Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Renamed user Sloane (talk | contribs) at 16:41, 18 March 2009 (→Motley Moose AfD). 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 admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

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

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation

Stevertigo/Obama topic ban

Requesting a topic ban on Stevertigo on Barack Obama, sub-articles, and discussion pages, broadly construed, for disruption and failing to assume good faith. After warning him several hours ago, he has continued to be disruptive on DRV regarding an Obama article, even to the point of admission:

This one also pissed me off: I was in the middle of writing a detailed point by point refutation of the deletion arguments. I understand how my opponents seriously hate my point-by-points though. I make them look stupid, and sometimes take some enjoyment in it.

— 01:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This is blockable behaviour, but I think he'll continue to act up if he isn't put on probation. Thanks, Sceptre 03:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

And yes, I do realise the irony of me requesting an Obama topic ban when one has recently been requested on myself. Sceptre 03:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

And you did that with a template. That's like a slap in the face. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh my god, I templated someone! That makes their disruption forgiveable! Not. Sceptre 10:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre, whilst I do have limited sympathy, this report is at best a COI, and at worst pure trolling on your part. C.U.T.K.D 10:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Try to sanction someone for maybe trying to fix BLP problems, while allowing someone who is trying to violate BLP a carte blanche. Makes sense. Wait, it doesn't. Sceptre 11:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre, you're being much more disruptive on that DRV. Why make fourteen comments, many of which are repetitive? Your claim is that all criticism articles should be deleted, and the place to promote that claim is not on a DRV about a speedy deletion that should have been userfied. Stevertigo is arguably being a bit inappropriately sarcastic in the DRV, but that's a minor violation of WP:CIVIL that can be handled with a gentle reminder on the talk page. THF (talk) 12:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not my fault that people just don't get NPOV. And I'm not having trouble talking to JoshuaZ; he's actually being reasonable. Sceptre 12:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The place to raise NPOV policy is WT:NPOV, not a DRV; if you want to have a conversation with JoshuaZ, use e-mail or his talk-page, not the DRV. Your complaint is with the general understanding of NPOV (and you may well be right), not with the individual article. Make a proposal to rename all Criticism articles at WT:NPOV, point to it at VPP, and get consensus there. THF (talk) 12:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV violation+BLP=speedy deletion, and I'm trying to argue that the speedy deletion was correct because it violated NPOV (the BLP point is uncontestable). Sceptre 12:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

But put a CSD on Criticism of George W. Bush and see what happens. Again, your problem is with the policy, not with the individual article. CUTKD has good advice below. WP:COOL. THF (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Spending so long at AFD and DRV, you'd think most people around there know about WP:OSE. Guess not. Sceptre 13:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue isn't WP:OSE. The issue is that you are discussing an encyclopedia-wide problem that affects hundreds of articles, and it won't be solved on a case-by-case basis, and it's disruptive to make fifteen comments pushing your policy interpretation on a single article instead of asking for a policy change. THF (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre, please calm down. Why don't you back off for a bit then return once you've cooled down. With any luck, others will listen to you then :) C.U.T.K.D 12:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

For the record, there's a discussion on the "crit of GW" page to merge it to a different title. Anyway, the editors on the Obama articles can't even choose a picture without an edit war, so there's a fair amount of need for a nice cup of tea. Or some valium. SDY (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Or thorazine, the babysitter's little helper. arimareiji (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Endorse for the collective social good of the project in these corners of it; certain individuals have been disruptively vocal and partisan of late. It's disruptive; it's unhelpful; it's inappropriate; it's importation in some cases of real-life politics by people with noted COI; it's time to shove it out the door with a foot up the proverbial arse; it's time for us to stop playing games and acting like it's not happening. rootology (C)(T) 13:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. I see no diffs suggesting that Stevertigo has been acting in a manner befitting a topic ban; the NPOV problems Misplaced Pages has will become far worse when these sanctions are being unevenly handed out simply because pro-Obama editors outnumber neutral editors. THF (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The population of users by volume of perceived affiliation is irrevelant in anything we do, and is a reflection of where the bar for NPOV on any topic is at most. Republicans by literal volume are the population minority in the United States, so it's unsurprising that Misplaced Pages mirrors this. Christians outnumber Satanists, too. In the end it has nothing to do with whether one person should be banned or not from a topic and is an appeal to the minority. rootology (C)(T) 14:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The reality is that liberal editors who POV-push are treated better than conservative editors that edit neutrally. That's why we have Barack Obama articles that have completely different BLP standards than the George W. Bush articles. The proposed topic ban here--made without a single diff--is pure harassment. THF (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you've forgotten the liberals and rumor-mongers who besieged the Sarah Palin article back in September, and were fairly successfully held back. Bush was in office for 8 years, so criticisms of his policies are abundant. As Obama's length of time in office grows, so will the criticisms. Keep in mind he's been there less than 2 months so far. What was the size of the Bush criticism page in March of 2001, or what would it have been if wikipedia existed? Not very large, I bet. The biggest problem then would have been to try to fend off the complaints that he "stole the election". Baseball Bugs carrots 14:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you've both forgotten that the point of Misplaced Pages is to shove our own POVs up our own behinds when we work here. Did you forget I was one of the major defenders of BLP on Sarah Palin? I can hardly be called a fan of the lady in ANY sense. rootology (C)(T) 15:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I was a little busy to pay any attention to Misplaced Pages then, but for what it's worth, the Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal article remains wildly unbalanced; you wouldn't know that Palin had been cleared of wrongdoing from reading the lead, and it violates BLP by falsely stating that Todd Palin did not honor a subpoena. The Sarah Palin article incorrectly implies that Sarah Palin was subpoenaed, and violates BLP by falsely stating that the subpoenaed witnesses did not honor their subpoenas. That's just from a quick eyeballing, but it's a consistent Misplaced Pages problem that if there's a mistake in shading on a well-trafficked article, it goes to the left. There's always going to be a blind spot when dealing with NPOV; that's why we need editors from both the left and right to look at articles, because they're going to notice things that their political opposites will not. THF (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, THF is getting a little off topic here, but I appreciate his ability to deal with the problem logically. Scpetre filed this ANI because I was sarcastic, not because I violated CIVIL - a policy I'm intimately familiar with btw. Sceptre likewise likes to cite NPOV as the binding policy with regard to criticism sections and articles altogether, and at the same time says that this is a holistic wiki-wide policy issue that he will deal with only on the Obama article and on no other. He's just a kid, and only one particular partisan in the dispute, so it would be unfair to single him out too much, but he was in the fourth grade when I first started editing here, and I'm fairly certain he doesn't quite have a grasp of our basic concept yet, let alone our policies. That said. He may find certain support in trying to deal with crit pages, though, and I encourage him to explore that. One, it will get him involved in meta/policy/process issues, and two, it will get him more familiar with our concepts. If anyone were to simply say that our policy pages need some work, I would not hesitate to agree with them. Its unfortuntate that his misusage of policy concepts is somewhat of an emulation of other such misusage. It's all too common, even among advanced editors, to claim certain issues are under the domain of certain policies and not others. This issue probably deserves an RFAR, as its highly controversial, deals with policy conflicts, POV issues, has been disruptive, has elements of cabal, and a few others probably. -Stevertigo 18:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

PS: Sceptre says:

1. "NPOV violation+BLP=speedy deletion, and I'm trying to argue that the speedy deletion was correct because it violated NPOV (the BLP point is uncontestable)."
2. "It's not my fault that people just don't get NPOV."

The first point is his strongest argument, and needs to be dealt with. But the problems with citing an "uncontestable" policy are numerous; 1) the article's designation as being in violation is in fact a judgment call, influenced by POV 2) the empowerment of POV editors with tools like speedy only serves to circumvent actual discussion and maybe the consensus that might follow. That's what happened here. The second point, that "its not fault people just don't get NPOV," coming from someone who just discovered Misplaced Pages a couple weeks ago, is not his strongest argument. -Stevertigo 18:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Requesting more admin eyes at Barack Obama

Without comment on the dispute above, it would be a very good idea to have more neutral admin attention at Barack Obama. Yesterday I went there for the first time to perform what would normally be a thoroughly uncontroversial edit: adding an existing featured picture to the page. Started with a suggestion at the talk page, just to be on the safe side. Surprisingly, that sparked a long debate and a small edit war. The atmosphere at that page is unusually tense. I'll be heading off to start an FPC for John McCain now; suggesting more administrative attention (preferably by people who don't care a whit about politics) would help to normalize the Obama article. Durova 21:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

What are people's thoughts towards creating a Barack Obama noticeboard? It's up on here a lot, despite the FAQ... Sceptre 21:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Might not be a bad idea. More helpful might be the usage of WP:OBT on the Obama talk page. -Stevertigo 23:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

There's already an article probation page at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation - maybe some kind of community probation notice page somewhere around there? Wikidemon (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's easier for the community to at least be made aware of any issues here at ANI, so I'm not sure what a noticeboard would attempt to accomplish. In any event, I echo Durova's request - there's a remarkable number of threads here today which relate in some way to the Obama pages. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ

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

The issue of "criticism of" sections and articles is an ongoing site-wide debate on Misplaced Pages. The editors of the Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ (history) presented the issue as one sided, claiming that consensus was against such a section there on that particular article, and against consensus on Misplaced Pages altogether. The basic fact is that "criticism of" articles are conventionally used - not outright deleted - on Misplaced Pages. The previous and current version reads:

I changed the text to reflect the fact that there is in fact an actual debate:

1. User:Bobblehead reverted the change claiming "FAQ is intended to be a reflection of the opinions of the editors of this article, not the campaign of a single editor."
2. I reverted, stating: "There is a debate going on, if you hadn't noticed: The FAQ your proposing is only a POV-pushing concept for your side of the issue. The one I wrote is more in accord with NPOV, and the actual facts, because it actually represents both sides."
3. User:PhGustaf reverted, saying: "The FAQ is not a soapbox. It's a product of consensus. Please discuss any changes in talk."

I believe my edit was explanatory, in keeping with the FAQ concept, accurate, fair, and succinct, and I believe both the other editors to be reverting based on a lack of AGF, NPOV, CIVIL, and a false concept that a FAQ can be POV and one-sided, rather than accurate and helpful. The debate is not just "the campaign of a single editor", nor did my edit constitute turning the FAQ into a soapbox, nor is "consensus" the relevant and overriding concept when in fact the FAQ was entirely one-sided. -Stevertigo 00:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not discuss it there, rather than forum-shopping with every issue that comes up? It looks like you made zero attempt to discuss it before running here. The topic-ban looks better as the time passes. Grsz 00:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(Cutting in): *sigh* Because it seemed like a reasonable edit. When reasonable edits are reverted, that indicates that the reverter is less than reasonable for one reason or another. They stated their reasons clearly in the comment line, and characterized my edit as being something other than reasonable. I took that as indication that they intended to stand by their decision regardless of what I said. By your reference to other topical related issues, to a topic-ban (on me, personally) that has zero consensus, and by characterizing my reasonable and plainly laid out issue of an edit war as "forum-shopping" I take it that reason, NPOV, AGF, and writing an encyclopedia are not your operating concerns at the moment. Not to personalize this; that was just an observation, based on your undue and innaccurate characterizations. -Stevertigo 00:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* The point of an FAQ is to hopefully answer people's questions prior to them getting the same answer on the talk page. As such it will necessarily reflect the opinions of the editors on that talk page and not those of drive-by editors that really, really want a Criticism of Barack Obama article created because it is so totally unfair for there to be a Criticism of George W. Bush (or Criticism of John McCain when the campaign was happening and prior to that article being dismantled or Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) because Misplaced Pages has a liberal bias) and not one for Obama. The opinion expressed in the FAQ has been the opinion of the "majority" of editors on Talk:Barack Obama since the FAQ was created and has been relatively stable in the current version since then. It is certainly not expressing anything about Misplaced Pages wide consensus, just the existing consensus of editors of that article. If that consensus should happen to change, then the FAQ can be updated to reflect that new consensus. --Bobblehead 00:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You might also be missing the concept that a FAQ might "hopefully" be somewhat accurate, NPOV, and truthful. Thanks, though, Bobble.

PS: Bobble wrote: "It is certainly not expressing anything about Misplaced Pages wide consensus, just the existing consensus of editors of that article." Now read the FAQ answer text he defends: "Because a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praises and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article, per WP:CRIT" Seems like their concept is not-local to the Obama article, and referencing of a rather ambiguous policy in a somewhat misleading way. The issue is "criticisms" the issue is "a criticism of section andor article" -Stevertigo 00:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Why did you not bother to discuss any of this at Talk:Barack Obama, the location of this FAQ? Also, you forgot to notice the folks you've mentioned in this report. --guyzero | talk 00:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion that it is not "accurate, NPOV, and truthful" is decidedly in the minority though. That is the point that you do not appear to be getting. Fringe POVs do not get equal footing with reliable POVs. That's the way it goes. Tarc (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the venue for this. You should have brought it up at the talk page in the first place. I recommend this be closed before Stevertigo can cause even more disruption. Grsz 00:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Before anyone regards this particularly suspect idea by Grsz, please read the ANI on his unilateral mis-relocation of this thread: #Moving WP:AN/I section #Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ by User:Grsz11. -Stevertigo 01:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I find this very curious. Steve, you're making and reverting to substantial POV out-of-consensus edits on a semi-protected subpage of an article on probation, and posting to AN/I about it. Exactly what sort of administrative response do you expect? PhGustaf (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I find it curious that you are commenting here, calling my simple explanatory edit as "substantial POV" as if you weren't an involved POV partisan who themselves reverting my good-faith edit. Exactly what sort of response do you expect from the person whom you decided to override; failing both there and here to even attempt to make any substantive argument for your reversal. I gave several logical and accurate reasons for making the change. I have yet to see you or anyone else try to debate this on the merits. -13:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) :Yes, shut it down. Stevertigo is on thin ice as it is. In the few short days he has shined his editing attention on the Obama article he been responsible for multiple AN/I reports, edit wars, a speedy delete and DrV mess, and now a topic ban proposal. We need people to help improve articles, not start trouble. I would support giving this editor every chance to stop disrupting the Obama pages, and if he sincerely means to contibute he should. He hasn't even been blocked once over this, so a topic ban is premature. But if he doesn't at least try to work with other editors and stop causing trouble, he needs to take a break either from the project or from the Obama topics. Wikidemon (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"Template:Cut Wikidemon wrote: "Yes, shut it down." This is highly improper. Are you under the impression that you can just "shut down" discussion threads on particular items, expressing only your POV that the person you disagree with "is on thin ice as it is."

Demon wrote: "In the few short days he has shined his editing attention on the Obama article he been responsible for multiple AN/I reports, edit wars, a speedy delete and DrV mess, and now a topic ban proposal." I'm not particularly interested in editing the Obama article; merely the editorial and policy issues that deal with a bunch of people who 1) mischaracterise the debate as being decided 2) claim that "criticism of" articles are against BLP, NPOV, NOT, UNDUE, etc., when in fact there are 157 of them; a WP:SHOULDNOTEXIST argument 3) employ sabotage, speedy deletes, admin abuse, policy misuse, and general talk page disorganization to nullify any discussion of the matter. In short I don't really care about the Obama article, aside from the nominal fact that such articles generally require controversy/criticism sections. Their absence is telling of either POV whitewashing, or else a FUD characterization of all such criticism. Even if 90% of such energy was POV vandalism, and I agree that that number is perhaps correct, the usage of such sections and articles is arguable a benefit, not a hindrance.

Demon wrote: "We need people to help improve articles, not start trouble." If it were not for me personally starting trouble, WP:CIVIL and WP:RFA/WP:DR, would not have come about. I invented those WP:shortcuts you use all the time, for Pete's sake. I not only understand both policy and process, but some of if was in fact my formulation. Can't take any credit for NPOV, though.

Demon wrote: "I would support giving this editor every chance to stop disrupting the Obama pages, and if he sincerely means to contibute he should." This appears to be based on your assumption that "this editor" needs you to give him "every chance" in anything, that these discussions are only "disruptions" and not actually discussions, and wherin "contributions" is a loaded term used to indicate only those edits which you deem to be valid. Thanks for your opinion.

Demon wrote: "He hasn't even been blocked once over this, so a topic ban is premature." Your support is most encouraging.

Demon wrote: "But if he doesn't at least try to work with other editors and stop causing trouble, he needs to take a break either from the project or from the Obama topics." Ive been responsive at a point-by-point, argument-by-argument level, using reason, clear explanations, citations of policy, and general regard for the intelligence of my opponents, if not their arguments. Does that count?

Hey, next time you use a WP:shortcut, think of the "disrupting" editor who invented them. :) -Stevertigo 13:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is not overriding? Consensus is always overriding, for anything and everything we do under our present "rules", which are that consensus rules. This is a distracting red herring on this page from the key discussion. And don't edit war. rootology (C)(T) 05:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe needs attention

In light of Steve's recent behavior, perhaps this idea needs another look. Grsz 01:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Duh. He's been disruptive enough to warrant a block without the probation. Sceptre 09:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. His point is valid, though as you've said he should have broached this topic on the talk page. I think you've already made your point clear though. This whole thing seems to be getting out of hand, though perhaps this is to be expected for what is arguably the most important article on Misplaced Pages currently. JustGettingItRight (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh, it was roundly rejected on the talk page. And we delete BLP violations first and talk later. Otherwise we'd never deal with libel. Sceptre 12:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It very well may have been (though there does not appear to be any consensus in your linked discussion), but the way you worded the answer for Q6 implies there is a general Misplaced Pages discouragement of criticism sections, when in fact the consensus against a criticism section was specific to the Barack Obama article currently and not some sort of global consensus. We can continue this discussion on the talk page, but verbiage matters for a FAQ. JustGettingItRight (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV discourages sections devoted to one viewpoint. Criticism articles and sections are devoted to one viewpoint. Therefore NPOV, in a roundabout way, discourages criticism sections and articles. Sceptre 13:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you please discuss this on the talk page instead of ANI? I have created a section for discussion. JustGettingItRight (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Can we please do something about this editor? I thought the original AN/I report was premature and we should at least give him some time and an opportunity to shape up. He's had that opportunity now, and seems to be having a melt-down. Even after this AN/I report began he has been an utter nuisance on quite a few important pages. The amount of disruption is pretty staggering and would take an hour or two to catalog, but in rough summary I believe he's been getting into edit wars on article pages, talk pages (regarding trolling and POINT-y comments of his that were removed or closed), policy / guideline / essay pages, and also engaged in strong incivility and accusations against people who tried to deal with him. We don't need this nonsense, and in the case of the Obama articles in particular, we need to stand behind our article probation terms or else they're meaningless. At this point the majority of the editor's most recent edits are suspect and most should be and have been reverted. Wikidemon (talk) 03:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• This one edit deserves a block - in the middle of an edit war to try to change the consensus version of the Obama talk page so that the FAQ would not seem to discourage his "criticisms" proposal (he's been warned about article probation and told to stop edit warring) he reverts Scepter and calls Scepter a "crazy POV teenage lunatic wikistalker".Wikidemon (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

But I guess calling someone a POV-pushing troll is OK. Talk about hypocrisy ... JustGettingItRight (talk) 06:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Not hypocrisy - significant prologned disruption across many important articles, some on community probation, accompanied by strong incivility, needs to be dealt with. Wikidemon (talk) 07:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

2 points: abusive edit summaries need to stop and I think an Article RfC is warranted

The only way I don't see this escalating further is through an article RfC. Misplaced Pages is getting hammered in the mainstream press over allegations of bias surrounding this article and the credibility of the project is on the line with such a high profile article. Also, abusive edit summaries have got to stop. JustGettingItRight (talk) 06:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

What mainstream press? WorldNetDaily is not the MSM. rootology (C)(T) 06:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Guardian (UK) and Fox News is directly focusing on this "edit conflict". JustGettingItRight (talk) 06:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Serious proposal

Limit Stevevirtigo in some way here. He's literally all over the Obama pages, DRV, this ANI, everywhere ranting about these articles now and every editor that politically disagrees with him. rootology (C)(T) 14:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That's what I've been saying. The ban I asked for was:

• Ban from editing Barack Obama and subpages.
• Ban from discussion pages of those articles.
• Ban from any Misplaced Pages-space discussion about the articles.

Which doesn't seem to harsh now... Sceptre 15:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This is now the third thread you've started on this page trying to block Stevertigo. To neutral eyes, it's hard to see why he's being more disruptive than you. I suggest you both disengage for a bit. THF (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Except it's not. I've only started one thread, this thread, to ask for probation on him, and reminded people of this thread in the thread below. And you're hardly neutral in this dispute. Sceptre 16:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Reading the discussion above and getting a general feel for things: I would recommend that Stevevirtigo and Sceptre be topic-banned. It's generally not healthy for two users to become this involved in a dispute. Six of one, half a dozen of the other? Scarian 22:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm only trying to enforce BLP. We tend to give editors some leeway for that. I wouldn't be so involved in this dispute if Steve wasn't so disruptive and ANI so unresponsive. Sceptre 22:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I get your point. And this is a little extreme. Scarian 23:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Scarian, we tried to topic ban Sceptre, but it didn't work. We can try again, but I doubt it'll work now either. It'll take a full shitfest first, then lots of recriminations about not doing it sooner. ThuranX (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What's it going to take for you to realise I'm not the Antichrist? I try to give tinfoil hats a bit of decency against consensus, I'm "disruptive". Then I try to enforce consensus and NPOV, and I'm "disruptive" again. Why don't you just come out and say that you don't like me? Sceptre 00:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This is unacceptable. I take offense the term "teenage". But seriously, why is this guy not blocked? Sceptre 00:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

and YOUR edit summary prompting that was acceptable? Pot. kettle. black. Topic ban both. Sceptre just made the prosecution, inadevertently, both cases for a topic ban. ThuranX (talk) 04:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I am not terribly familiar with Sceptre's edits, Sceptre seems to be opposing disruption, not acting to disrupt. Stevevertigo's edits are clearly POV, against consensus, edit warring on article probation pages, gross incivility, and what looks like tit-for-tat retribution, breaching behavior, WP:POINT violations, and just plain trouble. It's pretty clear that Stevertigo has been deliberately misbehaving in a way that could reasonably be called trolling. Two feuding editors do not cancel out each other's misbehavior. Whatever may or may not be wrong with Scepter's reaction to the disruption, can we please separate the two issues? Stevevertigo is causting widespread disruption, whatever Scepter's alleged faults.Wikidemon (talk) 04:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Calling a spade a spade isn't uncivil. I called him a disruptive POV-pushing troll because he was disruptive, he was pushing a POV, and he was trolling. Obversely, I have the Obama FAQ on my watchlist, and I should point out that I am medically fine. The only thing he got right is that I'm a teenager. Sceptre 09:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Which you are, and admit to being on your userpage; you can't really call it "unacceptable". He wasn't using teenage as an offensive word. POV pusher, maybe :P. Seriously, though, every time I see something on ANI involving Obama you are in it throwing topic ban suggestions. You are obviously far too involved in this area. Would you agree to a system in which both you and Steve were banned? I can't see how hanging around such an area all the time can be beneficial; you end up turning into an angry, grouchy wreck who accuses all and sundry of being POV-pushers/socks/SPAs. Take some time out, work on a Doctor Who article or something and calm down. Ironholds (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Now at Arbitration

Noting that Steve brought this to RFAR here, as any attempt by anyone to archive this now pointless and incendiary series of threads is undone. rootology (C)(T) 13:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Shatt al-Arab again

I'm currently edit-warring at Shatt al-Arab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The issue is our usual brand of toponymical irredentism (in this particular case, Iranian).

I'm edit-warring instead of limiting myself to discussing calmly in the article's talk page because in this particular article the latter option has proven time and again to be utterly pointless (see the archives): these people simply refuse to follow our naming conventions, instead using Misplaced Pages as a venue to promote their preferred terminology.

My talk page attempts to explain our naming conventions are characterized as "unfounded, and contrived, arguments", and not even read anyway.

The relevant sections of the article's talk page are:

• Algiers Accord of 6 March 1975.
• It is Arvand Rood/Rud.

And I'm edit-warring at 1975 Algiers Agreement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) too.
The relevant talk page section is: Arvand.

Anyone bored enough to take a look at this depressing issue ? Best, Ev (talk) 16:38, 16 March – 17:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm looking at it now. Do not continue edit warring. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Aknowledged. And thank you for taking a little time for this. :-) Best, Ev (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. This issue looks to be a bit of a doozy. I have protected the page for the time being on the most recent version. This is in no way an endorsement of the current version. It looks like this has been going on for several years, and at least one effort at mediation was closed before running its course. Given that there appear to be legitimate gripes AND nationalism driving this, I would strongly encourage opening a case at RfAr and trying to get some kind of closure on the matter. There is certainly a fair amount of room to address the actions of many editors involved, but I think this will just keep going around in circles without some definitive statement to fall back on. I'm open to other ideas, but given the number of years this has gone on, it looks like RfAr is overdue. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure of how much an arbitration could help here, at least at present. Although the issue itself won't go away anytime soon, the Iranian editors demanding the use of the Farsi name instead of -or at least alongside- the standard English usage are always new people. Neither BF (he asked to be addressed so) nor User:Nepaheshgar became involved until 13 March 2009 (four days ago). So, I'm afraid the issue could be easily dismissed as premature, or even considered a content dispute.

Probably the best option involving the Arbitration Committee would be to make them aware of the situation and then wait for the current West Bank - Judea and Samaria case to run its course and see if the issue is handled there (if, because the cases are not exactly equivalent: for the averange anglophone Arvand Rud doesn't have the subjective connotations that Judea and Samaria do; it's just that it's not the common, standard name of the waterway).

But in essence it's a really simple issue: whether the article should be written using the most easily recognized name, the one the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize (along the spirit of our naming conventions policy), or whether it should take into account the grievances of Iranian nationalists who dislike/dismiss our current naming conventions (and common English usage itself).

I think we can handle this without arbitration, by simply blocking the editors for disruption (i.e. persistently violating our policies and guidelines; in this case, our naming conventions policy and its indications for geographic names). Previous warning, of course. We shouldn't allow so much liberty of action for the introduction of nationalist grievances in our articles. - Best, Ev (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree blocks would be appropriate here. BF's brazen-faced display of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT , from the cover of his friends' tag-team revert warring, is far beyond the line of any legitimate content dispute. This is willful ignoring of policy, it is a behaviour issue, it is disruptive, and as such blockable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've given BF a short warning block (24h), since he inexplicably resumed revert-warring on the 1975 Algiers Agreement article, after failing for several days to address the challenge (which was pointed out to him even by other editors who were generally on his side) that the text verbatim quoted on that very page doesn't support the claim he is making. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. I've changed the protection level to semi from full. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, Fut.Perf. & Hiberniantears; I hope that this will put and end to the disruption. I could have issue the warnings & possible blocks myself, without posting here & taking time from other administrators; but I feared that ensuing complaints of "conflict of interest" & "involved administrator threatening/issuing blocks" would drain even more contributors' time than what your actions have required.

Just so that you know, having now taken the time to check the treaty's text (United Nations Treaty Collection: Treaty Series, Vol. 1017, No. 14903, pages 54 to 213 – see details) I found the following:

• The treaty concerning the State frontier and neighbourly relation (signed at Baghdad on 13 June 1975) uses the name Shatt al-Arab (or equivalents), as do various of the accompanying documents.
• The accompanying joint Iranian-Iraqi communiqué (dated 6 March 1975, Algiers), whose text is reproduced in the Misplaced Pages article, mentions "river frontiers or boundaries", without actually naming the waterway.
• The name Arvand is absent from all documents.

These edits verge on outright vandalism. Details at Talk:1975 Algiers Agreement#Arvand. - Best, Ev (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Viktor van Niekerk

I'm involved in a long-running dispute with User:Viktor van Niekerk regarding his ownership of the ten-string guitar article.

This was previously a soapbox of Viktor's, which he defended by personal attacks on anyone who tried to fix it. This went on for more than a year in fact, during which time a number of other editors just gave up. If newbies, typically they just left.

I have managed to make some progress, largely owing to a block another admin put on Viktor for incivility. However he is now back and has commenced a program of harassment in order to get his soapbox back. He is particularly aware of its high Google rating when compared to his own personal websites on the subject.

See my talk page, particularly User talk:Andrewa#General reply and User talk:Andrewa#Personal attacks, and some recent diffs from Viktor: .

I fear that this will just escallate until Viktor is eventually banned. Any help greatly appreciated. Andrewa (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you haven't even used your admin powers since February, let alone "abused" them. (This information you dug up should be useful in solving the content dispute.) I see no personal attacks, personal vendettas, or whatever else Viktor alleges, as in this thread title: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music#Objective_Expert_musician_needed_to_resolve:_Editor_abusing_his_admin_status_in_personal_vendetta.2C_supporting_misinformation. Viktor, if you are reading this, and I presume you are: please back off on the accusations, assume good faith, have a look at our conflict of interest and no original research policies. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Just seconding what Antandrus says. Eusebeus (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't abused them, and Viktor knows I haven't. See Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 43#Administrator has been misusing his status to launch a personal vendetta for his first attempt, and note that it was resolved to this effect on 4 March 2009. The other diffs I give above include several subsequent repeats of the same allegations, and surely this counts as both harassment and disruption. He has also posted similar material elsewhere on the web, naming both me and Misplaced Pages, see for example this post to the 10 String Guitar Yahoo! group.

Viktor has been active on Misplaced Pages since 31 January 2007. He is intelligent and determined, and able to quote policy when it suits him, but shows no willingness to acknowledge it at any other time.

I think we need to resolve the behaviour issue before it will be possible to properly address the content issues. Viktor is bold now in his harassment because sadly, similar tactics have always worked for him in the past.

The diff you quote of my research into Viktor's credentials actually worries me a little. Viktor has now posted a 3rd level NPA warning on my user talk page, possibly in retaliation for my posting one on his, and referring to the talk page in question. I posted this material there because Viktor was quoting himself as an authority, and there seems doubt as to his actual credentials. I think it's legitimate rather than attack as he himself raised the topic of his credentials, but it's the only even borderline thing there as far as I can see.

And it is borderline, in that it's really no solution. The solution is for Viktor to stop quoting himself as an authority. But how? Andrewa (talk) 02:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment - From what's visible at Talk:Ten-string extended-range classical guitar Viktor is consistent in using "status as admin" and is not claiming Andrewa used or abused his "admin powers." A few colorful firefights notwithstanding, the admins tend to support one another and it's hard for the lay editor to tell if an admin is "abusing" his or her status when a couple of unrelated admins drop in supporting the admin's POV on an issue. --Marc Kupper|talk 10:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Please be very careful about giving any credence to Viktor's accusations. Viktor has been active on Misplaced Pages for over two years, and has in that time happily quoted policy when it suited him.

The charge that I have abused my status as an admin is simply false, I have done no such thing and there is no evidence offered that I have. Yes, it's a harder one to decide either way than the more specific charge of abusing my sysop powers, and yes, that is probably the very reason that this phrasing has been used.

Similarly, the charge that I have a vendetta is simply false. My motives are twofold: To improve the articles concerned (see Viktor's version if you haven't already done so), and more important, to make Misplaced Pages a safer place for other editors to do so too (difs available on request for the many, many stale personal attacks that went unchallenged and often the victims just left Misplaced Pages, apparently unnoticed). Yes, these both do involve standing up to Viktor, and no, he does not like it. That is not my fault.

Be aware that my contact with Viktor has been purely as a result of Misplaced Pages, but that Viktor's consequent attacks on me have also been made in several other forums, and may continue there, see and many more postings to that group. Another place he has been particularly venomous is Myspace, but at least some of those pages have thankfully been deleted. More recently he has linked to diffs and previous versions from Misplaced Pages page histories, and may be expected to do so again.

IMO Misplaced Pages is not the place to address what he has said in these other forums, I must decide whether to do so myself or whether to just hope that others will form the opinion that Viktor's credibility is not sufficient to undermine my own. But I do ask you to be very careful about making statements that he may be able to quote, possibly out of context. I realise this is not always possible! Andrewa (talk) 02:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

My dispute is about contents. If you want to take this further, please at least take note of the contents problems.Andrewa is making this personal. My disagreement with his edits are purely based on factual information. I seek to maintain academic standards (such as not linking to or including proven misinformation) while Andrewa (be it in his capacity as admin or editor?) has repeatedly included misinformation as well as defending it by making very dishonest claims (such as that "four" equals "eight" and that there is no difference between saying one or the other) . I need hardly point out that this conduct is unscholarly and unethical. Here is the evidence and there is more, if you ask me for it:

According to WP:LINKSTOAVOID article 2: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" cannot be included in wikipedia. Andrewa has purposefully breached this policy in his continuing personal vendetta against me. Here is the proof:

After repeatedly being warned by myself against the misleading and factually inaccurate material presented on an external webpage Janet Marlow's site admin/editor Andrewa still intentionally linked to this misinformative page in the following edit:

Andrewa has since made the statement: "there is no misinformation on the particular page to which I linked. Both sides are describing the same eight notes being provided by the same four resonant strings. Whether that is four "resonances" or eight is a non-issue."

Not only is Andrewa mistaken in claiming that there is no misinformation on the page, or that the two sides in the argument are describing the same thing, he has clearly been abusing his status as an administrator/editor, deliberately posting false information (after being warned it is false). Let us first consider the contents of this argument:

The page to which Andrewa linked makes the following claims:

"Therefore, there are four missing sympathetic resonances on the six string guitar. If you play a C, Bb, Ab, and Gb on the first string E, there will be less sustain from these notes than the others because there are no sympathetic resonant strings. This was Maestro Yepes’ primary reason for conceiving the ten-string guitar. By adding these pitches in four extra bass strings, now provides each half step with the sympathetic resonance making a more physically completed instrument." (Janet Marlow Janet Marlow's site)

Now, in western classical music there are 12 notes in the octave: C, C#, D, D#, E, F, F#, G, G#, A, A#, B. If it is claimed (as above) that four of these 12 notes lack resonances, then logically/mathematically, this means that the other eight out of the twelve do not lack resonances. Marlow lists the four missing resonances as C, Bb (=A#), Ab (=G#), and Gb (=F#) and states that "there will be less sustain from these notes than the others". Any person who is a competent speaker of the English language will understand this as meaning that these four listed notes have more sustain (more resonance) than the other notes, the "other notes" being C#, D, D#, E, F, G, A, B. In other words, Marlow is claiming four notes don't have resonance and eight do.

However, Narciso Yepes (who invented the modern 10-string guitar) always, ubiquitously and verifiably talked about eight missing sympathetic resonances on the guitar, not four as claimed by Marlow. Yepes lists the eight missing resonances as C, C# (=Db), D# (=Eb), F, F# (=Gb), G, G# (=Ab), A# (=Bb). He lists the other four notes that do have resonance as D, A, E, and B. Yepes's quotes from numerous articles/interviews can be read here with references to follow them up. There is also further information on my site www.tenstringguitar.INFO about the acoustics, the science behind Yepes's statements.

Janet Marlow (and Andrewa) are clearly, in fact, not saying the same thing as Narciso Yepes (and Viktor van Niekerk). Both sides are certainly not "describing the same eight notes being provided by the same four resonant strings". So why is Andrewa falsely claiming that they are saying the same thing and linking to misinformation after repeated detailed explanations to him (off wikipedia) about this content? If they were describing the same thing, Marlow would have to speak of eight missing resonances (C, Db, Eb, F, Gb, G, Ab, Bb) not only four (C, Bb, Ab, Gb).

Andrewa only goes on to claim that "Whether that is four "resonances" or eight is a non-issue" because to admit the truth - that it is very much an issue and a source of misinformation - would reveal his involvement in not only deliberately promoting misinformation on wikipedia (going against WP:LINKSTOAVOID article 2), but also misusing his powers as admin/editor to abuse me in his ongoing personal vendetta over an edit disagreement. This defamatory conduct includes, but is hardly limited to his claim (here under "Sources" and elsewhere) that Janet Marlow "is a more authoritative figure than Viktor", despite the fact that Marlow has been proven to publish misinformation while my website www.tenstringguitar.INFO is presently the only online resource that faithfully represents Narciso Yepes's statements about his invention as well as a scholarly explanation of the science informing those statements. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

NO, Viktor. I see bullying and abuse here, but it's not Andrewa who is doing it. Please read the behavioral guidelines I linked above. Read them. Don't wait; don't post another WP:TLDR; don't deflect from the actual issue, the issue that brought you to this board, which is the way you are behaving: you need to assume good faith of other editors, be calm and polite and engage with them civilly: go read the guidelines I linked, and then, even more important, abide by them.

Regarding your claim, "Marlow has been proven to publish misinformation while my website www.tenstringguitar.INFO is presently the only online resource that faithfully represents Narciso Yepes's statements" -- you need to read WP:COI. You may not publish your own research here. Your website, as it is self-published, is not a reliable source; it is not independent, and it is not peer-reviewed. Please go read our policies and guidelines. Antandrus (talk) 05:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it time for a topic ban? Frankly the idea that the biggest paragraph (the historical dispute) has three things cited with one simply saying "a lot comes from here" is the biggest problem. I'm going to watch the article and if nobody can find sources for all the flowery language ("luthier noted for his innovations", "inspired by", "As was his practice, he sought advice", "concerned with the problem"), I'm dumping it. The tone is wholly appropriate and the entire Repertoire section feels like original research. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And yes I took a hatchet to the article when a scalpel was probably needed. Most of it was unsourced and the language was a mess. Find some source, even one that's not reliable as a starting point, and discuss things on the talk page before putting it in. Games of "I know the truth" from anyone isn't productive, but feel free to revert and just ignore me if you guys wish. Sometimes, getting everybody mad at an outsider works wonders for corroborative effort. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Your edits are certainly food for thought! They raise real issues and I think they're progress. Discussion on the talk page is also appreciated. Thanks! Andrewa (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

A topic ban on Viktor, if it applied to Narciso Yepes and the ten-string guitar and related articles, would effectively ban him completely. He has indicated no interest in any other topics. Andrewa (talk) 00:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I've warned Viktor and have also brought up the big worries about OR and sourcing. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Please supply proof of whatever I am being accused of in relation to Andrewa. I have not seen any. On the contrary, I have ample proof of my discussions with Andrewa off wikipedia. We have been through the contents issues I've raised. Andrewa has persisted in linking to unreliable sources and defending his actions by claiming there is nothing inaccurate in his sources. I cannot assume good faith any longer. How can one assume good faith when an editor has been pointed to reliable resources (published texts by Narciso Yepes in musical journals) yet still supports online sources that are not scholarly or peer-reviewed? How can I honestly assume good faith when an editor says there is no difference between saying "four" and saying" eight"? How can I assume good faith after I've explained to this editor in quite some detail, repeatedly both on and off wikipedia, the difference between Marlow's claims of "four" resonances and Yepes's statements of "eight" resonances? How can I assume good faith when this editor on 8 March (knowing better) still claimed that there is no difference between saying four and saying eight resonances and that the sources he supports contain no misinformation? This is a very simple matter: saying four resonances (C, Bb, Ab, Gb) is most certainly not the same as saying eight resonances (C, C#, D#, F, F#, G, G#, A#). Seriously, how can anyone assume good faith when an editor claims 4=8? And that after I've gone out of my way to explain the contents to him. We have even met in person and he had the opportunity to ask me about the contents of this matter. But still Andrewa has persisted in defending factually inaccurate information and making accusations against me that are unfounded. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

For the last time

Viktor, this is not about content, this is about your behavior as an editor. It's about you personally attacking others, and not following our no original research policy. The issue isn't about whether you're right or wrong, but whether you are following policy, or not, and you are clearly not. Stop posting your content dispute here, it is pointless and drags away from the issue at hand.

There so far seems to be a rough consensus by uninvolved parties to topic ban you. Does anyone else support or oppose this?— Dædαlus 04:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Please supply proof of your allegations that I am attacking/harrassing Andrewa. This is not the first time Andrewa has made false allegations against me:

Here here, under Sources, Andrewa makes a false accusation against me that: "Viktors' site fails criteria 4 and 11" of the WP:LINKSTOAVOID policy. Note, site (singular) and with reference to my site www.tenstringguitar.info. In other words, Andrewa has falsely accused me of breach of article 4 "Links mainly intended to promote a website" and 11 "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites".

Firstly, my website is a non-commercial scholarly resource about the instrument invented in 1963 by Narciso Yepes. Everything there can be verified from published interviews/articles in music journals, textbooks on acoustics, and published sheet music. Calling this website a promotion of itself rather than of factual information about Yepes's invention is unfounded.

Secondly, the site (singular) is not a blog, personal webpage, or fansite, nor is it a discussion group. So there also Andrewa has made a false accusation.

So have I "harrassed" him? Or is this another cry of wolf by an editor who has been failing a contents dispute and resorts to getting me banned from wikipedia so he can express his POV?

Please supply proof of harrassment. I can also supply proof of Andrewa's attacks against me.

Please also supply proof of breach of policy. I too can supply proof of Andrewa's breach of policy, for example WP:LINKSTOAVOID, by linking to to pages with known misinformation, myspace, and yahoo groups.

Please supply proof of the alleged "original research". Everything I have posted in the ten-string guitar articles on wikipedia (prior to Andrewa's considerable rewrites) could be verified by referring to Narciso Yepes's published articles and interviews in musicological journals, by referring to proven facts of physics in acoustics textbooks, and by referrign to published sheet music for the 10-string guitar.

It takes more than empty allegations (from however many editors) to ethically ban someone who is simply trying to uphold standards of scholarship and factually correct information on wikipedia. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Viktor, you can either listen to what people are telling you or keep on repeating your claims until you find yourself topic banned from the subjects. Those are your options at this point and it seems that you would rather win a few points today by repeating your same arguments than be allowed to edit on those articles. Nobody cares about the content dispute since it seems quite clear that neither side can clearly produce reliable sources justifying their beliefs; you conduct on the other hand is maddening. I would heavily support a topicban and we'll see if Viktor really cares more about neutrality and getting a good article or just getting to say what he wants. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support topicban, extremely broadly construed. Misplaced Pages has absolutely no place for people pushing a POV or using themselves as sources, and the sooner we come down on it, the better. //roux   05:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support temporary topic ban. While I want to believe this editor can calm down and make an honest attempt to present his case in a rational and concise manner, his behavior in his multiple postings to various noticeboards of the same or similar TL;DR complaints makes it extremely difficult to believe that he isn't pushing OR or a POV and isn't otherwise engaged in tendentious editing. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 07:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
• oppose of a user ban, support edit protection on the articles which amounts to a topic ban for all of the involved parties, and suggest WP:MENTOR, involuntary if needed. From what he has written on the talk pages Viktor seems cogent enough. His technical explanations of resonance, and other reasoning on the subject clear and easily understood by this layperson. The goal is channeling that talent and energy into useful WP article content. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

False claims of "bullying" Andrewa: New Proof

Plase note that the allegations made by Andrewa are false and it is not the first time he has made false allegations against me. (See this false allegation made against www.tenstringguitar.info here . (The link is relevant, does not simply promote a site, and does not link to a discussion group, myspace or facebook - even though that is what it is accused of.)

The fact is, I repeatedly made Andrewa aware of misinformation he was linking to (for example, here on a yahoo forum on 25 February and here we have Andrewa responding ). Proof that he was aware of the misinformation. So there is no reason to justify good faith or entertain the notion that he is simply unaware of the factually inaccurate link he posted here (in the References, at the bottom), then never removed, and then defended as containing no inaccuracies on 2 March, here .

Since we have proven that there was no reason for good faith, no reason to assume the defence of misinformation was unintentional, there is also no justification in calling it an "attack", "harrassment" or "bullying" that I have called for other editors to oversee his conduct and note the multiple breaches of policy. (I'm not au fait enough with wikipedia to be able to list them like Andrewa does, but I'm sure the claims of harrassment and breach of policy can be equally reversed in the other direction.)

Now I intend to edit the articles with references to reliable, verifiable sources. I will NOT waste any further time in this pointless argument as I am innocent of harrassment against Andrewa, who merely wants me gone so he can have his POV. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 11:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The latest round

Please see this dif and this dif for Viktor's current stand. I think we are making progress, but there's a way to go. Andrewa (talk) 11:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne

There is an on-going debate relating to the infobox within fictional characters. This debating is raging in the disucssion page of the James Kirk biography. For the past few days, the page has been fully protected while the debate continued. Today, moments after the protection expired (but clearly far from a resolution) user:Arcayne changed the infobox to fit the format that he's been promoting. Several admins have voiced their opposition to this format. WP:Film & WP:Television have both come to the consensus that this is an invalid position and yet Arcayne (an admin) moved forward without a consensus and did it anyway. The wiki remains semi-protected. Erikeltic (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Just to point out that User:Arcayne is not an admin, not that this makes any difference on a content issue. Black Kite 20:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
• Notified Arcayne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). –xeno (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Erikeltic has been confusing me with an admin since he was blocked for edit-warring in the article 3 days ago, and apparently began socking shortly thereafter. Since pointing this out at least twice seems to have had no effect, I've simply tuned him out. Additionally, the point of seeking consensus is to affect change in an article without excessive edit-warring. The article was reinstated to its pre-editwar state. As I understand it (and maybe I am wrong here) but consensus needs to be found before the change is made, as per BRD. Lastly, I am not sure where the "several admins have voiced their opposition" bit is coming from, since I am only aware of one admin who has been actively contributing to the article (not as an admin capacity but as an editor). The Film and TV wikiproject consensus' do not say what Erikeltic seem to think they do. I think I am on pretty solid ground as far as inclusion goes, and have repeatedly suggested that mediation might be a route to pursue, as Erikeltic seems rather unfamiliar with policies and guidelines, having only made about 200 edits thus far. He's been counseled about his often attack-y and uncivil behavior by at least two other editors. This is forum-shopping, and having to duck-duck-goose where Erikeltic is going to ask yet another parent is somewhat tedious. This belongs in mediation, not ANI. - Arcayne () 22:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Rather than even dispute or "reason" these statements and accusations, I would simply implore you admins to take a look at the discussion, take a look at the behavior, take a look at the history, etc. and you will see what's going on for yourselves. Thanks. Erikeltic (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

As a neutral party to this debate, I believe there may be some merit to Arcayne's sockpuppet allegations concerning Erikeltic. Marfoir was created only one day after Erikeltic returned to his account, and Marfoir's first edits were to a related AfD, and to date, have only been about this issue. Also, yesterday Marfoir deleted comments I made to Erikeltic's talk page, whereupon both editors, within minutes of each other, blanked large sections of warnings and discussions related to this issue from their talk pages . I think Checkuser might be prudent to clear this up. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, doing a little searching through the edit history of the James Cawley AFD on my own, I may have a possible smoking gun. Based on their own corrections to edits made while not logged in, Marfoir edited from 24.115.224.131, while Erikeltic edited from 24.229.98.148. Both IPs come from PenTeleData Cable in Palmerton, PA. Coincidental? I'm doubting it. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Marfoir and I know one another and it was I who involved him in this debate. Our IPs are similar (not identical) because we live in the same area, so there aren't any surprises there. Why exactly have you made it your mission to come after me, FennShysa? You have left several warnings for me and correct a couple of my posts and yet you don't do the same thing to Arcayne when it's necessary. Why is that? Erikeltic (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

QUACK QUACK! please... --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Lol. So, let me see if I understand this, Erikeltic/anon24 (et al)/Marfoir/whatever - you are stating that even though you were socking before, you are instead guilty of meat-puppetry and canvassing? Sorry, that is almost as bad. Especially when both of you voted in an AfD related to this subject. Pursuant to a checkuser or SPP (I can never remember the difference), I'd like this user, in all of his/her many, many (at least 5 now) colorful disguises by blockety-block-blocked indefinitely. - Arcayne () 17:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

By your own admission, then Erikeltic, you've violated Misplaced Pages policies. Please read this section about Meatpuppets and Sockpuppets - the relevant line is Do not recruit meatpuppets. It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Misplaced Pages articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Misplaced Pages and support your side of a debate. So to answer your question (and poor attempt to deflect blame/attention from yourself), Arcayne has followed procedure - you, sir, have not. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

So the bottom line is: rather than lose the debate about the infobox, you'll just come after me personally to silence the opposition? And I didn't recruit anyone. I don't know when Marfoir got an account and I don't really care. The only thing I did was mention the wiki to him. What he did with that is on him, not me. What, you want our real names and phone numbers? I'll share that offline with THF or any neutral admin if that's what it takes to prove there is no puppetry here. Go for it. This is just an end-run to get around losing the debate. How sad. Erikeltic (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not involved in any userbox debate. I saw you behaving inappropriately, and called you on it. I saw another editor behaving inappropriately, covering you, and noticed a pattern, and followed up on it. Simple as that. And you can't have it both ways - you can't claim "I didn't recruit anyone" immediately after posting "Marfoir and I know one another and it was I who involved him in this debate." You just admitted to recruiting him. Case closed, IMHO. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You're making it sound much more sinister than it actually was. You want to punish me for telling somebody I know about the edit war, then by all means: go for it. It is not fair, however, to dismiss my arguments or punish someone else because I'm a wiki-noob that is operating in good faith. Nor does anything I have done relieve Arcayne of his own actions. Erikeltic (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a normal content dispute and doesn't belong at ANI. Erikeltic has been more even-tempered of late, but this harkens back to his earlier forum shopping. --EEMIV (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

If someone suspects a sockpuppetry, report it. Meanwhile, the underlying content dispute is being proposed for mediation. --EEMIV (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has a problem with doing that, EEMIV (outside of the work involved in filing). That said, the Erikeltic has already admitted to abusive meatpuppetry, and has attempted to influence both consensus in article discussion and the results of an AfD. Hasn't ArbCom determined that "Misplaced Pages does not distinguish between meatpuppets and sockpuppets."? Again, I don't mind filing the report myself, but I am also thinking of the collateral damage to articles and their attendant discussions as well as those pages wherein they are voting in concert. In my experience, Checkuser can be somewhat glacial in its progress. - Arcayne () 19:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation reopened, FWIW. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of notifying both Erikeltic and Marfoir or the renewed SPI. - Arcayne () 19:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I will voluntarily remove myself from the mediation process entirely and leave it between you, EEMIV, Marfoir, THF, Cool Hand Luke, Bignole, GlobalCluster, and everyone else involved with the content issues if it makes you feel better. Let the investigation against me proceed, but don't use me as your excuse against resoloving the dispute. Erikeltic (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm amazed. What a mess one simple discussion has turned into. Oy. Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Marfoir (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Disruption - Deletion of "Criticism of" articles

A user nominates for deletion a huge series of "criticism" articles: . This has been debated numerous times, and the articles were kept. Could someone intervene, please? It would be huge waste of time for many users to vote in all these unnecessary AfD nominations. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

N.B.: Ism schism (talk · contribs) started the mass nomination, after the article Criticism of Barack Obama that he (re)created was deleted ( AFD, DRV). Irrespective of underlying merit, this seems to be a WP:POINT violation. 98.220.252.228 (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ism schism has agreed to "pause for some time on Afds". --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do we have these "Criticism of " pages, and not one on Barack Obama? _{I volunteered and voted for Obama, but it is a legitimate question that I can't find one, solid answer for.} If someone can provide some DIFF's, that would be appreciated. seicer | talk | contribs 02:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ. PhGustaf (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Give it time, there will be criticism aplenty, as there is with any President. Baseball Bugs carrots 02:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I would assume it has something to do with the fact that most "criticism" of Obama thus far--at least the stuff that has received semi-widespread coverage--has been nothing but the sort of fringe-theory scandal-mongering that is already covered (in absurd depths that can only be justified by WP:NOTPAPER) in articles such as Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, Bill Ayers presidential election controversy, and Jeremiah Wright controversy. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Right. That was the type of answer I was expecting Cosmic Latte (thank you), not some canned "look at the FAQ" B.S. There is a reason why so many keep asking, and why it keeps being repeated; you can't expect to just can out a generic answer for the removal of a page when there are similar pages regarding similar, notable figures. More detailed responses are needed. seicer | talk | contribs 02:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the ones who want the page could list the top 5 things they would feature in the article??? Then we'd be in a better position to judge its worth as an article. I notice the Bush page was created 5 years into his Presidency. So in theory, the Obama spinoff page should not occur until 2014. I also notice that everything in the Bush article summary talks about stuff that occurred well into his time in office. It's too early to write anything substantial like that about Obama, who has been in office a grand total of 56 days. Baseball Bugs carrots 02:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• I endorse sending these article to AfD but I also recognize the futility of it. I've given up trying to have these articles deleted or even renamed to something more neutral (e.g. Opinions on Joe Bloggs or somesuch). How we can defend hit-jobs like these is beyond me; any article that focuses primarily on the positive about an individual gets very short shrift. Just try and create Praise for Barack Obama or Praise for Sylvia Browne. Neutral point of view does not mean journalistic point of view. For all the perpetual kerfuffle around the BLP policy, we don't come down half as hard on negative bias as we do promotional articles. CIreland (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You mean like the one-sided Republican and conservative support for Barack Obama in 2008? THF (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like that article has expanded way beyond what it initially started out as. Based on the initial edits it was intended to be about "Obamacans" or "Obama Republicans", similar to Reagan Democrats, but seems to have mutated into a general "So and so, who happens to be Republican, said nice things about Obama". --Bobblehead 23:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And even more, going into present Republican opinions of Obama, which is kinda silly for an article with "...in 2008" as part of the title . I just removed some dithering about "eroding support" in the first 100 days. Tarc (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Hear hear. While I hate these types of articles, this was pure disruption. Some process-wonk is bound to take the Dubya page to DRV because I !voted in it before realising it was a disruptive pattern. Sceptre 12:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, in your defense, you must not have known what was up, or what you were doing. -Stevertigo 22:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Reggaeton, El Machete and 74.248.71.191

I just issued an indefinite full-protection to Reggaeton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in order to stem what appears to be a very protracted edit war. The request that led to it was filed by 74.248.71.191 (talk · contribs), and his request has been tampered with by El Machete Guerrero (talk · contribs). The moment I issued the protection, I warned El Machete against editing others' RFPP requests, both at RFPP and at his talk page. Almost immediately afterwards, he came onto my talkpage screaming bloody murder at me and accusing the IP of being a sockpuppet. To be clear, when he first made the accusation, I examined the link and content he was edit-warring to keep in (example: ). The link's added inside a {{cite}} tag, and the added info's all unsourced.

Could I get some help calming El Machete down? -Jeremy 07:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Administrator Jeremy is twisting the facts and providing false information. It was not IP 74.248.71.191 (talk · contribs) it was in fact IP 74.248.71.136 (talk · contribs) and Jeremy is very well aware of this! He has chosen to ignore the fact that a blocked IP has gamed the system and played Jeremy a fool because he cannot swallow the fact I have highlighted he chose to assume bad faith on me and side with a currently blocked editor. He has even made disparing comments in his ANi comment "screaming bloody muder at me" towards me and does not seem to be a good admin.

Could I get some help getting this admin to accept the obvious facts. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 07:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• He has now removed any evidence of me highlighting his wrong doing from his page as he does not want anyone seeing it as he quite obviously knows what he has done and is ashamed and embaressed to have it on his talkpage LOOK LOOK LOOK. I know this to be fact as he keeps archives and keeps all other comments just for some odd reason not mine! Does not take a genius to know why either. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 08:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed it because you would not wait for a response from me after your last post. I was dealing with the thread directly below this one when you started accusing me of sticking my head in the sand. I am not your butler. -Jeremy 08:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You are quite the comedian Jeremy, I cannot distinguish wether you are giving excuses or making jokes. I have been waiting and still am waiting buddy so don't twist the facts and you would not have bothered to come here and defend yourself if it what I said was not true. At least personally I wouldn't have because I would just pass it off as nonsense unless it was true. Checkmate buttler. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 08:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not defending myself; in fact I'm trying to keep away from you since you won't leave me be. If I had blocked the IP, I would have had to block *you* as well, EMG, and since you two were the only editors on the article I opted to full-protect it instead. Stop accusing me of malice before you end up blocked. -Jeremy 08:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No. If you blocked me you would have had to ban the editor as he played you and the system and I am quite positive if I gamed the system like this I would not get off so easy! I am not accusing you of malice, I am merely stating the facts. You take it as what ever your consious makes of it. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 08:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

El Machete Guerrero - You did not explain which IP had been blocked and when until after Jeremy started to respond. You also are making some very wild acusations about the IP editor, which the edit history does not support on looking at it.

If those are bad edits, you need to explain why.

At this point, several users (the shifting IP user, El Machete Guerrero) could be blocked for 24 hrs under our three reverts per 24 hrs policy or our policy against edit warring in general. You both failed to do much on the article talk page to explain your positions as far as I see. I don't want to do this, but if you continue swinging at Jeremy there's not much to save you from a short preventive block here.

Please stop the acusations, explain why the edits you were making were legitimate and the IP editors were not. This can be resolved in a calm and constructive manner if nobody continues to escalate it. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not feel I am making wild accusations at all, just valid observations. The shifting IP has already been blocked for 36 hours under one IP and I am aware I could also be blocked for breaking policy but the IP can be banned for gaming the system and undermining his block with another IP, which is not the first time he has done so and he has been warned plenty which he always removes off his page. As for swinging at Jeremy, if that is the metaphor you want to use then I will say I am only swinging in defense for myself. He was the one that posted this ANI not me and he is the one removing all trace evidence of my dealings with him on his talkpage and he is the one who assumed bad faith on my behalf. The IP was reverting legitimate sourced additions to the article and has been patrolling this page for longer than me removing anything that does not adhere to it's POV and vandalising in the process. George please at least you admit to the fact I am right and it is a sockpuppet gaming the system. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 08:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy has not acted wrongly in this matter. Removing the discussion from his talk page and opening the discussion here are normal and proper. Asking for an uninvolved administrator to cool down a tense situation is entirely appropriate and shows good judgement on his part. Please do not continue to acuse him of improper behavior over these actions.

Regarding the edit warring on Reggaeton - Again, please explain why the changes the IP was making were improper. All I have at this point is that you and the IP were editing it back and forth. Yes, the IP editor was blocked a little while ago on a related IP and is obviously the same person back. That does not mean that they were wrong on the underlying content dispute. I cannot tell if there's any reasonable justification for their editing OR your editing.

If I can't tell if one side was right, with clear violations of WP:3RR and WP:EDITWAR, I should block all of you and protect the article for a while.

You have time and a chance to explain what it was in the IP editor's edits which were vandalism or incorrect, and why your edits were legitimate. Please take this opportunity to explain rather than continuing to fight over Jeremy's actions or other side issues.

Please focus. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I am focused and I have been justified in my arguments. You conviently do not offer an opinion on the IP's gaming of the system a persist with me. You can block me but because he evaded his original block he should be punished in alot harsher manner than me, but either way there is no need now as the article has already been blocked so there will no longer be an edit war as we can't edit war. I already said in my reply down the bottom that I will look for the blind reverts and I will not proceed in doing so. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Not trying to poke this discussion - I just wanted to quickly address the phrase "he should be punished in alot harsher manner than me" - please remember that blocks are not punitive, they are preventative - punishment doesn't enter into it. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

El Machete Guerrero - this is a last warning. Stop attacking Jeremy and explain why you have been edit warring with the IP address on the article, and why their changes are inaccurate or improper. If you attack anyone further I will block you for disruptive editing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

How did I attack him? Explain how I have attacked him. Don't threaten me with blocks if you will not explain how I being disruptive. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 08:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

18 reverts in less than 24 hours to one article, particularly of edits which seem to fix problems, is very bad; see here, where the IP changes a URL in a reference named "village voice" to refer to an article from the Village Voice on Reggaeton, instead of a redirect to a "latin music fansite" (though this isn't the only change, that it was reverted is clearly indicative of blind, automatic reversion without giving a moment's consideration to the content being reverted). —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 08:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC) (addendum: However, of course, the full protection of the Reggaeton article obviates 3RR blocks for either at this time (since such a block would be in no way preventative) —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 08:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought that edit was a blind revert on his half, as a while before our revert war, someone else changed that reference to "reggaeton2009" and I thought that was the correction. He was the one editing blindly as you will see from my reversions any new content I would include in my new conversion but he would not. I will try and find exactly when it was changed and show you he did not revert that with the intention of improving it and only reverted with the intention of reverting me. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 08:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like he or she were trying to fix some things. If you can show version diffs which show them actively inserting wrong content, please provide them. So far, it looks on examining a bunch of the back and forth that you were blindly reverting them trying to fix things, not the other way around.

Please provide the diffs of them causing a problem or inserting vandalism. Maybe I just missed it, but you need to show us. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay I will provide some diffs of blind reversions but you have to wait as this has been going on for ages. Give me some time. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 08:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a few diffs; .191 showed up here, reverting to a version pushed by .213 (to be honest it does llook like the user just jumped IPs, but there's no cause to call it deliberate as the user doesn't seem to be engaging in block evasion etc). The current EW started here, and another probably unrelated IP added the oddball link here. .191 reverted both Machete and the new IP, and Machete reverted that revert,

Yes thankyou you found it. I thought I was improving the article by keeping that and I delibrately kept it as I thought someone changed a bad link. But now you have told me that the IP in fact added a fansite and did not fix the link at all and honestly I don't remember checking to see if he did in fact fix it which is my bad. But I am trying to improve the article not blindly revert it. I will try and look for more blind reversions by the IP. Give me a sec. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 08:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me clarify - there are three things here which are unambigous from the edit history:

• The IP editor jumped IPs within the same /24 CIDR block, and in doing so evaded a block (on purpose or accidentally, I don't know, and isn't material here).
  • Obviously on purpose as he was blocked and was not able to edit on the other IP. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 09:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• The IP editor edit warred to the preferred version they like.
• El Machete Guerrero edit warred to the preferred version they like.

All that really matters is a good clarification of what the underlying validity is of statements about whether one side or the other was vandalizing with those edits. At this point - nothing in the IPs edits appear to be intentional vandalism. Nor do El Machete Guerrero's. The IP editors' edits appear to be more correct, removing questionable links and claims, but we haven't heard a detailed explanation by El Machete Guerrero as to why they feel the IP editor is wrong in fact and is therefore vandalizing. If we can't get a clarification to justify one side or the other's edits there should be a rangeblock for block evasion and 18RR for 48 to 72 hrs, a block on El Machete Guerrero for 48 to 72 hrs for 18RR (at least), and a protection on the page for a week or so. Someone, please explain to me why we don't need to block you for several days. What did the other side do wrong that constitutes obvious vandalism? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel he vandalised as he continuosly removed content which I had to re-add as did other editors Warrington and Largoplazo. Also why are you showing bias to me "at least" this does not seem very appropriate and I don't feel admins should take sides. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 09:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And I have also previously mentioned to you and other admins that they have every right in blocking me as I also did break policy like the IP, but unlike the policy I did not game the system and evade a block which the IP needs to be punished for if I am to be blocked and hes punishment should be harsher than mine as he did alot worst "at least". I'm sure if I gamed the system in such a way you would not treat me the same George or Jeremy and in fact maybe you should block me so I can just game the system on purpose and see if you deal with me fairly and the same as you do with the IP. Because that there will be my proof that you show bias towards me and aren't fair. P.S. This is all hypothetical remember that. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 09:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"P.S. This is all hypothetical remember that." is a poorly veiled threat. We are not children. You have been extended repeated opportunities to explain yourself - that is about to come to an end. Get to the point. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

They did 19 things wrong - one block evade and 18 counts of edit warring. You did 18 things wrong. I am not biased for or against either of you.

You need to explain why you think the content they changed was factually wrong / vandalism. Just noting that you and they went back and forth contains no information as to why you think their changes were vandalism, and yours were not. I can see from the article history very clearly that you and they went back and forth. That's not at issue. The question is, whether either you or they (or both, in some bizarre head-on collision) felt that the other was clearly vandalizing, and can explain how the others' changes appeared to be vandalism.

Just pointing out that they repeatedly made those changes does not explain how or why their changes were vandalism. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I am so tempted to go and change evry "they" to "him" as you very well know it was one person and I cannot believe you are persisting with "they". I don't need to show bias as you show it yourself George! And I just answered above I said it was vandal as he removed content which me and to other users had to re-add. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 09:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

His Repeated Additions. If you can find a single mention of any of those text additions in any of the sources used in that wiki, feel free to permanently block me. The short answer? You won't find them, because the above contributor either doesn't cite sources or adds POV or otherwise unreferenced text that is not reflected in the sources cited. That's inarguable. The purpose of the revisions were made crystal clear, case closed. Long rants and conspiracy theories of "gaming the system" aside, feel free to block both of us for 3RR. 74.248.71.136 (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA, thankyou sock I have not have such a laugh in a long time! "Conspiracy theories"!!! My god, you still cannot admit to gaming the system and are playing dumb. COME ON. And yes you would say feel free to block both of us because you will just jump to another IP and the article is the way you want it at the moment. So why would you not make this genrous offer, I would be very surprised if you did not in fact! El Machete Guerrero (talk) 09:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't poke the conversation with a stick right now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

18RR blocks issued to 74.248.71.1/24 and El Machete Guerrero. The block on the IP range includes a block evasion component. Both parties are reminded to use talk pages to discuss content disputes in the future and avoid edit warring on the live wiki article. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Related to this, a CU at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/El Machete Guerrero seems to have discovered some socks of Machete. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 20:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but they are operating in different article spaces for the most part. I asked for the CU because of Machete and another editor - it looked like they were good hand / bad hand cooperating on the article over time, but they're confirmed not to be the same so I don't think there's anything here we need to follow up on. Will review it all again later tonight, but I think this is a wash. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Tarc and User:Grsz11 on Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 15

I had written an "argument matrix" at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 15#Uncle Stevertigo's argument matrix Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 15#Argument matrix as part of Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 15#Barack Obama/Criticism of Barack Obama. My concept of an "argument matrix" was simply to list the various arguments in their condensed form, and treat them as a digest of point-by-point back-and-forth discussion. I had begun one a related WP:AFD page, Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Barack_Obama/Criticism_of_Barack_Obama, but that was improperly changed to "speedy delete" and discussion was closed before I could deal with it. User:Tarc removed it entirely calling it an "epic tirade of sarcasm". I restored it (though for a technical reason my full comment did not come through). User:Grsz came along and removed it as well, characterizing it as "soapboxing."

Even if the above criticisms were true, my comments, however organized, however sarcastic, however stylistically disagreeable to certain people, and regardless of any opinionated claim that such is "soapboxing", such are not vandalism - they are discussion comments. Editing them, moving them, interrupting them, deprecating them, and deleting them based on a simplistic POV opinion of what their value is is about as anti-Misplaced Pages as can be. The policy, rule, and convention has long been, unless its vandalism or a threatening message, do not in any unusual way alter people's comments on discussion pages.

Note that Grsz did a similiar thing here on this page, for which I filed an ANI at #Moving WP:AN/I section #Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ by User:Grsz11, which details how he unilaterally deprecated my ANI report on a separate but related matter.

Both Tarc and Grsz are POV partisan editors in the ongoing discussions related to Talk:Barack Obama. Their removal of my comments was improper in any context, and in this context is all but certainly motivated by their POV in that dispute. I suggest blocking Tarc and Grsz for a short time, though others may think, contrary to our customs and policies, that what they did was proper. The fact remains, that it is not, while in fact their punishment will be. -Stevertigo 12:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's an idea: stop trolling. You're on very thin ice as it is. Sceptre 12:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Cut I see, so, the POV editor who says "people just don't understand NPOV", argues against criticism sections/articles because they "could affect re-election" (!), wasted everyone's time filing the ANI topic ban request against me, and cuts my comments out of discussion pages, thinks that 1) that this is all just "trolling" on my part, 2) that I'm "on very thin ice as it is" - perhaps (just a guess) a copyquote/parroting of Wikidemon above, and 3) his ideas on this matter are actually worth listening to. I'm not trying to make you feel bad, kid, but I think I've made the point. -Stevertigo 13:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hrm, I bet if we called for a list of people that Steve hasn't called to be blocked yet, it'd be a short one. IMO, there's simply no justification for this in a Deletion Review. It is somewhat of a Reductio ad absurdum, taking everyone's positions and sifting them down to an absurd abstract. It added nothing, and was merely a disruptive eyesore tucked within other user's comments. BTW, it is usually considered good form to notify one of an AN/I report in which they are mentioned. I only saw this in my watch list when Sceptre happened to be the most recent commentator on this section.Tarc (talk) 12:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Still trolling over Barack Obama/Criticism of Barack Obama being deleted? seicer | talk | contribs 12:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please block Steve and put him on probation? His actions are getting beyond a joke. Sceptre 12:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

In case you missed my cut-in comment above, an encore:

I see, so, the POV editor who says "people just don't understand NPOV", argues against criticism sections/articles because they "could affect re-election" (!), wasted everyone's time filing the ANI topic ban request against me, and cuts my comments out of discussion pages, thinks that 1) that this is all just "trolling" on my part, 2) that I'm "on very thin ice as it is" - perhaps (just a guess) a copyquote/parroting of Wikidemon above, and 3) his ideas on this matter are actually worth listening to. I'm not trying to make you feel bad, kid, but I think I've made the point. -Stevertigo 13:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh snap, you mean Obama isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread? — CharlotteWebb 13:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Going by the rich history here, which includes an ArbCom desysopping for, in part, edit-warring, I would hope that it'd be more than a 48hr time-out. Tarc (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(to Tarc) Well in my defense, that discussion was fairly heated, and that Arbcom decision was.. to put it mildly.. one of its most controversial and unpopular. Note also that that wheel war got people thinking; subsequent wheel wars were handled much better, punishments other than desysopping, and with more Wikilove to go around. I could have been contrite, and that would have kept me sysopped, but some things needed to be clarified at the RFAR level, and I was just the being to do it. -Stevertigo 13:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Wait, I must have missed something. Why are arguments on a page designed for arguments disallowed and removed multiple times by someone other than the author? In the diffs, he may be sarcastic, but he isn't personally attacking anyone. He's just arguing in a different style than perhaps you are used to. Shouldn't he be given the opportunity to present his agruments for or against the closure? How does removing them from a page designed specifically for those types of arguments help? Why remove them rather than reformat them if that is the issue? Someone fill me in. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I removed it because it was disruptive, trolling, and not at all conducive to DRV. It isn't Steve's own argument, or even just an argument in a different style/format; it is a pointy condensation of other user's input into that deletion review. What kind of precedent does this set? Can I go into any other AfD/DRV, look at everyone's detailed rationales for their opinions, boil them down into a bumper sticker form of my own interpretation, and tack it on into a new sub-section at the bottom of the discussion? Tarc (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you make a good point, though. The comment *format* (which I called an "argument matrix", which means something like argument+matrix) was something you hadn't quite seen before; like a caveman who first lays his eyes on a Chinese restaurant; which naturally made you scared and as such you must have felt the need to destroy it.

I completely understand, as you can probably tell by my above agreement/explanation. Hence your concern is (somewhat) valid, and as such I will support you in dealing with such problematic phenomenon in a policy treatment. Misplaced Pages:Unconventional formatting might be a good place for it.

The "argument matrix" was in fact a brilliant (and understandably scary) new technology; one in which particular discrete points are broken down and laid plain, without confusing jargon, mis-references to policy that may or may not exist (unless the policy reference is the actual point), and compound arguments that mix an arguable argument with a POV characterization or some other useless thing. Plus it was editable, though I may not have made that quite clear at the outset.

So, in short, your crime was to delete someone else's talk discussion on a discussion page, under some pretense that probably does not have any relevancy at all to the sanctity of discussion comments. My crime was to use strange, scary, formatting; and within that formatting quoted the actual arguments made above. I'm certain there is a better motivation for wanting it destroyed other than that it made the opposition look irrational, illogical, pointless, and obtuse, but I have yet to see one written down. -Stevertigo 20:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Endless trolling by Axmann8

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

User has been blocked indefinitely. Multiple unblock requests have been denied. Please refrain from soapboxing about personal politics; this isn't the venue for it. Durova 16:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

At the request of another user, I just reset it back to the original block length. Hopefully the user will take direction from his two adopters on how to proceed. –xeno (talk) 03:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Axmann8 had garnered a lengthy block record in less than three weeks (), due largely to disruption related to Barack Obama, which is on article probation. Then, an extremely generous admin offered to unblock him on the condition that he stay away from Obama-related stuff (). Axmann8 accepted this offer () and was unblocked, after which he proceeded to nominate an Obama-related userbox for deletion in bad-faith (). The MfD was closed as disruptive (). The unblocking admin noticed this and expressed his disappointment (). Then, what does Axmann8 do? He sees that Criticism of George W. Bush is up for deletion, and chimes in by threatening meatpuppetry-ish retaliation if the article is kept: "If this article gets to stand, I am going to get together a team of conservative Wikipedians and we are going to write a "Criticism of Barack Hussein Obama" article, and I am going to quote the keeping of this article as the reason for its creation" ()! This user clearly does not "get it," and has eagerly demonstrated that he will continue to disrupt the project so long as he is allowed to edit. I am therefore requesting that a hefty block be reinstated, or otherwise that someone with absolutely supernatural communication skills devise a way to get it through to him that this sort of trolling is unacceptable. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• This user doesn't seem to be able to "leave his POV at the door", as it were. Would support an indefinite block as improvements in his behaviour do not appear to be forthcoming: AGF is not a suicide pact. –xeno (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Does it matter in the slightest that he's factually correct about the Misplaced Pages inconsistency? Why is it a terrible trolling for him to "threaten" to write an article that is mysteriously absent from Misplaced Pages? THF (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really. This edit demonstrates he (continues to) believe(s) Misplaced Pages is a battlefield. –xeno (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You people can repeat this all you want, but standard talking head politics and punditry don't work here: repeating some fiction 1000x won't make it true, it just gets uninvolved people annoyed at your spamming it. DRV it based on sourcing, sway consensus, or go home. rootology (C)(T) 15:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

He is not anywhere within spitting distance of being "factually correct", though. The notability of the Bush article has to do with the near-global condemnation of many of the actions of his administration, from foreign policy to the environment to weapons treaties. That's had a good, lengthy 8 years to build up and become notable. Contrast that to the current administration, in office for a shade under 2 months, and that the bulk of the criticism simply seems to be a continuation of sentiments expressed by the non-victorious party/ideology. There certainly are parts of the blogsphere and the internet forums all abuzz with a dozen different Obama conspiracies, but there's serious questions of notability and fringiness. Also, we already have a Public image of Barack Obama article, which does deal with some general criticism. As for the threats, what he threatened to do is violate policy regarding meatpuppets. That alone is actionable. Tarc (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The "mysteriously absent" article is up for restoration at WP:DRV, and it would have been possible, in theory anyway, for Axmann to discuss the perceived inconcistency in a civil fashion. Instead, he says that he will "get together a team of conservative Wikipedians" to attack Obama (read: WP:MEAT/WP:CANVASS). Even civil discussion would have been a stretch, however, as he was unblocked on the condition that he stay away from Obama-related stuff--a condition he has repeatedly refused to abide by. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Really? Do all of the Wikiprojects that push particular points of view, like Wikiproject Labor, violate WP:MEAT and WP:CANVAS? THF (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It depends on what/how they do. If Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Christianity proseletized, they'd be up for a valid deletion and purging pretty quickly. Ditto if WP:OBAMA did anything beyond work to get articles to GA/FA. rootology (C)(T) 15:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note, Orangemike just blocked for 1 month. –xeno (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • comment - the irony is that for non-ideological reasons (see my userpage for my opinion of Dubya), I believe that the article he was threatening about (if it wasn't deleted) should in fact be deleted, like all "Criticism of foo" articles. But Ax was unblocked after promising to behave himself, and immediately began tendentious editing and threatening to assemble a meatpuppet posse to push his POV on the same pair of topics. It is for that, and only that, that I blocked him. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
    • His unblock request a few days ago, which was granted, did NOT promise to avoid tendentious editing, but only promised to stay away from one article specifically, the main Obama article. Baseball Bugs carrots 15:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
      • That's not true; though that is the way he attempted to characterize it afterwards. –xeno (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC) It appears I didn't see his addendum.

(ec) Notified Axmann8, and requested clarification on those potentially damaging comments. After reviewing his contribs, I'm sorry to say that he is on the wrong track and could be blocked for continuing disruption and tendentious editing. seicer | talk | contribs 15:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This thread isn't here to discuss content, but to discuss behavior. So in place of political names let's substitute hamster food. A recently unblocked editor is topic banned, and games the margins of that topic ban, and then threatens to recruit meatpuppets to stack a hamster food deletion discussion. What would our solution to that be? Durova 15:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

An extended block, but I'd like to hear his response to this, at the least. seicer | talk | contribs 15:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

His response appears to be an attack on the blocking admin. I have advised him to read WP:NOTTHEM before composing unblock requests. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:HIPPIESCANTBLOCKCONSERVATIVES is an interesting defense. Tarc (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have reblocked indefinitely. The user just does not get it. –xeno (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I had just left him a message about that. The huge dicussion about him that was archived off this page yesterday was probably missed as it not linked from this discussion but the consensus of that was that he was lucky not to have already been blocked indefinitely. I was (sort of) amazed when logging on today to see he had returned to the same behavior only 24 hours later and been blocked again. Mfield (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• He erased the last denied unblock and added a new one. rootology (C)(T) 15:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

unrelated content related talk

If I were foolish enough to ask why one of these is a perennial speedy keep and the other is a protected redirect, what would the response be? Don't worry, I'm not really asking (so no need to ban me), but suppose for a second that I was… — CharlotteWebb 14:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Mainly because of the length of their tenures and the general viewpoints these days toward BLP & Criticism articles. Obama has been in office less than 2 months; Bush was in office 8 years. Plus, consensus so far has been to not fork or split this for Obama yet. It probably will eventually, but people of a certain limited minority viewpoint want it done now for 'equity' reasons. rootology (C)(T) 14:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That seems very specious: that is an argument for one article to be longer than the other, not for one article not to exist. There is more than enough reliably sourced material to write a criticism article for both presidents. THF (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't be specious at all, and it's deeply rooted in AGF. It is, however, calling a blue sky a blue sky rather than saying it's something else. If it's sourceable and long enough, someone can provide a detailed listing of all the appropriate sources and take it to DRV through the proper process--by demonstrating sourcing and swaying standing consensus--rather than someone DRVing it on the grounds the "Obama people" are holding them down. rootology (C)(T) 14:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that even draft pages are being speedy-deleted with the specious reasoning that any such page would violate BLP--when it's clearly not the case that criticism pages are considered to violate BLP. THF (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If they're deleted again and again then they're clearly against consensus. See? That's how Misplaced Pages works. We could give a pundit's fart about your precious political views, nor mine, nor equity for them. Misplaced Pages doesn't give a crap about our little blue state/red state scraps. If the consensus of the user base is such an article in some raw form is a BLP vio and should be deleted, it will be, and that's the way we roll. You'll note though, that I didn't say present a sandbox'd version at DRV. I said "by demonstrating sourcing and swaying standing consensus", which is a quite different clue. ;) Re-read it. rootology (C)(T) 15:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) They're being speedy deleted, and "consensus" is acting to violate Misplaced Pages policy on neutrality. I have an outline of a lengthy and legitimate article at User_talk:THF#Criticism_of_Barack_Obama with not a single "nutball conspiracy theory" in it. I'll draft it this weekend. I encourage editors to participate in this project by sending me sources (or perhaps fully drafted paragraphs) rather than edit-warring at intermediate stages. THF (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Looking at the Bush criticisms article, a couple of things jump out at me. One is that there's a lot of stuff in it, and the arguments that it's a "piling on" has some merit. The other, though, is that the point in time for most of it centers on and after 9/11. There's really nothing about Bush's first 7 or 8 months in office. Was he free of criticism at that time? I doubt it. It's just that 9/11 defined his Presidency and spawned most of these criticisms, some way or another. Has Obama had such a defining moment yet? I think not. All a criticisms page would contain right now would be either nutcase conspiracy theories about his eligibility, which are already covered in a lengthy article; and criticisms that he's a liberal, which is a major "Duh!" since that's been well-known all along. And maybe the fact that his approval rating has dropped a few points. That's not an article, it's maybe a couple of sentences. Give it some time, and there will be plenty of material. But not yet. Baseball Bugs carrots 15:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The statement that the only criticism of Obama has been "nutball conspiracy theories" really reflects the systemic POV bias of Misplaced Pages. There have been numerous reliably sourced critiques of Obama's foreign policy proposals, of his judicial philosophy, of his stimulus package, of his mismanagement of the financial crisis, and of his broken promises. THF (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Omitting partisan criticism, which is the norm and is irrelevant; and baseless conspiracy theories like Axmann is pushing, which are garbagio; you're left with a pretty short list, and none of it comes anywhere close (so far) to the scorn heaped upon Bush from all corners. But it will come, I assure you. Most every President wears out his welcome eventually. Bush was just kind of skating along until 9/11 hit, and in fact he still had the public goodwill for awhile after. It didn't really start to go south until he declared "mission accomplished", which will live in infamy as surely as his father's "read my lips" comment. One writer said that Obama would need to govern toward the center. So far, I don't think he's doing that. And if the recession worsens or doesn't improve, and if his bailouts don't make a dent, the criticism will mount. Patience, Grasshopper. Baseball Bugs carrots 15:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The Bush criticism article is largely partisan. You argument seems to be in favor of a double-standard. I defy anyone to look at the outline at User:THF/Obama and tell me a FA couldn't be developed from that. There's plenty of legitimate or mainstream criticism without having to delve into the nutball or racist stuff. THF (talk) 15:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you source all of those to non-partisan reliable sources? The Bush one is almost all mainstream media. rootology (C)(T) 16:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I can adhere to the same quality of reliable sourcing that is used in every Misplaced Pages article about a Republican politician. THF (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Fill out that page with a bunch of sources for each section from non-partisan media that are on par with the Crits of Bush article, take it to a fresh DRV once the current flawed one fails, and you might get to say "Mission accomplished". rootology (C)(T) 16:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

unblocked

I've botched a block tweak and inadvertantly unblocked the user (it was some time before I noticed, I am teh noob). In the meantime he had (presumably off-wiki) discussions with Jéské Couriano regarding a 5 month politics topic ban which he is willing to accept. I've left a message for Orangemike to make sure he's ok with Axmann proceeding. I'm leaving this message for transparency. FWIW, I do support this arrangement - politics related topics seem to be what take Axmann off-course. –xeno (talk) 12:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Apology from Axmann

I just wanted to issue a public apology for all the times I actually violated Misplaced Pages policy. I want to take this time to let it be known that only ONE of the contributions to Misplaced Pages were done in bad faith. Every single edit, contribution, vote, etc. (except one) was an attempt by me to make Misplaced Pages a more neutral and better encyclopedia altogether. I am explicitly stating that none of my edits were done in bad faith so people will know. That said, I am sorry if I ever violated a Misplaced Pages policy (and if I did, it most certainly was not on purpose ). To be honest, the only thing I did in bad faith was nominating that user's Obama userbox for deletion. That, I knew, was a violation of policy and an intentional disregard of WP:POINT. That said, there certainly were times where I know I was right and the administrators were wrong. I can recall several events such as these, actually. I do not apologize for those moments. I am currently under a 5-month politics topic ban, and I will abide by those constraints. In the mean time, I am going to work mostly on vandalism reversion. Thank you for your time.
-Axmann8 (Talk) 12:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

IP user 132.181.42.201

I have just issued a single issue warning to this IP for an abusive comment made on Talk:Burnout Paradise (now reverted). But it seems a little strange that an IP user with no previous edits would be so concerned over another IP user using a talk page as a forum. I suspect this may be a sock who has logged out of his/her account to make an abusive edit. Just thought I should raise it here in case it warrants looking-at. Also, if using a single-issue notice was too much, please change it but I did this because (like I said) this was the user's first edit and it was a very inappropriate one. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 15:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Per whois that IP is registered to a University in New Zealand. Maybe a proxy with a large number of iPs behind it, maybe a dynamic IP. There's not much to be done unless we start getting a lot of vandalism form that address, I'd have thought, in which case a {{schoolblock}} might be appropriate - but not for a single edit. Tonywalton  15:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre closing AfD debate without authority

Sceptre is purportedly closing AfD debate for Criticism of George W. Bush with edit summary, "Fuck process, I'm closing this." The summary below calling nomination disruption seems to not assume good faith either. I personally believe that Sceptre is baiting a lot of people into an editor war, with abusive edit summaries (not only including this one), and specious actions. JustGettingItRight (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with closing down an AFD that was purely disruptive? Non-admins can perform closures, but the hilarity of this is, Sceptre is dead-on. seicer | talk | contribs 16:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a valid closure to me too. Toddst1 (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:Speedy Keep requires no other delete vote and actual vandalism. However, it the abusive nature that some of you guys are proceeding on with this that is concerning. JustGettingItRight (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(a whole buttload of ec's) I don't see a problem with it. The closures are within the spirit of WP:IAR – instead of letting disruptive AFDs go on distracting others from improving/maintaining Misplaced Pages, they should be closed to move on, admin or non-. MuZemike 16:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

On Misplaced Pages, you don't need to be an admin to close an obvious Keep AFD. rootology (C)(T) 16:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case, then I'll drop this. This policy is not entirely clear, though. Though the abusive language and rhetoric is not the basis of my inquiry, this is still a concern. JustGettingItRight (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think "fuck process" was meant to attack any editor or assume bad faith. It was an indication–with minimal tact in that–that the user was invoking IAR. MuZemike 16:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

However, how's this: "Sceptre, please don't use that language in edit summaries. Thank you"? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

G-rated edit summaries are the right way to do things. Baseball Bugs carrots 16:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hence "with minimal tact in that". I don't disagree. MuZemike 16:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This seems almost hilarious the context of a few months ago: , , , , etc. Are you saying these articles are "ok" now? — CharlotteWebb 16:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this was a contentious AFD closure, but I have noted that I, an admin, concur with it. Stifle (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The trolls at the DRV are making the people who are trying to enforce NPOV, like myself, look bad. I can't have that going on, even if it means closing an AfD of an article I want to be deleted. Sceptre 17:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not the closure was correct, Sceptre, as a participant in the discussion, should not have closed it. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hence "fuck process". Sure, on paper, what Sceptre did was 'wrong', but was it a positive? Obviously. Seems to be what IAR was made for. J Milburn (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually IAR was made to short circuit the process wonks and do the right thing. Strange thing here is that it seems Sceptre did the exact opposite. He went process wonk against what he believes is the right thing. Odd. Arkon (talk) 00:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

iMagic OS

This is not a call for page protection, but the IMagic_OS page needs some attention. Any attempt at cleanup seems to be reverted by IP 69.206.224.176, who also made some rude comments in the talk page. The page is seriously lacking, giving mostly advertising information, but since it has received some attention as "the worst commercial Linux distrobution" it could be justified as notable. I added a Criticism section to reflect this, with references, but 69.206.224.176 reverted the page. I personally don't want to invest alot of time in a Misplaced Pages dispute, so I hope some Adminstrator could take a look at it. --Audunmb (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

There appear to be six or seven editors who've worked on this article in the last 30 days. A single stubborn editor is going to be unable to maintain his preferred version against six others who disagree with him and who behave reasonably. But you don't seem to have universal backing yet. Why not work harder on the Talk page to explain and justify your criticism paragraph? See if you can persuade others to support you. There do not seem to be any grounds yet for admin intervention. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate links added by IP hopper

I'm not sure if I should bring this up here or the spam page. I did a clean up of the external links on Subaru Alcyone SVX which contained a lot of fan sites and forums. However, there is now an anonymous user (or users) that are reverting my removal, adding all the links back in. I've tried warning the IPs, but the IP address keeps changing. Here are the relevant diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. What course of action should be taken? swaq 17:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Last edit from troublesome IP was about ten hours ago. If it starts up again, bring it up at WP:RFP and suggest a short semi-protect. HalfShadow 17:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If the IP is extremely persistent, then report to WP:AIV. Cheers. I' 19:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

User:TheGoldenSubpageTester

Apparently a sock of another community banned user

I suspect TheGoldenSubpageTester (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) a brand new user who seems highly familiar with editing wikipedia, is almost certainly a sock of someone. His first two edits about a secret "OS" he's building in userspace . His fourth edit: "I am afraid that people will start claiming I am a sock and ban me? What should I do?". His sixth edit, a response to a querry on his secret project "Its a highly experimental project that I am working on that will create a article based interactive "OS" but right now I am designing the code for it privatly on a seperate wiki hosted on a wiki farm along with studing the coding of the site in order to make this reality." . Maybe he'll have a good explanation for all this. Eyes on him, at least.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment If it will make you feel better, the prototype I am working on will require the use of two bot accounts that will cowork with one another to update the WOS (Wiki Operating System is a better term kinda like with DOS) continusuly but I will not make a beta for this site until I am sure the coding will not cause any major problems. TheGoldenSubpageTester (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"...two bot accounts that will cowork with one another to update the WOS" Oh, I wouldn't do that. Last time someone did that, the whole system achieved sentience, just like Skynet. 'Twas horrible, the developers were up to their arses elbows in Terminators. Took them ages to clean up. No, no, no, bad idea that. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm ... the account adds the "This user rescues articles for the Article Rescue Squadron" userbox to his userpage, then heads for deletion discussions ... and then comments "Speedy Delete" in two of the three he's edited (neither were speedies, either). The phrase "taking the piss" springs to mind ... Black Kite 20:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm now fairly convinced it's this guy though it's not an iron clad duck yet, and my suspicions are largely of a behavioral nature (convoluted/paranoid style) and the fact that two of his first five edits were in an AfD i've been involved with today, and a witiquette alert im involved with in which he made the comment "people will start claiming i'm a sock and ban me." But i guess that's insufficient/a waste of time for SPI.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

He has now twice inserted an obvious copyvio of as Elab, speedy-deleted twice by PMDrive1061. He has also revived a moribund project Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion Deleters, where the original eds. have been off-wiki for over a year now. Regardless of whom he may be a sock of, this does not seem like the beginning of a promising time here. DGG (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

He also voted to "Strong keep per nom" at an AfD. I think he might be some sort of troll. ThemFromSpace 20:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And now a G12 speedy claim on an article that isn't a copyvio. Warned appropriately (stretching AGF, but meh). Black Kite 20:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm now convinced it's another sock of Manhattan Samurai (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) largely based on the particular brand of trolling.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And I've brought it up at SPI .Bali ultimate (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrong part of the continent for MS,  The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says: Pickbothmanlol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --Versageek 03:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

AFD for Islamic Extremism among British Pakistanis

• Seems to be getting out of control. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Argh, the topic on this was archived by bot without any resolution. Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive522#Edit_warring.2C_plus_suspected_sockpuppetry_on_both_sides. for the background to all of this over the past few days. I am far too real world busy today to keep up with this but it defintiely needs more eyes, I have been whack-a-moling sock IPs canvassing for AfD votes and removing disruptive comments for the past few days. Mfield (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I added a {{cool talk}} template to the discussion if it helps. TheGoldenSubpageTester (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• TheGoldenSubpageTester, given the rampant sockpuppetry that has surrounded this article, I am concerned that your edit history begins today and you're obviously an experienced user (see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Islamic Extremism among British Pakistanis). Did you have a legitimate reason for creating a new account? --Boston (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Most admins are clever enough to sort out the socks and SPAs when evaluating a close to the AFD. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Dual vandalism only accounts.

Volunteer20greg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Greg20eagles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are clearly the same person, making the same vandalism edits. &

(My appologies if this belongs on another board. I debated between AIV, SSP and here.)--Cube lurker (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• WP:AIV would probably have been the ticket, but both blocked anyway. Black Kite 21:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--Cube lurker (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody please semi-protect Ron Paul?

My request at WP:RFPP has not been dealt with yet. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

 Already done by Toddst1. I rangeblocked the edit-warrior's school for good measure. J.delanoy_adds 21:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

They were also using other accounts in the Ohio region. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Michael Tobias topic ban proposal

Request subject ban for User:PieRRsquared on his own article. Michael Tobias is doing his utmost to white-wash his article. He's been the subject of some rather unpleasant media stories. His PR agent has gone so far as to contact me and demand that the related section - or the entire biography be removed. Tobias initially edited under the name User:Michaeltobias (when he created his bio article), but has since lost his password and so now edits under User:PieRRsquared. (Note: this does not constitute an abuse of multiple accounts.)

He has been advised of our COI policy. I've advised him to make use of the article's talk page. I've advised him of our BLP policies should he feel the article fails to maintain neutrality - but to no avail.

In brief, he is president of an organization established to provide a sanctuary for aging, and out of work farm animals. The basic problem with his editing is that he's keen to reword sources to make the accusations sound less significant - and to leave out the more damning portions from reliable sources (i.e. white-wash). He has also removed reliable sourced salary information. The section's topic involves claims of animal euthanasia, but he has even gone so far as to even remove the subject link to animal euthanasia from the article. White-washing aside, the article is itself is a mess and reads more like a personal promotional piece.

So I'm requesting we ban Michael Tobias from editing the Michael Tobias article. Some help re-writing the article so it conforms with our own standards would also be great. Rklawton (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd almost suggesting wiping the article out and starting over. It's a nightmare of unsourced statements and the entire Early studies section is completely unsourced. However, if he insists on whitewashing the article, then yeah, he might have to be limited to the talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've proposed the usual biographical outline on the article's talk page, but I think it should wait until after we resolve this particular matter. I can't blame the guy for being irked by all the bad press he's gotten, but that's his tough luck. We've got to remain neutral on the matter and report what we find in V RS, etc. If we let folks white-wash their articles, they'd be only as useful as their own websites. Rklawton (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: this is a continuation of an issue previously brought up on AN/I here (and the reason I got involved in the first place). Rklawton (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Tiramisoo

Following up from this report a few days ago, User:Tiramisoo seems to have added sockpuppetry to his repertoire. According to User:Dougweller both at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_12#Category:Digital_Revolution and at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Sirians, User:Tiramisoo is also likely User:GodivaCake. GodivaCake decided to remove the AFD notice at Sirians which Tiramisoo created "issued resolved" and Tiramisoo decided to remove the AFD notice at Category:Digital Revolution here. Note that I've warned Tiramisoo about the AFD notice but I'm wondering about the multiple comments in the (not a vote I know) AFD and frankly there is still a large issue with editing without summaries or discussion, from both accounts as he changes. Since the Digital revolution category is up for deletion and he's not likely to win (I don't put much weight in the "there are interwiki links so it should stay" arguments and I hope the closing admin feels the same), he's now moving articles to his Category:Information Age. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm otherwise removed from this situation, but I recently closed the CFD discussion in question as delete. I'm concerned about the sockpuppetry, but I can't find a formal SPI report for either account. User:Dougweller said CU was positive, but I'm not sure where that was formally demonstrated, or if he just asked someone informally to run a CU. In any case, he could follow up with this and block one or both accounts for votestacking. As for User:Tiramisoo, the user has a history of being very unresponsive to concerns voiced about his edits. I'm willing to take action on this if dougweller is unavailable, but I would like to hear from him too, if possible. Good Ol’factory 04:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've just done a bit more legwork, and even putting the sockpuppetry issue aside I have seen enough—wow, he has done some really outrageous things, in my opinion. And these have been repetitive, and as I've said he's been very unresponsive to polite inquiries. I note he has made numerous edits after the notice to this discussion has been posted on his talk page, so he's had ample time to respond. A short initial block seems in order. Please keep me informed of the problems if I can help in the future. Good Ol’factory 04:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This editor edits in a similar way to User:OregonD00d. Katr67 (talk) 04:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I ran the CU for Dougweller.  Confirmed Tiramisoo (talk · contribs) = GodivaCake (talk · contribs) = OregonD00d (talk · contribs). Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 07:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I've imposed an initial temporary block on Tiramisoo (talk · contribs), and added ones of similar length to GodivaCake (talk · contribs) and OregonD00d (talk · contribs) so it will not be evaded, but the original one I imposed was only 31 hours, so after it expires we may need a reconsideration of the situation. Good Ol’factory 08:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest indefinitely blocking GodivaCake (talk · contribs) and OregonD00d (talk · contribs) - the latter because it's been inactive for several months, the former because it is newer than Tiramisoo (talk · contribs), with an explanation on the latter's page. dougweller (talk) 12:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

OregonForests (talk · contribs) was indef blocked last year (same person). There was another account, but I can't remember what it was right now. Something forest or Oregon related. Katr67 (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

SaveTheForests (talk · contribs) No longer editing, but it would be good to keep track of all of them. Katr67 (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Motley Moose AfD

An ongoing AfD for this blog has been rather hotly contested. Ok, whatever, it happens. However, SPA's have begun to proliferate (and one just reverted his SPA tag) -- four tagged as such so far, 2 in the last 15 minutes. Just asking for eyes, really. I guess it's inevitable when fans of a subject are by definition on the web a lot. The direct link to the AfD is this one .Bali ultimate (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

and the latest is now edit warring over his tag .Bali ultimate (talk) 02:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest you not worry about the tags? From what I see, they're spouting "per nom" and arguments not tied to any mentions of policy or guideline. Since this isn't a vote, any respectable closer will disregard those and concentrate on the relevant arguments (which appears to be over trivial sources, but there's such bad faith attacks and such that it's a bit hard to read through). --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs 03:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

While i appreciate your comment, far too many AfD's that i've been involved in are swayed by "voting" (for instance, a number of failed AfD's on articles that clearly violate policy magically succeed, for instance, when a socking user is uncovered). While I agree they shouldn't be, in a consensus oriented culture, when closers are supposed to be uninvolved, and reading through the AfD makes the head of someone who hasn't been following closely's head spin (sub threads, claims, counterclaims, socks, SPAs, etc...) it is very easy to take a count, see it's not obviously one thing or the other, not obviously a nasty BLP, and say "no consenus". And I don't blame admins or other editors for this. We're all volunteers, life is short, real life is there, time is limited, blah blah blah. But it is in fact a real problem, however much we might wish it isn't. It shouldn't be a vote. But sometimes it is (unfortunately). Bali ultimate (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the sad thing is that it's just a repost, created out of process by Ks64q2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The original AFD closed as delete, the DRV was withdrawn, and the issues which caused it to be deleted were never resolved. The creator of the article removed the db-repost tag himself again and again and again. This is the second controversy in recent memory that has involved an article creator removing CSD tags from his own article, which I still believe should be treated as a bright-line offense: inexcusable under any circumstances. There's no reason to even have an AFD on this thing: delete it as a repost, and make sure that Ks64q2 understands that the next time he removes a speedy tag from an article he has created, he will be immediately blocked.—Kww(talk) 03:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather let it run its course, lest that cause a early closure DRV. Then I'm advocating closing the AfD for a nice long time period so that preferably multiple admins can talk about it and then deliver a decision, the better to not have this happen again. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs 03:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Fun fact! I was reported twice at 3rr for restoring the db-repost tag after Ks64q2's deletions. I'm wondering now if removing db tags is in fact vandalism and restoring them is exempt from 3rr? Or is a creator allowed to delete these tags after all? Or was no consensus over the process ever established?--Sloane (talk) 03:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Post for clarity on above events As reported to KWW; The "speedy deletion" was sources two days into the AfD discussion, and the user who posted it on top of the AfD notice was rebuked by an administrator. Furthermore, again, please assume good faith; you're not the only one who has suggested I acted in bad faith in restoring this article, but a simple review of the logs will show this not to be the case. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 03:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I posted the tag and I was not rebuked by an admin. You are (once again) making things up.--Sloane (talk) 03:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, you're right; he wasn't an admin, my mistake. Ks64q2 (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Important Comment We have people making both affirmative and negative votes on the article now after it was dramatically changed from it's original version of http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Motley_Moose&oldid=277928852. The two users here, "Ultimate Bali" and "Sloane" were responsible for the edits. I find it confusing why they would drastically edit an article they had already voted to delete in the form you see there, especially as many of the predications in the AfD Discussion both ways were on the original version. This could lead to a flawed AfD on DRV, which I would like to avoid at all costs. Could I have an admin make a judgment call on this? I'd like the version there restored, and let people take a look at the article the way it was for most of the AfD discussion. Any problems could be brought to the talk page to be edited by the community after the AfD process is complete. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Ks64q2 is once again making things up. I have made only two minor edits to the article. I fixed some refs and deleted a space here: and I changed the title of a section and deleted an unsourced statement here: . Other edits were not only made by User:Bali ultimate but also by User:TheRedPenOfDoom and User:SarekOfVulcan as well. Also, I'd like to see some examples of the claimed "affirmative and negative votes on the article". Not that it matters much, because there is nothing wrong with editing articles when they're up for deletion. In fact, it is a good thing, as it can lead to the article's rescue.--Sloane (talk) 04:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Except that again, sir, those edits dramatically changed the tone, format, and meaning of most of the article- hands down. If you would like to suggest the edits were made in good faith, I would again question why you adamantly vyed for the article's deletion... and then, and only then, chose to edit the article. The same with user "Bali Ultimate". Again, it strikes as odd behavior. Ks64q2 (talk) 04:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop with the passive aggressive use of "sir." It's annoying when followed by pointy discussion of other's "odd behavior". This is not the place to discuss content, but since you continue to make uncivil accusations about other editors... the article, in my (and i suspect sloane's) opinion is that it had uncited extraordinary claims and weak (at best) citations for the rest. Often, people who argue for deletion, also try to apply policy to the article itself. That's it. Agree or not with my opinion about the article. But I will ask you for the 7th time (at least) today to stop attacking the motives of other editors, or provide iron clad diffs backing your attacks up when you do. If you chose to address my conduct again, without solid diffs or policy based arguments, i will go beyond the witiquette request filed about you today and seek remedial action (who knows if anyone will listen to me?)Bali ultimate (talk) 05:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. I apologize if pointing out concerns has become unsolicited attacks on you; you've yet to acknowledge that the situation I described could certainly be taken negatively, whether or not it represents what happened. This sort of ad hominem attacks on my character are only distracting, sir, and instill great worry in me that it will taint this whole process irrevocably. However, if you feel that my behavior has been inappropriate, I invite you to indeed bring it to an Administrator's attention. I must say, very honestly, the way you have doggedly pursued this article, as well as the other articles, userpages, etc that other users involved with this discussion have created/are involved with is absolutely terrifying- I feel like it borders on outright harassment. Actually, please; would you inform an administrator for review on this for me? I don't feel as if things can continue this manner. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 05:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing edit warring over the SPA tag for Louisprandtl (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). He has 19 total edits at Misplaced Pages, 12 to this AFD, the rest to his userspace. He has removed the SPA tag 3x. I'm also at that limit. Now, Ks64q2, who continues to make uncivil attacks on other users (as per this witiquette review here ), has removed it again. How will a closing admin know that this definitional SPA is in fact such, when the tag is not there? As for his demands - has he provided a diff once or cited policy?Bali ultimate (talk) 04:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. As I suggested in this edit summary, WP:AGF, a guideline, should be able to trump WP:SPA, an essay, in the highly unusual event that a user actually contests the SPA tag. Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason not to assume that some SPA's have good faith. They're still SPA's, and labeling them as such has nothing to do with how good their faith may be. So I don't see any conflict between WP:AGF and WP:SPA that would allow one of them to trump the other. And while I can imagine good-faith reasons for thinking that it might calm things down to avoid pointing out someone's SPA status, I think that trying to hide relevant information from the closing admin is generally a bad idea, and remains a bad idea in this instance. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Bali Ultimate had been tagging me unfairly as SPA even after being pointed out that my account has been since 2006 (granted I don't edit much) and then leaving rude comments on my talk page ]. There is a point when this constitutes a personal attack.]. I've left his personal attack up on my talk page. --Louisprandtl (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You may be a borderline SPA or not, but you are at least the second editor of the blog who is voting on the AfD. You pointed your connection out yourself, which is good, but the AfD is now badly skewed by the keep opinions from people with a strong COI (editors of the blog), people who have been canvassed (a "neutral" message sent by the article creator, but only to selected members of the Article Rescue Squadron), IPs, and single purpose accounts (not LouisPrandtl, others). There are also some truly independent keep opinions, but it is hard to judge the AfD through all the smoke and noise. Good luck to the admin closing it :-) Fram (talk) 08:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note, I'm a reader of the blog and posted there but not an editor of the blog. There are substantial differences between the two. Secondly this SPA is being used as a harassment tool now by Bali Ultimate and he is being abusive about it and personally attacking me as reflected by the statement he left on my talk page.--Louisprandtl (talk) 08:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"Editor" as in one who edits there. You have account number 14, even below the account number for account Motley Moose (18), and registered one day after the first registrations started and in the month before (according to our MM article) the site was actually established. You are clearly one of the 25 people who created the site. Fram (talk) 10:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

An Editor of a blog is normally who retain editorial control, post frontpage diaries et al. I don't have any such role in MotleyMoose. I normally post comments and diaries there just like I do at MyDD (where I post mainly) or at DailyKos as a regular user. However you're right in pointing out that I do have one of the first user numbers at MM but I do not have any editorial powers nor am I the creator of the blog. I've been upfront about my participation at MM, however cannot take the credit at the level that you're suggesting. If you Google my username, you'll get over 17000 hits, mostly with postings or links to MyDD (Jerome Armstrong's blog).--Louisprandtl (talk) 10:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Lemme point out, disregarding the whole SPA thing, making edits to an article is perfectly fine during AfD. Perhaps not if they were deliberately trying to sabotage it so it would fail, but that's a rather serious fail as the sources are being hashed out and whether or not they are in the article or not isn't much the point. Editors are encouraged to improve articles during AfD so that they unambiguously meet the GNG or a SNG and are verified. Does this make it harder for the closer to determine which comments were made where? Yes, but let the closers worry about it. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs 09:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. As I pointed out in the AfD, It's hard to judge this content reasonably with edit warring and acrimony galore. Unfortunately this has only worsened and is certainly not helping the article improve with content being added then quickly deleted. If an admin would be willing to step in this might make sense. I'm disappointed at the personalizing of this and what seems like piles pf bad faith. If there are actual socks then address that appropriately. -- Banjeboi 09:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment User:Ks64q2‎ has now been blocked for 12 hours. Hopefully that will put a stop to his edit warring.--Sloane (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

152.26.38.8 (talk · contribs)

152.26.38.8 (talk · contribs) appears to be a vandal-only IP address. There are multiple warnings on the user talk page. The latest example is this. I don't think this is an emergency, since the user doesn't edit very often, but I do think that after four warnings (not counting what is deserved for today's), that a block is appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a school IP, and the vandalism rate is not so bad for one of those. Anyway, the proper place to report simple vandalism is WP:AIV. Looie496 (talk) 05:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

User creating MANY one line pages

I have come across this user who has been creating a ton of pages like Ancorichnus. The entire content of the page is "Ancorichnus is an ichnogenus." I then tagged one such article for CSD here and the author removed the tag without providing an explanation here . I don't see how that 4 word article meets the qualifications for the wiki, but other editors and administrators are encouraged to comment on the situation. Do we normally accept such articles for the site? DougsTech (talk) 05:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

These articles — stubs — are acceptable. I've reverted your invalid use of rollback in which you removed content that was added by the author of the article. Cunard (talk) 06:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I notified the user of this thread. We need all of the taxonomy articles we can get (IMO). These articles are marked as stubs and the creator has a history of working in that area, so it is reasonable to believe the articles would be expanded. Granted, the stubs are cryptic and I would suggest the creator should provide a tad more content before moving forward, but otherwise they are not detrimental. Seems like there is an essay or something about giving a stub time to expand before tagging for CSD. --64.85.220.189 (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

RedRose333 (again)

RedRose333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

After my last post (see ) mainly was ignored ten days ago, our friend got some more warnings because of removing content and missing edit summaries. What to do? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 06:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

User hasn't edited since the final/last warnings s/he was given today. If they disrupt again, shout out. (Although personally, I won't block if it's just a missing edit summary.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

User:EugeneKaspersky

New user who is impersonating an administrator (, , ), faking barnstars by other users on his talk page, faking talk page comments by other users , perpetrating a hoax and impersonating a prominent real life person by his user name (violating WP:REALNAME) and self-description.

For context, see the vandalism and hoax edits that have been going on in the article Kaspersky Lab since January by numerous IPs and one-purpose-accounts, e.g. KasperskyHimself, Kasperski69 (blocked), DmitriMedvedev (likewise impersonating Dmitri Medvedev), Hwahwahwah (blocked), TheHelperBot (likewise impersonating a bot), 66.104.111.66, 173.15.141.106 and others. I would also appreciate it if someone would have a look at the request for protection for that article.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible that it could be a misspelling of Karpersky Antivirus (I cannot find the link), which is a commercial antivirus software? MuZemike 06:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Kaspersky Anti-Virus is a product of Kaspersky Lab (the vandalized article). Eugene Kaspersky is the person impersonated by this user. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

AIV Backlog

There is a building backlog on AIV, if an admin or two could take a look it would be appreciated. Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • March 18, 2009 @ 07:45

Looks cleared out now.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Abuse by User:Kendrick7

I have a high tolerance for incivility, but this one is sickening, and has led to the withdrawal of my wikicolleague, HWV258 (temporarily, I hope); HWV is rather too mild-mannered to bring a complaint. The abuse was particularly distressing as it took aim at HWV's parents. I note the conciliatory tone and substance of HWV's entries to which this was a reply.

Kendrick's edit summaries earlier today at the same page appeared to be working up to the "retarded child" comment:

• "nonsense", and
• "Undid revision 278015892 by Tony1 (talk) nonsense".

I believe the offender needs to be informed of the limits; action may need to be taken to ensure that no harm comes to the project. I have left notes at the talk pages of both users. Thank you. Tony (talk) 07:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I've issued a strong warning. Such comments are totally unacceptable. Raven4x4x (talk) 09:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Australian Communications and Media Authority

I direct the attention of other administrators to the activity at Australian Communications and Media Authority around adding a "forbidden" link, as detailed in the article "Activists use Misplaced Pages to bait blacklist regulator". A bevy of warring IPs and actual editors over the specified link, with no particular consensus to add what I would consider a link that would not be added to the article if it were not "forbidden". What action, if any, should be taken here? - Nunh-huh 07:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding some context from the other side here. The quoted article is a non-reputable news source in australia. The big ones are ABC, fairfax and news ltd, who have all covered the issue of this page being blacklisted on their vairous news outlets. There has been quite a concensus already. I have counted 10 users, including two random admin users, who have put the content in. We have had a few users come in, such as Nunh-huh who have deleted it without engaging in discussion. I also note that nunh-huh breached the 3rv rule just then. Do look over the history around 2-3 days before making decisions. And do read the 6 references included around the sentence ( most being absolutely reliable news resources: fairfax, and news ltd ) to see this is actually very relevant to ACMA right now. Thanks! --Reasonwins (talk) 08:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I've requested proection to the article but has not been protected yet. I don't believe it's relevant to add the website link in the article as it's clearly trying to bring Misplaced Pages into the issue which is something the community doesn't need. Bidgee (talk) 08:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Also another reason why the link shouldn't be added as it's clear the activists are doing so to disrupt the site (See: Activists use Misplaced Pages to bait blacklist regulator). Bidgee (talk) 09:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The page has now been fully protected, it was protected by User:VirtualSteve. It was my impression that the goal of protection was simply to stop edit warring and not as an edorsement of any particular version of the article. Indeed the very notice that VirtualSteve added to the top of the page indicated this (the standard editprotected template). Yet right after protecting the page VirtualSteve edited it to remove the link, effectively protecting it at his preferred version, instead of the version that just happened to be up at the time. I beleive this is not an appropriate use of admin tools. If he intendeed to intervene as an univolved admin he should not have made an very controversial editorial choice right after protecting the page. 189.105.47.108 (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Having already discussed this with VirtualSteve, I do agree with his actions, if not fully with everything he stated with them. It was initially ip/new_user blocked, which meant older users could still edit. However a couple of users kept engaging in a revert war so VS locked it in the same state. He has locked it so that people could discuss the validity of the change in question. I also note a couple of users have engaged in that discussion, but the ones that originally raised this issue remain silent. Perhaps they are just offline. But this wouldn't be the first time a seemingly random user came and removed that content without much reason, and never came back to discuss their edits. Anyway, engage in the discussion so the arguments can be evaluated, is my suggestion. --Reasonwins (talk) 12:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't fret, lillen. Steve did the right thing and abided by policy. Scarian 13:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

More Motley Moose

User:Ks64q2 continues to have some rather extreme ownership issues with this page. I've been in a heated dispute with him over this article he wrote (no sources is the problem) and so won't edit again til we get more eyes to avoid veering towards an edit war. I have made changes to the article in the past day or so, as have 3 other editors. . I and the other 3 have all been reducing length by removing uncited claims. I and two of these editors are largely in agreement on the talk page about what's being done. The latest series of edits were by User:Ricky81682 largely citing BLP concerns involving uncited claims i.e. . However, Ks6 has just mass-reverted all these changes for the third or so time since yesterday evening with the deceptive edit summary "editing page with suggestions kept from intermediate editors" when in fact he reverted every last edit . He's now making some minor tweaks to the article that are neither here nor there, but using false edit summaries (perhaps to convince editors problems have been addressed?) For instance "Editing for BLP conflict for Jerome Armstrong, per his page and MyDD" is the edit summary; actual edit? Changing "left to form Puma" to "left to form the organization Puma." Obviously, things are already heated, there have been reports here, there, everywhere. But how can we work in good faith to remove unsourced claims and PUFF from the article when this is what's happening after all this scrutiny?Bali ultimate (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• This will glady stand up to a detailed editor review, and I would be happy to have anyone compare versions. This was not a revert; this was a complete revision with all editors input taken into account, and an extreme polishing of the current account. I'm sorry, but I can no longer say that user "Bali ultimate" is editing this article in good faith. It was not until he loudly advocated for the site's deletion that he took an interest in editing it, and he made drastic changes that completely changed the article, adding comments like "the democrat party" and "the motley whatever it is", changing passages from "... in the Web 3.0 style pioneered by Drew Curtis" to "... will be moderated by Drew Curtis," etc. I'm sorry, but this is incredibly inappropriate behavior. If this stands, and the AfD passes, it will be a flawed judgment no matter the outcome. Ks64q2 (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"This was a complete revision with all editors input taken into account and an extreme polishing?" Here is the diff . Others can judge for themselves. But your statement looks to me to be an.... untruth (unless in some wikilawyer way you're arguing you considered all our edits, but came to the conclusion that they were all worse than your prefered version).Bali ultimate (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's not mince words. "This was a complete revision with all editors input taken into account and an extreme polishing?" is a lie. There is no room on Misplaced Pages for editors who lie about what they're doing, period. //roux   13:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

See also: WP:AN#Possible harassment. seicer | talk | contribs 13:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear... Also see, unfortunately: WP:WQA#User:Ks64q2. Any chance of drawing the madness to a close? onebravemonkey 13:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally I vote for an indef block due to the dishonesty. //roux   13:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

And also also: here. I'm assuming that the point is to scatter this liberally across WP? For the record, my view is at the aforementioned WP:WQA thread, so I won't repeat myself here, only say that possibly adoption and everybody taking a deep breath and counting to ten is in order. onebravemonkey 13:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ah, it appears he has been blocked for 12 hours for violating 3RR. onebravemonkey 15:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

IP vandal on List of active autonomist and secessionist movements#Portugal

There is a persistent vandal attacking List of active autonomist and secessionist movements#Portugal, by creating a huge an changing list of fictional separatist movements. The IPs used so far, all from Portugal, are:

213.22.161.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

213.22.64.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

213.22.64.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

213.22.65.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

213.22.65.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

213.22.66.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

213.22.66.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

213.22.66.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

213.22.66.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

213.22.66.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

213.22.67.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

213.22.67.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

213.22.67.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

213.22.67.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

213.22.67.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

213.22.67.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

213.22.67.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

213.22.67.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

213.22.67.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

213.22.67.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

213.22.67.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

81.84.223.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

81.84.223.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

81.84.38.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

81.84.95.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Can an admin deal with this (rangeblock examination and whatever necessary actions...)? Thanks! The Ogre (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards