Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Baseball Bugs (talk | contribs) at 02:19, 18 September 2008 (→User:Kmweber on WP:AN). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Threats to exterminate me, overdose of lead etc. on my User pages

Puppeteer GeorgeFormby1 confirmed & indef blocked ϢereSpielChequers 07:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I checked my User page and talk page today and found it had some very nasty edits made, threats, wanting me exterminated and given an overdose of lead and so on.

I have now undone the edits but they remain in the history record so I reckon right now it will be easy enough for someone to undo my undones and restore the abusive edits so it is not a satisfactory situation right now to say the least.

This is my user page and my user talk page - Peter Dow (talk)

The abusive and threatening edits have been made both by unsigned IPs interspersed with signed edits by one user called GeorgeFormby1

This is one such edit by IP of my user page to illustrate -

diff IP 82.17.219.182

Helo, my name is peter dow and im a retard, i am a pathetic 47 year old nobody who has committed high treason against the Crown and should be traked down by mi5 and exteminatid.

The abusive threatening edits to my user talk page are

diff IP 86.132.166.95

PETER DOW IS A MENTALLY ILL, DELOUSIONARY FRUITCAKE WHO NEEDS TO BE LOCKED UP FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.166.95 (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

and

diff by IP 82.17.219.182

....Including, of course, the Queen and the entire Royal Family, When a government with some balls gets to power he'll get an overdose of lead-Duce Fox, Defender of the Realm and Crown 22:18, 12 August 3008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.219.182 (talk)

The pattern of edits on my user page done by IP 82.17.219.182 can be seen here and you can see that that IP has been used for the abusive edits of my Peter Dow user page, and to edit, I presume, the culprit GeorgeFormby1's own user page. So if he thinks he is covering his tracks entirely by making unsigned edits he is mistaken.

The edits made by IP 86.132.166.95 are not yet directly associated with anything else that I can see but it looks like the same guy in my opinion based on the timings of the edits - within a few days of each other.

So I need some administrator help to prevent this very malicious, abusive and threatening edits to my user page and to my user talk page.

I am quite new to Misplaced Pages and as a newcomer, it seems to be with Misplaced Pages user pages, is that, it is impossible for the user to protect his or her user pages from abusive and threatening changes - is that right? There is no way actually to take username ownership of your user page, to stop such horrible edits, is there?

So I don't know what action one can take - except initially to report the problem to the administrators. Do you ban editing from troublesome IPs? Well perhaps we can get to the solution once an administrator takes a look at the problem.

Thanks for looking at this and for helping as much as you can.

Peter Dow (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the edits have been oversighted (removed) from your talkpage history. Under the circumstances, the persons able to remove the edits are also likely to be looking at limiting such edits in future so I think this matter can be closed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me LessHeard vanU but the history of both my user page and user talk page seemed unchanged when I revisited those pages - no oversight removal of history edits which I could see - are we looking at the same Peter Dow (talk) pages? Peter Dow (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would advise you to request semi-protection of both pages at WP:RFPP to avoid such things from happening again. It is completely allowed to request such protection :-) SoWhy 13:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks SoWhy for the tip about semi-protection. I will now investigate that and take any action I can to protect my user pages. :) Peter Dow (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I've put level 3 warnings on both IPs talkpages. If you want to complain to the ISP the July vandalism on your talk page was from a BT IP - their complaint address is abuse@btbroadband.com and you need to send them this link http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Peter_Dow&diff=next&oldid=224544960. The August vandalism to your user page was from an NTL/Virgin IP address and their complaint line is pim@virginmedia.co.uk you'd need to send them this http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User%3APeter_Dow&diff=231534955&oldid=216438185 ref. Hope that helps. ϢereSpielChequers 13:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Gosh. lol Thanks WereSpielChequers Peter Dow (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection will block any IP address from making any changes to your pages. Meanwhile, I'm wondering what an "overdose" of lead would be? That is, what would be a "normal" dose of lead? Anyway, if a registered user similarly vandalizes your pages, you could also get swift action by taking it to WP:AIV. Baseball Bugs 14:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"Overdose of lead" likely refers to shooting him or her with a gun (with lead bullets). It's a common expression. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Aha, as in "I'll fill ya full o' lead." Not good. And then there's the "exterminate" part, which means the authors probably watch too much Dr. Who. Baseball Bugs 16:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Of the two the one I find more worrying is Special:Contributions/82.17.219.182. From the other contribs it could well be connected to user:GeorgeFormby1, who in any event has a user page that I would suggest an admin look at. I'm not necessarily saying that fans of Mussolini should be banned from Misplaced Pages, but threats of violence? ϢereSpielChequers 17:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look to me like user:GeorgeFormby1 has anything to do with this. He simply removed an offensive sentence, which he may have spotted on RC patrol. Looie496 (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You think? --jpgordon 17:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was these three diffs that made me suspect that user:GeorgeFormby1 might be connected to the vandalising IP. ϢereSpielChequers 18:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/user:GeorgeFormby1 submitted. I hope I only made one mistake in it. ϢereSpielChequers 14:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I think that this should be left open until the checkuser case is resolved. —Sunday 23:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/GeorgeFormby1 has been investigated and closed, user:GeorgeFormby1 was using one of those IPs and is indefinitely blocked and his IP address blocked for a month. Hopefully that will end the matter, but I'd suggest an admin put appropriate notices on the blocked account then this thread can be closed. ϢereSpielChequers 06:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Fancy signatures seemed to have prevented the bot from archiving this. A good reason not to use such signatures... Fram (talk) 08:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Hrafn

Request that user be asked to stop tagging articles and that an admin try and enforce this. He/she says that this is an ownership issues that I may be blocked for (), but I believe his tags are quite impartial and done not so much as to aid wikipedia as to pester me, because of our ongoing dispute resolution () and other encounters such as Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/McDonald's Menu Song. --Firefly322 (talk) 08:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• tags
• reason for tags
• third party editor reinstating tag
• personal attack calling me a "troll"

Hrafn_Stalk 08:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Firefly, as your second link shows you've started mediation as a dispute resolution, and despite requests have failed to provide diffs clarifying what your dispute is. The fact that others have problems with your woolly writing is something to resolve by improving your writing, not by flying off into disputes whenever that's pointed out. Disclaimer: I'm named in Firefly's mediation case, but lacking diffs I'm not sure why. . . dave souza, talk 09:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree, basically, with Dave s. I don't see the "issue" here. Yeah, Hrafn and Firefly disagree on some stuff. That ain't newsworthy. Nobody is trolling anybody here, based on the links provided. This is a non-issue thread, and should be closed. If Firefly has a specific issue with an editor, F-fly should bring it to that editor's attention prior to bringing it to the drama-board. Keeper ǀ 76 01:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree, essentially. The majority of this dispute seems to arise from a misunderstanding of Verifiability policy, particularly WP:BURDEN. I don't think that uncited material should be restored pending verification, and I certainly don't think an editor should be reprimanded for removing uncited material. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 22:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Catherineyronwode

The following is taken from the current version of my own AN/I proposal against hrafn, located on my own user pages.

(removed to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Hrafn by Orderinchaos 07:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC))

catherine yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

tl;dr. Take it to dispute resolution. Corvus cornix_talk 22:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

o.O I think you've mistaken ANI for requests for comment, at the least, or arbitration. Kudos for the substantial amount of evidence gathering here, but ANI's not the place for such lengthy presentations. I suggest an RFC if there's a specific issue with hrafn that needs discussion. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please remove this? Verbal chat 22:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree; it's a nightmare of comprehension and deserves dedicated attention. No way is it an "incident". Suggest at best a subpage, otherwise moving to a Request for Comment. This page is for issues that can be dealt with expeditiously. --Rodhullandemu 23:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>Okay, must i make a Request for Comments first or can this go directly to Arbitration? Please post a yes or no reply. If i must make a Request for Comments first, please tell me how to do it. If i can take this directly to Arbitration, please tell me the relevant URL. Misplaced Pages is not my social outlet; i use it as a volunteeer area to write and edit. I am not interested in bureaucracy (e.g. how this MUD is run), and although i have edited here regularly since 2006 (and since 205 as an IP), i do not know how to make headway in this twisty turny maze of similar-sounding-but-entirely-different "We Can't Help You With That Problem" pages. I request the URL of the page where there will be people whose job it is to read this complaint and see that this problem be dealt with. Thanks. cat yronwode

I believe that that is common practice except in extraordinary cases, yes. Of course, nobody has the job of dealing with user complaints, but a number of friendly volunteers may be motivated to treat with you and discuss intereditor issues at a request for comment. Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment#Request comment on users has the instructions for posting an RfC/U. The request itself should be posted to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct. Please keep in mind that all normal user conduct policies and norms apply to requests for comment, including no personal attacks and no harassment. - Eldereft (cont.) 05:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I've copied it across to RFC - it can't go straight to ArbCom until efforts have been made to resolve the matter through some form of dispute resolution. If the RFC is sufficiently decisive and no change of behaviour is noticeable, then it could go to ArbCom if need be. Catherine's welcome to edit it to get it into the right form before it is listed and goes live (also needs a second observer of the situation to certify it in order for it to be a valid RfC). I have no opinion either way on the matter, but AN/I is definitely the wrong place for it - AN/I is a high traffic area where stuff moves through in the blink of an eye, this would have simply ended up in some forgotten archive within 2 days. Orderinchaos 07:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn (talk · contribs) has now retired, according to his user page, but if someone skilled with POV battles is looking for something to consider, I'd suggest going through this case - it looks like there's a problem here, but it's awfully detailed. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Not too sure this is resolved, despite Hrafn's retirement...Isn't there a saying about dancing on graves? --Smashville 18:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a sad case where three or four, dare I say "cabal"...no better not, unrelated editors...oh wait a minute, they're not. Let me start again, there are three or four editors who think that original research is sufficient for placing their POV on articles. Typical of Misplaced Pages's broken system, instead of understanding that their edits are POV, they game the system through MEDCOM, ARBCOM, RfC, whatever else they can use, which frustrates editors. Hrafn is a great editor. He dealt with arcane subjects on this encyclopedia that we have to clean up. There was a personality clash. There was mild uncivil comments from both sides. Then the three or four editors dancing on Hrafn's grave on this ANI started wikistalking and moved into civil pushing. This is ridiculous. OrangeMarlin 18:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It's also worth noting this exchange and the CVU barnstar above it...it's a sad state of affairs when users drive off other users and then pat each other on the back for doing it. And I think WP:AGF can be ignored once a user tells another user, "I shall remember your persona-names if and when our paths cross again.". Essentially, "Look out, you've made my list." --Smashville 19:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Firstly, please note that I came into this dispute because Hrafn asked for assistance, with particular reference to a page he'd been working on when Catherine and Madman had intervened, with an open statement from her indicating that she was wikistalking Hrafn. A "real legal threat" she had not yet withdrawn had to be cleared before discussions could start. By that time she had posted links to her page which forms the basis of her report here, and which appears to be a very badly researched attack page with ludicrously inaccurate assertions that have been drawn to her attention, but which she still has not fully corrected in her posting here. Other claims are equally invalid, though I've not checked every one of them. The underlying dispute is between "anti-deletionists" who think "You are not supposed to go around deleting things just because they are not sourced. You are only supposed to delete unsourced or poorly sourced claims that you suspect of being false." and editors like Hrafn who take WP:V as having priority. In discussions the "anti-deletionists" have pointed to WP:EP (WP:IMPERFECT as a policy which appears to sanction preserving information regardless of whether or not it has a reliable source – in my opinion that policy is outdated and needs early improvement to bring it into line with core content policies and current practice. If priority is given to preserving unreferenced information, articles would never be deleted, and the instructions in WP:V about removing such information would have to be changed. That's not my understanding of the priorities of Misplaced Pages, but Catherine makes it clear that she feels that we must keep articles about non-notable organisations or individuals with only self-published sources as references, on the basis that she finds them interesting, and keep in information even if a simple check shows that it's inaccurate or unsourced. There's quite a culture clash there. . . dave souza, talk 20:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC) tweaked dave souza, talk 20:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It amazes me that this is an issue about Hrafn -- the real issue is Cat and her belief that any crap, even if not meeting RS and V, is OK because she wants it to be. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me add my name as one of the editors who are unhappy with Catherine's approach to Misplaced Pages. And what did here comment to OrangeMarlin on her talk page mean -- "I shall remember your persona-names if and when our paths cross again." An accusation of sock-puppetry or? Doug Weller (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

In a workplace, Hrafn's behavior as shown in Catherine's report with diffs would surely be a lawsuit waiting to happen. He could easily get fired for targeting a specific religious group like he did. Hrafn retired because his or her bad behavior came to light. If a couple of editors could simply say something not in WP:AGF or unWP:CIVIL or merely cleverly hidden slander to get rid of someone, then Catherine and I would already have retired ourselves considering this apparent backlash against us. --Firefly322 (talk) 23:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a workplace, and doesn't fall under laws (which are, after all, specific to localities) applicable to workplaces. Misplaced Pages is a private organization working off of private rules and regulations. Now looking over Hrafn's actions, it certainly appears that he has a partisan axe to grind - citation tagging every phrase up to and including "He lectured extensively in the 1920s and 1930s is just plain obnoxious - but losing your cool in return is unhelpful.  RGTraynor  05:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

In a workplace, deluded assertions about Hrafn's work and character could result in a libel action. For example "Here is where hrafn made the deletion and also tried to assert that Affirmations are "supplicatory" prayer, demonstrating a basic ignorance of and unfamiliarity with the subject matter:". The example is illuminating, because Catherine does not seem to have realised that Hrafn made just one edit, removing the square brackets on each side of the word Affirmation with the accurate edit summary (rm self-link). This was undoing part of the previous edit by Vernon89 which linked the title in error. Cat's statement below that revision "" is simply irrelevant – it was a new self-link and nothing more. Her statements " " and "it became a "self-link" because hrafn had redirected the Affirmative prayer page out of existance]" are untrue – the "negative word" supplicatory was added by Vernon39, and there was no link to Affirmative prayer, contrary to Cat's erroneous assertion. Assuming good faith, it appears that Cat is simply incompetent and does not realise that she is libelling Hrafn. It certainly demonstrates basic ignorance of and unfamiliarity with analysing edit histories. The other examples I've looked at are just as incompetent, in different ways. Regarding RGTraynor's very sensible point, dealing with repeated refusals to provide adequate references is trying, and without checking, the circumstances of asking for a specific detail to be referenced may have been reasonable in context. . . dave souza, talk 13:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC) grammar and formatting correction dave souza, talk 15:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) It seems clear that either Catherine is incompetent, as Dave charitably suggests, or she has embraced "Misplaced Pages is a battleground" (currently the theme on her talk page) as her method of interaction here. I suggest either mindset would be improved by a mentor. KillerChihuahua 10:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A statement from retirement

Given that I have not been allowed to retire in peace, but rather have:

1. seen no let up to the amount of false information and false charges leveled against me;
2. that without informing me, User:Catherineyronwode tacked her trumped up 'ANI Proposal' onto User:Firefly322's unrelated DOA AN/I complaint shortly before my retirement; and
3. this complaint now seems to have turned into some sort of weird undead RFC/U (which has neither been properly certified with "Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute" and listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct, nor deleted),

I have decided to make this "statement from retirement" answering these false charges and setting the record straight.

I wish to make the following points:

1. On the "War against New Thought and Christian biographies and books" Catherineyronwode
   1. Repeated information knowing it to be false
   2. Simply made up a bad-faith explanation for actions that were demonstrably made in good faith
   3. Fails to demonstrate a breach of wikipedia policy
2. On the matter of "Incivility", both Catherineyronwode, and those who assisted her in compiling this list were themselves guilty of gross incivility against myself, compared to which my own borderline incivility pales by comparison.
3. Her evidence is defective, in that it frequently lacks supporting difs, and/or relies of hearsay evidence.

I will not bore you with the details here -- these details can be found at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Hrafn#Response: a statement from retirement & User:Hrafn#A statement from retirement. Hrafn_Stalk 05:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Delighted and surprised to see your statement, Hrafn, hope you're well. The dispute clearly remains unresolved, but at 08:29, 15 September 2008, Future Perfect at Sunrise rightly deleted "Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Hrafn" as‎ (not properly certified, no evidence of dispute resolution.), not long after I'd endorsed your statement. My muddle in that I should first have provided evidence of trying to resolve the dispute, and another user have done the same.

Confusingly, the page was headed "Not yet active - have created this to move an AN/I matter to its correct location. Catherine or any other user may remove this forenote once she is satisfied with its contents." but it's correct that the 48 hour window had long passed. The page was created at 09:23, 12 September 2008 , and Users certifying the basis for this dispute was signed by Catherineyronwode (talk · contribs) at 22:03, 11 September, WAS 4.250 (talk · contribs) at 09:13, 13 September, and by Firefly322 (talk · contribs) at 10:02, 14 September. Hrafn added and endorsed his summary at 05:25, 15 September, and I added my endorsement at 08:14, 15 September, while still eating my breakfast.

Still trying to wake up, but it's time for us to put this bad dream behind us. There are important principles of WP:V underlying this dispute, and it is essential that Catherineyronwode accepts that her statements and understanding of policy are incorrect, and completely withdraws the baseless accusations against Hrafn prepared at her ANI proposal, posted here and then moved to RfC/Hrafn. I've asked her at User talk:Catherineyronwode#Retraction requested to make a statement to that effect on this page. . . dave souza, talk 09:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"Renounce your faith or meet the consequences" - I thought this was an encyclopedic colaboration, I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. (Cue: Noone expects the Spanish Inquisition!). I put it that both Hrafn and Catherine have nonstandard positions on the issue of verifiability. While Catherine clearly doesn't understand that tagging is a necessary part of the process of improvement of the encyclopedias value, Hrafn acts like an extreme deletionist hounding down unsourced sentences (also clearly and easily verifiable ones), tagging them and subsequently removing them if noone adds citations within a short time. If Hrafn had the time and energy to apply this policy consistently in the entirity of wikipedia in stead of only in his pet peeve topics about non-scientific belief systems only FA's would be left and wikipedia would be a collection of a few disconnected but very well sourced articles. Neither approach is useful if we want to build a wikipedia with both a sensible scope of coverage and a sensible degree of verifiability. And please don't use Jimmy Wales' quote about "some wikipedians have a bias ..." at least not such a time as when Mr. Wales explicitly states that this is supposed to be interpreted as "no sentence no matter how uncontroversial, pedestrian and common knowledge information it provides shall be allowed to remain on the project without a citation", which will incidentally also be the time when I leave this project - that would simply be too much of a waste of the content-adding editors' time.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Your assertion that "Hrafn acts like an extreme deletionist hounding down unsourced sentences" is contrary to my experience, and I've not seen him deleting any "pedestrian and common knowledge information" – diffs please. . . dave souza, talk 12:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" If a statement is tagged for citation and nobody provides one in a reasonable time (remembering that articles drop off the bottom of your watchlist if unedited for a month, tops), it means one of two things: (i) this statement wasn't so "clearly and easily verifiable", or (ii) that nobody's maintaining the article by actively watchlisting it. In the latter case, the question becomes is the unsourced material obvious truth or obvious-sounding but false truthiness that has somehow found its way onto the article? And how can you tell (as a reader or as an editor attempting maintenance) tell unless somebody provides a source? As for the "only FA's would be left" claim, this is ridiculous -- there are large numbers of articles on wikipedia that are fully verifiable, but do not yet meet FA standards. Hrafn_Stalk 12:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is that you confuse "verifiable" with "verified" - verifiable is when anybody can verify a statement by using a minimal effort to hunt down a reliable source. Several times I have been able to reinclude material deleted by you with a new source after few minutes of googling - this about topics that I have no level of expertise in. In this edit you remove the information stating that "wallace wattles is best known for his book he science of getting rich" which hadn't even been tagged (the tag was about whether he was wealthy in his later years). You also remove an assertion that "Much that is known about Wattles' life comes from the text of a letter his daughter Florence wrote after his death to the New Thought author Elizabeth Towne." which I was able to verify within minutes on google, and which you also yourself later admitted. You also removed two sourced statements about his involvement in politics and his influence as a inspiration for rhonda byrne. And you also remove several paragraphs that are explicitly sourced to Florence Wattles' letter (grantedly without having this sourcing in the form of a footnote). In this edit you delete and redirect a stub article about the book "the science of getting rich" - later when Catherine put up a new and much better sourced version that makes several claims to notability reverts to the redirect with no explanation - you later proceeded to tag for merge and notability in spite of there clearly being reliable third party sources about the book. Namely the sources already presented by Catherine and the sources that I could track down within a few minutes on google. While Catherine misunderstands the usefulness of tagging this aggressive deletionist behaviour by Hrafn was clearly against the wikipedia spirit as I knew it and it caused me to step in and defend these articles that I had previously had no interest in. Secondly it should be noted that the sourcing of these articles could have been carried out in good spirit if Hrafn had posted his queries for sources using words on the talkpage instead of tagging and agressively deleting the content other editors had added OR if he had taken the few minutes and checked on google whether there were in fact reliable sources for the statements. In retrospect taking that little time would have avoided this entire dispute and saved Hrafn himself and numerous other editors hours of grief, and would have been well worth the trouble. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Here we part company: I do not think that an implicit claim that 'somewhere out there some source exists that contains this information' makes it "verifiable". This would likewise seem to to go against WP:V, which explicitly clarifies verifiability as: "...that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." This would appear to indicate that 'no citation of a reliable source' = 'no ability to check' = 'no verifiability'. Your definition of 'verifiability' implicitly places the burden of evidence on the removing/challenging editor (the opposite of what WP:V explicitly states) to prove that the information is false, as it is impossible to prove that such a source doesn't exist. As to your example, the article Wallace Wattles originally explicitly attributed to his daughter's letter information that was not contained in that letter. Further, the claim "Much that is known about Wattles' life comes from the text of a letter his daughter Florence wrote..." remains pure original research, on the basis of not being able to find much information outside the letter. Whether it is true or not, it is not verifiable to a RS, so is not fit for inclusion on wikipedia. Hrafn_Stalk 13:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

When you removed this information you hadn't even read the letter (which can be found in twenty copies in a single google search) so that is a very bad excuse. And the fact stands that you removed both sourced, easily verifiable and completely uncontroversial information in one fell swoop without having ever posted on the talk page mentioning that there was a pressing lack of sources or that some particular claims were dubious. This is agressive behaviour and I completely understand that the editors who had this article on their watchlist felt it to be unwarranted.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

When I removed the information, I was not even aware that the letter had been published, nor had any real expectation that it had. Now who was the person that added an explicit citation to the letter to the article (rendering it verifiable), and actually checked the article against its contents -- proving that some of this "completely uncontroversial information" was false? Was it yourself or the "editors who had this article on their watchlist" (but failed to notice the tags there for 2-3 months, until after the information was removed)? No. It was me. Hrafn_Stalk 15:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

After looking carefully through all of the evidence and responses, I endorse Hrafn's statement above. Orderinchaos 09:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I dispute the claim made against me just above. WP:V uses the word "unverifiable" "verifiability" for the very good reason that we do not want vandals to systematically delete any and all non-sourced but able to be sourced claims. It is a shame when people can not distinguish evidence of a difference of opinion from evidence of someone else being wrong. That you disagree with me only proves that I disagree with you and is not evidence for your claim against me. Thus the above is an unsourced attack against me. It appears to be part of the human condition for people to do what they protest others doing. WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

WAS, my search doesn't find the word "unverifiable" in WP:V, but do note that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Since Hrafn indicated he did not wish discussion here, I suggest that this discussion be moved to WP:ANI#A statement from retirement. Your assent to this would be welcome. . dave souza, talk 11:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a notice, I have deleted Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Hrafn, as it was not properly certified. I haven't looked too closely at the underlying dispute, but it also appeared to me that the RfC was quite poorly presented, extremely wordy and probably to a large extent vacuous. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Fut.Perf., as I indicated above you're absolutely correct in your actions. Much appreciated. . dave souza, talk 11:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As the person who moved it from AN/I to RfC, I endorse this action - it appears to have been a laundry list of grievances and the evidence falls apart when examined. Orderinchaos 12:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Even though I have previously taken a stance against Hrafn I agree that there is probably not enough basis for an rfc or ani in the material collected by catherine - in my view this dispute has been caused by two editors who have been equally stubborn in their viewpoints and equally reluctant to use basic social skills in their communication with the other, but who have in turn continued to escalate what was not even a content dispute into what at least one of them envisions as a "wiki-war" of epic dimensions. I propose that the only sensible outcome of this spectacle would be that everyone involved take this as a chance to remember that a proper and colegial tone of communication, the assumption of good faith and staying calm under pressure may help resolve editing disputes even before they occur. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if it is the case that Hrafn is a bit quick to the gun, so to speak, w.r.t. enforcing WP:V, which appears arguable, I see little or no cause for a generalized RFC on Hrafn. I've worked in the same territory as Hrafn on intelligent design and several related articles, and encountered him on a few unrelated articles, e.g. in category:philosophy, and in that context I've found him to be a fairly "strict interpretationist", so to speak, of WP:V-- a fairly vigorous advocate of that policy. Clearly to me, he tends to be fairly intolerant of article content that he considers questionable and which is unsourced or questionably sourced. Several of his statements presented by Catherineyronwode, picked out of many thousands of Hrafn's edits, could I think quite reasonably be characterized as being somewhat impatient, and in several cases angry, with the person to whom they're directed. But overall I've most definitely found his edits to be very productive and helpful on topics where we've met. Catherineyronwode appears to me, judging by the tone of comments on her talk page and elsewhere, unnecessarily turned it into a battleground. I should hope there's a more rational and less personalized way to analyze, and if possible to work through, such disagreements about Hrafn's editing approach. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

·Maunus·ƛ·, thank you for drawing back from the stance you have previously taken against Hrafn. As I've said before, assuming good faith is essential and it is regrettable that Catherineyronwode not only failed to assume good faith, but escalated the argument into the above ANI complaint on the basis of a wildly inaccurate proposal which looks very much like an attack page and was posted here before being transferred to a now deleted RfC. She has been requested to please accept that her statements and understanding of policy are incorrect, and completely withdraw her baseless accusations against Hrafn. Your attempts to pass the onus for finding citations onto the editor deleting unsourced content run completely against WP:V, and you, Cat and Madman should be working in a collegiate way to propose and discuss suitable sources instead of going into attack mode. I remain hopeful that all concerned can study WP:NAM and work to find unsourced material and either show a source or delete such unsuitable material. . dave souza, talk 16:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I am in no way drawing back from the stance that I have had throughout this episode. I maintain that Hrafn has had a key part in creating an intolerable edit environment in the new Thought articles he has been campaigning on. I also maintain as I have throughout that the other large part of the blame falls on Catherines failure to prevent the argument from escalating. Whether Madman has an important part of the blame I will refrain from judging since I consider myself his friend and am quite possible biased in his favour - however I certainly don't believe that Hrafns counteraccusations of "gross incivility" are justified. As for my own involvement I have, contrary to what you seem to suggest, worked only on finding sources for Hrafns removed material and I have chastised both sides for their lack of civlity. I do not believe myself to have been at any point onesided in this matter although it was the excessive agressiveness in Hrafns removement of information and his responses to fellow editors that made me step into the conflict. If contrary to my belief I have been a part of the escalation of the conflict rather than its resolvement I do apologise for that, but my own involvement has not previously been the object of such accusations. As for my "attempt to pass the onus to the removing editor" this is a question of twisting words. My understanding of WP:V is that material that is likely to be challenged should be supported by reliable sources - not statements that are uncontroversial or reasonably could be expected to be uncontroversial. Nowhere does the polcit say that every statement in an article must be sourced. Nor does the policy state anything about how removal of content added in good faith should be aggresively purged from the encyclopedia instead of being amiably sourced and improved. I have my self added several megabytes of unsourced (yet completely factual and verifiable) content to wikipedia over the years - and if Hrafns understanding of WP:V is in fact the gold standard on the issue then I invite him to go through my edits and tag them for citations and delete it when I fail to provide sources within his time frame. HOwever I don't think wikipedia will be none the richer for it.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I happen to have some extra time at the moment, and took the liberty of picking a representative article in which Hrafn has been involved. Hrafn appears to me to have made between about 50 edits to the article on New thought starting 24 February 2008 up until 30 August 2008. The total number of edits to the article in that period of time was approximately 275. Here is the state of the article on 24 February 2008, immediately prior to Hrafn's first edit. Here is the state of the article as of Hrafn's last edit on 30 August 2008. And here is the state of the article on 15 September 2008. Understanding that numerous editors have been involved in this article in the interim, here is the diff between prior to when Hrafn got involved and 15 September 2008. Here are forty-some examples of Hrafn's edits to the article between 24 February 2008 and 30 August 2008. I missed a few of them when collecting them, but these are representative of the sort of edits Hrafn has made. Many of them involve standard MOS and other such issues relating to article presentation, and many of them are WP:V issues.

123456789101112131415161718192021

222324252627282930313233343536373839404142

It appears Hrafn takes a bit of a tough approach w.r.t. WP:V and WP:RS, but I don't see any edits here that deviate from explicit WP policy. WP:V clearly states "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." The section on WP:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence elaborates: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books." When someone challenges or demands a citation for content I've added, I generally take it to mean that within a reasonable time after the citation is demanded, I or another user should provide some kind of sourcing for the statement or set of statements, unless it's common everyday knowledge. I could not find anything deleted by Hrafn that I thought could reasonably be considered to be common everyday knowledge. Please correct me if I'm in error about this.

... Kenosis (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me of that article, Kenosis. I would be curious as to how unsourced material that was being edit-warred over (as was happening not-uncommonly in that article) can be "common everyday knowledge". Hrafn_Stalk 18:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's obviously not common everyday knowledge, but appears instead to be knowledge held by a community of adherents and by others who know this fairly broad tradition and its history, which needs sourcing if there's any question about the accuracy of statements made in the article. In any event, this particular article has now drawn the attention of a few more users including myself. I trust that with some patient work it will come together fairly well in due course. I would also trust you and Catherineyronwode and others involved in this, shall we say, intense debate?, or scuffle?, can somehow see your way clear to letting bygones be bygones and try to move forward to build better cited and more informative content in the topics on which you hold differing POVs from one another. Take care, OK?. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I acknowledge that Hrafn has never acted in contradiction of WP:V. I maintain however that his actions have been detrimental to building a functional encyclopedia with other editors. If my articles were being held to the same standard Hrafn proposes in his "somewhat tough approach" I would have left the project long ago. The way in which he enforces policy is unreasonable in its tenacity and agresiveness in tagging and deleting and paired with his apparently poor social skills and confrontational communication strategies would have made editing intolerable. As an aside an example of what could be considered common everyday knowledge is that "Wallace Wattles is best known for his book the Science of Getting rich", at leasy it is so uncontroversial that anyone with the will to do so could have verified it in a matter of seconds, none the less it was deleted by Hrafn along with several passages of text some of which were untagged in the first diff I provided above - which was also the edit that prompted me to step in. I have said about all that I need to say - and I understand that many of you disagree with my assession that the spirit in which WP:V is enforced is just as important as its letter. I once again urge you to look through my edit history and tag all my unsourced statements and see if it makes you feel that it makes wikipedia a better place. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree he could be more patient in awaiting sourcing. Please make no mistake about it though, I've worked on a fair number of relatively obscure topics, and quite often we see folks' personal knowledge, or what they think is knowledge, being put up on the pages. Quite frequently such contributions turn out to have been inconsistent with what the reliable sources say about the relevant facts and issues. I've done it myself more than once, added some statement that's important to the topic, where, upon checking the sources, it turned out to be a poor or even false representation of what the RSs say about the particular issue(s). And that doesn't even address the additional issues relating to arriving at some kind of consensus about which sources are reliable and how to present a NPOV for the reader in cases where the sources differ in their assertions about a given topic. So I understand what you're saying, and I believe I've already told Hrafn I think he's a bit quick to the gun at times in yanking unsourced content ... IMHO. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Let me say this: when I read every single piece of documentation listed in the Wikiquette entry, I was not at all convinced that Hrafn was a) "uncivil" enough to deserve any specific "punishment", b) nothing but a rather hard-nosed, yet committed editor, and c) a victim of a rather unceremonious drumming out of Misplaced Pages. Nothing I see above has changed that. I mean, let's be serious: there's still an editor's Talk page calling me a racist, and you guys are focussing on a widespread editor that maybe needs a tiny reminder about patience? Let's put our efforts where they belong. BMW(drive) 23:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I only have time for topical issues, and no time at all for personal insults.

I see too little discussion here of the most important portions of my objections to hrafn's editing:

• Hrafn has been grossly uncivil to many editors; this is not an issue of a dispute between the two of us alone. Of the dozen or so episodes cited, only a couple involved me.

• Hrafn has selectively targeted his pet peeve topics, Christianity and New Thought, for deletion; he does not apply the same standards of verifiability to any other portion of Wikpipedia. As a side-note, i agree with Maunus: if hrafn's hyper-verifiability standards are to be applied to all of Misplaced Pages, let us see this made official Misplaced Pages policy now. We writers need a proper understanding of current and future verifiability standards, a timeline for the retrofitting of ALL of Misplaced Pages to these new standards, and we need to see the standrads and timeline given uniform application throughout Misplaced Pages -- not just in a small religious corner of the encyclopedia where hrafn has worked. I am calling for a clarification of verification standards and a statement regarding a strict, uniform timeline of implementation.

• Hrafn has devised a singular method of deletion-by-stubbing-and-redirect -- which, as noted above, he has only applies to pages that fall into his pet peeve categories, Christianity and New Thought. If this method of "editing" (deletion) is going to be endorsed by admins (several have already endorsed it) and is going to spread throughout Misplaced Pages, we writers need a clear adminstrative and bureaucratic statement that deletion-by-stubbing-and-redirect is an acceptable policy and that it will be applied uniformly across ALL Misplaced Pages categories on a specific timeline.

I believe that deleting text in targeted religion categories under false pretences is the mark of a fanatic more bent on deletion than on improving Misplaced Pages. In the case of hrafn's cuts to the Charles Haanel article, he claimed that a citation is anonymous although the author's name appears on the cited web page and he claimed that a citation is itself unsourced although a long list of printed-book sources is given by the author on the cited web page. These are indisputable examples of unreliable editoral deletions that were made in the name of "verifiability" but which were themselves in error. By granting a biased editor leave to use unsupported and false claims as a justification for topic-driven mass, rush, and undiscussed deletions, and to support his destruction of data by claims that he is merely "enforcing verifiability" is disingenuous. He was wrong. His justifications for the cuts were in error. He should have talked to the other editors.

Several opinions of me stated above were rude and offensive, obviously intentionally so. I will not reply to the rudest ones, as they are little more than generic insults. I will respond to one charge among them, since it is the only one that deals with the issues and is not an ad hominem attack:

I am indeed supportive of full inline verifiability. I believe that lack of verifiability has been Misplaced Pages's greatest weakness since day one, and continues to be its greatest weakness at the present time. I do not, however, believe that the oft-cited statement about ripping out unsourced material is meant to be used to target topics by category. Bringing ALL of Misplaced Pages up to well-sourced standards is a barn-raising goal. It should be done incrementally, and across all topics. I support it.

Are those who support hrafn's targeted deletions in his chosen religious categories open to discussing the future course of official Misplaced Pages policy with respect to discriminatory and topic-driven application of the new inline verifiability standards? Come on, you bold and hard-nosed administrators: Let's see a timeline. When will the popular unsourced celebrity pages start to crumble under verification-deletion hyper-tagging assaults? When will all of the unsourced animal species and plant species pages be hyper-tagged for deletion? If this is the new road we are following, why is it not being applied everywhere all at once -- why only in these small religion and self-help categories?

The creation and implementation of a clearly stated timeline for verifiability compliance across ALL of Misplaced Pages is a far more important topic for discussion than "was hrafn biased or topic-driven?" or "was hrafn uncivil?" If hrafn's retirement is more than a sham, let us move on by creating an apropriate place within Misplaced Pages to discuss the issues that his campaign of mass, speedy, unconsensed, and topic-driven deletions have brought up. Name a page within Misplaced Pages, and i will be there to discuss it with anyone, even the rudest among you. But until then, i have work to do, and this is not my work.

catherine yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 05:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think it is only being done in certain subjects (and why shouldn't an editor concentrate on subjects they are interested in?) I certainly do it in other subjects. Othercrapexists is a terrible argument. Why do you ask why it's not being applied everywhere all at once when you think it should be done incrementally? And if it needs to be done incrementally, shouldn't you start with areas you are interested in? So long as you are writing edits like "64.142.90.33 (Talk) (1,822 bytes) (it's easy to add sources. Why not do it, hrafn, instead of playing the lousy, stinking game of hostile cite-tagging? Huh? Cmon, it's fun to imrove Misplaced Pages.)", which I believe is you not logged in, right? please don't talk about other rude editors if you want to have any credibility. Doug Weller (talk) 07:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS appears apposite. . dave souza, talk 08:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"When will the popular unsourced celebrity pages start to crumble under verification-deletion hyper-tagging assaults?" With an infrequent eye to the AfD queue, I'd say celebrity/pop culture actually fits the bill of almost half of the stuff which goes there and gets deleted. Orderinchaos 08:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Catherineyronwode, you are being grossly uncivil to Hrafn, repeatedly failing to assume good faith and instead laying out your fantasy about his motivation and alleged methods, once again failing to provide any diffs to support your argument. Any editor can choose which articles they want to work on, and people inevitably work on related articles. That's normal. Regarding the Charles Haanel article, you're still trying to give credibility to the cited web page even though it's been pointed out to you that it's a commercial advertising page, and hence not a reliable source. "Stubbing and redirect" is not deletion – it leaves the article history available for the original author to find good sources and reinstate the article, as the original editor understood in one of the cases you raised. As you will note, another editor has done just that. That's part of the normal Misplaced Pages process which you don't seem to understand. I am glad that you support verification, but your proposals to introduce new timelines for compliance go directly against WP:V policy and attacking Hrafn is not the way to make such proposals. You concluded "until then, i have work to do, and this is not my work", so why not withdraw your accusations unreservedly and put this argument to rest? . dave souza, talk 08:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking this probably needs to be moved to an RfC as Cat and Firefly seem to have no desire to drop the matter. --Smashville 14:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

A properly presented RfC would have to be prepared, and if it's about user conduct, "Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours." I've made considerable efforts to resolve the dispute and wish to see it ended with no slur on Hrafn's character and acceptance that his actions were correct, but so far have failed to achieve such resolution. Hrafn has retired and does not have email enabled, though he has made some statements from retirement. . dave souza, talk 15:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I attempted to discuss with Firefly, but he merely called me immature and refused to discuss the matter, responding to my request to provide diffs by telling me to provide diffs. Apparently because I was the only one engaging him on his talk page, he found it immature...If anyone else wants to try to give it a go and maybe this won't have to reach an RfC point...--Smashville 16:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Hrafn has enabled his email, so I've sent a request for him to discuss this situation with me. Both Firefly322 and Catherineyronwode have clearly been disruptive in their refusal to accept and work within policy regarding removal of inadequately sourced material, and in Catherine's case by failing to assume good faith, instead Wikistalking Hrafn to press her tendentious ideas about preserving material contrary to WP:V, and making personal attacks on his motives and integrity. Her response above at least shows acceptance of the need for verification, but her ideas of new requirements for a timeline for verifiability look a complete non-starter to me. She is of course welcome to raise her ideas on the policy talk page or at the village pump. Firefly seems to me to be a minor nuisance, and less of an issue. It could help to resolve this dispute if other admins could contact Catherine to advise her that her allegations have no credence, and that she must comply with policies when editing here. Of course if anyone wants to discuss interpretation of policies with me I'll be glad to assist, and none of the above reduces the need for everyone to behave in a civil and collegiate way. If these principles are made clear I'm sure that this dispute would be resolved. . dave souza, talk 21:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we just drop this matter?

Let's all agree to disagree and go about building a better encyclopedia. There's really nothing to be gained by re-hashing the matter. When Hrafn returns and if he resumes his former editing style and targets, then we all can re-open this, but to my mind the matter is moot. Move along folks, there's nothing to see here.  : ) Thanks in advance, Madman (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

See, that's why it can't be dropped. You try to say "let's move along", but then you throw in a little uncivil comment about his editing style. So far, about 3 people agree with you. Nearly everyone else, thinks this is just an attack. So, it continues. But thanks for the diff for future purposes. OrangeMarlin 21:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with OrangeMarlin (I rarely do). After reading the diffs and threads presented, I feel that Hrafn has been blasted with attacks from many fronts in order to "get rid of him". Shameful really. After a close look at the the contributions of Hrafn, I would be very hard pressed to offer or endorse any "sanctions" against him/her, and moreso, I would be supportive of sanctions against those that feel that chasing another collaborative editor away is a "good thing to do". Hrafn has done nothing, in my evaluation, other than promote an NPOV, encyclopedic, wikipedia. He is being attacked by POV pushers, and it would be an utter shame if they "win" and he retires. Keeper ǀ 76 23:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No one engaged in this dispute has stated that chasing another editor away is a good thing to do. Hrafn decided himself to "retire" in the middle of a dispute, regarding his behaviour. I find it highly improper to try to use his supposed retirement as an argument since everyone can pull such a stunt to gain immediate sympathy.·Maunus·ƛ· 05:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Catherine proposed reprimands and draconian restrictions on Hrafn's editing, with a conclusion that if he persisted in editing in accordance with policy, she "would like to see him blocked" from the areas that interest her. Looks like chasing another editor away, as far as I'm concerned. Too many valued editors have given up due to the stress created by civil POV pushing, and it's all too likely that Hrafn is suffering from that stress. Your cynical failure to assume good faith is very disappointing. Whether Hrafn has been driven away or not, both Catherine and myself consider that there is an important underlying principle that must be resolved. . . dave souza, talk 17:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, how about a cooling off period of, say, 1 week? Certainly we could all agree on that. Madman (talk) 02:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Or, how about "... cooling off -- period."

AFAICT, no rules have been unambiguously broken by anyone here. If anything is plain to me personally here, it's that WP imitates life in some visible ways (maybe life in a high-school cafeteria at times, but life nonetheless-- if y'all will pardon my brief little outburst here). For those of us who care more about the broader objective of continuing to write and edit interactively and encyclopedically about topics of their respective interest than we do about interpersonal disagreement, I humbly suggest that we'all continue to try to follow the rules and try to continue to write and edit, both encyclopedically and interactively, applying to the best possible extent WP's content policies. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with OrangeMarlin on this occasion, something I almost never do. My own investigation of the situation seems to bear out very much what Keeper is saying above. Orderinchaos 05:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

<proposal> Firstly, my belief is that Catherineyronwode's been acting in good faith, and her reluctance to completely back down is understandable, but she brought this dispute to ANI and several experienced editors including admins, having looked at her case in detail, have dismissed it. Keeper76 sums up the situation very well in the post at 23:03, 16 September, and note particularly that while Catherine has no good case to take to RfC, sanctions could be pursued against her and her allies. Her "Desired outcome", which appears to be designed to drive Hrafn away, proposed severe restrictions on Hrafn's editing, and a conclusion that if Hrafn persisted in his entirely proper work of removing inadequately sourced information, she "would like to see him blocked from editing any pages that fall in the New Thought or Religion categories, and possibly other religion-versus-science categories as well." These draconian proposals are completely unacceptable, as is her failure to assume good faith, leading to Wikistalking, personal attacks on his motives and integrity, and poisoning the well demonstrated on article talk pages such asthis example. Such harassment has to stop. However, I've no wish to inhibit her constructive editing, and will welcome her continued involvement in these areas on the basis that in practice she has to accept policies as they are, and if Hrafn or any other editor properly deletes unsupported information or tags inadequately referenced articles for deletion, she is welcome to discuss it courteously, and do her best to find reliable third-party sources which can be agreed as supporting the section or article. I've suggested to Hrafn that on this basis I'd be content to see the case closed, subject to sanctions being pursued if this was treated as a "truce" and hostilities revived as Madman's comments seem to threaten. Hrafn has not yet responded to my email showing him a draft of this proposal, but in my opinion it should be satisfactory if this is taken as resolving the dispute unless Catherine objects. . . dave souza, talk 17:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I really must object to the characterisation of my posting as a "threat" (you) or as "uncivil" (OrangeMarlin). I simply suggested that this matter -- the matter regarding Hrafn's editing style -- should be dropped because it's a moot point. And then I said that we can all discuss it again if it ever becomes unmoot -- "When Hrafn returns and if he resumes his former editing style and targets, then we all can re-open this".

Jeez, guys, ease up here. Madman (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we please all AGF and consider this resolved? Unless, as dave says, CY objects. But other than that hopefully unlikely possibility, I'm sure we all have better things to do and I suspect the heat that has been generated has been accompanied by some misunderstandings. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

We've well established that if Hrafn returns and resumes his former editing style in the same subject areas, he will be working in proper accordance with policy. Discussing that again seems completely unnecessary to me, though I'm willing to accept that it wasn't intended as a threat. Of course incivility on the part of any of those involved in this case can be taken up on talk pages and, if unresolved, dealt with through normal dispute resolution processes. Hope that clarifies things. . dave souza, talk 19:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing blocked for edit-warring personal attacks.

Those of you with long memories will remember this user, who has twice been banned by the Arbitration Committee for a year at a time. This user has just come off his second year long ban, and has gotten back into one of his old, bad, habits, which is edit-warring a section on his user page accusing another user of being a stalker. He refused to stop edit-warring that section in, despite a consensus on ANI at the time (see User_talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive_13#Your_.22stalker.22_paragraph_on_your_userpage and sections below that for his intransigence on the issue). He's now returned from his second ArbCom ban, and is edit-warring again. I have blocked him 24 hours for it. I am bringing up this fairly uncontroversial issue because another administrator, User:Neil, who probably wasn't aware of the previous discussion (I'm trying to find the diff of the ANI discussion for it), and wasn't sure that it was controversial. SirFozzie (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive263#User:Pigsonthewing Is the previous discussion on this. SirFozzie (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, so soon? That's too bad. You made the right call here. Shereth 23:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This is in my view a deplorable block and a deplorable block report, a completely wretched administrative action.

Sir Fozzle has provoked an edit war with a user with whom per Archive263#User:Pigsonthewing he has been in dispute with in the past; he hasn't just stumbled upon it, he has been the knowing precipitator of it.

Sir Fozzle knew at the time of his intervention that Neal had already started to talk to Andy in a respectful rather than an imperative tone about the notice but appears to think his own warn, war & ban approach superior.

The notice itself is entirely composed of Leonig's words. It is entirely possible to read it as a statement of facts and not as an attack. If we assume good faith, we must accept that it is not a categorical conclusion that it is an attack, and we should therefore tread with a care entirely lacking in the implementation of this block. We may nevertheless deplore the notice. But we have not been stalked by Leonig and we are in a different headspace entirely.

The block is entirely partisan, precipitate, arrogant, ill-considered and petty. It is absolutely the single least likely means of effecting change in the situation. It is the single most likely means of ensuring this whole notice thing will continue to rumble on with the same pattern of escalation. A completely counterproductive move which once more is most likely to lose us once more the services of an very good & productive editor.

I'm sorry. My view is that this block is both dim witted and abusive, and the block report entirely disingenuous. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You can lay off the personal slander for starters, Tagishsimon. It doesn't further your case or cause. After reviewing the block and the prior actions of Pigsonthewing, I am endorsing the block. seicer | talk | contribs 01:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

As you well know, Tagishsimon, there was a consensus already that the section was a personal attack. You yourself participated in that discussion (linked above). You may not agree with it, I understand, but consensus backs me in this issue. SirFozzie (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

To clear one thing up, I have "known" Andy since prior to his first block, and was fully aware of the circumstances surrounding the issues he has/had with Leonig Mig. I don't think this block was particularly appropriate, as I had already begun to engage with Andy over his voluntarily removing it. SirFozzie was aware of this, and perhaps talking to me first rather than edit warring over the section and blocking Andy might have been a better route to go down. Andy is a difficult character at times, prone to "I know best" - a trait he shares with many admins! - but responds far better to polite requests as opposed to orders. If this ends up with Andy/Pigsonthewing being indef blocked after he responds badly to this baiting, I will be very disappointed but not suprised. Neıl ☄ 06:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, wouldn't it have been better to protect his userpage rather than block him? Most of his editing is fine, and protecting the userpage would have allowed that to continue. Seriously, if a year's block didn't dissuade him from adding the section, what difference is 24 hours more going to make? Neıl ☄ 06:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That was actually tried last time. He started adding it to his user talk page instead. SirFozzie (talk) 07:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• This is a clear case of a vendetta being carried on beyond all sense, since Mig has not edited more than very occasionally all year. Pigs knows this is a problem, and his edit summary accusing others of vandalism for reverting it is unacceptable. If this ends up with him being blocked, then I won't be especially disappointed; if I can learn to walk away from those who bait me then so can he, especially when they do not seem to be active. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support block (of any length) - the stalking note is a reference to events in July 2005 which have been hashed and rehashed dozens of times. 3 years have passed - let us move on. Occuli (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In a clear case of Back to the Future, he is now again adding it to his user talk page (because that is the only page he is able to edit while blocked). The next time he adds the section, to ANY page, I will block him indefinitely, until such time as he agrees to not add that section anywhere. SirFozzie (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The guy twice gets blocked for a full year, waits for his sentence to expire, and starts in again, and gets blocked again? Is there an anti-barnstar for ultra-patient vandals? Baseball Bugs 12:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support blocking at admin discretion. I remember all the previous history of this debate, and in my opinion (as admin and bureaucrat of another wiki with over 3 years' experience) this kind of thing is ultimately detrimental to the project. As the history shows, Pigsonthewing has continued to disregard the Misplaced Pages way of doing things, and has no problem using inflammatory language and personal attacks when it suits him despite his vociferous protestations about others doing the same. Codeine (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In short, he did it twice more, and in response I have blocked him indefinitely, and protected his user talk page for 48 hours due to disruption. When it expires, if he wants to be unblocked, all he has to do is state that he will cease and desist from adding attacks on another user, and drop the grudges. SirFozzie (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but you need to step back and let another admin handle this. You are very clearly involved in this based on the previous discussions, and it seems like you're just looking for an ax to grind with him. I'm by no means Andy's biggest fan (and in the past I've railed against him for his attitude and the actions he takes), but it would be more appropriate to let someone fresh deal with it (such as Neil). —Locke Cole • t • c 01:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Community ban time?

The block log is deplorable, has waited a year to continue the same grudge, has twice been banned by arbcom for a year in seperate cases. Do we need him here anymore? Viridae 13:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• No, we don't, as I learnt from Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2. The problem isn't Andy's encyclopedia-editing skills, it's the fact that he cannot cope with people disagreeing with him. When they do, he flames them, which he's been doing both here and, I believe, on Usenet, for a very long time. Two arbcom bans? And still more drama? Forget it, we don't need this guy. Moreschi (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Agreed, he's here to war with the community, not to write an encyclopedia. It amazes me that he comes of a ban and continues his ways. –Juliancolton 13:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• As Moreschi says, his encyclopaedia-writing skills are actually quite good. There are not many editors who have gone through two year-long bans and returned, still committed to writing an encyclopaedia. For that reason I think it is worth trying to talk to him; if talking him round proves impossible, it may still be possible to work something out. Therefore oppose for the time being. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • People have been trying to talk to Andy for years. They've failed. He cannot get along with people who even mildly disagree with him, and we will not change him. He's too stubborn, as the fact that's returned after two AC bans shows. Moreschi (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• This sort of attitude is not appropriate, no matter how otherwise excellent the other contributions might be. Not getting the hint after two year-long bans pretty much garantees that the point won't be gotten, ever. — Coren  14:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Normally I would say this is being too quick to jump the gun, but given the unrepentant interest in continuing to hold a grudge long after the fact, I am forced to come to a different conclusion. The fact that after a year's ban he wastes no time in continuing with the vendetta, edit-warring over it, and going so far as to perpetuate the problem on his talk page after he was issued a block indicates that Andy has no interest in standing down, and that no amount of blocking or admonishing will get him to stop. Unfortunately I have to agree that a community ban may indeed be in order. Shereth 15:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• I think this is probably a case of Misplaced Pages is not therapy. Everything that can be tried, has been - he and Misplaced Pages just aren't a good fit. Shell 16:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Concur. I wish Potw well in his endeavors - elsewhere. KillerChihuahua 16:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• As noted, he's been through two year long bans, if Neil wants to try and work with him, I believe he should be allowed to do so. But not with SirFozzie edit warring and blocking him... —Locke Cole • t • c 01:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, if he hasn't given in cross two year long bans, he's not going to, period. The consensus here shows that I was right to act as I have. Also, before you posted, I unprotected his page and offered to unblock him if he will agree not to post that section anymore. I have the feeling, he will just seize the chance to insert the section once more. It's worth a shot at extending the olive branch at least once more.. SirFozzie (talk) 03:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
    • You should unblock entirely and defer to an uninvolved admin. Looking at the edit history of his userpage makes it clear that this is something you're too close to be objective with. I won't touch the comment about consensus, since there's really only a handful of people involved in this discussion (certainly not a quorum for an indef ban). —Locke Cole • t • c 03:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Nonsense. PigsAndy's got so many admins on the 'prior conflicts' list that your suggestion is not that feasible. Either we get a new, uninvolved admin to review PigsAndy's history every time, costing any admin sucker enough to try it so much of their volunteer time that PigsAndy can claim stale report by the time adjudication arrives, or we rely on the numerous editors and admins who've been through all this and know the situation to deal with it. And PigsAndy will use up all the uninvolved admins fast if you insist on that approach, leaving us with no one to adjudicate, because everyone will be 'contaiminated'. I hate that idiotic meme that everyone here deserves a totally neutral viewpoint which can only be found in those who don't know the situation, it's naive in the extreme. Ban PigsAndy now. ThuranX (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Sicne he objects to being called by the name he set himself up with, I've struck the nickname, but that all the more shows what kind of editor and person he is. He sets up an obvious, non-insulting shortening of his own username, then objects, claiming it's so insulting. He surely knew it to begin with, so he shouldn't complain, but has. so whatever. ThuranX (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Fantastic, could you please make your comments without resorting to personal attacks ("Pigs") next time? It'll make it easier to take you seriously. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
          • That's part of the name he chose. Baseball Bugs 06:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
            • And anyone looking at anything he's written in talk space sees he signs his name as "Andy", not "Pigs". —Locke Cole • t • c 07:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
              • If he has an issue with his user ID being shortened to "Pigs", then he can bring it to someone's attention. Calling someone by a short version of their chosen user ID is not a personal attack, nor does he need someone playing "nanny" for him. If he has an issue with it, he can post it on his talk page, and I don't see anything there about that. Baseball Bugs 08:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
              • Locke it is part of his username, and therefore not a personal attack. If he wishes to be called something else, I'm sure he can let it be known. Ignore that - he does object to the use of that shortening (though why I'm not sure) See the first arb case. Viridae 11:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
                • Yes, he logged an objection. But by choosing such a name, he sets himself up for it. Baseball Bugs 13:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
                  • I struck it out. Locke cole should be checkusered as a sock. Such a bizarrely trivial point becomes the means to dismiss my entire comment in the same trolling style ANDY, aka Pigsonthewing, is known for. It is clear to me that he couldn't debate my point on the facts, so sought to discredit via trvial distractions. ThuranX (talk) 04:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
                    • WP:RFCU is that way ←. And I'm sorry, but I take personal attacks seriously, as does the rest of the wiki last time I checked. Don't do that again. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• If Andy is to stay around, something's got to change, and given that two ArbCom bans don't seem to have changed anything, I've no idea what would cause the needed change. I don't like getting rid of productive editors, mind you, so if we can think of another solution, we should, but I have no good ideas. Mentorship is the closest I can come up with, but I struggle to believe Andy would accept the idea in the first place and, even if he did, heed his mentor's warnings. So basically you've got me. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Mentorship seems reasonable, but indef blocking and edit warring with him (by someone who was previously involved prior to his last ban) is hardly the way to start. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• My first thought was that maybe he was some high school kid. But he claims to be a professional writer. How about blocking him for another year and see if he improves a year from now. If not, block him again for another year. Even the most stubborn mule (or pig) has a chance of getting the hint eventually. Baseball Bugs 06:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• OK, I should start here by declaring that I have "known" Andy for rather more years than most people here. It must be about 10 years ago that we were both usenet regulars. As such, I suppose that I have had longer than most to understand how Andy ticks! I've also had the experience of meeting him once in person (in a pub in Birmingham). I've had just about no contact with him since we both drifted away from usenet, and by the time I started editing Misplaced Pages in earnest, Andy was already in the throes of Arbcom troubles. So, whilst we are by no means hand-in-glove, I believe that I can understand better than most where the issues are, and I'm happy to volunteer to mentor Andy (if he'll have me). I would oppose a community ban at the present time. Mayalld (talk) 07:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • What is your honest opinion on the likelyhood of him serious changing his ways? Viridae 07:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
    • My honest opinion is that it is very easy to not see the wood for the trees, and to get into a bunker mentality (I've done so on usenet in the past), and to get into a self-destructive loop over it. It is bloody hard to break that loop, but it invariably involves somebody that isn't part of "the opposition" saying something. I can't guarantee to work miracles, but if I'm prepared to put the effort in, I hope the community will support me by backing my efforts to get Andy back where he should be, adding content. Mayalld (talk) 08:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Well my suggestion is that you start talking to him before he digs the hole any deeper. Getting to honestly admit he has done the wrong thing and to give an assurance that he will drop the grudge would be a start. Viridae 11:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
        • I fired off an e-mail to hikm at the same time as I made my original offer. Let us see what transpires Mayalld (talk) 12:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• I would oppose a community ban on the basis that he is a good faith user, and the broad majority of his editing improves the encyclopaedia. This was not the case at the time of his last ArbCom one-year ban, but is now. The latest matter relates to a three-year-old dispute with a single user, and very little seems to be being done in furtherance of it outside the user's own userspace. I think someone like Mayalld may be able to help here. Orderinchaos 07:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• I oppose a ban at this time. It seems to me that anyone in his position would look at this discussion and be nervous enough to cease the problematic editing. Granted, he might be exceptionally stubborn, but I'd rather treat this as a warning. He's a productive, good faith editor, and coming back to us after two year-long bans demonstrates remarkable dedication. I don't think what we've seen so far is severe enough to outweigh all that. Everyking (talk) 07:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • What it demonstrates is stubbornness to an obsessive degree. But if it's just one particular user he has a problem with, maybe a compromise could be worked out to somehow keep them away from each other - to not edit the same articles, for example. That's called a "topic ban", and he could edit other topics freely. Baseball Bugs 08:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I am trying to engage with Andy (see his User talk:Pigsonthewing on the matter) - he has shown a willingness to listen to me in the past (nb - just changed my username from Neil!). I would like to try and see if I can bring about a change in his unfortunate proclivity for picking at old, old feuds through discussion, as he is an excellent contributor for the most part (including being the founder of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Microformats). I would prefer not to see any community block enacted until I have had a chance to try and bring about an amicable solution. Thanks. fish&karate 11:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  Also, please do not refer to him as "Pigs". He - understandably - doesn't like it, and some of you may not be aware this was actually a point of contention in his original Arbcom case (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing#Use of the epithet "Pigs".) fish&karate 11:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  OK, slightly off-topic, but... why does he keep using the name "Pigsonthewing" if he always just signs as "Andy Mabbett" and hates the fact that people abbreviate his username to "Pigs"? Surely a name change would fix that problem and alleviate the frequent confusion about his name. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  Perhaps it would, and I will suggest that to Andy, but we cannot force a user to change their name if it meets our current guidelines. fish&karate 12:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  If he continues to use that name, he has little room for complaint if someone abbreviates it. Baseball Bugs 13:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  No, but now you at least, Baseball Bugs, are clearly aware it's upsetting; if you use it again, I'll consider it deliberate baiting. fish&karate 13:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  If you look closely, you'll see that I haven't called him anything yet. If I were to call him anything, it would probably be "Mabbett", since I don't know him well enough to call him by his first name. And here's a guy who's had a lengthy history of being belligerent, with incredibly long blocks, and you're worried about upsetting him? Why? Are you afraid he's going to get madder? Why are you still messing with this character? Ban him and be done with it. Baseball Bugs 13:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  Besides, its only polite... SirFozzie (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support ban – there is User_talk:Pigsonthewing#Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration.2FPigsonthewing_2 on his talk page which encapsulates his views, and repeats the references to Mig from 2005; and there are his continuing reactions today on his talk page remorselessly repeating the same refrain. The guy is incorrigible. Occuli (talk) 11:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• (ec) Neil Fish and karate (err...interesting name choice :) should be allowed to try and bring about a change. Making Fish and karate his mentor for a few months might also work. Should either measure fail, then I think the community ban should be enacted (but not without trying either of those measures first). Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "Fish and chops"? :) Baseball Bugs 13:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Or "Fish and punch"? :D Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Progress

See User_talk:Pigsonthewing#Another_opinion - I believe progress is being made, and Andy is about to agree not to restore the material again. Again, I don't want to see the editor who made things like this possible being indef-blocked over a silly grudge. fish&karate 12:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Please explain to me what Andy's role was in what I believe is a project by User:Para. --Dschwen 00:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm basing this on what is at WP:UF. fish&karate 10:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Closed discussion aside, I cannot leave this utter misconception about Andy's work uncommented. WP:UF has nothing to do with the Google Maps thing that you linked to. Andy did some good work, but he is by no means the super-prolific über-user you seem to think him to be. --Dschwen 13:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you are mistaken. The system for reading location data in an article and showing these multiple points on a Google map was first introduced on Misplaced Pages by Andy Mabbett. Para became involved and changed things around later because he objected to the way Andy was embedding microformats into the data. --CBD 11:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Reading location data has nothing to do with Microformats per se. The coordinate readout was pioneered by de:User:Stefan Kuehn and de:User:Kolossos. --Dschwen 14:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Fish&Karate (re:Neil) is working on a solution, that if Andy refrains from adding the information again, unless Leonig returns and harasses HIM first, he will be unblocked. I have given Neil my full support on this. Basically, as was stated above.. if he adds it or anything similar to it again, he will be re-blocked. (bah! He beat me to it ;) ) SirFozzie (talk) 12:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

HaHA! :) fish&karate 12:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I see no reason to keep the community ban proposal open - seems to be a moot point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

well, don't do it yet. POTW's response is less promising then I would like. ] SirFozzie (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't plan on doing it, for this one anyway. :) But I do think that given he's blocked, and Neil is trying to discuss it with him, it's a bit of a moot point - expecting the desired outcome to result from those discussions within a few hours is like a complete miracle for a user who was banned for 2 years. It probably needs a few days. If there is no change in 2 weeks (maximum), then I think reopening the community ban discussion would be more productive. My thoughts anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

As he's already indefinitely blocked, unless an administrator is willing to unblock him, he is de facto community blocked. At the moment the only administrator even considerig unblocking him seems to be me, and his response (as Fozzie mentions) wasn't promising. Andy's forthcoming answer to the short question I just posted on his talk page may decide whether I feel up to continuing to engage with him. fish&karate 13:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been staying out of this for reasons similar to those expressed by Locke Cole above... better to let people who haven't been as contentiously involved in the past take the lead here. Fish and karate is doing a very good job in that regard.

Andy's like alot of old Usenet regulars I've known... for him this is a matter of principles. Ordering and/or blocking him will never ever get him to do things your way. It'd be 'wrong' to sacrifice principle and 'bow to authority' that way. You need to convince him of the benefits of your position. If you don't have the patience for that... let someone else do it. Would it be nice if everyone just did what they were told? Maybe, for the people giving the orders, but that just isn't the way the world works. So we can have patience with the occasional non-conformist... or stomp them into paste. In my experience stomping is the usual solution, but patience generally yields the better results. --CBD 13:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"Would it be nice if everyone just did what they were told? Maybe, for the people giving the orders, but that just isn't the way the world works." Good quote to use about people refusing to obey his order not to shorten his chosen user ID. Baseball Bugs 13:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Andy is someone that has been "problematic" for a long time - see, for example, User_talk:CBDunkerson/Archive4#Andy_Mabbet - and I am still trying. Being an old Usenet regular does not mean my patience is infinite, nor is the community's (obviously). What he wants (to be allowed to continue to rake up a three-year old feud) is not going to happen, and if he won't back down on that, he will remain unable to edit outside his talk page. fish&karate 13:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Andy is now attempting to endrun around building a compromise with fish&karate with an unblock request. He's now claiming that since he's offered a "compromise" (which is nothing of the sort), that he should be unblocked. Discouraging... SirFozzie (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I do have to say that I'm losing confidence too. To be frank, I doubt this is something that can change overnight and will need long term mentoring (in terms of weeks/months rather than hours). If no one is willing to mentor him, I think the next few days might turn out in a way that won't be too pleasant. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It's amusing to see a user, coming off a year-long block, dictating terms under which wikipedia will allowed to be graced by his presence. Baseball Bugs 09:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Mm, having looked things over myself, I have a couple thoughts, however non-warm and cuddly they be. First off, someone who's had two year-long Arbcom bans has to know he's going to be under the microscope forever, and really has to keep his nose clean forever. Someone who loses no time to fly off the handle yet again has demonstrated that he has learned nothing and that no sanction possible is likely get his attention. Secondly, I don't give a rat's patootie what kind of editing or article-building skills he might have. Misplaced Pages doesn't need him. Misplaced Pages doesn't need anybody. The project does not stand and fall on his putative skills, and what benefit is there to coddle pervasive and unrepentent offenders except to demonstrate that we coddle pervasive and unrepentant offenders? Seriously, think about it: what is the upside to removing the block?  RGTraynor  22:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  • What a depressing view. We get a contributor back, who is 99% a benefit to the encyclopedia. It's the 1% that's the problem, and unless he is willing to accede to the community's norms, he isn't going to be unblocked. fish&karate 10:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
    • (tapping feet impatiently...) He's banned till he accedes to the community norms - so when he does, someone can inform the community again. So why is this discussion still open? Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
      •  Done fish&karate 12:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What you might not realise...

Is that Andy Mabbett has been trolling Usenet for ages. He's not an old usenet regular, he's an old usenet troll with the stubbornness levels of a moody ox. Google Andy+Mabbett+troll, or just "Andy Mabbett". It's usually microformats and technological stuff, occasionally birdwatching. His negative reputation is clearly quite something. We're not going to change this guy, we really aren't...Moreschi (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. But if this effort fails, and convinces those who are not supporting the ban then it will be eaiser next time it gets brought up. Viridae 22:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Viridae. I tend to be a sucker for giving people too many chances, but Pigsonthewing has a good chain of contributions, broken as it is by ArbCom bans. I think another one wouldn't go astray.

Some of the discussion on this thread is regrettable and people should remember that even though Pigsonthewing may have broken WP:NPA and WP:CIV, that doesn't give others carte blanche to do the same. Stifle (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

While I'm in this train of thought, don't forget that a user is only considered community banned if no admin is willing to unblock him. Stifle (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"Another one" in my above message means "another chance", in case it wasn't obvious. Stifle (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If he's willing to drop the three year old feud, completely and totally? yes, another chance. Till then? No. SirFozzie (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) Sorry, but the troll accusation isn't something that I can leave unchallenged. Trolls set out with the sole purpose of damaging things, and no matter what you think of Andy's conduct, I don't believe that you can fairly characterise him in this way. Andy is tenacious, and single minded. He can probably be fairly accused of not always seeing the bigger picture, in which you sometimes have to accept less than you want out of a situation, for the greater good. However, I am entirely satisfied that Andy is not here with any ulterior motive of damaging Misplaced Pages.

Andy is talking to people, and is currently blocked, so there is no emergency that requires a rushed decision. Mayalld (talk) 06:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Update, POTW Unblocked without consensus or discussion

Sorry, to unarchive this, but I just wanted to call the community's attention to the fact that User:Adambro, either unaware of this discussion, or completely ignoring the consensus in this discussion, has decided to unblock POTW, and has decided to castigate me on the block. I explicity will not wheel war this block, but this action needs to be scrutinized. SirFozzie (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"Terrible unblock. What makes an admin thinkt hey can ignore the consensus from the numerous people who weighed into the debate and u8nblock because they think it is better is beyond me Viridae Talk 22:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)" (adding statement for Viridae per his request on my talk page SirFozzie (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

• Ugh, horrible idea. Poor unblock against consensus. POTW needs to be banned, banned, banned. Moreschi (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Whilst it's preferable to see a user put previous negative incidents behind them and continue to contribute positively to the encyclopedia rather than being blocked, one has to question whether actively encouraging visitors to his user page to research the history of this conflict, and strongly iterating that he is only complying with the requests to cease adding the information under duress indicates that Pigsonthewing has really moved past the issues that led to this block in the first place. -- Codeine (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, no offense intended, but your block was bad. You were previously involved in the dispute over his edits to his user page over a year ago, and it seems like you're just recycling that problem now that his year long block has expired. As I said before, and as I'll say again now, better to have someone previously uninvolved look at this rather than someone who may be (possibly) injecting a little bias in to their decisions.

I'll also note that what you call consensus I call "a small collection of editors, some with prior history with Andy". As you can see on his talk page, Andy has said he wouldn't continue the behavior that caused you to (erroneously) block him. And as a final note for anyone considering reblocking him: blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. As he's indicated he wouldn't engage in the behavior that was allegedly wrong, there's no need for him to be blocked (there's no gain for the encyclopedia if he's blocked again). —Locke Cole • t • c 23:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The block was explicitly endorsed by the consensus here. You may think its bad.. doesn't mean it was, mind you. SirFozzie (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thumping your chest and screaming "I had consensus, I had consensus!" doesn't mean you actually did. You didn't. You were previously involved in the year old issue, it was a bad block from start to finish. I'll also note that you ignored everything else I said, specifically the bits about punitive vs. preventative blocks. Your block prevented nothing and did nothing for the encyclopedia and was a gross lapse of judgment (given your prior involvement). —Locke Cole • t • c 02:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Without the dramatic phrasing of "gross lapse of judgement", which I disagree with, I see you and I had independently come to the same assessment. Andy and I once had a massive altercation on a template talk page, although strangely, after that was over, while he was difficult/uncompromising to deal with, he was never incivil to me again and we cooperated on a few minor tasks. I see users who push POV or bodge references as being far more dangerous to the encyclopaedia than he will ever be. Orderinchaos 08:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That was a year old issue that went to arbcom and landed him with his second year long ban - and you are having a go at Foz because he blocked him for continuing a grudge that is years old straight after coming off a ban that he got as a result of that dispute? Sorry but admins dealign wih user's bad behaviour does not make them "involved in a dispute". Further more the consensus there was pretty clear. Viridae 11:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Adambro (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) had no authority to override the consensus building that occurred here and exercised poor judgement. This discussion was closed under the terms that Pigsonthewing would remain indefinitely blocked until he agreed to stop pursuing old feuds - Adambro neither discussed the prospect of whether the community is satisfied with unblocking the user, nor did he even inform the community of his action. If there are other occasions where this administrator has exercised this sort of poor judgement, then this would need to be taken further and desysopping would certainly need to be considered. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• A terrible unblock, and one that deserves further review. seicer | talk | contribs 01:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• He had as much authority as SirFozzie did in blocking Andy in the first place (and at least Adambro doesn't seem to have any prior involvement, as SirFozzie does). —Locke Cole • t • c 02:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Also it's a bedrock principle that blocks are intended to be preventative and not punitive, I'm honestly failing to see the preventative value. If he started behaving the way he did before his last ArbCom block, I'd support an indefinite ban. But he actually hasn't, he's been somewhat easier to deal with this time around and I think one *can* overlook minor issues so long as they stay behind the containment lines. Orderinchaos 08:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

So the consensus is to keep the guy blocked - then one ignorant admin comes along and unblocks him - a "tyranny of the minority", as the others wring their hands and cry, "Oh, what shall we do? What shall we do?" Baseball Bugs 02:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm at the limit of what *I* can do.. the only next step I can see is ArbCom (where IF I took it there, which I won't.. and IF it got accepted), would be 30 days of drama and hassle, before probably yet another year long ban.. or to RfC, where I would get the 30 days of drama and hassle, and absolutely nothing binding would come out of it, to boot.

And I'm really less then impressed by Adambro logging in, unblocking/unprotecting Andy, and then logging out without discussing it anywhere, or even sticking around to help with the autoblock.

I do note that Andy has at least partially pleged to not add the section any more.. so I would have been pleased if he just said "Ok, I disagree with you, but I will not bring up Leonig any further".. I'm just afraid that it's left things open for interpertation, which means.. you guessed it.. MORE drama! SirFozzie (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Drama you need not concern yourself with in your capacity as administrator/sysop. If you have a potential problem with Andy you should report it here on AN/I and let another uninvolved admin/sysop deal with it, not yourself. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but have been following the discussion here and on Andy's talk page, and have to say that I'm rather depressed by the entire business. I should declare that my editing interests have on occasions overlapped with Andy's, primarily on UK railways and West Midlands-related articles; I've never personally had any difficulty in dealing with him, but of course I'm aware that others have had (one would have to be in cloud-cuckoo land to be unaware of it).

Now, I don't particularly care if Andy has a grudge against another editor or not, and don't particularly care about the notice on his user page that seems to have precipitated all of this. I personally wouldn't put such a notice on my own user page, but that's a personal decision. Also, (IMHO anyway) the offending notice doesn't seem especially, well, offensive (at least on the surface); let's face it: it could be a hell of a lot worse.

It seems that this whole sorry incident was precipitated by SirFozzie taking it upon himself to remove it from Andy's user page , without even remarking on it on the talk page (see the talk page history: SirFozzie made no edits to it when he edited the user page). As far as I was aware, it is an unwritten rule on Misplaced Pages that editors don't unilaterally edit others' user pages; instead you make polite requests on their user talk page and ask them to remove it themselves. (The request made by Neil/Fish&Karate would have been a much better place to start.) With this in mind, it seems hard to disagree with Andy's claim that his user page "is censored by other editors". I'm afraid that it appears to me that SirFozzie has displayed incredibly poor judgement by re-igniting this issue.

It's also just plain common sense not to antagonise someone who you know for a fact will rise to the bait; given the "history" between Andy and various others editors, it's like a red rag to a bull. Similarly, when you know that a user objects to something (e.g. Andy's dislike of being referred to as "Pigs"), it's common sense not to keep doing it!

I should also point out that since the unblock Andy has removed the offending notice from his user page, and has also been editing productively as well as interacting with the community in an acceptable manner (see Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing). So at present there seems no reason to re-block. Let's just leave the matter closed. --RFBailey (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm also not an admin - but I've seen a lot of Andy Mabbett's activity on WP and I wouldn't characterize him as a productive editor. Most of his energy has gone into warring. This is what turns him on. That is why he is here. Previous bans have only reinforced his behaviour by making him more bitter. IMO, he has once again been given licence to game ANI and pit his wits against those involved. The activity on his user page was a classical example of brinkmanship, with Andy walking a narrow line between cooperating and defying those involved, exploiting the scruples of his opponents and trying (in this case successfully) to divide them. The result of all this is a complete waste of everybody's time. We'll have another incident in a week, or a month's time, and the whole thing will be repeated until, and unless, common sense prevails and we see a complete and final ban on this man. --Kleinzach 05:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, I'm seeing positive contributions, such as this, and this and this. It is possible that this is only temporary, but it seems part of the message is getting across. In general, I agree with RFBailey's assessment of the situation above. I also think that a reblock or ArbCom case would be excessive drama. Maybe discuss Adambro's action separately from the discussion on Andy/POTW? Carcharoth (talk) 05:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Not only would I support reverting the unblock, thus reinstating the community endorsed user ban, but I'd further support a de-buttoning of Adambro for his obviously bad faith unblock. His actions are like coming into a mexican standoff, firing one round into the air, and running from the firefight, only with bullets as a metaphor for drama. Unless he rapidly provides some incredible reasoning, he should surrender his toolkit. ThuranX (talk) 05:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Were this up to me and nobody else, I would leave Andy/POTW unblocked, until and unless he posts any further rubbish about his old feuds. I would have done this in the first place, but unlike Adambro, didn't feel comfortable ignoring the rest of the community's less progressive views. Andy is now contributing well. He is very, very aware he is on thin ice. If he does post any further rubbish, then he will be indefinitely blocked, and I would imagine it would stick. I would be inclined to (why do I keep saying this and why does nobody do so) let the matter drop. fish&karate 09:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: I left the unblocking admin a note suggesting he leave an explanation here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Adambro does have 'previous' with Mabbett - see eg Talk:Tinsley Viaduct and Talk:Tinsley Viaduct/coordinates, both illustrative of the pre-reformed-Mabbett technique in 2007 – so is not 'uninvolved'. I too think that Adambro should return the tools. Moreover Mig requested, politely, the removal of the stalker para on 30 Jan 07 and 11 March 07. Occuli (talk) 09:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Yes I have dealt with Andy a good while ago but don't consider this to have any impact on my basis for unblocking. Good morning all. Well there's a lot to comment on there but I'm afraid I'm not prepared to spend any more time than is absolutely necessary dealing with this issue. The core reasoning for this and my unblock is that this nonsense dispute is causing a lot more disruption than the text on Andy's userpage ever had the potential to do. I see a few calls for my admin rights to be removed and this doesn't surprise me. It has been said that I shouldn't simply appear and unblock Andy having not been involved in all the discussions, however, I would suggest this puts me in a good position to take a broader view of this situation. I am under no doubts that Andy's poor behaviour over the years has caused him to have a good number of enemies and as such I have to treat a lot of the comments with a great deal of caution. I don't know who where has developed a dislike to Andy which may influence their thinking. It has been suggested that there is consensus for him to be blocked but I don't think it is really clear and anyhow, I'll happily ignore all rules if I think it benefits the project. By unblocking Andy what I am trying to achieve is for him to be able to return to the positive work he's being trying to do and for the many others who have been involved to get back to doing something constructive themselves. Far too much time has been wasted with this debate and I don't think it is really Andy to blame for this. Whilst is has been said that Andy has returned from his ban to continue a vendetta against Leonig, I think the truth here is probably more than Andy has returned and there are others waiting for him whole hold their own grudges against him. Ultimately, whilst I don't consider this text about Leonig to have ever been appropriate, it is very questionable as to whether it actually violates any policy. I would urge all that have been involved in this issue to take a step back and consider the value of continuing these discussions. There are much more useful things that people, including Andy and myself, can be getting on with and so don't expect me to be commenting on this much. Adambro (talk) 09:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  • The rationale/merits for wanting to or actually unblocking does not override the need to comply with norms. Indeed, it appears that certain admins haven't learnt from the Sarah Palin ArbCom case that is running currently. If Adambro is incapable of acknowledging the issue with the series of actions he took on this matter, then one does have to wonder why an RFC has not been opened? Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  Where complying with the norms would cause more disruption than not doing then I'll happily ignore the norms as I've said. You say in your edit summary that "he doesn't get it", presumably "he" is me. In fact I think I get this perfectly well, there are a lot of editors it would seem who are wanting to get Andy off Misplaced Pages by any means and attempting to blow this issue out of all reasonable proportions seems to demonstrate this. I have no intention of allowing Andy to be forced out of the project due to grudges that a number have against him but would have no problem with him being further banned or blocked if he further causes problems to the project. However, in this situation I am quite clear that it isn't him that is causing the problem, it is others who are looking for any opportunity to get rid of him, what it is that Andy is being accused of here is actually extremely minor and does not merit all the debate that has gone on. The only reason why editors are prepared to spend so much time on this is to try and make it bigger than it actually is. There is nothing more that needs to be discussed now, Andy can continue to edit and if there are any further problems then these can be discussed. Whilst I would prefer to use my time on Misplaced Pages to edit articles, I will however vigorously defend Andy's editing privileges from those who simply don't like him and attempt to generate further controversy around him. I would strongly warn any user from taking part in such a campaign. I would encourage all to take time to cool off and go and do some proper constructive work on the project as I intend to do. Adambro (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  You are in no position to "warn" us that our "campaign" is nothing more than a "grudge." You blindly reverted a disruptive editor that you have prior history with. That's a huge no-no. I wouldn't be surprised if his block was reinstated, and this case taken further to evaluate your administrative tools -- and your abuse (of). seicer | talk | contribs 11:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  It would not surprise me if I become a target of this campaign to rid Misplaced Pages of Andy but I am big and ugly enough to stand up for myself. I have acted in good faith in unblocking Andy in my attempts to minimise the ongoing disruption and have taken the time to carefully explain why I took my decision to do so. I would be very surprised if any attempt to remove my admin rights would be successful therefore. I can warn people about their behaviour as I see fit and my previous dealings with Andy have been negligible but enough for me to know and understand what is going on here. If you choose to dismiss my actions as inappropriate due to these previous dealings then could I perhaps ask you to explain what your status regarding Andy is? Adambro (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  Completely uninvolved outside of the comments posed here. seicer | talk | contribs 12:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• (In reply to Adambro's comment at 11:38) - Although I hope you did get it, to put it bluntly, it's very clear that you don't (particularly from that comment). I consider the controversy is around you and caused by you (rather than by POTV), at least in this section. First, you inappropriately invoke WP:IAR as a justification for your series of actions, then you come here casting aspersions that the editors here are trying rid Andy off the project to justify your involvement, and then indicate that you will use Misplaced Pages as a battleground against editors who are in a 'campaign' (while refusing to listen to the criticism you receive from your peers)? This level of rhetoric, judgement and conduct is incompatible with the status of an administrator, and indeed, needs to be addressed promptly. It is clear an RFC is going to do nothing as he still won't 'get it', nor will he listen to the community - this needs to go to ArbCom. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Without wanting to get drawn into all the rhetoric that is being banded about here, it's hard to see how statements such as "POTW needs to be banned, banned, banned" (Moreschi, ) and "Ban PigsAndy now" (ThuranX, ) are not part of some campaign to see Andy permanently banned. --RFBailey (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Gives appearances of a campaign? Possibly, and no problem with saying that if you're being specific about who or which comments seem to be doing so. Claiming as a matter of fact that there is a campaign or grudge by editors (in general)? It's not borne out of facts, and creates more heat than light. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• If this needs to go to ArbCom then you can go ahead and raise it there but I stand by my actions and my comments above, especially considering you've not really explained why my comments are wrong just stated that they are. Please keep me informed if you decide to raise this for discussion anywhere but beyond that I have no desire to continue taking part in this. Adambro (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  As I've noted below, I do hope you have a good think about the criticisms I and a couple of others left here, sometimes repeatedly in different ways so you understand - you should've given it more thought and gone about it differently. I don't intend on taking it to ArbCom personally at this point, but note: should I find a problem with your judgement again, then I will. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of Andy, but I have to say that I'm not seeing the consensus to ban that many are either saying or implying exists here. A majority, sure, but we need a lot more than a majority for someone to truly be banned. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Admins acting in bad faith

SirFozzie, you explicitly said that if Pigsonthewing agreed not to repost about the dispute with Leonig Mig he should be unblocked. He did so. He was unblocked. Now you are screaming that this is against consensus. It was your own condition. The same condition was stated by Neil/Fish/Karate... and you supported his position. The stated condition for unblocking was met. What exactly then is the problem?

Ncmvocalist, you ALSO claimed to support efforts to get Andy to change his position. He did. He agreed not to repost the material. How is unblocking under the conditions YOU supported 'against consensus'?

ThuranX, you called for a RFCU to determine whether Locke Cole was Pigsonthewing. That's just too ridiculous to deserve any further comment.

Et cetera. The discussion above is littered with personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, threats, intimidation, calls for desysoping for doing the very thing that the people making the calls had previously claimed THEY would do if the user would just concede to their demands, and other unpleasantness.

What we seem to have is a bunch of people who SAID they were willing to try to settle this through normal dispute resolution processes. Discuss... try to get the user to change their position... agree to make no reference to the past dispute. Very reasonable. Helping to dispel any concerns about possible bias in the earlier handling of discussion with the user and the block. But now... when the user has actually agreed to do what was demanded of them. Now suddenly we are seeing a different story. It doesn't look good. Not even a little. --CBD 11:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What we have is another Betacommand situation - that if a user is perceived as being "beneficial", he will be cut a lot of slack by selected admins, especially the ones who call him by his first name, as if he were their pal or something. Baseball Bugs 12:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

'Andy' happens to be shorter than 'Pigsonthewing'. Go figure. As to cutting people slack... I'd settle for a remote adherence to community standards. Things like civility, blocks not being punitive, assumption of good faith. No slacks required. --CBD 13:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"Pigs" is just as short as "Andy" and is actually part of his user ID, despite his silly NPA complaint about it. And calling him by his first name (which is NOT part of his user ID), suggests a less-than-neutral stance on the matter. Baseball Bugs 13:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm... calling him 'Andy', as he requests, rather than 'Pigs', which he objects to, "suggests a less-than-neutral stance". To be 'neutral' we should all use the nickname which annoys him. Got it. --CBD 14:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

A guy with 2 year-long blocks is in no position to be giving orders to other users. "Pigsonthewing" is his user ID, and that's what he should be called. If he really wants to be called "Andy", he's free to change his user ID. Baseball Bugs 14:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

While it is normal custom and practice to address people by their usernames, if they use a different name in their signatures then the waters are muddied a bit. However, if the user in question is clear about what name they prefer to be addressed by, then deliberately going against that is likely to antagonise that person, whoever it is, be it me, Andy, or somebody else. Continually doing so could be seen to be disruptive. (For the record, I personally object to being called Bailey, even though it is "actually part of my user ID".) --RFBailey (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

We could go with 'Bail', 'Bug', and 'son'. That'd be friendly, right? Add in 'vocal' and 'icer' and you've got a party. :] --CBD 20:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

CBDunkerson, please refrain from misstating my position and read the discussion more carefully. I never once said that there was a consensus to unblock - I noted that the moment he accedes to community norms, someone should inform the community, or the moment there was a change, that's when the discussion is worth reopening. Your statement "It doesn't look good. Not even a little." is a perfect characterization of your poor judgement in creating this section in the manner in which you have, as well as what you're creating for yourself - a massive drama invitation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Mmm... yes, because there was absolutely no 'drama invitation' involved in the cries for desysoping above. Pigsonthewing was blocked for trying to keep his comments about Leonig Mig. He subsequently agreed to stop. Ergo... he should be unblocked. The reason for blocking is gone. Blocks are preventive and this one was then irrelevant. SirFozzie should have removed the block himself. He had stated that he would. What we have here instead? Not remotely acceptable. If you are saying that you didn't mean for Pigsonthewing to be unblocked if/when he capitulated (though it still looks that way to me)... well, then you are merely arguing against policy. We should keep people indefinitely blocked even after they agree not to do the thing they were blocked for. Not a position I'd support. --CBD 13:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're unfamiliar with why certain administrators are desysopped, then indeed, it'd merely look like a drama invitation. Ordinarily, my position is that users should not be blocked any longer than necessary as it is the most restrictive remedy - this was not an ordinary case. It is not ordinary for a user to be fully banned, let alone twice, but then to come back and do the same thing again was precisely what had the community very concerned, and in the absence of the user stating that he won't do it again, an unblock wasn't even up for consideration. That is why the discussion became moot, and that is why Adambro felt the need to unblock without informing the community, and invoked WP:IAR (or norms) to justify his intentionally controversial action - he was fully aware that the community would only have an interest in discussing this after Andy took the first step. He could not put his own personal feelings, passions, agendas, assumptions of bad faith etc. aside in taking that action which indicates a major problem in his judgement. He should've (as a first resort) informed the community of his view that Andy seemed to be ready for an unblock. Adambro's prior involvement with the user was also another factor, and perhaps your own involvement is a factor worth considering, given what you're trying to do here. In any case, the manner in which you have responded is once again unhelpful and unbecoming of your status, and repeatedly misstating my position is something I don't respond to well at all, so I won't respond to you from this point on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Conrad, I should point out that Andy never actually agreed to never posting the content again, so it's a little unfair to castigate people over that. I'm happy to assume he won't, and I hope that assumption proves correct. I am done commenting on this issue unless someone does something stupid (this could be either an admin blocking Andy again for no good reason, or Andy posting more ranty stuff about old feuds) - unless someone is going to file an RFC over Adambro for daring to apply common sense and judgement, this really should be done and dusted with. fish&karate 13:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I consider his statement just prior to the unblock, "Accordingly, solely in order to be able to continue that work, and very much under duress, I hereby give an undertaking that I will not return the disputed material to my user page, nor any other; save for reporting further instances of the harassment and abuse to which it was my response.", to be such an agreement. Do you see it differently? --CBD 13:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "nor any other", one could argue that this undertaking has already been violated. Hesperian 01:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I missed that statement entirely - thanks for the heads up. In that case, never mind what I said - Adambro's unblock was completely appropriate, and all this complaining is ridiculous, frankly. Andy has agreed not to restore the material, that's what was required of him, he is accordingly unblocked. fish&karate 14:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

In retrospect, I'm going to guess that some of the complainants missed it also. In which case this has been more of a 'rush to judgment' / 'assumption of bad faith' issue. Normally I'd expect people to have done their homework before calling for de-sysoping, but oversights happen. If they thought there had been no agreement to cease I can see where some of this hostility was coming from. I still wouldn't agree with it, but it wouldn't seem as completely unjustified as I found the complaints in light of that agreement. --CBD 14:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• In light of the link posted above, I apologize for my comments in relation to Adambro. While I supported the block in its original intent, I no longer do in part to the latest comments. seicer | talk | contribs 16:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, I personally no longer supported a block since he agreed and took that first step. My criticisms still stand, and I hope both admins have a good think about it, because should (I become aware that) something like this occurred again, then I know that I wouldn't leave it at this. There's also a relevant note above made at 1:21 (UTC). Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The note in question is an observation that the offending piece of text has been placed in a talk page archive . Given that such an archive is meant as a record of all past posts on a user's talk page, and that this is actually a record of some posts that were made on his talk page on 19 August 2007 (and which were not present in any other archive), then they should presumably be in an archive. Whether the remarks were appropriate when they were originally posted is an entirely different question (the answer to which is probably that they were, at best, very ill-advised remarks). However, given that they were made, leaving them out could even be seen as trying to deny the fact that they were ever there (as one would have to search through page histories in order to find them). So this is where they belong, and I don't see why any sort of sanction needs to be made (before anyone suggests it).

Of course, having a notice on one's user page for all to see is a different matter entirely, but that hasn't happened. --RFBailey (talk) 05:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that the text in question was in place on his talk page for over a year and nobody objected or removed it then. He archived his talk page... get over it. As to 'not leaving it at this' if something like this occurs again... that's just what we needed. More threats. Way to go. How dare anyone disagree with you. You make sure to take care of that if they ever do it again. Yeeesh. --CBD 06:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Could have been averted

Y'know, in retrospect, a lot of this hubbub about "wheel-warring" might have been averted if someone had simply come here to the AN/I thread and stated "Hey, Andy agreed to the terms presented to him - how about we unblock?"

This whole thread from the start is depressing. It's depressing that Andy/POTW felt the need to resurrect an old feud for no reason after a long block. It's depressing that people started a heated debate over the matter. It's depressing that so much confusion arose out of a missed comment and an unexplained unblock. It's even more depressing that some people are quick to call for Adambro's head and raise the spectre of Arbcom here. The most depressing part of it all is that just a smidge more effort in communicating our intentions could have prevented a lot of this ... Shereth 20:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Some good faith by those carrying the torches and pitchforks would have also gone a long ways in keeping this from exploding out of proportion. I'll concede that there could have been better communication, but the unnecessarily inflammatory comments after the unblock did nothing to improve the situation. As noted elsewhere, it's time to let this go and move on. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Y'know, in retrospect, a lot of this hubbub about "wheel-warring" might have been averted if someone had simply come here to the AN/I thread and stated "Hey, Andy agreed to the terms presented to him - how about we unblock?"

Yes, but that route often fails to gain the result one wishes. The IAR unblocker will never get reverted and the unblock rarely if ever leads to any removal of tools. It's not nice, but unfortunately it works. Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent incidents

All this talk about incidents from last year may be interesting, but his recent "contributions", e.g. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates#Coord_needs_repair_(on_1844_pages) is just as much of concern. -- User:Docu

Request for community ban

• Boondocks37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user, after asserting a removal of an autoblock (apparently blocked for POV pushing), disappears for a over a year, then returns for more of the same.

The posting to User talk:Raul654 (diff), really would seem to make it clear that this user does not have Misplaced Pages's best interests at heart.

I am looking for a community ban rather than just a block (indefinite or otherwise) due to the long time "missing", combined with the concern about the autoblock. I think that this user may have been (and be) using IPs and possibly other socks to continue more of the same.

As an aside, when looking over their contributions, I noted that their other edit seems odd based on the reference provided (and because it replaced other text), and have reverted. I did this both because I disagree with how the article is being construed in the article, but also because (in this case, anyway), I won't be the one to block the individual. (I wish to be "just-another-editor" in this.)

Anyway, I welcome others' thoughts/opinion on all of this (including if you think I'm "way off base" on this). - jc37 08:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, at what point should we consider that there is consensus concerning this? And once that's determined, someone else will please need to enact the block/ban, since I have intentionally recused myself from that. - jc37 22:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• A years absence shows that time isn't going to fix this. That doesn't exactly leave us with many choices.--Crossmr (talk) 09:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

  Agreed. - jc37 08:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• I concur with a community ban. Raul654 (talk) 02:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• I support a community ban on Boondocks37. If there is serious concern about socking, it would be good to have a WP:SSP case to refer to in this discussion. Even if no additional action is required, it helps to gather the evidence in one place. EdJohnston (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Looks like a good way to solve this issue. Tiptoety 02:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• Question – If this dispute is about a single word in a single article I think this is being blown way out of proportion. Are there other instances of unconstructive editing? Has this user engaged in abusive socking? Also I am wondering if the administrator who originally unblocked this user has any opinion on whether there should be a ban or not. If that administrator supports a ban, or if there is abusive socking as confirmed by checkuser, I would have no objection. Bwrs (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Confused. We have a user who was once blocked inappropriately (no warnings, no prior blocks, no attempts to explain why his edits were a problem) well over a year ago, who reappears and makes a few edits to a different article. Again, he has received no warnings and nobody has attempted to explain what problem apparently exists with his edits, but now we're not just trying to block him, but to all out ban him. If there's evidence of abusive sockpuppetry, it would need to be presented before I could support a block (we've seen how well blocks based on speculation of sockpuppetry work). The reason a years absence didn't "fix this" is because nobody has attempted to "fix this". Based on what's been presented, I just don't get why exactly we are banning him. - auburnpilot talk 01:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk · contribs) recent edits

I guess it is my day to stumble across completely bizarre edits. I just spotted the above user making an edit to an article in which he cleaned up the cites but the edit was labeled just edited page (well obviously?) . That in itself while strange isn't bad... however I decided to check the rest of his contribs to see if this was a habit and I should leave him a message or what. I found something truly bizarre. He's got plenty of warnings regarding deletions, userfying things, etc. He appears to be using an automated tool of some sort, but whats most bizarre are some of the other edits he's doing. Like reverting a new user in the sandbox , creating this truly bizarre redirect and other things. I'm not sure it needs admin attention, but I see a lot of communication coming at him about some of his behaviour and nothing coming back from him through a few page search of his contribs. He's does have a tendency though to mark a lot of his edits minor with an edit summary of "edited the page" which isn't particularly helpful. Many of his edits do appear helpful, just some seem out of place or strange.--Crossmr (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I've undone the edits to user sandboxes; Tohd8BohaithuGh1 cleared several user sandboxes and replaced them with Misplaced Pages Sandbox templates, and there was no evidence the sandboxes were inappropriate or that there had been any discussion with the users. --Snigbrook 14:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

He's continuing to make bizarre edits -- creating a new page Astrick as a redirect to Asterisk, creating Talk pages for users telling them that they are blocked or putting welcome templates on which thank them for their contributions in "Misplaced Pages:changing username" etc. This new business with talk pages looks worrying.Doug Weller (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have left a note telling the user his edits are being discussed here. DGG (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

apparently this had already been done, but I sure would like to hear from the editor. DGG (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

He edited the section below, yet hasn't responded here. From my skimming of his contribs, he doesn't seem to engage in 2 way conversation. As I said there is a lot of talk coming at him, but not going the other way. This edit is a little weird . He's tagged the vandal from below as temporarily blocked, but he was blocked as a sock. Perhaps someone wants to put the right template there.--Crossmr (talk) 01:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Should we be making these kinds of redirects? article space to wikispace? I was under the impression, no.--Crossmr (talk) 01:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

His creation of Astrick was seemingly to link this page . With the excuse he was doing it to avoid the redirect... yet he redirected Astrick to Asterisk.--Crossmr (talk) 02:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, this user welcomed User talk:Tonytunnycliffe with the {{welcomespam}} which confused Tony. Could an admin confirm with a check of Tony's deleted contribs to make sure there are no speedied pages or other welcomespam worthy material, and let him know what if anything. I took a look through and saw nothing that would warrant a spam notice. The only way I could understand this was that Tohd was spamming with welcome messages, and not welcoming/warning users who had put up spam material. The edits and the lack of responses are confusing, but I'm just chalking this up to relatively new user. Would a second notice with a pointer to this specific section help? I'm not sure the notices got his attention here. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

He's copied a welcome template from User:Cocoaguy to User talk:Westhydeian - no problem, except that the template invites the user to contact Cocoaguy for help. Doug Weller (talk) 07:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

He had a second message from DGG, I'd already left him one. he's had 2 notifications and has been to this page (See section below) I can only take that to mean that he doesn't wish to explain himself.--Crossmr (talk) 07:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

So, what would be the appropriate action to take now? Doug Weller (talk) 08:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can easily admit that some of his edits are helpful (cite cleanup) but that doesn't give him permission to be a nuisance otherwise. If he continues to make these other troubling edits (on other uses pages and and articles) we don't have much choice.--Crossmr (talk) 08:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've left him a notice to make sure that he sees this specific thread. He hasn't made any edits in several hours, so hopefully he'll respond here and this will be all cleared up. -Optigan13 (talk) 09:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd already left him a direct link to this thread. After leaving it for him, he came here and edited the section below this. The only other option would be for someone to call up the page and prop his eyelids open in front of his monitor to make 110% sure that he's seen it. I think we've more than gone out of our way to ensure he's seen it and edited since being notified of this thread.--Crossmr (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

He's come on to make a couple spelling redirects then disappear again...--Crossmr (talk) 07:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

He's still failed to come and explain his edits but come back to make puzzling edits like this . He claims to be bypassing the redirect, but just sending it to another redirect...--Crossmr (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well he's gotten multiple warnings, to no avail. At least the pace he is fairly slow, I've pulled similar errors with redirects in the past only with AWB. Unfortunately I think a block may be necessary to get some kind of response out of him, even if it is just a whoops, my mistake type of response. The problem is these edits are mildly disruptive by confusing other users and forcing people to correct his mistakes without limited acknowledgment/change from him. Could some admin review this users edits and see where to go from here? -Optigan13 (talk)

I've given him a level 4 warning, if that doesn't get his attention, nothing will.--Crossmr (talk) 08:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well sorry about the edits if you think they are disruptive. This edit was a mistake and I apologize for any inconvenience caused. If you want to block me, go ahead and do so if you want to just block people randomly. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's probably important for you to realize that this would definitely not be a case of "blocking people randomly". In fact, it would be the textbook useful block: when an editor, despite good intentions has a negative net effect on the project, we block him until problems are addressed. You seem unwilling to admit mistakes and unwilling to listen to concerns and adjust your editing. Currently, the effort that others are forced to put into monitoring your edits and repairing the damage outweighs the benefits of your good edits. You can stubbornly refuse to listen but don't expect others to put up with it. I'll copy this on your talk page with a few extra problems that were not mentioned above. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've warned the user that I will block if he screws up on newpage patrol again. He's been completely unresponsive for weeks, despite repeated detailed complaints. I also note that he has AWB access, which should also be removed if the pattern of mistakes and unresponsiveness continues. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll admit that I was wrong. I will now adjust my editing as a result. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You've been making far more mistakes than just that. Editing other users sandboxes, reverting new users in the main sandbox, etc.--Crossmr (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

And could you stop with the misleading edit summaries? This is NOT link repair. You're creating redirects.--Crossmr (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Then do you label the edit summary "Redirected page"? Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

With the page that you've redirected to, yes. That would be a far better edit summary so someone knows what is going on.--Crossmr (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I just had to refer his edits of Decipherment of rongorongo as he completely broke the referencing system, rendering it illegible. However, I am not clear that was on purpose. I left him a note of explanation on his page. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well Tohd8BohaithuGh1 is now responding to issues and admitting mistakes and working on it which was the issue here. I've pointed out adoption since Tohd8BohaithuGh1 could use the help as they try new things and find their niche. At this point I would say the edits could be better, but so could a lot of new users. Would anyone else consider this resolved? -Optigan13 (talk) 00:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ban/block - whatever.

Sure looks like the same guy and no constructive edits. Anonblocked two weeks --Rodhullandemu 22:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)}} Can someone please ban this tiresome twit thank you. Giano (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The user has only vandalized once after his last block, don't block until after final warning. BTW, WP:AIV is a more appropriate place for this. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't go to minor corners I only come here, as more people see things here, so I shall continue posting such things here. He is obvioulsy a waste of space - so just block him and save time. Giano (talk) 11:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but the kind who have a taste for swinging the banhammer are the ones who keep AIV on their watchlist - whereas this is a place for a cup of coffee and a bit of a bunfight. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, buns.
*Flings a range of pastry products.*

Anthøny ✉ 22:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You fling what you like, but "AIV" sounds like some dreadful program for the infertile, impotent or physically unable, I have no intention of going anywhere near such a place - at least publicly. Giano (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Can't you tone your rhetoric down a bit? Synergy 21:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There was nothing rhetorical - is it my fault if WP:AIV sounds like some sort of clinic for the unfortunate? Giano (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

AIV does sound like a syringe bearing some clearish, frightening liquid with a big docking hypo. ANI meanwhile brings to my mind a mix of both the Latin root and its context, life of empire. Uh oh! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh thank goodness! I thought it was just me, not that I have ever needed any help in that department, something to do with a rural childhood I suppose. You are so right about ANI, one can close one's eyes here and be right in the heart of accademia. Giano (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Still, there was no need to retort with such a nasty perspective. AIV was the place to take it. If you didn't like the idea, you could have simply exercised your right to holding your tongue. Which is preferable. Synergy 23:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

<--Resolved means resolved. Move along everyone? Keeper ǀ 76 23:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Step aside, Keeper, I'll handle this! (puts on Junior Peacemaker hat) Giano, I think Synergy is concerned that your comments could be taken as insulting the people that actually spend time helping out at WP:AIV. Synergy, I'm pretty sure Giano was making fun of the name AIV, not the people there; as someone who does spend time there, I certainly didn't take it as directed at me. However, you really should come by sometime, Giano. On Fridays, we have cake. (takes off Junior Peacemaker hat, waits pateintly for phone call from Nobel Committee...) --barneca (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ooooh! I like cake! Is it chocolate???? I also like carrot cake, and if you twist my arm, I'll even eat white-cake. Ok, you got me. You don't have to twist my arm. I heart cake!!!! All this to say, this is fucking resolved right???? Keeper ǀ 76 23:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you barneca for (hopefully) resolving the misunderstanding so that it doesn't spill elsewhere. Keeper76, that unnecessary last sentence created more heat than light and it isn't helpful - why not consider using barneca's more ideal approach in the future? Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(sticks tongue out at Keeper behind Ncmvocalist's back) Yeah, Keeper, you should probably start following my lead more often. Would you like me to be your mentor? (uh oh, Ncmvocalist is looking back this way. start acting all innocent again) --barneca (talk) 01:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oh dear, Oh dear such delicate sensibilities, I was merely referring to the name, nothing more, I'm sure all the people there are hard working and very productive. It's just that when I was a studemt I friend of mine became a sperm donor (very lucrative too, I recall) and I'm sure he went to somethin called AIV, every alternate Thursday, to do whatever it is he had to do. I do like like cake, what a nice thought, perhaps you could give very large pieces to Ncmvocalist and Synergy - now there's a name that is ringing some bells, perhaps because it sounds like an oilseed rape, but I'm sure that's not the reason it is familiar. Giano (talk) 07:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• I like that characterization, "tiresome twit". A very British kind of expression. I recommend "tiresome twit account" or "TTA" as a new category of user, and a bit stronger than "SPA" or "silly pudding account". :) And before some wise guy says it - yes, I can be a TTA sometimes. 0:) Baseball Bugs 08:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• Perhaps not, the large slices of cake are always reserved for the visitors, like Giano, even if he only uses them for food-fight purposes. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are there new posting being added (above)? when they're not suppose to be? GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

How do you mean "supposed to"? Who made Keeper the sheriff? Please do not mark a thread "Resolved" when people are still talking. That template is not for telling them to shut up. It's for when activity has spontaneously ceased. Un-archiving. Bishonen | talk 22:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC).

What point could this possibly make? Giano asked for someone to be blocked, they were blocked. What now? —Wknight94 (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Disney Vandal issues

There is a guy, who claims to be a 13 year old kid, who is causing a lot of problems with various Disney film articles, some Teletubbies articles, and some Barney articles. He has been indef blocked numerous times, but keeps changing IP addresses so the blocks only last a few hours, or a day at the most. I started tracking in August. This is a list of ones used so far, all confirmed to be from the same ISP (Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/70.146.241.244):

• 68.220.180.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.184.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 65.0.160.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 72.28.33.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.162.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 70.146.241.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)65.0.163.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 70.146.242.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.174.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.175.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 65.0.187.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.174.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.173.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.220.177.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 65.0.184.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

He's also been confirmed to have at least registered sock accounts (Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Iluvteletubbies).

• Bambifan101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - first known one
• Iluvteletubbies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Nowthatwasawesome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Bambirocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Sometimes, he does acceptable edits, but mostly he drives myself and a bunch of other editors to distraction by his attempts to return improved articles to bad earlier versions , removing plot points and other major bits of content while adding their own made up stuff , and doing massive refactoring of talk pages . That's just a small sample of stuff, of course. Bambifan101 has the longest history because of actual attempts to talk some sense into him. At this point, I can almost spot this guy on site, report to AIV, and usually he's blocked quick. However, when his in IP mode, its a band-aid at best. He seems determined to keep this stuff up despite knowing its not appreciated and he's falsely claiming that he just wants to "help" in the various communications with him. I suspect he finds it funny watching folks run around behind him having to clean up after him.

Is there anything else that can be done to stop this kid? An IP range block, a word to his ISP, anything? -- ] (] · ]) 00:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Indef'ed Bambirocks, page protecting some of the heaviest-hit pages for now. seicer | talk | contribs 00:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Did a scan of the last 20000 anonymous edits, looking for 68.220.128/14. Here are the results:

• type="edit" ns="0" title="Lincoln Middle School (Gainesville, Florida)" rcid="244126532" pageid="3704564" revid="238376379" old_revid="237806485" user="68.220.150.90" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T15:33:44Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="2008 Auburn Tigers football team" rcid="244027244" pageid="14268766" revid="238280748" old_revid="238273637" user="68.220.163.129" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T03:10:57Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Bambi II" rcid="244001802" pageid="2877925" revid="238256257" old_revid="238254551" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:30:30Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Thumper (Bambi)" rcid="244001417" pageid="8400506" revid="238255883" old_revid="238255500" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:28:32Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Thumper (Bambi)" rcid="244001024" pageid="8400506" revid="238255500" old_revid="236754961" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:25:37Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Bambi II" rcid="243999762" pageid="2877925" revid="238254303" old_revid="238253510" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:18:42Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Bambi II" rcid="243998959" pageid="2877925" revid="238253510" old_revid="238252833" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:13:58Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Bambi II" rcid="243998270" pageid="2877925" revid="238252833" old_revid="238010885" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:10:02Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997912" pageid="4196336" revid="238252501" old_revid="238252423" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:07:53Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997817" pageid="4196336" revid="238252423" old_revid="238252312" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:07:23Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997699" pageid="4196336" revid="238252312" old_revid="238252191" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:06:38Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997573" pageid="4196336" revid="238252191" old_revid="238251963" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:05:52Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997340" pageid="4196336" revid="238251963" old_revid="238251800" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:04:37Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997175" pageid="4196336" revid="238251800" old_revid="238251733" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:03:41Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" rcid="243997105" pageid="4196336" revid="238251733" old_revid="238229539" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-14T00:03:02Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Intensive care unit" rcid="243994536" pageid="6332859" revid="238249200" old_revid="237664594" user="68.220.132.129" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-13T23:47:13Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Heaven's Gate (film)" rcid="243962951" pageid="92706" revid="238218287" old_revid="238159037" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-13T20:59:25Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Caligula (film)" rcid="243956202" pageid="243204" revid="238211649" old_revid="236819207" user="68.220.173.143" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-13T20:26:30Z"
• type="edit" ns="0" title="Fantasy Ride" rcid="243578053" pageid="16855379" revid="237843196" old_revid="237829341" user="68.220.131.151" anon="" timestamp="2008-09-12T01:43:50Z"

Doesn't look like collateral damage would be high from blocking 68.220.128/14. Kww (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You might try suggesting to him that you will contact administrators at Lincoln Middle School if this continues. It might be a spurious connection, but if not, I bet mentioning the possibility will end this problem quick. Looie496 (talk) 03:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This Disney Vandal has been causing major problems at the Simple English Misplaced Pages as well. simple:WALL-E and simple:The Fox and the Hound (movie) have been indef semied as a result of his edits and Chaorlette's Web 2 was deleted three times . If this is blocked I suggest it be global. The relevant discussion would be over on the administrators' noticeboard. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

When I saw him adding simple links to some of his ideas, I wondered if he was causing problems there too. -- ] (] · ]) 03:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• What about 85.127.170.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? If I have time, I may partake the calling of the school if it is verified that all of the accounts involved are related (user accounts, that is). seicer | talk | contribs 03:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• Well, normal admins can't block anything larger than a /16, although four of those will cover off a /14. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like that would at least impede him some, maybe? Anyway to trace these IPs to see if any go back to that school? The earlier SSP noted that most come from Bellsouth, I believe. -- ] (] · ]) 14:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If we could do some of these partial blocks, it would be good. He just returned again with 65.0.184.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). -- ] (] · ]) 00:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

He's back again with 68.220.177.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Any ideas on how to block him at all? -- ] (] · ]) 21:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• I went ahead and anon-only rangeblocked 68.220.160.0/19 for a week. That should hopefully cover a decent chunk of it temporarily. --slakr 21:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Alas, not even 24 hours...he came back on 65.0.160.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and not only hit Talk:Teletubbies but apparently decided to also play with Misplaced Pages:Avoid weasel words. Interestingly, this one seems to actually be a repeat IP for him, from the previous edits. -- ] (] · ]) 02:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

*screams* Now he is back with another registered account: Ohnothesimpsons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and it needs to be indef blocked. I reported to AIV, but reviewing admin said it should be handled here. A ban throughout wikiworld since he's causing problems on at least two wikis already? More range blocks? -- ] (] · ]) 01:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Kimberlyvang

• Kimberlyvang (talk · contribs)

This user has been constantly adding a "Personal life" section to Menudo (band), where she claims to have a relationship with one of the group's members. After removing it as unsourced a few times, I left her a OR-note template which was promptly ignored. The user doesn't display any interest in trying to justify her actions via any kind of communication. Now, I think that she is most likely one of those fans that like posting such nonsense to articles, but I won't take any action without a second opinion. Mostly because it isn't clear if there is malicious intent or if the allegation might be plausible but handled incorrectly due to lack of knowledge regarding our policies. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a typical "fan edit", wouldn't treat it as anything but simple vandalism. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've given them a "vandalism 2" warning. If/when it continues, give them the 3 and 4 warning and then report it to WP:AIV for action. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That didn't work... She just reappeared posting the same stuff after the test2, I upgraded the warning, but my next step will most likely be just block as a vandalism-only account, this user obviously couldn't care less. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

At this point, it looks like a throw-away account anyway, I'd support a block. Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Back at it. I just blocked the account, she will keep coming here daily just to post that, block reviews are welcomed. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Potentially too much personal information about where the poster's namesake lives (assuming that part of it is factual). Perhaps the user's contribution history should be deleted from public view? Baseball Bugs 08:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Agenda accounts

I just blocked a couple of agenda / sockpuppet accounts active on 9/11, the contributions make it pretty clear that these are not new nebies but, rather, old hands. If either can show that they have a good reason for suddenly changing accounts then I have no objection to unblocking, but I suspect that they are a couple of the usual suspects. Accounts are: MichiganMilitia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Mass driver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Guy (Help!) 16:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"Michigan Militia" is probably a username violation that should remain blocked regardless of what good reasons are given. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

i am not sure about htat part. While group affiliation names such as 'Michiagan Militari' are unrecommenable via WP:USERNAME, they are not specificaly prohibite dunless they were promotiona l or in nature or that if they were have a substantial conflict of itnterests (an example would be that if someone called 'Microsoft' started posting extmrely promotional textage to the Microsoft accopunt.). Smith Jones (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

User:MichiganMilitia is a sock of User:Bofors7715 - see Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets#User:Bofors7715 Bofors also posted a request on 911blogger for help with the 9/11 article, hence it's likely that User:Mass driver is a meatpuppet. --Aude (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but shouldn't he be given the possibility to defend himself?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

He can defend himself on his talk page like anyone else who's been blocked. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it strange that he has to defend there when the discussion about him is here and possibly he is not aware of this discussion?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Answer: no. That's where blocked sockpuppets always have to defend themselves. He already knows he's been accused of sockpuppetry from his block log. If you think he needs an additional notice, figure out which one of his socks he's most likely to log in as and post one at that user talk page. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed that Michigan Militia is Bofors7715. Mass driver is  Unrelated. Sam Korn 21:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

William Rodriguez

Also, the WP:SSP page has a backlog. I have another request there, pertaining to the William Rodriguez, that really needs attention - Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets#User:Wtcsurvivor. This involves BLP, socks, COI editing, personal attacks, incivility, edit warring, and outing/intimidating users, so some due diligence and attention from uninvolved admins is needed there. --Aude (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Contrivance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) looks like something of a problem. What do others think? Guy (Help!) 19:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm convinced that Contrivance is not a sock, but has edited problematically per WP:BLP and edits just one article. --Aude (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Two, I think, but yes, disruptive WP:SPA is my reading. Anything to be done? Guy (Help!) 20:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's disruptive, and maybe the arbcom decision should apply. The edit warring is unacceptable, as are BLP violations. What I would really like to see is the article adhere to WP:BLP, and be fair to Mr. Rodriguez, but I'm not the best person to be mediating and maintaining the page. --Aude (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, we most likely have other related IPs editing - 67.82.153.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --Aude (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This situation is still not resolved. 67.82.153.235 and Contrivance are still discussing on Talk:William Rodriguez. Right now the article itself is protected due to the edit warring. If I try to intervene myself, users there resort to personal attacks against me, though I think if a neutral, uninvolved party helps, then I think the situation can be resolved. --Aude (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Latest comments from 67.82.153.235 (a.k.a. Wtcsurvivor) are entirely uncivil, with personal attacks. There is no way to productively edit that article, once it's unprotected, with such incivility and personal attacks. --Aude (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Grumble. I've been personally contacted by Mr. Rodriguez for having been "a voice of reason", so I really can't intervene as an admin, but I see a lot of additions of unsourced potentially libelous material by both of those censored editors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

We have checkuser results for this case - Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Wtcsurvivor. Though, I think dealing with one side of the dispute does not totally resolve the situation, since there are also BLP issues and problems with Contrivance's editing. --Aude (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I did leave a note for Contrivance about the BLP policy, but don't think there is a lot more I can do here. Some broader input would be good. --Aude (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Improper language

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=238400470&oldid=238400101

User RafaelRGarcia refers to Justice Clarence Thomas as a "Perv" in the edit summary of the above edit. He also uses this term on the discussion page, but I'd have to dig to find it. Also, user is trying to make the page biased against the justice and all his edits are toward that end. I seek only to correct certain verifiably false statements in the article and to have it be fair and balanced (see it's talk page). I know you're thinking, that's what they all say. RafaelRGarcia has also accused me of being a sockpuppet and tried to have me banned. Thank you for your attention to this matter.(Wallamoose (talk) 02:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC))

Stop trying to fight. The article is already locked; your complaining could only keep it locked. I haven't tried to vandalize the wikipage or anything, and it's completely proper to stop you from slanting the page as you have been trying to do. I have no problem calling anyone who's followed Thomas's course of action a "perv," but it's not like I've tried to add that language to the article. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 07:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

RafaelRGarcia--calling someone a perv is hardly conducive to encyclopedia building, whether in edit summary or elsewhere. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well it is kind of hard to describe in other language what kind of person leaves a pubic hair on a co-worker's soda can. Though using slang abbreviations is discouraged, so I think this would be better: There are some who feel that Justice Thomas' actions at the EEOC, when it was discovered that he had placed one of his pubic hairs on Anita Hill's Coca-Cola soda can, fall far outside acceptable workplace behavior and thus consider him to be a pervert. --Dragon695 (talk) 04:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This user is creating a storm in a soda can (hehehe), clealy leaving a pube in the drink of a co-worker is perverted, there isn't libel there as long as he avoids doing so in the article. Anyway, since when is "pervert" a real insult? - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thomas was never accused of leaving a pubic hair on a can of coke. He was accused of making a comment about finding one. And Hill's allegations were widely refuted, not that any of this has anything to do with Garcia's improper and biased editing as well as his smearing and deragatory comments against a justice he doesn't like.(Wallamoose (talk) 06:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

Ah! In other words you are just making noise because you have an ax to grind? I'm not sure why you are pursuing any kind of action due to something so silly, no admin would issue a block for refering to someone's "perviness" (note that he didn't even go as far as calling him a "pervert" directly). Try resolving this elsewhere like WP:DR, this isn't Misplaced Pages's complaints department, it should be used for "real" incidents, not petty arguments. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. Wallamoose is threatening to remove additions of mine to the article. Every sentence I write is cited, and my sources in that article are conservative legal reporter Jan Crawford Greenburg, legal reporter Jeffrey Toobin, and conservative reporters for the Wall Street Journal. But because the sentences make Thomas look bad, Wallamoose claims they're biased and wants to remove them. If Wallamoose has his way, the Thomas article will never go unlocked for long, so I hope someone stops him.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"Perviness" is not worth getting worked up over. It's just a lame attempt at comedy. (I wish I'd thought of it.) :) Baseball Bugs 12:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wallamoose is blocking my Good Article Nomination of William Rehnquist; the only thing he's done in the review page is complain about Clarence Thomas more. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:William_Rehnquist/GA1#GA_Review RafaelRGarcia (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wallamoose is now moosing up the page on William Rehnquist. For example, after a citation to legal reporter Jan Crawford Greenburg, Wallamoose added the following two paragraphs (copied from another site) to smear her:

"Jan Crawford Greenburg herself has been widely criticized for her failure to remain objective. Greenburg expresses her personal views as an outspoken advocate for abortion rights and critic of conservative religious values. Greenhouse has also taken public stands on some of the most contentious issues faced by the court. For example, Greenhouse said the U.S. Government had, "turned its energy and attention away from upholding the rule of law and toward creating law-free zones at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Haditha and other places around the world -- the U.S.". Sandy Rowe, editor of the Oregonian and a past chairwoman of the executive committee of the Pulitzer Prize board, said "Any of us has to be careful between our own personal views -- which we no doubt have -- and whether it casts doubt on our own work or on the credibility of the institution we represent". Daniel Okrent the New York Times' first public editor -- or in-house journalism critic said he is amazed by Greenhouse's remarks. "It's been a basic tenet of journalism ... that the reporter's ideology to be suppressed and submerged, so the reader has absolute confidence that what he or she is reading is not colored by previous views," Okrent says."

Is all that appropriate in an article on Rehnquist? Please get this user to cut it out.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Improper username? "BristollovesLevi" blocked indefinitely

Per discussion with GRBerry, I undid his 31 hour block of BristollovesLevi and indefinitely blocked, on the ground that the username violates WP:BLP since the man who impregnated the daughter of Sarah Palin, Bristol Palin, is named Levi Johnston. I invite comment to see if this action is in accord with the understanding of the community as to what makes for an inappropriate username. Edison (talk) 03:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Good block, since that user was disruptively editing Wasilla, Alaska. Just more Palinsanity. Kelly 03:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how inappropriate the user name is, but I have a Null opinion on that. However even if that wasn't an issue, 31 for edit warring is light considering the likleyness this is a bad hand sock and general incivility. If the community decides that the user name is kosher, I recommend a 48 hour at the very least.--Tznkai (talk) 03:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering the context now, I think the username block is a good one. If the guy really wants to come back and be productive, he can do so under a clean slate that a new account brings. User:Zscout370 04:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that's actually Bristol Palin??... Nah. Endorse username block, no reason to stir up more Palin-related drama. L'Aquatique 04:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I do concur with the username block, as Edison said above. I also suspect, as Tznkai does, that this is a bad hand sockpuppet. The problem there is that I have too many possibilities in mind and no significant evidence as to whose puppet it is. If anyone has evidence, please file a SSP case. GRBerry 13:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Palinsanity? You should trademark that one, Kelly. caknuck _° is geared up for football season 01:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked?

Hello. I hope I am at the right place for this. Recently someone called "Garzo" blocked an account over the "three-revert rule" (whatever that is). However, it appears that this account user is on the same IP address as me (and thousands of other users too). This does seem rather odd. if one person using an account committs some real or imagined violation, should everyone on the same internet provider as that account be blocked as well with that person? 41.245.165.140 (talk) 09:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a protection mechanism against the user logging out, possibly creating/logging in as a new account, and continuing the disruption. If you create an account, use it over time, and later get blocked due to this mechanism (called an autoblock), you can request an {{unblock}} on your talk page, and are likely to either get the autoblock released or get your account to have an IP block exemption. Unfortunately, if you don't have an account, or if your account is too new and not used enough, we can't distinguish between you and the user who was blocked. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking that Dr Rgne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is the person that was blocked. Funny, Dr Rgne's edit history (e.g., on TNA World Heavyweight Championship looks very similar to this IP's 41.245.165.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Block evasion? They certainly didn't wait the 24 hours before using the IP to edit... justinfr (talk/contribs) 12:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:196.25.255.218?? seicer | talk | contribs 12:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, was that a reply to me? The only person User:Garzo has blocked (for edit-warring) in the past month is User:Dr Rgne. Now User:41.245.165.140 shows up to complain about being accidentally blocked, and this IP likes to edit the same articles as the blocked user (e.g., wrestling articles, see contribs of both). I expect they're the same, and the IP is crying wolf where none exists, and block evading. Oddly, the block was only 24 hours and it could have easily been waited out. justinfr (talk/contribs) 12:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SSP##User:Dr_Rgne. justinfr (talk/contribs) 12:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, it was meant as a peek into similar abusive or non-constructive IP addresses. seicer | talk | contribs 12:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Now Dr. Rgne is putting provocative messages on his talk page while removing my reply to them . Just keeping everybody updated. justinfr (talk/contribs) 16:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have only discovered this page through looking through your "contribs" history. Note the way this person is now copying what others have said about him/her almost word-for-word. I removed that comment of yours because it was just a diatribe which served no valid purpose as to the issue at hand. Anything else relevant can be seen at this users' talk page, my own, or the "special case" he/she has created. Dr Rgne (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Your hyperbole is amusing. My comment was hardly a "diatribe", especially compared to this and this. I think I'll bow out now until the SSP case is resolved, to avoid increasing the drama. justinfr (talk/contribs) 16:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Confirmed, no evidence of shared edits. Thatcher 22:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I am the person who started this section. This user "justinfr" has accused anyone on the same server as being a sockpuppet of a user. "justinfr" has also made personal insults against various people, and checking his/her history one finds a series of accusations, some of which he/she has admitted to having been wrong. Now quite apart from this issue, one also has to wonder why "justinfr" is so interested in this. To sum up, yes there have been different editors and names using this IP, as this is a shared IP address. In addition, many users on this server find their IP changing from time to time. I have posted different messages today, and 2 different IPs came up under the history. I have also received 3 different messages today from admins about edits that I know I did not make (eg. Kyrgyz language and Jacob Zuma, as well as somebody deleting a message that someone else posted on a user talk page). So, my questions are : Is it right to attack an entire IP range because of one person on that range? Does it constitute "sockpuppetry" when someone's IP changes through no doing of their own(ie their provider changes IPs)? And lastly how and why did "justinfr" become so interested in my IP range/server? 41.245.165.140 (talk) 09:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Further, I have just been warned for vandalizing an article about "Ryan(name)" which I have no knowledge of. 41.245.165.140 (talk) 09:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible range block?

Please review the history of The Pentecostal Mission, List of Chief Pastors of the Pentecostal Mission, and their related talk pages. There has been a persistent soapboxing attempt by an anon user that moves between IPs on the 168.187.176.xxx range. Since this disruption appears to be coming from a single person, blocking would be preferable to protection. Also, protecting talk pages sucks. Is this too large of a range to consider a range block on? --Onorem♠Dil 12:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I discovered that this IP-hopper has used 18 different addresses so far from the given range. (He tells us that Satan is very angry). I have range-blocked 168.187.176.0/24 for two weeks, after a spot-check that did not reveal any good-faith IPs working in the range lately. Let me know if anyone thinks the block is excessive. There is a heavy burst of nonsense comments at Talk:The Pentecostal Mission that needs daily or more-than-daily reverts from the Talk page, so semi-protection of that page for a month or so might be the fallback strategy. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --Onorem♠Dil 22:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's odd that the IP range resolves to Kuwait. I'm not sure how big of a Pentacostal minority Kuwait has, so I'm thinking this is an expatriate Westerner. The ISP owns the whole /16 range, but they may allocate those addresses geographically. caknuck _° is geared up for football season 01:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:James Randi

This page is continually being trolled by User:Harry Mudd, a long-standing SPA (July 2005) whose specific single-purpose is (or has become) to attack James Randi. He's already been blocked twice for edit-warring on the subject, though not recently. Currently he's stirring up an edit war on the James Randi talk page. Any advice would be welcome. Baseball Bugs 13:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Coincident with this edit skirmish, the red-link has deleted postings from his talk page from the last year or so that warn him about his activities, possibly thinking that they won't be noticed. Baseball Bugs 13:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I've listed certain facts which Bugs hates. I've given cites for all of them. Bugs may hate the facts I've given, but they are simply true. So he keeps deleting them. Harry Mudd (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

He has deliberately distorted the so-called facts, and several other users agree. Mudd is waging a lone war on this subject. Baseball Bugs 14:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that you have once again deleted a section that does not agree with your view of the world. And you refuse to see the simple obvious fact that Randi lost the case. Harry Mudd (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Those items were previously removed by two other users as being BLP violations and of no contributory benefit to the article - in short, trolling. Baseball Bugs 15:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What is with this comment:

The IP again demonstrates that he's either a troll or an idiot, or both. ] 14:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hardyplants (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What's with that comment is that a guy who can't write English was criticizing the article's subject for being insufficiently educated. Baseball Bugs 23:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Harry Mudd has violated 3RR by reinserting his trolling and BLP violations at Talk:James Randi. 1st revert 2nd 3rd 4th --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I reinserted facts with cites that Randi's followers don't like, so they deleted them. And perhaps you would also care to list the times that Bugs reverted the page. Harry Mudd (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

A. As has been pointed out to you repeatedly at the talk page, they're not facts, they're fabrications. B. Bugs reverted three times, which does not violate 3RR. Furthermore, reversions to enforce BLP are not subject to the 3RR. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Disruptive WP:SPA blocked for now, see what he has to say for himself on his talk page. Bugs, no need to act like 500 copies of Stella here, you have anded this off, let's let others do the rest. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I am not nearly as concerned about this problem as you seem to think I am. :) You blocked him, it's fixed. Baseball Bugs 23:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

To close out this, at least for the time being, I reverted the wholesale deletions on the Talk page. I don't see any reason to remove debate on the matter. I have also chided Baseball Bugs for the comments "You can't even write proper English. What college did you go to? ", and "The IP again demonstrates that he's either a troll or an idiot, or both." FYI, Madman (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have handed it off to WP:ANI, and the above user has been chided by one of the original deleting users as to why that junk should be deleted. Baseball Bugs 23:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Ministry of Love (a.k.a. Two Minutes Hate for PROD)

Ministry of Love (talk · contribs) has removed a large number of PROD templates in a very short space of time (up to three a minute) whilst providing a boilerplate rationale, under the pretext of "saving horror movie articles from being deleted". I've tried to explain why this isn't appropriate but haven't got very far - could someone else try? Hut 8.5 18:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't want the articles to be deleted but Hut 8,5 says I can only do "one or two" and that I have to convince people to change the process if I don't want horror movie articles to be deleted. Why doesn't wiki want horror movie articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministry of Love (talk • contribs) 18:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I put new reasons for each article. Is that good enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministry of Love (talk • contribs) 19:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The prod template states "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to its deletion for any reason". Ministry of Love's reason may not be great, but it's a reason. The tags shouldn't have been re-added (especially via rollback). If somebody objects to a prod tag, it should be sent to WP:AfD. - auburnpilot talk 19:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That has been done now. i created a group AFD here dealing with the majority of the articles in question. However, while a user may always oppose a prod for any reason this does not mean that it can simply remove it with a random reason not backed up with Misplaced Pages policy. This would be the same as an editor claiming he has the right to edit anything on Misplaced Pages, even if his edits are vandalism. As of such this matter falls under thedisruption guideline. (Something im trying to explain to the user now. Apparently he think im threating to block him from the wikipedia since i stated that guideline). Excirial 19:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. A proposed deletion (prod) is only for a page that "obviously and uncontroversially doesn't belong in an encyclopedia". It's essentially nothing more than a delayed speedy deletion, and anybody can remove a {{prod}} tag for any reason (and they aren't even required to give one). Removing a prod tag means nothing more or less than "I don't think this article should be deleted without a discussion". - auburnpilot talk 19:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

AuburnPilot said I could take the notices off again, so I did. Then Excirial tells me that I can't and that I'm supposedly in conflict with "several editors". And he keeps giving me the link to Misplaced Pages:Disrupt even though I haven't done anything wrong! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministry of Love (talk • contribs) 20:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no. I did not say you could take the notices off again. What I said, was that you were fine to take them off in the first place, they shouldn't have been re-added, and an AfD is the correct next step. Please no more re-tagging/re-removing. - auburnpilot talk 20:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

So, who wants to MfD WP:PROD (or PROD it)? John Reaves 20:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

So it was ok for me to take them off in the first place, but it's not ok for me to take them off if someone replaced them? I really don't get it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministry of Love (talk • contribs) 20:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC) It says right on the notice "If this template is removed, it should not be replaced." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministry of Love (talk • contribs) 20:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

To get this clear: A WP:PROD is a tag that signals a page for admin attention after 5 days. During the time the template is on the page people are free to make any improvements to void the removal reasons stated on the template. A user is also free to remove the template all together if he or she wants, but this should only be done unless a reason for removal is stated.

When a prod tag is removed, an article may not be prodded again, but should instead go to WP:AFD for removal discussion. the AFD discussion will then determine if the article should go or stay. The right to remove an PROD template does not mean that every prod placed should just be removed because it may be removed. In your case the prod tags of a great number of articles were removed without a reason that holds ground in WP:Notability or WP:delete. Technically those articles should have been forwarded to WP:AFD, but in times like these editors or admins might decide to replace the prod tag as it might seem the user is either unaware of the prod procedure, the removal is accidental, or because they suspect Disruption.

Once you removed the templates a second time, the articles went up for AFD since there was no doubt now you contested the AFD. However generally when an issue arises and your notified of it, its customary people talk about it to come to a solution or consensus on what should be done. During that time it is friendly to leave the articles in question alone as is editing them to include your point is often intrepreted as trying to push a point instead of discussing a point. In short: 1) A removed prod should be replaced with an AFD with certain exceptions. 2) Articles that are being debated should be left alone till the issue has been talked about and solved. Compri? Excirial 21:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• The use of PROD is partly due to CSD being so restrictive. If my mate Dave who lives next door writes his bio and sticks it in an article, I can speedy it because he can't assert any notability, but if he disappears into his shed for a month, records an album with his own guitar, puts in on CD and sells it to a few people, an article about that can't be speedied. (Well, to be honest, I've have done, but technically I shouldn't). Ditto self-published books, films made by a random person with a camcorder, a random pet belonging to a famous person... Black Kite 22:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Why can't you delete the article in your second scenario? One shed-recorded album does not make the subject "important or significant" per A7. – ukexpat (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Prod tags are most times a result of WP:NOT violations. For example there is no CSD category that will allow me to remove a travel guide to some location. Also, an article about the 2080 Olympic games will not fit into any CSD category, even though it will certainly be deleted trough PROD as a WP:CRYSTAL violation. I tend to place prods in articles that are so likely to be removed that an AFD discussion would be a waste of time. It is quite the hassle monitoring them for removal though, but generally people at AFD tend to comment "This should just have been prodded" on the WP:NOT kind of articles. Excirial 16:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's review. I edited the prod notices off less than a dozen articles (which is hardly a large number). All of them were horror movie articles. My reason for doing this was so that the articles could be improved. Hut 8.5 didn't like the reason I gave so he replaced the notices (even though it says right on the notice NOT to do that). He told me that I could only do "one or two" and I had to convince people to change the process if I wanted to do more!

Excirial keeps saying that if the prod notice is removed then the article has to go to an AFD discussion but he could just have left them alone. And twice on my page and once here he linked to Misplaced Pages:Disruption even though he says he's not threatening me with a ban! Now hes getting the guy that tried to delete all the horror movie articles in the first place to vote against them in the discussions!!

Does this seem fair to you??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministry of Love (talk • contribs) 20:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The short answer: Life is unfair.

The long answer: It was wrong to put the PROD tags back on, and that has already been covered. It is not wrong to nominate them for AfD, and that has been covered as well. Excirial hasn't done any canvassing as far as I can see, and anyway you can bet Hut 8.5 is well aware of the situation with those articles. Besides which, AfD is not a vote, so it doesn't matter how many people participate. There's nothing admin action can solve here, so I suggest you turn your attention to improving those articles and making your case at AfD instead. Kafziel 20:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean Hut 8.5. I mean Barton Foley. That's the guy that put the prod notices on the articles in the first place. I already have worked on some of the articles. One of them was an official selection at two film festivals!! Another one has a soundtrack by Wyclef Jean! Excirial is mad because he couldn't delete all of the articles at once, but some of them still have AFD discussions and he's getting Barton Foley to do the rest!!! miniluv (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no rule against asking for help; isn't that what you're doing here? If you can demonstrate definite notability with reliable sources, the articles won't get deleted. So that's all you need to worry about. Kafziel 20:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no rule about editing the prod notices off articles either but when I did that look what happened to me! I didn't come here to ask for help. Hut 8,5 told me to come here. Why can't these articles just be left alone? I'm trying to make them better but I can't work on more than a couple per day. miniluv (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Too rapid of RfD nominations

The redirect Misplaced Pages:BRIT was nominated for deletion on 12 August 2008 and 1 September 2008, both times it was kept. The redirect once again has made its way to deletion at 15 September 2008. Shouldn't there be at least three months between nominations to establish a change of circumstances? If proper, please early close 15 September 2008 with a suggested wait time between deletion nominations. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 19:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No, no requirement of minimum time between deletion noms. MBisanz 19:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no technical requirement in terms of a minimum time between a "keep" closure of a debate and re-opening the debate. One day (as the second one went) is obviously too short and it was rightfully closed. Two weeks is still pushing it, but in the end it's up to the discretion of the reviewing administrator whether or not to early-close due to rapid renomination, rather than doing so by default. Shereth 21:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm closing the thing early. By looking at the links and the attitude of the delete voters, it seems to be more of a steamroll rather than obtaining consensus.--Lenticel 00:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Message From Xenu (talk · contribs)

My trollsense is tingling: , , , , , . Note the dates. ˉˉ╦╩ 21:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little thick today. Can you give us a little more detail? Nothing's jumping out at me immediately... Tony Fox (arf!) 21:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a new account created by someone with full knowledge of how to get around Misplaced Pages, as evident by their creation of the userpage and running an anti-vandal tool during the first few edits. Both the username and userpage have these coy, eyebrow-raising aspects to them. First, the editor is aware of Xenu, an obscure subject that's only of interest to Scientologists who deny his existence and those who study Scientology as a cult. Choosing to include Xenu in the username would be rather inflammatory for any editor aware of Misplaced Pages's long contentious history of covering the subject. The userpage reads like an intentionally ironic ED post, "Oh hai. I'm your reigning Lord Xenu, here to make some contributations to Misplaced Pages and stop the spammers from vandalizing what I have created". Then there's the volume of anti-vandalism reverts, after which this new editor suddenly jumps in to the AfD arena to inappropriately close several AfD's less than a day after the nomination. Usage of terms like "non-admin closure" leads me to believe that this editor is perfectly well aware of our deletion policies, and is therefore aware of why such early keep closures are controversial. Altogether, I see mild indications of trolling coupled with a thorough knowledge of the project. I didn't want to jump in and block based on little more than a hunch, so I'd appreciate if someone would review my suspicions. It's entirely possible that I'm just being paranoid. ˉˉ╦╩ 21:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Anonymous/4chan significantly more people are aware of Xenu than would have been a few years back. Viridae 21:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

And we've never had a problem with kids from 4chan before... :) ˉˉ╦╩ 21:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Like your discussion, but I'm not from any such group. Message from XENU 20:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Even I know what Xenu is about, and that particular cult has very little presence in .uk. Is there a problem with the actual edits? This could be someone using an alt account for a bit of light relief. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, the inappropriate "keep" closures mentioned above. I suspect that if this was someone's alt. account used for, say, anti-vandalism work, that they wouldn't venture to AfD and perform closures they know to be inappropriate. ˉˉ╦╩ 22:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    • He does have some inappropriate logged out edits. He may bear further watching. Thatcher 00:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This User id should be blocked. This name is no more appropriate than User:Message from Buddha or User:Message from Jesus. Corvus cornix_talk 02:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

south park also did an episode on Xenu/Scientology. so you can add in 'anyone who's watched that episode of south park lambasting scientology/xenu would also know about it' http://en.wikipedia.org/Xenu#South_Park http://en.wikipedia.org/Trapped_in_the_Closet_(South_Park) . Theserialcomma (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You would block someone for being named "Message from Buddha"? That frightens me. Anyway, this is on WP:RFC/N, where you will see the arguments against username-blocking people for the sake of a religion or cult. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Stale report?

I reported 82.0.190.252 to AIV less than 20 minutes after the last vandalism. This sat at AIV for almost two hours before it was removed as stale. It wasn't stale when I submitted it, unless we are supposed to let vandals be who haven't edited for more than thirty minutes... I admit that I don't know enough about the articles 82.0.190.252 edited most recently to say for certain that they were all vandalism. I reverted one that I was very sure on and another was reverted by another editor. This one I'm not sure of. Help? Thoughts? swaq 21:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't look like vandalism at all to me. This person changes football articles in accord with rumors rather than cited sources (so they made Paolo Di Canio manager of West Ham when Google News is just reporting that Di Canio would like that job). That's lousy editing and they shouldn't do it, but it's not vandalism. Why don't you explain on the editor's talk page what the problem with their edits is rather than just leaving vandalism warnings? It's clearly a stable IP--wouldn't it be better to make this person understand what Misplaced Pages is all about than to block them? Chick Bowen 21:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of them are vandalism, though, like inserting the name "Bradley Corby" (his name?) into random articles (i.e. , ). I'd suspect this is a very young user, so Chick's advice above might be useful. Black Kite 22:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not called "stale" as a criticism of you for your timing in posting it, but as an assessment as to whether it will do any good to take action at that time. If a vandal has stopped vandalising or stopped editing, perhaps no action is needed unless and until they start up again. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the reason I removed that report is because the person who was reported had not made any edits for a long time. I was not saying that it was a bad report, nor was I saying that his edits were not vandalism. I looked at the reported user's edits earlier, and did not know if I should block him or not, so I just left the report. After 2 hours, I figured that even if his edits were vandalism, blocking him that long after his last edit would be pointless.

tl;dr version: What Coppertwig said :-) J.delanoy_adds 03:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, what's 'tl;dr' mean? And more seriously, a request for advice. "Unregistered users must be active now" is I presume the erason this was seen as stale. But we also have "The user must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop.". I understand that to mean he has to be given time to read the notices, but how much time? It looks like I need to understand this bit better. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 07:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

IP's are a slippery issue. Sometimes they're static, often they're dynamic. I have seen countless vandalisms that were the lone entry of a single IP with no activity before or after. That's why IP's have to be "active" to get blocked. It's typically a judgment call by the admin. If you issue a warning and they stop, did they stop because of the warning, or did they simply go away? My usual approach is to issue a warning, and if they vandalize shortly after, then turn them in and let an admin decide what to do - and don't be upset if they do little or nothing. It's case-by-case. And if the vandal continues, turn him in again. Baseball Bugs 08:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

tl;dr = too long, didn't read. swaq 15:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, J.delanoy. Looks like they vandalized again today and were blocked. swaq 15:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Strange threats - more eyes needed

User:Lostkey has made some strange threats on his talk page . He seems a tad upset following my blocking the account for block evasion. User is also upset with User:RJHall for removing some trollish comments. As the user seems a mite upset with me, I'd appreciate it if another admin (or two) would advise him on the issue of threats and personal attacks. Might not do any good, but RJHall and I would appreciate some company - spread the threats around a bit maybe :-) Vsmith (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What the....??? I'll leave him a note, but I agree it's probably not going to do anything. Hersfold 23:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"...if you delete my post again, I will report to the CIA, that you are a nuclear terrorist, because there are no electrons, and that computer you are using, is violating the law conservation of mass" - I have the sneaking feeling that this user might just not be serious. To be honest, I'd just ignore it and keep an eye on him when he's unblocked. Black Kite 23:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Gotta love creative vandals. L'Aquatique 23:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty imaginative, if he gets blocked hopefully that sends him away for good. User:MrMarkTaylor 00:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

He had been posting his "there are no electrons" stuff on Talk:Electron as an anon for quite a while. Then he began adding his OR to the electron page and became rather angry when his stuff was reverted as WP:OR. He signed up for a user account just recently. Just a bit of background for you all. Thanks - and yes ... waste of time. Vsmith (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that this is going to get any better, and the IP and user interaction so far meets the definition of disruptive crank. I have indef blocked. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

He's still posting the same attacks on his talk page. I'm watching the page and will protect if it worsens. -Jéské 07:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No electrons? Come on. Every four years we select a President using the Electron College. Baseball Bugs 08:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP issue regarding Bernardine Dohrn and murder

Could we get a neutral admin to take a quick look to see if we have a BLP issue over a living person being accused of murder?

A couple editors known to regulars here have just reverted allegation in the Bernardine Dohrn BLP six times in just over a day that she murdered a police officer in 1970. The allegations were clearly made but the source was an FBI informant - not reliable - nor was she ever charged or tried over the matter. I removed that and 12 new mentions of the word "terrorism" in her article on the tenth day of the RfC discussion (here), after it was clear they did not have consensus. A number of editors at the RfC voiced that the murder accusation is a blatant BLP concern, and that all of the proposed material has no consensus. I just filed an BLP/N report here but that is going slowly. This is part of a long-running content dispute regarding Barack Obama and alleged ties to terrorists, and I moved the discussion regarding Consensus / RS / NPOV / WP:TERRORISM from here to the RfC in hopes of resolving it once and for all. So no content question here. A simple question: is it is okay to have the murder accusation in the article while we discuss, or does this need to stay out due to BLP while we conclude the RfC discussion? Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No. Accusing anyone of murder when the charges have not been proved and the source is an FBI informant is inappropriate and a BLP vio. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 00:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC) ~~

Care to site the relevant policy, in detail of course, that states that an FBI informant who is quoted in a reliable, third party news source is somehow not reliable enough a source for a BLP? (This should be interesting). Sorry, but I consider the FBI slightly more reliable than a terrorist and alleged cop killer like Bernardine Dohrn. CENSEI (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Care to go around saying that everyone the FBI doesn't like is a murderer? That's half the US population. Let's see, FBI didn't like them, set up wiretaps and other unconstitutional surveillance techniques, put them in jail... sounds awfully familiar. Any special changes to his article you'd like to make? Also, from WP:BLP itself: "It is not Misplaced Pages's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced." (Emphasis added) Take your soapboxing about Dohrn elsewhere. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 00:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

So a cop killing terrorists is the newest incarnation of MLK? Interesting analogy. There is a difference between the FBI not liking someone and a particular FBI source fingering Dohrn in a murder. Fact is, credible individuals made an allegation against Dohrn that goes directly to her notability and is reported in a third part reliable source, sounds like we have more of an ownership issue here than a BLP issue. CENSEI (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Was BLP interesting? Have I ever made claims that could be construed as ownership of the article? Note the "even when the material is well-sourced". The issue is not whether or not Dohrn committed the murder, but whether or not we should call a living person a murderer with our only source an book by an FBI informant, which is obviously biased towards, guess who, the FBI! This is ridiculous and is soapboxing as well as a BLP violation. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 14:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no specific policy addressing the relative reliability of such individuals and organizations. Editors should use their own judgment and measured discussion to make a determination. The purpose of the various mechanisms of dispute resolution are designed to facilitate such a debate. CIreland (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Article protected; advice left on talk page. CIreland (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

And anyway how could "bombing activities" be "terrorism" if as the article says the bombing was done "carefully" and in an "extremely restrained manner" and they "did not target people?" (note Irony) The article also notes that Thomas G. Ayers, her father-in-law, had considerable influence in the city of Chicago. Editors should judge the reliability of a book by a former FBI informant. It is not inherently unreliable. It is not automatically reliable. What have tertiary sources said about the believability of Grathwohl? Edison (talk) 05:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

To borrow a line from Jay Leno, maybe they were only "moderate" terrorists. Baseball Bugs 11:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Barack Obama extreme level of vandalism by IP 67.182.14.118

I'll let the history speak for itself. Duuude007 (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverted and warning given. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 00:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

blocked 31 hours. --barneca (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Same editor as 67.182.14.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (likely) just showed up and started vandalizing the page as 76.200.73.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Wikidemon (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

They both WHOIS to small towns in California. Pretty likely the vandal has a dynamic IP. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of getting sucked into a game of Whack-a-mole, I'll keep the talk page wathclisted and block similar edits with no warning. Who knows, maybe they'll get tired before we do. --barneca (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Arbiteroftruth (AoT)

AoT has made various personal attacks since I nominated the article Xidan for AfD and has resisted it very aggressively, warning me twicethrice not to do it on my talk page, accusing me of bad faith, calling me malicious on my talk page and User talk:Equendil, a "liar" (twice), "defamatory" and "libel" and he has accused me of a "campaign of deception" and has called for "sanctions", he also removed the AfD in bad faith until it was restored by Equendil, the only thing that I did was refer to his or her behavior as belligerent, something i apologized for, s/he simply accused me of personally attacking him/her numerous times.

• User talk:Arbiteroftruth
• User talk:Chuletadechancho
• User talk:Equendil
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Xidan
• Revision history of Xidan

These are the relevant pages, I will provide diffs in a moment.Chuletadechancho (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The user in question has requested a deletion of a perfectly notable page, and hid information that would go against the AfD in order to get his agenda passed through. He said he did a search for Xidan, and found nothing. He managed to miss articles from Chinese encyclopedia sources, as well as a page by the Beijing Olympic officials that describes the place in detail. Is that lying? I would think so! Would that make his AfD a "bad-faith nom"? Yes!

Deletions are supposed to be made with full information. Deletions that are made without full information, or (at worst) untruths, would effectively make the nomination process a Kangaroo court proceeding. It is a travesty against the principles of Misplaced Pages, and it defeats our purpose of existence. I cannot stand by while Chuletadechancho is deceiving other Wikipedians, and using technicalities to get his agendas across. Sorry, but I cannot.

Chuletadechancho also said he apologized to me for labeling me as "belligerent". That is a lie in and of itself, as there were no apologies coming from this person. If anything, this user's action reached a new low on the hour, by the hour.

Therefore, I have no choice but to request that this complaint be dismissed with extreme prejudice, and that Chuletadechancho be warned for improper conduct during deletion process and filing false reports. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Didn't anybody bother to do a simple Google-web search here? "Xidan" get 195,000 hits, and at least the first few pages of them seem to be mainly about the district in Beijing (the topic of the article). Looie496 (talk) 01:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! Thank you, Looie, for pointing that out! I did the same thing, and I presented my findings, and Chuletadechancho chose to ignore it. This would mean that Chuletadechancho has, in fact, lied to get his flawed points across. That means my charges of him deceiving other Wikipedians would not, in fact, be a violation of NPA, but cold, concrete fact.

Oh I did, but those didn't come off as reliable sources, that is what I mean when I say I found nothing.Chuletadechancho (talk) 02:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

1. No, you did not do a search. You missed everything that was there. 2. The Beijing Olympics Website is not reliable enough for you? This is truly sickening.Arbiteroftruth (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Really? Let me get you a vomit bag. No one is doubting the district exists, but whether or not it is notable. It was an incorrect AfD in my opinion, but Ch... acted according to policy and in good faith, whereas AoT has been acting and bad faith, being disruptive, and downright uncivil to multiple users. AoT has no diffs to back up his claims and seems to be stretching the truth. I support a 24 hour block for AoT for disruption and incivility. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Support. What's sickening is AoT's assumption of bad faith. Corvus cornix_talk 02:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Arbiteroftruth, that's enough. I just deleted your WP:AIV report. Make your case at the AFD, stop the name calling, stop over-reacting. May or may not be a good AFD, but definitely no reason to think it was in bad faith. --barneca (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Barneca, please allow me to state my principle. When I submit an AfD, and when someone eventually proves to me that I made a wrong move, I accept that. However, despite all the evidence I have thrown at Chuletadechancho, he has used technicalities and triviality arguments to refute the point, when the basic fact exists that these sources are reliable. THAT is bad-faith. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that is disagreeing with you. He is not the only one in the AFD to suggest deletion; is everyone that says "delete" acting in bad faith? Relax (the discussion lasts 5 days, this is not a crisis), cosider taking the day off until you are't pissed off, stop the over-the-top questioning of his motives, and if it means so much to you, save the article. --barneca (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying that everyone who says "delete" is acting in bad faith, but when someone provides facts, and someone dismisses it as "it's not fact because someone made grammatical errors on that article", that is questionable. I have provided a lot of facts already, and I would really hate to see someone just dismiss reliable facts as unreliable because of grammatical errors caused by cultural barriers. That is a farce. To be really honest, I have nothing to gain from saving Xidan. I just don't want to see a perfectly notably and fit article being thrown away in a flawed AfD process, where people act on partial information or (at worst) untruths. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 02:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What facts did you provide? Questioning a sources reliability is not questionable.CdC—Chuleta de Chancho (talk) 03:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I have provided, since that, an article by the District Government that Xidan belongs in about the area. It is in Chinese (this is a Chinese district, what do you expect?), but anyone can verify the content in question. The page is reliable, for it is pretty hard to impersonate a government website (especially in China) without serious consequences. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Support a block of AoT for such bad faith acts as multiple accusations and the ridiculous non-admin closure when demonstrating a clear CoI/ POV problem. ThuranX (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Since I am mentioned here, I may as well chime in: I was quickly browsing today's AfDs and noticed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Xidan at the top already closed with just one "keep" vote, thought it was odd, noticed it was a non admin closure by Arbiteroftruth who also petitioned the "keep". That constituted multiple violations of WP:NAC so I reverted Arbiteroftruth's edits. Not involved beyond that though there was some chatter on my talk page. Equendil Talk 03:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I support a temporary ban and think it will help alleviate the problem.CdC—Chuleta de Chancho (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

AoT is now begining an edit war, insisting on using laughable sources such as an empty webseach page(my mistake i failed to see there was a map, however it is in chinese and i cannot corroborate what it states.) and another wikipedia article.CdC—Chuleta de Chancho (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? We accidentally reverted each other's edits, that does not mean I am engaging in an edit war. THAT is a lie. Also, I found other sources to back up what I said. What more do you want? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 03:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Was not an accident, I did it on purpose. Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source and {{cn}}'s should not be removed, so I reverted your edits. As for me being a liar, why don't you learn a new word, something different than liar or malicious... something like respect!CdC—Chuleta de Chancho (talk) 04:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

When you reverted my edits, I then went to find another source to back things up. What more do you want? Are you going to say that the Beijing Subway site (the ref for the transportation sentence) is not good enough now? I have done everything that you requested, and still, you have sat here, telling everyone that I am the one who is being unreasonable. I have cooperated. What else do you want? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 04:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Polite cough - 10 Ghits on Gnews with results stripped of shopping/tourism spam. With wikipedia mirrors, tourism sites, shopping sites, and Olympics spam, we have about 120 books discussing the region that are not travel guides (archeology, etc). Xidan is also a very common Chinese name, so filtering on that gives me about 43,000 solid google hits. I'd say it's very notable. On the other hand, I'm sorry, but when I see people like AoT editing, it makes me not want to participate in much of anything. You are not cooperating, you have not apologized, and you have continued to hurl bad faith attribution. Let me enlighten you: when you take an article to AfD you list your policy reasons why it should be kept. That's *ALL*. If you have a concern and a quick check does not fix those concerns, it is not the AfD nominators job to spend hours trying to research the issue before taking it to AfD. The community will review. If you don't like the fact that the process operated the way it should, then you take it to DRV, where you bring up the sourcing. What you don't do is accuse someone of trying to hide things, calling them a liar, and then acting like a small child throwing a tantrum when multiple editors and admins try to tell you why you are wrong. If you wish to have an article on this district, I strongly suggest you do some actual work in sourcing and copying the article to userspace to improve it than hurling imprecations like spittle. -- Logical Premise 05:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I find your accusations to be absolutely sickening. I have added MANY new sources to the article, as well as improving its quality. Instead of seeing that, and (if it does not kill you to do so) show some appreciation, you have accused me of being unrepentent, and uncooperative. I have cooperated! What else do I need to do? Do I need to leave Misplaced Pages altogether to make this work? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a note. At least one of those english links is about the train station, not the shopping district...as well others appear to be about the cultural district and the business district. The articles themselves would have to be read to find out whether the mentions of xidan are significant or trivial, a simple name drop or 1 or 2 sentences doesn't confer notability.--Crossmr (talk) 06:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Apology

I have seen that my overzealous defence of the page has created problems, and for that, I would like to apologize. However, I still hold ,y opinion that there has been some very questionable actions with the Xidan AfD, which has the effect of making it a kangaroo court proceeding. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Unfortunately, I have to agree with AoT. While I've said it's not on the AfD creator to have to do exhaustive research, the more I look the more ... upset I get with the idea that someone would reasonably assume the article was deletion worthy. A request for more sourcing, tagging it for expansion, expert attention, anything. I understand the AfD nom is trying to do the right thing, but may I gently suggest that perhaps alternative methods could have been explored first? -- Logical Premise 16:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

My Response to the Charges

Now the the steam has blown off, I believe I can respond to the charges at hand with clarity and calmness. I would admit that I was a little too hasty (and perhaps acted improperly) closing the debate, but my rationale for that was that the area clearly exists, and web searches clearly indicates the area exists, as well as being a relatively important commercial area within Beijing (Chuletadechancho argued that the area did not exist, and that web searches turned up nothing at all), in addition, it is notable because it is a geographical/topographical entity within the capital city of a nation. The decision was later reverted by a third party, and I did not object to that. There was no CoI in this, for I have never lived in Beijing (I am not even from Northern China). I simply believed that Chuletadechancho was misguided in his decision to propose for the article's deletion. However, Chuletadechancho later accused me of acting belligerently, and given Chuletadechancho had made some clearly baseless accusations about the area (does not exist, no web search results) when evidence overwhelmingly says so otherwise, I have made the accusation that Chuletadechancho lied about his findings in order to achieve some hidden agenda (since Chuletadechancho was not Chinese, and has never edited a single Chinese-related article until now).

Later, Chuletadechancho accused me of starting a revert war, when what really happened was that it was a simple edit conflict, and I had no intentions to begin an edit war against any users here. I stated that it was an accident, but he did not accept that. Not only that, Chuletadechancho also went around and defamed me in front of many other editors, in addition of telling everyone that I called Equandil a liar here. I never did anything of that sort. He later also said he intentionally escalated the conflict.

I accept the finding that some of the rhetoric went too far, but I would like to raise the following questions:

1. Why does it appear that Chuletadechancho has an obsession to see this page being deleted?
2. Why did Chuletadechancho fail (or outright refuse) to accept the findings that the area in question is at least notionally notable, or on a basic level, that the place exists?
3. Why did Chuletadechancho desire to escalate the conflict?
4. Why does Chuletadechancho want to turn the AfD into a Kangaroo Court proceeding?
5. Why did Chuletadechancho turned to canvassing to defame an editor of Misplaced Pages?

To express my indignation and disgust at Chuletadechancho at this point would require socially unacceptable terms. I believe the damage Chuletadechancho had made to my reputation is unwarranted. Therefore, I believe he needs to apologize for his decision to escalate the conflict AND defamation of a good editor. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Jerry's closure of this AfD

Jerry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bukit Bintang Girls' School with a most inappropriate demonstration of bias. It is true and I do not contest that the outcome of the discussion was "keep"; yet Jerry, who has a long history of participating in school-related AfD's where he calls for the respective articles to be kept (occasionally referring to his own essay on the matter), did not refrain from slapping his self-admitted pro-school bias upon closing the AfD. Jerry used the edit summary "cls/keep (obviously)" and even added the non-policy, non-guideline, strongly disputed rationale of "all high schools are inherently notable" to his closure. Astonished by such flagrant declaration of bias upon executing an administrative task, I contacted Jerry and asked him to undo his closure and await for an unbiased admin to perform it. The purpose of my request was to fix an incident that may jeopardize the fragile equilibrium/truce that for some time has existed between school inclusionists and deletionists (deletionists refrain from A7 speedy deleting school articles that fail to assert notability, while inclusionists in turn refrain from using the "all schools are inherently notable" argument as if it were a policy, on AfDs).
Jerry's response to my complaint/request turned out to be the most insipid, condescending, and uninformative I've ever received on Misplaced Pages .
I would appreciate feedback on the (in)appropriateness of Jerry's actions. His closure of the AfD as "keep" was adequate. Applying his bias there, however, constitutes in my view admin abuse. Which might in this case have been innocuous, but which (given the lack of consideration and acknowledgment of misconduct) should justify an admonishment by the community and/or prohibition from further school AfD closures. Húsönd 02:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest listing it at WP:DRV as an inappropriate close. Corvus cornix_talk 02:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with the Keep, after nine days, the votes were unanimously keep. Maybe not the "HS are inherently notable", but definitely the Keep. Perhaps you should ask Jerry to strike that, instead of having to get involved with DRV? Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Jerry's remarkably constructive participation above shows just how much he cares. I don't want to go through DRV, I'm not asking for his decision to be overturned. I want either him to acknowledge and fix his misconduct (which he clearly and rudely has shown will not) or have him admonished and/or placed on probation. Húsönd 02:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

How about flogged, beaten, branded, and boiled in hot lard? It's amazing to me that in 10 total keystrokes (including spaces and my signature -- none of which included any vulgarity, profanity, or comments directed at you or anyone else) that I managed to create the the most insipid, condescending, and uninformative thing you've even laid eyes on. What information did you need? You asked me to do something, I said "no". How much explanation could that possibly require? And insipid? Which form of that word do you intend? "Unappetizingly flavorless", "lacking character or definition", or "Cloyingly sweet or sentimental"? Or perhaps you meant "insipient"?

The fact is that in 5 years of deletion debates on the English Misplaced Pages, there are only two (2) high school articles that have been deleted for notability concerns which remain deleted today. Although not de jure, the inherent notability of high schools as a subject for Misplaced Pages articles is most certainly a de facto policy. High school after high school get nominated, and all get kept; many, if not most in WP:SNOW and/ or WP:HEY conditions. My closing summary caught the flavor of the discussion, and should serve as a educational tool to discourage further unnecessary wastes of time, such as futile frivolous nominations of high schools against an overwhelming precedent of community consensus that such subjects are notable. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The above clearly shows that Jerry has a conflict of interest when it comes to school AfD discussions, and should recuse himself from any further closures. Corvus cornix_talk 03:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You are suggesting, then, that my COI has affected the outcome of the AfD? Or are you suggesting that administrators not have opinions on such matters and/or dare not speak about them? There has been no COI-influence on any AfD, so this is a molehill... no need for hiking gear. Administrators usually mention policies, guidelines, precendents, and typical outcomes when closing unanimous AfD's. There is nothing wrong with doing so. In fact, it's a good thing. I close AfD's quite often contrary to my own opinion. You will not find any where COI influenced the outcome. None. How would you have closed this AfD? Delete? No consensus? Relist? Merge? Redirect? Stubbify? What??? No, seriously, how would you have closed this AfD? Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that you have a bias when it comes to school articles. You should look at the content of the article on a case by case basis, not on "all high schools are notable". And since you have revealed your bias, you should leave it to unbiased admins (or non-admins, as the case may be) to close school AfDs. Corvus cornix_talk 03:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the evidence and corroboration, Corvus. Now Jerry, what you fail to realize is that there is no "de facto" policy. The reason most school AfDs are nowadays overwhelmed with "keeps" is because very few school deletionists will bother participating in those discussions, as the "no consensus" outcome is easily foreseeable (and "no consensus" defaults to "keep"). But that doesn't mean that we have a de facto policy and it definitely does not mean that you may feel free to display your bias when performing tasks that require neutrality. Oh and I did mean "insipid", as in "lacking taste or flavor". Húsönd 04:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This shows Jerry's conflict of interest, even if his own words above didn't do it. Corvus cornix_talk 03:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

And this shows somebody else's:

--Jimbo (dated November 7, 2003 Partial solution to rampant deletionism, Wikimedia, November 7, 2003. Accessed September 25, 2007.)

Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

How does this omnipresent yet particularly ambiguous position of Jimbo's fit here this time? Besides, that's just his opinion. Last time I checked he was still providing valued opinions but the community still had the last word, which in turn he values. Húsönd 04:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

DRV is a waste of time, if its really needed, just open the AFD and let it continue. Chances are that it will go WP:SNOW again. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ehm... Bias or no, any other close would've been wrong. Which means that keep was the right close. Really, take this sorta' stuff straight to DRV in the future instead of bringing it here. lifebaka++ 04:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Lifebaka, no one is disagreeing that this AfD should be closed as "keep", therefore no DRV is necessary. The subject here is solely Jerry's misconduct upon closing the AfD. Húsönd 04:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I would have closed the AfD as keep, but if I had such a clear bias like you have toward school articles, I would not close their afd debates, especially not early even if they appear to be eligible for a SNOW closure. I would certainly not close an afd discussion for a Halo article (I have a edited many Halo articles and participate in WP:HALO), even if COI wasn't a problem someone could call me out on it. In your case the closure was correct, ie your COI has not affected the outcome, but with a more borderline case a whole pile of drama could arise. I do not think it necessary to ban you (Jerry) from closing school afds but bear in mind that others will not think of your closures as a sound if the debate is school related and it will attract attention (as in this case). James086 04:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It is inappropriate for an administrator to close an AFD and taunt those who disagree by throwing in "obviously," even when the "Keep" closure would likely be sustained in deletion review. The best solution is for Jerry to strike the "obviously," and to avoid closing AFDs where he is clearly partisan. His advocacy tends to make any such future closures suspect. There are AFDs about lots of other things which need closing. Jerry can participate in high school AFDs with sound reasons based on guidelines and policies as to why the High School articles should be kept, and perhaps add multiple references from reliable and independent sources to the article to satisfy WP:N, and let someone else close them. Edison (talk) 04:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Jerry has changed the disputed AfD closing remark "all schools are inherently notable" to "the unanimous participation here is that the subject of this article is notable". Although it's not "unanimous" (as the proponent is also a participant), I am thankful for his action and I find this incident resolved. I do hope though that in the future Jerry exerts more caution when mixing biases and administrative tasks. And I sincerely hope that in the future he will treat complaints/concerns/requests from peers with greater consideration. Húsönd 04:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jerry about what the policy for high schools is and ought to be, but I'd word even an argument, let alone the close less dogmatically, as " the general acceptance here is that all high schools are notable" , rather than making it sound like a pronouncement. When I give people advice, or turn down a prod, I say not : "all HS are notable" but "all HSs are considered notable here, as shown by almost 100% of decisions at AfD." And Jerry was right to close, for it was undisputed; in a divided one, I know he would have let someone else do so. The only time one can do so is when one closes against ones known opinion upon realising that the community as a group disagrees. Jerry has done nothing wrong--its just that these things take care. DGG (talk) 05:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding COI's, it would be interesting to know why Husond was so obsessed with (1) getting the article deleted; and (2) the only-slightly-snippy wording of the closing editor. Baseball Bugs 08:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. (1) I was not obsessed with getting the article deleted, as proven by my non-refutation of any argument at the AfD, but anyway that is irrelevant because users' right to submit articles for deletion as they find appropriate is not under discussion. (2) what you find "slightly-snippy" others may find "grossly-blunt". And still, no obsession, just a report. Húsönd 10:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Here in the USA, a term like "obviously" is not "grossly blunt", it's merely a somewhat opinionated comment, and posting it at WP:ANI and demanding a retraction seems way excessive. And personally, I have little regard for users who spend their time looking for stuff to delete. (That comment, I concede, was moderately blunt.) Baseball Bugs 11:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought you were referring to the "No.", not to the "obviously". What retraction? You're not making any sense and besides, this is already resolved. Oh, and here on Misplaced Pages, users should rather keep their comments to themselves if they concede beforehand that they will be moderately blunt. As for the contents of the moderately blunt comment, I won't even bother to comment as it's all said. Húsönd 15:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

User:I'm not schizophrenic and neither am I, again

Kafziel 05:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not schizophrenic and neither am I (talk · contribs) got reported here the other day for making an edit which accused Jimbo of particular vandalism. It got reverted (by me), and he was blocked for 12 hours. Now, he's boasting of the block, and put the attack on his User page. I removed it and issued him a uw-blp2 violation. So he linked to the edit summary with the accusation of particular vandalism on his User page, and I've removed that, as well. May I suggest another block? Corvus cornix_talk 02:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Why hasn't this user been blocked indef as a vandal? I don't see any GF edits, just mindless vandal edits. Wildthing61476 (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

His signature has now become disruptive. Corvus cornix_talk 02:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

More the reason to indef. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

He has a couple of useful edits. In fact, the asinine edit summary accompanied a useful edit. I've deleted the edit in question from the page history, so that should settle that argument. As for the rest, I think we can give him a bit more rope. Kafziel 03:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I had already turned him in to the blocking admin, but maybe we'll back off a bit. Baseball Bugs 03:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That was very 1984ish of you, Kafziel, I wish I'd thought of that. "There is no edit summary, there has always been no edit summary..." INSANAI seems much more harmless (even helpful, in his own way) than he's made out to be, and I'd hope Jimbo has a thick enough skin that he can take a joke, so I agree we should back off a little and see what happens. --barneca (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past." ;) Kafziel 18:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Internet Defense Force -- more drama

Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) is back from his block, and petty edit-warring in Jewish Internet Defense Force has resumed, mostly involving that user and Puttyschool (talk · contribs). The editing issues involved are minor, but there's ongoing drama from those two. They may both have violated 3RR, although that needs to be checked. This looks more like trolling for attention than a substantive difference over content.

I'd like to ask that both be banned from editing that particular article for a few weeks under Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions. They're both too focused on that one article. --John Nagle (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

While I would say that both editors need a block, Puttyschool (talk · contribs) is the only one that has technically violated 3RR. Seeing as previous blocks failed to work, I think we need to look at alternatives such as banning the user per the arbitration case listed above. Tiptoety 04:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hardly broke any 3RR rules here, nor do I understand why trying to protect the article from various attempts to destroy it should call for me to be blocked from it. If people actually take the time to study my edits they can see my work is is neither "drama inducing" nor "petty." Furthermore, I am not interested in "edit warring." There have been multiple attempts to remove cited material, despite the fact that Putty had been warned by Malik Shabbaz that if he continued trying to edit out a particular piece of important cited material, that it would be "vandalism." There have also been great attempts by others to insert an off-topic narrative and change the language significantly. I believe calling for my "block" from the article is not necessary and I would invite any interested yet un-involved parties to look at it objectively and tell me any good reasons why that would make any sense. However, I'm happy to stay away from the article if other editors can be more "on top" of the aforementioned problems. I think at this moment, everything is fine. I'm not trying to get in there to make grandiose changes. I'm just trying to prevent them from happening, especially without any consensus or discussion first. --Einsteindonut (talk) 04:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I don't think this characterization is fair toward Einsteindonut. While some of his/her comments on the article's talk page have been a little sharp, he/she has not engaged in any edit-warring since the block expired. Please review the article's history.

John, Einsteindonut's edits to the article since the block have chiefly been to revert to the stable September 6 version that you suggested here. — ] (] · ]) 04:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This tempest in a teapot has been going on for a month. Some action to quiet it down seems to be indicated. Diverting the two editors most narrowly focused on this article to other topics might be helpful. The two of them in opposition are just churning the article, not improving it. --John Nagle (talk) 05:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Malik that action against ED at this stage would be distinctly premature. --Peter cohen (talk) 08:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC) We also sould give a chance for the mentorship to work. I see that Michael is still active on ED's talk page.--Peter cohen (talk) 08:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Tiptoety (talk · contribs), Do you believe that this edit by Est was a neutral edit, stating "According to the JIDF" as if they are a WP:RS that the group "actively promoted hatred, violence, murder and genocide." as if it is a fact, which means a final judgment on the group from the JIDF POV and the user MUST believe in this statement.
Please spend more time revising the article history, and tell me how do I violated 3RR according to your POV as stated above, specially that I requested external judgment by adding COI tag when I disagreed with Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) about this sentence, after only TWO reverts by him on my NEUTRAL edits; as I believed that this sentence "According to the JIDF" can’t be added except when the JIDF is writing this article not Wikipedian editors.
Also I’m requesting from admin Luna Santin (talk · contribs) to comment on this as she followed the article history from the day of creation.
Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) about my comment on the first AFD, which was "SPEEDY DELETE, ASAP" I think this was on this old edit of the article, till now I don’t know how this edit received votes on keeping it.
Regards« PuTTY 19:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Puttyschool, the use of "According to ...." does not imply any degree of authority on the part of whomever is cited. Furthermore, "According to ..." is the proper grammatical construct for giving explicit attribution, it is neutral, and it is preferable over the use of "claim" which is a word to avoid. If I may, both your statement about the phrase "according to ..." and Einsteindonut's statement about your endorsement of the article's speedy deletion are not legitimate grievances against one another nor are they proof of malicious or improper editing. I cannot speak to all of Einsteindonut's contributions to the article, however this particular edit is consistent with Misplaced Pages style and policy. Similarly, it is perfectly legitimate for you to support the page's deletion; we wouldn't vote on such issues if there were only one way to legitimately vote. ← Michael Safyan 23:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

As I explained in my "talk" area, it's not how he voted, it was his explanation as it showed a clear problem with the JIDF itself. You're right in that it is legitimate to vote however he wishes to vote. I just think that it is telling when one looks at his explanation there and then looks at his edits to the JIDF article. It is obvious he has been trying to take out key information and well-cited facts from the beginning. He has also made plenty of grammatical errors and added some questionable things as well. It's obviously a controversial organization and I feel that other Misplaced Pages editors should try to prevent this type of unproductive "work" which is all I have been trying to do. All of my edits lately were discussed in the talk section before I made them and most of them are merely trying to keep important, well-cited material in the thing. One minute putty had an issue with the word "claims" the next minute he is putting it back in. It's all just a game to him since he does not like the JIDF in general and does not feel that the article should even be here. If other editors don't try to defend it from this type of hostile editing, then maybe it shouldn't be here. I certainly can't watch it every minute, but if one looks at what happened while I was blocked, it's very clear someone has to, and I appreciate the efforts of those who did what they could do to help. --Einsteindonut (talk) 01:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

HO249 (contribs) writes stuff in Portuguese (I think)

Can someone see if his writings make any sense, or are just disruptive/vandalism? VasileGaburici (talk) 05:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It's portuguese all right. He's basically offering his services as a broker to sell wikipedia and offers (convoluted) reasons why it should be sold. He says he knows interested buyers.... --CSTAR (talk) 05:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Imagine what it would be like to own Misplaced Pages. I could finally make good of my lifelong dream of blocking everyone. But seriously, I'm going to go warn him (si, in English!). If someone here knows Portuguese well enough they may want to translate my message just in case he doesn't understand English at all. L'Aquatique 06:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

A Brazilian lunatic. Takes all sorts I guess. Húsönd 10:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Jerry's closure of an article about an open source OS

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

I brought this incident here because there is no other way to resolve this, I got no answer to my question, just sort of intimidations, and I was just told by User:Jerry to escalate this issue. On the very same subject another person had the same discussion, after the deletion of the article, with Jerry with no result.

I am a software developer in Canada and I was looking back for an interesting open source OS named NimbleX which can be installed on a SD card or USB card and boots from there, because my EEE PC stopped booting and I need to boot something else to try to fix it. My surprise was not only the fact the NimbleX article just disappeared in just few days since my last visit, but reading the discussion there and the votes to keep it, everything looked very, very inappropiate. After discussing with User:Jerry I found out that he doesn't really care about this at all.

NimbleX article was simply deleted with no real motivation and contrary to the opinions and votes expressed in the discussion, and its AFD discussion was closed too early.

The work involved to build an operating system is huge, and this OS is for free, open source and many people need it, and many people around the word use this NimbleX.

I found out other AfD s were closed too early by Jerry: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Jerry.27s_closure_of_this_AfD : deletion/Bukit Bintang Girls' School

I hope the community can restore the AfD and the article and let another Admin to keep/close the article after the votes.

I really love wikipedia and hope the best for it. Thank you, ---- 24.87.105.114 (talk) 06:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The right venue for this is Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. Admins are supposed to use not only votes, but common sense in closing AfD's. The fact that only two people had any interest in the deletion process despite the fat that it was relisted is not strong evidence for notability, I have to say. On the other hand, it has been mentioned elsewhere, so an argument for borderline notability could be made.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Jerry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has deleted with a most inappropriate demonstration of bias. To Stephan: Why only 2 users said something after the deletion? It is not as trivial to everybody to find who has deleted an article, when the article simply dissapeared. 2 people expressing their concern after the article dissappeared, correlated with the fact that 2 : 0 were the votes to keep versus delete - points me to the fact that here Jerry was in too much rush. I addressed this here not only for the article in cause, but the ability of Jerry to perform this kind of triage of articles to be deleted is questionable based on what happened. It is inappropriate for an administrator to close an AFD and delete an article and taunt those who disagree. ---24.87.105.114 (talk) 07:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually that would be 2 keeps to 1 delete as the nominator is usually assumed to be in favour of deletion unless otherwise stated. Regardless of that AfD is not a vote, and is to be weighed on the strength of the arguments. The argument put forth was that it was not notable and no sources were provided to satisfy . Piling on people screaming keep in the face of policy only works in certain circumstances *cough*OS-Tan*ahem*--Crossmr (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That argument WP:NOTE does not stand. From its definition:

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. *There are independent sources (linux magazines)... not enough?

"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. *There are secondary sources covering the subject, aren't they?

"Sources," defined on Misplaced Pages as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred. *There are multiple secondary sources

"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. *There are articles independent of subject

"Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources *Also valid in this cause

I don't know much about how admins can or cannot do in Misplaced Pages whatever they want to in regard to deletion, but for me this incident tells me something not good. I hope there is an administrator here who can take the time and review this incident properly. ----24.87.105.114 (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note also that Jerry did not actually delete the article, he only closed the afd debate. Logs. Jerry probably saw that the article had been deleted without the afd being closed and just closed the afd. The deleting admin was User:Eluchil404. James086 08:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, James086. I am a little confused with who did the deletion, I think I saw that initially, but anyways I'm tired to fight for this cause of this article - I have no minimum link to it and I just wanted to install this OS and sadly found out the article just disappeared.

More important, I think, is the all process of deletion here at Misplaced Pages. It is too subjective, too in rush, the people behind the deletion don't want really to discuss, like they are gods and they don't really care about the acuracy of Misplaced Pages. Can be an administrator demoted? How? Is there a clear mechanism, with milestones for each administrator work? Is anybody reviewing an administrator incidents? Or it is subjective and let me say that, chaotic? ---24.87.105.114 (talk) 08:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless who deleted it, I too think that the decision to delete is dubious. The two keeps provided links to reviews, not just their opinions. There were 3 references to support notability (that were not contested) in that AfD, one of which is definitely significant for a Linux distro. Not everyone has time to read every AfD so the small number of keeps is not necessarily a good indicator of lack of notability. FWIW, Google returns 249000 hits for nimblex... In the first couple of Google pages there are more reviews, on http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20080728 for instance. VasileGaburici (talk) 08:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, FreeWRT hardly has any reviews on its page only "scores" only 189000 Googles yet you'll have to ban me from Misplaced Pages before you can delete it. In its niche it's definitely notable. VasileGaburici (talk) 08:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I know this is archived, but can I just point out - 189,000 Google hits? No just 283. Just say no to Google's first page totals, kids! Black Kite 17:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want this article un-deleted, you should really take it to WP:DRV. As for how administrators can be demoted, there is a how-to guide in creation at WP:DESYSOP, maybe it can help you. Regards SoWhy 08:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hint: that almost never happens, so don't bother. VasileGaburici (talk) 08:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review filed

So let's move the discussion over there, and keep it constructive. VasileGaburici (talk) 09:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive religious usernames?

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

It has historically been our practice that a username which could reasonably be construed as offensive on religious grounds is therefore disruptive and should be blocked. The applicability of this convention has ranged from, for example User:Satan and User:Jesus to User:Satan xtreme and User:Jesus of Suburbia.

Recently, User:Slakr add a request for username comment for User:Message From Xenu. As best as I understand it, Xenu is considered a sort of evil being amongst followers of Scientology. According to the article on "Xenu," Scientology even goes so far as to write its name as Xxxx.

Given the fact that this username would reasonably be considered antagonistic to any of the purported eight million followers of that religion, I believe it should be blocked. It does not seem to be a username that would promote "harmonious editing."

Rather than the username being disallowed, however, User:Wisdom89 has indicated that he believes that there is "nothing offensive about this whatsoever" and that, regardless of precedent, "we shouldn't be blocking such names." User:Rspeer has indicated that he believes we should not "block anyone just because some religion or cult would take issue with their username."

I'm bringing this here because, as best as I can tell, this is a significant change in practice, coming from two respected Misplaced Pages administrators. As best as I can tell, this is a clearly antagonistic username with no other possible connotation, unless there is some redeeming quality to the username I'm missing. If it's going to be allowed against the policy as it currently reads (in my interpretation, and apparently in the interpretation of much of the community in the past), then the policy needs to be clearer about when potentially offensive usernames are to be allowed.   user:j    (aka justen)   07:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute. What? We block people for having a user name containing the word "Jesus"? That's beyond ridiculous. Do you have any idea how many people are given that name every day??? I'm shocked. JBsupreme (talk) 08:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think something like User:Jesus Sucks should be blocked. I don't think User:Jesus of Suburbia should have been blocked immediately, but I provided it to give a reference point for how widely the policy has been interpreted in the past. In any event, can we stick to Xenu?   user:j    (aka justen)   08:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Xenu? Offensive?? Wasn't Xenu a TV series about a Hercules-like woman? Baseball Bugs 08:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be "Xena"..._Gb 08:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right... I knew that. 0:) Meanwhile, having never heard of "Xenu" in this context, I checked it out, and it seems the Scientologists deny there is or was such a thing as "Xenu", probably because some might interpret the story as suggesting Hubbard was a nutcase (as compared with the traditional story of the world being created in 6 days, for example). But if Xenu is officially fictional, then what's the problem? It would be like if my user ID were "Message from Gozer the Gozerian". As for "Jesus of Suburbia", that sounds like a satirical name, kind of like Cheech and Chong's public school, "Our Lady of 110th Street" or whatever. Baseball Bugs 09:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, what if someone created a user ID called "Jesus fan" in reference to the former major league ballplayer? Would that be considered offensive? That's the guy's name! Baseball Bugs 09:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd consider it a definite red flag myself, less because it's likely to be offensive to scientologists than because the whole "scientology vs. anonymous" garbage that's trendy on the net these days means his username is highly indicative of being a troll. Though on closer review of his edits, that does not appear to be the case for User:Message From Xenu, the name should probably still be changed as giving a bad appearance that is non-conducive to collaboration. --erachima talk 09:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

So if he changed it to "Message from Xena" it would be acceptable? Unless there's some cult around the Warrior Princess that would be offended. Baseball Bugs 11:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think model behavior makes the username any less offensive to that group of people.   user:j    (aka justen)   13:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't see how this user name is offensive. The Church of Scientology denies it anyways, so how can it be offensive? At any rate, would we ban a username "MessageFromJesus", or "Message from The Flying Spaghetti Monster"? I would think not. Groupsisxty (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

They appear to refuse to speak about it to outsiders; the article makes it clear that they do believe the entity exists, which again, means it's still just as potentially offensive. "Spaghetti Monster," as far as I know, isn't an evil being in any religion, as far as I know.   user:j    (aka justen)   13:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor point of clarification: Someone could choose the username "Jesus of Suburbia" because they're a fan of Green Day.Dgcopter (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for review by admins versed in images and licensing

• Qilinmon (talk · contribs · logs)

User:Qilinmon has been blocked for edit-warring and attempting to use technical means to bypass a page protection. (See Qilinmon's talk page for more information.)

The user was bold, but when reverted, was upset that the one other person discussing (User:J Greb) did not agree with their interpretation of policy. (Note that I have no opinion concerning either's interpretations, partially because I would not consider myself an "expert" when it comes to images.)

Then he continually attempted to restore his preferred image. J Greb, asked me to look in as a WP:3PO, and I decided to protect the page, with the hope that Qilinmon would continue to attempt to discuss. (I felt that blocking would stifle discussion rather than help consensus.)

When I signed in today, I discovered that the editor has abused uploading in order to bypass the protection of the page. (See: Image:SuperwomanKW.jpg.)

And was revert-uploading. (J Greb apparently attempted to revert him once.)

This wasn't accidental, or in the "heat of the moment", this was a willful act of tendentious editing.

I blocked Qilinmon for a week.

However, there is a wrinkle.

User:J Greb was in the discussion, and was doing the RD part of WP:BRD at Kristin Wells. And he did revert the upload bypass once.

When he needs a 3PO he often comes to me, or one of the other admins regularly associated with WP:CMC (and others). Just as he did in this case. (His request to me can be found on his talk page, and in my talk page's edit history.)

The wrinkle is that he is one of the main "go to guys" regarding images at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Comics.

And I will state up front that images are not my strong point. (I typically go to J Greb or others for advice. See his talk page for one such example.)

And also, since the uploads involve licensing, there's possibly a further issue?

So anyway, should J Greb have reverted the upload (the attempt to bypass the page protection), and if not, should he receive a warning, or is further sanction warranted.

I'm not exactly positive. Since on one hand, he was attempting to "restore" to the protected version (undue Qilinmon's action), but on the other, he was "involved", so perhaps it might have been more appropriate to get someone else to "revert", or at least to comment (as as he has done previously - and I note that he left a comment for me concerning it on his talk page, which I only noted after discovering the image issue myself).

And further is there a licensing issue that needs to be resolved?

Hence posting this request here for insight and 3PO.

One thing seems clear: he in no way used any "tools" during all of this, so no question of "abuse" there. So this is just a question of being "just-another-editor".

I welcome thoughts/advice on this. - jc37 08:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• I would consider the revert of the image uploading on J Greb's part alright even if he was involved in the dispute that led up to it, on the grounds that bypassing page protection via the use of technical loopholes like image uploads or template editing is so unacceptable that I believe falls into the category of blatant vandalism. It's also a huge violation of trust. We should not have to invoke cascade protection every time there's a minor content dispute on a page, and it needs to be eminently clear to our editors that this (Qilinmon's) sort of behaviour will earn you serious and immediate blocks. --erachima talk 10:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Good grief, where to go here. There's no fair use reason to prefer one image over the other. Once you took a position on the situation and made an edit, you were an advocate, not an unbiased uninvolved user, so your protection of the page and blocking Qilnmon is highly inappropriate. Qilnmon's revert warring over the image was obviously inappropriate, but good grief, blocking someone you are in a dispute with is about the biggest no no there is. I have protected the image in question pending whatever resolution is decided upon. As there is no threat of disruption (both the page and image are protected) I would suggest unblocking Qilnmon immediately (or, at least, giving leave to an uninvolved admin to reduce the 1-week block to a block of a more suitable length for 3RR/disruption). --B (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(Further discussion moved to thread directly below.) - jc37 00:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen this discussion before now. Is it at all relevant that I just lengthened the block after he called the blocking admin a "nazi faggot?" Does it matter that the block unearthed a sockpuppet that also has a lengthy list of image-upload warnings on its talk page, User:NeoCoronis? If I've done anything out of order here, other admins can feel free to reverse me without my interpreting it as wheel-warring. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Now he's called me "fish-bitch" and says the he wishes for all of our violent deaths. Someone else want a turn? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If he gets indef-blocked, you could post the message on his page, "So long, and thanks for all. -- The Fish." Baseball Bugs 00:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Per his request, I've extended his block. It can be rediscussed at such time he's willing to do so in a reasonable fashion. WilyD 20:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is now an entirely different situation. Endorse ban and I have protected the talk page because of the death threat. I don't endorse the original block, but regardless of the correctness of the original block, there is a right way and a wrong way to address a grievance and this is the latter. --B (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverting before protecting

Good grief, where to go here. There's no fair use reason to prefer one image over the other. Once you took a position on the situation and made an edit, you were an advocate, not an unbiased uninvolved user, so your protection of the page and blocking Qilnmon is highly inappropriate. Qilnmon's revert warring over the image was obviously inappropriate, but good grief, blocking someone you are in a dispute with is about the biggest no no there is. I have protected the image in question pending whatever resolution is decided upon. As there is no threat of disruption (both the page and image are protected) I would suggest unblocking Qilnmon immediately (or, at least, giving leave to an uninvolved admin to reduce the 1-week block to a block of a more suitable length for 3RR/disruption). --B (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify: Please take a moment and read the user's talk page. I in no way "took a position on the situation", save that revert warring was inappropriate, and that their further actions were appalling (using technical means to circumvent a page protection).

My "reversion" was to the state before the edit warring began, per m:The Wrong Version.

I'm actually somewhat stunned at your comments, but I think I'll chalk it up to perhaps you didn't do any research on the situation before leaving a "knee-jerk" response here. - jc37 21:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Pages protected for edit warring should be protected in their current state unless there is a strong reason (like libel) not to. That "current" version is the "wrong version" in the essay you are talking about. Administrators don't get to pick and choose a "right version" to protect - they just protect the article as it is. In any event, if you had only edited the page one time to revert to a "consensus" version, then, immediately protected it, that's not generally considered a good idea, but on a scale of 1 to 10, it's only in the 1-2 range. But you reverted THREE times over the course of a day and then protected it on your preferred version. That's something that people get desysopped for. --B (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(Stunned - and seriously wondering if you're attempting humour.)

Reverting to the version prior to the contention is (AFAIK) standard practice.

And actually the whole point of m:The Wrong Version is that regardless of which version the the page may be protected to, accusing the admin of inappropriate action or "choosing sides" is itself inappropriate. (Hence why I'm starting to think that this is an attempt at ironic humour on your part.)

The goal in protection is to prevent further disruption (and to hopefully foment discussion), not to "choose sides".

All that said, I welcome further comment (by you and any interested others). - jc37 23:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Further disruption isn't prevented when you "choose sides" by reverting prior to protection. If your judgment is that the article should be protected to prevent edit warring, you protect it in the state that it is in, not revert to another version before protecting it. Unless there is libel/vandalism/incoherent drivel on the page, nobody reverts it before protecting it. --B (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"Further disruption isn't prevented when you "choose sides" by reverting prior to protection." - I'm sorry but I don't believe that this is "choosing sides". It's about as neutral an action as I can imagine. You pick neither of their edits, and merely revert to the stable version prior to the contention.

"Unless there is libel/vandalism/incoherent drivel on the page, nobody reverts it before protecting it" - I'm sorry, but that simply has not been my experience. Indeed, I believe such reversion is fairly common. - jc37 00:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Nagging point or two:

• Protecting any version of a page in an edit war, potential or actual, where there are just "A" and "B" states can be seen as choosing sides.
• That also can create a serious level of frustration. If the version picked is proposed by an editor unwilling to engage on the talk page, there is no incentive for the editor to change that position. They've "won" and all they have to do is sit out the protection. The other editor can say whatever they like, but they're typing at a brick wall.
  This also can create a situation where the change won't have to be defended. The onus is shifted to the editor that is pointing out that the change didn't help or improve the article.

- J Greb (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point - he reverted to his version three times, then protected it. This isn't a question of who wins, what the wrong version is, or anything like that. Reverting three times makes you a party to the dispute. Using the admin tools in a content dispute to protect your preferred version is not acceptable. --B (talk) 01:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nokia N70

This has been closed by User:Justinfr as a non-admin closure with no explanation or summary of the rationale behind the decision ("Per Discussion"?) - I was under the impression non-admin AFD closures were for clear-cut and snowball decisions, not for any kind of controversial ones - I don't feel any of the keep votes actually addressed the issues (no reliable sources, WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, reviews don't indicate notability etc) so I would de facto consider this AFD to not be a clearcut decision and require careful evaluation and a justifying explanation whichever way the decision went. "Per Discussion" doesn't cut it I'm afraid - can someone take a look? Thanks. Exxolon (talk) 10:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That AfD contains a variety of opinions from established editors, some of which are indeed variants on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and discountable, but the others are thought out and conclude that the page should be kept on the basis that professional reviews satisfy the definition of notability: "has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", by gathering additional sources suggesting potential for expansion, and citing precedent. As such, the discussion showed a clear consensus to keep, so non-admin closure was valid, and User:Justinfr was within his rights to close the discussion. It would be good of him to write better closing descriptions in the future, however. (Disclosure of bias: I would have voted merge.) --erachima talk 10:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the subject at hand, I'd suggest you take such cases to deletion review if you disagree with the close. This is the wrong forum for it. Note on this case: I think the close was valid, the consensus was clear keep. SoWhy 11:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:DRV would be appropiate if I thought the result was wrong in itself, but this was a question as to whether a non-admin closure was appropiate and the lack of explanation given. "Per Discussion" hardly inspires confidence that the editor actually read through and evaluated everything properly. Exxolon (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, DRV is also for cases when the way an AfD was closed is questioned, not only for when you think it was closed with the wrong judging of consensus. In this case, however, I think you should have voiced your concerns to justinfr (talk · contribs) directly before starting this discussion. I am confident that he would have provided a detailed reasoning if you had asked him and that he would remembered to do so in the future. Starting an AN/I discussion without even trying to talk to the user before is very impolite imho. SoWhy 11:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I started this thread because I wanted feedback from admins as to whether a non-admin closure with no clear reasoning was appropiate in this instance. It was more a case of "is this action within normal policy parameters and if not can someone with authority ovveride as appropiate" kind of thing. While justin could've as you say given his reasoning for his decision (which he's now done) he would not have been able to answer the questions over non-admin closure and consensus which were also part of my inquiry. Exxolon (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that the close could have been more descriptive, but the outcome was clear-cut, so there's no reason to make an issue out of it. --erachima talk 11:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It was only clear-cut if you just counted votes, which is exactly the point. Six opinions, two Deletes (including the nom) and four Keeps. Of the Keeps, one which just reads "contains sources" can be discarded, and unusually I'm not entirely sure about DGG's (who usually writes great rationales) "non notable products do not get reviewed", either. Even given that, I'd say the correct close here would've been No Consensus (so no harm done), or it might have been worth re-listing. As I said on the previous thread about that, non-admins really shouldn't be closing AfDs that have non-obvious results (what if all those Keep votes that been worthless?). Black Kite 11:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, you are right, I should have been more descriptive in my closing statement and for that, I apologize. But I'm happy you brought it here because I'm new at this and, if there's some controversy about my actions, I'm glad to have the feedback. However, I think my keep rationale is defensible, though I should have said it, and it was as follows: I thought the first few keep votes left it at 'no consensus', but that User:BeL1EveR's rationale was enough to keep. I also took into account the rationale by the closing admin at this afd closure, which was a delete, but suggested that a phone is notable if it has independent reviews and is is notable for its sales numbers. Per BeL1EveR, I thought the Nokia met those criteria.

In retrospect, however, based on Black Kite's comment, I probably should have left this one. I will do better to explain myself in the future (and copy this message to the AFD's talk page), and if Deletion Review disagrees with me I will stand corrected without hesitation. justinfr (talk/contribs) 11:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. I can see the point so am happy to leave this as resolved with one caveat - the information that the phone was the 2nd best selling phone from the manufacturer and the link verifying this is not actually in the article!! Exxolon (talk) 12:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, and I'll integrate the material from the afd discussion into the article tonight. There's no sense keeping an article based on the afd's suggested improvements, then not following through by actually implementing those changes! :) justinfr (talk/contribs) 13:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That may be right, but non-admins still shouldn't be interpreting like that. Please refrain from closing anything that isn't a clear keep (e.g. the keeps far outweigh the deletes and there is no serious argument from the deletes).--Crossmr (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me rephrase what everyone's going to tell you (i.e. "don't close non-obvious AfDs"): Try not to close AfDs if you think people might question your close. It leads to pointless drahmahz, and those are never fun. Please do continue to help at AfD, though; right now there isn't any backlog, but given time it'll be ridiculous (seven days or something like that...). Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Lifebaka except on the matter of there being an AFD backlog. Mr.Z-man's AFD closure script makes it so much easier that there's unlikely to be a backlog in the foreseeable future. Stifle (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Z-man's AFD closing script might also be responsible for the increase in non-admin closures. It's one of the reasons I'm now doing them and I also came close to closing this one too but felt it wasn't quite "obvious" enough. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing, I understand. As I said above, in retrospect I should have left that one and will do so in the future. justinfr (talk/contribs) 17:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Indefinitely banned user Karmaisking continues editing from long term IP 165.228.245.66

Karmaisking is a user that was indefinitely banned for disruption and personal attacks. In the last several months, Karmaisking has engaged in egregious sock puppet usage to avoid his ban. He has been cautioned and advised to seek a lift of his ban rather than sock puppeting, but he continued sock puppeting. More recently, after the banning of his last batch of socks, he has started editing from his long term IP 165.228.245.66, once again pushing the same POV, and engaging in personal attacks.

165.228.245.66 is evidently the long term IP of Karmaisking, as in this discussion, he admits to being the same person who created LetThemMintPaper, a proven sockpuppet of Karmaisking. The very first edit from that IP on 29 August 2006 concerned "Debt-based monetary system", and almost all the edits from that IP were either about the Austrian school of economics, or the monetary system, the topics that Karmaisking (and proven socks) edit war about.

If we want banning to mean anything, we should ban this IP address as well; if not indefinitely, then for at least a year or two. lk (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

IP got a six month block from EdJohnston. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

IP 76.2.158.19 repeatedly adding vulgar language to top of Talk:Sarah Palin page

History:

Example 1 Example 2 Duuude007 (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Reports like this should be sent to WP:AIV. However, in this case there have been no edits since the first and only warning, so a block is unlikely. Kafziel 19:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Editor seems to have a racist agenda

Someone want to keep an eye on 87.80.46.237 (talk · contribs)? Looking through his contributions, he seems to have a racist agenda. Thanks. Zagalejo^^^ 20:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No one seems to have discussed his edits with him. Corvus cornix_talk 20:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

He does seem to be primarily engaged in pushing the point of view that people of color are criminals; I left a message on his talk page. Call me intolerant, but I don't think the encyclopedia needs any more of this sort of thing than it already has. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Does seem like a static IP, they've been making the same edits for over a year and a half. Corvus cornix_talk 20:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone for a community topic ban on this user for race articles? The user now should be 24-hour blocked if it makes any more racist edits. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 20:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• He has now had several warnings placed on his talk page, and is an ASSIGNED PA, so we are referring (for the present) to a single user. His edits are tendentious and he uses sources misleadingly. I would say if those warnings do not cause a change of behaviour, topic-banning, enforced by blocks, should follow. --Rodhullandemu 21:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "Restoration comedy"? Snort. Corvus cornix_talk 21:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
    • No pesky black people in Restoration comedy. Plenty of articles to improve, too. I'm sure he'd enjoy it if he gave it a try. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Account compromised

Saturday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) looks compromised, if any Checkusers can have a look it would be appreciated. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It may be compromised - he's had a rough time with Don Murphy for well over a year now so maybe one of his associates went digging for his password? Either that or he's finally thought sod it and given into the trolls. I'm not sure - I guess the CU will hopefully enlighten us. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually - looking at his contribs, he's probably left his account logged in at school because just two minutes earlier he was reverting vandalism and warning a user. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Left a note on blocking admins talk page. Saturday says it was his cousin. I see no reason to not believe him. Rgoodermote  23:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That sounds about right to be honest. A quick unblock would be best here - obviously with a trouting for leaving his account logged in! Ryan Postlethwaite 23:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Seeing that he got his account back, I've unblocked. MBisanz 01:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Mosedschurte still edit-warring on Harvey Milk and disrupting talkpage

Mosedschurte (talk · contribs) is an {{SPA}} who only edits articles on Jim Jones and Jones' Peoples Temple, they have single-handedly disrupted the Harvey Milk article for over three months going on four with the only purpose of edit-warring to re-insert scandalous, POV and what a growing consensus experienced editors view as sythesized and OR content inflating a connection of Milk to Jones.
An earlier RfC to resolve this was corrupted by {{SPA}} !votes and the current article talkpage and archives (2, 3, 4) show their propensity of verbosity to overwhelm those who disagree with them. I sought other eyes on this board (seen here) which sadly resulted in a rather forkish article, Political alliances of Peoples Temple, being created to appease them. They have also inserted similar content on other biographies (some BLP) to inflate this contents importance to those people as well.
Moni3, arguably one of our better content contributors, rewrote Harvey Milk, likely in hopes of getting it to FA status and after attempts to reason with Mosedschurte had to file a report at The Fringe noticeboard. Consensus there has been to remove the Mosedschurte-introduced content as synthesis and undue. Mosedschurte continued to edit war and is generally disrupting progress by content specialists who are trying to improve the article without all this persistent disruption, soapboxing and seemingly bad faith accusations. Other eyes on this would be welcome as this has been going on for 3-4 months. -- Banjeboi 22:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Mosedschurte (talk · contribs) also lodged a personal attack on Moni3, a top FA writer, which provoked me to get involved. A most exasperating situation involving SPAs, NPAs, OR, synthesis, and undue where the aim seems to be to overwhelm via verbosity. Just watch :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

First, there is no "Edit War". This is simply false, as anyone can see looking the article Harvey Milk. SandyGeorge deleted the material today and I did not add it back. Rather, we're discussing it on the Harvey Milk Talk Page.Second, there was no consensus to delete mention of the article before in the Rfc you mentioned. In fact, several people wished to include it, including:

Mosedschurte (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, several IPs and SPAs. Once again, Mosedschurte, pls read WP:TALK and WP:TP; I've rethreaded to respect the chonological order of posts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the claim that I "personally attacked" moni3, I certainly did not. Several days ago, when a falsehood was stated about me, I stated that moni3 was lying about me, and I should not have gotten drawn down into that sort of cross-sniping, but I have never stated anything personal about moni3, whom I don't know.

Quite honestly, starting this "incident" seems to be descending further into that sniping campaign because I did not edit war the latest delete of the text, which has been gone. Moreover, one need only examine the Harvey Milk talk page to examine what has truly been going on.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks do not bother me nearly as much as I am deeply offended that inaccurate information is continually inserted into the article, that Mosedschurte is able to hijack the article from its ideal path to GA and FA despite all evidence and logic and civil attempts to educate him otherwise, and that it has lasted for months. Content is the reason this website exists. I have enjoyed more than 2 years of collaborative article writing on Misplaced Pages with great success, and no interaction I have ever experienced has been so unpleasant as battling with this editor. Perhaps that colors me sheltered. However, the integrity of content should be the most important issue on this website. --Moni3 (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

First, re "I am deeply offended that inaccurate information is continually inserted into the article"? There is absolutely ZERO inaccurate information in the article. Every single source says precisely what is in the article. This charge is simply false. Second, in the entirely incorrect case that "inaccurate information" was inserted in an article, how could that possibly even "deeply offend" you?

I don't know the long history behind the Harvey Milk article, but the seeming gang warfare that occurs with regard to even the smallest attempted addition seems rather bizarre to me.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Anyone who takes a peek at the talk page will see how much of a gang this is not.

Mosedschurte, I'm a rare editor who cares more about accuracy and content than self-image. You have pushed this POV of yours for months. It is a house of cards. It does not belong in the article because the best sources on Milk say it is not significant. I would have been mortified to make such accusations as you had, and I would have run off immediately to read the necessary related sources. But, again, all you care about is information about Jim Jones. Your position is clear: you are promoting an agenda, and you are not interested in the best article quality. You are interested in vague disconnected material that suggests significant links between Milk and Jim Jones despite solid first-person accounts to the contrary. --Moni3 (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Your position is clear: you are promoting an agenda, and you are not interested in the best article quality."

This is simply false and is precisely the sort of sniping I wish to avoid.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. With the exception of MCB and Wildhartlivie, 5 of the 7 comments Mosedschurte quotes (from June) above are {{SPA}}s. -- Banjeboi 23:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's a better list, and you've still false claimed I'm "Edit Warring" when it is the 3 other editors that have simply deleted the text in its entirety and it has not been re-added as of now (or when you started this thread):

Mosedschurte (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. With the exception of MCB, CENSEI and Wildhartlivie - 5 of the 8 comments Mosedschurte quotes (from June) above are {{SPA}}s. -- Banjeboi 00:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support block or Very Last Chance From looking over her contribution history, User:Mosedschurte appears to be a single-purpose account whose only interest is the People's Temple. He appears to be pushing his specific point of view onto the article to me. His lengthy edits on the talk page make the discussion difficult to read, but consensus on that page appears to agree with User:Moni3 that the section he wants to add would not make the best encyclopedia article. I've added the article to my talk page, and I'd feel okay about a block if this user continues pushing his point of view on this article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Notice given to user - I agree with FisherQueen (talk · contribs) that it is quite confusing to try to make sense of all of the talk page discussion. I have placed a note on the user's talk page recommending that Mosedschurte (talk · contribs) take a break from editing the article and come back and reevaluate. If after a break there is still disagreement about a particular portion of text we can start a fresh content-RfC. Consensus here appears to be that further disruption and/or inappropriate talk page demeanor would likely result in a block. Cirt (talk) 01:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I have an issue with the running tally User:Benjiboi is inserting in this thread. It is inappropriate and I take major offense at being pulled into this ongoing dispute three months after I left my comments on a RfC and then being lumped into a group as potentially a single purpose account tallied by Benjiboi or anyone else. Whether I am considered one of the two or three who left comments who isn't an SPA, that is not being made clear. I'm afraid I must insist that this particular lumping be stopped or that qualifications be made. I've been on Misplaced Pages for over two years, I've made over 14,000 edits on 6592 articles. I'm far from being an SPA and it is contentious to even remotely imply that I am.

I have refrained from commenting on this dispute in the more recent past because I recognize it as a losing battle, not because I agree with the direction it is going. The movement to separate Harvey Milk from Peoples Temple is troublesome to me. It began at the Milk article, with suggestions to move it out with only a minor sentence included. That was essentially done, to an article about Peoples Temple alliances. Now this has spread to that article, and over more than one noticeboard. Milk, and other politicians, were involved to one extent or another, with Peoples Temple. It is bad faith to try and prevent that from even being mentioned, which seems to be the direction this is taking. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "I have refrained from commenting on this dispute in the more recent past because I recognize it as a losing battle, not because I agree with the direction it is going. The movement to separate Harvey Milk from Peoples Temple is troublesome to me. It began at the Milk article, with suggestions to move it out with only a minor sentence included" -> I completely agree, and I'm moving to the point where I think any mention of these rather undisputed points in the Milk article just isn't going to happen. As you stated, it's probably just a "losing battle" given the seemingly odd press to delete all mentions of its existence, regardless of the large number of sources on the undisputed facts. Mosedschurte (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've added to those comments to clarify you are not considered one of the majority of SPA's quoted. However you are with "movement to separate Harvey Milk from Peoples Temple" again mischaracterizing these issues as Mosedschurte has always done that the goal is to remove any mention when the opposite is true. In fact the only NPOV and RS content concerning Jones/Peoples Temple first was introduced by me then, again, when Moni3 rewrote it. Despite there being NPOV and RS content in the article already, in every instance Mosedschurte insisted in having an entire section re-added ominously titled "Peoples Temple investigation" although Milk apparently never conducted one nor was Milk ever investigated. After Moni3's rewrite Mosedschurte simply reinserted the problematic sentences despite clear objections. They have inserted similar sections on at least four other biographies that I'm aware. -- Banjeboi 02:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Recommend mediation - On second thought, if there are multiple editors involved here and this is primarily a content dispute perhaps WP:MEDCAB would be an appropriate next step. Would the parties be agreeable to that? Cirt (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure. That sounds fine, and I had already this morning basically given up trying to improve the Milk article. I think one issue is that is that the article covers a rather niche local historical figure about which not a huge number of people are aware, so there aren't a lot of eyes on the article now. It's basically been just me and three other editors that, pretty objectively speaking here, deleted every attempt at compromise language about Milk's support of the Temple, and I should be clear that I don't think they are doing so maliciously. But they haven't seemed particularly amenable to compromise language at all (every line deleted), so I 'm not sure a lot of headway can be made. Mosedschurte (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Are the other parties/significant contributors to the Harvey Milk article agreeable to mediation through WP:MEDCAB? Cirt (talk) 01:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm more than prepared to take this issue to mediation. I'm confident experienced editors will recognize Milk's involvement in the Temple in 1977 and 1978 was neither notable to Milk or to Jones, and that no authority is able to connect a significant and notable relationship between the two. I'll be happy to scan my sources and send them to curious editors so they can see for themselves. After that, however, will the article continue to endure the endless cyclical arguments of Mosedschurte, or will it be free to go on to GA and FA? --Moni3 (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hard to predict what could happen after mediation, but hopefully WP:MEDCAB will be able to bring about some sort of resolution that is agreeable to all parties involved. Cirt (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Moni3, I've basically given up trying to improve the article, so I wouldn't worry about my edits interfering with GA or FA. I don't plan on making any, at least in the near future. There appears to be a formatting error in footnote 3 you might want to address.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I see this as an exercise in futility. Yet another opportunity for Mosedschurte's soapboxing and asserting some connection when they have failed on the Fringe board and just recently on the talkpage to convince anyone that this content needs any further weight in the article or that any reliable source anyway asserts some great connection not already in the article. That they are persistent and verbose, wearing down the patience and interest of other editors, should not be chalked up as a victory that they are correct or that the content beyond that already in the article is needed. I have every confidence that what has been summarized here, on the article talk page and the fringe noticeboard will be found more accurate to that of Mosedschurte's take on things. I hate to give them yet another opportunity to again argue and reiterate all the previously disputed synthesis but agree that if it results in them desisting from disrupting the article and talkpage and the processes to improve the article then it might help. Dealing with them has been one of the more unfortunate editing experiences I've encountered here. -- Banjeboi 02:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

user:RepublicanJacobite

This user has repeatedly inserted a contencious rumor into the Alaskan Independence Party article regarding Sarah Palin being a previous member. here here and here including links to The Daily Kos, which is is clearly not a reliable source. This rumor has already been proven to be false. I notified through my summary's and a note to his page to go to talk and here and he responding by saying this and then removing my notice on his page. Arzel (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Kmweber on WP:AN

On a recent AN thread I removed an uncivil comment directed at a new user from User:Kmweber. This comment was replaced by Kurt afterwards. I won't remove it again, but I stand by my original decision to do so. I'm asking for some more eyes to look at the comment itself, the context it was made in and the decision to remove it as well as to replace it. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 00:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the comment was inappropriate; it was not relevant to the question asked and it was a violation of WP:BITE. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone help me understand how or why this is offensive to people. To me, it looks no more or less offensive than if an editor were to express their opinion that public schools should not waste taxpayer money or support Red Cross blood drives. His comment certainly does not look any more bizarre than Kurt's "prima facia" RfA opposes. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This sort of editing away other people's comments, though, always causes more harm than it cures, and never achieves the desired result. --jpgordon 01:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It's rude. It's rude to someone who is new to Misplaced Pages and asked an honest question without expecting to be insulted. WP:AN is a place to discuss administrative actions that make the encyclopedia better; if Kurt wants to discuss his general feelings about educational philosophy, he should find a web forum somewhere. Personally, I think the community has put up with Kurt's bad manners and bizarre edits for far too long already, but that's not specifically relevant to this question. In my opinion, editing out this comment is necessary- this is a new user who will not understand that Kurt does not speak for the administrators when he's speaking on the administrators' noticeboard. I feel strongly about this. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It was perfectly appropriate and perfectly relevant. The following comment I wrote on my talk page is germane:

He should feel unwelcome. He's attempting to use Misplaced Pages for a totally improper purpose. I fail to see how this is any different from attempting to use Misplaced Pages to advertise one's company or product. Keep in mind that, according to his own remarks, he's not using it for a class research project or anything like that. He's trying to use Misplaced Pages to promote a certain ideological viewpoint to his students. Misplaced Pages should not be accomodating the misuse of taxpayer funds to proselytize for a particular ideology.

I get the impression that you didn't bother reading what the guy said. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't get why this is seen as offensive. Why do the students need usernames, anyways? A blocked user can still view Misplaced Pages. I think we just need to drop this issue. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so they can edit articles and improve the encyclopedia? Why should we care. We aren't that school. It isn't our job to tell the guy "What you are doing sucks, we won't be a part of it". He asked for help for a legitimate purpose and the first response he got was some unrelated ideological screed. Protonk (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The whole point is that he wasn't trying to use Misplaced Pages for a legitimate purpose! He was trying to use Misplaced Pages for a totally illegitimate purpose, and we shouldn't be accomodating that. This isn't about what schools should or should not do; it's about what Misplaced Pages should and should not accomodate. What's so difficult to understand about that? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No, he shouldn't feel unwelcome. Your opinion of what schools should and should not be doing is completely 100% irrelevant. Nobody cares, and I'm sure he didn't either. If a school wishes to teach its students about open source projects, they can. As part of his demonstration/lesson plan, he was hoping to register students and introduce them to the project. Kmweber's comments were off topic and irrelevant. - auburnpilot talk 01:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess this is more clear. They shouldn't feel unwelcome. Your opinion is your own. Not everyone wants to hear it or needs to hear it, especially new users. I used to support your being granted the ACC flag, but after this, there is no way I would. Protonk (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

While I disagree entirely with Kurt's thinking and approach, I also don't believe it's necessarily in the best interests of the project--OR of the students--to have 60+ middle-schoolers placed into the highly-confusing, politically-charged environment of en:WP without assurance that they will be suitably monitored, supervised, and guided. Unfortunately, my concerns regarding these issues were removed by WilyD and dismissed as "trash", which was far more unCIVIL than ANYthing I'd written. This is the same conversation we've had about classes of college students sent to "learn about WP"; how it's less-relevant to middle-school students, or more-BITEy, I fail to see. I agree that they should not feel unwelcome, but neither do I think we should accept their project plan with no reservations or questions at all.Gladys J Cortez 01:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Gladys, that she has a right to voice her concern. Since it was civil it should not have been removed and certainly not with "trash". — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious to know what Kim was referring to when he accused them of "proselytizing" (i.e. religious recruiting). I didn't see any hint of that, so I'd like for him to explain precisely what he was getting at, instead of talking as if everyone already knows what his point was. Baseball Bugs 01:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming he meant it in the colloquial sense--i.e. "proselytizing" of the open-source "religion". Doesn't matter; it was meant as a cutting statement, regardless. (Oh--and thanks, Rlevse. You're one of my more-respected Wikipedians, so your reinforcement means a lot.)Gladys J Cortez 02:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I think what he means is that the school is touting the inherent goodness of Open Source. Whereas someone (like China?) might disagree. Of course, socialization and indoctrination is actually one of the main purposes of public education, which is why governments pay for it. Pledge allegiance, respect the police, all that sort of thing. So I don't see why Kurt feels it's not within their purview to advance other agendas. OSS isn't a religion as far as I know.

I do think it would be smart to make it clear to the school that they need to watch the students carefully because one bad apple will spoil the bunch. An autoblock of one user will encompass all the rest of them. Kafziel 02:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I dig. And you're right, that school officer should be advised to keep an eye on them... as with the other OSS. Baseball Bugs 02:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Protonk did the right thing in removing the whole messy chunk, and that was quick thinking. As far as everything else? Well, I don't expect very much out of WR contributors, so I'd say that everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion, but the way it was put out there would probably have been fairly off-putting to the guy who made the request -- but was it bitey, eh, not really. -- Logical Premise 02:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there may be concerns about letting sixty-plus middle school students loose on Misplaced Pages without a measure of guidance and supervision, but I'm not comfortable jumping to the conclusion that their teachers and sysadmins are totally naive about the environment here, either. We should offer our support and guidance, not the cold shoulder.

If an educator wants to introduce the kids to Misplaced Pages as part of Software Freedom Day, it's no more harmful than cleaning up the schoolyard and encouraging recycling on Earth Day, discussing HIV and safe sex on World AIDS Day, or even teaching a lesson about the history of piracy on International Talk Like A Pirate Day. Kids desperately need teachers and mentors who are willing to acknowledge, and encourage interaction with, the world outside the classroom. Exposing kids to Misplaced Pages under controlled, supervised conditions is the online equivalent of a field trip to the zoo. Sure, some of the kids might screw around, but we hope that most will gain an appreciation for our environment and the unique ecosystem we've built. A few might even grow up to be veterinarians admins. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

That public education is currently used towards those ends does not mean that it necessarily should be used towards those ends. But it's not about whether or not this is a proper use of public education, really; it's about what is and is not an acceptable use of Misplaced Pages--it's about what Misplaced Pages should and should not be accomodating. I saw someone expressing an intent to abuse Misplaced Pages, and I called him out on it. I don't see the problem here. If you contend that this is not an abusive use of Misplaced Pages, that's one thing. But I saw what I consider to be an abusive use of Misplaced Pages, and I tried to put a stop to it. What else am I supposed to do when I see someone who I believe is out to abuse Misplaced Pages? Please, stop being absurd. Stop building strawmen, and pretending I said something I didn't. Pay attention to what I'm actually saying, rather pretending I said something that would give you a convenient excuse to attack me and silence me for daring to help Misplaced Pages. Are you here to make the encyclopedia better, or to cause problems? I know why I'm here. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Abuse wikipedia in what way - and compared to what? Baseball Bugs 02:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Rjecina - repeated acts of incivilty, harassment, and vandalism

This user is engaged into repeated acts of incivilty, harassment of other users, and vandalism for along while. The evidence is given below.

Jasenovac i Gradiska Stara Repaeted vandalization of article under pretext that this song is copyrighted. The song is not copyrigted. ,

Ante Starcevic Reverted article twice refusing to enter into discussion in order to elaborate where and when this article is POV; tagged quoted text (taken from reputable references) by twice ,

Petar Brzica Removed citations several times throwing false accusations in the subject line (Banned user revert) , , . Reverted claiming deleting 1 source original research (never published on english), deleting second source they heard. This is not verifiable (Note - the books are scholar works, available in many libraries)

Ljubo Miloš False accusations, or no reason for revert and vandalism , , ,

Magnum Crimen Vandalized several times this article , , ,

Uncivil and baseless warnings on users talk pages , , . For incivilties and repeated harassment of other users - already warned by administrators ,

I'd like to ask administration to stop this person in his/her unethical activities against articles and editors.--Don Luca Brazzi (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't even know what the locus of dispute is here, but I would implore whomever is able to control this sort of thing to do so; I've seen "Rjecina" mentioned in AN and AN/I approximately eleventy-three times over the past 72 hours, and it seems as though whatever the issues are here, they're not going away without some serious admin intervention. Just trying to Keep Our AN/I Clean....Gladys J Cortez 02:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

1. All Things Considered, September 26, 2006

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards