:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI I have fulfilled a db-g7 request for Piss-on-elmo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which consisted of #REDIRECT] and had only one author (User:MisterWiki). –xeno 17:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I would be interested to hear how a poorly thought out featured article nomination is a WP:POINT violation, or more specifically, what point he was attempting to prove in a disruptive fashion. Shereth 17:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, I'll tell you. It is very, very, very obvious, to even the meanest of intellects, and definitely to someone of MisterWiki's considerable intelligence, that the picture in question did not meet the criteria, particularly #1, probably #3, definitely #5 and #7. And nominating an image which so blatantly doesn't satisfy the required standard is, in my opinion, disruptive – particularly given this editor's standing in the community at the moment. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 17:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:POINT is a specific kind of disruption. If you want to claim his nomination was disruptive because he knew it would fail anyway, then call it disruptive, but it is not a WP:POINT violation. Shereth 17:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm sorry. I apologise unreservedly for any offence caused by my labelling MisterWiki (talk · contribs) as a WP:POINT violator over the FPC nomination, when he is, in fact, a WP:Disruptive editing violator. I shall strive never to make a similar mistake again. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 17:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Eh, you're taking it the wrong way, but I'm not going to press the point further. Shereth 18:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd give MisterWiki a pass on the featured picture nomination, he was even encouraged by a couple of established editors there. But the Piss-on-elmo... although he requested its deletion himself afterward, I don't think creating joke articles in the mainspace is ever a good idea. I don't think this is enough to reconsider a block, but it's not a good sign either. -- Atama頭 17:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Not that they count for much, but in an IRC discussion in which an admin repeatedly tried to impress on MisterWiki the silliness of FP noms like that, he repeatedly laughed and tried to justify himself with an argumentum ad lolcat, as it were. Ironholds (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

More lulz would've been had if the cat had a "I Can Has FPC?" caption. Tarc (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

MisterWiki, in spite of his apparent technical intelligence, displays a continual lack of fundamental understanding of what this project is for. Whether his apparent inability to stop treating Misplaced Pages like a fun joke is willful or not, is not a question for me to answer. Whether his toying around and his games are severe enough to warrant further action, I am not sure. He does contribute positively, and I'm not fully convinced that his disruptions are so egregious as to warrant a reinstatement of his block, but it is a fact that he's had his "second chance" and is running dangerously close to exhausting the patience of the community; the fact that he removed the notification of this report on his talk page, dismissing this ANI thread as a "joke" is worrisome at best. Shereth 18:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, removing the {{ANI-notice}} isn't wrong at all, its only purpose is to notify, and once that's been done, there's no real reason to keep it. This is one of the more legitimate things that MisterWiki seems to have done! (Also, I'm not sure that "inability" can be "willful"...) ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 18:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't his removal of the notice but the associated edit summary ( rm; that ani thread is a joke ) that worries me with regards to how seriously he approaches things at Misplaced Pages - more as a joke and a game. I don't want to be all "I R SRS ADMIN" and I enjoy a bit of lighthearted humor from time to time but if this thread is not something he can take seriously ... Shereth 18:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, hadn't noticed the edit-summary, fair enough, point taken! ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 18:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I for one am growing rather tired of these games, and wouldn't object to reinstating the block. –Juliancolton |  18:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, Piss-on-elmo was obviously a fail, I didn't had a dictionary near me and I didn't knew what does it meant (I will not give the name of the person that gave me the idea). Obviously, there are more bizarre redirections than this one. Also, I hadn't read the FI criteria before nominating the kitty image. All of this is not the motive of an Ani thread, this should had been resolved by posting it on the talk page, but a user just wants me blocked (again, I will not name him). --MW talk contribs 18:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned it as a joke on IRC (we were discussing pichelmu (sp), which I can never spell, and I jokingly called it piss-on-elmo); the idea that a joke invites you to create a redirect is ludicrous. And you need a dictionary to understand what the word "piss" means? Ironholds (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought that "piss" meant to step. In Spanish means "pisar", I thought it was a cognate word. --MW talk contribs 18:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit. Tan | 39 18:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

For once, I have to agree with the previous speaker, if MisterWiki is competent to use English phrases such as "cognate word" then he knows what piss means. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 18:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Besides, "stepping on Elmo" is so much less problematic than "urinating on Elmo" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I also call bullshit. MisterWiki is clearly fluent in the English language; if he knows that "pisar" means "to step", well, he knows that "to step" means "to step" ... come on ... Shereth 18:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) ...only if one rides the AGF toboggan into the trees (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

See, I thought that "piss" meant "to step", not to urinate. Someone explained me what "piss" means in English. I thought it was a cognate word of "pisar", that means "to step". I didn't knew what "piss" meant, but "pisar" yep. And, Elmo isn't the character from Sesame Square (or something else) ? --MW talk contribs 18:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

But again, how is "step on elmo" an appropriate redirect? Ironholds (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, obviously it's not, but why too much problem for a simple redirect, this should have been solved with a post on my talk page, not this whole thread here in the ani, that is really bizarre. --MW talk contribs 18:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Can someone please at least remove the autoreviewer bit from him before we have Deficate-on-Oscar redirected to Shitaki. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Can't you see that's not the problem? It's just that this should hadn't been never posted here. It's really annoying just because of a redirect! I know the redirect was bizarre but, c'mon, now I know perfectly what does "piss" means. Thank you. --MW talk contribs 18:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

They don't have autoreviewer since Jan 5. –xeno 18:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) My bad ... it's still listed on his userpage, and I failed to take the extra step to verify ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

MisterWiki, you're missing the point. You're a user who previously exhausted the community's patience for acting immaturely, and within a week you're not only doing stuff like this but refusing to admit it's even a problem, or that you recognise the issue. Ironholds (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you know what taking the piss means? –xeno 18:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Up to five minutes ago the answer would, if we are to believe him, be "stealing steps?" :P. Ironholds (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Moving forward

Ok, we have an editor, fresh off a socking block (reduced due to off-wiki contact). They made at least 1, if not 2 childishly disruptive edits. They then lied about knowing what they were doing, finally admitting they did understand when they did it. They considered the community discussion here on ANI to be a joke, and said so in an edit summary. How are we moving forward? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

By letting MisterWiki know, in no uncertain terms, that any further disruptive editing, no matter how minor, will result in an indefinite block. This may be considered a final warning, and I highly recommend staying far away from the "line" by making only completely non-controversial edits. Tan | 39 19:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

In order to avoid another WGB incident, I have invited MrWiki to acknowledge this warning. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It may be worth looking at this, where many people who opposed blocking him again after he was unblocked (including me) said that he was on pretty thin ice. I'm not quite saying he should be blocked again, but maybe he should. I think that MisterWiki has two big problems on Misplaced Pages; childish actions, which would be bad enough, and deception, which we've seen with his sockpuppetry in the past and now this feigned confusion about the meaning of the word "piss" that I don't think anyone is buying. I'm wavering on this, but I guess what I'm asking is, can we trust him anymore? -- Atama頭 19:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Uhmm.... no.

I agree with what Tan has said, a final warning, followed up by an indef block if MW continues to be disruptive. Regards, Spitfire 19:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'd suggest a block, per Atama. When this last came to ANI we had pretty good consensus for a block, which was eventually turned into a super-duper-final "here is a list of things you can't do" warning. Simply giving him another super-duper warning isn't going to work; he ignored the last one. Ironholds (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have a laundry-list of faults, but being wishy-washy is certainly not one of them. I guarantee you that I will make good on my warning if the time comes, without discussion. Tan | 39 19:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, I don't think why too much problem for a simple redirect that could had been solved by posting a message on my talk page. Always, the users and the admins focus just on the bad things the users had done, but many times, the users are not just that. I have recognized in the past that I've socked and I'm ashamed. I didn't knew what does "piss" meant, until a IRC user (not from #wikipedia-en) explained what does that meant. Yes, you can trust me, because I have good intentions, I don't want to produce problems to anyone but why don't you think a little bit on the person in question. An indef block is excessive. I'm against it in all the cases, not just in my one, maybe 1 year or 2 years for vandals or very very disruptive users. I repeat it, there's no need for this whole controversy about that shitty redirect, that I should have never created, never. --MW talk contribs 20:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As we all said before, this whole thing could have been "solved" by you not creating a childish redirect based on your attempt at humour. You are the antecedent to the consequence, so put first things first. When you're already on thin ice, it's recommended that you not light even a small fire. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Strange how you know what “shitty” means but not “piss”. Oh well, we’ll see! Leaky Caldron 20:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I was not interested on know what does "piss" meant until this thread was posted. Seriously. --MW talk contribs 20:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Please User:MisterWiki any Latino, knows that piss or "mear" in Spanish means to urinate. And besides, is sponsoring their family photos in the article Chilean people. Apparently Misplaced Pages is your means of auspice of your city, acquaintances and family, another example is to add your photo in the article Chile.

PD: I do not think age is a justification for committing such acts of immaturity and vandalism (eg I have 16 years).Ccrazymann (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Look, I know I'm not AGFing here, but I think MisterWiki has been having a bit of fun dragging even this thread into the dirt. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Now it's vandalism. C'mon. --MW talk contribs 22:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

For which I've blocked your account 24h. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the sock in the above closed section went straight to the Governor's Island article, would it make sense to see if he's also a sock of DeKoning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

He's asked Jimbo to intervene in this "urgent" matter. Shouldn't there be a Godwin's law corollary for running to Jimbo?

Has this editor done anything to help Misplaced Pages? All I've seen is joking around and wasting other editors' time, and lying about what he thinks "piss" means. If this is how he acts after he has an indef block lifted, that suggests to me that another, but more long lived, indef is appropriate.—Finell 02:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Funny you should say this. See WP:YOULOSE, an essay I only just wrote. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 22:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Guys, please - whatever about what this editor has done here (and it looks like a lot), can we please leave information about his age, etc, out of the conversation? Yes, he's a minor, and an immature one from all accounts, but I've just had to suppress vast amounts of his userspace due to his posting of personally identifying information relating to himself and others. It's been removed now, so please let's not propagate it any further - Alison 03:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 22:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• MisterWiki has now found it appropriate, while on his final final final warning, to call admins nazis for not excusing his behaviour due to his article contributions. Exactly how long does this have to go on for? Ironholds (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

  I'd support an indef, or a 10 year block. That should give him time to mature before he decides to contribute again.--Crossmr (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

  Indef. "This is your final warning" is not an invitation to dick around. He's had the chance to learn this twice now, and responded to the first one by pissing around, and to the second one by pissing around offensively. Ironholds (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• After reading this discussion, I must say I am astounded that MisterWiki has not already been indef blocked. This type of behavior by editors gives Misplaced Pages a bad name. However, I feel that an indef block may be excessive. I like Crossmr's idea of a ten year block. RadManCF (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked for the next ten years. Blood Red Sandman 02:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Conditional unblock discussion

I have been in discussion with MisterWiki to replace his 10 year block with a set of editing restrictions designed to curb his antisocial tendencies at Misplaced Pages. What thinks everybody?

• MisterWiki is hereby placed on editing restrictions. These include: No use of the User talk: namespace except for brief messages directly related to article editing. No further comments directed at other users. Strict civility parole. Restrictions to stay in place indefinitely, but may be revisited after 1 years time (January 17, 2011) at the request of MisterWiki via ANI discussion. Violation of these terms may result in return of the prior indefinite block.

Any comments? Are these reasonable for an unblock, or has this person worn out their welcome? --Jayron32 05:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I note that MisterWiki hasn't actually agreed to these. His exact words were "I agree, except for things that I would need" - so essentially, "I'm restricted except when I don't want to be restricted". Ironholds (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. MisterWiki knew exactly what he was doing when he called was vandalizing, socking, insulting users, and calling admins nazis. Enough drama already; this user is trying to troll us. -FASTILY_sock 06:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose and propose increasing block length to fifty years for this unashamed attempt to play us even more. Blood Red Sandman 06:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Enough with the damn IRC negotiations bullshit. We did this last time. Auntie E. (talk) 07:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is getting ridiculous. bibliomaniac15 07:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. If he could stick to the terms of the standard offer, I could see unblocking him sometime down the road but right now? I don't think so. Shereth 07:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - gods, no. Please - Alison 08:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support conditionally. The user needs a block, but not ten years. make him blocked for 3-6 months to let him know the seriousness. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Let’s not and Pretend We Did — I just read through the above sections and I ran into this user a few days ago without knowing his history (but the above set off a few little tinkles (pun noted)); he was up to immature 'good users' navigation on Jimbo's user page. I reverted it on sight. At most, reduce the 10 years to 7 for good behavior (in 2017;). Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support conditionally. A block of 10 years, is practically to be out of Misplaced Pages forever, I believe that a blockade of one year would be more convenient for their maturation. Eg I have 16 years and if I look back one year ago, I realize I've learned, matured and evolved as a person. Do not be harsh with excessive blocks of 10 years, we can all make mistakes, but at the same time have the opportunity to rectify. Regards. Ccrazymann (talk) 09:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose After all the recent drama, it is not appropriate to start negotiating an unblock within three hours of the block being imposed; this user is not ready to contribute helpfully. The standard offer is adequate. Johnuniq (talk) 09:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Why does it seem like there's always a mad rush to put an offer on the table as soon as an editor gets indef (or 10 year) blocked? If being here is so important they need to negotiate a pardon as soon as they're finally caught, I think some time between the blocking and the conditional unblock would help them to understand what's going on. Dayewalker (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, having been watching this it's got to the point of. "This is your final warning." followed by "This is your final final warning." Are we proposing to give him an "Ultimate final final warning for real this time." now? --Taelus (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose:Reduce block to one year, but leave it in place for the year. At the end of the year, give him the probation for a year. At the end of that time, he'll be grown out of this phase anyway. Otherwise, you're just sending the message that anything is excusable if you beg and plead hard enough, and he'll have no incentive to change. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Keep the block as it is; there's no reason why the community can't consider it again in a couple of years. Ironholds (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Unlike say WGB, this editor knows he's doing wrong, he just doesn't care nor take responsibility for his actions. Normally, one could make a good judgement call about someone simply on the fixation on rickrolling. Yes, the user's disruption is reasonably minor, but it is done so cavalierly, and with no real sign that he understands that Misplaced Pages is not a game, and a lot of editor time has been wasted dealing with problems created by the editor. I will not suggest a valid length of time, merely that I oppose an unblock right now because of these issues. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. We've been astoundingly patient with MisterWiki thus far, and his behavior has not changed. Keep the ten year block.RadManCF (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose MisterWiki has been given chance after chance. This community is remarkably tolerant, but at some point, "This is your last chance" has to mean exactly what it says. Calling another user a "nazi" is so far beyond the line of WP:NPA that it can not be easily overlooked. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Most strongly oppose, recall this user has been saying "please, forgive me, I wont' do it again" for 2 years. His original sockpuppets were blocked for precisely the same he keeps doing, using WP as his playground to promote his town, and using it as vanity for his family and friends (speciall articles "Chilean people", "Pichilemu" and "Chile"). Keep uploading irrelevant images about jokes. He is also know as a repeated liar (when confronted, he usually makes up excuses until he's cornered and then "ok I did lie, I know it was wrong and won't do it again"). -- m:drini 22:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

New proposal

Just when you thoguht this was over, I got a comment on my user talk suggesting a new way out for MW. Crosspost commence:

Well, you do have a gory username so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised by a decade-long block, which I'm sorry to say did make me smile.

But still . . . yes, the perp merited a block. I'm not at all sure he merits an unblock. But if it were me I'd have given him a week at most. How about something like shortening it to a week from the start of the block, on condition that he demonstrates his likely value by actually drafting a substantial amount of sourced, worthwhile article content (on the subject of his choice) within his userspace? -- Hoary (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I would be opposed to this, I can certainly see the merit in such an idea. It's better than what has currently been proposed and soundly rejected. What I might propose instead is to reduce the block to one month on those terms, provided there is support from the rest of the community. (Actually, I'm tempted to leave him blocked, but I think that's a good compromise). Blood Red Sandman 15:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

A one month block seems appropriate, but 10 years is a tad excessive. henrik•talk 15:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Most folk were actually for it. I'm gonna go crosspost this to ANI so discussion can continue there. Blood Red Sandman 15:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Crosspost end. Discuss. Blood Red Sandman 15:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I support reducing the blocked to one or a few months depending on what the community decides, childish mistakes have clouded their collaboration in the Misplaced Pages, but not interest in helping her, a point which is also valuable. Moreover, due to his age and English language, not being their mother tongue, we assume in good faith sometimes not understand or knows how to use the English correctly. Ccrazymann (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful idea above, though I say it myself. So, a kid behaves like a kid, and tops it off by calling an administrator, or some administrators, or administrators in general, "nazis". Well, kids say the durnedest things. Though actually it's hardly the durnedest thing hereabouts; indeed, it's (sadly) humdrum. He seems to be a waster of others' time, but at least he doesn't seem to do the things that really hurt an encyclopedia, such as beans beans beans, and he does seem to do some useful stuff. I don't much care what he promises to do or not to do. If he intends to contribute, he can make a contribution. Well, let's see a draft contribution. Working on it might concentrate his mind wonderfully. -- Hoary (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• A month is not long enough; it still gives the impression that if you whine and beg and plead enough, you'll get what you want. He now seems to be blackmailing the community by saying (to paraphrase) that if the block is longer than a year, he'll just resign. His behaviour was entirely inappropriate, he has not demonstrated that he's learnt from his mistakes, and reducing the block so much based on him crying will just allow him to think he can act how he pleases. Ironholds (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Three months. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Call his bluff. One year exactly. See if he comes back after that. Blood Red Sandman 16:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

However this winds up, while middle teens sometimes don't understand the likely outcomes of what they do (and may stir things up a bit to find out), this kind of taunting and teasing are something else altogether. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• While I am not opposed to another "last chance", I agree with User:Ironholds that the editor might misinterpret any grace bestowed by the community. Tiderolls 17:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he misinterprets the GF he's given, seems to me as though he rather heedlessly plays users as if he's on a straightforward MUD. en.Misplaced Pages is a MUD in some ways, but these are not MisterWiki's way, hence perhaps the... muddle. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I suspect you are correct re: the editor's perception. I'm hoping for some solution to be found that will show MW that the community is serious (should he be allowed back). Nice word play, btw. Regards Tiderolls 17:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Leave the ten year block in place. Dealing with disruptive editors in the indecisive fashion that MisterWiki has been dealt with sends the message that we don't take disruptive editing seriously. RadManCF (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I do find those much fun to stumble upon :) As to keeping the ten year block, that's ok, since after a few months almost any blocked/banned user can send an email to an admin asking if an unblock might be talked about. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, he asked for unblock once more. I'm going to warn him that unless he backs off for a while I will modify his block settings so that he cannot edit even his userspace, and he will be banished forever. Blood Red Sandman 20:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• WP:Standard offer. Leaky Caldron 21:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• a) I'll leave him email free b) He's already come back from an indef only to get reblocked and then call admins Nazis. He blew his standard offer. Even when we had a proposal above to help him, he's still wasting our time. This is hopefuly purely academic, he has promised not to post it anymore. Then again... Blood Red Sandman 21:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Note, he has already used up the standard offer, this sockpuppet was unblocked precisely because he promised to act maturely and stop disrupting. -- m:drini 22:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• I don't remotely support standard offer. If the community decides to send him packing we can't form a new consensus 6 months later when everyone has wandered off and forgotten about them.--Crossmr (talk) 06:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• It seems clear that we all agree with some form of block, even though the lengths differ. Can I suggest reconsidering the situation in say, two months, when he's had a chance to reflect? I personally oppose any unblock for a long, long time, because I feel the problem is his immaturity, which can't be resolved in a month, but we'll see what the community says when it comes up again. Ironholds (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• He has been told to come back late April/early May. If/when he does, we can discuss it here. That sound fair? Blood Red Sandman 23:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Works for me. I suspect the result will be the same. Ironholds (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• opppose any unblock before 2020. I suggested it for a reason. He had his super duper last chance. How serious does the community look if after every super last chance indef, we turn around and go "oh well.. maybe it wasn't exactly your last chance.. let's reduce the block to a shoulder massage and tell him to have at it"?--Crossmr (talk) 06:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

MisterWiki's "wiki project"

Just to note that just before he went down the tubes this time, MisterWiki for the second time attempted to create a wiki project (currently at User:MisterWiki/WikiProject_Modern_Talking). The first time, in December, he was warned to go thru the process and not just to claim he was a project and invent some templates to stick on articles. This time, he appropriated another Project's shortcuts and was again advised not to start the project without any supporters . Since he is gone for a while, I have moved everything back into his userspace (again), and suggested that he not attempt to restart this project if he is unblocked as I for one would consider it disruption.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That's likely about to push him over the edge. I'll AGF, but how many centiseconds before we see some socks related to that "project", and some angry diatribes? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure we will. Trouble was, he started out in an edit war with another editor over the content of some articles about this german pop group, then started his "wiki project" to give his edits more 'status' than the other editor. I had some lengthy conversation with him the first time, about how he needed active members for the project. I didn't do it to annoy him - I've kept everything and moved all the pages back to userspace rather than just tagging for CSD, and corrected the transclusions - but I can't see why his deliberately ignoring the rules should be allowed to stand.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't. Every time we give him an inch of leeway it seems he screws something else up. I suggest deleting the project as improperly created and below the number of active users required; perhaps that will show him that negative actions have negative consequences, since unblocking him in two months certainly wont. Ironholds (talk) 12:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Strongly Seconded. NativeForeigner /_Contribs 19:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Support deletion. The projects's categories are under discussion at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 18#Category:WikiProject_Modern_Talking, but in the circumstances I don't see any resaon to await the outcome of CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

 NativeForeigner is doing...

• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:MisterWiki/WikiProject Modern Talking Wikiproject
• Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_discussion#Template:WP_Modern_Talking_Sidebar Sidebar  Deleted
• Category:WikiProject Modern Talking participants(edit talk links history)[ Category speedy per C1  Deleted

 per concensus NativeForeigner /_Contribs 22:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC) NativeForeigner /_Contribs 22:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've speedily deleted the category and templatespace pages. Not particularly bothered about the User space pages to speedy those, but another admin may wish to do so. –xeno 22:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, not again

Yada yada content issue yada.

we had a complaint a while back about an IP who is fiercely determined to give parity to an attendance figure at WrestleMania 23 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) from one Dave Meltzer. The editors of that article, after much badgering, included a comment that Meltzer had disputed it, but that was not enough for the IP. The dispute has been going on for over a month, and looking back it first started in, I think, April 2007, so this is not your typical revert war content dispute. My concern is that all the argument has been based on the primary source itself, and there is no obvious authoritative root source for Meltzer's figure (at least that I could find via Google) other than Meltzer himself. Now, I closed the everlasting circular debate but then, prompted by the IP's comments on his talk page, went back and looked again. I found that the evidence even for including the sentence was almost exclusively volume, not quality, of argument. I have removed the sentence and started debate again, but of course I know what will happen, it will be another months-long battle from the people who think WWF is committing the hideous crime of pretending to have the highest attendance ever at some random venue I've never heard of before, when actually it should be the second highest based on what some guy said because he Just Knows. Or something. Anyway, it will be controversial, I expect the IP to edit-war, I suspect the only wat we will ever get the IP to shut up is to block it, and I have nointention of becoming any more involved in that fight than I already am. The more I hear about it the less I actually care. My rationale is at Talk:WrestleMania 23#A final thought on the Meltzer attendance figure, please, some admins with the patience of Job and the wisdom of Solomon, lend a hand. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I might get involved, I've intervened over there before for something else. The IP even asked me to get involved on my talk page some time ago but I never did. By the way, I think you mean WWE, as WWF is now solely the World Wildlife Fund. ;) -- Atama頭 00:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Is that included in WP:LAME? Fences&Windows 00:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that, by definition, if it involves rasslin', it is lame... --Jayron32 02:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm absolutely sure you're correct and I cannot believe that I have actually allowed myself to become involved in something which is, in the end, a debate about trivia related to trivia in a trivial subject. However, assuming good faith of the IP editor concerned I read back through the debate (which goes back years) and was very surprised to see that the entire case for the disputed content always rests on the primary source, I could not find a single reference to a reliable independent source which dealt with this dispute and the basis on which the one individual concerned made his claim in respect of the attendance figures. It seems he has a habit of this, which may well be a legitimate fact to include in his bio, but I don't see any sign of sources to lift this above WP:OR, or to show that we are not violating WP:UNDUE by including a counter claim made by one commentator, especially since it's not clear where he gets his figure whereas both the venue and the organiser base their figure on the gate receipts. I think editors on the article have also forgotten that a consensus formed on the basis of trying to shut up relentless badgering is only really legitimate if supported by normal editorial policies as well. It's an easy mistake to make, you have to step back to a position where you forget your own personal passions and these guys are obviously pretty passionate about this particular form of theatre. It's kind of funny being accused of vandalism for a good-faith action supported by extensive rationale on the talk page, I pointed out to GaryColemanFan that I was blocking vandals before he made his first edit :-) Guy (Help!) 11:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the deletion of sourced material and will treat any further efforts to remove it as vandalism. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

In which case you have absolutely no understanding whatsoever of what WP:VANDALISM means. Guy (Help!) 10:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

As another administrator had already warned the IP to lay off that page or get blocked, I've formalised it as a permanent topic-ban from the article and its talkpage. Any edit by that anonymous contributor or any suspected sock/IP of his may be reverted on sight from now on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

During the month-long discussion, every editor agreed that including a mention of the fact that Meltzer arrived at a different figure. This is verified by Meltzer's statement; whether it is true or not is irrevelant. Meltzer's newsletter, though self-published, is a valid source because he is a recognized expert in the subject area. The claim was included. All subsequent discussion related to whether or not an additional footnote should explain how he arrived at the new total. The idea was unpopular. The article currently includes a brief mention of Meltzer's claim with no additional footnote. This reflects the consensus and is in keeping with the policies mentioned by JzG (Undue - it is a brief mention, which reflects its status as a minority view; Reliable sources, as explained above; and Original Research, since the edit included no original research from a Misplaced Pages editor and was a simple portrayal of what was in the source material). JzG felt it necessary to overturn the decision of 15 or so editors unilaterally, which is completely inappropriate given that he did not discuss his rationale in advance and his reasons violate existing policies and guidelines. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

and - bad idea. Reeeeeeally bad idea. Vandalism warnings are not to be used in good faith disputes. is not better since I was already discussing this on Talk. It's really simple, though, all you need to do is provide some reliable independent sources which discuss Meltzer's claims - absolutely standard Misplaced Pages practice, and given how fired up you are about it that mustr be absolutely trivial to achieve. Fix it, please, rather than simply re-inserting material sourced fomr a primary source whose validity is in dispute. I note that you and Curtis23 have tag-teamed to avoid 3RR. Well well. What a good Wikipedian you are, with all that experience. Guy (Help!) 18:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)}

GaryColemanFan, are you the same person as that IP editor? (Just an honest question from somebody utterly unfamiliar with that whole field of editing) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not. I appreciate that you asked rather than accused, but I honestly have no connection with the IP editor other than believing that he/she cited valid policy points during the discussion and was dismissed by editors who were unable or unwilling to discuss the issue. Policy vs. "Just drop it" means that policy wins. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• This has become really stupid. He's slapping template warnings on my talk page and tag-teaming with Curtis to re-insert the content which was only put in after the POV-pushing problem started in December 2009, but making no effort at all to provide a reliable independent source for this being in any way important. That's all I've asked for. We have a factoid which a few people have eben stridently demanding for over two years, which has not gone in because there is no reliable indpependent source for its significance, there are forum activists who seem to think that this is some huuge big swindle perpetrated by WWF, and these two fools don't seem to want to get involved in the simple and routine matter of getting back to reliable indeendent secondary sources as required by policy. You wonder why some random trivial comment b y some random commentator about the attendance at some random wrestling match is worth two and a half years of agitation and an edit war when the text gets challenged - we can forget all about the WP:ONUS being on those seeking to include disputed text, of course, because it's sourced. Albeit to a primary source and without any indication of how the hell he comes up with his figures disputing the ofificial gate receipts. Anyway, I'm done here, I can't stand idiots like that. Guy (Help!) 18:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  • After your message on my talk page callimg me a "fuckwit" , I have no idea why people would see that you are capable of rational discussion. The problem is solved, so your "help" is neither beneficial nor appreciated. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Now let me see. You calle dme a vandal. I advised you not to do that. You called me a vandal again. I advised you not to do that and told you why. You templated me with a vandalism warning. I told you that was a really bad idea and why. You then templated me with another warning so I called you a fuckwit. The definition of a fuckwit is "one who is impervious to Clue". I think that describes you admirably. Feel free to prove me wrong by, for example, sourcing the issue to a reliable independent secondary source. You know, like it says in policy. Guy (Help!) 19:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I can see why Guy would be sorely tested, but Guy, calling someone a fuckwit is never helpful! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 23:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Umm Gary, no one agreed to included the note. The fact that Meltzer is the only source to ever dispute the official number and the fact that there aren't any independent sources to have ever covered this so-called attendance number dispute (because its THAT trivial...) makes it pretty clear that the simple footnote isn't even that important.... not notable IMO 18:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

There were 11 involved editors. Two of them (JzG and Darrenhusted) opposed the inclusion altogether. As stated here, Curtis23 and I support the inclusion. In addition:

• "This note establishes two things. 1) Dave Meltzer reports a different number than other sources. 2) His number was reported After the other sources reported their number. Isn't that what you've been fighting about this entire time? We'll do this... I'll split it into two sentences." - User:3bulletproof316
• "I still don't see what's wrong with saying: "Though the attendance was reported to be 80,103, a Ford Field record, Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter contested the claim, reporting an attendance figure of 74,687." It's simple, it's effective, and it's accurate." - User:Hazardous Matt
• "Above we had a clear discussion of the issue and compromises suggested and a gradual view was established, indicating that a consensus has been reached." - User:sephiroth storm
• "This isn't about being accurate. We have a reliable source which states something. We aren't the ones who determine what is correct and what isn't. We publish what reliable sources say, that is all." - User:Wrestlinglover
• "All policy references point to the footnote being the best balanced result (WP:RSN, WP:V, WP:RS and any others that I might have missed). That's where the consensus is." - User:Justa Punk
• "I'd support a footnote, too. In fact, I suggested that seven days ago." - User:Nikki311
• "As I stated above, I can live with that (I don't like including the claim at all, but as long as it is made clear that it is just Meltzer's claim and not factual I can accept it). " - User:TJ Spyke

So yes, many people (yourself included) agreed to include a brief mention in the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You are asserting that agreement of a tiny number of editors trumps policy. Policy says that unless we have reliable independent sources indicating its significance, it's undue weight, original research or both. Just get the sources, there's a good chap. Guy (Help!) 19:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey JzG can you stop insulting me as I said on your talk page. Oh by the way I know it wasn't direct but I can infer. Also there was a consensus off adding the footnote.--C23 C23's talk 19:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You need to know two things about consensus: first, it can change (and you're screwed if it can't since the consensus right up until December this year was not to include it); second, it can never overrule policy. Now, what you need is reliable independent secondary sources that cover the discrepancy in the figures, ideally telling us where Meltzer got his figure form (assuming he didn't just pluck it out of thin air). Otherwise we are taking a primary source and making up our own minds about it, which is WP:OR and absolutely forbidden by policy. It's very simple, though, all you have to do is find the reliable independent secondary sources. I didn't find one in the few dozen unique hits Google offered me but I don't give a rat's ass about professional wrestling so I don't have any of the offline sources, I'm sure you do. Until you have reliable independent secondary sources I'm afraid you don't actually have a leg to stand on. But don't worry, you're not the first person to make such a mistake and I'm sure you won't be the last. Guy (Help!) 19:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

That's the point, and I agree. 20:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

This interpretation of policy is baffling. I would like to see a quotation from a policy page supporting such a position. Original research refers to the synthesis of reference material or providing a personal analysis of a given situation. Clearly, that is not happening here. The statement in question is simply that Dave Meltzer reported a different number. The source provided states exactly that, so there is no original research going on. Nobody is making up their mind about anything other than the fact that Meltzer stated a different attendance figure. If you don't believe that Meltzer did so, the problem is clearly more serious than I initially thought. In this case, the demand for independent, secondary sources is also based on a misunderstanding of policy. Certainly, if the article were to claim that Meltzer's total is correct, additional sources would be needed. To simply state that Meltzer's statement exists is, obviously, best sourced to the claim itself. Along the same lines, it would be ridiculous to insist that an article about a novel requires independent, secondary sources to substantiate the "Plot" section. Obviously, the information is best sourced to the original text. If the article about WrestleMania were to state that there has been a huge controversy or outcry, a source would be needed for that. Nobody wants such a statement included, so that's not an issue. As for your question about how Meltzer's number was determined, that has been discussed several times throughout the discussion. You are advertising your ignorance of this situation with such a question. If you believe that you can issue the decisive statement about this discussion, you obviously need to at least glance through the discussion first. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not baffling at all, it's not even mildly surprising. You're just looking at it the wrong way round: the onus is on you to prove that your preferred text meets policy. On the matter of the text, what we know is that the venue and the organiser claim a record attendance and Meltzer said on his show that the real figure was 74,687 - a very precise figure which, correct me if I'm wrong, is actually an estimate based on the sales at concession stands and the average spend by fans at events like this. I would be astounded if the cumulative margin of error in this estimate were less than 10%, which would put the official figure within the range of accuracy of his estimate, but he states it to five significant figures. Did he say it was an estimate? Your preferred text says that he reported it, that's a long way form saying that he estimated it, especially by a process that is not actually directly coupled to attendance (this was record attendance, a figure based on merchandise sale could very easily be skewed simply by shortage of stock). Actually, though, we don't know any of this for certain because it seems it's not covered in any reliable independent secondary sources. The whole reason for the dispute appears to be that he once stated a figure which fans seized on as an accurate one because it ends with a prime and because everybody loves a conspiracy, in this case to claim a record attendance at $RANDOMVENUE. Even that might be significant if it were covered as a notable bit of fan controversy in the sources, but do you know something? In all the pages of argumentation on this, I have yet to see the proponents of the figure produce any source other than Meltzer himself and some fan forums discussing this figure. You know how Misplaced Pages works: we do not take primary sources and set them against sources which have been passed through the filter of secondary reportage, however much we might want to believe them. All you have to do - and forgive me for saying this yet again - is produce a reliable independent source discussing the dispute. Otherwise you could equally argue that anyone who plucks some figure out of their ass and publishes it in their magazine should have that figure set against the official attendance figures for any event, and that would be just plain silly. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

As per your request, here is your correction: The figure is not, in fact, an estimate. It is based on math. WWE released the total amount collected from merchandise sales. They also released the average amount spent by fans at this event, not similar events. Therefore, the attendance figure stated by Meltzer is not an estimate, as it is fairly simple math. You would know this already if you had actually read the debate on which you claim to be an expert. Here's one for you: If some people spend an average of $5 at a store for a total of $35, how many people were there? Give up? You think 7? Actually, the real answer is that it can't be answered, because the math would give you a prime number...or so you and 3bulletproof16 seem to think. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're hearing what is being said. The WWE figure is 80,103, if there were actually 80,100 or 80,000 then some would question it because it is too perfect, or say that the number had been rounded. 80,103 may not have paid (and WWE are know for comping to fill venues especially WM) but the venue and WWE claim the figure as the "record attendance", I have no doubt that they leave out the crew and wrestlers who didn't wrestle and they include those who got in for free but who took a seat (like Mickey Rourke at WM25, I doubt he paid to be in the front row). Metzler then takes a number of figures from WWE and applies an average (I'm not sure if it's the mean, mode or median) and does some math. His math may be impeccable, his average may be weighted (to cancel out a $0 spend), his number may be certified by MIT; doesn't matter. He's the only source, until someone else takes the same data and gets the same number independently then his figure (however precise, and believe me the 7 at the end is deliberate) is still just an estimate by Dave Metzler. The footnote was proposed to try and close the endless thread which finished up at 120k before it finally went back to the article talk page. In summation; find a second source. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You are making absolutely no sense. Obviously, he is using the mean if he is talking about average, since that is the only one that is related to averages. There is no weighting involved. The average (mean) of 0, 1, 3, and 24 is 7, whether you like it or not. Sometimes quotients have 7s. To summarily dismiss any statistic containing a certain number is absurd, and that would certainly constitute a violation of No Original Research. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to simplify; Metzler knows the amount spent on merchandise (from WWE)= A, he know the "average" spend (something to do with money spent on baseball caps) = B, he takes A and divides it by B and gets C, the amount of actual people in the building. Nowhere does this explain where the other thousand fans went, this doesn't explain if he thinks people who were members of the McMahon or Trump family count, it doesn't explain if he's taken $0 spend in to account. In short, his maths may seem well worked out but we don't know. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Gary I seriously think you have misunderstood this entire argument. The factuality of Meltzer's claim isn't the only thing now being questioned... It is primarily the importance of the note that is being questioned. Can you legitimately justify the inclusion of such a trivial note when it was deemed non-notable due to the fact that no reliable independent source...or any source for that matter...to cover Meltzer's attendance dispute actually exists? I mean the whole thing is that trivial... 21:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course. It is a verifiable statement that is in keeping with Misplaced Pages's guideline on reliable sources. Having appeared in a reliable source is sufficient to establish notability for the claim. As was stated by an administrator when this was first brought to ANI: "Obviously you should use sources representing both figures." For an encyclopedia to bill itself as "the sum of all human knowledge" and then dismiss facts that are in keeping with the encyclopedia's guidelines would be stupid and hypocritical. There is absolutely no policy or guideline to support your view. I can prove that it meets RS and V; you can prove nothing. Therefore, the information must be added back. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Its a self-published source and thus fails to meet both RS and V for this particular subject... Thanks for proving my point! You got this so wrong its not even funny! 05:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Meltzer is an established expert on the topic and thus is considered a Reliable Source and meets the criteria for Verifiability. Next! GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If you honestly believe that then you have absolutely no understanding of our policies and guidelines. Might want to read up. WP:SELFPUBLISH is the very reason your entire argument fails! 05:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC) 05:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No, the guideline you are quoting states: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Meltzer, as an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications (see , , , , , and for some of his books, not to mention many other books in which he has written forewords, sections, or has been credited as an invaluable resource—see ), seems to be a valid self-published source. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Please take discussion of the content dispute somewhere else. ANI isn't the place for it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not a discussion as such - he's simply repeating himself and then sticking his fingers in his ears and chanting "laa laa laa I'm not listening". A bit disruptive, I'd say, when you consider that he's been told rather a lot of times that all he needs to do is cite some reliable independent sources. I wonder why he's not done that? Guy (Help!) 08:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

GaryColemanFan, do you have a reliable independent source for the figure, other than Meztler's estimate? Jayjg 20:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:JzG - incivility

This issue has spun off of another thread at ANI, but I would like to see it addressed separately. JzG ignored a consensus on the WrestleMania 23 article and deleted content that was attributed to a reliable source. I left a templated warning message on his talk page ({{subst:uw-delete2}}). He responded on my talk page to not place templates on his page because he has been editing for several years. I am aware of DTTR, but it is merely an essay that I chose to ignore because his edit was, in essence, vandalism. I restored the content to the article page, and he removed it again. Once again, I issued a templated warning ({{subst:uw-delete3}}). He responded with the following message:

Please stop being a dick. If you continue to be a fuckwit, as you did at user talk:JzG you will be slapped with a large wet fish. Now never ever post a template warning on my talk page ever again, thanks all the same.

This was done with the edit summary "Idiot template for an iddiot". I am not looking to discuss the article itself here, as the discussion is going on in several locations already. I am, however, upset at the complete lack of civility on his part and would like to see this addressed. Thank you, GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"JzG ignored a consensus on the WrestleMania 23 article and deleted content that was attributed to a reliable source." Actually, the consensus shows support for the removal of the trivial text. The source was also deemed unreliable per WP:PW @ Talk: WrestleMania 23. Ahem... Continue... 05:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You must be lost. You're clearly looking for a different discussion. This one is related to civility. I have addressed your statements in various other locations. Please reply there instead. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You could have, you know, a) Not called his editing vandalism when it wasn't and b) not issued a template on his talk page when he asked you not to. This does not in any way excuse Guy's use of the words "fuckwit" and "idiot" and "dick", however, had you not insisted on slapping templates on him when he asked you not to, and instead typed your concerns about his editing in your own words, this could have all been avoided. Agree, he should not have called you names. But your were certainly pushing his buttons, and baiting him by leaving him templates when he specifically asked you not to was not a good idea. --Jayron32 05:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You know, in all the various arguments you've used during this sorry affair the only onw you've not tried as far as I can see is reliable independent sources showing the significance and context for the content you are edit-warring over. Why is that? Is it that there are no such sources, I wonder? Guy (Help!) 08:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, yes, JzG made an uncivil post with an uncivil edit summary. Unless you're trying to show a pattern of behaviour (in which case it should be at WP:RFC/U, it should be at WP:WQA because at this point it's merely a red-herring in the whole issue, and your distraction from the real issue is actually working. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't advise the OP to try that as it's unlikely that his repeatedly slapping vandalism template warnings on my talk page, for a dispute that patently was not vandalism, will go down terribly well. Unfortunately he seems to lack a sense of humour about this particularly trivial dispute - it should be plain to anyone that my faked-up "warning" copied from the template he slapped on my talk was intended as humorous. Apparently he has s history of this kind of thing, I guess if he really wants to continue escalating this then he's welcome to do so but he should be aware that whatever he does will inevitably lead to scrutiny of his own actions, and I'm not sure they will stand up to it. Guy (Help!) 11:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no doubt about that Guy...I was just saying that we needed to exchange a herring for a trout :-) ... fish or cut bait. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand that the template was JzG's attempt at a joke, but nonetheless, I think it was inappropriate and suggest that he doesn't use such obscene humour again, since it clearly causes offence to some people, and drama at ANI. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 11:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup, if Guy put that exact message on my talkpage, I'd laugh about it. Maybe he should have used the word "fuckface" - after all, as Russell Peters says, "it cannot be an insult: it's simply the face you make when you fuck" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have a warning somewhere that "if you poke this dog enough times, it may bite". Guy (Help!) 19:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It probably doesn't help though, but under the circumstances I can see that you were sorely provoked. But... difficult as it is for me to say, if I was called a fuckwit by an editor who I had a disagreement with, I'd be pretty upset. Mind you, I wouldn't have slapped vandalism tags all over the other editors page during a content dispute... - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 09:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

JzG is just this guy you know? Chillum 19:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Would it be a reasonable suggestion for JzG to apologise for the fuckwit comment, and for GaryColemanFan to apologise for placing inappropriate vandalism templates on JzG's talk page? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 09:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If both sides are willing, that would probably be best. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 09:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm always ready to apologise when my attempts at humour misfire. I think it's the "u" in humour? It doesn't seem to translate well. Guy (Help!) 19:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Hovhannesk and wilful misunderstanding of categories

I'd like to complain about User:Hovhannesk, who for months on end has been adding bogus categories to biographies of ethnic Armenians. For example, at Mariam Matossian, he added Category:Armenian musicians. I reverted him with the question "but is she a citizen?", yet he simply undid my revert. It's proper to put her in Category:Armenian Canadians, because she is of Armenian descent. It's not right to include her at Category:Armenian musicians, because chances are very high she's not a citizen of Armenia. She's Canadian by citizenship, so she belongs in Category:Canadian folk musicians.

Another example: this edit. First, it's illogical to have him at Category:Polish people of Armenian descent and Category:Polish Armenians -- one or the other (presumably the former). But it's downright absurd to put him under Category:Armenian film directors. He was not a citizen of Armenia, never made a film there, and for all we can tell, never set foot there.

I've tried to reason with him, but was met with defiance. This isn't a content dispute: we categorise people in professions by citizenship, period. And he does it all the time, so there's a bit of urgency involved too. Could someone else try to drum some sense into him? - Biruitorul 18:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have left User User:Hovhannesk a notification of this thread. Off2riorob (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
• The possibility of dual citizenship should not be excluded. Many Canadians are also citizens of other countries, and Armenia may consider that a child of an Armenian parent born outside Armenia is also an Armenian. This is speculation on my part, but it is worth considering. On that basis, Jerzy Kawalerowicz may also have been an Armenian citizen. - Eastmain (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

What really matters is what relaible sources report as far as nationality goes. Something similar was going on at the Rachel Maddow bio where Canadian nationality was being added to the lead per a citation to Canada's nationality laws. --Tom (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Eastmain, it is possible some of these are dual citizens. However, he has stated he doesn't care about citizenship, but about "ethnic race". Moreover, have a look at this edit. There was no Armenian state at any time during this individual's lifetime, yet he went ahead and added Category:Armenian actors (as well as Category:Turkish Armenians when Category:Turkish people of Armenian descent was already there). I think that's a problem, and shows he isn't at all concerned with citizenship. - Biruitorul 00:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. This editor seems to be a bit of an issue. Note the number of automated BLP notices on their talk page. Also see this old ANI thread. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 23:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Hovhannesk recently moved Armenian Iranians to Iranian Armenians just hours after the proposal was made at WP:RM by another user to make that move. It's not an uncontroversial move, as evidenced by the comment of another user on the page (which was there when Hovhannesk made the move). I moved the page back and asked him not to move pages in the middle of a formal move discussion. Good Ol’factory 06:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Tom is right: what matters is what reliable sources say, particularly when it comes to living people. Repeatedly adding dubious and unsourced categories to BLPs is a blocking offense. Jayjg 20:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

One factor that needs to be remembered here is that until a few years ago the Armenians were an ethnic group without a state: it would be hard for any Armenians to have dual citizenship. (A similar case is the Kurds.) Further, some members of an ethnic group live as expatriates due to a clear risk to their well being: life may be far better as a cab driver in Berlin than as a professor at their national university where they might be taken for "questioning" by the national security apparatus at any time, for example. That said, what I would look for is some assertion that the individual has a presence in Armenian culture -- that their music, art or writings are intended in some significant degree for an Armenian audience. While personally I would hold a person to a lower standard of verifiability than some here would, I still would look for something in the article to support the category beyond place of birth. -- llywrch (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Armenians born in the Armenian SSR certainly have evidence in their internal and external Soviet passports to determine if they are Armenian citizens. If reliable sources cannot be found that call a person a Soviet and/or an Armenian citizen, then it cannot be included in that person's article. Abductive (reasoning) 00:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

But what about Armenians born in Turkey or Syria, areas traditionally considered part of the Armenian homelands? (Which is why I mentioned the Kurds as a similar case.) The issue of ethnicity here is far more complex than simple labels on a passport -- no matter which country issues them. -- llywrch (talk) 05:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary vandalism & Civility

I would like to mention couple of things in the ANI report :

1. Uncivil remarks and personal attacks by User:Goethean—"f***ing joke" "megalomaniac and a liar"
2. Edit summary vandalism by IP 76.217.117.66 which looks ugly in History and counter personal attacks!—. ( Also would like to mention that another admin User:Abecedare was investigating stalking by AT&T ip address on User:Goethean )

--TheMandarin (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The user has a history of disruptive editing based off the talk page discussions regarding violations of WP:3RR, at a very minimum. I'd like to point out that was a personal attack in response to a request to avoid personal attacks. I was considering dropping off a {{uw-npa4im}} on the talk page based on that, but based on the conversation that has already happened, it doesn't seem like it's useful. I would like to see some input from the user, or at least an acknowledgement that this is a problem in hopes that things can change. But the comment regarding religion is quite unacceptable. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:DTTR. If you think someone is using personal attacks, ask them nicely to tone it down. Templates tend to inflame, rather than cool off, heated situations. If your goal is to get them to stop, the best method is to start a non-templated discussion with them. --Jayron32 04:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Well my comment wasn't really regarding the template; the fact remains that there already was an attempt to tone down the personal attacks, and the response was to use a personal attack. At that point, there isn't much more that can be done. I remain hopeful that the user stops by here to give some insight, though. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The anonymous editor was definitely out of line, but I can see he was provoked. A bit of context to the above edit shows that Goethean wrote that "You've got a tremendous amount of gall complaining about systemic bias against your position. What a fucking joke." Neither side really looks too good. I think that both editors be given a warning that further inflammatory comments shouldn't be made. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 09:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• The anon user is a well-known harasser of User:Goethean and should be reverted and blocked on sight, without wasting time engaging in his trolling.
• As for Goethean's comments themselves: I have previously had occasion to urge him to be more civil in discussions, to avoid personal attacks, and to use dispute resolution processes. It would help if other admins and users could take a look at his conduct, and also the content disputes surrounding Ramakrishnan, Jeffrey J. Kripal, and Kali's Child. The combination of genuine content issues and sub-standard editor conduct have made the editorial process reach an impasse (Note: I am not involved in these issues, though I have offered advice to parties on both sides of the dispute). Abecedare (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Ramakrishnan goes to a dab page. Which page do you want us to look at? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 09:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
    • OK, I've looked at the contributions. The only really controversial stuff I can see is on one of the articles, which is Talk:Jeffrey J. Kripal. The first problem is where he wrote that "Showing a lack of restraint that is completely typical" (unnecessary) and also where he wrote "What a fucking joke". I have to say that while this is definitely uncivil, it's not the worst I've seen. Definitely needs a warning though. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 09:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I've added a warning to his talk page. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 09:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I noticed this discussion after this user undid an edit of mine with the summary, 'undoing hatcheding of article'. I think he meant 'hatcheting.' I felt insulted, especially since I made my edit in good faith. Maybe he didn't understand the warning about using good manners? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing/Disambiguation issues on Ricky Wong

Disambiguation issues on the Ricky Wong article as User:Dangerousrave insists on replacing the content about the Hong Kong entrepreneur with details about a Malaysian businessman of the same name. I created a separate article "Ricky Wong (Malaysian businessman)" to distinguish the two, however the editor continues to replace the content with that of the Malaysian businessman. -Reconsider! 03:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Should the article currently named Ricky Wong be renamed Ricky Wong Wai Kay? That after all is his name. A disambiguation page would also help.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like this is sorted now. I've fixed (most) of the redirects, although we need to perhaps fix Ricky? Reconsider, do you want to do the honours there? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 10:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

User has copied my user page in near-entirety including barnstars

User has copied my user page in near-entirety including barnstars: please see revision. Thanks Rjwilmsi 09:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure there's a policy against that somewhere, but I surely cannot find it, at least not in WP:UP. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 10:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:BEANS? -- llywrch (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, your page isn't copyrighted or your property in any other way. While it's a dumb thing to do, I don't think there's a rule against it (false barnstars are no difference to the false edit-count notices which have been found to be allowable in the past). ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 10:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not at all sure that the editors who awarded those barnstars would feel the same way. It's not the same thing as a false edit count, he's alleging that 16 real editors have given him barnstars. Looking at his talk page he's close to being blocked, he's accumulating warning notices (including a final warning) rapidly. I'm removing the forged barnstars. Dougweller (talk) 11:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh Yes, there is a policy, as in "do not alter others' comments". The barnstars were given by other users, and their remarks including signatures have been copied out of context and placed into a different one. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 11:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC) (that was, obviously, an edit conflict)

Was the bold text really necessary? ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 11:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

about as necessary as your question Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 11:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The conditions for re-use given by CC-BY-SA were not met so I removed the text as an obvious copyvio. CIreland (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm the one who issued all those warnings, and I was about to come here if the editor's erratic and bizarre behavior continued, which so far it seems not to have. He edited an odd variety of articles generally to add or remove maintenance and deletion template, generally for no discernible reason, and often while cutting out some content and leaving a misleading or false edit summary. FWIW, I agree that fraudulently copying a barnstar to your userpage that was given to a different editor should be impermissible for about the same reasons that copying an editor's "keep" comment from one AfD to another would be.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 11:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably the same user is now at User:JaimeKnopfler, making questionable edits.--Cam (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot of this going around. Another example: me but (for admins only) not me. -- Hoary (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

That ones pretty old. I remember User:HamishRoss socks had a habit of doing this, although these don't seem to fit his profile--Jac16888 23:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of copyvio, it's just a rude thing to do, I think we can all agree to IAR and remove stuff like that. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 00:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I've asked them why they have the same first paragraph on their user page as User:JaimeKnopfler. If I don't get a response in, say, a day then I'm going to block indefinitely for suspected impersonation. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 10:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Both of which appear to be an adaptation of the first few sentences of Mark Knopfler#Life and career. Superfans obviously :) Nancy 13:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Block needed for long-term sneaky vandalism IP

58.172.32.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has for a while been the static IP of the "climate chart vandal" aka Mkd111 (talk · contribs), who has been on a year-long spree of slow sneaky vandalism. His edits are partly random changes falsifying statistics tables and climate charts, such as (apparently random mechanical changes to figures; the correct ones as per the source are those he removed), and partly insertion of new climate charts that look superficially plausible but are pure invention – none of them are ever sourced, and often he inserts figures that directly contradict sources that are already in the articles.

Can somebody please slap a longish hardblock on that IP? I'm not taking action, because he has recently been concentrating on Macedonia articles, where I am restricted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 months. Jayjg 20:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Editor Ancient Observer banned for six months & now restoring article to his last version

AncientObserver (talk · contribs) was one of several editors banned for six months from editing Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Shortly after his ban expired, and as one of his first edits this year, he reverted the article to his last revision with an edit summary 'revert to version before disruptive edits' (which in effect calls all the editors in the last 6 months disruptive). It's my opinion that his ban should be reinstated and lengthened. I'll notify him of this discusion. Dougweller (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked the account, with the rationale that such disregard for consensual editing is disruptive. I suggest that a topic ban discussion proceeds on the basis that they are only permitted to edit under such a sanction. Is there an Arbitration page where this action should be recorded? LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann is the place. Such action is disgraceful, particularly on such a controversial page, and AncientObserver has well merited his ban. Moreschi (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Block noted there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC) (Further) Can we continue a discussion on whether an indefinite topic ban, or one of limited duration, or some other restriction would be required to allow the account to continue editing the encyclopedia? I am sure that there will be a block appeal, and the reviewing admin will likely be guided by this discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Since this is a single purpose account, it doesn't matter whether we impose an indefinite topic ban, or a site permaban. Both will have the same effect. Moreschi (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Per Moreschi, leave the account blocked and let that be an end of it. Guy (Help!) 19:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Dougweller's paragraph tells me all I need to know about the matter to strongly endorse LHvU's indef block. Ancient Egyptian race controversy is one of Misplaced Pages's equivalent of a honeypot for contentious editors. -- llywrch (talk) 06:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Seems pretty cut and dried to me. Blocked for six months, then immediately reverted to a revision from 6 months ago? Indefinite block was the correct course of action. Not really someone we want or need on Misplaced Pages I'm afraid. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 10:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

User:DocKino

May I ask you to have a look at this edit by user DocKino: . There is a content dispute concerning Elvis Presley, but I think that these and some other insults are not in line with Misplaced Pages policies. Onefortyone (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It is inappropriate language, but it is being dealt with on the article talkpage - as is your nonconsensual editing. Unless you are going to take the matter to WP:WQA, this is a content dispute only. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You also forgot to notify the editor that you were discussing him here. I have now informed them. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 10:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Requsting an RFC close

Not sure if this would be better put somewhere else, but if so by all means move it. I'd like to ask that an uninvolved admin (or other appropriate party) close this content RFC if and when they believe a consensus has been reached. Thanks, Pfainuk talk 16:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Not necessary -- the RFC nominator can close it whenever they want (i.e. if they feel consensus has been reached) or it will be automatically closed in 30 days. They close it simply by removing the RFC template. If a consensus has been reached you can ask them on their talk page to close it. Swarm 07:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Repeated copy vio on Jyoti Basu

Contributor currently on 24 hour block, which I hope will resolve the problem. If not, additional steps will be taken as needed. --Moonriddengirl 16:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the right place or not. WP:CV does not mention how to handle repeated copyvios. user:59.93.240.49 has repeatedly added copyrighted information to Jyoti_Basu despite being warned on his/her talk page and the article's talk page. CS Miller (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If it's the same contributor every time, we block. If it's multiple IPs, we semi-protect. I'll take a look. --Moonriddengirl 18:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. On the article's talk page, it appears that the anon user has created an account, Anshuva Sanyal, talk. CS Miller (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I suspect you're right. More previously published material was added and has subsequently been removed. I have cautioned the named contributor (the IP received a notice, but I'm unsure if the contributor saw it). If the material is restored, further action will be necessary. --Moonriddengirl 18:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Why User Mcjakeqcool should be unblocked and my reasoning behind the theory

User:JRG/Corey Worthington

I posted the following over at WP:EAR and was sent over

This article was moved per a user request into userspace. Now, I'm not sure at all what is going on. I reverted one edit that was unconstructive by an IP, but now many IPs are editing the page, and I can't find the policy for editing in userspace. I'm also sure to what version you would revert and whether protection is necessary. Thanks NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 17:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It now appears that the author has retired, and the article is being used as a sort of testing ground. (making fun of the person, etc) I reverted one edit, but have no idea what to do in the long run and stopped trying to revert. I am not sure what kind of a resolution path needs to be followed. Best Regards --NativeForeigner /_Contribs 20:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

A BLP violation is a BLP violation whatever space it's in. I suggest it be speedily deleted as an attack page or as general housekeeping. – ukexpat (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, technically speaking, speedily deleting an attack page is housekeeping.--Ryan Fair (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• WP:BLPs in user space are an atrocious idea in the first place. Nuclear Warfare moved it to the Article Incubator. I think /dev/null is a better place, but then I think vain publicity seeking socialites are of less benefit to society than dog turds. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Wait! The subject in question appears to be notable for inclusion and the page is well-referenced. A second glance at the situation and I disagree with my earlier suggestion of deleting.--Ryan Fair (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Corey Delaney. NW (Talk) 21:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Ya. He was an Australian who is notable solely for taking the mickey out of a current affairs program. Personally I thought it was hilarious, but I don't think it was ever going to be notable enough for Misplaced Pages. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 10:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm tempted to agree with JzG. After cleaning up the article slightly, I cannot see any way that the article would ever be able to move back into mainspace. Perhaps what is in the Incubator should be moved to Corey Worthington and the page deleted. If he ends up attaining notability some other way in a few years time, we can always undelete the article. NW (Talk) 21:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with NW. NativeForeigner /_Contribs 21:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, on another thought I can't see the deletion discussion, but from what I can see... NativeForeigner /_Contribs 21:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You can see the AfD via the history tab. I think everything said there still applies - he's a child who when aged 16 did a silly thing, and per BLP1E we should not hang it round his neck for the rest of his life, even if he does seem to be trying to cash in on his notoriety. This should be deleted WP:CSD#G4. JohnCD (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Support deletion per JzG, move to Corey Worthington and delete. Off2riorob (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I take it this is resolved? NativeForeigner /_Contribs 22:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say, G4 unless the article can find a new champion who would update it and check for BLP problems. EdJohnston (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It is in userspace. Leave it alone. I also agree with Ryan Fair.--The Sobbing Huffy 23:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• It's in the user space of JRG, who isn't here any more. An un-owned draft of an article should be deleted, in my opinion. (There is no one who is taking responsibility for improving it). Are you volunteering as a new owner? You have very few edits. EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Quack quack. Off2riorob (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Quack, indeed. Anyway, since this has been sitting here untouched for some time, I'm going to go ahead and move it as suggested above and tag it G4. —DoRD (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Well, never mind, the target is create protected. —DoRD (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

All 3 possible names are blocked. Admin, por favor. NativeForeigner /_Contribs 05:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• I moved the incubator page back to Corey Worthington, deleted it per G6, and then salted the page. NW (Talk) 07:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Related, highly enjoyable reading (cough): Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Corey_Delaney_discussion --Hammersoft (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted page restored - how to speedy delete?

