Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:11, 24 May 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

Canvassing

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs) has canvassed for Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Iceland–Mexico relations (2nd nomination) by notifying a group including ARS regulars () about the AfD renomination (some of whom weren't even involved in the previous discussion) without notifying everyone involved in the previous discussion. The user's response to notification of this has been wikilawyering with no attempt to notify further participants in the original discussion. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

it should also be noted that all those alerted by Richard Norton are editors known for only !voting at bilateral article AfDs. This is one of the most blatant violations of canvassing I've seen in recent times. The fact that Richard Norton as an experienced editor pretends this is not canvassing with responses like this, shows that he is deliberately trying to conceal obvious canvassing and a deliberate disregard for WP rules. LibStar (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

This happened 48 hours ago and has already been raised at the AFD. Norton has already been warned for this and I briefly considered blocking him for it yesterday but decided that it was a little after the event for this to be anything other then punitive. Add another day and block looks even more punitive and I'm afraid you just have to wait for the AFD to be closed and for the closing admin to make allowances for the canvassing. If this doesn't happen then you have a prima facie case for the close to be overturned at DRV and the article relisted. Not really sure what else you can reasonably expect us to do here right now. Spartaz 14:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is that he is a very experienced editor and knew exactly what he was doing. yes I warned him after this spate of canvassing, however the bigger issue here is his deliberate disregard of WP rules, when pressed on canvassing. LibStar (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying it wasn't reprehensible, it was was, but the time to raise a complaint is at the time of the event not 48 hours afterwards. Blocks are not punishments but preventative. What does a block right now prevent? If he canvassed further then I would block in a milisecond but unless he does that its really down to weighing the keep side against the fact of the canvassing. Spartaz 14:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yea this far down the road might cross from preventative into punitive, but I found the "well everyone showed up anyways" response to be the troubling part. Tarc (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

and to everyone, this is his most recent comment on this and which seems more disregard for WP process. LibStar (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel that this report is too late to be valid, but I did not become aware of it as it occurred, and after looking around this morning I felt that it had not been raised in an appropriate forum after the lack of a meaningful reply on his talk page (as AfD should be about the article, not other actions). Personally, I'm a fan of blocking purpose #3: "Encouraging a rapid understanding that the present behavior cannot continue and will not be tolerated", but then that's what's used most often (as far as I can tell) when it comes to copyright violations (where policy violations are often not immediately discovered) which is where I usually work. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Despite many people pointing out to Richard it was clearly canvassing, he continually tries to pretend and deny it was canvassing. If he said, "sorry I won't do it again" then that would be end of story but he persists with this attitude that such "notifications" (masquerading blatant canvassing) are acceptable. LibStar (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is the article canvass squadron permitted space to exist? --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Because it was started with he best of intentions and was not intended to just be a hardcore inclusionist voting block. Somewhere along the line most of them lost their way and became obsessed with keeping any old piece of junk as a "tactical maneuver" as opposed to actually improving articles so that they meet our basic criteria. I've been knocking around an essay on this at User:Beeblebrox/Adding sources as a tactical maneuver, maybe I'll move it into project space... Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree it was started with the best of intentions, but I've been wondering for a while, having seen it on other AfdS, if it has changed to the point where it is no longer helpful to the project. Dougweller (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that some of the people who actually do the work of constructively improving and adding sources to savable articles have gone it alone. There has always been a 'turn up and vote "keep"' element within the ARS and that tends to be people's perception of the project.pretty preppy prose, pablo!   pablo_hablo. 20:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• To ensure a representative sample is drawn, the remaining participants from Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Iceland–Mexico relations not already canvassed (if any) should be contacted in a suitably neutral fashion. –xeno 17:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

  I've done this. –xeno 17:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard A Norton has been given final warning. I don't monitor AFDs often, so editors that notice further behaviour along this line should drop me a note.—Kww(talk) 17:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• When I wrote "let the wars being" in your near-unanimous last RfA, I was anticipating something like this. Glad you haven't let me down. Popcorn! Pcap ping 05:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

What I see here is Yet Another Chapter in an ongoing saga between two camps on how to handle bilateral relations. One side wants to keep all such pairings, regardless of their usefulness, while the other immediately wants to delete any pairing they have not heard of. This WikiDrama is not going to end unless (1) all bilateral relations are assumed to be notable (one could argue that informing a user that two countries have no relations with each other is useful information), or (2) a criteria is established which allow an objective judgment to be made. (Along those lines, whatever happened to Misplaced Pages: WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force?) -- llywrch (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• I believe he only contacted people who were involved in the previous AFD for that article. Libstar is nominating the same articles he failed to get deleted a year ago, we having the same AFDs over again. Everyone from the previous AFD should be contacted, regardless of how they voted. If he failed to contact some of the participates who hadn't already found their way there, then I believe it was done in error, he not understanding the rules, they not all clearly written. I don't know if everyone contacted was a member of the Article Rescue Squadron or not, but that wasn't the reason they were contacted so isn't relevant. Dream Focus 22:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Dream Focus you are clearly wrong, here is the original Afd, I can note that Richard canvassed these users who did not even appear in the original AfD: Namiba, AlanSohn, MichaelQSchmidt. Richard failed to contact any of the delete voters in the original AfD. clearest case of canvassing I've seen. LibStar (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The best rule of thumb for this is pretty simple: don't talk to anyone about AFDs anywhere but on the AFD and the talk page for the article that has been nominated. That way, no one can ever accuse you of canvassing. There's no reason to invite people from similar AFDs, previous AFDs, or even people that have edited the article. The goal of an AFD is to get an unbiased cross-section of editors, not one sorted by any criteria, no matter how objectively reasonable that criteria seems to be.—Kww(talk) 23:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Did they give you the power to impose new policy by fiat in your RfA? I missed that part... Perhaps you should speedy delete WP:DELSORT as well, because it attracts editors that might care about certain articles as opposed to completely random ones. I've been "canvased", and have "canvased" myself w.r.t AfD a good number of times. The guideline seems to be WP:CANVASS, last I checked. Pcap ping 06:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

That's my advice, not policy. Norton violated WP:CANVAS, and that's what he was warned about and that's what he will be blocked for future violations of.—Kww(talk) 14:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

What a bunch of mealy-mouthed excuse-making. This is an experienced editor, not a green-thumbed newbie, and WP:CANVAS has a very easy to read table to help determine the difference between proper and improper notifications. Norton only notified noted inclusionists such as yourself, and quite clearly knew what he was doing. Tarc (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• Dream Focus, the only reason Richard Norton contacted those people is because he wanted them to come and vote keep. He selectively contacted only people he felt would vote the way he wanted, but excluded people who voted to delete last time. That's pretty obvious canvassing, and to pretend otherwise is just disingenuous. Reyk _YO! 23:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I think everyone who responded has missed my point. Richard is a long-time & experienced Wikipedian; he knows about canvassing & that he can be sanctioned for it. Yet he felt this issue was worth risking a ban for doing this. Why did he do this? The reason is obvious: the unresolved dispute over "notable" bilateral relations. So it is reasonable to suspect that even if Richard is permanently banned from Misplaced Pages, this dispute won't go away. Attempts to resolve it by finding a consensus have been unsuccessful, to put it mildly. Yes, WP:AN/I should focus on behavior over content, but unless the deeper cause is addressed -- lack of an explicit standard for notable bilateral relations -- other parties in this dispute will become featured guests here. Which I assume no one wants. -- llywrch (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

We did have consensus--we had an approximate standard, much less inclusionist than I would have liked, but a moderately self-consistent set of decisions nonetheless, at the original rounds of discussion on these. The recent afds are renomination of the articles that survived, and I see them as an attempt to disrupt the admittedly fragile tacit settlement that had been achieved . DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the "don't talk about AfD anywhere but the AfD discussion. It is permissible to inform Wikiprojects with a neutral notice that "article X" has been nominated for deletion. Members of that WP then have the opportunity to look at the article, and decide whether it should be kept, deleted, merged or turned into a redirect. Mjroots2 (talk) 06:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

That's why the simpler approach of indef blocks for those users who continue to turn AfD into a battleground (there are less than a dozen, and three of the most high-profile have thankfully left the project recently anyway) is best. Then people can continue to argue for a more sanguine approach to notifying other editors of AfDs without acting as useful idiots for the hardcore disruptors. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy Break

• It is time for an unequivocal ban on ARS canvassing. They can use a transcluded notification page and/or watchlist a noticeboard. This keeps happening, keeps causing drama, and keeps being an unacceptably one-sided form of canvassing. Guy (Help!) 14:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• I thought there was an "unequivocal ban" on canvassing, period. Or is this a proposal along the lines of the old warning, "Offenders will be shot. Repeat offenders will be repeatedly shot"? -- llywrch (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• I've never understood the long-standing battle over these relations articles - they don't seem to warrant the fuss that is made over them either way. Anyway, the comments of the usual hard-core deletionists above seem neither helpful nor unbiased as they just seem to represent one side of this battle. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:LAMEcup? Pcap ping 08:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is ridiculous canvassing. Getting inclusionists to vote on that AFD is definitely not neutral, and especially because Arthur is very experienced around here, this is clearly canvassing. Wonder why he hasn't posted here yet. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the "usual hard-core deletionists" are getting just a wee bit tired of the ARS cheating and manipulating AfDs? You can't shoot the messenger just because someone got caught so red-handed. Tarc (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• Call a spade a spade. Whatever the intentions when created, the ARS has beomce, to a degree, the Canvass squadron. Posting a notice there invites dozens of "the usual hardcore inclusionists" to run to an AfD and start claiming that "one source passes GNG" or something like that. If there was a Article Deletionist project, it would be the same thing. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• And if someone did start a hardcore deletionist wikiproject, you'd be able to hear the ARS's outraged shrieking from the Moon. Reyk _YO! 23:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• At this point, although members occassionally improve article, I regard ARS as little more than a subtle canvassing project. Just my opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• You & I both, Colonel. I was hoping that the discussion I linked to above would have created some kind of consensus about the matter, even if in a negative manner -- e.g., "If two countries do not have diplomatic staff resident in each others countries, nor any explicit reason why this is not so, then their bilateral relations are not notable." Instead, the two camps remain at loggerheads. -- llywrch (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Has it been canvassing? Yes, perhaps. However when AfD's etc. are discussed here, for example, and armies of deletionists come consequently to sink articles, canvassing complaints are immediately dismissed (see ). Double standards? Also: I am an outspoken inclusionist, yet I've still to see "dozens of the usual hardcore inclusionists" in any AfD discussion. I would absolutely love to see examples of that, it would give me back some faith in the WP process :) --Cyclopia 21:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

  Anyone with more than a brief experience of XfD who claims to be unfamiliar with the dominant clique involved with inclusionist disruption is being wholly disingenuous. Full stop. This goes double for anyone who reads enough of Misplaced Pages Review to be linking to discussions of the subject. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

  I have more than a brief experience of AfD, and I really see no "dominant inclusionist clique". I instead see a dominant deletionist bias, especially (but not only) in dealing with BLPs. Perhaps we read two different AfD's? --Cyclopia 01:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, I've just seen Jimbo's comments regarding your attitude towards unreferenced BLPs. I rather think we're on different planets. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed Misplaced Pages Review has been tremendously helpful for identifying and focusing editors to flock to discussions and greatly sway events regardless of the disruption and invasion of privacy. In fact it's so very helpful to disrupt Misplaced Pages time and time again to make a point, right? We don't need a deletion canvas squadron as Misplaced Pages Review does that quite effectively with zero accountability and unencumbered by our pesky policies. Comfort shoe (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

"Our"? An odd word to use for an account's first edit. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Comfort shoe is clearly somebody's sock. A Nobody/The Pumpkin King/Elizabeth Rogan/Wikipedian, Historian and Friend has been socking again so it may be him. But it's definitely somebody'sBali ultimate (talk) 11:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Bingo ;) Jack Merridew 11:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

So, all that's needed is another web site, Misplaced Pages Unreview, for inclusionists? Pcap ping 08:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much every aspect of Misplaced Pages gets criticised on Misplaced Pages Review anyway, so one has to do some pretty selective reading to suggest that it's some deletionist holdout. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a Misplaced Pages Review Reality Check would help or a template warning that specific discussions are poisoned by offsite canvassing. We can pretend it's all noble to critique editors and policies on other websites but when editors show duplicitous signs of disruption and defend banned users making a point it gets tired. Eroding the academic work of volunteers may be great sport however the end result remains the degrading of human knowledge by intimidation rather than utilizing the consensus processes worked out over years. Comfort shoe (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You're not saying anything which hasn't previously been discussed. Indeed, even the "Misplaced Pages review is sending people to delete our articles" trope is a well-walked road: Le Grand Roi was fond of that one for a while about a year ago. I'm still curious as to why you chose this thread as the location of your first registered contribution to the project. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, with the exception of a very few (i.e. Everyking), I'd say most WR regulars are leaning on the deletionist side. While I can link lots of WR threads where successful AfD's are collectively cheered with smiles and hoorays, I've yet to see WR actively taking side to keep an article. --Cyclopia 11:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that you believe that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to link me some example of the WR community being happy and relieved of an article being kept at an AfD. --Cyclopia 12:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Discourtesy break

The discussion in the section above is a perfect example of why this canvassing has to stop. It stokes persecution mania and militancy and reinforces the false belief in "inclusionist" and "deletionist" as mutually exclusive opposing camps when in reality there is a spectrum of inclusionism and a broad range of personal views on where the threshold should lie for any given topic. Once again, the ARSes have caused division and venom. Was that intended? Probably not, but it happened anyway. So: no more ARS canvassing. Guy (Help!) 16:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

What about no more canvassing in general? Skewing consensus is bad either way, isn't it? I am not an active ARS member, but ARS has a noble objective at least -improving articles to make sure valuable material is not deleted. How can this cause "division and venom" baffles me -all what I see in this disgraceful thread is venom thrown against ARS. --Cyclopia 16:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are more than welcome to rescue articles (Uncle G is one of my favourite Wikipedians of all time, and he has a long history of doing just that). The problem is canvassing. By ARS, by WikiProjects, by anyone. Guy (Help!) 16:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think that the issue is not that the use of the ARS is inherently bad, but that the ARS is open to abuse, e.g. where the article was already well written and referenced and so had no need of rescue. It's cases like this where rescuing an article could be considered votestacking as it then only serves to attract !voters as opposed to editors to improve the article. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec x2) Bingo! This is my sentiment as well. To the extent that ARS members canvass (as is alleged here) they should be reprimanded. To the extent that NON-ARS members canvass, to whatever end, they too should be reprimanded. The anti-ARS rants are pointless. I reiterate my position that ARS should be a core, volunteer function like 3O, not a wikiproject with membership and leadership. Everything that CAN be improved instead of deleted should be; that which cannot, should not. ARS should be a tool to that end, and neither anyone's pet canvassing forum nor anyone else's pet punching bag. Jclemens (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• It takes two to tango. This really isn't about the ARS at all, since the concern is canvassing of individuals by R.A.N., not the addition of a rescue tag to the article. If/when ARS volunteers simply vote keep without explanation, the vote should be suitably discounted as any other similar vote would be, and votes with valid reasoning should be considered; when ARS members actually improve an article, then it might be worthwhile for editors to consider the changes in the AfD when !voting.

llywrch has one of the few constructive comments that could solve the real problem here: "What I see here is Yet Another Chapter in an ongoing saga between two camps on how to handle bilateral relations. One side wants to keep all such pairings, regardless of their usefulness, while the other immediately wants to delete any pairing they have not heard of. This WikiDrama is not going to end unless (1) all bilateral relations are assumed to be notable (one could argue that informing a user that two countries have no relations with each other is useful information), or (2) a criteria is established which allow an objective judgment to be made. (Along those lines, whatever happened to Misplaced Pages: WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force?)".

It appears that LibStar renominated an article for deletion that they had nominated a year prior, and which was kept. The renomination makes no mention of the the prior keep. When that happens it tends to irritate people because there's no explanation for why there is a new AfD -- it smacks of a simple deletion canvass (because every AfD asks editors to consider whether an article should be deleted, that's the nature of the AfD process). Renominating articles without a rationale for it invites drama. R.A.N.'s response is more understandable in that light, though not excused. It takes two to tango (tangle?). In any event, I'd prefer we solve the underlying problem -- the lack of consensus on how to treat these bilateral articles, because areas like this will consistently cause AN/I threads with varying labels.

Since I am an active ARS member, I should disclose that I was not canvassed for the AfD--I noted it independently while scanning recent AfDs (not even those marked for rescue), and !voted about 12 hours ago. Cyclopedia recently noted the existence of this ANI on the ARS talk page.--Milowent (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

LibStar has been doing these renominations for a long time now. See Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Philippines–Romania_relations_(2nd_nomination) for instance. Pcap ping 21:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Considering that s/he has two barnstars that were given for the exact reason of having nominated for AfD, what I would assume to be, numerous bilateral relations articles. Silverseren 21:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

And considering that the last two of the three nominations of that article were "keep", the barnstars only show that an extreme deletionist camp exists, and that they frot barnstar each other. Pcap ping 21:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Try and tone down the language a bit, please. :/ Silverseren 21:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Correction The result of the previous AfD for the article in question was "no consensus" not "keep," so accusations that Libstar's nomination is somehow ill conceived are ill conceived. A year ago we couldn't find consensus on the notability of this article, so it seems perfectly reasonable to come back a year later and try again. Community views may have changed in the meantime, certain disruptive editors may have left or been blocked/banned in the mean time, new sources may have become available, etc. Yilloslime _C 22:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to Talk:Philippines–Romania relations, which lists 3 noms, as I said (the first was part of a group nom.) Pcap ping 07:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Another more recent example is Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cyprus–Norway relations (3rd nomination); previous two nominations were "keep" as well. Pcap ping 09:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to Milowent's comment, not yours. Yilloslime _C 16:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Shame on all of you

• I am deeply, deeply offended about comments made above about the ARS. I would have thought that such long-standing members would have even a hint of civility. What, just because you're talking about a group of people, instead of individuals, it's okay to use personal attacks? That's one of the worst cases of Wikilawyering i've ever seen. I, for one, have always tried to improve an article, if it's something that does need improvement to be worthy of inclusion. If I can't improve an article at all, I don't vote, there's no point, I believe it to be non-notable. The insinuations and comments made above by other users have been absolutely reprehensible. Though I suppose it's not surprising at all, since the comments are composed by the usual outspoken critics, the deletionists. I'm just shocked that other users have just let them go on and on and not say anything about their incivil remarks. If this is the state of Misplaced Pages, where we just allow crass remarks and titling of sections with "Discourtesy break" to be said by established users, just because they are such, then the project is far closer to crumbling than I imagined. Silverseren 17:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

While heated, I think this thread is already going along just fine without the dramamongering. --Smashville 18:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You mean the entire section dedicated to spewing abuse on ARS members? How is that "going along just fine"? I would think that an administrator would actually want to stop incivility. Silverseren 18:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Would you like to counter anything they said or are you just going to go on about how "offended" you are and "reprehensible"? That's what I meant about dramamongering. Would you mind giving us some diffs of personal attacks and abuse? --Smashville 18:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"ARS cheating and manipulating AfDs"

"you'd be able to hear the ARS's outraged shrieking from the Moon. "

"Once again, the ARSes have caused division and venom."

All of these comments I find offensive and laughable, especially the insinuation that this is the ARS' fault, when it was Richard who contacted individual members. Taking that to mean the entire group as a whole is incredibly offensive. Silverseren 19:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you any diffs that you haven't pulled out of context? Granted, Tarc is pretty abrasive sometimes, but the fact of the matter is that you're not exactly disputing the validity of these claims other than repeating how horribly offended you are that someone dare question ARS. --Smashville 20:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"ARSes" translates to "asses" in American English. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Pointing out and discussing behavioural problems from a group of editors is not a personal attack. The fact is that the ARS has frequently been used as a keep vote canvassing vehicle. You yourself used it that way not so long ago. Reyk _YO! 19:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a method of getting more people to look at the changes I had made. Would you say that the article is non-notable after my changes to it? Silverseren 20:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course it was canvassing. That's why it ended up being redacted by WereSpielChequers as obvious canvassing. Whether or not you made changes to the article is irrelevant: asking people to turn up and vote your way is pretty much a textbook violation of WP:CANVAS. The fact that hardly anyone in the ARS has a problem with it is embarrassing. As long as the Article Rescue Squadron tacitly supports inclusionist votestacking, they'll continue to be regarded as a dubious phenomenon and any good rescue work they do won't get the respect it deserves. Reyk _YO! 22:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• The ARS' initial goal of article cleanup and retention may have been a noble and well-intentioned goal, but that got lost along the way. The current squad, the one who rallies the loyalistas to keep the most horridly abusive BLPs (Miriam Sakewitz, Eric Ely, Bigoted woman incident), the blindingly-obvious WP:NOTNEWS (2008 Passover margarine shortage), and the amazingly crystal-clear case of fucking a non-single song with ZERO 3rd party coverage (Money (Michael Jackson song)...yea, the current wikiproject is a cancer upon the project. A dangerous mix of blind devotion and extreme short-sightedness. Disband this fiasco for the good of all and to prevent further harm. Tarc (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • • LOL. What rubbish. The very idea that 'bigotgate' was even given the chance to be 'rescued' is absolute bollocks. It was deleted and salted within the hour, a decision rightly condemned eventualy at Drv as an abuse, not that that has reversed the damage or rescued the article. If those other examples are even remotely comparable, the "cancer" is not the ARS. Still, shut your eyes Tarc, don't look!. don't look!. She never existed, yesterday's chip wrappings, not notable, beneath contempt, yadder yadder. MickMacNee (talk) 00:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Might I suggest that folks calm down a bit? Anyone can join ARS, and anyone can participate in AFD, and no one's being shot at... --Nuujinn (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• Nuujinn's valid comment aside: Oh, what drama. I think Tarc is the cancer. Nanny nanny hoo hoo. (Shall I be blocked for repeating Tarc's slur?) BTW, I am one of the most active ARS members and fought hard to get Ely deleted, and though that AfD had a few 'keep' votes, there was no unified ARS opinion there, not even a colorful Dream Focus-signatured keep. Stop using the ARS as a proxy for attacking inclusionist viewpoints with which you differ.--Milowent (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• It's a shame that there's no Deletionist Squadron to counter the influence of the ARS. Of course, there was one, but they unanimously voted to delete it. Just so you know my intention is to be constructive: Here's a question to consider: What is the difference between the ARS and institutionalised canvassing? SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I can really only speak for myself and not the group as a whole, but I know that I go into an Afd with the intention of improving the article first. If the article already appears to have reliable references and is notable, then I will vote Keep, with policy backing. But, otherwise, I will do my best to make the article better so that it fits the notability guidelines. If there's nothing I can do for an article, I leave it alone and stay out of the Afd. In a manner, Afds I don't participate in, at least the ones I look through, have an unofficial delete vote from me, because I would be voting keep if I thought it was worthy. I just never bother voting delete on anything, because I find it a waste of time. I'm here to improve Misplaced Pages, not remove content from it. That's my viewpoint, at least. Hope it helps. Silverseren 21:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"I just never bother voting delete on anything, because I find it a waste of time. I'm here to improve Misplaced Pages, not remove content from it." Srsly? That's one the most shortsighted comments I've seen in a long time. What about nationalistic POV monuments, businesses nobody has ever heard of, hoaxes, or even plain gibberish? Even DGG !votes delete once in a while... Pcap ping 22:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Then others will vote delete. Almost all of the time the AfD is already tending toward delete as it is, what's the point of voting delete? I just move on to things that could use my help. Silverseren 22:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel, there is an institutionalized deletionist group, its called "Articles for Deletion." Yes, my comment is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but AfD is deletionist by nature, because that is its purpose. (I recall seeing comments from long time editors about how they opposed AfD even existing, or that it should be put on hiatus. I wish could find these right now, but the process is now institutionalized.) AfD works generally well, only a small percentage of discussions become battles. And over time these battles lead to working rules and guidelines to eliminate battles.--Milowent (talk) 01:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Such as this one, hopefully. I remember the guideline discussion surrounding Misplaced Pages:Software notability after some mass nominations that also led to a WP:RFAR (somewhat inaptly named Tothwolf, after one of the participants). Pcap ping 07:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

m:Association of Deletionist Wikipedians apparently got moved to meta and discarded some of its operating procedures. I remember laughing at the wp version because it was basically inclusionist despite its name. AfD is not remotely a deletionist institution by the way. It operates within a highly incluionistic framework and makes no attempt to contest that. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 08:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

So, make an Association of Überdeletionist Wikipedians, for great justice. A more appropriate name would be the Association of G11 Wikipedians, though. I've managed to have deleted articles with over 100 potential references with a well placed G11 tag. Others have done much better, managing to rid us of article with potentially over 1000 references, but they had DRV help. I haven't graduated to that cabal, yet... Pcap ping 11:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Association of Überdeletionist Wikipedians...or as members of Anonymous call it DELETE EVERYTHING!!! - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"Delete fucking everything" is the correct terminology. I'd give you a link to it too (ED), but it's on our WP:BADSITES list, and the software won't let me enter the URL. I'm sure you can find it using the google. (Apology for the foul language, but it's part of the official canon.) Pcap ping 11:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Re {{rescue}}-tagging an article at AfD

There are obviously divergent views on whether ARS is a net positive or negative to WP, and further discussion here on the project's merits is probably only going to raise tension. But what about the following, which is perhaps a more clear cut abuse of the ARS's {{rescue}} tag? The first time Iceland–Mexico relations was AfD'd, the tag was added to the article. Maybe this was "stealth canvassing," maybe it wasn't, but I assume it was done in good faith to improve the article. But when the article was reAfDed, the tag was readded. Here, the purpose of tagging seems more obviously to be about canvassing--after all, the article had already enjoyed the ARS's attention a year earlier, so it's less likely that the squad is going to be able to do much with the article. (In addition, the tagging editor's very next set of edits was the canvassing that is the subject of this thread.) So anyways, I guess what I'm suggesting is that applying the {{rescue}} tag to an article that's previously been tagged with it should be discouraged or perhaps even disallowed, and any editor should be allowed to remove the tag. In other words, re-tagging carries the high potential for abuse (i.e. canvassing) but low potential for additional, incremental article improvement, so articles should only be eligible for ARS improvement once. Thoughts? Yilloslime _C 23:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The same arguments can be used for almost any tags - the tag per se is not a problem AFAICT. The problem is that any group which "believes" in its purpose on WP can be just as culpable in making a false consensus. WP is ill-served by any such group (whether formal or informal in nature), and admins who view consensus set by any such group should ignore any improper consensus. A few of the ArbCom findings are at WP:False consensus. Collect (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I wouldn't see this as a problem in itself; I'd rather {{rescue}} were given a concrete overcoat, but while there's no consensus for that I don't see the harm in applying it again if it could theoretically help. The bigger problem is that the editor who re-tagged happens to be engaged in regular brinksmanship regarding the boundaries of canvassing, much like Ikip did (when not simply flagrantly overstepping the line), and even editors like user:Silver seren above (who are strongly in favour of ARS even though they aren't part of the infamous bloc of inclusionists who follow each other from AfD to ANI to RfA) appear to be neither concerned about said canvassing nor even particularly aware of what the point of participating in an AfD actually is. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Chris, would you mind clarifying who are the components of this vague "infamous bloc of inclusionists" are? Apart that being inclusionist and following AfD is not a crime (yet), it seems something vaguely existing only in your mind. What are exactly the problems? --Cyclopia 00:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

A crime no, but it skews AfD if you're not being truly objective about the article and simply voting to keep it because you !vote to keep everything. Frankly its a disservice to the community for anyone to !vote without being objective.--Crossmr (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I never said I wasn't concerned about the canvassing. I was just saying that Richard is the culprit in this and the ARS shouldn't be blamed just for the mere fact that he canvassed some members. Blame Richard, not us. Silverseren 23:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not the tag, it's the culture. The group is well intentioned but has morphed into a separate identity outside of being a Misplaced Pages Editor. It's Esperanza all over again, and it will end the same way. To invoke and paraphrase Twain 'History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes.' --M 23:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The "rescue tag", like most processes at WP, works well most of the time. It alerts people that an article, which currently is so bad it may be deleted, might be especially worthy of inclusion. Most articles tagged so do in fact need some help. Please do not throw out the baby with the bathwater. I do not know of any responsible editor who misuses the tag. Bearian (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The question I posed is not about the tag in general, but rather about re-tagging articles with it. Yilloslime _C 00:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think retagging is a significant problem. A lot of articles are kept on the basis of the idea that an article has implicit promise. A second AFD occurs because that promise has not been fulfilled. There really isn't anything saying that sources didn't appear in the intervening time period, and perhaps a second rescue attempt will be successful. Rescue tags aren't immoral or evil, and the worst of the abusers have left the project or been blocked. Hopefully, the image of the ARS will be rehabilitated as a result.—Kww(talk) 01:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Finally a sane comment. There's nothing wrong with ARS in principle. Many of the editors there are actually improving articles instead of trying to rally some kind of political force. Focus on the canvassing by Richard Arthur Norton. Even then I'm sure that only a clear warning is necessary to improve his behavior. Arskwad (talk) 04:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That's all he received, and I haven't seen any signs that anyone thinks that more would be necessary.—Kww(talk) 04:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: start a guideline discussion

All I see in the various AfDs on this topic are reiterations of the same positions, which leads to WP:BATTLE among small groups of editors. I suggest that the party who wishes special (different from WP:GNG) rules to apply to this area draft a guideline and follow the usual ratification process. This should settle the core argument. After it's reasonably well drafted, advertise it widely, and conduct a RfC for its adoptions, so uninvolved participants can join an express their view once. Look at what happened with Misplaced Pages:Software notability; this was proposed during another fight over a large group of articles, a fight which also led to an arbitration case. Pcap ping 07:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That's already ongoing, and isn't something which needs to go to ANI. The problem is that some editors aren't willing to stick to the regular process of gaining consensus and end up resorting to demagoguery and dirty tricks, which has unfortunately become closely associated with ARS because the editors in question have been deeply involved with that project. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

A key question is who closely associates these dirty tricks with the ARS? Answer: an admittedly sizeable proportion of those community members who are politically active within our encyclopedias internals. Taking a broader view, the ARS and inclusionism is supported by the wider community of contributors and internet users. Externally, Journalists have wrote positively about the ARS and inclusionists, while taking a much dimmer view of deletionists. The squad is also aligned with the Foundation who still wish to foster growth, promote diversity and a friendly collaborative project - values which the ARS reflects. The squad represents the original m:Vision of this project, which is still used in our marketing material Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. So a very credible alternative view is that its those who are overly aggressive in pursuing their contrarian elitist and deletionist vision who are casing needless hostility. A lot more could be said, but this doesnt seem the best forum, can someone please resolve this needlessly inflamatory thread? FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

So? wikipedia has constantly been made a laughing stock the amount of space it devotes to fictional topics, like say.. pokemon. That is immaterial and so is what "journalists" think. What is a journalist anyway? Anyone with a heart beat and access to a computer who wants to start a blog/twitter/etc? The community here long ago decided there was a threshold of inclusion and the sum of all knowledge wasn't it. Perhaps it is simply those who can look objectively at a subject and the applicable guidelines and policies and decide whether or not an article should go. But now that I'm done taking pot shots at various groups and opinions, can someone lock this so I can have the last word?--Crossmr (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It's split roughly evenly between people who see inclusionist-related drama on ANI and attribute it to ARS because it's from someone active there (which is most uninvolved admins), and the disruptors themselves who attempt to portray any criticism of hyper-inclusionist as an attack on the ARS as a smokescreen. And oh yes, "the ARS and inclusionism is supported by the wider community of contributors and internet users" indeed: that is evidently why your brand of inclusionism is so popular here that it requires the coordinated disruption of large chunks of projectspace (XfD, ANI, RfA) to achieve your aims. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

"Coordinated disruption of large chunks of projectspace"? Gee, Chris, your delusional ranting is making me roll on the floor laughing. --Cyclopia 12:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

And that will be your last personal attack. I don't know you from Adam, which rather implies that you're not one of the editors who is really being discussed here. It's not my job to provide you with a full history of this two-year dramafest on demand. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't attack you (sorry if it felt this way). I am only criticizing (harshly, I agree) your point of view on the situation, and the way you present it. You are talking about vague conspiracies, and when asked for information (implicitly or explicitly) you just answer that it's not your job. Well, if there actually is such a conspiracy, it would be perhaps not your job but a courtesy to inform unaware WP editors of what is going on, so that we don't get caught in shady things, and to provide evidence of that. My experience in AfD gives me a completely opposite picture, that's why I am so incredulous and surprised. --Cyclopia 15:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we can conclude with n-th law of Misplaced Pages: "The cabal is always the group you're not associated with." Pcap ping 15:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Cyclopia, this is approximately the hundredth time that one of this group has been the result of ANI drama in the last two years. I am being deliberately reticent about naming names a) because I've no time for the mock outrage and heated denials which would result from that, b) because it's a group behaviour which is the problem here and a correction there would be far better than individual sanctions, and c) because frankly anyone who has been following this at all closely should be able to name most of the parties in question without too much thought. If you're not in a position to do that then great; you've not been editing in quite the same circles as the problemative editors, so pretty much all of this discussion is inapplicable to you. I would far rather not have to go discussing this offline, so this is the compromise I've found. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, and apologies again for the excessive sarcasm. That said, if someone else wants to explain me what we're talking about, I'd be happy. --Cyclopia 21:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Responding to Pcap above, I think there's a move towards a consensus on this issue (look at Sjakkalle's close) although it's happening without anyone noticing it, which means the WikiDrama is unnecessarily continuing. All that I -- call me an inclusionist, a deletionist, Yet Another Pain-in-the-butt -- want out of these discussions is to know what the community truly thinks are notable articles in this area. Until that happens, I'll spend my writing time on articles which have nothing to do with bilateral relations, & wait out these two camps while they fight it out. As for ARS, as long as its members limit their efforts to rescuing articles which could be saved with a decent rewrite, no one should have a problem with that WikiProject; if individuals go beyond that then the individuals deserve sanctioning, not the entire WikiProject. -- llywrch (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Delsort queue fixed

I've noticed there was a delsort queue for this at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bilateral relations, but it was badly formatted, and it was never approved at WT:DELSORT. I've fixed it and added without prior discussion as an emergency measure. Hopefully, interested parties can now watchlist this instead of the more arcane and less transparent means of AfD notification. Pcap ping 09:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the problem

If members of the ARS (or anyone else for that matter) are Keepspamming AfDs with dubious rationales, then the closing admin should just be ignoring them. Exactly the same way as they should be ignoring "Delete - not notable" comments. The problem is not the ARS or any other voting bloc, it's the fact that too many AfD closers are still vote-counting because they're terrified of being taken to DRV. If that's you, there's a simple answer - stop closing AfDs. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think you know better than that. It is very easy to abuse the good faith of a closing admin, and deleting articles after a series of pile-on keeps is inevitably going to lead to deletion review and further drama. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Then, as has been stated, the closing admin shouldn't be the closing admin, but should vote Delete themselves with as persuasive a rationale as they can manage. It is incredibly likely that that would be more than enough for the another admin who comes along and closes it to feel firm in their decision to Delete. If it goes to DRV after that, it is highly likely that they will concur with the rationale and endorse it. It's really not that complicated. Silverseren 21:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That's precisely the chilling effect which the disruptors were hoping to enable; a situation where any admin who dared to close a debate that they might personally feel one way or the other on (i.e. in most cases which are being discussed, to delete against the will of the disruptors) would feel too scared to do so. Eventually you get a situation where the very people most suitable for closing contentious AfDs are scared off them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I've seen it go for both directions though (controversy from both Keep and Delete blocs). What do you think the best method is for fixing it? Is my idea I put above your comment a sound one? Silverseren 21:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Banning Drama mongers and opening RfCs on admins who consistently close debates against consensus? After a few heads roll you'd probably find the inclination to try and disrupt AfDs (at least by regular users) to drop. There is a serious problem with some AfDs where admins do nothing but count votes when most of the arguments amount to nothing more than "keep, I'm wearing blue pants!". Frankly we're not remotely tough enough on canvassers. Anyone genuinely caught canvassing should be blocked for the duration of the AfD the first time. The second time they should be blocked for a year.--Crossmr (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If this includes off-site canvassing (WR, I'm looking at you), I can agree. But here it seems canvassing is thought a problem only one-way, and not the other. --Cyclopia 18:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/Black Kite. There's very little backlog at AfD, which has been the case for a very long time. Admins who get routinely overturned at DRV and those who cannot stomach standing up to bad rationales can direct their efforts elsewhere with little chance of problems arising in this area. 86.45.155.132 (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I see the problem in similar terms to BK/JzG/Chris/, but just the opposite direction. Many admins who close AfD are, in my opinion, much more inclined to close as delete than keep. Most of the mass identical votes I see there are from people wanting to delete. I think our increasing tendency to unreasoning deletionism is putting the encyclopedia at great risk of ridicule. Anyone who uses WP at all basically expect when they look for an article, to find something. This is being frustrated by what seems to me an attempt to rally the deletionists here. Chris higher up the page is basically asking for everybody who disagrees with him to be blocked, and Crossmr here is asking for RfCs on admins who close as keep. One of the most dedicated article-sourcers has just been forced to leave by arbcom, and others have left out of frustration with the experienced deletionists here who are well skilled in process and know the right places to gather. Chris talks about chilling effect, but the effect of this group has forced me to only close afd debates where i can say delete (with a few exceptions where the keep voice is unanimous.) Even when I close a grossly contaminated debate as non-consensus I find I am subject to attack, to the extent I am unlikely to risk it again. And people above call me an extreme inclusionist when about 1/3 of my afd !votes are delete. I didn't want to use myself as an example when I know many other admins feel similarly, but they'll have to speak up for themselves. DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm genuinely surprised by the candor of this post. This has essentially been DGG's line of reasoning through two years of being the most prominent and respected enabler of the behaviour in question. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Of which behavior? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, canvassing is a good example. Look back at the most recent discussion on Ikip's blatant canvassing, for instance. DGG has also been Le Grand Roi's informal mentor for over a year, and saw fit to suggest that half of ArbCom should be de-bitted the other day for daring to suggest that after his having socked yet again this week that a ban was appropriate over his current indef block. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as an inclusionist who has nominated articles for deletion -- & believes that the process works 90% of the time -- I strongly disagree. As one Wikipedian wrote, years ago, articles which are worth having will get attention, & be worked on; articles which don't merit attention will be ignored. Who is hurt by the presence of an article like Ethiopia-Bhutan bilateral relations? (FWIW, it is not notable, & I'll happy vote to delete it.) No one. Disk space is cheap & Misplaced Pages is not paper. If an article is created as a stub, then misses a deletion decision by a hair, there is always the chance that someone will work hard on it to make it a truly useful article; & if not, well, until someone proves that unnotable Misplaced Pages articles kills kittens, we shouldn't need to worry about keeping borderline or sketchy articles. -- llywrch (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The specific threshold of notability is absolutely not in discussion here. It is the constant dodging of policy and battlegrounding of one easily-indentified group who happen to be inclusionists which is the problem. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually Misplaced Pages Review tends to run deletionist but agree their constant "dodging of policy and battlegrounding" is unacceptable. 71.139.28.19 (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand me, Chris. My point is that complaining about being frustrated at deleting articles -- even articles which are clearly unnotable & should be deleted -- is much ado about nothing. If you have proof of a cabal devoted to violating general consensus in order to prevent the deletion of articles, kindly provide it & they will be dealt with. (Well, eventually, but we both understand why that is & should try not to be frustrated by that slowness.) Otherwise, there's a lot of content that needs work & doing that is far more satisfying than arguing with someone here who happens to disagree with you. -- llywrch (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

No, actually I'm not and mischaracterizing doesn't make your point. I specifically said RfCs should be open on admins who routinely ignore consensus, whatever that may be. I gave keep as an example, but if an article was deleted for no reason other than "Delete - I'm wearing blue pants!" and an admin repeatedly did it, I'd recommend an RfC on them as well. I recommend an RfC on any admin who routinely vote counts and ignores consensus arguments. It shows they have zero understanding of WP:CONSENSUS and aren't serving the community.--Crossmr (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I endorse every single word of DGG. Thank you. --Cyclopia 18:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

opening RfCs on admins who consistently close debates against consensus vs Crossmr here is asking for RfCs on admins who close as keep. So you endorse someone who deliberately tries to misrepresent what people said? Tells us a lot.--Crossmr (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

DGG, I think it's strange that you're now accusing the ArbCom of driving AN away, when a few days ago you accused them of luring him into a trap. Bit hard to both simultaneously. In fact, they have done neither. They've actually shown remarkable restraint and good-will, far more in my opinion than he deserves after all the dodgy stunts he's pulled, and the entire ArbCom process has only come about because all previous attempts at dispute resolution have failed- because AN has refused to participate. What has happened to A Nobody is his own doing, not because people are ganging up on him and persecuting him as you seem to be suggesting. Reyk _YO! 23:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

seems pretty clear to me: they lured him into a trap, and when he was caught, they used the opportunity to force him out of Misplaced Pages. Simple enough. That he was susceptible to such traps is his own lack of judgment and refusal to follow advice, but that's no excuse for those who took advantage of it. But this part of the discussion belongs elsewhere on the page. DGG ( talk )

Oh come off it, he hasn't been forced off of anything. At least, not yet. The ArbCom have made it very clear that they are very receptive to hearing from him and that he can return just as soon as he contacts them and declares himself ready to answer for his own actions. The fact that this is the hardest possible thing in the world for A Nobody isn't the doing of the ArbCom. Reyk _YO! 04:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

DRV is part of the problem

In most review processes in real life, and even in some on Misplaced Pages, the reviewers are different from the original authors/participants. Our DRV process however happens to have the same involved parties dominate the discussion in a considerable number of cases, especially if the original AfD involved a lot of participants. Pcap ping 15:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The main thing that DRV needs is greater participation, both in listing articles and in discussing them. There's a perception of it as a process too arcane for most people to be comfortable with, but I do not think that holds. What is true is that to participate there effectively one needs to carefully read the previous discussion and also the underlying article, which will generally be undeleted for the purpose of discussion, and that those who !vote one way or another without examination will not find much respect paid to their opinions. . I just come from there, having supported 2 prior deletes. On the one hand, many appeals to it from deletion are unreasonable last ditch efforts, but on the other many dubious admin decisions are not taken there that ought to be. DGG ( talk ) 16:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

casual observation

has anybody ever noticed that it's literaly impossible to address an individual user's bad behavior on the admin noticeboard? there are always a few defenders who come out of the wood work to say that the incident is about their view point instead of behavior.. and they are often right because a few attackers will be happy to attack a whole wikiphilosophy and take their attetion off the individual problem...

when is somebody going to treat these incidents as individual behavior issues and stop getting all meta? when somebody breaks the rules we can't so much as warn them to not do it again without it becoming a philosophy batteground? if somebody would just put their foot down you could reduce the tactical wikilawyering and prevent these philosophy debates from spilling onto the admin noticeboard in the first place...

issue a warning and move on... Arskwad (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Silverseren 17:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not true. I've followed the threads on this page off & on for at least 4 years, & bad behavior has been dealt with promptly here all of the time. Although sometimes A complains about B without going thru the dispute resolution procedure linked to at the top of the page. Then there is the common situation where A complains about B, & B complains in turn about A, which leads to a thread where they flame each other for several thousand words. (It's not a very constructive thread, but sometimes entertaining to read.) The bottom line is that an Admin's powers aren't as effective as anyone thinks or would want; no one is going to track a given Wikipedian down to their house & knock sense into their head with a clue-by-four -- even if that should be done. All that an Admin can do in any case is either warn or block one -- or both -- parties. So follow the dispute resolution procedure if you want to achieve a successful solution about individual behavior, or learn to tolerate it, because if a block isn't going to solve the issue then there isn't much that can be done about it. -- llywrch (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, most of what comes here are about one-half fairly straightforward behavioral problems, which are dealt with effectively. Some of the others are questions which are in fact often based on an underlying wiki-philosophy, which is sometimes slightly different from the consensus, & the question in essence is how far from consensus it actually is. What can we do with these but discuss them here? how can such a discussion avoid discussing the policy?--and if there is no resolution, sometimes we in the end move to a question of whether we need to revise policy to be less ambiguous, and that part is something that should then be dealt with elsewhere.

I think there is no question that people here often use behavioral problems as an excuse for advancing their agendas either of policy topics or on content. How can it be otherwise when we have no definitive stable way of resolving them? The easiest way to advance ones views is to try to silence one's opponent, either by catching hold of their errors to try to remove them for a short of long period, or to use their mistakes to characterize their views as outside the pale of acceptability. I've seen it used in all sorts of different directions. At present, the most consistent one seems to be the deletionist/inclusionist debate. The repeated charges are in my opinion evidence that the deletionists are under the impression that they losing badly, and have no other recourse, because only a very few of them are actually people who would prefer to attack individuals rather than arguments if there is an option. three years ago when I came there was little need for them to do this, because they could reliably count on getting a majority--there's a lot of damage done in previous years that needs to be corrected.

Canvassing is in some sense a response to the size of Misplaced Pages. Nobody can watch as much as they would like to. No one can be sure of not missing something apparently minor that turns out to have significant implications. We probably need more some way to organize it rather than to do it illegitimately. the list of articles people want deleted is pretty obvious: it's at afd. There is therefore a need for a list of articles that people think can be effectively defended or improved. It doesn't have to be at ARS, but that was intention. In each case, it works best if used reasonably and moderately. Trying to delete articles that will not be deleted in order to make a point or keep up an attack is counterproductive in attracting unfavorable attention, and so is trying to improve articles that are hopeless. Not everyone has used either of them reasonably or moderately. But there's no need to attack them for it: it's self-correcting. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It's funny how you try to wax poetically about trying to characterize people to silence them, when you yourself are mischaracterizing people above. The real problem is people closing debates who think majority = consensus when it does not. Whether it is keep or delete. It really shouldn't matter if a hundred meatpuppets show up to a debate if they're not making arguments in line with policies and guidelines. It means the closing admin has to do a little more work, but if they don't want to actually do that, then step aside and let someone who wants to do it, do it.--Crossmr (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

more wikiphilosophy... i respect your views but every time some body turns an admin incident into a meta discussion we make it seem like bad behavior is ok... for DGG i have two simple questions... if an admin incident is filed for breaking an actual policy like canvassing but a few editors pile on "as an excuse for advancing their agendas" does that make the policy breach excusable? ... if a process is flawed (and all of our processes are flawd) does that make it ok to break behavior policy in the name of improvement? Arskwad (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Arskwad, I was aware I was going into more general topics than the original complaint, but I was under the impression that at the beginning of this subsection you asked for such metadiscussion. If you meant it as a complaint that too much such had already occurred, I apologize for misunderstanding. As for the questions you asked me, I have always discouraged people from canvassing, even in support of my views. As for dealing with violations of rules, I do not believe in an automatic response. One needs to consider the circumstances and the effect. The literal and strict enforcement of regulations has been a method used in group persecution as well as individual revenge. The classic literary examples are Merchant of Venice, and Measure for Measure. When I lose a discussion, I do not go looking around for possible violations by the opposite side.

Crossmr, the real problem is exactly the opposite of what you think, people going by their own opinion instead of the community and relying on claimed super-voter status to avoid blame for it. I have been reluctant to bring individual closures to Del Rev because the problem is too general, and I do not like making examples of individuals. DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

sorry i was unclear... there are some good wikiphilosophy ideas here but yeah I wanted to tone that down and focus on the actual incident.. it sounds like you're saying people should be allowed to violate policy if they can prove they're being persecuted... and for any editor in any contentious debate this will be true because we can always assume bad faith and believe that even 10% of people are there for revenge... the problem with letting people off the hook for small infractions is that it gives them permission to escalate while also making their enemies escalate in response.. i agree that an automatic and blunt response can be too much but too often we let people off without so much as a warning... this thread could be closed easily by with a warning to stop canvassing and use ordinary AFD/rescue channels.. but insead we get excuses and wikiphilosopy. Arskwad (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Arskwad, the reason why some threads drift into "wikiphilosophy" is due to the principle "ignore all rules": sometimes an editor is being a jerk because it's the only way she/he can keep the project from going over the cliff. (And yes, far more often the reason an editor is being a jerk because she/he is a jerk.) Unless you want every incident brought to WP:AN/I to be handled with the rough justice of a hanging judge on the frontier, some threads will lead that way. Just remember, no one is making you read every thread here -- & God help you if you feel compelled to do so. -- llywrch (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

As I've argued on IAR many times, and something I've often seen agreed upon, but refused to be put into the actual text is that IAR is not a shield. It means you don't have to study the rules perfectly to edit but if you do something against consensus or that people don't agree with you actually need to explain it and if the explanation doesn't gain consensus you need to undo it. You can't just invoke IAR and walk away. If you're invoking IAR, you're doing it wrong.--Crossmr (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Block review: Malke 2010

I have just blocked Malke 2010 (talk · contribs) for disruptive editing. The user has been on a bit of a spree lately making accusations against others and general WP:TE, recently blocked and unblocked by Gwen Gale (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I'd appreciate a review of this block. Toddst1 (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look. To help narrow my search, is this all to do with Michael Collins again? SGGH 21:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

In general, but not limited to it. A related post above is User:RepublicanJacobite_Personal_Attacks_and_Removing_edits_from_Article_Talk_Page where I first encountered this editor. Toddst1 (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, even I would find this a bit offensive (I happen to know something of Irish nationalism and its history myself) but Malke has a history of using the talk page for what it isn't for . User has previous for disruptive editing and has a rap sheet with 1 week block(s) there before. Perhaps as a 'cooling off' block the period may have been a bit long, however there is the WP:TE and general disruption in the face of consensus to consider. A difficult one, as he is a busy defender of his own viewpoint but doesn't know when to let it go. SGGH 21:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I would be willing to discuss it with the user on email and see if they will accept some points of order, and then the block can be shortened with certain... assurances? With a bit of know-how on Irish history 1880s-1970s I might be able to engage him in a useful way. SGGH 21:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest anyone reviewing the block takes note of the hectoring by this editor at User talk:RashersTierney#Personal attacks, where they repeatedly assert that another editor using the phrase "convoluted logic" is making personal attacks and seem to have great difficulty dropping the stick and moving away from the dead horse. O Fenian (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Malke was poked with a stick too many times and she bit the hand that poked her (naturally) RJ needs to back away as well and both parties need to leave each other alone. Perhaps a topic ban in Irish related articles can keep them away from each other?--White Shadows 21:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Today's incidents have little to do with RepublicanJacobite, other than him being involved in the underlying article dispute. O Fenian (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

O Fenian, you are absolutely correct, the block today had almost nothing to do with RepublicanJacobite(I won't claim it had absolutely nothing to do with it, since it was probably a spark to the current situation), and everything to do with the exact reasons Toddst1 gave for the block. One just needs to go through Malke's edits today(particularly the ones directed at Todd and RashersTierney. Dave Dial (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me have a talk first, if others permit, I might be able to talk a way through before topic bans and things come into it, anyone have any objections? SGGH 21:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

None at all. Just as long as both users leave each other alone with no exeptions.--White Shadows 21:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

None at all. I would strongly oppose any topic ban for RepublicanJacobite, while he may have made a few over-the-top comments during heated discussions (such as this Malke was just as, if not more, abusive) he has acknowledged it got out of hand, a few incivil comments do not justify a topic ban. O Fenian (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I have left a message offering a talk, but stating that there will be some changes that are not negotiable. If the worst comes to the worst all we will end up with is a blocked user, which is what we have now. I'll let you know, but if there isn't anything further this can probably be closed down for now. Agree? (And I think I just got an email) SGGH 21:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

To me, and regardless of this current situation, this block is long overdue. This editor attacked me out of nowhere recently on a talk page , then when I asked them to strike or collapse the segment, they got even nastier . I honestly do everything I can to avoid them now, because I just don't want to deal with them. Their editing can be quite off-putting, and they need to learn how to edit in a cooperative manner without resorting to attacks and tenditious editing to get their point across. Dayewalker (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Blasted software deleted my email, had to write it again, but ball is rolling. SGGH 22:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with White Shadows. The block was good, but having seen this unfold earlier, I think there may be a more peaceful solution to this. Without slighting the blocking admins in this case, I'm slightly curious as to why Malke was blocked earlier and not RJ, whose comments seem to have been probably about as undesirable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I've got a answer to that question though many people won't like it, RJ is likely friends (or more respected by) to some extent with the blocking admins. (proven otherwise) He recieves a meager warning and Malke gets a week block. There's a fine example of admins useing double standards for you...--White Shadows 01:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Isn't this area still under probation restrictions? --John (talk) 07:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Malke is a keen writer and from what I've seen, always edits in good faith. However, since her first edits last summer she's been drawn to only the most high traffic political topics, which are prone to more disagreement, dodgy, sometimes awful widely published sources, edit warring, sniping and sundry banes to enyclopedic editing (open or not) than any other areas on en.WP. Much of her contribution history is one of ever more tendentious editing whilst seeking behavioural sanctions against editors with whom she disagrees as to PoV. Going by her edits, in my outlook she gives heed only to what she might skim from quick reads of policy shreds which she then wields to forward her own editorial goals (which I don't claim to understand), towards which she edits unwaiveringly and at such speed that when she runs into big editorial and other bumps here, she becomes careless. Taken altogether (from the outlook of en.WP's policies) she seems to have wholly muddled truth with NPoV. For Malke, this has rather much the same outcome as baiting: Editors whom she has badgered wind up posting weary comments about her which would otherwise be taken as straightforward snark. Some editors give up spending their volunteer time trying to deal with her and hence are driven away from articles. I was hoping there was a way to skirt a long block like this, but I've foreseen it for some time and believe it to be preventative. I'd like to think there's still hope she can make a big shift in how she edits here but if she doesn't, a siteban is foregone. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I've ascertained some things from my email communications from Malke so far. I am largely inclined to agree with Gwen Gale's assessment above, which I find very perceptive. It seems that she does plunge head-first into controversial topics, and I think she takes some negative comments on her editing as personal attacks a little too seriously. She then, of course, retorts. She also appears to have a tendancy to escalate things a bit too readily (she made a logical argument regarding the inclusion of a Category:Cathilic people (or similar) along the lines of "what else do you have to do other than be Catholic to be in the Catholic people category" however she then threw away the logical with the very next sentence: "this is religious discrimination" and then something about the "Irish Holocaust". This kind of escalation is going to attract negative comments regardless of what the original logic is. I do feel that she is not the only guilty party, I have found some of the comments regarding "trolling", her intelligence and capability to be somewhat offensive, and a couple even I of the thick skin would have considered an attack. Yes, she has failed to drop the stick on occasion, however I also believe she (with her rather forthright, uncompromising editing style that needs tailoring) has hit a hard group of editors who have issues of their own and may in fact be suffering from a bit of WP:OWN. Unfortunately, she is one of a number of people who treat Misplaced Pages as a place of academic debate, when in fact it works differently to any academic or research environment I have ever worked in. Instead, she was barraged by that familiar line of three-letter-acronym blue-links that we are so fond of (WP:NPOV, WP:TRUTH, WP:TROLL, WP:RS, WP:V) and it has all gone downhill from there.

I am going to email toddst1 for some diffs, not because I disagree with the block but because I want a couple of specific examples that drew his/her attention, so I can help the user further. If this should be successful, I'm going to suggest for discussion reducing the block to a day or two. Thankyou, Gwen Gale, I may email you too. SGGH 09:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not uninvolved, having had a number of run-ins with Malke2010 on the Karl Rove page last fall. Count me as one of the people who left off attempting to edit that page rather than deal with this editor. As recently as a few days ago I warned Malke on my talk page to "learn to walk away". Now we are here discussing Malke's latest block. Malke2010 really shows no desire to learn from mistakes.

Frankly, I hold little hope that Malke is salvageable, though again I don't pretend to be uninvolved. I have great faith in admin Toddst1, admire his efforts, and completely agree that the reasoning for the block under WP:BATTLE and WP:TE is both correct and proper. But this needs to be said: Malke2010's block is long overdue, and in my view, if anything, is far too short. Jusdafax 15:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

So, your not uninvolved and you think Malke's block should be longer and you think that his account in un-salvageable, thanks for commenting. Off2riorob (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

To put your comment in perspective: A quick look at the Off2riorob talk page shows that in fact just two days ago you warned Malke2010 (in terms remarkably similar to my own to Malke2010 on my talk page) to learn to withdraw, and further that you two appear to be in off-wiki communication via email, just so the record is clear in this thread. Comments are being sought about Malke's latest block, and after full disclosure, I have every right to respond based on my numerous highly unpleasant experiences with an editor now found, by Wikipedians in authority, to be tendentious. Jusdafax 19:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You can respond but you are overly involved with edit war history and in such issues, experienced editors and Administrators move to a neutral position and attempt to help the issue, your involvement and inability to disengage make your comments detrimental to neutral discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Jusdafax has every right to inform ANI of his views, particularly since he is happy to acknowledge his own position. Trust the admins to see his position, particularly since he has stated it. :) In the mean time I have sent Malke the diffs Toddst has provided me with, however I have made it clear that I am not willing to campaign with her for the reversal of the action, just willing to assist her in preventing it from happening again. SGGH 19:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. My thanks. Jusdafax 19:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Yea...thanks Off2riorob (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, when I look at the diffs that have been provided here, I see this as 6 of one and a half dozen of the other. The majority of the diffs I looked at have baiting and aggressive edit summaries that accompany some equally unacceptable comments by the other editors involved. Comments like "This is not a forum for your ranting about British hatred of Catholics." and "Rubbish; as usual, you are being evasive and showing your intention is disruption." as well as posts that are designed to denigrate the recipient

and the history discussed on Malke's talk page about an editor telling her to lob off and not post to his talk page but followed that up with templating the regular speaks to what this editor has to deal with and wind up blocked when other offending parties are not for the same type of behavior. There seems a disparity in handing out blocks to me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it there are other parties who should have a share of the responsibility, however I do think Malke has some other issues regarding her editing, however at the moment our email contact may be reaching a more promising conclusion. SGGH 21:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with SGGH in that some situations, other editors may have a share of the responsibility. However, Malke wasn't blocked for one single act of incivility. There's a history of behavior here, as evidenced in the comments of Jusdafax and my own diffs above. I've never made a personal attack against her, and her venom was sufficient that I took an article off my watch list. Whether or not she was "baited" on one article, there's still a history there. She needs to understand policy, and simply disregarding her own personal attacks while blaming other editors for conflict isn't going to lead to harmonious editing. Dayewalker (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur, and I assure you that I am not disregarding her actions in this. I have made it very clear to her that "Misplaced Pages will not change for you" and that if she does not agree, she shall not get help. I have pointed out that she is highly culpable. SGGH 23:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Malke said she was sorry on her talk page. Any longer block is punishment, which is forbidden. If the sorry turns out to be a trick, then re-block is possible. Punishing others is not using a mop. It is using a gun. Any evidence that the sorry is not genuine? I haven't done extensive diff research but AGF means we accept sorries without being paranoid or doubting good faith. 03:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asorg (talk • contribs)

Retaliation by blocking administrator

I made a neutral and polite comment above. Immediately afterwards, the blocking admin, Toddst1 made a personal attack on me accusing me of edit warring on a page that I haven't edited in days and am not fighting. This is an excuse. Todd is harrassing me. This is really abuse of power and intimidation.

I, therefore, withdraw my comments about Malke. I support Todd's block. Malke's block should be extended to 1 year, not 1 week. I 100% support Todd and fully oppose Malke now. Todd has my full support. Please accept this apology and do not follow me around or pick fault at my edits. Asorg (talk) 03:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• This editor(Asorg) is a sock puppet for the blocked user JB50000/Gaydenver. Per duck. Dave Dial (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the duck. Can you be more specific?

As for the alleged retaliation, I had tried to address this on the article talk and my talk but apparently I didn't. Toddst1 (talk) 04:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I used User Compare on the two. They both have similar, if not almost the same, editing times. I'll get a print when I remember how to access the index.— Dædαlus 07:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Onefortyone

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

Taking this to the experts: What's to be done, if anything, about the user Onefortyone? He's been registered for nearly five years, used IP's before that (and since - all having 141 as the second node), and his M.O. has to do with incessantly trying to post fringe theories about Elvis Presley into the singer's article and other related articles. He was already put on probabation once (4 years ago) for pushing the notion that Elvis was gay. His more recent topic has been an obsession with a claim from Elvis' ex-doctor (an obvious conflict of interest as sources go) that Elvis died from a shortage of Ex-Lax. So I wonder what the next step should be? Another request for probation? An RfC? An admin boldly indeffing this guy? The dilemma is my suspicion that he's sincere, actually a fan of Elvis, who just wants this fringe stuff in the article. (Others, on the Elvis talk page, are not so generous, calling him an out-and-out troll. The truth may be a bit of both.) I've notified the user about my intention to post this, and I also mentioned it at the Elvis talk page.
Thank yuh ver' much. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we can direct him/her to wookiepedia or somewhere else on wikia to write the elvis article there? - Wikidemon (talk) 11:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Question I take it that Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone is no longer in effect? Admittedly it is quite old. SGGH 11:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the article bans were lifted. TFOWR 12:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)No longer in effect, for at least the last 2 1/2 years. What's remarkable to me is how old it is and how the user has somehow stayed (mostly) under the radar all this time. Most obsessive users like that would have been taken down by now. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The previous bans are no longer in effect, but the ARBCOM decision is! Mjroots (talk) 12:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

My reading of the remedies is that additional article bans can be imposed. Would they need to be imposed by ARBCOM, or would one admin be able to do it (subject to review here, etc etc)? TFOWR 12:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I have asked at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests whether cases can have their penalties enforced after closure without re-opening. SGGH 14:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

We have an article on "Toilet-related injuries and deaths"? Wow!

Yeah, and it's a really shitty way to die. (Booyah!) HalfShadow 16:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The editor does seem to have a very narrow area of focus - The King, and a small number of articles relating to His Grace. Could the editor be encouraged to work outside this area? I suspect a proposal like that, backed with sanctions for non-compliance, would quickly determine whether this editor is interested in building an encyclopaedia or pushing fringe theories. This proposal based on asking myself the question: "What Would Elvis Do?"

Cheers, TFOWR 11:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC) A lay preacher in the First Presleyterian Church of Elvis the Divine (UK).

It appears that a single admin could impose a new ban. Under 'Remedies' the Arbcom decision has this language: "He may be banned from any article or talk page relating to a celebrity which he disrupts by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research." Check the Log of Blocks and Bans to see that two different admins placed article bans on Onefortyeone in 2006 using their own discretion. EdJohnston (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

141 is liable to argue that it's not "poorly sourced", because it's verifiably Elvis' ex-doctor saying it. The real problem is that despite being told a hundred times that it's inappropriate to the article because of (1) no consensus; (2) undue weight; (3) fringe theory; (4) conflict of interest on the part of Elvis' ex-doctor; and (5) the doctor himself has had his medical license revoked; 141 keeps trying to add it to the article on the grounds of "balance". So it's garden variety disruption. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The diagnosis of 'garden-variety disruption' seems to apply. Onefortyone has continued to revert his eccentric theory about Elvis's death by constipation back into the article, and has chosen not to respond here. Since we have good documentation of his misbehavior on the Elvis Presley article going back to 2005, when Arbcom made their ruling, I think we've easily reached the threshold for an indefinite block. Hope of future reform (after five years) seems out of the question. Unless consensus here is against it, I'm planning to indefinitely block Onefortyone from editing Misplaced Pages. I will leave him a note about that, in case he has any response. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Given the (long) history: support indef. TFOWR 17:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

No objections. If he thinks he's being treated unfairly, he can post an unblock request, but his 5-year history on this particular topic works against him. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps topic ban from Elvis and toilet related topics? :) SGGH 17:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll see your quip and raise you one "I agree" ;-) If 141 was prepared to a voluntary Elvis+Toilet ban, I'd be happy for the block to be flushed away. TFOWR 18:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

In seriousness though, it would be a good idea I think. Seeing the one-topic nature of the users edits, a topic ban is as good as an indef block here. It will solve the issue, and may encourage the user to edit other areas more constructively, and it would also have the benefit of not being an indef ban, seeing as that is a last last resort ideally. SGGH 18:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment from a regular Elvis Presley editor, before this conversation is blown away by the voluminous response from Onefortyone that will doubtless soon follow. I think I probably speak on behalf of most or all other regular editors of that page when I say this: while the five-year history speaks for itself, meaning that any temporary Elvis restriction would be short-sighted, we would not wish a harsher disciplining of the editor than necessary to free the topic from the problem. I think a permanent topic ban will be welcomed by the editing community of that page, but perhaps that is sufficient; it would be my personal hope that the editor would indeed find a niche for an effective and well-received contribution elsewhere in the encyclopedia. If monitoring were later to show continuing problems, then wider sanctions could be judged appropriate at that point. PL290 (talk) 19:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

" before this conversation is blown away by the voluminous response from Onefortyone that will doubtless soon follow" - Just gotta say you have quite the crystal ball there! Active Banana (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, too bad we didn't take bets on it. As for you, we must "a peal" to your good senses. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Onefortyone

It is understandable that the administrators are not fully aware of the whole story. Here it is.

To my mind, there are some Wikipedians (who may be part of an Elvis fan group) who frequently remove my well-sourced contributions to Elvis Presley and some other articles, even if they are very short. See , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . I have a suspicion that there is a small circle of Wikipedians who frequently cooperate in editing and may know each other. See , , , , . They are deliberately harassing me by repeatedly deleting my contributions and attacking me on the talk pages, simply because my edits are not in line with their view of Elvis, although I am very carefully, and frequently, citing my sources, among them reputed Elvis biographies, books by people who knew the singer well (such as his personal physician), and critical university studies. Furthermore, there can be no doubt that in the past I have been more than once the victim of attacks by sockpuppets of Elvis fans. See .

Most of these Wikipedians use the same strategy as my old opponent Ted Wilkes alias multiple hardbanned User:DW did in the past over and over again: personal attacks (accusing me of outright fabrication and insanity, calling me buddy, a liar or troll etc.), deliberately claiming things that are not true, and removing content they do not like. See, for instance, these absurd claims by User:PL290: . More important, however, are the frequent personal attacks by DocKino. See . In like manner, in an FA discussion DCGeist has called some of my critical remarks about the Elvis article, “dross”, although these remarks were supported by another user’s comment. See .

To my mind, DocKino is identical with DCGeist. Both users are situated in New York City, both are film experts and interested in the B-movie and Sex Pistols articles. Their editing styles/methods are similar (see , ) and their edit histories reveal that they must have the same sleeping time. Furthermore, as an editor not formerly involved both in contributions to, and content disputes concerning, the Presley article, DCGeist has an all too specific knowledge of Elvis-related details, as it could only be expected from DocKino. See . More problematic is that DocKino and DCGeist cooperate in achieving FA statuses arguing on the related discussion pages against other users as if they were two different Wikipedians. See also .

Moreover, Doc Kino and User:PL290 are often working hand in hand on the same Misplaced Pages articles, for instance, Elvis Presley and The Beatles, endeavouring to suppress all opinions not in line with their view. See their edit history and Talk:The_Beatles/Archive_23#There_are_no_critical_voices_to_be_heard. In working together, these editors are also happy to avoid the 3RR. PL290 even goes so far as to remove contributions criticizing his attitude from the Elvis talk page. See , although, on the other hand, he participates in personal attacks against me. The same Wikipedians also show evidence of misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view as they more than once removed a sourced alternative point of view. See diffs above.

Interestingly, even some old arbcom cases from 2005 are once again used in order to compromise me and my recent contribitions. It should be noted that it was Ted Wilkes alias multiple hard-banned User:DW who took me to arbitration simply because he didn’t like my contributions. In 2005, the arbcom unfortunately said, "Onefortyone ... may be banned from any article or talk page relating to a celebrity which he disrupts by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research." However, it was my opponent Wilkes who was later hardbanned. As far as I can see, I have not violated my probation since that time, as I am always citing many reliable sources (including published books, academic studies, articles in reputed periodicals, etc.) in order to support my edits. For a list of sources I am using, see . In a subsequent case the arbcom said that my former opponents "Ted Wilkes and Wyss have repeatedly insisted on an unrealistic standard with respect to negative information regarding celebrities that is current in popular culture, gossip and rumor Talk:James Dean#Removal of "Rumors" section and Talk:Nick Adams#Rumors, gossip or speculation contravene official Misplaced Pages policy." Therefore, according to the arbcom, Ted Wilkes and Wyss were banned from making edits related to specific subjects, and they were both placed on Misplaced Pages:Probation. In 2006, there was this subsequent arbcom decision confirming that my "editing has substantially improved from that in the earlier arbitration cases. A sampling of edits shows reference to reliable sources without overstating of their content." Furthermore, the arbcom said that my opponent Lochdale "has removed large blocks of sourced material from Elvis Presley" and that he "shows evidence of misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view." Therefore, Lochdale was the person who was "banned indefinitely from editing articles which concern Elvis Presley." One year ago, there was another attempt by Rikstar and some Elvis fans to ban me from Misplaced Pages. It failed because the arbcom rejected the case. Arbcom member Sam Blacketer says about my edits: “his more recent additions appear to be reliably sourced .... While the talk page can get heated at times, I am very reluctant to sanction an editor merely because they happen to be in a minority.”

Concerning the Elvis Presley article, I have been a regular contributor for several years, having added material to the sections on

• the singer's manager, Colonel Tom Parker (see , , , , , , , ),
• the world-wide Elvis industry (see , ),
• the Memphis Mafia (see ),
• Elvis's death (see , , , , , ),
• his consumption of drugs (see , , , , ),
• Priscilla Presley (see , , ),
• Elvis's close relationship with his mother (see , , , , , , , , , , ),
• his youth and early stardom (see , , , , ),
• the allegations of racism (see , , , ),
• Elvis's male friendships (see , , , , , , , , ),
• the FBI files on Presley (see , , , ),
• the singer's movies (see , , , , ),
• his musical career (see , , ),
• his final stages in Las Vegas (see ),
• theatrical plays and music by other musicians relating to Elvis (see , ),
• Presley and the Beatles (see ),
• the Elvis cult and its critics (see , , , ),
• Presley's political beliefs (see , ), etc. etc.

This endless list shows that I am not a troll as my opponents falsely claim and that I have added much material to all sections of the article and also written a critical section on the Elvis cult which has been totally deleted from the main article for inexplicable reasons and despite the fact that other users were of the opinion that it belonged in the article.

For a third opinion concerning the questionable attitudes of my opponents, see also this recent statement by user Meco, who says

my impression is that 141 certainly isn't the only problem around here. I would go on to contend that they aren't the biggest problem either. In fact, I'd even be open to the belief that they are right and that a vociferous pack of entrenched editors have assumed ownership of this article and are actively attempting to malign and shut this user out of the would-be consensus-building effort which article editing on Misplaced Pages is supposed to be.

So I do not understand why anybody who is aware of the whole story would earnestly propose an indefinite block on me. Onefortyone (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Would you agree to a topic ban of the form outlined above by SGGH? TFOWR 00:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

In view of the frequent personal attacks on me by my opponents, I do not think that a ban against me is justified at all, especially since all of my contributions are well sourced and fully in line with Misplaced Pages policy. To my mind, there is only a content dispute about the inclusion of some additional information in the Elvis article. For a third opinion on what is actually going on, see Talk:Elvis_Presley#This_talk_page_is_poisoned. Onefortyone (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

141 reveals that he sees this as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. It's worth pointing out that the squabble he had 5 years was over trying to promote some theory that Elvis was gay (which I'm sure would have come as a surprise to both Priscilla and their daughter). Now you've got this ex-doctor cooking up this theory to try and avoid the blame for himself having done to Elvis approximately what that one guy did to MJ last summer. The ex-doctor is a primary source about himself, so I don't see how that qualifies as a "reliable" source under wikipedia policy. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record. You are right that the sources I have provided in support of the opinion that Elvis may have had a homosexual affair with his best friend Nick Adams (to be found, for instance, in Albert Goldman's Elvis biography, in a book by celebrity biographer David Bret and in a manuscript by Elvis's Stepmother, Dee Presley) caused some outrage in 2005 among Elvis fans such as Ted Wilkes whose contributions formerly dominated the Elvis article. However, Wilkes was banned from Misplaced Pages by arbcom decision and more recent publications by reputed Elvis biographers Alanna Nash and Kathleen Tracy seem to support the claim of bisexuality. Notwithstanding, this detail is not even mentioned in the present version of the article. And I still do not understand why a single sentence summarizing the opinion of Elvis's personal physician about the cause of the singer's death to be found in a recently published book should not be added to the article, especially in view of the fact that the theories by the other doctors are already included there and some other editors (among them the editor who first detected the source) were also of the opinion that the said detail should be added. Onefortyone (talk) 03:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Onefortyone calls it a content dispute; that is not new, or entirely untrue. However, the term masks the reality, which is non-collaborative editing, against consensus, for unwarranted promotion of fringe theories. This single editor has persisted, for a period of many years, in regular disruptive editing, dominating the Elvis Presley article talk page with voluminous posts which push the same minority fringe agenda over and over again, and repeatedly placing material into the article against consensus. This current conversation is already following the usual patterns of diverting the issue by arguing about specific sources, pointing the finger elsewhere, or innocently protesting inability to understand why others deem content inappropriate (a holow "innocence", given that during his domination of the two recent Elvis Presley Featured Article candidacies—when, tellingly, his arguments for inclusion of such content received no support whatsoever from the body of reviewers in either of the two candidacies—the editor, who calls those who disagree with him "Elvis fans" and his "opponents", acknowledged himself that he is in a minority). The fact remains, consensus is ultimately what demonstrates what content is appropriate for a mainstream encyclopedia, and the consensus in question is well established on the article talk page, and involves numerous editors (some of whom have been discouraged from further contribution by Onefotyone's pattern of behaviour)—as can be seen by any who will look at the history. That same consensus was reaffirmed by the wider Misplaced Pages body during the two FA candidacies. We do not know why Onefortyone has demonstrated an obsession with the Elvis articles, forcing a fringe view, from a minority of one, against all the other involved editors. We have to accept the reality that a Misplaced Pages editor could be identical with Presley's discredited doctor, which would explain the vested interest; alternately, other reasons may apply which are out of the editor's control. Whether Onefortyone wishes to build an encyclopedia remains in doubt, given the narrow focus of contribution and the refusal to collaborate. These are the issues, and they are not addressed by turning once again to debating sources, when consensus has shown over and over that the material in question is not appropriate in a mainstream summary of the artist's entire life and career. PL290 (talk) 07:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• (tl/dr) HalfShadow 16:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement from meco

I would suggest that the initial diatribe from Baseball Bugs is not taken on face value. A discerning reader will immediately recognize the tone and style of their post belying a less than honest intent on this editor whom I have just exposed as an ingenuous demagogue who will employ every simple rhetorical ploy in their little bag of dirty tricks to rid themselves of a vexing opposition, that is, short of actually addressing the grievance raised and material subject at hand. Ad hominem is the first and primary tool applied in discussion by this user, and if any individual editor ought to be censured in the debacle which I have witnessed, it is Baseball Bugs.

Everyone knows that most people aren't going to analyze years of edit history, dozens of lengthy sections filled with heated discussion and on such a basis make up their well-informed mind about the comprehensive truth of the situation. Most people are perhaps going to study the discussion on this page somewhat closely and sample some of the links that are selectively offered (unless they are too numerous) and basically make an intuitive choice about which of the editors that are personally involved in the conflict they are going to pay credence to. Let me therefore offer a small tool which I devised yesterday when analyzing one major section on the Elvis talk page, the most recent discussion about including Elvis' personal doctor's recent postulation that The King died from constipation (a section also containing two sub-sections): Talk:Elvis Presley#This talk page is poisoned.

Without considering the pre-history of the conflict I narrowmindedly focus on one discussion. I summarize the individual posts and comment on the tone, style and, as I am able to judge, intent of the poster. Suffice to say that unless what I uncover in my analysis is more or less diametrically misrepresentative of the corpus of that page (which I haven't assayed) then the description provided by Baseball Bugs at the top of this incident report should be apprehended with utmost skepticism.

What I basically find in my analysis is that the accused user, exclusively referred to as 141, presents themselves in an impeccable style, responds to all queries factually and politely, but more importantly never loses their composure in the face of blatant provocations and incivilities by several of the other editors.

I find furthermore that three editors in particular, PL290, DocKing and Baseball Bugs, act in concert to derail all attempts to focus on the material issue being raised. And I will point out that it was not 141 who started that thread about including the constipation information into the article. I did, never having visited this particular Wiki-community previously, but based on having read multiple news headlines in major mainstream newspapers on the issue. I dare characterize the conduct of these three editors in that section as pack behavior, plain and simple.

I notice that the initial discussion in the present section uncritically accepts the premises offered by Baseball Bugs and the only real discussion is what type of sanction is to be leveled at the "problem user". I think this is very unfortunate. I personally also strongly take issue with the notion asserted by multiple editors that a user focusing on a small number of topics over a long period of time is a problem to be corrected. We all have different modes of editing and we all have different motivations for coming to this project to contribute. Not being a generalist is not a reason for criticism, and certainly not for censure.

Has WP:AN/I really become this skewed and complacent that some level-headed administrator isn't going to enter the arena and call out the travesty kangaroo court that is currently being manufactured set up? __meco (talk) 08:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Meco, as I pointed out on the article talk page, as a recent arrival on the scene you have badly missed the point. Your assessment is fatally flawed because, by your own admission, you have only looked at very recent discussions. In view of that, it's amazing that you can dismiss ANI as "skewed" or "complacent" as you just did in your closing sentence. You may claim that "Everyone knows that most people aren't going to analyze years of edit history, dozens of lengthy sections filled with heated discussion and on such a basis make up their well-informed mind about the comprehensive truth of the situation", but that is in fact precisely what responsible admins who frequent this page will do (and have already done, now and at earlier times, in respect of this particular editor). Please stop jumping to conclusions based on your own very selective and recent observations, and you will see that the real story is very different. PL290 (talk) 08:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That is simply nonsense. Making such assays is time-consuming. I'm certainly not out-of-the-blue asserting that administrators and other interested editors won't study the matter in-depth as opposed to accepting cursory versions from the involved parties. It boils down to the following: If someone does make the extensive effort of doing their own investigation into the pre-history of such a case as this one, they are certainly not going to return to this discussion not mentioning that they have made a thorough probe and give representative examples of what they found. Or is your intimate knowledge of human behavior so shallow that you assert just that? No, it isn't, because you are both cunning and skillful at sophisticated manipulation of a discussion arena. Would someone who spends maybe forty-five minutes, maybe a couple of hours, or more, studying past discussions and conflict flare-ups return to this page with the only remark: "I agree that we should probably give this user an indefinite block since they have been engaging in this type of behavior for several hears." You, PL290, are in fact employing some very advanced manipulation techniques of your own, such as appealing to secret codes: "it's amazing that you can dismiss ANI as 'skewed' or 'complacent' as you just did in your closing sentence" – translation: "those who read this page are decent, honest and hard-working contributors to the project, I have trust in you, but meco doesn't. Are you really gonna take his side against mine?" Or: "that is in fact precisely what responsible admins who frequent this page will do" – translation: "those admins who haven't made a thorough investigation before giving their opinions are irresponsible. I assert that the admins involved in the current process are responsible! If anyone just felt a sting of bad conscience, I have now effectively preempted their coming out with it." But you are good PL290. You are one of the better ones. Too bad you don't use those skills in the service of good. __meco (talk) 09:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If Main Engine Cut Off had spent half the time looking at 141's history that he spent constructing that Martin Luther-sized megillah on the article talk page, he would maybe get the point that PL290 is making, above, that 141 has been pushing fringe theories about Elvis for 5 years and simply won't stop, despite arbcom rulings and blocks by others in the past. Persistent, disruptive defiance of consensus (as well as logic and reason) can result in being prohibited from editing a particular subject. That's standard procedure. It is not wikipedia's place to promote fringe theories. Along with his admitted selective reading of the 141 issue, Meco may have overlooked that I began this item with "What's to be done, if anything, about the user Onefortyone?" Maybe the answer is "nothing", but maybe it's "something", which is why I wanted the admins to look at it. And for the record, I got into this because Elvis happened to be one of the thousand or so items on my watch list. Despite any accusations 141 may have leveled, I am not now, nor have I ever been: afflicted with severe gastrointestinal ailments; any kind of homosexual; nor (gasp!) a member of any Elvis fan club. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not buying the whole "we don't know the whole story, a terrible injustice is being perpetuated" thing. ARBCOM looked at this; we know what they found; we can see that the issues that led to the original case are still ongoing. Everything else is irrelevant. Up above a solution has been proposed which would enable Onefortyone to continue editing (i.e. consent to a voluntary topic ban on Elvis-related articles). If Onefortyone isn't OK with that solution, the only other alternative would appear to be that the 2006 ARBCOM ruling is enforced, i.e. that Onefortyone is blocked. Cheers, TFOWR 12:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

What about the personal attacks frequently made by the other users? See . I still do not think that a ban against me is justified at all. ARBCOM has carefully analyzed earlier cases of this kind, when small groups of editors took me to arbitration. In all these cases, the ARBCOM’s decision was to ban my opponents from the related articles. The ARBCOM clearly said that my “editing has substantially improved from that in the earlier arbitration cases. A sampling of edits shows reference to reliable sources without overstating of their content. To a greater extent he allows the reader to draw their own conclusions.” See . The fact remains that the Elvis article is currently dominated by, and debate is only among, a handful of editors, most of them part of a group that frequently removes my contributions and makes personal attacks against me on the talk page. That’s why I call these few editors my opponents. They often leave important alternative voices unheard – voices being supported by reliable sources. The problem is that only some Wikipedians are interested in Elvis Presley and that for several years I have been the target of attacks by lots of Elvis fans, simply because I have a more critical view of the singer. Therefore, it is very easy for this small group of editors who cooperate with each other to claim that my editing is against consensus, allegedly “for unwarranted promotion of fringe theories,” or that the “material in question is not appropriate,” although it is well sourced and to be found in many publications on Elvis. If there are third opinions by other users supporting my view, they are gagged. See also Talk:Elvis_Presley#Recent_Reverts, and this recent statement. My contributions are not fringe views shared only by a minority, as PL290 falsely claims, but in most cases opinions supported by mainstream biographies, university studies (among them social and gender studies), publications on the rock’n’roll era and books published by people who knew the singer well. As arbcom member Sam Blacketer said early last year about my edits: “his more recent additions appear to be reliably sourced .... While the talk page can get heated at times, I am very reluctant to sanction an editor merely because they happen to be in a minority.” As can be seen by any who will look at the history, only one of my recent contributions to the Elvis article was not removed by my opponents. This one. However, the second sentence was later removed. More critical edits are frequently removed, although they are well sourced. As for PL290’s false claim above that my arguments for inclusion of additional content received no support whatsoever from the body of reviewers in either of the two FA candidacies, see these commentaries by other users: , , . When I took up SandyGeorgia’s point that there is little on Elvis’s personal life to be found in the Misplaced Pages article (see ), DCGeist replied, “Ignoring the dross...” See . As for the disruptive editing dominating the Elvis Presley article talk page, it should be noted that on April 15, PL290 has removed one of my critical remarks from the talk page. User Sinneed said, “I agree that the above remark should not have been removed.” On May 11, 2010, user Meco said, “I don't see that you are addressing Onefortyone's argument in a rational manner.” Onefortyone (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Separate issue entirely. Create a new thread at the bottom of this page - or at a more appropriate venue - if you want to discuss other issues. This thread is discussing concerns over your conduct, and, in particular, your compliance with an ARBCOM decision. It would be too easy, otherwise, to get bogged down with lengthy rebuttals and counter-claims. TFOWR 14:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the "Remedies" section of the ARBCOM decision OneFortyOne refers to above is here: Onefortyone remains on probation with respect to editing articles which concern celebrities, see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone#Onefortyone_placed_on_Probation. I'd suggest any topic ban should incorporate this, more recent, ARBCOM case and include all celebrities. TFOWR 14:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Could any administrator tell me which of my recent edits has violated my probation? I did not insert poorly sourced information or original research. To my mind, there was no consensus on the talk page that the additional information concerning Elvis's death (to be found in a recent book by Elvis's personal physician) should not be included in the article, as there were other editors (including the editor who has detected the specific source) supporting the inclusion. It should again be noted that ARBCOM has carefully analyzed earlier cases of this kind, when small groups of editors took me to arbitration. In all these cases, the ARBCOM’s decision was to ban my opponents from the related articles. The ARBCOM clearly said that my “editing has substantially improved from that in the earlier arbitration cases. A sampling of edits shows reference to reliable sources without overstating of their content. To a greater extent he allows the reader to draw their own conclusions.” See . This is still the case. And the frequent attacks I receive are certainly of much importance, as they clearly demonstrate my opponents' biased attitudes. Onefortyone (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

For starters, there's your frequent attempts to re-insert the same nonsense despite the lack of any consensus to do so. And speaking of "personal attacks", where's your evidence that any of us are in an "Elvis fan club"? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

So you call the view of Elvis's personal physician published in his recent book "nonsense". I see. As far as I can see, there was no consensus to omit this specific detail. Onefortyone (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

He's not a doctor, and his claims are a conflict of interest. Not a valid source. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The sourcing arguments are those typically posed by fringe theorists who are trying to get their pet theories into wikipedia to lend them some artificial notability. That kind of thing is the reason we fight it. It's not appropriate to use wikipedia to give false credence to fringe and biased sources. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This may be your personal opinion, as you are deeply involved in the current content dispute. However, other editors are of a different opinion. Onefortyone (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

No, not really. This ARBCOM case resulted solely in you being put on probation and being banned from certain articles. The article ban was subsequently lifted after one editor was found to have misbehaved. I'm concerned about your use of the word "opponents" above: Misplaced Pages is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Indeed, I would suggest - without prejudice to ARBCOM - that it is this attitude, historically and continuing - that has brought you to ARBCOM, has brought you to ANI. Selective reading of ARBCOM rulings only goes so far - sooner or later we all read them too. TFOWR 15:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I count at least a dozen places in this discussion where he refers to his "opponents", as if he thinks wikipedia is a video game or something. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, TFOWR, you are only referring to the earliest arbcom case. Did you realize that, in 2005, a sockpuppet of a multiple hardbanned user took me to arbitration who was later banned from Misplaced Pages for one year and did not reappear? As for the later ban on me, the unjustified article bans were immediately lifted, due to abusive sockpuppetry on the articles by another editor, who requested these bans. To my mind, taking me to arbitration or asking for bans seems to be a usual game by my opponents in order to harass me. This was also the opinion of one of the arbcom members in a later case. Onefortyone (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You've used the term "opponents" a dozen times just in the above discussion, here on this page right now. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That's nearer my reading of the cases, yes. Would you care to strike out that part above where you suggested that the ARBCOM’s decision was to ban my opponents from the related articles? Cheers, TFOWR 15:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand your argument. As the subsequent arbcom cases concerning the same matter show, Ted Wilkes and Lochdale were clearly banned by arbcom decision from the related articles. Onefortyone (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hence your block was lifted. But aren't you still actively subject to the ArbCom restrictions? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've looked at the "remedies" sections of two separate ARBCOM cases: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Elvis; the latter case did result in an article (Elvis Presley) ban for one editor. The former case did not. Both cases either placed you on probation or continued the probation, for articles involving celebrities. Above, however, you stated that "the ARBCOM’s decision was to ban my opponents from the related articles". Ignoring the colourful use of the word "opponents", only one editor was "banned" - and it was a ban from one article. This kind of selective reading of ARBCOM cases neatly avoids the real remedy proposed:

Onefortyone is placed on Misplaced Pages:Probation with respect to the biographies of celebrities. He may be banned from any article or talk page relating to a celebrity which he disrupts by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research.

There seems to be a consensus here that you have disrupted an article and/or its talk page by attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research. Rather than indefinitely block you from the encyclopaedia in its entirety, it's been proposed that we should first see if you are prepared to accept a ban on editing articles about Elvis. Are you?

Cheers, TFOWR 15:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that there is a consensus here that I “have disrupted an article and/or its talk page by attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research.” This is only the biased opinion of some of the participants in the recent content disputes on Talk:Elvis Presley, as they apparently do not like the new material to be found in a recently published book by Elvis's personal physician. For a totally different view, see the third opinion by user meco above. As for the blocks or bans on my so-called opponents in the arbcom cases, see , , , , . I still do not think that I have violated my probation. However, in order to calm down the emotions and to show good faith, I would like to have a personal break from editing Misplaced Pages for about a month or so. Would this be acceptable? Onefortyone (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This was an even earlier ARBCOM case: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone, relating to "homosexuality". Was that the one you meant to post?

A personal break is perfectly acceptable - no one can force you to edit here ;-)

When you return please do remember your probation and give serious thought to accepting a topic ban. It will be infinitely preferable to an outright block.

Cheers, TFOWR 16:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The case you have mentioned was a subsequent case, where ARBCOM member Redwolf24 requested "a merge to the previous case on Onefortyone seeking an addendum stating that Wyss and Ted Wilkes lay off 141. In my personal opinion they have been harassing him, and I've seen them go out of their way to revert him." This was a clear statement which shows that I have been the victim of harassment for a long period of time. And you may get the impression from this 2005 case and the personal attacks I am receiving now, that I am still the victim of harassment. The ARBCOM said,

“Following the decision attempts to edit by Onefortyone and his mentor FCYTravis were thwarted by reversions and edit warring by Ted Wilkes and Wyss.” “Onefortyone complained about the edit warring and Ted Wilkes and Wyss were warned. Ted Wilkes responded that he intended to continue with his behavior.” “Ted Wilkes and Wyss are banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality.” “Ted Wilkes is placed indefinitely on Misplaced Pages:Probation. If in the opinion of any three administrators, for good cause, he is responsible for disrupting the functioning of Misplaced Pages, restrictions may be placed on his editing, up to and including a general ban of one year.”

As Wilkes violated his probation, he was banned for one year. See . It should further be noted that there was another subsequent case concerning the same matter. In this 2006 case the ARBCOM decided to ban Lochdale from the Elvis article. These are the facts. Onefortyone (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• There seem to be widespread press reports of the Elvis-constipation theory. For example, here's a recent and reasonably well-informed commentary on the matter. Given the prominence of this material in the media, we should expect some discussion of our treatment in the relevant article(s). This occasion therefore does not seem adequate reason to pillory user Onefortyone. Accordingly, I oppose any extraordinary measures at this time. Interested editors should just place the relevant article(s) on their watch list and participate in any content discussions which may arise. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Blogs are not relevant sources. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

SkyCable‎ article and User talk:G8crash3r‎ and User:Puppyph‎

The users seem to be under the impression that because "Channel listing" is not specifically mentioned in WP:NOTDIR #4, that the content cannot be removed from articles. see User_talk:G8crash3r#please_read_policies They also appear to be under the impression that unless an admin is telling them something, they do not have to listen. I have gotten no where. Active Banana (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You can check your talk page about your claims User_talk:Active_Banana#WHY_DO_YOU_KEEP_EDITING_PHILIPPINE_WIKI_PAGES.3F and quoting œ, Although I don't agree that Misplaced Pages should have these kinds of articles, it just goes to show that when relentlessly fighting other editors by citing various policies, you would do well to keep in mind the most important: WP:IAR. g8crash3r 16:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

People who site WP:IAR for some reason generally ignore the important second portion "if it improves the encyclopedia". The editors above have not provided any rationale of how a current channel listing provides an improvement to encyclopedic content. Active Banana (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not ignore that the second part. My apologies if you were just speaking generally, but I really hope you're not insulting my intelligence by assuming I'm one of those 'people'. Maybe I should have mentioned WP:AGF instead, as obviously yours and the other editor's idea of what constitutes 'improvement' differs. He may simply be ignoring WP:NOTDIR because he really believes he's improving the encyclopedia. Instead of quarreling you could assume good faith and do the same, on the other hand, he could also stop his bickering and understand that you're just trying to improve the encyclopedia. Best thing would be to just move on, people. Also, no I did not provide any rationale, because instead I pointed you towards past discussions (at least tried to anyways) that could've done a much better job of that than I could. Besides, I also don't think Misplaced Pages should have any kind of TV schedule or channel listing content, I just like playing devil's advocate. ;) -- œ 00:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for any misinterpretation, by "editors above" I meant the original discussions by User:G8crash3r‎ and User:Puppyph‎, and particularly User:G8crash3r‎'s using your quote from my talk page pretty much out of context. I did not have any intention of bringing you into the coversation when I stated that. (although I should have made sure you were informed of this discussion when I quoted you below.) Active Banana (talk) 03:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, SkyCable's Wiki page does not have any program schedules. Active banana is claiming that the Channel Line-up article is part of WP:NOTDIR, yet Misplaced Pages states that EPG or Electronic Program Guide is a form of Directory and is obviously very different from Channel ine-up. Any Wiki Admins, please intervene to this situation and reply to this discussion. --g8crash3r 18:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You can quibble all day about whether or not "current channel listing" is 'specifically' identified in WP:NOTDIR, the issue is whether or not a current channel listing actually provides any encyclopedic content. So far the only explanation provided for the inclusion by you or Puppyph‎ is that if we dont include the channel directory in wikipedia, a subscriber would have to go to the providers web page to find the channel listing and "But other articles have channel listings so we shouldnt remove it from here." Neither of which provides a valid explanation of why a channel directory should be included in THIS encyclopedia article. Active Banana (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, quoteing from œ As for Active Banana removing various channel lineups per WP:NOTDIR, he may be interested in some related discussions that tried to establish consensus on certain 'exceptions' to these types of listings. You may find that there's some valid arguments against your removals. See

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2009 Australian network television schedule (weekday)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2009 Australian network television schedule (weekday) (2nd nomination)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2007 Australian network television schedule

There are certain 'exceptions' as what œ said. Another thing is your behavior is somewhat 'racist' since you are only focusing on Philippine wiki pages, try to start editing first your own contries' Wiki pages. Better yet define EPG or Electronic Program Guide to Channel-Lineup. I challenge and dare you, If they are the same, delete the whole Wiki page of SkyCable and if not, stop editing Philippine wikipedia content. Misplaced Pages Admins, Please Review Our Case. Thank you very much. g8crash3r 20:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

If you actually look at those examples, the people wishing to include the content of historical (not current) show schedules provided arguments and third party sources that showed that encyclpedic content such as the fact that various shows were moved and placed in certain timeslots as competition or moved from competition; so they were basing their arguments on the WHOLE WP:IAR including the "if it improves the encyclopedia". What is improved encyclopedic content by listing current channel listings? Active Banana (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Since you're into editing Pay-TV Companies, why not start here, http://en.wikipedia.org/Template:CATV, almost all of them does not have encyclopedic content. --g8crash3r 20:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance. As soon as editors stop inserting masses of inappropriate information into the articles currently on my watchlist, I will consider expanding cleanup efforts in that direction. Or if it really bothers you so much, you can take our friend User:OlEnglish's advice from that same comment that you keep quoting from my talk page: "it just so happens that most Philippine cable articles need cleaning up, so he's working were the job needs to be done. Read Misplaced Pages:Other stuff exists, if you're seeing that other countries' articles also need cleaning up then, like he told you, why don't you help improve Misplaced Pages and go clean them?" Active Banana (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

General Comment: There is a difference between advertising specific products or services (especially prices) on telecom/cable articles and just providing information on the channels offered by the provider. If we are to have individual network articles have references to Ch. #s in infoboxes, and availability on specific providers, then we ought to have the other view of the relationship, the listing of the channels offered by the provider and links to the individual networks. That most certainly is encyclopedic. Pats1 /C 01:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for coming! Active Banana (talk) 01:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Pats1 /C has already cleared the confusion. Reverting all pages to original its original state prior to the disruptive edits by Active Banana. --g8crash3r 02:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You reverted all of my edits to SkyCable‎ including reinserting unsourced content and even removed flags because "the ANI discussion was still on going" and yet at the statement of ONE person WHOM YOU WP:CANVASSED to come here you take as enough basis to return poor unencyclopedic content to a dozen articles. Unbelievable. Active Banana (talk) 04:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You are unbelievable as well and let me correct you, I invited an Admin, to get his own opinion on our case because he has edited a similar article. My message, to Pats1 /C, if you read it carefully, does not show any influence to his opinion on this discussion. Your insinuation about me Canvassing the Admin who replied to this discussion is completely false and you might follow what œ said, to take some time to cool off and go edit something else for a change. Regards. --g8crash3r 16:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for block of User:G8crash3r for continued reinsertion of unsourced content despite numerous warnings

With this edit User:G8crash3r once again reinserted copious unsourced content in violation of WP:V / WP:HOWTO / WP:ADVERT / WP:OR into the article despite numerous warnings. This is separate from the issue of the directory above and also from the personal attacks, but in conjuntion the disruption caused by this editor has really gone too far. Active Banana (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to comment on editors atm, but the SkyCable article seems overly promotional to me. The language is not too bad, but it contains stuff like "an enhanced viewing experience" and "Ray Montinola revealed that the company is also set to launch another new service". The main problem is the excessive detail which appears to be using Misplaced Pages as a substitute for an official website. The links above to AfD discussions for 2009 Australian network television schedule (weekday) do not seem relevant to me. The latter page is a short table showing exactly what the title says, and could be considered as an informative record of programs in that category. By contrast, SkyCable has a five page listing of channels which includes notes like "Analog subscribers may experience interference with the local signal of Q 11 on this channel". I do not see why Misplaced Pages should host such detail, and G8crash3r does appear to be defending this particular article, and is inserting unsourced material (including "Dream offers a very limited, and continuously shrinking number of channels, at prices far higher than the top packages of the cable providers", where Dream is a competitor to SkyCable). Johnuniq (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree it's too promotional in tone, but perhaps the bigger problem is the edit warring going on. I'm getting close to just full-protecting the article to give these guys some time to cool off and go edit something else for a change. -- œ 07:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

OE, I think that might be a very good next-and hopefully last- step in this matter. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Abuse of process/privileges by an established administrator

Please see this discussion. Several editors expressed their opinions on the image in question, and the end result was looking like a clear "Keep" consensus. However, user:Edgar181 then stepped in and trumped these votes by stepping in and deleting the image, before closing down the debate. Furthermore, he wrongly summarised that the result of the vote was "delete" despite it clearly being otherwise. This is an abuse of administrator privileges/community process here, and I must bring this to your attention. 79.75.230.195 (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Strangely enough, even a single Delete vote trumps the ramblings of a group of anon editors who couldn't string together a decent rationale between them. I'd suggest you stop wasting everyone's time here. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
• Before BK beat me to it, I was going to post that Edgar's decision may have had something to do with the fact that the only "keep" votes were by anonymous IPs whose only recent contributions were the deletion discussion itself and one or two related discussions (such as this one). – ClockworkSoul 16:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
• According to the log entry, the file was deleted under CSD G3 as "vandalism". The only problem I see here is that Edgar181 didn't mention this in his closing statement. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed. And having looked at the image and judging from some the comments on the FFD, it's probably speediable under WP:CSD#G10 as well. Oh, and all but one of the IPs is probably the same user. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

More than likely.. and clearly trolling too.. as I refuse to believe that they sincerely thought admins would be stupid enough to not see right through this lame attempt at gaming the system. -- œ 07:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I second the above IP. I came to offer my thoughts and am disgusted they have been disregarded in such a callous manner. This seems to be very much a typical conspiracy of anti-stabbing activists as can be found all over the internet.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.143.69 (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

"anti-stabbing activists" = law abiding citizenry? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

IP blocked for trolling. Acroterion _(talk) 20:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• Please note that XFDs are a discussion, not a vote. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • That's the best laugh I've had today, which gives you an idea of how the day has gone. A string of "Keep" votes, all from IP's, several of which appear to be on the same subnet, following by "Result was: DELETE". As if the admin were saying, "Thanks for your input. See ya." Fittingly followed up with an illustration of the WP:Plaxico Boomerang effect. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
    • WP:Plaxico needs to be an actual redirect...it's just too funny. — Scientizzle 01:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
      • • I've been persuaded that it's a BLP violation, or more to the point, others consider it a BLP violation, and it's not worth fighting for. Also, too often we've had to explain it, which kind of undermines the joke. So we're transitioning to the more broadly recognizable "boomerang" effect. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I blocked the OP after he resumed at Edgar181's talkpage. They've posted an unblock request ... Acroterion _(talk) 01:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Using an audit as retaliation and Nixon's enemy list

I can understand when someone is given a random audit by the IRS, and the same applies here at Misplaced Pages for images. But User:TreasuryTag is combing through all my image postings and challenging them as retaliation for being on the wrong side of an AFD debate on bilateral relations. President Nixon used the same technique with an IRS audit for people on his enemies list and it became part of his impeachment. What is the rule for using a punitive image audit as retaliation. Is it considered wikistalking? Last year I had User:Torkmann retaliate by nominating about 20 of my articles for deletion under three usernames for being on the wrong side of a deletion debate. What are the rules, can you keep and enemies list and subject them to a punitive audit, or is it wikistalking? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You know, I looked through the files Treasury Tag has nominated and incidentally, they all happen to be valid tags. Considering that you yourself have had issues with copyright in the past, I suggest you work to fix the problems with your files, rather than acting combative and hostile. -FASTILY_sock 17:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a little-known fact that the Watergate break-in was mostly about Nixon's obsession with copyright violations. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

...though we are doing our best to publicise it at ANI. G. Gordon Liddy - anti-communist and copyright crusader... TFOWR 17:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I think when my own user page image is up for deletion, and no friendly notice is sent, it is harassment. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is excessive and appears to be WP:HARASSMENT of RAN by TreasuryTag. Copyright is important, but TT could and should have approached this by talking to RAN and asking if any of his other uploads might be problematic, and whether non-free image rationales could be provided where missing. Adding a CSD tag to an image of RAN that he uses on his user page is indicative of a thoughtless approach. Fences&Windows 23:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, using an image on your userpage without ensuring it meets Misplaced Pages's relatively simple copyright requirements is indicative of a thoughtless approach. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 08:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If someone is going to upload an image taken in the 1920s and claim to be that image's creator, then they must expect it to be tagged. If they upload an image with a false declaration that it is releasable under CC-BY, and then admit that it isn't, that is very serious indeed. I started looking through his images after finding a problem with a few of his uploads related to bilaterial relations, and spent several hours identifying hundreds of copyright violations. Surely this is not a Bad Thing? ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 07:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing three very basic issues. Each image has a person that took the image; a person who claims the rights; and the person that uploads it. The three may be the same, or may be three different people. You saying I am not the rights holder to a family photo just because I wasn't born in 1920 is a misunderstanding of the basic concepts involved. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I do actually understand that. I simply said that there is no evidence. In some cases, you tagged the images saying that you were the creator, which is patently untrue, even if you do hold the rights. The link I posted just above is similar to tens of other files: you listed them as CC-BY and subsequently admitted that they were just fair use. Surely you can see that there's a problem here? ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 09:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

By my very rough estimate he has tagged about 100 or more of my photos, all for being on the wrong side of him on and AFD debate. If that isn't WP:HARASSMENT, I don't know what is. User:Torkmann was banned from Misplaced Pages for the same behavior. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing two very basic issues. First, we were on opposite sides of an AfD debate. Second, you have uploaded hundreds of inappropriately tagged images which I marked appropriately. Call it harassment if it makes you feel better, but you have no-one to blame for them being falsely tagged but yourself. ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 09:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Um, User:Torkmann was blocked (no indication of a formal ban) for sockpuppetry, even if that editor was also against you as well, Richard. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

And of course not notifying me intensifies the harassment. A message should have been left on my page for each of the changes requested instead of tagging them for deletion because they didn't use the most recent templates. Some were deleted before I even knew the templates were being questioned. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Only images which met the "blatant copyvio" criterion were deleted immediately, so you presumably couldn't have done anything about them anyway, though I think I did notify you for those? Twinkle allowing, of course.

However, I have no further comment to make on this ridiculous issue. I stand by what I did. If you still object, the next step would be an RfC, I guess. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 09:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

For regular editors, I think it would be appropriate to condense multiple notices into a single message. If not, at least a link to the pages where the images are being discussed would be the minimal I think. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what I did :) ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 10:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton and TreasuryTag: section-break

Point of order: there is no harassing in going through a user's contributions and trying to weed out copyright violations. That's what Special:Contributions exists for: editorial oversight. Please restrict your use of "harassment" to actual harassment; there are several victims of criminal harassment on Misplaced Pages who I don't think would take too kindly to the word being thrown around as it is. Sceptre 14:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Harrassment is harrassment, whether its on line or real world. Considering the fact that Treasury Tags has recently used sexually aggressive cuss words against Richard, and also nominated many of his harmless user pages for deletion, its unlikely he has the objectivity to evaluate whether or not Richards use of images are copyrights or fairuse, and should disengage. Ive advised the user accordingly on his talk page. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Please give one example of an image of Richard's that I tagged which was, in fact, perfectly fine to begin with. That would prove that I lack the objectivity. Thanks in advance. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 20:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

TreasuryTag, you seem to have just respeonded to my civil request on your talk by asking if I can "sod off". So youre being a little unrealistic if you exspect me to help evaluate your work, unleast untill a few days have passed without you harrassing my respected colleague RAN. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, so you're accusing me of harassment and refusing to provide any links or evidence. According to WP:HA#NOT, "Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly." Dear oh dear. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 21:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

As Ive explicity said, the image nominations on their own are not harrassment. Its the whole range of behaviour in combination as per my reply below. Do you deny any of the behavours? If so I'll supply diffs, but please note unless you have some kind of serious memory problem, you're be adding outright lying to the list of your un -collegial behaviour. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, harrassment is harrassment, and this isn't. Nominating pages for deletion that you disagree with does not mean that someone has lost objectivity, and an image is either copyrighted/fair use... or it isn't. If TreasuryTag starts nomination images for deletion under copyvios when they clearly aren't, then and only then would a 'please disengage' message (or something stronger ;)) be at all relevant. Ale_Jrb 20:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Nominating the images alone wouldnt be harrassment. Combine it with agressive and vulgar language and multiple noms of harmless user space pages (aggravated by a contingent of the usual delete voters turning up) and borderline edit warning and the picture is different. Not block worthy IMO, but he should be asked to stop. Ask yourself this - if you received that kind of attention, with admins enabling the behaviour rather than warning against it, would you want to carry on volunterring your time to improving this encylopedia? FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I stumbled upon this mudfight between TreasuryTag and Norton1958 by pure chance, and within a few clicks I saw that it's the sort of thing that caused me to lose interest in being a regular editor a few years ago. The fact that these two editors can abuse each other across the site and draw other editors into the fray without being shut down quickly and decisively troubles me. That it can take up precious quarter-hours of a disinterested, uncompensated party's time to explore a case like this well enough to ensure they can make a fair assessment begs for stricter sanctions and a less legalist approach to delivering them. I hereby nominate both TreasuryTag and Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) for a 30-day suspension followed by a 2-year, zero-tolerance probation. I also nominate this concept for elevation to Highest Law of the Land. Erielhonan 23:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Note from Commons: TreasuryTag nominated (almost) every image uploaded Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Family history. multichill (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Maybe there's no harassment or bad faith intended here, but speaking as a more or less uninvolved onlooker it's hard for me, as not to suspect that TreasuryTag's nominations violate WP:BATTLEFIELD, if not its language then its spirit. I would suggest that if TT is acting here in good faith she/he should simply withdraw all of these nominations as a gesture of good will. If these images truly should be deleted, someone else will nominate them again. (But then what do I know... ) -- llywrch (talk) 04:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said in a thread below, when I stumble across an user who has one or two images with problematic fair-use issues, I naturally take a look at their upload log. This is perfectly normal behaviour for a lot of editors active in the image-copyright processes around Misplaced Pages, I would expect. Imagine my surprise when I found hundreds of improperly-tagged images in Richard's log, stretching back several years. Yes, I had a content dispute with him: but surely that doesn't mean I should just ignore so many files with copyright problems? Or does it?

Many of these files were only used on his family-history pages in his userspace, which I glanced at, and considered them to be inappropriate, given WP:NOTMEMORIAL and so on. Again, surely I am not supposed to leave things like that solely because I had a run-in with the person in question over a completely different issue? ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 07:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Iluvrihanna24 doesn't appear to have learnt from previous ANI

Ok some of you might remember this ANI report from April 25 about user Iluvrihanna24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). His/her last comment was "sorry! ... i will be more careful and think before i act. Sorry for any inconvenience caused." This follows comments i had about about him/her refusing to listen to the community consensus, take heed of warnings and follow protocol. Since then its been a non-stop uphill battle against the user:

• adding poorly sourced info which breached WP:CRYSTAL. April 30, 2010
• impropper sourcing April 30, 2010
• addition of poor source May 1, 2010
• unsourced synthesis of information May 9, 2010
• trying to use WP:Other stuff exists argument May 15, 2010
• Unsourced information May 17, 2010
• removing sources and changing numbers in a way which breaches MOS:NUM May 19, 2010
• Unsourced addtions May 19, 2010
• 2nd MOS:NUM issue also addition of unsourced information May 21, 2010
• WP:MOS violation, changing number to # May 22, 2010
• Adds rockstar 101 back to infobox even though it has no firm release date (only radio date). May 22, 2010.

From Iluvrihanna24's talkpage there are lots warning from myself and other users. I just dont think he/she will learn. I ask him/her yesterday did i ask him to refrain from MOS:NUM violations and asked him/her to clarify if he/she had a source for this edit and i also reminded him/her of the previous ANI and thought that the way things were going i would notify them that it might be appropriate to open another. He/she has not responded though its obvious from

I believe its time for administator intervention. – Lil-unique1 (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfolding fiasco on Live Art articles

There seems to be an unfolding fiasco here, where a collaborative effort to improve articles on Live art and Performance art is being trampled all over by shoot-first, ask-questions-later speedy deletions and strange blocks. See User talk:Lisa Mattocks (victim) and User_talk:Blueboy96#Gob_Squad (tagger/blocker). Gob Squad, who, take it from me, are clearly notable, have been tagged twice for speedy deletion, though currently are not tagged. Lone Twin, also pretty clearly notable has been deleted, as has The Live Art Development Agency gbooks search, a UK-government funded agency for supporting this corner of the arts. Can a responsible admin take a look at this mess? This is exactly what we don't need to encourage new users with expertise but not much WP experience. Johnbod (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I have tagged the articles Gob Squad and Lone Twin for CSD previously (after they had been recreated after a previous CSD). I'm just going by the judgment of the administrators who granted the CSD previously. Gob Squad does exhibit notability (now that the page has been edited several times since I last nominated for CSD). I can see it's inclusion. I don't know though. I agree with Johnbod. Let's have a "responsible" admin take a look at this. --ANowlin: talk 17:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that was awfully WP:BITE-y, hitting them with so many templates, calling them vandals, and all that. And no courtesy notice that we're working on this, while we leave all those poor artists sitting at a bar wondering why they're range-blocked? We're all adults here (and serious-minded youth perhaps), right? Heightened skepticism, and an initial block, is within reason and we can commend Blueboy96 for quick action. But it should be clear now that they're good faith editors. This kind of group project mess happens from time to time, and by now we have some editors who are experienced dealing with it. The closest analog I see is Misplaced Pages:School and university projects, and what they're doing isn't dissimilar. assuming good faith, if we ask them to mind their p's and q's regarding having individual accounts and watching out for notability and reliable sourcing, I think we can count on them to do their best. And if they say they're not proxy accounts, we have to take them at their word. They're using their real names, etc., and it is highly unlikely that an organization like that is intentionally trying to subvert rules. If not we can easily look at it come Monday and clear up any lingering mess. The harm of blocking an entire group of people who have converged to donate their weekend to improving the encyclopedia is a lot worse, and more likely, than the harm to be avoided if it turns out they're imperfect editors. I've left a message over at User talk:Lisa Mattocks letting them know about this discussion and suggesting that we'll resolve this post haste. If there's any admin with a phone or email who wants to clear this up directly, I think that's a lot better than making a bunch of people wait in real life at an event while we discuss bureaucratic rules. That would totally give some eager volunteers the wrong sense of what we're all about. Good luck. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Right - there is a twitter a/c for the project too - link is the first one in my last. Lisa M had also notified the Visual Arts project in advance, which is how I was aware of it all. She is still I think blocked, over this role account issue, which hjas probably not been properly explained to her. Johnbod (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything that would lead one to believe that there are multiple editors on a single account, or that anyone is editing under the name of an organization? As far as I can tell she is explicitly claiming otherwise. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed! From what she says we may also have blocked the ISP for the Institute of Contemporary Arts, where they are (or more likely were) sitting. There are not that many contributions by User:Lisa Mattocks. I can't see the deleted articles. Johnbod (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

it'll all be over by Monday so addressing the issue then will be too late. I wonder if this event – http://uk.wikimedia.org/Backstage_Pass – will be subject to the same zealous article deletion and user blocking?Alchemagenta (talk)

Well over 30 people with a/cs have signed up for that (including me), so with luck no. But can we at least try to see tomorrow goes more smoothly at the ICA  ? Johnbod (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

What I mean is that if they create a bunch of bad articles we can deal with that on Monday. There's not that much chance of serious harm - particularly if they can let us know which ones they created. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The event is supposed to be on tomorrow, & it it's like today there won't be any new articles left by Monday. Johnbod (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I declined unblock on what seemed to me to be a simple issue. This editor has stated, in a perfectly straightforward manner, that it is her intention to host a collaborative edit through her account on sunsay, 23rd May. According to her posting, she has invited all and sundry to turn up with there l,aptops and writing talent and to contribute. While the contributions created may or may not be encyclopedic - they do not yet exist - this seems to me to be a blatant role and/or group account. If the consensus produces a different opinion, then please feel free to unblock.--Anthony.bradbury 21:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

See the top - at least 3 new articles were created, all on notable subjects & all speedily deleted, though Gob Squad has been reinstated. What has been going on elsewhere in the forest i don't know. What is the blocked ICA ISP a/c? Johnbod (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think she said that at all - and if inviting others to edit Misplaced Pages is now blockable, rest assured I shall do all I can to discourage anyone from editing. We can add the ICA to others such as the Encyclopedia of Alabama, Gresham College, the API, as being exactly the sort of educated, knowledgeable, helpful people that many admins won't tolerate on Misplaced Pages. DuncanHill (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I have some knowledge of what's going on here, at the ICA end, as I'm loosely involved with the project (remotely – 300 miles away, I hasten to add). In short the project consists of this: a bunch of arts professionals and artists who have specialist knowledge and experience of live art and performance art practice have got together at a weekend-long event at the ICA. As part of that event, they have undertaken to contribute to Misplaced Pages, focusing on creating new articles about artists and arts organisations that are key, internationally–recognised constituents of that practice, yet are sadly missing from Misplaced Pages. ICA is simply an organisational host to this event and the event participants are availing themselves of the broadband/wi-fi facilities publicly available in the building. Shockingly, and I'm not seeking to attribute specific blame here, in an act of good faith and goodwill, in seeking to legitimately improve Misplaced Pages's content (and incidentally, promote Misplaced Pages itself) they have found themselves subject to gung-ho article deletion, over-zealous user-blocking and, it seems the range blocking of the public wi-fi IP of a major, internationally recognised, publicly-funded arts institution with a formidable history in promoting art and digital media. This is an own goal by Misplaced Pages of unbelievable proportion. Please, if there are any able and sensible admins out there, get this resolved because so far, several new and potentially useful Misplaced Pages editors with specialist knowledge are rapidly becoming extremely alienated by processes that would be more familiar in some global commercial corporate empire.Alchemagenta (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Please unblock this account, or, if no one objects, then I will unblock it. Lisa_Mattocks has specifically stated in an unblock request that this is not a role account: "My account is not shared. We are at the ICA in London all using the same IP address!" There are a number of terminals at the ICA and some contributors to this project will no doubt be using their own laptops on wi-fi, so they will obviously have the same underlying IP. This is nothing unusual: there are often different users with the same IP of a university etc. The block currently prevents the creation of new accounts, thus stopping any potential contributors from meeting wiki requirements to create their own account. WP:BITE is a guideline that mandates consideration and help for new users, especially when they have inadvertently contravened Misplaced Pages's labyrinthine regulations. Please read the guideline and follow it to give assistance for what can be some worthwhile contributions to the project. Ty 22:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite so. I can't see deleted edits, but her contributions history now only has about 25 edits on it, all yesterday & today, and well spread out. Nor can I see where cshe says the others will use her account at all. I have to agree with Alchemagenta. Johnbod (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I have unblocked this account in the light of a clear consensus to do so. Please note that the original block was not mine - Blueboy please accept my apologies if you feel I have stepped on your toes.--Anthony.bradbury 22:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but are we still blocking the whole ICA, as we seem to have done? Johnbod (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Might also be nice to actually tell her she's been unblocked? DuncanHill (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Where's the template for "inviting a bunch of your friends to write articles about each other is a spectacularly bad idea"? Guy (Help!) 22:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Please provide evidence of grounds for this statement and its negative implications. Ty 22:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Looking at the Twitter group I can't spot any overlap with article subjects - I haven't done a full audit. For the nth time, all the deleted article subjects pass notability tests easily. Thank you for your interest; your communication is valuable to us! Johnbod (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm emailng her to inform her of the decision (thanks, Anthony Bradbury) but I too have to ask: is the IP still range blocked? Alchemagenta (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Please could an admin look at User talk:Alexeisenberg as he seems to have been caught up in this too. DuncanHill (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Participation invited at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Visual arts/Performing Misplaced Pages. Ty 23:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have suggested on Blueboy96's talk page that an admin recall process may be best here; this is the second episode of poor judgement in dealing with newcomers that I have seen in two months. Fences&Windows 23:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, snap! Please don't bite the admins either. :) - Wikidemon (talk) 03:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

There remains an unresolved aspect of this incident: I've just heard from Lisa Mattocks that the ICA's IPs remain blocked. Can someone please unblock these? The addresses are 192.168.1.89 and 192.168.5.102. Thanks. Alchemagenta (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Those IP addresses are internal on your network; they aren't the IPs that Misplaced Pages sees. 192.xxxxx are always internal. Do you know the external one? (whatismyip.com, perhaps?) — Timneu22 · talk 12:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, my ignorance… I've asked her if she can find out. Alchemagenta (talk) 12:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm told that the external IP is 93.97.42.230. Alchemagenta (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe I have unblocked the autoblocked IP using the autoblock tool. . But I am no expert on these sort of things, so make no promises about the result.--Slp1 (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That's worked, all is well. Thanks. Alchemagenta (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hah. Good. It is appears I am more technosavvy than I thought :) --Slp1 (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

As this has been a multi-layered incident, I think it's worth summarising where we're all at with it at this point:

- two blocked new users now unblocked;

- blocked IP now unblocked;

- new project page created;

- one deleted article restored;

- two deleted articles now in incubation on project page;

- new users' faith in Misplaced Pages restored. Probably.

- technical proficiency of admin affirmed.

I think that's all of the aspects of this resolved now. Alchemagenta (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you to those of you who have helped with this project. I am particularly grateful to User:Johnbod for his support of the project and for helping to clear this all up quickly User:Alchemagenta for helping to fix the mess and User:Tyrenius for setting up Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Visual arts/Performing Misplaced Pages . Thank you very much Lisa Mattocks (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Recall poll

I and another editor have signed the recall petition at User talk:Blueboy96#Admin Recall. Blueboy96 has said that "I'm willing to submit in order to clear the air." If four more editors with at least 500 edits and 1 month of editing sign then we will move to a reconfirmation RfA. If they do not then this is water under the bridge. Fences&Windows 16:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

AIV Backlog

WP:AIV is backlogged. If an admin or two could take a look, it would be appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Community Ban of indef blocked user Frei Hans

Frei Hans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)

I don't know which of you remember this user, but doing a quick search of the ANI archives will reveal who they are, and what they've done. I realize this is just a tad, early, but per this edit, they are obviously going to keep coming back.

Given the massive amount of disruption this user caused with their never-ending bad faith assumptions of the community, I ask for a ban, to make dealing with their socks easier; eg, revert their edits on sight.— Dædαlus 19:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Voting/discussion

• Support - Per the above, obviously as thread creator.— Dædαlus 19:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I remember this user very well. I believe that for reasons that are probably out of his control he is simply not able to assist us with building an encyclopedia. We would not do anyone a favour by pretending otherwise. Hans Adler 20:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support I too remember this user all too well and support a ban. Dougweller (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support what Dougweller said. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support. His prior history at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Telepathy and war was quite enough. He's simply disruptive. Fences&Windows 21:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support I have seen a lot of totally non-encyclopedic original research placed in Synthetic telepathy (recently deleted and recreated as a redirect). I have no particular evidence that the IP behind the OR is Frei Hans, but it seems likely given the similar interests. Helpful contributions are very unlikely. Johnuniq (talk) 01:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support as a response to what I think were this editor's edits to the fringe noticeboard. ClovisPt (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
• Ya — Basically a technically; he's already indef'd for cause. Not fit for this project due to endless bad faith. Jack Merridew 03:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Also salt the following alternate titles Frei Hans vowed he'd utilize to get his manifesto onto Misplaced Pages: Military research into telepathy, Telepathic technology, Telepathic applications, Computer-mediated telepathy, Synthetic Telepathy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support – Too much disruption here; enough is enough. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Account hacked, help requested

About 20:45 today I discovered someone had hacked into the alternate email account that I use for WP mails (not my main one but email gets routed there). They then proceeded to get in WP by requesting a new temporarily password for my username (which went to this email address which is autoforwarded to my main address), logged in, and performed what appears to be the only action of deleting one page . I managed to get another password request sent, changed it and the email address to something different, but they have just attempted again to get a temporarily password on this account (that, however, is now going to the address I believe is secure).

The IP that is doing this is : 98.149.102.111 who has no edits here, but seems intent on deleting something on Half-Life. I need help in trying to resolve this. --MASEM (t) 21:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Black Mesa (video game) restored. These edits: are from IPs recently whose edits match the intent shown by the deletion summary by your account. SGGH 21:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

All 3 are geographically different. It does seem like it was a specific attack to that page (at least that) since they did little else. --MASEM (t) 21:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thought something weird was going on. The article talk page was also deleted. Rehevkor ✉ 21:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you emptied and deleted that alternate email account? It might be permanently compromised now. Could a checkuser run a check on your account for when those edits were made and those other IPs you mention to find if any registered accounts are connected to this attack? Fences&Windows 21:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The hacked alternate account appears to be deleted now. (it bounces, I can't create it again yet). A checkuser would help, because to hack the account (it was advert'd in my user page ) and to go right to WP and delete a page sounds like very targetd vandalism. They have done nothing else that they could have done (beyond deleting it) with that alt. email account. --MASEM (t) 21:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) F&W and Masem, do check here for an available Checkuser. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• I am looking in to this. Masem, please contact me by email ASAP. Risker (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Email sent. --MASEM (t) 22:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks Masem. I've just responded. Risker (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Reply sent back (just in case). --MASEM (t) 22:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Just to confirm Masem's initial statement. There is evidence that a third party managed to access Masem's email address and, from there, change his password and edit inappropriately under his username. Only two edits were made. Masem has been instructed to change all applicable passwords. I note that he had posted his email address on his userpage, and have suggested that he remove that information; while it is rare that someone chooses to take advantage of such personal information, it can be very discouraging when it happens. Whatever personal information you release on your userpage is released under the applicable GDFL/CC license and can wind up in a lot of places you don't expect. Please be cautious. Risker (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
• If this a publicly known recent exploit, should we be advising anybody with their WP email address set to a gmail account to change it?. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no reason to suspect that it was anything other than someone guessing Masem's gmail password. The solution is a stronger password, usually. Risker (talk) 00:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yea, as Risker pointed out, this only started from the hack at the gmail account, and though I thought it was high strength, they got it. Needless to say, I've changed a lot of passwords in the last few hours and took Risker's advice of stripping the email from my userpage. I just find it interesting how intent this user(s) was to getting rid of that page to take that course of action. --MASEM (t) 01:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Also consider the fact that it had zero chance of staying deleted for any length of time so one might think what's the point. On some webforum somewhere, there's a 14 year old kid showing the deletion log and saying "LuLZ". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a followup but nothing critical but bears in mind some caution. On the new alt email account that had to make after the above, someone has tried to send a password change request. Fortunately, (and something I didn't do with teh above) this account on google mail was added protected with a security question, so the change could not start without me clicking a second link in an email that I could only get; thus no hacks, no account compromise, etc. I recommend that if you have such accounts to make sure you've enabled all the security features (like this added prot to password changes) to make sure they're locked down. The only interesting this to add here is that it happened so close to the previous event and 'roughly' the same time frame (give or take 4 hrs) that makes me think its part of the same group; and given they got the new address (which isn't that far off but not immediately obvious from the compromised one), I think I know which site they got it from but there's little there I can do to protect its visibility due to how that site works, beyond all the other steps I've done. --MASEM (t) 22:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed something in my gmail account: under the inbox there is a "Last account activity" line. Clicking "Details" shows some stuff that may be of minor interest. There is a "learn more" link which advises fixing the password and security question. Johnuniq (talk) 02:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Peter Godwin (singer)

Requesting help at Peter Godwin (singer) page. Myself and other editors have removed unsourced additions by Peter Godwin Nuevo (talk · contribs) and Meltingbluedelicious (talk · contribs) (who appear to have a WP:COI). I've already reverted twice, and do not wish to violate 3rr so am bringing this up here. Myself, and another editor, have mentioned WP guidelines, on their talk pages, which they have chosen to ignore. In fact, I was told they would be editing the page as they saw fit because the information was about them. Akerans (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I reverted to a version prior to their COI and will continue to do so. Our policy is clear. If the user continues to be disruptive they will be blocked. β 01:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I just gave Meltingblue a 3rr warning. They are repeatedly reverting other editors. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

There is the issue of legal threats as well Active Banana (talk) 01:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Meltingblue is already way past 3RR. Reverts by user in the past 24 hrs:  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 02:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, but I wanted to make sure all of the t's were dotted and the i's crossed. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem, you it correctly, just putting the facts out there.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 02:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The user, Active Banana has a habit of deleting articles without discussion with other editors. I would support blocking the user if necessary. --g8crash3r 02:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by G8crash3r (talk • contribs)

Without making excuses for the disruptive editing going on, there may be a fair point to be raised in that it's not a terribly good article - it only uses one source, and if that source isn't accurate, then it shouldn't be used. Some effort could be made to corroborate the Allmusic source and establish whether or not it's reliable. There's no justification for the behaviour of some editors there though. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but there's been no discussion about what exactly is disputed, just large unsourced changes. User:Active Banana has just stubbified the article to remove all unsourced stuff, which should take care of any issues.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 02:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: I've just notified the two users of this discussion here and here.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 02:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, User:meltingbluedelicious left a message here on my talk page. All I could really discern is that they do indeed have CoI, and that the allmusic reference is apparantly inaccurate. Falcon8765 (talk) 03:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I have pointed both users to WP:BLP/H which is one of the first things anyone concerned about his WP article should be advised to read. JohnCD (talk) 09:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

BLP violation on a User's Talk page?

Is User_talk:Jessemckay#Is_A_Homosexual_Candidate_Unqualified.3F an acceptable edit on a User's Talk page? It looks like a BLP violation, to me. If others disagree eith me, I will apologize to User:Jessemckay for mischaracterizing their edits. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this a trick question?? It looks like the whole user talk page should be taken to WP:MFD unless an admin would like to enforce WP:BLP by removing the blog. Johnuniq (talk) 04:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Ha. Actually, I hadn't really looked at it that closely, I just noted that para.  :) Yeah, this needs to be redacted, it's a personal essay, not what a Talk page is for. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I have been bold and have removed those parts of the user's Talk page which are not there to facilitate intra-Misplaced Pages communication. I'm hoping they don't go back up. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Good call, Everard Proudfoot. I've now deleted the revisions of the page containing the BLP violation - since it was my first use of Revision Deletion I'd appreciate any feedback on whether I used it appropriately. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Good job being bold, Everard Proudfoot. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 23:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

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

This user is repeatedly adding an AfD notice to the article despite the AfD being closed. It appears the user has chosen this article as a battleground to make a point. Even though my involvement has been minor, it may be enough to taint any action that may be considered. Any attention that could be brought to bear would be appreciated. Thanks Tiderolls 06:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• Could be debated whether or not they technically crossed 3RR (as in 3 reverts in one calendar day), but they've done enough reverts to call it edit warring. I blocked for 31 hours. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the issue did not begin with the AfD, but at the article's creation. The user also kept re-adding a speedy tag, a few weeks ago. It then culminated with the user removing {{reflist}}, and the article having an actual deletion. I then notified NawlinWiki, who restored it and took care of the AfD. - Zero1328 _Talk? 22:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

page: xiao

This page has been vandalized/rewritten to promote some online game group. Can an admin please revert it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.118.139.248 (talk) 07:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Okip

Continued harassment by User:TreasuryTag over confrontation at an AFD

Copyright violations in copyright-related articles

LakeT (talk · contribs) is persisting in adding word-for-word and close paraphrase copyrighted text to articles related to copyright, most recently Public domain after being warned not to do so, which he clearly received as he replied. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I was in the process of working on the article, please see the new section in public domain on derivative works, which I am still working on. I am not using paraphrasing to avoid the Misplaced Pages copyright policies. It would be good if VernoWhitney would be less ironic and assume good faith. I am not sure why this is escalated so much.--LakeT (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you're working on the article or not, you must not put copyrighted material onto Misplaced Pages. You also might find it worthwhile to read about what "ironic" means.... ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 13:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

can you please outline how the derivative works section in the public domain article is copyright infringement instead of just reverting any addition i make? Perhaps another administrator can offer his or her opinion. I will add the section back into the article so we can get the opinion of another editor.--LakeT (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't. Other editors are more than capable of locating your version; there's no need to place the project at risk simply to accommodate a mythical editor who can't read an article's history. TFOWR 14:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

For the history-challenged, LakeT's most recent version is here. TFOWR 14:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted it - sort out the copyright problems first, then re-add to the article if it's fine not the other-way around. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think what I have added now does not constitute copyright infringement. I find it strange that editors can accuse other editors of violating a wikipedia policy, but are not expected to explain how what was done violates the policy. I am contributing to wikipedia since more than two years now and I never had admins deal with possible copyright ifnirngement like it is happening now.--LakeT (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It's been explained to you above that you need to discuss it on the talk page before inserting what may be a WP:COPYVIO. "What you think" isn't really relevant here. I find it strange that you can ignore the advice of several editors and plough on regardless, particularly as you suggest you have two years' worth of experience of editing in a collaborative environment. I'd recommend you revert yourself and wait until you've discussed the matter and arrived at a consensus. TFOWR 14:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to be unavailable for most of the day, but since all of the additions are well sourced including page numbers, they can be pulled up in gbooks and previewed which should reveal some pretty clear similarities between the phrases they're adding and the sources, which should match any reasonable definition of WP:Close paraphrasing or Derivative works or whatever you want to call it. If someone else could look at it (or get someone else who deals with copyvio to look at it) so he doesn't keep readding the material (or you can tell me that I'm completely wrong, if that's the case) it would be much appreciated. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding the policy, which states that "Otherwise, if some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the discussion page, along with the original source, if known." WP:COPYVIO. Similarities are not automatically copyright infringement, otherwise all sourced material in Misplaced Pages would be copyright infringement. Close paraphrasing is permitted if attributed and "when there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing. In general, sentences like "Dr. John Smith earned his medical degree at State University" can be rephrased "John Smith earned his M.D. at State University" without copyright problems.""close paraphrase--LakeT (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a single short sentence is hard to rephrase and generally not a copyvio. You are however using entire paragraphs of text ("closely paraphrasing extensively from a non-free source may be a copyright problem, even if it is difficult to find different means of expression") and they are can be rephrased. I hadn't noted the sources and text removal on the talk pages because a) you used multiple sources which would take a little bit of time to sort out and b) I was more concerned with checking your other contributions and then with bringing the discussion here when you continued. And now I'm off. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ...and that's an excellent discussion to have, on the talk page, prior to re-adding anything. Apart from anything else, many people here believe - myself included - that this approach is always to be preferred, but, regardless of that, constantly reverting instead of discussing delays discussion and any solution and brings the editor(s) concerned rapidly to WP:3RR. Cheers, TFOWR 14:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

discussion moved to talk page - suggestions welcome Talk:Public domain.--LakeT (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

can an administrator please intervene? I put the text which I do not believe to be copyright infringement on the public domain talk page, so that editors can have a look at it and suggest changes, if needed, and it was removed, under the pretext that I am not allowed to place what another editor, without giving reasons, thinks could be copyright infringement anywhere on Misplaced Pages. I would really like to have the opinion of an administrator if what I have written is copyright infringement as per wikipedia policy, i think it would be helpful, then I would know how to change it so that it can be part of the article.--LakeT (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Not an administrator. You don't need the text - we can all find it for ourselves. TreasuryTag even provided a link to the article's history so we can find it. TFOWR 14:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm an administrator, not that that part matters, but looking at your paragraph, I would agree that you are skating far too closely to the line. Simply removing or changing the odd word while retaining near identical structure and style of the works you are referencing is still a copyright violation. Specifically from your version, you've paraphrased references 17 and 19 far too closely, and 18 remains fairly similar as well. I never looked at 20. I think your intentions are good, and it would be a useful addition to the article, but you need to reword the passage such as to use your own words rather than that of your sources. Resolute 21:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Have reworded and rearranged 18 and 19 (actually it was not a good structure, as its said some works had been widely used for derivatives once they had fallen into the public domain and then went on about the mona lisa which was never copyrighted). Re 17, its a definition, I don’t really know how to reword it further from the original, as I can’t use different words for translation etc, which have a legal meaning. 20 should be good as it takes numerous bits from two pages, and combines them for a string of examples. Hope that resolves the copyright issue.--LakeT (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

17 is probably fine (albeit U.S.-centric) as it's based on the wording of U.S. Copyright Act. But please stop assuming you've fixed problems and replacing the material without asking someone else first. You didn't think there was an issue in the first place, so you're hardly objective. At this point if you reword some more I doubt I'm objective either since I'm now expecting to find those similarities. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Kenya Emergency (1952) / Mau Mau Uprising

Background:

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive614#User:ScottPAnderson
• User talk:TFOWR#apparent POV pushing by User:Julius Sahara and User:Galloping Moses
• Talk:Mau Mau Uprising#Requested move / Talk:Kenya Emergency (1952)#Requested move whichever one works...

Similar issue has recently been discussed here (1st link above) and the editors went back to discuss issues. One editor earlier contacted me (2nd link). I had a look at the current issues and stuck a move request on the articles talk page (3rd link). Despite the opportunity to discuss the article's title afforded by the move request, two editors have moved and re-moved. Neither is at 3 reverts yet.

I'm not an admin and I'm... involved: could someone intervene before people get hurt?

Cheers! TFOWR 16:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I've let both editors know about this. If it's inappropriate here, delete it or do with it what you must. I'm going offline for a few hours or so, so probably won't get involved further. TFOWR 16:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• Article move-protected. A discussion is now underway on the talkpage. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that the Mau Mau Uprising article has been subject to edit warring recently. Personally I try to avoid such situations. On this case, however, I really feel I had a moral right to protect the page from being renamed. The term "Mau Mau" is so common that leaving it out from the title of the article sounds very strange. I really can't figure out the motives by user:ScottPAnderson for moving the article. Given his edit history, I'd advise him to more careful and avoid controversial edits. Julius Sahara (talk)

He's also (apart from having broken 3RR in the move war), recently edited the header of the page to his preferred version so it doesn't match the title and posted a bizarre request for full protection at WP:RFPP so that it would be locked in "his" version. Meanwhile, at least two admins including myself have looked at the naming issue and agreed with other editors that "his" name doesn't satisfy COMMONNAME at all. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I noticed his change to the header also - I wasn't too happy about that. I've also reverted some of his edits at Hola massacre with a fairly detailed explanation as to why on the talk page. I probably won't have much access to the Internet for the next 3 days, so it might be a good idea for people to keep an eye out. Thanks.

User:Epforrester vandalism and disruption only account

Epforrester's first edits were blatant vandalism and attacks. More recent edits are clear violations of WP:NPOV. This user is not here to contribute constructively to Misplaced Pages, but to attack a political organization he doesn't like. I took this user to AIV, where I was told "Edits may be questionable, but this isn't blatant vandalism." Plastering the Tea Party at Crazy and White Supremacy isn't vandalism? Peacock also posted there about this user. Since that was fruitless, can someone do something? --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

POV warrior, absolutely. Bad first edits. Since then, has been improving. Suggest we get him a mentor. If he starts egregiously violating WP:BATTLEGROUND again after the warning and notice of this discussion, I'd suggest blocking. I normally am not one to give new editors the benefit of the doubt, but the pattern (starting off blockable, then improving) is more subtle than I would expect from many of our returning characters. Jclemens (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The editor in question decided to start with a clean slate under new identity. So far no problems, I should shoot them a welcome and the 5 pillars. I would guess that this matter can be closed and the user wants to contribute to wiki. Let's hope it's mostly positive. †TE†Talk 22:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Halister24

User:Halister24 has been changing various articles about association football video games to read "soccer" instead of "association football", despite the latter being the agreed-upon term for the sport. I have asked the user twice to stop this activity, but they have ignored by requests both times. – PeeJay 20:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you both finished edit warring, there's the WP:3RR rule that prevents any editor from making more than three reverts in any 24 hour period, as well as rules regarding edit warring. I would therefore ask that both parties disengage and deal with the matter at hand away from the article. I'd also direct the parties to WP:VNE and I quote "Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms, especially in article names. For example, fixed-wing aircraft is preferred to the national varieties aeroplane (British English) and airplane (American English)." which would confirm that Association Football, rather than the American, Soccer, or the British, Football, would be used in the article. Nick (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

"Please stop changing mentions of "association football" or "football" to read "soccer" in non-American articles." That's the only notice you gave Halister, with no explanation whatsoever that association football is the agreed upon term and no directions to the talk page where this was apparently agreed upon. You should both be blocked for being way past 3RR and pointlessly reverting each other.--Atlan (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe so, but the user never even attempted to engage in a dialogue from the start. No explanation was made for their edits at any point, and I did ask very nicely for them to desist. – PeeJay 21:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, but however much you know you're in the right, you should've stopped at 3RR and reported them to WP:AN3. Continuing to revert, quite apart from breaking 3RR, just encourages the other party to carry on as well. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Halister has the excuse of being new here, you don't. Even though your request for them to stop was put nicely, it didn't really tell them why they should stop. Even so, Halister has now continued with another revert after Nick's warning.--Atlan (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Since Halister24 has continued after Nick's warning, I have blocked them. Someone else should probably now revert the edit again, though. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 23:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Housekeeping task

Just noticed that someone at the talk page of deleted article Jacqueline Hernández is requesting that the deleted info be userfied for him. Can someone please handle? Thanks. — e. ripley\ 20:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If the page is a copyright violation (which it was, in this case) then it cannot be restored for an editor to continuing working upon. There's nothing that can be done in this case, I'm afraid. Nick (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've replied at the article talk page. I think the user's just asking to recreate the article not for it to be undeleted, so they don't need any help. Note that since it was deleted as a copyvio I wouldn't userfy it anyway. Olaf Davis (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from Sapporod1965

I originally met this user at a RfA which failed per WP:NOTYET. The user had supported the candidate with a claim of "Ultra Srong Support" for awesomeness, with only 55 edits at that time. I'm sure there's a sockpuppet thing going on (User:Flushing258 was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Bcai388 after retiring (also see all the notices he removed from his talkpage)) and Sappoprod has been following me around ever since. Wanting to help him/her, I posted a newcomer template, asking that the user WP:SIGN their posts and the user replied, saying Please do not ever post on my page again, which has no meaning, btw. At Misplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:NerdyScienceDude/Vandalism_space_(2nd_nomination), Sappoprod turned up with another lousy rationale, a clear sign of WP:STALKing and possibly WP:HARASSment. Also, I was over at User_talk:I_like_pie_it_tastes_good when Sappoprod came along and suggested the user apply for adminship; the goal was to disrupt the RfA process. While he/she was there, he/she added an innappropriate "userbox". Currently there is a MfD for his userpage, as it has been deemed inappropriate. To conclude, the user has been following me, giving disruptive rationales at discussions, and has a possible connection to another user through sockpuppetry.--mono 04:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I blocked indef. Not here to contribute, and not really a tough call in that department. Daniel Case (talk) 05:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Trademark violation claim

Some poor beleaguered associate at some law firm somewhere got stuck having to spend a Sunday night posting this into The Devil Wears Prada. Apparently, the real-life Runway magazine or someone purporting to be an attorney acting on their behalf has decided, seven years after the book was published and became a bestseller and nearly four years after the movie was released that they want to enforce their trademark. After reviewing MOS:TM, I don't think we need to use the "®" and I have told them so, as well as warning them about legal threats and disruptive editing, on the IP's talk page.

Should I let Mike know? Daniel Case (talk) 05:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, considering the IP has spent plenty of time editing Runway Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) since November, I think it's very possible it's someone representing the magazine in some fashion.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but I have some doubt that it's really a lawyer, or if so not a very good one. A smart lawyer would find out who here to take this to and wouldn't claim in an edit summary to be a lawyer for the Trademark Office as well. Daniel Case (talk) 05:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, at least to the "®" usage, we have Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (trademarks).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Which is what I was relying on (see link to MOS:TM).

Apparently there's more to this than first meets the eye. I get the feeling someone better at bullying than law is fighting a losing battle. Daniel Case (talk) 05:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards