Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:09, 1 May 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 admins 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
• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

User:CodyJoeBibby: WP:NPA and WP:POINT

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

CodyJoeBibby is taking a self-imposed MoMK hiatus until 10 May to study relevant guidelines and policies. --Diannaa 22:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

In the last few hours, CodyJoeBibby (talk · contribs) has edited in a consistently disruptive and tendentious manner at the Murder of Meredith Kercher article and its associated talk page. At various points, he has referred to other users collectively and in derogatory fashion as a "tag team" (in violation of WP:NPA), reverted the removal of a blatantly trivial piece of information so as to introduce insinuation in the article text (a dubious action with regard to WP:BLP - his intentions are clearly set out here, here and here), and, with consensus firmly against re-insertion of the text in question, threatened to remove other information from the article, in violation of WP:POINT (as can be seen here, here, here and here). Almost all the edits that this user has made in the last 24 hours seem to fall under the label of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and represent the latest in a whole series of uncivil edits (another recent example here) that seem to have made up the majority of CodyJoeBibby's contributions to Misplaced Pages since he created his account on 1st April. The history of his user talk page will reveal a large number of warnings and recommendations to refrain from attacking or insulting other users and causing other disruption - in particular, it has previously been made clear to this editor that resuming such activities would quite probably result in a block. Could one or more administrators please impress it on CodyJoeBibby that conduct of this sort, which includes pointed, ad hominem remarks, is unacceptable? Many thanks in advance. SuperMarioMan 17:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

My patience with him is beyond frayed at this point, so I might be being a little harsh. But right now my view is that his contribution to the talk page and article is a huge net negative (generating acres of endless discussion and IDIDNTHEARTHAT stuff) and he is best simply topic banned from the page. --Errant 17:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I only went as far as glancing at his Talk page. Several attempts at cautioning him regarding WP:NPA have been met with "I didn't attack anyone. Don't post here again.", or similar comments. And his recent Contribution history seems to be 100% focused on the single article, except for Talk page commentary. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, I have made very few edits to the article in question. The 'warnings' I have received have been mostly (not all) rude in tone and have been from heavily involved editors. I did not appreciate their aggressive nature. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(2ECs)I agree that Cody's tack on this issue has been disruptive, but I don't see significant incivility issues with his posts. Cody seems to veer between being constructive and disruptive, so I suggest an official warning that if he continues to be disruptive, a block or topic ban may be necessary. We should try and push him towards contructive editing rather than push him away from Misplaced Pages. As some context, this article has been highly contentious and in the past many users who disagreed with a particular version of the article were indeffed at the suggestions of what seemed to be a group of editors who agreed with said version. Though the tone of discussions is now better than before, I'd rather not stir up old resentments with too heavy a hand here, especially as other disuptive editors (from a different camp) seem to get a pass.LedRush (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Cody has a lot of enthusiasm for this topic. He is a SPA, but so are many other editors on that talk page. For the most part, especially recently, nearly all of them are helpful. This is a difficult article to work on, with problems from earlier editing, controversial case, happening in a foreign country and editorial coverage in sources can be slanted by nationality. Cody seems to come with a strong POV towards the topic, and desires that the article more closely reflect that view. Editors that disagree with him are denigrated in his posts, making it unpleasant to work on the article. He seems to take some advice well, but I sometimes feel that happens only if it's from an editor that he thinks has a view similar to his. LedRush's suggestion of a warning from an uninvolved admin is warranted. The desire to push Cody towards good habits is laudable, but Cody has to see the problems others are pointing out before anything can change. Ravensfire (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not as though I'm repeatedly editing the article in defiance of what others may think. I've made a few edits, none of which have been more than a few words here or there. I have been involved in some robust discussion on the talk page, I don't deny it. I wouldn't say I'm uncivil. That's a fine line, I suppose. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You're seriously suggesting that you haven't been uncivil? Really? What about this recent edit - entering a talk page discussion for the sole purpose of taking a shot at me using a petty and fallacious argument, even though multiple user talk page messages had warned you to moderate your self-expression? LedRush is quite understating the problems at hand with the assertion that there are no "significant incivility issues" here - there has been little assumption of good faith ever since Cody's first edit less than a month ago, and even now it is still scarce. Who exactly is "stirring up old resentments" in the first diff that I have linked? I'm in full agreement with Errant. One or more firm warnings is really the very least that is merited in this situation. SuperMarioMan 19:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

CodyJoeBibby, saying something snarky and insulting and saying "no offence" and "thanks for your input" and trying to be subtle doesn't work. This is the kind of comment I'm referring to. Misplaced Pages is a collaboration and you have to make an attempt to work with other people, especially on a highly controversial subject. If you "wouldn't say you're uncivil" then that's a problem. -- Atama頭 19:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

What this editor needs is a guideline on how to get out of a community decided indef block for disruption, assuming bad faith, personal attacks, refusing to get the point, not working with the community, refusing to take even well meant advise, etc.
Overall they are certainly not a positive asset to the article and it's talkpage.TMCk (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you're overreacting here. As i said, I've made very few edits to the article. I've had considerable incivility and aggression directed towards me from the same group who are posting here requesting that I be banned. The same people have also repeatedly breached Misplaced Pages policy on the article in question. This occurred from day one of my Misplaced Pages career. But as a new editor, I don't really know how things work here. I didn't know where to report the aggression. Instead I may have reacted to those people on the talk page. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Overreacting? Really?
Quote:"I didn't know where to report the aggression."
I answered your question here so don't play the silly "I'm new here and don't know where to file complains" game.TMCk (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

This is hardly an "over-reaction". With respect, Cody, your editing in general (at the Murder of Meredith Kercher talk page in particular) does not demonstrate a reassuring trend. Furthermore, claiming "incivility" and "aggression" on the part of others, which I am inclined to doubt, does not address the quite obvious incivility and aggression that your edits have directed at other users. SuperMarioMan 20:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(ECx1)Non-Admin Nickel's worth of Advice You've wandered into one of the very contentious sections of Misplaced Pages with what appears to be a very significant collection of viewpoints already in your possession. The article in question is in the conservatorship of multiple editors that are familiar with both the subject matter and Misplaced Pages's Policies. For you to come in and repeatedly insert your own viewpoint, ignore advice from other editors, and to dismissively respond to concerns is why they are bringing this matter forward. Consider taking some time off to read the policies and understanding why people these problems with you. If you don't, you may find yourself banned from topics to prevent disruption. Hasteur (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I perceive you yourself as unnecessarily aggressive and patronising in tone, SuperMarioMan. I do not appreciate the tone you have taken with me since the beginning of my stint on Misplaced Pages. It's a shame I didn't know I could report you to this noticeboard. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, this does little to address your conduct, which is forming the basis of this discussion. It is rash to expect an agreeable tone from others when one edits in a disruptive and tendentious manner on multiple occasions, refusing to get the point and listen to sensible advice - there is a limit to the extent that good faith can be assumed. SuperMarioMan 21:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(←) CodyJoeBibby, consider that with this project being a collaboration that relies on consensus, you can't brush off others' comments about yourself. If everyone suggests that you're behaving improperly, the correct response is to ask for a clarification and request how to correct that behavior. To continually ignore such suggestions is to invite failure. You really can't function as a contributor if you refuse to listen to criticism. As an administrator, I'm not levying threats, but I'm trying to offer advice. If you ignore that, well, so be it. As to reporting others, please take a moment to read this. -- Atama頭 21:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• As an involved editor I support a topic ban. A WP:SPA who in a month has failed to grasp NPOV or NPA, and has made little positive input to the single article he is interested in. Would not be a noticeable loss if we topic banned him. --John (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

As of today, I will take a voluntary two weeks' sabbatical to cool down and ensure I am fully conversant with all relevant Misplaced Pages policies. I will return to Misplaced Pages as an editor on this topic on 10th May 2011 if that is acceptable to the authorities. I have nothing further to say at this time. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be a good course of action. With this pledge, there seems to be little more to discuss here. SuperMarioMan 21:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's wise to postpone this problem

• I strongly disagree with this closure. A SPA taking a two weeks brake to learn what they didn't learn in a month on-wiki is more likely to take a "vacation" to let things cool off and return with the same mindset. Since they didn't acknowledge any fault neither here nor in the past it is unlikely they'll do so in the very near future.TMCk (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

We can deal with it then. What seems to frustrate everyone involved is the editor's inability to accept criticism; basically WP:IDHT. They pledged to review our policies and guidelines before they began editing again. -- Atama頭 22:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I feel that Cody should be offered one final chance to re-evaluate his approach to editing at Misplaced Pages. If, on his return, he once again adopts a disruptive attitude, then it will be quite clear that a topic ban of some duration is required so as to minimise harm to the project. Given the most recent events at Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher (especially the absurd, overblown saga about some fruit juice, of all things), that would appear to be the only viable solution, should the incivility re-ignite. SuperMarioMan 22:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(2ECs)Didn't he acknowledge that he needs (a) to edit less passionately (to "cool down") and (b) learn more about Misplaced Pages policies? I think that is a step in the right direction, at least. Seeing as many of the editors commenting on this have been guilty of less civil comments than Cody is currently accused of (myself included), I think the real issue here was his disruptive posting in response to what he considered a misuse of WP policy. One would hope that after reviewing WP policies that he would see that he was in the wrong, as he might have implicitly done already , and he would understand why is positions were disruptive. If he comes back and makes mistakes, action can be taken then. Perhaps I am assuming too much good faith, but I don't see the harm in taking him at his word and hoping that his desire to learn more of Misplaced Pages's policies (and suggesting a two week self-imposed ban) is rooted in an acknowledgement that he needs to learn more to be more constructive.

Also, I don't see why a topic ban would be the automatic next course of action. I would rather wait and see how and to what extent he makes mistakes before prescribing punishments.LedRush (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I see it, the "extent he makes mistakes" is already quite large, and Cody has been given quite enough chances already. This really is the limit. His user talk page is filled with one warning after the next (and I'm not just talking about the ones that I've posted, either). Cody has been warned about the possibility of an ANI discussion as far back as 9th April, when he stated that he would endeavour to familiarise himself with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. What with today's various controversies at the talk page, it seems obvious that this never actually happened - whenever helpful links to policies are posted for him to look at, his response is often aggressive and derisive, yet here he admits that some close reading of relevant pages is needed. I don't think that a hypothetical topic ban would need to be indefinite, but it would have to be of some length. SuperMarioMan 22:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Any indef can be reversed at any time if the user can show that they understand and acknowledge what they did wrong in the past and pledge to not repeat those mistakes.TMCk (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Nothing they have shown so far despite plenty of advise and warnings and I can't see a reason it would suddenly change after/because of two weeks being absent. Sounds more like wishful thinking to me.TMCk (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Unless the red-link user is a sock, normally new users are given shorter blocks at first. If an editor picks up whether they left off after the block expires, the next one could be much longer. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll admit the S-word occurred to me (the repeated references to how new they are prompted it at first) but I don't think that's what's happening here. I think it's a clash between a personality and the Misplaced Pages consensus culture, which is common enough. -- Atama頭 23:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about that for sure, or much of anything, for that matter. I'm still trying to get my head around what the term "post-bone" means. Is that how to characterize a piece of meat that's been fileted? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You don't really want to know. Trust me. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I sorta do. -- Atama頭 00:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I see the section header has now been de-boned. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Just for you Bugs, just for you...TMCk (talk) 01:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You're too kind. :) Please note I added an "anchor" to avoid breaking links. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thinking about this in greater depth: since CodyJoeBibby is more or less an SPA (and with 200+ edits, all of which are related to the Murder of Meredith Kercher article, this is really just an uncontroversial statement of fact), a topic ban would probably be tantamount to a block anyway - I'm not sure what else he would want to edit outside such a restriction. As such, I see how a short block could serve as a better remedy if the incivility resumes. On a side note, I've seen nothing to suggest that the user is a sockpuppet or that there is meatpuppetry at work here. Cody is an independent editor; unfortunately, his strong opinions about the subject matter have spilled over into his editing of the article and the talk page, and have led to frequent caustic remarks that achieve little except to poison the talk page atmosphere. SuperMarioMan 01:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Continued disruption

Another personal attack (which repeats the "tag team" allegation) here, made despite the user's promise to step back for a while. SuperMarioMan 16:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that a disruption, just an unnecessary accusation, hopefully made in good faith, which I am also willing to extend to him. Hopefully, he will take the suggestion to refrain from making further accusations for now. BelloWello (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Unneeded accusations seem quite disruptive to me (here's another one), and when one assesses Cody's contributions over the last three weeks, I find it difficult to believe that there is good faith. SuperMarioMan 16:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Further tendentiousness, going against the earlier pledge to become familiarised with policies and guidelines. SuperMarioMan 16:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

SMM, would you please just lay off his case? Frankly, to me, you're causing as much of a disruption as he is, which is to say, not much of one. Please just stop egging him on with your little comments. BelloWello (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

With respect, I doubt that, but certainly I'll heed your request. Apologies, and regards, SuperMarioMan 17:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. BelloWello (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• I take offense at this SPA's accusation and the immediate breach of his promise to stay away from this area and I now request a topic ban.--John (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban

On the basis that this user has:

• Not contributed anything constructive towards our project
• Shown no understanding of our core principles, nor any sign of trying to acquire such understanding
• Is only interested in one subject
• Continues to insult and abuse other editors
• Seems only to want to argue
• Has a definite agenda they want to pursue, regardless of what others think
• Promised to avoid this area but then immediately broken their promise

I propose that User:CodyJoeBibby be topic-banned indefinitely from this area, broadly construed. Any support? --John (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - The user participates in talk page discussion and simply needs to be given time to understand policies rather than getting attacked each and every time he does something. We shouldn't be WP:BITEing newcomers. The user does not seem to only want to argue, and I would say almost every editor in that section has an opinion on it. (I couldn't care less, I've only been attracted by the numerous ANI threads...) I may support this if the topic ban extends for a week, and only includes the article, not the talk page. BelloWello (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

How much time? How many times does he need to be told? Seriously, he's been asked by multiple editors to tone it down. From his posts this week, he frankly doesn't give a damn. Ravensfire (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I may support it if it was for a limited time and only from editing the article itself, not the talk page. BelloWello (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This proposed topic ban is idiotic. I'm already on a voluntary timeout from the MoMK article and talk page until 10th May. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Although not against policy, calling someone's proposal idiotic wouldn't be advisable given your circumstances, Cody. BelloWello (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Am i in violation of my self imposed timeout from the MoMK article and talk page by posting on this noticeboard, as John is claiming? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Your statement saying you would take a "sabbatical" does not specify whether you're taking a sabattical from wikipedia as a whole or just the article. It seems some editors (myself included) when they first read that took that to imply that you would take a break from all of wikipedia, however, you did not implicitly say that. Hence, now that you've clarified you only meant it to mean the article and talk page in question, no you are not. BelloWello (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That does nothing to excuse the fresh incivility, though, does it? From his first edit to his most recent, all I can see are attacks, insults, smears, and insinuations. SuperMarioMan 18:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

A user's first edit really seems irrelevant. I'm not sure why we're trying to WP:BITE a newbie here. BelloWello (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Strong support - WP:SPAs need to be pried away from this topic area if it has any hope of being managed. Tarc (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • That doesn't provide a rationale about this specific user. BelloWello (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Actually, it does. Users who come here to zealously advocate for a single topic are not valuable or constructive additions to the project. When their behavior becomes too problematic in their single topic area of choice, then the best course is to simply remove them from it. Tarc (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Total contempt for policies and guidelines, such as that expressed in the "idiotic" comment above, would seem to constitute a decent enough rationale. SuperMarioMan 18:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support. Far too many excuses are being made for a whole catalogue of uncivil edits. It is quite plain now that this user will not be persuaded to contribute in good faith unless some form of restriction is imposed. As far as I can tell, the user has offered not a single edit to any topic outside the Murder of Meredith Kercher, and his strong POV has blatantly compromised his ability to be productive. This has dragged on long enough. SuperMarioMan 18:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you were politely requested earlier to stay off my case, SuperMarioMan, and you agreed to do so. It doesn't look good when you immediately violate that agreement in a further attempt to get me banned from Misplaced Pages. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I would respectfully argue that one hardly needs any excuse to impose a topic ban, actually - the edits that you have made speak for themselves. It is this persistent refusal to listen to good advice that has made it practically impossible to engage in any form of meaningful discussion with you. SuperMarioMan 18:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I would argue that he has shown himself willing to listen to advice, even when he disagrees, if he is approached in an amicable manner, something most on that page have failed to do. An example can be seen here, this is also my experience so far. BelloWello (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Does one small positive really outweigh a whole load of serious negatives? My experience so far is unfortunately rather different to yours. SuperMarioMan 19:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Considering all I've seen you do is constantly trade accusations with him, I'm not too surprised he would respond differently. Furthermore, making dishonest allegations as you did below isn't conducive to editing amicably with the editor. BelloWello (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

My point is that you were asked to step back by another editor from engaging in a hostile manner with me. You promised to do so, then immediately broke the promise. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I seem to recall that you made a promise to re-read Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, such as WP:NPA, before returning to contribute to this project. Is this badgering of my "strong support" vote supposed to make the opinions that I have expressed any less valid? SuperMarioMan 19:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That is inaccurate, he did not promise to take a break from wikipedia. He promised to take a "sabbatical" but did not specify that it would be from wikipedia as a whole, he meant it to mean just that article and talk page. Saying he broke his promise is dishonest. BelloWello (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Splitting hairs. I note once more that no refutation has been offered with regard to the concerns about uncivil editing. There are only so many excuses that can be made - please give it a rest. SuperMarioMan 19:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You made a dishonest attack on the editor. That isn't very civil. BelloWello (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - We just discussed this above. Are we going to bring this up again and again until we get the result that certain editors want? Let's give him time to review the policies during his 2-week topic ban (self imposed) and see then. I don't understand this huge rush for action now, especially as the discussion has already concluded.LedRush (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The user has broken his self-imposed "topic ban" within 24 hours, and in an uncivil manner at that. Note also the phrasing "I will return to Misplaced Pages as an editor on this topic" (see the end of the hatted section above). As I understand it, this should have meant refraining from discussions about the topic at all venues, including WP:ANI (formal topic bans are precisely that - a ban on discussing the topic at all venues). SuperMarioMan 19:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You are still making a dishonest smear against an editor. He technically is not editing the topic, and has gone even further and not edited the talk page. He even refused to post a source I asked him to post on the talk page because of his previous statement. It seems someone is acting in good faith, I can't say the same about another person in this conversation... BelloWello (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

He has openly debated proposed content intended for the article at this page, which violates the conditions of the "sabbatical" in spirit if not in letter (as in "technically editing the topic"). His first edit today repeated a recent personal attack. Furthermore, even the briefest overview of Cody's general editing pattern makes nonsense of the idea that he is editing in "good faith". Please keep this discussion on-topic, about the conduct of the user. SuperMarioMan 19:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I won't be editing or posting on the article talk page for 2 weeks. I promised to review Misplaced Pages policies in the mean time. Can't you be happy with that? I feel like you're persecuting me. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. Other users here have invited User:CodyJoeBibby to continue discussion at ANI, including at another thread "#Expansion: Murder of Meredith Kercher" where it was noted this user was 1 of 2 who had been contacted about a different ANI thread, and now the same user who noted CodyJoeBibby was contacted, about ANI plans, wants to issue a topic-ban for replying in the same ANI thread where the user was mentioned. I say let User:CodyJoeBibby continue the 2-week self-imposed break at MoMK, but also allow editing of other articles, or discussions on this ANI page, to learn more about WP policies, guidelines, and admin actions. We should continue to WP:WELCOME our new users. -Wikid77 22:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment After one month and ~250 edits, CodyJoeBibby is no longer a "new user". By this time, most folks have figured out what it is we do here. --John (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose This user contributes and attempts to bring facts to the article. The tones I have seen carried by all sides. This is to be about editing an article, need I say the word "playground" again? Mr. Wales has took noticed of all the hostility on this article. It is that type of article, and there are no innocent here, this constant pointing the finger attitude is absurd. Now grow up and edit if your here to edit, if not do not keep playing a game. I would hope that many of the ones I see posting here would get involved as well. If one needs a topic ban they all need it. Thank you kindly. --Truth Mom (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: From the "opposes" listed so far, I see little refutation of John's opening points, but much understatement of CodyJoeBibby's actions. WP:BITE and WP:WELCOME would carry more weight had the user indicated more willingness to listen to recommendations. Claims about a "different ANI thread" are irrelevant to this particular discussion - is there anything to disprove the above concerns regarding WP:SPA, WP:NPA, WP:BATTLE and WP:GREATWRONGS? Responding to such points with attempts to redirect the subject of the discussion onto other users does not address the matter at hand. This is not the first occasion that the user has promised to research policies and guidelines before making further contributions, only to resume uncivil and unproductive editing on their return. As for the content dispute which led the incivility, and then to this WP:ANI discussion, despite universal rejection of the proposed content and countless explanations being made, his latest edits (up to his last) indicate that his views persistently remain unchanged and I see little hope that two weeks of self-imposed restriction will do much to change things. SuperMarioMan 11:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to give this a rest now, SuperMarioMan. This is starting to look like a fight where the only person fighting is you. You already have my pledge. Please find something else to do. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 12:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

On 9th April, you stated that you would "have to ensure I'm more familiar with the rules as I don't want any trouble". Since that pledge has not materialised, and given recent edits, I'm not inclined to trust that this one will. SuperMarioMan 12:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should actually give me the chance to take my voluntary timeout and further research Misplaced Pages policies. You don't give me much time for anything apart from engaging with your endless stream of comments directed at me. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose A number of editors here and their "underlings' (for lack of a more accurate term)are entirely too thin skinned. It may simply be a clash of British and American cultures, but a few sarcastic or disrespectful comments do not make a threat or an attack.. This is a very contested subject both here and out in the world. Emotions run hot at times.. Banning, topic or general, is not the 'go to', preferred remedy.. though its been used that way in the past by admins that wanted to be rid of opposing voices.. I think unless there's a clear ad hom attack on a fellow editor (more than a snide, a snark or a condescending tone) , a simple word of warning or at most a 24 hour block to let things cool down would be an appropriate and measured response. I strongly oppose blocking CodyJB as being far too severe a punishment. Tjholme (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• "a few sarcastic or disrespectful comments do not make a threat or an attack". Quite an understatement, especially when "sarcastic or disrespectful comments" are made repeatedly. What is it about edits like these that makes them excusable? Feel free to answer and refute the concerns placed at the top of the section, but please don't cite past events as a defence of some sort, when none of the administrators referred to are participating here. As for a "clear ad hom attack on a fellow editor (more than a snide, a snark or a condescending tone)", is an edit like this the sort of thing you had in mind? SuperMarioMan 14:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• So far, all of the opposes are from the opposing side of the topic area. Tarc (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I have removed and edited much information from the article by the newer editors who want to include more information about the controversy, I have publicly and privately come out against certain disruptive and uncivil actions by such editors, and I have consistently worked with all editors who are willing to engage in constructive and civil dialog; I don't see myself as coming from a "side" of this discussion other than making sure the article conforms to Misplaced Pages policies. Secondly, if we are going to choose "sides", wouldn't your comment be more accurate about all of the "supports"? Instead of trying to figure out whose side everyone is on, why don't we just discuss Cody's edits and the best way to deal with them?LedRush (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to request that this topic be closed as I am already on a voluntary timeout from editing the MoMK page or posting on its talk page until 10th May. Attempting to block an editor who is already on a voluntary timeout is extremely combative. Questions need to be raised about such behaviour. I would prefer not to be posting on Misplaced Pages at all until 10th May, and as long as nobody comments about me i will not do so. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Recommendation that this thread be closed. No admin action is likely forthcoming this time around. There is too much focus, energy and I daresay, emotions surrounding the many numerous threads happening here and on various talk pages concerning the topics of the article Murder of Meredith Kercher. All of that energy could be used to improve the article or other tasks on Misplaced Pages. I would recommend that parties break it off for now and let's see if a time for peace can be achieved. Allow AGF for Cody even if you think he doesn't deserve it. If, after he returns on May 10, he persists in the same behavior then his rope will be shorter with the expectations that he will abide by our policies. If he violates them, we can readdress this then...in the meantime, let's do something constructive. (To Cody) I recommend that you cease editing immediately...continuing to post here & elsewhere on Wiki is actually perpetuating that which you want to cease.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as a major contributor to this discussion, I'll second all of that, even though the concerns at the top of this section have received no actual rebuttal. For one last time, I am willing to extend good faith - from this point on, further disregard for editing norms will be indefensible. SuperMarioMan 16:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC) Due to developments following this comment that I made, I no longer hold this opinion, and as such am striking it through. SuperMarioMan 16:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The other side

I have not taken a look at the recent edits from the editor in question about this matter, but I am quite disturbed by the general tone here of many comments above. This article is a known problem, with Jimbo himself weighing in to say that editors in the past took over the article to promote a specific view against WP:NPOV policy and using blocks and so forth to do so. The above comments calling for a topic ban are coming from all the same editors who got the article into the sorry position it was in. Frankly, their complaints about another editor making uncivil comments do not mean much coming from editors who have consistently tried to portray anyone who disagrees with them as being WP:FRINGE (against what those rules actually say) and worthy of being wholly ignored, both in the article and on the discussion page. We need good faith discussion and action on this article, not simply people owning the article to advance their own agenda. Even some of the comments above (especially the one about the article supposedly being under the stewardship of experienced editors, etc. -- translation: WP:OWN and other violations) should be enough to show that there is a serious problem here. New editors are likely to be frustrated at the constant red tape being thrown up to prevent any meaningful changes to an article identified by Jimmy Wales as violating NPOV and BLP policies. If we are looking for enforcing a topic ban on an editor, there are plenty of other editors who probably deserve one as well. DreamGuy (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for written agreement

• @ Cody regarding their last post and others: I would (out of experience) recommend a clear pledge that could look like the following:
  "I hereby pledge not to make edits related to the Murder of Meredith Kercher, broadly construed, until May 10. I reserve the right to respond in case my name is mentioned at user talk pages, at WP:ANI or at another appropriate conflict-resolving venue. Furthermore, my pledge does not extend to other unrelated articles if I choose to edit them while attempting to become more familiar with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines."
  I think that would help a lot and you would have my support to close this thread after such clarity (in your pledge) and AGF, it never has to be reopened.TMCk (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be a well-worded proposal (I've tweaked a couple of words - e.g. "approbate" to "appropriate"). SuperMarioMan 13:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

SMM - I've read the comments that you cite. I dont see an attack. I see frustration in Cody's comments. I would suggest that Cody simply be asked to tone down the snark and keep the discussion friendly (sort of).. and we all just let this issue go and get back to butting heads over the MoMK article rather than this distraction. Smartassery is not (or at least shouldnt be) a banning offense. Tjholme (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No need. I would strongly discourage Cody from taking such a pledge. There is no reason to throw a bone to those who seem determined to drag your screen-name through the mud. BelloWello (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Why don't we just let Cody respond to my last post and decide for themselves? I don't think further discussion is needed until they do so (and I've left a note on their talkpage so they're are aware of this).TMCk (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
• Dismissing the content of his edits as mere "frustration" or "snark" or "smartassery" is an understatement that completely misses the point. At the time of this edit, made on 23rd April, there had been no interaction between Cody and myself for almost two weeks, but still the user joined the talk page discussion with nothing to offer but a misdirected attack against me, citing a guideline that does not even apply to talk pages. When entering the later WP:ANI discussion on 27th April, in his first sentence he characterises a mass of other users as a "tag team" or "pack", ad hominem remarks that could not possibly be interpreted as anything other than attacks. There is also no "distraction" from me here - as you will see from the section header, this ANI discussion relates to a user's conduct, concerns about which have not received the slightest refutation at all from those who oppose a topic ban. Instead, there are unsubtle attempts to turn the whole debate into something about other users - that is the only "distraction" that is apparent here. SuperMarioMan 00:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• While a response to the proposal from the user does not appear to be forthcoming, this new edit to the Perugia article (note the WP:OR title of the section - there is a clear POV and the addition has questionable relevance to an article about the town itself) demonstrates precisely why there should be some sort of written agreement to avoid all articles and edits related to the Murder of Meredith Kercher, broadly construed, until 10th May. As it stands, the user cannot or will not keep their strong POV out of their edits to articles. SuperMarioMan 16:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
• I do agree that this is problematic. He is coatracking material relating to his POV about the murder into other articles. No sign of a sabbatical or of the learning we were promised. I think this user is unable to stop and needs a topic ban as I proposed. --John (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The other way of looking at it is that you and some others are simply reverting notable information from articles that might in any way support a view you strongly oppose and have consistently editing in such a way as to advance your own personal opinions on instead of doing the responsible thing and editing so that the notable content is worded more appropriately. DreamGuy (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

In that case, may I request that you look through this edit (content disruptively re-inserted here and explain how starting a section titled "Institutional Corruption and Repression of Free Speech in Perugia" ("corruption" and "repression" described as "institutional" on the basis of one situation alone) does not add POV to the Perugia article by "advancing personal opinions" and does not violate WP:UNDUE? SuperMarioMan 17:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not saying the edit is perfect. What I am saying is that people who blind revert entire edits from people they are in conflict with, without any attempt to improve the text or compromise, also have the end effect of pushing a POV. Certainly the topic is notable and cited to reliable sources. The wording was atrocious, but removing all mention of it is not a valid response there, and neither is the censoring of notable information about the murder in the main article that comes from multiple reliable sources from numerous experts. The pro-guilt side wants all mention of any contrary views minimized so as to give WP:UNDUE weight to their viewpoints while ignoring the many contrary views brought up by countless experts on the topic and well covered by world-wide news media. The pro-innocence side also makes bad edits, of course. Some of us wanting to treat the topic as the news sources cover it and document all notable sides. While there are some viewpoints on this topic that are fringe -- like the idea that evidence was planted to implicate a black man out of racism -- but the idea that the other two are innocent is nowhere at all even close to fringe. Hell, from recent reports I think that view is in the majority. Yet some editors want it downplayed so severely that it's clear they are doing so from POV reasons. I doubt for most of them it is a conscious agenda of knowingly perverting or ignoring policies, but there are some hardcore POV pushers there who came in from outside websites with the expressed intention of slanting the article, and admit as much on those sites. We are not going to solve this problem by focusing solely on the edits of an eager, inexperienced newbie. Rather, the experienced editors who make POV edits but get away with it by working together not only have far less excuse but are also more damaging. DreamGuy (talk) 18:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments from uninvolved/need for resolution?

The discussion has now been open since 26 April and, for the benefit of all involved, is in desperate need of some sort of resolution (whatever that may be). That it has become so drawn-out is due at least in part, I feel, to the fact that much of the commentary is from users (including myself, I'll admit) who are heavily involved with the editing at the Murder of Meredith Kercher topic, from which this dispute originated. Input from uninvolved users or administrators is sorely needed so that some sort of final decision may be reached soon. I won't repeat my own views, since I have made those clear more than once. Objective, outside opinions are what will help bring this discussion to a close. Many thanks. SuperMarioMan 18:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

On longstanding highly contentious articles, like this one, often no direct admin involvement comes from ANI notices. Another complaint related to this article was brought here just a couple of weeks ago with no direct response from anyone, and this thread was already closed once. Perhaps when they see that Jimmy Wales' attempts to directly intervene to improve the article fails and entrenched editors there argue with him, they feel unable to do anything substantive themselves. This article has been nothing but a minefield for a long, long time. Posts here focusing on the conduct of a single editor when the problem is far more widespread than that are not helpful. Indeed, anyone jumping in without looking at the full situation will probably make things worse rather than better. DreamGuy (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Can we just close this thread down now. Cody already gave himself a self imposed break from editing. What is there more to say? Issymo (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

While i am staying away from the MoMk article,I am currently editing other articles including the entry on Italy to which I added a new section on human rights, fully sourced to reliable sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Italy

User John came along and reverted the whole section with no sensible explanation as to why. He did not even have the courtesy to leave a note on my talk page. If that's not uncivil editing, I don't know what is. He is basically following me around Misplaced Pages reverting everything I do. If I revert his reversion, then one of his friends comes along and reverts it again so they don't violate the 3RR rule. Could somebody please take a look at the human rights section I added to the italy article and tell me what's wrong with it, thanks. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Massive number of Playboy-related AFD nominations by a single user

User:Damiens.rf has, over the last few hours, nominated more that 100 articles converning Playboy models (mostly Playmates) for deletion; the count is steadily growing. The nominations really can't be bundled together, and typically require examination of each individual's movie/TV credits. There's no way that interested editors can handle this volume of nominations, which often prove controversial. This runs afoul of the fait accompli principle set out by Arbcom in the TV episodes and characters cases; while not formally adopted as policy or guideline, I think there can be little doubt that the principle enjoys community support -- without it, consensus-building becomes a war of attrition. Make no mistake, I believe Damiens is right on principle on the notability issues involved, and disagree with him only as to exactly where to draw the lines involved. I don't doubt his good faith; while not all the AFDs on Playmates he made in the recent past were successful, I think they demonstrated significant support for the arguments he's advanced. But this is too much for the process to handle in one batch, far too much. It's inherently disruptive, despite the nominator's good faith, and it's likely to turn into a contentious mess that prevents the sort of article-by-article decision making that ought to be going on. Similar large bundles of Playmate nominations in the past have led to cookie-cutter voting and unpleasantness, and didn't contribute enough to building an encyclopedia to justify the effort and bad feelings involved. Full disclosure: I've been working in the same direction as Damiens for some time now, working gradually and using "soft" redirects to convert the large number of poorly sourced Playmate stubs into better-organized, more notability and BLP-compliant components of group articles. That process has been minimally controversial so fsr, and I believe it offers a better compromise that can enjoy a broader consensus. But even if I agreed entirely with the nominator, this is too much to handle in a single wave of AFDs. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Damiens has agreed to stop, so I think this is set for now.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Is everything set? Damiens.rf has a history of doing these large scale mass nominations for both images and articles. He's been brought here more than once for this very issue. He'll likely be brought here again. AniMate 04:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Geeze, and I thought I did too much when I did about 10 at once. BelloWello (talk) 05:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Didn't we tar and feather another editor who went on a AfD spree of articles that may or may not have had appropriate justifications? Just wondering if we intend to trot out the WikiMob on this case as well as 100 is significantly more than the ~20 articles that were nominated in the other case (with the other case also having the multiple distinct "events" of nomination frenzies). Disclosure: I've interactied with Damiens before on a discussion about a picture's Fair Usage Rationale. Hasteur (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

There's an important difference here -- Damiens did a much smaller batch of Playmate nominations a short time ago, and these nominations are reasonably consistent with the results there. The previous spree you're referring to, by a different editor, was completely off the wall, and completely indiscriminate -- and used an automated tool in evasion of his blacklisting from the use of that tool. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Wuhwuzdat had it coming. HalfShadow 21:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

background - Some years back, folks at WP:PORN decided to include "is a playboy playmate" as one of the final evidences of notability in WP:PORNBIO. What followed was that there were articles created for every girl that has ever striped for playboy. When this piece of WP:PORNBIO was brought to an wider audience via an RFC, the community decided that being a playboy playmate is not, by itself, evidence of notability, and playmates should have articles only when otherwise notable.

These deletions were expected. I have not run across all of the playmates. And I have not nominated all I have ran across. Of course, some of them may be proven otherwise notable, but that's why we have a discussion process.

Most of the articles will surely end up being deleted or redirected to a list. After that, the playmate's enthusiast's efforts may concentrate on improving the articles on really notable playmates, as today, many of these are stubs just because there's simply not enough volunteers to keep up with an playmate sub-encyclopedia. --Damiens.rf 13:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The concern, I think, is that those who are interested in this topic area have to go through a large number of AFDs at once, each debate generating its own discussion and finding its own consensus. If I were intent on Keeping each of the articles you nominated, checking and following such a large number of debates would be a full-time job for the coming week. I'm sure as hell not going to edit much else, either. Here, the scale of the nominations detracts from the (probably valid) point that the subjects just aren't notable.

If you were intent on keeping each of the articles I nominated you'd be wrong to begin with. Each case should be judged on its own merits, and an intention of blindingly keeping all playmates was the original problem we started from. --Damiens.rf 15:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it would have been far better to nominate a dozen or so to establish your test cases, and then bundle 5 or so at a time thereafter. If, as you say, these articles are sure to be deleted, the second and third sets of articles would have precedent to follow, and the debates would be much simpler. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 14:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

He did do a run of test cases. They're in the deletion log for April 4. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

@Damians. Restrict the nominations to a level that the guys at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Pornography can handle. For example, 7 AfDs per week. Just make all your research in one go, write the AfDs, and save the list of AfDs in a text file. You can open it every week and mechanically nominate the first 7 items via copy/paste. You can combine this with Ultraexactzz's advice above. I know, this is nowhere near as rewarding as doing all of them in one go :-) . --Enric Naval (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

7 Afds in a week would be a good rate; you don't want Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Pornography to be slammed to hard, after all. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 14:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Pacing AFD nominations is especially important when nominating biographies whose potential sources are likely to predate the Internet era. It's pretty easy to determine notability -- or the lack thereof -- for someone active in 2002 or even in 1995. But some of these nominations are from the 1970s, and may require additional legwork (especially due to newspaper paywall policies). Serpent's Choice (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Seven articles per week is ridiculous low. Why should I restrict the pace of deletion nominations where there were no restriction of the pace of creation for such articles?

It has been a long time since the rfc that established that it was a mistake to consider all playmates notable, and I have seen not organized effort from wp:pornbio to clean up the mess.

There's no reason to worry. AFDs that do not have enough participation get relisted. And if a stub of the form "Rose Rosewood was the Jan 1961 Playmate. She was clicked by Mr. Photographer" get deleted, and we later find out that Ms. Rosewood was notable, it can easily recreated. As easily as it was first created. --Damiens.rf 15:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) WP:KITTENS works both ways. And there are significantly fewer people able to handle AfD nominations than there are people willing to create articles. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You should restrict the pace of deletion nominations out of respect for the people who will be trying to determine consensus on each article. Seven per week is ridiculously low, but there is no reason at all why you can't limit to say, five per day. And I would say to nominate no further articles until the current backlog clears. Resolute 15:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I will nominate no further Playmate-articles until the current backlog clears. --Damiens.rf 15:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Resolute 19:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the nominator should be commended for instigating these long-overdue AfD discususions. Particularly so for going through the AfD process honestly, rather than sneaking around a discussion by creating a redirect. A subject whose only claim to fame is to being a Playboy Playmate is not notable, as consensus has determined. It is wrong to redirect this article to a list of 12 other such non-notables, whose only claim to fame has been specifically determined to be non-notable. List of Playboy Playmates of 1961 for example links to not one artice, contrary to all guidelines, and the subject of the list is in itself non-notable. If the subject is notable, she will have a standalone article at which her Playmate centerfold can be mentioned. Including her on a list of a non-notable subject is simply wrong. Kudos to User:Damiens.rf for stepping up and doing the honest work that the fans have been covering up. Dekkappai (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• On a separate note, Dekkappai's nomination of said list he linked, AfD here, seems to be failing spectacularly. And my arguments would be the same as is stated in the AfD, essentially that Dekkappai is completely wrong about what lists are for, considering in most cases they are specifically for listing people or other information that are not notable enough to have their own article. Silverseren 00:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Automated tools to send material to AfD for existing articles should be banned. This reminds me of the case of a recent editor who went WP:IDONTLIKEIT on sororities and fraternities, starting with the Alphas... Carrite (talk) 04:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Sure. Only tools that send material to AfD for non-existing articles should be allowed. --Damiens.rf 05:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems Damiens.rf is simply implementing previously established site-wide consensus, against a minority of vociferous WikiProject members. How many articles are we talking about here in total? Tijfo098 (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Except for the fact that Damiens.rf has not been previously banned from using automated tools, I honestly don't see much difference in his deletion nominations here and the ones for which Wuhwazdat was banned from starting AFDs. How can you possibly be following WP:BEFORE if you post an AFD at a rate of one a minute, and use a completely boilerplate rationale in every AFD? The proposition that being a Playboy Playmate does not guarantee notability does not in turn mean that being a Playboy Playmate means that you are not notable. The results thus far seem to be varying widely, suggesting that these were just as indiscriminate as the past sprees against British models or fraternities, targeting a subject rather than considering each article topic on its own merits (for example, that sufficient sources exist here, or that the subject is notable for other things here or here). I agree with Carrite: there needs to be some restriction on using automated tools to AFD articles, even if it's just a cap on the noms per day or per hour, because that kind of bot-like editing is completely at odds with the kind of consideration that an AFD requires, Isn't the point of automated tools to make noncontroversial edits easier? The purpose is not to make one side of a deletion debate labor-free, while imposing the unreasonable burden of researching 100+ articles a day upon those who are interested in seeing if they can be saved. Particularly where the AFD nominator obviously hasn't bothered to do that work. postdlf (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Q - "How can you possibly be following WP:BEFORE if you post an AFD at a rate of one a minute, and use a completely boilerplate rationale in every AFD?"

A - It would be only possible if the articles were almost all just one paragraph long and equally boilerplatelly written. Oh, wait a second!

The proposition that being a Playboy Playmate does not guarantee notability does not in turn mean that being a Playboy Playmate means that you are not notable.

Are you implying I used this rationale? I haven't.

"The results thus far seem to be varying widely, suggesting that these were just as indiscriminate"

No, they are not. Most of the articles are going to be deleted/redirected.

My nominations were not undiscriminated. I reviewed every article and, when needed, searched for the model's page on imdb. Of course, in some of the nominations, it could turn out that the model is notable after all. But these will be the exceptional cases.

You know, many of the articles say nothing more than "Ms. Nice Flower was <insert date> Playboy Playmate. She was shot by photographer Mr. PhotoMan". Since being a playmate is, by community consensus, a grant of notability, such articles are qualified for WP:CSD#A7. But I have sent them to AfD anyway. --Damiens.rf 19:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh really? Explain your review process for someone like Ms. Teen Oregon USA 1994 who has multiple acting credits? Garbage. Just like how you seem to interpret the consensus that playmates are not inherently notable to mean that reliable source coverage about their "playmatehood" are disqualified in determining notability, which is a perverted interpretation that defies WP:BASIC. The proper reading of that consensus is that playmates are not notable in and of themselves if they do not have independent coverage by reliable sources. If several newspapers cover some girl with some depth because she was named playmate or only cover her because she is a playmate, that's her notability! Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It is also clear from your mention of WP:CSD A7 that your understanding of deletion criteria is weak. CSD A7 is for articles that don't indicate why a person is important. It "is a lower standard than notability" and to use it on Playmates just because playmates are not inherently notable would have been improper and probably would have gotten you blocked if you had done 100 in a day. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

There's no use arguing with deletionists. They don't care about concensus. They live to delete stuff... and vice versa: If they don't get their daily ration of deletions, they could shrivel and die. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

No need to be nasty, Bugs. Many of us care about consensus and take the time to clean up around here.—Kww(talk) 07:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The editor in question says he doesn't care about concensus, he's nominating for deletion anyway. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Welll, A7 isn't about notability, so that part's just a common misapprehension. As for "Since being a playmate is, by community consensus, a grant of notability, such articles are qualified for WP:CSD#A7. But I have sent them to AfD anyway.", the only way that parses at all is if you assume he mean "...by community consensus, a grant of notability,...". Either way, it doesn't excuse discussing people that work at identifying the material that needs to be removed from Misplaced Pages with such negative tones and implications.—Kww(talk) 07:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

If he meant to say "NOT", then he should have said "NOT". I'm not a mind-reader, I can only go by what he said, or appeared to me to say. As far as negativity... deletionists are pretty much useless. They take away instead of adding. They aren't interested in value to the readers. They are only interested in deleting stuff. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm strongly inclusionist myself, but I think that there are definitely some deletionists who do add some quality content to the project. The problem is when some of them get in their minds that all articles on certain topic are all inherently non-notable and do spray and pray style nominations. I mean, if they just took their time and picked the low-hanging fruit they'd have more success getting junk deleted with much less drama. (Though I accept that the nominator in this case was acting in good faith) Qrsdogg (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's be clear here, Bugs: I don't think that I am "pretty much useless", nor do I consider my preference for removing material to be one that doesn't add "value to the readers". I take your statement as a personal insult, and think you should stop. A project where no one took out the trash would be just as useless as a project where no one added content.—Kww(talk) 15:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• At Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Serria_Tawan I see the only two people trying to delete it are copying and pasting the same exact argument time and again without even reading the article, considering its merits, or looking for sources. I clicked the Google news archive button at the top of the AFD, and found she had written a book which was reviewed in the news, and she interviewed for it. WP:BEFORE exist for a reason. You can't expect people to go through a hundred different AFD at once. And the mindless boilerplating "Delete them all, I don't need to bother looking for sources or even reading the article" should be stopped as well. Dream Focus 09:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The editor's AFDs here are at best incompetent, and at worst malicious / bad faith, and should all be immediately dismissed. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 10:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• • Right, DreamFocus. Damien says above that he was 1) nominating on the basis of the article's current state, rather than its potential, and 2) doing no more than "review every article and, when needed, searched for the model's page on imdb". That's not compliance with WP:BEFORE, and you can't justify this by saying that most are delete-worthy, even if it's only a few that are notable. We don't expect every AFD to be correct, but it's simply not acceptable to post an AFD on the based on averages related to the subject matter rather than a careful consideration of that particular article topic.

    So we do we need a ban here from Damien.rf using automated tools to list articles at AFD, or is it enough that he's said he will stop? postdlf (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

    • No, it's not enough. The AFD's need to be deleted, as being driven by incompetency and/or bad faith. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Close all of them. If people want to nominate just a few at a time, after doing things properly, such as taking a few seconds to do a Google news search first before each nomination, so be it. Dream Focus 16:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be fair to at least speedy close all the AFDs that just have the same copied and pasted boilerplate comments from the nom and the delete !voters, with no other substantive comments. postdlf (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far. After the RfC change, these Playmate articles do need to be reviewed, and speedy closing them would force someone to start all over again with AfDs. And if a speedy-closed article were re-nominated soon, someone would object with a "this was just speedy closed a few weeks ago". I would be more in favor of (1) speedy closing only the clearly notable nominations, and (2) a promise from Damiens not to make any more nominations until this backlog is fully cleared. --JaGa 18:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

They should be rolled back as if the nominations had never occurred. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Why nominate them at all? Why not just merge them all into some big "List of" articles? That lets the articles get broken out again if notability is established. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 07:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

If this is a repeat problem for Damiens.rf, ie, if he has a repeated history of causing problems, then he should be stopped. BarkingMoon (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Should automated tools ever be used to list articles at AFD?

Apart from the conduct of any individual editor, it seems like the use of automated tools generally to post AFDs just causes ill will and can easily be abused (whether or not in good faith) by the rapid posting of bulk nominations. Per WP:BEFORE, we expect that those listing articles for deletion individually assess each article and its potential as a topic before listing it, and we expect tailored deletion rationales rather than boilerplate votes. Automating this process obviously runs counter to those expectations, and I see no inherent benefit to enabling people to post more AFDs at a faster rate. When is it ever a good idea to post AFDs in bulk? When has it ever improved the accuracy and validity of deletion nominations and rationales? As I noted in the last AN/I posting about abuse of automated AFD postings, it not only causes a wide net to be cast that inevitably catches valid article subjects in with the crowd, however few proportionately, it also hinders deletion of the articles that should be deleted because the whole process ends up being mistrusted as indiscriminate. Listing an article at AFD shouldn't be quick and easy; it should be cautious and deliberate.

So I think we need to evaluate whether this feature should be disabled entirely in all automated tools, or at least hindered in some way to prevent rapid-fire mass nominations, such as by capping the rate (e.g., no more than one every ten minutes) or absolute number (e.g., no more than ten per day). postdlf (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

As a regular participant in AfD debates, I place great importance on WP:BEFORE and believe that AfD nominators who ignore it create a fair amount of dissension. Automated nominations pretty much assure that individual assessment of the notability of the topic and the avaiability of reliable sources has not taken place. I agree with most of what Postdlf has said. However, I think that a hard working and conscientious editor could make more than ten nominations a day, if each was researched and had its own rationale, so I would oppose such a limit. Cullen328 (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The limit I propose is not for manual AFD listings, just automated ones. postdlf (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The AfD templates are also set up the be pretty self-automating. I mean, once you {{subst:afd}} into an article, you get links for the the AfD page preloaded with templates, the day's list where the new AfD is reported, and the author notification template. IMO, it's not that hard to take the AfD the rest of the way manually for there.

That said, I know there are some editors who batch process. They will find 10–20 articles they have concerns about, research them, and then post all the AfDs consecutively for the ones that warrant deletion. If they choose to use an automated tool to help them post the AfDs, I don't object to that usage—so not every person who fires off a bunch of AfDs consecutively has not thought them through. However, those batch-processing editors are probably the exceptions to the rule, with the editors who do start a bunch of ill-considered, cookie-cutter AfDs being more common—and if the latter group is abusing the automated tools, then the tools need to be either throttled or disabled. —C.Fred (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Does this proposal treat individual (i.e. non-bulk) Twinkle-style AfDs as "automated"? Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Lots of responsible editors use automated tools for nominations. Anyhow, a general proposal like this should be at the Village Pump, not ANI. --RL0919 (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I use twinkle to place xfds. Automated tools for such purposes are convenient for avoiding mistakes, like forgetting to notify. I think there's nothing why with doing mechanical things by using machinery. Judging when to nominate for deletion is needed no matter how one is going to do it. It's true that the availability of the tools makes it easier to be thoughtless, but the lack of required thought is in the responsibility of the editor who uses them. Large batch nominations have been a problem for a long time: there are some times when individual attention is clearly not needed, but often it is. Nobody should be nominating in significant batches, either in one group nomination of in many closely spaced individual ones, without making it very plain from the start that they have searched carefully each of the individual items, and how they have done it. Proper preparation makes things go much smoother, than placing the nominations without such comment, and then having to justify oneself in response to criticism. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Short answer, no. Mass edits of any sort need to be approached carefully, and in particular invocations of a deliberative process like an AfD need to be done deliberatively rather than in mechanical fashion, lest Misplaced Pages turn into a battle between editors and bots. That's not to say there's anything wrong with helper bots and Twinkle, applied carefully, or that you can't do just as much harm by cutting and pasting. The point is that unleashing a whole bunch of processes at once swamps anyone's ability to deal with them. Seven (or five, or fifteen) per week is not ridiculously slow, as Misplaced Pages has no deadline. But it would still need some consensus, as it's not reasonable for a single editor to dictate process for everyone else. There's a threshold somewhere between several dozen and several hundred pages with the same issues, beyond which AfD is just not the best venue for making decisions. Anyway, best to put the brakes on things before people invest too much in it. For example, why not keep all the AfDs open as is, but announce a schedule for closing them in batches of a period of 30 days? Or maybe group all the sub-stubs with no claim to notability other than being a playmate into a single batch (all of which would be deleted within 7 days if no further sourced claims to notability are made). That would give people enough time to handle it. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Need closure of deletion review, copyvio investigation

We need an uninvolved admin to close Misplaced Pages:Deletion review#Last-minute rescue. After some contentious back-and-forth, I discovered that the deleted article, which was deleted as OR and then userfied at User:George Serdechny/Last-minute rescue, was rife with copyvios: full blocks of text lifted nearly verbatim from multiple sources. Its creator, George Serdechny (talk · contribs), has copped to it by basically explaining that he did it intentionally to make a WP:POINT, and removed a huge portion of text, claiming that it's now resolved.

Well, it isn't. From User:George Serdechny/Last-minute rescue#Competent opinion: "the rescue that comes 'in the nick of time', the stock and trade of sensational melodrama..."; "the last-minute rescue (or the last-second rescue), and an escape scenario, in which the hero has to escape from a seemingly impossible situation...".

And worse, it seems like this is his normal editing method, rather than just disruption out of resentment towards the AFD. From his article, Evil Russian: "Reagan was the most vehemently anti-Russian President America had seen"; "between 1942 and 1945, the Soviet Union gradually underwent a makeover on American cinema screens..."; "The Mob tries to extort protection money from the father, and their evil Russian karate expert breaks Dad's leg...". From Arab terrorist: "From 1977 to 1993, the only Arab terrorism..."; "...the movie’s response to film terrorism is to deconstruct the Hollywood image..."

So we need someone to close the deletion review, the full deletion of the userfied page, a full investigation of all of his contributions for copyright infringement, and some decision as to how to deal with the editor from here. postdlf (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

After reviewing some of postdif's revelations, I made the request last night to close the deletion review as a copyvio situation, as well as a temporary block (though based on his behaviour, I suggest a longer block) against the user in order to give a chance for us to check the rest of his contributions. Since the page in his userspace holds many copyvio situations, we need to eliminate the page entirely if only to remove all of the copyvios that are saved in the history.

It should also be noted that this editor has posted abusively on at least one user's talk page (see this diff.). He went so far as to referring to editors in the debate as "stupid" and suggested that actions against his article would be a blemish on the administrator's record. I posted a reply to the message later (after postdif's post there) pointing the admin. in question to the copyvio evidence and will notify that admin. now of this AN/I request. CycloneGU (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, the things I get into after commenting in an AFD. This user has been persistent in his refusal or inability to understand that original research, in Misplaced Pages's sense of the term, includes novel synthesis. The connections he claims between cited sources are rarely fully realized in those sources, and have at times been provably false. But more importantly for ANI's purposes, those cited sources appear to be frequently -- if not universally -- copyright violations. The entire "Hollywood Support" section from his version of National Council of American-Soviet Friendship was lifted from page 253 of his source. The entirety of National Council on Soviet Relations was lifted from this here. When he broke Jorj X. McKie back out from a redirect, adding cited passages, every passage he cited is a copyright violation of the cited source. I reverted that article to a redirect, but have stopped short of trying to restore non-offending versions at this time, as use of revdel is probably called for in many of these circumstances. Serpent's Choice (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• In terms of the copyright issues, I've done a spot-check of his contribs and confirmed that at least three of his articles are unusable in current form. Given issues noted here, this is sufficient to warrant a WP:CCI: Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations/20110429. This one is relatively brief. Please help. :) Some of our CCIs are over a year old, and we could really stand to whittle them down. Since I've opened this CCI, I suppose somebody else had better address the deletion review. As to what to do, in terms of copyright: I don't see a history of copyright text warnings. He has been informed now. If he continues copying content, then we will have to block. Hopefully, this won't be necessary. --Moonriddengirl 14:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking at an earlier version of his talk page, he's had loads of problems over non-free images. Dougweller (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he has that; but this seems to be his first brush with text. --Moonriddengirl 16:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• After looking through the archives of his talk page, and looking at many other articles that he created, it seems that this is not a new problem at all. Despite claiming that this recent bout of copyvio was in order to make a point with his current debates, this is not true at all. He's been creating pages that are just blatant copyvio for ages now. Just for a few examples, the page he created of Chris Adams (character) was almost lifted entirely from this source. The page on Calvera (character) was lifted from this source. This seems to be a regular pattern with this user. He'll create poorly written articles, and the moment they are proposed for deletion, he'll immediately respond by adding in copyvio material directly copies from books. This is a rather serious problem, as the user was a rather prolific editor, and has been creating pages like this for over a year.Rorshacma (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

And as another example, the page he created on Institute for Information, Telecommunication and Media Law was copy/pasted from the institutes own webpage here. As I said, it seems that this is nothing new with this user, and everything he has ever contributed needs to be reviewed.Rorshacma (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Careful on that one, their is an OTRS permission on the talk page, I'm not convinced it covers the text used (as it's apparently a permission from somewhere else, though there is a connection) --82.7.44.178 (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough on that that one, then. I did notice that on the talk pages for some of the other articles' talk pages, the issue of copyvio was mentioned before, with instructions given to the user in question that direct quotes or summaries of other works were permitted with citation. Unfortunately, the user neither indicates that the passages in question are quotes, nor rewords them, so they still just stand as copyvio.Rorshacma (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• This is absolutely not the editor's first involvement with copyright problems with text. I've been trying to check for and clean up this editor's copyright violations and novel synthesis for most of the day. Dropping over to the Russian Misplaced Pages (via Google Translate) to try to locate one of the sources cited, I discovered that identical edits (accounting for translation) had been made to a large number of their articles. The user there, ru:Участник:Георгий Сердечный, is unquestionably the same person as the en-editor under discussion. Both the en-user and the ru-user formerly used the same name; the en-user for some time requested that communication with him from here instead be done there. On ru, this editor has a long history of warnings for copyright violation and has been blocked several times (aside: the Russian Misplaced Pages gives out very short blocks, it seems), including a block on 5 September 2010 explicitly for (again, via Google Translate) "systematic infringement of copyright". From parsing through the talk page, I believe that the block on 28 June 2010 was also for copyright violations, although that's not precisely stated in the block log. Serpent's Choice (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• In my opinion, that puts a different tenor on things. Coupled with his statement at the deletion review that his copyright infringements were deliberate, there's no real room to presume lack of familiarity with copyright. --Moonriddengirl 00:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• Looks like grounds for an indiscriminate blanking. Any objections? MER-C 02:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

None whatsoever from me. I'd have done it myself already, but I wanted to leave the information for review. CycloneGU (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• The 28 June is this diff where the blocking admin says it's for copyright infringment and from what I can make out (automated translation) basically incivility/troll like responses to that. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 11:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Also seems to have faced problems on commons, apparently loading up images via his own Flickr account. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if it would be wise for us to have him banned from Misplaced Pages entirely, even moving to an ArbCom case if it boils down to it. He is very contentious, makes up his own rules and refuses to abide by the rules, and is copying whatever he wants in here when told something isn't good enough, thinking he will get away with it. CycloneGU (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He's really behaved the same across all venues, hasn't he? Copyright infringements every where he goes, and troll-like responses to serious deletion discussions, by calling those cite valid complaints liars, responding with irrelevancies, etc. I see no option here but an indef block. He knows what he's doing; he's just trying to get away with it. postdlf (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Indef blocked

I've blocked him. I've found copied content now in every article I've examined to which he has made substantial edits that have used English language sources. I see no reason to doubt that the bulk of his contributions have been pasted or directly translated. As he has been blocked on the Russian Misplaced Pages for copyright problems and has nevertheless continued this behavior there and here, WP:AGFC no longer applies, and I don't see any choice but to block him for the protection of the project. This kind of disruption can cause serious damage and waste considerable community resources in later cleaning up.

Indef block is, of course, not necessarily permanent. It is simply open-ended. We need some plausible reason to believe that he is going to stop the behavior and comply with our policies. Until we have this, I don't think we can permit him to continue placing content on Misplaced Pages.

I always welcome review. --Moonriddengirl 21:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Sound block. Reading back there are obvious issues with this editor; explaining them and rationalising them is not the job of the volunteer editors, but for the editor concerned. They can start by trying to convince a reviewing admin that they should be unblocked, and if successful take it from there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Well said. We still have his Misplaced Pages:Deletion review#Last-minute rescue to close, and his userfied version to delete at User:George Serdechny/Last-minute rescue; apart from the completely flawed intro, it is and was all copyrighted content. postdlf (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to blank the appropriate page in his userspace and request speedy deletion of it. If there are other pages in his userspace containing copyrighted content, they must be rooted out as well. CycloneGU (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The only other two subpages of his are User:George Serdechny/In the High Attention Area 2 and User:George Serdechny/Bernardo O'Reilly. postdlf (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Do they also feature copyright material? I'll speedy those as well if they do with a similar message (linking here) to the one in the first. CycloneGU (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Odds are, but it's not really worth finding out: they've been listed at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:George Serdechny/In the High Attention Area 2 + Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:George Serdechny/Bernardo O'Reilly. postdlf (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm being harassed by a prolific internet conspiracy theorist

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Google "Samual Antoine Moser." Yep, that's the guy I'm being harassed by.

• Dr_CareBear (talk · contribs)

• 99.56.174.63 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• 99.32.61.111 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• 99.148.192.105 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• 99.56.161.215 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

My first encounter with Sam Moser was under the IP address 99.56.174.63. After it was explained to him that fringe original research isn't accepted here, he started spamming my page with accusations of being "a member of the Chruch of Satan and part of a World Wide Masonic conspiracy for a holocaust of Christians" on the basis that the numbers in some sentence fragments add up to 777 in different codes and because I reverted his POV Fringe OR on the Church of Satan article. He revealed that his name is Samuel Antoine Moser, so I'm not outing him. He then went and began an off-site slander crusade against me, which I know nothing can be done about, but it does show that this guy is unbalanced (I don't care if anyone considers that a PA, it's pretty fucking obvious). He came back later under the address 99.148.192.105 and spammed my talk page with more nonsense like "IAN THOMPSON'S SATANISM = 777 in multiples of 3," a bit upset because I linked to a site that discusses Moser's history of stalking, paranoid delusions, and harassment in response to someone ask why I was so dismissive of his fringe views in Talk:Samuel. He was banned for this. Dr CareBear immediately came out of nowhere and insisted that I made personal attacks for pointing out Moser's questionable off-site behavior. Dr CareBear admits to being Sam, so I'm not outing him. But if that wasn't enough, he had no previous involvement in any of this, happens to know Sam's exact facebook page, happens have a Dayton phone number (the IP addresses for Sam Moser are in Dayton, Ohio), also happens to have a wife from the Phillipines (Sam does according to the FB page he himself linked to), shares Sam's belief that antipsychotic medication is deadly (again, he linked his own FB page), and resumed Sam's discussion at Talk:Jehovah.

Dr CareBear is just another account of Sam Moser's, which was used to continue harassing me after his IP got blocked. Even if this somehow isn't enough, he certainly is a meatpuppet. This person (who has been detained by both mental institutions and the police in the past for various reasons) has a history of stalking and harassing people, and I've become his next target. I concede that there's nothing I can do about his off-site slander of me, but his on-site harassment and sockpuppetry to continue that harassment should not be tolerated.

When his ban expired, he ducked back into another IP address, 99.56.161.215 to continue his personal attacks based on his delusions that alphumerics prove everything and that I reverted a POV OR fringe edit of his last year. He's taken to spamming his facebook page to promote his views.

I've talked with the webmaster at masonicinfo.com, who has been a target of Moser's harassment over the years. Basically, as long as Moser isn't on his meds, he is going to harass me. Well, he doesn't have to, because we can block people, can't we? This person is too broken to be of any use to the site, since he will continue to harass me and see this site as a means to promote his delusions.

I don't want anyone to point to WP:NPA when I say he is mentally unwell. How else would you describe him? Sane? Functional? No.

It all boils down to one editor that tries to duck behind sock puppets with an agenda; against another editor who does a lot to prevent vandalism and OR, and has contributed a fair amount to certain obscure religion articles. The former is really disturbing the latter. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

o.o

This person is mentally unfit to exist in this world certainly acting in a mentally unfit way. Can you involve the police, or at least Google, in the off-Wiki slander? CycloneGU (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I tried reporting it, but Google never responded. Another part of my discussion with the masonicinfo.com webmaster, Moser doesn't really seem to respond to legal threats, since he's been incarcerated before. One time the police walked in Moser hitting "redial" to continue harassing the masonicinfo.com webmaster. When he's off his medication, he's just lucid enough to do something really crazy. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked Dr_CareBear indefinitely, and the most recent IP for a week.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I hope he gets the message that that sort of behavior just isn't right. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, I'd say no. From what I've heard of this guy, one of you would have to die first. HalfShadow 21:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the apparent connection between Dr_CareBear and the IP accounts, see this unblock request made by Dr_CareBear. He complains that personal attacks were directed at him, yet the Dr_CareBear account had sat idle for over two months; the alluded-to comments were directed at an IP. I'd say that's an effective admission that Dr_CareBear was editing as the unregistered accounts. —C.Fred (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's not close this just yet

I really think we ought to community ban this guy so that all his posts can be deleted on sight. There's no good reason to let him wind up serious editors for thousands of bytes on talk pages like he's been doing at Talk:Jehovah. It's all a lot of wasted noise that does nothing for the encyclopedia and takes up people's time. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support - it's clear he's been disrupting various venues on the net for a long time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support - After talking with the webmaster of masonicinfo.com, I would not put it past Moser to continue his activities on this site under different IP addresses, nor would I put it past him taking his harassment further (say, into stalking) if it's not nipped in the bud. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Unlikely to ever be a constructive contributor to the 'pedia, seems to add only drama, permaban IMO. Heiro 21:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support - reviewing this editor's past contributions & attitude fills me with no hope for the future. GiantSnowman 21:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
• And people like this are why my user and talk pages are SPed. HalfShadow 23:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support In addition to previous comments, there are no apparent useful contributions for the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support. The temptation was big to support just on the evidence presented here, but I also clicked around randomly in that guy's contributions. I only saw strange vandalism and religious delusions. Hans Adler 11:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support - A ban gives the community an easier way to deal with future disruption through uncontroversial blocks and reverts. -- Atama頭 17:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support. This kind of nonsense has to be stopped on sight. --NellieBly (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support. And if it's possible, get this guy in a rubber room. oknazevad (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

This is starting to look fairly clear. May we have a formal closure? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Problem with User:Davide41

This editor is becoming a real problem on the article Giulio Clovio and the talk page Talk:Giulio Clovio. Working with this editor is close to impossible. He does not respond to any discussion. He is relentless in his POV pushing. He claims this artist is an Italian artist while the literature is quite clear in that he was of Croatian descent. He was born in modern day Croatia and later moved to Italy here he did most of his work. (For the record: I am neither Italian nor Croatian; I could not care less which way this goes besides the obvious point that I think the information should be factual.)

I have mentioned the following on the talk page: For a modern reference to Clovio being referred to as Croatian: "Ante Split also notes that a contemporary, Bernardo Guidoni, called him “Giulio Clovio from Croatia” (a Crovatia) and his gravestone labeled him also as being from Croatia, Julio Clovis de Croatia." from ‘’John Van Antwerp Fine, When ethnicity did not matter in the Balkans, University of Michigan Press, 2006’’ . <snip> He was a Croatian born painter, who moved to Italy and spent most of his professional career in Italy. Because of where he did his work he is often referred to as an Italian painter.

Davide41 in the meantime has violated several guidelines/rules:

• WP:3RR April 27 , , April 28 , , , , ,

The edit warring got so bad that the page was protected . More people were involved in the edit warring, but Davide41 is a main problem.

• WP:Concensus It has become clear that several editors did not agree with him, but he keeps going. (see talk page Talk:Giulio Clovio.)
• WP:CIVIL He makes condescending comments and just calls any disagreement with him offensive. He makes silly remarks like " Errare humanum est, perseverare autem diabolicum " . Must admit I pointed out he should take his own advice and he responds by this
• WP:RS We have been over and over the fact that websites and online encyclopedias are not appropriate. And even when he uses some of those sources he misquotes them. All of this has been pointed out several times by myself and other editors on Talk:Giulio Clovio. Nothing even makes a dent in his comments.
• WP:NPOV April 27, makes a lot of changes, deletes references he does not agree with. He claims POV against everything he does not agree with and basically tells us that because he was a teacher we need to take his word for it (paraphrasing of course).

This situation is becoming very frustrating. --AnnekeBart (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Leaving aside the ravings...

• All Clovio scholars, both his admirers and his detractors, recognize that he was Italian of Croatian descent.
• All the encyclopedias of the world.

Sources:

• Encyclopædia Britannica
• Enciclopedia Italiana
• The Encyclopedia Britannica: a dictionary of arts, sciences, literature and general information, Volume 6.
• The encyclopedia Americana: Volumi 7-8.
• The Oxford Dictionary of Art.
• The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Art and Artists.
• The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition.
• Catholic Encyclopedia.
• Art cyclopedia.
• Lib-Art.
• Grove Art Online, a very reliable source: "Italian painter and illuminator of Croatian birth."

Leading Historians agree Giulio Clovio was primarily Italian. The voice is POV. Source: I am a historian (not a mathematician) --Davide41 (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

He makes silly remarks like " Errare humanum est, perseverare autem diabolicum "

• Literally translated this ancient proverb means, "to err is human, to persevere however of the devil." At first one might think this proverb originated with the Latin Fathers, but it did not. This quotation comes from Seneca the Younger. A proverb which has more than 2000 years.

" I wash my hands " - Pontius Pilate. Greetings. --Davide41 (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, that proves my point I think. Pointing out problems is considered "ravings", not a single reliable secondary source, completely ignores all the references that have been provided to the contrary of his claims. I do know what the ancient proverb means, otherwise I would not have understood the insult that was aimed at me, now would I? --AnnekeBart (talk) 11:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I did comply with the requirements and notified Davide41 of this posting. He decided to remove it from his talkpage. --AnnekeBart (talk) 11:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Not a single reliable secondary source

Yes. Yes. You're right. Mathematician --Davide41 (talk) 12:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Not entirely sure why my background as a mathematician comes into it now? Now that this has been brought up, I do confess I am rather surprised that someone who claims to be a historian cannot find a single secondary source? How come a "historian" cannot do a JSTOR search, a google book search, a google scholar search (as I have)? How come a person who says he worked as a teacher at a university cannot look at the sources provided by others and come up with a coherent intelligent response? If as a researcher I can find these resources then what's the problem? I must say I am rather puzzled by this. --AnnekeBart (talk) 12:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• Historians from many nations - Spain, Portugal, Germany, England, the Netherlands, Switzerland, France and Turkey - all speak of the Italian Clovio. Nor did their books and atlases gather dust in libraries. Some went through several editions. The reports contained and repeated in them were never denied. The glorious myth of Clovio has prompted some minds to hallucinate and some dilettantes to try to appropriate the myth for themselves. The debate ends here --Davide41 (talk) 12:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

So everyone who does not agree with your POV is basically hallucinating and a dilettante? How convenient for you. That way you can just ignore any article that says something you do not agree with. For others reading this, just a couple of hallucinating dilettantes (I think they would be very insulted by this kind of comment):

* Clovio left his native Croatia at the age of eighteen Quote from Elena Calvillo, Romanità and Grazia: Giulio Clovio's Pauline Frontispieces for Marino Grimani, The Art Bulletin, Vol. 82, No. 2 (Jun., 2000), pp. 280-297 JSTOR .

* Clovio was born in Croatia in 1498, and having come to Italy as a young man, studied under Giulio Romano and spent his life as a celebrated miniaturist until his death in I578. Quote from Julius Schlosser, Two Portrait Miniatures from Castle Ambras, The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs, Vol. 41, No. 235 (Oct., 1922), pp. 194-195+197-198 JSTOR

* Bernardo Guidoni, called him “Giulio Clovio from Croatia” (a Crovatia) and his gravestone labeled him also as being from Croatia, Julio Clovis de Croatia. Quote from John Van Antwerp Fine, When ethnicity did not matter in the Balkans, University of Michigan Press, 2006 Google Books

I am not going to waste people's time with more quotes. This is pretty clear and many more can be found. --AnnekeBart (talk) 13:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I should add that I do not see this as a discussion about Clovio's nationality. This post is about Davide41's deplorable behavior. And I think the nature of the problem is pretty clear from his posts here. --AnnekeBart (talk) 13:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• Old Master Paintings and Drawings. Di Roy Bolton. P. 248.
• Painting popularly explained: including fresco, oil, tempera, mosaic, encaustic, water-colour, miniature, missal, painting on pottery, porcelain, enamel, glass, &c., with historical sketches of the progress of the art. P. 102.

This episode deserved extended coverage not only for the sake of destroying a fiction, but also to duly recognize the seriousness of Dutch historiography.

" Penetrates the great labyrinth of Clovio court documents to gather arguments in favor of his preconceived theory " --Davide41 (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The Roy Bolton reference mentions his Croatian descent, the other text is a seriously outdated source from 1859. Modern sources from 2000 and 2006 are pretty clear. Dutch historiography?--AnnekeBart (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary controversy. The 99% of Sources ? " He was an Italian of Croatian descent. " I- n- c- r- e- d- i- b- l- e

• This is an encyclopedia is not your playground; the information must be accurate --Davide41 (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is unnecessary. No one agrees with you. This is not your playground. Your information is demonstrably inaccurate. As has been pointed out with several sources. Your comment about "99% of sources" is a silly comment. It is clear that you do not have a very good grasp of the literature. You are not familiar with most of the publications and have no clue how to even find reliable sources. You have no clue what is in the sources and hence are entirely unqualified to make any statements about what is in 99% of them. Honestly at this point I see so many red flags that I do not believe for one moment that you are a real historian. You behave like a troll and your inability to find accurate sources or even understand what reliable sources are is completely incompatible with what I know of historians. The ones I know, have a deep knowledge of the literature and are up to date on the latest publications. They would never keep quoting from encyclopedias or make some of the silly mistakes you are making. --AnnekeBart (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Solutions?

I would like an administrator to weigh in about what to do here. As you can see above, any opinion not shared with Davide41 is brushed off as "ravings", "hallucinations", "dilettantes". There are problems with WP:RS and other issues as outlined above. Finding consensus and working with someone like that is not just difficult, it's impossible. I would like to at the very least see a warning, but I think a possible topic ban may be useful? Some guidance would be appreciated. --AnnekeBart (talk) 13:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

So, if we sum all up:

1.) We managed to get a consensus, and Davide is still against a solution.

2.) Not only that he is against a solution, but he is obviously doing what I would colloquialy call "trolling" - he does not respond to our conversation, he does not want to talk, he does not offer primary and secondary sources (he calles his tertiary sources primary and secondary), and he is just repeating itself, misquoting his own sources etc.

3.) He is editing the page again and again without consulting with other users of wikipedia, who are, up to now, all against him (see "Giulio Clovio" talk page.)

4.) When someone wishes to reach a consensus with him, he ignores his statements and continues with his unsupported tertiary sources.

5.) He is offending all other users calling them "dilettantes", obviously considering them incompetent - just to make Giulio Clovio Italian, although that artist called himself "Croata", on his tomb there are words "Giulio Clovio from Croatia" etc.

6.) Also, he is offending all historiographies which don't share his opinion - for example dutch expert at south slavism John A. Fine, only because AnnekeBart is from Netherlands, croatian historiography because I'm from Croatia etc.

I support AnnekeBart's proposal (Davide should get topic ban because warning won't stop his edits.) Philosopher12 (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) What's all this? BurtAlert (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Not canvassing, if that's what you're getting at... GiantSnowman 17:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Does any of this fall under WP:ARBMAC? Every single topic on the talk page and the talk page archive deals with matters of Balkan ethnicity. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• The historian's mission is essentially that of making the past come to life, of resuscitating the fact which has been forgotten in time; but to construct studies, which are only scientific in appearance, based on second-hand third-hand hypotheses, leads not to history but rather to a more or less gratuitous fiction. This is what AnnekeBart has done !

" It is not possible to follow him in all of his lucubrations. His fiery imagination pushes him into a continuous hermeneutics. " Speaks for itself. Thirty five years of teaching. The voice is POV. " You do whatever you want. " The debate ends here ( for me ). --Davide41 (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok Orange Suede Sofa, so imagine if you want to reach a concensus, and then editor comes and edits it all. When you ask him why, he says:

" It is not possible to follow him in all of his lucubrations. His fiery imagination pushes him into a continuous hermeneutics. " Speaks for itself. Thirty five years of teaching. The voice is POV."

And you ask him does he have sources he puts tertiary sources against primary and secondary sources. When you say that, he replies with latin proverb. And like that all the time. Is that how people talk to each other on wikipedia?

Philosopher12 (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• All Clovio scholars, both his admirers and his detractors, recognize that he was Italian of Croatian descent.
• " Do what you want. " Free of change the voice. For me, is POV. Greetings. --Davide41 (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't even know what it means for you "The voice is POV." Are you saying that you are writing from your point of view or what? You repeated for the 4214325 time that all scholars consider Klović Italian, and me and all other users repeated to you that they don't, stating it in primary and secondary sources. On his tomb in Rome there are words that he is "Georgivus Givlivs from Croatia" : http://hr.wikipedia.org/Datoteka:Julije_Klovic_de_Croatia2.JPG

This is getting silly. Philosopher12 (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• Not sure if this would satisfy anyone, but what if the article just stuck to the facts of where he was born, where he lived, and where he died without calling him Croatian or Italian? That way readers can draw their own conclusions about what country gets to "claim" him. BurtAlert (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you Burtalert. That's what I tried to do when I changed the intro to "Giorgio Giulio Clovio (or Juraj Julije Klović) (1498 – January 5, 1578) was an illuminator and painter who was born in Croatia, but who was active in Italy." All that did was just generate more abuse and insults. I think it's the straight forward way of dealing with this mess. That's what I tried to explain on the talkpage, but all that resulted in was a bunch of verbal abuse. --AnnekeBart (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: " It is not possible to follow him in all of his lucubrations. His fiery imagination pushes him into a continuous hermeneutics. " Speaks for itself. by Davide41? That quote is entirely out of place. That comes from a reference in the Origin theories of Christopher Columbus article. I have no idea why that is included here. And as a quote it leaves the impression it was a quote of either myself or Philosopher12. Which is incorrect. This is the kind of ridiculous exchanges people are subjected to regularly. --AnnekeBart (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Davide41 appears to be a sincere but very stubborn editor. Those concerned about Davide41's behavior at Giulio Clovio might consider reporting him at WP:Arbitration enforcement for tendentious editing from a nationalist viewpoint. The sanctions of WP:ARBMAC could be applicable. It is best if he will agree to modify his behavior, but his responses here don't give much reason for optimism. EdJohnston (talk) 04:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I left a warning for Davide41 using the {{uw-sanctions}} template. He replied at User talk:EdJohnston#Giulio Clovio - Dilettantes and has stated "I'm not going to change the page. I dropped the idea." Based on this agreement, we should consider this complaint resolved. EdJohnston (talk) 12:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Abusive language

Would an admin have a quick word with User talk:91.10.40.1 in respect of the abusive language in this edit which they twice restored despite a warning. If you check on the trigger for this it was an error by the editor concerned, who quickly self-reverted. From the comment on the IPs talk page s/he obviously thinks such language is appropriate. Not a major issue, but a quick warning now might prevent worse in the future. --Snowded 12:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I've backed up your comment with a reminder of NPA and wikiquette, but your comment seemed appropriate, the comment has been reverted and hasn't yet been re-(re-re-)introduced. It's really down to the owner of the talk page to pick a response, but hey ho. The IP just likes to talk back, that's all. This can probably be marked resolved. S.G. _ping! 13:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks --Snowded 14:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I realise I'll get the usual civility flak for this, but I gotta ask: who is that edit abusing, or how is it a personal attack? "Fucking" is not a version of "Go fuck yourself". It's a reinforcing... hmm... uh... adverb, maybe? Which I have frequently seen many an admin use on this site, without incurring any complaints, without being taken to ANI, and without being threatened with a ban. Bishonen | talk 14:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC).

Sorry for the revert. I accidentally hit the rollback when I was clicking onto something else on my Watchlist. All the fault of my jumpy laptop! Sorry.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, for f**k sake Jeanne, try and get it right next time! Anyone find my language abusive? I would hope everyone would and that is very similar to the ip's language. Carson101 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

"Abusive" and "offensive" are not the same thing... GiantSnowman 15:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The phrase "fucking AGF" is ambiguous as to whether the word "fucking" is used simply as an adjective or as an attack on the editor who supposedly didn't assume good faith. It doesn't help that the phrase is cryptic and ungrammatical. At the same time, the situation can easily be avoided by not using the word. In most other "working" environments, it wouldn't be tolerated. Still, from the little I've seen of these discussions, particularly on ANI, they never go anywhere as you have the civility (a dirty word I think for some) folk on one side and the non-censorship-freewheeling-it's-just-a-word folk on the other. The two groups, of course, never agree on the linguistic proprieties, and the argument devolves into a parsing exercise to see if the words constitute a personal attack. In the interest of full disclosure, I'm on the c******y side.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It's clearly not an adjective, as it is modifying no noun or pronoun. It's just an idiomatic use of English, where a present participle (or possibly a gerund) is interjected into an injunction as a form of emphasis. In most working environments that I've come across the word is in common use. Try a Fire station or an Army barracks, a teacher's staffroom or even the shop-floor of an engineering company. Frankly I'm more offended by the coy pretence that people don't commonly use the word "fucking" than I am by anything else in this thread. --RexxS (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

When people use the word "clearly", it usually means it's not all that clear. In my view, the phrase "assuming good faith" in this context acts like a noun, and fucking describes the noun. However, no matter what part of speech you think it is, I agree with you that it is being used for emphasis. You apparently work in different environments than I do. Nor do I see any coyness here. I certainly agree that use of the word "fucking" is common - that doesn't make it civil, though, or more important, constructive at Misplaced Pages. Usually, it's simply a form of self-indulgent venting. I also think it's easier to use in the virtual world than in the brick-and-mortar world. Finally, in this (italics used for emphasis) particular use, I think it's a hybrid of emphasis and a snipe at the editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I really did think that when an editor posted a section heading titled "Fucking AGF" that it could only be read as "Fucking Assume Good Faith". As you should now be able to clearly see, 'Assume' is the second person imperative of the verb 'to assume' and 'Good Faith' is the object of that transitive verb (the object being made up of the adjective 'Good' qualifying the noun 'Faith'). That leaves 'Fucking', which simply can't be an adjective here for lack of a noun to qualify, nor for that matter an adverb (as may be inferred from its position preceding the verb – a position that my colleague Bish favours), since the adverb formed from an adjectival 'fucking' would be 'fuckingly' – i.e. in a 'fucking manner'. I have to conclude that this particular use of 'Fucking' can only be a noun, and therefore the gerund of the verb 'to fuck' – completely lacking in any semantic function and wholly interjected as emphasis. On that latter point we clearly agree. While I would respect your point that even if treat 'fucking' as an interjection, it does not make 'fucking' civil, I would have counter that it does not make 'fucking' incivil either. Nor for that matter does 'fucking' have any bearing on the constructiveness of the request to 'Assume Good faith', IMFHO – and I'm afraid that I can't agree that it makes the word 'fucking' abusive as the OP complains. I have worked in a very large number of environments and have yet to find one where the word 'fuck' or 'fucking' was entirely absent, given sufficient observational time. At one extreme I remember being amused by an RAF serviceman, whose job was fire-fighting, and who managed to use either 'fuck' or 'fucking' every other word, but was otherwise quite intelligible, and not at all abusive. I can only suggest that editors who have problems with hearing inconsequential profanities really need to get out into the real world more. --RexxS (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

If the IP wants to be a dick? he/she will quickly be treated like a dick. Kindess don't feed the bulldog. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Misconduct at "Ark of the Covenant"

I just looked in on this article and wanted to alert the Administrators to the behaviour of Steven J. Anderson and Hrafn. See:

• Contentious reversions without good reason
• More 'Heavan' sources
• Picture caption

and especially

• Expert Critique

The diffs you will need are from 25 April 2011 to 28 April 2011.

What they said to an expert on the subject is outrageous. I have posted a subst:ANI-notice to each of them. I just realized you can't be everywhere, but you at least deserve a "heads-up". I won't be back. --71.214.251.150 (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

An anonymous self-professed expert on the subject made some disparaging remarks about Misplaced Pages and made some claims about facts without proper use of reliable sources. Earlier some people made some claims based upon sources known to be fringe. The editors you complained about explained Misplaced Pages policies to them. How is that a problem? At worst they were somewhat uncivil to people who were also uncivil, which is a wash. DreamGuy (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

As I pointed out on the talk page, this belongs at WP:LAME. What we have here is an editor who's been obsessing for weeks about the precise location of the rings on the side of the Ark and wants to edit a picture caption to point out that they're in the wrong place. Yes, you read that right. He claimed he was leaving in a fit of pique a few days ago (Paraphrased reason: Now I know why Misplaced Pages is not an acceptable source for University and High School work; other users won't accept my original research). But, no such luck, since then he's been editing from his IP and a couple of single-edit socks he's created for the purpose of talking to himself at the talk page and claiming special authority. I doubt that he's actually done anything blockable, but the other editors are starting to get a little sick of this shit. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The 'expert' has been indefinitely blocked as a sock of User:Michael Paul Heart by another Administrator. Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, his face is gonna get melted off. HalfShadow 21:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The archive of Talk:Tahash has, I believe, a similar situation with MPH and User:Hermitstudy. This is an odd account, without a doubt. The Interior (Talk) 01:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• But I think it necessary to point out that in response to his argument, unacceptable language was used by an experienced admin, "Oh, and I don't really give a damn about the self-serving maunderings of somebody so monumentally clueless that they think WorldNet Daily is in the same universe as a WP:RS -- 'you lost' it years ago." Regardless of the merits, it is not wise to return insult for insult. It rather tends to make the two parties appear indistinguishable. A person who does have superior knowledge should rely on it. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Actually DGG, it isn't wasn't "necessary to point out" at all, as the point you are making is based upon a fallacious premise. I am not an admin, experienced or otherwise. Per WP:SPADE, I stand by my description. It was made in response to MPH's comment on article talk: "Your argument has no intelligence. You lose", which in turn linked to a self-serving and tendentious 'leaving message' on his user talk -- a message rendered all the more ludicrous by MPH immediately thereafter returning to article talk as a WP:SOCK. I see no reason to take such blatant self-scripted WP:WIKIDRAMA seriously. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 05:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh#Edit_request_from_67.78.85.67.2C_12_April_2011 edit discussion for consensus

Hi, it seems that discussion for Talk:Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh#Edit_request_from_67.78.85.67.2C_12_April_2011 is not going anywhere, not because of consensus, but because of no consensus is claimed, in spite of 3 different users saying so. The reasons are given and are finally replies are a new question: Extending Biographies of living people to organisations? ... , I think you have answered your own question! ... For other organisations, go to the respective page/talk page... and so on; In spite of giving reasons. So I would like to know where are the ironclad rules for first line of an organization? Where is the rule that usual principles can not be extended to first line of an organization?.असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 20:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have put up the question over here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 21:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Do I make my case here? Yes Michael? • 05:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Procedure when dealing with falsification of sources?

I discovered that one editor falsified a quote from a source.This is not a misinterpretation of quote-but a clear falsification-a key part of the sentence was changed in quote presented in the wiki article. What is the proper procedure and possible intervention regarding such activity? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, step 1 is to say what was falsified. If, for example, it is a translation, then the situation may be quite different from one where the source is in English. Given your tendency to edit on articles that are ethnically charged, I don't think anybody should take anything for granted. Looie496 (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The text that was falsified was in English and is an English publication. It is not a translation. Where there cases like this before?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Which article does this concern? Which source? And which editor? These details may help... GiantSnowman 23:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I see now what I have done. This is intervention board where action is taken. I was more interested in general rules regarding such things.I apologize. You may close the thread, I will seek my answers elsewhere.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

If you're looking for help for a general question, maybe try Misplaced Pages:Help desk. Regards, GiantSnowman 00:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks I will. Please close this thread.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Editing from 125.162.150.88

An IP address is accusing me of "bad faith" and "harassment" . The IP address has now received 4 warnings . Since the IP appears to be attacking me, I would like another admin to intervene and block if the IP doesn't stop. Gimmetoo (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what those warnings for edit warring is for. You seem to be doing the same thing? Nymf _hideliho! 11:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It's the same old story. Jack makes a table sortable on year, which most folks consider an improvement. Gimme removes endashes from date ranges because Safari 4 (!) doesn't sort them properly. Jack puts the endashes back per MOS:ENDASH on the grounds that hardly anybody uses Safari 4 anymore - it's now on Safari 5, a free update. Gimme then perversely decides that "since the changes that allow sortability to work are repeatedly removed, consensus appears to be that sortability is not desired" and removes the sorting functionality. Jack puts the sorting back, and the cycle begins again. Gimme knows how to make the table sortable for Safari 4 (because I showed him how), but would rather escalate a situation to an edit war than do the fix or update an outdated browser. This combative behaviour really needs to stop: it's perfectly possible to have tables with sorting functionality on date ranges that also comply with MOS. --RexxS (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It's often not as simple as just a "free update" to Safari - for example, Safari 5 for Mac requires OSX 10.5.8 or later, so people who have not bought 10.5 cannot use it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

They can use Safari 4.1. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know that - but the suggestion above is that Safari 5 is needed, and I'm pointing out that that is not always an option. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

either undermins the idea the " to " is warranted. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 12:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• That IP address is apparently Jack Merridew. I first encountered him here on a Article Rescue Squadron page, where he was making unhelpful comments like this, this, and this. For the most part, the rest of us just ignored him and went on with the discussion. However, when this happened, I filled out an SPI report, found here. I didn't know the situation with Jack or whatever is going on with Arbcom and just thought he was a blocked user evading his block. Apparently, it's more complicated than that. As you can see from the report discussion, Jack was extremely rude and uncivil toward myself and Doc9871. There have also been multiple other incidences that i've noticed of recent hostility and incivity toward others recently. The history of his talk page could show some of that too, since he routinely blanks any warnings or notifications put on the page. Silverseren 11:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Jack should use his account per his sanctions that are still in place. His many accounts are blocked so shouldn't he have to go to arbcom and figure out how to edit again since he last retired/quit? Some of us can tell it's Jack editing with this IP but there are editors who do not know who this is plus with Jack being rude to some it just complicates things even further. If Jack wants to continue to edit than he needs to get an account unblocked or some other acceptable thing done. Right now it looks like he is socking around a block. Sorry Jack but that's what it looks like. Please go back to the arbitrators and get this sorted out, please. Just my opinion of the situation but this is only going to get worse before it gets better if he continues to use this IP and behave like has been shown. --CrohnieGal 12:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation, which oversees all WMF projects including Misplaced Pages, has declared open editing to be a founding principle. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 12:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Irrespective of this issue, that founing principle does not prevent Wikimedia communities from sanctioning, and stopping from editing, users who are disruptive. This does not mean that you, Jack, are so disruptive, just that the "anyone can edit" mantra is not a defense against accusations of shenanigans, which Crohnie appears to be implying. --Jayron32 12:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

But "they" don't stop most disruptive users; they're everywhere, making this project suck, driving away those who actually have a clue. The mob hates that.

@Crohnie; why the fuck should I allow myself to be tied to the Jack account with shite like this out there. The Jack account has been impersonated out there many times. What do you and the WHL coterie do when you spot me? Tie me back to that shite. Misplaced Pages, the 💕 that's toxic in the extreme. As Fetch said, the problem with wikipedia is the *participants*. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Jack I have never been disrepectful to you like you are being right now. The reason is because the arbitrators, as far as I'm aware, haven't released you from using one account, the Jack Merridew account. Remember you withdrew your request to have those sanctions removed? This is the last I remember about this and though there is discussion about allowing you to have socks to play with, the discussion doesn't seem finished or accepted. --CrohnieGal 13:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Why are you in this thread? (it's a rhetorical question). Because I proved your friend WHL wrong across the board on a lot of issues; it's what's up Doc9871's ass, too, as he said on user talk:diannaa, and which she lit into him for. Look harder, the diff you're needing was already offered to you on Doc's talk. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The only thing you've proven, at least to me is that you can behave poorly to other editors and do as you want and no one cares so neither do I. Yea Jack, you're right and all the rest of us idiots should go away and let you do what you want, so have a good time, I'm out of here. --CrohnieGal 17:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Jack isn't sanctioned. My understanding is that his main account is blocked because, apparently, it was hacked. He is not personally under sanctions, and is free to edit under a new account or IP address, and may regain his account if he can prove to stewards who he is. However, this edit warring behavior is itself troubling, and should be addressed. --Jayron32 12:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I scuttled the accounts; they're blocked because I posted the password; sul:locked, too. The password was scrambled again after that. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd appreciate comments both from Jack Merridew on the overall situation and from Gimmetoo on RexxS's description above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Gimme's been dogging my edits for a year, surreptitiously reverting at first, but always finding something to take exception to. It's harassment. He creates a hostile editing environment, as do far too many here. He went way over the line trying to ban me from cites last year, and has generally been a prat in all manner of discussions (with RexxS and Rossrs, too). He's unfit to be an editor much less an admin. RexxS is right, as far as he goes. Brad, you and others need to fix the toxic environment; many have left, leaving the field to idiots. Jack 12:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm cross-posting (a redacted version of) Rexx's summary of the technical issue to WP:WPT. Rich Farmbrough, 12:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC).
No I'm not since Rexx's post make it clear there is a technical fix here. Rich Farmbrough, 12:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC).

Rex's fix is this, which snots-up the wiki-text for a tiny number of users (ma'af).

Some statistics are available here. Rich Farmbrough, 13:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC).

Safari 4.0 usage is well below 1%. Anyway, the Gimme-shite issue is across the board; he's targeted most areas that I've tried to work improving structure. He's not the only one nipping at my heels; doc9871, I/Okip grawp ... the wiki-mob never forgets anything and is always vicious.

Brad, perhaps you could read through Talk:Yvonne Strahovski#Sortable table which is one of the issues Jack is referring to, with RexxS and me. Gimmetoo saw a problem in the sorting in the filmography table at Yvonne Strahovski, but failed to define the problem despite being asked several times, over the course of 2 days. See how long the discussion is. Gimmetoo should have said "The dash causes a sorting problem for editors using Safari 4". Eleven words. Easy to understand. We could then have fast-forwarded through to a solution. Any editor, let alone an admin, should be acting in good enough faith to provide an eleven word sentence to answer a question, instead of creating an atmosphere where other editors had to guess what he was on about, and then be ridiculed for failing to guess. From Gimmetoo's talk page, his question Has it occurred to you yet that "that particular incompatibility" may be something other than what you think it is? (Answer: No) Obviously RexxS had no idea what he meant, and I certainly didn't. And on and on it went with Gimmetoo refusing to give a straight answer. To RexxS's credit, when he finally realized what "the problem" was, he came up with a "fix". Satisfactory, rather than ideal. If Jacks's frustrated and fed up, I don't blame him, and going back to RexxS's comment above, I think RexxS sums it up well. Rossrs (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

See RexxS was condescending and insulting, and stated without reserve that everything I had said was "patently untrue". Do you and RexxS admit you were wrong in any way? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It's interesting that you link to another long chunk of dialogue that you could have nipped in the bud by actually saying what the problem was. Other editors made similar comments there. Both RexxS and I failed to read your mind, but you escalated it and kept it going. I don't know how RexxS would answer your question, but no, I did nothing wrong. I didn't understand what your problem was because you failed to spell it out, but that's your failing, not mine. Rossrs (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hold on. This is *Merridew*?! And the IP is accusing me of "dogging" his edits? Absolutely unacceptabe. First, if that's true, then some of the responders here are WP:INVOLVED and have failed to note their involvement. Second, Merridew has a long history of abusive editing, including arbitration cases for targetting a user and for abusive editing from multiple accounts. If Merridew is still doing this, it's more than past time that Merridew was banned. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• I'm uninvolved here wrt to past disagreements and who did what to whom and when, so I'm ignoring all of that. What I see here is a positive attempt to improve a table in an article, which caused a minor technical problem for an old version of a browser, and which was quickly fixed once the problem was properly explained and understood. Besides that, I see hints of people trying to restart old arguments and settle old scores, but none of that seems pertinent - now that the technical issue is sorted, is there anything of actual relevance that needs admin action here? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • First, the technical issue has not been fixed on all involved articles. Second, the issue here is the IP/Merridew's targetting of my edits, and the IP/Merridew's accusations of harassment and "bad faith". Merridew has a long history of targetting other editors. If the IP is, indeed, Merridew, then the IP is continuing to edit without disclosing clearly who he is and the associated arbcom sanctions. The IP should be blocked at this point. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, regarding the technical issue, now that a fix is known then surely it just needs to be applied to the relevant articles, doesn't it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Two fixes have been known for months. If the IP is indeed Merridew, then the IP is well aware of those fixes, and has knowingly not implemented either of them. The IP undid my fixes, and, indeed, appears to be systemaically undoing my edits. The IP has not opened discussion, and shows no interest in opening discussion on this issue. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
        • It's not anybody else's individual responsibility to implement the fix - now that a fix is known that will enable to table to be sortable in the problematic browser too, why not just do it instead of all this bickering? If there is still a dispute about the best fix, go discuss it on an appropriate article page and decide by consensus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Oh, and as far as I can make out, the *user* JackMerridew is not blocked or banned - the *account* was blocked, but only because it was compromised. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
          • When an IP knowingly removes a fix for a problem, that IP's editing is not good. When this is part of a pattern of targetting users, and with refusal to discuss the issues, it is WP:DISRUPTive editing and the IP should be blocked. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Please post some diffs of this behaviour. Thanks. --Diannaa 16:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

For instance , . Gimmetoo (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, so will the fix detailed above by RexxS make the standard "dash" version work in Safari 4, yes or no? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the IP doesn't want that fix ; also notice the abuse in that edit. There are many other disputed changes involved in the IPs recent edits. If this is, indeed, Merridew, remember that Merridew has a history of targeting users. One lead to arbitration; there is also and . Gimmetoo (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

How about some diffs of the discussions you opened on this topic that the IP refused to join? Or some diffs of him targetting users? These are serious accusations, and you are calling for a block, so please post these diffs too. --Diannaa 17:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The IP has accused me of harassment. Why have you not asked the IP for diffs to support that very serious accusation? In any event, , and the IPs response was . Gimmetoo (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

That was you making a pointy and sarky comment, and the other guy removing it. What you are being asked for is some evidence of *you* or someone else actually starting a discussion on the relevant issues and the other guy refusing to join in - not evidence of your demanding that he start it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the technical issue, please stop evasively poking sticks at the other guy and just answer the question. If you have a content dispute (which is what this is) then show us where the discussion took place and show us your attempts to resolve it. Where were the alternative fixes discussed? Where was it decided not to go with RexxS's fix? Where was the discussion held that resulted in a consensus to replace the standard "2001-2006" format with "2001 to 2006"? Where was the impact on Safari 4 users discussed? How badly does it affect them? Does it just make that column sort wrong or does it screw up the whole table? Where was it decided to go with a non-standard date format to fix a sorting problem that only affects less than 1% of our readers? That's what you should be doing - discussing this on its merits, not arguing back and forth just because you don't like each other -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The IP chose to re-revert rather than discuss, contrary to WP:BRD. The IP then continued to make disputed edits to multiple other articles, also without stopping to discuss. On the technical issue, see Talk:Ursula_Andress#Accessibility_and_dates, specifically near the end where RexxS said: "I've also restored the "1987 to 1988" format for the date range, as I can't see that producing any problems for any browser." Nevertheless the IP did . Gimmetoo (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, WP:BRD is only an essay, and you're still not presenting us with what was requested - evidence that *you* tried to discuss the issue and the other guy refused to join in, and so support the accusations you are making against him. (I had the comment below ready to add when I got an edit conflict, so I'm going ahead with posting it as it was - if you genuinely wish to solve this problem rather than just carry on fighting with someone you don't like, I hope you will respond positively). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I opened discussion on the IP's talk page. The IP did not engage, and has not engaged. Instead, the IP has accused me of harassment and continued to make the same disputed edits. Why have you not asked the IP for diffs supporting that very serious accusation? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Looking back into some of the history of this table sorting business, I came across User talk:Gimmetoo#Yvonne Strahovski from back in September 2010, where Gimmetoo was plainly and simply asked to explain what he saw as the problem. But he responded just as obtusely and tendentiously as he is still doing today, steadfastly refusing to just clearly state what he meant. I apologize if I'm wrong (and I hope I am), but what I think I'm seeing is a long-running personal feud rather than any genuine attempt to make Misplaced Pages better. Gimmetoo, I think you need to put up or shut up - start a discussion explaining the technical problem (not other people, and not your feuds with them, but the technical issue itself), and offer constructive suggestions for a solution so we can discuss it and get a consensus - I'm a Mac user myself, and one of my old machines still has Safari 4, so I can help technically -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • And in the light of the above, how about we stop the "It's all his fault" game based on selective quoting, and instead start a brand new attempt to solve the technical problem with table sorting and get a consensus on what to do? Then it will be sorted (pun intended, sorry), and we can all leave the playground and get back to making Misplaced Pages better. How does that sound? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Boing, this issue here is abusive editing. The technical discussion has been had before, at for instance Talk:Ursula Andress. The IP editor is not helping. Technical issues could be discussed again if the disruptive editing by the IP is stopped. But if this IP is indeed Merridew, then there is another facet; Merridew has picked on editors before (see prior arbcom case, prior ANI) and has picked on me in the past. That needs to stop. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Again I would like to call for some recent diffs giving examples. All you have here is some diffs of six-month-old ANI reports and references to a ban that was lifted in 2008. --Diannaa 19:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Gimmetoo, I have no previous interaction with this dispute, so I hope you don't mind me being open and honest here when I tell you that what I see is egotistical dickishness all round - I see each of you just trying to win a willy-waving contest, and little or no willingness from anyone to actually get together and solve the underlying problem. The arguments on this technical issue and the related fallout have been going on for at least 8 months as far as I can see, and I think the only way forward is tackle the issue itself is in one consensus-driven discussion that involves more than just the same three or four people - and not one that excludes any specific individual you don't like! I honestly don't think you will succeed in making this a one-sided accusation of abusive editing, because I see just as much dickishness from you as from anyone else - and again, that's just an honest observation. Basically, I'm offering to help solve the underlying problem, and if we can get a consensus about that then there should be no basis to any further arguments. But if all you're interested in is kicking shite out of each other and don't really care about Misplaced Pages itself, then I'm afraid I'll be walking away and leaving you to it. So come on, why don't you take a major constructive step and agree to join me in a civil discussion on the technical issue? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Boing, I have been attacked by the IP in edit summaries, and in comments on this very thread. Are you going to do anything about that? Are you going to block the IP if there are any further abusive edit summaries or attacks? Gimmetoo (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

My offer of assistance with a discussion on the technical issue still stands, but I thought I'd made it clear I'm not going to take sides in the dick war -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

If you can get that editor to discuss civilly, fine, but whatever I may or may not have done in the past does not mean that I have to be subject to never-ending abuse from that IP/Editor. If you wish to support and enable the environment such editors foster, that's your choice. If this IP is Merridew, then Merridew was under restriction to edit only from the Merridew account, though apparently the editor indicated a week ago intentions to disregard the arbitration motion . Gimmetoo (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I've had a look at quite a bit of this going back some time now, and I have to say I've seen bone-headed stubbornness that would be the envy of a Triceratops. So no, it is absolutely not a case of my allowing the other guy to carry on being abusive - and if you stick with the "I'm 100% right and the other guy is 100% wrong" attitude, then we are unlikely to get anywhere. If, however, all sides are prepared to discuss the problem openly as members of the same Misplaced Pages team rather than slugging it out like street brawlers, we might actually get somewhere. It's getting late where I am, so I'm going to get some rest - and tomorrow I'll find a suitable place for a discussion of the table sorting issue where we can hopefully get a consensus on what to do (and I've already downloaded copies of Safari 4.0 and 4.1 for comparison purposes). And I suggest you get some rest away from this dispute too - it is, after all, not real life. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Silver Seren accuses Jack of incivility

I suppose in order to have people actually discuss on the ongoing incivility that Jack is exhibiting, I need to make this a subsection, since people just ignored my comment and keep going on about Gimmetoo's incident (not that your incident isn't important). So i'm just going to re-copy what I said above here so people can actually comment on it.

"That IP address is apparently Jack Merridew. I first encountered him here on a Article Rescue Squadron page, where he was making unhelpful comments like this, this, and this. For the most part, the rest of us just ignored him and went on with the discussion. However, when this happened, I filled out an SPI report, found here. I didn't know the situation with Jack or whatever is going on with Arbcom and just thought he was a blocked user evading his block. Apparently, it's more complicated than that. As you can see from the report discussion, Jack was extremely rude and uncivil toward myself and Doc9871. There have also been multiple other incidences that i've noticed of recent hostility and incivity toward others recently. The history of his talk page could show some of that too, since he routinely blanks any warnings or notifications put on the page."

Jack has been extremely uncivil to multiple people over the past few days. I strongly advise you to look at the discussion in that SPI report. Silverseren 20:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Further evidence of incivility would be here. This led to an edit war with Qwyrxian who thought it was an unconstructive comment, though Bishonen ultimately kept it. Silverseren 20:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I "ultimately" kept it, Silver Seren? What does that mean? I wrote to Qwyrxian to stop reverting the IP as soon as I saw the edit war on my page. By then, however, Nikkimaria had already asked Qwyrxian why he was so insistently reverting the post on my page, which didn't look anything like vandalism to her (or to me), and Qwyrxian had already realised that he'd made mistake and apologised nicely to the IP. And this you describe as "further evidence of incivility" (by the IP, not by Qwyrxian), and hint that the edit war was the IP's fault, not Qwyrxian's "who thought it was an unconstructive comment"? Yes, well, he thought so until he realised he'd made a mistake. Then he very properly apologised. You didn't think that worth mentioning, I guess. Silver Seren, your post about my talkpage is completely misleading, in a particular direction, which makes it uphill work to assume the slightest good faith of you. Clicking on your other diffs makes your "extremely uncivil to multiple people" look ridiculous, too. (And you feel impelled to let us have your text twice? What's that about?) I encourage everybody to click on those diffs and form their own opinion. Silver Seren, please go read WP:BATTLE. Slowly. Carefully. P.S. I have changed your header to a more neutral and truthful one. Bishonen | talk 23:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC).

A new sock puppet?

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

This user's first few edits display a fair amount of knowledge of past Misplaced Pages affairs, and seems to fit the pattern of Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Stubes99/Archive pretty well. Zakhalesh (talk) 11:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see this entry until now, so I already reopened the SPI. Againstchauvinism's opponent is an obvious sock of Iaaasi and has been blocked. Favonian (talk) 11:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

So we've got a banned user vs an indef blocked one, assuming Againstchauvinism is a sock. Perhaps articles within their scopes should be semiprotected? Zakhalesh (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, rather like King Kong vs. Godzilla. Againstchauvinism has now joined his predecessors. Regarding the semiprotection, I'm afraid that would need to include a rather substantial number of Balkan-related articles. Tempting but probably not feasible. Favonian (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Leaving the articles unprotected makes is easier to spot the socks. The pages are heavily watched. --Diannaa 19:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sasha Grey

Can an administrator please have a look at Sasha Grey and see if protection or user blocks are necessary? There is edit warring at this BLP, with possible sock puppets. Peacock (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I blocked some socks and Hj Mitchell protected the page. TNXMan 13:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

User:71.234.119.12 at Talk:William Lane Craig

71.234.119.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has been blocked four times for disruptive editing on Talk:William Lane Craig, including editing others' comments and vandalizing the page by soapboxing. I was involved with this user's disruption, including reporting him to AIV resulting in a recent block. After release of the most recent block, his only edits have been to edit my user page by issuing false warning templates, and then go back to editing users' comments on the Talk:William Lane Craig article. Multiple warnings, and the behavior continues. This appears to be a static ip which is used only for vandalism, (as all of his edits have been, spanning to August). Obviously an indef would be inappropriate in case the ip switches, but another 6-month block may be prudent. I considered posting to AIV, but since his activity is slow, ANI seemed more appropriate. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

IP has been blocked for 6 months--5 albert square (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Uploads of User:JP0424

When JP0424 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) uploaded another image over something I initially uploaded, I thought to myself, whoops. I guess THAT was a bit of a typo, however, when I investigated further I found that this individual has uploaded scores of images with little regard to our Fair Use criteria. Many of these are duplicates of copyrighted images we already have uploaded. Given the user's apparent disregard for any warnings on his talk page, I'm thinking we need to suspend his uploading privileges until that nugget of information gets through. Thoughts? — BQZip01 —  17:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, user is out of control, I already had to tag several for speedy deletion. CTJF83 20:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

User indef blocked by User:Prodego CTJF83 21:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! — BQZip01 —  22:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

White Hispanic and Latino Americans

Article White Hispanic and Latino Americans is having questionable POV content placed in it daily (sometimes multiple times a day). Same content each time, different IP address each time. Can someone refer this to the correct forum for investigation and action? Thanks in advance Hmains (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Karl1587 refuses to acknowledge or act on suggestions and warnings

Karl1587 (talk · contribs) has been warned countless times, and given advice on other occasions about a number of issues including incorrect text formatting, not using edit summaries, using inappropriate sizes on images etc. He has never once acknowledged or explained his behaviour and carries on unchanged. It has gone on long enough and it is about time an administrator was brought in to put right his bad behaviour. --Simple Bob (Talk) 18:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking at some of the problematic edits highlighted on the talk page, it seems like Karl1587 has a good faith but misguided set of opinions about infobox layout, images and a few other things, which he combines with a failure to use edit summaries. For example he seems to be of the opinion that if an infobox has "Manchester Cathedral" in huge text at the top, then an image of Manchester cathedral immediately underneath it, it doesn't then also need a caption explaining that the image is Manchester cathedral immediately underneath that. This is a not entirely unreasonable viewpoint, and as far as I can see, he's not edit-warring to keep these changes in articles.

It's not correct that Karl1487 has "never once acknowledged or explained his behaviour", for example this diff where he responds to another editor's concerns and rightly takes umbrage at obvious good faith edits being described as vandalism.

Is this really a serious problem requiring urgent administrator intervention? His talk page indicates he's had maybe half a dozen disagreements with other editors over a period of nearly a year. In most cases these were other editors wrongly describing his edits as vandalism (and going straight for a level 3 vandalism warning "because other people have complained too" even though that was months ago). There seems to be some over-reaction - a few examples of "incorrect text formatting" is a crisis?

There also seem to be some allegations of sockpuppetry being thrown around, and this too seems rather over the top - Karl1487 should remember to edit while signed in, but I don't see any evidence of him using multiple accounts in a way prohibited by policy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

This editor has been asked several times not to use small text, which is deprecated, but continues to do as he feels regardless of advice from other editors. That is not good faith editing.--Charles (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Note - this editor was canvassed about this discussion by Simple Bob with a non-neutral message. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, what on earth is this? Karl1487 adds an image of a town to the infobox of an article about a town, which didn't have an image of the town beforehand. He sensibly keeps the map of the town's location as well. A clear improvement to the article. But because he's committed the terrible sin of using small text for the image caption (which actually looks absolutely fine in the article in this case, despite being deprecated) you revert his addition of the image rather than just fixing the text size?!? This seems very WP:POINTy and not really constructive at all. This seems to be a content dispute about several editors disagreeing with Karl1487 about how infoboxes should be laid out. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

No apology for that. I have wasted too much time sorting out his mess to stay tinkering about with it.--Charles (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh wow. How many other times have you reverted valid content added by Karl1487, with a misleading edit summary, just because of this stylistic disagreement? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Charles, I think you're out of order reverting perfectly good additions for the relatively minor sin of using small text - his version with the photo and small text was better than your version with neither, and it took me just a few seconds to revert your reversion and then fix the text -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you address the generally disruptive behaviour of the editor complained of, which has annoyed many other good faith editors, instead of having a go at me. It is little wonder WP is failing to retain productive editors if we have to put up with this sort of thing instead of being thanked for the numerous unpaid hours work we put in.--Charles (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Charles on this. Editors go against established consensus on style, repeatedly ignoring advice or warnings and it is us who get into trouble for trying to correct it?--Simple Bob (Talk) 21:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Charles, sorry if I sounded rude - I do in fact thank you for your clearly significant contributions. But that one reversion was, in my view, unconstructive (though I'm quite sure it was out of frustration and done in good faith) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Another one - Karl1587 adds an image of the town (but using small text for the caption), thus improving the article which had lacked an image before; Charles reverts the addition and gives no edit summary at all. (The pot is calling the kettle black?) Charles reverts an aeriel view showing the town (with small text caption) to rather poor image only showing one street in the town - no edit summary at all. Charles removes a newly added image and puts back a map, but the edit summary doesn't mention removing the image. Charles reverts a replacement image (with small text) back to the previous image - no edit summary. misleading edit summary - reverts the image choice as well as the text size. and another misleading edit summary - reverts the image choice as well as the text size. More recently, Charles describes this edit as vandalism, and gives the IP address responsible an only warning for vandalism on its talk page.

I think people need to accept that they can't WP:OWN the entire topic area of anything to do with UK settlements. I see the recent issue with Charles votestacking at AfD, and some of Simple Bob's edits having to be suppressed for privacy issues in the same dispute, as another reflection of this. Karl1587 obviously needs to change his editing approach (it has improved in at least some respects over the time he's been editing), but all of this seems to be a huge over-reaction to what is basically a content dispute. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Palliomine

New user Palliomine has wreaked havoc on palestine categories. I have a very slow connection at present and cannot revert his changes. (It relates to Palestinian rabbis in various ategories) Chesdovi (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks like they're tagging empty categories for deletion. Is this incorrect? The categories do appear to be empty. TNXMan 20:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I suspect User:Debresser is behind this. He has depopulated nearly 100 pages in various Palestine categories without responding to my reply on my talk page. Action needs to be taken. Chesdovi (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I only depopulated what you recently created and started to actively populate without any prior discussion and in disregard of immediate protests on your talkpage. You can't push your ideas through against the will of the community. Debresser (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Since we're here. Let's have it!

Chesdovi has recently created a whole group of "Palestinian" categories. He continues to create more of them and to populate them, despite the fact that 1. This term is controversial 2. He is replacing another term with his new term, and splitting up existing categories. 3. All of this without seeking prior consensus, and 4. in disregard of the protests of two editors on his talkpage, each of these editors with several arguments

I also agree that action has to be taken. And that action is that Chesdovi should be admonished to desist from creating and populating these categories he created until he can show consensus, rather than protests. Debresser (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Debresser has acted wrongly in this case. If he felt certain categories were controversial, he should have raised it at category disscusion page, or the like. Without coming to an amicable solution, he proceeds to depopulate tens of pages, the vast majority which had been under that category for a number of weeks. He has not responded to clear proof that this term does exist in acdemic circles. His claim that the term Palestine did not exist in the 13th century is nonsensical. I have not "replaced another term. Most acuartely, i have sorted rabbis who lived in ottoman and british palestine in centuries to be onisten with all other such cats. He has want also to delted Category:Medieval Jews in Palestine. Wholly unacceptable. Chesdovi (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

since this disscussion has started, Debresseer contines to enforce his edits. . Chesdovi (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

So do you..., so let's not go there. The difference is, you are the one trying to change things and introduce new terms. So you should show consensus. Debresser (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The first protests on you page are a week old. Why do you continue making controversial edits? All these categories are your idea, replacing the term Land of Israel and splitting up Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine. You're just pushing through your ideas, and can not accept the fact that the community sees them as problematic, and thinks you should refrain from doing so unless and until you can show consensus. Debresser (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Francis E Williams threatening to out an IP address on my talk page.

Over at my talk page, User:Francis E Williams has recently issued a threat to an IP address (not me) that either xe leave Misplaced Pages, or Francis will out xem. Frankly, I'm confused by the whole thing; I'd been fairly sure that the IP was Francis's sock until the threat (and I'm still not convinced it's not the case, although I'm less sure). But whatever the case, a threat to out is a personal attack per WP:OUTING, and I'd already dropped {{uw-npa4}} on dude the day before yesterday, so I think this requires some sort of admintervention. Thnx. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, he's also reiterated the threat on his own talk page. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what is going on here - perhaps you could provide some more background information? Prodego 21:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't really either. I'd been quasi-trolling the dude for a while now, when someone with a rapidly-shifting IP address jumped in on my game with much less subtlety or discretion. I'd suspected that it was Francis's sock, since he's engaged in sockpuppetry in the past, to the end of making a point. But I began to doubt that when Francis made the threat to out, so I brought it here. Anyway, dude's been indef-blocked until such time as he retracts the threat, so issue resolved, I guess, unless anyone feels like a checkuser is needed too. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Why have you been 'quasi-trolling' Francis? And what do you mean by 'quasi-trolling'? Trolling is generally considered disruptive, and isn't particularly welcome on Misplaced Pages, so I'd consider that sort of behavior to be a problem in and of itself. Prodego 21:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Past discussion of note: Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts/archive103#Random_profanity_from_User:Francis_E_Williams, perhaps this is more active. Guoguo12--Talk--  21:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

(5xEC-- guys, use the 'Preview' button) Uh-oh, scope creep. First, status update: Francis has been unblocked, and the threat, apparently, stands. I'm very confused: is it OK to threaten to out IPs? To answer your questions: "Quasi-trolling" is engaging in actions that aren't in direct violation of wikipolicy, but which he disapproves of. I'm doing it because I'm a hungry troll, and he's feeding me. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Even though WP:OUTING is serious business and Francis deserves a ban (for one reason or another), I can't help but find it amusing that he thinks performing geolocation on a public IP is some sort of threat... --Avillia 21:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Geolocation isn't the threat; "I have requested the above hold his hands up and leave Misplaced Pages for good, or I name him and his location" is. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

If your goal is to harass another editor, that specifically isn't allowed. So I'm going to have to ask you to stop doing that, and cease interacting with Francis. It also isn't allowed to threaten to out anyone, however, this situation seems to be considerably more complicated than a simple outing threat, and we wouldn't want to take any action prematurely. Prodego 21:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no, you misunderstood. My goal isn't to harass another editor. It used to be to help him improve his editing, but he turned it into a flame war and it went downhill from there. Were this simple one-way harassment, I'd not question your request that I stop interacting with him. But it's not: he just impugned the size of my penis! How can I let that go unchallenged? If I don't respond, people will see it and think "It's on the internet, so it must be true!" Then I'll have to go through life as the IP editor with the small penis, and that's unacceptable. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

He shouldn't be doing that either. But that doesn't mean you can simply because he is. Prodego 21:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Per WP:DENY, as a non-admin, can I suggest closing this thread? Kansan (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• If it were simple, sure, but I still don't really know what is going on here, so I'd rather keep this going. Prodego 21:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• There's too many IPs floating around. Who's this, may I ask? Guoguo12--Talk--  21:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• That's the one the threat was issued against. Xe rapidly hops IPs in the O2 dynamic regions. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep this thread going, I`m not giving up on this guy yet. He knows he has been hassling me, check my user talk page and read it properly and do the research, if user 24.177.120.138 )with mulitple accounts) can prove he`s squeaky clean as he pretends to be on this page, I`ll eat my keyboard !Francis E Williams (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I do not like being addressed as Gurl. try saying that to my face and see what happens.Francis E Williams (talk)

Oh, bu the way, I do not like being addressed as Gurl. Nor have I thjreatened to out anyone on this users talk page, he is a liar.Francis E Williams (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Please restore my comment that you blanked, I'm assuming, accidentally. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, calling me a liar is a personal attack. And it's silly to claim you didn't do something when I've already linked the diff of you doing it. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Also also, here's another threat to out made by Frances that I just noticed. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

And another. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, folks, that's enough. Throwing insults at each other is not going to settle this. Can we come to some sort of compromise here? Does a truce sound good? Guoguo12--Talk--  23:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: 24.177.120.138 (talk · contribs) has been blocked temporarily. Guoguo12--Talk--  23:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

IPs involved

• 24.177.120.138 (talk · contribs): Started this thread, also threatened
• 82.132.248.83 (talk · contribs): Threatened by Francis E Williams
• 24.l77.120.74 (talk · contribs): Sock of Francis E Williams (SPI)
• 82.132.139.203 (talk · contribs): ???, commented on Francis E Williams's talk page
• 82.132.248.24 (talk · contribs): ???, commented on Francis E Williams's talk page

For clarity of thought. Guoguo12--Talk--  22:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

My supposition is that all of the IPs involved from the 82.132.0.0/16 are the same user. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this investigation might help throw a little light on things for all concerned.Francis E Williams (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I have already established that the O2 D.H.C.P. server dynamic i.p. addresses starting 82.132.N.N. have been used by the same user, there is no need for supposition, just do the research or follow the links given. The person who is making these edits is known to have communicated with me in the past on more than one occasion. We are where we were some time ago with me as the villian of the "peace", but still NOBODY is listening and properly looking into what is really going on here. Do I have to stay up all night typing again to make my point? Francis E Williams (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards