Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:28, 15 July 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)

• Prohibiting the creation of new "T:" pseudo-namespace redirects
• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Ownership of HSL and HSV

I have concerns with regard to jacobolus owning HSL and HSV. He consistently reverts any changes not made by himself, and refuses to seek outside opinions when there is a dispute. I'd appreciate it if he took a forward step from time to time in seeking third opinions given the number of disputes, instead of it always being me. SharkD  Talk  06:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

... and I have notified User:Jacobolus of this discussion, as required by the reg's (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

SharkD, given that you have completely refused to engage on the article’s talk page with reference to our recent grammatical and stylistic disagreements, despite my repeated pleas, and have reverted my multiple different attempts at compromise versions to your preferred version without anything more than a one-off "I like this better" edit summary, over and over and over again, I find this "incident report" highly disingenuous on your part. Either make your case on the talk page, and look for consensus, or don’t, but expecting to use an administrative process to force your preferences, instead of trying to work with other editors who desperately want to work with you, runs contra to Misplaced Pages’s concept and principles.

Incidentally, if anyone, administrators or others, wants to come help on HSL and HSV, please feel welcome to hop on over. –jacobolus (t) 15:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with jacobolus. He has shown great patience, trying to improve the article while SharkD just reverts and doesn't discuss much at all. If there's any incident here worth mentioning, it's SharkD's reverting. Dicklyon (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I've requested third opinions numerous times, and he's shown little effort of wanting to share with me the duties of dispute resolution and doing the same. Instead, it's always him reverting and me doing the leg work and ending up being on the defensive. SharkD  Talk  03:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Please look at the Talk page archives for examples of how long and drawn out discussions with jacobolus can be. SharkD  Talk  04:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, as a completely uninvolved editor, I have looked at that. They are long only because you seem to be stubbornly edit-warring while Jacobolus is painstakingly trying to explain himself and to seek compromise. If anything, it is you having OWN issues. --Cyclopia 22:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little fed up as nearly every time I add something to the article it gets immediately reverted:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=349147404
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=349147637
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=349148032
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=349152683
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=349410945
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=349702911
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=351436973
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=351826700
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=351826974
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=351829562
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=351830930
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=351831486
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=351831734
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=351832326
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=351832845
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=351833303
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=351833501
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=354829665
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=359282290

I think he's misrepresenting the status of the article to emphasize his own edits/involvement. For instance he says, "Preferably it could be discussed first, since the prior version was fairly stable and there are several people actively interested in this article, but in general it’s also good to Be Bold, etc., so that’s okay." But there's been a number of complaints regarding the article being impenetrable, and there's hardly been any other editors besides jacobolus. This is equivalent to saying "my version has been stable therefore it needs to remain the same". In response to complaints about the newer version being harder to understand than the older version, he replies with "Okay. I wrote that version too, in October 2007." SharkD  Talk  01:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC) There are a number of concerns I have after looking at WP:OWN:

• "An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article daily. The editor might claim the right, whether openly or implicitly, to review any changes before they can be added to the article."

His reverts to my modifications between June 25 and July 02 demonstrate this as he was trying to preserve the current state of the text which is (nearly) all his wording, as were the revisions on March 11 and March 24 where he did the same.

"Okay. As I see it, most of the “budges” are irrelevant stylistic changes where either form is widely accepted by the MOS (for instance, attempts to change spaced en dashes to em dashes, or to get rid of serial commas, or to add parentheses around the inline color samples, or to use a different font for math variables in running text, moving an image from the place where it’s most relevant to a place where it’s slightly less relevant, insistence about adding letter labels to the part of figures, or minor grammar rearrangements that result in sentences as or more awkward than the original)." 26 March 2010, 18:43

• "Are you qualified to edit this article?"
• "We don't need this. Thanks anyways."

"In my opinion, it doesn't add any information to the article. The bit on the left is basically a rip off of the Painter color picker, shown later on in the article, and both parts, labeled as they are, perpetuate the common misconception that these models are geometrically conic. Misplaced Pages should strive to break such misconceptions." 11 March 2010, 02:39

"SharkD, you have some great 3D image making tools and abilities, but you've not applied them ideally, seems to me. For example, Image:HSL sphere color solid.png still has a misspelling and an incorrect indication of saturation as radius in the sphere; if you want to embed HSL in a sphere, you need to work out a mapping that works, and illustrate it correctly. As for the cylinders, I suggest we get rid of them, and instead illustrate the solid shapes that represent the range of HSL and HSV values that come from applying the definitions to the domain of RGB values. Agree? Other opinions?" 13 January 2008, 19:36

• "I/he/she/we created this article."

"Okay. I wrote that version too, in October 2007." 2 April 2010, 18:54

"At some point I'll probably stick a request up at WP:PR, because this article could definitely use some more eyeballs. Doing such a peer review will take a fair bit of effort from anyone who undertakes it though: for best results, they'll have to actually try to work through the math and diagrams and figure out how HSL/HSV work. Ideally, we could get a few reviewers with reasonable math & spatial reasoning skill, but little previous knowledge of color or computer graphics, and a few more with extensive color science background. I'm not sure such reviewers will be especially easy to find, but I can dream."

• "Unless it is wrong or has errors, please do not make such changes or comments without my/his approval."

I think when he reverts my edits, justifying it by saying "please get consensus first", it's a bit troublesome considering that nearly every word of the article in its current state is his and he changes nearly all additions by other users instantly.

• "I haven't had time to confirm what you wrote. I have other obligations besides wikipedia, you know."
• "I'm going to add a better one when I have the time."

"Would making diagrams slightly less clear for their specific purposes, in the interests of having a single unifying example color throughout the article, actually aid comprehension? There’s really no way to know, without A/B testing two versions of the article on a few dozen or hundred readers, and then quizzing them for comprehension at the end. What would it take to change all the diagrams to fit some common color choice? Several hours of effort. Who would do it? Presumably me, since no one else volunteered. In short, this is a change which I am unlikely to carry through, unless there is some really really compelling argument for it. I haven’t heard that argument. Someone else is welcome to try to do the work: my guess is that it would quickly become clear why the current examples were chosen. jacobolus (t) 05:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC) 31 March 2010, 05:30

"(block-revert SharkD’s image caption edits; I’ll restore some of the ones unrelated to the history/use section in the next edit)" 25 June 2010, 17:55

"My skepticism of such changes is not an attempt to be “difficult”, and if you noticed I’ve been quite happy to “budge” in several cases – indeed, the majority of cases, and even willing to put in a few hours implementing those “budges” in images – where I think the change is either an improvement, a wash, or so trivially worse that putting it back or arguing about it doesn’t make much difference." 26 March 2010, 18:43

He's also refused to adhere to previous resolution steps, and keeps trying to turn the issue back to a previous discussion.

And I have concerns regarding Dicklyon and jacobolus tagteaming on me, as one or the other of them always seems to turn up in any discussion to back the other up (having trouble finding diffs...) SharkD  Talk  02:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Judging from your provided diffs, it seems Jacobolus is not reverting but merely correcting your edits, for example this is perfectly meaningful. The comments you copied seem to be genuine attempts at resolution and compromise; if someone feels to "own" an article, I don't think he/she will ask for "Other opinions?" or for a review. Instead, , , , , , are proof that you are edit warring on the grounds of "I just don't think it is good", without providing any more explanation, reverting obsessively and then quite comically asking for resolving on the talk page when you have DESPERATELY been asked by Jacolubus to discuss before reverting at least three times. Do you have a good explanation for such behaviour? --Cyclopia 14:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm just fed up with him reverting everything without any discussion. SharkD  Talk  01:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Reverting everything without any discussion is exactly what you did in the diffs provided above. And being fed up isn't anyway a good excuse. --Cyclopia 01:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm simply asking that jacolubus for once seek outside intervention in the form of third opinions as to dispute over content before reflexively and automatically hitting the "undo" button and instead implementing what he wants his changes to be, not least of which "his" opinion of what "compromise" is, and providing meaningless edit summaries like "the other changes ... were IMO unhelpful", "changes ... were IMO unhelpful", "Other changes ... were IMO unhelpful", "the other changes ... were unhelpful". This is very disruptive. I was the one whose changes were reverted, not him (he even said "SharkD, I’m going to revert your image and caption changes. A few points:" regarding the careful corrections I made to grammar and English before anyone had a chance to provide any input of their own). And, I'm the one who went to outside help for third opinions each time (four times, I forgot to list one earlier) there was some disagreement on what the content should be without reflexively reverting first, never him. I don't think it's particularly helpful if you are unable to use the page history and other editor tools properly in order to gauge what is actually occurring the article. It makes you look like you're just chiming in for no other reason than to make yourself heard. Really, if you are altogether unable to exercise better judgment, than why do you bother coming to the noticeboard? SharkD  Talk  02:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Your selective quoting of edit summaries is not going to help you: see which begins with "adopt some of the rewording of the first image caption". Which means that there has been at least an attempt to compromise. Now, I am able to use the page history, in fact I used it to unearth the very recent edit war of you above, for which you don't have a better explanation than you being "fed up". I am not saying that there couldn't be issues with Jacobolus too, but your behaviour doesn't look better either. Also, in the talk page you don't seem to be the one looking for clarification of his own edits -the relevant thread was opened by Jacobolus. But maybe if you provide some better context on your attempts to seek third opinions, and Jacobolus response to it, we could be in a better position to understand your claims. --Cyclopia 02:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Is boiling down my comments to "I just don't think it is good" any bit less selective? That is essentially what you did amounts to, isn't it? I provided a lot more English words in my edit summaries than jacobolus's meager leavings. I discussed first before reverting jacobolus's reverts. I certainly made my standing on the edits clear on the Talk page, and see absolutely no merit in remarks like "completely refused to engage on the article’s talk page" (jacobolus), "just reverts and doesn't discuss much at all" (Dicklyon) and "reverting everything without any discussion" (you). I would hardly call one or two words here and there "compromise" considering I made over a couple hundred bytes of edits and he reverted the bulk of them, and I can't see how you can defend the quality of jacobolus's edits considering the malformedness of his English grammar and the addition of weasel words. Lastly, I don't think jacobolus super-happy-fun-time fawning over administrators and Dicklyon particularly constructive toward discussion over a dispute compared to the substance of my remarks. SharkD  Talk  03:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

SharkD, I think you’re either misinterpreting or misrepresenting (through lack of context) several of my comments listed above. I don’t have time to go through each one, since they’re spread over several talk archive pages and you didn’t link them as far as I can see (though if you have a specific point you want me to respond to, I can, and we can work through, one point at a time, until you’re satisfied), but as two quick specific examples,

(1) “SharkD, you have some great 3D image making tools and abilities, but you've not applied them ideally, seems to me” was written by Dick Lyon, not me.

(2) My “Okay. I wrote that version too, in October 2007” comment was a response to your (SharkD’s) comment “IMO, the earlier version of the article was easier to understand and should have been kept, and added to, instead of deleted and replaced”, and the full quote was as follows:

“Okay. I wrote that version too, in October 2007 (some of the content of those edits came from the HSV article, but the intro section was pretty much new text). But neither one is probably as clear as it should be. Keep pushing us on it, E, until we have something you think is accessible to the average interested high school student (or whatever)”.

The point was not to imply ownership of the article or unwillingness to compromise, but instead to point out that your preferred version was something that I wrote in a hurry to merge two articles together in 2007, but not really intended to be a complete or comprehensive intro, and before I spent a solid 2–3 weeks tracking down the sources to write an encyclopedic article.

Re: impenetrability, if you look at those discussions you can see at every stage me encouraging other ideas for structure, up to completely sacking the current first 2 or 3 sections of the article, for example: “I’m not at all attached to the current intro wording, or to the exact organization of material in the intro please, suggest away. I’ve also thought the intro is currently too long; ideas for parts to cut or postpone also welcome,” or “Yes, I definitely agree with you. It’s a problem that there’s this long dense intro before the summary in language that a non-technical newcomer will understand. The questions are: ”. Anyway, I can’t help it that the people in that discussion stopped suggesting changes, and never really came up with a concrete proposal of better intro text. I’d be completely happy to join such a discussion over the next few days/weeks, if you want to try to start it back up.

For other editors looking in, from my perspective SharkD has made useful contributions to the article, and has some good ideas; this is a miscommunication problem on both sides, but I don’t know best to solve my half of it. The problem from my perspective is that he periodically makes a bunch of changes without adequately explaining the rationale, and then I try to start a discussion about those changes. Each time, as soon as the discussion gets down to carefully discussing the possible approaches and reasons for or against each, he abandons it and leaves for a while, and when he comes back, changes something completely different and we start discussing that. I can see how this looks from his perspective like me taking excessive ownership, because after not sticking around to argue his point on any specific thing, that aspect doesn’t end up looking the way he wants it to (though I have tried to find consensus versions and incorporate his changes and ideas where I don’t think they’re counterproductive). But this really isn’t through any intent on my part to avoid compromise. It’s just that compromise takes actually doing the work to hash through the differences, instead of a sort of hit-and-run style of editing.

Finally, let’s everyone remember that Misplaced Pages has no deadline. We can take the time to discuss each little bit, and eventually get to something great. We can put several alternative introductions on a user page somewhere and ask for feedback. &. &. –jacobolus (t) 05:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, in response to “tag teaming” with Dick Lyon, I think it’s just that not too many people are following the article closely enough to revert/discuss, and so when there are reversions or discussions it tends to involve one of us. In the interest of full disclosure though: I thought Dick Lyon’s lectures at google about photographic technology were swell, exchanged some emails with him about that, and ate lunch with him one day last summer. He’s a scientist and engineer with a bevy of important patents under his belt (he invented the optical mouse for instance, and knows a ton about optics, human vision, sound, and various other cool things), and I’m a just-out-of-college kid glad to learn from such people. :-) There’s no organized conspiracy between us to enforce some kind of shared vision of this article though, if anyone was worried about that. –jacobolus (t) 05:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It would help if you stopped making wholesale reverts, and instead discussed your objections before edit warring. Everyone involved, why not ask the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors for help, or seek a third opinion? Fences&Windows 23:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to mention the ludicrosity lying behind jacobolus's insistence on crediting himself within the article for the images he made. Hoping for someone to see your name and print your work in a journal? Hey, maybe I can get my Talk page discussions published in Science! And maybe that explains his reluctance to seeing any of my images in the article. SharkD  Talk  03:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

User:LevenBoy

Any editor who systematically adds or removes the term "British Isles" from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification, or who edit-wars over such addition or removal, may be added to the list of topic-banned editors. For the purpose of adding users to the list and enforcing restrictions under this provision, an administrator should be uninvolved. An administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute). Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) community consensus or Committee approval to do so. All sanctions imposed are to be logged at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log.

LevenBoy (talk · contribs) This user constantly stalks my edits and reverts them, without discussion, and often with ad hominen edit summaries. Has been warned several times in the past. Yesterday, was edit warring over numerous articles with another editor. This morning has reverted 27 of my edits, with an edit summary of Revert systematic removal of British Isles. I can provide diffs, but the contributions list is easier to access. Disclosure, I've previously provided evidence to an SPI report against this editor, which is still inconclusive/open. --HighKing (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Controversial edits will get controversial responses. Off2riorob (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I can provide a diff too, this is a good edit. The British Isles is correct in the context it is used in. Such buildings can be found across the United Kingdom, and the island of Ireland, and may well exist on the Isle of Man and in the Channel Islands. Mjroots (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, and it's not supported by the reference. --HighKing (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Far from stalking HighKing he is, arguably, stalking me. I raised an SPI against him, and in response he raised one against me (where I was cleared but he still won't give up on it). Most of his edits involve the removal of British Isles as an incidental part of other editing, amd the edit summaries make no mention of this. It is clear POV pushing, with an agenda of removing the words "British Isles" from Misplaced Pages. This has been going on for two years now and recently HighKing claimed this fact as a success on his part. I have reverted all his recent edits which are agenda-driven POV. LevenBoy (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh, no I didn't raise an SPI against you. And you have not been "cleared". But perhaps that is the reason you've (re)started your mass reversions. And if I'm the one doing the stalking, how come you hadn't edited any of those articles before reverting me, hmmm? --HighKing (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Levenboy has also stalked my edits and has been removed reference material in order to insert BI, an example of this is at the article List of mythological places. Maybe he's just another sock of the BI POV pushers that seem to everywhere these days.Bjmullan (talk) 13:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you also involved in the project wide removal of the expression , British Isles? I notice you were also edit warring to remove the phrase yesterday. Off2riorob (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Systematic removal sounds spot on to me, there is a campaign page somewhere where this is all organised and rubber stamped, but the level of participation and intellectual rgiour that that page provides is seriously deficient. I know of three specific incidents where articles were 'fixed' to adhere to HighKing's rather obscure POV of the term's acceptable usage on WP (namely that BI is wholly disputed by anyone and everyone, and cannot and should not be used in any manner except as a geographic term and then specifically only when also mentioned in a source), but the edits produced content that was just utter garbage, because the only reason he had arrived at those articles was for the conducting of this campaign, and not out of any interest in producing accurate content. MickMacNee (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to join in discussions at the "campaign" page. Better than the disruptive edit warring by LevenBoy. --HighKing (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

And give it some legitimacy so you can make the ludicrous claim it is the expression of site wide consensus? Hell no. If you get your Founding Principles into something resembling reality, and on specific example cases actually start to listen to people who disagree with you, I might reconsider, but as it is framed now, and how it operates now, particularly and inseperably related to how you choose to contribute to it, and some of the nonsense garbage edits it does produce, that page is just a rubber stamping exercise for an illegitimate campaign of POV editing on a massive scale. MickMacNee (talk) 14:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

What you describe is highly disruptive behavior that seriously degrades the quality of our articles. Can you provide diffs of this? If HighKing has indeed done this, he should be warned and/or blocked. LK (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll continue to raise ANI requests against disruptive behaviour until this disruptive behaviour is dealt with properly. We have a discussion page at WP:BISE where everybody is welcome to discuss usage and help develop guidelines. If one rogue editor decides to mass revert over content issues, without discussion, then it puts a mirror up to those who ignore it. We've already uncovered a mass of socks used by the previous disruptive editor, who had been reported here many times and nothing was ever done. How long before this disruption is dealt with I wonder? --HighKing (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Watch out for the boomerang. Why am I being reverted constantly is always a good question to ask yourself. Off2riorob (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Enough of this - proposal

That (1) User:HighKing User:Bjmullan and User:LevenBoy be topic-banned from adding or removing any reference to "British Isles" on a Misplaced Pages-wide basis. That (2) any other editor who systematically adds or removes the term from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification, or who edit-wars over such addition or removal, be added to this list. This wasting of multiple editors time across many years really has to finally stop. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest a modification to that. Systematic removal or addition without engaging the community is disruptive, but if you are going to make a rule such as that above other editors might have to be added in. We have got a process where proposals to change the term in articles are discussed and where progress has been made when we don't have a spate of sock puppets. In practice the term has been deployed incorrectly and illegitimately and there is no consistency. Basically I think we need something a lot simpler which requires no changes to be made without them first being proposed and agreed on the special projects page. We also need a couple of admins prepared to review that say weekly and get rid of log jams. If we institute the process above all will happen is new socks will emerge on both sides (and there have been plenty) and we will have even more disruption. --Snowded 15:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• I agree (not sure - are we allowed to !vote on here any more). This has led to some truly lame edit wars of the "you can't say that weather in the British Isles during the Iron Age featured severe droughts, because the term wasn't invented until 1791, and the source only mentions England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales and the Isle of Man, not British Isles" kind. We should be using the widely understood generic term unless there is sourcing and justification to use a more precise terminology for geopolitical or other reasons - in which case, a mechanism to review the sources would seem to be required, due to the problems described by Snowded. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Level of involvement. I believe I once edited an article in which this came up - it concerned an 18th century traveller and whether he could be said to have travelled "through the British Isles" or something similar (you'll see it made a great impression), in the course of which I became aware that there was some kind of issue with the term 'British Isles'. In the case of the traveller, as he had travelled only on the mainland island and had never put to sea, the argument against the term seemed reasonable in context, and I never engaged in any further debate*. Since there is an argument that nationalist POVs are involved, I can confirm that I'm entitled to both British and Irish citizenship.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)*ETA - but like everyone, I've seen all the reports at ANI, the arguments at Black Kite's talkpage etc.

• Strong support. Article protection is not very effective for this brand of disruption (though, of course, there are some cases where these British Isles discussions are civil and productive), as there are a vast number of articles that mention that general geographic area. I also support Snowded's concerns that this ban should be extended to other relevant editors (Mister Flash (talk · contribs) is the first who comes to mind, though he has been blocked, I see now) and that careful monitoring for sockpuppetry should be the norm. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Disclosure of my involvement in this series of issues: I closed a report at the edit warring noticeboard some months ago, and have since issued a few blocks and page protections and otherwise acted as an occasional uninvolved administrator. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• support - Black kites enough is enough solution. Off2riorob (talk) 15:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I have been asked to declare any involvement. My involvment in the issue is related to my attempting to stop the disruption and edit warring, as it has occured through this issue at multiple articles as mystified users reinserted the expression and were directed to some obscure discussion page with which a consensus claim was asserted if anyone objected. I have no personal involvement one way or the other about the actual British Isles inclusion or exclusion. I have recently suggested to stop the endless warring and disruption that we allow User:HighKing to remove all instances of the British Isles in the hope that the disruption and warring would stop. Off2riorob (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - A perennial problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Level of involvement: While it's certainly possible that I've edited to include "British Isles" at some point in my Wiki-career, as far as I know I've never been involved with any dispute or controversy in this area except as a casual observer. I'd say that I am totally uninvolved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Just topic ban HighKing. He is the instigator of all this drama, without him there would be no mass reverting. The special projects page is not, and never will be, evidence of community consensus, not if it carries on the way it has been, and it only existed in the first place as far as I can see, to stop HighKing making mass reverts. Anybody wanting to dispute the term in specific instances can do the normal thing and use that specific article's actual talk page, which will probably avoid the many screw ups I've seen over this issue by actually involving people who can see the issue beyond the narrow point of this campaign, and can give expert topic based advice in situations where it has been sorely lacking, and people have been just winging it in a pseudo discussion each time, just to appease HK. People are free to carry on developing a BI usage guideline to help this, but it's current draft content hasn't got a hope in hell as far as I can see, based as it is on some fantasy viewpoints. Frankly, with HK topic banned and no longer allowed to dispute its usage across any and every article, it's hard to see if a guideline would even be needed. MickMacNee (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I wouldn't say no to Snowded's suggestion that we institute a site wide ban on undiscussed changes, either. TFOWR 15:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Level of involvement: none, as far as I know. My view is that (a) editors adding British Isles and edit warring to keep BI should be sanctioned, and that (b) editors removing BI and edit warring to keep out BI should be sanctioned. TFOWR 19:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Highking and others if it is needed. Highking is the one on an endless quest to remove British Isles from articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC) (I Have been involved in the dispute, questioning Highking and some others for their removal of British isles, have not been involved in edit warring or inserting British Isles on articles) BritishWatcher (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Black Kite's proposal; and agree on his "enough is enough" remark. Salvio ( ) 15:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Asked to clarify my level of involvement in this matter, I gladly oblige: I'm entirely uninvolved. Salvio ( ) 19:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Black Kite's proposal (as an uninvolved admin: I have never done a BI edit although FWIW asome years ago I have to make a version selection for the Schools Misplaced Pages between edit warring versions and chose the one without "BI" in it. ) --BozMo talk 16:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. The 'Support' by one of the sources of this long-term disruption is very telling. How will this topic-ban address the wider problem of sock puppetry, as highlighted by Snowded? Seems like a hammer to crack some nuts, while ignoring the fact that the term is being introduced and deleted by other 'nuts', some familiar with this long term dispute and others probably not. A MOS of some kind is required per WP:DERRY, or else the appropriateness or otherwise of the term will continue to be a source of edit warring. Topic banning a few editors will not address that fundamental problem. RashersTierney (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Level of involvement. I have had a few interactions with other eds. on this issue in the past. I have deliberately sought to avoid getting any more involved because of the high level of socking and general assumptions of bad faith wrt POV pushing. My contribs. at this page today were prompted by a recent edit of a hitherto uninvolved contributor who applied the term at Angloromani and purported to back it up by references that 'failed verification'. I have been on the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Romani people for a considerable and take a particular interest in ensuring correct referencing on Romani related topics. The 'offending' edits were not by the leading protagonists, but 2 subsequently became involved. That is why I believe a MOS to be the only long term solution, while this proposed topic ban only skirts the main issue. RashersTierney (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as stated, it will just take a position which is coming under some control, with some general guidelines for use emerging and instead create a license for socks and for multiple edits across many articles. It is also the case that there is a strong POV position which wants BI maintained even when its not appropriate and its interesting to see several editors in that camp rushing to support this proposal because as stated it would allow them to achieve their position by default. Misplaced Pages needs to run on facts and evidence. That means if BI is being used incorrectly it should be changed, if correctly it should be kept or put in place. I do think that HighKing should stop running to ANI all the time and I'd support a ban on him doing that (for his own sake), other editors can be asked to take things up if they are serious. Equally he did a lot of work to identify one sock farm. Gut feel responses like this proposal can appear attractive but just create further problems downstream. It will not stop the problem, just make it worse. Black Kite - when you engaged on the discussion some months ago we got a lot of questions resolved. You might want to look back over some of those discussions and see which editors co-operated and who assumed extreme positions. --Snowded 16:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Most of the other editors who assumed extreme positions are now blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry or other reasons. But from the examples given above, the problem is clearly not "coming under control", because here it is at ANI yet again. So what else do you suggest? We've tried a lot of other ideas, as far as I can see the only two methods of stopping this never-ending time sink is either a topic ban or blocks. Which is better? Black Kite (t) (c) 16:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
    • What I have already suggested - a total ban on changing BI without prior agreement on the project page, and admin mediation of that page. When you were involved in doing that we had a period of stability, when you left and no one took your place it said that the community did not really care. What I do feel frustrated about is that a very small number of us have been patiently working on this stuff article by article trying to get a balanced and fact based position and we have been asking for help from the community. Now we may get "help" but in its current form its "help" that could well make the problem worst. Its noticeable that those editors with involvement in those pages who are not pro-BI activists are all either opposed or expressing reluctant support. I think that comes from bitter experience. The Midnightblue socks were preventing any progress on individual articles and on guidelines; we have only just cleared them out . One of the reasons it will get worst is that a lot of editors supporting this proposal simply want to have the problem go away. As James points out the BI words are highly symbolic for historical reasons to a group of editors, those problems don't go away with draconian action they simply pop out in new forms in new places.--Snowded 22:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The current project page is a complete mess. Highking finds dozens and dozens examples of British Isles. Demands their removal, then forces us to have endless conversations on sources and its uses and in many cases there is no agreement. If the project page was restricted to ONLY inaccurate content, rather than places where it "could" say something else as happens now, may be it would be worth continuing. I have shown an example above, about the Footballer of the year. It was clearly not inaccurate to use the term British Isles there. Highking wants BI gone if any other term can be used instead, i am pretty sure you have said if there is a valid alternative it should be used. (sorry if im wrong, seem to recall it from a debate on the BI article or somewhere). Only use of BI that without any doubt are wrong should be put forward for alteration to a panel or on the project page. This "oh that would be a nicer term to use there", "oh lets use that instead of this" has to stop. Because it will get us nowhere. A ban on all removals / additions for certain editors, a panel / project page for submission of genuine incorrect uses would do more than carrying on as we are. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking about a conversation on the Republic of Ireland use rather than on BI use sorry. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Its a complete mess due to the socks BW. If you check the evidence you will see that HighKing, while he argues his case will accept a compromise. If I look at resolved cases (where I have a roughly 50-50 record of agreeing with removal) they are not drawn out arguments they have been resolved. My view is that BI is a valid geographical term but not a valid political one and most things get sorted out if you take that approach. I'm afraid the blanket statements you make above, while I am sure they are heartfelt, don't match up to the facts if someone goes to the bother of going through the discussions in detail. --Snowded 05:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Its not just the socks, but its the number of cases that are introduced in a short period of time there by highking. There should be some form of monthly cap on the number of cases that can be considered at a time if such a project is continued so it does not take up too much of peoples time on this single issue.

You say it is a valid geographical term but not a political one. Yet you supported the case i mentioned above about the Footballer of the year award where highking wanted BI changed to Home nations. There was nothing political about that case. British Isles was used as a geographical location just like Europe would have been if it was possible to say the person was the first from outside of Europe to win it. These are the sorts of unnecessary changes by highking i oppose. He should not be going to every single article that links to BI and thinking "i wonder what term could be used there instead". If he wants to search through every BI linked article then he should only request removal of clearly inaccurate uses. For example "The British Isles declared war on Germany". That is clearly incorrect usage. "The man was the first to win something from outside of the British Isles" is not incorrect. There may be alternative terms that some think are better, but there is a big difference between removing an inaccurate use of British Isles and replacing the term with something else because of Highkings clear anti-BI campaign. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The normal phrase in use for sports at that time was Home Nations, check the references.--Snowded 13:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Snowded, feel free to put a proposed guideline forward for approval that defines what is and is not 'correct' usage of the term on Misplaced Pages, using facts and evidence, if they exist and are credible. Put it forward, allow it's assertions to be examined by the whole community, and then we will see whether the default position is or is not a problem, and what the nature of any current stability in the dispute is, whether it is avoidance of HK and his deeply flawed campaign page process accompanied by some deft sock-killing, or something far more sustainable from a DR perspective. MickMacNee (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
    • If you check back on the project page Mick you will see I have been trying to to that. I gave up while some of the sock problems were sorted as they simply refused to accept anything. I also argued that the project page was necessary to create a case based approach to those guidelines as attempts to create them in abstract have generally failed. --Snowded 22:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Comment: The purpose of the 'guidelines' is to limit usage, not to ensure correct usage. They are a device to enable POV pushing to continue and if brought to fruition would result in mass deletion of the term; and that would cause renewed conflict.

Comment I do not see how an agreement like the compromise on Derry is possible in this case. In that case one side got what they wanted for the city, the other got what they wanted for the county. When to include British Isles and when not to is far more complex and harder to define. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is difficult but not intractable. The SE page is a good starting point for teasing out where usage may be applicable or not if eds. are prepared to engage there. RashersTierney (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sadly support I've been involved in "British Isles"-related issues for several years. I am more willing to assume good faith on the part of HighKing than on the part of LevenBoy in this instance. A large(r) portion of HighKing's edits have stuck me as being motivated by a desire to improve the encyclopedia whereas LevenBoy's (and others listed in this thread) edits struck me as being motivated by a desire to defend use of "British Isles" where ever HighKing removed it. However, regardless of the rights or wrongs of their edits, the activity that both HighKing and LevenBoy engaged in was unwise. Regardless of whether HighKing or LevenBoy believe that what they were doing was in the benefit on the encyclopedia, it caused disruption across a large number of article. I'll add that I firmly believe that a MOS entry needs to exist for use of the term British Isles to head off conflict like this. --RA (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support as we've got to save HighKing & LevenBoy from themselves. Both (for better or worse) have an obsession with the term British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It's the edit warring that stinks, along with the lack of trust created by confessed & unconfessed socks. I've tried (in the past) to discourage the edit warring, but exhausted my efforts. My involvement has decreased in the last few weeks. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Reluctantly. I do feel reluctant, partly because it won't work well (see below) but also reluctantly have realised after reading all the material here and elsewhere that this is a sensible step after trying other things. I came to this a little while ago as a relatively new user and was somewhat confused to start with. I saw a battle under way in the obscure (to most I suspect) waters of the Canterbury–York dispute, where an 11th Century Archbishop used the term "British Isles" in a letter to his King - HighKing apparently found this unnacceptable (perhaps Archbishop Lanfranc would have disagreed!) sparking a silly and lengthy debate. Eventually I was forced to go back to texts and add in the relevant reference. End of dispute. I realised at this time that HK was involved in a sort of "campaign" (for want of a better word - he doesn't like the term to be fair) to delete "British Isles" everywhere he sees it. The vast dialogue on the subject then opened up to me. After a period of over-reaction on my part, I have tried to get down to detail with HK and see if he will accept a structured approach. He claims he will. A good percentage of the deletes he does make sense. Others visibly don't. The ones that don't, he (and some others) fiercely defend. He seems to me to be part of a group that wish to delete the term Misplaced Pages-wide. This doesn't seem to be openly acknowledged. There seems to be gaming and manouverism on both "sides". The 'campaign' seems to trade on the confusion and inability of local article editors to become easily involved in a wide and apparently complex dispute, even though their local expertise would score. It seems to me that:

(1) The term is highly charged for a significant number of Irish and other people in Ireland and the UK. I suspect US'ers and others probably would find it hard to get into how charged it is. For many other people in these islands, it is much less charged - English editors in particular are often to my mind quite relaxed about such matters. These things matter more to those who feel offended by the term than they do to everyone else. However, a small faction of "anti-delete" editors are equally determined - this issue is particularly strongly felt in Northern Ireland.

(2) It is a symbolic term and deleting it is a symbolic act. If routine deleting of British Isles is banned, I suspect the "campaign" will simply move on to British, Britain or something similar.

(3) HighKing is not working alone and I don't mean in the sense of sockpuppeting, although he does freely admit he's done a bit of that in the past too. I imagine others will step in if he is forced to desist. I don't think it's likely that stopping one small batch of editors will stop the campaigning.

(4) Those who wish to delete the term appear tireless - I am very sceptical that any ban will really work or last. The "delete the BI from Misplaced Pages" campaign are far, far more determined and vigorous than the "keep it" campaign. In fact, I doubt there really is much of the latter apart from a few sockpuppets and extremists. It also looks to me like a number highly skilled, long-running and (to me) powerful-seeming editors support the campaign, either openly or via gaming/manouverism. I don't hate them for this - it's a powerfully held POV and (particularly in Ireland) loathed by some people. Discussing it "objectively" and in a "spirit of NPOV" is therefore very difficult and possibly rather unrealistic.

(5) Many of subjects of the local articles where the change is made are of no interest whatever to the campaigners and they have (as in Canterbury-York) precious little local expertise. This works in favour of the bulk-article-delete approach.

So I am reluctant, because for the above reasons, I doubt this will really "work" in the long run, but it may help calm things down and create a slightly more constructive approach. I have joined in to try to make it more constructive but it is a frustrating process when the blizzard of deletes continues in parallel. This seems to be one of those intractable disputes involving bitterly opposed factions that Wikipedian approaches do not seem so far to work very well at resolving. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Support I had not heard of this British Isles controversy until yesterday, but it seems obvious that it is highly disruptive to go through the encyclopedia articles to do a mass removal of a commonly used term. Doing a mass insertion is also highly disruptive. Anyone doing so should be sanctioned and restricted. LK (talk) 02:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comments by the subject of the sanction proposal are in the section below, and the section below that contains enforcement details that apply to this proposal. Can each user please state their level of involvement (if any) next to their comment like others have done above? This will help clarify the community consensus from one that is local among involved users (and save me or anyone else having to chase up new commentators for this info). It might seem obvious, but it is often not so obvious to an outsider who will close the discussion. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Response by subject of the sanction proposal - Bjmullan (since removed), HighKing & Levenboy

This is great. An ANI is brought against one user and it looks like someone wants to punish me. Have a broken any rules? Am I a SPA? Am I a sock? NO NO NO If you want to do anything against ME then please use the correct procedures to do so and do not lump me in with this disruptive BI POV pusher. Bjmullan (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're not pushing a POV, surely this won't affect you? For what it's worth, I'd be happy to be added to the list... but then I wouldn't be affected by the proposal... TFOWR 15:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I too would submit to a ban on adding / removing British Isles from articles. I have better things to do than go around adding BI to articles, but what i can not stand is the attempts by some editors to remove British Isles from articles across[REDACTED] in attempt to pretend the term does not exist and where its use is not inaccurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Your recent contributions say otherwise. I have only included editors who have repeatedly edit-warred over BI. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Balck Kite's proposal. Despite being the subject of this thread I am more than happy to abide by a topic ban on British Isles deletions and additions. MickMacNee is spot on when he says that HK is the instigator of all this drama; he absolutely is, 100%. In many cases inacuracies are introduced as a result of the desire to remove the term. HighKing been pushing this POV for two years. His agenda is to severely limit use of British Isles throughout Misplaced Pages and he's even tried to develop usage standards which would do just that. This issue causes aggravation and mayhem across the encyclopedia and editors with a genuine knowledge of articles that are affected by it are totally bemused. The whole issue brings this project into disrepute, and the whole issue is caused by HighKing - recently joined by User:Bjmullan. I move, a topic ban for all concerned. LevenBoy (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose This will do nothing but make the problem worst. What is needed is strong guideline in a MOS just as RashersTierney has indicated above when dealing with the Derry/Londonderry issue. Bjmullan (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, and it's also worth pointing out that, so far as I know, there are no editors trying to insert British Isles. All so-called insertions are merely attempts to recover the position before HighKing, and now others, targetted an article. Don't get me wrong, I accept that in some small number of cases use of British Isles is wrong, but they are few in number and one would hope they would be cleared up by editors with a genuine interest in the article subject. In the vast majority of cases the use of British Isles is subjective. Just to provide an example of the British Isles-related POV that's going on here; in the United Kingdom children are taught in primary school that the River Shannon is the longest river in the British Isles - you try and find that fact in Misplaced Pages article space. It is a fact, but not one that Misplaced Pages reports. HighKing's efforts are a similar POV. LevenBoy (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Obviously. Funny, but way back, I asked Black Kite to intervene previously and was ignored (and he "retired" - no stomach). Since then, Black Kite has demonstrated that he is not capable of being fair and honest in these issues - last time I filed an ANI and was blocked by BlackKite for edit warring - I had performed a total of 5 reverts over 3 days on 3 different articles - compare that to LevenBoy's behaviour. Back then, I was told I should bring it to ANI instead of edit warring. So I just did. Now, when I file an ANI Black Kite can't blocl me so instead he threatens with a topic ban - ridiculous! Bigger picture though - I brought LevenBoy's mass reversion to attention, and everyone is comfortable to ignore it and divert it to a discussion of a topic ban.

Black Kite's proposals are based on what exactly? Disruption? By who??? Breach of policies? By who??? If I've breached policies or edit warred, I would have been blocked in an instant - see above for history of being blocked even when I haven't breached policy. So why is this? Why is it that LevenBoy's behaviour is being tacitly approved?

Finally, I'd also like to point out that the previous ANI reports I've filed were to do with, what has turned out, to be an extensive sock farm. Ask yourselves why this sock was able to act in such an obviously disruptive manner, and get away with it. Perhaps if, as a group of admins, you'd looked at this topic a little more objectively, and honestly, and blocked the disruptive editor (as in this case), the disruption would have been avoided. To date (and an SPI has been filed against LevenBoy to join this illustrious group) the sock farm shows some disturbing far sightedness and cooperation where a lot of sleeper socks were used:

• User:MidnightBlueMan - Account created 30/09/2008
• User:AlcatrazBirdman - Account created 10/07/2008
• User:Blue Bugle - Account created 25/07/2008
• User:Mister Flash - Account created 25/07/2008
• User:Dangerous Temujin - Account created 04/11/2008
• User:Dragley - Account created 10/05/2008
• User:FootballPhil - Account created 25/06/2008
• SpongerJack - Account created 09/07/2010
• CarbonNumbers - Account created 11/07/2010

Sure, some editors don't agree with examination of the term British Isles - it's easy to mock and belittle. I note the example above about "weather in the Iron Age" - but has anyone bothered to look at the examples at WT:BISE? We look for references, and we're (barring the socks) civil. Some examples might seem silly - many others are complex, some are straight-forward. But to request a topic ban is downright wrong and a disgraceful example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and a total disregard for the efforts of all the contributors at WT:BISE. --HighKing (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Trouble is you do not just bring matters where there is a clear error (Which i accept there is in some cases). You bring up cases where British Isles is not inaccurate in the context in question, you then get into an endless fight about what individual sources say or dont say until the other side backs down. I think a process to report clear incorrect uses of British Isles would be a good idea, but we can not go on with having to deal with pages and pages of BI usage you hunt for and seek to remove. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

And how, exactly, are we to differentiate between "clear incorrect uses" and other uses? Which, BTW, is exactly what the WT:BISE page is trying to do. --HighKing (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Because you bring things you would like to see changed but that are not inaccurate. So one of ur examples, you said...

FWA Footballer of the Year

"Another sporting article. It states that a footballer was First winner of the award from outside the British Isles. I suggest that in keeping with other sporting articles, it would be better to use Home Nations.

Use of British Isles was not inaccurate in that case. If someone was the first winner of the award outside of Europe, there would be no problem with europe being used. British Isles must not be treated differently, it is a geographical location. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Great, so why not link to the WT:BISE discussion here, where a very clear consensus emerged that Home Nations should be used for football. So you're bringing this up here as an example of what exactly? I didn't edit war, the article was noted at a central place, the edit was discussed, a consensus was agreed, and a change was made. Fine - in your opinion, you don't agree, and you believe there's nothing wrong with British Isles for this edit. That's what WT:BISE is for. The idea that you are currently trying to go over all my edits and cherry pick an example where you believe you'll show what a horribly against-consensus POV editor I am has just backfired. Poor form on your part. Shall I comb through your edit history, hmmm??? --HighKing (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It is an example of British Isles being removed from an article where its use was not incorrect, i never said you edit warred or removed it without discussion. It was an example of where British Isles remaining in the article would not have been a problem. These are the sorts of cases you should not be allowed to bring to a project in your campaign to rid[REDACTED] of the British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• "some editors don't agree with examination of the term British Isles". Sure. I am confident that, even discounting socks, if you took a straw poll of all the special example page contributors with more than ten edits to the page, I'm pretty sure it would conclude the majority view is that the page is just a thinly disguised exercise in legitimising a POV push. That is frankly, not IDONTLIKEIT, but good sense of what is and isn't reality. MickMacNee (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, whatever; I had a brief break because I couldn't be bothered to waste my time negotiating between you and others, and another group of editors, neither of whom could see that they were being disruptive - because the definition of disruption is wasting large amounts of other editor's time on trivial edit-wars. Call that "no stomach" if you want - I prefer to call it "running out of patience completely with people who aren't here to improve the encyclopedia but only to push their own random POVs". Your raison d'etre is to remove all references to BI that you think you can get away with; sometimes you're right, sometimes you're wrong, but you can't distinguish between the two. And you're still doing it, as are both the other editors I mentioned. Of your list of "other" editors, most are blocked because they were socks, so I'm not entirely sure what your point is. But I'm fairly sure (and it looks like most people agree) that I'm not the only person who's fed up with you removing references to BI on the flimsiest of excuses and then running off to ANI when someone disagrees with you. And that applies equally to editors on the "other side". This rather pointless WP:BATTLE over a fairly trivial matter of terminology is an utter waste of time for all the editors involved, and more pertinently wastes many other editor's time as well. It needs to stop now. We've tried everything else - what else do you suggest? Black Kite (t) (c) 18:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's see. I volunteer to participate at WT:BISE. I discuss changes, I provide references, I remain civil. All in the face of an extensive sock farm which has only recently been uncovered (thanks, me), and masses amounts of abuse. By the sounds of it, you appear to agree with the sock farm. You're happy to ignore the discussions and the work to develop MOS guidelines. If you believe that this battle, over a trivial matter of terminology, is a waste of time, fine. But then how is it that everytime I report disruption you stick the boot in and do absolutely nothing to help to limit the disruption? At the end of your disgracefully unfounded character assassination above, you ask what else do I suggest. Glad you asked. How about an admin who can recognize an editor who is respecting policies and collaborative processes, using the available structures and policies when asking for support to limit disruption, and then take action against the editor who is breaching policies, mass reverting, not providing references, not discussing reversions, and refusing to collaborate. Compare that to the admin who takes a position based on their own personal views of the topic (therefore ignoring behaviour), and regardless of policies and references, ends up attempting to block and topic ban an editor in good standing who has bent over backwards to volunteer to register changes, only edits articles by providing references (as requested), works hard on developing MOS guidelines, and discusses and explains any edits that are questioned. --HighKing (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, and - - I don't remember you complaining about these blocks...? Black Kite (t) (c) 18:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

That just proves my point. The first block is when you punished me for "daring" to file an ANI report, blocked for edit warring for 5 reverts over 3 articles over 3 days - a block which to this day you've not apologized for or even hinted that you were totally and utterly in the wrong. In fact, it highlights your severe lack of objectivity in this matter, and your total bias. The 2nd block has nothing to do with me, somebody else reported as a sock and was blocked. --HighKing (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Again Black Kite you have accused me of doing wrong and pushing a random POV. If you have some evident of wrong doing by me can you please take it through the correct channels otherwise I suggest that you go away and read Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith. Bjmullan (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• As I said - your contribution history speaks for itself. If HK and Leven are topic-banned, what guarantee could we have that you would not continue your editing pattern? Black Kite (t) (c) 18:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure that my contribution history does speak for itself. What are you trying to imply with your comment? Did you not read Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith. Please do not try and tar me with the same brush as Levenboy. If you have specific allegation about me take them to the proper place or find yourself the subject of a complaint. Bjmullan (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll ask it again - even taking into account WP:AGF, given the large amounts of reverts of BI-related material in your past contribs, what guarantee do we have that you would not continue to push this POV? I admit that you are not the main problematic editor here, but it would be pointless to engage a topic-ban only for someone else to carry it on. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Black Kite I am not the problem and never have been. The problem has always come from the pro BI POV pushers/socks which have not been addressed here effectively. I edit in many areas within WP (including the articles involving the contentious Derry/Londonderry term and I abide by the rules and consensus and would never remove a reference to anything (including BI) if it is backed up by RS. Bjmullan (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, I think the "pro-BI" sockfarm has been effectively dealt with, as you'll see if you look at how many of HK's list are indefinitely blocked. If you can guarantee that you will not unilaterally remove BI from articles without a very solid rationale for it then I think we can remove you from the list of editors above. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree and I'm sure that you will keep tabs on me ;-) Bjmullan (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, done. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

BlackKite, I for one don't believe the sock farm has been completely dealt with yet. --HighKing (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - a few more bodies watching the BI Specific Examples page to provide a better consensus would be a more appropriate response. That would be about engagement and discussion, not disengagement and banning. Fmph (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Black Kite's proposal seems reasonable enough to prevent more disruption between the users. Enough is enough. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 15:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• Totally Oppose - the relentless attack on Irish editors by British Nationalists and their allies continues. This place is getting more like Stalin's Russia with every passing month. Time to call a halt. Are Arbcom aware of the ongoing purge of Irish editors? If so - what are they doing about it? Sarah777 (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

  ...but this will apply to editors adding and edit warring to retain "British Isles" as well. TFOWR 09:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

  OK - I'll accept a compromise; this will apply only to editors adding and edit warring to retain "British Isles" as well. After all, numerically speaking, that is where the problem lies. High King is like King Canute trying to hold back the tide of British Nationalism with his little fork. Sarah777 (talk) 09:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment I am against a topic ban for anyone and I believe that the good work that is happening at the MOS may in fact be the solution to this problem. I believe that if we have a set of agreed guidelines then HK would gladly stick to them (as will I). Bjmullan (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Related comment: would it help if we removed all names from the current proposal? i.e. the proposal becomes Any editor who systematically adds or removes the term from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification, or who edit-wars over such addition or removal, be added to a list of topic-banned editors. I see one current stumbling block as being the perception that this proposal unduly affects "one side" (I don't necessarily agree with that perception, as I feel it should - and does - apply equally to "both sides", but I can see how the current proposal could be seen in that way). TFOWR 12:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This sounds right. Despite all the talk, it isn't really about a specific individual or individuals. It's about general policies regarding discussing and consensus-building on the issue rather than going at articles en-masse with attack attitudes. It is also true that there has been more of a move towards consensus building from the individuals concerned in this ANI since sock-puppeting has been reduced and the current MOS discussion, at least for now, bode well. It would also be useful if admins (or whoever it is who does these things - sorry if I get terms wrong, still fairly new here) could help on occassion if tempers flare and insults fly, as does sometimes happen in such a fraught issue. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above. --HighKing (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's correct (because there is one editor from each "side" on the list, and I've even warned another "BI-includer" today), but if that's what it takes to get this passed, will someone please close it as that, because if we don't do anything we'll just be back here again very very soon. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The present proposal should stand which has got the support of most who have replied. If others continue to engage in the battle then they should simply be swiftly added to the list as the proposal clearly states. No reason for making an alteration to the proposal after there has been support for it. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Enforcement of above proposal

If the above proposal is supported, how exactly will it be enforced and managed. It mentions the individuals will not be allowed to Add / Remove the term. Will they be able to go somewhere if they spot BI being added / removed to report an alteration by an IP or other editor and request it be undone? And what is considered a recent enough change by someone else they could kick up a fuss about it and demand be changed? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I would interpret this as a "keep out" proposal. Ignore the topic, in toto. If there is obvious vandalism, someone else will pick it up eventually. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this is the sort of thing that would be tracked under a 'general probation/sanction' notice board and that violations would get the typical 24 hr escalating block regime. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Such as the Misplaced Pages:General sanctions community imposed sanction sort of thing. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Sort of, yes. It is pretty much an Obama probation, except the terms are much narrower. I'd suggest that the following terms be added to Black Kite's proposal "For the purpose of adding users to the list and enforcing restrictions under this provision, an administrator should be uninvolved. An administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute). Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) community consensus or Committee approval to do so. All sanctions imposed are to be logged at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log". Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that pretty much covers all bases, I think. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

As someone totally uninvolved, I'll happily volunteer to monitor the British Isles Probation Board to prevent any additions or removals of "British Isles" from any article under the probation without fullsome consensus. I suggest that merely gathering a large number of uninvolved users who are willing to maintain status-quo via reversion and kicking up frequent violators on both sides to adminstrators for blocking would make it so that the probation was hardly used. Let's set a "british isles" starting-state of 00:00 UTC July 4, 2010, and just ban it goring forward like changing articles from british to real english is banned. Hipocrite (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

As I spouted off before, such articles should've been dealt with on a case-by-case basis. But nobody would heed my wisdom. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

In light of the above topic bans and the on-going dispute, I have opened a straw poll on proposed guidelines for use of British Isles in the encyclopedia. I would envision it as an accompaniment to the topic-band sanction above. The poll is here. Comments, not merely votes, are invited. --RA (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned above that the "campaign" for deletion would simply move on if sitewide deletion of one phrase is restricted to a similar phrase - this appears to have started and the target is "Great Britain". I think we can expect a refocusing there. Really, this is so time-wasting and what a distraction from serious editing. However, in the interests of an NPOV encyclopedia, I daresay we will be spending the next year or two discussing Great Britain (uses thereof). Or something very, very similar. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 06:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

In case I am being lumped in with all this, I have taken no position against the inclusion of Great Britain. It was being added by a disruptive new editor, and the FAQ says there is a consensus against inclusion. My edits were merely to revert to the status quo according to the FAQ, I have no position either way regarding whether it should be included or not, only to revert IPs ignoring the attempt to find a consensus in that discussion. O Fenian (talk) 10:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

To clarify a point; will the topic ban include all article talk pages and other WP: pages? I'm quite happy to accept the topic ban in connection with British Isles in articles but I'd be less happy if I was excluded from general discussions on the matter, although if that's the case, then so be it. LevenBoy (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If the word "topic" is removed from the restriction, you'd simply be banned from the act of adding or removing the term anywhere on Misplaced Pages (including discussions), but you could still participate in relevant discussions and edit relevant articles, so long as you do not engage in that act. If the word "topic" remains, it would be broadly construed that you would not be able to participate in (or edit) anything (be it a discussion, poll, article) that relates to adding or removing of the term. Does that make sense? (You'll need to ask the proposer about which was meant so that you can be sure). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Unlike many topic bans, almost all the disruption has been on article pages, so I don't think a talkpage restriction would be necessary here. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Tweaked accordingly. Noting that when this is logged, it would still be listed as an editing restriction and have the effect of a topic ban that does not extend beyond the 'act' itself (which generally only occurs on articles). Due to this effect, when editing articles, any attempts to skirt around the restriction would be greeted with an appropriate enforcement response. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you not getting a little ahead of yourself there? What do you mean "when" this is logged? There's no community consensus on a topic ban. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy and this is not a !vote. So far, the only thing I've actually been loosely accused of is wasting time on a trivial matter (which is odd, considering if it's so trivial, why so many people have commented, and why there's been a flurry of activity at the MOS page these last few days). I've broken no policies, restrained from simple tit-for-tat edit warring with LevenBoy, and had even agreed with JamesD to not change any articles to give him a chance to review. --HighKing (talk) 08:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a clear community consensus in support of the measures proposed by Black Kite, and should you not comply with the restriction upon being officially notified on your talk and this officially being logged, you will be blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus. What we have is so many Irish editors blocked/banned that only one side of the WP:NPOV argument remains - those opposed to WP:NPOV in relation to "Ireland related" articles. Sarah777 (talk) 09:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose topic ban for HighKing, whom I've reviewed a few of his edits. The other person, I haven't (too busy). Suggest that we stop hounding HighKing, have HighKing voluntarily take a few days to enjoy the summer (and for others not to hound him while he is away). People can prove their good faith by not hounding him while he is away. After 2-3 days, let's all try to work together. Topic bans are just a thorn on one's side day in and day out. Why not everyone try to start fresh? Such effort won't hurt and may actually help. Everyone should take the first step and stop hounding Mr. King in order for this to work. If Mr. King is required to start first, that would be like a punitive block or cool down block, both not permitted in Misplaced Pages. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The proposal covers that: adding or removing any reference to "British Isles" on a Misplaced Pages-wide basis. That (2) any other editor who systematically adds or removes the term from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification, or who edit-wars over such addition or removal, be added to this list. The "unblocked side" is just as affected by this proposal as t'other side. TFOWR 09:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

How soon will this rule come into force? The proposals clearly have support of the majority here. I am still rather unclear about how it will be enforced on highking though. Will he still be able to present an endless list of articles he wants British isles removed from on the specific examples page? Some restrictions on that are needed if he is allowed to do that to limit the number of cases a month hes allowed to put forward for alterations. Coz at present we get dozens of examples, which we then have to spend a very long time debating and that stirs up tensions. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd imagine as soon as an uninvolved party closes this thread, but Ncmvocalist should be able to clarify. I don't see the problem with HighKing - or, indeed, anyone - proposing articles for consideration (for either removal or addition of "British Isles"). I'd become concerned if it appeared that an editor was dumping a huge amount of articles in an attempt to disrupt the process, but dozens of examples would seem to me OK at this point - the issue does affect a large number of articles. Contrary to popular opinion, there's no WP:DEADLINE; my primary concern is to stop the disruption, not prevent discussion - even if that discussion stirs up tensions. It's an emotive topic. TFOWR 10:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC) TFOWR is correct. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If the concern is the volume of articles proposed, I'd be happy to agree to a remedy to limit the discussions and proposals to a particular type of usage, and to only present representative examples to assist discussions. That way, the discussions wouldn't become fragmented over a range of issues. --HighKing (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with BritishWatcher. I'm starting to see no end to this. If users are allowed to bring an endless list of proposals for deletion then we are no further forward - and that is exactly what's going to happen unless meaningful restrictions are applied. LevenBoy (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• At the end of the day, the community is telling involved editors to collaborate properly. If involved editors respond to this by opening many different proposals on multiple pages at any single time, those involved editors (whether they appear as single individuals or as a group/concert) could be subjected to further sanctions because they have not been listening.
• The aim of this IS to force editors to engage in proper conduct and fully embrace the concept of effective collaboration; it needs to starts happening. It does NOT exist to stifle discussion or to censor positions or any other nonsense that some people will come up with. I imagine involved editors don't want to be subject to (more) layers of restrictions, be it blocks or bans, or for their articles to be layered with multiple probation terms. Similarly, the community doesn't want to be in a position where it has to impose layers upon layers of restrictions. But if editors are not editing collaboratively, chances are that the community (or even ArbCom) will be forced to do that which it prefers not to. Therefore, it is imperative that editors collaborate and/or learn to do so.
• Involved editors need to note that they have the luxury of reasonable flexibility at present and that this luxury is a privillege. If collaboration is lacking, then a separate system will probably be set up - eg; editors will be required to put proposals (or requests for discussion about adding/removing the term) into a queue; the top 3-5 proposals will be discussed, and until those have been closed either due to resolution or expiry date, all other proposals/discussions will be shut down and put into the queue until it is time for their turn. Note that if the community imposes such a system because conduct is not acceptable, flexibility and convenience will not be the main concern.
• Collaboration is key; work it out. If it means borrowing a few ideas, nutting out the details of a separate system, and coming to an agreement on the method of moving forward, so be it - just don't let the cycle (that occurred just prior to this ANI) to repeat itself again because the community is saying that it is disruptive and not acceptable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we are heading towards stalemate here, so see you all again this time next year, the year after that and so on. Judging by the way this discussion is going the problem is not going to be dealt with and I can see it is just going to continue ad-infinitum; edit wars, arguments, time wasting and general aggravation. Until the main protagonists (and I include myself) are barred completely from British Isles-related matters this problem will not be resolved. I thought I might try to maintain access to Talk pages rather than a full topic ban, but on reflection that won't work, it just puts the problem on another level. I would walk away from this debacle completely, and start editing articles on another uncontoversial subject if HighKing and a few others of lesser persuasion (Bjmullan, Fmph, Sarah777) would do the same, but there's no chance of that, so on we go. LevenBoy (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a choice of lesser evils. Either this passes (with the caveat of no starting editors that I've mentioned above), or we just start handing out blocks. I know which would be the better result. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a stalemate, to be honest. I'm seeing the editors who are going to be affected by this disagreeing with the proposal, and nearly everyone else agreeing. Frankly, I think the reason this proposal has so much support is precisely because of the "other editors are edit warring so I have to as well" concept expressed so eloquently by LevenBoy: I would walk away from this debacle completely, and start editing articles on another uncontoversial subject if ... others ... would do the same. Per BlackKite, I'd prefer this to work, because the alternative will be much less pleasant. TFOWR 18:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC) "and everyone else agreeing" → "and nearly everyone else agreeing" TFOWR 19:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Not really a fair summary TFOWR. I wouldn't be affected by this and I oppose any restrictions on High King's efforts to uphold WP:NPOV. Sarah777 (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, apologies. I've amended my comment. TFOWR 19:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

And this from LevenBoy: "Until the main protagonists (and I include myself) are barred completely from British Isles-related matters". But, per the British Nationalists who dominate this corner of Wiki the 'British Isles' include sovereign Ireland, my country! The "final solution" to the problem of Irish editors, eh? Sarah777 (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment I would be prepared to change my 'Oppose' to 'Support' if both remaining nominees were allowed a clean slate start as given to BJM, provided they were prepared to make a similar commitment. I'm more than a little skeptical of mothers demanding half a baby, as it appears in this case. RashersTierney (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Paid Editing

Yesterday, I deleted, per CSD criterion G11, and salted Kevin Feng and JT Tran, which have been repeatedly recreated by a number of different socks: User:Lucywriter, User:Princetoncc, User:Scribesunlimited. See this and this for details. The person behind these socks has left me a note on my talk page today, informing me that they are being paid a "substantial amount of money to get this done" and that I am "impeding it". While there have been a number of RfC's on paid editing, which resulted in no real consensus on this matter, I feel it is best to ask for the community's assistance and guidance on this matter. Thanks in advance, FASTILY 17:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

My initial thought is: if none of that money is going your way, why shouldn't you impede these clowns? Do paid editors get a free pass that unpaid editors don't? Is that the secret of avoiding speedies? My opinion may change, however, once their cold hard cash shows up in my account in Zurich... TFOWR 17:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Personally I don't see a problem with paid editing as long as the subject satisfies notability, the article is referenced properly and it's not just a bad-quality puff piece on some person who wants to promote themself. All the accounts created after the first one are evading blocks, however. Someone ought to explain to them that writing articles here is a privilege, not a right, and that we have no obligation to let them write articles just becquse they're being paid. Finally, we need to have some sort of policy or guideline regarding paid editing, at least something we can point these people to that explains what they can and can't do. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there was consensus about what to do with paid editors, was there? If paid editing is allowed, I am available, has anyone got a link to the discussion? - although it must be said - my grasp of the English is sometimes lacking.Off2riorob (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with TFOWR. If they're being paid to spam WP, we should make a point of impeding them! Well done to Fastily for managing to impede them thus far! Also, I'd be inclined to block the accounts as advertsing only accounts and/or socks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The paid part is a red herring. The articles were pure promotional junk and deleted properly. There's no free pass just because he took a freelance job that may be impossible to complete, considering the subject matter. Kuru (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with HJ Mitchell and Fastily. Salvio ( ) 17:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the mainstay of any paid editing policy would be that the articles are subject to exactly the same rules as any other article, that payment is in no way a free pass to circumvent or game any rule, policy or procedure. Most likely, such articles would be subject to greater scrutiny. S.G. _ping! 17:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no problem with paid editing, all that matters is the quality of the result. We each have our own motivations for contributing here, and money is just one of them. I find the argument put forward by TFOW, that if you're not being paid, then why not impede those who are, to be completely bizarre. If anyone wants to pay me to write an article on a notable subject then I'll be very happy to supply my bank account details on request. Malleus Fatuorum 17:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I think TFOWR's point was that unpaid editors have the same right to impede paid editors who contribute content not suitable for the 'pedia (and by impede I mean CSD, AfD, etc.) as they do any other editor. Essentially, the rules must not change. S.G. _ping! 17:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with all above, no special status for paid editors. Of course if editors get paid to start articles on specific topics that may be an issue of conflict of interest which may result in the paid editors not being willing to accept the rules (like notability, spam, etc.). I.e. if someone is paid to create an article about something that is not notable, the editor has almost by definition a conflict of interest: Create an article on a non-notable topic of person and earn the money; or follow Misplaced Pages rules and not get the money. Our current policies seem adequate to deal with this and the paid editors loss of payment should not be our concern at all. Arnoutf (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, though I was perhaps a little snarky in my phrasing. My key point is that being paid doesn't get you special privileges. TFOWR 18:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I wonder who got paid to write ANI. S.G. _ping! 17:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

{{The Socratic barnstar|I know its not the usual thing to do but I couldn't resist awarding this barnstar for excellent judgement and brilliant arguments. Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)}}

To whom? Leave it on their talk page. –xeno 18:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)My feeling is similar to TFOWR and HJ Mitchell, we should make a point of impeding them. Kindzmarauli brings up some very good points regarding notability and properly refernced, neutral articles. In this case, the articles Kevin Feng, JT Tran, The Asian Playboy, Asian Playboy and ABCs of Attraction clearly fall into categories of spam, advertising, lack of notability, over-promotion, puffery, etc. That is the real issue with paid writers, especially with subjects which do not meet WP:GNG. I am sure there are plenty of paid writers here who write neutral articles which do not attract our attention. That we cannot stop. There key is guidelines for the garbage, especially when paid editors continue to introduce the same spam over and over. For the most part, I think we don't care exactly how we stop them, or just that we stop them. Does what we currently have (WP:SPAM, WP:COI, etc.) cover this well enough? --Logical Fuzz (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's funny, I can actually find just enough references with a quick Google search to write an article about JT Tran. Maybe Mr. Tran or his publicist should consider hiring me instead of this other guy who hasn't even taken the time to read our policies and guidelines to make sure his puff piece won't be deleted. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, it's worth a shot! Whoever they have been hiring isn't trying very hard. (Just to clarify, not all of my categories applied to every article, some might actually be notable.)--Logical Fuzz (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently. Despite the divergent opinions of Jimmy Wales and the user formerly known as Rootology, their statements have in common an attitude that articles like those should be deleted. Their statements gained the most support at that discussion, so we can just assume "delete COI and SPAM crap" has enough consensus that it's essentially policy. Şłџğģő 18:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

If someone is being paid to write articles, let them do so in their own userspace. That way on the off chance they do actually write a properly sourced article on a notable subject, it can still be used. Otherwise, remove the promotional junk from the mainspace on sight. Dayewalker (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Won't work, per Logical Fuzz. If an editor is being paid to write articles and manages to do so in accordance with policy, we'd probably never know about the monetary aspect unless the editor admitted it. You're right that we should "remove the promotional junk," but what should we do if someone is paid for good edits? Şłџğģő 18:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, we wouldn't know, which is why paid editing as such isn't the problem. It's those who are unqualified, either due to lack of experience or ignorance of WP's workings, which bring the spotlight on themselves, and they can be dealt with by WP:SPAM etc. as mentioned above. Presumably whoever's employing such people would think nothing of hiring their next door neighbour's dog to drive them to the airport.. Someoneanother 19:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In reply to Sluggo: if they're good edits, leave them be. Who cares if they get paid? If they're benefitting the project, it's none of our concern that someone is paying them to do so; if they're not, then they can be dealt with in the normal ways. GiftigerWunsch 19:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with paid editing, but it must meet the same standards as unpaid editing. TFD (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing per se wrong with someone paying someone to write a bio of them, or an article about their company, etc. Ultimately as long as the article meets our standards, it doesn't matter who wrote it or whether their motivations were pure or not. Where it becomes a problem is when an article someone wants to write doesn't meet our standards; this conflict is addressed in WP:COI of course. People who are paid to have something stay on Misplaced Pages are going to be more dogged in their pursuit of the rejected material and less attentive to our policies where it disagrees with their ultimate goal. If someone is paid to have an article on someone stay on Misplaced Pages and it keeps getting deleted, naturally they're more likely to keep recreating it. If puffery about Foo Computers keeps getting deleted, someone who's on Foo's payroll is more apt to just rewrite it a few weeks later. I'm not sure there's really much to be done here, beyond being mindful of WP:COI and Misplaced Pages's core principles. What would a policy on paid editing even say? Adhere to our principles and mind WP:COI? That's the status quo at the moment anyway. — e. ripley\ 20:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we face financial ruin if we don't surrender. Favonian (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The guy just keeps digging himelf a bigger hole. Is that $150/hour, or just $150 flat fee? *wink* --Logical Fuzz (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Scribes Unlimited is a small business research, writing and PR firm. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like he'll make a[REDACTED] article about anyone's small blog or group if you pay him. Guess he doesn't quite understand WP:N requirements... — raeky  20:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I've put a softerblock on the corporate username User:Scribesunlimited. Is it the consensus of the body that all of these accounts should be blocked as a sockpuppet/meatpuppet situation? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Agree w/those editors who say that our COI standards (as they are revised, from time to time) should be what applies. No need to reinvent the wheel. It would seem that a paid editor has similar motives to the subject of an article, similar conflicts, and similar advantages (they will be motivated to improve the article).--Epeefleche (talk) 20:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete and salt the pages. Anyone who isn't affiliated with the company who wants to create a neutral and nonpromotional article on the subject can go through AfC or a request for undeletion.

Paid editing shouldn't be accepted at all, and I feel the community largely agrees with me on this, as the majority of the paid editing articles I have sent to AfD have been deleted. See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 for examples. I have never encountered an example of paid-editing which wasn't against our policy that we are not a vehicle for promotion. ThemFromSpace 20:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree, block 'em all! Dougweller (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree they should be blocked for disruption and sockpuppetry. Salvio ( ) 20:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)To be honest, I am not 100% positive they are all the same person (but that doesn't mean they are not all from the same company). I have been following this for about a month. This just comes from the way they have left comments on other pages, which seem to be at least 2 people, Lucywriter: , ; Princetoncc: , ; Scribesunlimited: , , , . Most of the pages are already salted. Only ABCs of Attraction remains free to recreate. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 20:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Are any of them notable enough for articles here? I'm wondering if they truly just aren't deserving of an article, or if they were simply malformed. Putting aside for a moment the motives of the creators, are any of these worthy article topics? — e. ripley\ 20:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it to me. I've just salted the last of these (ABCs of Attraction); but I've held off on blocking pending further input from other editors, to avoid any appearance of hastiness. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that a better solution is to explain our policies on meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry and what the situation is on paid editing. If they can put together an article which satisfies WP:N, then discuss it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think there might have been potential for notability, although honestly I did not investigate further. The issue was that most were written in a very promotional tone. Some "sources" were web ads which told you where to go for the subject's seminars and such. Many sources came from one of the subject's blogs, not third party sources. Kindzmarauli did a Google search (mentioned above) and felt there was enough to write an article on JT Tran. Salting is probably not the best option, which is why I brought to Fastily the issue of editors recreating the pages several times, often in what appeared to be a cut-and-paste manner. Then a new username started working on the articles. Editors were directly to guidelines but not interested in following them.--21:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

After looking through the accounts' talk pages, I really don't think that these folks were taken in hand enough to help them understand what does and doesn't make an acceptable article on Misplaced Pages. Personally I can sympathize with why -- as a new page patroller I see so much junk inserted daily that it seems like there aren't enough hours in the day to keep up with it. Fastily referred them to a couple pages, which is better than nothing, but in terms of helping them comply with our policies if it was at all possible, nobody has really made much of an effort that I've seen (please correct me if I'm wrong) -- especially if some of these people/things meet our notability requirements. I think it might be a little premature to just block these accounts out of hand when they probably don't even understand exactly what they could've done differently to avoid getting the boot. I am as vehemently against using Misplaced Pages as a means to bolster someone's business as the next person, and probably even more so, but there are a couple things to consider here. If an article can be formed properly, wouldn't Misplaced Pages benefit from it, regardless of who wrote it? And, I think it would be naive to assume that whoever this company/person is won't have another client who wants them to write something on Misplaced Pages for them. Wouldn't it be better if they understood going forward what is proper and accepted here? If someone tries to help them see what works and what doesn't, and they still persist in creating things that don't fly, then block them and throw away the key. But first at least try to help them understand what isn't working in what they're doing now. That's how I feel, anyway. — e. ripley\ 21:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you bring up a very good point, one which I have not addressed, nor did any of the other editors who nominated these articles many times for speedy deletion. Lucywriter did recieve a little guidance on Fastily's talk , and unlike Scribesunlimited, she was very polite in her asking. Unfortunately, the attitude of Scribesunlimited turned me off completely. I guess we are partly to blame for this mess. If the subject matter had been a little more interesting to me (Sorry, I'm not interested in articles on the techniques/art of seduction of women), I might have been inclined to help. And regarding your point about a well-written article benefiting Wiki, I agree with that completely. As I mentioned above, there are probably plenty of paid editors who have done great work here. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

They got caught out because they were willing to accept money to do a job they clearly don't know how to do, then tried to make it someone else's problem when they were caught out. Any time and effort expended on them would be utterly wasted. Someoneanother 22:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• My personal view is that paid editing has some similarity to edits made by a banned editor: Such edits shouldn't be reverted without review, because they might be worth keeping, but paid editors must be considered to be prima facie not acting in good faith, since their primary interest is not the quality or integrity of the material in Misplaced Pages, but earning money by creating (or expanding) articles covering specific subjects. On discovering that an editor is paid for their work, we ought to expose their edits to extra scrutiny to ensure that they're in keeping with policies & guidelines. Sure, we can try to educate them about how we'd like them to conduct themselves, but ultimately one should not expect a mercenary and a volunteer to have the same values. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. If we give paid editors the same leniency we give volunteers, Misplaced Pages will eventually be controlled by whoever can hire the most editors. Since we still outnumber them (as far as I know), I think it's best to just hold paid editors to the highest standards, ignoring WP:IAR, since it is a rule, and being complete Vogons to them to make sure that this encyclopedia remains free and fair. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm just a relatively new user, but the idea of trying to stop "paid editors" wholesale seems to me to be unnecessary. Why would we need any rules in addition to WP:COI and WP:N? As someone implied above, we're all getting paid, it's just that most of us are getting paid with a warm fuzzy feeling (or a feeling of righteous indignation, or a feeling of intellectual stimulation, or through some sort of long-term "I help provide WP with good info so that it provides me with good info when I need it," or whatever). If an entity is notable, it should be in Misplaced Pages. If it's not notable, it's shouldn't be. If WP works the way it should, eventually every notable subject should appear "spontaneously;" if some entity which is notable wants to pay to make that happen faster, bully for them. Of course, keep deleting the fluff. I figure it's just like big budget Hollywood movies--it doesn't hurt to assume they're almost certainly junk, but that doesn't mean they're all unwatchable just because of their source.Qwyrxian (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Just one more word on this, if it's not already a completely dead topic. Obviously, no one editor can guarantee (to a potential client) the existence or the content of an article. Thus, if I accept payment from someone to make sure that an article reads a certain way or is created and continues to exist, I'm essentially taking money under false pretenses, which (as I understand it) is the classic legal definition of fraud. Misplaced Pages should do everything possible to discourage this and make it clear to attempted paid editors that any lack of success they're experiencing in having their articles retained or their edits surviving is their problem, a problem they created when they agreed to accept money for editing Misplaced Pages. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you're overstating it. Certainly, both parties would be aware of the vagaries of Misplaced Pages articles, and only a couple of google searches would tell anyone about content battles on WP.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Steven J. Anderson's comment. If someone markets her/himself to write articles on Misplaced Pages, either that person must make it clear that there is no guarantee the article will survive the AfD process, or be skilled enough with Misplaced Pages policies to accept only the articles that will avoid a nomination & write them so they will meet Misplaced Pages standards. (Maybe even meet both of these.) If this flack didn't do one of these, then his clients deserve their money back for her/his incompetence. And sheesh, there are books in print that explain all of this. -- llywrch (talk) 05:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Simply put: Fuck 'im in the ear. We're not here to be their billboard. And if they're being paid to do it, we're going to make sure it's a very difficult salary to collect. HalfShadow 01:07, 13 July 2010

"Fuck 'im in the ear"? That would be definitely messy. How 'bout simply, "It definitely sucks to be a paid editor who doesn't understand how Misplaced Pages works." -- llywrch (talk) 05:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

As a guy I know has apparently said for years: "that's aural sex" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• This reminds me of User:Desiphral. If someone's not here to improve the encyclopedia, they shouldn't be editing. MER-C 02:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• I would think the primary problem with paid editing is that Misplaced Pages's general policy stance is exemplified by WP:AGF: we bend over backwards to take the best possible interpretation of an editor's actions. With paid editing, however, assuming that we know it's paid editing, our stance needs to change: since the editing is not necessarily being done out of a desire to improve the project, but because of a financial arrangement, we should not assume the best possible interpretation, we should assume that any distortions or cherry picking of information is deliberate and intended to put the best possible face on the subject of the article. Therefore, articles that have been paid for should be subject to higher policy standards, and should be very carefully examined: all sources thoroughly checked, unsourced statements that might otherwise slip by be ruthlessly deleted, notability be extremely strictly determined etc. We should APP: Assume a Puff Piece.Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to take away from the recent comments, which are much more thoughtful than many others I've seen on the issue, but we should be mindful to keep our focus on this case rather than paid editing in general, or else this thread will quickly balloon and with little gain in the end. This issue's probably ripe for another community wide RfC (not just for those that visit the rfc page). Shadowjams (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with that. It would be beneficial for us to make some sort of decision regarding this once and for all; either we allow it, allow it with stipulations, or disallow it completely. And we need a policy page or at least an essay that covers that topic specifically so we can point people to it when necessary. Kindzmarauli (talk) 05:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems safer for us to say no to paid editing at this time, the overriding logic seeming to be to be that, if the subject is notable it will be created by someone who isn't paid somewhere along the line, and no matter what the initial quality it will get improved by the community without the inherent issues of a paid editor. This seems to fall in line with what we say about their being no rush and building an encyclopaedia. S.G. _ping! 06:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

PR companies are now editing their clients' WP pages. This editor has had the candor to admit it. Work with him. Help him. Make sure he fully understands WP:SOCK, WP:BLP and WP:N, and forget it. Recently, Google.org paid a bunch of people to edit some WP medical articles, and I hope they do a lot more. Paid editing is here to stay. Anthony (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and most are sophisticated enough not to be obvious about it. I realize that we have a few people on the beach screaming at the tide to turn back, but it is something we need to control, not prohibit.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this now resolved? I do think we need to be clear about a few things. First, contrary to what one person wrote above, editing Misplaced Pages is a right. At least in Jimbo's vision - that is what it means to say that WP is the encyclopedia anyone can edit at any time (emphasis mine). True, it is a right one can lose, but it is a right. And this same right is what enables anyone else to edit whatever the paid proxy wrote, so it is like so many other rights limited by the rights of others.

As Kuru noted above, the paid thing is a red-herring. As far as our policies are concerned, the real issue here, as far as I can tell, is WP:COI. Doesn't this policy address all our concerns? These paid agents simply have to be held to the highest standards of WP:NOTE, WP:NPOV and WP:V. As long as we can hold them to these standards there is no issue here. Sockpuppetry can be a real threat though, but sadly, this is often a concern in othe cases too. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If someone wants to advertise themselves as a "Misplaced Pages article creator" they can go right ahead and do that. If they can't write an article that meets our standards, that makes them a "bad Misplaced Pages article creator". This is not our problem. N419BH 15:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Just apply WP:SOCK here. If someone is using sockpuppets, they're trying to evade observation, and they have to go. --John Nagle (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Could someone across WP:NOTE, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:BLP please affectionately embrace this editor and offer advice while they construct a BLP in their user space? I'm not confident enough with BLP. Anthony (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it fair to say that there is an emerging consensus on this matter? That is: while not all Misplaced Pages editors approve of paid editing, anyone who does it -- or pays for it to be done -- does so without support from the community. We volunteers are here only to help other volunteers -- & subjects of BLP when they raise reasonable concerns. So not only was Fastily in the right for her/his speedy delete & all subsequent actions, there was no need to educate that person how to make it conform to our policies. -- llywrch (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's my take on this. Since Jimbo has said anyone can edit, we shouldn't disallow the editing by those paid to do it. However, we SHOULD impose whatever policy or guideline applies to the situation (WP:SPAM, WP:COI, etc.) and we should be inclined to properly inform the editor(s) in question about WHY their editing is wrong in the first place. That they are being paid to do it is not germaine to Misplaced Pages.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 16:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It does feel weird, offering free help to someone who's being paid to, presumably, present their subject in the best light, but who says money is a less legitimate motive than hate or love. We contend with those motives all the time. A lot of BLPs start out as hatchet jobs or hagiographies. Scribesunlimited are being up front. I say we welcome them. Anthony (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you not think of it as "offering free help." Explaining how an article violates NPOV, V, or NOR while warning someone that if they do not comply with these policies their work will be deleted is not "help" in the same way as whitewashing someone's fence while they eat an apple or go fishing. Moreover, what is helped - what is always helped when we do any work here - is the encyclopedia. (After all, we allow COI editing only when the editor is stringently meeting our standards, including WP:NOTE which means that we have decided that the encyclopedia really is better off with this article, than it would have been without it). I do not know what it means to say they do so without the support of the community. I actually do not see why we needed this legnthy discussion. The example provided does not require us to imagine how best to handle it. This is simply an example of COI, and we already have our WP:COI policy which tells us what to do. I the article encyclopedic? Is it notable and not spam? Then we support it. Does the edit seem in any way to violate WP:NPOV, WP:V, or WP:NOR? Then we delete or move it to talk, and explain why it violated policy, and provide a link to the policy. I think it is a big mistake to worry about "who" else is working on an article. I urge everyone participating in this discussion to stop worrying about editors and instead just worry about articles and edits. I think that is our COI policy in a nutshell. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Second Amendment talk page, need some encouragement

Could an administrator please drop in on the Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution talk page and help us focus on improving the article as opposed to attacking the character of the editors? I am hopeful with some outside encouragement that the editing environment might become more constructive. Thanks. SaltyBoatr 02:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been on that talk page in a few weeks, but the issue seems to be the same. The crux of the question that led to the incivility by at least one IP is whether or not the Blackstone commentaries are reliable sources (more broadly it's people not understanding reliable source policy). The short answer (I think uncontroversial) is that it depends on what the source is citing. If you're referring to Blackstone-contemporary discussions of law, then Blackstone may work. If you're drawing long-ranging conclusions from Blackstone about today's law, that's synthesis. Same thing with what court opinions say. It's fine to say that Case X said this, or ruled this basic fact, but it's synthesis to engage in interpretation or do much more beyond simple fact citing.

Salty's been very good about ensuring this distinction is respected, although there have been a lot of debates with IPs that don't seem to get it. Maybe SB can indicate which IPs are at issue, because there have been a few... are they all different people, or are a few the same with now-changed IPs? Shadowjams (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

(It's likely just one person, see SPI investigation here.) I have been paying attention to this for almost two years. There have been, guessing now, about 20 different IP address that all GeoLocate to the western suburbs of Boston, MA. (ref ) There has been a common writing style and common idiosyncratic attention to types of details typically in primary documents 200 years old or older. Honestly, the personal attacks aren't my bother. The problem is that attempts to negotiate through reasoned discussion fail. If an editor says "this book says this and that book says that, we should include both POV's", the AnonIP responds with anger and insists on his personal POV, with edit war (and now the page is in its third 14day lock) followed by personal battle. Is there some way to convince a person like this to follow WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR? After almost two years trying, I haven't figured out how to convince him that the article should match the sources and not be agenda driven. Recent attempts at WP:DR outlined here failed, with the AnonIP refusing "decline...shit tossing contest" and "rather have a red hot poker shoved up my ass". SaltyBoatr 13:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a hotbutton issue and you're going to get people who insist on doing it their way. The proper response to these individuals is to attempt to educate them on policy. Should they succumb to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, the only other course of action is blocks to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. N419BH 13:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty for one insists on doing it his way. He deleted the reason for having the Second, printed in plain sight on the Second itself, and replaced that reason with "slave control". My guess is that he did it to "blacken by association" i.e. guns are bad because guns make slavery possible. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=303401519&oldid=303367528 and http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=303545397&oldid=303544999.71.184.184.238 (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of the AnonIP being WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. This issue of militia slave patrols is a significant POV seen in reliable sourcing, and when AnonIP asked about it last week I outlined the six references that describe this POV here which the AnonIP ignored and responded with repetitious personal attack. I responded again with a listing of the reliable sourcing, but again ignored and replied with repetitious personal attack. I answered once again followed by a figurative "na-na-na w/fingers in his ears". Coupled with a pattern of repetitious copy and paste talk page ad hominem. SaltyBoatr 14:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

To replace text showing the Second was written in support of organizing militias with "slave control", is blatant POV push. Slave control appears rarely, if at all, in Revolutionary War era documents while Militia is right on the Amendment itself. The militia language was either the most supported language or the least opposed language. To replace that main reason for its enactment with an obscure and unsupported viewpoint is blatant POV push. Salty needs to be educated in wiki policies, specifically the one that states that miniscule minority viewpoints have no place in a wiki article. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty, you made up a cock and bull story about why you included slave control in the article, but you have yet to explain why you took out language in support of militias, appearing on the amendment itself. Lets try again, why did you remove language from the article, indicating that militias were a reason for enacting the second, when militias appears on the amendment itself, and is obviously a reason?71.184.184.238 (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, to the question of trying to educate AnonIP as to our policy. The AnonIP used the word "Bull" here. Followed by an editor explaining WP:NPA here. AnonIP responded defiantly with the words "same OLD BULL" in response. This is but the most recent example of a failure to learn how to behave within policy. The result has been repeated article full page protects when this AnonIP is active, evidence of behavior plainly damaging to the encyclopedia. SaltyBoatr 16:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Same OLD bull refers to Saltys unending attempts to get references to Blackstones Commentaries on the Laws of England, removed from the article. Shadowjams post below is only one of a multitude of post telling Salty that he is dead wrong on this issue.71.184.184.238 (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The page protects were because Salty kept getting involved in edit wars. Wars which I stayed out of, and had no part in. I did warn Salty that he was in violation of 3rr twice in order to get his to change his conduct. He did not and in his July 3rd request for a page freeze blamed myself and Hauskalainen for the edit war. Neither I nor Hauskalainen were in violation of 3rr at that time while Salty was in violation. Salty shifted blame for his conduct onto us on his page freeze request. It would not look good if he had said. "Oh please kind sir, save me from myself, freeze this page so I don't edit war no more!" Links to my two warnings are below

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution/Archive_28#SB.2FHauskalainen_-_rules_on_edit_war_and_3_revert_rule http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution/Archive_29#Salty_Boatr_-_You_are_already_in_violation_of_3RR71.184.184.238 (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC) history Shadowjams - Have you changed your mind since this post

Blackstone was perhaps at one point a source of law, but yeah, this is ridiculous. No, he's hardly a primary source here, and he's certainly a valid, and reliable, secondary source. I imagine 10 minutes on lexis will find you dozens of articles about pre-English Bill of Rights common law self-defense and right to bear arms articles. I don't have anything to back this up, but I wonder if the "bear arms" and "keep arms" language was as specific in the 17th century as it was at the time of the constitution, or even later, at the time of the 14th amendment. But 96... it's worth doing a little bit of that research instead of just making those arguments. This isn't the place to have the debate, let's use this to bring forth some sources and make the article better. Shadowjams (talk) 05:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the place to have what is the talk page discussion. This is about how we've been going in circles about a larger policy issue with no progress. I'll respond to the last point though.

I haven't changed my mind. That excerpt was from a different discussion where I was referring to English law around the 1600s. The rest of the context makes the point clearer. But even in that statement I hope it's clear that my point is nuanced.... old treatises on the law are reliable sources when they refer to the same thing. They're not reliable sources when three hundred year old sources are used to interpret contemporary law. If we want to talk about the rule of increase and its pre-revolutionary war history, Blackstone is a RS. If we want to talk about English rights in the same era, the same (my point in the excerpt).

It is not, however, a reliable source to use Blackstone's "natural rights" to discuss modern constitutional rights when a number of authors draw disctinctions between what Blackstone was talking about, and what we're talking about now. Those commentators might be wrong, but you can't cite Blackstone for the proposition and then engage in legal analysis. You have to engage in some real back and forth with sources both ways. At that point, Blackstone is no longer a RS; depending, he's more likely a PS. Shadowjams (talk) 18:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Blackstone's Commentaries were printed 250 years ago, are being used to discuss 230 years old US law and 300 year old English law. As to whether he can be used to get insights into modern law, you are DEAD WRONG in your opinion that he cannot be so used. The US Supreme Court uses his Commentaries ALL THE TIME for that very purpose, as do people who pose questions to that court. Just one example http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/mcdonald_cert_petition1.pdf.71.184.184.238 (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If we could please bring this discussion back to the topic at hand. This is not the place to discuss the article. This page is for discussion of the problem of disruption on that Second Amendment talk page, and for discussion of how that WP:DE problem might be fixed. SaltyBoatr 22:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

There would be a lot less disruption of the article once you stop engaging in edit wars to insert small minority opinions favorable to your discredited gun control POV. The Supreme Court has described your POV as worthy of the "mad hatter". Live with it! You blaming your edit wars on me is also not appreciated. You are the one that has endlessly engaged in edit wars, which I stayed out of. I don't appreciate you pointing fingers at me for engaging in an edit when that was YOUR sin, and not mine.71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You're not listening - The Supreme Court quotes Blackstone (or similar) treatises because they're doing legal analysis and drawing conclusions. That's not what Misplaced Pages is for and is WP:Synthesis. As I said above, I would object to blanket removal of these treatises, but you're making arguments about legal interpretation. This is not the forum for that. Shadowjams (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm listening and I think you don't know what you are talking about. Blackstone is THE AUTHORITY on "common law". Modern scholars wish they could walk in his shadow. Most are so far behind that they can't even SEE his shadow!71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Shadowjams - The reference to Blackstones "shadow" is purely coincidental and not designed to cast either praise or aspersions on your ID.71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

As to why there are so many references to Blackstone in the Article, the problem is Salty - Here he is practically begging for another cite to the "fifth auxiliary right" language. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=371545164&oldid=371544303 He is so nit picking that if you take a fart he wants its chemical composition so he can find out what you ate.71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Restating my opening plea: Could an administrator here help us find a way to stop the attacks on the character of editors? SaltyBoatr 12:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Stating that you have engaged in constant edit wars over the past the couple of months is fact. Stating that the freeze of about a month ago was based on your edit warring is fact. Stating that in your last freeze request you blamed me and one other editor for edit warring is also fact. It is also fact that YOU were the only one with a 3rr violation at that time. Your character is reflected in your actions. If you want to be treated like someone with a sterling character, then act like someone with a sterling character. Blaming others for your actions reflects on your character, badly!71.184.184.238 (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW: You shouldn't bitch about excessive use of Blackstone in the article when you yourself caused much of that inclusion. In order to satisfy YOUR latest "cite needed" I will have to add yet another reference to his "fifth auxiliary right" language when the page becomes unprotected. If you don't want this redundant citation added, then get rid of your latest "cite needed" request.71.184.184.238 (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Administrators: In case it isn't abundantly clear by now, this AnonIP has a very long history of using Misplaced Pages for his personal WP:BATTLE. I couldn't care less about his personal attacks, but I am concerned that this behavior is WP:Disruptive editing which causes damage to the encyclopedia. Both in 2009, and in 2010, when this editor shows up at the Second Amendment article to battle, the constructive editing environment degrades, and the resultant full page protects then become necessary. This damage to the encyclopedia needs to be resolved. My question of the administrators here, is do you have suggestions of how this problem might be resolved? Thanks.

My suggestion would be this: Impose a short term editing permission block, with the condition that the edit permission would be restored if the AnonIP agreed to focus his attention on WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV and avoid commenting on other editors. And, that if the AnonIP resumes WP:BATTLE, then another short term editing permission block would be imposed, giving the AnonIP another chance to learn how to constructively edit. Repeat this cycle until the AnonIP learns how to avoid engaging in WP:Disruptive editing. This technique of short term blocking was used with limited success in 2009, I think it is time to give another attempt. SaltyBoatr 15:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

"I couldn't care less about his personal attacks" - So you spend all your time filing complaints against me out of the goodness of your heart. RIIIIGHT! If you don't want excessive use of Blackstone in the article, then stop asking for references to his work, as in the "cite needed" example provided above. If you don't want the article frozen then STOP ASKING for it to be frozen when you don't get your way. If you don't want to engage in edit wars THE DON'T ENGAGE IN EDIT WARS! Don't lay your sins at my feet, I will only kick them back at you!71.184.184.238 (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Administrators: As Salty has engaged in repeated edit wars in order to get his way on the Second Amendment Article, and then asked for article freezes when he doesn't get his way, he should be barred from editing the Second Amendment article for some period of time. If not barred a watch should be placed on his activities there to insure that he doesn't continue his edit wars. I again point out that I have stayed out of those edit wars71.184.184.238 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC).

It is relevant to note that the dispute AnonIP speaks of is the inclusion of material sourced to Joyce Lee Malcolm, called "one scholar" and "one historian" in the article. During the short window the article was most recently released from page protection, AnonIP quickly deleted this text out of the article with these three edits without discussion or attempt to build consensus, coupled with the surprise removal of a sourced sentence which disagrees with his personal POV again with no prior discussion on the talk page to check consensus, and the insertion of his personal view with no citation prominently at the top of the section (again with no discussion on talk, and with no attempt to verify consensus), inserted a biased POV assertion here again without regard for the balance of POVs seen in sourcing. While this isn't edit war, that wasn't the intent of the page protection. The intent of the page protection was to encourage editors to work out their differences and build a consensus on the talk page, and the AnonIP edits seen here show that he does not yet understand the concept of building a consensus, and instead AnonIP treats Misplaced Pages as a place to do WP:BATTLE. SaltyBoatr 19:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the best forum to get community input on a content dispute, and it's one of the worst places to continue one. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

54,55, and 56 were removed because they reflected the views of one person. Views that small don't have a place in a wiki article. Objections to the removal of that language were sought on July 2 on the talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution/Archive_29#English_History_Section_of_this_article No objections were made to removing that language. 57 was removed because it is contrary to the US Supreme Court ruling in Heller. 58 was intended to put back into the article deleted language from 54 (and 56) which was deleted along with the opinions of one person. 58 restored pre-existing article language which I mistakenly deleted. 59 comes directly from the US Supreme Courts decision in Heller. Salty has managed to keep the word "individual" out of the article since Heller was decided by engaged in censorship. I thought it was time his censorship of the article was stopped and inserted "individual" into the article.71.184.184.238 (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not the right venue for content disputes. Please stop. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 00:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Once Salty stops pushing his lies about me, I will stop responding to them.71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This is so tiresome

I've reported 3RR going on in Dieudonné M'bala M'bala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I've requested page protection, and of course I've warned the IP that started the edit war first... no reaction. From no one. Only the edit-war (or should I say blatant vandalism?) going on, undisturbed. Hell, the references of the article and its talk page are full of material supporting the two categories these IPs want to remove, and they haven't been argued against since times immemorial. Now, would an administrator be so kind and step in, semi-protect the page? At long last? Thaaaaaaaaaaank you! Insert coins (talk) 11:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Two words: proper warnings. I protected it for a week. Due dilligence with the warnings will allow for proper blocks via the correct forum, etc and will hopefully precent this recurrance. Don't forget that you need to advise the editors that you have mentioned them here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done: Bwilkins (talk · contribs) has semi'd the page. TFOWR 11:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Another two words: proper references. This article seems to imply the subject is a holocaust denier "by association", despite a court apparently acquitting him of such, and without a mention of it in the article. Edit-warring to restore poorly sourced criminal insinuations is quite poor form. Protecting it from people insisting on references is no better. I wonder what are the chances that Insert coins (talk · contribs) and indef-blocked-for-BLP-violations RCS (talk · contribs) are the same user? -- zzuuzz 14:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the talk page? This very matter has been discussed extensively twice. --Insert coins (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

And I'd like to add that you are morally walking on very thin ice here making a pro-Dieudonné statement, as it were. Among the many sources, here is just one. To hug (embrasser) Robert Faurisson publicly - this is what *I* would call poor form. Now, don't take this as a personal attack. It is another statement. --Insert coins (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Saying that criminal allegations need to be sourced is not defending anyone. Similarly, a picture of two people hugging is not proof of anything. We're trying to avoid here. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. But, as you can read in the article itself. Dieudonné didn't only meet publicly with Faurisson once. They also made a video sketch together (source/link is provided in article) and celebrated Faurisson's 80th birthday in the theater of which Dieudonné is the owner (ditto). As for this other convicted Holocaust denier, Jean-Marie Le Pen, he is the godfather of one of Dieudonné's children. And that other Holocaust denier, not convicted as of yet, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Dieudonné had met him in Tehran () and now calls him his "guide" ()... And and and... I could go on for a long time like this but this would be tiresome as well. It is crystal clear for anyone willing to search that Dieudonné has made a habit of giving Holocaust deniers a platform, of associating with Holocaust deniers. As for his antisemitism, there can be absolutely no doubt about it - and I would like to remind you that the IP wanted to remove that category as well. Sources in English: , , , , ... Sorry for that rant, but my point is that the removal of both categories by those IPs can be proved beyond any doubt to be malevolent. --Insert coins (talk) 08:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Problematic user: ChaosMaster16

ChaosMaster16 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmed)

This user recently asked for my feedback on the reliable sources noticeboard, and I was just wondering why he approached me specifically when I looked at my watchlist and found he'd done so to at least 5 others on my watchlist. It appears he asked somewhere around 30-40 people, a clear violation of WP:CANVASS, and this is not the first thread he's canvassed: check out his recent contributions to user talk pages (the "New Moon (2009 film) and Eclipse (2010 film)" sections on numerous user talk pages in December seem fishy). I left a uw-canvass warning on his talk page, but given that his talk page is full of edit warring notices, he's canvassed multiple times, and been blocked at least once (from what I could see on his talk page), I felt I should bring this here. Any comments on what is the best course of action for this user? GiftigerWunsch 13:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the message I have left on talk pages: "Could you give your opinion on Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Pifeedback.com?" (With my signature and "Pifeedback" above it). The only rule I seemed to have breeched is the "Limited Posting". I do thank you for bringing this to my attention and apoligize for the excessive posting. I was not aware of the limit on posting neutral, non-partisan, and open invitations on user pages, and will make the effort to keep my posts limited in the future.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

It was a neutral message, and I can't think of any reason he'd particularly think I'd support his point -- in fact, I was considering opposing, except that various people had already said everything I would have. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps neutral and not targeted to a specific audience, but the sheer volume makes this pretty clear spamming the point per WP:CANVASS, and it's not the first time he's done so with a topic, either. GiftigerWunsch 13:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The first time I did it was obviously a non-neutral message (supporting one side). And alright, I posted on many talk pages. This time it is a neutral message. And I posted on many talk pages, but was unaware of the limit the canvasing page stated. And now that I am aware of the limit, I will make sure I abide by that rule.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 14:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

I don't think this issue requires further admin attention: ChaosMaster16 committed himself to abiding by the rule in future. Salvio ( ) 15:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree; given his history it's probably worth keeping an eye on him, but I'm satisfied if he promises to abide by WP:CANVASS in future. GiftigerWunsch 15:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• No comment on this particular case, but it shouldn't be necessary to advise people about an issue at WP:RSN anyway - it's a noticeboard - people see it, that's kind of the point ;-) TFOWR 14:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Quick question: Does this mean that I can ask 5 people to contribute to a contribution per day, or per discussion? ChaosMaster_Chat 03:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think your question probably means you need to properly read and understand Misplaced Pages:CANVASS#Excessive_cross-posting in particular, and Misplaced Pages:CANVASS#Inappropriate_notification in general. There is no "per discussion" or "per day" quota you are somehow entitled to. If the user has "no particular connection with the topic of discussion", then don't spam the talk page. You seem to be looking at it entirely the wrong way around - you shouldn't be looking to push the policy as far as you can, to leave as many messages as you can. Instead you should be leaving a neutral message only when you have good reason to believe that a particular user would wish to be made aware of a discussion, and you think they might otherwise be unaware of it. In practice the need for this is often minimal, because most users will monitor the type of discussion that interests them, and join it anyway. Don't think of messages as a way to boost the numbers at a discussion, rather as the occasional courtesy to an interested user you truly believe may be unaware of said discussion, and would welcome the notification. That way, you'll probably need to send very few. That's how I interpret the policy page, anyway... - Begoon (talk) 12:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the answer. ChaosMaster_Chat 14:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Open proxies

Someone, I suspect banned user GoRight (talk · contribs) based on history above, is attacking other editors and accusing them of being socks of Hipocrite (talk · contribs) and/or part of the global warming conspiracy. See diff. Two other open proxies were blocked already, one of them for posting at the very same page. Can someone initiate some kind of rangeblock or something? This is getting ridiculous and we're going to start losing even more editors than we're already losing if we can't nip this sort of crap in the bud. Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look like a rangeblock would be useful as it would require too broad a range. Circumstantially some evidence might point to Minor4th (talk · contribs) being involved or someone trying to make it look like him/her. Perhaps a CU would be in order. Toddst1 (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Is a checkuser available here to run a quick check to see what we can see? I'd rather not file something at SPI as I don't know all the particulars of this case. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not just go look at the CU that was done in the SPI that cleared both Minor4th and myself of being socks? It was just done within the last week or so and the check user clerk stated that there was no evidence of abusive editing. I'm trying to assume good faith, but I don't see any evidence that would tie Minor4th to the anonymous post. I looked at the diffs myself and have asked an admin for advice on the matter, although I have not heard anything back yet. It does raise some questions about Hipocrite based on his past use of socks, although everything may be perfectly legitimate. I hope that it is, and that there is an opportunity for Minor4th to respond before there is a rush to judgment without all of the facts. GregJackP Boomer! 23:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You know, it would go a long way to allaying people's suspicions about socking involving you and Minor4th if you didn't pop up to defend Minor4th every single time his name comes up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Can't help it. We are not a cabal of two... :D GregJackP Boomer! 01:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

But can we be a cadre of two? Minor4th • talk 01:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Boy,you said a mouthful. I can think of many to whom that comment applies. As for Greg, thank goodness he shows up to defend me because no one else does. I don't think he is too concerned about sock accusations regarding me since we went through a checkuser and we have made it plain that we are friends in real life. Minor4th • talk 01:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm an unfortunate addict of ANI-reading, and there's no two people I can think of who show up with the same consistency. I'm casting absolutely no aspersions, just saying that if you guys keep doing that, people are inevitably gonna keep talking about sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. Maybe pick and choose, let a couple go by? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I never thought you were casting aspersions, but here recently, one or both of us have been drug back here, so, since no one else defends us, we sort of stick together. I would be perfectly happy to be editing, although right now I'm waiting to see if Menominee Tribe v. United States will pass its GAN. I got to 6K edits without ever paying much attention to ANI or DR, and don't want to in the future, if you know what I mean. GregJackP Boomer! 02:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I have provided relevant sensitive information to an admin, and the information has also been made available to Arbcom and can be shared with checkuser as necessary. It was not me editing with proxies, and my non-involvement will be resolved in private because of the sensitive information. Minor4th • talk 00:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, people, you don't know who I am and you're not gonna find out so stop guessing. I am not Minor4th so stop implicating innocent people. I am done with Kindzmarauli who has demonstrated his true colors in all of this and there is no need to belabor the point. And for the record I have not said he is a sock puppet of Hipocrite I said he might be a sock puppet of Hipocrite based on his behavior ... A.K.A. WP:DUCK. Those are not the same thing and if you think that they are then I understand why Minor4th is one of the few on this page talking any sense. Read a book on basic logic for God's sake. I apologize to Minor4th for having inadvertently put him in your cross hairs. Geeze. --204.11.245.202 (talk) 01:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Who are you a sock of? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Nobody. I don't have an account, what would be the point? Oh, and for the record I don't much care whether Kindzmarauli goes around tagging dead accounts so long as he does it even handedly. He has demonstrated that he has no such interest. --204.11.245.202 (talk) 02:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have great difficulty believing you. You are obviously very familiar with inside-Misplaced Pages stuff. If you have no account, what IPs do you normally edit under? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Whoever it is has web hosting via Modwest, Inc., based on their whois information (publicly available). Unless this is yet another open proxy. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, I only came back to clear up that I am not Minor4th and to let you know I wasn't going to be bothering Kindzmarauli anymore either since he has already shown his colors. Thanks. Have a nice day. --204.11.245.202 (talk) 02:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I see, you only "came back" to be disruptive, deny being one editor, and refuse to say who you actually are. Given your comments on Kindzmarauli, you seem to place a high value on honor -- do you think your behavior is honorable? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I came back to try and clear Minor4th of having committed my actions. Under these circumstances, yes, I think coming back to do so was the honorable thing to do. I also feel that fighting to maintain neutrality on Misplaced Pages is also an honorable activity to engage in. Sorry if you don't happen to see it that way. Again, have a nice day. --204.11.245.201 (talk) 02:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I see, so Kindzmarauli was not, in your view, honorable because he did not, in your view, behave neutrally, but it's OK for you to refuse to identify yourself when there are serious concerns about whether you are a banned editor, and to behave in a similarly partisan way? That doesn't seem right to me. Are you a banned or blocked editor, can you answer that honestly? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If he's a banned editor, then it is inappropriate for him to post, but he does have a point about WP:DUCK. There were 9 socks that can be linked to Hipocrite, either through Hipocrite's own admission or via checkuser through one of his admitted socks. Granted, that was about 2 years ago, and AGF I hope that he has not done the same thing now, but regardless, it is a valid question in my opinion. I'm not making any accusations or charges of current sockpuppetry - but it did cause me to ask an admin I trust about it. GregJackP Boomer! 03:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? You think that garbage that transpired on Kindz's talk page was a good indication of DUCK? More like an angry banned editor trying to get revenge. The fact that Kindz actually made a reasoned attempt to respond at all was an incredible act of AGF. I would have deleted the trolling outright with a generous helping of WP:DENY if it had been my own talk page. Also, your posts to Lar's talk page is disingenuous. You wouldn't have posted it at all if you didn't think Kindz was a sock. Kindz explained on his talk page why he didn't tag those old Hipocrite socks: the main account is unblocked. Why would you tag socks of an account that isn't blocked? It makes no sense. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No, actually, for a person with as few edits as Kindz has, he seems remarkably knowledgible about Wiki, open proxies, blocks, tagging socks, etc, which is why I asked a trusted admin what should be done with the info. That is enough to raise a question, but I'm not sure about an SPI or other action, so if it is ok with you, I'll wait for the admin to respond. I think that something like that is serious enough to look at - based on my recent experience (being sent to an SPI/CU with a lot less, IMO). If you don't AGF on my actions, so be it, but if I were sure that Kindz was a sock, I would have already opened an SPI. I don't know, which is why I asked an admin that I trust. GregJackP Boomer! 04:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• That IP above is a banned user who is evading their block. I have confirmed this with a checkuser and issued a 1 month {{checkuserblock}}. This thread can probably be closed up now. NW (Talk) 04:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if those that drug Minor4th into this ANI with little to no evidence would comment about their error, not that I believe that this will happen. GregJackP Boomer! 12:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, circumstantially it looked like Minor4th, or it could be someone else, perhaps trying to make Minor4th look bad. No apology is necessary for such an observation. Please stop trying to foment drama. Toddst1 (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Please re-read my post. I never stated that you or anyone else should apologize, nor would I. I merely said it would be nice if there was a comment on it. Please assume good faith - I did not claim any ill-will on your actions, nor would I. I believe you were mistaken, but that you are doing what you believed was right. GregJackP Boomer! 22:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. It should be self-evident that bringing Minor4th into this was incorrect at this point. Toddst1 (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, a lot of times when a innocent editor gets brought into one of these, they never hear anything that acknowledges that - I've been guilty of that myself. After I was cleared in the SPI, I was left with a bitter taste and realized how important it really is, so I've promised myself to do better. I'm sure that Minor4th will appreciate your comment. I'm also sorry that I wasn't clearer on not asking for an apology. Again, thanks. GregJackP Boomer! 02:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, always appreciated. And thanks Rlevse for the voucher. Minor4th • talk 03:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I can vouche that before this ANI even started, Minor4th report his/her IP usage to arbcom. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Return of longtime disruptive user under another new sockpuppet user account (Filmcracker) registered for the purpose of Wikistalking

Filmcracker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Techwriter2B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sift&Winnow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
64.252.0.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
75.2.209.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Filmcracker, who is a sockpuppet for Techwriter2B, Sift&Winnow, 64.252.0.159, 75.2.209.226, and many other anonymous IPs, has returned for the purpose of Wikistalking and other activities (See , , and ) for which he/she has been the subject of complaints from many editors over a period of more then three years. (While this user has been the subject of many complaints, I am only aware of one blocking—as User:Techwriter2B—as he/she generally edits under a great many anonymous IPs which he/she changes frequently to avoid being blocked or otherwise disciplined. On occasions like this one when he/she actually registers a sock account, he/she does so in order to disguise him/herself by hiding his/her location as being in SW Connecticut where all the anonymous IPs he/she uses resolve to.) A full AN/I discussion of the well documented history of repeated patterns of these attempts to hide his/her identity as well as engaging in disruptive editing, sockpuppetry, and overt Wikistalking by the this editor, as well as an accounting of many of the anonymous IPs he/she has used for this purpose, can be found here. Centpacrr (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This is clearly the same disruptive editor who was given an indefinite block (still in effect) under his/her Techwriter2B sock (link to AN/I thread from June:). He’s continuing to wikihound Centpacrr (the editor that he’s most persistently stalked). He’s evading the block, using both a newly registered username (Filmcracker) and IP 64.252.0.159. The IP 64.252.0.159 maps to the exact same area of CT as his other IPs (as documented in the prior AN/I thread)and he used this same IP previously while disruptively editing Stephen Ambrose. He also recently posted a false claim that the IP belongs to an organization , to try to keep administrators from blocking it (or to at most use a soft rather than hard block). This disruptive editor has a long history of such “clever” maneuvers (e.g. forging an admin signature to try to terminate a prior sockpuppet investigation, etc.). Expeditious blocking of Filmcracker and IP 64.252.0.159 appears to be needed. Eurytemora (talk) 00:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggest a full investigation leading to a community ban - As I stated at the last time this character was brought up at ANI, my encounters with him have been unpleasant in the extreme. After I banned him (twice!) from my talk page he started stalking my edits. This is the worst kind of moral cancer Misplaced Pages can have - a disruptive multiple sock who violates every rule in the book and makes a mockery of attempts to stop him. Will use any trick or lie to get what he wants. Must be stopped for good asap using every power at community command. Jusdafax 08:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC) UPDATE: Have placed an ANI-notice on the two talk pages involved. Jusdafax 08:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

*NOTE: Not unexpectedly, "Filmcracker" has summarily deleted the AN/I notice from his/her talk page with the comment "No clue what this is all about", an action which is another hallmark practice of this user. Centpacrr (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Ban- We've banned for less... --Rockstonetalk to me! 13:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Some examples of prior administrative involvement relating to disruptive editing by this user are: , , The user has received multiple prior warnings including Wikiquette Alert.. Some (but certainly not all) of the IP accounts he/she has been identified as using to engage in disruptive tactics on Misplaced Pages are: , , , various IPs in range 64.252.*.* (, , , , , , ), various IPs in range 12.76.*.*(, , , , , , , , , , ). Also in a period of just three weeks in May, this user (as anonymous IP 75.2.209.226) also started and perpetuated 16 separate threads in various Misplaced Pages boards and talk pages (See ,, ,, ,, ,, ,,, ,, , ,) in a pattern of Wikistalking of both me and a number of other editors who had deigned to disagree in any way with his/her personal views of how Misplaced Pages should be edited. His/her campaign to that end consisted mostly of posting dozens of universally condescending and demeaning comments apparently designed to intimidate, questioning the motives of other editors, disruptive editing (including making blanket reversions of other editors' contributions either without edit summaries or with demeaning ones), making blanket accusations of "vandalism" and "spamming", and demonstrating an unremitting lack of any assumption of good faith on the part of any other editor while he/she repeatedly demands in edit summaries and postings that all of those whom he/she was criticizing blindly owed him/her an unconditional assumption of good faith on his/her part. See here for the latest example of his/her "style" which I found posted on my talk page this morning. Centpacrr (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Support ban. Generally I’m a bleeding heart, but given this editor’s history of behavior and attitude of contempt (toward other editors and toward process), I think the chances of successful "reform" are essentially nill.

Also, will confirm Centpacrr’s observation that this user has a history of blanking his talk pages (to remove comments/notices posted by others - this has been commented on by other editors in the past). Eurytemora (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thought I should add – I have no personal history of conflict with this user (have always treated him with kid gloves, not wanting to become one of his targets myself, and have always tried to be fair/evenhanded/supportive), but recognizing the severity of the problem, I brought the issue to AN/I in June (which resulted in the indefinite block). Eurytemora (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Support ban This user has sucked hundreds of hours out of other editors with his contempt for the rules. That time could have gone to improving the encyclopedia. ɳorɑfʈ 02:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Heated discussion and serious charges

Somehow I seem to have ended up in conflict with user Woogie10w, who now most recently made some pretty hefty accusations about me Note that these allegations that he is trying to pin on me are usually associated with the far right, so he might as well have outright have called me a Nazi. The full discussion that led up to this is copy pasted to here, and here is my summary highlighting some of the accusations at the end. Some uninvolved Admin(s) should probably have a look at it before it escalates further.--Stor stark7 00:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

In a nutshell I never ever associated Stor stark 7 with the the far right or called him a Nazi. I have insisted that he stop POV pushing primary source documents, without reliable secondary source backup, to allege that the US was responsible for the mass deaths of German POW after WW2. --Woogie10w (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You have repeatedly alleged my intentions and used Bacque and the extreme right. E.g. "is attempting to misuse these primary source documents to synthesise a case that the US was responsible for the 800,000 deaths of German POW after WW2", and "brings forward the discredited claims of James Bacque that large numbers German POW died in Allied hands". As you say, this later if often connected to the far right. Not withstanding trumpeting your beliefs about my inner life.... This is a serious allegation to say that I'm bringing forward such claims. The least one could expect is a diff?--Stor stark7 00:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Please allow User:Nick-D to voice his opinion, since he has benn involved in this discussion--Woogie10w (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't really have anything to add to Woogie10w's comment above other than to endorse it, and don't want to contribute to turning what's a very straightforward question of using primary sources in articles into a full scale drama by posting a longer response here or elsewhere. Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Edits like these look like POV-pushing to me, using primary sources to draw conclusions (WP:SYNTH). At the same time, other edits look like they are based on reliable, secondary sources. I see a polite, reasonable discussion pointing to edits out of keeping with the content policies that do indeed appear to use primary sources to push a secondary conclusion - SYNTH - and a rather egregious POV at that ("the French abused German prisoners of war"). This information can be included in the article, but must be attributed to a secondary source rather than undertaking what looks like a smear by insinuation. Get a secondary source, I'm sure there is one. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 12:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The root of this problem seems to be attempted original research by Stor stark7 (although it isn't clear exactly what edit they want to make). What is clear is that other editors have argued that primary sources shouldn't be used to draw conclusions unless they are interpreted by secondary sources; in contrast Stor stark7 has argued in favour of primary sources being used by Misplaced Pages editors to interpret secondary sources. That would seem to be an elementary error and quite unencyclopaedic. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 01:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the "root" of this problem, is obnoxious borderline Nazi accusations since they are coupled to mention of extreme right in connection to the work of Bacque. User Woogie10w has made straw-man accusations, repeatedly calling me not to use primary sources to make edits in support of an author whose work is connected to the far right. As you yourself note, you could not find any edit I was supposed to have wanted to make, didn't that give you pause to think?

Did you read the here discussion? Or just the straw-man section?

Woogie 10w has made the following statements:

• " intention is to use these primary source documents to discredit the work of Overmans and support his own POV" and
• "User:Stor stark 7 attempted to exclude other editors from the discussion and direct his remarks only to myself" and
• " brings forward the discredited claims of James Bacque that large numbers German POW died in Allied hands"
• "Stor Stark7 is attempting to misuse these primary source documents to synthesise a case that the US was responsible for the 800,000 deaths of German POW after WW2. "

Maybe I reacted too strongly, maybe it is allowed to make bogus claims about other peoples intentions, and if you tell me that this is so I' will take this lesson to heart and refer to you.--Stor stark7 07:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Sarah777

After a period of calm since the Ireland naming poll concluded, Sarah777 (talk · contribs) has decided to get back into Troubles issues, and resume labeling anyone and everyone who doesn't interpret the goals and methods of WP:NPOV the way she does, as a British nationalist. See this for example, just one of a series of shotgun one line comments to that page with little or no value except to inflame and attack. It's tiresome, and based on experience, she won't quit, and will probably even get worse, without some serious feedback. It needs nipping in the bud, or you will be seeing her name pop up here regularly for the next few months, if this latest venture back into the field is not just a one night thing. MickMacNee (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I see the same sentiments in your posts here and here. Pot. Kettle? --HighKing (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

More like Shakespeare and the Telly Tubbies. I'll freely defend any part of those long and considered posts in detail and with evidence, if you've found any part of them to be as inflammatory and unconstructive as one of Sarah's little buckets of sunshine. MickMacNee (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a fraught area. I suggest both of you moderate your tone. Isn't there still an ArbCom probation on these articles? --John (talk) 02:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

A 1RR restriction on certain tagged articles is all I'm aware of. MickMacNee (talk) 02:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no, it's 1RR on all Troubles-related articles, tagged or not, broadly defined. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually I didn't edit any "troubles-related" article. But for "inflammatory and unconstructive" comments please have a leisurely read of the record of MickMac! It was his extreme British Nationalism and agressive negative characterisation of Irish editors that drew me to engage in the "British" Isles debate yesterday. I could not sit back and watch WP:NPOV being trashed by the usual suspects. Nor will I in the future. Sarah777 (talk) 07:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

coming from the person that wanted the British Isles article completely renamed its funny to hear you talk of WP:NPOV BritishWatcher (talk) 10:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I still want the "British Isles" article to be restricted to the British Isles. I'm unclear as to why that makes my comment above humorous. Sarah777 (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sarah777, "I want" doesn't get. Misplaced Pages is not the place to right great wrongs. "British Isles" is a phrase that includes the island of Ireland and nothing you can say here will change that. I know you don't like this, but you're going to have accept that this is a general usage in English. And yes, I am British, and no, I'm not a "British nationalist". Continue your activism against the term "British Isles" off Misplaced Pages, please. Fences&Windows 00:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I want the loaded term "British" Isles removed from the title of the article that includes sovereign Ireland in order to uphold the principles of WP:NPOV. The phrase is not used to include Ireland in the most common collective descriptions of the islands. Wiki should reflect this - not British Nationalist pov. I see, despite your protestations, that you support British Nationalist pov in this instance. Maybe you should take your nationalism elsewhere? Sarah777 (talk) 05:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Besides one intemperate post is there anything we actually need to be concerned with here? If not, I'd suggest that John's response is enough. TFOWR 10:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Spammer at work

An industrious spammer has been at work tonight from at least two accounts, User:Jarjarbinks10 and User:Bickeringwife (both now blocked). It looks like time to add the "helpful link" to the blacklist and to consider blocking (at least for a short while) the IP used, if the spammer was using a single IP. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Any way to catch the edits in the meantime? It would seem a very long process to go and revert every single edit; it seems to be editing at bot speed. --Ks1stm (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The link in question can be seen in this diff, and there's nothing there of use to the encyclopedia. Blacklisting is a no-brainer, in my opinion. There are editors out there with mass-revert scripts for exactly this kind of sewage dump, but it depends on catching the spam on your watchlist. Any other solution won't be faster than just blacklisting the URL. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Now Jetlagorange (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well. Can some administrator just blacklist the link, please? — Gavia immer (talk) 02:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: a huge number of these accounts have been already been blocked by a checkuser. Elockid 03:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

And Barek has blacklisted the link. Thanks, Barek and anonymous checkuser. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

In the future, please report these to the global spam blacklist. The requirement for multi-wiki spam is relaxed for pure spam like this. MER-C 05:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

BLP

This survived for three days. When is Misplaced Pages going to get flagged revisions? 80.176.233.6 (talk) 05:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Never, actually. You can read about what we are doing instead though at WP:PC. Prodego 05:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a problem, but flagged revisions isn't the only answer. Vandalism patrolling and warning editors is another example. Why didn't you do that? The IPs talk page was non-existent. I added a warning. Subsequent editors will be able to quickly asses the editor made a problematic edit. I'm all for enhancing the system, but let's use the one we have now too. Shadowjams (talk) 08:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Would there be a point warning an IP address 3 days after an edit? In 3 days, I wouldn't expect to have the same IP address any more, per se. 80.176.233.6 (talk) 08:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, if a defamatory addition like that is just "simple vandalism", Misplaced Pages needs more than just a selective 'pending changes' experiment. 80.176.233.6 (talk) 08:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right, we must address the underlying cause of this sort of vandalism or we will get nowhere. I propose mass lobotomy to disable humanity's sense of humor.
Speaking more seriously, the pending changes system will be a massive step forward both for bio pages and high-traffic/controversial articles in general, since we'll have a way to render edit warring and vandalism pointless without resorting to locking the pages and discouraging new contributors. --erachima talk 10:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's a serious issue and one that I've found even respectable vandalism patrollers don't quite grasp. The only way to make it clear is to warn every instance and report every repeat. We're not out to bust anyone, but we're here to improve an encyclopedia. I feel like the people on this thread have that in mind but they haven't had the appropriate level of respect delivered. Shadowjams (talk) 10:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting how the edit was not picked up by the 'possible libel or vandalism' filter. -Reconsider! 12:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be a candidate for revdel? Rehevkor ✉ 16:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Zapped. Fences&Windows 00:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikihounding by Drmies

I'm being wikihounded by Drmies. Here are 3 examples: , , and . I don't see any other edits by him in those or related articles, he probably saw one of my edits in recent changes and took the opportunity to push his POVs. I was planning on discussing it with him, but before I had a chance he did it again. While I just created an account, I've been editing anonymously for a long time and know enough about[REDACTED] policies to know this behavior is unacceptable. TJ Black (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If you could link to your anonymous edits, that would be helpful. Thanks. Prodego 06:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, they've been under multiple IPs, most of which are shared so not all of the edits are necessarily mine. It's not clear why it would be relevant either, but if it is I will share them. TJ Black (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

From the links I see that Drmies has reverted edits you made to all of two articles. That doesn't in itself constitute hounding - do you have some reason to think that they're reverting you just to annoy you, rather than disagreeing with your edits in good faith? Olaf Davis (talk) 09:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with this user's edits in good faith, and I assume that their edits are in good faith--though if a user persists in what I consider removing information without a valid explanation (see Prostitution in Turkey), and I see that that user editing an important template such as "Violence against women," well, then I think I have a right to look into that edit. And what do I see? The removal of "Human trafficking" from that template.

This user has 53 edits, though they are obviously more experienced than that, finding their way to ANI immediately. Many of their edits are limited to the field of prostitution, and the ones I outlined above are all concerned with this one argument, "human trafficking ... explicitly violence directly solely at women" (from this edit). Frankly, I think that that argument is BS, and anyone who knows anything about human trafficking (or who takes the time to read up on it) knows that its prime issue is trafficking women for the sex industry. It seems to me that the persistent removal of human trafficking issues from prostitution articles is evidence enough for POV on this editor's part.

Do we have a content dispute? Possibly. Am I hounding this user? Absolutely not. Are they whining without proper cause? Yes they are. I welcomed them and gave proper edit summaries, and then look at something like this--removal of sourced content, where that content, only a short paragraph, was perfectly in agreement with the Manual of Style, and I hope that someone else will agree with me and undo that removal. I don't want to do it since *gasp* I might be hounding them some more! TJ, if you want to play here, play by the rules. Dragging someone off to ANI for good-faith efforts does not set the right tone. Drmies (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I see that TJBlack has moved the text that I mentioned above as removed to Human trafficking in Turkey, here. I wish you had put that in the edit summary--but I do repeat that such a paragraph is NOT out of place in Prostitution in Turkey, even while I agree with you that HTinTurkey needs an overhaul. But for both articles, proper and well-sourced expansion is the answer, as I have tried to initiate, not removal of content. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This has indeed been reverted by another editor. This complaint appears to be without merit: It's NEVER wikihounding when objectively inappropriate edits are reverted, no matter how many articles are involved, and that edit was objectively unreasonable as entirely inconsistent with WP:SS. Jclemens (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

To add to what Jclemens has said: reviewing another editor's actions, and reverting those which seem to violate policy or guidelines, cannot in good faith be called wikihounding. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

IP user(s) adding fake track listings to music articles

First of all, I need to disclose that I haven't warned all of the users I need to talk about. They're IP users (although maybe only one or two humans), so I don't see how it's possible or necessary to notify them "all". I have, however placed a notification on User talk:118.71.150.36, who's had several warnings including a "final warning".

The general description of the situation is that a small set of articles about music albums/CDs are being vandalized by IP editors who change the titles of the songs in the track listings. This is not a content dispute (although, heh, I know I'm right); rather the IPs are intent on changing the titles to songs which are not-immediately-obviously wrong. For example, the titles for very young children are changed from "The Morning Song" to "Love Is a Many-Splendored Thing" (with Alvin and the Chipmunks). The addition of Alvin and the Chipmunks is a frequent part of the pattern. Another change was from "Ten Little Indian Boys" to Elton John's "Sorry Seems to Be the Hardest Word", after being faked to "Hushabye Mountain" (with Alvin and the Chipmunks).

Some of the specific articles are Singing in the Twins Wonderland (Volume 1), Singing in the Twins Wonderland (Volume 2), and Singing in the Twins Wonderland (Volume 4). These are apparently (I didn't know this three days ago) from a series of CDs and DVD of children's songs from Twins, a duo from Hong Kong. Other targets include The Chipmunks Sing the Beatles Hits (BeeGees songs slipped in to Beatles list), Sorry Seems to Be the Hardest Word (categories and text changed to make it a Sherman and Sherman song from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang), The Greatest Songs of the Seventies and The Greatest Songs of the Eighties (Elton John and BeeGees songs added to list, though they're not on the album).

The complete list of articles can be found by following the IPs' contributions. The IPs can be identified by looking at the long series of edits in the articles' revision histories. (They keep making one or two changes, then two more, tweaking their tweaks, and they never use edit summaries. Here's a series of 72 edits to one article using multiple addresses.) These are some of the addresses I've found:

• 113.22.42.31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.42.137 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.42.239 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.44.97 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.85.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.100.228 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.113.107 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.116.165 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.122.227 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.160.112.78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 118.71.63.210 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 118.71.127.212 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 118.71.150.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 118.71.166.133 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

These look like the ISP is in Hanoi, Viet Nam. They've been around since the end of June, happily changing (and changing, and changing again) without much notice, AFAICT. I don't know if a range block (or two) is appropriate, or if it's better to semi-protect these articles. Or what. Thanks for your attention (and, potentially, for pointing me to the place I should have brought this). — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I see you informed one IP user. I've just informed all the others. It's likely that this is one person and thus the notifications are unnecessary, but we should still notify all the IPs in case this is not the case and give them the opportunity to defend their actions / deny their association with the other IP addresses. GiftigerWunsch 07:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! But: "all the others"? If you mean all the others I happened to include on my list, then I am sad to report that our work isn't finished. I just selected some of them so that I (we) could see where they're coming from. I left a lot of others out when I saw they were in the 113. and 118. ranges. Should I warn them, too? Or just add them to the list here? Both? Or did you really warn them too? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 11:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I warned the ones on the list. Have all of these IP addresses been adding fake track listings? I've noticed two or three of the IPs have received final warnings and then stopped, most of the others haven't received warnings, and none have been blocked; it seems the individual responsible is hopping around a lot, and clearly across multiple IP ranges. It seems unlikely that range blocks will be effective or sensible in this situation. Page protection of the articles most affected is probably the way to go. GiftigerWunsch 12:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, without exception. Two edits made by these guys/this guy are potentially good ones: assigning Cantopop as the genre and adding a category of concept album, but the same IP who adds these will also add Alvin and the Chipmunks or change one song title to some other thing. It's like they're making just minor, good-faith edits, you know, officer, just standing around looking at the interesting billboard, not doing any damage or anything, and when the cop comes back, 2/3 of the songs have been written over in black spray paint and there's a moustache on the girl's face.

113.22.100.228, at least, is currently blocked. The thing about the page protection is that if the articles they've hit so far get protected, they'll just move on to BeeGees articles or Barry Manilow's discography. Or is that the best we can do, and just hope they get a girlfriend or something? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 12:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

There isn't really much else we can do; a rangeblock won't work because the individual is clearly using several different ranges, the only feasible option is page protection and/or a community ban. GiftigerWunsch 20:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It'd be good to get a list of all the IPs used, to see if some fine-tuned rangeblocks could be used. I know there's also a tool to see what edits have been made from an IP range (so we can see what collateral there would be), but I can't for the life of me remember where it is. Failing a rangeblock, what is the full list of targeted articles, so these can be semi'd? Fences&Windows 00:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Sunny Sweeney

I'm having problems with this article. DabblerSmurf (talk · contribs) keeps adding a B&W image of the singer with an improper OTRS, File:Sunny Sweeney 2010.jpg. I have explained to this user at least twice that the image is unsuitable, but the user keeps adding it. Could I ask that someone please set this user straight in a more tactful way, and maybe list the image for deletion on commons? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 12:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The question of the licencing of the image is an OTRS matter, so it needs someone with access to address that. Mjroots (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Tothwolf case flaring up

Given Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf, the deletion nomination of User:Tothwolf/List of quote databases (MfD discussion) by involved party User:Miami33139 probably needs more eyes. Uncle G (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Prediction/threats to blow up High School in Garden City, Michigan

This and several like it are probably just some punk kid, but I feel I have to report this here since you never can tell these days. Threats to blow up a high school have got to be taken seriously. Is there another board to take this to, or is this the right one? By the way the IP is now one more vandalistic threat away from a block, so someone should just take care of that now, as I see it. Thanks, Jusdafax 13:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd simply inform the authorities and let them handle it — even though I believe that's just a kid trying to have fun, I prefer to err on the side of caution and think those threats should always be reported. Salvio ( ) 14:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, in any case. Thanks, JDF.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Glad to be of service. What authorities should be informed? Police Dept. in the town, the High School, or both? I'll call 'em if it is the right way to go on this issue. Jusdafax 14:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest ring them both, but that's just my non-admin opinon The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm not one either, but it was my reverting that started this. I'll call. Better safe than sorry. Jusdafax 14:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Jusdafax. Drmies (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd ring them both too. Thanks from me too. Salvio ( ) 14:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd contact the Foundation as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok. The police have been notified and are looking into it. I'll give Cary a call at WMF when it opens in 90 mins. Good thought Wehwalt. Thanks all. Jusdafax 14:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

In most places in the US a high school will have a "school resource officer" or some similar title - a resident police officer or police liaison. These sorts of reports get routed to them by the police department. My experience has been that these officers are usually clued in and have dealt with Internet-related threats/jokes/harassment before, and can assign an appropriate level of concern. Acroterion _(talk) 14:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that the police have it, I'm not going to phone it to the High School. But I'll see what the WMF thinks. Jusdafax 15:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC) UPDATE: Cary is not in on Wednesdays but I left word with the front desk. Jusdafax 02:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this linkspam?

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk · contribs) has been adding a link to he/her personal bog on Talk:Gantz and Talk:Psychic Academy about a minor story were a mother complained to a city council that two books caused her son to "lost his mind" when he stole them from the local library and read them. I've removed the link under the WP:LINKSPAM as LegitimateAndEvenCompelling was clearly trying to hawk his/her blog, but LegitimateAndEvenCompelling kept restoring the link. —Farix (t | c) 14:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

looks clear to me its a link to POV statements by some unknown blogger trying to make there point (avoiding a law suit) . Is there any real news story here by real news agency? However is all this just on talk pages to prove a point ??Moxy (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Not true, TheFarix, as explained here, unless TheFarix removes it again, along with the comment of another editor.

Further, let me add in my over 8K edits here over the years, I have only linked to my work a very few times and only in appropriate circumstances or with appropriate explanation, as I did here. One editor has finally looked at my link and decided the references were worthy of linking directly. For TheFarix to decide to remove links to "a minor story" is pure POV and lack of AGF. The links are there in Talk on purpose for people to decide if the stories are worthy of including, and I explicitly excluded my blog. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Why did you post a link to your personal blog instead of the actual new report. By the face of it, you were simply generating traffic for your blog. Nothing else. —Farix (t | c) 15:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I also want to know. I'm confused as to why someone who has 8k edits here thinks blogspot is a reliable source. --Smashville 15:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Smashville, I specifically stated my blog was not a RS but the 3 links contained therein were. In hindsight, the time I saved by adding the 1 link with explanation instead of the 3 links has been far outweighed by TheFarix's action against my simple edit. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes odd comment you have done this before? - We are not here to add content or traffic to your personal web page. As stated before pls use actual links to actual articles and not your blog. Moxy (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I explained why in the link I linked. Go read it. But basically, it was easier for me to add the single link than to add the 3 links. Was I lazy? Perhaps. Was I toying with Misplaced Pages? No. Instead I contributed by advising the regular editors of those pages of a significant story that may be worthy of inclusion in the article. In other words, I was attempting to contribute. Further, I am happy I brought those stories to the attention of the regular editors, but I am not happy TheFarix made it his personal mission to decide "a minor story" needed to be wiped off the Talk pages while assuming bad faith. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk)

That sounds very much like at attempt to spam your blog. And I don't by the laziness argument as copy and past is trivially easy to do and would have been less effort to post the link to the original story instead of creating a blog post and post a link to it. —Farix (t | c) 15:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not view what I did as spamming my blog. Really, on the talk pages of some manga pages? Come on. The point was to advise the regular editors of 3 versions from reliable sources of a significant story that I'll bet right now gets added somehow to the main pages, unless you create in people's mind a prejudice against such additions as a means to support your assumption of bad faith. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If you must link to your blog to "advise the regular editors" about source, then you are clearly doing the wrong thing and the link is nothing more than linkspam. Any "advice" to other editors about an article's contents should be on the talk page, not on someone's blog. —Farix (t | c) 15:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No. You apparently have not read the linkspam page and choose to persist in assuming bad faith. Isn't this getting tiring? Why don't you just evaluate the 3 RSs I provided. I know you called them "a minor story," but it is not minor and it may be perfect for the main wiki pages on the very manga work claimed to drive a child into "extensive therapy". Drop the procedural moves to prove your point and try to contribute to actually improving Misplaced Pages. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you stop trying to find excuses to promote your blog on article talk pages? Link spaming is, after all, any attmept to promote one's personal web site. —Farix (t | c) 15:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

(conflict edit) You seem to be more concern with getting your point out there, then the actual article. Have you actually edited this article in question or have you just been is the talk pages adding your blog?? Moxy (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Same answer I just left applies here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Nice assumption of bad faith - I would file this in the "doesn't anyone have anything better to do" department. Even if the claim is true, that LegitimateAndEvenCompelling is tooting their own horn a bit here, where's the harm to the project that necessitates removing talk page comments and then escalating this to an administrative complaint? I agree to some extent that it's a little forward to start a new discussion topic on two different articles with a message that says, basically, "check out my blog - it has something to say about the topic". But so what? Most computers have an "ignore" button these days, and if you really have to say something, why not leave a polite comment? Linkspam is mostly an issue in article space, where editors with a commercial interest or some other personal stake are trying to use the popularity of Misplaced Pages to further their own interests, at the expense of Misplaced Pages's objective coverage of a topic area. Given that few people follow these links, and it doesn't affect google rankings anymore, it's not an effective spamming method anyway. It's a problem mainly because it hurts articles and takes some effort to clean up. Posting links on a talk page doesn't hurt the encyclopedia in this way, and at worst it catches the attention of article editors who, unlike casual readers, should be able to deal with it directly one-on-one with the offending editor should they choose. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Wikidemon - this appears to be extremely frivolous and not worthy of admin attention. Talk pages have wider latitude than article pages. Someone with 8K edits is obviously here to help build the encylopedia, a one off link to a relevant post on their blog on the talk page of the relevant article is not a shooting offence. Just ignore it if you don't like it. Exxolon (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

In summary, then:-

• All parties agree that it would be better for the article Talk pages to contain links to reliable sources rather than to a blog.

That said, it would be better for user LegitimateAndEvenCompelling to alter their own comments than for other editors to do so. I think that unless the above point is disputed, we can call this one resolved. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to do that (just not tonight). But what about all that unnecessary back and forth? May I remove that? Do I just remove it or do I just use strikeout code? Does it really matter now? The kerfuffle died down immediately after Wikidemon's common sense. This matter is essentially resolved. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Strikeout is the best way to withdraw a remark you yourself have made, since a reader can easily make sense out of later comments. It's generally counterproductive to strike out others' comments. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 22:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well said, Wikidemon. I see nothing in the talk page that LegitimateAndEvenCompelling should strike out. -- Hoary (talk) 00:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel, meaning no disrespect to you, I'll not strike out anything, in light of Hoary's comment, Wikidemon's comment, and the others who have found this molehill to be a mountain. I say this matter has been resolved, and the longer it stays open, the more time we all spend on a molehill. I'll say this, my attempt to save a little time sure backfired. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

user editing for the behalf of banned users

See the village pump policy page. An editor there is trying to delete all the sockpuppetry pages as a point attack in the GW articles. This is precisely the kind of thing that banned users would celebrate so can someone stop him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.134.161.68 (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

the village pump policy page is well watched and will be fixed and the appropriate action taken ...thank you for the notice. Moxy (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Another Southern California IP trying to wikistalk and harass Ricky81682 wherever he goes. –MuZemike 15:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

REVDEL required

While digging into the history of Fergie Olver came across these two egreriously offensive edits. & - can someone purge please? There may be more in the history I haven't spotted yet. Exxolon (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably also . Exxolon (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I've RD2'd the edits (leaving the IP address and edit summary in place). I'll look for more; if you see any in the meantime ping me on my talkpage (less visible than here). Thanks! TFOWR 16:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - will message you on your talk if I spot any more. Exxolon (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Looks like a brewing BLP issue too; additional eyes would be helpful. –xeno 16:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It's not really brewing as such. It had been on-going at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Fergie Olver for a day or so before this. Uncle G (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Fouad.baroudi repeatedly recreating speedily deleted copyvio articles

Resolved

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards