Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:16, 30 December 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

Subtle date vandalism

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

This IP address over the past few months, and possibly longer, has been going around to articles and changing the dates on various people and events, often making them much older than they are. All unsourced, of course. It seems pretty clear that these are acts of subtle vandalism, considering how very unhelpful their edit summaries are when they use them ("GOOD MUSIC", seriously?). While it does appear that there are helpful IPs editing through this city of Memphis IP, the vandalism rather offsets any good the others are doing. Since this appears to be a long term ongoing thing, I wanted to report it here rather than to AIV. Not sure if this should have gone on AN instead though. Silverseren 00:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Did I type something in wrong, is my browser not updating or what? Because I can't see this section on the page. Silverseren 00:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

There we go. Weird. Silverseren 00:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

If dates are sourced, they should be set to whatever the source says. If the date isn't sourced, it should be removed altogether, whether it's this IP's edit, or the original contention. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

While that is theorectically the case, in reality we work with the de facto stance that a basic fact which has been in an article for a long period of time and has withstood scrutiny and not been challenged has a certain amount of status, and should not be replaced except with a sourced fact, or, at the very least, a convincing explanation. Although the hope is that all facts in Misplaced Pages should be sourced, the truth is that the encycylopedia would be decimated if we removed every single unsourced fact in it, so we utilize a kind of triage to prioritize those that need sourcing the most. Changing dates and numbers is a very serious kind of sneaky vandalism, because it's frequently overlooked, so -- at least in my mind -- I'm immediately suspicious of any change of this kind which is made without explanation or sourcing. In the case of the IP here, the one change of fact that I investigated -- the change of the birth date of Hasbro CEO Brian Goldner from 1963 to 1943 -- was incorrect, which tends to support the allegation that there may be sneaky number-changing going on, or, at the very least, sloppy editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I have put a non-templated warning on the IP's talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

First, I want to thank BMK for expressing a reality so well. Second, I have seen this kind of vandalism before by other IPs, and, and as BMK said, it's far more damaging than obvious vandalism, which, of course, normally is easily caught.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I've now looked into a number of other date-related edits, which were also bogus. I would support a block, but the IP hasn't edited recently, and there appears to be at least one other user of the IP who is making good edits. (Parent / child?) Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support ban. Clearly, there are multiple users of this IP, at least one making valuable edits. But there is at least one long-term vandal, making the bogus date changes described above. IP has received numerous warnings for various types of vandalism since July 2010, when IP began active editing, but no bans as yet. I'd be happy to see a lengthy initial ban handed out here (I'm a hanging judge on these matters), but I think the main problem is that this wasn't brought to AIV earlier. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Eagles247 restoring personal attacks

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

• Eagles247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have removed Beeblebrox's personal attack here, and reverted it 3 times already, and then Eagles247 had restored it thrice. The core of the no personal attacks policy is "Comment on content, not on contributors". I would like to see what can be done here. Thanks. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 05:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Any person in good judgment will see that this sentence is clearly not a personal attack. On a more relevant note, Porchcorpter's behavior at that page needs to be looked at. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a comment on behavior, hence it's not a personal attack. Side note: I trust Beeblebrox to know what he's talking about. The OP needs to look in the mirror and figure out why an admin might say something like that. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Or this. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Baseball, Beeblebrox is calling me trouble. That is a personal attack. A more appropriate thing would do is to assume good faith on other users, analysing their recent history, and commenting on their actions. Because none the less, I've been causing some problems before my topic bans, but now I've worked a lot with Worm, and I seem more confident in Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 06:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of your good faith, maybe you could explain the good faith behind this implied death threat you made: ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh good god. I've received worse "threats" in chain emails. Swarm 06:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I did not say something like "I'm going to kill you", what I said to Beeblebrox is that he will loose his administrator access when he passes away. We have a policy here on WP to desysop deceased admins. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 06:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• I stand by every word I said there, and I could not object more strongly to Porch's attempt to censor me. I am of the opinion that at this point, given Porch's staggering denial/rejection of consensus, his attempts to use his past mentoring as a shield from any future blame, and his years-long history of being unable to acknowledge and learn from his mistakes, Misplaced Pages and Porchcorpter should go their separate ways for a while. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• That isn't a personal attack.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 05:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• PC is correct in that DR isn't the place to discuss a user—this is the place. So as long as we're here, do we need to discuss a concrete remedy, Beeblebrox? (No opinion personally, but you sure seem to feel strongly.) Swarm 06:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Close without delay. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 12:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• As a Misplaced Pages user, Beeblebrox has the right to create a universal prognosis based around a user in question, if behavior is a concerning factor. That being said, bringing this incident to the noticeboard, considering the circumstances, is incredibly foolish. Be prepared for an immediate boomerang effect. DarthBotto _talk•cont 03:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Site ban for Porchcorpter

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

• My remedy is simple: full site ban. Actually he just suggested that we discuss the matter at the DRV, so we muight as well go there right now. Either indef with WP:OFFER if people think that will help or a straight up one year ban. Maybe the maturity he keeps promising to have acquired will actually become evident during that time. Problems with this user have persisted for years, he is manifestly unable to comprehend the majority of WP policies, the Herculean efforts of WormThatTurned to mentor him have clearly failed, and well, look what is happening right now. He opened a report saying "look at me refactoring someone's remarks and then edit warring! Look closely and you will also see that I do not know what the words "personal attack" or even "name calling" mean. I can never be wrong again because I had a mentor who said I was all better. The fact that he actually sided against me several times when I was clearly wrong and acting against consensusdoesn't matter! " Everything that can be tried short of more sanctions has already been tried. He can't stop whining about the last sanctions despite the unanimous support for them. Enough is enough. You can't teach someone who doesn't want to learn, and you can't work cooperatively with someone who won't respect consensus and does not understand any of the policies that govern editing here. Which he doesn't really do anyway, see my recent post on his talk page for some stats related to that. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

  Then in this case, why did I pass Worm's test, got the barnstar for passing, and many times he was saying that I am making progress? (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 06:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

  Beeblebrox, your point has now been made. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - In what way have I been disruptive recently? I don't even know. Why I opened up the DRV is because I wanted a consensus on deleting non-G4 content. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 06:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Some things to add: If I've ever not listened to people, and continued to make more and more mistakes, I would not have a clean block log (, . Yet I've had only one very limited sanction on Misplaced Pages, and got good results from Worm. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 06:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• You've wasting the community's time with the MfD, and you're wasting our time with the DRV and this discussion you began. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support one-year ban - It is apparent that Porchcorpter is not yet ready maturity-wise to be a competent Misplaced Pages editor, and since he has not edited an article in over a month, his intentions here are unclear. The disruption needs to end and I've seen no change since the last time we were here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Don't be ridiculous. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support any block/ban of six months or longer, and provided that any lifting of a block would be accompanied with an undertaking that there will be no further attempts to waste the community's time with silly deletion reviews or other rehashing of the past. If Porchcorpter cannot accept the advice of experienced editors, they should not be editing Misplaced Pages. When editors relentlessly argue about content in an article we can at least hope that some good result will eventually occur. By contrast, relentlessly arguing about a nonsensical user page has no redeeming features. Johnuniq (talk) 06:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose This proposal shows Beeblebrox's own immaturity by over-reacting to situations. This proposal is completely ridiculous. This proposal does not seem warranted at this time. Silverseren 07:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not proposing he be banned solely because of this one incident, which is perfectly clear in my previous remarks. This is but a symptom of a long term pattern of trying to whitewash his personal history here, combined with a general lack of competence and understanding of WP policies, which he has demonstrated again and again. Don't take my word for it, this isn't abouyt me despite your attempt to make it so. Look at his talk archives (which he once tried to erase all trace of in an attempt to avoid just this situation) and a picture emerges of a user who has had many, many opportunities to reform, and has failed. Some people just don't get it and cannot act in a productive manner in this environment. There's no point trying to blame anyone for it, best just to admit it and take the approipriate action. Some rather intense mentoring has failed to resolve the problems, so I don't see what other reasonable choice we have. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

If you're the one proposing the site ban, then it's your job to show why the user deserves as such. It's not up to me to dig through his pages trying to find what you're talking about. Silverseren 07:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

By the way, since Porch likes to brag about what a good job he did while being mentored, here are his mentors own words on the subject , which are not exactly the glowing report of success he makes them out to be. Note also the incessant failed attempts at "hat collecting" including four failed RFAs, with a fifth in prep just before the topic ban, followed by an attempt to get edit filter permssions the day after the ban expired. An effort, which as you can see here failed and was also opposed by his mentor. There's more along those lines if you look for it. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Since when do I want to become an admin now? I've dropped my goal for adminship. Look at my user page, and see where does it say that I wish to become an admin. And for EFM, I am not going to request it until I get the competence to use it. I hadn't known that EFM requires competence until I was told. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 07:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Since when did he say you still want to become an admin? Eagles 24/7 (C) 07:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly the problem. His reply reads as though he skimmed my remarks and responded to a word here or there that he recognized without even trying to comprehend the overall point being made. And, really, " I hadn't known that EFM requires competence until I was told" Seriously? I mean, do I even have to explain what is wrong with a statement like that? Even though part of the rreason for his topic bans was incompetence, he apparently still does not even know what the word competence means. This is not the type of problem I think we can fix here. WP:THERAPY applies. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Those links help a lot. If you were asking for anything besides a site ban, i'd probably support. But site bans are for only the most exceptional cases, that involve things like hordes of sockpuppets or mass vandalism across language wikis. This case just isn't anything close to those standards. A block or topic ban, fine, but a site ban is asking too much. Silverseren 08:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just so, I think it was all this about competence that Worm was talking about. I wonder how it can be competence issues, having only have made a few mistakes with CSDs, and then self-reverting your additions of the CSD tags, anyone who reviews the whole of it and explains the truth about it will say the correct thing. I don't think Worm actually reviewed it, which is surprising. Even 28bytes did not actually review it, and just declined my EFM request. But I don't want EFM until I've been told by the community that I've got no competence issues. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 08:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that history agrees with that statement. We have banned numerous users who have contributed greatly to this project but had behavioral problems that made it nearly impossible to work around them. To be clear, I am not suggesting an eternal site ban with no hope of appeal, as is the case with the type of bad faith users you describe. Porch seems to almost always be acting in good faith. That's another part of why he has been given so much leeway despite the issues I've identified. However, as we all know AGF is not a suicide pact. You can see right here in this thread and in the discussion we just had on his talk page (along with most other discussions in his archives) that he often seems to reply to comments made by others without even reading them all the way through first. If he is still doing that after years of attempting to contribute here, I don't see any hope that there will be a sudden turnaround anytime real soon. This type of behavior has been going on for years. He has been through a six month topic ban and a prolonged mentorship program already. Truth is, I don't enjoy this any more than you do, but there comes a point where decisions must be made and reality must be faced. However, if you would prefer a block as opposed to a ban under the same types of conditions I can't see that it makes a huge difference. Beeblebrox (talk)

• Support Either a site ban, or a topic ban from anywhere outside his own userspace (he can WP:NOTWEBHOST if he must, so long as we don't have to see it). At the most generous, a site ban that limits him to articlespace and away from WP. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• NOTE: Andy Dingley has a history of attacking me. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 09:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• I have a long history of claiming that you fail WP:COMPETENCE. Nothing you have done recently disabuses me of that view. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps you can give some diffs here then? (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 19:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Diffs. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• If the parties involved could just step back and take a deep breath, then the issue can be resolved more effectively for all. Engaging in pointless edit warring over a relatively mild statement, then escalating the issue to ANI is counter-productive. Porch, decisions made in haste can often be ill-informed - I urge you to think carefully before you pursue an action, whether it be CSDs or presenting complaints about other editors. It is always better to act with care and avoid the mistake, rather than go full speed ahead and make a mess. Also keep in mind that criticism is something that you use to improve, it is not something to get angry over. Beeble, I do believe that this ban discussion is premature. Although I know you acted in good faith, perhaps it's time to step back from this and let others handle it. —Dark 10:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

  That sure sounds like some well-meaning advice, but I'm curious to know how you arrived at the conclusion that this is premature. Porch has shown a general pattern of incompetence and unwillingness to listen for the last two years. He was subject to a six month topic ban and underwent a prolonged mentorship program, yet right here in this thread he has demnstrated that he still completely lacks even a basic understanding of these issues, including not bothering after all this time to even learn what "incompetence" even means. How much worse should we wait for things to get before we admit that this is a user who at this time is not able to contribute in a constructive fashion? Beeblebrox (talk) 10:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

  That's great, except that Misplaced Pages is not therapy, and the community is not under an obligation to embrace those who are not willing or able to focus on building the encyclopedia. If anyone who might "handle" the situation is available, perhaps they could get Porchcorpter to agree to fix their signature and to stop trying to recreate a pointless user page (see deletion review here). Johnuniq (talk) 10:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

  Beeble, as you are the admin who instigated the original ban proposal, I don't believe that Porch is willing to heed your advice, however well meaning it may be. Calling someone incompetent, if I may say so myself, is quite rude. Like I said before, the most productive thing to do right now is to step back. John, if Porch is not willing to help in building an encyclopedia, then why does he spend time on this project? The sole reason to edit is to build an encyclopedia. But thank you for providing issues that Porch can work on. —Dark 11:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

  DarkFalls, thanks for all your notes about my editing. And thanks for pointing out nearly every area I'm having trouble with. And yes, I'm instead taking DarkFall's much better advice, notes and information, than Beeblebrox's blunt pointers. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 11:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Porchcorpter clearly means well, but I don't really think he's mature enough to competently edit an encyclopaedia. So, to stop the disruption he ends up causing, I support a lengthy block/ban. Salvio 10:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Question - There's something I don't get (actually many things, but that's another story). The guy has been editing here nearly 4 years, and has never been blocked as far as I can tell. Yet here they're talking about a complete ban. How does it get from the one place to the other? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• That's one of the things that concerns me as well and definitely influences my thoughts on this being far, far too premature. Hand out some blocks first before going for an indef. We even give outright vandals that much. Silverseren 11:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, it is a good question. I think it's partly because, whenever a problem occurs, he does appear to listen to what people are saying at the time and stop his problematic behavior (in the short term, at least). And while he was being mentored, I think people held back and left things for his mentor to deal with. But we do have a long term competence problem here, and anyone who has followed the events of the past couple of years could provide a long list of diffs - I don't want to do that yet though, and would prefer to wait for his ex-mentor's thoughts (as per my comment below) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – Perhaps a ban from editing anywhere other than article namespace and article talk pages would suffice? The problems clearly lie with his editing elsewhere. Basalisk ⁄_berate 11:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - I've been in email contact with Worm That Turned, and he's away at the moment but he would like to comment here when he's back on Friday. I'd like to reserve my judgment until I see what Worm has to say, and as he has had the most contact with Porchcorpter of all of us, I think we should hold off any action until then. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose and close A bogus ANI complaint is a lousy reason to initiate a site ban discussion; an OTHERDUCK response from Beeblebrox would be far more productive to Misplaced Pages. This "boomerang" mentality leads to a perception of double standards (whether true or not) that fuels much of the angst and lack of consensus underlying the current 100+ comment RFAR. While I have not adequately reviewed the history to make an independent assessment, the support comments from other editors provide a useful heuristic than some action be taken; I recommend an RFC/U as I see no indication one has been tried. While the result could be the same as any discussion here, it makes it clear to the community that any sanctions imposed on Porchcorpter are a result of their entire body of contributions, not a potshot at an admin. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 12:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. A ban seems excessive for Porchcorpter's actions, surely we should consider some sort of mid-ground before going to an all-out ban? The user has never even been blocked... I think this whole proposition has been a little hasty. Aranea Mortem 13:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Tempting as it is to ban on sight anyone who asks "sign my guestbook," going straight from a clean record to the nuclear option is a bit much. Porchcorpter -- please take all these comments on board and shape up. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

That is exactly the problem. Every time he is criticized he appears to take it on board and for a short period of time there are fewer problems, but it never lasts. To those who insist this is premature based on his previous block log: I think it is important to note again that what I am suggesting is an enforced wikibreak, not a "go away and never return." What I don't see here is anyone saying that there is no problem. So, we have a user who has

been here for four years

caused a multitude of problems

does not respect any consensus, no matter how strong, that is critical of him or his creations

only listens to those who treat him with kid gloves like he just started yesterday and not four years ago

contributes almost nothing to the actual encyclopedia

has been topic banned both formally and informally from several areas of WP

has undergone rather intense mentorship for an extended period

Replies to comments from other apparently without actually reading them all the way through

has made it clear as recently as the last 24 hours that he does not comprehend and therefore cannot abide by many WP policies

So yes, this ban proposal is based on WP:COMPETENCE. Sorry folks, but there is no nicer way to put it. Lesser options have been tried over a period of years. They didn't work. If anyone has a suggestion for something less than a prolonged block or ban now would be a good time to tell us what it is since we obviously need to do something. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

RFC/U. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 16:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Se also User_talk:Porchcorpter#Why are you even here? for stats on his efforts here and an example of what it is like to try and communicate with this user. If you still think this is premature, have a look at his talk page archives and what you will see is a very long litany of discussions with many many users over a period of years, all trying to help this user understand how Misplaced Pages works and what he is doing wrong, and all ultimately innefective. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Here are some replies for you Beeblebrox:

• "caused a multitude of problems" - Yes, I have, but I am limiting myself to the areas I am causing trouble at
• "only listens to those who treat him with kid gloves like he just started yesterday and not four years ago" - I have no idea what "kid glove" you're talking about
• "has undergone rather intense mentorship for an extended period" - and the mentorship ended up as successful
• "contributes almost nothing to the actual encyclopedia" - wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong, see the articles I've created and contributed to.
• "Replies to comments from other apparently without actually reading them all the way through" - nearly lots of people are like that, and sometimes even Worm does not read small parts of comments. I've even seen you as well many times you never look properly, and make your own judgements and assumptions on another user.
• "has made it clear as recently as the last 24 hours that he does not comprehend and therefore cannot abide by many WP policies" - really? how? (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 19:03, 28 December 2011‎ (UTC)

• Oppose ban Weak support block - I'm admittedly a bit conservative regarding my opinion of the current blocking practices...but a ban for competence? That's reserved for the worst of the worst. This person does not seem to have trouble writing in correct English...and he/she is not refusing to stop writing in ALL CAPS (both of which I could see reason for a competence ban). Is a block appropriate in this case? Maybe, if it is clearly preventing further disruption. I wouldn't oppose that. On a side note, a number of editors in good standing have suggested Beeble has made his point, and should step back and let others admins sort it out. I think that is good advice. Quinn 17:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose OTT city. Editor Porchcorpter has never been blocked , has made many useful contributions, and has been well decorated with barnstars. As his Wiki Otter I'll advise Porchcorpter to step back for a bit and no doubt Worm will have some wise words for him too. Oppose a block at this stage unless there is further disruption. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment – Looking at Porchcropter's Edit Counter it strikes me that he's been registered since December 2007. So let's say 4 years. Of his 7,287 edits, 1,251 are to Articles (i.e. the encyclopedia). Let's do the maths: 1251/4 = 312. So over four years he's averaged <1 contribution per day. I find FeydHutable's "many useful contribs" remark above unusual given this simple unbiased sum. Also, "well decorated" is a moot point as Barnstars have no consenus based high standards for awarding them, they are often handed out willy-nilly – for even more trivial reasons since WikiLove came about. I've seen editors worthy of 100+ barnstars for their years of work getting none or few because they work quietly, yet I see frequently uncivil troublemakers receive many just to "encourage" them to "be good". Perhaps that has also been the case here.. candy to "keep the kid quiet", or for want of a better description – patronising barnstars. Regardless, the average edits/day is hardly encouraging, compared with the ~6,000 others 1,943 on Usertalk alone.. seems fairly unbalanced for a non-admin editor who claims several Wikifauna titles and, unusually, is a rollbacker (how did he earn this?). I think Beeblebrox is right to question the editor's competence, but perhaps a site ban is pushing it a bit far. Encouraging the editor to stop using Wiki as a social site, or soap box, whatever the case may be, and to get on with contributing more objectively (even if it does mean a "no talk page" topic ban to toe him up the arse and onto the right track) might be more prudent. I don't have faith in Wiki mentoring, personally, in dealing with disruptive editors or as reliable "character witnesses". It's easy to play into the hands of a faceless mentor/editor online to shake off negative attention; mentoring should be directed to those who want it, like tutoring, for those wanting to become better editors, admins, etc. You can't rehabilitate someone through the internet with 100% certainty it worked. Actions speak louder than weasel words. Tighten his reins, blinker his constant side-tracking, and point him at Wiki mainspace. Maybe he'll run the race.. maybe not. Only one way to find out. Ma®©usBritish  18:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Marcus, if ones underlying assumptions are wrong then doing the math can just increase confusion. I said many not frequently. Another poor assumption you've possibly made is that an edit has to be to article space to be beneficial. Many of Porcropters talk and project space edits are useful too. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. But Wiki is an encyclopedia, and a typical end user usually comes to read articles, not talk pages. Do you buy the Britannic Encyclopedia for the entries in it, or in hopes of viewing the memos and minutes from meetings of its writers? Editor reviews normally look for a higher percentage of edits to Wiki articles, where contribs matter most, especially non-admins. Editors engaged in heavy talk are usually involved in coordination and collaborative efforts, wikiprojects, reviewing FA/GAs, developing articles, or leaving welcome/warning templates which does lead to a benefit for articles being discussed. I don't see evidence of that type of talk from this editor, which is probably why a topic ban has been motioned; to curb further frivolous talk edits and irrelevant userpages. You just might see that a ban on those type edits could actually improve and increase the quality of his article edits over 6–12 months and make him a better editor.. so don't think I pointed it out for the sake of my health. A higher average article edits/day obviously represents greater focus and drive in key areas of wiki, and is what we all should be aiming for. Although there is still need for quality over quantity. Ma®©usBritish  22:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

This is an erroneous argument. If you take me for example, using rounded numbers for easy math (6000/2000 =3), you would think that I also have a fairly low article edits per day count. However, what you are not considering is that I only seriously started editing within a year and a half ago, so your numbers are off. In a similar manner, by looking at Porchcorpter's edit counter, it can clearly be seen that he only seriously began editing within a year ago. So your results are wrong. Silverseren 20:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Registration date is a fixed point, with no way of allowing for false interpretation of an editor's motives. Stating when you believe an editor "seriously began editing" is purely speculative, a POV, and is therefore a biased and unreliable variable. Averages based on sampling an editors "busy periods" is hardly efficient either, compared with using two fixed points. Registration -> present is a guaranteed way of getting an average/day for any editor regardless of when they "started editing seriously", as it leaves no room for "oh, well I was doing something else between X-date and Y-date" excuses and manoeuvres. One sum for every editor, so yes, you'd be 3/day. I'd be about 5.7/day. Beeblebrox has about 9/day. You gain nothing by attempting to make a melodrama of simple maths, nor did you make yourself look smarter than anyone.. this was simple benchmarking, which is neither wrong or right, it simply shows a trend in how dedicated an editor has been since their own Day 1. Key word: average (mean). If you're considering the competence of a long-term editor, it acts as a neutral measurement, not a judgement, of how an editor has performed since joining, without analysing their individual edits closely. You can take it or leave it, I disregard opinion polls, and you're free to disregard my averages. But don't waste my time further by arguing about it on AN/I. Ma®©usBritish  22:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support User goes through an excellent mentor then drops out; refuses to listen and causes general disruption (sorry Worm). Their disruption outweighs benefits. HurricaneFan25 — 01:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support I was skeptical, given Beeblebrox's change log when I came across this debate, but I decided to invest my interest for a time, examined Porchcorpter's edits, in quality and summary, along with the statistics. What I found is that his edits are centered mostly around user discussions, rather than the integrity of encyclopedic articles. Furthermore, an astonishing portion of his edits, (approximately a third of them), have been reverted. I don't usually encourage harsh punishments and if an intervention is necessary, it is usually leniant from my part. However, this user has been editing Misplaced Pages almost as long as I have and they have not seem to have gotten it. My relatively modest understanding of Misplaced Pages's inner-workings took no less than two years to develop, but I did account for my errors. That same methodology does not seem to apply here and I recommend this user is given an extended period of time to study Misplaced Pages as an outsider, if he wishes to continue to support it. DarthBotto _talk•cont 03:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban for Porchcorpter

If anyone here can look at Porchcorpter's last 100 edits (which extend to December 1) and tell me this is an editor willing to improve the encyclopedia and not stew in his own topic ban juices, I'm willing to listen. He apparently has copies of his now-deleted subpages regarding the previous ban and absolutely cannot seem to let it go by all appearances. Here are some diffs to back up my allegation: User:Porchcorpter/Ban proposal (admins only), User:Porchcorpter/Problems I've experienced-encountered on WP, User:Porchcorpter/Consensus ("!Votes for me," "!Votes against me"?), and all of the nonsense that occurred at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Porchcorpter/Ban proposal. This is the successful ban proposal for those wondering/searching.

Clearly there is consensus against a site ban above (so far), with commenters arguing that a site ban is too drastic. Instead, I'm proposing a topic ban for the following points:

1. Porchcorpter is not to refer to or complain about his previous topic ban.
2. Porchcorpter is not to create anymore subpages.
3. Porchcorpter is suggested to edit articles instead of userspace.

Although I would rather see a mutual parting between Porchcorpter and Misplaced Pages, the above points would cease his current nonsense. A block is also not out of question. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Porchcorpter/Consensus is now to be deleted because I don't actually need it anymore. But no, not in any way against the policies and guidelines. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 18:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Partial Support From what I've read in the Talk pages and what I can get my hands on it looks like we have an enthusiastic editor that isn't 100% on the tracks that most of the community follows. I would suggest leaving an exception to create subpages for appropriate purposes (Drafting a RfC/U with filing in a reasonable (1 month max) timeframe, Drafting a article for inclusion prior to main article space, etc.) Porchcorpter, you're really skating on the edge of people's good faith. Really consider what your actions so far have caused as your ability to contribute here is likely to be revoked if you continue on the same path. Hasteur (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

  Please see my !vote below. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 19:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support with the exception that he is allowed to create a subpage sandbox for the purposes of incubating articles or otherwise improving them and/or the purposes outlined by Hasteur above.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I can accept these points to avoid doing if any time they become a problem. Oppose not creating pages in userspace, as the userspace is to help. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 18:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• What if it was, "Porchcorpter is not to create anymore subpages, unless they are article drafts." Silverseren 20:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

  The userspace can be helpful in variety of ways, though I am likely to start only article drafts. That is why I am opposing the idea not to create any more pages in the userspace. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 20:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

  Well, the latest problem is precisely the user pages that you create, and then war over for long periods - and it's been a long term problem. How else are we to stop you doing that other than to ban you from it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• I don't believe anyone in this thread wishes to stop you from creating draft articles, i.e. encyclopedic content. However you show very little interest in doing this, preferring instead the wikidrama of DRV et al. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I suggested a strict topic ban in March, following comments I made at his fourth editor review a few days earlier. I still feel that Porchcorpter can make contributions but needs to be held to narrow areas of activity in order to do so. I think that that wording - stick to articles and nothing else - is still quite applicable. I realize there is some amount of "well, it was my idea and let's consider it again" but that's not how I mean it. I am now seeing others (previous section) say things that can be construed as similar. Also, to those who don't realize, Porchcorpter has been renamed and it may not be obvious that he has had four editor reviews and four unsuccessful RFAs and was talked out of Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Porchcrop 5, but not before creating it against all advice (go ahead - click the red link). Sure, no blocks, but really I think nobody has the heart to block someone who is so obviously trying hard. My concern is that the trying is not in the right areas. If we just aim Porchcorpter at the right stuff...we might get results. Something that looks like a topic ban may be the only way to do that, because the previous topic ban, numerous suggestions at editor reviews and on his talk page, and four RFAs haven't done the trick.  Frank  |  talk  18:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Para-support as per Frank. I really think if he was restricted to the article space plus talkpages of articles he's involved with, a lot of these problems would disappear. Thus, I feel stricter terms of a ban are necessary. He may one day be useful elsewhere, but he's better off sticking to articles for now. Basalisk ⁄_berate 19:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Hesitant Support. I'm really not sure this is likely to work, but I'll support it because I have no better suggestions. The problem is that what's needed is for PC's apparent obsession with righting perceived wrongs, and "keeping a score" of his perceived enemies, to be dropped - and I'm not sure if anything short of his actually getting older and more mature is going to do it. Right from day one he's been hung up on getting praise (I remember at one stage he even castigated people for not giving him barnstars), has seen every negative comment about his behaviour as a personal attack, and has shown a remarkably poor ability to actually listen to what people tell him - that topic ban was unanimous, yet he's still griping about how everyone was being nasty and picking on him. Does anyone remember Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Antiquette? That was well over a year ago, yet his battlefield/revenge attitude has not changed, as his recent user subpages show. No action we take here will change PC's attitude, but if a topic ban at least forces him to keep it away from Misplaced Pages, then that might help. I think we need a clean up of any subpages he currently has (including deleting User:Porchcorpter/Problems I've experienced-encountered on WP, which clearly has a threatening/battlefield tone - it was kept at Mfd, but that can be overridden as part of a community ban), and a prohibition on creating any new ones - he already has a Sandbox for working on articles. And a complete ban on creating any on-wiki content that could be construed as raking up past conflicts, keeping "grudge" lists, etc. But as one last point, I would still like to suggest holding off any action until PC's ex-mentor Worm That Turned has a chance to speak when he's back on Friday -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

  PS: All of his user subpages can be seen here (for this main account anyway) - there are one or two that might need to be reviewed -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Note also that any topic ban (and also any quantification of his valuable contributions here) should take account of the four (?) alternate accounts he seemingly needs to use. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Which accounts are those? I don't see any declarations on his userpage. I know he has an account for his unapproved bot-- User:Porchcorpterbot.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Porchcorpter public, User:Porchcorpter alternative, User:Porchcroop, User:Porchcorpterbot -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Perhaps recent commentators havent noticed, but Porchcropter has shown an admirable respect for the community by withdrawing the contentious AfD. Its easy to think of many users who seem to take up far more time at xFD / DrV and lack the flexibility to back down. A ban has a number of drawbacks and Im not sure its still needed - if he does return to raking up past conflicts he could be given escalating blocks. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• I noticed, and I would instead phrase this that, "Porchcropter has shown disrespect for the community by withdrawing the contentious AfD." This is a regular pattern in his behaviour - causing wikidrama to no purpose, but backing down in time before that blocks start flying. This is why an editor with a contribution history composed almost entirely of disruption and with a barely discernible contribution to the encyclopedia itself has so far remained so block-free. Counting blocks is not always enough - look at the disruption and sheer waste of time that the spoon-feeding and hand-holding has required. An editor who has complex topic bans imposed on them, even if nominally "block free" is hardly blameless or acting in a way that is positive to the project overall. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) He also showed "admirable respect for the community" by refusing to accept the deletion of User:Porchcorpter/Ban proposal at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Porchcorpter/Ban proposal until the very last day, thereby wasting all of the !voters' time there by arguing for its being kept, and then recreating the page with different, but very similar, content to game the system. Or maybe he showed "admirable respect for the community" with his comments at that subpage regarding the unanimous community topic ban in which he bashed everyone who supported it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• support Tthe community isn't ready to accept tat four years of gross incompetence is enough to warrant an enforced break at least this is something. Although I would note that curbing this type of clueless behavior and attempting to educate this user was exactly the point pf the previous topic ban. It didn't work, and neither will this, but apparently the community has more patience. than I do for lost causes. I reserve the right to say I told you so. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

as an aside, my apologies for the ridiculous number of typos I have been making. I am trying to teach myself to edit WP from an iPad. I'm getting there but I' m making a hell of a lot of typos in the process. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• I do believe a topic ban is unnecessary, given that he has withdrawn the deletion review, and is willing to listen and respond to advice. Furthermore, I feel the actions of several admins, however well-meaning, have been a tad heavy handed. —Dark 00:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think you missed the part that this is not a one-time occurrence (see above). Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Dark - given that we've established that Porchcorpter has never been blocked, can you give some examples of what you mean by "...I feel the actions of several admins, however well-meaning, have been a tad heavy handed." Go ahead and get personal if you think I'm one of those admins. I can take it.  Frank  |  talk  01:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Not at all Frank. I just felt that , , , are edits that I find unbecoming for any editor, let alone admins. If people cannot deal with another editor without being overly aggressive, they should just stop doing it. I feel, quite bluntly, as if they're trying to bait Porch into getting himself banned. —Dark 01:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I guess...but I have to express some sympathy. Porch really doesn't get it. See my post above: four editor reviews, four RFAs, a topic ban, numerous suggestions on his talk page of places to actually contribute (two of which remain right now)...it's all falling on deaf ears. That doesn't excuse borderline poor behavior, but...what's the limit?  Frank  |  talk  01:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• And he's just done this -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

  Sigh. Support per what has just happened. HurricaneFan25 — 01:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support anything! Please, let's have some relief (as just mentioned). While super-AGF is commendable, please do not forget that when we bend over backwards to allow an unproductive user to continue in the hope that they learn, we are also pissing on the editors who have tried to handle the issue, and the other editors who will have to handle future issues. It would be far kinder to impose a strict sanction of some kind (topic ban or significant block) so the user at least learns that there will be consequences for future problems. So far, all the community has taught Porchcorpter is that people can do whatever they please, then duck at the last moment—that's going to lead to an indefinite block eventually. Johnuniq (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

6 month block proposal for Porchcorpter

After all of this, Porchcorpter has opened up this Wikiquette report for Beeblebrox. Since it contradicts everything he has supposedly learned from this entire discussion, I am proposing an immediate 6 month block for Porchcorpter. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

"Since it contradicts everything he has supposedly learned from this entire discussion". Not one single way. I was only wanting third-party views. In case you did not know, you are asking for a block as a punishment. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 01:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

As fairly neutral and uninvolved editor, I'd strongly suggest you just drop the stick and leave this. You simply aren't getting any support for your views and continuing this patterns of edits is only going to increase support for those advocating sanctions such as topic bans or blocks. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 01:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Porchcorpter - the multiple requests for ban/topic ban/block are absolutely not punishment. They are requests for the disruption you are causing to STOP.  Frank  |  talk  01:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Frank, this block request is a punishment. For only three thing I was requesting consensus or third-party views about? -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 01:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

And what did you expect to come out of your WGA report? A strong talking-to? No, you were hoping for a block as a punishment for calling you "troublesome," which is a nice way of putting your behavior here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Listen, Porch, this entire section is a mass of third-party opinions, and you are not listening to a single one of them - please, for your own sake, and to try to keep any possible sanctions to a minimum, walk away from this and switch your computer off for the rest of the night -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Support any such action. HurricaneFan25 — 01:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That would be an overreaction. I've tagged the request NWQA and added an {{archivetop}}, {{archivebottom}} template pair. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 01:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it's blatant admin shopping and the third time in the past 48 hours this has happened. The DRV, this ANI thread, and now this. I wanted to give Porch one last chance, but all morsels of good faith are out the window now. This is unbelievable. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Three things that I was only asking for consensus or third-party views about. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 01:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Even the admin who tried to defend you here said it was a bad move, so I suggest you stop defending your action. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Always remember to think carefully about the consequences of your actions before you press the enter button, Porch. That didn't do anything apart from stirring up controversy. —Dark 01:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support as per my "Support anything" comment just above. Johnuniq (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• obvious support This is getting farcical. I don't even need to say asnything anymore, Porch is waving his incompetence in our faces. Hoiw obvious does it have to be before some sort of sanction is applied? How many years must we wait before we admit the truth? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Go with the topic ban. If this behavior continues as it has, the ban will be broken soon enough and blocks will follow that. 6 months is way too long of a starting block anyways. Start with 1 month if you're going to propose this. Silverseren 01:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: user has been blocked for 3 hours by Boing! Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 01:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked for a few hours for repeatedly posting on Beeblebrox's Talk page despite being clearly asked to stop - he was only digging himself in deeper and deeper, and hopefully a short block might help minimize the damage he's doing to himself -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

  PS: If anyone disagrees and thinks I'm too involved to do that, please feel free to unblock - but I really think getting him to stop posting for the rest of the evening will help him -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

  Yeah I wouldn't disagree with that. —Dark 02:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

  Good block. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 02:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

  Good block. Having occasionally been where Porch is now, I can confirm that a short, forced vacation from wikipedia can be beneficial. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully this will serve to further demonstrate to the doubters the level of thick-headedness we are up against here. I told him perfectly politely on his talk page that I did not wish to communicate directly with him anymore as it wasn't doing either of us any good. I reverted an edit he made to my page and mentioned again in the edit summary that I did not want him to post on my talk page. He posted there again. As subtelty clearly does not work with Porchcrop and he posted there against my explicit request not to, I then told him very, very clearly to fuck off and stop posting on my talk page. So, what does he do? Posts about how he won't be posting anymore. This is what I mean when I say I don't think this a problem we can fix. One need look no further than his comments right here on this page and his baffling, ridiculous arguments defending his actions of the last 24 hours to see it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Your comments were hardly a model for civility either. I urge you to reflect on whether your edit to tell him to "fuck off" helped matters, or made it worse. —Dark 02:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to get worse than beyond hopeless . Beeblebrox (talk) 03:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support the current block. His WP:WQA is blatant forum shopping and and is also disruptive. I too recommend a longer 6 month block, but if another ban were to be the consensus here, he must understand that the slightest breach in the ban, or any other silly mistakes will result in an immediate long block by any admin without discussion. His mentoring by very patient Worm has not paid any dividends and what we have here is a clear case of incompetence and lack of maturity. While we can explain policies/guidelines and train people how to use editing tools, it's not our job to educate people - maturity only develops with time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

  "His WP:WQA is blatant forum shopping and and is also disruptive.". No, not any way you even think. The WQA report was to request third parties about the civility of another user. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 10:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

  I'm sure you didn't mean it as such, but listen Porch, you've been getting your third party feedback for years, and a lot of it has been about your misconceptions regarding incivility and personal attacks - you keep mistaking criticism of your behavior for incivility and personal attack, despite dozens of people trying to explain otherwise. You've had that feedback on a number of different forums, and most recently in this very ANI section. Just about everyone here is telling you that *you* are the one in the wrong, but you have taken not a blind bit of notice of it. And then you go off to yet another forum to report someone for incivility - that's pretty much the definition of forum shopping. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

  Porch, if you've exasperated a good natured experienced admin like Beeblebrox to the extent he's finally lost his cool with you, it's exactly the same as your teacher finally getting angry. You've been WP:Gaming the system long enough now. As Bushranger says below, the WP:IDHT here is stunning and it's time to stop. If you won't stop - and you apparently don't or can't - then you must not be surprised if the community has to stop you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support – clearly TAPS. Ma®©usBritish  09:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support - the WP:IDHT here is stunning. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support - we don't need this. -- Donald Albury 11:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Strictly speaking, Porchcorpter didn't have a clean block log before the recent brief block--he had a couple of short blocks when editing as an IP, but a) that's over four years ago, and b) if anything I would say that those episodes speak to his advantage; he was blocked for signing his posts "Porchcrop" without having registered an account, being belligerent to editors who tried to explain how user names work, and edit warring over the removal of his fake signature, but once he did understand how things worked, he was not above changing his ways and registering his preferred user name. But the current issue is not just isolated incidents or specific well-defined problems with understanding, but a question of WP:COMPETENCE and to some extent WP:IDHT--and these are things that will hopefully change with increased maturity, and a 6-month block might serve to give Porchcorpter some perspective on things as well. I really think he means well, and that the problems have to do with lack of understanding and ultra-sensitivity to criticism, but unfortunately the results are disruptive behaviour, and that needs to stop. However, I think it would be a very good idea to wait until WormTT has had a chance to weigh in, before any kind of sanction is applied. --bonadea contributions talk 11:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The discussion from last spring, apologies if it's already posted here somewhere. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. If something has to be done a 6 mth block seems less objectionable than a topic ban. With a topic ban there would be a high risk of editors subjecting Porchcorpters mainspace work to overly hostile scrutiny, causing him distress and possible further disruption. Per Bondadea and Zebedee I think we should wait for Worms input before sanctioning, they may have a better solution that we're not seeing. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Unfortunate support Although this may appear to be punitive based on the absolute stupidity that was the recent WQA filing, I will argue that it's not: Porch simply does not get the collaborative nature of this project. They do not get that their own behaviour is the genesis of all of their conflicts. They do not get that incivility is not a valid response in any situation. Personally, I'd be more likely to indef with the concept of WP:OFFER thrown out there: I would prefer to see that they have joined another project and actually learned how to get along with people with other opinions before allowing them back on this project. Indeed, if this 6 month block is imposed, I would hope that Porch actually follow WP:OFFER anyway - they may actually learn how to get along with people. I'm reminded of an Andrew Dice Clay bit that goes something along the lines of "I went to see my psychologist and said 'Doc, I have trouble making friends...any idea why you fucking asshole?'". Again, this is not punishment: it's purely protective of the collaborative environment, and is hopefully long term enrichment of someone who seems to have an actual desire to contribute to the project (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support I'm surprised that the community has tolerated this level of disruption for so long without a block. Chillllls (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• I've read all the way through this thread, read all the way through the mentorship page, noted in addition to the WQA, the creation this morning of User:Porchcorpter/Blocks, noted his continued re-iteration that his clean block log must prove that he's actually doing ok, and taken into account exchanges such as this thread on his talkpage, where he plainly can't understand a word that Worm - who writes with extraordinary patience and clarity - has said to him. Porchcopter has been editing for at least four years, so either he started editing Misplaced Pages while he was in Dame school or he has some other reason for having such communication and competence issues. Neither of these are known to us, what is known is that his editing has continually been and remains problematic, he appears to lack competence in his articlespace edits, and he has not shown significant improvement in his actual editing and interaction, despite having undergone a mentorship programme. In line with the consensus here, I have therefore blocked him for six months, as this may be the only way to get through to him. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Porchcorpter

Surprise, surprise - he's now using socks. Although it could just be a troublemaker trying to make it look like he's evading the block. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Could also be a passer-by just updating this crucial user subpage. Basalisk ⁄_berate 01:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Shazam! A boy scout doin' a good deed. Hadn't thunk o' that. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Based solely on that IP's geolocation and the geolocation of the IPs previously used by Porch, I don't think it's him. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Porchcorpter is from New Zealand based on his previous IPs and userpage, and this IP is from Washington state. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I sincerely hope you are correct about that. I think that page was linked in the above discussion somewhere so it could be some busybody who doesn't get that you should not edit pother people's user pages without their consent. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Porchcorpter has indeed disclosed that he's in New Zealand, on his mentorship pages -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Different proposal

With the greatest respect to all involved, I'm stunned that this has happened. Because it was the holiday period, the number of editors around is significantly reduced, including Porchcorpter's mentor - me. Now, I said I'd be back to Misplaced Pages today, and now I'm here. I'm not seeing anything so egregious as to warrant an urgent block, let alone a 6 month ban! The "consensus" for the ban was made up of less than a dozen editors, a significant portion of which pointed out that we should wait for my input.

I'd like to point out that since I took Porchcorpter on at the beginning of the year, I've seen some fantasic improvements in his behaviour. Look at his last editor review. He's removed all the barriers to communication, he's not caused probles in AIV or UAA, he has not requested adminship. In fact, he has worked on every single point that was raised. He's even written 3 articles and got some DYK credit! They're not great articles, but it does show that he's attempting to improve. However, he's been given much less leeway than other editors, because of his past. Three MfDs were started on his userspace, they were not attack pages, not copyright violations. Admittedly, the pages that Porchcorpter had created were not perfect, but I've seen worse in userspace. The worst MfD was Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Porchcorpter/Problems I've experienced-encountered on WP. In my eyes, Porchcorpter has annoyed the wrong people, but isn't actually doing anything particularly wrong.

Having read through the thread and the many many links I thought I'd summarise the current problems as I see them.

1. Porchcorpter feels aggreived regarding his previous topic ban and would like to express himself.
   • Other editors feel that that this was correctly processed, is in the past, cannot be changed and should be left alone.
   • Porchcorpter invoked The Truth, with vague handwavy comments about it being wrong.
2. Porchcorpter is taking negative comments regarding himself as personal attacks.
   • Porchcorpter went on to edit war over some of those "personal attacks".
3. Porchcorpter's arguments that he is now "competent" are based on the fact that he has passed my adoption course and has a clean block log.
4. Beeblebrox has clearly run out of good faith regarding Porchcorpter and his recent behaviour with regarding the user leaves quite a lot to be desired.

So there are definitely problems here - but I don't see that a 6 month block is required. So instead I'd like to propose the following.

• Reduce Porchcorpter's block from 6 months to 1 week for disruptive editing. This will stop arguments from Porchcorpter that there is no problem here.

When Porchcorpter returns to editing, it will be under the following restrictions.

• Porchcorpter may not discuss his previous topic bans on wiki.
• Porchcorpter may not label editors comments as personal attacks, he may discuss any comments with his mentor or any other admin.
• Porchcorpter may not intitiate any dispute resolution directly (eg WQA, or DRV) - but rather through his mentor.
• Porchcorpter is recommended to focus on improving the encyclopedia.
• Porchcorpter & Beeblebrox will informally leave each other alone. I'd rather not suggest a formal interaction ban, but each should completely forget about the other.

I'm hoping that will be enough to focus Porchcorpter. Worm · (talk) 10:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Had Porchcorpter not had a mentor who is as willing and patient as WormTT, I would support the current block, as dealing with him by Community is just too disruptive and takes up too much of people's time. And I'll be honest that I have my reservations about actually remedying the underlying problems long term, and whether Porchcorpter's time here is good for either him or for Misplaced Pages. But I don't think action should have been taken while WormTT was away, and as long as he is willing to deal with these issues directly, I see no good reason not to support him in this and wish him success with it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support - good proposal Worm. I am happy to follow it. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 10:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC) Copied from Porchcorpter's talk page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You'd sound so much more convincing with just a tad of humility. As it is, this sounds like you, Lord Admin Porchcorp, have listened to an apologetic proposal from Worm as to how he has misbehaved, been banned and is now contritely trying to find a way that he might be re-admitted to the fold. This isn't the situation - do you realise that? A community of editors has instead decided that you are a nett negative to the community annd so should be excluded for a remarkably long time. Do you know (or have you even thought about) why they might be thinking along those lines? Do you not think along that something along the lines of, "I am sorry to you" might better convey the sort of change in attitude that we're looking for here?

For as long as you appear to have no appreciation that you have caused the problem here and that a change of your behaviour is needed more than a well-crafted proposal from another, then you still won't be getting it. While that continues, I'd see an exclusion as being better for the project than putting the community's effort into another re-education scheme. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Reluctant oppose. I'm against yesterday's b-thing, simply because no action should have been taken until there was some comment from Worm, as the person with the best insight. However I don't see that Porch's behaviour has improved that much since mentoring, or that there's much hope that a 1 week block will achieve anything more.

Porch's behaviour has improved since mentoring - it has become narrower. He no longer causes problems in the same places, but yet he still doesn't show any better understanding when he does elsewhere. Worm's own concluding comments after mentoring were in this same vein. His behaviour in the last few days is not that of someone who has actually learned anything. If that didn't have any effect, then how is one week on the naughty step going to be any different?

The 6 month plan I saw as something of an oubliette - keep him away for long enough that he might discover some other hobby instead and never return. It's not the greatest expression of faith in the human spirit, but hey, it works for me - I'd rather see Beeblebrox and other real editors editing articles rather than ANI, instead of caring whether Porch is free to make more userpages.

If Worm or Zebedee think I'm wrong, then please ignore me and try the one week route. It might even work, which would be marvellous. Even if it doesn't, it's just one more trip to the sin bin in a few weeks time and so not a huge amount more time and trouble. Really though, I think the Clue just isn't getting to Porch and a week isn't going to change that. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose What leaves a lot to be desired is when good editors have their time wasted by going over old problems over and over and over. Porchcorpter did not wait for Worm's input, so why should the community? Johnuniq (talk) 11:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 11:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Worm is a saint, but I have no desire to see them become a martyr on this one. A condition of Porch's unblock in 6 months should be what Worm proposes above. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose – Leopard... spots... after four years impudence... no chance. Ma®©usBritish  12:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Worm, your patience is commendable, but Porchcorpter has consistently been a time sink; I'm sorry it came to this, but I feel an outright block is the best way forward, hoping that six months' worth of maturing will give us a more competent user; topic bans would not be effective, I fear, considering how well the last one went down... Salvio 13:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Though I'm sure Porch would be slinging AGF bombs for this, I can't help but feel that if we follow this proposal we'll end up back in exactly the same position, and in a hurry. Though Beeblebrox has clearly lost it in this whole affair I can hardly blame him, and I support his notion that the touchy-feely approach has already been tried and has failed. I think this block is the only way to prevent further time wasting. Despite all this, I also want to add my voice to the chorus singing Worm's praises. Such patience I can only aspire to. Basalisk ⁄_berate 14:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support If one compares Porchs mainspace work post Worm with his entire output over the previous 3 years, the value of his contributions seem to have increased by a factor of 10 or more. So Id say the mentorship has been very successful; Porch hasn't became perfect but that was never the aim. I saw some advantages in the 6 mnth block, but am happy to trust Worm knows what he's doing. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - I will add to the chorus praising Worm's patience, and I like to think I'm well on the side of WP:AGF myself, but enough is enough. The counterbalances to Worm's eloquent proposal include:

• It's hard to escape the impression that Porchcorpter is here mainly for the social aspects of Misplaced Pages, try as we all may to discourage that. He has more than 75 user boxes on his user page - not a crime, but not what we are here for. For months, his signature screamed "please sign my guest book". He collects badges and indicators of being each sort of Wiki-animal known around these parts. He maintains a link to his edit count on his talk page. He created a page to record the number of times he's been blocked, complete with a verification link to his block log. These WP:NOTMYSPACE behaviors have gone on continually; while certain ones have been mitigated by discussion, new ones have cropped up subsequently.
• The editor review in question began as a stunning miscalculation that Porch was somehow near ready for RFA #5
• It ended with a topic ban which Porch corpter appeared to wear as a badge of honor; admins can view his user page history which contains over 400 deleted revisions, and find this prominent entry: Porchcorpter is currently banned from contributing to a few areas until 12 September 2011 and will rarely do maintenance work (as he will be focusing on article work). But when the ban expires, he will return to do maintenance and keep Misplaced Pages running well. He then maintained a userbox proclaiming his status in this regard.
• Upon expiration of the topic ban, even Worm's legendary patience and AGF was tried; see I'm afraid there's not much more I can do for you.
• Despite all discussions suggesting Porchcorpter work on articles, there's precious little evidence he's interested in doing so. True, there are three DYKs, but in the editor review, I pointed out that Porch had under 1000 edits to mainspace. That was in March. It's now December, and he has 1251. In four years, he has a grand total of 65 edits to ALL article talk pages, about 1/3 of them to one of his DYK articles. Well over 600 of his edits are to his own talk page and related sub-pages, and fully 14% of all his edits (over 700 more) are to his own user page and related pages. This is not an editor who is here to build an encyclopedia, despite all attempts by others to direct him in this fashion, and despite claiming to hear and plan to actually work on articles. A review through his talk page history will show plenty of suggestions of areas to contribute to that have been ignored for months.

This is not about any single incident or the ability (or lack thereof) for certain editors to keep their cool regarding Porchcorpter. It's an overall problem, and the block will hopefully communicate that to Porchcorpter in a way that years of discussion has apparently been unable to. It's not punishment - it's putting a stop to the disruption, plain and simple.  Frank  |  talk  15:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. WTT is incredibly patient and good hearted, but in the relatively short period I've been an admin (only what, 18 months) I've dealt with a number of young people where actually stopping them editing for a while has had a significant and good effect on their behaviour. There is I suppose an aspect of showing that the community is being serious. The topic ban didn't work - it stopped the disruption but didn't seem to significantly increase his understanding of how the community works, what it expects, what this place is for etc. At the moment, if you ask PC where the problem lies, why he has been blocked, he can't tell you. He needs to be able to conform his behaviour to the expectations of a wider community, a community that expects people to behave autonomously and not need continual reminding or prompting, and that is prepared to stop you from editing for a significant period if you can't do that. Elen on the Roads:talk to me 16:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

GALADRIEL STINEMAN

This article needs to be moved to the appropriate not all caps name but that page is create protected because bad content was repeatedly created under that name. An administrator must move it. Could any move it please? Cheers! Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedily deleted per WP:G4. Salvio 22:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

And salted the salt-evading title, same expiry as the original. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The deletion discussion appears to have taken place in 2009. Has anyone looked to see whether she's still not notable? I see here a few news items, albeit not in English, from 2010-2011. Not arguing for recreation here, but rather caution that we not treat every salt-evasion as an attempted end run around policy: a lot of things can change in two years for an actress. Jclemens (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

No, not resolved. This was a completely new article, not a repost: G4 is completely inappropriate. I would undelete and immediately redelete under an appropriate criterion, but playing one of the major characters in a notable movie is important enough to avoid A7, and no other criterion applies. Nyttend (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

This is how Galadriel Stineman looked like on 17 December 2009, just before it got deleted. Please compare it with the article I just speedied. I believe this was the epitome of a WP:G4... Salvio 02:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Yup - G4 wholly appropriate here (not only the same content, but less of it!) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The content is completely rewritten — do you really think that we have the same words here? Read the criterion, which only permits the redeletion of content already deleted in a discussion. This content had never before been deleted. There's a reason that the {{db-g4}} tag is also known as {{db-repost}}, not {{db-similar}}. Nyttend (talk) 13:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Despite being "rewritten", the content is largely the same, just using different words. By the "completely rewritten" standard I could take any garbage article that got round-filed, run it through a thesaurus, shuffle some words, and demand a full AfD to delete the same stuff the first one deleted. WP:BUREAUCRACY applies here, perhaps with a dash of WP:IAR; there was zero added content; compared to the older version, there was less content and even fewer claims to notability. WP:COMMONSENSE makes this an open-and-shut case. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Conversely a brand new editor could write a reasonable stub, and have it deleted for arcane reasons, when, as Nyttend says the subject now probably passes A7 if not GNG. Rich Farmbrough, 21:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC).

That's true, but the runaround on the salted properly-capitalised page makes my whiskers twitch. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Banned user?

This concern relates generally to the articles Antony Garrett Lisi and An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything. As fair disclosure, I have raised a discussion on this issue at WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, but the possible socking I'm reporting here is beyond that page's scope. On my userpage, User:Scientryst claims that a currently editing user, editing as both an variety of IPs 71.106.167.55, 71.105.103.149, 64.134.223.25, 64.134.238.60, 71.106.172.131, 71.106.173.238, 71.106.194.198, 67.102.135.70, 98.96.131.166, 71.232.15.137, 98.97.102.198, 137.159.189.7, 137.159.148.66, 76.16.160.165, 71.167.229.61, 137.159.149.199, 137.159.148.112, and most recently, Physicrocks, is a sock of a long term disruptive, banned sockpuppeteer. Scientryst pointed me to a number of socks; specifically: Afteread, Totalbr, Verbapple, Wouldbn, Makevocab, Standardfact, Miles1228.

While all of those accounts are blocked as block-evading socks, none of them actually name the master. Most of the listed socks are quite old, and some of the blocking admins aren't even active any more. So I'm hoping that someone here with more time served than me can tell me who the master is, and if the IPs and Physicrocks are the same person. As a side note, it's very clear from behavioral evidence that Physicrocks is definitely the same as the 71 IPs; compare these talk page diffs of 71.106.167.55 and [71.106.165.87 with Physicrocks' edits to the E8 article and the article on the Lisi article. At User Talk:Physicrocks, the user has denied being the same editor, but that's simply ludicrous. To be fair, there is a small other possibility that this is a false flag operation, but I think the more obvious connection is more likely.

If anyone is certain these are a sock of a banned user, please block them and apply any range blocks that might be appropriate; I'm too involved to do it myself. Also, I think it would be helpful to at cats on the old socks so that we can easily determine the master.

P.S.: I'm going to notify Scientrist, Physicrocks, and a few of the more recent 71... IPs, but not all of the rest, as there's no reason to notify old dynamic IPs or the indef-blocked socks. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Those are two different people.-Scientryst (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Who are two different people? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

You and I? Sonny and Cher? Donnie and Marie? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

If Sonny is editing Misplaced Pages, we've got a much bigger problem on our hands than some sockpuppetry on some pages about obscure physicists. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Assume good wraith. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The list of IPs corresponds to one person, and the list of names corresponds to a different person, and to my knowledge neither of them are Sonny, so I think we're still mostly OK.-Scientryst (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to be off of Misplaced Pages for 3-7 days starting very soon, so I hope someone else can follow up on this. If Physicrocks is a returned banned user, I hope that those who've blocked him in the past can spot the signs that indicate its xyr. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Repeated incivility by User:RealCowboys

User:RealCowboys has been warned repeatedly for incivility. It seems no amount of discussion seems to help the editor understand WP:CIVIL and WP:PERSONAL. Editor blames others for his behaviour. After taunting editors and a civil, straight-forward response, the editor made a reasonable edit and then this. I request that the editor be blocked, the edit deleted, and a full explanation the the editor's own behaviour, not that of others, caused the response. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 days. That was a bit beyond the pale. If the problems continue, the blocks may escalate. --Jayron32 06:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Stalking and deletion of consensus-based information by user:rast5

User:rast5, who has been previously blocked for disruptive editing, has been insisting that ballerina Tamara Toumanova is part Armenian, not part-Georgian, even as the personality has herself stated that she is part Georgian. Now that thanks to rast5's edit warring Tamara Toumanova page was fully protected, he started stalking me through other pages, some that are related and some random.

On George Balanchine page, he reverts routine changes, such as this and 2. On Tbilisi, he reverted me twice - here, and again - despite the fact that changes he complained about where based on consensus I reached with user:materialscientist, the only disputing party, who gave me a green light and who received no complaints from user:rast5.

user:rast5 refuses to give this an ear and deleted from his talk page my warning about stalking, as well as the source about Tamara Toumanova I wanted him to read with the hopes of eliciting some civility.

I have already been warned about potential edit warring and if user:rast5 blank-reverts my changes again, I will not be able to respond. For this reason, I ask that an administrator help me out.--Andriabenia (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

User Andriabenia is a possible revival of blocked User: OxfordGeo and his socks. He/she continues to delete the same sourced materials form different articles with a single purpose to make them wholly Georgian (if you check the linked page you will see he didnt made a consensus just pushes his POV). In the marked articles he completely deleted (also attacking the users at talk) all the sources which mention Armenian, Russian, Polish origins of the person or place. Rast5 (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to run a check on my name. He keeps removing George Balanchine's birth name from the leade not to make him appear "too Georgian", even though the birth name has been in the intro since 2007 - --Andriabenia (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not "removing", but moving to the biography section. And readding the information on his Russian origin you're deleting. Rast5 (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

User Rast5, who displays the same modus operandi as 85.141.14.195 (talk · contribs), is strongly promoting Toumanova's Armenian descent and blindly dismissing sources supporting her Georgian ancestry. Rast5, blocked once, uses strange and rude edit summaries ( ) and labels other user as "vandals", "sock puppets", and "nationalists". Is this behaviour acceptable to the Misplaced Pages community? Antique Rose — Drop me a line 15:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Antique Rose was warned for backing the same sock at article on Toumanova . Rast5 (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Here comes another disruptive edit from user:rast5, which can be considered nothing but vandalism given the crisp explanation I gave him in the edit summary.--Andriabenia (talk) 15:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Why are you trying to communicate with another editor using the edit summary? You communicate on a talkpage - an edit summary explains your edit (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Because he deleted my post on his talk page and communication on the personality talk page is also pointless as you can see on Tamara Toumanova and its archive. What are we expected to do, parrot the same thing over and over as our sources are being deleted as vandalism?--Andriabenia (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Since this is in many ways a content dispute, have you tried the processes in WP:DR? Communicating via edit-summaries is not communicating (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: I have added {{Welcomenpov}}, a warning about Adzerbaijan-Armenian ArbCom restrictions, and a brief note on NPA to rast5 ...pretty disappointing that those involved in the dispute with them failed to add at least a "Welcome" - even if you believe he's another editor. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The article on Tamara Toumanova should be considered to be in the scope of the Arbcom case at WP:ARBAA and WP:ARBAA2. If you read the talk page, especially checking the comment by DGG, you will probably conclude that the matter of her ancestry is quite unimportant to her career as a ballerina. It seems that the article has become a sort of political football between the ethnic boosters of rival factions, the Georgians and the Armenians. On the data presented (at least in English) on the talk page, the Georgians seem to have the stronger case. This would be hard to get a final answer on and the article (like many others) deserves improvement, but her ancestry is not what needs the most work. The editors who keep reverting may possibly be all socks, so the best plan I can see is for some long-term semiprotection. Another option is to issue topic bans under ARBAA2 for registered accounts that have the Toumanova article (and similar ethnic footballs) as their prime interest on Misplaced Pages. User:Rast5 certainly fits that profile, and his user page consists of a period, a typical user page for socks who don't want it to appear as a red link. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Continuity note: Rast5 has now filed an ANEW report against Andriabenia. Jezebel'sPonyo 19:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Continuity note: Andriabenia has filed a report against Rast5.--Andriabenia (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours Both have been given 48 hours to think about how to stop this childish tit-for-tat and ethnically-based crap. Period. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Representative Republic for -> Advocacy page unsalvagable_Advocacy_page_unsalvagable-2011-12-29T15:11:00.000Z">

As I said sometime a year or two ago, I will no longer use nor visit wikipedia because it is so blatantly biased as truthful facts. I actively tell people not to use Misplaced Pages and in the many articles i write I seek alternate sources to link to and reference other than Misplaced Pages.

That being said, apparently a year ago, someone wanted my page Representative Republic deleted. To the best of my knowledge, happening to come to Misplaced Pages to brought up a new messages notification.

The notification being the proposed delete a year or more ago.

I posted Representative Republic because the is what the uSA is.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the united State of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands...."

Now the Progressive Propagandists have deleted this page for something called Unsalvagable advocacy page.

What does that mean?

Please restore my original factual document.

Don Mashak The Cynical Patriot (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMashak (talk • contribs) 15:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)_Advocacy_page_unsalvagable"> _Advocacy_page_unsalvagable">

It was probably deleted because a more complete article on the subject already exists at Constitutional republic--v/r - TP 15:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. And you'll also find calling us "Progressive propagandists" isn't going to foster much goodwill for you or make us any more inclined to undelete your article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

As opposed to "retrogressive" propagandists, I suppose. Speaking of which, maybe the OP should take his theories to Conservapedia and see if he can find a friendlier audience. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Or, hopefully, any less inclined. I hope the decision to undelete or not is based upon the merits, not how the request is worded.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

...in the many articles i write I seek alternate sources to link to and reference other than Misplaced Pages.' I would hope not. Misplaced Pages isn't suitable as a reference, nor does it purport to be one.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Sphilbrick, I did check the article in question before declining the undelete. Like I said above, the article appears to be nationalist advocacy of the Libertarian nature. It really didn't advance any explanation of the article's subject and appeared to be "We're a republic, and we have unalienable rights..." ect.--v/r - TP 18:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The editor is a self-announced POV SPA, so a cursory look at the deleted article is about all it deserved. I'm more concerned about the droves of people Mr. Mashak is potentially alienating from our project. How will we survive without them? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I suggest a long-block for User: Shmayo

This user have since he became an editor here on Misplaced Pages, only contributed to Assyrian-related articles. He have started alot of edit- and revertwars. Just check his last contributes History, he have only been reverting articles, editing articles in order to raise a particular identity. He removes the term "Syriac" or "Aramean" in every article he finds, and replace it with "Assyrian". If the source clearly use the term "Syriac", then he either replace it with "Assyrian" or just adds the term "Assyrian" with the edit-comment "Neutralisation". He have started dozens of edit wars in Syriac related articles, but also in Chaldean-related articles. Just to describe the situation between Syriacs, Assyrians and Chaldeans; Three names for a same group. Some consider themselves "Syriacs" ad trace it roots back to the ancient Arameans. The other group consider themselves "Assyrians" and trace their roots back to the ancient Assyrians. The last group consieder themselves "Chaldeans" and trace their roots back to the ancient Chaldeans. It is an on-going war between them, especially here in Misplaced Pages in all articles related to this group. User Shmayo is seriously contributing to this on-going war here in Misplaced Pages, just check his History History and his talkpage Talk, it us full of warnings and debates from alot of users and administrators. He keeps starting editwars, he breaks the 3RR rule, he is guarding articles, he moves page without even discussing them, he is stalking users, edit warring in alot of articles. He keeps removing the name "Aramean" from articles and replaces it with Assyrian even if it was backed up with source he also removes the source, just because that name does not "fit" him 1, 2, 3 just for examples. All his edits can be found in his contribution-history, and all warnings and debates and everything can be found on his talkpage. His recent "contribution" were made on this article Syrianska FC. I was asked in January this year, to remake the whole article about Syrianska FC on Misplaced Pages, since the team got promoted from Second-division to first-division in Sweden. They wanted an article full with information and sources, and improvements to meet Misplaced Pages's quality standards. This was the version before i contributed Version 1, and this is the version after my contributions Version 2. I really made a huge improvement for the article, also with help from user Reckless. Then User: Shmayo came to this article and started his editwars. This was his contribution; Contribution. He removed alot from the intro, just becase a specific name did not fit him, without even discussing it on the articles talkpage. I everything backed up with sources on that article. Also, 2 months ago me and two other users on wikipedia agreed on the current version. We had a discussion about some things on the article, and at last we agreed to remove and rewrite some things, and then result was the current version. We did even not to ask for a third opinion notice from an administrator since we all already agreed. But this User: Shmayo, he does not discuss or provide sources, he just vandalize and have been keep doing this for the last two years. I suggest an administrator revert all his recent edits, and maybe time for a permanent ban? SYRIANIEN (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I have notified User:Shmayo that he is the subject of this ANI post. For future reference, please make sure you notify users if they are the subject of ANI or other noticeboard messages. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Please also see Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Football#Syrianska FC dispute. GiantSnowman 19:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello mr Sockpuppet, first of all; regarding the term "Aramean", please read this talk page. "just adds the term "Assyrian" with the edit-comment "Neutralisation"." Have I ever used that comment? No big importance, just wondering. "He have started dozens of edit wars in Syriac related articles, but also in Chaldean-related articles." Sure, there have been many edit wars in the A/C/S-articles, which many of us have been involved in. Though I do thing thing are better now, I don't see people editing against the reached consensus as much as before. "He keeps starting editwars, he breaks the 3RR rule, he is guarding articles" False accusations again. "he moves page without even discussing them" If you refer to the move I made today (Assyriska FF Ungdom to Assyriska Botkyrka FF), then please tell me what's the wrong with that edit? I added a ref from the official website saying that the club changed it name. Also interesting that many of the edits you linked to are done after discussion. "This was the version before i contributed Version 1, and this is the version after my contributions Version 2. I really made a huge improvement for the article, also with help from user Reckless." Exactly what do you want to say?

As for the changes in Syrianska FC: Did you miss these discussions; 1 and 2. Me and Reckless182 actually discussed about these changes, so I really do not understand your "without even discussing it"-talk. What you just did was editing against the consensus reached by me and Reckless182. Shmayo (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

At first, do Not call me a Sockpuppet, thats a false accusation and i feel extremely insulted by being called for that, so i tell you once to not calling me that again. Secondly, you admit that you have been involved in very many editwars. You understand that starting edit- and revertwars is not okay here in Misplaced Pages? And do not say "us", as you are the only in here involved in revert- and editwars. Also, dont say "false accusations". Everything is proven in your own contribution-history and talk-page which is full of warnings from other users and admins. And for the discussion related to Syrianska FC, it should be taken in the articles talkpage, and not in other users talkpage. You came to the article, just removed everything and then left. That is really not okay. Also, this issue is now not about the Syrianska FC-issue. This issue is about you, and your edits. And do not remove things i write in your discussion, as you made here Talk. That is not okay. You have been accused for alot of rule-breakings here in Misplaced Pages, you have been warned alot. Also you have been suggested to calm-down, to stop guarding articles and stop stalking users. And please dont avoid the things i write. I think it is really time for you now to be checked by an admin. SYRIANIEN (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Calm down. You just wrote the same things in my talk page, what's the purpose? "You understand that starting edit- and revertwars is not okay here in Misplaced Pages?" Thank you, I do know the rules here pretty well, and I have not started any edit war. There have been edit wars in A/C/S-articles, we working on A/C/S-articles gets involved one way or another per automatic. Just check your history and see all reverts made. "You came to the article, just removed everything and then left. That is really not okay." What are you talking about? Shmayo (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

"You came to the article, just removed everything and then left. That is really not okay." - What are you talking about? Im talking about this-> . You just removed the things that you did not like. And do not remove the things i write in your talkpage. And dont avoid everything i write. I feel that i have written everything i want to say now, and just waiting for an admin to read everything. SYRIANIEN (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

A edit per WP:Manual_of_Style, maybe you should take a look on how other football clubs' articles look like. Avoiding what? You are the one avoiding. Everything you do is calling me a edit warrer, exactly what do you want me to answer? Fine, I also suggest you to calm down a bit, WP:Etiquette. Shmayo (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This is about you and your edits. The Syrianska FC-issue can be discussed on article talkpage. Waiting for an admin to first read everything written here. SYRIANIEN (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Fluffymoose disruptive editing

Feel this one desires some discussion. User has been warned multiple times for violating NPOV as well as edit warring at Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2, yet seems to have no intention of quitting. User:Tom Morris also warned him for failing to AGF at the article's talk page; which edit this is related to I am not exactly sure. Regardless, the continuing attitude and edits like this one suggest to me that the user needs to be removed from this debate one way or another. Calabe1992 19:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The AGF warning was regarding this edit where Fluffymoose indicated that they did not care what other editors (sorry, "idiots") thought and would not stop editing it until they got their way. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Involved editor comment, Actually I'm only involved as far as being the very first person to revert the NPOV edit. Just wanted to make the point that this is far from just two people edit warring. Fluffymoose has been reverted by multiple editors for over a week, and even earned a short block. Every edit made by this account seems to be related to this information. Obvious WP:SPA.--JOJ 20:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:LAME, anybody? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I second the above motion. Calabe1992 21:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

'Tis exceptionally lame. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but I hope Fluffymoose isn't blocked again after this and that they continue editing: they have one of the coolest user names I've ever seen. Sorry Mark, Calabe, Tom, et al--you can't touch that. Fluffymoose! It's cute and can weigh almost a ton! Drmies (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

But does it live in a room? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposing ban for User:Tile join

This is a proposal for an indefinite community ban of Tile join (talk · contribs). A long term abuse case already exists, and, at last edit, the practice was to revert and block immediately. If a ban could be established, this process will be easier. Latest (obvious) sock was Rapbel (talk · contribs), continuing the habit of attacking user and user talk pages with the <nowiki> template. Net negative to the project. Calabe1992 21:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support HurricaneFan25 — 21:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• This is a waste of time. How exactly would "this process be easier"? Prodego 21:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

  Listed explicitly as a banned user on the subsequent page. Calabe1992 21:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

  Tile join is banned. You can treat him as any other banned user. The formal process only needs to be used if there is some controversy, or some disagreement over the ban, which these isn't here. Prodego 21:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Pointless. He is de-facto banned already, since no admin will unblock him. We don't need to give vandals attention on this page. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Just stick him on the list, revert, block and ignore. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done Calabe1992 22:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Tshisekedi page has been neavily edited by partisan users

Hi

I'm a journalist with a strong background in DRC history & politics. Just want to flag that the Tshisekedi page has been heavily edited by partisan editors of both sides. It is currently misquoting Ludo de Witt's excellent book with pages that don't exist, blog pages from a group connected to violent politics & partisan media from DRC

Don't have time to edit it myself suggest reverting it to how it was before elections at beginning of December & adding a couple of lines about the current situation

Sorry can't be more helpful but I don;t have time to learn how to use wikipeadia and this needs addressing as it is inflammatory to those involved in drc politiccs thanks

digitalfax — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalfax (talk • contribs) 22:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

This refers to the article Étienne Tshisekedi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).  --Lambiam 22:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

A horrid example of a pov-oriented BLP. All of the conversational material should be excised, along with all of the editorial commentary. Collect (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Protection needed at Angonoka tortoise

IPs are attacking the Angonoka tortoise article. --Hypoxic mentalist (talk) 03:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Start a request for page protection, then Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 03:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I see that someone else has already started one. Thanks for the pointer to the proper venue. --Hypoxic mentalist (talk) 04:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Revert warring - removal of link from the article

I want to report revert warring of User:Daizus who removing link to Butaul article from Treasure of Nagyszentmiklós article. See diffs: , , , . I found his explanations for link removal inappropriate - Butaul article is well sourced by multiple sources and User:Daizus already tried to delete that article (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Buta-ul ). The article was kept, but User:Daizus now trying to annihilate links that can led users to that article. In my understanding, this look like an violation of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. PANONIAN 07:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is the thread for discussing a content dispute. Nevertheless I did not remove a link, I replaced it. Because Butaul is not neutral, it's actually a WP:POVFORK and a WP:COATRACK to promote the theories of Milan Tutorov, a fringe Serbian author (whose book was not proven to be a reliable source). As for diffs, while I provided reasons for my edits, you were dismissive ( ) and threatening ( - a false accusation of vandalism ). Thank you for reminding me of my previous AfD, I think it's time for a second nomination. Daizus (talk) 07:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I cannot believe this. User:Daizus claims without any evidences that one author is "fringe" and not reliable. Furthermore, Butaul article is mostly written in accordance with other sources and info that comes from author Tutorov is presented in one single paragraph in the article. So, facts are here: 1. there is no single evidence that this author is "fringe" or unreliable, 2. Butaul article is mostly written in accordance with other sources (see this long list of references that are standing behind this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Butaul#List_of_references ). In another words, User:Daizus is trying to remove links that leading readers to Butaul article (after failing to delete the article itself), justifying his actions with false claims that article is based on claims of author Tutorov (whose work is used only in one paragraph within the article) and false claims that author Tutorov is "fringe" or unreliable. PANONIAN 09:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on reporting him for edit warring when you have broken 3RR edit warred yourself too. You have both been blocked for 3RR in the past. Accordingly, you are both blocked for 24 hours. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Soundwaweserb disruptive editing

My tagging of Djokovic–Nadal rivalry for OR got promptly reverted. Tagging the OR section by another editor got also reverted. Editor does not engage on the Talk page, as he was invited. I then removed the OR section, because it is about living person, again inviting the editor to discuss on Talk before bringing it back. Was promptly reverted again.
User:Soundwaweserb accuses me of vandalism in the edit review , and calls the other involved editor a 'nazi' and 'hater of Djokovic' . Can some uninvolved admin have a look? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MakeSense64 (talk • contribs)

This is a classical vandalism by makesense64 and I see now there is no freedom on Misplaced Pages for normal edit pages. Yes I calls the other editor a hater of Djokovic because he is that. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundwaweserb (talk • contribs) 10:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:NPA#WHATIS "Comparing editors to Nazis, dictators, or other infamous persons." Per the diff provided you called another editor a Nazi.. over a tennis player? Block due for PA, in addition to war editing. What he is, is an editor.. "hater" is also a PA. Grow up. Thank you. Ma®©usBritish  15:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Soundwaweserb does appear to edit warring here, he's insisting on re-introducing WP:OR material into the article regardless of how many other editors try to remove it. Moreover, he doesn't seem willing to tolerate the appropriate content tags on these sections either. Clear case of WP:OWNership to me. Basalisk ⁄_berate 16:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Eric1985

How can I reopen discussion on an issue which has been archived without being resolved? In the discussion, all three admins who commented agreed that there had been a breach of unblock conditions, and it was reported that the unblocking admin also agreed with this assessment. All the comments were made just two days ago, yet this discussion has since been archived with no action taken. This seems highly premature. RolandR (talk) 11:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC) unresolved issue unarchived by request above Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 11:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

In August 2010, this editor was blocked indefinitely for "off-wiki canvassing regarding Israel/Palestine". On 28 October 2011, the block was lifted by Panyd, "on the strict provision that you stay away from anything related to the Israel/Palestine conflict or the topic of Judaism" On 7 December, the editor made this edit to Hummus, replacing "Palestine" with "Palestinian homes and restaurants", and later with "Palestinian territories". This is incontrovertibly a breach of his unblock conditions. There have been several edit wars regarding the origin and regional distribution of foods in the Middle East, while renaming Palestine to suggest that it refers to individual homes, rather than a national community, is characteristic of the canvassing and other behaviour which led to the original ban. If this editor is unable to honour the commitment he gave when unblocked, then he needs a sharp reminder. RolandR (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Eric1985's edit on December 8 to Hummus does seem to be a violation, but that was his most recent edit to Misplaced Pages. He has not done anything since 8 December. Since admins are trained not to take action on stale issues, please consider filing this again if he returns to active editing. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Panyd (my wife) is of the opinion that this does violate the terms of the unblock that she set out. The Cavalry (Message me) 20:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

And I agree. This may be slightly "stale", but it's still a blatant and obvious violation, and ignoring it just because it wasn't noticed until now isn't kosher. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I only noticed this edit today; I would have reported it earlier, had I seen it. It was the most recent edit to the article, so had apparently not been noticed by any other editor either. RolandR (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with The Bushranger, if someone violates the terms of their unblock they are reblocked once the violation is confirmed. They don't get a free pass if they can avoid detection for a few days. --Jezebel'sPonyo 15:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

So...is one of you guys going to re-instate the block, or what? Basalisk ⁄_berate 15:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Doing so would be horribly punitive - especially if it's borderline. Personally, I would provide a clear warning that it was potentially a violation, and that future such actions could lead to a reblock (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. This isn't "borderline" – Panyd's conditions were "strict", requiring Eric1985 stay away from anything relating to the I/P conflict or Judaism in general. Broad, and strict. His edit was clearly in contravention of this. I don't think it's punitive either; the edit shows that Eric has no respect for the conditions of his unblock and so he may well disrupt again the next time he feels people need to know The Truth. Da rules are da rules. Basalisk ⁄_berate 15:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

No dey aren't. I would be on the side of "don't block, but let him know we know he violated his terms of unblock". Per WP:ROPE, there isn't always a need to immediately block, unless we believe ongoing problems will continue. I think a clear and unambiguous warning would serve the same purpose as a block here, given the fact that its been several weeks and there has not been a pattern of problems since then; the next time I would be in full support of an indef block. --Jayron32 16:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Touché, mon ami, touché. I think you're probably right actually, an explicit final warning would probably have the same effect. Basalisk ⁄_berate 16:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Conduct of BabbaQ

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I joined Misplaced Pages on Dec 24th after reading an article on a woman who was kidnapped (http://en.wikipedia.org/Amanda_Lindhout), who used to work for the television of a neighbouring country to me (http://en.wikipedia.org/PRESS_TV).

The article said she worked for the rather more respectable France 24. I knew this was false. And the source didn't say she did, it only said "she went to Somalia" with the intention of filing reports for France 24. (The source was in fact also incorrect about this, but I understand that according to Misplaced Pages policy the truth or who is right doesn't matter, but conduct. I understand this, although personally I think it is wrong and is really against common sense, but that's neither here nor there).

I made the required edit. And then the user "BabbaQ" clicked "undo", without any discussion, and inserted a generic warning on my Talk page Repeat. This time accusing me of "vandalism": Then he made this contribution: So he's accused me of being "unconstructive" and a "vandal", and, what I've since come to learn, is called a "sockpuppet" - all without bothering to actually check the source, or engage me in discussion.

Then, he clicked "undo" (reverted) on my only other edit (a totally uncontroversial one) upon joining - again, with no justification or discussion.

I had no idea what planet I was on, so I said as much on the Talk page: . I then said in my edit summary: "i don't think you understand how freelancing works. I could go to Somalia with the intention of filing reports for the NY Times, BBC, and Le Monde Diplomatique. But if I'm not published - I can't say I ever "worked" for them. Get it?"

Unfortunately, the administrator that BabbaQ contacted, seem to simply assume that BabbaQ was right, and I was wrong because I was new, and clicked "undo" on my edit, so that BabbaQ wouldn't be in breach of the 3RR (I didn't know about the rule at the time) by doing it himself.

When I questioned my block on my Talk page, and explained my circumstances, BabbaQ reverted my own edits on my own Talk pageItalic text saying "reverting back nonsense threats and harassments". Is it just me, or is that perfect irony? my "threats" and "harassments " amounted to me saying I was going to complain about BabbaQ's behavior, which I am now doing. I hardly see how that is a crime.

Still, he insisted of accusing me of all sorts, on what appears to be his favoured admins' Talk pages, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights&diff=prev&oldid=467755856] (asking that I be blocked for longer!), here: (he says of me: "Seems to me like the account will only be used to vandalize Misplaced Pages.") here: , and here: ("Hi, user Twafotfs is now harassing me and threatning me on his talk page.")

Finally, he then accused me of trying to "evade" my block. At first I thought he was talking about my own talk page (where I accidentally logged out and edited just with my IP information instead of being logged in with my username) , but it turns out he was talking about an IP address on the Amanda Lindhout Talk page, http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/74.97.39.230. Unfortunately, BabbaQ was able to get an admin to act without checking first, because I have absolutely 100% nothing to do with this IP, I swear on my life. I happen to be on the other side of the planet as this IP address. And I encourage any admin to look at my details to confirm this. In fact, it just occured to me now, that maybe BabbaQ made that edit to "frame me" to get me banned longer? Sounds crazy, but looking at the pattern of his behavior, I wouldnt' be surprised...

Ironically, as I said on my Talk page, BabbaQ is the one who's actually been blocked for "sockpuppetry".

Anyways, all this aggressive behavior, accusations, personal attacks ("vandal" etc), and I was banned for 48 hrs and yet he didn't receive so much as a slap on the hand.

So I took the liberty of clicking on his "contributions", and found a pattern of truly bizarre behaviour of "edit wars", personal insults, making mistakes and "refusing to apologize", etc. Here is just a taster, I am sure there is much more:

• - Warned about "canvassing".
• - Edit Warring
• - Gets into a bizarre argument with seemingly well-intentioned user "Kevin McE". Accuses him of lying, refused to apologize, making completely non-sequitur comments: "OMG, some users truly cant take that other users has opinions on their behaviour without totally breaking down and attacking them. Its truly sad to read. Its time for you to read trough your latest posts on your talk page, I can see om not the only one having some "controversy" with you. Maybe its time for your to learn some etiquette here on Misplaced Pages. Just saying that you seem to be very dramatic in your edits which is never appreciated and in the end undermining the very thing you want to happen"
• - warned not to make personal attacks, and edit war over other people's Talk page (like he did to mine)
• - warned again not to make personal attacks
• - warned about altering other people's comments.
• If you click this he says "Yes thank you:) I wasnt worried but never nice when accused of something like sockpuppetry.--BabbaQ" -------- irony, much?

I'm sure I could go through and find even weirder behaviour, but life's too short, and the way he dealt with me should be enough for him to be given a stern talking to one would think.... but then, maybe not... oh well, I feel better for having compiled this little report and dossier! Twafotfs (talk) 11:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I will not comment on this any further but to say that you have been told that your behaviour was out of line Twafotfs and these comments above just further proves that you still has not learned.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

What "behaviour" are you referring to? What exactly did I ever do wrong? Other than exceed 3RR before I was even aware of it? Did I accuse you of vandalism or sockpuppetry or making "threats and harassments" - all without any evidence? Twafotfs (talk) 11:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You need to stop confronting people just because you are upset that you were blocked for good reasons. I will not respond to strawman arguments anymore. --BabbaQ (talk) 11:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not "confronting people" for being blocked, I'm confronting you, after you threw everything but the kitchen sink at me. Twafotfs (talk) 11:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTTHEM.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. Twafotfs (talk) 12:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Everyone seems to be at cross purposes here, and it's worth just disengaging over the issue. Twafotfs; as has been explained the sourcing that was provided clearly suggests she worked for France 24 (or whatever it was). This puts us in a troubling situation because what you know about how the press works is not something we can rely on (see WP:RS). Although obviously the intent is not to be misleading, equally we can only rely on what sources say without our own interpretation. In future the way to handle such a situation is to use the talk page to discuss the matter; explain the issue and work with people to resolve it. We usually refer to this as Bold, Revert, Discuss. And in this case no one did the discuss. As it is, I think you could have made a good case for removal - especially if someone took the time to do research and turn up the subsequent source :) BabbaQ; it's probably best to avoid calling stuff vandalism troo quickly - as it inflames situations. I suggest you go for a helping hand approach rather than warnings. Remember that newbies will have no clue about this stuff. A restrained approach is always good. --Errant 11:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I actually did use the talk page, but I was blocked anyway.

Remember that BabbaQ, after already being warned twice this year, editing against Misplaced Pages policy by altering people's comments :(on my own talk page no less!) and then accuse me, of "harassments"! I am not claiming I acted like an angel, but I did not make :false accusations, follow him around and revert his edits, or alter his comments. Twafotfs (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you ErrantX. And on this specific event I agree that we both could have handled it better. Anyway just for the record I feel that the user has showed a lack of sociability by being on attack mode since the beginning. I only react to being attacked I dont attack. Anyway lets hope the situation calms down and that both sides has learned something.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

"Anyway just for the record I feel that the user has showed a lack of sociability by being on attack mode since the beginning. I only react to being attacked I dont attack." Now, that's just saying black is white and white is black. I never "attacked" you. I never accused you of anything or called you a vandal. I never asked for you to be blocked (and then ask that it be extended). I've apologized for exceeding 3RR (even though I wasn't aware of it). Are you willing to apologize for going into "attack mode" without ever actually engaging of one word of discussion with me? Twafotfs (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Unilateral redirects without merging as stated in edit summaries - User:Wtshymanski

User:Wtshymanski has performed several unilateral redirects for the several articles, stating that he or she has merged information into the target redirect articles without actually doing so. This is problematic, because it goes against the grain of WP:PRESERVE. In several instances, the user has proposed a merge and then just performed a redirect, without actually merging the data and references in the process, nor positing rationales for doing so on discussion pages for articles. I'm bringing this to the attention of this board for consideration regarding the matter. Here are some of the articles that were redirected without a merging of the information, references, etc., which I took the time to correct. I don't want to have to continue to correct these types of problems.

• Through-hole technology
• Modular power supply unit
• Electrical lengthening
• Plastic leaded chip carrier
• Low-profile Quad Flat Package

Here's an excerpt from the person's user talk page, which could obviously be parody, but nevertheless seems to be incongruent with working together to build a digital encyclopedia.

Grrr, Grr...go away

I'm an uncivil editor, I am, I am. I might dare to disagree with you. (I might even, rarely, be right).

<!-- Or am I? Am I just an editor on the edge who seems to attract unwarranted attention when I refuse to endorse some foolishness? All things considered, I think I'm acting with grandmotherly kindness and restraint.-->

—I'm not interested in dramatization or confrontation, therefore, I have brought the matter here, and notified the user on their talk page about this query. Signed: Northamerica1000 12:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

What's a "unilateral merge"? Is there a "bilateral merge" by contrast? And the content, where there is any non-redundant content, does get moved. Most of these articles were stubs without any references to begin with, which is part of the reason for merging them. I thought we were supposed to be bold? What, specifically, was left behind when I merged the above specimens? --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In this case, looking first at the top article on your list, it seems that the contributor did merge content; see . There are attribution issues, about which I've spoken to the contributor, and which I hope s/he will soon address in all instances of merging. But I do not see redirects without mergers here. There are mergers, for instance, related to Low-profile Quad Flat Package (); Plastic leaded chip carrier ().

Merging does not need to be discussed in advance, in accordance with Help:Merging: "Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such generally does not need to be proposed and processed. If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merger, as described below." Where mergers are expected to be controversial, discussion is a good idea. I suppose when one tags an article with a proposed merger and nobody disagrees, as was done here, it might be reasonable to assume that the merger is uncontroversial. It's perfectly fine if you disagree to revert a merge, or to bring over more content if you think a "selective paste merger" lost good content, but there does not seem to have been anything done here (aside from attribution issues) improperly.

In terms of this listing, as a general rule of thumb, it's a good idea to talk to the contributor before bringing them to a noticeboard, as they may be quite willing to correct behavior that troubles you without the need to involve others or might perhaps be able to explain why what they're doing is okay. This can be far less dramatic and confrontational than immediately asking for administrator intervention. This is why the top of the page says Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page. --Moonriddengirl 15:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Wtshymanski, phrases like "I don't recall the merges and am not prepared to waste that much time." and other portions of your talk page envision a deliberately combative and hostile environment regarding any editor who is coming to post on your page. Your posting here is also deliberately hostile. Please consider toning down the rhetoric as hostility like this is a very quick way to having privileges on this site suspended. This reminder brought to you by the WikiCitizens for a civil workplaceHasteur (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks from IP editor

User:109.150.60.235 Has been making unwarranted personal attacks, he has called me a troll and a vandal quite a few times. I have warned him about WP:NPA and that calling an editor a vandal was a personal attack. He has also edit warred WP:OR into an article And on the articles talk page agin called me a vandal. Would someone with a little more clout explain to him this is not acceptable behavior please. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:WQA? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, per your edits on TopGun's talk page, you might want to read this about not templating the regulars. Talk to people properly and you're more likely to get somewhere. Basalisk ⁄_berate 16:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, you haven't notified the IP of this discussion. I'll do it now. Basalisk ⁄_berate 16:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

He did notify the IP of this discussion (), but the IP undoes everything he adds to the IP's Talk page (.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I've also had a quick word with him about trigger-happy troll- and vandal-tagging. Basalisk ⁄_berate 16:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know if I have to file a separate report for this, but it is related here. He's editwarred on comments on my talk page with the IP in my absence and has made personal attacks on me repeatedly. Personal attacks by Darkness Shines on the pretext of WP:SPADE: , and its edit summary along with the edit itself. Too much to catch up for even me. Also the edits which were removed by the IP my talk page were personal attacks too. --lTopGunl (ping) 16:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

(ecx2)I did not edit war on your talk page. I did inform the IPDarkness Shines (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, Darkness Shines' use of "muppet" and "dimwit" are uncivil, but minor PAs which don't help. Ma®©usBritish  16:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is he doesn't resent as seen from the follow up of the first attack and indicates (and so he did) he will continue to do so. --lTopGunl (ping) 17:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Just a note, there's some more relevant stuff on this issue, including my input, over at User talk:Magog the Ogre#TopGun. Mar4d (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

IP says Darkness has been blocked before for 48hrs for vandalism , but he has no block log history. So why does IP claim this? Ma®©usBritish  16:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Problem. The IP in question can't respond to the claims here because the page is temp semi-protected. Could an admin unprotect please? Basalisk ⁄_berate 16:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

pp ends in about 5 mins is admin doesn't un-pp it. Ma®©usBritish  16:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with BWilkins. What brought Darkness here were the personal attacks, and for that he'd be better off going to WP:WQA. We are now forking into areas of content disputes and edit wars, which, particularly with these kinds of articles, will undoubtedly mushroom into an unwieldy topic. FWIW, my sense is that the IP is behaving badly, that more experienced editors are trying to coach him (unlikely to work, says the cynic), that some of the coaching is geared toward the experienced editors' own points of view, and that Darkness's positions, at least some of which I support, are also annoying the more experienced editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikistalking by user:JesseRafe

user:JesseRafe has been systematically undoing my edits, falsely claiming them to be vandalism.

--89.100.150.198 (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards