Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:25, 4 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

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)

Hold on a minute here, am I correct in seeing that we have likely blocked "award-winning New York Times bestselling American author and journalist Edwin Black" (as he's described in our article on him)? The person referred to (above) by Blaxthos as "controversial author Edwin Black"? Jayjg 04:25, 4 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)

Nice one there, completely missing the point of what we've been trying to tell you. We here at wikipedia take copyright concerns very seriously. The fact of the matter is is that your site violates copyright, and thus we cannot post a link to it. Further, wikipedia is not free ad space.

This has nothing to do with your lifestyle choice. Stop with the strawman arguments.— Dædαlus 09:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing on Talk:John Pershing

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 you 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)

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)

First of all lets get something straight I "accused" you of being rude above and belligerent on your talk page I stand by both accusations, and from the comments above two user somewhat agree even if you consider them false. As for the swallow analogy, I would like to point out you used it originally questioning my intentions, I didn't. Regardless of what anatomical reference you think you can use as an "ad hominem" attack, I assure you I can be very crass as well, I am still assuming good faith and trying to remain civil. Second you might want to look up what ad hominem means, its characterized by personal attacks instead of answering the argument, calling Bugs arrogant and following it by mentioning his failed RFA constitutes as a personal attack regardless of what you think you were pointing out. Also, Dynamic Ip address usually change over time since they are randomly assigned by DHCP servers, you have been contributing with the same IP address for a while now, I think yours might be considered static, I might be wrong but thought I should point that out.--Theo10011 (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I see. You and Bugs can call me "belligerent", but I'm not allowed to call anyone "arrogant". That fits in perfectly with your approach to Misplaced Pages that policies apply to everyone except you. And please, share with us your amazing technology to determine how my IP is static, or your insight into the fact that I can't detect whether my own IP has changed. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I called your action and tone - Belligerent, in fact still do, you called bugs arrogant. As for the amazing technology, its called user logs, if all your previous edits show up under a single IP address than you only have a single IP address and not a dynamic one, which changes every time you log in. --Theo10011 (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, let me rephrase myself: Bugs' "action and tone" were arrogant. Does that splitting a semantic hair satisfy you? So you know for a fact that my IP has never changed by looking at the log of my edits under my current IP? Let me make sure I understand that. So please confirm if that is what you mean, or (for the third time), please move on. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Your snippy comment about the RfA makes it clear you've been around awhile, in one guise or another. Since you don't want any identity, you're in no position to be criticizing others. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

"Since you don't want any identity, you're in no position to be criticizing others.": Last time I checked, anonymous editing was allowed on Misplaced Pages. As for my "snippy" comment, you challenged my statement about Theo10011's knowledge of WP:ANI with your question "So how did you find out about ANI?". I provided a response to let you know I've been around a while. It worked. So either I was giving you what you were asking for, or your question was arrogant because it was intended as an accusation rather than a question. If you didn't want to know that I've been around a while, you should not have asked the question. If you didn't intend it as a question but as an accusation, it was an arrogant question. Only you know which is the case. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 04:13, 4 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)

A credible reason exists, the reason will not be discussed openly due to valid concerns (and think WP:BEANS), no evidence is presented that unprotection would benefit the project more then the present semiprotection, the requesting editor can edit the article using his main account, WP:BLP articles on controversial figures are not in pressing need of editors avoiding links to their main account, the request for unprotection has been declined. Any further questions at this stage? Guy (Help!) 11:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Just that pesky issue of, what backing in policy have you got for this unjustified pre-emptive protection, apart from a whole bunch of reasons that have been rejected ad-nauseum by the community? This can probably be more loosely translated into, 'since when did administrators change from being basic functionaries who are supposed to follow policy, (meaning all of them, not just the ones they think are more important than the others), to being the makers and breakers of those policies?'. I don't know where this idea of a 'credible reason' has come from, Casliber didn't say anything except he has predicted something might happen based on tabloid speculation. If there is anything more concrete than that, then lets have an OTRS ticket recording the justification in private, and employ full protection for a known and definite time period, because people are kidding themselves if they think BLP subjects cannot be harmed if they are semi-protected. MickMacNee (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Protection is in place to prevent disruption and abuse, due to concerns held by the protecting admin. Would you prefer the article to be subject to abuse? Guy (Help!) 15:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The current policy is funnily enough, also written to prevent disruption and abuse, and it does not sanction this kind of protection. But you already know that of course. MickMacNee (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's something I know: querulous agitation comes a very poor second to WP:BLP. I'm sure you really sincerely believe that what Misplaced Pages needs more than anything else is for someone who has an account to be able to make edits to a controversial biography without using that account. I disagree. Profoundly. Freedom to edit is paramount? My arse. If that were true we'd have no protection, no semi-protection and no blocking policy. Protecting the project is rather important, WP:BLP is extremely important and Wikilawyering about whether a semiprotection meets section 3 subsection 2 para 5a is of purely academic interest. But I'm sure you already knew that, just as I'm sure you already knew that being condescending is not a great way to achieve your goals. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Endorse semi-protection in this case. Casliber has cited BLP concerns, and given he's a trustworthy person, and given there's no argument being made as to how semi-protection of this one article actually harms content, this is a perfectly legitimate use of IAR and admim discretion on BLP issues.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Please show evidence of disruption and abuse on this article. Frankly, the only abuse I am seeing at this point is abuse of admin tools. Resolute 16:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Also fully support the attempt to protect the article. Off2riorob (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Endorse semiprotection as well. Anyone who doesn't get this can spend five minutes (took me thirty seconds) using some sort of internet search engine to find out what's up. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

IAR is not for this, not in the slightest. This is basic stuff, which really should not have to be repeated time and again. It is high time NOBIGDEAL was deleted, as being a complete work of fiction. MickMacNee (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There are rules about what IAR is "for"? You can't see the irony of that?--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:PIAR. It's well established throughout the entire community, bar a few maverick admins, precisely what IAR is and isn't for. MickMacNee (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I signed that petition. But this is not IAR abuse - it's a legitimate (and arbcom sanctioned) use.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Protection is reactive, freedom to edit is paramount. The harm to the content is obvious, if you are here to do anything more than just push the BLP envelope. This is a Foundation principle, pure and simple. Don't like it? Then try and change it the proper way, and not by 'endorsing' the bending of administrator roles. MickMacNee (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The harm to content in this instance is not obvious to me. Please explain it?--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Pick any of the hundred pages that you already know exist that explain at great lengths what the harm is done to the project of blocking IPs from making constructive edits without having to beg for permission from others, or be pre-emptively labled as libellers. Granted, these are written from a different perspective of the primary purpose of Misplaced Pages than you hold, but I'm sure you can manage it if you try. MickMacNee (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Good protection. Ignore the people who want policy followed ZOMG AT ALL TIMES. I missed the WikiConstitution that says there is Freedom for Anyone to Edit Any Article At All Times, especially when said person can simply get an account. High time NOBIGDEAL was deleted? I completely agree. Also high time that everyone understands that registering for an account is not a violation of any rights, and the only benefit editors get from it is that other editors can't track an individual's contrib history. If you want to crusade on a forum about that, we should head to another club. Tan | 39 14:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a fair position, held by many. It's not site policy though, not by a long shot, although credit to you for at least being open about your beliefs, and how that affects the legitimacy of your endorsement/rejection of this protection. MickMacNee (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Policy allows for the prevention of disruption and abuse. Good old policy. Guy (Help!) 16:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Read it again, you missed a few crucial details. MickMacNee (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There is resounding support for the protection, so I suggest you drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. –Turian (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The evidence of this resounding support of the abuse of admin tools can be found where, exactly? Resolute 16:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a great loaded question, isn't it? Bravo. Tan | 39 16:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I assume you can read, so read this section. Simple really. And as Tan has said, nice question... –Turian (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Assuming you have the capability to read yourself, you can take a look at the RfC referenced above. A couple of users on this noticeboard don't have the right to overrule a larger consensus (or lack thereof). Especially given that it is well established that arguments from policy trump. "I dont like it" arguments every time. Resolute 17:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yay, comment splicer... I find this an issue of making something out of nothing. He did not protect it to solidify his version of the article. He did it in good faith, which is something you are forgetting rather quickly. –Turian (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I have no doubt the intention was good. It is, however, not supported by policy and has been challenged by several users. At this point, failure to accept that his actions are not supported either by current policy or by the community displays a wilfull disregard of Misplaced Pages's principles. More over, per Casliber's own suggested re-wording of the protection policy, he should have lifted the protection the moment he was asked to do so. Resolute 17:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Just no. There is no overwhelming support for this action whatsoever. A couple of comments here from admins who freely admit they don't agree with whole rafts of policy, cannot and will not change that fact. Ever. Read what Casliber has written, he even knows himself : "If you want to unprotect John Laws then I won't stop you, as you are technically acting more within policy than I am". MickMacNee (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you're firmly in the right and we're in the wrong, I'm sure that either a) an ArbCom case will clear things up by identifying the admin abuse, egregious disregard for policy, etc, or b) I'll read bitter complaints about this on WR and/or IRC and that's about how far it will go. If I was a betting man (and I am), I'd go with B for 1000, Alex. Tan | 39 17:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It's high time for an arbcom case on this creeping and insidious redefinition of the role of admins, where the same few people turn up to say the same few things, yet policies remain unchanged. MickMacNee (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You really have no sense of irony at all, do you? Guy (Help!) 06:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He has a right to ignore all the rules, especially when he is acting in good faith. Remember? Assuming good faith? So take your little petition, "condemn" him for it, and be on your way. –Turian (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

He has no right to do anything, and if he had the gumption to stand for re-confirmation, he would sharp find that out. Admin rights indeed. MickMacNee (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably, as would most current admin RfAs because at some point or another in the course of using the tools, you piss someone off who is part of a major minority. I'd be willing to wager that Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/MickMackNee would sharp crash and burn as well, point being that you don't necessarily enjoy higher community confidence. Your little poke with the "gumption" is noted; why don't you change that redlink to blue and see just how much the community agrees with your views. Tan | 39 17:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Ironically, the only edits to this article since it was protected were the addition of vandalism and the removal of it. That one instance of vandalism in the five weeks since protection is one more than existed in the five months prior to protection. Resolute 17:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Now that this vast crowd has gathered to discuss the administration of the article on John Laws, how about we all also have a go at expanding the actual content? It's pretty thin for what was probably Australia's highest-rating radio host. Euryalus (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your views. I have a few comments and questions.

1. What are these endorsements based on? Is it purely on trust? Because all we have from Casliber so far (after various indefinite semi-protections recently demonstrated inappropriate in his talk page and red herrings that did not stick, like "If you are specifically looking to improve the article then I will unprotect", lamenting not enough references(?), and various others) is "speculation in tabloid press and elsewhere" and "I'd rather not go on public record as to why". Why the mystery? If this current speculation is public, and it can be found with 30 seconds of research (I couldn't) what harm can it do to refer to it neutrally in a talk page? 123.218.149.112 (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
2. In fact, I hesitate to ask for more details about this alleged current high-risk controversy, because even if there is one (and I'm sure that this was done in good faith and there is one), it's actually irrelevant. As some have stated, this remains a pre-emptive protection, and as such the community has rejected it. Unless of course (point 3)... 123.218.149.112 (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
3. Is it a truly exceptional circumstance, like, Casliber has insider information about a matter of life and death? In this case, full protection would seem more appropriate. Even so, is Casliber suggesting that the same intriguing rationale applies to other pre-emptive indefinite semi-protections (search for "potential" and "vulnerable")? I'm happy to analyse and possibly challenge each of them separately, but it may be more efficient to settle this in bulk. 123.218.149.112 (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone asked for evidence that unprotection would benefit the project more then the present semiprotection. I think that it should rather work the other way around, i.e. the normal state is unprotected and the burden is on the protecting admin to make a case for the protection (and sorry to reiterate, but even where there is, pre-emptive protection is still against consensus). In any case, for what it's worth, SilkTork has done a pretty impressive analysis during the RFC. 123.218.149.112 (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with Resolute on this. Preemptive semi-protection is more than justified in many cases (for instance, I'm of the mind that potential presidential candidates should be semi'd), I'm somewhat troubled by the unwillingness to provide evidence for such a drastic step. While I'm willing to change my opinion on this, what I'm seeing at this point might amount to using a pile driver to swat a fly. I say this as someone who has frequently salted the userspaces of vandal-only accounts whose usernames appear to be impersonating those of well-known people. Blueboy96 04:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I should note, however, that I find it hard to assume good faith on the part of the IP who has been leading the charge on this, and have had to suppress my inclination to block for disruption. That alone would militate against lifting this particular semi-protection on my part. Blueboy96 04:58, 4 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)

Should the User:Nwerle account be blocked, as well, then? As briefly mentioned above, this was his previous username, which he recreated and — for whatever reason — used for editing briefly, again, in February. jæs (talk) 12:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like that account was blocked a couple of hours ago by NW. —DoRD (talk) 15:18, 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)

Well, I'm an impartial admin, and looking at those sections, I believe I can see exactiy where the problems are arising, although I don't think the starter of this thread would like to know that. People need to calm down a bit on this page. Black Kite 11:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

possible sock puppets 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)

As the editor cited above for identifying the possible link between Dacodava and Oneinthemillions, and as someone who has similar difficulty in filing an SPI (particularly for an established case such as Dacodava's), I fell I should comment a bit more: having first noticed the problem but not knowing the ropes, I made into a post here (the admin is presumably quite familiar with Dacodava's case). As you will perhaps note, the problem is spread over many articles, and Oneinthemillions is, well, just one of several very likely socks of Dacodava - I have the same suspicion regarding User:Brantfordcan‎ and User:Burcze. Dahn (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPI isn't too complicated once you get into it. If you use the button for the new case (changing SOCKMASTER to the username) then just fill in the section. List the socks you believe are involved (IPs and accounts) and your evidence, including diffs. Remember the WP:DUCK test - if it looks, sounds, acts, smells like a sock, it's probably a sock. SGGH 10:44, 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)

I don't know why they are doing it, but I recognize the pattern. Probably the same person behind all of these accounts:

• Xiamenb2c (talk · contribs)
• Xiamenb2c01 (talk · contribs)
• Xiamenb2c02 (talk · contribs)
• Xiamenb2c03 (talk · contribs)
• Xiamenb2c04 (talk · contribs)
• Xiamenb2c06 (talk · contribs)
• Xiamenb2c08 (talk · contribs)
• Xiamenb2c1 (talk · contribs)

Same pattern of dumping large amounts of blogs or news articles into their talk page with no other interaction. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I just figured it out. Chenlill123 is trying to link spam as all of the articles have embedded links about shoes or other items for sale. I just blocked the account for being a spam-only account. The Xiamenb2c (Xiamen B2C?) accounts did not have embedded links. I'm still pretty sure they are related. -- Gogo Dodo (talk)

Mdb10us

<span class="anchor" id="Mdb10us (talk · contribs) and possible paedophilia">

Note: Could someone extend this block to the commons account if possible? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I requested a global siteban, I don't know if that's being actioned. The images on Commons also need to be nuked. Guy (Help!) 19:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I had requested deletion of the images and blocking on commons a few hours ago and it's been done. Cenarium (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh man: commons:Template:Nopenis - that made me laugh out loud! Guy (Help!) 22:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

User:AdyRock88 genre-warring

User:AdyRock88 contribs has been changing genres to music infoboxes with every single edit since he registered, removing them without an edit summary and adding inappropriate genres. He used a reference for some edits which did not sufficiently back up his claim, and when I challenged this editor and reverted him, he simply reverted back to his version. An IP editor, User:109.166.141.153 contribs then appeared (with no edit history) and edited in exactly the same way, and I believe this is the same person logging out to avoid 3RR. I am now close to breaking 3RR myself and I don't know what else to do.

The articles in question are Deep Purple album articles, mainly The Book of Taliesyn , , and Shades of Deep Purple (basically the same diffs), with another issue of genre removal at Deep Purple , , .

Can someone offer some advice, please? Thanks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• What, so now the idea that Deep Purple is a heavy metal band is somehow contentious? Guy (Help!) 15:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually yes, they were a heavy metal band at various points in their career, but not in the 1960s, they weren't. These articles concern individual albums, not the band as a whole. The main article does list heavy metal in the genres, but these albums are far from heavy metal. If it's not contentious, then a decent source should be very easy to find. There is a long history of single-issue editors adding "heavy metal" to the genres of hard rock bands, with no consensus or proper sourcing at all, and this is a prime example. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Eaboutspots70

Sock of SGF. Block E-mail. This is standard procedure.--White Shadows 15:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done ~ mazca 16:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Attempted Outing

There is a sockpuppet investigation, http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Glasscity09, and one of the users that is part of the investigation, "CRedit 1234" is harrassing and making personal attacks. Part of these attacks involve privacy violation in his attempts to "out me", wp:OUTING. He is continuing even after I asked him twice to please stop. This is taking place primarily on the sockpuppet investigation page linked above. Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Okip canvassing

Okip (talk · contribs) has been engaged in a blatant but creative form of WP:CANVASSing AFDs.

The technique looks like a ruse to evade WP:CANVASS: issue a barnstar to anyone who has voted the way he likes in an AFD, and link to a list of similar AFDs, labelling he link as a "purge".

See e.g. , , , ,

The last one is particularly revealing, because the editor Dew Kane (talk · contribs) was given a barnstar for "for his iincedible work in the bus route purge." That word "purge" is not neutral, and Dew kane's contributions consist solely of pasting identical text to a range of AFDs, regardless of the state of the articles or any evidence presented in the discussion: see e.g. , , .

So the barnstar was actually awarded for voting, not for article rescue, and was a device to alert that editor (and any others reading that page) to Okip's view on a series of AFDs.

I asked Okip to stop canvassing, and the response was a reply on my talk accusing me of "bullying". I replied at Opik's talk, and the message was promptly deleted, so it has been read.

Opik has also left a blatantly partisan message at the article rescue talk page (again referring to a "purge") ... and now appears to be writing guidance for others on how to canvass . The article rescue squadron does some great work in improving poor articles and demonstrating the notability of a topic, and it is pity to see it being abused in this way as a vehicle for trying to circumvent the restrictions on votestacking.

Okip also closed a discussion in which zie had just voted, rather than leaving the job for an uninvolved editor. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it not about time that this editor was topic-banned from anything to do with deletion-related pages? It appears that far too many people's time is being wasted here. Black Kite 17:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It is about time you stop threatening editors Black Kite, when there is no rule breaking, this is a pretty bad form of bullying, and unfortunately not the first time. You could not possible be more biased in this discussion. Okip 17:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Brown haired girl, you know the rules, yet you continue to bully me. I have started to write this guide, because I continue to see editors such as yourself, bully editors for not breaking any rules at all. If you refuse to follow our rules, and harrass editors who follow our rules, Brown haired girl, you should not be an administrator. Okip 17:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Except that BHG is exactly right. There would not be any requirement for me to post such issues had you not behaved like you did. I would also add User:Dew Kane to this proposed topic-ban, as their recent AfD contributions are nothing but copy-and-pasted versions of "it exists, so it's notable". Black Kite 17:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I will ask you the same exact thing Black Kite: Why is there a template to do what I just did Black Kite? Okip 17:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Okip, you are not a how-to guide for escaping policy. I only had to look at two of the diffs above to see you are canvassing, and to promote yourself as the "resolver of situations" when it comes to others being dealt with for taking part in the canvassing that you promote is not acceptable either. If you want people to be made aware of AfDs so they can make their own judgement then read up on "deletion sorting" to ensure AfDs are being flagged up for the relevant WikiProjects. Going around recruiting like-minded users to create a gang of Okip-followers to head-off AfDs you don't agree with will not be tolerated. SGGH 17:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I have listed Okip's draft how-to-votestack guide at Miscellany for deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Brown haired girl, your bad faith and bullying truly knows no bounds. I have no idea how you became and adminstrator. I have followed all of the rules, and yet you continue to harrass me. Okip 17:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether you genuinely believe that blatantly partisan alerts to a selective audience are neutral, or whether you are just rying it on. But either way, don't engage in votestacking, and then you won't feel bullied when you are asked to desist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a reason we don't have "rules" per say on WP, because it is the concepts and practice that is more important that any "letter of law" that may exist on WP. Even if what the actions are are squeaky-clean of the written text, the intent of the guideline and past behavior are much more valuable to go on. --MASEM (t) 17:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

What part of this rule don't you editors understand? Again, if you are threatening editors when they are strictly following the rules, this is bullying and harassment.

What would brown haired girls notification here of the MFD be? Okip 17:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Relevant to the topic? Resolute 17:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

So is the notification of contributors to articles, per Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion#Notifying_interested_people, and the notification of wikiprojects. There is no basis in this complaint. Okip 17:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

For one, your characterization of BHG's nominations as "purges" is deliberately slanted terminology designed to generate sympathy/support for your position. Second, your invitations and barnstars are targeted towards like-minded users only. You are attempting to influence the outcome. I generally sympathize with your aims, but dude, you can only WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT for so long. Resolute 18:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

What you are doing is writing "messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and may be considered disruptive." This is because you appear to be selecting people (and bribing them with barnstars it seems) who concur with your "purge" assessment of the AfDs. Furthermore, stop accusing us of threatening you, we aren't - this is Misplaced Pages. SGGH 17:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is there a template to do what I just did SGGH? Okip 17:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The box posted above by Okip is not from WP:CANVASS, it's from Okip's own how-to-votestack guide at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron/Newsletter/20100201/Feature, and it directly contradicts the long-standing guidance at WP:CANVASS#Votestacking, which says "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is there a template to do what I just BrownHairedGirl? If it is against the rules, why is there a template for this? Why is there a specific rule which states it is okay to do what I just did? Again, if I am following the rules, and you are threatening me, and now what the rules are, (which with over 150,000 edits, you probably d0) this is a form of bullying and harassment. Explaining the rules so that editors such as yourself no longer are able to threaten and bully others is perfectly acceptable.Okip 17:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Okip, the problem here is not notifying people. It's who you are notifying and how you are doing it. You are absolutely not neutral, and you're posting messages in a completely biased manner. See my message on the talk page of your guide. Aiken ♫ 17:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You. Are. Not. Following. The. Rules. If you look at WP:CANVASS you will see a chart (it is green and pink) that illustrates why your actions have violated that page's policy (think POV, selective messages, etc.) I suggest that Okip takes a warning about his canvassing, and further canvassing can result in the restrictions that anti-canvassing policy suggests (which is an eventual blocking period to prevent disruption). I can find nothing in Okip's defence that is convincing, and plenty of evidence from the other parties supporting the original ANI report's statement. Another admin can check in to close/finalise as I have now voted along with BHG in the MfD. SGGH 17:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) To be fair, its about time BrownHairedGirl was banned fron deletion related pages, just seems to be an editor full of disruptive hot air who will stop at nothing to get her own way. Jeni 17:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Note: User:SGGH removed this comment for no reason

Yes, it's called an edit conflict and was not on purpose. Thank you. SGGH 17:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually to be fair at this point, I'd support a block of you for your false accusations, bad faith assumptions and inability to act in a civil manner with someone you don't agree with.--Crossmr (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Leave Okip/Ikip/Travb alone!!! It's a wikipedia rule that all criticism/disagreement with him is bullying and harrassment!Bali ultimate (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

u forgot user:inclusionist ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not helping. However, if we have past examples it would be easy to craft a restriction forbidding future infractions. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes I am following the rules. What part of Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion#Notifying_interested_people do you not understand? Why do we have these rules, if editors can then disregard these rules at their leisure, threatening editors for following those rules.

As far as "how" I am notifying them, it was with a neutral message. I can notify anyone who has contributed to the article, per Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion#Notifying_interested_people.

giving barnstars to editors is not against any rules. This is a bogus posting by an administrator who knows better. Okip 17:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Okip, "this is only one of many of the deletion purges by one editor" "for her noble work in referencing and working on the bus route purge" are completely not neutral. See the talk page of your guide for my suggestion of how you could go about it. The thing is, you've managed to neutrally notify in other places, so it's not like you're incapable of doing so. Aiken ♫ 17:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Please reference, "this is only one of many of the deletion purges by one editor"

"for her noble work in referencing and working on the bus route purge" How is giving a barnstar to someone who ALREADY commented in a AFD canvassing? Please quote SPECIFIC policy, otherwise your complaint has no basis in fact. I quoted Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion#Notifying_interested_people, and no one has explained how me following these rules (which even have a template for doing what I did) violates canvassing. Okip 18:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

From the page you keep quoting, it says "Keep in mind that all such efforts must comply with Misplaced Pages's guideline against biased canvassing." Your messages were biased, so you did not follow the rules. Therefore you violated the canvassing guideline. Referring to somebody nominating articles for deletion as "purging" is not neutral. Aiken ♫ 18:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

How is giving a barnstar to someone who ALREADY commented in a AFD canvassing? I don't see that in canvassing policy, anywhere on wikipedia in fact.Okip 18:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I shan't repeat myself too much, but as I said above, the policy clearly states that POV notification in order to get a certain kind of support at an AfD is as BHG said, vote-stacking. It says it clearly on the policy page, and in my opinion your notifications are clearly not neutral. SGGH 17:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, how did I violate Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion#Notifying_interested_people, why is there this template to do what I just did? {{AFDNote}}Okip 18:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I can actually explain it any other way. You violated WP:CANVASS. SGGH 18:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not see how comments thanking people for having !voted a certain way is canvassing for support, because they have already supported. It might conceivably be, if people regarded the barnstar from a particular editor as something so desirable that one would !vote in a certain way in the hope of receiving one. With all due respect to Okip, I do not think that's exactly the case here. DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

{{AFDNote}} found on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

My notification

== ] nomination of ] == An editor has nominated ], an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at ] and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you.

== ] nomination of ] == London Buses route 372, an article you contributed to, is now up for deletion, you are welcome to comment at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 372. Okip 15:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Okip 18:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Okip, I even said you managed to post a neutral comment which you did, which was why I was so surprised at the non-neutral comments left at other people's talk pages, along with barnstars. The above example of yours is exactly how people should be notified. Claims of "purging" are not. Aiken ♫ 18:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it is permissible to notify people of AfDs, but the POV you are using means it goes from notification to canvassing. Again. SGGH 18:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Question: How can you canvass someone with a barnstar who has ALREADY replied in a AFD? Do you know how absurd this all sounds? Okip 18:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black states that Ikip " is warned to refrain from making large-scale edits which may be interpreted as canvassing or making rude comments to users he’s in dispute with." He was blocked for 12 hours in January "for repeated canvassing en masse" Dougweller (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller, another editor who I have had longterm conflicts with. This is like a drawer full of bad pennies.

It is important to point out that A Man In Black lost his adminship over blocking me in that case.

The block on January was bunk, I just decided since it was only for 12 hours, I wouldn't fight it. It was by an admin who one former arbitration member aptly called "non-impartial", his next selective block of me (for doing exactly what an arbitration member did ) was reversed, and several admins and former arbitration members roundly condemned his block. Okip 18:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. Okip, you can WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to your heart's content, but frankly if you continue to violate WP:CANVASS so blatantly the outcomes are not going to be to your liking. And if you wish to take that as bullying or harassment, I think you need to look a bit closer to home. Black Kite 18:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Talking about WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT I have asked several editors how I violated policy by giving barnstars to editors who already commented in the AFD...Okip 18:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• It is sensible to link these AFDs together because of their similarity. Much aggravation would have been avoided if BHG had presented her case in the form of group nominations rather than the 20 or so nominations which we seem to have already. There are already lists of these related nominations in other places such as the project pages and it is a good service to inform editors of their existence if they have an interest in this sort of topic. The more participation we get in these discussions which affect hundreds of articles, the better the consensus that we will establish. Okip should be commended for his actions. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • You are correct about the AFD bundling. However, such communications must still comply with WP:CANVASS. Okip's don't. Black Kite 18:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
    • The reason I didn't bundle was that it seemed to me to be better to consider each article on the individual merits of that topic. I took heed of the comments from some editors who advocated bundling, so I bundled the last group of AFDs, but was promptly denounced for that, by the same editor who had most vociferously denounced me for nominating them singly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• For background, there's been a few no resolution/consensus AN/Is in the past, Massive Canvassing of the ARS by User:Ikip, Blocked_Ikip_for_canvassing, and User:Ikip_and_forum_shopping for starters. So this has been a long-running point of contention with this user. Tarc (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, more old "friends". Yep, that was the case where A Man In Black lost his adminship. That arbitration came about directly because of him inproperly blocking me for canvassing. Okip 18:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Ikip I say this as a member of the ARS - actions like this only to serve to marginalise the ARS and its objectives. And people wonder why the ARS is called the "Article Canvassing Squadron" and editors summarily remove rescue templates... --Mkativerata (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yet you were still warned. And so far as I remember, our interactions this year included at least one compliment from you which included either the word 'respect' or 'confidence' (this was a comment to someone else I believe), and no complaints from you - so 'longterm conflicts' doesn't seem at all accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 19:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Looking through one of the complaints about him. He closed this article , after looking it over and seeing that every single person out of the many that commented said keep. Nothing wrong with that. If someone had posted delete, that'd be different. This is commonly what is done. As for the rest of this, no rule was violated. If you believe someone was done wrong, then go to the page about canvassing and discuss it there, changing it if you believe there is a consensus to do so. And barnstars are always given out to people by other editors, whenever they feel like it, it always someone who does something they like and approve of, obviously. And the Rescue squadron invite is of course offered to those who took the time to look for references and discuss things, instead of just mindlessly saying delete, as many people unfortunately do. No rule violated, no reason to continue this witchhunt. Dream Focus 18:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, I thought I wrote a note stating something to the effect, "if this is incorrectly closed, please open again" I was not sure if I could close the article with 8 keeps and no deletes right after I !voted on it, I just !voted on it, guess I can't. Okip 19:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • "No rule was violated". Well, apart from the one about closing an AfD which you have voted in, of course. No, it doesn't really matter - the AfD was clearly heading for a SNOW keep - but it just illustrates yet again that Okip doesn't really have any regard for how things are done properly around here - i.e. "policy". It needs to stop. And I liked the bit about people midlessly voting delete, coming from a member of the ARS. Almost had to clean coffee off my keyboard there. Thanks.Black Kite 19:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Your continued partisan attacks need to stop, editors harrassing editors for following policy need to stop.
      Regarding my closure, I apologize for closing the AFD myself. I dont recall ever dealing with closing snowball keeps before. Okip 19:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
      • As soon as you stop behaving against policy, then people will stop "harrassing" you (translation: calling you out on policy violations). It's not rocket science and you're clearly not an unintelligent person, so I don't think it's too difficult for you to comprehend this. Black Kite 19:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• • • Having looked at the AFD again, I agree, he shouldn't have closed it. I didn't notice the nominator was still against it. If even one person doesn't agree with the rest, it should remain open. And things are often closed when everyone is in agreement. Just a simple mistake I believe. As for how things are done, well, yes, you see that is how things are done quite often. What do you mean about how things are done properly? Things are done quite differently in different parts of Misplaced Pages, depending on the whims of whoever is around at the time. No rule was violated by his alleged canvassing, it clearly not canvassing by the definition of canvassing on the proper Misplaced Pages page about that, so no reason why he shouldn't be able to do what he wants, if no rule is violated. Dream Focus 19:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Dream Focus seems not to have checked out my initial complaint, at the top of this section. Dew Kane (talk · contribs) was invited to the ARS for mindlessly saying keep. I don't know whether Dew Kane even read any of the articles in whose AFDs he !voted, but none of his long series of comments reveal any knowledge of state of the articles, and AFAICS he had made no edit to any of them. Other editors on both sides had taken time to read the articles and discuss things, but not Dew Kane. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Once again, no rule exist on who you can and can not invite to join a Wikiproject. And Dew Kane could've read what was said by others, and formed an opinion based on that. I looked through some of those AFD minutes ago, and saw where someone had posted links to reliable sources, and based on that said keep in a couple of them. Dream Focus 19:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
          • Dream Focus, do please try to be at least a little consistent. You specifically said above "the Rescue squadron invite is of course offered to those who took the time to look for references and discuss things, instead of just mindlessly saying delete". But here it was offered to an editor who just mindlessly said an identical "keep" on every occasion, even in article where there were sod all references. If you think that's appropriate grounds to invite someone to ARS, then the Article Rescue Squadron will become a votestacking club rather than an article improvement team. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I despair at having to continue to show veteran editors policy and consensus that they should already know.

If this editors extreme copy/pasting is allowed:

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_53#Copy and pasting same_argument_in_over_a_hundred_Articles_for_deletion

Dew Kane's behavior is allowed. Okip 19:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh the irony and complete blatant hypocrisy, right here on this page:

"I have listed Okip's draft how-to-votestack guide at Miscellany for deletion." Is that a neutral notification of the MFD? Will Black Kite and others criticize BrownHairedGirl for this non-neutral notification?

Okip 19:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about Dew Kane's dubious editing pattern though, it's about you. I'd strongly suggest you address that rather than trying to wikilawyer your way away from the issue at hand. Black Kite 19:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well not surprisingly, the answer is "no": "Will Black Kite and others criticize BrownHairedGirl for this non-neutral notification?" I guess it is "okay" to do what you condemn other editors for...Sad. Really sad. Okip 20:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I see the original complaint here as an instance of bullying. BHG proposed a number of articles for deletion, apparently anticipating a clear quick consensus on the result desired--or else as an experienced editor, she would have tested the waters with a few nominations first. (Given that ArbCom has previously ruled that trying to overwhelm a process by multiple nominations is actionable misconduct, such was presumably not the intention). The consensus was however not at all what was expected. This is not the result of canvassing, but the result of a number of editors having --in most cases consistently and for a considerable time--a different opinion. The nominator then comes here complaining about a relatively less experienced editor. Others with previous conflicts against him joined in, complaining about his actions in connection with the same group of AfDs--articles about which the community in considerable part agreed with Okip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 20:19, 3 April 2010

Okip is a "relatively less experienced editor"? He's been here since 2005! That's longer than BHG, Black Kite, and you! AniMate 20:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

(Reply to AniMate) BHG has 207K edits. DGG has 75K edits. BK has 30K edits. Okip has 5K edits. Now what was BS? Tan | 39 20:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Okip=Ikip. Ikip had 55,500 edits. Put them together that's 60,000 edits. AniMate 21:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected; thanks. Tan | 39 21:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't "attack" Okip; I asked him to refrain from systematic votestacking, and brought the issue to ANI only when the complaint was rejected. Nor do I criticise the actions of those editors who have genuinely tried to rescue to rescue articles by seeking evidence of notability; I disagree with many of their conclusions, but that's the purpose of a discussions, to air and hopefully resolve difft views.

I am very disappointed that DGG, who I know as a prolific article rescuer, is failing to distinguish between article rescue and votestacking; that failure causes me a lot of concern about where ARS is headed. But DGG needn't concern himself with any notion that I am somehow afraid to criticise him, and I assure DGG that if he had engaged in a votestacking exercise like this one, I would not have hesitated to bring it to wider attention. Thankfully, so far as I am aware, he didn't do so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I said less experienced not to mean less experienced in editing, but less effective in disputes when they get personal. But I also meant it as a sort of euphemism for less powerful, or perhaps even less well-connected. DGG ( talk ) 21:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Okip is less experienced in disputes? What? Less than who? The entire Arbitration Committee put together? That is the most nonsensical thing I've heard all week. Mr.Z-man 23:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• No violation committed by Okip Canvassing is limited to influencing ongoing discussions; any communication to someone who has already !voted, with no attempt to change their !vote, is not canvassing. Thus, such communications do not need to be neutrally worded. Having said that, it would probably be a good idea if the term "purges" was deprecated, as I can see how that term conjures Stalinesque imagery. Several of the participants above should know better than to use a non-infraction as a rationale (excuse?) to berate Okip. Jclemens (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The motivation is clearly to get those same editors to come and vote on other AfDs. Imagine if I went around barnstarring everyone who voted delete in a contentious AfD I was involved in. You would see it as an attempt to influence those editors to vote my way in other discussions- and rightly so, because there's no other way to interpret that behaviour. It's canvassing. End of story. Reyk _YO! 03:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I'll also add that the explicit linking to other AfDs, and that appalling How-to-Canvass guide deleted recently make it blatantly obvious that Okip is again trying to rig the AfD process by votestacking. Reyk _YO! 03:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to quote the text here, with the links intact:

"You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron, a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing.
For more information, please visit the project page, where you can >> join << and help rescue articles tagged for deletion and rescue."

The explicit invitation is to improve articles through regular editing. That is, on its face, an allowable statement and a perfectly good sentiment. What you're now asking is that an allowable statement be considered disallowable and a violation of CANVASS solely because of the assumed motivations of the poster. I'll stipulate that Okip wants everything in the world kept for the sake of argument, but nothing in his motivation changes the plain text of the invitation. What you're proposing is that we prosecute Okip for Thoughtcrime rather than for the content of his barnstars. Jclemens (talk) 06:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not the invitation to join the ARS I am objecting to. It is the link to other AfDs he wants people to go vote keep in. The wording of the barnstars leaves no doubt that Okip is trying to get these editors to vote keep for him. Reyk _YO! 07:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, what you linked to was posted by Jeni, listing all the other bus articles the same editor nominated at once. And AFD are determined by voting, but by arguments. Dream Focus 10:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose the remedy that BHG and Okip, and also BK and Okip, refrain from comments on each other. Discussion on the articles belongs elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 20:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• I support the above but would also suggest a restriction on canvassing, since this does appear to be an ongoing problem. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • How would that be different from Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black#Ikip warned? That's not a flippant question; I too would like to see things improve with this. NW (Talk) 20:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• OK, you got me. This appears to be a violation of that (I didn't see the AMIB ArbCom go through. Shame, I liked him). So, what do we do next? Guy (Help!) 22:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Two things that I thought of off the top of my head, so they probably aren't very good: A restriction on the number of talk pages he can post to per X period of time? A independent screener who would have to evaluate the newsletters before they are sent out? NW (Talk) 03:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• I oppose this. Scrutiny from both sides here (mass AfD nominations and canvassing allegations) is worthwhile, whatever you think of the merits of either side. I see no evidence that this has degenerated into bullying by either side. We're all grown ups. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Okip's behavior is problematic. BHG and BK are shining a light on it. AniMate 20:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I concur with AniMate's view. MBisanz 21:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support for I/Okip only. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black#Enforcement by block is pretty straightforward about the steps that should be taken here. Does this need an official ArbCom enforcement filing, though? Tarc (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, and redact your comment about bullying above please DGG. which I've now done myself. I won't allow that to stand. If anyone wants to restore it, please read WP:NPA first. Thanks. Black Kite 21:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support this and all propsals by dgg. As he points out, Okip is a poor newbie editor with dew in his eyes whose only hope is to expand a most perfect compendium of all human knowledge. His opponents present themselves as people who simply disagree with him; but as DGG points out, they're all a bunch of meanhearted bullies. The thin red line should be drawn right here.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Not sure that sarcasm is the best idea here, to be honest Bali. Black Kite 21:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
    • What sarcasm? DGG was a librarian and Ikip/Okip/Travb is apparently a lawyer. Everyone knows that librarians aren't foxes, they're hedghogs. And everyone knows that lawyers are always right! Leave these poor friends of knowledge alone. This place will be tip-top in a jiffy!Bali ultimate (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. BHG and BK are doing the right thing. Inclusionist/O/Ikip et al, however has a very long history of canvassing and a keep-everything-at-all-costs approach, and an AC warning to boot—yet here we are yet again. The proper outcome here, is a broad restriction for Okip re canvasing and deletion related activity. Yet-another of Ikip's old friends, Jack Merridew 21:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. The solution to the Ikip/Okip problem is certainly not to make him immune against criticism by punishing people for pointing out the problem. Hans Adler 21:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) After Jack's comment, I rest my case. It sufficiently clarifies the situation. DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Attention. Jack is an evil sockpuppet whose sorcery runs to coding and an idiosyncratic interest in sourcing (outside his specialty). Mr. Adler is something far, far worse: A professional academic (i think he does something in the evil counting profession, or at least in one of its related mathematickal dark arts) They should have no standing against Okip/Ikip/Inclusionist/Travb. (Kudos to DGG for his devestating use of geometric logic).Bali ultimate (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, as an aside to DGG: Why are allowing this horrible biting of a newbie (inexperienced editor, as you described him) is being allowed to go on by an administrator of your caliber?Bali ultimate (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - This would only make sense if BK and BHG were doing something wrong here. For almost every comment (if not all of them) here criticizing Okip's behavior, he seems to use one of three responses - referring to the person as an old "friend" and therefore ignorable, accusing the person of acting in bad faith, harassment, and bullying so they can be ignored, or just ignoring the comment with no reply at all (such as the comment by Mkativerata). If Okip wants people to stop criticizing him, he needs to address people's concerns, not just silence the critics. Mr.Z-man 21:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose- The situation is exactly as Hans Adler describes, and I couldn't have put it any better. Ikip/Okip has a long history of canvassing and is a big reason why the ARS is currently the "Keep vote canvassing WikiProject" in all but name. It is not the behaviour of those who criticize him that is the problem here. Reyk _YO! 21:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't support the deletion of the articles in question (BHG's talkpage is still graced by a long explanation as to why), although I do think most of them would work better as a single list than as multiple stand-alone unexpandable stubs. However, BHG is acting perfectly properly here, and Okip is acting like a petulant child throwing a tantrum. – iridescent 22:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support Okip has a reasonable perception that he's being attacked, and there's no cause for unilateral action against him. If there's to be a sending of editors to their respective corners, Okip doesn't need to be singled out. Jclemens (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. This current discussion does look a lot like cyber-hounding of sorts (no, it is not the same as jumping someone after school, which is why I won't call it "bullying," but it is clearly ganging up on and attacking with hyperbole a perceived opponent as almost all of those lining up against Okip are pretty much the diehard deletionists of the site and ones who mass attack groups of editors off-site, swear at others, call people "idiots," are uninterested when called out for their own incivility, are admittedly just here to "fly the deletionist flag", etc.--things I do not see Okip doing by contrast...). I do NOT include BrownHairedGirl as part of that group as she is not someone I am really all that familiar with. I think any reasonable neutral editor can see the partisanship of the attacks an Okip for what they are: partisan attacks to squash a good faith perceived opponent. Just look at the history of the core of those attacking him and their appalling behavior in this discussion alone. This thread has already devolved into an inclusionist versus deletion fracas that serves no other purpose than to raise tensions while no articles are improved in the meantime. The longer it stays open, the more animosity grows, the less actual work done to any articles. I therefore trust any and all good faith editors will after this post walk away from this thread and work on something constructive. And anyway, why on earth wouldn't we want greater participation in AfDs by editors who might know about the topic under discussion and therefore be able to help in improving the article? Why wouldn't we want someone to be courteous to such editors? And real quick, no, I am not "back." Okip has defended me in the past from similar dishonesty and it is worth making a one off comment only to stick up for a good faith and constructive editor when he is being hypocritically attacked by those with far worse behavior histories, who are tossing about insults and sarcasm even in this very thread, and who merely are of a different viewpoint. All the more reason why, among other off-site matters, I have not been around the past few weeks and don't plan to be in the future. I suspect this kind of name calling and unconstructive discussing rather than actual editing is what discourages many others from sticking around as well. So, back to enjoying my time away from this absurdity and while I am here, Happy Easter to all good editors! For those who have emailed me, yes, my health has improved, but sorry and despite the many requests that I return, I still want to for all intents and purposes stay retired. Too much to work on and enjoy, really, in the non-Wikipedic world. Take care. Sincerely, --A Nobody 22:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Hey a nobody: I'm glad that all that editing on wikia reduced the kidney mass down enough to bring you back to the big leagues! I can stop lighting candles now! Praises be to god!Bali ultimate (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Blimey, how long did it take you to find that diff of me telling a disruptive anon troll that I was completely uninterested in what they had to say? If that's the worst you can dig up from my 30K edits, I must be pretty much whiter than white. Black Kite 22:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• See this regarding A Nobody. Aiken ♫ 22:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support DGG's proposal. They should completely stay away from each other. However, there are other issues that need to be addressed. If Ikip is canvassing, that needs to stop. If he's in violation of an editing restriction, then that needs to be dealt with as the next order of business. Dlohcierekim 22:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Admins are editors elected by the community on the basis of their ability to impartially apply policy and guideline, and if it is suggested that either BHG or BK are either not impartial or misrepresenting policy and guideline then these matters should be brought up at a admin recall process (if available), an RfC or ArbCom. Otherwise, it should not be permitted that an editor can have such functionaries disallowed from reviewing their actions without that scrutiny. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Question. Okip and I were on opposite sides of a series of deletion discussions, so I did not use admin tools, or threaten to use admin tools; I collected the evidence and posted a report here, as nominating at MFD a page which appeared to me to be related. I don't see any suggestion that the complaint was frivolous, and a number of editors have supported my concern that Okip's actions amounted to votestacking; some disagree, and it's not for me to weigh the balance, but the number of supports makes it hard to conclude that the complaint was utterly without merit.
  So on what basis is it proposed that I should be restricted? Is it being suggested that no editor should ever make a conduct complaint about an editor with whom they are engaged in a content dispute? Or that an involved admin should not make such a complaint? That seems to me to be a big change in how ANI works, which is why I query whether it's being suggested as a general principle, or as a one-off. And if it's a one-off, why? AFAICR, I have never had a dispute with Okip before, so it's not like this is some festering feud popping up all the time. I want to assume good faith, but I cannot see any basis for DGG's proposal other than to discourage editors from opposing canvasing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Another proposal

• Consensus here seems to be "oppose, it's Okip's fault" or "support, Okip's fault", so new proposal; Okip is banned from "making large-scale edits which may be interpreted as canvassing or making rude comments to users he’s in dispute with", a stronger version of this. Ironholds (talk) 02:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Except that how, precisely, would his recent actions even be prohibited under such a revised proposal? Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
    • It serves as a final warning of "do X or Y, and an uninvolved admin will block you"; feel free to strengthen it. Ironholds (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree with Jack (below) that the final warning was already made. To answer Jclemens's question, Ikip's notice to people who voted the way he liked in one AFD included a link to other similar AFDs that he would like them to vote the same way on. That's drawing the attention of a preselected group, likely to vote in a particular way, to a group of AFDs that they had not necessarily noticed, which is the behaviour targeted by WP:CANVASS.—Kww(talk) 03:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
      • "a link to other similar AFDs" appears to me to simply have been a link to the ARS's current worklist. That is stretching the definition of CANVASS well beyond the breaking point. Jclemens (talk) 06:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
        • I/Okip seems to have become as master wiki-lawyer... he is constantly breaking the spirit of the rules while adhering to the letter of the rules. This is a perfect example of why we have IAR, but in reverse. IAR was designed to combat the wikilawyer who hides behind the letter of the rules while common sense says to do something else. I/O has been warned (repeatedly) about his behavior, but finds new ways to push the boundaries. "I'm not canvassing, I'm {fill in the blank.}" While everybody knows that he is in fact canvassing. While I think his goal/objective is noble and tend to agree with his perspective, this gaming of the system has got to stop. IMO, he's past the point of warnings and at the point where a block is appropraite.---Balloonman 07:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• That *was* a final warning. We're most of a year on. Jack Merridew 03:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

  In that case, AE it is. Ironholds (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

  Problem with that: Ikip was not restricted in that case, he was warned. To quote ArbCom: "Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a month in the event of repeated violations" (emphasis mine). AE would be appropriate if both a restriction had been issued AND that restriction had been broken. The first condition is clearly not met, and the second is disputed. Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, the proper course of action (should one want to pursue this further) would be to request an ArbCom case. Personally, I don't care enough right now to invest that kind of time, but in case anyone is considering it, I would point out that this is at least the second time this year that I/Okip has been in trouble for canvassing issues. On January 28, he was blocked for 12 hours for posting a message (inviting people to an "invitation only" project in his userspace) on 83 user talk pages in the span of 17 minutes. Mr.Z-man 07:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

  Per Ikip was blocked for canvassing shortly after the arb case closed. Unless that circumstance was somehow different, another block sounds fine. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 3: the revenge (this time it's personal)

A block now would be punitive, I propose that the very next time Okip posts in respect of any active deletion discussion on more than one page (outside of the discussion itself) he be blocked. It's pretty clear by now that Okip is so vested in one side of the debate that he is not capable of accurately judging when the line has been crossed. This restriction would allow him to post it at the ARS <smapp>(which, sadly, I always subconsciously pronounce "arse") page; interested parties can watchlist that as with any other Wikiproject. This has the advantage of being unambiguous. Guy (Help!) 07:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

JzG, I think you said it best. The reason that you have not been blocked before for telling editors to fuck off repeatedly is because there is no real equality on wikipedia, as long as you have a like minded group of editors supporting you, editors such as yourself can simply get away with anything here.

I can be warned in arbcom for extremely minor comments compared to yourself, and you are still an administrator after telling editors to fuck off repeatedly, you even had the audacity to hypocritically bring up the importance of civility in ChildofMidnight's arbcom. This inequality, this complete bullying disregard for the rules (fueled by Jimbo himself), is simply getting worse. I see a virtual who's-who of editors who I have argued with before above, all have an incredibly negative view on other editors good faith contributions, these editors combative behavior is the reason why the media has such an incredibly negative view on how wikipedia works.

Your own vested one sided view is also well known, as are most of the editors views above, in your case, look no further than calling the ARS "arse" fortunately, the majority of the arbitration committee holds many of these same "vested in one side" views.

I will continue to notify editors, as the rules allow, and you can Please, choose any of the myriad of quotes, and please keep in mind that the central reason that A Man In Black lost his adminship was for blocking me for alleged canvassing, and even William Collonely, with his large group of supporters (including yourself) finally, after over a year of me pushing for it, lost his adminship too for involved blocks. Okip 08:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

notification Okip 08:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

notification Okip 08:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible for you to respond to a single editor without making it personal? I'm waiting to see what you can glean about me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Other than the anon above, you are the only editor I have never met several times on wikipedia before. So your comments hold particular weight, thank you. Okip 10:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Threatening admins with getting their adminship revoked merely for criticizing your actions, Okip? Are you for real? How can you possibly think that's in any way appropriate? Reyk _YO! 09:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you see the double standard here, JzG can make proposals about blocks, which goes well beyond simple criticism, but you criticize me for bringing up our shared history? Are you for real? How can you justify this seeming contradiction? Okip 10:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 4 : Okip should pull their trousers up

Generally when you get caught with your trousers round your ankles the correct thing to do is pull them up and apologise rather then to argue they are not flapping around undone with all your bits on display. Okip seems to make a career of sailing very close to the wind with canvassing. Whether they agree or not, continuing in this vein is disruptive and should cease until there has been a proper discussion that sets a clear boundary that everyone can live with. Spartaz 09:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Madokhn

Madokhn (talk · contribs) has continously added back non-notable residents to Mulvane, Kansas and Derby, Kansas, undoubtedly himself and his friends. On March 31, he was blocked for 24 hours for edit warring on Mulvane, Kansas and subsequently added back the non-notables via two IP addresses: 72.205.231.236 (talk · contribs) and 68.103.79.169 (talk · contribs). Both IP's were blocked for 24 hours and Madokhn had his block reset everytime he edited as these IP's. Today, after his block expired, he added back the non-notables to Mulvane, Kansas with the following edit summary: "This revision was confirmed by the Mulvane newspaper." (here) Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The account has been indef'd. SGGH 18:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I also semi-protected the Mulvane article for two weeks. Tan | 39 18:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Jim Bell

NeilN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted an edit to Jim Bell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) here: with the edit summary "rv whitewash". You will be aware that the subject is blocked under the account James dalton bell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), also that the subject is a controversial figure. He has complained about the specific revert. Trying to be fair to all sides here, I believe that:

• user:Keystroke was making a good-faith effort to address legitimate concerns over the article.
• user:NeilN identified that some of the removed material was reliably sourced and reverted but chose his summary poorly, failing to assume good faith of Keystroke. I do not think this is characteristic or habitual and acknowledge I have done worse myself.

Bell is clearly incensed over past edits to the article and is making demands in respect of individuals concerned, which are not my place to address, being mainly to do with past conduct. I have passed these to the Arbitration Committee to see if any action is required. The only recent edit which Bell has brought to my attention is NeilN's revert. It's clear to me that Bell's major issue right now is that he is blocked, and he considers this to be an abuse perpetrated by Misplaced Pages. Everything else is secondary and rubbing salt into the wound. I have two questions:

• Is any action required at this point?
• What can be learned from this complaint, to prevent future issues?

As an aside, Bell states that all edits by Skomorokh are suspect. I cannot pick them apart form other subsequent edits by Keystroke and others which are clearly welcome. I would ask others to join me in reviewing the content of the article and ensuring that everything there is reliable sourced and neutrally stated, since despite several requests Bell has failed to give me specific examples of problematic text. It is understandable that he is not willing to co-operate, especially while blocked, so it's down to us I guess. Guy (Help!) 19:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I definitely could have chosen a more tactful edit summary. I explained my concerns here. --NeilN 19:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Bell's unwillingness to cooperate, I believe it has little to do with him being blocked. He was repeatedly asked to point out specific article concerns when he was free to edit. This continued when he started socking. He invariably replied with accustions about other editors' behaviour, as I suspect he's doing now. --NeilN 19:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The main part of Bell's block is his refusal to stop with personal attacks about a good-faith admin trying to point out our policies to him, along with others. We asked him several times to make his posts small and concise, not the tl;dr paragraphs he was posting. He responded with more tl;dr posts insulting others, and his talk page was locked. This block, as said, is not only about unwillingness to cooperate, but unwillingness to stop with personal attacks and treat others civilly.— Dædαlus 20:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd advise a policy of actively not going there. Let's focus on the here and now. Guy (Help!) 20:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult to formulate "lessons learnt" from this situation. None of us want inaccurate info in the article or something that has undue weight. At the same time, subjects of articles need to realize they can't control the content (I believe Gogo Dodo initially explained this to Bell) and should be told how to raise their concerns (done, multiple times including the formulation of a new template by you). Keystroke has gone through the article, fixing problematical areas. As someone who helps out on WP:BLPN, I can say all these things happen with any "regular" BLP article. Perhaps we could create a "we know you're upset but your edits do not conform to the guidelines" template based off of Template:Blocked subject --NeilN 20:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking, he has come here and had issues with his article and as a newbie with his own article he has has some issues, he has identified with otrs, I would support another try, remind him to stay civil, give him a list of the policy and guidelines and give him another chance (last chance). It would likely all end in tears though as all he wants to do is change or remove some content he disputes on his BLP.Off2riorob (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That's the thing. He hasn't identified article issues with OTRS per Guy: "despite several requests Bell has failed to give me specific examples of problematic text". What makes you think this behaviour is going to change, given the folks at OTRS are probably more patient and sensitive than the average editor? --NeilN 21:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That is an issue, if he won't tell us exactly what his issues are, how can we investigate? Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's my concern. What I've seen largely duplicates the material already posted here, which focuses on particular editors and edits long in the past (by Misplaced Pages standards, anyway). I am certain that if any one of the emails he has sent were posted anywhere other than his own talk page, he'd be blocked again. All that's going to do is piss him off even more. Guy (Help!) 21:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to sympathize with Bell's unwillingness to proofread an article he dislikes and list the errors he spots, thereby legitimizing the rest of it. I'd frankly support deleting the Bell article (he is basically a fringe character like Barbara Schwarz) and adding a sentence or two about Bell to the assassination market article. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is a bit bloated we could trim it back. It's getting about 30 views a day which is a pretty low attraction and importance level Off2riorob (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

What you call bloated, others might call detailed. Page views should not dictate the length of the article. Regardless, changes to the article content should be discussed on its talk page. --NeilN 00:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the article is not here to be awarded a medal for its detailed informative highly viewed content is it? 01:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean? --NeilN 02:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Bell doesn't like the article because he can't control it, his problems with it are the fact that he can't make it match 'HIS view of himself and his problems with the federal govt. Gutting it isn't a solution to the problem. Fixing all details with cites to reliable sources is. The solution for Bell himself is easy, leave his ass blocked and whack his socks when they show up. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that doesn't really stand up. He's read it in sufficient detail that he is familiar with the edits of individual editors and has cited diffs in respect of editorial conduct. I do not get the feeling that the presence of the article is offensive to him (cf. Daniel Brandt), the usual interpretation of his statements in respect of the article seems to be that he wants everybody who has ever added anything he dislikes summarily banned from Misplaced Pages, himself unblocked and the article left to only sympathetic edits, which is not likely to happen. What we can, and should, do, is to ensure that the article is written to the highest standards of accuracy and neutrality. We can't fix the fact that there were past issues, we can fix any present issues and should do so, with or without his co-operation. That will need the input of people familiar with the subject, I think, to ensure that we're not giving undue weight to anything. Guy (Help!) 07:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

If it were up to me I'd delete it anyway, but yes, the article needs a lot of cruft gone if it stays. In my view it's extremely hard to deliver neutrality for a subject like that though. Significant points of view that must be included for the article to meaningfully conform to WP:NPOV, must simultaneously be excluded because they are documented only by sources that are too fringe to conform to WP:BLP. If an article can't be edited to conform to both policies at the same time, and quite a few can't, I see deletion as the only remedy. (In practice WP gets around this with a Humpty-Dumpty redefining of "significant" as "approved by a certain class of media outlets", but I see that as a cop-out that leads to retaining distorted articles).

As another issue, given the history of this article subject's off-wiki activities, I'd be uncomfortable editing the article from either an exposed IP address or a personally identifiable account. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mat kilau

• Deleted article whose discussion page is still open. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Closed. Black Kite 20:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Complaint about threat of RFCU by NicholasTurnbull

For no apparent reason admin NicholasTurnbull has accused me of having a sock puppet. He has neither revealed what other account he claims I might have, nor has he revealed any evidence. Is this an abuse of admin privileges? If so, I would like to file a complaint. · CUSH · 22:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

(Copied from User talk:Cush) My thoughts were initially that Sanskit (talk · contribs) was a sockpuppet of yours, since both of you exhibit very similar prose regarding being considered under death threat by Judeo-Christian editors, and both created userboxes that are substantially similar in intent and tenor on the same subjects. In addition, both MfDs (Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User dislikes semitic one god religions and Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cush/Userbox/NoReligion) were on the queue at the same time, and both owners voiced their view of being subject to death threats from Judeo-Christians in a similar tenor. In addition, both of you seem to have a similar dogged persistence in heated behaviour regarding Genesis creation myth, etc. Since there *are* differences in your behaviour, from what I can see, I don't honestly know. If I have made a mistake here, I apologise. However, you are free to request comment on my behaviour at WP:AN/I -- and actually I would be grateful for an outside opinion regarding the diaspora of this dispute. I have not, as of yet, actually placed a Request for Checkuser, given there does not seem to be quite enough evidence to do so. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Corrected --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Note: I have stricken my original notification that an RFCU would follow. This is part of a wider dispute regarding Creationist topics and a series of userboxes which in some cases violated WP:ATP. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

So to get this sorted out: without having evidence you informed me that you have started a RFCU (without telling me the circumstances but giving me a "last chance"), only to tell me later that you admit you have no evidence and you have not in fact started the RFCU ?? · CUSH · 22:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't really quite say the right thing. I apologise for that. However, no RFCU was filed, and I never left a message saying one had been filed, merely that it was my intention to file one. Closer investigation shows that to be unwarranted, and in any case, that was a poor message. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You wrote "Alright. I was trying to give you a chance to stop using the other account with dignity... but so be it, an RFCU is on its way.".

And to clarify the death threat thingy: I did not mean to say that I have received actual death threats, but that I cannot really AGF in editors who adhere to a god that wants me dead (and you as well, btw). And I say that adherence to such a deity says a lot about one's character. Does it not?

And now I am letting this issue go and return to making a map for the Avaris article... · CUSH · 23:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't adhere to that God that you speak of (or any deity for that matter), and I never have, so that statement is a lost slur. But how can you seriously expect Misplaced Pages editors and administrators to assume good faith of you to a better degree, and not start to wonder if you are running alternate accounts when you behave with such gross paranoia and assumption of poor faith towards so many people? Even if I was a theist, what gives you the right to make character judgements of this nature? Quite what my agenda that you obliquely claim I have is I am at a loss to divine; I am merely an uninvolved administrator. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

What? Whether you adhere to any deity was not the point at all. The point was that the deity certain people adhere to wants you dead as well. Are you not highly offended by that?

And believe me, I have no split persona. I am not paranoid either, I only reject people who adhere to deities of violent character. · CUSH · 02:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

something

is happening at White American and I can't quite figure it out. The photo collage that should be there is gone. The list of names in it this there but no image. Anyone want to try and fix it? EInar aka Carptrash (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, the IP did two edits but only one was undone. --NeilN 22:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Admins rock. Carptrash (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

So do regular editors :-) --NeilN 02:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate Extension of a Mediation

As agreed after an lengthy mediation among conflicting editors working on the Race and Intelligence article, David Kane revised the article. On the talk page of the article, he wrote "There are several other editors involved in this article (DJ, Aprock, Occam, MathSci) who could do a great job with those sections. I hope they will be bold!" I assume that the invitation extend to editors who were not involved in the mediation. This seems quite appropriate and fair to me.

User: Mustihussain was never involved in any edit conflict concerning this article. S/he was therefore not party to the mediation. Following David kane's announcement on the talk page, Mustihussain made a few edits to the article. Useer: Captain Occam reverted on the grounds that "This article is still under mediation ... if you think your own edits are necessary, you need to bring them up on the mediation page" .

I believe this was completely inappropriate. Mustihussain was not part of the mediation. Captain Occam's revert was basically thus based on the objection: I object to your edit because you are not in mediation ith me. Since when has this ever been a justification for a revert? The proper place to discuss improving the article is the article's talk page. In a stroke, Captain Occam is saying that we will no longer use the article's talk page to discuss improvements.

Mustihussain reverted the revert with this explaination: "this article or section is in the middle of an expansion or major revamping. you are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well." She is right. It does say others are wlecome to edit as well. So how can Captain Occam unilaterally decide that Mustihussain is blocked from editing this page? In effect, Captain Occam has issued a page bluck. This seems wholely inappropriate.

But he did it again: . And then User:Mikemikev reverted Mustihussain's edit: ,.

I think that Captain Occam and Mikemikev should be reprimanded for having tried to bully a new user off the Race and IQ page with th argument that, boils down to "if you are not party to our mediation, you are not allowed to edit the page." The page does not have that level of protection; reverts should NOT be used to create what is in essence a page protection that dosn't exist.

Then, Ludwigs2, the mediator, told Mustuhussain that any proposed edits should be discussed at the mediation talk page.{http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Ludwigs2&diff=353561143&oldid=353559433]. Here the mediator is abusing his power by basically saying he has authority to decide on any edit made to the article. But this is not a mediator's role! Mediation is meant to resolve conflict among specific editors. Since when does a mediator have the right to force anyone to participate in mediation? I thought participation in mediation is voluntary!! But by requiring Mustihussain to clear edits through him, Ludwigs2 is basically saying Mustihussain has to participate in the mediation. Or, Ludwigs2 is saying that the mediation page now replaces the article talk page, as the page to discuss improvements to the article. But this is wrong. The article talk page is the place to discuss article improvements. The mediation talk page is the place to resolve a specific dispute among editors who agreed to mediation. I think Ludwigs2 should be reprimanded for trying to compel another editor to join th mediation, and using his position as mediator of a specific conflict as a reason to control who can and cannot edit the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

No, this seems like a clear case of ownership and I notice Captain Occam was previously blocked for edit warring for inappropriate reasons. Someone with more knowledge of the situation and an admin should get involved here.--Crossmr (talk) 00:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I think (given the numerous ANI threads that have been opened about this mediation so far) that there are plenty of administrator eyes on the page. The incident was unfortunate, but is resolved. Mustuhussain was being a bit pushy and not respecting BRD (three or four reverts without discussion), and so I asked him politely (check Slrubenstein's diff above if you doubt my politeness) to bring up his concerns at the mediation page so that we could discuss it. There has been no issue since.

I suggest to all mediation participants to leave this thread alone unless an uninvolved administrator has a question for them, and to get back to the business of discussing the review notes we have so far, so that we can start making revisions to the page. Your choice, of course, but unless there are serious non-partisan administrative concerns, I don't see anything that needs to be addressed. --Ludwigs2 01:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediation is a voluntary process binding only on those who agree to the mediation. As such, the mediator and the participants can certainly invite someone to join the process, but no one, including the mediator, has the right to try to force decisions arrived at through mediation on non-participants. From what I've read in previous threads, it would seem that the task of working with the people who have agreed to mediation is daunting enough that the mediator would want to focus all his or her energy on those people, and not spend time bothering uninvolved editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Can folks please take all these AN/I threads to MedCab's talk page? You'll probably get better advice and sympathy from there. Xavexgoem (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Resurrect a few articles for me?

I have no idea if this is the right place for this, so my apologies if it's not.

I'm working on a list and need a couple articles that were recently deleted moved to my user space so that I can get some info from them. So, could some kind admin please recover the articles for Cheryl Kubert, Judy Lee Tomerlin, Gloria Windsor, Jean Jani, and Linda Vargas and then move them to my user space? Thanks, Dismas| 01:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, since these were uncontested WP:PRODs, these could be restored in main space if you want. Wknight94 02:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The proper venue is Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion. You can request userfication if desired. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  02:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks both of you. I was unaware of WP:REFUND even though I checked both here and the more ambiguous Admin noticeboard. Dismas| 03:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

COI

I need an Admin to check into this please, I can't think what else to point to. I did notify editor of my report.

• Rob Walker (journalist)
• User talk:Mlpearc#Rob Walker
• User talk:Mlpearc#Rob Walker entry
• Talk:Rob Walker (journalist)#COI

Mlpearc MESSAGE 03:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

User:TheClerksWell's inappropriate "prank"

If you go to TheClerksWell (talk · contribs)'s Talk page, you will see an orange bar saying "You have new messages". It's fake, of course. It's one thing for people to get pranked by the message to lead you to some funny page, or something of that ilk, but in TheClerksWell's case, clicking the link logs you out. He has been repeatedly asked to change it, and he steadfastly refuses. This is a major problem if there are users who don't want their IP address displayed. They may wind up logging off and then edting with their IP address visible. TheClerksWell needs to change the prank, or be blocked and the thing forcibly removed from their page and their page protected. Woogee (talk) 05:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

TheClerksWell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked for 24 hours by Bkell for violating WP:3RR. -FASTILY_sock 05:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

And I agree that this is not funny or a joke, getting people to logout in this way does not in any way contribute to the project and if TheClerksWell persists in this he should be blocked again. Dougweller (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

This is apparently not the first time TheClerksWell has been disruptive. They edit warred to retain a fair use image on their User page, and then called those who explained to him why it wasn't appropriate, "assholes". Woogee (talk) 06:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

He's also got the copyrighted Misplaced Pages logo on his User page. Woogee (talk) 06:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages logo, although copyrighted by the Wikimedia foundation, is permissible in the uesrspace so he hasn't done anything wrong there. But I agree, the name-calling is a definite no-go. -FASTILY_sock 06:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

That stupid orange bar prank should be banned everywhere in wikipedia even if doesn't do something as rude as log you out, but the logging-out one is flat-out vandalism. I'm dismayed at the length of discussion on the user's talk page about it. Just explain to the person that we don't do that here, refer them to WP:NOTMYSPACE, and block for disruption if problem recurs. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 06:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It could be kind of annoying, and it's not April 1 anymore, but why does an IP care about it? If you're already there as in IP, what's it going to do, log you farther out? It does say explicitly that you've been logged out, which you would find out soon enough anyway once you went to your watch list. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Why shouldn't an IP care about the smooth functioning of Misplaced Pages? Do you know that some people contribute to Misplaced Pages without registering? Do you understand that a registered user can also edit while logged out, thereby offering opinions as a registered editor whilst appearing to be unregistered? The point in consideration here is a point about policy, not whether any given editor has the right or experience, in your eyes, to comment on policy. Especially considering the discussion is about a misplaced logout button that could transform a registered user into an IP at the blink of an eye.

Also consider that not everyone rushes to their watchlist so quickly, it is possible to experience and contribute to Misplaced Pages without scanning the same few article continually to see if someone has made a change you might disagree with. Weakopedia (talk) 10:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I thought of including a remark like "good thing I'm already logged out". It's pretty easy to not notice that you've been logged out. That happened to me a lot before I gave up on logging in. (Think of clicking on the link in a way that opens it in a background tab). 66.127.52.47 (talk) 07:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

So how are things in 'Frisco? :) I dunno, I don't do anything fancy-shmancy. If I get logged out (like when the system will hiccup occasionally), I always know it immediately. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Well bully for you because I don't. Theresa Knott | token threats 08:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I have protected his userpage for a bit. When he returns from his block he will not be able to edit it and so may instead chose to make constructive edits to the encyclopaedia. Theresa Knott | token threats 08:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh, the userpage clarifies the situation. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

1. "Main contributors" has not been defined.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards