Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:31, 3 April 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

Problem on Race and Intelligence mediation

because of the spurious ANI proceedings initiated by Mathsci, here - Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Criticism_of_mediation_on_Race_and_intelligence, I now have had user:JzG close the mediation case without cause or discussion. I've reverted and left him a note on the matter, but if it happens again I am stuck, because I do not want to get in an edit war over the matter. I do not know precisely how to deal with an admin who would unilaterally close a mediation, against consensus (as there is no consensus to close the mediation in the thread above on even an attempt at establishing consensus in the mediation itself), and without any discussion anywhere on the matter.

I've had enough of this, and I would appreciate some administrative action on this matter now before it spins farther out of control. --Ludwigs2 17:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

my mistake - I just now noticed that JzG and Guy are the same user, so he did indeed participate in the above discussion. however, the rest of what I said still stands. --Ludwigs2 17:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, "spurious?" I don't think so. But yes, your mistake: you have been getting admin action, Xavexgoem and I are both admins. Oddly, the two admins involved are the ones whose actions you reverted and then asked for admin intervention. Ironic, no? Guy (Help!) 18:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

spurious, yes. Closing the mediation is a matter that Mathsci could have quickly and easily handled on the mediation talk page. Instead, he chose to hijack a thread on a different subject and turn it into a vindictive attack on me for no particularly good or useful reason. I don't share his taste for drama-trauma, and I'm sorry if you do. However, all I am asking is that you respect what seems to be the actual mediation consensus that we should push ahead with it a while longer. I don't quite see what the problem is with allowing that, and I'd be happy to have you explain.

And just so you know, my attitude on admins is that they are just editors with a decent amount of experience and some extra powers. getting a sysop bit set does not make one smarter, wiser, more noble, or more correct than any other editor, and if an admin starts behaving as though that's what the sysop bit does, s/he should have it taken away immediately. I respect you for your experience, Guy, and normally I would listen to your advice. But when it comes to consensus decisions you get to argue your case in a proper discussion just like the rest of us more proletarian editors. or am I wrong? --Ludwigs2 19:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a fairly well-known fact that any issue brought to the admin boards can and often will turn round into an investigation of wider issues - especially in the not infrequent episodes of foot-shooting we see. Mathsci raised, in my view, valid points which you chose to try to deny. If you think admins are nothing special (which is true) then why are you soliciting admin action here? We don't usually take sides just because someone says we should. You have admin attention in the other thread, you've chosen to revert the actions of those admins and then come here asking for admin action to stop the admin action, which is bordering on surreal. Guy (Help!) 19:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

to answer your first question: you'll notice that I am not objecting to Mathsci's concerns about whether the mediation should be closed, or that I might not be the best person to handle it. that is certainly something that should be discussed, if that's the way he feels, and I would be happy to discuss it. However:

1. There is nothing in that discussion that currently requires administrator intervention. The idea should have been shifted to the mediation talk page and carried out there, and we would have quickly come to some kind of resolution about it.
2. Mathsci never attempted to discuss the issue, he simply launched into an extensive diatribe in which he dragged out every thing he thinks I've done wrong since the first day I joined wikipedia, and kept harping on it endlessly. It was rude, uncivil, and totally uncalled for in any context, much less this one. I'm actually shocked that an administrator (such as yourself) didn't rein him in and insist that he adopt a more civil, productive tone; If someone had, we would have quickly come to some kind of resolution.

In short, Mathsci chose to ignore a number of quiet, simple, civil ways in which he could have expressed his concerns and resolved the issue, and reached instead for a protracted personal attack against me which quickly went beyond any mediation issues into pure nastiness, with no hope or possibility of a civil ending. I hope he got some pleasure out of it, because I can't see what other value taking that particular approach has.

To answer your other question, I came here because you seemed to be acting in bad faith, and I don't have the special powers of an admin to keep you in check. I was (frankly) worried that you were going to tendentiously edit war the mediation into closure against consensus, and then use your admin powers to block me if I tried to prevent you. with that in mind I came here looking for someone uninvolved who could match the special powers you have been given, and hopefully give myself a little breathing room. thankfully it turned out I was wrong, but you can see why I might be concerned about that kind of bad behavior, given the comments you've made about me here and in the thread above. --Ludwigs2 20:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting but unsurprising that Ludwigs2 created a new thread without informing me. Mathsci (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

There are still problems with mediation on Race and intelligence. Another editor emailed me about this exchange between Ludwigs2 and Xavexgoem. In the meantime I left this conciliatory message on Ludwigs2's talk page. Mathsci (talk) 08:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

<- The article Race and intelligence is being rewritten directly into mainspace. The request from Aprock and me that it be written on a subpage of the mediation case has been rejected. At present hardly any established editors are involved in mediation, with several single purpose accounts dominating the discussion. Ludwigs2 is also now editing the article. That is exactly why the article should have been placed on a subpage of the mediation page, with its own separate rules. Mathsci (talk) 08:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I have also previously suggested using a draft page, so to as A.Prock. The editors currently active in the mediation are already in agreement with each other and don't need mediation. The majority of editors on the other side of the dispute, for unspecified reasons, have not been recently participating. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The plans to edit this article into directly into mainspace have been part of the discussion on the mediation page for at least 2 to 3 weeks. I don't know why the issue was not addressed at that time, or at any time prior to the beginning of editing, but consensus at the time that editing started was that it should be done in mainspace, and since editing has commenced I have requested that it be allowed to finish, if only for the sake of the David.Kane, who is generously volunteering his time and energy to the task. I have decided on the mediation page that we allow it to finish, and at its completion we can move it to a subpage if that is what seems best. That would require at most 2 minutes, so this is a non-issue.

Further, I have asked both Mathsci and Wapondaponda repeatedly to suggest revisions on the mediation page, which could be quickly added into the outline. that request is still pending, and I am looking forward to their input, but I would suggest to both of them that relying on procedure rather than participation is against the spirit of several wikipedia policies (most notably wp:BURO).

As a mediator I am constrained by the by the consensus (or lack thereof) that appears in discussion on the mediation page. as I have said repeatedly, if these editors want anything (closure of the mediation, editing on subpages, fresh hot coffee and bagels for breakfast) they need only raise the issue in the mediation page for discussion, and they will be heard. I cannot anticipate their objections, however, and I cannot do much about belated complaints over actions where they chose not to participate in the discussion. Silence=Consent, and while I can see now that they disagree that issue can be addressed at the appropriate time. the procedural matter is not significant enough to warrant disrupting the current editing process, particularly given the time constraints on the process.

I will also admit to a certain amount of confusion. both Mathsci and Wapondaponda have objected to the state of the R&I article (Mathsci quite vocally in a previous thread here), and the revised version - while not perfect - will certainly be an improvement over what it is replacing. I can't quite understand the sudden shift from complaining about the quality of the article, to complaining that the poor-quality article is being replaced. can one of you explain that discrepancy, please?

at any rate, I am issuing a challenge to both Mathsci and Wapondaponda, as follows:

• Go to the mediation page and make constructive, article-related suggestions about how we can improve or revise the new draft to be acceptable to you.
• If you choose not to participate with constructive, article-related suggestions, cease these constant disruptions on procedural grounds.

We are here to build an encyclopedia; we are not here to carp endlessly about procedural trivialities. --Ludwigs2 16:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I have stated my concerns on the mediation page, but I would also like to get views from independent editors. My specific concern is indeed procedural. For the sake of simplicity, I would describe the situation as follows. There were two groups of editors involved in a dispute. As the dispute could not be resolved on the talk page the two parties requested for informal mediation. Over time, individuals from one group stopped participating due to various unspecified reasons. As a result all the parties who have remained active in the mediation are from the same "group" in that they were already in agreement with each other and don't need any mediation to come to an agreement. The question at hand, is mediation necessary for parties already in agreement? My view has been that if the parties are already in agreement, they can simply use the talk page to implement whatever changes they like, mediation is not necessary. Mediation is only necessary for parties that disagree not parties that agree. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall any discussion of editing in mainspace, let alone any agreement among a diverse set of mediators that that was the way to proceed. If you could refer to those discussions for review, I'd appreciate it. A.Prock (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with the above two users (Aprock and Muntuwandi). The editors left in the so-called mediation process all represent a WP:FRINGE minoritarian view. There is no ongoing significant debate in the academic world about race and intelligence as the first sentence of the lede currently suggests, even if some of those involved in mediation have convinced themselves of it. There is no evidence whatsoever that any departments in major universities where there is specialisation in psychometry (eg the Centre for Psychometry in the University of Cambridge) spend any time at all producing research in this area. Yet this small club of editors, most of them WP:SPAs, has decided exactly that, without the slightest shred of evidence. Ludwigs2 has turned a blind eye to that, although it forms the basic false assumption behind the rewriting of the current article in mainspace.

It seems that within this group of editors (Captain Occam, Varoon Arya, mikemikev, David.Kane, ...) there has been a trend to create a walled garden of fringe articles. Varoon Arya (talk · contribs) seems to have been spending his time whitewashing various articles on "Race and X", most particularly Race and crime, where in one set of edits he removed a large tranche of cautious well-sourced material to push another point of view. The same applies to Race and genetics. Now they seem to be doing the same to Race and intelligence. I don't know if the term tag team is appropriate here. The current article in mainspace has twice as much material at present on the minority hereditarian point of view and presents very poorly the mainstream environmental point of view.

Ludwigs2 must surely be aware that all editors subscribed to mediation who represent the cautious mainstream point of view (futurebird, Aprock, Ramdrake, Wobble, Slrubenstein, T34CH, Muntuwandi and Mathsci) have essentially abandoned mediation. Comments, even when constructive, are being ridiculed and stifled (in collapse boxes) on the mediation pages. There are many problems with the current rewriting of the article by David.Kane (talk · contribs) directly in mainspace. It is wholly inappropriate, for whatever reason, that a mediator edits the mainspace article during mediation. Mediation has been used procedurally to justify POV-pushing of an extreme kind in the article. That Ludwigs2 is protesting vociferously when editors criticize this faulty procedure is just a symptom of the deeply flawed fourth round of mediation. I can't see any way - apart from starting afresh after some kind of pause - to restore normal editing and discussions on the article and its talk page. I don't believe the group of editors I've mentioned above want a stable version of the article, unless it gives undue emphasis to their minoritarian viewpoint. Mathsci (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

@ A.Prock: here's the first link I found on a quick look. it dates to February 27, near the beginning of the 'Time to start the process' section. I don't know how much or to what extent it was followed up on, but there was never any objection that I saw, or I would have begun a discussion on the issue. I do not think it seemed like a big issue to anyone at the time.

@ Wapondaponda: I half agree with you, but not completely. While some editors have backed off (for as you say various unspecified reasons), there is diversity among the remaining participants, they just have been working towards some agreements. as it stands there are two editors who strongly lean towards the genetic side, a couple more who lean towards the environmental side, with the remainder arrayed across the middle. unfortunately, the group that has suffered the most attrition comes from skeptical editors deeply opposed to the genetic perspective (a function of page dynamics, that, which I have been trying to address with limited success), but to compensate I have already advertised this draft at wp:FT/N#Race_and_intelligence.2C_new_draft (as well as wp:NPOV/N#Race_and_intelligence.2C_new_draft) in the hopes of drawing in some reviews from editors on that side. The current draft, I think, is not perfect, but it does represent the material fairly well with respect to sourcing, and it does represent at least a semi-reasonable balance of the material available in sources.

so, again, we're back to this point. we have the following choices:

1. we can continue to haggle over the procedural issues: this will either have no effect whatsoever (aside from wasting our time) or it will end up throwing out months of effort on the part of all participants (ending up wasting the time of even more people and leaving the situation where it started)
   • OR
2. we can use what we have accomplished in the mediation as a starting point to build an even better page.

I reject the first as silliness, and so I'm laying down the same challenge I gave you above. Go to the mediation page and make constructive, article-related suggestions about how we can improve or revise the new draft; and if you choose not to do that, quit trying to disrupt things on procedural grounds. If a good, neutral article comes out of this, then no one will care whether the procedure was perfect; If the article that comes out is not neutral and not good, then it would not remain even if the procedure were absolutely fine. No one is trying to cram this mediation down your throat as something special. Either participate in it to make a better article, or don't. But don't sit here on ANI and complain that you're being excluded when I have all but begged you to participate. --Ludwigs2 23:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, nothing constructive can come out of this round of mediation, no matter how many times you claim the opposite. As I wrote above, it is built on a faulty premise, that can be read in the first line of the new lede. I can't understand why you are so adamant to wikilawyer your way out of the unfortunate and worrying fact that those representing the mainstream academic point of view have now all abandoned mediation. There's no loss of face in abandoning this failed fourth round of mediation as an unsuccessful experiment in two weeks time. The amount of time people have spent in discussions is not a factor. Mathsci (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

@Ludwig, I can't find that discussion in the current page. Looking at from march 29th, and two of the three mentions of "mainspace" are by you, with only Occam agreeing with you. A.Prock (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

@ Mathsci: I'm not inclined to listen to the opinion of someone who has made absolutely no constructive contributions to article development. talk about wikI-lawyering! If you don't want to be part of the solution, at least stop trying to be part of the problem.

@ A.Prock: Ok, but I don't know what I can do about it now. again, I raised the point, no one seemed worried about it... it seemed sensible at the time, and it is now what it is. what suggestion are you making? --Ludwigs2 05:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, the article is highly likely to be reverted to a version prior to mediation. You are likely to have some of your editing privileges restricted for continuing mediation between two sides in a discussion when one side had clearly withdrawn from mediation. Mediators certainly should not be excluding editors from being involved in mediation as you are doing now by this kind of bullying behaviour. Are you claiming that the multiple requests for tentative changes to the article to occur outside mainspace were unconstructive (that's the only thing I've commented on yesterday very briefly on the mediation pages since the positive, universally accepted suggestions I made in November)? Mathsci (talk) 08:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Having given this a little more thought, I must say that if someone who was initially involved in a mediation no longer agrees to be bound by it, then that by itself should probably mean the mediation is over. Mathsci has stated that he won't edit the article in either case, but really that needn't be part of the analysis. He could just as well say the opposite without doing anything differently. That he was part of it and now rejects it is really all that matters. If others want to re-convince him, that should be up to them, but also it presumably should not be up to the mediator. Mediation is supposed to resolve disagreements, not serve as a parallel discussion forum to build up inertia or what not. Certainly the mediator should not be suggesting that a mediated version be locked in place. That's my two cents, anyway: if an involved editor wants to end a mediation, that means it's over. Mackan79 (talk) 06:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

So, a little while ago on that case page someone had asked me what I define as "progress", as I have given this mediation 2 weeks to show some before I close it. I didn't get the chance to answer, as that discussion was closed for fears that it would be too tangential a discussion. I happen to agree, since the politics over there are rough. It's a valid question.

Progress in a mediation is defined by parties on opposite sides of the dispute working together.

The mediator facilitates this; this is the mediator's job. This is the only thing the mediator measures the case by. MathSci et al are on the opposite side. You don't have a mediation if they're not involved. What you got is a two-week extended stay on MedCab's open list. I don't care how hard you have to grit your teeth to actually talk to him in any meaningful way. The whole point of your existence is to get people from talking past each other. Meanwhile, you talk past MathSci and take it personally as he talks past you. I have never seen a mediator do this. If you can't grit your teeth and work with it within 2 weeks, then you have 2 weeks to see the writing on the wall. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

well, Xavexgoem, ordinarily I would agree with you. However, on this page that is an impossibility. The mix of personalities on this page, along with the deeply entrenched attitudes of various participants, means that there are several points which will never find consensus in abstract discussion. At this point (given the general environment of the page, and the efforts to sidestep the process using ANI as a tool) the only thing I can do as a mediator is throw out the best draft of the article possible given what's been agreed on, in the hopes that people will be far more sanguine with the draft than they thought they would be when it was an abstraction. As soon as that's done, and people have had a chance to review it and comment, then I'll walk away from the page and leave them all to their own devices.

And no, I don't talk past Mathsci. I tell him what I want from him (as a mediator), and I tell him what I will not accept from him (as a mediator), and I leave him to do what he wants. The evident fact that what he wants is my balls on a stick is irrelevant to me and to the article; sooner or later (hopefully) he will get bored calling for me to get blocked, and then maybe he will help build the article. In a real-world mediation I would have done exactly what I did here - asked him to take his concerns about me as a mediator up in mediation, for proper discussion - however, in a real world situation he wouldn't be able to ignore the request by running to ANI, as he has done here. Don't blame me for his decision to subvert the system.

Let me be frank: If I were going to impose my own perspective on this article, it would be a far different thing. Personally, I lean heavily towards the environmentalist side on this, and I think the genetics perspective (while not fringe, the way that a lot of editors cast it) is a fairly minor perspective in the field. I am not sure that I am happy with this draft myself - I need to go read it now - but it is the draft that was developed, and I will defend it (as mediator) for the sake of the discussion.

I signed on to mediate one contentious article. Mathsci has apparently made it necessary for me to mediate to the entire wikipedia community, which is - interestingly - fine with me. Despite some comments people have made, I am a very good mediator (though you're right that translating my skills to wiki-mediation has a learning curve, and poses some interesting challenges). However, I am only going to mediate between people who participate in actively building the article. If you want to call me seven kinds of a stubborn shithead for that. that's fine, but right now you, and Mathsci, and every other participant in this thread are actively interfering with the development of this article, and of wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Is that really what you want to be doing? --Ludwigs2 16:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You're talking past him right now. Stop sniping at him; it's that easy. He may continue, but you'll be taking the high road. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment It might be an idea to initiate an RfC/U on Ludwigs2 once order has been restored to the article. His polarised behaviour as a mediator differs very little from his disruptive behaviour in the recent NPOV discussion here. Mathsci (talk) 08:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Please tone it down, Mathsci. Speaking of polarized behavior, how about your suggestion that the mediator be blocked here, without any possible basis for doing so? Assuming your concerns about the mediation are valid, it is no reason to berate anyone. Mackan79 (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Varoon Arya has made a good comment over at the mediation case, as well, specifically to you (MathSci) here. It's only half as snipe-y as most, I promise ;-) It might be a good way in. Xavexgoem (talk) 09:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)i

@ Xavexgoem. Thanks, I saw that before your intervention here and commented there. But Ludwigs2 decided to micromanage what I had to say. I've never seen behaviour like that before.

@ If Ludwigs2 were behaving like the other three mediators, that would be fine. That he is persisting in continuing mediation, despite the abandonment of the mediation process by one of the sides seeking mediation, is deeply worrying. If have no idea why he has failed to recognize this or why he is behaving as he is on the mediation talk page (see below). Mathsci (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I'd like to see what the reconstructed article looks like. This has been a contentious article for years as many POV warriors try to promote their views. "Not starting from here" is one way to try to break the deadlock. I also suggest that the mediator stands back once the rewrite is complete, as in cases where the mediator engages in active edits, it has left an unnecessary level of suspicion over the mediation attempts. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with this. First of all, David.Kane has been given the exceptionally thankless task of writing this into mainspace. I'm also not confident that all the people on the opposite side have necessarily read the results. I'd rather that mediation, if it continues, works on something that was at least 1/2 agreed to than on something that had almost no agreement. Asking for reverts (and protections, I might add; this can be dolled out on both sides) isn't any better a sign on the side of the opposite party. And I think that the 2 weeks is good. Despite my aggressive cluebat above, I do want to see Ludwigs succeed. MathSci's reply to my comment leaves the impression that I think Ludwigs is a bad mediator. I don't think that; just one who has much to learn, should he choose to continue mediations (he also has one on Aesthetic Realism, fwiw). Were he or anyone else genuinely bad, they would be asked to leave MedCab. There are still tactics to be played with... the current ones, not so much. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear about writing the article, I had previously stated that I had no preference as to who gets to write the article, as long as they faithfully use the material that has been agreed upon in the mediation. Seeing that there was plenty of disagreement during the mediation, I cannot say that I was a party to giving David Kane the thankless task of writing this into mainspace. David Kane specifically requested editors to come to an agreement first before he wrote the article, because he didn't want us to waste his time writing a new article only for it to be rejected. However, David Kane, with the approval of Ludwigs, proceeded to write the article into mainspace while both editors knew that disagreements existed, thereby risking that David Kane's efforts might indeed end up being a waste of his time. I believe this is a disingenuous tactic by Ludwigs to ram through an article that has no consensus, because psychologically many editors would think that since Kane has spent a day or two writing a new article, his efforts should be given a chance. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Something I think it’s important to point out here is that even if progress is defined by users agreeing with one another who didn’t before, rather than just improvements to the article itself, then even by that definition this mediation has definitely made significant progress. Before Ludwig took on the role of mediator, there was no agreement at all between the people who wanted the hereditarian hypothesis to be given more space in the article (me, Varoon Arya, mikemikev, and TechnoFaye) and those who thought it was being given too much space already. (Ramdrake, Aprock, Slrubenstein, and Muntuwandi). With Ludwig’s help, we’ve come up with an outline that pleases everyone in the first camp except TechnoFaye, and also pleases at least half of the second camp. Aprock and Slrubenstein have both expressed some amount of approval over the article’s current structure, and Ramdrake also approved of the general idea behind it (basing it around the data, rather than the explanations) although he hasn’t expressed an opinion about the outline itself because he stopped participating before we’d reached that point. For the approximately two years that I’ve been watching this article, this is the most agreement I’ve ever seen between the two “sides” of the debate over it.

As I mentioned on the article talk page, there are at least eight users currently involved in the article who approve of the new direction it’s taking, including users who take both perspectives about the cause of the IQ difference. As far as I can tell, you and Mathsci are the only users who disagree with the changes being made to it. That’s 80% agreement. If this level of agreement had been reached on the article talk page at a time when the article wasn’t in mediation, it would have certainly been sufficient consensus for us to make the changes to the article being discussed, and as far as I know this is the first time in two years we’ve reached this level of consensus about anything. The fact that we have now is a significant accomplishment. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Continued disruption by Ludwigs2

Ludwigs2 has continued collapsing/refactoring my comments on the mediation page, which I believe are pertinent. That is confusing the roles of mediator and editor. He cannot be both. He has been instructed above to behave properly by the chair of the mediation committee. That does not involve passing comment on the content I add or refactoring any of my comments that I consider relevant to the article. He is there to facilitate dialogue not to comment on what other editors think important. He may not edit or change other editors' comments. Could some administrator please have a quiet word with him or block him if he continues? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

As part of facilitating dialogue between this article’s editors, Ludwig has required us to abide by certain rules if we participate in the mediation, and you agreed to these rules yourself when you signed up for it. If we make comments that go against those rules, he refactors our comments. He’s done it to me also.

Mediation is a two-way street between the editors and the mediator. It involves more than just getting him (and the other editors) to listen to you; you have to listen to the mediator also. If you aren’t willing to do that, then you shouldn’t be part of the mediation, since this is one of the requirements for participating in it. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Since I was one of those requesting mediation, I am aware of the rules for mediation in this case, which concern conduct and the need to concentrate on content, rather than editors. Ludwigs2 is going beyond those rules and is interfering inappropriately with other people's edits. Those rules of mediation did not apply in this case, where I discussed the use of a spin-off article, written expressly for Race and intelligence and used as an argument to justify the contention that the hereditarian point of view was mainstream, not one pushed by a small fringe group of scientists, largely supported by the private Pioneer Fund. (The article was called Mainstream Science on Intelligence, originally a short letter to the Wall Street Journal with about 50 cosignatories. The WSJ letter is cited in the article and has been discussed at length on Talk:Race and intelligence.) Ludwigs2 was not empowered to make judgements on arguments that were intellectually complex, no matter what the temptation. He has been bending the rules now for a prolonged period, in a way that, judging from those left in mediation, seems to have favoured one side of mediation over another. In this case the final result looks as if it will be completely unacceptable because it violates WP:NPOV. He has stated that he wants to lock the final result, but that again is against policy. A deliberately ambiguous article, giving undue weight to minority points of view, will not last long on wikipedia. Ludwigs2 is one of those in favour of blurring the guidelines for covering minority views in articles (cf his edits to WP:NPOV - , , , , , , , etc). He seems to have treated mediation on Race and intelligence as some kind of experiment. Mathsci (talk) 08:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The subject of Race and Intelligence is already covered sufficiently in Wikia. These articles were taken from Misplaced Pages and have remained there peacefully. --Horse wiz (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikia’s article about race and intelligence is pretty good. It looks like it was copied from Misplaced Pages’s race and intelligence article in 2006, and Misplaced Pages’s article about it was fine for most of that year. It didn’t start to decline in quality until sometime in 2007.

It’s been suggested that we revert Misplaced Pages’s article about this to another version from later in 2006, which is fairly similar to the one you linked to, but we weren’t able to obtain a consensus for that. Hopefully the current mediation case will be able to produce a new version of the article that’s just as good, though. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive mass nominations at AfD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No admin action required. Jayjg 22:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

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

The above user has been repeatedly mass nominating bus route articles at AfD, despite calls from various users to take part in a centralised discussion already taking place. Since this user is an admin, she obviously feels she is above logical discussion and prefers to act in a disruptive manner, ignoring everyone else on WP.

There is a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London_Transport#London_bus_route_articles, and has been for about a week now on how to handle non notable bus route articles, and the general consensus is just to redirect them. Currently there are several users going through each article individually and attempting to source where appropriate, and if the route is just not notable, make the redirect. This user is ignoring what is currently going on and has set upon her on mission to eradicate every bus route article from the face of the earth.

What do I hope to achieve from this thread? An admin with an ounce of common sense should step in and close all these discussions, pointing the user to the ongoing discussion linked above, and telling her to stop being disruptive. Thanks for taking the time to read this. Jeni 00:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Note, the admin in question has now resorted to calling me a troll. Is this really the example admins should be setting? Jeni 00:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• No action is warranted here. There is no reason to assume these nominations are not in good faith. It is quite clear from the nomination statements that the nominator has followed WP:BEFORE in a genuine effort to not nominate the routes that are notable. Indeed, when one looks at this raft of unsourced, unverified tracts of original research, it is clear that the nominations are quite proper. The community at large decides on the notability of articles, not individual wikiprojects.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think the best course of action would be for BHG to stop nominating articles for now, but the ones already open should be left as they are, as people have commented on them. Consensus may well be different to that on the bus talk page, and the talk page discussion does not trump the policies of WP:V and WP:NOR which are the main concerns - lack of sources to assert notability, and original research.

I think you should tone down the hyperbole a bit though, Jeni. Saying things like " has set upon her on mission to eradicate every bus route article from the face of the earth" helps nothing. Aiken ♫ 00:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, I wondered how long it would take Jeni to try this.

Firstly, I am not on a mission to "eradicate every bus route article"; I have sought community consensus on deleting some of the most egregiously non-notable ones. Most of the articles I have nominated abysmally fail all wikipedia's notability standards, but rather than comment on content, Jeni has set out to simply derail the consensus-building process at AFD by disruptively posting attacks on me which have nothing to do with the articles under discussion.

I have since found that Jeni and a few other editors interested in buses have been using set of notability criteria (at Misplaced Pages:UKBRQDRIVE#What_qualifies_as_a_route_notable_for_an_article.3F_ which take no account of established Misplaced Pages inclusion guidelines such as WP:GNG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

It appears that I have inadvertently stepped into a walled garden, which is why evidence of the utter non-notability of most of the articles I have nominated for deletion is being met with diversionary accusations of misconduct.

Please can we just use AFD for its normal purpose of discussing the notability or otherwise of the articles concerned? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, Jeni says "The above user has been repeatedly mass nominating bus route articles at AfD, despite calls from various users to take part in a centralised discussion already taking place. Since this user is an admin, she obviously feels she is above logical discussion and prefers to act in a disruptive manner, ignoring everyone else on WP"

Actually, I have repeatedly asked Jeni to provide some evidence of the notability of articles whose deletion she opposes, and have consistently been met with abusive refusals to do so. I invite anyone interested to read the AFD discussions and make up their own minds on who is putting themselves above logical discussion.

Oh, and for the record, I finished processing my list of bus route articles to scrutinise. We'll see what the outcome is of open AFD discussions on these articles, and then I will be happy to discuss with the bus projects how to move forward. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say that Jeni's !votes and lack of AGF are bordered on disruptive.--Crossmr (talk) 00:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• I looked into one of these cases in detail and found that the supposed lack of notability was false - a simple book search turned up numerous references, as one would expect for this famous form of transportation. This and other aspects of the matter indicate that the deliberations mandated by our deletion policy are not being followed. As the volume of nominations is already causing editors to give up in disgust, so that proper consideration cannot be given to the topics, these nominations seem quite disruptive. It may also be that nationalism comes into this - I seem to recall BHG and Jeni going at it over the naming of motorway articles and the animus generated by this may be spilling over into other transportation articles. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• You have 7 days. to provide those sources. I just read most of them and didn't see you provide any sources or say anything beyond making bad faith assumptions. If you found so many sources on one route, why didn't you add them tot he article? Sorry you want to keep an article and claim sources you need to provide them. I saw a couple AfDs where book sources were discussed but it seems that the book sources were trivial coverage. A sentence or two.--Crossmr (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Here a selection from the many I found. I'd list more but it's late.

1. Engineering Volume 209
2. Process control and automation Volume 8
3. Railway Gazette International Volume 107
4. The Commercial Motor Volume 135‎
5. The London RT bus: the story of London's longest-lasting bus

Colonel Warden (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• I am delighted that Colonel Warden found sources I had missed for one of the articles. That's a good outcome at AFD: wider scrutiny resolves a problem someone had missed. But check through the other articles, and you will see several (e,g. 187) where even User:Alzarian16, the editor who has worked a lot on these articles agrees that it's utterly non-notable.

  But as to the rest of CW's comments ... wooooweee, that bad faith on stilts, with the power turned up to number 11.

  How I got into this is simple. Over a week ago I found an uncategorised Category:Bus routes in Cardiff, added parent categs, and took it CFD for upmerger at here. That discussion broght up concerns about the notability of bus routes, so I looked at the articles and AFDed 2 of the 3: Capital City Red and Capital City Green. At the CCR AfD an editor suggested I look, at the London buses, so I did: I took a random sample of 6, and found them so woefully lacking in references, and so devoid of any sign of notabilty when I looked for sources, that I AFDed them.

  I'm saddened to see that Colonel Warden's has leapt so rapidly into making false accusations of nationalism. I have nominated dozens of non-notable Irish articles for deletion, so I am quite happy to stand by my record of neutrality in deletion debates, and I think it's a great pity that there are a very few British people who seem to find it acceptable to launch into allegations of ulterior motives when they disagree with someone Irish. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

  This is par for the course here. It is quite common for something that someone likes which isn't notable to be nominated for deletion. Since there is no way to genuinely defend it it almost always results in a few things including assumptions of bad faith, insults, harassment, etc. As someone who often nominates for lack of notability I've been subject to all kinds of it.--Crossmr (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• We're talking about London buses here - one of the most notable transportation systems on the planet, about which numerous books have been written. Sources for such article are quite feasible and the relevant project is engaging in this work already. Nominating a great flurry of articles is quite unhelpful as it generates unproductive discussion of this sort. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Quite, which is why we have London buses and Buses in London. Not every route is notable and worthy of an article. Aiken ♫ 01:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• The system might be notable. Doesn't mean every individual route is notable. Perhaps you misunderstood me. If you found sources that were relevant to an article why didn't you provide them? Claiming sources without providing them especially when asked borders on disruptive, especially taking into account your already numerous assumptions of bad faith. No one has demonstrated where anyone was supposed to know there was even a discussion going on in the first place even if it was relevant to whether or not they could nominate something for deletion. There are no notices on the pages themselves that I can find.--Crossmr (talk) 01:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Pointing out that a discussion is already in progress on the topic is now disruptive is it? I've had to put up with BHG's endless requests asking why I think these articles are notable, when I haven't even attempted to comment on the notability, and made it clear that I wasn't about to in that context. Jeni 00:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Since that is irrelevant yes. Projects do not own articles and people are free to edit, change, or nominate them completely independent of what the project is doing.--Crossmr (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Please please do point me to somewhere where its been stated that projects own articles? I certainly can't see anything! I don't think half the people involved in that discussion are even in the LT WikiProject, I'm not! It's just a convenient place to hold a centralised discussion. Please stop making silly assumptions you know are blatantly untrue. Jeni 01:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• You claimed that since the projects were discussing these articles someone couldn't nominate them for deletion. That's ownership. Unless there is already an existing deletion discussion going on, anyone from anywhere is free to start one.--Crossmr (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• I claimed that since there was already an on going discussion (please do note the lack of the word project there) it is rather WP:POINTy to completely ignore said discussion, refuse to take part and continue on a mass nomination spree. Please please do read things :) Jeni 01:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You obviously don't understand WP:POINT very well and I suggest you reread it. Jtrainor (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• I read it fine. Please refrain from assuming bad faith. That seems to be a big issue for you in this matter. Is the discussion on a project page or not? Just because you didn't say "project" is irrelevant. The discussion is happening in relevant project space. Not at the pump. It isn't pointy at all to nominate something for deletion. It is an assumption of bad faith to assume that though since most of the ones I visited were good nominations there is an utter lack of significant coverage in reliable third party sources.--Crossmr (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Going on your logic, any discussions which take place on a project page are completely worthless and pointless by virtue of their location. Sorry, doesn't work like that.. discussion occurs in the most convenient place where a group of editors get together and find something which needs discussing. Been around Misplaced Pages long? Jeni 01:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• No, they just don't supersede deletion discussions or the requirements for one. Also can you show me where she was notified of the discussion prior to her nominations? I just checked a couple random route pages and cannot find any notifications on their talk pages that their fate was being discussed. And yes, I've been around wikipedia for years. Have you? It seems you've got a real problem remembering core behavioural policies and guidelines and you're really pushing disruptive now with your continuance. If you can't discuss this in a civil manner without assuming bad faith I might suggest you take a step back.--Crossmr (talk) 01:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Blurp, looks like me and Crossmr simulposted. Cross, I was replying to Jeni, not you. Jtrainor (talk) 01:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Repeated accusations of bad faith aren't helping your case at all, Jeni. Frankly, the only thing I could accuse BHG of doing wrong in this instance is not batch nominating the London bus routes, thus forcing me to !vote delete multiple times instead of once. Resolute 01:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, but it seems that any way of bring these articles to AFD is going to cause objections. I thought it was easier to consider the routes separately, but after a few suggestions of batching them, I did batch the last group (a nomination for the West Midlands articles). Jeni's response was to accuse me of making a disruptive indiscriminate nomination which included "both notable and non notable routes" (tho she didn't identify which).

I don't know why it makes any difference to her, since she has posted at great length to all the other AFDs about her refusal to even discuss notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologize, I wasn't serious in the criticism but that didn't translate via text.  ;) Resolute 16:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Mass Afd is a disfunctional method at the best of times, but when it makes it to ANI, well, assessing the articles and their potential properly and individually in good faith against the GNG, is now a mere pipe dream in the face of multiple cookie cutter JNN votes. MickMacNee (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't see this as "disruptive". The AfDs are in proper form. They seem to be getting both "keep" and "delete" votes. They're not frivolous. Usually, we have this argument over spinoff articles from fiction fans who get carried away with enthusiasm. This time, it's bus fans. --John Nagle (talk) 05:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like major cruft. I suggested in the 187 afd that the folks working on these articles should compile them all into a wikibook instead of spraying them across N separate encyclopedia articles. A wikibook puts all the info in one place, which is almost certainly preferable for readers and doesn't cruft up the encyclopedia. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 12:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• I really have lost the will to do anything about this, as in my eyes, since I have started, Misplaced Pages has become a bureaucratic piece of rubbish, and I now edit less and less. However, what I want to say is, as an admin, should BHG have started AfDing articles without even saying one comment at the discussion that was going on at the time? Surely, something should have been said at the discussions, even just one sentence out of politeness, before going on an AfD rampage. Does anyone have any manners any more, or do we all have to start causing chaos and confusion without discussion, to get what we want done? Arriva436 21:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• I'm out too , if I was ever really in in the last year. Anybody interested in this topic needs to just hand over their cash to the London Omnibus Traction Society, Misplaced Pages institutionaly just cannot handle applying their generalised-into-abstraction GNG wording, to dealing with this sort of specialised topic. It's sad to see that people honestly seem to think this is just travel information, or that just because they aren't interested in the subject, that it cannot possibly be the case that this topic is actually written about to death in proper information sources, most if not all you have to pay for unlike this unreliable and frankly unworthy infohost. It's downright insulting to see people getting away with labelling experienced editors having to deal with this mass Afd as ignorant hoarders of junk, who don't have the first clue about N/V/RS. Still, we all know where we are if we just stick to the usual topics at this infotainment hobby site, i.e. pop culture pap, or subjects sourced soley to Google. I can rack off whole articles about that all day everyday, properly sourced and everything! MickMacNee (talk) 23:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
  • P.S. BHG is now adding a tag stack to each article in turn, in ascending numerical order. I am at a loss to see what that achieves, apart from a lot of work for BHG, given the fact the issues to be addressed are exactly the same for every single article, and every editor that I am aware is interested in the subject, is already fully aware of this discussion. It definitely feels POINTY to me, it's certainly not motivating me to do anything about it. She might as well batch Afd the whole lot and accelerate discussion of the meta-issue, rather than waste her time like this, as in my experience on the topic I would bet £1,000 that 99% of these tags will still be in place in two years otherwise. MickMacNee (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

  I am working through the articles one by one, adding tags as appropriate to that particular article. I have not tagged all the articles in the same fashion, and in most of them I have removed an incorrect "unreferenced" tag, because of the articles were tagged that way despite having some external links to primary sources. The purpose of those tags is, as usual, quite simple: to identify for readers and editors articles in need of attention. So far, I have done #1 to #40, and about one article in ten appears to me to include anything approaching either a remotely plausible assertion of notability or anything which might be taken as evidence of notability.

  In most cases, the overwhelming majority of the articles contains material which is unreferenced and supported by none of the external links. Mick thinks it's near certain that even with the tags in place, these articles will remain in the same sorry state for at least two years. I don't quite share that pessimism — I think nthatr some of them may be improved — but what if Mick is broadly right about the lack of attention the articles will receive?

  He has protested at AFD that he doesn't want the articles to be deleted, and now he doesn't want them tagged as in need of attention. So I can see only only two possibilities. Either a) Mick wants the articles to be left for years as a pile of unreferenced material, contrary to WP:V, in the hope that some time more than two years hence somebody may actually produce something which finally starts to meet verifiability standards; or b) He wants them to be cut back to stubs, eliminating all the unsourced stuff. Which is it? For all the denunciations, all I have seen so far is Mick attacking any solution to current swamp of unreferenced material which neither asserts notability nor offers evidence of notability.

  WP:V is very clear that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". In this case, the heat and fury comes from a number of vociferous editors trying to revert that that burden. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• As the main editor working to improve these articles, I might be expected to agreee wtih Jeni, Arriva and Mick's interpretations. But I don't. I can't actually see much wrong with many of the nominations, although I am disappointed that BHG didn't join in the discussion first. Most of the routes didn't show notability when nominated (only a small number such as London Buses route 73 or West Midlands bus route 8 could be said to), and the AfD nominations are forcing us to improve the articles to give them a chance of being retained. My only worry concerns one specific case, London Buses route 66, which BHG and others have praised but still appears likely to be deleted on somewhat dubious grounds. As for the article tags cited by Mick, they may well not achieve much but they aren't against any policy I know of - and as I intend to source most of these articles over the next few months, several will be removed by me when I feel the article concerned shows notability. So although I'm not best pleased at so many articles facing the threat of deletion, I don't feel any major action is required. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Alzarian16, I just can't understand the logic of writing so many separate articles about bus routes in one city. My city also has a lot of bus routes, and I could imagine getting interested in them and wanting to read about them, but a separate article about each one just seems pointless. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to raise that point at the relevant AfDs, but I don't see how it's relevant to this thread since we both seem to be in agreement that no action is required. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Coming back to the actions of the user, which is the topic of this discussion, I'd like to point out that this same editing pattern has been applied to Capital City Red and Capital City Green. Both have been nominated for deletion by User:BrownHairedGirl, despite the fact that no-one agreed with her and that several other users have confirmed that the articles are well sourced, meet the required guidelines and should not have been nominated in the first place- see here and here. Therefore it seems that BrownHairedGirl is either unfamiliar with the guidelines of deletion nonimation, or is ignoring them. This editing is indeed very disruptive. Welshleprechaun (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism of ANI page to make it look like another editor engaged in vandalism

I would like to request that someone with technical knowledge look into some vandalism that occurred on this ANI Board. It was in the thread starting with my name "Zlykinskyja's conduct on AFD page." At the end of that long thread (closed today for archiving) there is a discussion about me supposedly engaging in vandalism, but I never made those vandal edits. Whoever tried to frame me engaged in serious dishonesty on the ANI Board. Although the last poster simply tossed it off as a simple error, I find that very hard to believe. There was indeed actual vandalism of the ANI thread, and the diff with the red letters looked like it was mine, but I never engaged in that vandalism. It would be very helpful if some person with good technical skills could look into this so that the person who engaged in such dishonesty could be held accountable. Thank you. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I just reverted a redirect to WP:AN that no longer shows in the history. ???? Dlohcierekim 17:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Xeno is assuming that the problem was caused by an extremely poor connection on your end garbling the line. I'd strongly suggest leaving it at that (and perhaps changing your account's password if it's not particularly strong), as any investigation is likely to end in either a "indeterminate cause" or a "compromised account" finding. The former would be a waste of time, the latter would mean your account is blocked. There is absolutely no upside for you in this; the movies may make it seem like any "hack" can be traced and identified, but the real world isn't nearly that neat and tidy. —ShadowRanger  17:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the edit in question. Do you remember writing the added portion of your comment? If so, it's likely you just garbled the text above it by accident. Think about the resources that would be necessary to hack your account - which is unpriveleged. See also Occam's razor. –xeno 17:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I added the regular sounding text at the bottom of the page. But it looks like there was a deliberate, detailed, changing of the text above in a manner that is unquestionably vandalism. Such fine tuned, detailed changes do not look like an accident or a bad connection. Someone intentionally made those changes and then tried to frame me by making it look like I engaged in vandalism. That is indisputably dishonest. (I note that The Magnificent Clean-keeper has engaged in a pattern of harassment against me, and then he was the one to accuse me of vandalism.) Whoever did this, I cannot say for sure but I consider this to be part of the ongoing harassment against me intended to discourage my participation in the editing of the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. I will certainly change my password, but the fact that someone was sick enough to do this and to possibly do so by figuring out my password is quite creepy. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Do you realize how ridiculous your accusation sounds? So let's see - someone hacked your account; or performed a man in the middle attack; or perhaps even hacked into Misplaced Pages's database itself; all so they could falsify a diff -- and all of this just to make it look like you garbled a few letters of someone elses post? Ridiculous nonsense. If you like, I can indefinitely block your account as compromised and you can start a new one. –xeno 18:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Sure, Xeno closed the thread above and here we go again. Same accusations, same behavior, same editor.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I am absolutely certain that another person made those vandalism edits. I am certain that I did not do that and that it does not look like an accident or bad connection. I would like an administrator to please refer me to whatever security department or person handles hacking or password stealing incidents. I am 100% certain that some misconduct has occurred, and would like to get to the bottom of this. I would also like to note that anonymous harassment on the Internet is illegal under federal law. Something like this should not be happening. Now I have to worry about my password, hacking into my computer, and other security issues. I have read somewhere of hacking incidents on Misplaced Pages escalating into real world harassment. Given that it is clear some sort of hacking has occurred, I would like to pursue this as fully as possible within Misplaced Pages to protect my account and myself. Clearly, there is some sort of sicko involved. But I have thought that for a while now, given other incidents. Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Since you are absolutely certain your account has been compromised, I have blocked it indefinitely per the blocking policy. Please secure your personal workstation (virus, malware, trojan scan, etc.) before creating a new account. –xeno 19:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Xeno--Was that supposed to be funny? I asked for help with this and you just go and permanently block my account? I don't find this funny.

I would like to ask an uninvolved administrator to please answer my question above as to where I can report this hacking incident. There is something wrong with a situation in which some sicko can hack an account, no one wants to help resolve this, and the person hacked gets permanently blocked. TemporaryAccountDueToHackingIncident (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Z, this diff looks as though there might have been some kind of browser or operating system incompatibility. I had a similar thing a few years ago, where a browser I was using would from time to time (but oddly, not always) change characters in previous posts. Or there may have been a server glitch. I doubt it was a hacking attempt. If your post about this is the only reason you were blocked, I'd respectfully suggest an unblock. :) SlimVirgin 20:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm an uninvolved administrator, and Xeno's actions seemed inline to me. Generally, if someone believes they have a compromised account, or there is evidence that an account has been compromised, we block it. We do so because using another person's account in order to avoid scrutiny and to deceive the community is disallowed per WP:ILLEGIT. This is standard procedure. Are you now claiming you weren't hacked? -- Atama頭 20:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Another uninvolved admin here, and I agree. If you believed you account had been compromised, and you had to “worry about password,” the logical solution was for you to start a new account with a different password. xeno has facilitated that process (although your new account name is a tad cumbersome). So, unless your new account is “hacked” after this point, this issue is resolved. — Satori Son 20:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

(yet another ec)To SlimVirgin: Barring invocation of WP:IAR, are we even allowed to unblock in this case? If the account is legitimately suspected to have been compromised (and a user insisting that it is would constitute sufficient evidence), then we don't know who we are unblocking (even if they change their password, that doesn't prove that the compromiser wasn't the one to do so). I recognize this is a especially flimsy case for a compromised account (I feel a little bad for my part in accidentally reinforcing this belief), but I've never heard of an unblock following suspicion of a compromised account. —ShadowRanger  20:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

In legitimate cases of actually hacked accounts requesting an unblock, we usually request a checkuser before unblocking to see if the original owner is likely back in control of the account. Sarah 02:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The most exceptional part of this 'hack' is that they were able to intercept the edit you admitted you made and then add the garbage above it! This hacker surely should focus on something more fruitful than making it look like you had a bad connection...

Please read what Slim wrote, this is what my initial assumption was - a funky connection. But since you insisted that you were absolutely certain your account had been compromised, I blocked you as required.

If you calm down, and accept the most likely explanation (that you had a connection hiccup), please issue an unblock request stating the same and I, or another admin, will lift the block. –xeno 20:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The point I was trying to make is that hacking your diff was effectively impossible (and xeno's additional note that the difficulty of doing so would make it highly improbable even if it is possible). That only leaves two possibilities:

1. Your connection went bad (who knows, maybe a burst of solar activity coincided with you hitting submit)
2. Your machine and/or account was compromised in some way. If the former, it was probably not related to Misplaced Pages; if someone had actively attacked your machine to make it look like you were a vandal, they would probably go for something even more damning than a gibberish diff (say, using slurs against other editors, which gets you banned incredibly quickly). If it was due to a machine compromise, then the damage was probably incidental; a virus interfered with your connection, but it wasn't related to Misplaced Pages (so we can't do much to help). If your account was compromised, then that means your password was too easy to guess and/or brute force, and there is little we can do about that; the solution is to use stronger passwords.

Only your insistence that it was a compromised account led to your block. If you sincerely believe this, reformat your machine with a fresh install of your OS, install a virus scanner and all security updates, create a new account with a strong password (at least eight characters, with a mix of upper and lower case letters and a smattering of numbers and punctuation) and move on. I sympathize, but you left xeno no other option by the policies here. —ShadowRanger  20:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point just one thing out and then I'll move on: it is a rather odd thing that someone surreptitiously took over Z.'s account, just to garble some diffs of mine, that showed her behaviour towards other editors, just while she was repeating, undisturbed, her umpteenth accusation — without diffs — against us, basically... Anyway, she admitted to having been hacked or whatever, so I guess this incident too is over. Peace. ^___^ Salvio ( ) 20:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

A block seems a little unfair to me. Zlykinskyja engaged in some hyperbole, and as a result has lost his account. It's not a big deal in this case because it's a new account and he doesn't have a lot of edits to it, so there's no real harm in asking him to set up a new one, but he could similarly change the password for his current one. The latter seems fairer to me, unless there are other issues I'm not aware of. SlimVirgin 20:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Other than the fact that the user is sure that he has been compromised, I have no objection to this block being lifted. Please do what you feel is best. –xeno 20:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

For Salvio Giuliano to try to put the blame on me is just outrageous. That is all I will say about his continuing nonsense.

My question to the administrators is what is the procedure for looking into hacking incidents? Is there an official section or area where this can be reported or looked into? Will someone please answer this question?

It sure looks like some kind of harassment to me, given the prior pattern of harassment. Also, within seconds after I posted under my temporary name, I received a notice from some brand new account (i.e. fake account)that he was accusing me of being a sockpuppet and that I was being investigated for sock puppetry. So that incident is another indication of harassment being involved. Also, I just went back to the Talk page on my temporary account and saw that the Notice of the sock puppet investigation has been removed. So I do not have confidence that this has all been some kind of accident. TemporaryAccountDueToHackingIncident (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

If Wikimedia did have an information security team that looked into claims such as yours, you would surely get laughed out of their office. The hack you refer to is 1) extremely improbable (approaching impossible) and 2) so difficult to acheive that they surely would have done something other than garble a few letters.

I deleted the sock claims because you're not a sock, you're a legitimate alternate account.

You need to take your fingers out of your ears and listen to what people are telling you: you had a connection hiccup. –xeno 20:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

And in case you are worried, the sockpuppet investigation was immediately closed. The filer wasn't fully aware of the circumstances and opened it out of ignorance, not malice. Constantly claiming harassment in cases where a mistake in good faith is the most likely cause only makes people less inclined to listen. I might suggest (don't take this as a command, it's only a suggestion) that you take a voluntary break for a day or two. When you're getting this worked up, you're only hurting yourself. —ShadowRanger  20:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• On the one hand, I don't think a block for a compromised account is correct; in spite of what Z is "certain" about, it seems quite obvious to me that this is either a software malfunction, or at worst incorrectly done oversighting. I was about to unblock (per Xeno's note above), when I looked through Z's entire contribution log, and realized we're dealing with an aggressive single purpose account, whose only desire is to fight and argue over one subject. I can't bring myself to unblock when I know it will just disrupt the encyclopedia more. Yes, I know, autoblock is disabled, and someone whose more a stickler for policy and "doing things according to the rules" might wish to unblock, but I won't do it. If a new account is created, can we consider giving him a much shorter leash next time? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see one of her former accounts, user:PilgrimRose. No further comment... The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• This whole topic is a joke. Can WP:DENY be invoked here and move on? Rehevkor ✉ 21:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine, if there was no hacking of my account as some are so certain of, then it was not compromised and there is no need to block my account for being compromised. Recall that this issue started when The Magnificent Clean-keeper falsely accused me of vandalism, which I knew I was not guilty of. It was one of the administrators who said that either' I was guilty of vandalism, or my account was compromised. This is what I was told:

Your account made that edit. You can't fake the diffs (at least, not without direct access to Misplaced Pages servers that Magnificent Clean-keeper doesn't have). Either you made the edit, and therefore committed at least one verifiable act of vandalism (or more, I haven't looked at the rest of this thread to check the whole history), or your account is compromised, in which case it will be blocked for that reason. If you made that edit, you're better off admitting it, because the alternative is that your account will be blocked and you'll have to create a new one. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 16:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it is technical knowledge so much as an easily guessed password. Unfortunately, a compromised account needs to be blocked regardless of how unfair it may be, simply because it is impossible to be confident that it is in control of the correct editor. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 17:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been open about the fact that I have limited computer knowledge, so had to do the best I could about figuring out why it looked like I had engaged in vandalism. But originally one of the administrators who seems to know a lot about technical issues TOLD ME my account was compromised, if in fact I had not engaged in vandalism. Now I am painted as the wrongdoer for believing that my account was compromised, as I was told, and trying to get to the bottom of it. What a waste of time. So since now so many are certain there was no hacking there is no legitimate need to block my account for being compromised. So please unblock it and I will simply change the password to remove any doubt. TemporaryAccountDueToHackingIncident (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Floquenbeam. There seems to be one issue after another with your account, including point-making rather than editing in a disinterested way. I can't think what kind of restriction would be appropriate, but simply unblocking feels problematic too. SlimVirgin 22:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I already unblocked before seeing this as my block was strictly for the apparent compromised account.. If there is to be a block for disuptive editing it should stand on it's own. –xeno 23:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

First, sorry for ignoring the possibility of a technical glitch that caused that. While improbable, it would still be possible, and I should have allowed for that. Second, I'm not an admin. Third, after that initial omission of a technical glitch as an explanation, both myself and xeno explained to you multiple times that the possibility of a technical glitch existed, and that insisting that your account was compromised would force a block based on Misplaced Pages policies, you ignored us and continued insisting that your account was compromised. I'm sorry that led to a block, but you were told *exactly* what would happen multiple times and paid no attention. —ShadowRanger  22:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there have been issues in a highly contentious article that go both ways. You need to look at the whole picture, including what has occurred by editors on the "other side of the story". This whole huge dispute about the article Murder of Meredith Kercher has just been submitted for mediation a day or two ago. It is a very extensive dispute, and has already been discussed at length for eleven days. Now it will go to mediation. Furthermore, I am not a single purpose account. I tried to branch out to a new article but was WikiHounded by one of the same editors who seemed to be trying to block my participation on the murder article.

The sole issue now is how my account came to be blocked today. First, I was falsely accused of vandalism. Then I was told that either I engaged in vandalism or MY ACCOUNT WAS COMPROMISED. Then the same editor who told me my account was compromised told me that my account was blocked because I CLAIMED that was compromised----but that is what he told me! I don't know anything about computers, but when I was told that my account was compromised I was sure scared. Now it turns out it wasn't even true. The whole thing has been a huge waste of time. I thought it was compromised because that it what I was told. Please just unblock the account and let the very major and complicated dispute proceed to mediation. I also note that there is a policy against blocking accounts trying to resolve the issues through mediation. TemporaryAccountDueToHackingIncident (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Forgetting the Meredith issue, which is your main interest, if you look at this edit, you're saying the most important thing about this woman is that she's a grandmother and former primary school teacher. Not that she's been convicted of murder. And you launch immediately into the injustice of it, before explaining what "it" is. That's not appropriate editing, and combined with all the other issues, and taking things to various noticeboards, it makes an unblock less appealing. If you want to continue editing, something would have to change, I think, or you're going to keep on getting into bother. SlimVirgin 23:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I wouldn't start that article by saying she's a convicted murderer either, by the way, but fixing an article to make it arguably worse isn't the best way to help. SlimVirgin 23:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The problems I have raised for mediation include how to incorporate NPOV and BLP policies into a contentious article. It will be a learning experience for all involved, but once resolved the education can be applied across the board to other articles. Really, for all the complexities and hours and hours of debate concerning the Kercher article (and murder articles like it) something as extensive as this needs to be resolved in mediation. Beyond that, the problems will just continue. As for the NPOV noticeboard, I did not file that. The only thing I have filed is for mediation, plus this item today resulting from confusion after I was TOLD that my account had been compromised. The problems have arisen from the Kercher article and NPOV and BLP issues, which are too complex to dispute here. These issues have been discussed here for eleven days, and I am now way, way too tired to continue here. But I do think mediation will provide a full and complete forum for sorting things out in a formal, organized and thorough way. So, after eleven days here, mediation is my next stop. Thank you to the very nice person who unblocked my account. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It was the same very nice person who blocked it in the first place. :) As for the content issues, there are few disputes that can't be resolved through a careful application of the policies, so I'd urge you to read WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V. Try to stick closely to them, and write about issues as though you don't care about them, as though you're someone who's just flown in from Mars. That should do the trick. SlimVirgin 23:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The editor apparently had a previous account compromised also (don't know which account). Either he's got gremlins, or he's a shlimozl. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it was not compromised. See my post further up.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgim, thanks for your advice. I'm hoping to learn more and practice more through mediation. It sounds like it will be a good experience. In the meantime, I will review the materials you have provided. As for this word "shlimozl" I don't know what that is, know very little computer lingo, will no longer be trying to figure out computer "compromising" topics, and am done here. Anyone curious about my name change can read the detailed explanation on my User page. As for the temporary name I used today, I will officially "retire" that now. Thank you to the person who removed the "Compromised" notice from this account. Now I am all set! Since I started this topic, I would like to ask an administrator to kindly close and archive this thread. Good night all! Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

So, to make a long story short: once again, scot-free. Peace. ^______^ Salvio ( ) 00:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If you're saying the OP "got away with" something, keep in mind that by coming here the user has raised his visibility significantly. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I meant that I entirely agree with Floquenbeam and SlimVirgin; and that I'm sorry that she was not even given a warning, regarding the way she behaves. Nothing to do with the security of her account (I think that the hypothesis that someone hacked into her account just to garble some diffs is ludicrous...). Salvio ( ) 11:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

A comment on the beginning of this discussion

I'm only seeing this now, because I was preoccupied with another matter. The behavior which was reported above, about an edit to AN/I which had good text added below and corrupted text above, has happened to me several times, twice on AN/I, and each time it happened as the result of an edit conflict. The discussion about it on my talk page can be found here. I have no solution to it, except to check carefully after an edit conflict to make sure that nothing untoward has happened. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Could be an edge case hit for unusually long pages, though I have no idea if the problem is on server or client side. The noticeboard is usually three times the length of any other page. —ShadowRanger  03:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Strange indeed. At least Z can be rest assured s/he isn't being unfairly targeted =) –xeno 12:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It's happened to me once or twice before as well. In one case, editing a long talk page, it reverted almost 3 weeks of history on the relevant talk page, apart from the diff immediately before mine, and a vandalism diff from 2 weeks earlier that had been reverted. I checked by going "back" in my browser and it definitely was set to edit the current page. I was able to fix it myself, coming to the conclusion the software had got way confused. (I've had a look for it - all I remember was it was probably in late 2008 - but can't find it to link here.) Orderinchaos 03:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Edwin Black (legal threat?)

After a cadre of sockpuppets were blocked, controversial author Edwin Black has now issued an on-wiki Cease & Desist notice and accusations that he and others have been "censored" and "publicly defamed". Thoughts? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Block the account for legal threats and direct them to WP:OTRS. Woogee (talk) 23:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Requesting an uninvolved admin to assist. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Did he actually make a legal threat? Acting like a pompous idiot isn't the same as making a legal threat, and while he uses legal language, he doesn't seem to be threatening a lawsuit. He requested they cease and desist, but did not provide any consequences for failing to do so, only a contact e-mail for questions. —ShadowRanger  00:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

A Cease and Desist notice is the step right before legal action is taken. I doubt someone would make a cease and desist notice without the concurrent implication that if you don't stop you're going to get sued. It's intended as a chilling effect against Blaxthos. Mr. Black's accounts should be blocked and he should be directed to OTRS. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If it's the step right before, and not an actual legal threat, then it gets treated as such, specifically, we warn the user. There's a reason we have the template warning for it. He hasn't issued an actual legal threat yet, so a block is premature. I've warned him on his talk page, so he knows the line, but for now, I don't think any further action is needed. —ShadowRanger  00:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

A C&D notice is not the step before the threat, it is the step right before legal action. In most contemporary contexts, a C&D notice is considered a legal threat (as in, a threat of legal action). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If it were an actual, formal cease and desist, I'd agree. But just because he chose to use the term "cease and desist" instead of "stop and refrain" doesn't make it a legal threat. If he escalates in spite of the warning, report it, but blocking over word choice without a threat is unreasonable. —ShadowRanger  01:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone should still point him towards OTRS. If nothing else, it may make him stop socking. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, I figured it out and did it myself. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I wasn't necessarily advocating any particular path of adjudication.  :) Should the comment in question be struck, removed, or left online? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

He persisted after the warning and got blocked. Marking resolved. —ShadowRanger  14:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

For future reference, if a sock or other malcontent tells someone to "cease and desist", one could warn the user to "cease and desist using the term 'cease and desist'." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think people should cease and desist from telling people to cease and desist from using the term 'cease and desist'. (oh dear) this comment should be read as humour Orderinchaos 03:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I think people should cease and desist from telling people to cease and desist from telling others to cease and desist from using the term "cease and desist" to request that people cease and desist from using the term "cease and desist" when requesting people cease and desist.:p In conclusion...I don't see a legal threat in the above diff. Using legal terminology does not equal a legal threat. Though the comments regarding Blaxthos in this diff are alarming and IMO reason enough for blocking regardless of the legal threat issue. Sarah 00:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Firmly agreed. Orderinchaos 05:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I think, to quote Theresa from another thread, STFU is so much more succinct and unequivocal  :) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Black's original language, if you go all the way to the start of the thread, is clearly intended to suggest a legal threat. On the other hand, I believe I once used the C&D phrase in a warning myself without actually intending a legal threat. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Admin needed to close Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ramakapa and delete associated page

Being allowed to run course as AfD - the result is a foregone conclusion anyway at this stage. Orderinchaos 05:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Multiple editors have searched for evidence of this town's existence with no success. According to the checkuser and a followup, the article's creator and the remover of the original speedy-nom appear to be meatpuppets at the least, if not sockpuppets (they are part of a group of accounts, most of which do no more than create one fake page and/or support another fake page in the sockfarm). With zero evidence for its existence beyond the vague endorsements by the socks, it seems like this is an excellent case for early closure. Just need an admin to look at the same facts and agree with me. Any takers? —ShadowRanger  00:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't come across as a very neutral way of requesting administrative attention. What is the big hurry that needs this to be closed outside of the normal AfD closure process? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This should never have needed an AfD in the first place, as it would have qualified under hoax csd. Except the creator used socks to remove the speedy template, and more recently, to remove the AfD template (an account was created whose only edit was to remove the AfD and NOINDEX templates; I've restored them). When an article qualifies for speedy deletion and is only around because of abuse of the system, I'm not inclined to give it the full seven days. Every vote cast in the AfD as been for delete, and WP:SNOW seems to apply here. —ShadowRanger  12:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Update: At this point, we've got six unambiguous delete votes (one of whom explicitly endorsed speedy, the rest of whom simply noted the complete failure of WP:V and endorsed deletion with no reservations), and no keeps. The socks aren't even bothering to vote. Can we please close this? WP:SNOW was made for this sort of scenario. —ShadowRanger  20:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, the rules for speedy deletion apply regardless of the presence of a CSD template or other deletion discussions in progress. So if the article is an obvious hoax, any admin can delete per CSD:G3 at any time (and close the AfD as "speedy delete"). Bobby Tables (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd say this can run as a normal AfD personally - there's nothing exceptional, we delete hoaxes there all the time. That being said, IMO there's nothing against early closure if sufficient evidence has been presented that it unambiguously doesn't belong here. Orderinchaos 17:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The outcome is probably a foregone conclusion, but unless there's an urgent need to delete it (it's used as an attack page, has BLP violations, personal info about someone, etc.) I would suggest letting it run its course procedurally. If nothing else, an AfD closure will allow for G4 speedy deletions in the future if any sockpuppets decide to recreate it as a joke. -- Atama頭 19:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

4 editors turning WP into a Battlefield

I don't know if this is the right place. Perhaps I should be at Arbitration Enforcement , but I am concerned about the following editors. User:Vexorg,User:NickCT, User:Supreme Deliciousness,User:Unomi

The first three have made very unsettling attacks on those who don't support their anti-Zionist agenda and are thus sowing dissention and not collaboration:

• Vexorg: Vexorg "having being the recent target of t the disingenuous Zionist Lobby on Misplaced Pages, particularly by the attention seeking MBz1 and her little sidekick Stellarkid..."

  NickCT: "There certainly is a disingenuous Zionist Lobby on Misplaced Pages. If you don't believe me, take any article regarding a contentious Israel-Palestine issue than look at how many of the people contributing to the article/talk page actually are Isreali . It's a little scary. For contentious China related articles, you don't get ethnic Chinese editors trying to control the article. Same goes for pretty much every other nation but Israel. "

  Supreme Deliciousness "You see The Lobby has dominated Arab-Israeli article for a long time, and you are one of the few who challenges their Israeli pov pushing, so this is why they are trying to collectively get rid of you."

Diffs demonstrating the bias they are putting into articles:

• Vexorg: "(Prime Minister Tony) Blair has been a long time member of the Zionist Lobby group Labour Friends of Israel."

Vexorg developed the category of Zionism in the United Kingdom and has since been adding various groups to it (edit summary:"Adding pertinent Categories - Israel is the Zionist State") and edit-warring it into the articles:

Wikiproject Israel is on my watchlist. When I went today I saw that user:Shuki had written something there claiming that "Unomi and Supreme Deliciousness were taking advantage of the weeklong Passover holiday to "slap occupied cats on everything." Supreme Deliciousness responded by "bringing meatpuppets, Shuki?" Considering the earlier comment by Supreme Deliciousness, I decided to see for myself:

Supreme Deliciousness also started his own category here: entitled Category:Universitys in Israeli-occupied territories, and then proceeded to categorize all the universities himself, apparently reverting anyone who disagreed. Here are just a few with their edit summaries.

• edit summary (rv worldview is not pov, Israeli pov is pov)
• another rv with the same edit summary as above.
• rv here with same edit summary
• rv here

Unomi Created category "Companies with economic ties to Israeli-occupied territories" Based on the link Big Campaign which is a propaganda anti-Israel site, NOT an RS at all. Using this bogus site and its information, Unomi tagged the following companies with his newly created category.

• Sainbury
• Hanson Cement
• Unilever
• Argos
• Tesco
• Fermentek
• Sodastream
• Carmel etc

These editors all have a serious anti-Zionist agenda and frankly should not be editing in the area. This is not collaborative work but an attempt to bully large chunks of POV into articles all the while denigrating the "opposition." While we know that this area is full of passionate intensity, we still must respect our fellow editors viewpoints and try to deal fairly with them and with the articles that others have written. Thank you. Stellarkid (talk) 04:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment from Vexorg Stellarkid is a well known pro-Zionist editor, along with his/her sidekick Mbz1. I have just received notice of this section. Stellarkid is lying. I have not developed the category Zionism in the United Kingdom - I am not going to waste time on this continuing childish soap opera by immature people who wish to push their pro-Zionist agenda onto Misplaced Pages by continually trying to denigrate anyone who edits in a manner which is contradictory to the their political agenda. Personally I think administrators should indefinitely ban both Stellarkid and Mbz1 for the continual waste of time they are causing in this Online encyclopedia. Apart from defending against untruths claimed about me, I shall not waste time with this immature crap any longer. Vexorg (talk) 05:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Stellarkid, please, you are a smart guy, surely you see the hemispatial neglect-like nature of your complaint ? For the sake of completeness and neutrality you could have included diffs for the countless occasions where editors on the other side of these discretionary sanctions busting battles have made similar 'attacks on those who don't support their agenda and are thus sowing dissention and not collaboration' and who 'attempt to bully large chunks of POV into articles all the while denigrating the "opposition."' or indeed remove material. Editors shouldn't have to deal with this nonsense everytime they try to edit an article. Highlighting the behavior of one side while ignoring the behavior of the other is part of the problem. I would like to see admins blocking people much more often and much more proactively to try to stop the fighting, POV pushing, soapboxing etc. This is the kind of thing I have in mind (who it was and what side they support doesn't matter, it really could have been any of a number of people who repeatedly ignore the sanctions). It was a short block, nobody died and it sent a clear message. If someone was briefly blocked everytime they said or did something inconsistent with the sanctions I would hope that they would eventually get the message that they must comply with the sanctions. I have to say, NickCT is wrong about China related articles. Having worked on some myself the CCP vs Falun Gong narrative wars between editors are depressingly similar. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment from Wikifan12345 It is funny to see Unomi using a blatant unreliable and dare I say, hate-site as a source, when only yesterday he filed an AE in attempt to impose sanctions on my user because I claimed the Jewish Virtual Library was a reliable source. He argued JVL was unreliable because one of its pages contained two conflicting graphs, and then accused me of being "evasive" when I failed to answer appropriately (his POV). This screams POV-pushing and some users might be offended that such propaganda is being edited into the site. Libeling companies that may or may not have a presence in the WB or Gaza as criminal and wicked (as these categories clearly infer) is akin to the hate-driven Zionist boycotts developed by the Soviets. I haven't taken a full look at the articles but based on the diffs provided by stellar the opinions of these users closely resemble classic antisemitic canards. Then again, we all know where I stand in this arena so perhaps I'm not the most objective person. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Please be precise, who exactly are you attributing antisemitic sentiments to? And yes, you were evasive that can be seen clear as day here, you even admitted to not having read the source you erroneously thought backed up the content you reinstated in the article, and you are still misrepresenting my position as I had at no time brought up that it contained two conflicting graphs. Please stop being disruptive. Unomi (talk) 11:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

"these users closely resemble classic antisemitic canards" - What a load of utter fraudulent nonsense!! The Zionist movement is a political ideology not a race. Wikifan12345 you are being disingenuous!! There's NOTHING in these diffs that's even in the same universe as racism. Please desist with your offensive links. Vexorg (talk) 06:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment By Unomi As April 1st spoofs go, this one is rather poor. Unomi (talk) 06:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment by cptnono I saw those comments on Facts talk page and was pretty offended. This continuing to assert that editors are in some sort of Israel Lobby is just not OK. A bunch of us in the topic area have said some low things in the past, and this is another one of those that just needs to stop. It baits people and rocks the boat too much. I'm cool if people want to hurl those accusations but do it the right place. A user's talk page which is already problematic is not the correct venue. That section should have been removed days ago based on some of the other attacks. If you have a problem take it to AE or here. Get some diffs and word it in a way that is to better Wikipeida and not attack other editors.Cptnono (talk) 07:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment by Wikifan Anti-Zionism and Anti-semitism have a long, inter-relationship. The Soviet-movement was designed to discredit Jews who wanted to emigrate out of Russia because of institutionalized antisemitism. In other words, "anti-Zionism" was simply a cloaking device to instill the same paranoia and propaganda once defined as antisemitism in a new, Marxist/communist context. Promoting fantasies like Jews have too much power by replacing "Jew" with "Zionist" is the same exact message. To say otherwise is purely gaming semantics. Based on the diffs provided by stellar it is obvious users are trying to undermine the credibility of wikipedia. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Reply by Vexorg - Oh please! No one buys that old 20th century Jew <=> Zionism propaganda any more. And you're not even in the same ballpark as there's not even any Anti-Zionist edits being discussed. All I can see is some agenda to remove the mention of Zionism from Misplaced Pages. Surely you are not ashamed of it? Vexorg (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment by Supreme Deliciousness: What is this really about? Take a look at the edits. The category I created was meant for Israeli universities in the occupied territories. The entire world sees Golan as occupied. The United Nations United States European Union United Kingdom Arab League and the same thing for the Westbank. So that is the majority worldview, all countries sees it as occupied except Israel. I opened this discussion at the talkpage While I reverted it 1 time, Shuki reverted it 3 times, re adding that the university's location is in Israel. Who is the one disrupting?

Same thing at Herzog College, I revert 1 time he reverts 2 times and tells me to "take this POV to a central discussion before slapping it anything" He calls the worldview pov while he re inserts the minority Israeli viewpoint and tells me to take it to a central discussion when I had already made a post at the talkpage and he didn't respond:

His disruptive behavior continues over several articles: take Mey Eden for example. The perfectly suitable and neutral category:Companies operating in Israeli-occupied territories. I revert 1 time and open the discussion at the talkpage explaining how the worldview is that it is occupied and how the category is suitable: he reverts twice and says "take this POV to a central discussion before slapping it anything" when i had already opened the discussion at the talkpage without him responding.

Not only that, but he makes a post at the Israel WP project in an obvious attempt to gather Israel supporters --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment by NickCT This seems like a rather pointless complaint from a pro-Israeli editor about resistance he's encountering against letting him and his buddies ride roughshide over Wiki's NPOV policy. Not sure this conversation is worth the space. If you have any specific complaints StellarKid, let me know. I'd be happy to discuss. NickCT (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

@Sean.Hoyland - re "I have to say, NickCT is wrong about China ..... editors are depressingly similar." Hmmm... I've editted out some POV material on China Civil War articles and haven't seen this kind of thing. However, I'm interested to hear of your experience. I'll have to add those articles to my watch list! NickCT (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment by RomaC Insinuations of antisemitism constitute highly offensive personal attacks, particularly for the many Wiki editors from Jewish homes who are not here solely to advance Zionist rhetoric. Enough already with the new wave of SPA editors who play the antisemitism card whenever an editor strays from the Israeli gov't line. We discipline editors who make personal attacks using such epithets. We also have conflict of interest guidelines that say editors' work on the project should not be to advance outside interests. Really, enough is enough. RomaC (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite emptying a category while it is being considered for deletion

Please direct him to revert and desist. Unomi (talk) 10:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• No. It's covered by WP:RBI and you "accidentally" forgot to mention that it was you adding the category in the first place. Next? Guy (Help!) 13:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Err, explain to me why it matters that I added the category in the first place? And what does RBI have to do with this? Verifiability is trivially easy to meet, the source that stellarkid mischaracterizes is A research paper prepared for the Sir Joseph Hotung Programme for Law, Human Rights and Peace Building in the Middle East, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. And many of the articles above already have content regarding criticism stemming from it. Please do be more careful, and please do refactor. Unomi (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This ANI is the battlefield

The irony here is that Stellarkid's continued attacks on anyone who makes edits that don't follow the pro-Zionist cause have now manifested themselves in him/her claiming 4 editors are creating a battlefield yet Stellarkid has just created a battlefield in order to draw people in to fight again. We've already seen one cyber-warrior appear with repulsive accusations of anti-semitism. I must resist the temptation to be drawn into this crap yet again. Vexorg (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed Vex. Would suggest you resist temptation. Frankly though, I'm not even remotely tempted to waste my time bickering here. NickCT (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Few more comments by Stellarkids

First, I apologize for my error in claiming that Verxog started the category above. I have struck it out. Unsurprisingly, Verxog calls this a "lie." Second, I notice that the thinking here seems to be that "the best defense is a good offense." I hope that the uninvolved editors that read this (and PLEASE read it) will see past this. To my mind the offensive strategy is meant to distract, and the argument should be heard on the merits. Third, with respect to Vexorg, I did not include what initially brought him to my attention which was at an Afd for an article written by one of his "opponents" in which he made an false accusation against the author. While he claimed ignorance of the facts as his excuse, he has never apologized for his behavior and indeed continues attacking her in this ANI. Here is a couple more diffs that demonstrate the battlefield mentality that I am talking about . Stellarkid (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

With respect to the categories issue, when editing in the I-P area, creating categories about "Zionism" and then going through various articles and categorizing them and then reverting other editors' reverts is really unhelpful. There seems to be little to no understanding by these editors that one does not suddenly destabilize articles like this in a sensitive area such as I-P. So-called "Zionist" editors have a right to have their perspective respected as well, by open discussion and consensus building on the talk pages. This precludes the kind of blanket tagging the editors above have been doing, or the edit summaries that are frankly insulting to others. Stellarkid (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Enough

Both sides here are off base. Go back to your corners. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground.

If uninvolved administrators have to start blocking any editor who is disruptive and taking sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we are fully capable of doing so. There had been a multi-year on-wiki detente and working partnership between the camps, agreements to disagree. That has started to fail in 2010. You can find your way back to appropriate and acceptable behavior, or take your fighting somewhere else. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

With respect, I think you are off-base here although I appreciate the sentiment. There is a serious difference between disruption and taking sides. There is no question that there are sides, but it would be wrong to sanction users based on their having a "side." There are clear sides in many issues. But disruption is another matter and should be handled. We have editors referring to themselves as "targets of the Zionist Lobby" -- Others complaining that there are too many Israelis on Misplaced Pages (as if all "Zionists" are Israelis) (When was the last time the Israelis complained about the number of Palestinians or Arabs editing? Is there a survey I missed somewhere?) We have other editors calling the other side "The Lobby" and claiming "The Lobby" dominates the "Arab-Israel article" for a long time. This isn't collaborative editing, it is disruptive editing. Multiple tagging of articles along with reversions based on clear political motives, tagging from established propaganda sites like "The Big Campaign" is just plain wrong. If a kid gets kicked in kindergarten and goes to the teacher for redress, you don't expect the teacher to tell the child that she deserved it or that both will have to stay after school. Assuming that the kid isn't simply lying to get another child in trouble, (which is why we provide diffs), we expect the teacher to discipline the child that did the kicking. Otherwise what is the point or use of this board? Stellarkid (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, that is quite enough. If you had bothered to follow the link that I actually gave when adding the cats it would have been clear to you that it was the pdf here, A research paper prepared for the Sir Joseph Hotung Programme for Law, Human Rights and Peace Building in the Middle East, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. Stop being lazy and go read sources. What you are engaging in now is disruptive. Unomi (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Accusing another user of being lazy and not reading sources. I read the note you put up questioning me earlier and I had written to it but you withdrew it so I did not post my answer. I did indeed go to the source which was a private company called "Profundo" which does reports for its respective "clients" for money. Misplaced Pages does not base its categories on a report from a private company which has not been evaluated. This particular report was sourced by you to the anti-Israel propaganda site since apparently they were happy with the results of the report. Stellarkid (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Which is why you linked to the landing page of 'The Big Campaign' as my source, right? If you look at where the pdf is actually hosted you can see that the University department clearly endorses it: It is an empirical study forming part of a wider project which examines economic and trade issues arising from Israel's occupation of occupied Palestinian and Syrian territories.. I also think you should reconsider saying 'anti-Israel' all the time, you should consider that people who are for the normalization of relations are actually doing so in the best interests of Israel. There is nothing 'Pro-Israel' about letting it spin into a failed state scenario. Anyway, this is not the place for it, I am withdrawing from this thread, please do hit me up on my talk page if you want to discuss further. Unomi (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with the sentiments expressed in that last message. Georgewilliamherbert, with all due respect, I have been growing very frustrated lately with comments about this issue from you. How can you come to this board and say "Enough complaining about disruptive editing! Both 'sides' shut up and just live with each other or I'll ban you all!"? How is that encouraging collaboration? There are certain editors involved in this issue that have proven time and time again that they are unwilling to collaborate or compromise with the so-called 'Zionist lobby'. Their comments demonstrate that they are here for one reason and one reason only: to fight his so-called lobby. In other words, to battle. I am not assuming bad faith here, I am making these conclusions based on the specific things that these editors have stated. The diffs are listed above, and there are more. If they are here to fight a political battle, they are violating Misplaced Pages policies and going against the basic nature of Misplaced Pages and the WP:5P. I fail to see how reporting disruptive editors is off-base. Breein1007 (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

And as an added note, when you say "uninvolved editors have to start blocking any editor who is disruptive and taking sides... we are fully capable of doing so", I would just like to say that I wouldn't exactly consider you uninvolved anymore. Breein1007 (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless you are being satirical for comic effect, I'd remind you that 1st April is more or less done here, and it's long been the opinion of ArbCom that taking administrative action does not make an uninvolved administrator "involved". Rodhullandemu 23:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Because those doing the reporting are equally disruptive. WP:FOOTSHOT is frequently seen here in AN/I. And to the last comment, WTF? I have never seen George involved in Israeli-Palestinian editing. Where are you getting that from? Tarc (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess my understanding of involved was wrong then. That doesn't change anything about my first post, though. Breein1007 (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I was sharing this with a friend and he said it sounded as if George was saying "A curse on both your houses." I understand that this is the way a lot of people feel about this seemingly intractable issue in real life. But surely we can do better here at WP. We are not fighting the war, just asking each other to be civil and as you say honor the basic Misplaced Pages principles. That is what I am trying to do here, rather than editwar, personally attack other editors or groups of other editors, or attempt to push my POV without consensus. Stellarkid (talk) 00:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you not see the irony in reporting four editors, editing distinctly different pages, for their shared view that some group of other editors is colluding against them? Your kindergarten analogy isn't too far off, but it's more like a game of playground kickball, where both teams believe the other is cheating, and use everything at their disposal to "level the playing field"—each whining to their teacher about the other. In that case I would expect the teacher to take the ball away. ← George 00:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

But its my baaaaall! This whole discussion got a little off track. The editors on Factomancer's page need to stop slinging the evil Jewish lobby thing around. Pretty simple request. Admin: "Don't do that" Them: "OK, won't happen again".Cptnono (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, totally agree regarding this whole "lobby" issue, but I don't think bringing a list of names here is an effective way of accomplishing that - any more than if one of the editors Stellarkid reported had brought a list of editors they felt were part of this "Zionist lobby." Bringing up lists of people, instead of identify singular, actionable incidents that violate policies, only fans the flames of incitement and makes the whole thing worse. ← George 01:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

(past multi-ECs). Both sides here (and in the last few weeks, others in the same topic area) have all uniformly said "It's not my fault, I didn't do anything, look at the abuses they did". Multiple uninvolved administrators including myself have found blame on both sides. It is not true that everyone who's pointing out problems is in fact themselves also causing other problems, but I believe that a majority of both sides who are stepping into ANI and related areas are guilty of misbehavior.

This is all what our policy against using Misplaced Pages as a battleground is here for. This type of conflict degrades everyone's participation in Misplaced Pages and degrades our ability to be neutral, reliable source based, and a constructive ongoing project.

I and other uninvolved administrators are attempting to find a way to curb the disruption without denying too many people their ongoing ability to edit Misplaced Pages. There have been numerous short blocks, multiple edit restrictions, and more warnings on ANI and user pages and article talk pages in the last month or so than I can recall in prior periods. The problem is not going away.

Administrators are not Teachers - but we do control part of the ball, in the sense of having the technical ability and the operational authority to issue blocks for abuse which continues despite warnings. We also can put various edit restrictions in place, propose more community bans or edit restrictions, or file an arbcom case.

Admins have to be fair - neutral or at least impartial on the content dispute, and fair and not abusive to individual editors. But we have our powers, to block and take other actions, to protect the encyclopedia and the project and community.

To the participants in this dispute - I want to be as clear and unambiguous as I can here. What you all are doing is wrong, and disrupting Misplaced Pages, and it needs to stop. If it stops by you all individually stopping the disruptive behavior and resuming the collaborative detente between the Israeli and Palestinian / Arab camps, that's fine. If that does not happen by itself, editors who are participating in the disruption and who continue to do so will get individual warnings, final warnings, and then begin being blocked.

If you are a participant in Misplaced Pages from either of these camps, please understand that we as administrators are not looking for an excuse to punish or restrict you - or anyone else. But our responsibility to protect Misplaced Pages - the articles, the project, the community, and other editors - also comes into play.

Please remember our core community and project policies, the five pillars - Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, Misplaced Pages has a neutral point of view, Misplaced Pages is free content, Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner, and Misplaced Pages does not have firm rules.

What is relevant to this ongoing incident is a failure to assume good faith, part of WP:CIVIL, and failures to remember That we're an encyclopedia (and not a battleground, etc), that we're a neutral point of view, and failures to treat each other with respect and civilly.

We cannot change the outside world here. But we must as a project continue to constructively build and maintain the encyclopedia, and respect each other. If you are not willing to respect and deal with the participants from the other side with good faith and basic human dignity, please turn around and walk away from the project. Our core values and policies require you to treat everyone acceptably well here.

Please reconsider your own conduct and attempt to work in better harmony with your neighbors here.

If you won't, then I and other administrators will walk you out the door. I really don't want to do that. But nobody on either side should have any doubt that we can, and if you force the issue that we will. There are bigger things at play here than anyone's individual contributions. Please find peaceful ways to coexist. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yet sadly the disruption continues George. I've even been stalked at a sockpuppet report - <sigh> Vexorg (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It would appear that this discussion has moved to here. ← George 08:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) As an admin who has recently had the unpleasant experience of taking various enforcement actions in the I/P area, I agree with everything that George just said. The seething battleground mentality of a relatively small number of editors on both sides of the conflict is just staggering. If we administrators find that our current whack-a-mole individual enforcement actions are no longer sufficient to contain the disruption generated by this virtual reenactment of the real-world conflict, I am willing to institute and/or support very broad-ranging topic bans on anybody whose conduct in this area has been even remotely problematic or noise-generating during the last few months. Also, if there are other administrators who are interested in participating and have the required stress tolerance, I intend to propose a WP:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement to help coordinate administrator action in the arbitration-covered problem areas (Balkans, I/P etc.) and to jointly track long-term enforcement issues on the article or editor level.  Sandstein  10:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate any input into whether something like this draft might be a good idea: User:Sandstein/WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement.  Sandstein  10:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The longer these guys are here the more experienced they become in using process to fight their war. I support any form of fast-track resolution to the perennial fights. Those who are unable to work together without constant bickering, we can do withou. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the comments by Georgewilliamherbert at the top of the page. The détente that had held at Israel/Palestine articles has come unraveled in recent months as more aggressive editors have joined the fray. I also agree with Sandstein. I encourage uninvolved administrators to be more aggressive in enforcing WP:ARBPIA. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 17:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Website blacklisted by bot

I'm sorrie if this is the wrong place, please tell me where is because I've tried finding the right place and noone knows.

I've been adding links to wikipedia without having created an account, I didn't know this was nescessary. Now a bot has blacklisted my website adres! Apparently it blacklists websites submitted just by IP adresses when it occurs more then twice.

I don't have the rights to undo this blacklisting, so could someone please do this for me!

ttp://shotgunsolutionpaytodie.blogspot.com with an "h" in the beginning offcourse, is the adres. It's listed here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/Spam_blacklist

Please someone help me, I've been trying to figure this out for days now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crypt666 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Generally, blogs are not considered reliable sources for Misplaced Pages articles. What makes this one special? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

And just adding it as a bare "external link" to many articles is probably a breach of the external link guideliness so it has probably, rightly or wrongly, been viewed as linkspam. – ukexpat (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm obviously not aware of the rules. To how many pages am I allowed to add my blog? It's not just a blog. Just a blog is where collectors put up their vinyl rips, it includes some good ones and many many garbage. This is more of a hardcore history website. It's all the music I have gathered for myself over the past 12 years and it's all stuff I actively listen or have been listening too. Also I have an absolute hearing which means these bands are all unique in sound, there are no copycats here. As you can see all the pages include biographies and pictures, many already have link sections but I still have alot to do. Regular history pages include many very bad commercial acts who made complete garbage but got famous with it nevertheless. This is a very bad thing. Here you can find the history through the eyes of a fan and it includes all the small acts and not just the big names. I've had a really hard time finding the right music myself in this vague scene that's completely ruined nowadays so I think my page is very important for other kids to be found. As you can all see there are no banners or any other way I'm making a profit of this page and there never will be, I do this because I love this stuff and want others to be able to find it. Most of it are bands with old vinyl that isn't for sale anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crypt666 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

None, especially since you're posting copyright violations, which we have zero-tolerance for.— Dædαlus 06:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Quite plainly, it's advertising and wikipedia is not free advertising space.— Dædαlus 06:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Then could I at least place 1 link to my page on the harcore punk article? Because I think the acticle seriously could use the addition of my website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crypt666 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

What you mean to say is, your website can seriously use the extra traffic from the free advertising you'd have here. No, you cannot add the link to hardcore punk.--Atlan (talk) 07:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes offcourse I can use the traffic. So can all the other external links and my website is alot more relevant then the links you are allowing at the moment. And I don't think the copyright violation is fair in my case. This is not Brittney Spears here ok?! What use is it for me to mention an 80s DC hardcore punk band noone knows and it's impossible to buy the record if I don't provide a download link? Beside the downloads are not hosted on my domain. And you're allowing all kinds of links to other music directories who have nothing but an identical bio to wiki and nothing more, I have as much right as those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crypt666 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

So you think Misplaced Pages does not allow copyright violations only when it involves Britney Spears? I don't care how obscure those punk bands are, a copyright violation is a copyright violation. If there are other equally bad external links out there like you say there are, feel free to remove those too.--Atlan (talk) 07:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Given this person's lack of understanding of Misplaced Pages's policies, and the rather poor judgment displayed above, I don't think it's such a good idea to suggest that they go on a tear of removing what they perceive as "bad external links". Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Obviously. I was only making the point that equally bad external links being present don't legitimize their own link. I doubt that this user gives a damn about editing Misplaced Pages beyond adding their own link anyway.--Atlan (talk) 10:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah Topic closed. I would appreciate if someone could remove my ip adres from the logs since I had no idea this would be logged here and it's private. Nobody has to go on a tear for links, it's just not fair mine is being excluded. And as a matter of fact I was going to add some band pages to wiki but obviously not anymore, I might be a friendly person but not that friendly. I worked on this page and all the info for months full time the get it all together and it's one of the best hardcore webs on the net just as it is right now. The link belongs to those article just like the others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crypt666 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Look, I said it was a bad external link, not a bad website. I'm sure punk rock lovers appreciate the work you've put in your website, but that doesn't make it any more suitable for Misplaced Pages. Like I said, if there are other links on Misplaced Pages that are equally unsuitable, they should be removed instead of adding more. As for your IP address, no that can't be removed from the logs unless there are pressing privacy concerns. "I didn't know it was logged" isn't one of them.--Atlan (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Allright allright I understand, it's for being a punk isn't it! Blacklisted, banned from society, wiki, what's next?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crypt666 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

*facepalm* Rehevkor ✉ 20:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

7 day comment period for new Misplaced Pages payment policy for editors.

User:Namiba

• Namiba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Two things:

1. His edits on Tim Cowlishaw. They started as BLP cleanup; they ended up as Editing warring and disruption. He claims certain information is controversial, when it clearly isn't. At one point, he deleted Cowlishaw's birthday five times in a 24-hour period, even though Cowlishaw blurted it out on cable TV. He also deleted information about Cowlishaw's beat work; information he claims is controversial but really isn't. Even if he's right about BLP policy, he still edit-warred.
2. He POINT prodded an article I created, then nominated it for AFD

For edit warring and disruption, this guy needs a block of several days Purplebackpack89 15:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

To quote Misplaced Pages:Edit warring, "Libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)." I never removed sourced material, and in fact was the only person adding sourced material to the article. A ban would be quite out of place. In fact, should anyone be interested, I started a discussion similar to this at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Tim Cowlishaw. However, I have no interest in content warring with anyone. I just want unsourced material removed from prominent BLP's.--TM 15:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you want to or not, you still edit warred, and you still removed uncontroversial information Purplebackpack89 15:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Edit warring#Exceptions to 3RR is applicable here. If its not sourced, it shouldn't be on a BLP. Jeni 15:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Ugh, the version that Purplebackpack89 kept reverting to was god-awful IMO. "Cowlishaw is the third-most lauded Around the Horn panelist..." is gushy meaninglessness. Tarc (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? Basically the same about Cowlishaw being the third panelist to 200 wins appears on the Around the Horn article. It's worth noted that in the show Around the Horn, somebody wins every day. Also, there's nothing wrong at all with the information about his beats Purplebackpack89 16:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Then say exactly what it means. And source it. Much preferable to edit-warring over poorly-written prose and unsourced errata. Tarc (talk) 16:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• It's looking like time to knock heads together here. Purplebackpack89 and Namiba need to disengage from each other or they may well have the choice forcibly removed. Guy (Help!) 17:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I already made that suggestion when Purplebackpack brought up the same issue at WP:BLPN. --Jezebel'sPonyo 18:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Disengage? If removing potentially contentious information (and a birthdate with no source IS potentially controversial) is a reason to threaten a editing ban, I don't know what wikipedia is coming to. As far as I am concerned the issue is resolved and my edits have been upheld. I'll edit the same way (except for perhaps having less toleration and bringing the problem public sooner) every day of the week.--TM 04:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Uncivil comment made by user:Parrot of Doom

I made a good faith edit earlier to today's featured article claiming that usage of the Long s in a quote was confusing and unnecessary:

user:Parrot of Doom reverted the change and rudely pointed out, "It's only confusing to those without the ability to think.":

I took offense to this and warned him if he didn't apologize I would report his behavior to an administrator:

He then refused to apologize:

This is an obvious case of uncivil behavior. Please block him for at least 24 hours. This user needs to learn some manners. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

User was uncivil. User was warned. User was threatened that he would be blocked if he didn't apologize? That step-3 isn't part of the standard discourse. Do not escalate the situation--can't change the past, all we really care about is if the original claimed problem continues. DMacks (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how anybody but me warned him. It would be far better if an administrator did that. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me of this page (sarcasm), and thanks for the threats. Where I come from, we would call that a rather pathetic attempt at bullying. But then again, in the world of the civility warrior, the rules only apply in one direction. Enjoy your minute of wikidrama. Parrot of Doom 17:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Parrot, perhaps you could have worded your comment in a more pleasant way? I do think, however, that forcing an apology out of someone is always a futile exercise. Aiken ♫ 17:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really. The only people who find the use of the long 's' confusing are those who cannot be bothered to sit still for a few seconds and read it correctly. I do not replace the long 's' in quotes for the same reasons I do not change the punctuation of those quotes, which in 18th-century England can go on for 50 words or more without a full stop.

Its a cultural thing. Where I'm from, we're not afraid to speak our minds. Where the complainant comes from, I suspect he considers such behaviour to be reprehensible. His argument collapsed like a pack of cards the instant he started making threats. Civility on Misplaced Pages should have a tagline - "You'll fucking agree with us, or else". Parrot of Doom 17:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Where Misplaced Pages stands, we comment on the content and the edit, not the editor. Making something clearer, even if it is already clear to many, is a good thing; on its face, there's no advantage to being obtuse, essoteric, or using less-standard/non-common forms. You could have commented on why using this less clear (at least to some, even if they are non-thinking readers) is an advantage. DMacks (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It isn't making it clearer though, its modifying a historic quote out of sheer laziness. There's nothing "unclear" about the long "s". Its perfectly legible to anyone who has half a brain. I don't write articles for the lowest common denominator. Anyway, this was a rather funny excursion but if you'll excuse me I have more important matters to attend to. Parrot of Doom 18:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• How about summing this up with a "Parrot, less dickish edit summaries ", followed by a "Moby, man up", and then moving on? Seriously... Tarc (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

As you know then, there are many different cultures here on WP, so some may take offense to you speaking your mind. I think you could have very easily undid the change without the provocative remark. But, of course, it's your choice. If you had done it that way, there would be no issue made out of it. Maybe something to think about when you're disagreeing with people. It is possible to disagree and not be unpleasant about it. Aiken ♫ 17:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Your point is taken, but you're writing as though I care about the opinions or emotional frailties of people like Moby-Dick. I don't. I find them to be beneath contempt. Parrot of Doom 18:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

More Insults?

Beneath contempt? That's two insults in one day. Holy Christ! What's it going to take to block this guy? Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Blasphemy? I think you should be blocked for that, or at least given a Stern Warning by an admin. I demand you apologize to the Son of God. Tan | 39 18:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Especially since it's Easter. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably ſomeone who haſ a valid point. Parrot of Doom 18:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Moby-Dick3000. Just let it go or try and grow a thicker skin. I ante ma 18:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Tan, you really don't some seem to be helping here and you're an admin.Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ever heard of forum shopping? It's kind of frowned upon. Nev1 (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Any chance of speedy deleting User:Moby-Dick3000/My sandbox before this gets too far out of hand? Compiling a "mean things said to me" list can't really be a productive use of user-space. Tarc (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That hardly seems like an appropriate user page. I think similar pages have gone through AfD and been deleted. Nev1 (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Pieter Kuiper

Could an admin take a look at this section and take any necessary action. Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs) has already refused multiple requests (from three separate editors) to tone down his comments on an article talk page. Physchim62 (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Relevant diffs are: The user has been informed of this thread here Physchim62 (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

He's definitely being rude and condescending. However, this is really more of an issue for WP:Wikiquette alerts. I'll leave a note about civility, though that's as far as I'm willing to go. Am I a ten 18:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Physchim's April 1 joke didn't go down well with Peter. I suggest we stick to the policy WP:Waste of Time. Count Iblis (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Um he deliberately fucked up one of our articles and you call that an April fools joke? If that's the case (I'm not 100% sure) then I'd call it vandalism. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I see no indication that it is a joke. It looks like Physchim screwed up (maybe, I don't get the physics), and Pieter called him on it in an exceedingly rude way. Assuming good faith here, but unless Physchim has a history of intentionally inserting incorrect information and formulas, I don't see any reason to do anything other than a Wikiquette note for Pieter. —ShadowRanger  20:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I second ShadowRanger's interpretation. There was an associated thread at WT:PHYS where he asked for clarification on the issue (1/r was correct, and there are at least two ways to derive it). My impression was that Count Iblis was making a joke when referring to it as an April Fools prank. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh I think I understand what Iblis and Theresa are saying (they're implying that it's a POINTy response to some old disputes these editors have been around). Yeah, if this is a joke, it's not a good one, so cut it out. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Pieter has a history of being rude, and reminds me way too much of Likebox for my liking, but both sides should take a chill pill IMO. The mistake has been fixed, and it's all that matters. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Call that a mistake? Physchim embarked on a major rewrite with supreme self-confidence but without any understanding of basics (really, highschool level). And without any textbook at hand. When challenged, he does not look it up. Only very slowly some understanding is dawning. This may be symptomatic for a pattern of editing that the self-appointed physics coordinator should be worried about if he cared about accuracy of the information here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it is precisely this anomalous behavior of Physchim that makes me believe that this was an April 1 joke. Yesterday, Physchim played the role of a newcomer to Misplaced Pages who had spotted big errors in Wiki articles and was being bold to correct the "mistakes". His postings at Wiki-project physics was just role-playing. Let's see what Physchim will do next year... Count Iblis (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

IMO this should be seen in the context that Pieter opposed an WP:AE filing which Physchim had made against Brews ohare a few days ago, in a manner to which Physchim didn't take kindly. (The matter was closed subsequently with Physchim in the minority.) It is probably better to write this off as needless wikidrama and close it with no action taken, and a desire that the parties correspond in a better tone next time. Orderinchaos 17:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• At the point
  • where talk page civility becomes more important than factual accuracy, especially in hard science articles, and
  • where we tell knowledgeable editors that they are incivil if they tell another editor to stop editing what they don't understand,
• we should abandon all pretence of being an encyclopedia, and just tell the public that we are playing at being an encyclopedia. Fortunately, it seems we haven't quite reached that point yet, but sometimes it feels like we are well on our way. --JN466 13:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
  • That'll happen over my dead body. Theresa Knott | token threats 13:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, there was a more or less knee jerk rejection of the proposed guidelines in WP:Editing scientific articles last year. Count Iblis (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

User removing content without explanation and against consensus, making personal attacks

• Stan Simmons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been removing text from articles on venues where professional wrestling pay-per-view events have occurred without explanation. There are too many diffs to post here, but check his contribution history since March 24 on any article on a stadium or arena. I started this thread at WT:PW in an attempt to resolve the issue without having to come here. From what I understand from the discussion at WT:PW and at Talk:Safeco Field, his argument basically boils down to:

1. Professional wrestling events that occur at major sports venues are not notable (most of the mentions of events he has deleted are WWE pay-per-view events that have WP articles, and he also conveniently neglects to delete mentions of concerts, for example by Elvis Presley and Selena at the Reliant Astrodome).
2. Attendance figures for WWE events that are cited to a reliable source are not reliable because most newspapers simply repeat what WWE claims the attendance to be. He claims that "WWE has a history of inflating attendance figures" but does not back the claim ().

Another user pointed out that this user may be a sock of Paul Harald Kaspar (talk · contribs), and I opened Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Paul Harald Kaspar. Since then, Stan Simmons has been back at his disruptive edits and has now launched personal attacks, calling his talk page warning notices "harassment" and those leaving the warnings "wrestling nerds" (, , ). Particularly disturbing is this message to Turian (talk · contribs) accusing him of anti-Semitism, something that so far as I can see has not come up at all in this dispute except on Stan Simmons' end. In the time that I've been typing this up he left this message on my talk page calling my actions a "witch hunt." I would like an immediate temporary block on Stan Simmons pending the results of the SPI. —KuyaBriBri 20:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Since I posted the above he is now making an unfounded accusation against another involved editor, 3bulletproof16 (talk · contribs), stating that he has received anti-Semitic emails (). I find this difficult to believe considering that Stan Simmons does not have a linked email address as far as I can tell. —KuyaBriBri 20:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This is an orchestrated witch-hunt by the pro wrestling Wiki-cabal, with the typical accusations of "sockpuppetry" (and emails from one of the cabal members of an anti-Semitic nature) thrown in for good measure. They seem to have an uncontrollable fetish for inserting needless and trivial "facts" about their favourite pseudo-sport into every article imaginable, then quickly band together when someone takes the time to remove these useless "facts". They operate as if there are certain articles that only they can edit, which violates what is supposed to be the purpose of Misplaced Pages.

To put it bluntly, I am being harassed by a Misplaced Pages version of a lynch mob. Stan Simmons (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the content, there's no reason why those events shouldn't be listed. They shouldn't be tenants, but they should be listed. And unless there's an attendance figure from a reliable source arguing what was already published in a reliable source, the figure should remain without implication of any deception on the event-holder's part.

Glancing over your contributions, the only one who has been making any anti-semitic attacks has been you, and those have been self-inflicted. Hazardous Matt (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Stan, perhaps you should read WP:WOLF. –Turian (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

My buddy Turian? Excuse me Turian but when was the last time we've even talked? Not that I don't want to be friends, I mean I'd like to be your friend, but I'm just saying Heh Seriously though Stan please do in fact tell when did I ever sent you an email? 20:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• My look at this suggests quite strongly that this is another sockpuppet of User:Chadbryant; the User:Paul Harald Kaspar account used very similar arguments to do very similar things to this editor, who has been unwilling to accept outside feedback and comments. There is a SPI underway that will hopefully turn something up; in the meantime, other admins would do well to cast a glance at this. (I'm involved, for the record.) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
• User has been blocked for one day by Ged UK (talk · contribs). —KuyaBriBri 20:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ed Roberts page move

Ed Roberts (computers) passed away today and his page will be linked by many external sites. Jackyd101 has never edited this page and without notice he moved it to Ed Roberts (computer engineer) This breaks page view counter on the day it will get the most hits. If the consensus of the editors is to move it back to Ed Roberts (computers) this peak day will be missing from the edit count history. I have left a note on Jackyd101 talk page but could someone move the page back until there is a discussion on the best title. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually I don't see anything wrong with this. One can just combine the page views to get the grand total. This name is more descriptive itself and had I seen this, I would've probably done the same. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Concur, no action required. Access statistics are not a consideration when choosing page titles.  Sandstein  05:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I was asleep during Swtpc6800's messages. I made the move as I don't think that Ed Roberts (computers) is very useful as a disambiguation, although if another title is prefered I have no prejudice against it being changed - I was being WP:BOLD. Apologies for any disruption involved.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This issue can be closed. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring to introduce misinformation into the project namespace

I've got a problem with Reisio (talk · contribs) at Misplaced Pages:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays. He's decided that this essay needs to make some fairly wild claims, such as "Most Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines directly contradict each other" and WP:IAR "invalidates all other policies, guidelines, and even itself." (This isn't an April Fool's Day issue.)

I'm not sure what to do about this: It's not exactly vandalism, but it is disruptive, and very few editors seem to be watching the page. The page is linked from WP:POLICY, and frankly POLICY needs this "FAQ" about what the difference between a policy and a guideline isn't on Misplaced Pages. Having the previously accurate explanation present this kind of serious misinformation is harmful to editors who are making a good faith effort to figure it out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

He seems to have made a bunch of disruptive edits today, more than are reasonably explainable away as April 1 prank activity.

I have left him a "That's not funny" and disruption warning on his talk page; hopefully he will slow down and discuss on talk pages now if he continues.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey look at that, you waited a full nine minutes after finally clarifying your concerns on the talk page before calling me a crazy spreader of misinformation here. Nice. :p Misplaced Pages:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays wasn't an FAQ before or after my edits, and if WP:POLICY doesn't have a distinction anymore, it's because its editors purposefully removed it (with your help). The essay was not accurate, but now it is. You are right about one thing, though: my edits are not vandalism. ¦ Reisio (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Not the responses you were hoping for? :p Is this witch hunt over yet? ¦ Reisio (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You asked, on your talk page, what I thought you were doing which was disruptive. So -

Edit warring at Compact fluorescent lamp to remove cited content which multiple other editors have restored, including questionable edit summaries: "sure, but ASSUMING pigs fly and ASSUMING muppets are sentient, lights made out of pudding emit even less mercury!" ...you're saying it isn't a nonsensical contrivance depending on not one but two fantastical assumptions merely... because it exists? Or what? (rvl)

Your edits on the page in conflict here, Misplaced Pages:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays - being the one that started the edit war, and which you've reverted to.

* "there are no useful definitions for"

* "even though it's a waste of time"

* "an essay by the principal author of ] about a silly word"

* "Most Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines directly contradict each other"

* "Furthermore, ] is a major policy which invalidates all other policies, guidelines, and even itself."

* insertion of three {{fact}} citation needed tags in the essay.

* changing "scrutinized more closely" to "completely unnoticed"

In addition to edit warring, this is more or less textbook disruption of Misplaced Pages to prove a point. Please stop. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing on Talk:John Pershing

I'm really not sure if this tag is appropriate. I was blocked for all of 3 minutes, and it had nothing to do with this.Mk5384 (talk) 07:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Baseball Bugs, on the talk page of the John Pershing article, is canvassing for editors to report me if I return the information that was removed from the infobox. The admin who protected the page has stated numerous times that he has no opinion on the article, and that it was protected only to end an edit war. I have stated myriad times that there will be no edit war, and that I will go about this by the book. I have sought the counsel of the admin who protected the page. I have promised to behave in a professional manner. And yet Bugs continues this nonsense about my "edit war". He has said that he will have me "blocked so fast it will make my head swim". He has also stated that the nickname in question is "not negotiable", and that it is "OUT" ( his capitalisation); the same kinds of unilateral statements for which I was warned. Now, on the talk page, he is demanding that other editors report, not revert me if I return the name to the infobox.Mk5384 (talk) 10:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Take this to WP:DR first, ANI is the last resort. Take heed or you might find yourself getting the short end of the very short stick. --Dave 11:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No one took me to DR before coming here.Mk5384 (talk) 11:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Don't you remember? That was a direct result of your pointy and disruptive behaviour. Please note that by bringing your complaint here, you are now at great risk of getting an indefinite block, and that's hardly something one should look forward to just after coming out from a 48 hours block, only to go back to what got you the block in the very first place. Personally, I find you to be extremely trollish in mentality and comments... which per WP:DFTT and WP:DENY, my only response now is to bid you adieu~! Have a safe trip out, goodbye. --Dave 11:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

That's just silly.Mk5384 (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Like I've said to you before... make or break, the choice is yours to bear. Don't pin the blame on others for your own silliness, thank you. Bye~! --Dave 11:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I think what Bugs was trying to say was that anyone with a past argument over this should not revert any change to re-insert or add nicknames because that would be edit warring on all sides. The exact posting is here , . I dont think anything too terrible was meant by that and, since he didn't visit user talk pages and post multiple messages to have you reported, I don't see how this can in any way be considered canvassing. Might not have been the best choice of words (we've all been guilty of that, myself included, at one time or another) but I don't think a malicious intent was there. -OberRanks (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, then fine, but I still have my doubts. Bugs posted that after I went out of my way to say that there will be no edit war on my part, and that I will do this by the book. As can be seen by his posts, he dosen't want that name in the infobox, preiod. And he does have the right to hold that opinion. However, threatening to report me for edit warring for making an edit with which he dosen't agree is unacceptable. Asking other editors to do it is doubly so.Mk5384 (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yet at the same time you state, and I quote: "The information is backed up with 62 sources, and I will return it." It's very hard not to read that as a declaration to continue inserting the nickname (i.e. edit warring) as soon as the protection is removed.--Atlan (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

He's said he won't. If he does, bring it here if appropriate or to an appropriate page. Nothing to see here, please disperse.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• WP:LAME covers this. Guy (Help!) 17:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Also, read point number 46 of WP:OWB. --Dave 17:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Just an observation from an uninvolved editor: having looked at the discussion over the point of contention, I have to wonder, Mk5384, why it is you are so intent on being the lone voice here? Even if you are completely right & everyone else is wrong, the article won't be made completely unreliable by this one omission. And there are over 3.2 million other articles in the English Misplaced Pages, many of which in need of attention. I strongly suggest that you walk away from this article & work on something completely unrelated. -- llywrch (talk) 06:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Llywrch, it's an SPA issue... please take a look at point number 9 of WP:OWB and you'll understand what I mean. Regards. --Dave 07:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what would give you the idea that I am the "lone voice", and the SPA charge is even more absurd. Have yo even looked at the talk page, or for that matter, the edits I have made prior to this becoming an issue? Mk5384 (talk) 07:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Alexia123456789

Yesterday, I deleted Story of a monster, an article created by Alexia123456789 (talk · contribs) and left them a message explaining why. This morning I received this, this and (my personal favourite) this. Any action needed, or should I just ignore it? Despite the editor's promise to "delete retarded stuff", they may well not return. --Kateshortforbob _talk 12:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Technically, you didn't even delete it. Dmol placed the speedy, Bwilkins deleted it. However, blocked vandal user is blocked. Syrthiss (talk) 12:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point - my brain is obviously overloaded on easter eggs! Thanks for taking a look at it, Syrthiss. --Kateshortforbob _talk 12:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

User:HDS

I tagged an article that HDS wrote, Vision Éternel for speedy a few days ago. After he removed the tag twice, I decided to list it for AfD. He received three notices yesterday on his talk page about removal of speedy/AfD tags, including a final notice, and has removed the Afd tag now. He has also recently removed three more , which I will revert shortly. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Editor is currently blocked for 24 hours by me. I was concerned that perhaps their account had been compromised, but apparently they were blocked for similar behavior back in 2007. As always, no objection to user being unblocked if they agree to stop their disruption. Syrthiss (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I put the tags up on the article, and voted Delete. No published sources, but that doesn't mean I voted speedy, just because it doesn't have no references. Minimac (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP: another data point

- negative unsourced information in the article since creation in 2008. Let's not forget that just having some sources is not a magic talisman that prevents an article from violating WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 16:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Most of that looks sourceable. See . JoshuaZ (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

among the "BLP violation" removed by JzG were the two facts that "Rowe kept his seat in the 1979 provincial election .... Rowe lost his seat in the 1982 provincial election. " Let's not forget that not having sources does not mean we should not look for them. JzG, are you planing to bring every unsourced negative BLP statement here, instead of trying to source the ones that look factual? Perhaps this example is a very good "data point" of the wrong way to approach the problem. DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed an unsourced paragraph because of an OTRS complaint. I have no opinion on whether material is reinserted with sources or not, and no real interest in that specific article other than resolving a complaint from the subject regarding material which was unsourced and asserted to be incorrect. My point was that we have been saying, for quite some time, that he's a liar, with no cited source. That is, I think, unambiguously wrong. My point was that the article was not unsourced, but it contained controversial and unsourced elements. The job of BLP cleanup, which we all agree is necessary, requires more than simply a checkbox "has it got any sources" approach. That was my message. Incidentally, DGG, are you an OTRS volunteer? If not please consider signing up. Your diligence would be an asset. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Improper AfD closure?

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Los Angeles mayoral election, 2013 was closed as a non-admin closure after the nominator asked to withdraw the article for deletion consideration. However, there were several delete !votes in the discussion. I thought that a non-admin closure should not be done when people have requested deletion of the article. Was this an improper AfD closure? And if not, can an admin please reopen it? Thanks. Warrah (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the close. The closing editor not only wasn't an admin, they are the creator of the nominated article and a "Keep" !voter, which is clearly a conflict of interest. --RL0919 (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh the irony. It was nominated as being crystal-ballism, as a stub with just the date, which was actually not speculative, and has now been kept because it's full of speculation about potential candidates! A week is a long time in politics, folks, I bet you a pound that the potential candidates list changes between now and then. Guy (Help!) 17:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

User:71.77.21.198

I came across edits from anon Ip user 71.77.21.198 , from his recent contribution log a lot of the previous edits involved blanking entire sections most of which were sourced, from the Ip user's talk page it seems other editors have complained about similar issues. the article in question is a House episode guide, I know the content might seem trivial but the anon user made a lot of edits to house episodes blanking entire sections, leaving miscellaneous tags, renaming sections etc., some of which have been reverted by other editors and re-reverted by the user again . I left a message for the user and reverted the edit on a page in my watchlist and cited another source just to be sure but now he renamed the section and left a miscellaneous tag on top warning me that it would be removed in a month. I am new to this, can someone more experienced please advise me on how to handle this. Thanks.--Theo10011 (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed unsourced trivia. I titled the section appropriately. I placed a {{trivia}} tag on a list of miscellaneous information. I asked, per Misplaced Pages standards, that someone work on moving trivia out of a trivia section and into the remainder of the article. I fail to see how a policy has been violated. Theo10011's post is misleading. For example, "some of which have been reverted by other editors and re-reverted by the user again". That should be one of which was reverted by another editor, and none of which were re-reverted. Another example: "warning me that it would be removed" (italics added) suggests I gave Theo10011 a personal warning; I simply left an edit summary on my edit to the effect that trivia needs to be moved out of a trivia section. Theo10011 also left me a message that he did not like my "tone". I have never had a "tone" with Theo10011; in fact, I have never given Theo10011 a message. This seems to be Theo10011's personalizing the normal editing process and failing to realize that his edits "can and will be mercilessly edited". I would suggest that he discuss any content disputes on the article's talk page and wait for any consensus that might emerge rather than immediately running to the admin notice board. Thank you. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Removing unsourced trivia from articles is never incorrect. If editors want to include such laundry lists of minutiae, they need to (a) source them, and (b) show how they're notable. Black Kite 20:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said I am new to this, thats why I asked, I didn't accuse you of anything or request any action against you and I think I was civil. If I recall correctly I left a message for the user first, he could have left a reply on my page or discussed his edit in the talk pages rather than simply committing a similar edit again. Anon user might be right that I took his edit personally, which might have been an oversight on my part for that I apologize, but just for the record black kite the trivia section had 2 cited sources(now 3) from other websites that deemed it notable, whether they were notable by some other standards should be more of a matter of general consensus by at least a few more people than the user above. Thanks Again.--Theo10011 (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

And as I said, you did, in fact, accuse me of having a "belligerent" tone. There's one thing you say with which I wholeheartedly agree: "whether they were notable by some other standards should be more of a matter of general consensus", which is why you should have raised the issue on the article's talk page rather than here as if I violated a policy. And please read WP:BRD regarding the process for challenging a revert; it was not necessary for me to raise the initial removal on the talk page. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Please have a look at my post above and point out where I accused you of having a hostile tone on the admin noticeboard. However What I did say was on your talk page before I left a message here and for the record I called your actions and tone belligerent. There was no accusation here, only a query. None the less, I apologize for personalizing your statement and considering your actions hostile, I am not familiar with Misplaced Pages policies. --Theo10011 (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where the accusation was made; you made the accusation: "I consider your action and tone as rather belligerent". You may not be familiar with Misplaced Pages policies, but you seemed to understand enough to stir things up on the admin notice board. Most newbies have never heard of WP:ANI. Apology accepted. Now please move on instead of dragging out this pointless section. Thank you. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

From what I've seen so far, "belligerent" looks like a reasonable characterization. Regarding "newbies", Theo has been editing longer than you have. So how did you find out about ANI? :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

From what I've seen so far, "arrogant" would be a reasonable characterization of your question. Have you ever heard of a dynamic IP? I've been around for years. Certainly long enough to know that you like to hang around ANI even though your RFA failed. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I do find your tone, if not belligerent, a bit... brusque... even if you are right. I understand the frustration of trying to remove unsourced trivia from TV episodes put in by the unwashed masses, but you're likely to get better responses if you lighten up a little. Buddy431 (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Brusque or not, this matter never should have been brought here, and I find Theo10011's purported naivete more than a little hard to swallow. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Well swallow it, it wasn't intentional. I would have moved on as you suggested but your reply above to Bugs is just rude, ad hominem attacks are uncalled for. I came upon the incident board originally getting some IP user blocked for vandalism. Also, Bugs argument is legitimate, how am I suppose to know that you are a seasoned editor, you didn't reply to the messages on your page. By the way Buddy, I would like to point out again for the record that the section in question wasnt some unsourced trivia entered randomly by the unwashed masses, it was there uncontested for the past few months with 2 sources and proper explanation. --Theo10011 (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Once again, a false accusation. I was letting BBB know that I'm not a newbie by providing info he knows about that a newbie would not know about. And it doesn't matter whether or not I am a "seasoned editor". Your accusations are false (now two of them) and are uncalled for whether you are dealing with someone who has been editing for a week or a decade. And by the way, I could respond in kind to your "swallow it then" comment by referring to a different part of anatomy, but that would be an "ad hominem attack". So now for the second time, please move on so this ridiculous section can be archived. Thank you. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Since you have no identity, I can only go by what your current IP shows. As far as the RfA is concerned, not being an admin is actually an advantage. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

User:24.77.207.189

I notified an administrator in January 2010, regarding 24.77.207.189 (talk · contribs) and his disruptive editing here. The result was a warning among a list of many. I had originally been contacted by a concerned editor here way back at the beginning of January 2010. Since, this anon user has not changed his editing style, and his attacks on other editors has continued to be very aggressive and profane, especially in his edit summaries. A scroll though his contributions looking at edit summaries tells the story; A fair number of good edits (although many seem to attacks, real info can be found it the actual edit) with a sprinkling of blatant vandalism every once in awhile. Given the extensive, specific warnings and subsequent block (amazingly only one so far), I request a long term block of 3-4months for this IP. Outback the Koala (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

 Blocked 3 months NW (Talk) 23:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Pre-emptive indefinite semi-protection of John Laws

Hello,

I would like to draw your attention to a case of pre-emptive indefinite semi-protection that I find unjustified.

The protecting admin has been asked to reconsider. Only after the issue was reported to WP:RUP did they come up with an explanation, which was accepted by the investigating admin. The justification was in my opinion extremely flimsy, and anyway not supported by our policy: "there has been in the last varying degrees of speculation in tabloid press and elsewhere".

This issue has already been reported at WP:AN, but it's been archived unresolved. In that occasion the protecting admin opened an RFC that would retrospectively justify that protection.

I would appreciate your views on the matter. Thank you. 114.148.210.226 (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• It's a biographical article on a controversial figure. If you would like to edit it you only need to register an account, that is free and hardly intrusive. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This IP editor has already indicated that he has an account. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I am aware of my options for editing semi-protected articles, but that is not what I am asking. 114.148.210.226 (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Based on what I saw in the diff above, pointing to Casliber's talk page, and other locations linked from that discussion, I have no interest in honoring any unprotection requests. The whole point of these requests is a Wikilawyering game. There's no actual expressed desire to improve or otherwise participate in the article or other articles where semiprotection is questioned, and these requests have been made with multiple IPs and what seems to be at least one registered account. Frankly, I'm not interested in playing games and I don't think any other admin is either, which is why your inquiries have been rebuffed up until now. -- Atama頭 23:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime, if you're actually looking to add to the article as well as pursuing this "rules" issue, feel free to put your proposed improvements forward at Talk:John Laws. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think my inquiries have been rebuffed. In fact, more than one admin has already labelled this protection as excessive. Although we all agree that it's about a controversial figure, pre-emptive protection is not justified by our policy, and judging by the current results of the RFC referenced above, they probably won't be for a while.

I really don't understand why my potential contributions are considered relevant by some. They could be if semi-protection prevented only me from editing.

You can label this request as wikilayering if you like, but that still does not justify this protection. 114.148.210.226 (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

People can keep pretending this issue is about this IP's campaigning all they want, and that if he isn't planning any improvements then there is no issue, but its irrelevant. The use of pre-emptive protection just because its a controversial BLP is not supported, as the RFC reinforced yet again. If, as Casliber says, his issue is with there not being enough watchers of that particular article, then the solution is pretty obvious, and it doesn't involve inventing new policies towards IP editing, or continuing the protection just to spite this IP 'campaigner'. MickMacNee (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay - (a) This is one of many BLPs I think are better preemptively semi'ed - I'd rather not go on public record as to why and I can email folks if they wish (b) yes this is not within protection policy as it stands currently, but I do feel this works in lieu of an absent flagged revision. (c) I don't own this article. If another admin wishes to take on the responsibility then I will not stop them, though I don't think it a good idea. I'd be much happier if there was a specific aim in mind rather than just fighting it out over policy. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The responsibiilty falls on the community as a whole, not just "an admin". The RFC has revealed that there is no consensus support for this maneuvre, and the right thing for you to do would be to lift the protection yourself absent of a reason that is justifiable in current policy. Resolute 05:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Seeking closure

Can some admin please close Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion#User:Ash/analysis? It is loooooong overdue, but since the page in question has already been deleted at the request of the user, the closure will probably not be seen as taking sides in the underlying conflict. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Xeno. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Would have been better to make the request without the personal dig. Just sayin'. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I hear you, and you are right. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Delete and create protect

Can someone delete islamtube and salt it? It's been speedy deleted several times today with the author simply recreating it and even using socks to remove speedy tags. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleted once again - creator is on a final warning: "Create an inappropriate page again and you'll be blocked". Which they will be, if they do. Tonywalton  22:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

He's now recreating it in his userspace . Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

And one more mainspace speedy. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed the image the user was using on the userpage, as copyrighted images should not be used in userspace. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Biased, trollish editor

GADFLY46 (talk · contribs) appears to have enough knowledge to request account rename , yet appears (pretends?) to be incompetent enough to create an article that consists of himself asking a question . He also has a history of making biased, unsourced, and BLP violating edits like these , , , as well as making personal attacks . His talk page is a long list of notices and warnings. I can't tell if this is an immature kid, an incompetent, a troll, or a typical soapboxer, but they ought to be blocked in any case. I see very little to indicate they are here to contribute in a constructive manner and even less indication they understand what Misplaced Pages is supposed to be. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The editor continues to both play dumb and behave in an uncivil manner . Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I have witnessed this user's incivility as well, here as some diffs: , , , , , , , and a personal attack against me here. Sorry if some of the diffs overlap Burpelson's diffs. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's another lovely example . Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That was from two years ago, so it's not really fair. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I dunno... overt racism doesn't really lose it's ability to disgust me. Anyway, he's also recreated his previously renamed account . -- Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

(←) That talk page is certainly problematic. I also have difficulty understanding why he resumed editing with the previous account, but it certainly is worrying given the overall (and long term) lack of civility. jæs (talk) 01:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There's recent evidence that editors are aware that they can be abusive and then get a "name change" that just shifts their abusive history aside, followed by reregistering the old name without its early history. I have no hard facts on this, just my perception that there's been an uptick in the use of this tactic. Basically the recreated account needs to be permanently blocked to prevent this tactic from working. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that too. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess all the admins went to the pub. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Just got back from the pub (actually not really, unfortunately) and am looking at this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

After reviewing the last 50 contributions dating back a month, I've gone ahead and blocked User:GADFLY46 indefinitely. The main concern here is a pattern of adding defamatory information to BLPs, a problem which seems to date back at least to last summer. Some recent examples include the following. In general the editor seems to be on a mission to insert their POV (and angst over certain issues) into articles, for example . Warnings have been given in the past (and recently) and are generally met with rudeness (this being a recent example). The user also seems to enjoy complaining, pontificating, and deriding others on article talk pages . It's possible that some of the recent edits helped in some fashion, but the vast majority were somewhat or very disruptive, and the BLP violations are a dealbreaker. Other admins can feel free to review this block of course, but I'm not seeing any reason to allow this person to continue to edit. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Help forging (forcing?) truce related to sticky prods

A situation has gotten out of hand.

To make a long story short, I'm looking for help from an impartial admin.

Please see Misplaced Pages talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people#Truce proposal and Misplaced Pages talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people#STOP IT and do whatever you think is right.

Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Please avoid over-dramatization and don't open threads on (perceived) user issues in the middle of discussions, as those belong on user talk pages and other relevant places, and they stifle proper discussion, can jeopardize consensus building... You should take this kind of (trivial) things to user talk pages. That's it. Cenarium (talk) 02:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Administrator removes access rights from expert user, refuses to reverse

possible sock puppet of Dacodava

Oneinthemillions (talk · contribs) has just arrived and started tagging articles for pov, etc. Another editor has reverted some saying this is a sock puppet of Dacodava (talk · contribs). It seems quite likely this is a sock, but I don't know enough to take it to SPI. Does anyone else? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Chenlill123

ANy idea what's going on with this user? He seems to be running his talk page more like it were a newspaper or news site. —Jeremy 07:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Roman Catholic Wikipedians