I am surprised I missed this, but Johnfos (talk · contribs) re-created a page, Nuclear 9/11, shortly after it was deleted following this discussion. He re-created the page with the false statement that he had "substantially revised" the article; as people noted in talk; his revisions included substantial copyright violations and basically turned the article into an advertisement. Can we speedy delete the article or do we need to go through the deletion debate? I will note also that this is not the first time that this particular user has re-created deleted pages shortly after the page was deleted in the appropriate manner; some sort of warning should be given to him that such actions are entirely inappropriate. csloat (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If it's sufficiently similar, it can be speedied under G4, yes. I'll take a look. Ale_Jrb 22:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've read it; it is virtually identical to the content of the page when it was deleted via AfD, and I have therefore speedied it per G4. Ale_Jrb 22:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not wanting to make a big thing out of this, but the article was substantially revised and updated from the version that went to AfD. For example, a lot of material on the position of the Obama Adminsitration was added that was not there before. And there are many more useful references in the most recent version which addressed the central problem raised at AfD. I would respectfully ask that someone take another look at this please. Johnfos (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're distorting how much was changed. The big problem is not that you added different words but rather that your changes never bothered to address the reasons it was deleted in the first place. In any case, as I noted on your talk page, the appropriate way to address this is deletion review rather than unilaterally creating the page against consensus. csloat (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You're entitled to your views, csloat, but I disagree and am asking for someone else to have another look at the situation please... Johnfos (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I was involved in the AfD. Why don't you just include some material about this in Nuclear terrorism? Recreating an article that was deleted at AfD is not respecting consensus: go to DRV to argue your case if facts have changed since August. Fences&Windows 23:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to go to DRV if that is what is required, as obviously the matter needs to be cleared up. My understanding is that if an article is deleted at AfD that doesn't mean that the article cannot be recreated with substantial revisions, so there should not be a problem here. The consensus at one AfD should not preclude an article with that title ever being created again. Johnfos (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I read it. 'Substantial revisions' means adding more than two short lines. If you disagree, however, please go to DRV. Ale_Jrb 23:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously I will have to go to DRV, which is fine. For the record, my recollection is that this is some of the new material added to the article, since August 2009:

The Obama administration will focus on reducing the risk of such nuclear threats and aims to strengthen homeland nuclear security.

President Obama has reviewed Homeland Security policy and concluded that "attacks using improvised nuclear devices ... pose a serious and increasing national security risk".

The Obama administration will focus on reducing the risk of high-consequence, non-traditional nuclear threats. Nuclear security is to be strengthened by enhancing "nuclear detection architecture and ensuring that our own nuclear materials are secure", and by "establishing well-planned, well-rehearsed, plans for co-ordinated response". According to senior Pentagon officials, the United States will make "thwarting nuclear-armed terrorists a central aim of American strategic nuclear planning".

Other parts of the article have been substantially reworked, and I doubt that there is a single paragraph that is the same as it was in the August 2009 version. At least one section heading has been changed. And there are many more references, 17 in total now, including plenty of scholarly sources. There is just no way that this is "virtually identical" to what was deleted at AfD. Johnfos (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes you did add some material that you directly copied and pasted from another article on the internet without attribution. Material that doesn't even mention "nuclear 9/11," by the way, and which would be deleted as irrelevant or as a WP:OR violation were the article itself to stay. You did not in any way address the actual reasons that the article was deleted in the first place. You say that you disagree and that is fine but you never state why you disagree and I fail to see an argument on the talk page of the article (or anywhere else) addressing these points. You have been here a few years now, Johnfos; it would be great if you could familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, even if you consider yourself "semi-retired." Thanks. csloat (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, but please assume good faith. There is nothing underhanded going on here. I have been quite up front with what I've been doing, even revising the draft in my user space for all to see. I think the next step is DRV (when I get the chance). If I had a copy of the version of the article that was deleted in August 2009 to refer to, I would be able to discuss the improvements made in more detail. Johnfos (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That sounds fair enough. I've put it as an article in your user space so that you can review it. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 10:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

User:James dalton bell

James dalton bell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user just won't give up their crusade to have admin Gogo Dodo blocked or desysopped. I don't think diffs are really needed here, one can simply check his contributions to see his tl;dr rants about Gogo was abusive, all the while being abusive himself, calling other sockpuppets, meatpuppets, neo-nazis... the list goes on. Gogo has been nothing but polite, and frankly, I'm sick of this user's abusive and disruptive tirade. Also note that I have notified the user of this thread.— Dædαlus 23:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The user appears to be under the mistaken impression that his bio is there for him to broadcast his own beliefs and ideas, and he is ignoring WP:SOAP and WP:OR, while making personal attacks against other editors, particularly Gogo Dodo. Unless Jim Bell can calm down and edit within the policies and guidelines of Misplaced Pages, I see no reason to not block him. Then he can post about his new theory on global warming, the government, and how we're all Nazis somewhere else. Fences&Windows 00:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he seems somewhat intransigent in that position as well. This essay comes to mind while reading his posts. —DoRD (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

What? Dodo has been 'nothing but polite'? Ha ha! Actually, he has: 1. Repeatedly and rapidly deleted my posts, preventing a consensus. 2. He has ignored my objections, OTHER THAN his simply posting templates, as if those templates are somehow 'writ from God' in this very matter. Actually, it's easy to PRETEND to be 'polite': Simply delete somebody else's stuff, and then DON'T SAY ANYTHING in response to complaints! That's (basically) what Dodo does! Then, when I object, and when I am very DETAILED in my specific objections, meat puppets say, 'Oooh! That's a RANT!!!!'. (In other words, anybody who actually takes the time to craft DETAILED, NON-template objections and arguments, is automatically guilty of a 'rant'!!!). See the problem? I have tried to solve this situation, but Dodo will not participate in any sort of ACTUAL discussion. (throwing a template or two does not constitute a 'discussion'!: A template may, hypothetically, be wrong, inapplicable, or quite imcomplete.) Even the meat puppets won't actually address the problem, which is this: Dodo is taking the position that if he can assert that there is ANYTHING wrong with somebody's edit, he (Dodo) can instantly delete it, not wait for consensus, and then virtually ignore all objection and challenge. His meat puppets (who, I strongly suspect, engage in very similar behavior) have a strong vested interest in seeing that Dodo gets away with this behavior.

James dalton bell (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all, desysopping him won't prevent your edits being reverted if they are against policy. Second, consensus for something that is against policy is hardly obtained, so, your edits wouldn't prevail, and Gogo would not be desysopped. > RUL3R_>vandalism 08:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I see you have been editing an article on a biography of a living person (I am not assuming it is your own biography.) WP:BLP, one of the top policies on the site, requiers that all material written about a living person must have a realiable source, so that information can be verified and that there is no original research. Please address this concern and your edits will prevail. > RUL3R_>vandalism 09:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

More unfounded claims without evidence of meatpuppetry, which qualifies as a personal attack. I'll be warning the user after this message.— Dædαlus 09:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh this is silly. I'm blocking indefinitely. This is a disruptive and incivil editor. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 10:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm reminded a bit of this (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 11:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

ad account

User:Nitinsinghalmca has recreated that one after it was speedied per db-promo. Please someone block the account and delete the article. Thank you Skäpperöd (talk) 05:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

As a purely technical note for your own information in the future, CSD G4 does not apply to articles which were previously deleted via CSD. G4 relies on a deletion discussion, i.e., XfD. However, the article is a copyvio so I retagged it under G12 and we will be on our way. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have notified the user of this discussion --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

User never got a {{uw-create}} warning, and copyvio warnings were not explicit (most were "your article may be deleted", not "stop violating copyright or you'll be blocked). I'm issuing uw-create now, but I have salted the article so we're not likely to see any more activity. If he starts recreating it under modified titles then I'll consider blocking. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 06:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

La Brea Tar Pits

An editor with the name of "Playdoh"-something has been waging a slow edit war for the last month, repeatedly attempting to insert a promotional piece. The editor won't follow consensus, and has been arguing his case on the talk page, and keeps adding it anyway. I don't know if I can take this to the edit-warring page since he doesn't seem to have violated 3RR (yet). But since he won't listen to anyone else, maybe a notice on his talk page, from an admin, might get his attention? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like no serious attempt has been made to have a discussion with this user. The only messages on his/her talk page are a boilerplate welcome message and a one-liner with little more than a link to WP:3RR (and no explanation). rʨanaɢ /_contribs 06:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Playdoh-something?! Please provide diffs, references to what and who you mean. And please notify that person of the multiple threads you have now opened about them. Thanks. Weakopedia (talk) 08:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Playdoh1845 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As for spamming, here are some diffs. Also, given that the editor above has been participating in the discussion on the talk page, your note there has been no attempt to discuss this with the editor is false, given there is ample discussion there telling the user exactly that. Please read a little more into the situation before you go making broad statements that don't assume the good-faith of others. Bugs even said that he tried explaining this to the user.— Dædαlus 09:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Continuing the discussion without first informing the editor of the discussion is couterproductive. I have now informed them of this section. Weakopedia (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, apart from the article talkpage, I'm not seeing any other threads where BB mentioned this. —DoRD (talk) 11:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, BB appeared twice in my watchlist and I misread the second edit summary - one thread it is. Weakopedia (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The user is a single-purpose account whose entire focus is that one article, to promote his website. I've already warned him at least twice at the one place he's working. I wanted an admin to speak to him on his talk page - where, if you'll notice, he's ignored all attempts by other to get him to follow consensus and stop his spamming. I was hoping an admin would post on his talk page so he might pay some attention, since he doesn't care what anyone else thinks. If he comes here to make his case, that's fine. Thank you (to the non-admin) for posting on his talk page. We'll see what he does next. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Another thing: If the user persists, can I take him to the edit-warring page even if he hasn't technically violated 3RR? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if the editor continues to add the material, even if they don't violate 3rr, take it to an/ew as it allows for slow edit wars as well. —DoRD (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

3RR is meaningless. If someone is edit warring, you can take them to the edit-warring page. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 17:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

3rr is only "the bright line," before which blockable edit warring can and often does happen. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible sock puppetry

See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Playdoh1845. Thank you for your time. Whoever has been involved here, I hereby request that you review the evidence and comment. Again, thank you for your time.— Dædαlus 05:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Stealing a userpage, abusive comments

{{Resolved|No administrative action required. All Misplaced Pages pages are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License; scroll to the bottom of any Misplaced Pages page and read the fine print. -FASTILY 20:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)}}

After I noticed User:TheRightfullEqual stole another editor's userpage wholesale without attribution (see his versus User:NDfan007), I deleted it with the edit summary "Remove copyvio; license for that text requires attribution. Copied from User:NDfan007." This disease of copying userpages wholesale without attribution seems to be going around in the last day or so. The response I got was this abusive comment on my talkpage and TheRightfullEqual's userpage now changed to be a personal attack on me.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 10:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC) EDITED TO ADD: also this attack from new sockpuppet User:The Man That Rocks And Is Cool.

I'm not convinced that it is a copyright violation to use someone else's userpage (and I speak as someone who copied elements of mine...) – everything on Misplaced Pages is submitted under a free copyright license, after all. What's the problem? ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 10:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm no expert here, but read over the comments at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User has copied my user page in near-entirety including barnstars.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 10:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• I contributed to that thread, and have obviously read it. I am still not convinced that it is a copyright violation to use someone else's userpage (and I speak as someone who copied elements of mine...) – everything on Misplaced Pages is submitted under a free copyright license, after all. What's the problem? ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 10:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Again, I'm no expert, just going by what was said above, but the problem would be that the CC-BY-SA isn't a free license in the sense that it's like public domain material or something; attribution is still required for a subsequent use to be permitted.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 10:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• The terms of CC-BY-SA are clear - re-use of content requires attribution, even within Misplaced Pages. However, although that is a perfectly correct reason to prevent unattributed userpage copying, the fact that it is deceitful and rude is more important but also more open to wikilawyering. CIreland (talk) 10:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• User:The_Man_That_Rocks_And_Is_Cool's only contributions so far have been to vandalise a talk page, and refactor my comments when I notified them. Very very mild personal attacks, but still, I don't really think they are here to build an encyclopedia. --Taelus (talk) 10:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Yep, they seem to not have any intention to stop. User:The Man That Rocks And Is Cool. Still very very mild, but not really constructive or suitable for building the project. --Taelus (talk) 10:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• See also The Man That Rocks' new userpage.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 10:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• User blocked as a harrassment account. --Taelus (talk) 10:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

COmment

SO similiar looking User Pages is a crime? O_O. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 12:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Idential userpages are violating US copyright law without attribution, yes. Ironholds (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

How about similiar looking? My User page layout is similiar to Deltype's. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 13:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Similar looking doesn't really matter; but if you've copied parts of it, you need attribution. The same copyright license applies in our article space and user space. We don't alow cut-and-paste moves in article space for this reason, and we can't allow them (by law) in user space either. CC-BY-SA requires attribution. I don't know if we have any views or polcies on it apart from the legal stuff, I haven't checked. Ale_Jrb 13:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

While what the user did would be considered rather rude and obnoxious, is there really a wikipedian policy that prohibits it? I thought this was supposed to be a free-content projet. Prop3v56 (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is, both the GFDL and CC-BY-SA require attribution for copying content. What we produce here is free as in beer and as in freedom, under the condition that credit is given where credit is due. MLauba (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it goes beyond Misplaced Pages policy and goes into international copyright law. Everything anyone posts here is copyright to them, they own it, and the condition they give to otherwise free use is that it be given attribution and that derivative works follow the same license. Using Misplaced Pages content, even inside Misplaced Pages, without attribution is copyright infringement. Chillum 22:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I see this is closed, so I will not re-open it, but I think Fastily's close comment is in direct contravention of http://wikimediafoundation.org/Terms_of_Use Woogee (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The idea that this should be pursued as a copyright violation is fanciful, but excessive unauthorized "borrowing" of other people's userpages (to the point of copying their barnstars, etc.) is uncivil, and if necessary I will blank or delete such pages if they are not revised after a warning and a reasonable time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's comments notwithstanding; This is correct. The page would have been properly attributed if the edit summary of the initial edit had said "copied from (source)". However, lacking this, it was a violation of the cc-by-sa license. –xeno 00:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

To re-distribute a text page in any form, provide credit to the authors either by including a) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the page or pages you are re-using, b) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy which is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on this website, or c) a list of all authors.. The edit summary would need to provide a hyperlink or URL from the original source, not just the name of the person whose page was copied. Woogee (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. That's what you would paste where I put (source). "Copied from User:Xeno" would be sufficient as Mediawiki would generate a hyperlink (the dickishness of copying wholesale a userpage without permission notwithstanding). –xeno 00:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

For anyone who doesn't know, WP:Copying within Misplaced Pages is the relevant guideline. Flatscan (talk) 04:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Article Vandals

Editor User:Racepacket is in my view abusing the authority to edit articles. Specifically, Racepacket has targeted two articles, the List of Notable Morehouse College Alumni and the Black Ivy League, by deleting valid content.

Similar deletions and/or comments have not been made to similar articles such as the list of Earlham college alumni, Hampden Sydney, Elon University, etc. Why these two articles have received such harsh scrutiny is a question the editor must answer. Nonetheless, deleting a large percentage of an article which has been on the wiki for several months is odd if not deviant.

The edits made by Racepacket destroy or otherwise undermine the historical significance of Black Colleges and the tradition of the Black Ivy League.

Because similar deletions and or comments have not occurred on similar articles, one can only conclude that a certain level of bias exists.

The content/text deleted was factual and supported by citations and acted to further the overall purpose of these article(s). It is unfortunate however, that the editor found it necessary to intrude on two well written articles.

In the spirit of MLK Day, we must promote peace and harmony by discontinuing invasive attacks on substantive articles of historic significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John E. Rhea (talk • contribs) 14:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Three things right off the bat:

1. If you're trying to paint somebody as a racist, stop right there. Such personal attacks will get you nowhere here fast.
2. I don't see what much ANI is able to do for you here. This looks more like a content dispute more than anything. Rather than continue conversation with Racepacket, you instead come here and accuse him of vandalism – a lack of assuming good faith on your part as well.
3. You are required to notify whom you are reporting here (like that I just had to do).

–MuZemike 14:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• The word "racists" never came out of my mouth! No I am not attempting to so label. Simply attempting to have this type of editing stopped. Do you wish to help?? John E. Rhea (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)JER —Preceding unsigned comment added by John E. Rhea (talk • contribs) 14:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• I should note that when discussing issues related to "black folk" too often we conclude that a "contesting party" is raising allegations of racism. Such makes it easy to dismiss the underlying issue. In the instant situation, we have an editor who is applying scrutiny to an article unnecessarily.John E. Rhea (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)JER

• I understand your good intentions, but it might be worthwhile discussing why they are making the changes on the talk page, and also perhaps send them a friendly message noting our policies. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 14:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oops, I see you did. This does look to be a content dispute. I'm marking as resolved. Please discuss with the editor but preferrably stay to the article talk pages. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 14:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Racepacket is discussing this on the talk page. Suggest you take an AGF pill and do likewise. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I am a firm believer in "Don't bite the newby," and User:John E. Rhea is clearly a newby. He created his account on Nov. 27, 2009 and has 436 edits that were are mostly devoted to Morehouse College and the Black Ivy League articles. We have left welcome messages explaining the need to sign talk page comments and to document with references main article contributions. With respect to lists of college alumni, such alumni should be notable. If a Misplaced Pages article exists for the person, I assume that notability has been established. However, User John E. Rhea has been adding many people who are not covered by Misplaced Pages articles. In these cases, I evaluated whether the person could meet notability standards, and if not, I deleted the name. At Mr. Rhea's request, I have spent the last three hours working on Earlham College. The list of notable Earlham alumni and faculty were recently trimmed by User:Awiseman, but I did trim three non-notable faculty. (I then turned to building up the referenced content of the article.) The members of WP:UNI are willing to apply criteria fairly regardless of the race of the individuals involved. However, the insertion of non-notable people in alumni lists is an on-going problem and warning messages are included as comments in the source code of such lists asking editors to not do that.

I don't understand his concept of "intruding on an article." Perhaps User:John E. Rhea needs some mentoring. He has a lot of energy, but needs to learn more about WP:N, WP:NPOV as well as the mechanics of Misplaced Pages.

Regarding "deleting a large percentage of an article" (without discussion on the talk page), that is in fact what User:John E. Rhea has done today. Again, this is probably a beginner's mistake. Racepacket (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, that's very gracious and good natured of you Racepacket... - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 15:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It could be a case of mistakenly thinking that editors own articles. In any case, I apologize if I caused any difficulty here. When I saw this being brought up on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day I naturally drew the line that someone may have been alleging racism going on. I also assumed that the OP wanted some admin action taken, i.e. via a protection or a block (which clearly neither will happen per the recent commentary). But yeah. I would also recommend to keep discussing on the article's talk page, as that's that article talk pages are there for. –MuZemike 19:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Help Please

Just by sheer luck I happen to spot an article created by a now blocked user with a bunch of racially charged BS concerning the earthquake in Hatti, on a hunch I check the contributions and found a massive attack campaign underway at the article Timeline of rescue efforts after the 2010 Haiti earthquake. I semi-protected the article and reverted the worst of the vandalism. I had a look through it, so far everything seems correct after the revert, but I would really like an extra pair of eyes to check to make sure all the vandalism is out of the article (I haven't been following the quake statistics all that much), and I could use a second opinion on the semi-protection length. I plugged in 6 hours, but in all honest if today's edits were any indication I think more time should be allotted. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I checked all the diffs from the last good edit before ClueBot's back to 17 Jan, and they all look clean to me. —DoRD (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and one of the vandal edits mentioned "9000" so I expect that this has something to do with /b/. —DoRD (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh Lord, we all know that means :/ Handling this assignment is going to be loads of phun... TomStar81 (Talk) 18:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• I thought something was up. I mean, I'm aware that your average school IP is filled with thee cream of both stupidity and ignorance's crops, but it seemed as though the Haitian earthquake articles had been getting a bit too much attention from vandals... HalfShadow 19:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Why the hell are we even talking about this if /b/ is involved? Find the thread, report the fuck out of it, and semi the article for a bit. Don't talk about it, shut it down! —Jeremy 07:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked article subjects

Looking at the thread on James dalton bell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) above I am reminded of something I have been meaning to do for some time. {{Blocked subject}} is advice for blocked subjects. If your template-fu is strong I encourage you to tweak or amend as necessary, for example to include whether the user is blocked or not as a parameter and tailor the message accordingly. Also reduce the length as it is somewhat loquacious. Guy (Help!) 19:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice template Guy. I've made a suggestion on its talk page. --NeilN 20:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestion, feel free to make any changes you like. It's very much a first draft. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Very nice. Grandmasterka 01:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleting others' comments

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

At WT:RFA, Arcayne (talk · contribs) has twice deleted a comment left by Xeno (talk · contribs), an admin. Arcayne is an immensely experienced user and must surely know that such activity is disallowed. He was also warned in-between the two deletions. I consider this behaviour to be unacceptable, and would welcome input. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 20:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think an ANI on this is necessary - Arcayne and I are in dialog on the issue. –xeno 20:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

As I understood it, you were in dialogue over the "racism" debate. I am more concerned about the fact that Arcayne considers himself exempt from the talkpage guidelines, and I think that it merits wider input as a behavioural issue. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 20:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

As to that issue, I've chosen a different word which hopefully resolves the issue. –xeno 20:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, I'm not wildly concerned about his objection to your message's phrasing. It's the fact that he thought it was acceptable to remove it, twice, despite a warning and a long experience of Misplaced Pages. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 20:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I was minded to give Arcayne a uw-delete2, but if the two of them are discussing the issue then maybe we should allow them to sort it out between them. Generally it is not a good idea to remove other editors comments. Mjroots (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think he appreciates your choice of words, judging by the threat at the end of his reply... ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 20:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone comes off looking too good here. While I see now that it is pointed out, the origins of the phrase "going off the reservation", it is still common parlance and I would not have thought twice about using it. Arcayne would have been smarter just to ask xeno to strike the language. No administrative intervention required here. Who's buying lunch?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, TT. Why you felt the matter could not have been handled off-noticeboard is beyond me, but there it is. I refactored out the comment that termed me as a racist because it was disruptive, attack-y and superfluous to the conversation. It was during a discussion at Talk:RfA wherein the term "gone off the reservation" was used to denote an admin who has begun acting outside of the rules. The rest of the conversation went on smoothly, as everyone understood the intent of the term. Xeno requested that I refrain from racist language a day (and more than at least a dozen other comments - none of which considered the phrase unbecoming). As the comment was essentially tossing gasoline on a fire, I refactored out the comment, as per WP:TPO and WP:REFACTOR, considering it desruptive. Call me crazy, but I consider being called a racist somewhat disruptive, uncivil and lacking in AGF. - Arcayne () 20:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Which bit of WP:TPO mandates removal of "disruptive" and "lacking in AGF" comments twice? ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 20:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Pointing out phrases that are considered by some to be racist or insensitive is not the same as "calling someone a racist" - so now it is you who is being asked to refactor. –xeno 20:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

What part of TPO? Take your pick: how about "Removing prohibited material" (libel), "Removing harmful posts" or "Refactoring for relevance"? Stating that someone is using racist language equates to calling them a racist. Before you argue that, consider carefully how you would react to someone dropping the n-word into a conversation. I'm ¼ Native American, and if I have no problem with the common usage of the term, then neither should you. Your moral outrage non-sequitur aside, it was disruptive and was equivalent to tossing gas on a smoldering discussion between participants. It was unwise and should have been handled privately, since the offense taken was of a personal nature. - Arcayne () 20:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd respond, but this isn't the right venue. Someone close this, it's stale. And so is lunch - I'm not paying =) –xeno 21:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

And Treasury Tag is buying lunch, but not for me; I just ate his. :) - Arcayne () 20:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

NY Times content

The New York Magazine is reporting that the New York Times is going to cease providing free content and will install a "metered" payment system. Please see Misplaced Pages:Using WebCite for information on how to archive NY Times articles in Misplaced Pages before they disappear behind a paywall.--Blargh29 (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a bot waiting to be written. Toddst1 (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The current NYT plan seems to be that only access to more than a few articles will require payment, just like Financial Times does. So, I don't see how this will cause any serious problems for us. You'd still be able to verify the occasional article reference. Besides, all NYT has to do to nix all your WebCite copies is to send an opt-out letter to WebCite. Pcap ping 05:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Tom Butler's maintenance of an attack page against me

Tom Butler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Relevant discussions:

• User_talk:Durova/Archive_76#Help with a user who maintains a user page attacking me?
• User_talk:Coppertwig#Help_with_a_user_who_maintains_a_user_page_attacking_me.3F
• User_talk:Tom_Butler#Concern

I am concerned that this particular user is maintaining an on-wiki WP:ATTACK page in violation of the userpage policy. Since there is a history of bad-blood between myself and this user, I have expressed my concerns to others and asked for their advice. The user is reticent and refuses to adjust his user page. I ask now for uninvolved administrator intervention.

Thanks.

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't see you referred to specifically on his page... I don't find pages complaining on how the skeptics are all blind particularly tasteful but... could you please specify the section of the talk page where he refers specifically to you. Simonm223 (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, most of the quotes that Tom Butler finds so abhorrent are from me, not ScienceApologist. The lead quote at "Expectation of safety" is from SA. I've been aware of the page for some time, and have even pointed to it in my RFAs. Mr. Butler has the same right to consider my views harmful to Misplaced Pages as I do to find his views harmful. So long as he doesn't stoop to name-calling and other inflammatory techniques, I don't consider it to be an attack page.—Kww(talk) 23:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I may have been looking at an older version. Sorry about the refresh. Still, the entire userpage is somewhat distasteful and he does take a quote from me out-of-context (even though he removed my timestamp and username attribution). Anyway, I can't help but feel that the maintenance of this page is a battlefield tactic. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

On closer inspection you are referenced once by initials SA with an implication that your (low) opinion of conspiracy theory proponents makes Misplaced Pages unsafe. I bet you like that about as much as I like being called a pawn of the Communist Party of China! That would suggest that this particular anti-skeptical screed is a bit more targeted than some I've seen on Misplaced Pages. I'd present this as a much less problematic example of an ant-skeptical complaint on a talk page for the sake of comparison. It would appear that SA's complaint may have some merit. Simonm223 (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• So Tom Butler is basically setting himself up to look bad if he gets involved in any kind of dispute that gets escalated. At this point I would be sitting back in my large black leather chair and stroking my long-haired white cat... Guy (Help!) 23:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • /me sits back on her broomstick stroking her familiar. Durova 00:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC) I'll get you, my pretty! -The Wiki Witch of the West

Requesting Admin action

Hi. There is a problem with user Gibnews attitude. Himself, me and other editors have been tensely discussing Gibraltar-related articles for some time already. This editor has usually resorted to ad hominem arguments, focusing in the contributors he disagrees with instead of in the actual content of editions or articles. Dissenting editors have constantly been described as 'Spanish', and both 'Spain' or the 'Spanish Government' have been pointlessly vilified quite often as well. Here are some diffs to illustrate my statement:1- 2- 3- 4- 5- 6-

He has been asked more than once to refrain from this kind of uncivil behaviour. In fact, a moratorium concerning the disputed articles was agreed amongst the editors involved in the ongoing discussions "with the understanding that the entirity of ones comments must be about the proposed editions and not the editors". However, today I've seen this, and I feel that it is enough already. This can't go on forever. You may very well agree with Gibnews' positions, or mine, or neither. But this reiterated conduct is unacceptable. So long, there have been several attempts to engage with this particular editor in civil debate, the latter being the aforementioned 'moratorium' (to my knowledge -I am not the only editor involved here-).

Thus, I request Admin action as a last alternative. --Cremallera (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• There always has been a problem with his attitude - mainly that he has one POV on a highly polarised issue and other people have the opposite POV. You want dispute resolution. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it. The diffs predate the moratorium and the diff you've just posted isn't a problem from what I can see. Gibnews does have an attitude problem, made worse when he is baited. Which he most certainly has by editors that include Cremallera. I can confidently predict the usual suspects will be along presently to demand his head.

The atmosphere on Gibraltar articles was getting quite poisonous, which is why Narson quite sensibly proposed a moratorium to cool emotions. DR is currently being tried, so I really wonder why Cremallera has suddenly appeared to make this post out of left field. Justin talk 23:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I can provide post-moratorium diffs also. The latter I've provided is, in fact. However, you admit he has an attitude problem as well. And he has done nothing to put an end to it, even with past and current dispute resolution attempts. PS: do you really see no problem in modifying another editor's comment to state that his IP belongs to 'Telefonica Espana'? It is quite serious actually. --Cremallera (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I see Gibnews appending to the comment much the same way that a person would put a SPA template at the end of a person's comment in an AfD. I wouldn't call that "modifying another editor's comment"; that's a pretty harsh bit of hyperbole there. On the other hand, it wasn't necessary and certainly escalates the nationalist problems, which is a problem that Gibnews has (and others who edit those articles). That's one reason to have a moratorium, pointing out who is "pro-Spain" and "pro-Gibraltar" and constantly referencing it derails any productive discussion. Justin is absolutely correct in that Gib was baited though. Honestly, I'd totally give him a pass in that pointing out that the editor is editing from a Spanish ISP is the worst comment he made in response to an SPA (sock?) trying to stoke the nationalist fires. -- Atama頭 01:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

question

I remember a consensus (policy?) that we shouldn't collect what other editors have said on talk pages and save them on a private page somewhere. I forget what it was called, and haven't seen it for a long time, so I don't know if it's current consensus. Can s.o. point me in the right direction? kwami (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about copying and pasting it to your own userspace, or something different? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You may be thinking of the fourth paragraph of Misplaced Pages:Attack page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that was it. Thanks! kwami (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

User:DegenFarang ignoring tendentious editing warnings

A prior ANI complaint illustrated this editors histor of tendatious editing, including vandalizing BLP articles and Wikihounding. He was then giving a final warning, and then another warning and then a "last warning". To this he responded he would only obey Misplaced Pages rule which is he would be ignoring all rules. He editionally mocked all policy and guidelines and made up his own. He recieved "final warnings" for his previous BLP vandalizing here and here. He has recieved about five "final warnings" in total, yet he is allowed to continue his slash and burn editing. Today he as violated 3RR and has made a abusive attack at me, as well as inappropriately editting that article. Enough is enough. User:DegenFarang and his IP should be blocked permanently, immediately. It is a complete mockery that he has ignored numerous final warnings and continues to act far beyond anything acceptable to the Misplaced Pages comunity. 2005 (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Canvass much ? Arkon (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I will not dignify this with a response, other than to say I reported 2005 for edit warring prior to this posting - and to say that this all stems from my editing a likely autobiographical article full of un sourced info, self-published external link spam and peacock terms DegenFarang (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Degen did get warned for tendentious commentary and for wikilawyering about WP:IAR (see my talk page). I warned him. User:2005 has a history of canvassing and was also warned about that. While the post to my page & Ed's could be considered appropriate as we both warned Degen - there is maybe a wider WP:CANVAS issue here.
  I suggest a caution be issued to both Users to disengage from anything to do with the other. Both editors are edit warring and both should be blocked even though they technically have not broken 3RR - they have broken it's spirit and are both engaged in tit-for-tat pointy WP:AN3 posts. Additional Degen was reported for a separate 3RR issue by another user today
  Suggesting 36hour blocks for both if this behaviour continues--Cailil 01:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Block of User:RMHED

RMHED (talk · contribs) was provisionally unbanned by BASC in late September. Since then, he has engaged in disruptive activity that has led to a series of subsequent blocks for incivility, personal attacks, inappropriate behavior, and trolling. More recently, he has blatantly violated WP:POINT by seeking some sort of revenge against another editor. As a result, I issued this user a final warning, and his response indicated that he doesn't understand why his actions are disruptive. As such, I have indefinitely blocked him. I am posting here to alert the community of my actions and to ensure that they are not considered excessive. –Juliancolton |  01:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Support: RMHED is a classic example of "the wasp at the picnic" who appears to consider erudition to be superior to negotiation or civility. Providing good content here is not unique to a handful of editors, nor confers immunity from sanbtions, as previous disruptive editors have found to their cost. Time after time, RMHED has been brought here, and elsewhere, has been multiply blocked and has perpetually failed to behave in a collegiate manner- and even if he's objectively correct, he's conspicuously failed to have that view accepted. Enough. Rodhullandemu 01:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Support, although I usually use "fly in the ointment". RMHED could be a good editor if he wasn't so RMHED about it :P. He's been blocked countless times, without understanding that we won't tolerate what he's doing (possibly because we keep tolerating it). He's exhausted all his chances, as far as I'm concerned. Ironholds (talk) 01:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Support - RMHED has also been mildly disruptive at other RfA/Bs. See here, here, here, here, here, here... And those are just recent ones. Though he does amuse me on occasion, I think that a block isn't a bad thing. -- Atama頭 01:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Support. Otherwise, where's the end of the line for someone like this? Şłџğģő 01:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Strongest Possible Support All of his disruptive activity makes me wonder why he was unbanned in the first place. The Thing _{Vandalize me} 01:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Support. When I saw RMHED's comments earlier today in Misplaced Pages:Requests for bureaucratship/Useight 3, I thought there were so obviously over the line as to merit an immediate block right then and there; the revenge diff only made it worse. In view of the long history of disruption and apparent unwillingness to reform, an indef block was very much in order. Nsk92 (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Strongly endorse. This behavior had to come to an end at some point. RMHED has used up his "chances", and since being unbanned, has consistently embodied "disruptive" in every sense of the word. JamieS93 01:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Strongly endorse, beneficial, with no loss to the project. Should remain blocked. –blurpeace  01:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Support - While I am reluctant to comment given that I was the user who removed his remarks at useight's RfB with a less than cordial edit summary. Even still, I've seen nothing but absolute incivility and trolling from this user. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 01:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Support - I never quite understood why he remained unbanned all this time; RMHED acts like Misplaced Pages is his playground, we are his toys, and he has nothing to lose. Constantly skirting (and crossing) the edges of policies and guidelines for personal amusement is disruptive. Would have been an amazing gadfly against entrenched wiki-bureaucracy if he cared to be, but sadly he did not. -kotra (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Support block, oppose indef. Perhaps a little mentoring is needed? (If not then just ignore this)--Coldplay Expért 02:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I stand ready to be a mentor to RMHED if that is what's needed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

In that case. I Support the proposed mentorship of RHHED. As long as he himslef agrees that is.--Coldplay Expért 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

and you seriously think ChildofMidnight would be an appropriate mentor? Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodhullandemu (talk • contribs)

What evidence do we have that Baconfat will respond positively to mentoring? There are several diffs right up there indicating he is an irredeemable troll. Şłџğģő 02:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Why not? CoM is a competent person. While he made some mistakes in the past, he's no idiot. He'll do fine. 2. If you never try then you'll never know. Give him a chance (yes I know he has had a second chance before)--Coldplay Expért 02:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

From the many mentorings I've seen on en.WP, the mentoree almost always winds up reblocked but the mentor learns a lot. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'll just say this: ChildofMidnight, as an editor, is not without conflict, and struggle as I might to WP:AGF, I would prefer to see some terms and conditions laid out for both parties to this arrangement. Rodhullandemu 02:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be cruel here, but "a second chance?" Do you know how to count? Şłџğģő 02:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

When RMHED was provisionally unbanned in September, he was given three mentors, all experienced WP users. Obviously that has not helped. Apart from the current incident, there were two other blocks for disruption between Sept 20 and now. I would say he has used up his second and third chances already. Nsk92 (talk) 02:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry people. Just trying to save him from a terrible fate....--Coldplay Expért 02:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I did duck out of mentorship when we were fellow candidates for ArbCom, for obvious reasons.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards