Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:39, 11 February 2011

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

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

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

Rollback misuse

Greets. User:Gunmetal Angel seems to use his rollback quite at random, so I just wanted to let some admins know to check it out. He seems to rollback quite any uncomfortable edit that he disagrees with but has nothing to do with vandalism or whatsoever. For instance, he rollbacks other users's contributions to discussions and ignores them. He also reverts obvious good faith edits (including added links to other language wikipedias like here - see bottom of the diff). Now i just spotted him as he plainly rollbacked a bunch of copyedits, updates and cleanups that i did. i'm not sure if he has any idea what rollback and reverting in general is for... cheers--Lykantrop (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lykrantop, did you notice the bright orange box when you edited this page? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

NOBODY NOTICES THAT BOX. IT IS POINTLESS. /shouting. I'll notify User:Gunmetal Angel. Protonk (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

nvm you did. Protonk (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

For now it should be sufficient to remind the editor that Rollback is only to be used for blatant vandalism, and more importantly, it's not appropriate to remove legitimate posts from talk pages using ANY editing method. --King Öomie 18:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not the first time that this editor has had rollback removed for using it in an edit war. I've removed it again. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, i'm sorry. I did notice that box but i forgot afterwards. my apologies.--Lykantrop (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

After a quick check, I also have concerns about this editors use of rollback. He ought to have been blocked for edit-warring on In Fear and Faith yesterday. I won't do it now (36 hours after the event) but he/she needs to know that this is not acceptable. That was clearly a content issue rather than vandalism. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

That looks a lot more like reverting vandalism than edit warring to me. Changing "post-hardcore" to "teenybopper" is something that's hard for reasonable people to agree on, generally.... (oops, forgot to sign...) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yesterdays edits sure did look like reverting vandalism, yet I would be very concerned over the other rollbacks, that clearly were not vandalism, especially the edits on the talk page.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

If there's nothing recent, I don't think its a huge deal. I made a bunch of bad rollbacks when I first got rollbacks as I wasn't used to the button being there.. _WikiMan 19:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

In light of the comments here I have returned rollback to Gunmetal Angel and apologised to him/her. It seems I misjudged the situation. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The above mentioned In Fear and Faith block is not the problem here. I am more concerned that an editor attempted to disuss on Talk:A Beautiful Lie but his comment towards Gunmetal Angel "Can you give me the link to your source please?" was just rollbacked by Gunmetal Angel. Another editor on Tool (band), who added information with sources, copyedited the article and added Korean and Basque language article links, was just reverted by Gunmetal Angel. That is intentional disruptive behavior, ruining the work of others and ignoring good faith discussion. After he rollbacked my contributions, i contacted him/her, but he/she resumed to edit, ignoring me. He/she cries out when his/her powers are shortened, even though vandalism can be reverted without rollback just well. That isn't very responsible and is up to admins to decide whether it's acceptable.--Lykantrop (talk) 12:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to see an explanation of these actions. It is possible that they were mistakes (but in that case the user does seem to make a lot of mistakes). Otherwise it would be good if GunMetal Angel would assure us that rollback will not be used in this way in future. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

As you may see, Martin, Gumnetal Angel just doesn't care. As long as he can display his rollback rights on his page that give him enough self-confidence to be ignorant, he's allright. If those edits were mistakes, he would have fixed them. But he didn't and he obviously ignores you too. I told him "Please—don't revert others' work on a cursory, skimming, didn't-read basis without paying enough attention to judge the merits of it (...) one has to remember that doing that kind of reversion to newbies would constitute WP:BITEing. It takes good contributors and sours them on future contributing." But he has no idea what i was talking about. Your apology to him was out of place, but i'm not gonna waste my time on him anymore. Happy editing, cheers.--Lykantrop (talk) 10:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

What the hell? The In Fear and Faith thing was nothing BUT VANDALISM, which I have every right to use rollback on. And FYI: I used that rollback on accident! A whole night of continously using rollback on In Fear and Faith in A VANDAL THAT CONTIOUSLY MADE EVERYTHING AN ISSUE made it quite a simple mistake to revert ONE USER'S EDIT ON A PAGE BY MISTAKE. You don't even consult me of this, and threaten to block me over reverting vandalism and then rip away my rollback rights because I hit the button on accident in regards to attempt to revert the edit in a different way? Yeah, this is real nice; I hope this has became of notice that a mistake has been made here, and I would really need rollback again as soon as possible hence the same vandal is once again attacking articles as we speak. • GunMetal Angel 20:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

What the hell indeed. Wasn't genre-warring the main reason I blocked you a year and a half ago? As a matter of fact it was, this diff: (for some reason this thread does not appear to be in your archives) shows as much. And this diff: shows you promising never to do it again. Edit warring over what genre a band is is just silly. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request

7Mike5000 (talk) (contributions) was blocked for making this comment about an editor, in this August 2010 AN/I thread, which was construed as a threat:

I also think your twisted behavior and medical disinformation you are disseminating via Misplaced Pages is harmful and egregious enough where something needs to be done, I think somebody needs to notify The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan or at very least the staff of Wikimedia should be made aware.

Mike was unnecessarily combative, overly sensitive to actual or perceived insults, impatient, and prone to assume bad faith. He is aware of this behaviour problem and has resolved to change. He has contacted me and asked if I would keep an eye on him, and offer advice and guidance where appropriate. I have agreed to do that for a couple of months six months a year. Mike has created some very worthwhile content and, if he can reign in his impetuosity and adopt a temperate and cooperative approach towards others, will be an asset to the project. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Updated 10:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

His request is well spoken and seems sincere. I'd be inclined to give him the chance. --jpgordon 03:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'd very much stand behind this. Mike is an outstanding contributor, something wikipedia is lacking. Occasional hot-headed moments aside (we're all guilty of becoming impatient at some point or another and losing our cool (and this is an aside from the issue of threatening off-wiki action)), Mike's comments were never suggestive of any realistic action being taken. His edits to various eating disorders have made them into great articles. Blocks are not supposed to be punitive, but rather preventative, and Mike's apology is an indication of genuine reform in my opinion. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 04:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose It's a clear threat for off-wiki action, or at least to instigate such action. Yes, there are people who will take the comment literally and actually do it. Apologies that suggest "oh, I'm just a hothead", or "I'm just a whiny bitch" cannot retract the action. Can you imagine the absolute shitstorm if someone actually already has taken the off-wiki action? This is not the type of behaviour that can be readily forgiven - people's livelihoods must be protected. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support - as Anthony is willing to mentor, and the unblock request shows awareness of what the block was for and commitment to not repeat the behavior, I see no reason not to give Mike another chance. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• I might be mis remembering things—didn't he actually end up contacting The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan that same month (Aug 2009)? Although we have a policy against legal threats but none against legal action (which really ought to be remedied), I think we can still apply the same principles here—no unblock without a full redaction and withdrawal of case. NW (Talk) 14:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • As far as I know, that was a completely different case: this regarded suicide and a particular image said to glamorize it, and your link talks about the Rorschach test. Besides, the date of your link is 8/23, and the date of the diff above is 8/25.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
    • And it was also 2009, not 2010. My bad. NW (Talk) 14:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Absolutely regardless of whether Mike has made a legal case, that is beyond our reach. By announcing you are a doctor on Misplaced Pages, you very much leave yourself open to criticism on your ability as a medical professional - This is the risk you are taking by using your career as a levy behind the edits you make. A formal complaint to the COP are up to the COP to deal with, not us. We deal with an internet site, they deal with the livelyhood of patients. Threats are prohibited because of their manipulative effect. Contacting a body that manages the medical profession for a perceived threat to the safety of human life is the right of every person. If someone comes here, says "I'm a doctor", and then publishes incorrect medical advice, I would implore users to make that kind of decision; just as we would contact the police if somebody threatened causing harm to others. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 14:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
    • If you threaten a person's livelihood on Misplaced Pages, you "severely inhibit free editing of pages, a concept that is absolutely necessary to ensure that Misplaced Pages remains neutral. Without this freedom, we risk one side of a dispute intimidating the other, thus causing a systemic bias in our articles and create bad feelings and a lack of trust amongst the community, damaging our ability to proceed quickly and efficiently with an assumption of mutual good faith." And that's just from the no legal threats guideline. How much worse is an actual legal action? The policy is clear on that too: "If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, it is required that you do not edit Misplaced Pages until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels." We don't prohibit anything, but I think it should be made clear that employing both the legal or professional system against another editor for whatever reason and also expecting to stay in good standing on Misplaced Pages is an insane proposition.

      In any case, Mike has apologized for his statement, so I think NLT is no longer a major issue. Still, this issue impacts more people than you might think, and imagine if you were forced to drop $10,000 or more on legal fees because of something you did on Misplaced Pages. Even if I were completely innocent, that would be enough for me to never edit Misplaced Pages again. I think we should take his words more seriously than you seem to be doing. If I said "over the next six months, I am going to be suing you and contacting your state board, and you're going to have to pay $5,000 a month just to appear in court with a halfway decent lawyer," wouldn't you be pissed and expect at the minimum, that the Misplaced Pages Community™ not treat the two of you exactly the same? NW (Talk) 15:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for Mike, but my impression is he understands the destabilising effect of his comment and regrets having made it. I also get the distinct idea he doesn't share Floydian's languid view with regard to occasional hot-headed moments, but deeply regrets every outburst, and has sincerely resolved to eliminate that behaviour from his repertoire permanently. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

We're all human. We all make mistakes. I do not condone those moments, I'm merely stating that we're all subject to them. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 16:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not convinced that we are all subject to moments of threatening legal action against people. I'm fairly certain, for example, that I've never done that myself, and I very much consider threatening legal action against subject-matter experts to be inimical to our project. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and I certainly didn't mean to refer to that. I just meant heated discussions in general. Threats are a very different matter, as they undermine the very basis of our community and everything WikiPedia stands for. That said though, I reiterate that I believe Mike's commitment to reform himself is genuine and that he has enormous benefit to offer the encyclopedia as a contributor here. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 19:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• The key issue would seem to be that we need to know: (1) did anyone ever actually follow up on that threat? and (2) did the editor himself actually follow up on it? The threat was a severe attempt to intimidate. Is the target of that threat still feeling or being threatened? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Looks like the target has given his OK provided it includes some editing restrictions. If the admin is willing to shoulder this problem, then OK. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• To be candid, I'm not happy about the prospect of unblocking this account. I want to be forgiving, and perhaps Mike could become a consistently useful contributor, but I have very little hope for long-term success and less trust that today's apologetic approach will be present next week, much less next month. I realize that such candid comments must be painful for Mike to read, and I am sorry about that, but this is the direct and unavoidable legacy of his previous choices. I wish my experience had been the same as Floydian's seems to have been. I found that Mike created a high volume of problems, rejected advice, was frequently insulting, and turned simple little things, like 'Please stop WP:COLLAPSEing content, because it harms people who use screen readers', into dramatic discussions. I do not think I could support unblocking this account without a clear topic ban for anything even remotely related to mental health (which is, unfortunately, what he wants to work on), and a specific and not especially sympathetic admin publicly identified as a parole officer to whom any complaints could be directed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • James has suggested a topic ban and Mike has. agreed. I wonder if James would consider being his parole officer. He's not especially sympathetic to Mike but seems to think he deserves another chance. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support: People should be trusted to do what they say they're going to do absent a convincing reason. What he says he is going to do is enough. Most importantly, reblocking him if he stepped out of line would be no big deal. It's far too hard to get unblocked around here. Egg Centric (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• oppose I can see that consensus will go against this !vote, but speaking as a licensed Physician it seems clear to me that this user is not aware of the seriousness of a threat to report allegedly inappropriate behaviour to the Royal College, however unjustifiable such a threat is; as is the case here. I also note a long string of adverse comments made by this editor relating to at least five other editors working in articles on mental health issues. I would only support an unblock in the presence of a topic ban on all mental health articles for at least six months, and longer would be better. --Anthony Bradbury 19:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • We have no idea how long it will take for Mike to demonstrate an ability to operate collegially here. Nominating an arbitrary length of time for the topic ban is crystal ball gazing. Whatamidoing has suggested his behaviour be monitored by a parole officer. Let's leave it up to that person to decide when lifting the ban is appropriate to propose lifting the ban. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Updated 10:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Is the topic ban the right thing, or is it better to insist he never makes threats such as that again? How does a topic ban help? Incidentally, is it possible to say if he ever does make a spurious complaint to the GMC-equivilant he is immediately and irrevocably banned? I think that should be a must. Egg Centric (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Or possibly, seeing as Mike has a lot to offer to these topics in terms of content and research/sourcing, a no-drama talk-page approach? Allow Mike to edit the talk page of these topics, but institute zero tolerance on escalating any contention or issue while he is mentored though the ropes. Six months seems to be what most are suggesting. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 19:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Mike feels very strongly about psychiatry and mental health issues. The proposition is that the best place for him to learn to collaborate with and trust his fellow editors, and improve his understanding of (particularly sourcing) policy, is on other topics. He knows the consequences of taking off-wiki action against other editors. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Good. Looks like a solution is very close that should satisfy everyone :) Egg Centric (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
        • I how this will work out: "he feels very strongly about X," "he has strong opinions about X," those strong opinions have led him to make serious threats in the past," therefore a mentor will help him avoid those problems. I wouldn't mind an unblock if he agrees to post to Anthonyhcole's talk page every time he posts more than one time to a talk page, and so long that he knows that any hint or threat of real world action will be met by an instant site ban. NW (Talk) 19:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
          • The crucial points are insight and decision; help and guidance are important but without the former, the exercise is futile. I'm here because I see the former. Even with all these factors in place, there are no certainties but, because they're in place, I think an unblock with the abovementioned restrictions is appropriate. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: Whoah: I just saw what he was complaining about! While the user has of course obtained permission from the patients, and thus these images are ethnically acceptable, it should be incredibly obvious why people could have strong feelings about this. Therefore one should be especially happy to cut the chap some slack. Indeed, it is not unreasonable to wonder whether the authorities ought to have been contacted! That a user asserts consent doesn't mean they had it. This is not in support of Mike's position, as per my philosophy I am perfectly happy to trust the uploader, but it is in understanding of it - I can see how others would be skeptical. Egg Centric (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • There is no excuse for Mike's behaviour towards editors he's been in conflict with. He needs to make a behaviour change so dramatic that many of the above reasonable people are skeptical it can be done. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I want to clarify that my concerns are completely unrelated to the circumstances that (finally) produced Mike's block. Even if he'd never said a word to Doc James, I would still have concerns about his behavior. I suspect, for example, that a person who really had developed insight and discretion, or even a very moderate level of skill at manipulating people, would use less disrespectful language when asking for discretionary favors (e.g., to be unblocked). Mike's unblock request shows skill at self-flagellation and a passable level of giving the "right" answer, but not skill at dealing with people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
      • The only thing that will demonstrate an ability to (radically) change his way of dealing with people is a trial. I've got a life, and I've got goals here. I'm not going to let him waste my time. I certainly don't see my role as making excuses for him. Either he can do it or he can't. We'll know soon enough. As for Machiavellian intelligence, he's working on it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• I don't want to be the cause of delaying the outcome of this appeal (whatever that is) but we really need a numbered list of what restrictions are going to be in place (and if we need to make any modifications, this would also be the time). Frankly, in the absence of Anthonyhcole being willing to sort of bend over backwards for him, I'd have opposed downright as there isn't a great deal to consider due to the seriousness of the behavior being reviewed. That is, this is by no means an ordinary violation of policy. That said, Anthonyhcole seems to be willing...so here we are...let's get on with it. Obviously a topic ban would be indef, but as things are never permanent on Misplaced Pages (in theory), we might need to put a restriction on when he can appeal. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• My default reaction would be that anyone who makes a legal threat as egregious as the one that was made in this case should probably ought not ever be allowed near a "Save page" button again anywhere on this project. Legal threats — especially ones that threaten the livelihood of an editor — are insidious and we are lucky that the one in this case did not end in the permanent loss of at least two editors (the one making the threat and the one on the receiving end of the threat, as well as anyone else editing Misplaced Pages who could be similarly vulnerable to such threats). If this block is lifted, the one restriction that I think is essential (in addition to any others) is that anything even remotely resembling a legal threat at any point in the future will result in an immediate indefinite block, along with a resulting community discussion on a more permanent ban. jæs (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • That's perfectly reasonable. Would an admin be prepared to volunteer for the parole officer role? I'll stay in close touch with Mike (as much as being in opposite time zones will allow) and keep the admin informed of his progress (or otherwise). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    • So amongst all this discussion where various concerns and proposals have been raised, the final list of things includes a final warning about legal threats (?) and a binding Community topic ban from psych and mental health issues (?)...is that it? Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support I think since an editor is willing to keep an eye out for a while that this editor should be given a chance back into the project. It seems this editor, 7Mike5000 understands what the problems were and has acknowledged the problems that we should allow the unblock. If editors prefer a restriction to psych and mental health issues than just do it for say 3 months and then see how things go. Let's please be fair and allow him back to prove he can be the asset that some think he was and can continue to be. I think Anthonyhcole volunteering to watch over is a good plan. I say lets please give this editor an opportunity. It's real easy to reblock if things don't work out, but if they do, we get an editor that helps us build an encyclopedia which is what we are here for. Good luck, --CrohnieGal 13:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment To clarify a few things. It was another Wiki editor who sent complaints to my college and they had nothing to do with Mike. The college has verified my written consents that I obtain from all patient who images are identifiable and have no concerns. Comment such as this "Indeed, it is not unreasonable to wonder whether the authorities ought to have been contacted!" and this "Mike's comments were never suggestive of any realistic action being taken." leave a sour taste in my mouth. That some here do not consider threats a serious issue is a concern.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Maybe I'm not an English Scholar, or maybe I'm from some backwards crazy loopy part of the world (I am from Canada, its possible), or maybe Doctors are just special fuzzy people... But there is no intent of action, or any sort of threat, blackmail, prejudice, etc in the statement that someone (ie, not Mike) should report a person. Thats an opinion and a statement, not a threat. I'm sure we as a community in "consensus" can manipulate it to be whatever we want, but the fact is that a threat is a communicated intent to do harm (physical or otherwise); not a communicated "somebody should report you" (but not me). Here's a comparison: I wish you would die vs I'm going to kill you. One is clearly a threat, one clearly not. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 15:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to recall a recent issue where a certain former Vice-Presidential candidate made a comment about a certain Arizona politician being "in the crosshairs", and lo and behold, said politician was shot in the head by someone who failed to notice that the comment was somewhat rhetorical (or at least symbolic). Suggestions of action can lead to literal action. (...and yes, I'm Canadian too) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, but should the vice president have been jailed before it happened for threatening to shoot her himself? The restrained person isn't in the wrong, its the person that actually commits to performing the actions. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 14:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Uh oh. Bwilkins, with the greatest respect in the world, that is a terrible example. Her quote was victim of the circumstance (and chance), it did not incite the action (at least, there has been no indication that it did so). The takeaway from it is; be careful what you say, because if it chances to come true you could get blamed :) --Errant 14:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

• Support with qualifications I am okay with Mike being unblocked with the following conditions:

1. Anthonyhcole provides mentoring for a minimum of a year specifically addressing issues of WP:MEDRS if he edits health care pages
2. Mike be restricted from mental health topics broadly construed including talk pages for a minimum of six month to give him time to get a better understanding how the community works.
3. A block will be reapplied if further civility issues were to arise.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Doc James' proposal. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support as proposed by Doc James. In case it is unclear to users who comment in this discussion, civility issues include (legal) threats (which is why the latter is not being singled out). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC) P.S. Should these conditions pass with community consensus, they will be listed at WP:RESTRICT. I also note that I specifically agree with Doc James that the topic ban is banning him from MH talk pages as failing to do so is failing to appreciate the inherent concern which gave rise to the MH topic ban. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The only reason I advocate opening talk pages is because blocks are preventative, not punitive. He has expressed his sincere desire to reform, and he should be allowed to do that in the place where he'll gain experience with MEDMOS and MEDRS. Learn by doing. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 16:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The ban extends to talk pages of the mental health topics - the ban is not for all health care topics (and that extension is necessary to prevent the issues that were caused by his involvement there). He continues to have the ability to gain direct experience with MEDMOS and MEDRS because he can edit medical or health care topics with guidance from his mentor (aka he can learn by doing); he just needs to steer clear of the mental health parts of the health care topics. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support with allowance for talk pages, so that he can actually participate in the consensus building procedures, and be forced to work alongside other editors, learnign to cooperate rather than acting in his own direction. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 15:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • My involvement depends on this temporary topic ban including the talk pages of MH articles. The point is to create a period where we can collaborate with Mike on less emotionally charged topics. This is a well-intended, good idea--Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Doc James' proposal, parties agree, everything reasonable - how could I not? :) Egg Centric (talk) 09:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: I think the third condition needs to also explicitly state that anything resembling a legal threat (as reasonably interpreted by any uninvolved administrator) would result in an immediate, indefinite block. I hope he now understands why these sorts of attacks are completely unacceptable, but I think it needs to be entirely clear. jæs (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support I support this per the proposer Doc James and with the agreement of Anthonyhcole. I also agree that this should be posted WP:RESTRICT. Thanks, --CrohnieGal 10:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: does anyone believe I would be horrifically changing things if I change "where" to "were" in restriction 3 ? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

  Definitely a typo that can be fixed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

  Yes always feel free to correct my spelling.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

  I strenuously object! NW (Talk) 15:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Doc James' proposal, without modification, looks fine. I think we have general agreement to unblock? NW (Talk) 15:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Question. What happens in six months, if Mike has been editing on policy? Does he apply for a lifting of the topic ban here, or does it just expire? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I would think that it would expire, unless you or another editor raises an objection to it before then. NW (Talk) 17:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
    • What NW said; if more time is needed under condition 2 or if there are issues that require the conditions to be modified further, then come back here (and notify the users who commented in this discussion). Mentorship would (per condition 1) continue for the 6 months after the topic ban expires (particularly as the topic may be emotionally charged in the transition period). At this point, there are enough comments to show a Community consensus. The reason this is open is for any last minute questions from either you (the mentor) or Mike (the user who would be subject to these conditions) about the practicalities of this. If there aren't any left, this can be closed and logged, while he can be notified of the restrictions and unblocked accordingly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I would have been happier if this user had given some indication that he realised the magnitude of a threat on a medical practitioner's livelihood or integrity, but if Doc James is comfortable then I must be. --Anthony Bradbury 20:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian/Viriditas

There is an accusation (that the accuser refuses to back up or act upon) that User:Jack Sebastian has had a previous account with which he has engaged in conflict/tendentious editing ] or is an SPI ]. The user has (reasonably) refused to state the ID of his old account , but has also refused to state that it was never subject to any community sanctions ] claiming that it would be possible to ID his old acount if he did so (or at least that what he appears to say) ]. This refusal does raise concerns that the account whilst it may have been 'in good stead' at the time it was retired may still have had issues relevant to his current activaties (also note the above ANI ]). I wonder if an admin could ask him to just confirm that he has no previous (and to confirm it) and post here that there is nothing to see (and to tell User:Viriditas to drop the matter, indead his actions also need looking into in this respect (given his refusal to act)). Or alternatively to say that there may be issues that needs dealing with.Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I have (in hindsight) decided that the scope of this needs widening. This is not just about Jacks second account. There is a major issue between these two users that is disrupting the project over multiple pages. I think it may be time that both users need to be separated. Neither seems to be able to work with the other in any way (and in both cases it does not appear that this is restricted to each other, both users have major problems with interacting with edds they disagree with).Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

As I have stated elsewhere, I am not going to out myself while Slatersteven - who bears me no wikilove - seeks to OUT me by proxy. I have done nothing wrong aside from oppose his viewpoint on a single subject. Indeed, considering Slatersteven's prior contact with me, I would suggest that his view on the matter is substantially skewed. As for the background of Slatersevens' comments, I state unequivocally that I have no interest in editing in the same articles as Viriditas. He jumped in on on a previous AN/I complaint (and one that happened to involve Slatersteven - imagine that) with some spectacularly bad faith accusations/attempt to OUT (1). When I asked Viriditas to elaborate, he shut down and ignored any request for supporting info. He then warned me off his page and his articles, which I did. Less than two days later, Viriditas is all over virtually every article I edit in, dropping personal attacks and driving away at least one user from the Project. Currently, Viriditas' behavior is the subject of a WQA elsewhere; I am attempting to follow Dispute Resolution to the letter. Slaterstevens, (who has a well-documented axe to grind here) has been unable to force me to self-OUT there, now seeks it here, which I find unacceptable behavior. I had suggested there that Slaterstevens drop the matter; we can see how well the user took that request to heart. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate it greatly if Jack would stop with the uncivil comments and personal attacks and accept consensus on the articles in question, stop editing in a tendentious manner, and get back to editing the encyclopedia. Jack has been engaging in this behavior since October 2010 in regards to editors who disagree with his position in the Chaplin "time travel" articles. I only became aware of it recently in January and stepped in to try to help resolve the dispute. As far as I can tell from the consensus on the matter, the dispute is at an end, and I would appreciate it if all involved editors would accept the consensus and move on to bigger and better things. I want to thank Jack for participating in the discussions and look forward to working with him constructively in the future. Viriditas (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You might have considered that before you began your wikistalking of me, Viriditas. Unless further expansion is requested from an uninvolved party, I am keeping further explanations of your behavior within the WQA.

That said, I will say that you have deeply misrepresented your actions here. I have had no interest in editing with you since your oblique accusation of socking three weeks ago in this very noticeboard. I would like you to stay away from the articles I edit in. An easy matter, since you never edited in them before demanding that I stop "hounding" your articles. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

That is why I have launched this, to get some outside input into your dispute with this user.Slatersteven (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Jack, Would you be willing to submit the name of your former account to an Arbcom member? That way it is not necessary to spread it all over Wiki but we can verify your previous account was not under sanctions. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Not particularly, no. I am unsure why I have to surrender my privacy for a fishing expedition. As before stated, Arbs are just admins, and admins are human, prone to making mistakes, like OUTting me offlist and whatever. All I have done is oppose three other editors who seek to reframe a content issue by making it about me. By submitting myself for subjective examination, I am being stripped of my privacy - punitive action for simply disenting - while those casting aspersions and calling for said scrutiny face no negative repercussions when it is verified that my old account was not under sanctions.

I have asked Viriditas elsewhere to submit the name of the admin who apparently seems to think they know who I am, or the Arb he says he is in contact with. Alternatively, they could contact me. He has chosen not to do so. As I lose more than I gain from surrendering my privacy, I am hesitant to do so. The four accusing me lose nothing but an argument of distraction. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, Thats a fair answer. I have to agree casting aspersions is basic WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, violations and if persistent closes into WP:NPA territory. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

If there is evidence of Jack Sebastian being a previously sanctioned user who is violation of WP:CLEANSTART then it needs to be presented or Dropped entirely. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me make this clear. This is not just about Viriditas accusation against Jack Sebastian. Its about both users general attitude. Moreover I do not know what evidance Viriditas may or may not have (one of the oddities wiht this is that if I AGF with Viriditas I have to assume he has good reason to have his doubts, but if I AGF with Jack Sebastian I have to assume he has not). Given teh amoount of spavce that the teo users are taking mup with thier sniping I felt that as neither was willing to act someone else ahould. I agree that (and I have said this) that if Viriditas cannot produce any evidance then he should shut up. I just wonder why the simple question w'as your previous account ever blocked?' would be such a tough answer your Jack to answer. It would make (and would have made AGF on his part easier if he had just said no. How is that asking him to out himslef?Slatersteven (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a reasonable request. After all, Jack is often harping on the block logs of other editors and at the same time, boasting about his 6 years on the project. It would make sense for Jack to contact our trusted arbcom and reveal his previous account and associated logs. Otherwise, it does sound like he's gaming the CLEANSTART policy, and if his previous account was reported on the noticeboards for the same behavior that brought him here again, the community would certainly want to know. I hope Jack will contact the arbs and put an end to this. Viriditas (talk) 23:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Personnel officer: Mr. Sebastapol, you say you have six years' database experience with TechniCorp, correct?

Mr. S. That's right.

P.O. But no one at TechniCorp has ever heard of you.

Mr. S. That's because I worked there under a different name.

P.O. Oh, that explains it. And what name did you use there?

Mr. S. I'm not going to tell you.

P.O. Hmm.

- brought to you by Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The best bet at this point would be for Viriditas to take has concerns to his most trusted admin and have the admin check to see whether the previous ID left under a cloud or if it's a non-controversial change of name. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I can assure you that it was non-controversial; I was not shown the door, so to speak. I've committed no offense except for being stubbornly adherent to policy in a content dispute and (rightfully) intolerant of being stalked and harassed by another user. Are we engaging in witch-hunts based on that now? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Without giving away the game, can you tell me, in general terms, why you abandoned your old account and created a new one? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Boredom, largely. Really, there was no grand secret plot or mad dash for the border. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If there were no issues with your previous account, why the secrecy? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

As a general note, I also abandoned an old account which is not linked to my current account. I will not state the reasons for that other than to say that the old account never in came up on an admin noticeboard, much less had any blocks. Just because there were no issues with the old account doesn't mean you want all of wikipedia, and in extension, the world, to know. If there is no good reason to disclose it, then don't disclose it. _WM 08:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed but this user has been accused fo abusing fresh start, and his evasive answers at the time I ask him to deny he has ever been subject to any actions by admins caused concern. I would argue he continues to not deny he was ever subject to admin intervention. Nor has he been asked to provide account details, just to deny the account was ever subject to sanctions (at least by me). But I also note that Viriditas not only does not provide any evidence but also now seems to be using the same kind of weasel words to avoid making black and white statements. I begin to believe that in this case not only are both users not acting in strict good faith but also both are in fact being disingenuous.Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Simply put: unless you have evidence the user was previously a blocked/sanctioned account, this is going nowhere. Asking him repeatedly to deny the accusations is McCarthyism. Either present evidence to ArbCom, or drop it until you have evidence JS is a bad-hand account. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if it would be okay to discuss the wikistalking and problematic behavior on the part of Viriditas now? WQA suggested that the matter should probably be brought here instead (they only deal with solvable issues between users).

After his comment on this board three weeks ago (the one that initiated all this prior account bs), I asked the user a few times what they were talking about. Viriditas deleted the question, unanswered. Then, in a conversation with another user, he stated (actually tweaking his post to make it more offensive):

"The fact is, at least one administrator is fully aware of the real situation and watching it closely. That's about all I can tell you at the moment. However, many editors know who Jack really is, as his game is very poorly played. It's actually quite sad and pathetic to watch. My best advice to you is to stay away from him. I plan to do the same unless I see more of his nonsense on the noticeboards or on my watchlist. This guy is bad news, trust me"

Now, that was a hot mess of personal attacks, but I decided to instead focus on finding out the name of the admin he was referring to. My question was first avoided and then deleted. The next day, he posts an 'official notice', asking me to not stalk, hound or follow his edits around, "trying to annoy him".
Less than 48 hours after this post, he begins showing up at virtually every page I edit in, concentrating on one article in particular, often baiting me with comments about my being a "new editor" - a belief he has admitted here and elsewhere he has never held - and reverting my edits. Granted, this isn't someone screaming that so-and-so is a total pig-f***er, but the wikistalking and the personal attacks are pretty clear. And constant. Wikistalking and personal attacks, with lots of bad faith added. That's got to be some sort of trifecta, right?
I readily admit that many of the content changes Viriditas has added to the aforementioned article have improved it via expansion, but the cost in civility and snarky personal attacks and game-playing seems a bit high of price to pay, and I'm not the only one who thinks so. Indeed, one editor (who had created over 100 article), retired his account immediately after a long, drawn-out exchange with Viriditas.
Clearly, I am not neutral in this matter - the guy has worked overtime to poison the well where I am concerned, and I am deeply bothered by the tone of his comments about me that I wonder where its going to stop - when he shows up at my front door with flowers and a knife? Or maybe something less violent-y but ruinous anyway? (not offering up any ideas, as per WP:BEANS)
Even if Viriditas was actually correct in knowing about my previous account, he readily admits that the "conflict" with this other user was over three or four years ago. Is this how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work now? Some guy seeks to dismantle a user he has a single article content dispute with by any method at his disposal, and it's tolerated because they are a veteran editor? Man, I hope not. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

As I have said (twice) this is not just aboiut your actions. I want the pair of you to bring your complaints about each other here rather then gloging up notice boards and talk pages with your dispute.Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no, we shouldn't encourage these two to bring any further complaints here either. If I read the situation correctly (I have a pretty clear idea who the previous account is), then these two users just need to step away from each other completely. I suggest a no-interactions rule and blocks if we ever hear either of them making negative remarks about the other. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

That seems OK. I wanted the dispute to end as its taking up way to much space. Neither user was (or is) willing to resolve or report this So i thought I should. I think a restraining order is the best solution. How will it work?Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with Slatersteven's position, and I've already responded to Jack's allegations in a previous discussion. He ignored my responses and raised the same claims again, pretending I had not already responded to them. I don't believe I require a "no-interactions rule", and I think I've used the noticeboards and talk pages in the manner they were intended, for the sole purpose of working towards resolution of content issues and improving our articles. Jack, not myself, has continually referred to his previous account before I even made my first comment on the subject. I also believe that by contacting an arbcom clerk, I acted in good faith with the desire that someone other than myself deal with this issue, instead of attempting to "out" Jack on-wiki as Slatersteven demands. Therefore, I do not agree to Future Perfect at Sunrise's "rotten apple" solution, as I believe it attempts to sanction me for following our best practices and procedures. Viriditas (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Viriditas has been acting to uphold policies, and has been met with a barrage of complaints and nonsense from Jack Sebastian, including an overblown WQA case that was just tossed out. I first stumbled upon this situation when I saw the "1928 cell phone user" nonsense posted on the fringe noticeboard at the end of October. Re "cleanstart," I have no idea who this user is but I do know that he has used his mysterious former account to bludgeon others in content disputes. See, e.g., (claiming had been onwiki "years longer than you") and in which he told me "If you'd like to consult with an admin on this matter - as you seem to be unwilling to take the advice of someone with almost 30,000 edits and 6 years of experience - please feel free." I looked at his contribution history and saw someone with less onwiki experience than me, and a clean disciplinary record. If this is a veteran user with a problematic history, it seems to me that editors have a right to know that. He has been warned by an administrator concerning his problematic behavior but it didn't take. When a user behaves in a problematic fashion but has used clean start to get a fresh contribution history, it presents a special burden for other users.ScottyBerg (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would agree to a 'no contact' ruling, even though I did nothing to initiate contact with him for the simple reason that I am very uncomfortable with the apparent level of dedication this user has in trying to hurt me. This matter has all been of his doing, as I did not initiate contact or comment with Viriditas in the first place (he did so, with a well-poisoning hint of outting). After that comment here in the widely-read ANI, I simply posted on his page asking him to detail his accusations; he deleted the conversation, requesting that I not to "hound his edits". Again, I complied. Less than 48 hours later, Viriditas was all over me like white on rice (that is to say, over almost every article I work within regularly), reverting me and making further personal attacks, challenging me on noticeboards, starting subpages about me, etc. It might seem unfair to say, but its all a little creepy..

I could either get chased away from the articles I was working in, or respond to the editor. I restate this background because I feel it necessary to emphasize that I have not sought out contact with the editor. I have done everything Viriditas has asked of me in avoiding him, but he clearly doesn't feel beholden to follow his own request. Without some reason to stay away, I am concerned that his behavior could escalate. If I am as exposed as he seems to think I am, I am very uncomfortable about the idea of Viriditas showing up on my doorstep, or calling my employer or such. Without a clear statement to stay away, I have become convinced that he will not choose to stay away. He might not be this type of person, but why bother taking the chance. Ask him to stay away; I have no plans to contact him. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
And to respond partially to Scottyberg's post (I consider the former account discussion a nonstarter), the WQA was closed (not "tossed out") because the issues (accusations of SPI, HARASS) were beyonf the capabilities of WQA to resolve. I further note that the closing admin suggested it be initiated elsewhere (read: here). I'll close by pointing out that Scotty isn't really a neutral party in this discussion; he immediately contacted Viriditas to seek out details of my former account to call for my head - all based out of a content discussion. (For all I know, Viriditas could have shared more details of his suspicions via email, which presents it's own set of problematic issues). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The three editors closing out the discussion on WQA all concurred that your complaint had no basis. Also, if you go to the top of the WQA section, it says "No clear indication that this was a wikiquette violation on the part of Viriditas." ScottyBerg (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

A fairly bold misrepresentation of the facts, Scotty (and bizarre, considering how easy it is to check). The three edits said no such thing. Additionally, the full text of the closing comments by Eusebeus was as follows:"No clear indication that this was a wikiquette violation on the part of Viriditas (talk · contribs); WP:SPI and WP:HOUND issues are beyond the purview of this board and should be taken up at AN/I or other more appropriate fora. If you aren't prepared to offer neutral information, perhaps you should step aside, allowing those who can to do so. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh please. Enough already. See the comments by Eusebeus, Figureofnine and Ncmvocalist, concurring. Eusebeus said "I do not see egregious violations of our civility policies on the part of Viriditas, who, as a seasoned and veteran editor, well-knows the limits of what is permissible engagement." Figureofnine said "I agree in all respects. The complaint has no merit and the allegations need to be pursued elsewhere." Ncmvocalist said "I'd also echo that." Bizarre indeed.ScottyBerg (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Enough. This needs to stop, right here and now. I will block either V. or J.S. if they continue commenting on each other, here or in any other related thread. Moreover, I very strongly recommend both should avoid following the other into further page or dispute they are not already both involved in. I hope they can handle this without the need of a formal community sanction to that effect. If there is any unavoidable open business in any content dispute they are already both involved in, such as that "time traveller" issue, they can finish that off, as long as they both stick very closely to the "comment on content, not contributor" rule. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

So, the "I hath spoken" choice. Okay. I never started the issue and never wanted the escalation. I don't see myself seeking him out for long walks on the beach. So, does one or the other of us run to you if the other start up? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Both sides are being asked to drop the matter now. Johnuniq (talk) 06:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I believe we figured that one out, John. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion / Portal of Evil

Not to speak out of turn here, but this nomination was a pretty bad WP:COI violation which probably went unnoticed because nobody looked at the page. The deletion nominator, Ben Schumin, was one of Portal of Evil's most infamous targets, essentially a PoE-only meme who kept returning to the site to be picked on by the site's users for years and years. He seems like a capable Misplaced Pages editor; I don't have any clue why he would create a conflict of interest as bad as this. (It looks like the site itself has been deleted. I'm not sure how to prove what I'm saying unless there's a Google cache of the massive forums.)

Its deletion was incorrect, too, since only one person voted. Aren't deletion nominations supposed to be relisted until a few people actually show up to vote/comment? 68.109.238.244 (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

SchuminWeb (talk · contribs) and Tone (talk · contribs) notified. GiantSnowman 00:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

A shame there wasn't more participation there (if this is procedurally relisted, I'll gladly go enter in a call to delete), but going by the cached version, the article was nothing more than "look at me" self-promotion with no 3rd party reliable sources to justify its notability. The Wired article was on the spyware, not the website. I really see no merit to the alleged COI either; just because a bunch of internet eToughs may be picking on someone doesn't make said someone's nomination for deletion on notability grounds any less sound. Tarc (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it is a shame, and a surprise, that the discussion had so little participation. I was honestly expecting it to be a drama-filled discussion where the {{not a ballot}} and {{spa}} templates would have to get pulled out. That said, however, I don't think that disclosing that my site was a target of the subject's commentary was necessary, as the decision to nominate for deletion was made solely by doing an analysis of the coverage in reliable sources. My site being discussed (and made sport of) on the subject's site has no effect on whether or not the reliable sources are present. By not injecting myself into the nomination, it allowed those reviewing the nomination to look at the article on its own merits without letting personalities get in the way. I did think long and hard about whether to disclose or not, but ultimately determined that it was unnecessary. If the complainant is sufficiently concerned that this AFD was not handled according to process, then they should file a deletion review and have the process reviewed. I have yet to see any discussion or even concern on whether process was followed in this instance, as the main concern here seems to be solely on who nominated it rather than the process, its outcome, or the merits of the article that was under discussion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I personally think A) the nom should have mentioned the COI just to be complete, but that it's fairly irrelivant in this case and B) with one !vote to delete, a relist isn't unreasonable. Contact the closing admin and ask for a relist. Failing that go to DrV and ask for one. That said, the article needs more than the one RS it had at the time of deletion. Hobit (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons I don't like to close "1 voters". (another being that when someone comes to my talk page asking "why did you delete my article?, I usually say something like "because there was a consensus to do so here" I can't do that with a straight face if only one !voter agrees with the nom) From looking at the OP's contributions I see that he was not editing between the 28th and the 8th. The AFD ran from the 29th to the 5th. I wouldn't be opposed to reopening this and letting him have his say but otherwise I agree with Tarc.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This particular admin obviously is very stringent with the rules except when it comes to his own behavior on Misplaced Pages. He habitually adds his own blog as a reference! e.g. A fun day was has by all? ], big bad protester ], and of course his witty observations while on vacation ].Why does the search Schuminweb on Misplaced Pages have over one hundred results? 70.69.35.166 (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

I, as the closing admin, am willing to relist the debate and give it more time to form a consensus. It seemed a rather clear deletion to me but no harm in seeing more opinions. --Tone 08:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Why bother? Considering the tone of some of these IP commenters, including the fact that one of those complaining has never edited Misplaced Pages before, I'm getting the feeling that the complainants are just upset that they missed their chance to call out all of their friends and their friends' socks and have that drama-filled slugfest that they didn't realize that they wanted to have until it was too late. If this is that important to them, I say make them go to the trouble of listing on deletion review. There is no quorum for deletion discussions, and it is not unheard of or untoward to tell someone, "I'm sorry that you missed the discussion", as I recently had to do with someone. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

There may not be an official "quorum" but I myself would like to see at least 2 editors concur with the nominator (3 or more is better) for any kind of "hard" delete decision for "articles". However, I would hate to have that idea tested on this case. At least the admins who do close "1 voters" as delete such as Cirt are pretty good at restoring and reopening these if someone who is actually here to build an encyclopedia wants to have their say. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, valid discussion, valid result. Anybody can take it to DRV if they must. As for COI, the COI of the IP editors, who are evidently associated with that website and seeing this as just another opportunity for harassing their victim is much more of a problem than any COI the nominator might have had. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

That said, I have to agree with the latest IP on one point: the "schuminweb" blog ought not to be used as a source on Misplaced Pages. Ben, if you inserted those links, can you please see to it that they get removed? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Correct, Schumin Web isn't a good source, though I'm not digging around and removing things just to remove them, especially since it's been many years after the fact, and I have better things to do than to go through 80,000 contributions just to skim out a couple of links. In the normal course of editing, yes, let's replace them with better sources.

Otherwise, I tend to agree - this seems another effort at cyberbullying, which is what the subject's site specializes in, and we should not be in the business of enabling cyberbullies. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The 101 links to schuminweb.com can be found here. Cunard (talk) 07:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting the feeling that the complainants are just upset that they missed their chance to call out all of their friends and their friends' socks and have that drama-filled slugfest. In other words, "Everybody on PoE was an asshole to me. Signed, Ben." How this doesn't constitute a COI is beyond me, but the ends justify the means, apparently. Deletion discussions aren't votes, so however many PoEtards showed up to make the same argument ("KEEP because Ben is fat," etc.) wouldn't matter. Also, please read WP:AGF. I would have voted to delete if I could have voted. You may or may not know this, but I can't vote in deletion discussions.

I have no idea who that IP is, I don't know what you mean when you hit me for my "tone," and I don't know how to do a deletion review. So you win. 68.109.238.244 (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

User:David Tombe is being abused by me

I'd like to report myself for losing my ability to not respond nastily to David Tombe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Can't we arrange for another year of two of physics topic ban for this guy? Dicklyon (talk) 05:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Um -- this is a backhanded way of making a complaint, indeed. If you lose your own temper, have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 08:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's magnificent actually. At one stroke Dicklyon admits his shortcomings and accepts any consequences for them, while at the same time focussing our attention upon the real villian, Mr. Tombe, who from a brief glance does look rather a nuisance. In fact it's so good I'm going to see what barnstar I can award the former. Egg Centric (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding my mixed feelings, and for your cool barnstar. I have numerous times advised others to simply ignore David's nonsense, yet I seem to be unable to take my own advice. Dicklyon (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you gave that advice on the cf page and I ignored it. I was wrong but I have now heeded it, you should too. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

David is still under general probation, as listed at WP:Arbitration/Active sanctions. I've not been following the discussion at Talk:Centrifugal force but it looks like he exceeded the terms of that sanction a long time ago.--JohnBlackburne_deeds 18:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If you would like admin action, e.g. a ban from Talk:Centrifugal force, then please present evidence that User:David Tombe has "repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum". Fences&Windows 20:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

He two weeks ago posted some clearly incorrect physics (it's at the top of the talk page), was told by three different editors he was wrong, reminded of previous warnings on pushing his fringe ideas, and stopped. Only since then he's joined and started further discussions pushing the same incorrect physics, , , , , , ,..., undeterred by further editors pointing out his errors. --JohnBlackburne_deeds 21:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The simplest approach might be for any editor who thinks David Tombe is not adhering to proper standards to open a complaint at WP:Arbitration enforcement and ask for an appropriate sanction under his general probation, which was made indefinite by Arbcom. See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Remedies, item 6.2. EdJohnston (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

For those not familiar with the case that involved David Tombe (the Speed of light case, though centrifugal force was mentioned in the scope statement), the final decision is here. My reading (as a former arbitrator) of the general probation (which I voted for at the time as an arbitrator active on that case) is that this was intended to cover the uncivil behaviour mentioned in the other finding related to him. The fringe advocacy finding was dealt with by the physics topic ban remedy (which expired in October 2010). Reimposing the topic ban is something that might be simpler and quicker to take this straight to an amendment request (it depends on whether those active at arbitration enforcement think it is within their remit to renew an expired topic ban under the provisions of the still-existing general probation). My view is that it looks like David Tombe has returned to his previous ways, and that a topic ban should be reimposed, but that it should be ArbCom that is asked to rule on this, at an amendment request. David Tombe would have to demonstrate whether his behaviour has changed or not. Carcharoth (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This can go straight under the general probation, which does not seem to be limited to civility problems. Arbcom knows full well how to write a civility restriction, and the general probation here isn't one. It's more like a discretionary sanctions regime, and AE has routinely reimposed under those regimes arbcom-imposed topic bans that have since expired in cases of renewed misconduct, as far as I know.

Turning to the merits, it seems obvious to me that David Tombe is engaging in exactly the same type of behavior that got him sanctioned in the first place, in the same set of pages, no less. Therefore, in accordance with Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#David Tombe restricted, David Tombe (talk · contribs) is hereby banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to physics, broadly construed across all namespaces. T. Canens (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Fences&Windows 03:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It also seems to directly contradict Carcharoth's words: My view is that it looks like David Tombe has returned to his previous ways, and that a topic ban should be reimposed, but that it should be ArbCom that is asked to rule on this, at an amendment request. David Tombe would have to demonstrate whether his behaviour has changed or not. Dr.K.  03:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I take note of Carcharoth's comment, but the language of the Speed of light case explicitly allows admins to impose additional sanctions on David Tombe. (The remedies regarding Tombe were more strict than those applied to Brews ohare, since Brews' probation was for just one year, while Tombe's probation was made indefinite). Their decision states:

David Tombe (talk · contribs) is placed under a general probation indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions if, despite being warned, David Tombe repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum.

Arbcom used the phrase 'discretionary sanctions' a number of times in their decision. In fact, the log shows that Tznkai took an enforcement action in November, 2009 which imposed a further restriction on David Tombe. If David objects to this new topic ban from physics articles, the usual appeal process is open to him. He can take the matter to WP:AE, and if not satisfied with the response there, he can go to Arbcom. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Ed for clarifying. I would have preferred if Carcharoth was allowed to proceed on the plan to involve the Arbcom further before any action was taken. Dr.K.  04:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I did look at Carcharoth's comment. That's why I specifically discussed the probation's difference from civility restrictions - arbcom has a fixed formula for those as well: "X is subject to an editing restriction for Y. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be briefly blocked...". This is not one of them. T. Canens (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

In Talk:Centrifugal force, David is defending an alternative idea that there really is an actual force of separation between adjacent members of a centrifugally rotating material system and that the system can then be made to transfer angular momentum and associated kinetic energy away from the system due to the existence and occurrence of this Centrifugal force property. The other editors in this matter seem to want to be "left alone" from discussions concerning this aspect of the subject matter. Since the utility of the use of the subject matter is better understand the correct functioning of same, it seems reasonable that such a discussion should be a reasonable topic of discussion in a talk section.WFPM (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I think 2+ years without a source that supports his POV was more than enough discussion, to justify some of us wanting to be "left alone" as you put it; and he never advanced the position that you just described; that must be your own POV. Actually, I don't think I've ever heard of a "centrifugally rotating material system", so don't know what you're referring to even. Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between debating alternative physics and theories (that is better done on various forums that are available around the internet, rather than on Misplaced Pages) and using talk pages to improve the associated article. From what I can see, there is far too much discussion of the physics rather than discussing the writing and improvement of the article. This is what was a problem before, hence the action taken here. Carcharoth (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Noting here that this is also being discussed at User talk:Timotheus Canens and User talk:David Tombe. It may be worth keeping an eye on those pages in case things get out of hand. I will be leaving a comment at the former page advising on what should be done here, but as an arbitration enforcement action has been taken, there is no need (yet) to discuss the matter here, so this thread can probably be closed. Carcharoth (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Charcharoth, Thanks for opening the debate surrounding the evidence which was presented. You have claimed that I was using the talk page to discuss physics, rather than for the purpose of discussing how to improve the article. And you hold up the diffs provided by John Blackburne as being evidence that I was promoting fringe ideas. Let's look at the very first diff provided by John Blackburne. It is this . I was responding to an anonymous who had asked a question. I don't see where I have promoted any fringe ideas. I began by referring the anonymous to an excellent source which actually clarified some of the confusion surrounding the issue. Here is the source, . It explains how Leibniz had deduced that centrifugal force is an outward inverse cube law force. But as is well known, there was an intense rivalry between Newton and Leibniz and when Newton saw Leibniz's equation, he criticized it and claimed that centrifugal force is the equal and opposite reaction to the centripetal force. The sources which the anonymous was producing were sources which related to the Newtonian viewpoint. But the Newtonian viewpoint is no longer the foremost viewpoint being taught nowadays at university. I don't see any misconduct on my part. It was a talk page discussion aimed at trying to improve the article, and that involved trying to establish some kind of understanding of the subject matter. In my opinion, dicklyon was being obstructive and on his own admission, he was being uncivil. The truth is that T. Canens engaged in a knee jerk reaction, and as we all know very well, those kind of knee jerk reactions, which are all too common, are never reversed. David Tombe (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:Bullying

User:Ms. Black Gold on Stereotypes of white people

The user has been blocked twice for edit warring over this material. Both before and after I reported it to the RS/N.

MBG has once again returned to re-add the material. MBG has once again reverted a user who removed it..

I long ago gave reasons for why I removed the material. Here is a summary of the objections I had made up to when MBG was blocked for the first time. A dozen or so other editors criticised the material or removed it, but she reverted or ignored them all.

If Misplaced Pages means anything, this editor either needs to be warned off or blocked yet again. BillMasen (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems a bit extreme to say that "if Misplaced Pages means anything," action needs to be brought against an editor who hasn't been here since before last Christmas. Dayewalker (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm just saying that the clear consensus, in every case, was against this material. Surely re-adding it isn't acceptable? Or is someone going to have to sit on the page and clean it up every week or so?

If you think you can reason with the editor concerned (after looking at these edits) that would be great. I presume you agree that MBG's contributions on this page aren't acceptable? BillMasen (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Um, the editor in question hasn't edited ANY page since 23 December 2010...GiantSnowman 23:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

So when I revert back to the consensus version, and she undoes the edit, will it be a problem then? Hey ho... BillMasen (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If that happens, then maybe there's an issue. At the moment, it isn't an issue, since they aren't reverting - or, indeed, making any edits at all. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yep - revert back, and if/when she reappears and becomes disruptive, then it's a time to get admins involved - but presently there is no issue to be resolved. GiantSnowman 23:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have indefinitely blocked the account. Respectfully, I disagree with a wait and see approach in this situation given the history of the user. The contributor was blocked on July 7 for edit warring on the same article. The first and only edits she made after return were to resume edit warring, whereupon she was blocked again with a caution that further such activities would result in further sanctions. Her first and only edits after return from that block (albeit delayed by some months) were to immediately resume edit warring, including reverting the contributor who reverted her. If blocks were punative, there'd be no point in blocking months after the fact. But they're preventative, and there is every reason to believe that this contributor intends to ignore consensus and continue pushing her point of view at her leisure. An indef-block, of course, can be overturned by any plausible indication that she understands that this is unacceptable behavior and will stop. --Moonriddengirl 13:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Horrible block. Nothing in contributions that would support an indef block. Support unblock. -Atmoz (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Repeatedly edit warring to restore the same material that got her blocked twice, somehow that doesn't support an indef block? Do remember indef is not forever, just until they agree to stop the edit warring. Support the block. Corvus cornix_talk 18:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Good block. This user's only contributions to Misplaced Pages over the last six months have been to continue the same old edit war. Two previous blocks of escalating duration failed to drive home the point that this conduct is inappropriate. An unblock can be considered if this editor demonstrates an interest in contributing constructively to Misplaced Pages and a commitment to avoid the edit warring in the fugure. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Best block ever made. Clearly preventing disruption, indefinite is not infinite, if they wish to be unblocked and be allowed to edit they can engage in discussion on their talk page and give an account of their actions. --Jayron32 02:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

User:R3xmAs recreating hoax article

For the second time (fifth time if you count the three user pages) R3xmAs (talk · contribs) has created a hoax article about a non-existent manga. The first time was at Nirvana (Manga), which was speedy deleted under A1. The second time was as their main user page which was speedy deleted as a blatant hoax. The third time was at User talk:R3xmAs/Editnotice, which was nominated for MfD as a possible hoax. Now the user has recreated the article back as their main user page and at Nirvana (manga). All references on the article are faked and links to the same Facebook page. Since this user keeps recreating this hoax in both article space and in their user space, a block may be warranted. —Farix (t | c) 01:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's so much a hoax as it is wishful thinking. I'm going to write him an explanation of our purpose at his talk page. If he keeps it up after that, I think an indef block would be appropriate. --Moonriddengirl 13:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Soft block?

User Timneu22 has apparently retired and has noted that he/she will edit from another account in the future, if at all. Can an uninvolved admin please comment/proceed on soft blocking the account to prevent future misuse? Thanks. Wifione _....... 01:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why we'd do that: this seems to be an attempt at making a clean start, and the relevant policy says nothing about blocking the old account. Nyttend (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

IF it becomes compromised We'll do something. Compromised accounts have a hard time not being noticed. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought we discussed this a couple months ago in regards to deceased users. There's no need to block. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Perfectly alright. No problems. Thanks. Wifione _....... 05:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I also wouldn't block, since there is an open RFC on this user's conduct. Blocking this account would make the user unable to participate in the discussion except through either their talkpage or outing whatever clean start account they may have created. Syrthiss (talk) 13:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

User: CandyYo

Hello, I am requesting that User: CanyYo be temporarliy blocked, because of persistent vandalism. I continuously told her that Radio 1 is not a reliable source, but this user continued to revert my edits on Like a Surgeon (Ciara song). Then the user tried to put that Go Girl (Ciara song) was the lead single from Fantasy Ride, despite me trying to show them different sources that state otherwise. Thius user has shown that they arent willing to discuss or reach consensus as they even threatened to block me: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:68.79.92.229 , and refused to listen, despite my continuous asking to discuss the problem : http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Candyo32 . If not blocked this user needs to be put under observation. Thak you. --68.79.92.229 (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

CanyYo (talk · contribs) ---> Candyo32 (talk · contribs) Tbhotch* 03:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Which Radio 1 is not a reliable source? Mjroots (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

From the article, it appears to be none of them, but rather www.radio1.gr... Radio 1 Rodos Greece. I'm skeptical about its reliability, especially with the "(Hated on since 2002)" at the bottom of each page, and am surprised there's no other source for a release date Worm 13:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Well the IP user is adding original research to an article, claiming that their are "cancelled" or "demoted to promo singles" which is untrue and is impossible to happen, when a single is out there, it is out there. Per my talk page, they are also going by unreliable sources. Their edits are going by their opinionated views, and that Ciara should not have low-charting singles in her singles chronology. Candyo32 14:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

non-admin comment I have told the above IP before that a CD single that was released to the public for sale directly from the company means it had an official single release, which means that his/her continuous edits to change "Go Girl" to a promo single were vandalism. Per discussion at WP:SONGS, a song with an official add date to US radio also means it was officially released. This IP has failed to listen to my comments on his/her talk page and decided to take this to ANI. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 14:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Found another source, Billboard website and have mentioned at the talk page, where this would be better handled. I don't see any need for administrator intervention. Worm 15:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

User:108.64.172.101

The person behind this IP is a pervasive genre warrior. There has been an ongoing genre feud between me and him on the Mushroomhead (history) and formerly Beautiful Stories for Ugly Children (album) (history and Sevendust (history), the last of which involved multiple editors, which ended in a decision against his removal of the nu metal tag. This editor also frequents pages relating to Deftones and Faith No More. The person rarely displays reasoning behind his or her edits, and has neglected to back up the editing activity, even after repeated requests to do so. On Beautiful Stories for Ugly Children (album), the user added this entry and this entry, the latter of which is especially questionable, since the line that alludes to the album being doom metal in this source, duplicating other reviews is "It’s a doomy sound, if not quite doom metal (too fast) or death metal (too tonal)." That doesn't blatantly state that it is doom metal, yet this is what #108 bases his or her stance on. One characteristic of this person's editing is regular reversion of others' edits, this too without reasoning. I hate genre warring, and I don't want to risk stooping down to that person's level in the process. Fortunately, though, I have not found proof of other IPs which could be the same person. Backtable _{Speak to me} 04:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Cardovus

Cardovus (talk · contribs) could really use some extra eyes on him. He believes that sockpuppet accounts are flooding Misplaced Pages with anti-Iranian, pro-Isreali propaganda as some kind of "war effort", and that Misplaced Pages administrators are invovled somehow. This all despite the account being less than a day old, yet he knows what a sockpuppet is, so I'm assuming he is one himself. But I have no familiarity with this area of the project, so I thought someone here might know who it is. I'm going to bed. Good night. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Cardovus's cries of "cover account" seem to be unfounded, as the alleged Cover is a legitimate alternate account of the alleged sockmaster. He seems to be on a very troll-like POV pushing spree, labeling articles as "sham" or as part of "a propaganda campaign". I firmly believe he could either use some sysop type "advice", a good psych exam, or a trip out behind the woodshed. WuhWuzDat 10:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Reminds me of a different variation of what I meant in this essay. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Cardovus has been indef-blocked for disruptive editing by User:JamesBWatson. I agree completely with the block, myself. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

IP-hopper trolling RefDesk/Comp

Over the past couple of days, an anonymous user in the 70.179. range (70.179.173.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 70.179.181.251 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) has been making threads at RefDesk/Computing that appear, on first read (and all subsequent ones) to be trolling. I've removed three threads from this user thus far; the first two were threads where he asked about sending antique computers to Africa (, ) that quickly devolved and became obvious as trolling ( is last revision before I removed them), and his most recent one concerns Halo: Reach. ( is first incarnation; I've removed the thread three times thus far as trolling).

Could an admin rangeblock the appropriate range or apply very short term semi-protection to that Ref Desk, and soon? I'm presently in an edit-war with him over the third thread. —Jeremy 10:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, this is an over-reaction. The RD questions at issue are certainly naive, uninformed, probably in the wrong place, and have unrealistic expectations - but there are not enough hours in the day to remove every naive, uninformed, misplaced or unrealistic question from the RDs. RD regulars have a strategy for handling such borderline questions - provide a short, factual answer (as Bo Jacoby (talk · contribs) did here) and ignore any follow up. If the questioner is a troll, they soon get bored and go away. Playing Whac-A-Mole with them round the RDs only annoys a genuine questioner and encourages a troll. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying comments like "Moreover, beggars can't be choosers, can they? I'm sure there's an extra-desperate country somewhere that'll be willing to take my 12 1/2 year old computer off my hands" and "You see, there may be some school districts in Somalia that are so Überly-desperate that they would be ecstatic to receive just an Apple IIe" aren't problematic? —Jeremy 11:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Please do not put words into mouth. I agree that those comments are poorly expressed and betray an uninformed and prejudiced world view. But we see this sort of thing fairly often on the RDs. Experience has shown that removing RD questions is almost always counter-productive and RD regulars only do so if the questioner is being quite extraordinarily offensive, or is clearly breaching the no medical advice/no legal advice rules. And when a question does need to be removed, RD guidelines ask that the removal be explained at the RD talk page so that it is transparent and open to scrutiny. I stand by my view that in this case escalating to AN/I and requesting a rangeblock and semi-protection is an over-reaction. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with everything Gandalf said. In particular: semi-protection would be a horrible solution as it shuts out IP addresses - a huge number of people asking questioins, and a sizable number of volunteers providing answers. I'd even rather live with a lamish edit-war, but best just ignore it and let it peter out. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Even better, WP:DNFT applies here, if you believe this to be a troll, then do nothing at all. Removing his question invites edit warring, which is what he may want if he is a troll. If you believe him to be a troll, your best course of action is to do nothing at all. If other people answer his questions in good faith, then perhaps they believe him not to be a troll. --Jayron32 18:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Compromised account

• Emirates777saeed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comment at User talk:Boing! said Zebedee#Vandalism suggests a compromised account - vandalism has stopped now, so don't know if any action is needed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the vandalism's stopped. Unless and until he's confirmed that he's back in control of the account and has changed his password he should be blocked. —Jeremy 11:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

As much as I agree with Jéské Couriano, it's also plain enough from the editor's contribution history that their account was not compromised; they're trying the usual lame get-out-of-block-free card that so many new editors try. Of course, that's not meant as an argument for leniency. — Gavia immer (talk) 12:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I watch BsZ's talk page and saw it there before here. I've blocked them. GedUK  12:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

legal threat at AFD?

Does Either Delete this page or rename it! else we will delete it completely as a nominating rationale count as a legal threat? User:Wilspaul seems to have strong religious POV on this issue has used the above phrase in the nomination, its talk page and the article's talk page. Is this a legal threat and should he be blocked?--Sodabottle (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No. Maybe rude or unreasonable, but I can't see anything referring to legal action in there. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 13:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree, with both parts. Rude, but no legal threat. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment): I see no legal threat there. Recommend a general warning for the rudeness though. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Sstrauch1955

Sstrauch1955 (talk · contribs) is only a sporadic WP editor, but looking through xyr contribution history, I'm seeing mostly, if not only, edits that demean and give offense to other religions. In particular, note , , and . Some of those could possibly even rise to the level of needing RevDel. I don't see any need for an editor who seems to be here only to perpetuate religious hatred. Xe's only been warned twice, and the editing is sporadic, but I still think that the content of the edits shows someone for whom we don't need to extend much good faith. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Having reverted this user myself, I looked through the edits and must say I didn't find a single productive one. Borderline, maybe. Certainly seems to be more disruptive in recent edits. Worm 16:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Golly. Almost all of the contribution history is like that. This one certainly demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of a number of our core policies, and none of the additions appear to be sourced. I didn't see anything RevDel-able, although at the least most of the edits should probably be reverted (as I see you've started to do.) 28bytes (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Amazing that more warnings hadn't been received. I've given a final warning. Fences&Windows 21:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merger at Brian David Mitchell

With regard a seemingly simple issue with nonetheless a lot of complicating factors, I've decided at taking a stab at finding resolution here. To start at the very beginning:

1. • On December 11, I, perhaps in error, nominated the Brian David Mitchell blp in an afd. I didn't want the article deleted, however, I sought a merger.
   • I screwed up and didn't complete step 3, thus my afd never got listed until two days later, when a bot caught the error; thus the afd was finally appropriately listed on December 13.
   • The afd was closed on the December 21, eight days later, but the administrator left no rationale for his close leaving it open to interpret whether he believed the discussion favored the merger I sought, disfavored the same, or was inconclusive.
2. Ever since then I have attempted to discuss the merger on the talk page but a short circuit to the discussion takes place in that my counter disputant in the two-person discussion argues that the afd was closed keep and so the discussion is moot while I argue that the afd was closed keep with no mention of the proposed merger and thus the discussion is still in order. The closing admin was contacted first by my co-disputant on January 30, here, and then later by myself on February 9, here. The admin indicated that we two disputants should work it out and seek further input in the discussion. Nonethless, my co-disputant continues to remove the merge tag and to claim bad faith.
3. Help!

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Update: I requested a 3rd-party opinion and one showed up, simultaneously to my posting on this page, here. (Thanks!)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's anything for administrators to do here. You've now received a third opinion. If that doesn't solve the content dispute, you can always try a request for comments. -Atmoz (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment as given by Atmoz (talk · contribs), above. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Some assistance at WT:NFC please

There is an ongoing RfC discussion at WT:NFC regarding the use of character images. Yesterday, I began a subdiscussion in the RfC. My efforts, while admittedly containing sarcasm, were in good faith and were an honest attempt to generate discussion in another way. Yesterday, User:Jheald attempted to close the discussion before it even got started . I re-opened the discussion , and some interesting discussion with other editors has since developed. Today, User:Jheald has accused me of trolling 4 times (and later a 5th time) () and twice called my efforts a waste of everyone's time (). When I attempted to split off the accusations he made of me trolling into a separate discussion area , he agreed with the subsequent closure of the discussion , and then reposted in the primary discussion area calling the splitting off of the discussion "artificially separated and boxed off" and effectively restated his opinion from the accusations of trolling section that this was all a waste of time. Two other editors contributed meta discussion to the primary discussion section, and I attempted to segment that discussion into a section titled "Meta discussion about the nature of the conversation", so as to permit the two separate discussions from interfering with one another . I was reverted and referred to as "page format trolling" (edit summary). I am attempting to have a productive conversation, a conversation others were contributing to, and am finding it impossible to do so because of Jheald's actions. I have asked one of the participants to hopefully overlook this fraying of the discussion and focus on the posts I made that I would like to see his response to .

I believe Jheald is attempting to disrupt this conversation and has been conducting a day long attempt to derail it.

I would appreciate it if an administrator would step in and allow the refactoring of the discussion similar to the attempt I made to separate the discussion and the meta discussion of the nature of the discussion, with perhaps a word of caution to Jheald to cease his continued accusations of trolling. Editor has been notified of this discussion. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to burden AN/I with this, which seems pretty trivial.

Hammersoft put up a proposal he didn't believe in, which suggested repudiating the Foundation's resolution on non-free content -- which clearly wasn't going to happen. That's not productive; in my view it can reasonably be construed as trolling, so I thought it was useful to make him aware of that. This seemed to trigger ever more attention-seeking behaviour from him, demanding I start a thread about him here at AN/I. Yes, perhaps it was a bit short of me to respond to that with "DNFTT", but that short blunt refusal to engage further can sometimes be a useful response to someone seeking drama. Jheald (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• And on you go with your unfounded accusations of me being a troll and "seeking drama". Even if I don't personally believe in a proposal, I can still lay it out for discussion and see where it goes. Other editors found it useful. It has produced productive discussion. Your incessant attempts to interlace your accusations against my character, despite my attempts at appropriately separating the discussion is disruptive. We can't get anywhere in the discussion if you persist in attempting to close the discussion, incessantly accusing me of being a troll (six times now), and reverting my attempts to not disrupt the conversation. Look, I get it...I truly do...that you think I'm a troll. I'm not some gibbering fool that has to be told six times by you before it suddenly dawns on me that you think I'm a troll. That doesn't give you leave to do everything in your power to disrupt the conversation that is progressing. Would you please allow the meta discussion to be separated out so that the people contributing to the on topic discussion can continue with it? PLEASE? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• My response of 14:33, reinstated/summarised at 15:47 was made in direct response to Hammersoft's comment of 14:08. My response was emphasising that the relevant place to draw a line was not one "permissible within the limits of U.S. Fair Use law", as his previous comment had had it, but had to be one which recognised "that NFC content has to comply readily not just with U.S. Fair Use law for us, but also for our verbatim commercial downstream reusers; and that NFC is not going to be allowed, if it discourages substitute free images from being uploaded". In my view that is a directly relevant follow-on comment on what Hammersoft had just said, and I do not understand why he is so determined to have this response moved away from his comment. I object to the two comments being separated because it was a direct (and I thought significant) comment on what went before. Jheald (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hammersoft has long been a WP:FANATIC when it comes to NFC discussions, and that sub-section was one giant exercise in POINT making trollery, long before he started sub-sectioning it for 'meta' discussion. NFC is probably the top priority area at the moment for oversight from non-involved admins who are simply concerned with respect for the TPG and nothing more. MickMacNee (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This AN/I thread does not need to become a recapitulation of insults and accusations which caused the thread to come to be in the first place. Protonk (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Jeepers Creepers 3

An ip address http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/99.191.100.99 and this user User:Undertaker18 0 have been removing info about MGM's having been bankrupt, and l have undid those edits myself.--Daipenmon (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Undertaker18 0 seems to be a throwaway account as well.--Daipenmon (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Both accounts given a {{uw-delete1}} courtesy message. — Satori Son 19:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Personal insults by User:Guidod

After I proposed an unsourced page ALSN for deletion, User:Guidod written two, speaking mildly, unpleasant statements on my talk page . In both of these statements user stated that I have bad faith. Also in the last reply he stated that I cannot even read in my mother tongue properly. Last but not least, the user made an edit on his talk page with offensive description.

Therefore I seek administrator attention to delete the offensive description of the mentioned diff and deal with the user for his insults appropriately. Thank you. Artem Karimov (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I have advised Guidod that they are now under the Eastern Europe editing restrictions set forth at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren. Subsequent uncivil edits such as these by Guidod should result in a one week block. — Satori Son 19:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Banned User:Moulton being disruptive, continuing to out editors

User:Moulton who was banned for persistent disruption, has been editing the last few days via IP addresses where he has continued to try to out the same editors he had a beef with before his ban. This is the most recent example. A block would be helpful. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure why JoshuaZ is on the warpath against Moulton, but Moulton allegedly posted some comments to a BLP Talk page, and JoshuaZ removed it. Read it for yourself if you want to decide who is being disruptive. Roger (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Coonsidering that multiple admins just removed those difs, deleted them, and then blocked the IP address, this seems pretty clear cut. Anywas, problem resolved. I'm marking the section as resolved. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

For the record, one of those admins was me (coming across the issue via WP:BLPN on my watchlist); I've blocked the IP for one month and deleted some text and revision-deleted some things. I was going to ask someone else to take another look at the incident in case any further action is needed, as I need to log off now. Rd232 19:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Marking as unresolved. He's continuing to evade the block and reposting his outing User talk:Schlafly and at Talk:David Berlinski. Suggest semiprotection of that page, and this page (since he's now posting comments here) is in order. JoshuaZ (talk) 06:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

This isn't his only IP - I recently blocked user:68.160.132.4 as Moulton too. Raul654 (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he's used other IPs on BLPN, Schafly talk page, Talk:David Berlinski, and User talk:rd232. Hence my request for semi-protection. JoshuaZ (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

He's threatening to continue saying he has access to vast numbers of IPs if we don't negotiate a resolution. Dougweller (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't something be done about his posts at User talk:Schlafly#David Berlinski -- including the fact that his signature links to his Wikiuniversity page rather than the IP he's using to evade the ban? Dougweller (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

And I presume here, using another Wikiversity ID as a link instead of the IP address. Dougweller (talk • contribs) 10:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Christopher Monsanto

This user is constantly nominating the articles about different programming languages for deletion without proper research of the actual programming languages' notability. Taking into account the number of articles that he has tagged for deletion, I highly doubt his good faith. We are talking about such languages as Nemerle, Alice ML, etc. We've tried to provide the notability of these languages (for example, there are plenty of academic papers and publications about Alice ML, there are official published research papers about Nemerle, published through Microsoft Research, there are many articles about Nemerle in RSDN Magazine, official Russian science magazine, ISSN 0234-6621, included in the Russian Science Citation Index). However, he disregards all these source as either non-reliable or not notable enough. I don't really see how Microsoft Research or official science papers may be non-reliable. It seems that Christopher has some personal interest or offence for doing that. He has also stated that "his mission" is to remove "redundant" programming languages from Misplaced Pages, which I am afraid may result in deletion of interesting and valuable articles.

I urge moderators to look closer at this user, his actions, and his actual motivation.

Don Reba (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

If what you say is true, then the AFD discussions will bear that out. There is no need to think he is acting in bad faith, or needs to be stopped from starting AFD discussions. Indeed, by letting the discussions run to the end, and letting him start them, it actually works to disprove his thesis, which will only make it clear that the articles (if they are about notable subjects) aren't going anywhere. I don't really think your description of events describes any actions that require sanctioning at this point. Trust the Misplaced Pages community on this one. --Jayron32 19:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I haven't the time to explain myself in detail for the n-th time. I believe my reasoning to be clear on the AfDs: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nemerle, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alice (programming language), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Afnix (programming language), Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Bsisith, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Aikido (programming language). Not a single specific source has been given for any of these articles that I or others haven't given (what I believe to be) a specific reason for not establishing notability.

I can't verify the RSDN sources, but two other commentators on the AfD with more familiarity with the reputation of the source 1) have said that this is not a sufficient amount of coverage establish notability and 2) the articles were written by the key developer of Nemerle, and therefore they do not count as independent, third-party coverage.

Furthermore, I have acted in good faith in every single edit I have made, and I have assumed good faith of all other editors involved until recently. Note the first comment on my talk page -- I didn't know whether this project was notable or not, so I added a notability tag, which resulted in sources being added to the article. At this point I conceded that the project met the notability guidelines. The exchange was civil and rational between both parties.

From here on out, I will not be replying to complaints by non-administrators. I've already been accused of COI, which an administrator cleared my name of. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Chris, you are so concerned about your name, but you are quick to harm somebody else’s reputation. NoAccountNameAvailable (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Off topic; NoAccountNameAvailable, why does your name sound so familiar? Wifione _....... 20:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I mistook you for User:TheLastusernameLeft. Wifione _....... 20:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Christopher, others can verify RSDN. For example myself. I could say, it is reliable source (I'm not a developer of the language). It is logical to write articles about the language by people who are familiar with the subject. However the articles about Nemerle on RSDN are not from the author of this language. I also do not like that you change facts, for example: you said "2 articles on Stackoverflow about Nemerle" instead of more than 100. I hope it was just a mistake but it gives wrong impression about notability of the language.--Sergey Shandar (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

(od) I'm marking this as resolved. The article is going through the AfD process and there is no evidence that the nomination was not made in good faith. Given the flak that the nominating editor has received (the AfD page makes interesting reading), I suggest that we let the process play itself out and give everyone the chance to work on neglected sections of wikipedia. --rgpk (comment) 00:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for an edit summary to be deleted/modified

I just recently made this edit to Air France Flight 447. The edit is fine, but unfortunately I pasted some sensitive information into the edit summary by mistake. If an admin could quickly remove that information from the summary, I would greatly appreciate it. -- Fyrefly (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done Nakon 20:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the swift response. -- Fyrefly (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Eyes on Egypt Pages Needed

Reports are coming out that "Egypt's president Mubarak will transfer powers to vice president", according to al Arabiya. With that, all Egypt pages should be watched if not semi-protected pre-emptively. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I just listened to the speech live, and it looks like he'll be staying on until September, according to Twitter and what he was saying. Looks like there's no issue. Arctic Night 21:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I just went with what I had heard. Bad information on my fault. The people in Tahrir Square are NOT happy. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority

Sorry to bring this up yet again but there seems to be a bit of edit warring going on on this page (it's under a 1RR restriction)and my request for page protection has now languishged for over 8 hours at WP:RFPP despite every other request having been dealt with. Could someone else also take an attempt at educating User:Eliko on what this merge decision at WP:TfD actually means. They seem to be taking it that it means the template has to be merged and don't seem to understand that what should be merged is it at editorial discretion and that if there's disagreement this should be discussed on the talk page and it can't be forced thorugh because of the "resolution" (their words) at TfD. Additionally, given that the closing admin only changed their original delete decision to merge at the request of this user it's clear to me that they weren't commenting at all on what should be merged. Dpmuk (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Waiting until 4 minutes past 1RR to revert is not a defense against edit warring, IMHO. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Eliko's response:

The sequence of events was as follows:

• On 17 December 2010, it was decided (per this resolution) to merge a template into the article.

• On 9 February 2011, it was decided (per this resolution) to delete the template, which was userified to Eliko's userspace by Dougweller.

• On that very day, few hours after the template was deleted and userified, User:Eliko merged it (i.e. parts of it) to the article.

Now please pay attention to the following 5 points (please don't skip any - if you really want to know what's going on here):

1. Notice that the first resolution to merge - has never been canceled.

2. Notice that any legal attempt (not violating any Misplaced Pages rules) to comply with the first resolution to merge - should not be regarded as an attempt to "force" anything (as you called that), but rather as a definitely legitimate attempt to comply with that resolution - i.e. to contribute to Misplaced Pages; just like the other legal edits in other articles on Misplaced Pages, which should not be regarded as attempts to "force" anything, but rather as definitely legitimate attempts to contribute to Misplaced Pages.

3. Notice also that the merge carried out by User:Eliko on 9 of February (at 20:26) and by User:Alinor on 10 of February (at 13:05) - was the only merge that has ever been carried out - since the first resolution to merge was made, so your edit summary here - which was made on 9 of February (at 14:49) before User:Eliko's merge - includes a wrong claim.

4. Notice also that the merge edited by User:Eliko and by User:Alinor on 9-10 of February - is rejected by a single user only, and is supported by two users, i.e. User:Eliko and User:Alinor.

5. Notice also that no Misplaced Pages rules (nor Misplaced Pages policy) were violated by the merge edited by User:Eliko and by User:Alinor on 9-10 of February; On the contrary: this merge complied with the first resolution (that has never been canceled) to merge (parts of the template to the article).

Hope this helps to figure out what's going on here.

Eliko (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want to get technical (and I'm only doing this to humour you), the version that ruled to "merge" was vastly different from the version that you did merge, since you "updated" the template during its second deletion nomination. So your "merge decision" doesn't apply here, does it, since that's not what you've done? Any "merge" should be proposed beforehand on the talk page, and a consensus should be reached. That is proper editing policy. There's now a discussion at WP:AE about me, with which you might be interested. Nightw 06:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You know the truth. You know that what you call: my having "updated" (the template) - is nothing more than copying from the very article into which the template should be merged. Regarding the "discussion" on the talk page: the addition that was merged - has already been discussed on some talk pages, including the talk page of the template, and including the page of this discussion, which resulted in the resolution to have a "merge" - while you were the editor who rejected the suggestion of "merge". As for the "consensus" you're talking about: it does not mean 100% of the editors: Even when most of the editors are in favour of something - against a single editor, it's still a "consensus". Eliko (talk) 08:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive Behavior by User: Mad Doggin 7 / 65.254.165.214

The user Mad Doggin 7 (also posts under the IP address 65.254.165.214, which is clearly the same person) has repeatedly disrupted the article http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_Black_Rock_Shooter_characters. Over several months he has unilaterally reverted several community members' edits countless times to place his unsourced, extremely poor quality information (his story has also changed to very different but equally poor information despite him claiming the same source). This information is in direct contradiction to community concensus and provided official sources. When asked to provide links or verification regarding his sources or evidence, he has repeatedly explicitly refused to do so, stating that he is above the need to provide verification.

Not only this, but he has repeatedly threatened other users on the article's Talk Page who disagree with him with bans/blocks that he has no authority over. He has even explicitly lied about the administrator privileges of another user in an attempt to intimidate other users. This is explicitly prohibited as noted under: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:TPNO#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable

I laid out a well formulated argument on the talk page (which he frequents): http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:List_of_Black_Rock_Shooter_characters, in which I cited and provided links to many official sources (including the media's creator which he supposedly cites) and addressed his claims. I also warned him of his disruptive behavior and Misplaced Pages policy violations, with direct links to the policy pages. He has chosen to ignore this, and instead continued his reverts under his alternate IP address/account 65.254.165.214 (a quick look at the address' history reveals that this is obviously the same person) without bothering to respond or provide any sources as he has consistently done so in the past.

I recommend immediate action be taken to prevent further disruption by this user. As demonstrated over the last several months, he has no intention of stopping or providing any evidence, despite being warned to do so. Investigation into the IP address reveals a history of disrupting other articles as well. CannikinX (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Competence is required...

I'd like to recommend User:PM800 for a gross incompetence block, or at least a very stern warning about one. This user ignores any request to start a discussion... on anything. There's already a discussion on here about his continued removal of content without explanation... any other user caught doing this would be blocked on sight. Examples of this user's gross incompetence (a blockable offence):

• This user refuses to engage in discussion about anything, and instead just keeps reverting and doing what he wants to do. For example, on She (Green Day song), this user reverted other editors (with NO explanation at all!) not once, not twice, but FIFTEEN times. These same shenanigans have been going on at Longview (song), Dookie and Shenanigans (album). Have you any idea how frustrating it is to try and resolve a dispute when one of the parties just IGNORES you when you try to approach them repeatedly?
• This user is just plain rude. "Nice try, asshole"., "That 'correction' didn't make any sense, you moron.", "You spelled "inappropriate" wrong, n00b." (this one was coupled with the reversion of a vandalism reversion of something to do with anal sex).
• This user repeatedly inserts factual inaccuracies into articles, and completely ignores requests to stop it or warnings that what he's doing is not OK.
• This user acts in a manner completely inappropriate for Misplaced Pages, leaving the following comment on an IP user's page: "Your mom did Abraham Lincoln."
• This user thinks it's perfectly acceptable to return every once in a while to an article to make unexplained content removals. When approached (), this user ignores the offer for discussion and continues to carry on with the same behaviour.
• To tie all of this up into a nice conclusion, PM800 has put off a number of IP users from editing Misplaced Pages through his reversion of their valid edits and personally attacked others countless times. Interacting with this user is a painful process, as you can't interact with him at all... He knows how to 'flout the system' - by ignoring all warnings, he can never be held accountable for his actions.

This user is full of personal attacks, unexplained reversions and plain rudeness. What irks me most about this user is his ignoring of all approaches for discussion. It's gotten to the point where this user can just do what he likes, because when he is approached for discussion about his actions, he just ignores the request. Of course, once it's apparent he won't respond, he is reported to an administrator, by which time it's too late to block anyway.

There is precedent for 'gross incompetence' blocks for those who cannot comprehend (or choose to blatantly ignore) our policies and guidelines.

You might say, 'warn and move on', but it's not like that. He has had several warnings in the past, all of which he just completely ignored (literally - no response) and continued with his same old behaviour. I'm at my wit's end as to what to do - warnings just don't work. Arctic Night 02:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Calm down. This is already being discussed above. The user was notified of the ANI discussion above, was issued a final warning, and most importantly has not yet returned to problematic behavior. He was editing within the past hour, and has not done anything wrong in those edits. As has been noted above, when he starts up again, he can be blocked. But there is no impending need to block right now. I have no idea why you are starting multiple threads on the same issue across multiple discussion boards, or even worse, starting multiple threads at the same discussion board. Please take it easy. --Jayron32 02:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• We're not already discussing this above - the thread above was about Template:Bullying, whilst this thread is about this user's conduct in general (although I've consolidated the two now). He's had more than enough warnings and last chances ('next time, you'll be blocked!') - I honestly can't see why he should be given another one. He just ignores them. Arctic Night 02:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• His last edits in the past hour are all quality edits, and none of them is problematic. If you really want to have this discussion, try WP:RFC/U instead of here. If he starts edit warring again, I will be first in line to block him. Please trust admins to do their job. --Jayron32 03:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Quality edits" - right. This user mixes in a bunch of rude and smarmy comments with a bunch of productive edits, and needs to stop it. An RFC/U won't work - PM800 usually bullies IP users, who are hardly likely to return to certify an RFC/U. That's the point about this editor - he's productive in the article space, but rather rude outside of it. The point is, somebody clearly hasn't been doing their job if he's been edit warring fifteen times in a row without somebody picking him up on it (actually, somebody did, but he just ignored the warning). Arctic Night 03:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Let me say this again. When he commits another violation, I will block him. As long as one of the other admins above, who also said that exact same thing, don't block him first. --Jayron32 03:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• This edit was made after the 'final warning'. Arctic Night 03:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• If I had seen that edit, I'd have reverted it. I don't see that one as a violation. --Jayron32 03:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Well, you would similarly be guilty of removing content. Look at the article now... Arctic Night 03:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oh, I never implied that my revert wouldn't have been a mistake, but I think you could have called it an honest mistake given the lack of reference and lack of edit summary. When numbers from articles are randomly changed, without source, its generally a bad idea to let it slide. --Jayron32 04:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Since a block by me was cited as a precedent for this I suppose it is appropriate that I respond. With that user, and others like them, lesser measures were attempted such as removing any advanced user rights and blacklisting them from automated tools they were misusing. It didn't work, but it is something to consider in competence cases. Of course, most of the competence based blocks I have placed were on users who were perpetually clueless but not extremely rude as this user has been, and they were willing to engage in discussion with users who pointed out their various errors. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Three comments. This PM800 needs a harsh lesson in civility, and it looks like he will get it if this happens again. Secondly; you shouldn't be labelling his edits as vandalism, even if you are getting stressed by them, WP:VANDALISM. And a third comment on the factual inaccuracies; removing religion from the Portman infobox was correct per WP:BLPCAT, he just did not cite that policy in the edit summary (which should be encouraged). --Errant 09:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Help request

I have been watchlisting several Singaporean/Malaysian/Indonesian TV and radio articles as they have been targets for an individual, or individuals, that are intent on formats contrary to the MOS. Most recent in a long list of IPs is 125.162.18.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with this elaboration of a redirect (that has stood since 2008) into content whose sources are to a suspended internet account, and this version of an article with heavily linked dates and interlinks that are quite redundant. Posting to the IP's talk has resulted in the usual silence that I have come to expect when attempting to communicate with the 125.162 range. I have previously requested advice from the folks that monitor the MOS talks and the general consensus is that reversion of these edits should continue. That aspect of my actions tonight is also on the table if anyone has an opinion. Thanks Tiderolls 05:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

To clarify; my posts to the MOS talks were some weeks ago. The actions I refererenced above were the format reversions in general. Sorry, it's late here and it's been a long day. Thanks Tiderolls 05:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, these seem to be the types of edits where there are no problems reverting as they don't add any useful content. I've just reverted the last changes to Channel 9 (Malaysia) and TV9 (Malaysia) by this editor and semi-protected the pages for 72 hours to stop them edit warring. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, what are the other IP addresses (and articles) in question here? Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I worked on this list for an hour and barely scratched the surface, Nick. I have saved the info I've gathered so far and will post it after work. Tiderolls 11:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Kenatipo, WP:OUTING violation

, Kenatipo is posting information that he claims refers to me that I have not publicly released on this site. This is an attempted outing under the WP:OUTING outing policy, which I note is considered a serious violation of the WP:NPA policy. I ask that this be removed from wikipedia permanently immediately under the WP:Oversight policy as well as proper steps to block this user be taken. _WM 06:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I have sent in a request to RFO. I recommend that you steer clear of Kenatipo. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Suppressed now, per policy - Alison 07:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that swift action, now can we get an admin to take some further action per policy? _WM 07:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Alison, seen this and got your email at the same time. Neat. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Onetonycousins more personal attacks

This user has a number of blocks for personal attacks but still continues Gnevin (talk) 11:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Natalya Rudakova

I would ask that this article be reinstated. I looked at the history of this article and the same user by the naame of user:Daedalus969 within the span of a few months tried to speedy delete the article once and full delete it three times. He failed every time except on the third time...supposedly. Upon further review the consensus was overwhelmingly to keep it but a couple of editors against a strong consensus to keep the article decided to redirect the article. I think the article should be reinstated on account of abuse of process by the repeated delete attempts by the one editor and the rogue redirect by the administrator. Tear it up and kill it (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You should take it to a deletion review if you wish to contest the AfD result. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The redirect decision was made by community consensus at AFD; if you think the wrong closing decision was made then the proper forum is deletion review, this board is for actions needing immediate admin attention :) --Errant 12:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Quack, quack. The poster of this complaint is a rather easily recognisable sock of a user who originally wrote that article and has been trying to restore it through several socks for a long time. See Jayhawk of Justice (talk · contribs). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Bidgee

I have WP:3O on my watchlist and noticed a listing at ] by User:Jeffro77 in regards to Cairns, Queensland. The discussion between User:Bidgee on one side, and User:Jeffro77 (with a single contribution by User:BorisG) had become extremely heated. User:Bidgee's contributions were clearly uncivil.

At the same time, I became aware that Bidgee included a reference to me on his/her userpage which was becoming a little shrine to the people with whom s/he had had disagreements (Jeffro77 got the same treatment at ]), stating that I "had a POV" and "couldn't handle the truth". I removed this personal attack at ] and warned Bidgee for the personal attack. He reverted and reworded it, but it was still unacceptable so I reverted and warned again and notified him/her of my intent to bring the issue here at ]

I have had run ins with Bidgee before, most recently because he inappropriately used a personal attacks warning template on a new user, User:MelbourneStar1 at ]. MelbourneStar1 did not personally attack Bidgee any more than Bidgee him/herself did, visible at ] and the edit summaries for the Severe_Tropical_Cyclone_Yasi history at ]. S/he reflexively warned me for inappropriate template use at ] (this reflexive counterwarning was also conducted on User:Jeffro77 at ] in response to Jeffro's warning on Bidgee at ]).

The discussion in regards to User:MelbourneStar1 continued at my page, in the second half of User_talk:Danjel#Top_Ryde_Shopping_Centre_not_largest_shopping_centre_nor_largest_development.

User:Bidgee has a history of removing edits to his/her talk page highlighting his/her misbehaviour but continuing the behaviour anyway. These are some examples in order from most recent:

• ]
• ]
• ]
• ]

I'm sure there are more. I only looked at the most recent 500 edits to the page.

I would like any reference to me removed from Bidgee's shrine. Bidgee is an extremely uncivil editor, and I think a reminder from up on high about the requirements for people to be civil would be great.

I'm not saying I'm an angel. I'm definitely not, but... Wow. WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:BITE, WP:3RR, WP:USETEMP in regards to inappropriate template use. I at least pretend to be nice.</jovial> I'm notifying all users mentioned above. -danjel (talk to me) 13:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Bidgee removed mention of Cyclone Yasi from the list of notable cyclones that have affected the Cairns region at Cairns, Queensland (with the irrelevant reasoning that effects on Cairns were not notable because other places were worse-affected).

After he repeatedly reverted mention of the cyclone, I posted a 3RR warning on his User Talk page,, which he immediately deleted. He responded by posting a 3RR warning on my Talk page (I had reverted his edit twice; I had also made this earlier edit—not a revert—in which I removed the redundant commented statement, because Cyclone Yasi was still correctly mentioned before and after my edit.) and suggested there were no sources indicating that Cyclone Yasi had a notable affect on Cairns (compare Google search for Cyclone Yasi Cairns). I provided sources indicating that Yasi had an impact on the Cairns region.

I initially (incorrectly) stated that he had breached the 3RR, rather than merely reaching 3 reverts, to which the user responded aggressively at the article Talk page in addition to a personal attack about me on his User page, which I attempted to remove, citing WP:TALKO. I also added a Third Opinion request about the original content dispute.

After realising he had only reached the 3 reverts, I reworded the incorrect statements and removed his personal attack about me from his User page. User:Bidgee has restored the attack, claiming it was "not personal" and that he had not "claimed there were not sources for the effect Cyclone Yasi had on the Cairns region". However, if that were genuinely the case, there would be no contention with listing Cyclone Yasi in the Cairns article as "a notable cyclone that affected the Cairns region".

When he saw the 3O request, User:Danjel also indicated similar difficulties in dealing with User:Bidgee. User:Danjel thereafter warned the user about personal attacks and attempted to remove User:Bidgee's comments about him. See Talk:Cairns, Queensland#Yasi.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Rcsprinter123

Many of Rcsprinter123's edits are related to list of bus routes in Derbyshire. On 29 December he created (at the time it was in article space) "important bus routes in Derbyshire"; it was taken to AfD the same day, and withdrawn after seven and a half hours because the article had been moved into user space. During the AfD, Rcsprinter followed the nominator, Aiken drum (talk · contribs), around and disruptively added tags to articles AD had created:

Two days later, the article was recreated and demanded full protection to make sure no one deleted it. The AfD was not complete as it was withdrawn, however I believe the emerging consensus was trending towards deleting the article or turning it into a redirect. As a result, I turned the newly created article into a redirect and explained why to Rcsprinter.

On 3 January the Skyline 199 article was deleted as the result of a completed AfD (albeit with minimal participation). He recreated the article and again tried to abuse WP:RPP to prevent anyone from deleting the article. I explained this went against the AfD and wasn't appropriate and it was subsequently speedily deleted.

On 10 January Rcsprinter created "key bus routes in Derbyshire", essentially the same as "important bus routes in Derbyshire" and gaming the system by trying to same content under a new title. It was quickly turned into a redirect, but on 10 February Rcsprinter restored the article without discussion.

There are more diffs available, with Rcsprinter edit warring, and simply not understanding policies. In a nutshell, it's clear that Rcsprinter123 is treating Misplaced Pages like a game and is not abiding by the rules, despite repeated warnings. I think a block on the grounds of Misplaced Pages:Competence is required may be in order, but am seeking wider input. Nev1 (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards