Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:29, 22 August 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

Pmanderson being tendentious, baiting, and uncivil with personal attacks (again)

• This thread was getting very long, I've taken the liberty of moving it to a subpage: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Pmanderson. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Future timestamping to prevent archival. 00:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Call to close

Would an uninvolved admin please declare the result in this one? There's a large overwhelming majority in favor of a particular topic ban, and various opinions on a range of other block options. Everyone has had their say, and someone needs to say where it nets out. Dicklyon (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The same proposal, on a subpage where no uninvolved editors will be attracted to it, has been made again and again, despite being opposed before. Now the discussion has dwindled chiefly to those who would like to use this civility complaint to silence opposition to the view that MOS must be authoritarian, that If more people support it than oppose it, of course we should ignore the opposition.

Well, they have, whatever the admins decide. I will not comment on WT:MOS unless explicitly asked, for quite some time; I will join the rest of Misplaced Pages in ignoring the page, since I am not contributing to making it what it could be. They can have the maze of rules they have made up, as long as they leave those of us alone who are trying merely to write English, not reinvent it.

Let Dicklyon, who refers to others (not me) as having their heads stuck in the sand, join the editor who refers to posts as vomit, and the editor who assailed me so intemperately that he was threatened with a block if he ever made such posts again. Let them learn lessons of civility from each other; they have corrupted my good manners, as this discussion has made clear. I will be relieved to be free of their company. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Some may think this exaggerated; but the proposal GWH mentioned below would, in the words of the proposer, leave me unable to justify my actions or to defend myself if challenged. I would appreciate anybody who defends that explaining how this helps the encyclopedia; or how my spending more time on this issue benefits the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Small point - If (this is predicated on the sanction going into effect) you were to be editing specifically to ignore MoS or to keep the prose you added to convey content in a specific format. Then you would be hard pressed to discuss/justify your edit without either breaching or acknowledging you had breached the topic ban.

If you were to be editing just to add legible content - and legible does not mean it meets the MoS - and were being reverted because you were not following MoS. You would have the right to say, politely, "I have added content, sourced content, sourced content that someone using Misplaced Pages can read. Yes, I wrote it how I feel it should be written, but I accept that once I place it, others can an likely will modify it based on their interpretation of Misplaced Pages's policies and guide lines. If it needs to be copy edited, then by all means, copy edit it, at least the content will still be there."

- J Greb (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

But most to the point: I will take away not to post in anger. I should not have done so, and I regret causing trouble to the community. Even though I calmed down before the next time I posted, harm was done to GTBacchus; I thank him for looking forward to working with me in the future (in the interim, we have discussed a title question here). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The current tally on the subpage for topic ban from MOS is 24:3:1, on topic ban from Titles is 5:1. This is prime for uninvolved admin review and enaction. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I see that Carcharoth has observed, at some length, the extent to which that majority consists of those who are already involved, and have spoken of me intemperately elsewhere. This is not the first time such people have used a civility complaint against me; the previous time was the complaint by the author of one of those proposals, that "anglophone" is somehow racist. GWH should remember that; he closed it himself with a Trout all round. I have done wrong; I shall avoid these people; but this is another of the same effort at silencing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Closing

I shall be able to close the discussion later this evening (although don't let me stand in the way of anyone who wants to do so sooner) Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Renewed abuse by a new sock/account of indef-blocked user Harmonia1

Well after that copy editing, I introduced 'Bisque' as a background Div style (aid to reading), as this long tortuous discussion kept going off page. // FrankB 14:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

And I removed it, because that's not normal practice here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

A note to new readers: There are users who have commented inside of other user's comments. I have tried to indent them to avoid confusion, but may not have succeeded. lifebaka++ 16:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

In May 2010, User:Harmonia1 was identified by Checkuser as the master account associated with four sockpuppet accounts: User:Critias6, User:Elkoholic, User:Tailertoo, and User:Ellieherring, after this SPI was conducted. The defense was that the alternate accounts were all associated individuals involved with M2 Technologies, a company owned/operated by Janet Morris. All of the accounts edited exclusively subjects associated with Morris and her business, which involved "nonlethal technology". The SPI was opened after coordinated editing became apparent in disputes over articles dealing with the "nonlethal technology" area. "Tailertoo" and "Harmonia1" reported close personal association, and "Tailertoo" turns out to be the Twitter handle of Janet Morris's husband, also a central figure in the M2 Technology business. All of the accounts were blocked, with five unblock requests rejected for the master. The accounts edited in tandem, votestacked, and typically participated in discussions without ever citing any external sources of authorities in support of the positions they held.

For some time this year, there has been extensive coordinated editing on subjects related to Janet Morris, with many new accounts and SPAs appearing, particularly in editing disputes. The accounts involved edit subjects related to Janet Morris principally or exclusively, participate in discussions at length without citing any external sources or authorities in support of their positions, and otherwise parallel the behavior of the accounts in last year's disputes. There has been a great deal of canvassing off-wiki. Virtually all of the accounts involved self-identify as associates of Janet Morris, or use names that correspond to those used off-wiki as associates of Janet Morris. Many of them are names of authors published in the book Lawyers in Hell, which was the subject of a contentious AFD where several of the accounts first surfaced.

The accounts involved are:

• User:Guarddog2. This user self-identifies as Janet Morris. Comments by this users and other accounts suggest that Morris has operated other accounts.
• User:UrbanTerrorist. This user-self-identifies as Wayne Borean, a friend or associate of Morris who promotes her most recent book project on his blog.
  • Right... Please notice that I have a longer and more productive record as an editor here than Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Any article that I edit is improved by the edit. Any article that he/she/it edits looks like it has been attacked with a chainsaw. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

    You have, as of a moment ago, 547 edits. I have over 43,000. That's sure an interesting definition you have of "longer". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• User:Bluewillow991967, who self-identifies as Julie Crawford Cochrane, a writer who is negotiating the sale of a story to a book Morris is editing.

That's Julie Cochrane -- I have 3 novels out (co-authored). I am submitting a story to an anthology as one of a collection of people who have been solicited to submit stories. Submitting stories to open anthologies on series or subjects we like or find interesting---it's what professional authors do. I disclosed my association up front, and I note that instead of assuming my good faith, Wolfowitz is using the disclosure to imply bad faith on my part. My disclosure was not on my own talk page. I'm very new to Misplaced Pages, I put it on Jethrobot's talk page and mentioned in the Hell talk page that it was there. Bluewillow991967 (talk) 10:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The notice is on my talk page now. Bluewillow991967 (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• User:Hulcys930, who self-identifies as being involved in the genre Morris writes and publishes in. "Hulcys" is also the screen name used by a writer published in Morris's Lawyers in Hell anthology, and who has used her Twitter feed to canvass Misplaced Pages disputes.
• User:Knihi, an account created to participate in the Lawyers in Hell AFD, and used only to participate in disputes involving Janet Morris-related articles.

Really? Are you kidding me? The very first thing I ever said was "I'm a total newbie." I happen to be a SF/Fantasy reader and fan, and I like to look at wikipedia articles. When I saw the dispute on this author, a book of whose I once read and liked, it intrigued me -- enough to pull me in to contribute as an editor for the first time. Given that my interest in WP has led to me being called some sort of unethical sockpuppet, I'm really having a hard time believing that the principal of good faith means anything around here. I certainly have not seen Hullabaloo Woolfowitz exercise ANY in my direction. I have to say this newbie's experience of WP has been a real turn off. I doubt I'll contribute or be an editor any more if this is the sort of treatment newbies receive. Let me state this concisely: I've only participated in disputes involving Janet Morris, because I'm brand-spanking new and that's the first thing I EVER spent time on. Jeesh. Do I need to have somehow magically contributed to articles before I opened a WP account in order to get treated with a little good faith around here? I regret the snark, but I have to confess I'm really steamed at this treatment. By the way Cthu-Lou is my account also, but only continues to exist because I couldn't figure out how to delete it. This is something I announced the very first time I posted with Knihi. Knihi (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• • user:Knihi has made a number of false statements here; most conspicuously, he did not "announce" his prior editing as Cthu-Lou in his first edit as Knihi , or anywhere else that I can find, until this posting, after the possibility of an SPI was raised. His first edit as Knihi did, however, toss barbs in Orangemike's direction. It's really remarkable how many people with grievances against OrangeMike showed up to argue over these articles, all claiming no coordination, canvassing, etc., especially when the central player has announced she's "keepingbuilding a file" on OM and his "cronies". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud. You're being very literal -- I didn't mean my very first post, I meant up front. I'm pretty darn sure I mentioned it early on, and no, I'm not going to go hunting through all the conversations to find it. I can't even find some of the conversations. I just figured out how to find post history, but there were a lot of times I posted without being logged in. Once again, you are just assuming bad faith. As for these so called "barbs" can you link to them please, because I don't recall anything but trying to be polite and/or add some levity. I never even heard of OrangeMike until I got involved in these discussions. And is that what this is about? You think I somehow tossed 'barbs' at someone you know, so you wind up listing me as part of some sort of pernicious conspiracy. I'm really starting to feel like you're trolling me. Also I don't appreciate you using the rhetorical tactic of baldly claiming I made a number of false statements but then only listing one. If you want to go making claims about my truthfulness, I'd appreciate it if you enumerated them, giving me something specific to which I can respond.Knihi (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

What you said was "This is something I announced the very first time I posted with Knihi." It wasn't true, and it's a plain, straightforward factual statement. You claim that your only motivation is that you've read and and liked some of Morris's work, but by a curious coincidence the description you'vr given of yourself on-Wiki matches up to the self-description of a person who uses the screen nane "Cthu-Lou", who describes himself as a friend of one of the Lawyers in Hell authors, and has actually passed along requests for help from that author on the details of what might well be a "Heroes in Hell" story, and who also has social-network connections with User:UrbanTerrorist. It's also quite peculiar that your first post as Knihi teed off on OrangeMike over his conduct in deletion discussions, even though none of the AFDs you'd posted in as Cthu-Lou involved OM. And as a final note, you stated, above, that someone here has called you an "unethical sockpuppet." Who and where, pray tell? With an appropriate cite. I don't see anyone having done that. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Really? Ok. You caught me using inexact language. It wasn't in the very first post. I'm not exactly sure what you think you've accomplished, but clearly I was typing in a rush. In turn, I feel confirmed in not trusting to your good faith. It is quite curious to me you seem so concerned about this OrangeMike person and have yet to link to where I supposedly tossed 'barbs' at him. As for being called an "unethical sockpuppet" what I actually wrote was "being called some sort of unethical sock puppet" -- which is subtly different -- and I can certainly cite that. You. Here. As an "account involved" with "Renewed abuse by a new sock/account of indef-blocked user Harmonia1" I find being included on this list and having to have this conversation as equivalent to "being called some sort of unethical sock puppet," and I stand by that impression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knihi (talk • contribs) 19:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not a question of "inexact language." It's that you never made that disclosure, in your first or any other post, so far as I can tell, and you don't cite the post where the "announcement" was purportedly made. As for your claim that I didn't link to your comments regarding OM, the link is there, plain as day in my reply to your first post in this subthread, despite whatever motive you might claim for denying it's there. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I remember making the post, even if I can no longer find it. Its entirely possible I made it to someone's talk page or somewhere else, like a message. *shrug* There's been a lot of typing around here. I don't think it proves anything substantive one way or another; but I guess you'd have to assume good faith to accept that, which seems in short supply. As for a link to 'barbs' I see a link to my opening post as knihi on a discussion but I don't read anything in there that is a 'barb' -- and, in asking for greater specificity from you, I don't have motives here, other than to categorically refute your blanket characterization of my comments. Which comment, specifically, do you regard as a 'barb' and why? And as for inexact language, I point you to the opening of your very first comment on my user account. It's been established that UrbanTerrorist not Janet Morris claimed to be "keeping a file"; so either you claim to know UrbanTerrorist's gender or you too made a mistake and used inexact language. I'm going with uncorrected mistake. Please note that I am offering you the good faith you consistently fail to offer me. Knihi (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Guys, enough. Lots of heat, no light. lifebaka++ 16:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• User:Dokzap, who self-identifies as a science fiction writer. The credentials claimed by Dokzap match those of a science fiction writer who has sold stories to anthologies edited by Janet Morris, and who uses the Twitter handle Dokzap
• User:Dburkhead, who has edited only subjects related to Janet Morris, and who made multiple promotional edits involving "With Enemies Like These", a story published in Lawyers in Hell and written by David L. Burkhead. User:Dburkhead

Interesting word choice. A brief, factual synopsis of the story in question, listing major characters and settings in order to link to Misplaced Pages articles on those characters and settings, is not "promotional." The term for what Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is doing is called "loaded language."user:Dburkhead

• User:Luke Jaywalker, an editor who made a handful of edits in 2008, returned early this year, and since then edited principally subjects related to Janet Morris or to Baen Books, Morris's principal publisher

I can assure you, and I invite IPs to be checked by any means available in order to prove this, that I'm nobody's sockpuppet. I've been primarily (about 75%, I estimate) editing those subjects because they happen to be of interest to me at this time, the same reason (aside from fixing typos I happen to spot) I make edits in general. Luke Jaywalker (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• User:Mzmadmike, who self-identifies as Michael Z. Williamson, a writer with a story published in Lawyers in Hell, and several novels, mostly published by Baen Books. Williamson operates a discussion board under the Baen's Bar site, and used that board to canvass on Misplaced Pages disputes related to Janet Morris Mike's Madhouse

Please do look at the thread directly, as it refutes the allegation of "canvassing" and is instead a request for users familiar with WP and/or Morris's work to contribute information to improving the articles if they can. I would note that this also substantially refutes allegations of attempts to WP:OWN the articles in question. Bluewillow991967 (talk) 10:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• User:Cthu-Lou, an account which participates exclusively in discussions relating to the notability of books by Janet Morris.

For real? Participates? I used this account to post a few times then lost my password and got snarled in the lost password process. So I created the knihi account and my very first act was to announce this in the AFD we were having. I'd as soon see this account deleted. If it has more than a few posts to its name then someone other than me has been using it. And even if it were not me, Good Faith anyone? Why does contributing to only one article make you suspicious? Everyone starts with some article sometime. Forgive the redundancy but I really feel like being new is the same as being suspicious and good faith is out the window. Talk about a turn-off. Sheesh. Knihi (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• User:ColdServings, an account which participated only in an AFD regarding one of Morris's novels.

I created this account earlier using one of my various "screen names" (http://coldservings.livejournal.com, http://www.coldservings.com) and had forgotten about it when creating the account I use now however user:ColdServingsonly participated in one discussion and never an any discussion in which user:Dburkhead participates thus the usual complaint of using "sock puppets" to create the illusion of more support for a position than truly exists does not apply in this case. As for whether either of these accounts is a "sock puppet" of Ms. Morris, you are welcome to contact me via one of my sites (both of which have been around a lot longer than this particular wikipedia controversy).user:Dburkhead

• User:Cordova829, who self-identifies as Jason Cordova, a writer published in Lawyers in Hell. Cordova edits almost exclusively on articles related to Morris or, to a lesser degree, Michael Z. Williamson (Mzmadmike).

Principal pages involved:

• Lawyers in Hell AFD
• Talk:Heroes in Hell
• Talk:Gilgamesh in the Outback
• Dispute Resolution Noticeboard#Gilgamesh in the Outback

There may be other accounts involved; there are problem edits and many articles and AFDs involving subjects related to Janet Morris. This is very messy. Since the current disputes coalesced following the Lawyers in Hell AFD began, several users (principally UrbanTerrorist and Guarddog2) have posted extensive personal attacks on User:OrangeMike and myself, with helpings of general incivility. Guarddog2 made a round of not-quite-actionable, borderline NLT violations, reported and discussed here , then last night declared she was taking her dispute with me to the SFWA Grievance Committee, which seemed to me a peculiar attempt at intimidation, since that group only involves itself in disputes between writers and publishers. Guarddog2 also declared she is "keeping a file" on Orangemike and his "cronies", another crudely ineffective mode of intimidation.

You know and not for nothing, but as an outside observer more interested in fair treatment of the original articles than these disputes, my opinion is that you have been pretty darned uncivil and hostile yourself. You also seem to take everything in the worst possible light. For example, Guarddog2 never said she was taking her dispute with you to the SFWA Grievance Committee. She said words to the effect that she was going to ask someone from their to weigh in. I took that to mean, because they would have expert knowledge on the topic (ie the difference between firs serial, reprint, etc. and how all that is handled in the industry), and since you'd been invoking the SFWA as an authority, it seemed that would be someone you'd actually believe. Your interpretation that this was a threat is...well, it's your interpretation and you're entitled to it. But it wasn't how it read to me. For whatever that's worth. Knihi (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

As Spartaz commented in closing the Lawyers in Hell AFD, the set of Janet Morris-related disputes, has become dominated by a clique of users, mostly with professional connections to Morris, who "have been bludgeoning this discussion to the point of imcomprehensibility." It is extremely difficult to find good faith in the extended discussions. For example, when I cited the well-regarded reference work Contemporary Authors, Urban Terrorist compared it to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion . Guarddog2 posts lengthy commentary on copyright law, unsupported by any sources and often contradicted by what's available, then she and her associated authors post insinuations that editors who disagree with her are ignorant, etc.

Wow. I guess can see how you took it that way, but I recall Urban Terrorist -- whom I agree should tone it down -- as saying, essentially, if one were willing to accept any source uncritically, one might as well trust the Protocols... He did not compare that particular reference to the Protocols. I think you may be way to close to this and hearing everything as hostile. Additionally, I responded to that very comment about incomprehensibility, that I for one didn't find it incomprehensible, nor did I have trouble finding good faith. Until accusations flew and everyone seemed to get angry at which point all I could find was bad faith directed indiscriminately. Admittedly, this is just my opinion, but what you just wrote is merely your opinion of events as well. Knihi (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

l

The specific dispute I'm engaged in with the Morris clique is fundamentally bizarre: multiple reliable sources support a simple factual statement; but they repeatedly try to exclude it from the relevant article without citing any contrary sources. Underneath it is an effort to WP:OWN a class of articles and use them to promote the interests of various writers. Some editors are trying to reopen ancient disputes; UrbanTerrorist and Guarddog2 are targeting Orangemike for abuse over a book review he wrote when Jimmy Wales wasn't old enough to drink legally. Janet Morris (assuming it's her) is still complaining about differences she had with Robert Silverberg back when Michael Dukakis was running for US President.

Now hold on here. Seems to me you're just asserting this stuff about "promoting the interests". It also seems to me someone else could have written what you just did, swapping the sides. Once these two groups are having editing wars, accusations like this are inherently one-sided. It could be equally flipped around and directed at you. And you'd both be being biased and unfair. For example, it's not a "simple factual statement" You make it sound like arguing about 2+2=4. Of course its nothing so simple. How could it be? You're claiming one thing, and the other side claims you're using a term incorrectly and oversimplifying matters. The use of the term has real impact and meaning and accuracy in all articles on collections, anthologies, and shared-universe fiction -- all of which are different art forms. I don't mean to start a debate here but I just can't let that kind of one-sided oversimplification stand. YOU see it as "bizarre" and about a "simple factual statement," but they don't. Also using terms like 'clique' or mentioning your belief she's "complaining about Silverberg" in a disparaging fashion are irrelevant and hardly civil.Knihi (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

There's obviously coordinated editing and canvassing going on. The same thing was done on related articles last year, and the central player appears to have returned, even though her unblock requests have been rejected, with a more effective approach toward the puppetry involved. This kind of behavior needs to be stopped and strongly deterred. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you classify and describe the conflict of interest that the writers collectively believe you have with the work(s) and writer(s)?

COI works both ways. I am not saying you actually have one, but they're asserting something along those lines a lot, and it's not clear from reading all that (once) what exactly it is.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The accusations of COI against Hullaballoo are not grounded in anything mentioned at WP:COI. One user said that they "had no idea" why he would have a COI. The argument, by another editor, is that "Hullaballoo is committed to making it as difficult as possible for any of Ms. Morris' work to be included in WP without fighting a battle against editors with many years of experience doing an inordinate amount of work to denigrate and dismiss Ms. Morris' books and stories." But he hasn't violated the three reversion rule or even tried to find ways around it (because there hasn't been an edit war). The arguments basically demonstrate ignorance of Misplaced Pages policies, which I am somewhat sympathetic to because there are many. However, they seem to have an inability to accept Misplaced Pages policies that have been explained, such as the need for verifiability of claims and the fact that Misplaced Pages is about verifiability, not truth. It has also been intensely frustrating since many users (myself included, perhaps) have responded with wall-of-text-type responses that are long, winding, and include too many issues. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 04:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The tactics of this group of editors has been to assert, over and over again, that Hullabaloo Wolfowitz has a conflict of interest in this matter, without offering a single shred of evidence in support of those charges. Then, they go on to demand that he recuse himself from this matter, since he has such a flagrant conflict of interest. The evidence that Hullabaloo Wolfowitz has presented above seems to show that it is his accusers instead who have a genuine conflict of interest. In several cases, they admit it openly but claim some sort of special expertise as an exemption from Misplaced Pages's normal standards of behavior. Acting in concert, they try to own this group of articles. This conduct ought not be allowed to stand. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec, the commenter immediately above say what I'm trying to say better than I can tonight, and I thank them) I have not a clue what the editors making the COI claims are talking about. It strikes me that they are simply throwing ad hominem attacks because they can't really contest the substantive points I've made. As I recall, the COI claims began with this comment by Hulcys930: "The issue of COI is that each and every page regarding a Janet Morris story, novel or anthology has been the subject of inordinate scrutiny for a number of years by three WP editors: OrangeMike, Dravecky and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz." That's not a real COI claim, of course, and the facts don't bear it out -- the first Morris-related editing I'd done was on the Lawyers in Hell AFD; I believe Dravecky's involvement began only with AFD comments earlier this year; and these folks seem willing to accuse Orangemike of high crimes over a review he wrote many years ago. Full disclosure: I had a brief, pleasant conversation with Robert Silverberg, the author of the story at the center of much of this dispute, about 30 years ago, at an sf convention. I also met Jim Baen, Morris's one-time publisher, at a party even longer ago. I have no less tenuous connection to anyone else involved in the dispute. I consider myself moderately knowledgeable in the field because, 15-30 years ago I did some "management consulting" (loosely described) for some specialty booksellers, two or three of whom dabbled in small press publishing, but never had any contact with any of the people involved here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to try and answer Georgewilliamherbert's question with something other than "He doesn't! Their crazy!" (not that those words were literally used, of course). Before I do let me say first that I'm not an editor claiming Hullaballoo has a COI, but I can see why others might. For one he, like other editors in these discussions, has not stuck to a neutral tone, leading to the conclusion that he doesn't have a WP:NPOV. Hullabaloo has also, in my view, gone ahead and done the very thing WP:COI suggests not doing (from WP:COI): "When someone voluntarily discloses a conflict of interest, other editors should always assume the editor is trying to do the right thing. Do not use a voluntarily disclosed conflict of interest as a weapon against the editor." And yet this very discussion feels like just such a weapon (and as I've said elsewhere, I feel caught in the crossfire). His intensity and the mutual hostility have likely led opposing editors to feel that (from WP:COI) "he's got interests...more important to than advancing the aims of Misplaced Pages" even if they don't have proof of such. Additionally the newbie's (like myself) may have confused prohibitions against "citing oneself" -- which Hullabaloo has not done -- with those against "original research" -- which he may very well have done. Finally, since WP:COI mentions that "...when editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia through violation of policies such as neutral point of view...accounts may be blocked..." They might have concluded, perhaps erroneously, that Hullabaloo has a COI. My point in writing this is to balance what appears to me to be a sort of witch-hunt-like/conspiracy theory vilification of everyone who opposes Hullabaloo in this discussion. Just a way to support Good Faith and show these editors (myself included) can be wrong without being crazy or antagonistic. Knihi (talk)

This above statement seems to support Cullens summation of the COI-interest accusations against Hullaballoo. There is nothing that substantiates the accusation, only some vagueness about him not having "stuck to a neutral tone" (seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT). The COI is clearly on the other side of this conflict, not Hullaballos. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Nicely said User:Cullen328, but totally inaccurate.

The problems come from Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, whose tactics have included a wide variety of wild accusations and attacks, for which he/she/it has refused to provide any proof, even when asked repeatedly for it. I gather that the necessity to actually have to come up with proof is so terrifying that it has now decided to move the argument to another level.

The point that I'm making is that I've been here a long time. I've never had any problems with anyone before this. Sure, there have been disagreements about how articles should look, and what should be included, but I've always been able to work them out with the other editors before this episode started.

It started when I decided to set up a page for the new book in the Heroes in Hell series, Lawyers in Hell. I did what I usually do, which is set up a junk page to get the layout right. Life intervened, and I didn't get back to it for a couple of days. When I say live intervened, my dog Sam had been hit by a bus. Beagles are tough little dogs, but they don't win against a bus. I did all of my writing with Sam curled up against me, and loosing him totally messed up my mind. When I came back, the page been deleted.

I wasn't in the best mood before I logged on. This put me over the edge. I found out who was responsible, and proceeded to tear a strip off him. Probably not the best thing to do, but I wasn't feeling at all good, and Orangemike caught the fallout. I later learned that Orangemike wasn't in compliance with Misplaced Pages rules when he deleted the article. I didn't know that at the time, accepted his explanation, and apologized.

I was in the process of reading up on the rule that he had told me I wasn't in compliance with (it isn't something that we have to worry about in Canada, we have rational online copyright laws) when someone else set up a page. I explained to that person the copyright issue, and they got it fixed. I then went back to Orangemike and asked for his help to make the page deletion proof. His way of helping was to tag the page with an Articles for Deletion. This wasn't exactly the sort of help I had asked for. It also wasn't in compliance with Misplaced Pages rules, but I didn't know that at the time either.

The Article for Deletion Discussion is fascinating reading, and yes, I'm including it in the book. If you haven't read it, I suggest that you do. At one point someone said, "The discussion is open to any Misplaced Pages editor," but when I made an effort to let some editors who I thought would have an interest in the AfD know about it, I was accused of canvassing. Meanwhile a series of editors who could have known nothing about it, unless they were told by someone who knew about the AfD kept showing up, and voting Delete. I found that rather curious.

At the end of the AfD it was decided that no consensus was reached. But all of a sudden there's discussion of a merge. Now unlike certain people who appear to live online at Misplaced Pages, I have a life. I've got several books in various stages - shameless plug - buy The Joy of IRig from the ITunes Book and Kobo book stores for $0.99 in September! So I missed the merge discussion which was carried out with unseemly haste.

I did however have an argument with Orangemike about his setting up a Misplaced Pages article for a mutual friend, who while he is a nice guy, isn't notable by Misplaced Pages standards. I didn't AfD the page even though I would have been justified in doing so. I've known this guy longer than I've known my wife, and we are celebrating our 25th wedding anniversary this weekend. But as I said, he's a friend, and I'm not an ass. I left the page. I do think that its curious that there are two standards. One for the insiders. One for everyone else.

OK, so the merge happens. Then I notice something curious. One page is left. So I decided to merge that one page (note that this probably isn't in the correct order). I merged the Gilgamesh in the Outback page into the Heroes in Hell page, and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz freaks out. He claims that he's got solid evidence that Gilgamesh in the Outback is notable and that it would have existed without Heroes in Hell. I look at his evidence, and to me it looks like he's doing original research, and I say so.

This lead to the Dispute Resolution. Based on the comments there, it appears that the only person who agreed with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.

I'll admit having little patience for idiots. I have less patience for chainsaw editors like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I've made tons of corrections over the years on Misplaced Pages. A lot of them have been no more than minor grammatical fixes. Others have in some cases been fairly extensive. In no cases have I walked away from an article without improving it.

When Hullaballoo Wolfowitz works on an article the damage is incredible. He should be blocked from editing. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

On first impression - Everyone here is behaving badly and should stop it. On second impression, everyone here is operating in good faith, has disclosed enough to know what's at stake with COI - and are still behaving badly, particularly including operating in bad faith regarding the other participants, and should stop it.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If you can provide solid evidence of where I have been behaving badly Georgewilliamherbert other than the short period where I have admitted to being short tempered for a very valid reason, I would love to see it. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If you have a specific example of my operating in bad faith regarding other participants, please bring it forward. I've made every effort to remain civil and stick to the issue(s) at hand. Bluewillow991967 (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Replying to a comment by Knihi above: I've gone ahead and tagged User:Cthu-Lou as a former account for you. If you still have the password for it, you should log on and change the password to something random (bang randomly on the keyboard for a bit) so that you won't have access to it any more. You shouldn't have any more problems from it, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't have the password, and your help is a relief to me. Knihi (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I clearly stated when I created guarddog2 that it was a single purpose page and that as Janet Morris I could be perceived as having a COI, and that I am unskilled in WP rules, regulations, and procedures, and don't have time to become expert. There was a previous discussion on many issues now raised anew here, which appeared on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, of which I was informed by: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC> In relation to current issues primarily surrounding the HIH series, I have repeatedly been accused of not being me, and others have been accused of being me. In relation to previous issues in previous years: The issues surrounding my connection to Harmonia et al WP activities (all unpaid) and the WP NLW page are discussed in a WP review and WP has that documentation, which can be reviewed by WP authorities at any time. I believe that the people named in this current review (some authors, some not) have all been forthcoming about their COI where they perceive it. All of these people trying to help with the HIH series issues, as far as I know, really exist. None are my sockpuppets, if I understand the term. All have their own computers and their own volition: I am not controlling any of them now,and have never controlled any group of WP editors. Some people have or may write for my series; some may never write or submit a story for HIH. I was trying to help in good faith, as I said on my talk page,to clarify a contentious situation, initially in a review that was called out as a "copyright" issue review, though that was later changed and broadened. It is worthy of note that if all of these new editors were treated with respect, they might become WP resources. It is also worthy of note that if all these young editors are disbarred, Mr. Wolfowitz will have much more control over the fate of the HIH page. My interrest in talking to the SFWA Grievance committee member I know was to find out what the process was in SFWA for attributing award-nominated works on ballots, and whether that process could have been compromised or was as simple as "first alphabetical listing when more than one publication" exists for the same year, or was, as I have previously assumed, the author's choice -- and if this were so, was that documentable. We discussed potential remedies for such confusions or confutations, given the increasing power of aggregators to correctly state or misstate history based on a small amount of information that becomes proliferate, whether correct or incorrect, and then is taken for true based on the number of times that information can be found on the internet. Guarddog2 (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that Guarddog2 has acknowledged here that she is in fact the editor behind the Harmonia1 account ("my connection to Harmonia et al"), and has therefore been editing in violation of the indefinite block imposed on her last year. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Editing? Wasn't she just replying to you in an administrative forum? Is that "editing"? The term gets used a lot. I'd be interested in its WP definition *runs off to search WP*. Anyway, there weren't any guarddog2 edits to WP articles that I recall, before they all got merged. Can anyone check the record on that? But lets be real here, she could have easily said "my connection to Harmonia et al or lack thereof" as that's the tenor of the comment. Changing "the proper authorities know about this so I'm not going to speak about it" -- effectively 'no comment' -- into "Ah ha! Guilt has been admitted!" seems a bit of stretch, no? Knihi (talk) 03:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Knihi, precisely what I thought I said: this Harmonia issue was discussed and decided by WP years ago and interested parties can look at it, where I'm sure my connection or lack of same to everyone involved was decided by WP's rules to WP's satisfaction and is a matter of record. Also, when I said "new" (wherever that was) I meant it in the Webster's sense of "recently created," with no other connotation. Guarddog2 (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

From WP:BLOCK: A blocked user can continue to access Misplaced Pages, but is not able to edit any page', except (in most cases) their own user talk page. The block is not limited to articlespace edits. Even if it were, Morris's contribution history as Guarddog2 began with articlespace edits. Your interpretation of her comment makes no sense, the "review" she refers to was conducted more than a year ago, well before the Guarddog2 account was opened; there's no way her statement here could be true, or even make sense, otherwise. (And she's referred to Guarddog2 as her "new" account, indicating she had an old one.) The phrase "Harmonia et al WP activities (all unpaid)" refers to her defense last year that the supposed socks were actually her colleagues at M2 Technologies, editing via the company servers, but not as part of their jobs (that's why "unpaid" is mentioned, and how would Guarddog2 have known that otherwise?) She deserves some credit for owning up to it, although she would have done better to make full disclosure before beginning to edit again. And think about this: if you were Janet Morris, owner of M2 Technologies, and discovered that somebody had been impersonating you on Misplaced Pages, including creating an account under your husband's Twitter handle, making edits relating to your business, etc., wouldn't you have entered ballistic mode very quickly? The silence here would be remarkable. Besides, as I recall, several of the alternate accounts last year occasionally edited via IPs by mistake, making it possible to associate them with Guarddog2's IP if she denied the connection and a full investigation was done. (But even I'm not cynical enough to assume that motivated her rather than a good faith disclosure.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually my interpretation of her comment makes perfect sense, given my knowledge of things, it just doesn't make sense to YOU. You have a different interpretation. I'm afraid you lost me with your speculations on what I might or might not do if I owned M2 Technologies as well as speculating on other people's motivations to be remarkably silent or not, but I do know that you can have a 100 people behind the right kind of firewall, and they'll all show the same IP. Who knows, while we are speculating on people's motivations maybe she fired whoever was impersonating her and got fed up with WP. What do I know? But whatever, dude - I probably shouldn't have engaged this as much as I did. You saying I made no sense just irked me. So. You caught Guarddog2 admitting outright she's Janet Morris (I'm assuming you accept that now and are no longer disputing it?) and editing a page you think she shouldn't have, before limiting herself to administrative issues. *shrug* Ok. Knihi (talk) 05:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

PS I just reread the Guarddog2 comment. She didn't say she was the editor harmonia1. She said she has a connection, nature unspecified to 'Harmonia et al' (and to go look it up if we wanted to). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knihi (talk • contribs) 05:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The connection and the possibility that they may share the same IP may not constitute sockpuppetry, but there may be a concern about editors engaging in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Misplaced Pages solely for that purpose or about editors who are closely connected (in the IP sense of the word) and edit with the same objectives. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 05:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

We aren't going to take administrative action that one-sidedly decides anything here. There are several issues in play, which need reasonable and rational discussion (which has not been forthcoming from either side so far, for the most part).

The particulars of the credit and listing and so forth for the story are simply not worth fighting over this badly. Hullabaloo Wolfowitz should know this already; the relative newcomers here who are writers cannot be expected to know what Misplaced Pages norms and standards are, but they're not that different from other normal society, and the behavior here wouldn't be good in any other normal civilized arena.

There is a significant problem here that Misplaced Pages is really not even the right venue to resolve those. Misplaced Pages isn't a primary source. We're not a secondary source. We're supposed to be a tertiary source, relying on secondary (and to some extent, primary and tertiary) sources we believe are reliable and which we can verify. The totality of the argument over credit and timing is exactly the sort of thing we shouldn't be getting into resolving here.

As I said, everyone calming down will help this. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec with George, above)Okay, I just finished reading through all of this, and I only have a few things to say. First, Hullaballoo, you are failing to assume good faith for many of these users, especially those who have announced their conflicts of interest. Please stop, try to maintain a softer tone (and yeah, I understand why you are getting frustrated), and try to avoid silly disputes.

Second, UrbanTerrorist, you are continuously using veiled personal attacks and derogatory language directed towards those of us who care enough about Misplaced Pages to spend a lot of time here. You will stop if you expect us to want to help you, or you're likely to find your time here stressful, aggravating, and short.

Third, to all of those asserting that Hullaballoo has a conflict of interest, stop. He doesn't.

Fourth, to all of those asserting things about OrangeMike's intentions or interests, stop. You're throwing what he said hugely out of proportion.

Fifth, as is suggested in the dispute resolution noticeboard thread, all this arguing over who owns what rights and such needs to stop. To be frank, while such points might be important to all of you, no one who reads the article is going to care. Discuss what should actually be said, but avoid getting mired in minutiae.

Sixth, keep in mind that discussions on Misplaced Pages can, and often do, get heated. If any of you, for any reason, can't calm yourself down, please take several hours, days, or even weeks away before coming back. There is no time limit on anything that we're doing here, and typing out of anger can do far more harm than any resolution to this dispute will do good. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 19:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks lifebaka for summarizing that and stepping in so firmly. There are however two things I'd like to point out related to your 5th and 6th points. Caveat first: newbie here, not sure how things usually go. So that said:

6th point - I'm totally with you on anger doing no good (how could it?) and a great deal of harm; however, I've often felt in these discussions like there really is a time limit. I've walked away for a few days only to come back and hear that pages were deleted or merged. Maybe this is just me not understanding AFDs, but I entered the AFD on the Lawyers in Hell book expecting that it would run its course and reach consensus and then interested editors would get a chance to update the entry. Instead by the time the AFD on that one book was done, multiple pages on multiple books were called into question, deletes and merges took place like wild-fire on more volumes than I could keep up on, and I found myself feeling, "Wow. If you want to participate as an editor you'd better move darn fast around here or the thing you want to edit might vanish." I was also loathe to create new pages when I couldn't, in my opinion, get a direct response to the ideas I was putting out (the original discussion was around notability). Maybe its just a newbie error, but I had the distinct impression if I updated the articles they'd just get deleted anyway. Sort of like saying to someone who wants them deleted, "Well I'd update them like such and such? Would you accept that?" And not getting a yes or a no -- so why bother?

5th point - the rights argument is a boondoggle, no doubt. However IIRC it came about because if you decouple the short story from the book by calling the short story a mere reprint, you get to say the book isn't notable. A claim of non-notability for the book (with which I disagree strongly) may have been just one of the reasons that Rebels in Hell was merged (can't say from direct experience because I turned away from the discussion for what felt like a few days and boomf it was merged, but I trust jethrobot on that), but the whole discussion definitely felt to me like a mere strategy aimed at weakening the case for the book to have its own page. It is this fight over "the story is not a reprint in the sense that you get to take away that the book won a major award, because the shared universe is as much a part of that story as not" vs. "the story is a mere reprint developed independently, and the award goes with the story and not the shared universe book/world construct..." that is at the heart of this discussion. Rights and copyright and such are just the rathole that discussion ran down. So while WP is not a venue to dispute legal matters, legal matters were not really at issue until the arguing got out of hand and the "you don't understand what reprint means moron--yes I do, you a-hole" kind of arguments started flying (not that anyone said that stuff literally). A literary and a notability question was at issue, which does strike me as a WP issue. That's from where I'm sitting anyway.Knihi (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

On my sixth point, I was referring specifically to this philosophy, and I forgot that some people might not understand the reference. Sorry. Yes, things tend to happen quickly, probably as a product of how quickly things can happen (compare to the process of writing a paper encyclopedia), but you can always revive an old discussion if you have new points, new sources, or something similar. It's often difficult to keep track of, especially if you can't be on often.

As for being worried about doing things when you can't get an answer to a question, we suggest that users be nice and bold in editing. We're extremely forgiving of honest mistakes, and we're perfectly aware that our policies and other rules provide a near-vertical learning curve. Since most of them are (supposed to be) intuitive, we don't require that new users read anything before they start editing. Go ahead, do what you think needs to be done, use common sense, and don't worry if you make some mistakes. We can correct anything.

I'd also like to point out that the current status of an article shouldn't have anything to do with its deletion.

On the fifth point, the suggestion currently being discussed at the dispute resolution noticeboard seems entirely workable as a shortcut around the problem. I understand how the dispute started, and why it started, but neither of those things change that it needs to stop. As long as it does, everything's kosher.

I should also mention that it's best to never attribute any sorts of intentions to other editors. You can't know what's going through my head any better than I can know what's going through yours, and all too often users attribute intentions to each other in the nastiest parts of disputes. Stick to commenting on the strict facts; that is, something that can be objectively pointed to in a diff. lifebaka++ 01:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me lifebaka, but a quick perusal of my account would show that I've been here since 2005, and that I've made a lot of high quality edits. I will probably outlast Hullaballoo Wolfowitz on Misplaced Pages. I also spend a lot of time here, and I try to make sure that the articles I'm interested in (mostly scientific and industrial in nature) are of the highest quality, in spite of the errors made by people who don't bother to check the sources.

As to Item Three, if that isn't the case, you need to consider what the problem might be then, because by his actions there is a problem.

As to Item Four, I am still talking to OrangeMike about this.

As to Item Five, in that case we should go ahead and merge the Gilgamesh article with the Heroes in Hell article.

As to Item Six, have you ever known a case on the net when discussions didn't get heated? I'm one of the old timers who thought SLIP was high technology. It was high technology back in 1991. If discussions didn't get heated, we wouldn't be online. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Item three: I'd suggest that we assume that Hullaballoo's problem isn't ours.

Item four: I've seen. He seems bemused, to put it mildly. Again, it was nothing and I suggest you drop it.

Item five: You could merge it, if users decide it's a good idea. Hullaballoo is right that it can be a standalone article, but that doesn't mean it needs to be, and that certainly doesn't mean it should be merged. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I just read this...mass...and a lot of it seems problematic, but the following quote from Guarddog2 jumped out at me: "I've finding this totally fascinating, and I've been documenting the entire procedure, so that I can write a short non-fiction book about what it is like to work on Misplaced Pages. I am a writer after all, and writing is what I do. I'm also a publisher, so I won't have any problems placing the book. I should warn you that all of you will star in the book." Doesn't that appear to anyone else like a clear threat intended to intimidate editors into conforming to xyr preferred outcome in this dispute? Also, Guarddog2, could you please confirm what you meant about your connection to Harmonia? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that statement was not made by Guarddog2, but rather made by UrbanTerrorist per this diff. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 04:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) That comment was made by UrbanTerrorist, who also uses his blog to disparage Wikipedians he's been in conflict with. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

And he's begun posting it on uset talk pages, not just here. If this were the NFL, he'd get flagged for taunting. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I got the two editors confused. So, if I understand correctly, the two questions (I have) are, 1) is it appropriate to us to block UrbanTerrorist for attempting to use external pressure to influence the debate, and 2) Guarddog2, what exactly is your connection to the Harmonia1 account? Or, perhaps the second question should be rephrased and asked to the community: does Guarddog2's statement count as an admission of block evasion? I'm not entirely certain it does; the sentence seems ambiguous to me. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: let me clarify, if I saw UrbanTerrorist's comment outside of this larger discussion, I would consider it threatening enough to warrant an immediate, indefinite block while we await clarification and/or retraction. To me, I see the threat as very similar to a legal threat--it is an attempt to intimidate, well, all of us, into being extra careful because everything we say or do is going to be printed in a grand expose. I have no problem if UrbanTerrorist wants to write such a book (I gather UrbanTerrorist lives in a country protecting freedom of speech and right to engage in money-making affairs, so, you know, go for it), but I don't see how xe can do that will still continuing to edit--the goals seem incompatible to me. I decline to do so now as I feel like discussion is still ongoing (and there is still the fact that this seems to be a much larger issue than just one editor). Qwyrxian (talk) 05:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there other issues here besides UrbanTerrorist's conduct, but their comments have sometimes been disruptive and unhelpful, and the threat to "write about us" pushes it over the line to a personal attack per WP:NPA#WHATIS. I support a block on UrbanTerrorist. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 06:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The threat to remove my editing privileges because of my wish to document what is already public (Misplaced Pages does after all document everything that happens here) seems to me to be incompatible with freedom of speech rights. As to myself I don't see it as a threat, but rather as an attempt to tell people how the online encyclopedia that so many of them rely on works. It might in fact encourage more to become involved as editors, something which I believe we would all regard as a good result. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, are you really a published author? Because an author would know that "free speech rights" have absolutely nothing to do with having one's words published by private organization. Misplaced Pages is a privately held non-profit organization, and has the right to forbid anyone from publishing in their space any time they want. They have vested the ability to make such a decision to the community of users; one thing the community has decided is that anybody using threats to influence a content dispute may need to be blocked. You declaring that you have a freedom of speech right to speak here is exactly like me going to your publisher and saying "I have a 30,000 word book that I wrote and you must print it because I have freedom of speech!" Now, if you had just announced on your user page that you were writing a book about Misplaced Pages, I'd be willing to believe you did it in good faith. The fact that you announced it here, in the middle of concerns about your and a whole group of related editor's behavior, and then afterward you specifically went to the talk pages of people that you're involved in the dispute with speaks strongly to me that this is not an attempt to "encourage more to become involved as editors", but rather to threaten those people considering whether or not your editing violates our policies and should be sanctioned. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Urban, the issue isn't that you threatened anything in particular, it's that you mentioned writing this book in some very... strange ways. First here, in the middle of a long and somewhat vitriolic comment, and then on the talk pages of users you've had disputes with. It's not exactly unreasonable for us to jump to the conclusion that you're using an implied threat of negative press in your book as a way to dissuade others from continuing the dispute. Regardless of whether or not this was your intention (and I assume it is not), you still are going to need to avoid talking about this book on Misplaced Pages, if only to prevent anyone from making the same mistake. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

TO: MODERATOR Just for clarification: it is my understanding that a possible solution to the subjects discussed on this page, and on this page , and on this page is being attempted by uninvolved, neutral editors/admins. Does this place these 3 pages "on hold" so that there is time for that possible resolution? A short break to restore calm and civility might not be a bad idea.

I would also like to personally thank lifebaka for the very reasoned approach taken to the tenor of this page. Neither side is blameless. Thank you. Hulcys930 (talk) 09:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Lifebaka, thank you for reducing the heat on this page and giving people time to think and restore composure. I do want to say that my comment on the sockpuppetry accusations page, mentioned here by Mr. Wolfowitz, was not an admission of anything: I said that whatever that WP investigation found and decided is a matter of WP record: those who want to can look it up. That Mr. Wolfowitz misconstrued what I said was pointed out by several people on the other page, so what I said was clear to most readers. I consider that issue unrelated to the HIH discussion and am here only to discuss HIH. As to how the RIH page and GITO should be discussed on WP, it seems to me that any decision that lists both publications, as Dozcap and others have suggested, would be a good decision. As for when books were available, books ship well before publication date, may be in different stores quite a bit earlier, and must ship to reviewers at least three months before publication; Lawyers in Hell was available at least a month or two before the publication date from different outlets: book availability is not a horserace where a gate opens and the publications come charging out together; books and magazines are available at different times from different outlets, including direct from the publisher in some cases. Trying to determine exactly when and in what publication the story could be bought is a fruitless exercise and may require original research, while both editions in question say clearly July, 1986. Simply stating that the story GITO was published in IASFM and RIH in July 1986 seems an elegant and equitable solution to this long debate. As you say, cheers. JEM Guarddog2 (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Redirection/Blocking of Related Pages to This/These Disputes

Er, why do I end up on this page when I attempt to access the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:AN/I#NLT_violation.2C_possible_impersonation.2C_COI_combative_editing.2C_and_general_disruption_at_Heroes_in_Hell_and_related_articles Has it been rendered inaccessible and, if so, why? Why would the system redirect me to this "Harmonia" page from one having nothing to do with that old blocked account?

I was able to access the dispute page addressing the Gilgamesh in the Outback/Heroes in Hell, so why is the original complaint of "impersonation/COI/combative editing, etc." no longer available? Hulcys930 (talk) 05:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hulcys, that thread was already archived (threads on this noticeboard are automatically archived by a bot if no one responds to them in 24 hours). You can find the archived thread at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive715#NLT violation, possible impersonation, COI combative editing, and general disruption at Heroes in Hell and related articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• I just added a new entry to the old Harmonia1 sockpuppet investigation, to initiate a checkuser on Guarddog2 to see if Janet Morris's new account is an extension of Harmonia1. Binksternet (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I woulda, shoulda hoped some of the many rules and procedures here would have injected hard facts like that, vice the wild allegations and beliefs read above BEFORE generating such a MONUMENTAL WASTE OF TIME built on ignorance of contract law and perhaps a few misunderstood rules. But since I was canvassed to come here from some trivial edit (I don't know the series, though have read Ms. J.C.), let me say that I find it perfectly normal behaviour for writer-associates to be of similar mind about the contract law in dispute. AHEM ... experience will tell. Ahem. There has certainly been a lack of common sense exhibited by the accuser. This is a tempest in a teapot and exactly the sort of spiraling feckless arguments over nothing much that drive good editors away. For the record, iirc each of the people who've self-identified above as writers have books on my shelf. I also recognize them from BAEN circles and related web sites. I trust the accuser will forgive me for reading a top publisher, and for contributing to articles about said associations here. SOME of us try to write about what we know. RECOMMENDATION: Close this discussion if the IP Check doesn't back up the finger pointing and penalize Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for lack of maturity, common sense and far too much poor judgment. He/She clearly has far too much time to snoop for suspect associations to present this matter over a trivial difference. // FrankB 14:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
    • A checkuser is likely to come back as declined for being stale on the master account; it's been over a year. We'll probably only have behavioral evidence to work on. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Permanent tags

An editor has, since September 2010, insisted that an {{update}} tag go at the top of a section of an article. He states that there are sources that have been missed in the section, and has even specified which sources he thinks should be used. He has, however, refused to actually update the article himself, or state what specific material he thinks should be added. I've tried to remove the tag, but he insists that it must stay, despite the fact that he refuses to fix the problem which apparently only he sees. At this point I'm at a loss as to what to do, and the issue is behavioral, so I've brought it here. The article page discussion is here. Jayjg 21:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Other editors (including at least one previously-uninvolved admin) have joined the conversation on the article Talk page. I don't think there's anything for an admin to do right now, other than maybe keep a weather eye on the discussion.. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest closing this ANI case. It is clear that the user who wants the tag there is a good-faith editor who engages in discussion. Therefore, no outside action is required, although more comments are welcome. —Ynhockey 22:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If he was a "good-faith editor", he would have actually put in whatever he insists belongs there, rather than tagging the article for 10 months, while refusing to both remove the tag or add the material. This needs to be resolved one way or the other; or should we just leave the tag there for another 10 months? Jayjg 23:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd say remove the tags - the article looks well-developed. If we had tags on an equivalent level elsewhere we'd be drowning in them. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This isn't really about cleanup tags IMO. The issue is that ליאור apparently thinks that the section is light on opposing viewpoints. However, that's more of a dispute than a simple cleanup job, and dispute tags are only supposed to be kept in place while there's ongoing discussion. The onus is on ליאור to make his case for adding opposing viewpoints. If that doesn't happen, or there's no consensus to do so, then the tag should be removed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be a case of one or two disruptive editors who have no intention of actually attempting to fix the alleged problem with the article. Their stated goal in using the tag is that of "warning our readers of its incorrect content." That has never been what we use temporary cleanup tags for, and continuing to edit war over it violates WP:POINT and WP:TE. I can’t take any action now because I’m “involved”, but other administrators need to take a look at the tagteam editing behavior of accounts ליאור (talk · contribs) and אדעולם (talk · contribs). — Satori Son 15:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's strange to be summoned to ANI merely two weeks after volunteering at Wikimania... As explained in the relevant talk page, the very existence of this section has been disputed by at least seven different editors since 2005, with Jayjg insisting on keeping it as is. We all agree that tags are temporary, but so is the incorrect content that they are meant to flag. Composing faulty sections and then enforcing others to clean up after you is an excellent way to keep Misplaced Pages with obsolete content, and grumpy editors.

Anyways, constructive suggestions on how to deal with this section have been made in the talk page, so I suggest we direct our efforts there. Shabbat Shalom, ליאור • Lior (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

First of all, you're hardly a newbie: You've been editing here since April, 2010. And I understand you would prefer to have this issue characterized as a content dispute that does not require admin attention, but your "constructive suggestions" are to either delete the section entirely or keep a permanent tag "warning our readers of its incorrect content." Neither of those two options are "constructive", nor are they "suggestions" since you keep edit warring over the latter. Much of the existing grumpiness here at English Misplaced Pages is caused by editors such as yourself who refuse to follow our guidelines and edit collaboratively. — Satori Son 16:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Lior may have a point that the section is contrary to WP:MEDRS. He's objecting to some genetic studies that failed to be replicated, according to him. I suggest posting at WT:MED about this. FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

When are genetic studies ever "replicated"? These are genetic studies, not medical studies. Meanwhile, he's reverted in the tag again. Jayjg 21:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how Satori reached the strange conclusion that I'm an editor since April 2010. If it makes any difference, and I believe it shouldn't, I'm a registered editor since 2003 and my first contribution dates back to November 2004, a year and a half before his. Over the past 4.5 years, most of my contributions to Misplaced Pages revolved around Beta Israel Wikiproject, especially in Hebrew. I've made thousands of related edits, contributed hundreds of related images, and coordinated a successful writing competition that lead to the collaborative composition of eighty new articles on Beta Israeli Heritage and Ethiopian Culture. Moreover, I've detailed in the talk page how the genetic section could be rewritten to conform with our articles about other Jewish ethnic groups. I agree with FuFoFuEd that a professional eye on the subject could be helpful. I suggust either Jayjg or I leave a post at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Genetics and let the issue be settled down more calmly. ליאור • Lior (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

That's great. So you won't have any objection to removing the tag, now that the issue you see (whatever it is) is getting attention? I'll assume you agree with removing it now, unless you state otherwise. Jayjg 00:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll certainly support the removal of the tag once the section is improved, and I suppose the same holds for the other participants in the discussion who opposed the removal of the tag while the section is faulty. As I suggested at your talk page, I'll put aside other pressing assignments I took upon myself, to get this section fixed within the next couple of weeks, under the supervision of you and others. So in two weeks time there will be no tags over the Beta Israel article, and the concern about permanent tagging could be directed elsewhere. ליאור • Lior (talk) 06:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Jakew and circumcision

This page isn't about a particular incident, per se, but rather a continued pattern of tendentious editing. I hope I'm in the right place.

In short, I believe that User:Jakew has a consistent pattern of bias in his editing (in favor of circumcision). His account borders on single-purpose; it seems to me that he is here to promote circumcision, not to build an encyclopedia.

To his credit, he is extremely civil (much more than many of his interlocutors, including myself), and does always operate within clear policies (like 3RR). He knows Misplaced Pages policy well, and cites it frequently. I believe it's because of this that he hasn't faced formal censure before.

Since I cannot point to any particular diff to show a history of tendentious editing, I must suggest broader places to look. For one, consider the 51 times he has been involved in conflict here on the administrators' noticeboard: . Many of those times were him reporting other users, but it was not always clear-cut. If you search other Misplaced Pages dispute-resolution archives you'll find many more cases where he came into conflict with other editors. Being involved in many disputes isn't damning on its own, but it does suggest something wrong. Of course, you will also find him in many disputes in the archives of talk pages of circumcision and related articles. And by all means look through his edits to judge whether his account is single-purpose and/or engaging in advocacy. Also read the articles and see if they seem NPOV to you; Jakew is the single largest contributor to them by far. Finally, I hesitate to bring up this somewhat flimsy evidence, but Jakew has been exerting such a strong and seemingly-biased control over circumcision-related articles that people who have the opposite bias have actually created a page on their own wiki tracking him: .

I will provide one concrete example of his bias-pushing. There was a long dispute in early July over what to say about the position of medical organizations regarding circumcision. None of them recommends neonatal circumcision without some compelling abnormal medical cause, and I and some other editors wanted to insert language to that effect. Naturally, it is hard to prove such a negative. After much debate and gnashing of teeth about WP:MEDRS (we had a source that was "too old") and undue weight (if listing the positions of several organizations), I finally found a recent source that made the same claim explicitly. And gradually over the next several days, he weakened the language: . I'm not saying those two edits are unreasonable in themselves, but they're part of a pattern of holding anti-circumcision claims up to the strictest scrutiny, attacking them with any policy available, and qualifying them as much as possible when they can't be kept out of the article entirely. Pro-circumcision edits receive no such scrutiny from him.

I don't expect this to be an easy dispute to resolve. There is no red flag to point to. To get a truly good understanding one has to look at 5 years of edit history, and that seems an unreasonable thing to ask anyone to do. But frankly I don't know where else to turn to report this sort of problem. Many people have tried lesser methods of dispute resolution in the past with him, without much luck.

I believe that Jakew comes to Misplaced Pages primarily to push his point of view, and that he has been remarkably successful, to the detriment of the articles involved. I suggest that he be banned, or if possible merely banned from editing articles related to circumcision. _Wizard @ 07:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as totally uninvolved, and without looking at anything else, claiming this user is a SPA betrays a rather deep misunderstanding of what the term means. This user has helped bring another, entirely unrelated article to FA quality. So regardless of other issues, this is not an SPA and certainly doesn't border on being one. I suggest you strike that out.--Cerejota (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I've interacted with the jakew several times. He seems to have strong opinions about circumcision (that are the opposite of User:LizardWizard's opinions), but he certainly spends a lot of energy improving articles, adding reliable sources, etc. In my experience he has shown himself to be civil and willing to compromise. It's one of the strengths of Misplaced Pages that different editors have different POVs, and hold sources up to close scrutiny for that reason. It may be annoying when an editor refuses to agree with you, but it's not a reason for sanction. – Quadell 13:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I have interacted with Jake as an editor for over 5 years now. Jake, like many others here in Misplaced Pages, has personal opinions and points-of-view. Having a point-of-view usually goes hand-in-hand with being an intelligent, thinking individual—it is how it affects your editing which is key. In these 5 years, I am continually impressed at how despite Jakes's personal opinions, he continues to edit strictly in accord with Misplaced Pages principles and guidelines. He is rigorous with citations, both the need and the quality, and he writes from a very neutral perspective; his prose, unlike the vast majority of those who disagree with him (in my opinion) does not intend to color the reader, but solely to inform the reader. If anything, I would put Jake up as an example of how to edit Misplaced Pages in matters in which one holds a strong opinion—using up-to-date and pertinent neutral sources for everything and ensuring that prose is not colored in either direction. Furthermore, Jake has interests and edits widely in this project, more so than most of those who have now, and in years past, tried to silence him through improper allegations of Conflict of Interest. Jake is certainly not a single purpose account, and in my opinion, does not exhibit any evidence of editing with a conflict of interest. -- Avi (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

At least four editors have recently complained about Jake's edits and I agree with those concerns. Last year seperate editors also raised similar concerns, so i'd say there's definitely a problem. I personally think his edits violate WP:COI. In every topic in the circumcision debate Jake advocates a very strong pro-circumcision bias. In the lede of the circumcision article he exaggerates the benefits of circumcision. He amplifies the HIV prevention benefits of circumcision and defends these views with a WP:OWNERSHIP POV like anything you've seen. He starts a dispute whenever the disadvantages of circumcision are printed. He even gets into WP:LAYOUT revert wars such as this to ensure the pro-circumcision sentences dominate over anti-circumcision sentences. He rarely makes wiki-policy demands against people who share his view but tries his utmost against those who share a different opinion. Because of the lack of compromises with Jakew, I find his relentless POV unconstructive and unpleasant. He uses his strong knowledge of wikipedia policies to overwhelm WP:NEWBIES. Instead of an encyclopedia, with Jakew it seems that wikipedia is promoting circumcision. It is difficult to provide diffs because this problem has a systematic pattern lasting 5 years. I advocate a month-long topic-ban, so he can cool his seemingly polite but nonetheless aggressive WP:BATTLEGROUND style. In conclusion he violates WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, WP:UNDUE and WP:COI. Pass a Method talk 16:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

What's the WP:COI? That term doesn't cover simply having an opinion; what's his interest? Is he a spokesman for some pro-circumcision group or something? Similarly, I haven't seen any WP:OWNERSHIP issues; could you provide links to diffs where he has behaved that way? The one diff you give is one of two reverts about where a paragraph marker should be... that's hardly an OWNERSHIP issue, especially since he specifically requested more input about it on the talk page. This seems to be an attempt by a few editors here to disparage someone who simply disagrees with them. – Quadell 17:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

As Quadell says, taking the time to review Jake's edits, indicates an editor who often bends over backwards as to ensure the article remains neutral. Over the past 2-4 years, there has been an on-again-off-again attempt to silence Jake on the page. In my opinion, it borders on harassment, and perhaps some further investigation into the editors who continue to incorrectly disparage Jake should be started. Trying to remove another editor's ability to edit an article because his or her opinions are disagreed with would indicate someone who is more interested in advancing their outside interests than advancing the aims of Misplaced Pages. -- Avi (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Accusations of Jakew having a COI could be added to a "perennial proposals" page somewhere, I'm sure. The issue comes up again and again. And yet, that still doesn't lend any credence to the idea that a COI exists. Jakew is, in fact, affiliated with (actually is a founder of) an organization called CIRCS, and has also been published in academic journals writing about circumcision topics. All of that has been acknowledged multiple times. However, Jakew, to my knowledge, has never promoted that organization or its web site, or his own works. Having an opinion on a subject does not constitute a COI, and being an expert in the field does not either (see WP:COS). I was first acquainted with this issue 2 years ago and have seen it come up a number of times since, so none of this is new. Also, if being involved in many disputes shows that something is wrong, I should be site-banned from Misplaced Pages. My work over the years in mediation, helping out at the COI noticeboard, and trying to resolve dispute on the admin noticeboards would show that I'm constantly involved in disputes. -- Atama頭 19:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The bold text on WP:COI reads "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Misplaced Pages, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." That makes it sound like an outside interest in promoting circumcision, for whatever reason, can constitute a conflict of interest. I doubt the policy is meant to be interpreted that way, but it does seem ambiguous. _Wizard @ 23:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised by PassaMethod's assertion that I exaggerate and amplify the benefits of circumcision (esp. HIV prevention) in the lead of that article. Prior to early June, the lead was in a stable state for some time (eg., this version); a lengthy editing process took place over the following few weeks, such that this is the current version. As can be seen, the information about risks and benefits has been almost entirely rewritten, but having examined my edits in between, it's clear that (with only a few exceptions such as adding attribution to a sentence) almost all of that text in the present version (ie., the 2nd paragraph of the lead) was written by editors other than myself. All of the HIV information, for example, was added by Jmh649 (I hasten to add that I'm not passing judgement on it, just pointing out that I didn't write it). Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but I don't think I even participated in the edit war over that material. I'm also startled by the accusation that I defended it "with a WP:OWNERSHIP POV like anything you've seen" — the main discussions about that material seem to be Talk:Circumcision/Archive 67#Rewrite of introduction, as well as the sections "Representing the science in the lead" and "No consensus to change intro" on the same archive page. At a rough count, I contributed 0 of 21 comments in the first of those sections, 0/10 in the second, and 2/40 in the third. It seems accurate to say that I was barely even involved with that material or with defending it. To describe these accusations as unfair and unwarranted seems rather an understatement. Jakew (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I doubt ANI can solve an issue like this, even if true. Try a RfCU. FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I considered an RfCU instead, but frankly without "involuntary sanctions, blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures" I don't think the situation can be resolved. _Wizard @ 07:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

For ownership, it's less blatant as it involves some pro-Brit milah (jewish circumcision) proponents such as User:Jayjg and User:Avraham who also edit those articles, and naturally side with Jakew. Since circumcision is an essential part of Jewish doctrine i understand their POV. However, when the most notable contributors to a sensitive medical article are Brit milah proponents and founders of a Circumcision group, then there are bound to be issues. In mid-July after a series of edits in circumcision, the article lede at one point read as if circumcsising was a necessary surgery to prevent life-threatening disease! It still has some issues now. Note, the problem is not only content edits, but also reverts and talk pages. Pass a Method talk 19:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I have never been a "proponent" of any sort of circumcision, and you "understand" nothing about me; stop asserting nonsense, stop talking about me, and start addressing the actual issues raised here, if there are any. Jayjg 22:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Imo there are two separate things to consider: (1) whether Jake Waskett does in fact have a bias on the topic of circumcision, which is of interest only to the extent to which it demonstrably influences his editing, and (2) whether edits performed through the Jakew account can establish incidents or even a pattern of tendentious editing.
  Mr. Waskett's fairly strong personal bias in favor of circumcision can be established as fact by looking at the forum links provided on the circleaks page (and by googling on). In between becoming a self-professed "amateur researcher" into circumcision (with papers co-written by him currently used as sources in Sexual effects of circumcision and Circumcision controversies), co-founding CIRCS, and being principal author and quite a bit of a self-appointed doorman on circumcision-related articles on Misplaced Pages, he has also posted on parenting and other internet forums, with the apparent intent (your mileage may vary) of convincing others of the benefits of circumcision. In my own humble opinion, his overall behavior shows clear signs of an obsession. That he hasn't faced severe sanctions before has a lot to do with smart behavior on his part, following policies to the letter (most of the time, anyway), as well as with a loosely affiliated group of admins who have been supporting him to varying extents over the years (nominating and supporting him for adminship at one point).
  Perhaps the most elusively obvious red flag is the fact that no attempt has even been made to get the main circumcision article to featured status. This in spite of the fact that Jakew is evidently capable of excellent contributions and of producing featured content, and in spite of the fact that he evidently cares deeply about the topic and about the article itself.
  Personally, I don't care as deeply as I used to about Jakew, specifically, but more about the systemic weaknesses that enable situations like these to go on for as long as the often do. However, as far as I can see, and also taking into account his well-demonstrated abilities as a contributor, Jakew is nevertheless a clear net-liability to the project due to his strong bias which does find its way into his Misplaced Pages contributions, too subtle to prompt sanctions but too much to lend credence to claims of true editorial neutrality. Imho, it is possible to assemble a convincing body of evidence, but reading and discussing it will require the utmost intellectual honesty with regard to the evidence. The question is rather where and in which format to discuss the issue, RfC/U or RfAr. Another (imo preferable) option is to simply ban Jakew from circumcision-related articles and talk pages. This could very well be proposed, discussed, decided upon and enforced by the community. At worst, it would only produce an overview of opinions which could be used as the starting point for an RfC/U. --213.196.208.244 (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Did you actually suggest that we ban someone because they are so devious as to carefully follow Misplaced Pages policy while secretly maintaining a harmful bias (one too subtle to see)? Or that he should be banned for not getting an article to FA, even though he has "well-demonstrated abilities as a contributor"? I'm not a friend of Jakew's, I don't even know him outside of the few times I've commented on the applicability of COI against him. Show me some actual disruptive edits and I might support some kind of sanction. Also, you say you don't know whether to use RfC or ArbCom for evidence; considering that ArbCom almost never takes a case without at least an RfC/U, the answer to that should be clear. -- Atama頭 22:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Atama, yes he really suggested all of those things. 213.196.208.244, do you have any actual evidence supporting that lengthy statement, or is it just another biased opinion? Also, when you say "don't care as deeply as I used to about Jakew", could you say which account you were using when you interacted with Jakew in the past? Jayjg 22:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oh look, you found your way here to defend Jake Waskett. What a surprise. I won't stoop to trying to enter a discussion with you though, I'm sure you understand. Your opinions regarding circumcision and Jake Waskett are about the most biased things in the world and you show zero effort to participate in an intellectually honest manner. Should this ever proceed to ArbCom, you will most definitely be named a party to the case, and you know that quite well, Mr. I-lost-my-CheckUser-and-oversight-privileges-due-to-behavior-inconsistent-with-holding-a-position-of-high-trust. --213.196.208.244 (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think that ad hominem attack just destroyed any credibility you might have had here. One more attack like that and you'll be taking a break from Misplaced Pages. -- Atama頭 23:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Please point out any personal attack in my comment. Also, my credibility is completely irrelevant here. The facts about Jakew's editing speak volumes for themselves. You have to be trying not to see it in order not to see it. Plain and simple. --213.196.208.244 (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• Calling someone Mr. I-lost-my-CheckUser-and-oversight-privileges-due-to-behavior-inconsistent-with-holding-a-position-of-high-trust is a personal attack. It undermines your entire position here, since it shows a motivation to smear others, rather than legitimately raise concern over any actual issues. -- Atama頭 00:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• Reminding someone that he has lost his CheckUser and oversight privileges due to behavior inconsistent with holding a position of high trust is a personal attack?
  "smear others"? Was I telling a lie?
  "rather than legitimately raise concern over any actual issues" -- Issues like Jayjg's involvment on circumcision, talk:circumcision and related places? Issues like his repeating patterns of behavior against which he was specifically and repeatedly warned by the ArbCom, leading the revocation of his CheckUser and oversight privileges? --213.196.208.244 (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• As my mother always used to tell me "It's not what you said, it how you said it." Mentioning that someone had their privileges removed is OK, as long as it's pertinent to the discussion (and this was a borderline case), but saying "Mr. blah-blah-blah" is sarcasm directed to someone's personal misfortune, and it's not civil. I'm not sure it's a personal attack, but it's hardly being civil and collegial. (And you almost certainly knew it was sarcasm, because there's no other reason to choose to express it that way.) Play nice, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hm, is there some reason you're using an anonymous I.P.? It's not that you're too new to know how to create an account, is it. Personally, I find it annoying and rather boring when certain people like to make every thread about Jayjg, just because he comments there... and I find it ridiculous when they berate him for his past problems, while hiding behind anonymity themselves. – Quadell 11:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

My goodness 213.196.208.244, what a tour de force! A combination of personal attack, misdirection, innuendo, and outright falsehood. Bravo! Anyway, returning to the topic you so adroitly side-stepped, when you previously interacted with Jakew, what account were you using? Jayjg 00:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

:IF YOU CLICKED ON THE VANDALIZED PAGE. If you have, especially if you are running Idiotically Exploding and your AV software did not go crazy, I strongly suggest you kill your browser sessions and do a full scan of your computer. I tried right clicking for source... then left clicking to get focus... and before I could right click again, my AV software got very upset.

Resolved – (thanks, Elen Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 21:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved – - thanks Joseph Fox

Resolved – Blocked by Tnxman307, and copyvio articles deleted. Singularity42 (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards