Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:27, 18 March 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 admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

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

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

Fraudulent referencing

User:Ash has repeatedly inserted "references" to a retailer site where the only relevant content is expressly acknowledged as being "from Misplaced Pages," and the relevant text is essentially a word-for-word match to the pertinent Misplaced Pages article. Since Misplaced Pages mirrors cannot, of course, be used as references, I removed such references earlier today. Ash is now reinserting the references, linking to the same retailer site, but providing a misleading description of the referenced source. The articles involved include Alec Campbell, Chuck Barron, Cliff Parker, Bo Summers, and Chance Caldwell. This should be a very simple matter; when a page describes itself as a Misplaced Pages mirror, it can't be used to reference a Misplaced Pages article, and it's grossly inappropriate, bordering at best on deliberate deception, to present such a page as a reference with a description that misrepresents its nature, claiming it comes from an independent source. (The site used as a "reference" is (NSFW, adult content) http://www.rainbowcollexion.com/store/DaveAwards1992.html , a site hawking porn videos, with text matching Dave Awards.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I raised this matter on Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's talk page but s/he seems to prefer raising an unnecessary aggressive ANI rather than discuss the matter in the normal way on article talk pages or user talk pages.

The source HW has repeatedly removed was discussed at length at Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films/Archive 3#RfC Use of the Adam Gay Video Directory as a reliable source when HW previously went through a campaign to discredit the Adam Gay Video Directory as a source. It is actually well supported by academic use as the information supplied by other editors in that RFC shows. Rainbowcollection is a handy additional URL which clearly sources the published information to the printed AGVD. Assuming good faith, I changed the reference style after HW's initial multiple deletions to make this explicitly clear. The format of the references most recently removed without appropriate discussion was:

The URL is a handy on-line representation of the information for the layman reader rather than only quoting the OCLC for the printed material.

When Hullaballoo Wolfowitz first reverted my citation, I amended it to include the OCLC. S/he has blanket deleted across several articles without further discussion and appears to be failing to assume good faith on my part by calling the citation "fraudulent". I request that these deletions are reverted and discussed in a civil manner rather than waste everyone's time with this sort of bullying and unnecessary escalation. Ash (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be the third ANI regarding this user. SGGH 23:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a blatant sales and advertising link to me. Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) So? If you mean me rather than HW, then both previous ANI's resulted in no action due to a lack of substance and were raised by Delicious carbuncle; a user with a topic ban in place history of unnecessary dispute. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive206#Proposal_to_Ban_Delicious_carbuncle. I suggest you judge this matter by the facts presented. Raking through any and all past disputes involving third parties, myself and Hullabaloo Wolfowitz in different combinations would appear more than a little off-topic. Ash (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, did you look at the adult directory to confirm that the awards are listed there or did you rely on the vendor page (which mirrored wikipedia) to assume that's in there? If it's the latter, that is reckless and will cause other editors to review all of your citations with suspicion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The source was verified when the information contained in the article Dave Awards was sourced from it. The reference is identical, only the handy URL has been added for convenience. Its use in this manner falls within WP:RS (and WP:SPS for that matter) as the URL is not the key source document but presents the identical information, namely that these credited actors won these awards. Potentially the URL could be removed leaving the reference to the printed document only, however, we commonly point to commercial sites or catalogues (such as IMDB or AFDB) which are used as supplementary sources. I see no particular reason why gay pornography should be a special case and have to comply with higher criteria for supplementary sources than any other sort of BLP related article. You will note that this ANI is about "fraudulent" referencing.

I believe that it has already been made abundantly clear that there is no "fraud" at work here, particularly with a history of a prior RFC that addressed this matter and the use of the word is unwarranted and uncivil. If we are discussing the refinement of referencing then this is not the correct forum as no administrator action is required and this is not a forum to reach a general consensus on referencing. Ash (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This is reckless, Ash. The cited text in wikipedia states that the winners of the last year of the awards, 1994, was listed in the 1996 directory. No mention is made of the other years. Yet you reference the 1996 directory for the 1993 awards. I also had to giggle about the directory being used for a "2003" award.. Yeah I know that one was a typo. You should not cite to anything that you can't verify yourself. See WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I have been the only editor to supply multiple OCLC's for the AGVD - that was verification that the source document existed in its different editions. If you believe the information about the Dave Awards might be false, and the AGVD (which was published in several editions as information was updated) was not verified, then the identical information in the Dave Awards article supplied by other editors cannot be trusted either. As you have chosen to go ahead and delete these references rather than discuss any further, I suggest you do the same thing, for the same data on the Dave Awards article. Presumably this means that all references to Dave Awards should be deleted from all articles as the AGVD is the original document as published by Dave Kinnick who created the award and it made a point of formally listing the Dave award winners based on his original column. The obvious consequence will be the eventual deletion of several more BLPs about gay pornographic actors, an area already remarkably under represented on Misplaced Pages compared to almost any other genre of film.

Note that with your recent deletions you are ignoring the prior consensus of the RFC mentioned above for the use of the AGVD as a source. Ash (talk) 08:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You are blatantly mischaracterising that RFC. First, the RFC does not establish that the Dave Awards prior 1994 were published in that 1996 directory! Second, that local consensus does not trump the consensus established by wikipedia policy and guidelines! It is clear to me that you have not directly verified the material per SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. You can't cite to something that you don't even know/prove that's in there. That's why other people are characterising this as fraud. The burden of proof is on the person who adds the material. See WP:V. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The list of award winners at Dave Awards used the same original source (AGVD) to state the same porn stars as the articles I have edited won the exact same awards. Either it was verified at the time or it was not. I have used the same citation with the addition of a relevant OCLC to prove it exists in a library. I do not have to read paper copies of every citation myself in order to give each citation credibility, that is not part of wikipedia policy as we can rely on verification by other editors. If you believe the source was not verified correctly, the route you should take is ask for verification, not deletion. By claiming the source is "fraudulent" then it should be removed everywhere it is used, not just on the article I have edited.

By the way, a RFC is a wide consensus process, not a local consensus. Ash (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems like you did not read Dave Awards article correctly when you copy its citation. "Kinnick had a monthly "Video Review" column in Advocate Men Magazine; the results were posted in his column each May from 1989 through 1993. The last awards were published for the first time in the Adam Gay Video 1996 Directory since the column ceased in December 1994." That assertion was cited to the 1996 directory. Not the list of yearly awards. To me that is an assertion that the 1994 awards were listed in the 1996 directory, while the others were listed yearly in the Advocate. A good editor has to verify things when adding it to wikipedia. You can not shirk this responsibility simply because it is inconvenient for you if it's not online. BTW, I don't call any consensus arising out of 3 editors participating which includes the one who called the RFC as being wide. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, could you provide a link to the policy that states that Misplaced Pages contributors must personally verify all source material for citations with their own eyes rather than relying on verification by others? I am only familiar with the basic RS and V and these make no such constraint. I am not sure you understood my point. All the information in Dave Awards was verified at the time to the sources quoted. I could add a blanket reference to Kinnick's original column in the Advocate if that makes you more comfortable but I would still be reliant on verification by other contributors. As for the RFC, it was publicized on RSN as well as using the normal WP-wide RFC process, that in the 2 months it was open, only 3 people took part did not stop an unknown number of people reading it and anyone was free to contribute if they felt strongly. If you feel a second RFC is needed, you are free to create another, the fact I created an RFC in the first place demonstrates my good faith attempt to satisfy Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's original objections. Ash (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I say it's a reasonable interpretation of "It is improper to take material from one source and attribute it to a different one" of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT along with WP:BURDEN's "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." A good editor would check his sources and not rely on heresay. I don't consider your editing fraudulent, just reckless. Further, commenting on the RFC even though it's moot since I don't think it applies, a wide consensus is not formed simply because the opportunity to do so was widely disseminated. Like you said, silence does not always mean agreement, it means people didn't give enough of a shit to contribute. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It may be useful to look at this BLP noticeboard discussion of Ash's sourcing on a specific article. I have also commented here on the use of the website noted by Hullabaloo Wolfowitz, but nothing came of it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The RFC above started on 3 January 2010, was publicized on RSN and stayed open for two months, you were active on that talk page and never bothered to express an opinion or provide any relevant facts. Pointing to other discussions about different articles and different sources (in the case of the BLP discussion, I was not notified of the discussion existing) can only serve to take this ANI off-topic. If you previously had discussions and nothing came of it, perhaps there was a reason that nothing came of it. Ash (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, I'm not sure what you're talking about, but I'm going to stay out of this one. My earlier ANI comment about rainbowcollexion.com is here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. The use of the Adam Gay Video Guide itself is fine, the website linked which does state it's pulled from Misplaced Pages is not. Looking at the content history and cross-referencing the link above shows that the content was added to Misplaced Pages's article in August 2006 and the website page was created in 2007. This amounts to Misplaced Pages citing itself as a source which is not usually allowed, certainly not in this case. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz IMHO is quick to assume bad faith and throw the baby out with the bathwater however, this issue could have been approached more collegially and the dispute isn't with the content but the cited sourcing so deleting content because the sourcing is subpar is a step backwards and likely serves only to inflame editing. Fix the sourcing or tag it for needing a source, in this case if you are unwilling or unable to simply add the source. This is similar to citing a YouTube video of a news report when the source is the news organization and not YouTube. A link to the YouTube copy can be provided for verification, context and content, etc. but in this case a mirror site link is not acceptable. The content doesn't need to be removed just fix the sourcing. If rainbowcollexion.com also seems to be mostly or entirely mirroring content then the site itself may have to be blacklisted. -- Banjeboi 19:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Also note Per WP:SOURCEACCESS:"The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." So not having access to a newspaper or magazine of repute does not mean it shouldn't be included. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The main issue I have that I have stated above is that there is no evidence that the 1996 Adams Gay Video Directory listed Dave Award winners before 1994. When you reinstated that citation, Banjeboi, did you check the directory to confirm that it is there? Has anybody here actually seen a copy whether it be electronic or print? Speaking of inflammatory and bad faith, why point fingers at HW when he did not remove content in this dispute. He replaced a unverified citation with the citation needed tag. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no reason to doubt the source and zero evidence has been brought forth that suggests the information is untrue or misrepresented. The issue was with a mirror site and that has been addressed, with a lot of WP:Drama which I am not interested in prolonging. -- Banjeboi 20:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Zero evidence? Did you read what I had written above about the Dave Awards article? "Kinnick had a monthly "Video Review" column in Advocate Men Magazine; the results were posted in his column each May from 1989 through 1993. The last awards were published for the first time in the Adam Gay Video 1996 Directory since the column ceased in December 1994." That assertion was cited to the 1996 directory. Not the list of yearly awards. To me that is an assertion that the 1994 awards were listed in the 1996 directory, while the others were listed yearly in the Advocate. There's your evidence. You have not met WP:PROVEIT nor WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT when you reinstated that citation. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Morbidthoughts has posted on my talk they are looking to see if they can access the online version of the underlying magazine to put the issue to rest, if not we can work out some other way to accurately represent the underlying sourcing. I consider the matter resolved for now and am happy to work with them to collegially find the best way forward. -- Banjeboi 21:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

After some digging, the Advocate is not available in my academic database subscriptions. Maybe somebody in the WikiProject LBGT works or studies in another academic setting can easily find access to a print or online copy. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ughh... and Advocate issues are on Google Books that go back only to January 1994. It also seems like there are two issues per month. Can somebody contact Kinnick through facebook so he could confirm whether his 1989-1993 awards were listed in his 1996 directory? Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If only Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is calling me a fraud here, I suggest this ANI is closed as no admin action is required. Ash (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't expect people will pay any more attention to this here than they did on BLPN, but see the already linked BLPN discussion. In that case you used as references sources which did not contain the stated information. I chose to refer to your use of sources as "bullshit" rather than "fraudulent", but I suspect they mean the same thing. This suggests a pattern of undue care on sensitive BLPs and may require admin attention, if not action. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If this thread has become an excuse for Delicious carbuncle to throw insults at me for a third time on ANI, could an admin please hide this discussion? It has become an obvious attempt to defame me without bothering to supply evidence or follow any reasonable dispute resolution process. I would hide it myself but I expect this would be taken as an opportunity for yet more thin claims of malfeasance. Ash (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That comment is really inappropriate. You asked (implicitly) if anyone besides me doubted the good faith or your sourcing practices; DC responded that he did. And you've teed off on him, once again, without addressing the substantive matters involved. It is flat out untrue for you to say DC was defaming you "without bothering to supply evidence" when he provided a link to a discussion where he supplied such evidence; there is no need to cross-post or repetitively post the same details over and over. And no one who has posted comments with edit summaries like "HW is making me feel ill" is in any position to complain about civility. A primary reason that so much Misplaced Pages content, especially BLP content, in the erotica subject area is in indeplorable is the tendency of a small group of users to focus on personal criticisms of those they disagree with while avoiding the substantive editorial issues, in an effort to make the editin experience unpleasant for those they disagree with, and your pattern of behavior, quite frankly, falls aquarely into that category. How else can one explain your post on my talk page blasting me for not using dispute resolution processes, followed by your post here, only 22 minutes later, insulting me for "bullying" you and other misconduct for invoking those same dispute resolution processes? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense, how could saying "I object to your recent edit comments. You appear to be maligning my edits. Are you calling me some sort of fraud? Please raise your complaint on the correct dispute resolution process rather than maligning me in edit comments. This source had a perfectly adequate discussion on Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films/Archive 3#RfC Use of the Adam Gay Video Directory as a reliable source. If you wish to challenge it, again then do so but desist from removing properly sourced material from the articles in the meantime." possibly be interpreted as "Blasting" you? You have failed to prove I am a fraud or my edits were fraudulent. You have escalated what should have been a collaborative discussion about reliable sourcing into unnecessary threats of admin action. Claiming other editors are frauds is transparently uncivil. Go away and do something productive instead of stirring up drama and taking random pot-shots at me.

As for my edit comment on my own talk page, yes you are making me feel ill with this nonsense, so the comment is perfectly accurate and not an attempt to attack you as, frankly, who would ever notice it unless you pasted it in ANI?

This ANI is titled "Fraudulent referencing", not "Let's rake through every edit Ash has made in the last 3½ years and find something else to grief about". Unless you are prepared to prove that I am a perpetrating fraud, there is nothing here apart from satisfaction for anyone else who wishes to enjoy insulting me by calling me a fraud. Ash (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, in the BLPN discussion that I've already linked to twice in this thread, I pointed out exactly what was wrong with some of the references used. It is difficult to assume good faith when multiple sources you inserted into one article did not contain the referenced material. It is impossible to maintain good faith when after this is pointed out to you, you do not fix the problem. It would be nice if you could respond to the specific charges, rather than puffing up your feathers even more. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm certainly not considered uninvolved in these disputes so my comments need to be seen as such. The underlying stated problem was that a source was misrepresented. Instead of taking any civil and traditional approach an alarmist ANI thread seemingly designed to malign a content editor in gay porn is again started. Meanwhile a solution has already been presented, and no one disputes the content is accurate (just not sourced in the best way possible), but I digress. The thread goes to great pains to paint Ash in the worst possible light and also takes sweeping jabs at others who suffer this nonsenses routinely. Such gems as A primary reason that so much Misplaced Pages content, especially BLP content, in the erotica subject area is in indeplorable is the tendency of a small group of users to focus on personal criticisms of those they disagree with while avoiding the substantive editorial issues, in an effort to make the editin experience unpleasant for those they disagree with... and past jabs alluding to a mythical gay porn cabal complete with outing attempts and accusations. And here these two have the gall to pretend that Ash, myself, or anyone else has gone out of their way to interact with them in any way when the exact opposite is true. And assert that we have any interest in causing them grief when the reverse situation seems to be quite evident. Delicious carbuncle has been doing this, in this one subject area, for several months now and peppering alarmist and dramatic threads to keep them from being archived; and forum shopping in the words of others editors on these boards, because they don't get their way in a given discussion. Their sole contributions in this area has been to game and harass editors in this area with pointless and escalated regular editing issues while doing whatever they can to delete content they apparently don't approve. This is coupled with bad faith accusations and hot-button arm-flailing - BLP sky-is-falling nonsense that is quickly dismissed for what it is. Now they play the victim card to flip the script that mean ol gay porn article editors are picking on them. On the surface that might look plausible but I've only seen Ash trying to use consensus and policy to find resolution and generally Delicious carbuncle simply works to delete as much as they can regardless of consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, in my limited experience is quick to assume bad faith against editors but I'm not familiar enough with their editing to note if they are tendentious about it. This certainly feels like tag-teaming and frankly if there is a dispute on sourcing go to RSN, and those editors know it. So dear fellow editors I apologize for a lengthy comment here as I feel this board actually can be used to solve problems that really do need fire and brimstone cleansing but this seems like the nth thread in the one topic area with Delicious carbuncle and unfortunately it looks like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is somehow getting themselves in deeper as well. This all takes time away from their vandalism patrolling and other deletion work, which can be helpful, with keeping both Ash and I from actually building articles. It also serves to suck up the community energy with yet another dramafest where the actual problem may be yet another case of Delicious carbuncle wikibullying another editor who they disagree. This seems to be an ongoing pattern with them. My assessment is certainly bias and open to off-site campaigning on Misplaced Pages Review and elsewhere, especially by banned editors. This is my opinion and gives fuel for User:Ash/analysis which Delicious carbuncle made threats over, escalated to multiple forums and was upheld at MfD as being a logical step in dispute resolution. Delicious carbuncle doesn't seem to WP:Hear that their pattern of disruption remains a net loss for the community. Unfortunately I think that remains an ongoing regretable situation which may have to be dealt with if they can't amend their interactions with all editors, not just ones they apparently do approve. Also I second Ash's request that an uninvolved party hide, and likely close this thread. The sourcing issue supposedly requiring this thread was already being solved at my talkpage so this thread seems to be yet another attempt to defame them. -- Banjeboi 05:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Benjiboi, all of this bluster is unnecessary - is there some reason why Ash can't simply respond to the examples of, to use the word in the title, fraudulent referencing I raised in December and put the matter to rest? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If the best random pot-shot you can fire at me is to refer to a BLPN discussion from over three months ago where you were rude enough to call the sources "bullshit", and concluded with no issues being raised or changes being agreed for the article in question, then you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel in an obvious attempt to take this ANI thread off-topic. There is no evidence for me to respond to here. Put up some hard evidence that I am perpetrating a fraud which needs urgent Admin attention (as per the topic of this ANI) or take your transparent persistent disruptive uncivil and repugnant misuse of the ANI forum for griefing somewhere else. Ash (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, I identified five specific sources in that discussion, although I don't know if all of them were added to that particular BLP by you. How much more evidence do you require? I'm sure I can find it if I start looking. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Vladimir Correa won no Dave Awards. This can have no bearing on the request for Administrator intervention by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for fraudulent referencing in relation to Dave Awards on the five articles listed at the top of this ANI. A BLPN was raised for Vladimir Correa to discuss sourcing, no changes resulted despite your accusations of "bullshit" and ANI is not a forum to rehash discussion from months ago in an attempt to overturn consensus or a place to discuss possible improvement to sources on Vladimir Correa, as you well know the place for such a discussion would be Talk:Vladimir Correa.

If you want to have an Admin take action against me then supply some evidence relevant to this ANI. Your continued attempts to create unnecessary drama and to defame me with no firm facts to support your claims are a misuse of this forum. This forum is not a discussion group for when you feel bored, lonely or want to pick a fight. Ash (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

In an ANI discussion entitled "fraudlent referencing", I can't help but think that the example I cite of your fraudulent referencing may be relevant. Again, I have stated exactly what is wrong with the references, so the facts seem to be quite firm. It would be nice if you could simply respond to the charge here. Although it is great to see Benjboi practising his typing here, it isn't doing anything to put the matter to rest. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who cares to examine the Vladimir Correa article will discover that you have raised no current concerns on it, there is nothing to "put to rest". The last time you edited the article was on 29 November 2009 when you raised the article for deletion, this was also the last time you made any comment on the article talk page. The result of that AfD was to keep. I say again, you are off-topic by raising long dead discussion as fake evidence for griefing. You are misusing ANI for harassment. Ash (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, if any admin feels that I am using this thread to harass you, I hope they will speak up, because that is not my intention and I apologise if you feel that that is what I am doing. I'm simply asking you to address the unresolved sourcing issues that came out of the AfD of that article. If my allegations that the sources do not contain the cited information are wrong, it should be very easy for you to show that and would probably take about the same amount of time as avoiding the question has taken thus far. Since this thread was raised about concerns with your sourcing, it seems wholly appropriate to have that discussion here, not on the article's talk page, since the concern is with a pattern of misuse of sources, not with any specific article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Benjiboi, your extended fantasia may have some nice rhetorical flourishes, but it's belied by the fact that you've been hounding me, on and off, for months, to the point of jumping at the opportunity to file a bad faith sockpuppetry claim over an edit made after a system-glitch logout, in a dispute where you'd intervened to claim that blogs were generally acceptable sources for BLPs, despite clear policy language to the contrary. You also went out of your way, for example, to encourage an abusive sockfarmer and a gaggle of obsessive fans to keep pressing transparently phony charges of bias and multiple accounts against me. It's more than telling that you keep ignoring the substantial policy issues and outright violations in the disputed content generally, while freely flinging innuendo and groundless, evidence-free accusations around at editors you're in conflict with. It's past time to stop pretending and own up, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No need to characterize my statements as false or "fantasia", they are my opinions are I believe them to be true and accurate. As for the accusation that I am in any way Wikistalking you, that seems contrary to reality and I can assure you is utterly false. I have no interest or inclination to Wikistalk anyone. Of the many editors whose edits I either felt needed to be and were asked to review yours didn't strike me as anything but rather uncivil and quick to assume bad faith. As you seemed to be doing a lot of vandalism patrol I think that goes with that territory. If you are open to advice I encourage you to be much more welcoming to newby and IPs editors, even promotional-ish ones. If we can encourage them to add good sourcing and amend their less than positive interactions and contributions that the project wins. Promotional-ish editors often are experts on the subjects they are trying to edit. If they can instead work to rise to our level of notability, MOS and standards then, again, the project benefits. Time and again on your editing I've encouraged civility and coached much of what I wrote above about better sourcing. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground so i have little interest in engaging as such. I'm sorry you feel I'm in any way stalking you, the likelihood is I question and restore the deletion of content on articles that our paths cross. I have apparently edited thousands of articles so that we intersect from time to time is not that peculiar. As for the sock claim it looks like it was accurate although simply a technical glitch, meanwhile you're faulting me for supporting a sock of some sort, I didn't know they were then and still don't. If they are they still had a valid point that they felt you may have been using socks and this seems to suggest they had a point. If you follow my entire history I continued to push for civility, dispute resolution and even did an overhaul of one of the articles myself so that editor could see you weren't the only one who felt that article needed clean-up. I strike to limit the drama and simply work to improve the articles. Years from now what will count is the quality of the articles not the drama that goes into their creation and maintenance. Now as for blogs as reliable sources, this is an ongoing misperception that more experienced editors have been handling on a regular basis. First off this medium is growing exponentially and replacing in part traditional news media much like the advent of radio and television, and cable channels. Some are perfectly acceptable on BLPs and elsewhere, some are not. A blog written by the subject of a BLP is certainly acceptable for statements about themselves. If in doubt a civil talkpage discussion and possible a visit to the RSN would usually clear up any issues. As for this thread, which presumably you still seem to care about, the content was never disputed by anyone, and still isn't. it was all a matter of sourcing it correctly and that's being resolved. So it would seem this has been another escalation to ANI that was unneeded but has shed some light on the background of those involved. I wish you all the best in your future endeavors regardless if our paths ever cross again. -- Banjeboi 09:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that's a fairly skanky response. You pretend to justify you groundless accusations by citing a long-discredited socking charge, one that had already been proved false when your sock buddy tried resurrected it. As was evident at the time, the charge was disproved by CU, and no less than Jimmy Wales had intervened on my behalf, suggesting that I be "thanked for right action . While you pretend you "push for civility," in fact you encouraged conspicuously dubious users, virtually all of whom proved to be SPAs/sockpuppets, to maintain campaigns of personal attacks after extensive talk page discussions and AN/I disputes had consistently rejected their positions. Your comments on the substantive dispute involved are equally shabby: despite what you say here, the policy regarding blog-sourcing of content is quite clear - "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject" - and the stated exception was not involved in the dispute. You can strike this Uriah Heep-ish pose all you want, but it won't suffice to disguise your lack of good faith, your double standards, and our refusal to abide by WP content/reference policies. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Referring to my response as "skanky" and calling another editor who I really don't know nor work with as "my sock buddy", etc seems a really bad way to maturely discuss who you handled the situation.It's utterly false to suggest I encouraged them to "maintain campaigns of personal attacks". If there was ANI threads, etc were they three-ring circuses such as this? Really, I pushed for them to use better sources and improve content as that was the best response to someone who seemed to be acting tendentiously against this one set of articles. I really didn't know the subject but I did feel your editing was a bit heavy-handed when it didn't need to be. Similar to your hard line stance following the letter and avoiding the spirit our policies you strike me as seeing too much as either black/white extremist positions when human beings aren't quite as easy to push labels onto. I stand by my comments but if you never used socks then my apologies. As for the rest of your baseless accusations I respect that you actually believe them to be true for whatever reasons. They aren't but you can believe whatever you wish. -- Banjeboi 14:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I'm getting involved with this, and I may already be regretting it, but a quick look at the most recent arguments leads to the obvious call to COOL IT on all sides. DC's use of expletives, and HW's use of the word "skanky" and the general accusative bickering nature of all this is unacceptable to me. - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm cool, but I agree - let's deal with the issue below and get this thread wrapped up. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Detailed analysis of Vladimir Correa questions as raised by user:Delicious carbuncle on BLPN on 11 December 2009

Source BLPN: (diff)
As Delicious carbuncle is intent of raking through this old BLP/N on ANI here is a detailed response to the five citations mentioned in that BLP/N that resulted in no action, edit or correction at the time:

1. wikiporno.org - fails WP:RS, I have no idea why User:Keraunos added this reference to an open wiki (diff), it puzzles me as to why Delicious carbuncle felt they could not remove it or blames me for it existing in the article. I would delete it myself if I did not expect to be immediately accused by Delicious carbuncle of yet more malfeasance or fraud.
2. The "More Dirty Looks" book demonstrates that Correa was in "Inside Vladimir Correa" (and that video exists). As for the placement of the reference, I don't have strong opinions on the matter. The discussion about his role as a top or bottom could be deleted without damaging the article, I do not believe that text was added by me. Obviously this improvement could be discussed on the article talk page, or just made without having to create drama on ANI.
3. The reference to http://images.quebarato.com.br/photos/big/9/A/683F9A_1.jpg is just a reference to a DVD cover showing Correa. The article does not depend on this supplementary information. I could not care less if it is deleted or not.
4. The reference to Dyer's book seems appropriate as Dyer lists him with other examples of how his film portrays Correa as a superstar. In the current version of the article, the reference is being used to support him existing as a well known porn star. Rather than Delicious carbuncle's description of "the book sources do not appear to have any correspondence with the facts" this source seems quite appropriate.
5. The Advocate interview appears entirely appropriate as there are no other porn videos produced before 1993 that would be anything close to "Inside Vladimir". It is entirely reasonable to conclude this had to be "Inside Vladimir Correa".

• It should be noted that I believe my response here is pointless as this is the wrong forum for Delicious carbuncle to be banging on about a dead discussion in BLP/N when, as an experienced editor, s/he could not be bothered to raise these points on the article talk page, or to raise flags for improvement on the article itself, or continue to pursue the original question on BLP/N last year. Delicious carbuncle appears to be on a fishing expedition in an attempt to find something against me. As this out of date BLP/N discussion has been used to make repeated claims that this somehow demonstrates I am acting fraudulently, I have felt obliged to take time to respond in detail.
• Delicious carbuncle has made no attempt to discuss, delete or improve the references that s/he complained about over 3 months ago.
• I strongly object to these repeated accusations from Delicious carbuncle, and would hope that the fact that s/he has raised two recent ANI requests about me on this forum that amounted to nothing but hot air as additional evidence of repeated misuse of this forum in an attempt to harass or defame a number of other editors in the form of griefing. I hope that this sustained uncivil and passive aggressive behaviour is not tolerated in future. Ash (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, thanks for finally responding directly, and thank you for toning down your earlier remarks. This all came about because I nominated what was a very poorly sourced BLP article for deletion. Although the AfD was closed as "KEEP" and Cirt's closure was upheld at DRV, the article subject clearly fails WP:PORNBIO. It is unlikely once the current sources are properly vetted it would pass WP:GNG (which is not to say better sources could not be found). Ash, you appear to have deliberately inserted fraudulent references in order to improve the chances of this article being kept at AfD.

In order to minimize friction, I stated during the subsequent BLPN discussion that I did not think it would be productive for me to edit the article myself and asked that someone else make the necessary changes (which would presumably include looking over the rest of the sources). I do not know why no one acted on what I pointed out, but outside of the topic starter Cirt, you were the only other participant and you had introduced most of those sources. The question is not why did I not fix the references, it is why did you not fix what you now knew to be incorrect?

Taking your points individually, but not in order:

1 - as I've said here and in the original discussion, I do not know if you were responsible for inserting each of those references, so I'm glad we agree that wikiporno.org is not an appropriate source. Don't let me stop you from removing it.

2 - you added this reference to source a specific fact which is not contained in the reference. It is not a question of demonstrating notability. This is "fraudulent referencing", to use the phrase in the title.

3 - You added an image of a DVD cover is simply not a suitable reference and should not have been added. It appears to be "padding" the references to avoid deletion at AfD.

4 - The Dyer article is the same article as in #2, but contained in a different book. It has only passing references to Correa. I read it months ago, but as I recall, it does not establish any of the information for which it is being used as a reference.

5 - Neither the Advocate interview with Amy Poehler (in which Poehler refers to a gay porn movie in passing) nor the Gay Porn Times blog post summary which you also used as a reference -- more reference padding -- identify the movie as "Inside Vladimir Correa". In fact, the Gay Porn Times editor states "Ms. Poehler might be referring to 1991’s ... INSIDE VLADIMIR CORREA" (emphasis mine). Deciding that this is close enough isn't quite what WP:VERIFY says. Your comment here is indicative of the larger problem.

Comments? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Supply some PROOF that I deliberately inserted fraudulent references as you are repeatedly stating or stop defaming me. Point #2 above makes my opinion on the placement of "More Dirty Looks" clear, nothing you have provided as evidence demonstrates deliberate fraud on my part. You are assuming the worst possible bad faith.

All the evidence above shows is potential improvement to sources or potential better placement of sources. Nothing here requires administrator action and it seems plainly obvious it never did. This is the wrong forum for a detailed discussion of article improvement and your absolute insistence on holding this detailed discussion here rather than in any other more suitable forum is blatant forum shopping. You are misusing this forum to unnecessarily grief other editors.

ANI should not and does not operate on a principle of assuming guilty until proved innocent. Ash (talk) 07:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, unless you accidentally inserted those references, you did it "deliberately". I speculated that you did it in order to influence the AfD discussion that had been started immediately before you began adding these references. I could be wrong about that, but there is no question that you inserted "fraudulent references" as I have shown above, with diffs. Your nonsensical sputtering about "placement" and your misplaced charges of "forum shopping" are yet more misdirection. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• If you believed that the AFD (from 3 months ago) was manipulated, why did you not go to DRV at the time? Raising this on the wrong forum such a long time later is an obvious fishing expedition taking advantage of an ANI in order to create drama and make hurtful inflammatory accusations.
• ANI is a forum for requests for Administrator intervention. So far you have not identified anything that requires admin intervention and instead appear to be using this forum to endlessly repeat defamatory accusations against me based on your speculations as to my motivation. I have explained my contributions to the Correa article last year above, and you have failed to identify evidence that I have been deliberately perpetrating fraud as opposed to adding relevant citations that could have been better placed.
• Article improvement does not require admin intervention. Hopefully you are satisfied with provoking a reaction from me and creating lots of drama, why don't you now go and do something constructive, like, say, improve an article rather than banging on about edits from 3 months ago that you could have fixed last year had you chosen to get your finger out.
• Just to be clear - stop misusing ANI and stop defaming me.
• Do not expect replies responding to your accusations, I have explained my edits were in good faith and I would be delighted for any experienced admin to investigate. Hopefully you will shortly fall into that big hole you have been digging for yourself and then be unable to grief other editors. Ash (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This does seem to me to be a matter for ANI. We don't check every reference (we should, but we can't), so we end up taking a lot on trust, particularly when supplied by regular editors. Therefore the charge of "false sourcing", whether deliberate or accidental, is a very serious charge indeed, particularly on a BLP. If such a charge were to be sustained (and I've no investigated closely here - so I'm not saying it is), then the only appropriate response would be to ban the offender, and certainly ban them from BLPs. To that degree, this isn't a simple content dispute for a talk page, or a simple deletion dispute for DRV, this is very, very, serious indeed. (Indeed a spurious change of false sourcing should also result in serious repercussion for the one asserting it.) Perhaps a user conduct RFC would be more appropriate than ANI, but in either case the evidence needs examined, and if it holds up, I'd have no hesitation to indefinitely block any offender (if I didn't, I'd be confident arbcom would). I suggest further investigation by neutral parties into Ash's actions, and form here is appropriate - it is essential that we find out where truth lies, or whether indeed we can clear his name.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. However Delicious carbuncle's problems with sources were raised on BLP/N in December 2009 (see Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive76#Vladimir_Correa). Anyone was free to comment, nobody took any action, nobody else supported Delicious carbuncle's claims of "bullshit" and I see little benefit in raising the same concerns in another forum over 3 months on. I would suggest a ban against me would have to be for a unambiguous pattern of repeatedly adding misleading sources to articles. If anyone cares to supply evidence I would be interested to see it. I'm sure that in my 22,000+ edits on Misplaced Pages, there are many examples of poorly judged edits to be found but I doubt that this would constitute a pattern of false sourcing. Any reviewer would find my contributions to be constructive and with genuine intent. You will note that back in February I opened an Editor review welcoming critical feedback, not normally an action associated with an editor acting in bad faith.

You make a good point about the repercussions on those who may bring false charges. Apart from it being a bit of a waste of time and effort, I would have no particular objections to an independent investigation by an administrator into my edit history if it were in conjunction with equally detailed examination of the nature of the accusations against various other editors made by Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · logs · block log) over the last 12 months. It may be more straightforward to raise an RFC/U on Delicious carbuncle as per my earlier MfD rationale in preparing User:Ash/analysis - the start of a summary of Delicious carbuncle's disruptive behaviour. As this predates Delicious carbuncle's accusations against me here, this could hardly be seen as a tit-for-tat exercise on my part.

Note that Delicious carbuncle previously rejected an offer of mediation in the last no-action ANI s/he raised against me, as far as I am concerned, that offer is still on the table as it was made in good faith. Ash (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Did anyone investigate the allegations 3 months ago, or did it suffer from tl;dr? I wouldn't say a pattern would be required here - evidence of deliberate misrepresentation of sources would be serious even if not a pattern. Careless sourcing might be overlooked if it were just once or twice over hundreds of good sources. We need to take sourcing extremely seriously, and since we need to trust a lot of the time, any breach of trust is not to be passed over. I'd strongly suggest that you and Carbuncle both need to get this resolved. It is serious either way. I may have time to look closely myself later, but I've doubts as to whether you'd see me as sufficiently neutral. The issue does now need resolved by a serious, BLP experienced editor.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Scott Mac (Doc), it is unfortunate that your involvement was based on a personal invitation to comment by Delicious carbuncle. Given that you portrayed yourself as an administrator who may choose to investigate these claims against me by Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · logs · block log) and chose not to declare an interest, could you please now confirm the nature of your pre-existing relationship or collaboration history on and off wikipedia with Delicious carbuncle? Ash (talk) 07:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Additional evidence

Since some editors seem to be reluctant to view the references associated with gay porn performers -- some of which maybe "not safe for work" -- I picked two articles on UK bathhouses, Pleasuredrome and Chariots Shoreditch. These articles were created and expanded almost solely by Ash, which avoids the issue of Ash sourcing the text of other contributors.

In Chariots Shoreditch:

• The statement "The bathhouse is on three floors decorated in the style of a Roman baths" is sourced to a short item in a travel guide (page 122) which mentions the facility in passing but does not refer to the number of floors or the decor of that location.
• The section "Etiquette" is sourced to two books, neither of which contains a reference to "Chariots" or "Shoreditch" according to Google books. Although it may be argued that this section refers to bathhouse etiquette in general, the similar section in Pleasuredrome clearly refers to the specific facility.
• The description of the facilities available is sourced to QX Magazine, but is actually a full page back-cover paid advert for the bathhouse in the magazine.

In Pleasuredrome:

• A listing of the facilities available is sourced to a travel guide which does not contain "Pleasuredrome" according to Google books (although there is a two line item for "Pleasuredome" which does not mention the facilities at all).
• The statement "The sauna opened as a gay sex on premises venue or gay bathhouse in 1998" is sourced to an archived copy of the bathhouse's website, which does not contain any information about the history of the bathhouse.
• The statement "The sauna is markets itself as "We never close" and is open 24 hours all year including Bank Holidays" (later changed to "The sauna is notable among London gay saunas for being open 24 hours a day all year, including Bank Holidays") is sourced to QX Magazine, but, just as with Chariots Shoreditch, this is a paid advert not a review or editorial.

While not as concerning as the misuse of references for BLPs, this clearly demonstrates a pattern which needs to be dealt with. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking through the Pleasurdrome one the first cite should have included the next page which does have a description listed; the second ref listed above may have been used simply to note it was a gay focussed bathhouse which arguably is the one fact that would need to be sourced, also there may have been other items on the website that confirmed when opened but I found and added a council hearing note which covered the dating of the establishment, also not an terribly exceptional statement. I wasn't able to view the QX material but even a paid advert that states "open 24 hours", etc would seem acceptable even if not ideal. QX has included blurbs and even a few articles which confirmed pretty much the same thing. So here again it's a case of it would be nice if the refs were blindingly obvious so there is no question why they are used but that is a different case from inserting false information or indeed fraud. -- Banjeboi 00:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

A search on Google books (for "pleasuredome" not "pleasuredrome") only shows it appearing on page 507 and page 508 is not available for display. If you have a copy of the book handy, would you mind scanning that page and uploading somewhere, Benjiboi? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking through Chariots Shoreditch this seems pretty much also making a mountain out of a molehill. The first site may simply be confirming that it's even notable enough to be referenced in a traveler's guide and does confirm a Roman style; the second ones confirm general bathhouse etiquette and do seem rather uncontroversial. And again a paid advert describing a club's own features is akin to a BLP subject blogging their own biography - we consider them to be experts on themselves. We would be concerned if these were exceptional claims. That doesn't seem to be the case here. -- Banjeboi 00:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have included diffs of the edits and links to the sources themselves. Please take the time to look for yourself and do not rely on Benjiboi's misleading interpretation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

<yawn> More of the same I'm afraid. You start a whole new subsection much like you've done on so many other ANI threads and allege misconduct et al. You may note that Pleasuredome is a massive gay nightclub also in London, and no I have no interest in scanning anything for you ever. This entire exercise has been yet another WP:Drama fest and I invite anyone uninvolved to close it as still not needing any admin attention unless Delicious carbuncle is to be topic-banned off LGBT subject areas broadly construed and possibly a civility topic ban and just maybe a admin board ban. You likely do have much to offer the project as a whole but my interactions with you have proven otherwise. Civil vandalism patrol has its place but colossal leaps of bad faith time and time again show bad judgement in the least. -- Banjeboi 03:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikihounding by User:174.3.110.108 And Questionable unblock of same (AKA user:100110100)

IP 174.3.110.108 (talk · contribs) is engaging in deliberate wikihounding of myself. I first encountered this editor, when he was 174.3.98.236 (talk · contribs) and later as 174.3.99.176 (talk · contribs), when he made massive changes to Misplaced Pages:Tables (formerly Misplaced Pages:When to use tables), Misplaced Pages:Embedded list, Misplaced Pages:Stand-alone lists, and Misplaced Pages:Lists without any discussion nor consensus. As he continued these edits, despite warnings from myself and others, he was reported here and was blocked for 3 hours. During this event, he also filed a false 3RR report that resulted in his being warned again. After his block was lifted, he was again admonished by several admins, but continued on and the report went stale. Administrator User:Father Goose apparently deciding to adopt the editor and helped him make the changes he wanted. He was reported here again on March 3rd by another IP, but no response was given to that report.

On March 10, he pretty much straight down the list of articles on my user page, and making random bad edits to Meerkat Manor, Tokyo Mew Mew, U-Drop Inn, and White Dog. All of his edits were reverted and I requested that Father Goose intervene, as he had clearly decided to "nuture" this IP and had assigned himself as the IPs "advocate". While Father Goose agreed that the edits were not improvements, he also asserted there were in good faith and felt no action was needed. Further discussion followed on both Father Goose's talk page and the IPs, including some back and forth between the IP and myself where I reiterated that I wished him to stop hounding me and bothering me, primarily through the Meerkat Manor talk page, despite FG also objecting to his change. He continued to do so and Father Goose finally asked the IP to back off and again noted that the edits were not an improvement.

The IP has continued to ignore Father Goose's notes and my own requests to leave him alone, quickly losing my temper with his continued aggrevating actions and Father Goose's seeming approval by his lack of action. Father Goose even went back to U-Drop Inn, and made similar edits as the IP, to which the IP responded to by giving him "getting changes implemented". The IP tried to call my reverts of his edits WP:OWN and began using that as a pipped link every time he used the phrase "your articles". He admitted that he'd specifically gone to my user page to "came to audit your articles" to see if they met his idea of what they should be, and then as they had no tables, he just made random changes to "improve" them. He clearly stated: "If you are wondering what my motivation for editing your 4 articles, it is because considering you were the only person who objected to the changes to wp:table, and then you did not explain your objections, considering that you made no contribution the current version of wp:table, I did not think you had invoked the changes to "your" articles." though none of those articles have even one table. These remarks were made after Father had told him to back off, and despite the IP's stating "I won't post any comments on any of your articles' talk pages" he continued to do so.

After I posted to Misplaced Pages talk:Ownership of articles suggesting the guideline be clarified to note what is not ownership, he followed me in his very first edit, after being offline, to opposed it.. He had never edited that talk page before, nor WP:OWN itself, so it is clear he came behind me. The IP went on to claim he'd done this before, editing Gossip Girl, however no edit was found with his IP range, unless he deliberately changed ranges. He also clearly recognizes that his behavior is disturbing and annoying, seeming to find it amusing and has indicate that he fully intends to continue doing so deliberately and claiming that any objection I make is displaying "ownership".

Father Goose said he would speak to the IP, but nearly 24 hours, has not done so though he has been online. The IP's newest remarks have been to make his expression of his full intention to continue his harassment and random "auditing" of his articles. I am also concerned about the appropriateness of Father Goose's actions in this situation, after learning that the IP is actually 100110100 (talk · contribs). This user was blocked in 2007 for serious incivility, disruptive, and even making death threats. Apparently, he admitted at some point to Father Goose that he was this indef blocked user, and rather than reminding the IP that he was evading his ban, Father Goose decided to lift the block all together, stating "Assuming good faith; has displayed an imperfect but much more even-tempered manner as an IP since this account was blocked." Father Goose also seems very quick to jump to this IPs defense against any criticism and after his earlier block as an IP, went on to do the IP's edits for him and explained why he could "get away" with.

It should also be noted that the IP is in an on-going edit war with User:Paul 012 at Misplaced Pages:Lists, and has been warned for doing various template changes without consensus (even being mistakenly blocked as a bot for how quickly he was doing certain changes. Also, as I was typing this, the IP filed a Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts against me.

At this point, it seems prudent to have some outside administrative reviewing of both the IPs actions, and the quite unblock of what appears to have been a very disruptive editor who has been evading his block with IP socks for weeks, if not longer. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC); Modified 04:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This editor is continuing his actions, going on to deliberately make edits to other articles, despite the those same edits being rejected by both myself and Father Goose as being incorrect and not an improvement to any of the articles., and two more done under his user account I find this person's continued deliberate targeting extremely disturbing. Father Goose purportedly contacted him OFF wiki, but obviously it had no results only to prompt this editor to continue this sort of stuff. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I cannot defend 174's continued editing of Collectonian's pages at this point. I've counseled him against it, but he has persisted. Being his effective mentor, I am reluctant to block him myself, as it would compromise our ability to continue to deal with him diplomatically through me. But while I have been offering him advice and assistance, he is not under my aegis, and if another admin feels his actions call for a block or any other administrative action, I will not interfere.

I'll continue trying to suggest to him what actions he could be taking that would be more constructive.--Father Goose (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I know you tend to be a very AGFing editor/admin, but I am curious as to why you choose to unblock his named account, rather than enforcing his indef blocked, considering the history and circumstances (particular the death threat which, as far as I could see, he never retracted). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The broad principle here is that blocks are meant to be preventive, not punitive. His behavior is still not perfect (and his choosing to tangle with you in this manner deserves a rolled up wiki-newspaper to the nose), but I've seen him make positive contributions to the encyclopedia and his behavior has been far more communicative and cooperative than what caused him to get banned three years ago.

People are allowed to "come back" if they clean up their act. At the time that I unblocked him, his record as an IP was sufficiently clean that I felt we could afford to see how much he had reformed. Clearly we can't claim that he's a model citizen quite yet, and if he decides that hounding you is all that he wants to do on Misplaced Pages, then the cover should go back on the sarcophagus.

However, as pointed out by several people in the current Wikiquette alert (), the intensity of your reaction here has not helped the issue. I'm not saying you should suffer a fool, but it makes it difficult for me to tell him to stop fighting with you when you're swinging back so hard. So far, this hasn't been going well for either of you.

I'd like to be able to stop this fight, but I'd need two calm people first.--Father Goose (talk) 05:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The fight would stop if he would stop the hounding. Why he decided to start it in the first place is beyond me. And I am calm(er) now than I was the first day. I have little patience for that sort of behavior, particularly when I have it coming at me from three sides at the moment, thanks to this guy, User:Bambifan101 finding yet another range to get past the 4-5 rangeblocks on him, and User:ItsLassieTime making socks and doing their darnedest to try to derail an FAC I have going on at the moment, including harassing a bunch of folks who supported or commented positively on it. And, quite honestly, your lack of response only made my frustration far worse, as you seemed to be condoning his behavior and at times I felt you were even encouraging it. I acknowledged in my original report that I had not been as clean-languaged as I could have been, but the issue was still on-going and as we have now both no doubt seen, he fully intends to keep it up. I don't think my being stressed and annoyed at his hounding and using more colorful language than I would normally would (which was far toned down from what I was thinking, believe me) should somehow excuse his behavior. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

And as an update, IP is continuing to push an issue at Talk:Meerkat Manor despite the notes above, it being rejected by multiple people, and folks in the Wikiquette alert that agreed he is acting inappropriate. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Outside Tangentially related opinion

Collectonian, his behavior could be called into question. However, I'm still not seeing behavior rising to the level of hounding. He has made changes, but they appear to be good faith changes done IAW policy. While I concur that WP:IAR definitely applies at ] and "The" is appropriate unless someone can come up with a better header. I have 4 articles to which I contributed that became FAs (as you are probably well-aware), but others still add a lot to those articles and change things, as they have a right to do.

However, even if someone else finds his behavior to be hounding, this doesn't excuse your behavior, which has been atrocious: from claiming ownership over articles, to excessive profanity, to inappropriate demands, etc:

In short, I find your behavior to be worse and severely over-reacting. You should have simply brought your concerns here or to another board instead of reacting the way you did. — BQZip01 —  17:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, that is your personal point view. As already pointed out in the Wikiquette alert, your are completely non-neutral in this discussion considering our disagreements over the A&M articles and my opposing one of your many failed RfAs. This is not the first time you have popped into a discussion that clearly showed inappropriate action by another editor to try to claim I was the one acting wrongly, despite no one agreeing with you. Again, whether or not I used profanity is irrelevant. I'm an adult and can use whatever language I choose. Further, it has already been noted above that this is NOT the first instance of this type of stuff. There is NOTHING inappropriate about telling someone hounding you to leave you alone, anymore than it would be wrong for me to tell you to get over the previous history and leave me alone. I walked away from almost every A&M article because of you. Be happy. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Your language and hostility are a problem (the IP's behavior notwithstanding) and is not only relevant, but central to the problems we're facing here. You indeed can choose any language you want, but on Misplaced Pages, communication should be civil; it currently is not. At least 4 other people agreed with me on the Wikiquette board that your reactions are out of line. Our "history" (which near as I can tell we haven't interacted for over a year) or your history with anyone else is irrelevant. You cannot justify bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior. — BQZip01 —  18:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

"You cannot justify bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior" - you mean like you are doing now to excuse away this editors edits? And of the people who agreed with you regarding my language, I notice you don't bother to mention that they also agreed with me that he IS wikihounding (and that the last you one yourself noted was lying and had not actually interacted with me, just decided to pop in and make a a negative remark because they disagreed with my replacing the tags on an article they had removed). Honesty is just as important as civility, and using profanity, in and of itself is not uncivil. My behavior here was appropriate, even if you disagree with my language in the discussions. And your view is not neutral (it is amusing you are lecturing me on my behavior when your four RfAs have failed, in part because of your own personality issues....but such is life, eh?)-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not excusing his behavior, though I've seen no specific diffs that you've provided with any problems. They seem like editorial concerns; ones that should be discussed on talk pages. One of your changes even goes against WP:HEADING, but I certainly concede that WP:IAR applies, no alternative really works, and you both discussed it on the talk page. Labeling a change vandalism when it is merely a difference of opinion is also uncivil (). I don't see any diffs for the alleged tag removals. Profanity in discussions is not acceptable and explicitly mentioned in policy. Taunting me (or anyone else) is also uncivil.

If he's done something wrong, I'm just not seeing it in the diffs you've provided. I'm not excusing any behavior by saying his actions are justified because of yours. I'm saying I don't see that any inappropriate behavior exists at all." — BQZip01 —  00:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I do have to agree that some of Collectonian's reverts that are identified as "vandalism" are far cries from it. For example, the change that is undone by either or , the addition of a pop culture section, is nowhere near vandalism - it is a good faith addition that is unsourced or unnecessary, but not vandalism; I'd still likely undo the change by under a AGF revert. Same with a change that adds a bad EL (but not a copyvio EL). If these were repeat offenses (people pushing 3RR or a wise IP that's avoiding 3RR with slow edit warring), ok, vandalism starts to come into play, but not here. I would strongly recommend Collection to avoid the "revert (vandalism)" (which bypasses the edit summary entry) and instead use the other two revert tools that provide a quick edit summary so that it is clear why the reverts are being done. And this is not to question the need to revert - I think Collectonian is right that these aren't appropriate additions, but they are not vandalism. --MASEM (t) 00:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The first two are the same edit, made a bit of time apart, by the same person. Isn't that a repeat offense? I do consider the addition of unsourced, random content into a FA to be vandalism, however it others feel it is not, then I'm happy to start just using the regular RV for that sort of thing. I realize I tend to have a far harder view of vandalism than most others. However, I am curious. You do not feel the addition of spam is vandalism? That was not just a random site, but someone's personal "petition". To me, the last is a spam link, not any kind of legitimate link. That, to me, is vandalism, but again if it is not can you explain further to me what constitutes spam versus just a bad link? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the first two edits are not the same edit. They look similar but they are two different facets of pop culture. And because the IP addys are far apart, there's no evidence it is the same person (it could be, granted). I think the stance that "the addition of unsourced, random content into an FA is vandalism" is very much against AGF. (Yes, mind you, I'd love flagged revisions, which would deal with much of this, but...) All of this starts from AGF. If an editor (particularly an IP) makes a first-time edit that is not blatantly wrong but otherwise not appropriate, we need to take good faith that they may not be familiar with all policy and guideline - we can revert, just, we can't assume the person is vandalizing the article. Again, vandalism is deliberate; a new editor adding a bad (non-copy vio) EL is likely not trying to degrade the quality of the article deliberately, and that's why I wouldn't call any of those three examples vandalism. If the same IPs appeared later and make the same changes, then that becomes deliberate and thus vandalism. Again, the reverts in-of-themselves are not wrong, just the choice of using vandalsim rollback. That's why I suggest you should use AGF rollback to at least explain the edits - that will, in part, deal with the supposed attitude issue that BQZip is describing. --MASEM (t) 01:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense (and so agree on flagged revisions). I suspect it is not always evident, but I have actually been working on improving my method of dealing with reverts and on trying to do more AGFing, per some remarks left on my talk age. I do not always successfu, but I don't think anyone can expect one to change overnight? To confirm, these are more appropriate AGFing rollbacks, yes?. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

They seem better to me. Again, my only caution here (which is in part what seems to have led to this case) is to avoid pressing the vandalism revert button too fast, as doing a revert with more of an explanation that "vandalism" is much more helpful to new editors and those reviewing such cases. --MASEM (t) 02:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

To the admins, I welcome any opinions, but Collectonian seems to have no desire/will to change her behavior. I recommend a 24 hour block (1st block for such a violation) for multiple violations of WP:CIVIL and an inability/unwillingness to alter such behavior which is explicitly in contradiction with the fundamental principles of Misplaced Pages. I also recommend a review of the IP's actions; while I don't see anything wrong, I'm willing to admit I could have missed something. The same goes for the unblocking admin. If I have done anything wrong, please let me know on my talk page or here and I will correct it (if it is something worthy of a block, please block me IAW WP:PG). — BQZip01 —  00:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

A 24 hour block nearly 2 days after the incident? Blocks are not punitative (supposedly), and it seems you are just trying to find some reason to get me blocked. What is your stake in this? Why are you so determined to get me blocked while continuing to see nothing wrong with the hounding on both a logged in account and multiple IPs (which at least four editors have agreed occurred, despite your own personal denial of events). Hounding and pointy edits are vandalism. Thank you for at least admitting you really haven't reviewed anything and are pretty much just coming here to make negative remarks because its me. Were this any other editor, I doubt you would be calling for a block. And, FYI, Father Goose, whose talk page the exchange occurred on, IS AN ADMIN. Had he felt my language was inappropriate or worthy of blocking, don't you think he would have left me a warning (which I have not received a single one for) and blocked me himself had I continued. You really are not adding any value to this discussion, but instead only causing a lot of noisy distractions from the real issues. As such, it seems unlikely any actual admin discussion will occur here because of this pointless back and forth on a non-issue. Despite what you may like, you cannot have me blocked just because you dislike me.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

1. Blocks are not punitive (and I wasn't suggesting otherwise), but are designed to change behavior. You have indicated that you not only have no desire to change your behavior, but that you believe it is acceptable. "Blocks sometimes are used as a deterrent, to discourage whatever behavior led to the block and encourage a productive editing environment." "A user may be blocked...when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. A block for disruption may be necessary in response to...persistent gross incivility."
2. Hounding and pointy edits are explicitly mentioned as things that are not vandalism: NOTVAND. These fall under disruptive editing.
3. For an admin to initiate a block in a situation he was involved would be inappropriate: "Administrators should not use their tools...in a content dispute where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist."
4. Plenty of users and admins have warned you over the past 2 days that your conduct was inappropriate. Complaining that "I didn't get a warning is disingenuous".
5. I am not asking for you to be blocked because I dislike you personally (which, in fact, I don't). I am asking for your to be blocked so your behavior will fall in line with our policies and guidelines on appropriate behavior.

— BQZip01 —  01:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Collectonian, the degree of unchivalry pointed out by BQZip01 with those vandal revert edits is not minor. Four edits, each one possibly worthy of a block in themself. It seems to me that despite conversation encouraging your calmness, you are far from editing in the calmest possible way. In doing your false vandal reverts it bring into question your ability to assume good faith and the objectivity of your comments here and elsewhere. I would prefer you are not blocked but what would you suggest instead? How is that you behaviour can be improved? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Please point out how I am not calmly editing now. Not two days ago, but now. Also, please note that in my initial report, and in replies to Father Goose above, I DID acknowledge that I lost my temper in my initial responses to this situation. I see no reason to block me now. It is not going to change my general nature, which is not evidenced by that response at the start of this (which is what all of those diffs are from). I am annoyed by BQZip01's responses in the etiquette report and here, but again do you see any evidence I have been uncivil in my responses or repeated the response I had to 100110100/the IP? Also, can you or BQZip01 point to any other time I have had such a response anywhere in my 5+ year editing history? Even when another User:ItsLassieTime sock tried, for the second time, to derail an FAC I have going on at the moment, I believe my revert was fully civil, I requested the page be protected, and made the appropriate reports. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Your response is one of challenge. It would be nice if it was one of co-operation. You will notice that when tables are turned your view is to propose a long block. Such blocks are not something I would agree with. Let's move forward and assume good faith. I have every reason to believe that in a spirit of co-operation and a helping hand from Father Goose that your issues with the IP can be resolved or at least not brought into flare up or 'fight' again. For now, I'm outta this conversation. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Suncreator, thank you for your kind words and assistance.

Collectonian, ask and ye shall receive: In every edit summary there is profanity. This isn't an isolated incident. Moreover, the last one was for MQS, an editor in which you opined recently in his WP:RfA. — BQZip01 —  05:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

One profane word in an editsummary, some of which you had to go back TWO years to find, is not the same. Thanks. And what does the RfA have to do with anything? I am allowed to oppose any RfA same as you (an RfA you yourself opposed). And if anyone is going to tell me that Bambifan101's socks don't provoke cussing, you'll also have to block several of the administrators, who have also used "profane" language in dealing with him. And let's see....you had to seriously hunt for those, to go back two years...out of 100,000 edits, thats all and the best you could do? A few minor edit summaries? *sigh* And I'm supposed to assume good faith that you aren't here with an agenda? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Collectonian, you try to paint a broad brush as this being a one-time incident, when in fact, it is something you seem prone to do. I just did a quick search on your edit summaries checking for a few choice words. Some were recent; others were further back. And of course I looked back into your past (you said to look in your "5+ years", so I did. To belittle me when it is shown that you are wrong and your behavior remains consistent (sparks of incivility throughout your Misplaced Pages career), is inappropriate as well).

To paraphrase:

Me: Your recent actions are problematic

You: I'm sorry man. I had a bad day.

Me: This has always been a problem

You: Aside from this, I have a clear 5+ year history

Me: Well, these diffs show you have problems both recent and in the past

You: OMG, you had to go back 2 YEARS?!?

Me: No, you said you had a clear past. You don't.

Ok, so you are discounting recent actions, actions in the past, denying there are any problems, and making excuses as "it was deserved". That basically excuses any/all inappropriate actions indefinitely. Do you take responsibility for any of your edits? If you just said "I'm sorry", taken it back/struck your comments, etc, this wouldn't be an issue.

In any case, I didn't have to search very hard to find them.

The only agenda I have here is to get you to stop being so hostile (The thing about the RfA was simply a note that the two were tangentially related, not implying any sinister action on your part. You, of course, are free to do as you wish at any RfA.). — BQZip01 —  05:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

YOU asked I be blocked for RECENT actions claiming I was consistently something or another. I said look at my five year history as a whole, not just pick and choose a few bits of extremely minor issues (which NO ONE took issue with at the time). Almost every editor here, including YOU have "sparks of incivility" through out their career, particularly when they have been here any length of time. If we are going to sit here and nitpick five years and claim that because I made a very minor remark two years ago, I should be blocked today, then this is an entirely ridiculous discussion, unless we are also going to block you, and I'd expect at least 50% of the Misplaced Pages registered user base. I NEVER claimed to have "clear" history, so do not make false paraphrases. I specifically asked that someone point a single instance LIKE this in my five years. None of those are even close to comparing, not in any way shape or form. If you can't tell the difference, that is your issues, not mine. And I've already noted multiple times in this thread that I agree my responses IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE were overly vitrolic, but you, again, continue to ignore them. This, and your continued harping on this and demanding what, I do not know, just seems like someone with an agenda or some other reason for being here other than any legitimate concern. As is, I'm very tired of this back and forth with you and it obviously is not going to get us anywhere. From this, you will not find any fault here in 100110100's edits and instead support and condone it. From that, I shall refrain from answering you again in this matter, as it is completely unproductive. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

And that is your choice. In the diffs you linked, I saw nothing other than editorial changes on format. If I am missing anything someone please post them because I clearly am missing something. I am willing to put forth a support for a block, but I need to see some concrete evidence.

You are absolutely correct that I have made inappropriate edits in the past. I've apologized for it, acknowledge it was poor behavior, and vow to do my best not to have that happen again.

By contrast, you attempt to excuse them "Everybody does it". Even if there are problems with his edits or my edits in the past, that doesn't excuse your behavior. You have clearly made hostile edits and make no apologies for it. You claim you've never made other such edits, but I've shown that assertion to be false. I agree your general edit history is clear, but that doesn't make these actions ok.

Lastly, I do not condone or support his actions, but they are not prohibited either. I find it inappropriate to chastise or vilify someone for behavior that WP has deemed acceptable. — BQZip01 —  05:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that Collectonian should be blocked -- not over this incident, at any rate. 100110100's behavior was at least to some degree provocative, and while Collectonian's response has been disproportionate (in my opinion), that's still nowhere near a block.

I do agree however with the criticism leveled at her here and at the Wikiquette alert. She has a tendency to bare the claws early and often. But I'd much rather address that problem through peaceful means -- i.e., talking to her about it. I don't think I'm the right person to do that, as she no doubt sees me right now as the ally of one of her enemies. But if Collectonian found a way to be calmer and more willing to assume good faith in general, I've got to think she would find Misplaced Pages to be a much more amicable place than it has been toward her to date.--Father Goose (talk) 06:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Despite this issue of wikihounding, I haven't had any problem with finding Misplaced Pages an amicable place. Yes, with my lengthy history and visibility in the fictional areas, I've made enemies. So has any other active editor. Frankly, I don't care. I'm not here to make people like me or make friends. So long as it doesn't bring harm to the articles, its neither here nor there. I do, however, take issue with being harassed and wikihounded. I ask this of you, and my other critics. Had I been the one who had followed 100110100 and his IPs edits and just randomly began changing things around that did not improve the article at all (and in some cases were not even valid per the MoS), and I clearly was following him, not just happening to interact with him, would the response be the same? I doubt it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• 156 ANI incidents involving Collectonian as an interested party. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• That search you link to doesn't mean anything. It just means Collectonian has posted in or been mentioned in 156 ANI threads, not necessarily as an interested party. My name is found in 28 threads: , and this current thread is the first time to my knowledge that my behavior has been called into question (although given that I unblocked a user who is not without his faults, I accept the scrutiny).--Father Goose (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Well, okay, some of the threads within that search do contain complaints about Collectonian. But I think she's been adequately informed that she could be less sharp-elbowed, and given that no action will be taken against her as regards this incident, it'd probably be best to let the issue settle for now.--Father Goose (talk) 04:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• And that is supposed to mean what? I have filed numerous ANI cases, dealing with the Bambifan101 socks, ItsLassieTime socks, a stalking editor for over a year, usual vandalism reports, etc etc etc. You can't just search a name and claim "look at all these threads about them". It doesn't mean anything. Of those that might have complaints about me, a good number were from disruptive editors that, actually reading the threads in question, would show were eventually blocked themselves for being disruptive, rather than having any rebuke against myself or anyone else. I do find it interesting that you are chiming in here though, all things considered, such as your seeming continuing to watch my contribs yourself and randomly following me to welcome vandals (without apparently bothing to note he had done the same multiple times before as various IPs). The Wikiette closing as WP:SOAP was quite right. Just wish someone would do the same here already. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• In our last discussion you suggested that if I thought you were infringing WP:BITE and WP:AGF I should "coddle the IPs directly" rather than bringing the matter to you. I've taken your advice. You left an incredibly harsh "this is your only warning" message on the guy's talk page, without even a welcome template to go with it. Maybe the guy deserved it, maybe he didn't, but it's not like you left any explanation that you thought he was a sockpuppet or evidence backing that up. So I took the time to explain to him exactly what rule he'd broken, why he shouldn't do it, and how he could make more constructive edits in future. You do a lot of these vandal reverts and most of them are good reverts; in a perfect world you'd take the time to amend your warning template to include this kind of basic politeness, but that doesn't seem likely and there's no particular onus on you to do so, so in the spirit of WP:SOFIXIT I did the community-building work myself. A little good faith would go a long way towards not being involved in 156 ANI threads. If you have further concerns feel free to pose them on my talk page so we don't choke up this largely unrelated thread. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Had you done the same to him, I would have assumed good faith with the initial four edits, and had you persisted, criticized you for it and asked you to discontinue. In other words, I believe my response would have been largely the same toward you as it has been toward him. Despite being his mentor, I haven't defended his behavior when it has been unambiguously problematic.

As for the "random non-improvements", I've found that about half of the time I see the sense in 1000110100's edits, and half of the time I don't. The primary reason I've been willing to be his advocate is that often his ideas are quite sound, although his ability to express them (or the specifics of his implementation) is poor. His change to the U-Drop Inn article, for instance, was an instance of poor implementation: "Movie fame" was a poor choice of headings, though "Movie notability" was even worse. That edit brought to my attention some other shortcomings with the section, and I made changes to the section and its heading that you seem to have mostly agreed with.

In the past you opposed his changes to WP:TABLES. It took me a while to understand what he was pitching there, but in the end I came to agree with him fully, and badly needed complete rewrite of that guideline was the result. He's not quite the vandal or bastard you make him out to be, although sometimes he doesn't make himself well understood, and other times he makes some outright bonehead moves -- this hounding case is an example, though I'm happy to see he's now taking a more constructive tack.

I'll do what I can to continue steering him away from unconstructive behavior and trying to help him with his positive contributions. He's probably going to pursue this quote box thing further, and he's entitled to, as long as it doesn't come in the form of a vendetta against you. I don't believe that's his sole aim here, although he did focus on your articles at first, and I won't claim that was an accident.--Father Goose (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't butt my nose in here, but after skimming through this and reading "I haven't had any problem with finding Misplaced Pages an amicable place." above, among other things that you've said here Collectonian, I've gotta tell you, I've gone out of my way to avoid running into you for months now. I won't go near the edit button on any article that is media related, for fear of instigating a conflict with you (and, to be fair, a couple of others in that area). Not that I advocate a block here, but I wanted to say that BQZip01 and SunCreator do have a point in their criticism.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Unblock review of user:100110100

Per above, I think it would be prudent for an admin to review the unblocking of this editor, who admittedly was violating his indef block under numerous IPs for at least several months. While he was unblocked by Father Goose, who stated "his record as an IP was sufficiently clean that I felt we could afford to see how much he had reformed" (fuller explanation above), it seems odd to me to say his record as an IP was clean when he was deliberately evading his indef block. He made no apparent attempt to request unblock under his user name, but choose to edit as a multiple IPs. This, to me, does not show a change in the sorts of behavior that resulted in his indef block, particularly compounded with his massive changes to Misplaced Pages guidelines without discussion, the wikihounding of myself (as detailed above), his ignoring numerous notes on his various IP talk pages about his mass changes to templates, and his continuing to make various edits that meet his personal preferences but directly conflict with the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style and consensus in the articles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with you on the assessment of the problem/situation, but what exactly would that do? Apparently, we're dealing w/ somebody who could easily keep using multiple IPs. Re-blocking the account won't actually do much. No? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If the indef block is restored, any active IPs would also be blocked, and, if necessary, new ones would also be blocked for block evasion. Depending on whether he were to continue to evade the block as he did in this instance, a range block could also be implemented. They can have some success, though of course they can also be evaded (as we have some very very long term indef blocked folks who have some 400+ socks can show). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That's true. So, in that case, it would seem only fair to re-block for block-evasion, as is usually done. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There is plenty of precedent for unblocking someone on the basis of reformed behavior. This is for a very basic reason: blocks are meant to be preventive, not punitive. If the block-worthy behavior stops, the block itself should stop.

The indefinite block of 100110100 was appropriate at the time that it was imposed: he had made death threats following a long history of disruptive behavior. Although 100110100/ip174's behavior hasn't been exemplary during the time that I've known him (about two months), I have seen nothing approaching the level that warrants continued indefinite blocking. For the most part, he has been a constructive editor, willing to resolve his disputes through appropriate means.

This episode with Collectonian is regrettable; I personally would be willing to call it low-grade wikihounding, although the edits he has made (and Collectonian has reverted) are defensible if taken individually, even if one might disagree with them. At the same time, Collectonian's response has been so vituperative that it has most likely heightened the conflict.

At this time, 100110100/ip174 seems to have switched to a far more appropriate course of action, namely trying to establish a consensus for the removal of {{quote box}}es, which Collectonian has used in many of her articles. I do not believe this particular initiative is specifically targeted at Collectonian, as he has tangled with me over a similar issue in the past: Wikipedia_talk:Understanding_IAR#.7B.7Bquote.7D.7D.

Collectonian's behavior here has not been exemplary either. She almost immediately treated something that ought to have been a minor conflict as a scandalous personal assault, and her actions have served to intensify the conflict. I'd really rather not draw her ire by criticizing her, but frankly, her behavior regarding this fight has not helped to get this thing resolved.--Father Goose (talk) 05:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If its agreed he is going to remain unblocked, I think it should be mandatory that he identify himself. As it is, I have seen several discussions now where he replies as his IP and then as his username, without making it clear he is one and the same, giving an appearance of one agreeing with the other, which is not appropriate. Of course, neither was his canvassing as he has done in his attempt to get that quotation essay passed to a guideline so he can think claim justification on removing them from any article I've edited (I notice that he did NOT go through and remove them FROM all articles, nor propose the box for deletion...he only removed them from articles I happened to use them on). Talking like I'm not reading is more likely to draw my ire than simply stating what you think. *a lame attempt at humor* And sorry, but I do find wikihounding to be a personal assault, and I think it is frequently mishandled and overly ignored by this site's administration. Of course, that is neither here or there at this point. It seems clear to me now that no one really minds that he was wikihounding because they disliked my reaction to it. Whether it was "overboard" or not, considering it was not the first time he'd done it, is subjective. As he himself has admitted to seeking me out, I think my views are justified, even if I could have used less vitriolic language. It also seems clear that if he continues doing it, no one will really do anything to stop it, which of course gives him a positive reward for his behavior. I have, quite frankly, not seen that he has done any significant contributions to the encyclopedia. Other than his replacements of templates (despite being told to stop), and trying to change article style guides to match his own personal preferences of what an article should "look" like, his only real main space edits seem to be hounding myself and, as you've noted, occasionally just playing with stuff you've edited just to do it. Anyway, it seems there will be no result one way or another from this discussion. I don't think he is going to listen to you, or to anyone else when he has not, in fact, even bothered responding here. If someone decides they want to block me for my remarks, feel free. It isn't going to change anything, but I'm not stupid enough not to know that with 5 years and nearly 100,000 edits under my belt that I don't have enough enemies that would delight in it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something but using an IP to evade an indefinite block is per se bad faith editing. Avoiding trouble while doing so is socking, and cannot be considered good behavior. Engaging in arguably blockable behavior is even worse - whether the behavior would be blockable in isolation if done by a legitimate editor, the fact that a person who isn't supposed to be editing is doing so in a way that upsets some others only confirms that they shouldn't be editing. It's ongoing rule-breaking, and cannot be anything but intentionally so. We've been through this exact routine a number of times here. Father Goose is a well-seasoned admin, and must know all this - I wonder if there is some boundary pushing going on here. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm with User:Wikidemon here. This account should not have been unblocked while evading the indef block. I too tend to be and AGF'er but this is a bit much. Father Goose is commended for his desire to help but I think this was an error in judgment. If there are issues with User:Collectonian then deal with them in a separate section. We need to decide if the binary user a problem and how to proceed from this point on. That should be the focus of this portion of the discussion. JodyB _talk 12:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

100110100 was blocked, not banned. Had he been banned by either the community or arbcom, I would have had no right to individually review his block and choose to lift it.

But the block was imposed three years ago, as a decision apparently made by a single admin, and I am well within my rights to review and lift it if I feel it is no longer needed. The behavior for which 100110100 was indefinitely blocked (which was appropriate at the time) appears to have long since ceased.

I know of many, many cases where a user "evaded a block" (or even an outright ban), reformed their behavior, and been accepted back into the community. Were they then immediately blocked again indefinitely for evading a block? If we had done that, we'd be acting like vindictive fools.

Block evasion is unacceptable in particular when it's done to keep doing the bad behavior that prompted the block. I wouldn't have bothered unblocking 100110100 if I had seen nothing but bad behavior from this user. I'm not saying his behavior has been perfect during the time I've known him, but for the most part he's been acting in good faith, communicating with other users to promote his ideas, and making changes that on the balance improve the encyclopedia. Do we ban users like that? No. Therefore, I lifted the indefinite block.

Misplaced Pages has a culture of offering second chances, when they are deserved. But this being ANI, everyone commenting here is only aware of 100110100's bad behavior -- his block log from a long time ago and the current conflict with User:Collectonian, who has done everything she can to make the case here for getting rid of him.

If you want to evaluate whether 100110100 should be banned, evaluate all of his current behavior (not just Collectonian's depiction of it) and decide whether this is the kind of user who has no place on Misplaced Pages. I happen to believe he is imperfect but by no means the kind of person who deserves to be banned. He is a bit strong-willed at times (aren't we all?), but I've seen his willingness and ability to learn Misplaced Pages's ways, and his ability to apply himself to constructive activities when appropriately counseled.

It is for this reason that I unblocked him. He might deserve to be blocked for some future offense -- he might have even deserved a short-term block for this tangle with Collectonian, although for now he seems to have changed course. If the only reason you think he should be indefinitely blocked now is for the technical reason of evading an indefinite block imposed three years ago, then there's no sound basis for returning him to "banned" status. I gave him a careful and fair evaluation and all of you should too.--Father Goose (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Concur with FG's assessment. — BQZip01 —  05:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I came here from Wikipedia_talk:Quotations where user:100110100 and what I am told is an IP sock of user:100110100, have signed statements in an RFC initiated by the IP sock. Using both accounts in a discussion which is also polling on whether a page should be promoted to a guideline is not acceptable. I will go with Father Goose's judgement on unblocking user:100110100, providing user:100110100 agrees only to use that account and does not edit using an IP address or any other user account. If (s)he does so by accident then she must agree to revert and redo it if it is on an article page (or similar where signatures are not user) or to re-sign a talk page comment with a user:100110100 signature. Failure to comply with this request should lead to an indefinite block until such time as user:100110100 agrees to abide by the request. If user:100110100 uses IP addresses, or any other user account, while blocked then user:100110100 should be banned. As the unblocking administrator I would prefer it if Father Goose put this restriction in place, but if (s)he does not object, but does not want to do it, I am willing to put such a constraint on user:100110100. -- PBS (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • That's a bit steep, considering 100110100 does not seem to be trying to sway discussion by using more than one account. He has agreed to not do that in principle: User_talk:100110100#Various_requests, although we must compel him to do it in practice. He has commented at Wikipedia_talk:Quotations#Proposal_to_promote_to_policy.2Fguideline via a dynamic IP (always in the 174.3.*.* range; not too hard to see the relation) and a single time as 100110100, with a comment that would be hard to construe as biasing the debate ("Note that an rfc had been filed in the past, with only one response.")
  • However, I agree that any interaction on a given page should be done using one IP range or account only, and that if he wants to edit as both an IP and a registered account, he should mention the account and the IP range on all user/IP pages he edits from. He does seem to be using the 100110100 account as a maintenance account, which is a legitimate use, so as long as he abides by the terms of Misplaced Pages:SOCK#NOTIFY, I believe he will be compliant with policy regarding switching between his account and an IP. I'll inform him to do so right now.--Father Goose (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

<--Why is it steep? user:100110100 is a user who had been in conflict and indefinitely blocked. You argue above the as user:100110100 had been editing responsibly with IP addresses they should be unblocked. Fair enough but now all their editing should be done with their user account. Although we do not insist that people edit with the same account it is considered good practice (with exceptions for bot accounts etc). As this user has a record of abusing accounts to get around blocks, it is the least that we can expect that they use their user account. This is a user who has been banned and is more than willing to mix it up on talk pages. The very least a potential antagonist should be entitled to is to know is the edit history (and block log) of the account ID they are dealing with. user:100110100 should not want to hide behind IP addresses and if user:100110100 does then user:100110100 should be prevented from doing so.

I still think you should make that a condition of the unblock, but if you do not I will impose it unless there is a consensus among other administrators that it should not be done. -- PBS (talk) 05:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to get all embroiled in this, but I've got to ask: but now all their editing should be done with their user account. Why? Is this sort of like a, "you've gotten in trouble once, so now you can't edit without my permission" sort of thing?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 06:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. It's so that an edit history is built up and other editors can see who they are dealing with. (If not there was no point in unblocking the account in the first place). -- PBS (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, OK, "good faith" restored here, but still... is there really a point in registering? I wouldn't ever edit as an IP (at least not knowingly), but from a philosophical view I don't see what the fuss is all about. Allowing IP edits might make maintenance "jobs" more difficult, and it may make some of the "jobs" that some administrators give themselves to police users more difficult, but how does that make the whole notion of IP editors a Bad Thing™?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 08:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to ask you (PBS) to re-read the second paragraph I posted in my response to you, above, and explain how it would not address your point (I have made the same point) that other editors should be entitled to know which person they are dealing with. Read my most recent post at User:100110100 if you don't understand the specifics.

Are there any principles involved beyond requiring that the user not "speak with two faces" in a given discussion, and that users be informed of what account (and non-accounts) he edits from? I see no evidence that he has used multiple accounts abusively -- although having been informed of WP:SOCK#NOTIFY, he should comply with it from now on. Or are you characterizing the "clean start" he has earned himself via IP editing to be an abuse? I hope not; that would be a pretty a dismal attitude.

I wish others could experience the interactions I've had with this user. I'd just like to say that I think he is deserving of more good faith than has been exhibited toward him by many users so far. He has his quirks and his missteps, and he needs to be informed now and again of what our policies are, but I still think he is an asset to the community and has not deserved the rush to judgment that many have displayed toward him here. He's still not quite a model Wikipedian, but whatever behavior got him indeffed years ago is not in evidence now.--Father Goose (talk) 09:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

FG you wrote "via a dynamic IP (always in the 174.3.*.* range; not too hard to see the relation)" Well maybe not for you, but how is an editor to tell if any particular edit was done by user:100110100 or if it was done by someone else sharing a dynamic IP address? I can not see how this can work in practices as there will have to be a bi-directional set of links for every dynamic page used. (so if I go to the talk page of an IP address user:100110100 is using I can follow it to his/her user account.

Do you really think that user:100110100 is going to keep a diary/log of change of IP address will user:100110100 place onto the talk page of every IP address he/she dynamically uses that user:100110100 is now using this IP address and how does user:100110100 know to add a log to that page that (s)he is no longer using that page (if user:100110100 does not access Misplaced Pages for a day, that address could have been used by other editors during that day). Not only does that information have to be written to the talk page of the IP address it also has to be logged centrally as well (WP:SOCK#NOTIFY). I can not see user:100110100 faithfully doing this every time (s)he uses a changed a dynamic IP address (until user:100110100 saves an edit does he/she even know what IP address (s)he is using?). Much better that (s)he simply use his/her user name, as not rational reason has been given why he/she should not, and the above complications shows why it is not practical to use dynamic addresses and keep to the stipulation in WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. -- PBS (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

One way it could work, even with dynamic IPs, is if 100110100 uses the method that Dinoguy1000 (an administrator) uses when he edits as an IP -- he mentions his primary account in every post he signs as an IP, and does keep a log of which IPs he has edited from. The reason why 100110100 edits -- actually, prefers to edit -- as an IP is on the principle that IPs should have equal rights as editors. This is a rational reason -- perhaps not one you agree with, but it is nonetheless a valid reason. It will undoubtedly be complicated to take the appropriate steps needed to identify himself consistently, which might ultimately convince him to just use his account full-time.

Having known this user for a while, I know that if on the other hand you try to force him to edit only through an account, he'll abandon the account and go back to IP editing full time. That is his right; you can't compel him to edit as a registered user if his IP editing behavior is not abusive.

He apparently hasn't been on in the last 24 hours, so I'll wait for him to respond to how he would like to address the "multiple account" problem, and we can proceed from there.--Father Goose (talk) 03:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

His changed IPs again. He is now editing as 174.3.98.20 (talk · contribs), and to continue commenting in the same discussion, for which he was rebuked by {user|Tony1}} as he is continuing to not identify himself. Also, I think its interesting to note that despite earlier AGFing that he started the discussion for unrelated reasons, during its current course, he changed the discussion to specifically try to exclude the use of quote boxes, tying directly back to his earlier attempt to remove them from all articles I have edited (despite their being found acceptable in FA and GA reviews, and being within Misplaced Pages guidelines). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Assuming it is the same person this edit was made at Revision as of 03:05, 18 March 2010 before you, Father Goose posted your comment here. I presume that you had no idea that 100110100 had edited Wikiepdia (and for all I know (s)he may have used other IP addresses before or since). There has been a stunning lack of engagement here or on the talk page by user:100110100. Do you still see this behaviour as acting in good faith? -- PBS (talk) 05:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

He's seen the message now and failed to respond, so I've blocked the 100110100 account until such time as he commits to a remedy. As far as I'm concerned, he still has the right to edit as a dynamic IP, since he has not done so abusively. He is not obliged to register an account, although per your concerns here, he may not edit as both an account and an IP without identifying each mutually.

As for the edits to WP:Quotations, he has the right to propose that quote boxes not be used in specific ways, and to ascertain if there is consensus for that position. Anyone else of course has the right to disagree with him.--Father Goose (talk) 05:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't follow that FG. You've blocked a user. If they use an IP address to edit, and I can ascertain the IP is equivalent to the blocked user, then I will block the IP. (block evasion, ACB, 3 days I'm thinking) Are you explicitly instructing to not reblock an editor you have blocked indefinitely? Franamax (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have in essence blocked the account, not the user, the reasons for which are specified here, in the block log, and on the user's talk page.

To summarize the situation:

• I believe the user's only blockable offense at this time is editing both as an IP and as a registered account.
• This is partly my fault, since I failed to realize that this would be considered a blockable offense, and failed to counsel the user to not do so before he got in trouble for it.
• I have seen no sign that the user was editing as both an IP and account in an abusive manner.
• It nonetheless causes problems for the reasons PBS laid out, so it must discontinue.
• The user was editing productively as an IP before I unblocked his account on the basis of having established a "clean start" as an IP.
• He continues to edit productively (not perfectly, but nothing worthy of a block at this time).
• He has at this time failed to acknowledge the recent revelation that he should not edit as both an IP and a registered user concurrently. Since my unblocking the account in essence created this situation which is a problem more on a technical level (don't have two faces) than a question of maliciousness, I feel blocking the account again will return us to the status quo of having a productive user who contributes exclusively as an IP. If he wants to switch to using the account full-time instead of his IP, he can simply request it be unblocked. I have noted this as a condition of his block.

Perhaps the way I am attempting to resolve this seems unorthodox, but it counteracts the behavior that is problematic without interrupting the behavior that is acceptable. Do you feel anything more needs to be done at this time?--Father Goose (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Persecution

I don't know the entire guidelines of english Wiki, so I leave it to administration to decide how my story suits for this noticeboard. And please excuse my grammar.

To the story. It's all began on March 9, 2010, when User:Crusio nominated for deletion four articles of my edition, and navigation template: * Chris Adams * Bernardo O'Reilly * Calvera * Django * Template:The Magnificent Seven

Then came User:EEMIV and nominated six more articles: In the high attention area * Hit Back * In the high attention area 2 * El Shaitan * * Phantom (russian song) * 30th

Before they nominated these articles for deletion, they did not even try to edit them, nor to discuss something, as well as there were no advices to me, nor a recommendations.

Faithfully, all those articles were visited by hundreds of users, since Dec 2009, and nobody try to delete them, nor to remove the images from there.

So, when I told them about my concerns about their good will and impartiality, they had responded me in such way:

• User talk:Crusio#Check it
• User talk:EEMIV#Russian sources
• User talk:Crusio#Warning
• User talk:EEMIV#Warning
• User talk:SerdechnyG#Your warning

Let me cite them:

... It's too bad that SerdechnyG's contributions are such low quality (sourcing, grammar, general lack of content, etc) because WP can use more coverage of all things Russian... --Crusio (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Really, I do appreciate your knowledge of Russia-related content; as Crusio points out above, Russia-related topics on English Misplaced Pages are weak. However, language issues aside, your misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages policies, coupled by unflagging zeal, are amusing. ... --EEMIV (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

My lack of grammar is a good reason to edit my mistakes as User:Aiken drum, User:Badger151, User:MuffledThud, User:Phil Bridger, User:Chris the speller, User:Plasticspork, User:Anthony Appleyard, User:Skomorokh, User:Woohookitty, User:RadioFan, User:Mild Bill Hiccup, User:Eeekster, User:Stpaulelective2010, User:Piratedan did (thank you all, gentlemen, I appreciate it). But maybe I wrong, and it's really a solid reason to delete all of these articles? These articles are not my property - they belongs to all wikipedians. Didn't they realize it?

Their deletion nominations it's only a half of the problem. Together with nominations they start another sabotage, such as images deleting (instead of editing them), they deleted a references which provided evidence of notability to articles, reverted my edits (edit warring) and did another things, trying to reconvince those users, who had removed their deletion templates (e.g. User talk:Phil Bridger#El Shaitan). The whole picture looks like a tangle of troublemaking actions, and no signs of even try to edit, or act constructively. Only destructive actions: delete, remove, undo, etc.

To be honest, I don't know entire "legislation" of English wiki, and I suppose nobody really know it all. But, as I suppose, my linguistic defects or lack of knowledge of English-wiki proceeding are not a reasons to start this deletion war.

And I have nothing against User:Crusio and User:EEMIV, but I have a strong doubts about their intentions towards me. The most incomprehensible to me was that one user can nominate innumerable quantity of another one articles. In Russian wiki, there is such rule: that one, who nominates more than one article, written by single user, is banned or at least his actions are being put under discussion of entire community of Wikipedians in the case if his nominations ensued a controversy. I see no controversy in threads, which they had opened. In their actions I see nothing against articles themselves, I see only prejudice towards me. I suppose, if there were no list of my contributions on my user-page, they would give absolutely no attention to them. It seems like a badgering and nothing else.

Please, make clear for me: Am I doomed to pass this ordeal, and what a kind of ordeal I faced? Is this a rite of passage for all newcomers, or this is a kind of procedure created especially for me. Before this mobbing, I've got a whole lot of ideas what should I write next, some to-do list, but now I have a strong doubts about my further presence in English wiki. So, please tell me, what should I do next: Pack my bag and say goodbye to English wiki or what? SerdechnyG (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No one is questioning your good-faith contributions, nor is anyone "persecuting" you. However, your article and image contributions are problematic under several policies, e.g. WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, WP:NFCC. You excised several discussions about these issues in the talk-page quotes you included. Please heed the advice I offered you to review several policies and guidelines about article creation and maintenance. And, FYI, in an effort to at least help out a bit, I have made several useful edits to some of the Magnificent Seven articles you created/heavily edited; Crusio has done likewise. Whether deliberate or innate, myopia about how editors respond to your contributions isn't particularly useful to anyone. --EEMIV (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• The links presented by SerdechnyG and his comments say it all, I have nothing to add. --Crusio (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Please note: this is Administrators noticeboard, and nobody ask your opinion yet. You've got an opportunity to write evetything on above mentioned talkpages, or retaliatory note instead. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 06:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This is indeed the 'admin' noticeboard, but if you are so perseptive as to to see that, perhaps you would note that the majority of edits here are not all by admins, but other users trying to help with the problems being discussed here. You don't have to be invited to comment, nor do you have to be an admin to comment. Anyone can comment, and these comments are not judged by the user level of who wrote them, but rather the arguments themselves. So instead of outright dismissing an argument because it was someone uninvited or a non-admin, why don't you heed their advice.

Lastly, wikipedia is everyone's business. Anyone can comment anywhere.— Dædαlus 10:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

WHAT ADVICE? SerdechnyG (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. And it clearly indicates their intentions. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted your refactoring of my talk page post. Do not insert your comments in my posts, only after my signature. As to their advice, it was quite clearly given to you by EMMIV.— Dædαlus 08:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean?? I didn't wrote nothing on your talk page! -- SerdechnyG (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Well, dear friends, you see. They're following me even here. Actually I had no doubts that they would do so. Picture is clear. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 06:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• You announced very clearly that you would post here, even though you failed to notify us both when you actually did (as is your obligation, as clearly marked at the top of this page). Both EEMIV and I have been around here for a while and we know WPs procedures reasonably well. "Following" you here is nothing out of the ordinary. Posting here without notifying the people concerned is discourteous at the very least. Please stop your baseless accusations and start getting familiar with en.wikis policies; things obviously are being done very differently here from ru.wiki and you cannot just try to impose your ideas of how the rules should be here. --Crusio (talk) 09:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Before advising me to "start getting familiar with en.wikis policies", You start it first: Misplaced Pages:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

SerdechnyG, That is just an essay, not a guideline or policy. It is by no means binding. See also Misplaced Pages:An unfinished house is a real problem andMisplaced Pages:Don't hope the house will build itself. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 16:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad You confessed it. I hope You understand that this issue as well as the other rules (which I may or may not violating) does not overrule The Basics. And The Basics is:

- Anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity

- Newcomers are always to be welcomed

- You can edit this page right now (Jumbo says edit, not delete).

So who's right? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You're citing Jimbo Wales' personal principles. I'm glad to see that you're tying to make arguments based on fundamental principles. However, the page you are citing is similar to the Five Pillars, they are not our core policies. If you wish to make arguments based on a fundamental :policy, see WP:FIVE, for the Five Pillars. If you're wondering about the essays I cited, they are no more or less correct than Misplaced Pages:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built, they just explain the opinions of certain editors. I'd also like to point out that if you think that an article could be made to meet our standards for inclusion, you could create it in your userspace and work on it there. You can ask any admin to move any of your deleted articles into your userspace. Regards, RadManCF ☢ open frequency 23:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's forget about articles for a while (if, of course, they're not a vandalistic issues. I hope they're not). Let's discuss a behavior of two mentioned users. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 07:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Still, I want answers. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

In looking through the history here, I'm really not seeing any evidence of "persecution." You have, unfortunately, created a lot of articles for unnotable films that also use excessive non free images., as can be seen in the AfD discussions for those in which almost all are at a anonymous delete due to lack of notability. When an experienced editor notices a less experienced editor making the same error several times, it is very common to review their contribs to see if there are other instances that need to be dealt with. I'll also note that Crusio's remarks were not bad faith. They were actually commending your passion and desire to help expand coverage of Russian topics, while lamenting that you choose to focus on unnotable topics that cannot be sourced or brought up to Misplaced Pages standards. EEMIV also complemented you for the same reason, but again reminded you that this is the English Misplaced Pages, and that the articles you have made to not conform to its standards.

Their removal of the images is not only complying with Misplaced Pages policy, but the Wikimedia Foundation's mandate to keep non-free images uses in-line with policy. As far as I can see, they have been polite in their interactions with you and have tried to help you understand that this is NOT the Russian Misplaced Pages. The English Misplaced Pages probably has the most detailed and exacting policies and guidelines of any of the Wikipedias, in part due to its age, and in part due to its much larger and active user base. Even above, you have shown that you really do not have a good understanding of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, as you point to Misplaced Pages:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built which is an editor's personal essay that has pretty much no meaning at all.

Above you note that "In Russian wiki, there is such rule: that one, who nominates more than one article, written by single user, is banned or at least his actions are being put under discussion of entire community of Wikipedians in the case if his nominations ensued a controversy." - that is not the case here at all. We would have no users with such a rule, and quite honestly, it is a bad rule. There is nothing controversial in their nominating unnotable articles for deletion, even if they were primarily created by you. As for your question of what should you do? I would suggest really sitting down and learning Misplaced Pages's guidelines and policies (including the difference between them and an essay), and perhaps getting a mentor to help you negotiate the differences between your home Wiki and this one. You can find the core policies and guidelines here. I'd also recommend you cease trying to see that neither Crusio nor EEMIV were hounding you, which is a malicious following of another editor for the point of harassing and stalking, but a proper reaction to noting a slate of articles from the same editor that are primarily unnotable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Answered above. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

And please do not talk about mentorship. Who will be my mentor? You? If "no" it's all just a words. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll do it, if SerdechnyG is willing. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 23:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a particularly good person for being a mentor, but I do believe you may find it helpful, and as a Films project coordinator I am of course always willing to answer any questions you may have on determining the notability of films and on creating/improving film articles. Also, please keep in mind that yes, anyone can edit here, that does not mean that the edits will be kept and that articles created will not be deleted. This is why we have deletion processes. Yes, it can suck, especially when it seems clear you had the best of intentions in creating this articles, but sometimes it can be very difficult to show notability for foreign films (which for the English Misplaced Pages, would include Russian films). If you have not already done so, I'd encourage reading over WP:NF, which spells out the criteria under which a film is generally seen as likely to be notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Still, I see debates, but I see no answers. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The answers to the questions you pose at the end of your initial post are entirely up to you; no one is going to tell you to stay or pack your bags. Make up your own mind. Just be aware that if you continue to participate at English Misplaced Pages, you must abide by its policies. But, to answer your questions: *shrug* make up your own mind.

As for the questions midway through your initial post about whether the articles should/will be deleted, this isn't the forum; those discussions are happening at the AfD pages, as you know. --EEMIV (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

But aren't they obliged to obey this rules. Knowledge of rules and regulations gives you no supremacy over the others. I cited Jimbo to underline that they're supposed to help. What help did they given to me? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 07:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Look back at the five talk-page links you offered in your original post, and the entire array of suggestions about familiarizing yourself with basic policies -- couched, again, in an appreciation for a deep content knowledge most of us here lack. It's unfortunate, but ultimately an issue with you, that you react defensively and don't perceive some of these talk-page discussions as attempt to help. --EEMIV (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

When I'm looking back there, I see no help. Please do not use word basic. I had mentioned above what is basic. And it's better for you to familiarize yourself with it. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

As for the questions midway through your initial post about whether the articles should/will be deleted, this isn't the forum; those discussions are happening at the AfD pages, as you know. --EEMIV (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not discuss no articles. I discuss you, and your behavior at first. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 08:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You posed to questions in your original post about the fate of some articles. I just attempted to offer some guidance about where their fate is more appropriately discussed -- and you offer that kind of irritable/irritating response? Please take a deep breath, take some time simply to read the policies and to look at decent film and character articles (e.g. The_Hunt_for_Red_October_(film), Palpatine) for a sense of what we're moving toward with content (and a sense of what isn't appropriate). --EEMIV (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You'd better attempted it, when you nomitaded these articles for deletion, rather than now, after I posted this appeal. Not so much comments and advices you given, when you nominated these articles and images for deletion. And there were not so much comments and advices from your side, when you deleted chapters and references from articles. Now it looks like informational outburst. Please take a deep breath - ??? What should I respond on such advice? Belt up? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just don't understand the broken English. "Take a deep breath" (sorry for using an idiom you don't understand) means stop, read, and pay attention. --EEMIV (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Belt up means... never mind. It's too complicated to explain. Please be clear, using no idioms. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

A lot of "help" I had received from EEMIV with these files:

• Revision history of File:Praporshchik Volentir.jpg
• Revision history of File:Tarasov and Shwetz.jpg

I understand - it's all a struggle for Misplaced Pages copyright policy. But is it necessary to be so overzealous? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 14:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• This is starting to become annoying. User:SerdechnyG keeps editing against WP:MOS and rejects all advice. He acts as if he owns the articles that he has created. His limited grasp of English makes for a very difficult communication as he tends to misunderstand many comments and often interprets them as a kind of personal attack, even if they are not. I have offered advice on several occasions and extended an olive branch when he got upset about the fact that I PRODded some of his articles and took them to AfD after he deprodded them. I cleaned up some of the grammar/spelling of some of these articles (see histories of Chris Adams (character) and Calvera (Character)) and in the process removed the academic titles (as is customary) of some authors who had written books that were added by SerdechnyG to show notability for the articles. Again, SerdechnyG got very upset and reverted me three times on both articles. Could somebody please explain to this person that his behavior is not constructive and that I don't have anything against him, nor against the subjects on which he is writing, nor want to annoy him, but only am interested in improving this project? Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 10:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

User:SerdechnyG keeps editing against WP:MOS and rejects all advice

For example?? I received NO advices from you yet. All your rebukes could be directed inversely.

His limited grasp of English makes for a very difficult communication

It's difficult to communicate only with you and User:EEMIV. Nobody else said that it's very difficult. All other users simply corrected my grammatical mistakes and nobody told me that my knowledge of English is limited. And guess why? Because I allready know it without outside assistance. So, thank you, Captain Obvious, indeed.

the fact that I PRODded some of his articles and took them to AfD

It's no fact! I privatised them or what? Misplaced Pages is a Free Encyclopedia. THERE IS NO "MINE" OR "YOUR" ARTICLES.

Again, SerdechnyG got very upset

Don't worry about me. I'm not so upset as you may thinking. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Could somebody please explain to this person that his behavior is not constructive and that I don't have anything against him, nor want to annoy him, but only am interested in improving this project? Thanks! -- SerdechnyG (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think you and I have already delivered that message a few times; SerdechnyG either doesn't believe it or doesn't understand it. Hopefully mentorship with RadManCF will be useful. Regardless, this ANI thread is stale. --EEMIV (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That's right: a message. I hope, both of you understand the difference between advice and message. My mentor - is only my mentor. This mentorship is out of your competence, we will sort it out ourself. And last, this thread is stale because of your presence here. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Just perfect. Masks off. Now they have their own administrator: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Crusio, User:EEMIV reported by User:SerdechnyG (Result: No 3RR violation) -- SerdechnyG (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Doesn't it even occur to you that there was no 3RR violation?? At least not from EEMIV or me: you violated 3RR on two articles. --Crusio (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I did? Maybe it's you, who violated it? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Crusio, no one's getting through to this guy. Let his mentor take a whack at it; we, obviously, won't change his mind. Let's let SerdechnyG get the last word in on this thread, and then the magic bot can archive this long-stale conversation. --EEMIV (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Who decided, that it would be my last word? Don't worry, even if this magic bot archive this conversation, it will be easy to restore it. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• You're right. I always keep thinking that reason should triumph, but of course the world is not ideal... Let's spend our time on better undertakings. Happy editing! --Crusio (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever thought why it's not ideal? I suppose, not. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As you see, it's too much to discuss. I wouldn't describe everything, but only the main points. As for their "second" SarekOfVulcan. I can understand his anger, but let me answer him with John Wayne' words: "It's not me ! It's El Shaitan!"
As for User:Crusio following all of my actions in wiki, I can say that I was slow in informing him about starting this tread and another one, because I had some... let's call it premonition, that he need no my notifications, because he allready knows about it, by constanly watching my contributions-list. Considering his statements that "I don't have anything against him, nor against the subjects on which he is writing, nor want to annoy him, but only am interested in improving this project" it's all looks curious and maybe even suspicious. Some morbid attention towards my person, isn't it?
As for User:EEMIV. He got to the point that picture on my user page and even my avatar must be deleted. Well, actually I have a few pictures on the wall in my kitchen, and... Oh, boy! They're not copyrighted properly! They must be deleted! Happy deleting! -- SerdechnyG (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Collectonian above asked you to learn the policies & guidelines. That seems a bit unreasonable, as there are hundreds of them (I can't find the exact number). You're probably right in saying nobody knows them all. Perhaps someone would like to suggest the "important" ones. Peter jackson (talk) 11:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope it would be so.
But still, User:EEMIV shows not so good knowledge of the rules and policies, which he is trying to enforce. However, I think that knowledge of them all is unnecessary, more important is to follow the spirit of Misplaced Pages. Isn't it? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Users: TimLambert & John Quiggin

Entire section has been moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/TimLambert and John Quiggin to centralize discussion and to save space here. Please to not add timestamp until this section reaches the top of the section. –MuZemike

User:RHB100

RHB100 (talk · contribs) has been disruptive on Talk:Gravitational potential over a period of several weeks. He has been extremely rude towards User:Sławomir Biały: . I posted to WP:WQA and informed RHB100 at 05:54, 13 March 2010 . Rather than respond peaceably, he continued to insult other users: . Sławomir Biały is a well-regarded WikiProject Mathematics regular, and his calm replies can be viewed in full at Talk:Gravitational potential.

Additionally, RHB100 ignores consensus and tries to force his text onto the page. Here are his attempts to get his preferred description of the potential and its expansion in terms of Legendre polynomials on the page: . While there are some structural differences, the text is mostly the same between these; it ignores the criticisms and corrections made by other users, both in other revisions of the article and on the talk page.

I cannot see RHB100's behavior changing in the near future. Therefore I ask that he be blocked. Ozob (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Update: I informed RHB100 of this discussion but he has continued to post offensive comments . Ozob (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The statement that I have ignored consensus is untrue. I wrote the original version on expansion into Legendre polynomials in its entirety. Certainly any consensus must involve me. Patrick added valuable contributions. Sławomir Biały then took it upon himself to destroy the vector diagram that I had created and ruin the article with some terrible writing. The changes Biały made were so terrible that it seems more likely to have been an attempt to deliberately degrade the quality of the Misplaced Pages. There are some people, including those who want to sell more books, who don't want the Misplaced Pages to be a very good source of information. Considering the terrible thing that had bee done to the Misplaced Pages, my reaction was rather mild. And their certainly is no consensus. RHB100 (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. The issue here is not the content of the article, nor on being on the right "side" of a content dispute. At issue, first and foremost, is the absolutely unacceptable way in which you have behaved (and continue to both here and at Talk:Gravitational potential). Perhaps Ozob's choice of the word "consensus" was less than ideal, although conforming to the specific manner in which it pertains to WP:CONSENSUS. However, edit-warring against several other editors to attempt to reinsert one's own preferred version of the text is generally considered to be disruptive, especially when at the very same time you come here to make a non-apology while continuing the same incivil rhetoric that landed us here in the first place. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal regarding User:RHB100

I would like to propose a sanction upon RHB100:

Findings

• (a) RHB100 has engaging in talk page incivlity on Talk:Gravitational potential, making personal attacks and inflammatory remarks.
• (b) RHB100 has referred to their own credentials.
• (e) In March 2010, a WQA report was filed against RHB100 in hopes of a peaceful resolution.
• (d) Despite the WQA report, RHB100 has continued the incivility.

Remedy

• (a) RHB100 (talk · contribs) is blocked for a week.
• (b) After the expiration of the block, RHB100 will be placed on civility parole for a period of one month.

Continuing incivility after a WQA report suggests that action is needed. I think this is sufficient (but I hope I'm not being too harsh). —Mythdon 23:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I don't suppose there is anything in policy to prevent it, but it seems rather odd to me that an editor who has just come off a six-month ban and is on an additional six-month probationary period is proposing sanctions on another user. Shouldn't that six-month probation be used to re-establish your bona fides as an editor by contributing to the encyclopedia, rather than involving yourself in administrative matters? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I have been meaning to suggest to Mythdon that they moderate their time spent at these noticeboards. –xeno 01:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(Disclosure: I am an involved party to this incident.) What purpose would a one week block serve? RHB100's behavior is pretty far outside of what should be tolerated by the community under any circumstances, and an indefinite block is certainly warranted. The editor has not shown any sign of a willingness to abide by the rules that bind our community (or indeed those that would be considered remotely acceptable in any community of individuals). And until he shows some signs of contrition, there is absolutely no reason that he should be allowed to continue editing at this project. Sławomir Biały (talk) 06:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Editors can and do change their behaviour. Usually short block are given to give a person time to change and improve. If this does not occur than longer blocks may follow.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand that, and would not be averse to an unblock once he acknowledges that there are rules, that he was far outside the rules during his interactions with me, and agrees to follow them in the future. I believe that he has already been given a chance to do this (over the course of several weeks of discussion at Talk:Gravitational potential, through his invitation to participate in the discussion at WQA), and has continued to flout them. The kind of probationary measures that were suggested above would require the contributor to acknowledge the rules, to demonstrate a willingness to abide by them, and to want to change his behavior. Nothing stops him from agreeing to these things and then requesting an unblock, but this agreement is clearly a necessary condition for allowing the editor to continue to contribute to the project. (Indeed, all of us have implicitly agreed to abide by these rules.) But a fairly infrequent contributor such as this will likely not even feel a one week block, and so this would literally serve no purpose. Hence my question: why block at all if for such a short time? Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Well, something needs to be done, because the behaviour at the talk page in question is simply unacceptable. Eusebeus (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

What they don't tell you: RHB100 was the original author of the section in question

They tell you that I have exercised my right to change to change a poorly written section. But they don't tell you that I did the original research and the original writing of the section on expansion in terms of Legendre polynomials. After I did the original research, Sławomir Biały completely replaced my well written article with a poorly written article. I have attempted to get back to my original article, but Sławomir Biały has been very disruptive by continuously replacing my original work. He has removed my vector diagram which greatly added to the clarity of the article. I am a licensed professional engineer with advanced engineering degrees from both the University of Arkansas and UCLA. It appears that Sławomir Biały does not even have an engineering degree and his poor writing indicates that he is not qualified to rewrite my original work. RHB100 (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• WP:OWN, much? Guy (Help!) 00:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Response of RHB100

I have removed my offensive comments. I will look further to see if there are any that I have missed. I regret having made offensive comments. I was incensed over the fact that all my hard work and research had been destroyed.

Sławomir Biały has repeatedly destroyed my well written section. He has turned a well written section that I researched and wrote in its entirety into a poorly written section. He removed the block diagram which provided clarity. He appears to have the goal of making the Misplaced Pages confusing and difficult to understand. RHB100 (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

He has shown no respect for me. He destroyed my work without any form of consultation with me. RHB100 (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Some slight cosmetic changes had been made to earlier posts, but this post that you just made (accusing me of deliberate vandalism) is clearly not in the spirit of an amicable resolution. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

For everyone's reference, RHB100 changed his posts in these diffs: .

He has also reverted the article once again to his preferred version, ignoring consensus on the talk page: . Together with two diffs that I already referenced above, and , he is a little shy of a WP:3RR violation, as these edits happened over a 44 hour period. Ozob (talk) 23:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus on the talk page. This statement that there is a consensus on the talk page is completely false. They have again reverted away form the article as it was originally written and researched to a non-consensus poorly written version. RHB100 (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a separate board for 3rr. Gerardw (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I intend to report him there if he violates it. But I hope that someone here blocks him before that happens. Ozob (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

RHB100 has made further personal attacks, some of which you can view above, and the diffs for which I am collecting here: (both at AN/I) (at Talk:Gravitational potential). Will someone please block him? Ozob (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The behavior continues to continue . Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

And . Ozob (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Big Axe

Big Axe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been changing dates and order numbers on various politicians' articles. It is not looking good at all. Could anyone check their edits so as to understand if it is vandalism or something else? Dr.K.  02:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Not entirely sure, but I'm interested to know why you've given the user 2nd warnings for every offense, and haven't elevated within the warning levels. He's definitely not listening every warning, from what I see. Connormah (talk | contribs) 22:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I was losing hope that this will be responed to :) Good question. The reason for not escalating the warnings is because I am not completely sure as to the motives of the user. Some of his edits appear not to be vandalism. So I went on a holding pattern until vandalism was proved beyond any doubt. This guy is either a prolific editor who knows much more than any editor as far as orders of succession and dates than anyone in those articles he edited or he must be blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. I am simply not knowledgeable enough in these areas to make this call in absolute confidence. Dr.K.  10:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Iceland and "Long form name"

There is a user, ArmchairVexillologistDonLives who seems to have a pattern of trying to add something he calls "long form names" of countries to every page he can. I didn't know this and reverted an edit he made earlier to Iceland. This particular edit was only recently the subject of lengthy debate. After reverting the edit I left a message on the talk page. His response lead me to believe that he might actually have a mental disorder, especially a remark asking why I want to "suppress" the name. While I was writing a reply he changed to contentious information again. I've asked that he try to reach consensus on the issue in the relevant discussion section. I don't want to be involved in an edit war, especially with someone who may not be reasonable at all. I'm choosing not to revert his info back. I'm sure other concerned editors will. I only wanted to make the sysops aware of the situation as I'm certain this will not be the only time ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! will engage in this behavior. Thank you for your time. --Leodmacleod (talk) 03:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

When you post here, your required to inform the parties involved, see top of this page for clarification. I've done it for you this time, please remember next time. Cheers.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

He is technically in the right, the Icelandic constitution does use Republic of Iceland and many of our country articles do have the short form, then followed by the long form. Libya is the best example. User:Zscout370 03:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and his previous name, ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), does not have a mental disorder. He does have a strongly held opinion on the long form names of countries, especially when it comes to Canada and Talk:Canada/Officialname1. Unfortunately this leads to problems with his editing and interactions with others. something lame from CBW 08:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As long as he is not moving the article to the long name, it is perfectly acceptable to add the long name into articles. User:Zscout370 17:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

But not to use it in every instance in which the country is referred to, which gets repetitive and is stylistically poor. Once the full name is established, the colloquial name should be used most often, with occasional returns to the full name as needed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Correct. User:Zscout370 00:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Iceland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A number of editors at Talk:Iceland have been claiming that 'Republic of Iceland' is *not* the official name. Consensus may not be clear, it is something like three editors to two against 'Republic of Iceland' among those who commented on that page. But meanwhile ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! made four reverts in 24 hours on 16 March, changing the article text to insist that 'Republic of Iceland' is the official name. (Reverts at 02:20, 02:59, 08:39 and 11:44, getting a 3RR warning at 04:22). Previously, he has urged that 'Dominion of Canada' is the official name of Canada, and this claim does *not* have consensus. He has been fighting battles like this one since 2005. (See Talk:Canada/Officialname1). Since he is clearly not waiting for consensus to form at Iceland, I suggest a 24-hour block if he reverts again. EdJohnston (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The editor has a long term history of disruptive edits and blocks on a range of articles. The ones on Iceland follow the same pattern as on previous occassions and its not just on the official names. British Isles articles, Middle Francia, its a long list. Given his history a 24 hour block is unlikely to have any effect, even ones for several weeks have not made a difference. I'd suggest some more substantial unless he accepts mentoring. At the very least a general 1RR restriction on all articles --Snowded 01:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, ZScout, CambridgeBayWeather, (i.e., the "Hang-em High" crowd),

Frankly, there is "no-love" lost between "us". As per my edits on Middle Francia, and the Rigsfællesskabet they were (i). correct, and (ii). helpful.

With the others ... British Isles (per Snowded), and Dominion of Canada (per ZScout), and I believe "folke-songs" with CambridgeBayWeather (I believe he that he was "un-aware" of the "America -- the Beautiful" song) ... your respective opinions really can-not be called "Neutral".

With regards to the (1918-1944), the country's Name was Konungsríkið Ísland (i.e., Kingdom of Iceland), and then after (1944), the country's Names was Lýðveldið Ísland (i.e., Republic of Iceland), ... you know what ... let the mistake of just Ísland stand. Who care's weither Misplaced Pages is correct or not (I've got better things to do, like learning foreign languages and linguistics, on my own, ... correctly).

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If you looked at my comments here, I said adding the long name is perfectly acceptable in the article (but the article should not be moved to that long title). I gave Libya as a prime example of something that is constantly used in Misplaced Pages. Plus, people told you that there is no RS about the long title. The Icelandic Constitution does use Republic of Iceland at least once, so it will be perfectly acceptable to add in the article (but just don't break 3RR while doing it). User:Zscout370 03:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not getting what the problem is here. The country's official name is the "Republic of Iceland", so says the Encyclopedia Brittannica, the CIA World Fact Book and the country's own constitution presented on the official website.. The country's colloquial name is "Iceland". The official name should be used in the infobox and the lede, and then sparingly throughout the article whenever it's appropriate. No? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That is what I am saying! User:Zscout370 04:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

To Zscout370 and Beyond My Ken, just to clarify, the lengthy discussion on the talk page has been about whether or not the full name actually includes "Republic of", based on the fact that in the (Icelandic version) of the constitution "lýðveldið" (=republic) is written with a lower-case l, and on an answer from the prime minister's office stating that the official name is simply Iceland, and republic of is a description. Some sense of consensus had been reached, at least to the extent that those initially involved stopped complaining or editing, before the recent brief edit skirmish. I've been following the discussion out of curiosity, but with absolutely no interest in seeing one outcome or the other (a feeling that seems to be shared by Iceland, if in fact "Republic of" is not part of its name, given that they routinely sign diplomatic papers referring to the country as Republic of Iceland). StephenHudson (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

In this case, don't go with the politician, who's apt to tell you whatever accords with his or her polical philosophy, go with the bureaucracy which, being innately conservative and abhorrent of change, tell you what's been done for a long time. If they sign treaties as the "Republic of Iceland", then "Republic of" is not a description, it's a name, since that's how they present themselves to the rest of the world.

In these matter, politicans can't be trusted, but bureaucracies, being inherently conservative, can. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:OWN, 3RR/Disruptive editing

Special:Contributions/Dapi89 appears to be reverting all edits automatically in History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) and appears to try to assume the ownership of the article. I tried to add a couple of tags into the article where I though the text was either poorly written, or where the information was somewhat dubious and needed discussion, or when was unclear about which period the sentence referred to, and wikilink some related articles into the text.

When I looked at the history page, I found that this user was automatically reverting everything, not even a minute passed and obviously no serious consideration given to it. He even reverted changes of correcting small typos like a wikilink to "Naval avition" being changed to "naval aviation". I did not want to go on an edit war with him, knowing his history, so I didn't revert.

• First revert, on grounds of "sourced"
• Second revert, on grounds of "obvious"
• Third revert, on ground of "sourced"
• Fourth revert, though I really don't know what his problem this time...
• Fifth revert within 8 hours: "reverted all changes"

Moreover this editor seems to start to follow my edits in other articles. In the Battle of Britain article to which I added a some casualty numbers from the article's talk page, on grounds that they "removed. No source. If you want the figures from terraine, ask.". The irony is overwhelming, as obviously both the figures were sourced to Terraine, which was discussed and was shockingly given by this very same editor on the talk page - an obvious case of bad faith reverting, though its in an other article, and technically no 3RR, it shows the pattern. At this point he seems to be reverting just for the sake of getting confrontational.

It looks very much like that he has wish to 'own' that article as well, but given the violent, disruptive and confrontational nature of this editor in the past (he was blocked several times for personal attacks and systematic harassment of me, which showed the same pattern, ie. following me on articles to revert my edits), and his similar attitude and methods in other articles and other editors (see: Battle of Kursk article for a similiar pattern of auto-reverting another editor), it seems to be a waste of time to try to talk sense into him. He knows the rules already, he was warned literally dozens of times, he was blocked for this exact same behaviour, he promised to change several times but he remains the same. He simply doesn't want to discuss anything seriously with anyone (very typical: Talk:Battle_of_Kursk#dubios_markings - I love this line: "Firstly, kill the attitude. Second, that's nonsense."), its much easier to revert everybody and dismiss them with one-liners. So, I just won't waste my time on a hopeless case - its been tried already. Kurfürst (talk) 09:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kurfürst. I'm sure you just missed the notification at the top of the page, but you are required to notify users involved in your ANI thread to tell them you have created it. I have left a message on Dapi89's talk for you. SGGH 10:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There certainly appears to be issues with WP:OWN, editing "style", and attitude regarding Dapi89's editing of these articles. I would be interested in their response - or even if there is one. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I’m not dignifying this with a prolonged response, and I haven’t bothered to read the diatribe by Kurfurst. He has a habit of making these accusations about every editor who disagrees with him. Kurfurst is a long term tendentious editor who seems to follow me around wikipedia and cause me difficulty. I the past I have responded heavy hand idly, and it has got me into to trouble. If you a look at Kurfurst's history you will see what kind of editor he is. I have managed to work well with the overwhelming number of editors in the past, but this guy is agenda driven. He was blocked indefinitely once; unfortunately some bright spark gave him another chance. He hasn't learned.

As far as the articles are concerned (particularly the Luftwaffe page), one will notice he deletes without discussion and makes false accusations of forgery here. The Luftwaffe article is one I have worked to bring up to standard. But Kurfurst is trying to cause trouble, as usual. Inflicting his own perception of events and deleting sources whenever he pleases. I created a battle of Belgium article last year, which is now at GA. Kurfurst was a leading force for its deletion. This just another attempt to ruin the work I've put in.

The nonsense he is spouting about the battle of Kursk is an indication of Kurfursts intentions. The editor in question has been blocked repeatedly. He brings it up here as pathetic 'proof' of wrong doing. To me this is block shopping, which he does often. As to the battle of Britain page. Kurfurst has a long history there; the one everyone is always combating. He doesn't have the source. If he wants it in the article, all he has to do is remind/request it via my talk page like any normal person.

Is it any wonder I reverted him? Is it any wonder his reputation is appalling?

Perhaps the admin reviewing this would look at Kurfursts recent history: he has been accused of the same thing 9OWN and DISRPUTIVE, justifiably) and is now making the same (erroneous) accusations against me: here. He's disruptive, uncooperative and unpleasant. If anyone is being disruptive, it is Kurfurst.

That’s it from me. Dapi89 (talk ) 18:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You know, you could well be right. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm far from being Kurfürst's favourite admin; see these polemical rants about my conflict of interest, misuse of the admin tools, favouritism and abuse of power following me blocking him for disrupting a talk page for months on end. Also note that I unblocked Dapi back in July 2009 after he'd been blocked for becoming frustrated with Kurfürst and stepping over the mark. I've never had any cause to regret either unblocking Dapi or blocking Kurfürst. Kurfürst seems to leave a trail of annoyed and suspicious editors in his wake; frankly I think he needs to tone down his combative attitude before we start looking at his presence on Misplaced Pages from a cost/benefit perspective. EyeSerene 11:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a note, this isn't Kurfürst's first time at ANI. See here, here, and here where he was complaining about Dapi before, and here and here where he was making almost the same argument about a different editor. He's been at the 3RR and other noticeboards for edit war issues numerous times (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). And he has been blocked 9 times already (one of them indefinite, later reduced to 1 month). To say he's a problematic editor is putting things lightly. -- Atama頭 17:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not pretty reading. I'm starting to wonder why I didn't indefblock the last time. I must have had a reason, but I'm struggling to imagine what it was. EyeSerene 21:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

File deleted in error

Merged thread with WP:AN#User:Melesse –xeno 13:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

new editor who seems like a PoV pusher and is escalating

I was trying to keep Icelandic Viking POWER (talk · contribs) from here, but if this editor is going to start complaining about the level of his/her headings on talk pages – as here – then I really have no option but to suggest that the ditor does not have the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind when he/she makes their edits. As Icelandic Viking POWER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is being used as a single purpose account, I would request a permaban. Physchim62 (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Strongly suggest not. The number of contributions to date does not allow us to identify him as an SPA -- just one who hasn't found another subject to work on yet. I see no admin action needed at this point. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, you failed to notify IVP as is required. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

An "new editor" who deliberately blanks all contributions to their talk page has forgone such niceties, I'm afraid. Physchim62 (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, no, that's definitely not the case.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Why did you change my section to a subsection on that page? What gives you the right to change my input on talkpages? I only joined wikipedia to fix what seemed to me like a grave misreprensetation of information on the Cod Wars article so maybe I am an spa but so what? The best name for The Icesave referendum might not be "The Icesave referendum" I don't really know but per my input on the talkpage http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Icelandic_debt_repayment_referendum,_2010#Name_of_the_article_Google_Results it should be obvious to anyone that the current name of the article simply just won't do.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Erm, a look at the "contributions" – if not just at the username – shows that this is an account which has been created solely for the purpose of SOAPBOXing a particular political view: two "contributions" on January 31 (to set a date for autoconfirmed status) and then nothing until March 11, when the account becomes used for soapboxing. The very first edit by this account, or at least the edit summary, is quite instructive: this is an "editor" who knows how to get through the usual filters but, of course, his or her edit was not actually "thoroughly explained on talk page", just that nobody bothered to check! Physchim62 (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

These accusations are outrageous I am not soapboxing but working on having the name of the article changed. As for my Cod wars edit, how could I POSSIBLY! have explained it any better on that talk page? Are baseless accusations like these considered positive and tolorated her on wikipedia?--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 05:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the value of IVP's contributions, there is nothing here that warrants a permaban. SPA's are not a permabannable offense, and it's jumping the gun to call him an SPA at this point. Beyond that, that he used an edit summary when deleting content to point out that he was going to explain on the talk page is admirable (which he did do, whether it was as "thorough" as you wanted or not), not a bannable offense. It is assuming bad faith of the worst order to be insinuating what you are insinuating when what IVP did was exactly what he was supposed to do -- use an edit summary to indicate that he would explain his change on the talk page, and then he explained it. I do not know, nor do I care to comment, on the value of his contributions, being wholly unfamiliar with the original topic, but this is not a permaban, or even really a blockable or bannable offense type situation at all, to my eyes. I see no evidence of edit-warring or anything else I'd expect to see given the accusations here. And, really, again the insinuation above is just frightfully bad form. The autoconfirm bit is indefensible. It doesn't even make any rational sense, given the criteria for autoconfirm status.

Also, nobody foregoes "such niceties" as a notification about an ANI you've raised about them. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys, you remind why I'm not an admin. I simply don't want to be associated with the likes of you... Physchim62 (talk) 11:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the likes of we who actually read contribution histories in response to an AN/I report? Sorry to disappoint you. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved – Image added to WP:BADIMAGE list.

Request to enable Abuse filter blocking

The wallflowers case is well.. almost as much as the DY71 case. Unfortunately, the amount of disruption is much, much higher. Therefore, I request that the AF be allowed to block. This would stop WF socks from getting more edits in if they succeed in getting past it. I know that this will likely snow oppose.. but I have to try..— Dædαlus 04:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Two questions, does this person abuse their talk page/email once blocked, and of the 58 hits for the filter, how many are false positives?--Jac16888 04:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

They don't abuse their talk page because they abandon an account just after using it for less than five edits. As to the FPs, I'll get back to you on that. Need to switch computers.— Dædαlus 04:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I have done a cursory look through the filter. There were some false positives early on, this is to be expected as this was during a testing period. Since then, the only false positive I have seen is one that occurred on the 17th of February; while it was appropriate that the edit was blocked, this was not the target of the filter and it has since been completely overhauled and wouldn't match that edit anymore. I have very high confidence in this particular filter right now, though I admit I may be a bit biased in this belief. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If the filter is accurate to a high degree, then I would support allowing it to block, provided it doesn't remove talk page/email access. --Jac16888 05:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the filter could actually revoke talk page/email access if we wanted to. (That is, without making a filter that says "users can't edit talk pages", of course) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I support this configuration change, provided it is used with the utmost care and filters are double checked and triple checked, preferably with code reviews. Inappropriate automated blocking is the ultimate in WP:BITE. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Surely if the filter can block users it can remove talk and email, since the two are block options just like blocking account creation etc--Jac16888 05:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't be sure, given that that option has never been enabled; it's just my understanding. I could certainly be wrong; I'm basing my knowledge solely off of what's available at mw:Extension:AbuseFilter --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I support this configuration change with regard to edit filter 278. The last dozen hits cover several weeks of activity and show no false positives. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Nobody seems to have a problem with this, so how do we go about enabling blocking?--Jac16888 17:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe the appropriate venue is to open a bug report on bugzilla with the request and point it to this thread. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime, couldn't we ask User:Mr.Z-bot (an existing bot) to automatically file a report at AIV every time the filter in question gets tripped? That bot does a pretty decent job of patrolling the abuse filters and reporting users who either trigger certain filters or make several disruptive edit attempts within a short period of time. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I see a problem here... currently non-admins have access to the abuse filter. With blocking enabled, this is essentially giving them the block button without an RfA. Is there a configuration change at all that would alleviate these concerns? I've been in support of blocking for a while, but until this is clarified, I oppose this. (X! · talk)  · @226  ·  04:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sock of User:Roman888

Prolific copyright violator and sockpuppeteer User:Roman888 has re-emerged as User:MostlyMaybe. His contributions have been to restore four pages deleted for copyright violations. I ask for User:MostlyMaybe to be blocked as a confirmed sock and for the G5 deletion and salting (because of multiple copyvio recreations) of:

• Military Scandals in Malaysia
• Military Scandals in the Malaysian Armed Forces
• Military Scandals in the Malaysian Air Force
• Military Scandals in the Malaysian Navy

Thanks --Mkativerata (talk) 08:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted the two that weren't already redirected. Give me a minute to check the SPI if there is one. SGGH 11:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

There isn't one, but per WP:DUCK I have indef'd MostlyMaybe for recreating topics with copyrighted material along very similar lines to recently blocked Roman888. SGGH 12:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Liberal application of WP:SALT and redirect protection applied. MLauba (talk) 12:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:41.234.174.35

This user seems to be engaged in an edit war at Ashram; from the looks of it he's been blanking the article and replacing it with Arabic text. Since I'm getting the impression this user isn't fluent in English (and thus cannot understand the warnings presently on his talk page, let alone an AN/I notification), could someone fluent in Arabic please point him towards the Arabic WP? —Jeremy 08:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime, another admin has properly protected the article. — Satori Son 13:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Erm, Satori, I protted it before I came here. —Jeremy 21:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Mikhailov Kusserow archiving issues, again,

Mikhailov Kusserow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

This user was previously warned, and blocked, because they were archiving pages without consensus, and project pages which they were not members of. They have begun doing so again. Can someone please put a stop to this? I'll find the original thread tomorrow, I need to sleep right now. They have been notified of this thread. Also, if any doubt what I say here, simply check the history of their user talk page.— Dædαlus 08:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something they archived 1 page 12 days ago, got reverted, and haven't done it since. Maybe just a reminder on their talk page would've been fine? –xeno 13:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The last warning didn't work, why would this one?— Dædαlus 19:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What action do you propose we take, 12 days after the single problematic edit? –xeno 19:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I realize this is contradictory to what I just said, but maybe a sterner warning? Further, something should be done about the archives the user made without consensus. I honestly don't know what else to do.— Dædαlus 06:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Left-arm orthodox spin

Could somebody please review the protection of the Left-arm orthodox spin article. YellowMonkey and myself got into an edit war over the inclusion of Mohammad Rafique, a discussion was started on the talk page to attempt and resolve the issue. YellowMonkey has been directed to the talk page on three occasions but has refused to participate, but two other users agree with me that Rafique should be included. The article was then protected by SpacemanSpiff following a request on his talkpage by YellowMonkey. It seems grossly unfair that YellowMonkey preferred version is protected when a talkpage discussion, which he refuses to participate in, shows more support for the opposing view. --88.111.62.119 (talk) 09:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is this not at Requests for Comment? This is a content dispute first. Not an ANI issue. SGGH 11:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I have begun discussion on the talk page, and shall ask Yellowmonkey and Spiff to weigh in promptly. I believe this ANI thread should be closed as the situation will be in hand. It's overkill to bring it here in the first place IMO. SGGH 11:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff performed a poor administrative action and I would like it to be reversed, that's why this thread was started here. It's not simply a content dispute it's a issue of admins working together to help themselves out of trouble, that's a serious matter which shouldn't be swept under the carpet. --88.111.62.119 (talk) 11:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you asked Spiff to review his action? SGGH 11:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff has protected the article to stop edit warring on the article, and not to take sides with YellowMonkey as far as I can see. The current version is the one that existed before the dispute began, which is the one that is usually protected. The fact that YellowMonkey requested protection makes no difference. Protection of the page seems appropriate to me, but it may naturally be The Wrong Version ;) ≈ Chamal  ¤ 11:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

And I suppose it was poor coincidence that SpacemanSpiff protected the article just minutes after YellowMonkey had reverted an edit which took place six hours previous. I wasn't born yesterday Chamal. --88.111.62.119 (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh... didn't you read my comment? I said that version was protected because it was the one that existed before the dispute, not because it was the "YellowMonkey preferred version" as you say. I would have done the same if I was the protecting admin, and if that wasn't the current version I would have reverted to it before protecting. ≈ Chamal  ¤ 14:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually in your previous comment you said the current version is the one that is usually protected, I was responding to as why the YellowMonkey preferred version just so happened to be the current version at the time the protection was placed. What version are you referring to as 'before the dispute' because the adding of Rafique by various users and it's removal by YellowMonkey has been going on for years. --88.111.62.119 (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What I meant by "current version is the one that existed before the dispute began" was that the current version was the same as the version that existed before the dispute. Sorry about any confusion that may have caused. By "before the dispute" I mean the version before the Rafique issue escalated (around February). Addition and removal of various bowlers has happened before that, of course. ≈ Chamal  ¤ 15:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to User:SGGH for informing me about this. This has been in a low-grade edit war for about 6-8 weeks and therefore I protected it (full-protection, so that it doesn't favor one party over the other). When I came to protect the article, that version was closest to the version before this dispute started, so I left it at that and posted on the talk page asking to arrive at a consensus on what should/shouldn't be included and noting that I'd unprotect earlier if that consensus was reached. —SpacemanSpiff 17:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat to sue me for slander in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Eberhard Booe

Resolved – Legal threat withdrawn, user unblocked, AFD courtesy blanked. –xeno 18:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

{{Resolved|Blocked, but leave to someone else to do next time.}}

---

User:Rvbooe gave me 24 hours warning, about 14 hours ago, that he was going to sue me for slander, etc. due to a comment I made in the course of the discussion in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Eberhard Booe. I've blocked him and given him the NLT template notification. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I assume it was this edit is the reason for the block. I agree with blocking under the circumstances but suggest you let another admin review then block/warn rather than acting youself. Gnangarra 13:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks fairly clear-cut and appropriate to me. Interestingly unique interpretation of defamation there, I must say... --Xdamr 13:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree that it would've probably been best to let another admin do this, but I think the end result would've been the same. –xeno 13:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree as well. Jauerback/_dude. 13:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd been under the impression that under WP:NLT the block was the first thing; but if some other admin would like to revert mine and block it themselves, I certainly wouldn't object, just in the interest of procedural clarity and avoidance of any perception of bias. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's really necessary, noting that NLT isn't really something that's open to a lot of interpretation or bias. The legal threat he left you was clear and another admin would've blocked without delay. Next time though I would probably just say to post it at ANI. –xeno 13:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

There was nothing to justify OrangeMike using his tools so urgently instead of leaving it to someone else. NLT, particularly in such clear threats, does warrant blocks first - but that doesn't mean admin guidelines are abandoned altogether. What we had is a block with a far greater chilling effect compared to the comment made by the editor. Obviously I will oppose lifting the block, and even if we got another admin to reimpose the block, it is useless in undoing any damage. But really, this level of involvement in blocking should not be happening - it's disappointing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC) (see also )

The result was inevitable so it doesn't matter who did it, he brought it here for review so transparency is preserved. No problem. Guy (Help!) 14:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The vocalist has a point, and I consider myself appropriately chastised. If I thought I was above criticism, I wouldn't be worthy of wielding the Mop-and-Bucket. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

And here is an excellent example of an administrator who is actually receptive to criticism. :) It's something that is so easily lost or forgotten after doing a lot of tasks on-wiki, but it certainly should remind other trusted users on how to respond to criticism. Wow. :) :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Rvbooe has withdrawn the legal threat, and I've unblocked him. He's asked for courtesy blanking on a portion of the AfD discussion, but somebody else should look at that issue, rather than having me do so. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I've {{Afd-privacy}}ed it (is that a verb?) --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Niteshift36 disruption at Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)

Would an admin please take a look at a potential problem over at Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)? This involves talk page disruption in the last week caused by editor User:Niteshift36. I suspect that some encouragement from an admin on that talk page might help move the discussions back towards improving the article and away from arguments about personal points of view. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• I expected this. User:SaltyBoatr and I disagree on the inclusion of a graphic in the article. The bulk of the discussion has been by 2 editors that think it should be included and 2 who do not think it should be included. At my suggestion, Saltyboatr started a RfC. However, after only a couple of hours, he took it upon himself to declare the matter settled and that consensus was reached because the first 2 people to comment agreed with him. I contend, and I believe quite correctly, that a RfC should be allowed to run for more than a couple of hours. Saltyboatr then took this matter a step further by all of the sudden declaring a POV issue with all 50 tables being used in the article. I stated that I thought his sudden complaint was WP:POINTy and disruptive. He takes that as a "personal attack". I am trying to discuss the issue and doing so in good faith. I don't believe my actions are disruptive, but I do feel his latest complaint is disruptive. Further, I would like to hear some other opinions on whether declaring a matter settled after a couple of hours sounds proper or if a RfC should be allowed to run a couple of days. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

RFCs should generally run for 30 days. This give time for a wide variety of editors to comment, not just the first few that agree with the filing party. Mjroots (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• And that is a big part of the disagreement. I didn't feel that a couple of hours (2 hours 46 minutes) was sufficient to call the matter closed and declare a consensus being reached. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Obviously too short a time for an RFC. The core of the content dispute seems to be whether the Brady chart is biased. But forgetting that, it looks like a potentially useful graphic. What's needed is a similar chart from the NRA as to their opinion on the matter. I would not be surprised if they show similar results. But it does depend on how they are defining "restrictive". The NRA might argue that the big block of green states are more restrictive than Brady says they are. But there's a good chance they would be ranked similarly. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• I suggested that balance would be the answer. Unfortunately I can't find a reliable sourced one (not for lack of looking). The NRA and orgs on the other side of the issue tend to not do graphics like that, choosing instead concentrate on the actual laws, rather than characterizing the laws as more or less restrictive, good or bad or whatever. Likewise, if a similar graphich could be found from a neutral source, I doubt I'd have an objection. But trusting an activist organization to make these determinations is an issue. I've started raising specific objections to specific issues in how they arrived at the score and why the score is biased, but thus far, Saltybotr has refused to discuss the specific objections. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• I would be amazed if the gun lobby did not rank the states by their opinion on the relative restrictiveness of guns. And I would be at least somewhat surprised if the order of their rankings would differ significantly from the Brady organization. The fact that one organization thinks restrictions are good and another thinks they're bad doesn't mean they wouldn't both arrive at the same or similar conclusions as to the level of restrictiveness. As a gross example, I'm sure the NRA would rank Texas and the Great Plains areas as less restrictive, and New York and California as more restrictive, as Brady does. And surely some kind of graphic in that megillah would be useful to the reader. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Again, all the reliable sources I've checked really don't do it that way. They deal with the facts of the laws more than their opinion/assessment of the law. (BTW, a number of states in the great plains don't fare as well with the NRA as you might think. The south, however, generally does fare well.) Niteshift36 (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Nobody rates the states? That's surprising, since every other national organization and its mother rate the states for their particular thing. Maybe one problem is not being clear enough on what Brady regards as "restrictive". Even if some of the specific color groupings might be questionable, the visual is helpful in seeing where the trends are. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• As I explained at lenght in one of my responses on the talk page, some of their criteria is, to me, questionable and agenda driven. The example I used is whether or not a state mandates so-called "childproof guns". Brady has lobbied numerous times for this legislation and 49 of 50 states have rejected it. 98% rejection sounds like a pretty strong plurality to me. Yet Brady considers the lack of that law a bad thing and penalizes states for it. With a 98% rejection rate, the penalty for not having that law starts to look fringe. This is part of their legislative agenda and to I feel that the penalty is a POV issue. It's not like 40 have it and the other 10 are being stubborn or too permissive, 98% of the legislatures haven't made it a law. Follow what I'm getting at? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• By any objective criterion I can think of, having a law mandating childproof guns would make such a state more restrictive than one that doesn't mandate it, whether you favor such a law or not. Thus 49 of 50 states he would rate as less restrictive on that issue. Hence that stat would have virtually no impact on his rankings. And surely the NRA would agree that those 49 states are less restrictive on that one point, even if they don't agree with his view on the legislation. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• You're missing my point. The inclusion of the category is, in itself, POV pushing. This is something on the Brady legislative agenda, something they are pushing. It has been soundly rejected by virtually everyone. I would srgue that it is nearly a WP:FRINGE opinion. By comparison, 6-28% of people believe the moon landing was faked. If we consider 6% to be a fringe idea, why are we considering 2% "mainstream" enough that a state should be penalized for not doing it? The Brady Campaign uses their criteria to push their agenda, which is where my POV issue lies. We won't even get into the reason abot why 98% of states don't have the law (hint: It's an unreliable technology). As I said on the page, if some of this were included in the prose or integrated into the existing tables for each state, I'd have much less of an objection. But let's face it, graphics are eye catching (especially when placed at the top of the page) and that graphic represents an activist groups opinions without a similar graphic to balance it. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is the link to the RFC? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:NPOVN#Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_.28by_state.29. He placed on NPOVN, but I consider it a RfC all the same. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The Trifecta: Obvious sock impersonates admin, makes legal threats

Wikiimedia Central (talk · contribs) is an obvious returning sock of indef blocked vandal Wikapedia Central (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). In addition to returning to harrass, he's also making legal threats about attorneys and telling other users he's suspended their editing privileges . Thanks in advance for the swiftly applied banhammer. Dayewalker (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

(merging a duplicate request)

Wikiimedia Central (talk · contribs) (a sockpuppet) is busily engaged in an edit war oveer placing fake admin-like messages on a user page, and has an edit summary suggesting a legal threat. . Their userpage also suggest they are claiming admin-like abilities to resolve issues. Can an admin take a look? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I propose WP:RBI here. The mode of operation is a bit different from the regular vandal, but he can still be recognized and banned easily. Both accounts are blocked, and if others arise they are easy to find and ban. Seeing his edit summaries ignoring him altogether will work best. Excirial 17:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

And now he's back as The Common User Ombudsman (talk · contribs). Dayewalker (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I've also submitted a WP:RFPP on John Amos, which is a favorite target of his. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikiimedia Central has only been blocked because of their name, and not because of their behavior? Woogee (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the details in the block log, it is still indefinite. — Kralizec! (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh... look at their contributions. They claim to be operating on behalf of an "ombudsman" on their first edit. Open-and-shut case. Fran Rogers❇ 21:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What I'm looking at is the block template on their Talk page, which says This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Misplaced Pages because your username, Wikiimedia Central, does not meet our username policy. Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username. Woogee (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's true. But really, who cares. Block 'em, toss the key, and worry about other things. Tan | 39 22:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Return of blocked sockfarmer

On January 27, 2010, five accounts associated with a single sockmaster were blocked -- User:Cubert, User:Smokefree, User:2Misters, User:Somaterc, and User:Filmsnoir -- and a sixth, User:Helicon Arts Cooperative, had previously been blocked. None of these blocks has been lifted. Earlier today, a new account was created, User:B-Wuuu, by a user claiming to be the editor behind the blocked socks. I can find no sign that the user went through any appropriate process regarding a return to good standing, making this unilateral block evasion. All of the blocked sock user and talk pages have been redirectd to the new account's user/talk page, substantially sanitizing the user's history, which went back several years.
Given the user's history of dishonesty and disruptive editing, I am also concerned that the conspicuous self-identification on the new user page (name and photograph) may not be reliable, but instead may be intended to harass the person named/pictured there, and that the identifying content should not be allowed unless it is properly verified through OTRS. Second, given the blocked user's long and singular campaign of harassment of me, marked by extreme incivility and repeated bad faith accusations of homophobia and misconduct (eg ), I believe that if this editor is allowd to resume editing, he should be placed under restrictions prohibiting him from any interaction with/comments on any of the editors involved in his previous conflicts, as well as topic bans covering the articles he previously disrupted. I don't see any justification, frankly, for allowing the unblocking, given the short span of time since the blocks were imposed and the failure of the user to "come clean" or to demonstrate any commitment to editing appropriately, or to apologize to the several editors inconvenienced (or worse) by his horrid behavior. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The sockpuppet report regarding these accounts is here. It may also be relevant that User:Stifle handled an OTRS request Ticket:2010022310001371 concerning Helicon Arts Cooperative. Prior to HW filing this report, I had posted about this situation to User:Nuclearwarfare, the blocking admin, and Stifle, because of the OTRS ticket, but I don't believe either admin has been around since then. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd alsonote that in the process of redirecting the user and user talk pages of these accounts, the block notices have been deleted, as well as the sockpuppet category. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless I have missed something this is a block evading sock of an indefinitely restricted account that was very disruptive only a month or so ago, he should be blocked, tagged and ignored and his redirects and edits reverted. Off2riorob (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• If the user is indeed willing to edit productively, I see no reason not to let him do so. The user should be warned that he is on a strict leash though, and that any reversion to previous behavior (or even editing the same articles) will be handled through blocks and reversions. NW (Talk) 18:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Nothing of any relevance has come up in the OTRS ticket; I haven't heard anything or taken any action since the last time it came up. Stifle (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, NW. I'm happy to stay on a strict leash, and have no intention of editing destructively. I know things have gotten heated in the past but I do not believe my edit history will reveal any "destructive" edits. I want to point out, despite Ken and Hullaballoo's accusations, that I have never been found guilty of anything other than sockpuppetry, which is the same thing that Ken was found guilty of. He was allowed a fresh start, and to simply redirect his other usernames, so that's all I'm doing here. I apologize if there is a policy against that. Ken's other allegations against me were dismissed as baseless on the admin boards, despite his attempts to re-start them. Ken also has a history of attempting to (inaccurately) out me, which is a very severe violation of Wiki policy. I also suggest that he should be considered to be Wikihounding me, as he almost always visits each page I edit shortly after I do so, and either reverts my edits or makes unrelated edits himself. This edit is particularly telling of his bias; he erased information about a particular production of a play because "its acclaim was unsourced," while simultaneously leaving a paragraph right above it about another production that says it was "critically well received" but provides no source for this either. This is a pretty clear example of his pattern of contempt for particular filmmakers and actors which I like, and while he's entitled to his opinions, his opinions are clearly affecting his neutrality, objectivity, and ability to edit productively. If anything, I would suggest that all three of us be put on short leashes and prohibited from interacting with each other. B-Wuuu (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add that if I am restricted from editing any articles in which I have been previously engaged in wars or sockpuppetry, then Ken should be as well. B-Wuuu (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, gee, I wondered when this argument was going to show up -- and here it is! In point of fact, there are more differences than similarities in our situations:

• I did indeed use several accounts to edit, but not at the same time, with the single exception of 8 housekeeping edits in the userspace of my original account. Although "abusing multiple accounts" is the reason given on the blocks of my earlier accounts, in fact what I did would more precisely be called "using serial accounts". I was undergoing some wikihounding which I felt was not and would not (or could not) be handled through policy, so in an attempt to edit without harrasement, I dropped one account and started editing with another.
• I never used my accounts at the same time, as you did.
• I never used my accounts to have "conversations" with myself to influence an AfD, or move a talk page discussion to a conclusion I wanted, as you did on several occasions.
• I did not try, as you did, to totally dominate and control a specific subject area, as you did with the film Yesterday Was a Lie and the articles about the people associated with it. I edit a large range of articles, around 10 or 11 thousand different ones at this point, and have contributed in numerous subject areas.
• My accounts were not blocked at the time that I created a new identity, as you have just done while your five accounts were blocked.
• And, most importantly, when my activities were discovered, I took part in a discussion, on AN, in which the community decided that I could continue editing. I did not unilaterally decide that I was due a "fresh start", the community decided that my activities, while in breach of the rules, had not been harmful.

I am very grateful for the chance I have been given to continue contributing to this project, perhaps the community will do the same for you, but, please, do not equate our situations, which are not in any way comparable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I neglected to mention that while your attempt to turn the spotlight on me and off of you is understandable, this is not about me, it's about you, your behavior, your activities, your relations with other editors, and whether you should be allowed another chance. As my opinion on that matter is probably clear to all, I don't have anything in particular to add, and don't plan to participate in this discussion again. I certainly won't respond to any further attempt at deflection on your part. Good luck. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I think B-Wuuu's comments here demonstrate why allowing him to resume editing would be extremely imprudent. He refuses to acknowledge -- in fact, actively denies -- his extensive history of misconduct, including his repeated, deliberate efforts to insert false information into the Chase Masterson article, and his extensive posting and cross-posting of uncivil personal attacks such as describing me as a "homophobic assdog" . I also note that this editor has significantly misrepresented the nature of the BMK edit which he cites as an example of bias; the "reference" used was a self-serving, self-published promotional page, although the text misleadingly described it as a "programme note," which it obviously is not.

B-Wuuu is a blocked editor. Rather than making an appropriate unblock request, he has created a block-evading account; when caught, he insists he be shown the same leniency the community, after extended discussion provided to BMK -- even though none of the rationales for that leniency are in any way applicable. Unrepentently misbehaving editors should neither expect nor demand clemency. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

If I may clarify: In the BMK edit I was using as an example of his bias, I did not suggest that the paragraph he deleted should have been retained. I am pointing out that the reason he gave for deleting it also applied equally to other sections of the article, which he left intact, demonstrating that his intent was likely biased. (At the same time, I should point out that the reference cited re: the production's acclaim appears to contain easily researchable quotes from newspapers and magazines. It seems that the most productive thing for BMK to have done would have been for him to have simply changed the citation to reflect those original sources. Instead, he stated in his edit summary that the production's acclaim was "totally unsourced," which could have been an honest mistake, but considering his history it seems more likely that it was intentionally dishonest. Had I gone in there and re-instated the paragraph with more accurate citations, you can bet he would have edit-warred and accused me of COI.)

As for my "deflecting blame," I am doing no such thing. I am to be blamed for my previous rule breaking, absolutely. But another sockpuppeteer, edit-warrer, and attempted outer has no place throwing stones.

Bottom line: I could have easily just set up this new account, not linked the previous ones, and gone my merry way editing, with no one the wiser. Or I could have done the honest thing, and redirected the old accounts. I chose honesty. B-Wuuu (talk) 03:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Another sock of User:Roman888

Resolved – Gondo747 (talk · contribs) blocked indef as a sockpuppet of User:Roman888. -FASTILY_sock 23:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, further to the above thread on a sock of User:Roman888, could someone please block User:Gondo747 as another sockpuppet. He has restored the same copyright violations to three different articles. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Gone. This is quite a list growing now. That's two I've ducked. SGGH 18:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your responses to this. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries. SGGH 19:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

These socks are persistent and predictable. At some point, maybe an edit filter could be a proactive measure? -- Atama頭 20:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Leila Pahlavi has too few vandal edits to semi-protect, but not enough watchers

I've been single-handedly reverting IP vandalism on Leila Pahlavi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but I'm not as active an editor as I used to be. A whole bunch of completely different IPs have been vandalizing the page (or to be more technically accurate, making what appears to be politically motivated edits) to the page, hiding behind the edit summary "Restored page after vandalism". This has been going on for six months or more. Sometimes it lies untouched for weeks without activity, sometimes it's hours. It's never the same IP, but it's clearly the same person (identical edits with identical edit summary), so blocking the IPs can't happen; they often have no other editing history. I'm made multiple requests for long term semi-protect to no avail, because the activity level is "low". But if the editor oversight is even lower, and we have little to no constructive IP contributions, what recourse is there? —ShadowRanger  19:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a very long time. NW (Talk) 19:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Second opinion about IP edits on Talk:Nudity in film

91.150.19.130 (talk · contribs) made an edit on Nudity in film stating that nudity "rocks. Only stupid Americans and youtube thinks its filthy!." I reverted the edit as vandalism and placed welcome and warning messages on their talk page. The editor has since several times (, , , ) made edits to the article's talk page where he attempts to engage in a general discussion about the topic (not improvement of the article) and where they repeatedly make references to "stupid Americans" and that "Nudity in films rock", "Someone please upload some hot naked babes now", "How do i upload pictures from great tits and ass movies" etc. I've reverted their talk page edits three times since yesterday as vandalism, leaving more templated warnings as well as this expanded explanation which was a response to a post to my talk page. I'm still hesitant to consider these talk page posts as anything other than vandalism because the posts continued even after I took care to explain a few things and offer my help. However, I wanted to get a second opinion on whether more AGF is due in this case and whether I might run afoul of 3RR if I keep reverting him. I will not revert the last post until I hear others' opinions.

P.S. Apologies if it sounds way too obvious and trivial.

Thanks! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

3-hour "hey, we're not kidding here" block imposed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Perceptive vandals, that makes a change :) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

hunh. until this day I had not realized that Misplaced Pages had a nudity portal. I'm not sure why that surprises me, actually, but... --Ludwigs2 02:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if Mr. "Nudity Rocks" has seen the jacuzzi scene in About Schmidt? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• It took awhile for my hysterical blindness to clear up after that scene. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• I would have to say that Nicholson's incredulous reaction probably echoed that of the audience. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

88.108.11.162

IP address being used to vandalise talk pages and revert edits which were themselves done to revert apparent vandalism. Five such edits in the last two hours. Almost certainly a dynamic IP. Recommend block for 48 hours. ----Jack | 20:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

They've not made any edits in the last hour and a half. Next time, please report them to WP:AIV so they can be dealt with quicker, and/or issue warnings to get them to stop. Hersfold 21:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks very much. ----Jack | 22:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

IP Left a vague threat on User:FisherQueens talkpage

Resolved – Already blocked. Tan | 39 21:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

not sure what this about but I would take it at least somewhat seriously. Ridernyc (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

and another one here that one much more threatening. Ridernyc (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

86.179.113.40 (talk · contribs)

86.179.112.1 (talk · contribs)

86.176.57.119 (talk · contribs)

All appear to be related, IP hopping to harass admins or threaten. Acroterion _(talk) 22:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they appear to be editing from a /10, which is essentially unblockable for our purposes. Use semi-protection liberally, I suppose. NW (Talk) 23:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Since one of the IP's has actually out right said they want to murder the person, maybe we should consider more then just a block. Ridernyc (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Run-of-the-mill asshattery, nothing I haven't seen before. RBI. We can take it up with the ISP if it recurs. Acroterion _(talk) 00:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh I know it's asshatery, but it is asshatery that can get you in serious trouble. I guess it would be up to the editors if they want to do anything though. Ridernyc (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Questionable question on the ref desk

I'd like some other opinions on this question: Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Science#choking. The username, combined with the subject of interest (including the videos he's watching), have me a little concerned. --Tango (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a troll to me. I checked his contributions and they're pretty much all to the Reference Desk asking oddball questions. He only has like 8-9 actual mainspace edits. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

eh, I went ahead and verbally spanked him, which is what the question needed. If it was a serious question, he'll get the point; if not, nothing to do about it anyway. --Ludwigs2 23:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I take that back. he may be persistent on this. I've {{hat}}ed the question twice now, but I suspect he'll reopen it. If he does, it will need administrator attention. I don't think we want a generic question about choking open on the desk - too much of a troll magnet. --Ludwigs2 23:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Blood and air chokes are legal manoeuvres in many sanctioned combat sports, including not just the UFC, but countless less famous circuits. There are factual questions there that we could answer. I haven't gone though his previous contributions (yet), but this thread in particular might have been better handled with a lighter touch. Matt Deres (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see anything that needs admin attention, and am surprised that any concern about the question was not referred to the RD talk page instead of AN/I. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

He unarchived the discussion and is continuing it. The vast majority of his previous contributions are questions along this same line. I find it troubling and questionable why someone needs so much information about fainting thresholds. Previous questions are about suicide , where to buy lab rats for experimentation purposes , some sort of question about why a frog is still alive , THIS edit which seems to be racist in nature , a racist attack on Japanese people , and many of his first edits were vandalistic in nature but contained false edit summaries implying he was actually reverting vandalism. I stand by my first impression, that this is a troll. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

My experience is that at the RD we answer questions put to us by trolls, racists, japanophobes, red-haired people and, well, pretty much everyone; and that we judge the question not the questioner. As to the subject matter of the question, I think we can make a good faith assumption that some people are interested in this sort of stuff. There's no hint of criminality in thr question. And as normal, the RD is doing a great job at providing exactly the sort of answers you;d hope for when faced with a question of this sort. And in sum, a legitimate question has been asked and good answers are being provided. now remind me why on earth this is taking up any space or time at AN/I. Or better, don't. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Tagishsimon is presenting his personal opinion of the matter. In general, questions are indeed assumed to be sincere, even when they're kind of off-the-wall and/or nearly-unintelligible, and usually at least some attempt is made to answer. But Tag's firm belief is to totally wear blinders, and I (and other editors) do not fully agree with that approach. As for this particular OP, those kinds of questions add up to a somewhat disturbing picture (it reminds me of some of the stuff Jeffrey Dahmer was said to be fascinated by when he was a kid). We don't have to check our brains and good sense at the door when addressing posts at the ref desks. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, questions for professional advice or that look like opinion polls or argument-starters are often rejected, with comments as to why. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bugs, ignoring the OPs history of asking disturbing, racist and trollish questions and to vandalize articles while using false edit summaries is ridiculous. Bad behavior is bad behavior. If posting racist questions is considered acceptable at the RD, then maybe the RD needs to be overhauled. I also don't think the RD talk page is the correct venue for editors to bring up their good faith concerns with the behavior of another editor. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned about questions that promote acts which can produce physical harm. The problem, really, is that the way he asks the question makes it seem as though choking someone into unconsciousness is a normal (maybe even cool) thing to do, and I don't want some twelve year old reading it and trying it on his little brother with fatal effects. Troll or not, this particular line of discussion is dangerous, and it really ought to be removed. --Ludwigs2 02:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Bad behaviour is indeed bad behaviour, and we have sanctions for that. Those sanctions do not tend to include deciding that we're not going to answer a question which of itself is not bad beaviour. Meanwhile the RD does not tolerate racist questions and nor, Burpelson AFB, did I suggest that it did. Try and understand that when I talk about judging the question and not the questioner, I mean just that. Twisting my words is a very cheap shot. Bugs likes to speculate that he's sniffed out a budding Jeffrey Dahmer, and has a documented history of building such a mental picture of questionaers that he cannot bring himself to deal with their question, but must rather deal with his impression of the questioner. I don't think that's what we're here for. As for the promotional effect of this question: he OP is having seven shaes of shit knocked out of him by the respondants, and isn't looking like a poster boy for recreational throttling, by any means. I think it comes down to whether or not you think we should be discussing these boundary topics - throttling & buying stuff anonymously being the last two that have flared up like this - at all on the RD. My very strong view is that we should, just as our articles do not shy away from taboo topics. I have no blinkers on, Bugs; I'm very mindul of what I'm saying. And I'm sure that there are some questions we should not answer beyond those we already don't - medical & legal advice, homework (though it's late, I'm tired, and I cannot bring any to mind right now). But the questions currently causing concern do not fall into the do not answer category, for me, for the reasons I've set out. And, for the n'th time, this discussion, to the extent it is required at all, should be on RD talk and not here. There is no basis for admin intervention with respect to the question, the proper forum is RD talk. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

And Ludwigs2, there's little point in removing the question since your 12-year old has already read the chokehold article ... which is to say there's as much chance that he's read one as the other. So what are you saying? Should chokehold be deleted? Where do you draw the line? Why do you draw it in the RD and not in the article? --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have raised concerns about this user before Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk/Archive 68#67.246.254.35 but never really persued them. But for clarificaiton this user also edits under User:67.246.254.35 as evidence other then the similar interests and similar editing pattern (interest in UFC/MMA, removing stuff from articles saying no 'ref', blanking their talk page) they've also replied to questions from the other in a manner as if they're the OP, I presented some examples in the linked discussion and this continues, e.g. . This user also had anothed accounted that was blocked User:Killspammers although the behaviour wasn't perhaps that excessive at the time and again as mentioned in the earlier discussion even the admin agrees perhaps the indefinite block was unnecessary. (In other words, block evasion doesn't really come in to it.)

My greatest concern with this user has been their tendency to remove stuff from articles which I presume they don't like, sometimes even with deceptive edit summaries (e.g. saying no ref when part of they were removing had a ref which they were also removing) and often with stuff which wasn't clearly untrue and may have even been true. They stopped this for a while although seem to have started somewhat again but perhaps being more selective in what they remove and haven't removed anything referenced that I noticed. In terms of their RD behaviour my first concern there has been their manner of asking, often coming across as demanding and answer and getting annoyed when they feel the answers aren't sufficient although again they may have dialed this down slightly.

Of the questions themselves, they are usually the fairly immature sort of stuff but I'm not sure if their trolling. For example this specific question is in line with their interest in UFC/MMA. They also have a tendency to ask what appear to be medical advice questions (they often deny it, but sometimes ask multiple questions on the same topic) and questions which appear to be issues relating to their life (e.g. one time they were asking a lot about how to deal with ants, it emerged at some stage they had a ant problem). IMHO this question is particularly illustrative of their mentality Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2010 January 14#what if my mom dies. Having said that, this user has also said other things about them [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Brammers&diff=347191466&oldid=324120637 which conflict with what they said in that question although I wouldn't be surprised if the later details are lies intended as cover.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Imperativism

Resolved – Articles deleted.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

A pretty elaborate hoax with a series of articles created by the same editor, my assumption is that this is the subject of the articles. They're now stooping to BLP violations by making claims that the subject is formerly engaged to a model, without providing reliable sources. I have issued a warning, but this is getting tetchy. Woogee (talk) 01:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the word you want is "hoax". http://www.google.com/search?q=michael+carrano+imperativism gives hits. He's an unreviewed author and multiple time unsuccessful third party candidate for Connecticut office, so probably not Misplaced Pages:Notable but he exists. --GRuban (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Probably best to just let this run its course, though all of the articles up for deletion should probably be bundled into one nomination. AniMate 02:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

They repeated the claim that he was engaged to the model, I've reverted again and left him a blp2 warning. The source for the claim is a link to the model's home page, but not to a page which specifically proves she was engaged to him. I've looked through the website, and can't find any proof for this claim. Woogee (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who nominated the article, and all I can say is that, while M.A.Carrano DOES have gHits, it doesn't mean he's notable. In fact, the gHits might be mostly false positives or mirrors. Strangecalypso's actions are probably just again one of those incidents about new users who don't understand Misplaced Pages's policies. This is an unfortunately too common instance, and it's not the first time I've encountered such a case. Thanks Narutolovehinata5 02:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

As the articles were purely promotional in nature, I just deleted all three of them and closed the AfD. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Using talk page as forum & other vandalism/issues, user warned repeatedly

• Miss-simworld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) using talkpage as a forum at Talk:Arab Christians and Arabic-speaking Christians and cluttering up talk-page (also at Talk:Pan-Arabism#Question_to_Nableezy_on_his_continous_actions_on_the_Pan_Arabism_page). User warned repeatedly but refuses to comply. In addition this user also has issues with original research and pushing a point of view that is unattributable to reliable sources (issues could be found on 1st mentioned talk page but is spread to other articles). --Qvxz9173 (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This person is wikihounding me and trying to get me blocked very desperately due to their own biased agenda filled with hate and racism towards those who refuse a mere label. Here were he even included verbal abuse in an article. Yet he was not reported and it was I who had to delete this vandalism. He tried to prove I was a sock then failed, he then had the nerve to complain about civilty when he had abused an article with POV insults (as the edits clearly indicate), This person themself is a vandalist filled with hate and purely wants to supress information, they are angry because the title of the page Arab Christians got added the extra Arabic speaking Christians to suit those who do not use that label. In this page he openly confesses he wanted and was dissapointed I didnt get blocked to prevent me from editing any articles and he was hoping for my blockage despite their not being a reasonable case.This has little to do with disruptiion for this person but more that they dont like whats being added and my explainations to his motivated edits that he cant refute. I am the one who should be making a complaint but unlike Q here I dont stalk or wikihound people I have better things to do with my time, than resort to these measures. ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 10:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

USB article has gay porn reference

Sorry if this is not the place to post this, but I just noticed that the USB article has a clearly improper reference to gay porn that has been there for a while. Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/Usb Specifically, in the device classes table is this line, which I think is completely wrong. BAh Interface Hipster Bullshit iPod , Gay porn storage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.25.142.152 (talk) 03:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. It's just normal vandalism, which was in place for 47 minutes. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Whenever I see one of those complaints, I wonder if the complainant is responsible. And IP addresses don't help; since through email or social networking, one vandal could ask another to post the complaint anywhere in the world. Just to make sure we've noticed and given him his proper attention, of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this so quickly. Responding to Wehwalt, I'm saddened to hear you think people would regularly do such a thing just for 'proper attention'. I regularly refer to Misplaced Pages for things but have never tried to edit anything. When I saw the issue with the USB article, the first thing I looked for was a 'report vandalism' link, which I couldn't find. I glanced at the history of the page, but couldn't make heads or tails of it, and thus did a general search for reporting vandalism, which led me here. Perhaps there is a 'normal' way you would respond to such a situation, but as a casual user I'm sure I represent a lot of people who would like a simple way to 'notify the experts' when we find something clearly out of place. If you're worried people will abuse such a thing so that they can post in a obscure corner of the site like here, perhaps you need to provide a mechanism to easily report issues in a 'private' manner. I'm sorry if this all is out of place for this page or somehow has been hashed out in other ways, but your comment doesn't help create a 'welcoming' environment.. quite the contrary, it will now make me think twice about reporting future issues I may run across. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.25.142.152 (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt's comment is misplaced, and I'm sorry for it. Thank you for pointing us to the vandalism, that's appreciated. We tend to encourage people to click the "edit this page" link and fix things themselves, but I appreciate this is not a practical suggestion for everyone, and well understand that unless you;re well familiar with the ways of wikipedia, getting things done and entering into communication with the community can be very difficult. You deserved a better reward than for someone to mull over the extraordinary things that bad IPs get up to. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt, this IP might also be the IP who edits under the 65.XX thing. That editor is quite productive here, and beats some of us in that respect. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not say any specific person had done that, including this editor. However, the phenomenon is hardly unknown. Please take all comments as an effort to improve the project. It's unusual for an editor's first two edits to be to AN/I--Wehwalt (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Two more socks of User:Roman888

 Both blocked and tagged. -- Flyguy649 06:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, could someone please block User:LoganStarr and User:Laskar34 as sockpuppets of prolific copyright violator and sockpuppeteer User:Roman888? These two accounts were created within 6 minutes of each other, and their only contributions have been to restore Roman888's copyright violations to articles recently purged in his CCI. I've given them both "warnings" but the evidence in my view is strong enough to apply WP:DUCK and block them indefinitely before more damage is done. This is his 6th and 7th socks in a few days. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for the quick response --Mkativerata (talk) 06:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Have you filed a sockpuppet investigation against this guy, because we're knocking these socks off at least twice daily. If his IP isn't too dynamic we can get a rangeblock and possibly pick up any sleeper socks he has. AniMate 06:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I'll file a case when I get the chance over the next 12 hours or so. I was hoping he'd get bored by now, but clearly not. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

AWB access - Mlpearc delinking articles

• Mlpearc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has started serially, massively delinking articles --> he is apparently starting with the letter A as he has delinked golfers on my watchlist -- Tommy Aaron, Adams, Ahern, Allem, and many other articles. This is serious enough, in my judgement, to warrant immediate administrator attention.--Hokeman (talk) 03:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

He was recently given access to AWB, and it may be that it deserves to be taken up at WP:AN/I, not here. Generally, the WP:AIV is for rapid response to petty vandalism and automated revision of the articles in question.  Mephistophelian (talk ● contributions) 04:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Moved here, from WP:AIV. -- Cirt (talk) 07:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a discussion about this happening at the talk page of the user doing the delinking, see User_talk:Mlpearc#Stop_delinking_golfer_bios_immediately (also a question was asked about it Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Need_Help). Mlpearc seems to be doing this in good faith and is open to discussing the issue. At this point I'm not sure we need admin intervention per say, rather people to weigh in at this editor's talk page as to best practices regarding wikilinks within articles. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok. -- Cirt (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Falsification of sources by Granitethighs

Common name is an unsourced essay written and defended by Granitethighs. Today an IP removed a paragraph of what appears to be original research as "Unsourced, unsupported original research". Shortly afterwards Granitethighs undid that removal with edit summary "Added citation", but no citation was added. I undid the restoration and issued Granitethighs a please explain. Granitethighs then restored the paragraph for a second time, this time really adding a citation. I tracked down the source cited, and found that it does not in any way support the paragraph. (source, second opinion)

The paragraph argues that the use of binomial (two-part) scientific names (e.g. Aloe vera) originated from the practise of using two-part Adjective Noun common names (e.g. Black Rat), which in turn probably arose from the practice of giving people Firstname Surname names. As far as I can tell it is 100% original research. The source to which it was cited argues that current scientific taxonomic practices are incapable of handling the 10-million species now recognised. Yes, they are that completely unrelated.

In my view, both the original edit, the edit summary of which falsely claimed to have added a citation, and the subsequent edit, which sourced the paragraph to an article that doesn't even remotely support it, were wilfully deceptive. This is a case of someone willing to do just about anything to protect his personal essay.

Granitethighs has blustered and argued and changed the subject and finally reasserted that the citation was perfectly appropriate. In the absence of any recognition of what is an extremely serious and highly unethical infraction, I am very much inclined to show him the door. However, since I am arguably involved here, I would like someone else to take over from here please.

Hesperian 07:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

(P.S. I will be offline for several hours now. Hesperian 07:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC))

This is a storm in a teapot, generated by an administrator who has lost the plot. Granitethighs is a highly competent editor, and is the primary author of articles such as Sustainability and the History of botany. For whatever reason, Hesperian attacked Granitethighs in a peremptory and particularly nasty way, crowding him into a corner and threatening him with a permanent block, as can be seen in the exchanges between their talk pages, here and here. He has given Granitethighs neither space nor time on this matter. It is the overbearing behaviour of Hesperian that should be the matter for scrutiny here. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Hesperian's accusations. The paragraph in question argues that the "folk" use of single names like "Homer" and binomials, like "Homer Simpson" closely resembles the scientific use of genus names like "Eucalyptus" and species names, like "Eucalyptus regnans". The paragraph did not contain any citation. I am in full agreement that a citation is needed for this assertion and complied with Hesperian's request to provide one, although there was a misunderstanding about when this was given. The citation given was, I believed then (and still do now) appropriate. However, it was not considered adequate by Hesperion who said I was "falsifying citations" and therefore I should be "blocked". I was truly amazed by this sudden accusation and an altercation followed after which I offered to provide whatever citations Hesperion required in whatever places he thought fit in order for the article to be acceptably encyclopaedic. Apparently this was not enough and this situation has resulted. I feel that this has been extremely badly handled. Not only do I disagree with Hyperion's judgment on this matter but I am still not aware of any transgression and, as an observing editor noted, this is tantamount to a sysop "bullying" an editor. I am a keen Wikipedian (see my record) and more than willing to abide by the "rules". I have shown willing to comply in any way with reasonable requests. As i have shown willingness to comply with Hyperions recommendations I think his actions in this matter are totally unreasonable, not directed at the article itself, but at me, and require formal discipline.Granitethighs 08:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There you have it folks, from the horse's mouth. Granitethighs maintains that it is appropriate to source a paragraph to an article that doesn't say anything remotely like what the paragraph says; viz, to falsify references. This makes him a greater threat to Misplaced Pages than any vandal.

This rhetoric about how the citation was "not considered adequate by Hesperian" is just ludicrous. It is not a question of adequacy. It is a question of veracity. A citation is an assertion that a source supports us. In this case, that assertion was a lie. The apparent purpose of the lie was to stave off challenges to Granitethighs' personal essay. Hesperian 10:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

<- This is just a routine content dispute isn't it ? Sean.hoyland - talk 08:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Fabricating sources is a routine content dispute now? That's funny, I thought it was a breach of our fundamental principles. Silly me. Hesperian 09:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, silly you. It is your fabrication of accusations that is the breach of fundamental principles. There was no "falsification" or "fabrication" by Granitethighs. You asked him for a source. He supplied you with one which arguably doesn't meet the requirements. So maybe he needs to find another source. So what's the big deal. As Sean says, this is just a routine content dispute. I suggest you apologise to Granitethighs or hand in your mop. Admin tools are not for you to bludgeon content editors in this way. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

In what way is my accusation fabricated? It is a fact that Granitethighs sourced a paragraph to an article that doesn't say say anything even remotely like what the paragraph says. This is, by definition, citation falsification.

I've provided evidence. Now you provide evidence, or withdraw your foul false accusation. Hesperian 10:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Western Pines

Troll and others. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 07:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards